Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, European Advisory Commission, Austria, Germany, Volume III

740.00119 E.W./11–2945: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

Paris, November 29, 1945—11 a.m.
[Received 12:45 p.m.]

6864. From Angell No. 94. For General Clay OMGUS. In discussion at the Reparation Conference here of the functions to be performed by the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, question has been raised as to whether functions relating to restitution should be included.

1. It is felt that, as a general rule, the govts of countries claiming restitution should deal directly with the zone commander concerned. Question has been raised, however, as to the method of deciding between conflicting claim to restitution in kind in cases where two or more countries claim the same object and have notified such claims to the zone commander concerned. Is it your view that all such conflicts should be decided by the zone commanders, or alternatively should they be referred to the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency? In the latter event, should conflicts be referred only at the request of the zone commanders, or also on the initiative of any claiming government?

2. Question has also been raised whether the zone commander should (a) be required or (b) entitled at his discretion to refer to the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency or some other arbitral body, in case of conflict between his view and that of any claimant govt as to whether goods claimed have, in fact, been removed from an Allied country and if so whether this was the result of an act of force or the result of a regular and genuine contract.

3. The American, French and UK delegates have agreed to request the views of the three zone commanders on these points. I would greatly appreciate it if a reply could be received before the end of the present week. The British and French delegates are similarly consulting their Govts and zone commanders.

Sent USPolAd Berlin 229 (Angell No. 18 for General Clay OMGUS), repeated Dept 6864.⁸² [Angell.]

Caffery

82. Text of General Clay’s reply was transmitted to Mr. Angell in telegram 164 to Paris from Berlin, repeated to the Department as telegram 1213, December 8, 6 p.m., from Berlin. General Clay expressed the view that conflict of jurisdiction cases between the occupying powers and reparations claimants should not be brought before the IARA. Disputes of fact concerning restitution, he continued, should be decided by the zonal commanders if the parties involved could not settle them. (740.00119 BW/12–845)