740.00119 E.W./11–2945: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 29—4:50 p.m.]
6884. From Angell No. 96.
1. Norwegian delegate, seconded by Dutch, objected strenuously to my written proposal submitted to meeting of heads of delegations, that countries holding ships would have first choice of ships they wished to retain under pooling of losses formula. Waley had previously approved written proposal in tripartite discussion but did not support me at conference meeting and later apologized in presence British Ambassador, alleging he had not caught point in reading proposal and was in profound disagreement with it. Statement in my proposal that any US agreement regarding ships would be subject to congressional action encountered no noticeable opposition.
Waley suggested later that if US had particular ships “such as Europa” in mind, this be explained to Norwegians, Dutch, etc., on the side. I believe this is practicable if US interest in particular ships is narrow and can be stated now with sufficient specification.
Instruct urgently.
2. Section 6 of urtel for Angell No. 5483 does not state correctly our proposal concerning rolling stock. We proposed that rolling stock removed from Germany be allocated as reparation and not restitution in proportion to losses of rolling stock.84 [Angell.]
- See telegram 5534, November 27, 7 p.m., to Paris, p. 1419.↩
-
The Department’s reply, contained in telegram 5631, December 1, 1 p.m., to Paris, reads as follows: “Unable to understand fully urtel 96, Nov. 29. Are British prepared to submit their entire one-third share of German merchant marine to IARA for allocation and take chance that IARA will allocate to them ships they want? If IARA allocated ships would it apportion them strictly according to global shipping losses or losses in each category of ships?
“Proposal on rolling stock appears acceptable if also approved by countries now claiming restitution identifiable looted rolling stock.” (740.00119 EW/12–145)
↩