740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–445: Telegram
The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 5—10:21 a.m.]
1176. (1) Twenty-fourth meeting of the Coordinating Committee, US member (Gen. Echols4) presiding, reached a deadlock yesterday on restitution. (2) Russian member proposed deletion, from Clay’s compromise definition, of the sentence “all other articles removed by the enemy which existed at the time of occupation are eligible for restitution to the extent consistent with reparations and the minimum economy left to Germany”. (See my No. 1126, November 28, 8 p.m.) He suggested the substitution of point 3 from the Soviet definition which stated in effect that in the case of property destroyed or worn out by the enemy, the right of replacement by identical or comparable property should be restricted to objects of a unique character such [Page 1441] as works of art, etc. (See my 1126 of November 28, 8 p.m. and my 1092 of November 24, 6 p.m.5)
Pointing out that Clay’s compromise was more restrictive than alternative definition agreed upon by French, British and US in the Economics Directorate (see my 1126, November 28, 6 [8] p.m.) and that it was far removed from the Declaration of January 5, 1945 [1943],6 French member regretted it was inacceptable to his Govt.
US member indicated that since it was impossible to reach a definition, the question should be referred to the Governments. British member felt that in view of the delay which might result from this procedure a renewed effort should be made in the Coordinating Committee. He pointed out that the delegations were bound by rigid instructions from their Governments which in turn had tied themselves down by specific texts and he suggested that if the Governments gave their delegations a certain latitude, agreement could probably be reached. French member stated that continued discussion might involve further concessions from the French, British and US Delegations and he would like to see a conciliatory gesture from the Russians, of which there has been no indication as yet. He proposed that the three Governments which were in agreement might be asked whether they would authorize tripartite restitution agreements between their zones.
In reply to a question whether he would consent to informing his Government concerning the current discussions, Soviet member stated he kept his Government “fully informed each time,” and in reply to a further question as to whether he could request his Government for latitude in instructions, Soviet member said he could give no answer.
British member stated he must emphasize the seriousness of the failure to reach a definition on restitution, which must have an effect on the question of reparations. He said he would submit the matter to the British Government and he appealed to the other delegations to do likewise. In his view the divergence was not great.
It was agreed that the question be put on the agenda of the Control Council meeting of December 107 for information and also on the agenda of the Coordinating Committee of December 12.8
. . . . . . .
- Maj. Gen. Oliver P. Echols, U.S. Assistant Deputy Military Governor for Germany.↩
- Extracts of latter telegram, dealing with a different aspect of the German situation, are printed on p. 911.↩
- See footnote 14, p. 1379.↩
- See telegram 1231, December 11, 2 p.m., from Berlin, p. 857.↩
- See telegram 1252, December 13, 2 p.m., from Berlin, p. 1462.↩