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

740.00119 EW/12–1245: Telegram.

The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State

Berlin, December 12, 1945—9 p.m.
[Received December 12—6:04 p.m.]

1248. For Minister Angell, with reference to Paris 229, November 29, 11 a.m.,⁴⁵ and 253, December 10, midnight to Berlin.⁴⁶ I am informed by General Clay that he personally had no objection to I.A.R.A. being given the responsibility for adjudicating disputes between two claimant governments for the same item claimed as restitution. He does not understand, however, how such claims could arise. All definitions of restitution being considered in the Control Council envisage positive identification, prior to their restitution, of items claimed in restitution. Before he will approve delivery, the Zone Commander manifestly must be satisfied with respect to such positive identification. Therefore, if responsibility for delivery has been accepted on the ground that item has been positively identified, later claims would be after the fact and could only create difficulty. It would be an error to allow Missions indiscriminate search for property with a view to establishing identity. The U.S. proposal envisages that the claimant Mission, prior to arrival, would submit list of property and assumed location in Germany. The arrangement for determination of ownership based on positive identification must enable prompt decisions to be made to avoid undue interference with reparations and the reestablishment in Germany of a minimum economy.

Disputes between claimant governments with regard to identification would indicate the inability of these claimants to make positive identification and deliveries would not be made in such instances.

Determination as to removal of the claimed item by force would provide a more likely claim for dispute. Definitions under consideration of the Control Council make removal by force a governing factor in deciding restitution. General Clay believes that here the Zone Commander must take the final decision or else the task administratively will become long drawn out and will interfere consistently with reparations and in execution will create difficulties and friction.

General Clay and I both would be glad to have from your group a Liaison Officer, M. Dearborn or anybody else appointed by you being entirely satisfactory.

He would also be delighted at the earliest opportunity to have a visit from you in Berlin.

Sent Paris as 172, repeated to Department as 1248.

Murphy

45. See telegram 6864, November 29, 11 a.m., from Paris, p. 1430.
46. Not printed; in this telegram Mr. Angell had inquired of General Clay whether he understood correctly that the latter desired to have the zonal commander rather than IARA settle disputes between two claimant nations over identifiable restitutable items. He also indicated that the British zone commander preferred to let IARA handle not only claims involving conflict between two governments but also those between a government and a zone commander. Mr. Angell felt that only the former type should be dealt with by IARA. (USPolAd file)