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

740.00119 EW/12–1245: Telegram

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

Paris, December 12, 1945—midnight.
[Received December 13—2:46 a.m.]

7138. From Angell No. 147.

A. At meeting of heads of delegations, December 12, French, Yugoslav, and Czech delegates submitted following alternative text of recommendation on non-repatriable persons:

“The Paris Conference on Reparations recognizes that there are a large number of persons who have suffered heavily at the hands of the Nazis, who now stand in dire need of aid to promote their rehabilitation, but who will be unable to claim the assistance of any government receiving reparation from Germany.

“The Conference, therefore, recommends:

• “1. That a share of reparation of 25 million dollars be allocated for the rehabilitation and resettlement of non-repatriable victims of German action or the action of other Fascist governments.
• “2. That the share so allocated be satisfied out of all of the nonmonetary gold found in Germany and a portion of the proceeds of German assets in neutral countries which are available for reparation; that in addition there be made available for this purpose funds deposited in neutral countries by refugees from various European countries, or possible other Nazi victims, who have since died and left no heirs, and which funds are now blocked by the governments of those neutral countries.
• “3. That the classes of persons eligible for aid under this scheme should include:
  • “(a) Needy refugees from Nazi Germany and Austria and from any other country under Fascist rule who cannot be returned to their countries within a reasonable time because of reigning conditions
  • “(b) Needy German and Austrian nationals now resident in Germany and Austria who were victims of Nazi persecution and who do not want to remain in Germany or Austria, and who will leave those countries within a reasonable time
  • “(c) Nationals of countries formerly occupied by the Germans who cannot be repatriated or are not in a position to be repatriated within a reasonable time and who were victims of Nazi persecution. In order to concentrate aid on the most needy and deserving refugees and to exclude persons whose loyalty to the United Nations is doubtful, aid shall not be granted to the nationals of a formerly occupied country without prior approval of that country’s representative on the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees.
• “4. That the funds made available for these purposes be administered by the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees.
• “5. That the non-monetary gold found in Germany be placed at the disposal of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees immediately.
• “6. That the funds be used, not for the compensation of individual victims, but to further the rehabilitation or resettlement of persons in the eligible classes.
• “7. That nothing in these proposals be considered to prejudice the claims which individual refugees may have against a future German government, except to the extent that such refugees have benefited from the funds provided from German non-monetary gold or German assets in neutral countries.”

B. Yugoslav delegate proposed following amendment to paragraph 3, (c): After the word “Country”, add: “who were its nationals at the time of its annexation or occupation by Germany or its entry into war,”

C. Waley proposed that after the preamble the text should read roughly as follows:

“The Conference, therefore, recommends that the Governments of the United States, France, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, in consultation with the Inter-Governmental Committee urgently frame a practical scheme, to be submitted for the approval of the governments here represented, along the following lines:”

There would then follow the text of the proposal set out under section A, above.

D. I made the following points in discussion:

1. That it is not practicable to make a large increase in the number of persons eligible without an increase in the funds allocated.

2. That it is doubtful whether the refugee funds blocked in neutral countries and belonging to deceased persons without heirs can, in fact, be secured for the funds because of legal difficulties.

3. That I could not agree without further instruction that aid should not be granted to nationals of formerly occupied country without prior approval of that country.

E. The new text was referred to a committee composed of US, UK, France, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. From today’s discussion, it appears highly probable that Conference will accept any text which can be agreed in this committee.

F. I submit following recommendations:

1. That victims of Fascist states other than Germany be excluded from scheme unless fund is raised to dollars 40 million out of potentially liquid assets.

2. That frozen funds of refugees without heirs be dropped from the text because of reason given in section D 2, above. I believe also that Jewish community would have legitimate objection to allocation of these funds for general use of non-German refugees, even if they could be secured.

3. That we accept veto of interested government with respect to aid for refugees from formerly occupied countries. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, acting for themselves and also for Poland and USSR, will accept persons in Class 3 (c) of the text only subject to such veto. It should be remembered also that Polish Jews are the only substantial class of persons deserving aid and subject to the veto. Veto may be used against them. In that case, however, fund would be concentrated on German and Austrian victims now residing inside and outside Germany and Austria. Such concentration would make possible greater allocation of other private and public funds for Polish Jewish refugees.

4. That we accept the Inter-Governmental Committee as Administering Agency.

5. That we accept Waley’s proposed amendment if necessary in order to secure British support for scheme. I consider that, if text provides allocation of funds and covers other questions now included, reference of scheme for implementation to a committee of countries in consultation with Inter-Governmental Committee will not unduly delay action and will produce more practicable scheme than we can frame in hurried atmosphere of Conference.

6. No further action possible until arrival of your instructions covering points above. Since Conference will turn tomorrow to consideration of shares and final act, utmost speed in reply is essential.

Repeated to London for Stevenson as from Angell No. 13. [Angell.]

Caffery