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

740.00119 EW/12–2845

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

Paris, December 28, 1945—11 a.m.
[Received December 29—1:42 a.m.]

7382. From Angell No. 190.

1. Subject is German external assets located within United Nations represented at Paris Conference on Reparation. Following excerpts from article 8 [6] of Final Act are quoted for information:

[Here follow quoted paragraphs A, B, E, and F of article 6, which, however, were garbled in transmission.]

2. Thus, it will be seen that nothing done at Paris Conference (Copenhagen’s 87, December 17 to Paris Nos. elsewhere unknown⁵) affords Denmark excuse for nonaction. Wassard of Danish Foreign Office should be able to indicate to his Govt the great emphasis placed at Conference on importance of effective elimination of German interests within countries invited to Conference.

3. Suggestion in paragraph 2 London’s telegram 12570, December 1 to Dept⁶ 764 to Paris (first seen by Oliver December 19) would have been incompatible with sovereignty issue involved and attitude traditionally adhered to by US, UK and Canada, inter alia, re assets vested by respective APC’s.⁷ In obtaining inclusion of paragraph A of quotation in Final Act US delegation was forced to maneuver between (a) countries which did not wish to see any charge against reparation for German assets in their jurisdiction (Egypt, South Africa, Albania, Denmark); (b) those desiring the charge against reparation to be net of whatever liquidation under local law might consume (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada and India); (c) suspicions of Yugoslav delegate that all proposals made by anyone else reflected schemes to avoid charging any part of such assets against reparations; and (d) efforts of British APC (Gregory) to resist deduction of claims of bona fide unsecured creditors from value to be charged against reparation share. If US had not opposed Brit on (d) Canadian would have joined ranks of countries in (a) or (b) and others predisposed to those positions would have stood firm.

4. Overall effect of article 8 [6] re German assets in countries represented at Conference is to favor vesting, as distinguished from mere sequestration. Moreover, article 8 [6] establishes standards of conduct which should be useful points of reference for Safehaven operations as well as for IARA.

Sent to London as 17 from Angell and 895 from Paris repeated Copenhagen 60 from Paris to Oslo as 41 from Paris to Brussels as 128 from Paris to The Hague as 37 from Paris and to Dept as 190 from Angell and 7382 from Paris. [Angell.]

Caffery

5. Reference is to telegram 691, December 17, 2 p.m., from Copenhagen, not printed, wherein the United States Minister (Davis) reported an explanation given by the Danish Foreign Minister (Rasmussen) that the Danish Government had thus far failed to liquidate, sell, or otherwise eliminate enemy interests in business enterprises because it was felt that such action would be contrary to the wishes of IARA (800.515/12–1745).
6. Text of paragraph under reference reads as follows: “Although recognizing that ultimately German assets will probably be turned over to liberated govts, Embassy recommends that Inter-Allied Reparations Agency in Paris consider desirability of holding in abeyance any such step until satisfactory Safehaven remedial action is taken in each country.” (800.515/12–145)
7. Alien Property Custodians.