740.00119 EW/12–2845
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 29—3:30 p.m.]
7386. From Angell No. 192. Part III of Final Act, transmitted by No. 183, December 26 from Angell,8 and minutes of Conference9 meet, it is believed, points of Deptels Nos. 86 December 1410 and 111, December 21 for Angell.11 US was successful in obtaining deletion of “or Austria” after “Germany” in paragraph A. “This arrangement” in paragraph C is designedly ambiguous in order to include countries other than those participating in this conference, should that be decided at some future time. Paragraph D means that shares which may or may not go to Italy and Austria will be determined when pot is divided.
By common agreement, Hungarian gold found in Austria will be governed, insofar as this Conference is concerned, by following statement in the minutes:
“The disposition of the gold surrendered by representatives of the Hungarian Govt and of the National Bank of Hungary to the United States Forces operating in the territory of Austria is entirely reserved from the application of the agreement on gold. Included in this reservation are all questions relating to the manner in which this gold may be distributed, what countries may share in any such distribution, and what rights, if any, may be conferred on Hungary to share in the pool under the provisions of paragraph D. If the gold covered by this statement for the minutes is not put into the pool, Hungary will not be entitled to count such gold as a part of its gold losses for the purposes of the agreement on gold.”
The last sentence of above statement was inserted at dogged insistence of Czech delegate. Both he and Yugo delegate ruefully saw too late that anxiety of latter to protect possible Soviet interest had cost them a present receipt of Hungarian gold. In fact, some of Yugo’s tractability during latter phases of Conference may be traceable to his realization that, despite his suspicions, my original proposal was actually of greater benefit to his country than what finally evolved from his objection.
Phrase “wrongful removal” in paragraphs A and C grew out of Czech desire for assurance that pot claim would include gold lost to Czechoslovakia after occupation by wrongful action more sophisticated than physical seizure. Context in gold agreement and historical fact [Page 1495] ensure that Austrian and Italian participation in pot will not be precluded by this phrase. Since Hungarian case is entirely reserved, it is understanding here that no objection could be made to bringing Hungarian gold into pot on ground that its removal to Germany was not wrongful. [Angell.]