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

740.00119 E.W./8–2045

The Chargé in France (Fullerton) to the Secretary of State

Paris, August 20, 1945—11 p.m.
[Received August 21—1:05 p.m.]

5046. From Pauley. I discussed with Bidault, French Foreign Minister, and Rueff, the reparations representative, question of reparations and restitution along with Hugh Fullerton of our Embassy. I pointed out the difficulty of proceeding with reparations plan until the French had officially accepted the Potsdam Protocol and that such acceptance should be had prior to the three Western Powers’ invitation to other claimant nations was sent. He said that they were willing to accept the Potsdam Protocol with certain reservations. These reservations being:

1. A general agreement on restitution which definition would include all identifiable objects in Germany, particularly rolling stock and machinery from not only the Western Zones but from the Russian Zone. Rueff stated that he had pressed the matter while in Moscow and had some encouragement that rolling stock might be returned from the Soviet Zone.

2. Specifically did they want included gold, valuables, securities which had been taken and could be identified and if the total taken from France were not located for restitution, he would want an equivalent amount returned. I explained the US policy on gold as instructed by you in yrtel 7664⁸⁵ in which he seemed greatly interested. I also explained that when he used the words “or equivalent” that that meant to me restitution in kind and that was not looked upon by my Govt with favor particularly when it was applied to gold as all the countries could not expect to secure more than the total amount captured. He said before his Govt expressed a definite opinion on this, he would have to see the figures of the other claimant nations as well as the total amount of gold disclosed by the United States and other Allies.

3. He also stated that as a condition to the acceptance to the Protocol, he wanted the French holdings in Rumanian oil companies to be restored as taken, this meaning stock ownership in companies rather than physical equipment. I explained that the United States and Britain had similar problems in Rumania and our position⁸⁶ I felt sure would be the same as theirs and that such a reservation need not necessarily be a condition of their acceptance of the Potsdam Protocol insofar as it dealt only with USSR’s claims in Rumania.

4. He also stated that his acceptance of Potsdam Protocol was dependent upon the satisfactory program of advance or interim deliveries. I pointed out interim deliveries was covered by paragraph 7, article 4 of the Protocol⁸⁷ and the procedure outlined for interim deliveries was the same as outlined in paragraph 6 above, which states plainly the amount and character of removals are to be determined by the? Control Council and furthermore we were anxious to formulate a program through the Control Council as quickly as possible. My conclusion of the meeting was that French will acept the Protocol tentatively but not officially until the claims of all other nations are decided, including the French, and they know exactly what they are going to get both in the form of reparations and restitution.

With regard to the draft memo⁸⁸ to be sent to various United Nations, they have proposed several changes which they are not prepared to give me officially in writing, but say these are additions to the “suggestions with regard to presentation of data concerning reparations claims” in Annex A. I expect them to deliver tomorrow these items officially. [Pauley.]

Fullerton

85. This number is obviously incorrect; presumably the reference is to telegram 294, August 18, noon, to Berlin, p. 1257, which had been repeated to Paris as telegram 3879.
86. For documentation regarding the concern of the United States over the removal to the Soviet Union of oil equipment from American-owned firms in Rumania, see vol. v, pp. 647 ff.
87. The numeration used here indicates that the document being referred to is the Potsdam Communiqué, not the Protocol; for text, see Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. ii, pp. 1499, 1506.
88. See telegram 2819, August 9, 2 p.m., from Moscow, p. 1248.