Office of the Historian

740.00119 EW/12–745: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Italy (Kirk)

Washington, December 21, 1945—8 p.m.

2422–2424.25 Section I. Item referred to in urtel 3941, Dec. 726 is bad paraphrase of telegram of Angell.27 Dept. proposed, in view of Italian inability to pay reparations, that this factor be taken into account [Page 1302] in determining Greek and Yugo shares in German reparations. Dept motivated by desire to have these countries receive some reparations for damage caused by Italian Fascist aggression and to reduce pressure for reparations from Italy which would probably in final analysis be derived from economic assistance provided to Italy by this country. Neither this government nor any other Allied government to Dept’s knowledge has recognized that Italy has any claim to share in reparation deliveries from Germany under Potsdam Protocol.28

As Embassy is aware, Dept believes that Italian Govt should subject to certain reservations be permitted to retain German property in Italy in satisfaction of Italian claims on Germany. (This topic discussed more fully in reply Embtel 3987, Dec. 10).29 Such action would put Italy on approximately same basis as Latin American countries and other United Nations not participating in the present Paris Reparations conference,30 This would mean she would be treated as favorably as any United Nation except those which have borne the main burden of the war against Germany and of resisting German aggression. In view of her role in war, Italy can hardly be included in the latter group.

Your inquiry has brought to light fact that no reply has apparently ever been made to note paraphrased in Embtel 1053, Apr. 26. (Dept. is unable to find record of text of this note having been forwarded by Embassy). Contemplated reply which is set forth in Section II this message was under consideration by Dept last summer when Brit addressed note to Dept summarized in Section III. Consideration of Italian request was apparently abandoned in view of CFM meeting31 and belief Italian peace treaty would be negotiated at early date.

Meanwhile Paris conference on division of reparation shares was convened without invitation to Italy. Policy on restitution is still under consideration in AGO Berlin. While US is acting unilaterally in restoring looted Allied property in its zones of Germany and Austria, US has hesitated to instruct any restitution for ex-enemies (Italy and Hungary being only ones concerned) prior to satisfactory agreement on restitution policy for Allied property.

Any reply to Italian note at this time would still have to be along lines indicated in Section II. Dept is inquiring of Brit Embassy whether UK Government has answered Italian note or contemplates doing so. Meanwhile Dept would welcome Embassy’s views as to desirability of making reply.

[Page 1303]

Section II. Contemplated reply to Italian FonOff note (urtel 1053, April 26).

1.
With respect to Italy’s desire to be recognized as a reparation claimant, the United States Government is deeply conscious of the difficulties which Italy is experiencing as a result of the destruction of Italian industry and the dislocation of the Italian economy caused by Germany. This Govt must nevertheless point out that even though Germany will be required to pay reparation to the full extent of her capacity, she will be able to compensate for only a small part of the damage and loss caused by her to the United Nations. Consequently any indemnification by Germany to Italy would be at the expense, not of Germany, but of these other countries. In these circumstances the U.S. does not feel that it can support Italy’s claims for general reparation vis-à-vis those of the United Nations.
2.
With reference to the proposal for Italian Technical Commissions to identify looted Italian property, you should point out that the principles and techniques of restitution are yet to be worked out, and that pending agreement on these questions it is obviously impossible to make commitments of the type suggested by the Italian Govt. This Govt would be inclined to view sympthetically claims for the return of identifiable art objects and cultural treasures looted from Italy. The restitution to Italy of other types of property and especially of productive equipment is much more closely related to general reparation. On this question the U.S. Govt finds it necessary for the present to reserve its position.

Section III. Substance of Brit note re Italian claim to reparation from Germany:

1.
On April 21 [22?] Italian FonOff addressed identical notes32 re Italy’s right to reparations from Germany to UK and US Embs at Rome. U.K. Govt considering reply to be made and would welcome common policy with U.S. in this matter.
2.
U.K. believes detailed reply would have to be as follows: (a) Question whether Italy entitled to claim German reparations is matter in which all claimants against Germany interested since Germany capacity to meet all claims inadequate. U.K. can give no assurance re priority of Italian claims vis-à-vis claims of countries which bore full burden of German war. (b) U.K. generally favors restoration to original owners of identifiable property which existed before the war, though special arrangements may be needed re particular categories of goods, (c) If original goods cannot be found, question of indemnification becomes one of reparation, (d) No assurance can now be given that Italian technicians may proceed to Germany to identify Italian [Page 1304] property, (e) U.K. not prepared to support admission of Italian representatives to reparation conference. This must be matter settled by powers represented on reparations commission.
3.
Since this would be most unsympathetic answer, U.K. Govt believes it better merely to inform Italian Govt that Italian requests have been noted, but no answer can be given now since questions raised affect all United Nations.
4.
U.K. Govt plans to reply in this sense subject to any observations by U.S. Govt.

Acheson
  1. Telegram sent in three sections, numbered 2422, 2423, and 2424, respectively.↩
  2. Not printed.↩
  3. James W. Angell, United States representative on Reparation Commission.↩
  4. Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. ii, p. 1478.↩
  5. Not printed.↩
  6. Conference held November 9–December 21, 1945; see vol. iii, pp. 1374 passim.↩
  7. For documentation relating to the Conference of Foreign Ministers, Moscow, December 16–26, 1945, see vol. ii, pp. 560 ff.↩
  8. For substance of the note, see telegram 1053, April 26, 6 p.m., from Rome, p. 1254.↩