740.00119 Council/9–2546
Memorandum of Conversation, by Covey T. Oliver of the United States Delegation
M. Zilber called at his request to discuss the provisions regarding property rights of racial minorities and waiver of claims on Germany recently adopted by the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland.97
I. Amendment Regarding Jewish Property in Rumania
M. Zilber stated that he had not dealt with the Jewish problem [Page 593] within the Rumanian Delegation until a few days ago, but since the adoption of the British proposal and the third paragraph of the American proposal on Jewish property, he had taken it upon himself to discuss the matter with Colonel Bernstein. He had told Colonel Bernstein quite frankly that as a Jew himself he was greatly concerned about the effects of this provision upon the future of the Jews in Rumania. He had stated to Colonel Bernstein in the greatest confidence, and he would repeat it to us in the same way, that the effect of this provision would be to doom the Jewish population of Rumania to Siberian exile should relations between the U.S.S.R. and the Western Powers worsen in the next eight or ten years. His reasoning was as of a result of this provision in the treaties the Jews in Rumania would tend to look to the West for protection and to align themselves with the West generally. Moreover, should any international organization such as the I.R.O. be in charge of Jewish relief and rehabilitation in Rumania, it would be inevitable that that Organization, those who worked for it and in a very large measure those who benefited from its work would be regarded as spies of the Western bloc in the event of any trouble. M. Zilber expressed the opinion that the Jewish representatives in Paris were suffering from a psychosis because of the great trials of the Jewish people during the war. He believed that their proposals could not but have the effect of injuring the Jewish people of Rumania.
In reply to a question M. Zilber stated that Colonel Bernstein had appeared to be greatly impressed by the foregoing argument. Mr. Oliver stated that the U.S. Delegation had considered the damage to the Jewish people which extraordinarily detailed measures for their protection would cause. The U.S. Delegation had, however, thought only in terms of internal difficulties for the Jews which would result from such measures. The U.S. Delegation felt that the measures which had been adopted were minimum measures which would not have the effect of singling the Jewish people out in such a way as to arouse the envy of their gentile neighbors. It was suggested that M. Zilber should continue his discussions with the Jewish groups.
Comment:
M. Zilber is a Communist and a Jew. It is to be noted that he emphasized the possible adverse effects of the treaty provisions on the Jewish people of Rumania in the event of trouble between the West and the U.S.S.R. He did not base his arguments against Article 24 upon the possibility that the Rumanian Government might in the future find it difficult to carry out the obligations created by Article 24 bis. The emphasis on the possibility of an East-West struggle is rather curious.
[Page 594]II. Waiver of Claims on Germany
M. Zilber stated that Rumanian clearing claims on Germany and German clearing claims on Rumania practically cancelled each other out. In each instance approximately 1,250,000,000 reichsmarks were involved. In connection with Article 25 (German Assets in Rumania) the Soviets here had at one time indicated to the Rumanian Delegation that they would work out an arrangement which would insure that Rumania herself would only have to pay to the Soviet Union the net clearing balance in Germany’s favor. As a result of the recent vote, however, Rumania’s claim against Germany was wiped out and only the German side of the ledger was left. A Russian army official in charge of collecting German assets in Rumania was now asserting that Rumania should pay in goods the value of Germany’s clearing claim against Rumania. This would amount to a demand for approximately $400,000,000 in goods from Rumania. The Rumanians had thought they could induce the Soviets to accept the Rumanian clearing claim against Germany, or at least to admit that Rumania was responsible to the U.S.S.R. only for any difference in Germany’s favor between the two accounts. Mr. Oliver suggested that M. Zilber might have in mind some formula which would make it clear that Article 27 required Rumania to waive its claim against Germany and that the claim waived would be the net in Rumania’s favor of any account maintained between Germany and Rumania. Mr. Oliver explained the reasons why the U.S. had insisted on the waiver of claims provision and stated that, had the Soviet Union agreed, the U.S. would have been prepared to see specific provision regarding the restitution of Rumanian property in Germany and the restoration of Rumanian property rights in Germany included in the treaty, along with the waiver of claims provision which was adopted. Mr. Oliver also mentioned that under Article 25 the Rumanian Government was only required to recognize the validity of transfers made to the U.S.S.R. by the Allied Control Authority for Germany. It would be possible through the Control Authority to approach the question of offsetting one clearing account against the other. M. Zilber replied that Rumania had been required by the Control Council in Rumania to enact a law transferring all German assets in Rumania to the U.S.S.R. and that it was under the Rumanian law and the Control Authority for Rumania that the Soviet officer in charge of German assets in Rumania would make his demand for payment in goods of Rumania’s clearing debt to Germany. M. Zilber offered to supply a short mathematical memorandum on the problem and to suggest a formula along the lines of the suggestion that the waiver applying to net balances in Rumania’s favor.
[Page 595]Comment:
This is a problem which could be included in attempts to moderate Soviet takings from Rumania. Alternatively, some attention might be given to the possibility of modifying the present waiver provision along the lines suggested by the foregoing conversation. Article 2 of the Paris Agreement on reparation, as Mr. Reinstein has pointed out, speaks of the waiver of “credits in clearing accounts”. Such a phrase in Article 27 would have the effect of making it clear that a clearing account between Germany and Rumania becomes German property in Rumania or Rumanian property in Germany only to the extent that one account exceeds the other.
III. German Gold in Rumania
In connection with the discussion of clearing accounts, Mr. Oliver injected a few questions regarding the Rumanian acquisition of gold in Germany. M. Zilber stated that the Rumanians had received sixty-five tons of gold from Germany during the war and that at least thirty-five tons of this gold were probably stolen. To the extent that the gold was stolen, Mr. Zilber personally had taken the position that it should be returned, and he believed that Rumania’s obligation in this regard was indisputable. He had wished to tell this to the French, but other members of his Delegation were opposed to his doing so, because they felt that the gold had been taken in good faith for purchases made by the Germans during the war. M. Zilber stated that should Rumania have to return any or all of the gold received from Germany, to that extent the Rumanian clearing claim against Germany, which was renounced by Article 27, would be increased. Rumania would expect that there should be some obligation imposed upon Germany to make good to Rumania the amounts which would be lost to Rumania by returning the gold to the countries from whom the Germans had taken it, A question by Mr. Oliver brought out that M. Zilber did not believe that it would be likely that anything could ever be obtained from Germany and that offset against the Rumanian clearing debt to Germany was the point he was particularly concerned about, i.e., he would want the value of any gold returned by Rumania to be added to the sum to be deducted from Rumania’s clearing debt to Germany.
IV. German Assets in Rumania
In connection with the discussions regarding Soviet claims to German assets in Rumania, M. Zilber mentioned that the value of the German assets in Rumania, exclusive of clearing balances, was approximately $350,000,000 gross, the Soviets refusing to recognize any obligation to settle the liabilities standing against such assets. M. Zilber seemed to think that this figure should be used with greatest discretion.
- The Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland adopted the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal for article 27, a previously unagreed article, at its 27th Meeting, September 24. The adopted proposal provided for Rumanian waiver of claims against Germany. The same Commission adopted British and United States proposals Concerning property rights of racial minorities at its 28th Meeting, September 25, For the United States Delegation Journal accounts of the 27th and 28th Meetings, see pp. 532 and 555, respectively.↩