740.00119 EW/1–1946: Telegram
The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received January 20—10:30 a.m.]
169. See my 112, January 13, 6 p.m., and my 89, January 11, 6 p.m.
Following is text of definition of restitution based on Soviet
counter proposal adopted by Coordinating Committee at its
General Clay approved the proposal on condition that restitution to be effected will not involve expenses to US occupation forces and he emphasized that the US accepted no obligation to replace art objects item by item. In reply to a question from the French as to meaning of “compensation” Russian member envisaged compensation as including equipment, manufactured goods, raw material of minerals delivered at Germany’s expense as far as possible. French member requested the record include Soviet member’s understanding that the Control Council will decide the question to what extent restitution is consistent with reparations.
Instructions envisaged under paragraph 3 of text above were referred to the Reparations Deliveries and Restitution Directorate for drafting and agreement will be reported to Control Council meeting 21 January subject to British member obtaining final approval from his Government of the above definition.18
Sent Dept repeated to Moscow as 17, Paris as 17, London as 40 and copy to Angell19 in Berlin.
- Reference is to
the Inter-Allied Declaration Against Acts of
Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. i, p. 443.↩
- Telegram 198, January 22, 4 p.m., from Berlin, reported on the discussion concerning restitution at the 17th meeting of the Allied Control Council, January 21. British General Playfair presided because of the illness of both Field Marshal Montgomery and General Robertson. “Playfair stated that the British delegation would accept the definition of restitution which was agreed by the French, Soviets and U.S., at the last Coordinating Committee meeting. British stated, however, that they accepted on the assumption similar to that stated by Clay for the U.S., namely, that definition would not result in any additional burdens on the German economy which would have to be met from British sources. The British also agreed with the Soviet provision that ‘goods of an unique character’ would relate only to artistic and cultural objects. Koenig suggested and obtained unanimous agreement that ‘scientific apparatus’ also be included. British pointed out that they agreed with the U.S. view that there would not be replacement of objects of art item for item.” (740.00119–Control (Germany)/1–2246)↩
- James W. Angell, United States representative, Allied Commission on Reparations.↩