740.00119 Control (Germany)/7–946: Telegram
Mr. Donald R. Heath, Counselor of Mission in the Office of the United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy), to the Secretary of State
[Received July 9—11:25 a.m.]
1679. Coordinating Committee meeting July 8 continued discussion of replacement by similar or comparable property of objects of unique nature looted and destroyed or lost by the Germans (see mytel 1651, July 433). Soviet member maintained his objection to proposed requirement that an occupying power submitting a claim for replacement must furnish a list of all similar or equivalent German-owned property removed from its zone. As substitute for the elaborate machinery envisaged in paper under consideration, US delegation submitted a brief and greatly simplified project which would limit replacement in general to works of art, historical relics, manuscripts and rare books, and objects of importance to history or science. Only claims for objects of great rarity would be considered, and action on each claim would be based upon the evidence presented and the merits of each case. While forfeiting the opportunity of pressing the Russians and French at this time to disclose what they have taken from [Page 575] their zones, US paper was intended to break the log-jam and make it possible for legitimate claims to be acted on at an early date.
British delegate first maintained that US substitute proposal evaded issue of procedure required for replacement and inquired concerning Soviet objection to furnishing list of removals. Soviet member insisted it would be impossible to submit such information, for the reason alone that certain areas in Germany had been “occupied by several Allied armies”. He accepted US substitute proposal. Replying to the British, US delegate stated that Reparations Deliveries and Restitution Directorate should not be permitted to set up elaborate machinery but should be able to handle replacement claims with existing machinery. US view was that when looted art treasures cannot be located, compensation for their loss is primarily a reparations matter and that replacement in kind should only be considered as rare and special cases.
After some further discussion Coordinating Commission approved US substitute proposal in principle and instructed R D and R directorate to consider necessary measures for its implementation, taking into account existing machinery and agencies.
Repeated Moscow as 173, to Paris for Matthews and Ambassador Murphy as 197, to Brussels for Dorr 82.
- Not printed; it reported inconclusive discussions on this topic which took place at the 62nd meeting of the Coordinating Committee on July 3 (740.00119–Control (Germany)/7–446).↩