Office of the Historian

740.00119 Council/10–146: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

secret
Paris, October 1, 1946—1 p.m.
[Received 5:49 p.m.]

4914. Delsec 1016. For Hilldring from Smith.12 ReDepcirtel September 9, 11 a.m. As a result of conference Cohen, Thorp, Harriman and Smith, our opinion is:13

Item 1.
We cannot possibly agree to Soviet proposal because in view of removals already made, which certainly must be taken into account, we cannot now say whether USSR is entitled to further reparations. Furthermore, we are certain that much of the property so removed could not properly be classified as war booty. We cannot recognize that whole question of Japanese properties in Manchuria is subject for bilateral settlement between USSR and China.
Item 2.
Technically we cannot now recognize that South Sakhalin and Kuriles have actually been ceded to USSR, although we are committed to support this at Peace Conference. Aside from this, there are many former Japanese assets in South Sakhalin and Kuriles which should be taken into consideration in establishing the amount of reparations due the Soviet Union. We cannot, therefore, accept the Soviet view that these Japanese assets are not to be considered as reparations. That certain assets in ceded territories should be considered in reparations calculations is US position here in Italian treaty.
Item 3.
Conforms to our own views; we have always accepted this principle.
Item 4.
We do not like the words “broad political basis” which seem to us to provide a foundation for all sorts of irrelevant and complicated claims. The USSR will undoubtedly use this expression to carry their claim back to cover their relations with Japan during the past thirty years. If we accept these words, it will mean to the Soviets that we have agreed in advance to such claims.
Item 5.
By itself the wording of this item would be satisfactory but the Department must keep in mind that different procedure has been established for handling European treaties and that immediate concession of this point might be embarrassing.

Above represents opinion of individuals mentioned and comments on Item 1 represent Secretary’s opinion also. Have not had chance to talk to him about other items. [Smith.]

Caffery
  1. Walter Bedell Smith, Ambassador in the Soviet Union, was temporarily in Paris.↩
  2. In a memorandum of October 2 to Acting Secretary Acheson, Mr. Vincent stated that this telegram “contains a succinct expression of opinion on this subject”. (740.00119 Control (Japan)/10–46) Messrs. Cohen and Thorp and Ambassador Harriman were also in Paris at this time.↩