Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The American Republics, Volume XI

835.00/9–2546

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Argentina (Messersmith)

top secret
No. 252

Washington, September 25, 1946.

The Acting Secretary of State refers to various despatches from the Embassy on the subject of Argentina’s compliance with inter-American agreements.

There does not appear to be any disagreement between the Embassy and the Department in respect of the general principles which govern the question of the kind of performance which should be expected of Argentina in order to achieve the mutually desired speedy solution: That is to say, perfect performance should not, on the one hand, be expected or required; and, on the other hand, the Department should expect that positive steps will be taken of such a character as to constitute substantial performance as distinguished from mere promises to perform in the future. There is also agreement that performance is to be measured by both the quantity and the quality of the persons and firms selected for repatriation and nationalization, respectively, as well as by the point of progress actually reached in carrying out both programs.

The immediate and difficult task—and one in which the Embassy’s advice is particularly needed—is in the application of these principles to the facts.

The recent ratification of the Final Act of the Mexico City Conference by both branches of the Argentine Congress suggests the necessity for formulating more precise views regarding this immediate problem. To this end, it would be most helpful to have the views of the Officer in Charge with respect to the following statements and questions. Some of the information requested is not in the Department’s files; and in the instances where reports already exist, a fresh report covering recent developments or more explicit or complete information is needed. The questions have been formulated with a view to facilitating short replies wherever this is feasible. If the Embassy is not able promptly to furnish answers to all of the questions, it is requested that an interim reply be made promptly, followed later by a more complete report.

I. Business Enterprises

1. The business enterprises which appear to qualify for inclusion in the Argentine replacement program fall into five groups:

a) As of June 21, 1946 there were a total of 69 spearhead enterprises “which the Argentine Government had already decided to deal with without delay. Of this total the liquidation of 8 had then been begun; 22 were then in condition to be liquidated immediately; 16 were then in condition to be transferred immediately to the State or to private Interests; 1 was then in condition to be liquidated within 90 days; 21 were in condition as of that date to be transferred within 90 days to the State or to private interests; and action in 1 was awaiting decision of the courts. What progress has been made toward the liquidation or sale of these firms since June 21, 1946?

b) The Argentine Government has since July 30, 1946 had under study 26 additional concerns, including 8 Staudt subsidiaries. It is not known whether a decision has been taken by the Argentine Government in respect of this group. In this connection, the Department will be pleased to receive the list of enterprises which was prepared by the Argentine Government and from which the 26 names in this group were selected by the Embassy.

c) There are the following eleven firms which are connected with, or subsidiaries of, the enterprises listed in paragraphs a) and b) above and which are not listed in either of those groups. Is it correct to assume that these eleven firms are included in the two preceding groups?

[There follows a list of the eleven firms.]

d) There are the following 18 additional firms reported to be owned from Germany or Japan which the Argentine Government apparently does not have under consideration:

[Here follows a list of firms in this category.]

d) [e] Finally, there are the following 7 enterprises which appear to be spearhead in character by reason of ownership or control by certain individuals residing in Argentina and which the Argentine Government apparently does not have under consideration:

[Here follows a list of firms not under consideration.]

2. It will be appreciated if the Embassy will indicate which, if any, of the enterprises referred to in paragraph 1, sections c), d), and e) it no longer regards as spearhead together with a brief summary of the facts on which the Embassy’s conclusion is based.

3. Does the Argentine Government intend to proceed on a basis of liquidating or selling the entire enterprise or only the interests of the undesirable owners thereof? If the latter:

a) Will all owners resident in Germany be regarded as undesirable?

b) Is the Argentine Government disposed to consider certain Argentine nationals (including naturalized Argentines Freude, Martens, and Staudt and native-born Argentine Delfino) as undesirable?

c) In determining ownership, will the Argentine Government look to the real instead of the ostensible owner where the latter in reality is only a cloak?

d) Will German nationals residing in Argentina who were responsible for the operation of major spearhead enterprises during the war be considered undesirable owners?

4. Would transfers and liquidations under present Argentine law and procedure effectively divest all the former owner’s right, title, and interest in the enterprise in question?

5. What safeguards have been adopted by the Argentine Government to prevent sales to cloaks of former undesirable owners?

6. In view of the recent ratification of the Mexico City Act, will it be necessary for the Congress to ratify either or both of the existing enemy property decrees or to pass new enemy property legislation in implementation of that Act before the program can get under way?

7. Will it be necessary to delay further the initiation of a large scale program because of any constitutional or legal questions; if so, of what do they consist?

8. After all legal obstacles to performance have been removed, approximately how much time will be required under Argentine procedures, assuming the exercise of diligence:

a) to complete the liquidation proceedings?

b) to complete the transfer of titles and interests?

(It is recognized that it is not possible to be precise; it will be sufficient if the Embassy will make its estimate in approximate round figures such as, for example, 6 weeks or 6 months.)

9. Would the Argentine Government be disposed to vest the titles of the undesirable owners in the enterprises in question in order to expedite a solution of this problem? If the vesting of enemy property is still considered by the executive to be unconstitutional, on what precedents and provisions does this opinion rest?

10. It will be appreciated if the Embassy will indicate as precisely and in as much detail as possible the exact point of progress in the contemplated replacement program which he would regard as constituting deeds within the meaning of the Secretary’s statement of April 8.

II. Persons

11. Approximately 700 names have been presented by the Embassy to the Argentine Government for consideration as possible candidates for repatriation.²⁰ It is understood that the Argentines have prepared a list of several hundred names as a basis for further discussion. When the Argentine list is received by the Embassy, it will be appreciated if the Embassy will promptly forward a copy thereof to the Department.

12. Upon the Embassy’s receipt of the Argentine list, it will be appreciated if the Embassy will indicate:

a) Whether the list includes the most important of those who have propagated Axis doctrines in schools and institutions. If there are any omissions, please forward a list of them together with a brief summary of the pertinent evidence regarding each such person.

b) Whether the list includes the most important economic leaders in the Nazi and Japanese business communities. What are the Embassy’s views in respect of the repatriation of the key Axis economic leaders?

c) Whether the list includes the names of the following Nazi agents and, if not, whether the persons whose names are omitted should, in the Embassy’s opinion, be repatriated by the Argentine Government:

[A list of the agents follows.]

13. The Department understands that the candidates for repatriation fall into three principal groups:

a) Aliens, nearly all of whom are German nationals, who are under indictment and awaiting criminal trial in the Argentine courts. This group, while numerically small, includes many of the most important Axis agents.

b) Aliens, nearly all of whom are German or Japanese nationals, who are subject to immediate repatriation if and when the evidence against them is determined to be sufficient to warrant deportation. This group is by far the largest numerically. In this group fall economic leaders and those who have propagated Nazi doctrines in schools and other institutions and most of the lesser enemy agents.

c) A few who have become naturalized Argentine citizens. Freude, Staudt, and Martens are principal names in this group.

14. Does the Argentine Government propose to proceed with the criminal trials of the Axis agents referred to in group a), paragraph 13 above? If so

a) When does the Argentine Government propose to commence criminal trials?

b) In cases of conviction where a prison sentence is imposed, will the Argentine Government require that the Axis agents first serve sentence in Argentine penal institutions before they will be subject to repatriation?

c) In cases where, for technical or other reasons, Axis agents are found to be innocent of any crime under Argentine law and the evidence none the less seems sufficient to justify deportation because of activities on behalf of the enemy in wartime:

i) Will it be necessary to have an additional hearing to determine whether deportation is warranted under the Law of Residence?

ii) Will an acquittal on the criminal charges be a defense in the deportation hearing on the allegation of double jeopardy or some other ground?

15. It is understood that those included in group b), paragraph 13 above are entitled to a hearing, the purpose of which will be to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify deportation under the Law of Residence:

a) Is it correct to assume that, if the evidence is found sufficient to justify deportation, the Argentine Government will not require that they first stand criminal trial for offenses against Argentine law?

b) Is there a real danger that the Law of Residence will be held unconstitutional; if so, have plans been made to have the question definitely settled by the Supreme Court?

c) What are the essential facts which the Government must establish to make out its case on the deportation hearings?

d) Approximately when does the Argentine Government propose to initiate deportation hearings?

16. Is it correct to assume that the Argentine Government will require that those who fall in group c), paragraph 13 above first be denaturalized? If so:

a) Does the Argentine Government propose to institute promptly denaturalization proceedings against the worst offenders in this group?

b) Are the principal issues which must be established in such proceedings those specified in Decree 6605, August 27, 1943; and must this decree be ratified by the Congress?

c) Assuming that such proceedings result in the denaturalization of the defendant, would:

i) the Argentine Government require that the defendant then stand trial for any offenses against Argentine law and that he serve any sentence that might be imposed? If not,

ii) would it be necessary to grant the defendant a hearing to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify his deportation under the Law of Residence?

17. It will be appreciated if the Embassy will indicate as precisely and in as much detail as possible the exact point of progress in the repatriation program which it would regard as constituting deeds within the meaning of the Secretary’s statement of April 8.

III. Schools and Institutions

18. It would be appreciated if the Embassy would forward a final and complete list of the German and Japanese schools:

a) which have been closed or intervened by order of the Argentine Government and which are not now operating under the same or a different name;

b) which have been voluntarily closed and are not now operating under the same or a different name;

c) which, whether previously closed or intervened or not, have resumed or continued operation under the same or a different name, indicating those

i) which have eliminated objectionable teachers, and

ii) which have not eliminated objectionable teachers.

It is not intended that the foregoing paragraphs a)–c) inclusive, shall include parochial schools or family schools having an enrollment of less than 30 students.

19. Which, if any, of the German or Japanese schools referred to in paragraph 18 now employ teachers whose names are included in repatriation lists which the Embassy has furnished the Argentine Government?

20. It would be appreciated if the Embassy would forward a final and complete list of the Axis associations and institutions other than schools

a) which have been voluntarily or involuntarily closed;

b) which are still operating

i) under the control of the Argentine Government;

ii) without such control.

20. For documentation on the repatriation of Germans throughout the world, see vol. v, pp. 794 ff.