Office of the Historian

740.00119 FEAC (Info)/5–2347: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson)

confidential
Washington, May 23, 1947—7 p.m.

188. FEC 19. Reparations. Pursuant to Soviet proposal adopted by Reparations Committee April 14, 1947, on May 12 each nation represented on FEC (except Australia) laid before Reparations Committee percentage share of reparations, determined on broad political lines, which it desires to receive from industrial assets within Japan declared available for reparations. On May 14 Australian member of Committee stated that Australia, while adhering to opinion that division of reparations should be determined at peace conference, did not wish to obstruct work of Commission and consequently tabled share desired by Australia.3 As expected eleven shares total over 200 percent. It would be inequitable to reduce each requested share proportionately to make total 100 percent as some nations put in shares which they honestly hoped to receive while others put in inflated shares in expectation of reduction. Consequently it is not believed that this approach to problem will be fruitful.

Meantime U.S. member of Committee has been working consistently to induce as many members as are able and willing to do so to table schedules setting forth ideas of their governments or delegations as to percentages which each FEC country should receive. It was hoped that such schedules could be merged into composite table which would form basis for discussion. His attempts being unsuccessful American member was authorized to lay before Committee schedule for 11 countries [Page 405] embodying his own personal views, if urgently invited to do so and if commitment given to discuss matter seriously. U.S. Government assumes no responsibility for schedule which in fact follows broad outline of U.S. policy re division of reparations but differs in detail. Schedule laid before Committee May 14 for discussion following week.

Marshall
  1. On May 28 the Australian Minister (Stirling) was informed that, whereas the Department was sympathetic toward the principle that Australia deserved equal consideration in matters pertaining to war settlements in the Pacific, it could not accede to the Australian Ambassador’s request that division of the Japanese Fleet be postponed and considered at a conference on a Japanese peace treaty (740.00116 PW/5–2947).↩