Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 2

396.1–ISG/2–2251: Telegram

The United States Delegation at the Intergovernmental Study Group on Germany to the Secretary of State ¹

confidential

London, February 22, 1951—noon.

Sigto 466. UK and French introduced in steering committee February 19 following proposal re damage to UN” property resulting from war-time discriminatory measures, such as damage due German enemy property custodians:

(1) Principle of claim for compensation shall be included in general undertaking to be asked FedRep for restoration UN property, rights, and interests;

(2) Amount of compensation shall be determined by German administrative or judicial bodies or arbitral tribunal;

(3) No payment shall be made on such compensation prior peace treaty or definitive settlement war claims.

USDel took position that there was no point in requiring Germans to accept principle of compensation if we do not intend to ask them to pay anything. UK-French admitted their proposal would definitely establish principle that FedRep must eventually make some payment. They argued that compensation for damage certain UN properties is provided by general claims laws; that by requiring national treatment for UN nationals under proposed equalization of burdens legislation (which they feel we are committed to demand under Paris recommendation 5), claims for war damage to property owned by UN individuals would receive some measure of compensation except claims arising from losses due to war-time discriminatory measures applied to UN property; and thus there is gap which must be filled.

In absence earlier instructions (re Tosig 437, February 21²), USDel expressed view that claims are waived by Paris reparation agreement (re Sigto 441, February 12, repeated Frankfort 811³). He agreed consider, however, whether request should be made to Germans to extend definition of war losses subject to compensation under equalization of burdens legislation so as to include similar losses to property which were suffered as result of UN nationality. British made counter proposal to assimilate losses due to war-time discrimination against UN property to status of types of losses covered by general claims laws and require Germans to give equal treatment all such claims.

We feel general claims laws are not relevant and no attempt should be made to utilize them since they are aimed at special purpose not related to war claims.

It is possible we could reach agreement with UK on basis foregoing suggestions re equal of burdens (French may hold out for full compensation). However, we have neither text of present draft legislation nor other information to enable us to evaluate effect of suggestions on UN claims. If present draft legislation follows earlier drafts, we assume that in addition covering claims for losses to UN property, draft would have to be amended to eliminate residence requirements.

Suggest HICOG urgently cable its opinion re feasibility foregoing suggestions and whether they would result in any significant benefits to UN nationals;⁴ also that Department cable its views in light HICOG report by February 28, when matter will again be discussed in Steering Committee.⁵ Unless HICOG reports affirmatively on both questions, we feel suggestions should be dropped and that we should hold to position we recommended in Sigto 411.

1. Repeated to Frankfurt and Paris.
2. Not printed; it requested the U.S. Delegation to delay taking a position on the question of damage to UN property in Germany, since the Department of State had not yet decided its position on the matter. (396.1–ISG/2–1251)
3. Not printed.
4. On February 17 HICOG responded that past experience had shown that negotiations with the West Germans on foreign interest problems would be smoother if Allied representatives had concrete examples of cases where rights or property had not been restored. (Telegram 6831, February 17, from Frankfurt, 396.1–ISG/25–1751)
5. The Department of State’s initial response on February 26 stated that no position had been established, but on March 5 it informed the U.S. Delegation that damage to UN property in Germany should be considered as a claim covered by Article IIA of the Paris Reparations Agreement. The Delegation was to oppose compensation for such claims and seek a final settlement on the basis of national treatment. Tosig 445 and Tosig 463 to London, February 26 and March 5, neither printed (396.1–ISG/2–2651 and 3–551).