Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, European Advisory Commission, Austria, Germany, Volume III

740.00119 EW/12–245: Telegram

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

Paris, December 2, 1945—8 a.m.
[Received 3 p.m.]

6931. From Angell No. 105. Following is report on negotiations on reparations share for non-repatriable persons.

1. On November 12 I transmitted proposal to Waley and Rueff following lines of Repmem 3.⁹² Proposal dispatched to you on November 20.⁹³

2. On November 19, Waley transmitted reply of British Government in form of departmental comment on our proposal.⁹⁴ UK reply dispatched to you November 20.⁹⁵ British express general sympathy but doubt workability of scheme. Main points of reply follow:

a. British agree that allocation of non-monetary gold is appropriate. Desire to restrict allocation of external assets to portion of proceeds of such assets in neutral countries. Object to allocation of agricultural machinery since such machinery would have to be drawn from current production and favorable foreign balance not anticipated for long time.

b. British desire that categories of persons eligible for aid under scheme should be defined as narrowly as possible. In this connection they point out that Germans and Austrians deprived of nationality by Nazi legislation are not properly speaking stateless since validity of this legislation is not recognized.

c. British object to suggestion tentatively put forward in US proposal that Inter-Governmental Committee be considered as possible agency to administer fund for non-repatriables since future of Inter-Governmental Committee is under negotiation. Suggest board of trustees to work under general supervision of Commission of Economic and Social Council of UNO.⁹⁶ Such board of trustees to work in conjunction with organizations such as Jewish Agency and others.

d. In event that US makes proposal to conference, Waley is instructed to attempt to have proposal referred to representatives of three western controlling powers for further examination.

3. ⁹⁷ Our impression of British attitude, based on this reply and on comments by Warren⁹⁸ concerning negotiations on Inter-Governmental Committee is that British are fundamentally opposed to plan on general ground that it may discourage voluntary repatriation and commit British to general aid for non-repatriables with attendant complications for British Palestine policy.

4. I made reply to Waley by letter of November 29 with copy to Rueff.⁹⁹ In this letter I attempted to deal with specific problems raised by British and to restate basic United States proposals as follows:

a. Agreed to restrict fund to non-monetary gold and portion of proceeds of German external assets in neutral countries. Dropped suggestion for deliveries of agricultural equipment and possibly other capital equipment after consultations with representatives of refugee organizations in Paris.

b. With respect to persons eligible for aid under scheme, I put forth view that scheme should not be limited to persons who are stateless in strictly legal sense. I explained that United States position was that scheme should cover all persons who are non-repatriable because of political views or racial origins. The United States would not wish to create conditions which would force return of persons who would face physical danger or economic starvation in former countries of residence. With respect to German and Austrian refugees, I stated United States view that such persons should not be forced to return to live among people who had persecuted them bitterly and been responsible for the murder of their relatives and political associates.

c. Explained that United States was not committed to view that proposed fund be administered by Inter-Governmental Committee. Indicated that United Kingdom suggestion of board of trustees under Economic and Social Council would be acceptable provided proper provision is made for liaison between proposed board and other agencies with related functions and provided interim arrangements are made until UNO machinery begins to function.

d. Recognizing fact that scheme involves numerous administrative problems which might require solution by major interested powers after Paris Conference, I urged that Conference take action with respect to general principles of scheme, as follows:

(1) That a share of reparation of agreed size should be allocated for the rehabilitation and resettlement of any non-repatriable victims of Germany;

(2) That the share so allocated should be satisfied out of the non-monetary gold seized in Germany, and also from a portion of the proceeds of German external assets in neutral countries plus any surplus of German assets in countries which do not receive reparation;

(3) That the classes of persons who are eligible for aid under the scheme should likewise include the nationals both of Germany and of ex-occupied countries who suffered loss by reason of German action, who also require aid, and who in addition cannot be returned to their countries within a reasonable time because of past persecution or prospective physical or economic dangers;

(4) That the share allocated for these purposes should be administered by an international agency;

(5) That the funds should be used not for the compensation of individual victims, but at the discretion of the agency to further the rehabilitation or resettlement of persons in the eligible classes.

5. Explained general lines of US proposal November 30 to Messrs. Gottschalk and Gray, representatives of American Jewish Committee. Latter expressed view that US proposals would be most unsatisfactory to Jewish organizations. They would object to a scheme which has appearance of affording general solution of problem of refugees while actually providing very little aid per capita. They suggest as alternative to restrict scheme to non-repatriable persons who have been victims of Nazi concentration camps. Germans and Austrians now living in Germany and Austria would continue to be excluded. Under this definition, they estimate persons eligible would number between 100,000 and 200,000 including Polish DP’s who have served in Nazi concentration camps.

I am inclined to sympathize with this view for reasons stated above and on following grounds:

a. Value of proposed share so small that it is urgently necessary to concentrate benefits on most needy refugees.

b. Former inmates of concentration camps are in general most needy group.

c. Such restriction would automatically exclude non-repatriable persons in Germany who sympathized with Nazi and aided German war effort. Such exclusion desirable both on grounds of equity and to increase political acceptability of scheme. Request authority to use concentration camp criterion if such criterion is acceptable to other delegations.

6. Prefer proposal in paragraph 5 to that in paragraph 4, d, (3). Please advise Department’s preference. If Waley will not concur, will present to Conference alone.

7. It may prove more acceptable to other delegations to allocate absolute rather than percentage share to non-repatriable persons. In this event would propose non-monetary gold plus $15,000,000 out of proceed of German external assets in neutral countries. Request concurrence.

8. Reply desired soonest. [Angell.]

Caffery

92. Repmem 3 not printed. The United States note of November 12 proposed to aid three classes of persons who suffered heavy losses by reason of Nazi-induced action: German nationals who fled Germany, not intending to return, but who had not yet acquired other citizenship; nationals of countries occupied by Germany who had been transported by the Germans or forced to flee and were now unable to return; persons who had been stateless before the war and who suffered property losses due to German action during the war. The United States suggested that two percent of the total pool of resources available for reparations be set aside for the relief of such persons. In particular, nonmonetary gold seized in Germany as well as other German assets were to be placed at the disposal of an international agency to be entrusted with the problem, perhaps the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees. (740.00119 EW/11–2045)
93. Enclosure to despatch 3794, November 20, from Paris, not printed.
94. Not printed.
95. Enclosure to despatch 3793, November 20, from Paris, not printed.
96. United Nations Organization.
97. Portions of items 3 and 4, garbled in the original, have been supplied from copy in Council of Foreign Ministers files (Lot M–88, box 2060).
98. George L. Warren, Adviser on Refugees and Displaced Persons, Department of State, had been United States delegate at the Fifth Plenary Session of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, held in Paris, November 20–22, 1945.
99. Not printed.