CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 43
The Albanian representative presented his views on Article 65 (Restitution). He requested that where restitution could not be made, Italy should be required to “restitute at the equivalent value.” He declared that Italy was responsible for the Albanian gold during the war. However, if the Commission could not agree that the Albanian gold claim was covered by paragraph 8 of Article 65 he suggested certain language be added to the draft requiring Italy to return Albanian gold.
[Page 463]The Italian representative expressed his views on the economic provisions of the peace treaty other than reparation. He voiced the concern of the Italian Delegation over the wave of alarm that has spread through Italy at the realization of the consequences that would ensue from a harsh Peace Treaty, and expressed dismay that the amendments proposed by certain delegations, whose purpose was to replace a “harsh draft by a still harsher Peace Treaty.” He noted with regret that the Conference was making no attempt to evaluate the total economic burden Italy would have to bear. He asked that if Italy was to be required to return all gold then it would only be fair that the gold removed by Germany be returned; that restitution of rolling stock be reciprocal; that paragraphs 1(c), 2, 4, and 5 of Article 66 be deleted; that Article 67 be modified so as to acknowledge Italy’s right to restitution and right to claim other credits from Germany; that the Soviet suggestions with respect to compensation had some merit; that Article 69 should not be used for the purpose of exacting further reparation; that compensation should be received from the successor State for publicly owned property in ceded territory; and that the French amendment to Annex 3 proposing that the successor State take over free of charge the property, rights and interests of all Italian firms engaged in public services, be rejected.
The Commission then discussed for three hours the question of when Albania should be permitted to remain in the Commission meeting and assist in the discussion. M. Aroutiunian (USSR) asserted that the Albanian representative had been treated shabbily by the Commission and he requested that the Albanian representative be present during discussion of paragraphs 2 and 8 of Article 65 any general discussion of Article 65 and Article 66. After many exchanges between the Chair and M. Aroutiunian the Commission agreed that the Albanian representative should be present during the discussion of paragraphs 2 and 8 of Article 65 and any general discussion of Article 65 as well as paragraph one of Article 66.