Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The British Commonwealth; Europe, Volume III

740.62114/11–2946: Circular Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Diplomatic Missions in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands

top secret
us urgent

Washington, November 29, 1946—6 p. m.

For the Chief of Mission from the Secretary. The President, the Secretary of War¹ and I have decided to begin immediately repatriation of POWs in Am custody or transferred by US to liberated nations. I realize the problems both economic and political which this decision will cause to the Govts of France, Belgium, the Neth and Lux. You should immediately approach the head of Govt to which you are accredited. There follow the lines along which you should speak. Please be guided thereby, using your best judgment as to emphasis most persuasive to head of Govt:

You should base your approach on the pressure being exerted on this Govt by public opinion in the US, with the statement that pressure for return of these POWs is becoming so intensified as to leave this Govt no alternative but to begin immediately a repatriation program. Fortunately, in the case of France, as well as Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, we are dealing with Govts who can appreciate the force of public opinion in a truly democratic state. In all four cases it is believed that the Govts will appreciate the necessity with which we are faced if they are convinced that public opinion in the US demands this action.

You should then touch on the following points:

(a) A year and a half have elapsed since the end of active hostilities in Europe.

(b) The Geneva POW Convention,² both in its letter and spirit, contemplates the repatriation of POWs as soon as possible after the cessation of active hostilities.

(c) The concept of forced labor is repugnant to the American people. The growing feeling in this country, therefore, is that failure to repatriate POWs who are not charged with war crimes or who are not otherwise ineligible for repatriation is indefensible on moral as well as legal grounds.

(d) Our position has become more difficult in this connection since the Soviet Govt has announced its intention to repatriate immediately a large number of German POWs in its custody. Added to this is the strong movement in Great Britain which has forced the British Govt to take similar action with respect to POWs under its control.

(e) We are, therefore, obliged to announce that beginning immediately we are instituting a program of repatriation applicable both to German POWs transferred for labor to Allied Govts and those remaining under direct American control in Europe. We have, of course, already repatriated most of the German POWs over whom we retained control.

(f) We are not, however, unmindful of the economic problems in your country which the labor of these POWs serves in part to ameliorate. Accordingly, our program provides for graduated repatriation over a period ending Oct. 1, 1947, at which time it is contemplated that all German POWs for whom the US is responsible and who are eligible for repatriation will have been returned to their homes. This will provide an opportunity to make gradual adjustments to meet the situation resulting from the departure of this labor. The American military authorities charged with the implementation of the repatriation program will consult with the French authorities with regard to the repatriation of particular occupational groups among the POWs but, of course, it must be understood that repatriation must proceed on a regularly scheduled basis over the period stipulated.

(g) Announcement of this program will be made in the US in the near future.

(h) A simultaneous notification of our intention is being made to the French, Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg Govts by our Chiefs of Mission in those countries.

(i) Should Head of Govt suggest that POWs in his country’s custody for whom U.S. is responsible be offered the opportunity to accept while still in that country the status of “free laborers”, you should tell him that the position is unacceptable to us since it would inevitably lead to charges of coercion. In any case it is in our view in violation of the Geneva Convention, which expressly requires repatriation. As further evidence of our recognition of local economic problems you should offer our cooperation in the recruitment of German labor on a voluntary basis in Germany for immigration to country concerned to supplement available native labor.

Chiefs of Mission please coordinate simultaneous approach to respective Heads of Govt and cable immediately “Niact for the Secretary” when approach to Govt is made.³

Sent Paris as 6239,⁴ Brussels as 1404, The Hague as 675, and Luxembourg as 66. [Byrnes.]

Acheson

1. Robert P. Patterson.
2. Signed at Geneva July 27, 1929; for text, see Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, pp. 336–367.
3. Replies, dated December 3, 1946, from the four Missions, reported acceptance by the four Governments of the United States program, although the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Georges Bidault, said that he was not happy about it.
4. The following sentence was added to the cable to Paris: “You will recall that I made similar approach to Bidault last summer and that at his urgent request I reluctantly agreed to defer action until after French elections.”