CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 62
The Commission continued its discussion of the amount of reparations to be allocated to countries other than the Soviet Union. The Czechoslovak Delegate called the U.S. and U.K. proposals24 completely unreasonable and urged that the claim of Yugoslavia be taken as a basis for discussion—this amounted to $400 million or 3.8% of the actual damage, and, if it could be related to Italian capacity to pay, the Czechoslovak representative suggested the same percentage might apply to all the claimants.
[Page 675]The Ethiopian representative expressed his astonishment over the proposed figure of $25 million for Ethiopia in view of the fact Ethiopia had been attacked first and suffered the longest from Italian aggression.
M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) asked that those countries who had not suffered from Italian acts of aggression, try to understand the feelings of a country which had suffered as severely as Yugoslavia. He suggested that a political approach to the reparation problem was not worthy of Allied solidarity and asked that, although the U.S. and U.K. had focused their interest on Italy, these two countries should not require the victims to bear such a large burden of the damage inflicted through Italian aggression.
M. Aroutiunian (USSR) made no recommendations as to total reparation or allocation of reparation to Albania, Ethiopia, Greece and Yugoslavia. However, he indicated that Yugoslavia should receive twice as much as Greece on the basis of the criteria of damage suffered which was worked out at the Paris Reparation Conference.25 He stated that the U.S. and U.K. decision with respect to Albania was a political decision in line with their general policy towards Albania. He felt nonetheless that Albania should receive the same amount of reparation as Ethiopia as both had suffered from Italian invasion and colonization.
The Byelorussian representative sympathized with the injured countries and pointed out it was in a position to understand the suffering of these countries. He pointed out that Albania appeared on the list of powers to receive reparation in CP (IT/EC) R 34,26 and he did not understand why the U.S. considered that Albania should not receive reparation.
M. Rueff (France) said that France accepted the U.K. figures for Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia. However, on the basis of the estimates of damage submitted, he considered Albania might be given, in addition to the Italian assets in Albania, $5 million reparations. He pointed out, in answer to M. Aroutiunian’s statement that the Paris Reparation Conference had set a ratio of damage between Yugoslavia and Greece of 2 to 1, that this ratio had been established on the basis of a questionnaire relating to damage inflicted by Germany and Germany alone. Therefore, this ratio was irrelevant to the case at hand.
He suggested the Commission might reach agreement on the question of relative reparation payments and pointed out that a ratio of 10 for Greece, 10 for Yugoslavia, 2.5 for Ethiopia and nothing or 0.5 for Albania had been suggested. If the Conference so decided, it could [Page 676] refer the question of the absolute amount of reparation to the Council of Foreign Ministers. He, however, would prefer that the Conference make this decision as well. The Brazilian representative said it must be recognized that reparation could not be sufficient to cover damage, but at the same time he emphasized that the enormous concessions being made were not for the purpose of benefiting an aggressor but for furthering the cause of peace.
Mr. Thorp then suggested a plan for proceeding to vote on the various issues before the Commission, starting with the question whether Albania should get any reparation, then considering the amount of Ethiopian reparation, then the relative amounts to be given Greece and Yugoslavia, and finally the total amount of reparation. M. Aroutiunian asked that the Yugoslav proposal be considered after the determination of the shares of Albania and Ethiopia. The Polish representative argued against voting without further research and study and urged that the entire problem be referred to the C.F.M. Mr. Walker (Australia) said no course of action could hold the Conference up to greater ridicule than to refer the question back to the C.F.M. M. Aroutiunian then spoke again, this time in favor of the Polish proposal. He said it was evident that agreement could not be reached in the Commission and voting would only result in imposing the will of the majority on the Commission. If the problem were referred back to the C.F.M., the Council might hear the representatives of the interested countries and reach a decision. On a vote, the proposal to postpone was defeated, 13 to 7. The Yugoslav representative then suggested a slightly modified voting procedure which was accepted.
On the first vote, on the question whether Albania should receive reparation, there was a tie of 10 to 10 and the Chairman declared there was no majority for the proposal. The Albanian representative then made a statement to the effect that Albania had not been given the treatment it might have expected as an Ally. The Soviet representative reserved the right to raise the question again in the CFM and to propose Albania should get the same amount as Ethiopia.
The Commission then voted on the amount to be given to Ethiopia. An Australian proposal to increase the sum suggested by the U.K. and U.S. Delegations from $25 million to $35 million was also lost on a tie vote of 10 to 10. The $25 million figure for Ethiopia was then approved unanimously. The Yugoslav claim for $400 million was defeated 8 to 12. The principle that reparation for Ethiopia [Greece] and Yugoslavia should be equal was approved by a two-thirds vote of 15 to 1, with 4 abstentions. M. Aroutiunian again reserved his point of view that reparation for Yugoslavia should be twice that for Greece.
[Page 677]The Commission then considered the question of the total amount of reparation to be fixed for Part B. M. Politis (Greece) proposed this question be referred to the CFM, and this was supported by the Yugoslav and Soviet representatives. The proposal to defer was defeated by a vote of 8 to 11 with 1 abstention. The Commission then approved the total of $225 million as proposed by the U.K., by a vote of 11 to 4 with 5 abstentions. The Soviet representative, in abstaining, reserved the right to raise the question independently in the CFM.
Annex 3 (Ceded Territories) and Annex 9 were referred to the Plenary Conference with the recommendation that they and the amendments submitted to them be referred back to the CFM. Statements were made by the Greek, Yugoslav and Polish representatives regarding their interest in these Annexes.27
Following is a summary of the approved reparation allocations for Part B:
| Country | Allocation | Vote | |||
| Albania | Nil | 10–10. | |||
| Ethiopia | $25,000,000 | Unanimous. | |||
| Greece |
|
On principle of
equal shares, 15–1, 1 abstention. |
|||
| Yugoslavia | |||||
| Total | $225,000,000 | 11–4, 5 abstentions. |
- See United States Delegation Journal account of the 37th Meeting, October 4, p. 667.↩
- Regarding the Paris Reparation Conference, see footnote 65, p. 170.↩
- For text, see vol. iv, p. 792.↩
- In proposing that the annexes under reference be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers, Wilgress (Canada) stated that the annexes were of great importance to some nations, but that they were of a technical nature and that the Commission lacked the time to give them adequate attention. The representatives of Yugoslavia, Poland, and Greece expressed disappointment that their amendments had not received a hearing and expressed hope that the Council of Foreign Ministers would provide such a hearing. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 a.m., October 5. (CFM Files: United States Delegation Minutes)↩