Extracts [7 JANUARY 1946] [1]

REPORT OF THE AUSTRALIAN DELEGATE TO THE PARIS CONFERENCE ON
REPARATIONS

9th November to 21st December, 1945

The Paris Conference on Reparations met on the invitation of the
Governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom
from 9th November to 21st December, 1945, in the Palais du
Luxembourg. The following Governments were represented:

Albania Greece
United States of America India
Australia Luxembourg
Belgium Norway
Canada New Zealand
Denmark Netherlands
Egypt Czechoslovakia
France Union of South Africa
United Kingdom of Great Yugoslavia
Britain and Northern Ireland
The Commonwealth Government was represented throughout by
Professor E. Ronald Walker, Counsellor, Australian Legation at
Paris, as First Delegate; in addition the earlier sessions were
attended by Mr. J. D. L. Hood, Political Adviser to the Australian
Military Mission at Berlin, Mr. A. H. Tange of the Department of
Post-War Reconstruction, and Mr. S. Atyeo, Second Secretary, Paris
Legation; and Mr. J. R. Cochrane, Leader of the Australian
Scientific and Technical Mission, was also present at several
sessions.

According to the terms of invitation received, the purpose of the
Conference was to examine the data furnished by the interested
Governments relating to their claims for reparations from Germany,
and to prepare the way for an inter-governmental agreement on the
division of reparations among the Governments concerned. It was
suggested also that the Conference should prepare recommendations
regarding the establishment of an Inter-Allied Reparations Agency.

In fact the discussion of these subjects led various delegates to
raise other questions which, although related to reparations
policy, also involved broad political issues.

[matter omitted]

The tendency of the Conference to deal with issues wider than
might have been expected in view of the terms of the invitation
was due largely to the complexity of the reparations question from
the viewpoint of the European Continental countries, and also to
the high level at which some countries were represented. According
to the invitation, the Conference was presumed to be one of expert
officials, but the Yugoslav Delegate was Dr. Ales Bebler, Slovene
Minister of Finance; and the Belgian Delegation was strengthened
at the most critical moment of the Conference by Monsieur Camille
Gutt, Minister of State, as spokesman of the Belgian Cabinet. The
following Governments were all represented by Delegates holding
the rank of Minister Plenipotentiary:-Albania, U.S.A., Belgium,
Egypt, Netherlands and Czechoslovakia.

The outstanding personalities throughout the whole period of the
Conference were M. Jacques Rueff, the President (France), Minister
James Angell (U.S.A.), Dr. David Waley (U.K.), Dr. Ales Bebler
(Yugoslavia), M. Kaeckenbeeck (Belgium) and Dr. Vavro Hajdu
(Czechoslovakia). The conduct of the Conference by the President
and the United States and United Kingdom Delegates evidenced a
strong desire to make the Yugoslav and Czech Delegates feel at
home in the midst of the Western European nations. They were given
every encouragement to state their views at length, and took full
advantage of the opportunity, even to the point of appearing to
dominate the discussion time and time again. On the whole their
special demands were met at least as generously, if not more
generously, than those of the smaller Western nations, and one
could not escape the impression that wider political
considerations than the disposal of German reparations influenced
the position adopted by the inviting powers on many of the
questions discussed in the course of the Conference, which M.

Rueff referred to on several occasions as 'a part of the Peace
Conference'.

As a signatory of the Final Act of the Conference [2] ... I have
the honour to recommend to the Government that it should enter
into an agreement with the other interested Governments in the
terms of the draft prepared by the Conference. Although the share
in German reparations proposed for Australia is no adequate
measure of the burden of the war upon our people or of our
contribution to victory, it must be remembered that Australia is
one among eighteen claimant countries, including the several
European countries that suffered heavy material damage at the
hands of Germany and that must rely upon German reparations for
much of the equipment necessary to restore even partially their
pre-war economic structure. The statistical and other information
placed before the Conference, and set out in memoranda already
forwarded to Canberra, reveals the effects of bombardment, battle,
looting, destruction and slaughter, and emphasises, by contrast,
Australia's narrow escape from the worst ravages of invasion and
enemy occupation. Australia has a real interest in the rapid
reconstruction of our European Allies and is therefore bound to
support a distribution of German reparations designed primarily
with this in view. At the same time the share attributed to
Australia, together with the general principles to be followed in
allocating industrial and other equipment, should enable Australia
to acquire certain plant and equipment that will be of
considerable assistance in her post-war industrial development.

Comments on the Draft Agreement Part I, Article 1, Reparations
Shares
The proposed shares are as shown in the following table:-

CATEGORY A CATEGORY B
Albania .05 .35
United States of America 28.00 11.80
Australia .70 .95
Belgium 2.70 4.50
Canada 3.50 1.50
Denmark .25 .35
Egypt .05 .20
France 16.00 22.80
United Kingdom 28.00 27.80
Greece 2.70 4.35
India 2.00 2.90
Luxembourg .15 .40
Norway 1.30 1.90
New Zealand .40 .60
Netherlands 3.90 5.60
Czechoslovakia 3.00 4.30
Union of South Africa .70 .10
Yugoslavia 6.60 9.60
Total 100.00 100.00

The figures under Category B relate to plant and equipment,
merchant ships and inland water transport; those under Category A
to everything else except gold. The percentages are different in
the two columns because the United States, Canada and South Africa
have waived substantial proportions of their claims to equipment
as distinct from other forms of reparations (especially German
External Assets held by them). In allocating among the other
countries the amounts foregone by these countries it was
considered necessary to give some slight preference to the smaller
European countries that had suffered under German occupation and
in the course of battle; with this in view the United Kingdom
waived any claim to share in the amounts foregone by the United
States, Canada and South Africa, and even accepted a slight
reduction in her percentage for Category B as compared with
Category A.

[matter omitted]

The significance of the Australian share depends upon the total
value of equipment and other items available for distribution. No
official estimates exist since the Allied Control Council has not
yet completed its task of selecting factories for reparation.

Informed opinion is that a share of 0.95 per cent will represent
equipment worth at feast 2 Million sterling; possibly considerably
more.

Articles 2 and 3
Article 2 represents an attempt on the part of the United States
to ensure that this agreement will constitute a final settlement
of German reparations. Unanimity on this proposal was only
obtained by making a number of special exceptions for particular
claims set out in this article.

Article 3 is designed to prevent subsequent litigation over
property transferred as reparations.

Article 4. General Principles for Allocation of Industrial and
other Equipment
These provisions are particularly important since they will guide
the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency when allotting any individual
factories and other items for which there are more than one
claimant. The final consideration in the list, viz C.(ii)(d), was
inserted at the express request of the Australian delegation and
together with C.(ii)(c) will provide the main basis for Australian
claims to particular items. [3]

Article 5. Merchant Ships and Inland Water Transport
German ships will be distributed in proportion to total losses
through acts of war. A special committee will wrestle with two
problems left unsolved by the Conference, viz
(i) To what extent, and how, should consideration be confined to
losses by German action;

(ii) Meeting the specialised needs of certain countries; e.g.

Norway is pressing hard for a whaling factory ship.

Article 6 German External Assets
These provisions occasioned some of the most protracted and
complicated discussion of the whole conference, and revealed a
marked difference of approach between the Belgian and Dutch
delegates on the one hand, who were concerned over the maintenance
of existing property rights of their nationals, and the Yugoslav
and Czech delegates who were little concerned over such aspects.

It is believed that the provisions of this article are consistent
with the Commonwealth Government's policy, but they should be
carefully examined by the appropriate authorities.

Article 7. Captured supplies
This has little application to Australia.

Article 8. Reparations for Non Repatriable Victims of Germany
This proposal emanated from the United States; and in its original
form was greeted with great suspicion by the Yugoslav delegate,
who feared the funds might be used to support refugee elements
hostile to the present regime. Most of the detailed delimitation
of the persons eligible for assistance was inserted to meet
Yugoslav objections. The 'non-monetary gold' referred to consists
mostly of wedding rings and teeth fillings found in German
concentration camps. [4]

Part II. Articles 1 to 11
Inter-Allied Reparations Agency
It is expected that the Assembly of the Agency will meet
frequently in the initial stages. The most interesting feature of
the proposed constitution is the provision for arbitration in
Article 7.

Part III. Restitution of Monetary Gold
Monetary gold found in Germany will be pooled and divided in
proportion to the respective losses of gold by various countries
through looting.

Part IV. Entry in Force and Signature
When the agreement has been signed by countries having
collectively 80% of shares in Category A, it will enter into force
among the signatories. This implies that the signature of the
three inviting powers and several small countries will suffice.

Attention is also drawn to the three additional unanimous
resolutions of the Conference included in the Final Act after the
Draft Agreement [5]; and to the resolutions of certain Delegations
included in the Annex. My comments on the latter are as follows:-

ANNEX

Resolution 1
It is difficult to forecast whether the acceptance of these
principles will reduce appreciably the total available as
reparation. I also feel some sympathy with the views expressed
strongly by the Norwegian delegate, and mildly by Sir David Waley,
that losses through looting should not constitute any priority for
restitution or reparation over losses through destruction. On the
whole I consider it would be wiser not to adhere to this
resolution so that we may be free later to criticise the
restitution policy if we find it is working unsatisfactorily.

Resolution 2
I can see no objection to this in principle, but am a little
apprehensive lest there be excessive demands upon current German
production; and it might be better to avoid committing ourselves
unless we particularly desire to share certain existing stocks.

Resolutions 3, 4 and 5
These do not appear to affect Australia directly.

Resolution 6
I have agreed to this, since it seems incontestable. [6]

Resolution 7
This requires examination by those concerned with Australian
policy on war criminals. [7]

Resolution 8
I have agreed to this since it is clearly consistent with
Australian policy. [8]

E. RONALD WALKER