Mr. WHATLEY. I should merely like to point out in connection with the previous testimony that it would be in my humble opinion most inappropriate for the U.S. Government, through our State Department, to make any representations such as that proposed by Mr. Bach to the German Government, since we do not come to this question with clean hands.

I recall during the year following World War II that there was a large exhibition down here at the Library of Congress under the aegis of many prominent citizens, when America was extremely exercised and excited upon the discovery of the horrors of Buchenwald and other concentration camps.

The photographs there shown were horrible to see. The most horrible one was one of a man sitting in a cell who had been burned alive and his partly skeletonized remains were left sitting in that position. It was a horrible sight.

But I asked the man in charge how did he know whether this reputed victim of the horrors of these concentration camps were actually burned by the Germans or whether they were burned by our own fire bombs.

I think this is not inappropriate to keep in mind in the context of this whole moral question. We dropped on Germany, the U.S. Air Force, 1,000 times the tonnage of bombs as the Germans dropped on all of their enemies during the course of World War II, according to the official records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.

The amount of damage done with our fire bombs could not be calculated from that. May I remind you, sir, that just in the little peaceful university town of Dresden, it is said that we left 80,000 corpses stinking there for so many days that they could not get in to rescue the survivors who were left.

I suggest we should keep this in mind when we hear so much propaganda about the unfortunate atrocities against these Polish women who were operated upon against their will, and that these people who are survivors of our atomic bombs in Japan, who are survivors of our fire bombing of Germany, are as much entitled to compensation either from the U.S. Government or from the German Government, as the case may be, as are these poor unfortunate victims of Nazi brutality.

I deplore one as against the other, but in the words of the Bible, "Come not to me with your obsequities. Your hands are full of blood."

And this is a question where I, as an American citizen, would feel most uncomfortable in negotiating with the German Government, saying to them, "You have a moral obligation to compensate these people," when we do not assume any moral obligation to compensate the losses of the millions upon millions of properties destroyed by our bombers or of the fatalities, and many of those who are still alive in those countries.

I suggest to you, sir, that that is as much a moral obligation as the obligation of the German Government. This question of reparations has been raised time after time. I should like to add in this connection that in our view, though I am not an expert in international law, but simply as a moral viewpoint and from an equitable

point of view, I think it is reasonable to hold reparations to Germany if this question had not arisen.

There was far more damage done to private property by our own forces than was done against American property, and the German Government did not start the war with the United States after all. It is now admitted officially that we were at war with Germany several months before Pearl Harbor, and as a matter of fact, as you know, we were compensating our seamen and our soldiers and sailors who were acting in escort duty on the Atlantic 4 or 5 months before Pearl Harbor, for wartime service, so we officially acknowledged that we were actually at war several months before Pearl Harbor.

So it is a question of "who shot John" I think that should be considered in the issue of reparations.

I should like finally to say that as a private citizen who has observed this issue for many years, but has never spoken to it before, I am still mystified in thinking of people who feel that the claimants, whether they be American citizens or any other citizens, have a claim against the German Government or the Japanese Government, necessarily have a claim against the private citizens who happen to be of German ancestry, of German citizenship.

I recall that this type of thinking we had in this country a hundred years ago when we thought it was perfectly moral to have slavery, and within the sight of this building we had slave boxes at the foot of Capitol Hill, and there were very few people who thought it was immoral for us to sell these people in slavery in the sight of the Capitol Building, because these people were of another race.

But this is an analogous situation. Here we have confiscated the property of these people merely because they are of another nationality, and set them apart. It was done for expediency, and now we still hold on to it, on the justification that we were at one time at war with the sovereign government of which they happened to be citizens at the time.

Even if they may be citizens of the United States now, we still maintain that onus against them. I suggest, sir, that we shall never have true peace in this world until we begin to think of the private individual citizen and his right to his own life and property as against not only other governments, but his own government. I am very grateful for this time that you have given me. Senator JOHNSTON. Are there any questions?

We certainly thank your, Mr. Whatley.

Mr. Wood. There is a Mr. Schifter here who says he only wants 3 minutes.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHIFTER, ATTORNEY,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. SCHIFTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Schifter. I am a member of the law firm of Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried & Frank, with offices at 1700 K Street NW.

I am here representing an American citizen by the name of Blumenthal, who was the owner of a theater, the largest theater in the city of Budapest, Hungary.

The type of claim that he represents is typical of the claims of American citizens who owned property in Hungary and whose property was damaged in World War II in military action against Germany.

I want to say briefly how the property was acquired and damaged. Mr. Blumenthal was active in theatrical circles in the United States for many years. Back in 1922 he bought a theater in Budapest.

He was one of the leading proponents of American cultural interchange between the United States and Hungary for many decades. In World War II, in early 1944, the Germans took over control of Hungary completely.

His theater was made German headquarters, and in December 1944, the American Air Force bombed Budapest and his theater, being German headquarters at the time, was destroyed, or substantially destroyed. This is the kind of claim that is here involved, the claim of an American citizen in Hungary.

Now the problem is that claimants of this kind, Senator, are falling between two schools under the various proposals that are before the Congress now. They are not in the bills that are under consideration before this committee.

The reason for that is that they were supposed to be taken care of by title III of the International Claims Settlement Act, which was passed in 1955. The fact of the matter is that they are not taken care of by it. There just isn't enough money in that fund to make any worthwhile payment at all.

Mr. WOOD. Why don't you try to get that law amended? Provision was made in Public Law 285 to take care of your claims, and if you did not get full satisfaction, don't you think that is the forum. to which you could address your remarks, rather than here? Mr. SCHIFTER. Mr. Wood, let me answer that.

Senator JOHNSTON. Was the building destroyed?

Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes, it was.

Senator JOHNSTON. Was the land destroyed that it stood on? Mr. SCHIFTER. Was it restored?

Senator JOHNSTON. Destroyed.

Mr. SCHIFTER. No, the land was not destroyed.

Senator JOHNSTON. Have they built back on it?

Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes, but that was taken away by the Hungarian Communists afterward.

Senator JOHNSTON. We are going to pay then for property that the Communists did take later on?

Mr. SCHIFTER. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the damage that was done to the property during World War II. Mr. WOOD. By whom?

Mr. SCHIFTER. By the United States.

Mr. WOOD. How do you know that?

Mr. SCHIFTER. The understanding that we received was that it was bombed in military action when German headquarters was there. It could be the Germans, that is right.

Mr. WOOD. Didn't he in his statement submitted to us say it was uncertain whether it was damaged by American bombs or by German bombs or by Russian bombs? He was uncertain as to who caused the damage.

Mr. SCHIFTER. The Germans were there. The Germans were in the building. You see, this was the German military headquarters. This was the key to it, really. And the fighting that was going on at that time was just fighting between the Germans and the Allies. Mr. WOOD. You have been partly compensated under Public Law 285, have you not?

Mr. SCHIFTER. No.

Mr. WOOD. Why not?

Mr. SCHIFTER. First of all, no payments as yet have been made. Mr. Wood. Provision by law has been made for your compensation, isn't that true?

Mr. SCHIFTER. It will come to less than 1 percent.

Mr. Wood. And you want this subcommittee to include your claim here as a part of the deficiency under some other law, isn't that right? In a nutshell, isn't that right?

Mr. SCHIFTER. To put Americans who had property in Hungary on the same basis as Americans who had property in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, any of these other countries. Just put them on the same basis. That is all I am asking for; no more than

that.

In other words, when you pay somebody who had property in Czechoslovakia, it is now estimated that he will get about 50 percent. If you have an American who owned property in Hungary, under the present law, under the same circumstances, he would get 1 percent. What I am suggesting is to put all these on the same basis. It just seems to be so obviously the fair thing to do.

Let me just say this. The reason why we are dealing with two funds here is in the case of Hungary an American really has two claims. He has one against Hungary. He has another one against Germany, because of the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with two belligerents in the case of Hungary, namely, Hungary and Germany, whereas if you are dealing with property in Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia was an ally, and you are only dealing with Germany

there.

Now the fact that you have two people against whom you can make your claim, namely, Hungary and Germany, should not be held against a man so that he only gets the poorer of the two to claim against. Senator JOHNSTON. Are you speaking of Blumenthal?

Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes, sir, that is right.

Senator JOHNSTON. They got an award of $550,000 from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.

Mr. SCHIFTER. $450,000.

Senator JOHNSTON. Out of which approximately $135,000 represented war damage.

Mr. SCHIFTER. $212,000.

Senator JOHNSTON. $212,000?

Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes.

Senator JOHNSTON. All right. Because of the restricted or limited funds avaliable, your client will get less than 3 percent, is that right? Mr. SCHIFTER. Mr. Benn has just told me that my estimate was even too favorable, that it will be less. It might be in the neighborhood of 1 percent.

In other words, what you have got there, Senator, is a small fund and lots of claims, and the point that I am making is this. When you are dealing with the nationalization claims that you have in there, there is no question but that this could come under the jurisdiction of your committee.

Senator JOHNSTON. Did he have any insurance over there?
Mr. SCHIFTER. No.

Senator JOHNSTON. Why didn't he?

Mr. SCHIFTER. No American insurance against this.
Senator JOHNSTON. No American insurance?

Mr. SCHIFTER. That is right. He is in the same boat as all these other people. Senator, the point is this. When you are dealing with nationalization claims, there is no question that is a claim against the Hungarians, and if there is no money, that is not within your jurisdiction.

The point I am making is this. When we are dealing with war claims, he has the right to claim against two countries, Hungary and Germany, and if Hungary can't pay, the fact of the matter is that he ought to be entitled to come in and treat it on the same basis as the other people who have claims against the Germans, just on the same basis.

Senator JOHNSTON. You come here and give your claim, but at the same time we are not able to pass upon the hundreds and hundreds and thousands and thousands of claims here before this committee, to say whether the equities justify it, or how much it should be. We have no authority for that. Of course, at this time we are glad to have you come.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be well at this point to insert a report from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission on Mr. Blumenthal's claim. We have had considerable correspondence with him, and with Members of Congress in his behalf, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the report be made a part of the record. Senator JOHNSTON. We will insert the report at this point. (The report referred to follows:)

FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C., July 17, 1959.

Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: This is in reply to a request from your office for a report on claim of Benjamin Blumenthal (claim No. HUNG-20,001).

Mr. Blumenthal filed this claim under Public Law 285, 84th Congress, which added titles II and III to the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended. The claim, asserted for $1.5 million, was based upon war damage to a theater building in Budapest and its postwar nationalization by the Government of Hungary. The Commission issued an award on the claim in the total amount of $450,000 plus $180,800.36 in interest. The damage to Mr. Blumenthal's property was determined to be $212,831.20, only two-thirds of which amount is included in the total award noted above because of the limitation in the statute that compensation for war damage would be in accordance with the peace treaty provisions which provided for a two-thirds payment limitation.

Under the act, payments upon awards, after the first $1,000 installment payable upon all awards of a $1,000 or more, are to be prorated among claimants to the extent made possible by the limited funds available in the Hungarian claims fund. It now appears that the total funds to be available for payment