Office of the Historian

860h.6363/12–2045: Telegram

The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Patterson) to the Secretary of State

Belgrade, December 20, 1945—6 p.m.
[Received December 23—3:17 p.m.]

775. ReEmbtel 770, December 20.6 We have discussed Socony Vacuum situation here at length with Francis Smith. We have no [Page 1301] illusions that company will ever receive just compensation for claims made against YugGov. It therefore appears they have nothing to lose by having present status continued indefinitely. Smith’s primary object in continuing here is purely humanitarian one of protecting company’s executives and employees. We believe it probable that after his departure the company’s Yugo executives will be charged with collaboration, found guilty and be given long sentences at hard labor, if not executed, and their property confiscated. This is the usual method of nationalizing industries, banks and other firms in this country. See for example Embtel 712 of Dec 3,7 concerning execution of head of Bata Shoe Company and Embtel 704 of Nov 30,8 [concerning?] first Croatian Savings Bank. Court cases confirm that having sold goods to Germans of any Quisling Govt, even on requisitions executed by force, is sufficient ground for finding victim guilty of collaboration. By current juridical standards, Socony Vacuum Company is as guilty as any other firm in Yugo and while we do not fear this development Francis Smith, who throughout war was outside the country and not in communication with Yugo subsidiary, could be as easily found guilty of collaboration as other foreign businessmen, some of whom have been sentenced in absentia.

We believe Socony Vacuum should be given substance of above so they may have fuller picture of situation here.

Patterson
  1. Not printed.↩
  2. Not printed.↩
  3. Not printed; it informed the Department that the directors of the First Croatian Savings Bank, the largest such bank in Yugoslavia, had been convicted of collaboration with the Germans and the Ustashi, and had been given sentences ranging from death to 2 years’ imprisonment. Ambassador Patterson remarked that “this case illustrated the favored method now used by the regime to effect the wholesale confiscation of private property.” (860h.00/11–3045)↩