CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 41
The Commission continued discussion of the right of the U.K. to submit its amendment to Article 2 (the so-called Jewish amendment).2 The Chairman read a letter from the Secretary General who had given an opinion on the admissibility, and then stated that he personally thought the amendment did not conform to the rules of procedure and should be referred to the Plenary Conference. However, the Commission was master of its own agenda and could decide on this point. Viscount Hood (U.K.) agreed that the Commission should itself decide and moved that a vote be taken on whether or not his amendment could be introduced as a new proposal. The Ukraine, Yugoslav, and U.S.S.R. Delegations argued against the right of the U.K. to submit its amendment subsequent to the deadline of August 20, on the grounds that no new point had been raised nor was it a compromise of previous amendments. The New Zealand Delegate said he had just heard it said that votes were used to stifle voices. Nevertheless, the Commission had now discussed this matter for over two hours and it should now come to a vote. The Chairman then proposed that the Commission vote on his suggestion, i.e., referring decision to the Plenary Conference. Eight Delegations voted against and five in favor (Byelo-Russia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia).
[Page 452]Viscount Hood (U.K.) was therefore permitted to speak in favor of his amendment. He reminded the other delegates of the serious plight of the Jews and their many sufferings. He said that great sympathy had been shown in the Rumanian Commission for the substance of the U.K. amendment. Byelo-Russia and Czechoslovakia spoke against the U.K. amendment arguing that it was unnecessary inasmuch as Articles 2, 3 and 4 afforded sufficient protection for the Jewish people. M. Slavik, the Czech speaker, took the occasion to give a history of anti-semitism in Hungary. Moreover, fascism had not yet been uprooted in Hungary and a new anti-semitism had already appeared. Czechoslovakia was still deeply suspicious of the present Hungarian Government. Nevertheless, he hoped it would be able to rid itself of anti-semitism and so he would support the U.S.S.R.’s conclusion that the present wording of Article 2 was adequate. France expressed great sympathy for the suffering of the Jews. It had voted against the U.K. amendment in the Rumanian Commission but reserved the right to reverse itself should the amendment be accepted in the other treaties. The French Delegate had been impressd with the statement of the U.K. and would vote in favor of the amendment. The amendment was then brought to a vote with eight delegations in favor, three against (Byelo-Russia, Ukraine and U.S.S.R.) and two abstentions (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). Article 2 was then adopted with one amendment (C.P. (H/P) Doc. 10).
The Commission then passed to Article 3. The Yugoslav Delegate, having considered the statements made previously by other delegations on his amendment (C.P. (Gen.) Doc 1.U.31.) and in order to expedite the Commission’s work withdrew the amendment, requesting that his remarks be incorporated in the Record of the Commission. Article 3 was then adopted without amendment.
The Commission then commenced discussion of Article 4 and in particular the Czech amendment (CP (Gen.) Doc. 1.Q.4), which aimed at suppressing revisionist propaganda in Hungary. M. Clementis (Czechoslovakia) described in some detail the history of revisionism in Hungary and its disastrous consequences and pointed out that there still existed traces of revisionist mentality. A specific provision was therefore necessary to eradicate the symbols of revisionism and prevent teaching in schools which would reawaken this dangerous mentality, which was nothing more than a special brand of fascism. M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) supported the Czech amendment pointing out that the documents and speeches of the Hungarian Delegation in Paris were ample evidence that revisionism still existed in official circles. He suggested that the word “Czechoslovakia” in the Czech amendment be replaced by the words “neighboring states”. The Czechoslovak Delegation accepted this suggestion. Further discussion on the amendment was adjourned.