CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 68
The Conference began the discussion of the Bulgarian Treaty with Mr. Byrnes in the chair. Mr. Wierblowski (Poland) declared that while his Delegation had not participated in the work of the Commission since Poland had not been at war with Bulgaria, Poland should speak here as it was a question of peace as a whole and because Bulgaria was her close neighbor. He stated that the task of the Conference was to organize peace on democratic principles, differing in this respect from the Congress of Vienna and the Versailles Conference, and enemy countries had here been given a chance to state their views. [Page 792] He criticized the draft of the Bulgarian Treaty on the following points: (1) Although the Italian Treaty paid tribute to the Italian resistance movement no credit was given to the heroic fight of the Bulgarian Partisans who had joined the Allied forces against Germany on the 9th of September 1944, 6 weeks before signing an armistice. (2) Notwithstanding admiration for the Greeks’ contribution to the war he considered that the amount of $125,000,000 reparation to be paid by Bulgaria to this country (sic) was too heavy a burden for an economically poor agricultural country which had suffered serious war damages. (3) Objection was made to the decision on the demilitarization of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier and exclusion of motor torpedo boats. Demilitarization, he pretended [contended?], would be prejudicial in the defense of the country in as much as its capital was only 80 miles from the border. As regards the navy he stated discrimination was made in favor of Italy as compared to the limited tonnage allowed Bulgaria. (4) He remarked that Article 28 trespassed on the internal life of the state and that no such clause had been inserted in the other peace treaties. In conclusion he approved of the disallowment of territorial adjustment in favor of Greece and supported the claim of Bulgaria for an outlet to the Aegean. He repeated that trespassing in internal affairs and discrimination in international affairs would lead to eventual difficulties. Declaring that his Delegation was against the constitution of Eastern and Western blocs, he stated that Poland was opposed to unfair discrimination against Bulgaria and asked the Conference to alter the military and economic clauses and those relating to communications.
Mr. Tsaldaris (Greece) declared that the Conference should pronounce on Articles 2A and 34 and that Greece would support a majority vote. The wording of Article 1 cannot be accepted by Greece, as the Greek Delegation came to the Conference seeking frontier security. The Bulgarians have shown their aggressive tendencies by asking for Greek territory. He elaborated on the exhaustive study given to Article 1, its submission to the Military Commission and the final refusal of the Political Commission to consider amendments to it. Greece reserves its right to present its views on this question to the C.F.M. He continued that Bulgaria had acquired Dobruja from Rumania and that this country was better off economically and militarily than after the last war. The tonnage to be allowed the Bulgarian navy would be 6 times greater than before the war. He stated that after fighting 3 times against its neighbor and twice against the Big Powers Bulgaria was now stronger than ever since its economy and natural resources were unaffected, while Greece, on the other hand, [Page 793] was sorely stricken, devastated and now being denied suitable frontiers. In a spirit of equity victims of aggression should not be in a less favorable position than aggressors. He referred to the deep wisdom of Marshal Smuts in deploring East-West blocs and would welcome the disappearance of same. Unity of world can be obtained only by a spirit of justice and he felt that the treaties had showered bounty on some nations and not on others. Greece would accept the decision of the C.F.M. if based on justice, not on policy of balance of power. He placed his faith in their decision and hopes that they will give justice that Conference has denied Greece.
M. Pijade (Yugoslavia) stated the basic principle of Yugoslav Delegation and the Commission was to permit Bulgaria to establish democratic regime. The new Yugoslavia’s role in the Balkans was to be the bulwark of the new order and to further brotherly cooperation among Balkan peoples and states. He paid tribute to the Bulgarians’ contribution to the defeat of Germany. After a lengthy dissertation on this general subject with a special reference to Bulgaria, Albania and Rumania, he declared only dark spot in the Balkans was the attitude of the Greeks as shown at the Conference. He criticized defeat of Byelo-russian proposal to recognize Bulgaria as co-belligerent, pointing out discrimination in favor of Italy in this respect. He stated that Article 2 of the Bulgarian Treaty and Article 14 of the Italian Treaty were identical in the C.F.M. draft and considered the additional Article 2 a, safeguarding Jews, accepted by the Commission, to be superfluous. He objected to frontier demilitarization and the $125,000,000 reparation to be paid to Greece and Yugoslavia pointing out that this was a far higher percentage than the reparations demanded from Italy. He then spoke at length about the Greco-Bulgarian frontier and accused the Greek regime of throwing covetous glances on neighboring territory while the new Bulgaria had no aggressive intentions. Greece, he said, was being prevented from participating in Balkan solidarity. He recalled that the Balkans had been the tools of imperialism in the past, referred to British troops in Greece and U.S. ships in the Aegean, and declared that in the interest of peace the Balkans must bring an end to outside interference in the internal affairs of their countries.