Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

August 14, 1946, 10 a.m.

[Extract]

C.P.(Plen) 16

President: Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)

The President: The meeting is now open.

Hearing of the Bulgarian Delegation

I ask the Secretary-General to introduce the Bulgarian Delegation.

(Escorted by M. Fouques Duparc, Secretary-General, the Bulgarian Delegation was introduced into the Senate Chamber.)

The President:

The Bulgarian Delegation is present with us in response to the invitation of the Conference.

M. Kulichev, Minister for Foreign Affairs, will make a statement to the Conference on behalf of the Bulgarian Delegation.

M. Kulichev (Bulgaria) (Interpretation):

Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen. My first words to this eminent Assembly must be to express my thanks in the name of the people of Bulgaria for the opportunity you have accorded the Bulgarian Delegation to express the views of Bulgaria on the terms of the future Peace Treaty. It is this which supports the hope of our people who, for more than 20 years, have never ceased to struggle for liberty, that justice will be done to them and that the deliberations of the Conference of Paris will result in a just and worthy peace for them.

At the same time I must express the feelings of profound gratitude which Bulgaria feels towards the peoples of the U.S.S.R., of Great Britain and of the United States of America who ensured victory over the Reich, towards all liberty-loving peoples who have made a united effort to prevent the triumph of Fascist barbarism, a struggle to which the Bulgarian people have for their part also made their modest contribution.

We the representatives of the New Bulgaria, have no wish to minimise in any way the crimes of those who thrust our country into the war on the side of Germany. The hateful alliance with the latter, the declaration of war against England and against the United States, the transformation of Bulgaria into a military base for Hitler and for the foul dealings of the pro-Hitler clique which later on resulted in a declaration of war on Bulgaria by the U.S.S.R.—these are crimes enough for which the responsible persons have been severely punished by the popular tribunal.

However, it is my duty to repudiate the moral responsibility of the Bulgarian people and we are sure that all those who understand the nature of the long struggle of our people against Fascist dictatorship and the fierce opposition which they offered to the plans for the enslavement of our country by Hitlerite Germany will surely understand us. A significant fact is that it was not against the Bulgarian people whose true sentiments are known to them, that the United States declared war, but against their Government. Generalissimo Stalin has repeatedly expressed the sympathy which the U.S.S.R. feels towards our people. In actual fact, during the last 20 years the Bulgarian people have risen three times, arms in hand, against the Fascist usurpers at the sacrifice of the lives of more than one hundred thousand of their sons. It is true, but the fact remains, that they were unable to prevent the criminal alliance with Germany which was signed on the 1st March, 1941.¹ I venture to recall that this happened at a moment when Hitler was at the height of his military power and on the very day on which the Bulgarian Government signed the Tripartite Pact, a German army, half a million men strong, concentrated in Roumania, crossed the Danube and occupied Bulgaria. That was a precautionary measure against internal trouble which the pro-German agents had just cause to fear.

However, popular resistance very soon made itself felt in the rear of the German troops.

It is very well-known that in actual fact, from the very first moment, the Bulgarian people found within themselves the means of expressing their true sentiments and of rejecting the pro-German policy of King Boris and of the Fascist government. Permit me to recall that on the 10th September, 1939, ten days after the invasion of Poland by Germany, M. Gucerguiev, Prime Minister and Head of our Delegation, addressed a letter to our then President of the Council, Kiosseivanov, in which he warned him that the Government was making a mistake which might have fatal consequences for the Bulgarian people. Later, on two occasions, on the 10th February, 1941 and on the 10th January 1944, he made still more energetic protests and warnings to the Fascist rulers.

It is also well-known that the Bulgarian people, even under the Gestapo regime, has been able to protect its Jewish fellow-citizens and to save them from extermination.

In the preamble of the draft presented to the Conference, Bulgaria is described as “an ex-satellite of Germany”. From the formal point of view that is quite logical. But here it is not the legal formula which is of importance but the factual context, the historical truth which this formula endeavours to express. Now the share of responsibility borne by Bulgaria may be greater or less or even minimal, depending on the importance of the hostile actions of which she has been guilty.

What were those actions? May I be permitted to recall the principal facts which characterised Bulgaria’s participation in the war and which alone can give us an idea of the extent of her responsibility.

1) From this very platform an interested party has described Bulgaria as an aggressor.² Now, no Bulgarian army has taken part in German aggression either in Greece or in Yugoslavia. Bulgarian troops have only acted as occupation troops and the Bulgarian Government have not occupied certain portions of Yugoslav and Greek territory until military operations were concluded. Even in his memoirs, Marshal Badoglio states that prior to the intervention of Germany in the Balkans, Mussolini had endeavoured to secure the military assistance of Bulgaria against Greece, but his request was refused by the Bulgarian Government.

2) It is true that the Bulgarian Government declared war against Great Britain and against the United States of America but they refrained from sending Bulgarian troops against those countries.

3) The most important fact and the great merit of the Bulgarian people is that, at the most critical moment of the war in the East, at the period of the battle for Stalingrad, it was able to offer courageous resistance to the formidable pressure of Hitler and to prevent the Bulgarian Government from sending a single Bulgarian soldier against the Red Army. Neither did it provide a single volunteer for the Eastern Front. How many “satellites” or countries occupied by Germany, or even neutral countries, can boast of an equal degree of courage or resistance?

The Bulgarian Army have not fought on any front against the anti-Hitlerite coalition. That is an historical fact which cannot be seriously denied. If it has happened that, in occupied territories, Bulgarian troops have been used against bodies of partisans, those who are responsible for this crime have been severely punished by the peoples’ tribunals. That also is a fact which cannot be denied.

On the contrary, the Bulgarian people has unceasingly fought against the Germans and their agents in Bulgaria. The active and effective participation of Bulgaria in the war against Germany is formally recognised in the draft Peace Treaty. I should like, however, to make it clear that the Bulgarian people had been fighting on the side of the Allies ever since the occupation of Bulgaria, since the Patriotic Front had organised a powerful resistance movement in the rear of the German troops. It was of our groups of partisans that Mr. Eden spoke in the British Parliament. Our partisans were in contact with the resistance movements in Yugoslavia and Greece and also received some help in arms from the British Command. The menace they constituted for the German troops is clearly apparent from the reports concerning their operations, prepared by the German Command in the Balkans.

Immediately after the revolution of September 9th, 1944, the Government of the New Bulgaria not only broke with Germany; even before the signature of the Armistice in Moscow, it cast its whole army, not less than half a million men, into operations for the pursuit of the Hitlerite troops outside the frontiers of the country. The Bulgarian troops fought for eight months, in Macedonia and Serbia, in Hungary and in Austria, losing more than 32 thousand killed and wounded. Although devastated by the Germans, the country made a supreme effort, sacrificing all its resources for the maintenance of the army. New Bulgaria has the moral satisfaction of knowing that its army fought in the ranks of the third Ukrainian-Russian front and that it has contributed to the final defeat of Hitlerite Germany. It is chiefly proud that the blood of its soldiers has been shed to help in the expulsion of the German troops from Yugoslav and Greek territory. Bulgaria has thus done much to right the wrong caused by the Hitlerite faction.

The feats performed by the Bulgarian Army have been celebrated in the orders of the day issued by Generalissimo Stalin.

As a matter of fact, the war against Hitlerite Germany was the only war ever fought by Bulgaria in the real sense of the word. This is why the Bulgarian people deeply resent still being called an ex-enemy people. Italy, Hitlerite Germany’s first ally, has been officially recognised as “co-belligerent”. Now, surely the facts which I have just given, show that Bulgaria has quite as much right also to be considered as co-belligerent.

In certain circles, there is still a tendency to describe the Bulgarian people as aggressive and rapacious, and we hear exhortations to vengeance and punishment. In this very hall, the Greek representative has asked for guarantees against the danger of a future aggression on the part of Bulgaria in the form of a strategical rectification of the frontier.

Now, what are the facts? The truth is that after the Balkan war of 1912–1913, when Bulgaria had agreed to the greatest sacrifices and borne the main brunt of the war against Turkey, Greece doubled her territory whereas Bulgaria was deprived of the greatest part of the Aegean territory which is mainly inhabited by Slavs and had been freed by the Bulgarian troops. The truth is that in 1919, Bulgaria was deprived of a further part of its territory, in particular Western Thrace which gave her access to the Aegean sea, and this was handed over to Greece after the failure of the latter’s military expedition in Asia Minor. The truth is that even today the Greek Government claims from Bulgaria up to one-tenth of its territory in which, moreover, there is not a single Greek village.

In order to justify its attempt to annex a further portion of Bulgarian territory, the Greek Government adduces three alleged “Bulgarian aggressions”. But, today, every school-boy knows that the guilty parties in the fratricidal war that broke out in 1913 between the Balkan Allies, were King Ferdinand, Venizelos and Pashitch. In 1915, the Bulgarian army stopped at the Greek frontier under the agreement concluded between the Kaiser and his brother-in-law, King Constantine of Greece. As for the alleged Bulgarian aggression of 1941, I have already pointed out that when the Bulgarian troops occupied Western Thrace, the military operations were already terminated. On the other hand, no one has forgotten that in 1925 the Greek troops of General Pangalos forced their way over the Bulgarian frontier and it was only thanks to the energetic action of the Council of the League of Nations that Greece was obliged to withdraw these troops and to pay Bulgaria an indemnity of 25 million gold francs. And finally, who traced the present frontier between Bulgaria and Greece which the Greek Government wishes to push further to the north? Certainly not Bulgaria.

I now come to our request to ensure Bulgaria access to the Aegean Sea by the restitution of Western Thrace. It should be remembered that this Province, freed by the Bulgarian Army in 1912, remained within the Bulgarian frontiers even after the second Balkan War and the Treaty of Bucharest, a treaty nonetheless imposed upon a vanquished Bulgaria. Venizelos himself did not dispute the Bulgarian claims to Western Thrace. But, notwithstanding strong opposition on the part of the Americans and other Delegations, this region was torn from Bulgaria and handed over to Greece despite the fact that the census of 1920 under the supervision of the Inter-allied Commission, presided over by the French General Charpy, established that the country was mainly inhabited by Bulgarians, the Greeks only coming third after the Turks. Thus, Bulgaria not only lost a valuable territory to which it had an undeniable right, and from which the Bulgarian population was subsequently expelled, but it was also deprived of that access to the Aegean Sea which is for Bulgaria a vital necessity.

The Aegean Coast between the Maritza and the Mesta is an integral part of an important geographical and economic region comprising not only all South Bulgaria but also areas much farther north.

The coastal territory cannot live and prosper without its hinterland and similarly the latter cannot ensure its own economic requirements without an outlet on the sea. It is Bulgaria, and particularly Southern Bulgaria, which constitutes the hinterland of the Aegean coastline. The fact that Southern Bulgaria is deprived of its coastline obviously creates an abnormal situation, robbing Bulgaria of its essential and geographical lines of communication with the outside world, and causing poverty and economic stagnation not only for the population of the Rhodopes but also for the other Bulgarian provinces, whose development is thus arrested. The inevitable result of this false and unnatural position is found in the following indisputable fact: The Aegean coastline is at present unavailable to international traffic and its activities are limited to insignificant local traffic. Its ports are entirely empty and abandoned, whereas they could handle traffic for the whole eastern half of the Balkan Peninsula and even with some of the area north of the Danube.

Moreover, the fact of depriving Bulgaria of its Aegean coastline has facilitated German economic and political penetration into our country. It is obvious even to anyone who is not biased that a free outlet to the sea is of capital importance to the economic and political independence of Bulgaria. This necessity has moreover been upheld in Article 48 of the Treaty of Neuilly. Unfortunately, the strictly economic access promised to Bulgaria could not be used in practice, as no Bulgarian Government could take a decision involving the investment of considerable capital for the construction of commercial ports and roads on foreign territory.

Gentlemen, in the Armistice terms Bulgaria has undertaken to restore all objects removed from occupied territories which are now on Bulgarian soil. The Bulgarian Government is already fulfilling this obligation, it will re-endorse it in the Peace Treaty and continue to carry it out scrupulously and in good faith. In the same way the Armistice Agreement provides that those countries which were in a state of war with Bulgaria shall be entitled to reparation, and this right has also been applied to Yugoslavia and Greece in respect of the damage which they have actually suffered at the hands of Bulgaria. I wish to convey the gratitude of the Bulgarian people to the Governments of the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and the United States of America for taking into consideration the part played by Bulgaria in the war against Germany and for giving up all claims to war reparations as far as they were concerned. I wish to thank them also for having explicitly recognised in the draft Treaty, and in connection with the question of reparations, the contribution of the people of Bulgaria to the liberation of Yugoslavia and Greece. In these circumstances the claims made by the Greek Government against Bulgaria seem all the more incomprehensible, unfounded and unjust.

It is odd that the Greek Government should hold Bulgaria as mainly responsible for the damages suffered by Greece since it is well-known that no war operations were conducted by Bulgaria on Greek territory and that the damage was almost exclusively done by German Forces. Why should the Bulgarian Forces have caused destruction in an area which they considered as Bulgarian territory and belonging truly to Bulgaria? On the contrary, immediately on entering Thrace, they began to repair the damage and to undertake important reconstruction work. The form of economic policy applied was the same as in Bulgaria. May we also stress that no destructions were caused by the Bulgarian troops when they evacuated Thrace. This evacuation was carried out in perfect order and with the friendly co-operation of the Greek local authorities and important stocks of goods were moreover handed over to the latter. The Greek Government is claiming for itself alone a larger amount than Bulgaria had to pay in 1919, under the Treaty of Neuilly, to all the Allied Powers with which she was then at war. It is well known that the situation of Bulgaria makes it materially impossible for her to pay these reparations. In our capacity as neighbours, we know better than anyone else the sufferings and hardships endured by the peoples of Yugoslavia and Greece, and the destruction and damage committed on their territory but we must recall that Bulgaria itself was actually a German-occupied country, which the Germans plundered and devastated at will.

Our agriculture has been destroyed and our livestock decimated, our industrial equipment is worn out, our railways and motor transport are in a pitiful condition, our merchant fleet is wiped out and our coalmines are half ruined. Our population is reduced to poverty and its standard of living is at its lowest point Even pre-war statistics for national income per head of population showed that Bulgaria’s was the lowest in Europe, after Albania. Epidemics and social diseases are taking their toll of the population and infantile mortality is gaining alarming proportion.

It was only due to the generous assistance of the Soviet Union that we were able to avert famine and the total loss of our livestock after the appalling drought in 1945. Here is one more significant fact. Nearly 70% of taxation is levied by indirect taxes and the people could not support further burdens. All these factors should be taken into account in a fair settlement of the reparations problems.

With regard to the economic clauses of the Draft Treaty, may I merely point out that most of them appear unfair to us and likely to make the already precarious state of our finances considerably worse.

May I also add that it would be quite unjust to force Bulgaria to waive her claims against Germany for Bulgarian exports. It is an open secret that these exports, which were not compensated, were simply one of the aspects of German looting. There is all the more justification for our request in that Bulgaria fought Germany for eight months—a war which cost her in material losses alone over 120 milliard levas.

Bulgaria is a Danubian country and is therefore naturally very much interested in the problem of the Danube. She is justified in asking to be allowed to play an active part in the international control of the river along its entire course. May I, as a representative of a riparian country, express the hope that the question of the control of Danube navigation will be solved by a conference in which Bulgaria would be represented with powers equal to those of the other Danubian countries.

I cannot conceal here the profound bitterness which the people of Bulgaria would feel if the Peace Treaty contained certain clauses calculated to wound her national pride and her sense of having done her duty. Such would be the military clauses.

I would like it to be clearly understood that the New Bulgaria has no aggressive designs. The people of Bulgaria mean to build their future on their own efforts, on international co-operation and on lasting peace. The Bulgarian Government has already of its own accord reduced the establishment of its army and is about to make a further substantial reduction. But the people of Bulgaria would regard a compulsory reduction of her army, that same army which fought no other country except Germany, or a compulsory surrender of arms, those arms with which she fought the Germans, as an unjust punishment.

Gentlemen, the Bulgarians are a humble and small nation but they are jealous of their dignity and their honour. They believe in freedom and independence and are imbued with the spirit of democracy. The people of Bulgaria have been engaged in a ceaseless struggle with the dictatorship imposed by King Boris and his government and have made countless sacrifices in the course of this struggle. Under the guidance of the Patriotic Front which was formed in 1942 to resist Hitler’s occupation and dictatorship, the nation embarked on a radical purge of the country and severely punished the chief agents of the pro-German policy. It took energetic steps to reform every public and social institution on democratic lines.

At the present time it is making super-human efforts to rebuild the economy of the country and to complete the structure of a true democracy. If everything is not as yet in order in the New Bulgaria, one must not forget the heritage of the unhappy past which weighs so heavily on us. Soon we shall be holding elections for the great National Assembly which will prepare a new constitution in harmony with the democratic development of the country.

This thoroughgoing scheme of internal reconstruction which has been steadfastly and unswervingly carried out by the Patriotic Front has still further enhanced the part played by Bulgaria as an important factor working for peace, democracy and order in the Balkans. We maintain with our neighbours in Yugoslavia, Roumania, and Albania the most friendly relations, and there are the best grounds for expecting a further consolidation of those friendships in the future. We are hoping to improve our relations also with Greece, the only country with which we still have certain matters in dispute, and such a rapprochement will be made easier if the Conference supports us in securing an equitable settlement of these disputes. We are sincerely anxious to live on the most friendly terms with the people of Greece and are convinced that this could certainly be achieved. The admiration with which the people of Bulgaria watched the heroic resistance offered by Greece to Italian Fascism is well known. To-day, likewise, the people of Bulgaria feel no hostility towards their Greek neighbours. On the contrary, they desire to establish with them on an equitable basis the best relations, similar to those which we have already established with all our other neighbours

Renascent Bulgaria is desirous of sincerely co-operating in building up the community of the United Nations and in applying to international life the principles of collaboration and collective security. She wishes to maintain friendly relations with every nation and will abstain from anything which would impair good relations between the Great Powers.

Gentlemen, at a decisive moment in their history the people of Bulgaria look to the Paris Conference in the firm belief that their efforts, their sacrifices and their legitimate claims will be equitably judged by you.

We await the decision of this august assembly with the confidence inspired in us by the deep conviction that our national cause is just and that your decisions will be impartial and equitable.

On behalf of the Bulgarian Government, I wish once more to express the gratitude of my country to every government here represented which would be prepared to support Bulgaria’s request to be admitted as a member of the great family of the United Nations.

1. For text of the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy, signed September 27, 1940, see League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cciv, p. 386, or Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918–1945, series D, vol. xi (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1960), p. 204.
2. The reference is presumably to the remarks of Greek Prime Minister Tsaldaris at the 6th Plenary Meeting, August 3; for the Verbatim Record of that meeting, see p. 105.