740.00119 Control (Bulgaria)/10–1844: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 18—6:13 p.m.]
8904. Personal for the Secretary and Under Secretary. I have read with interest the comment of our Embassy in Moscow (Moscow’s 3965 to Department, October 17, 2 p.m.) on the letter dated October 15 addressed to Eden by Molotov regarding Soviet predominance in the Bulgarian Control Commission in the second period of the armistice. This afternoon just before going into the meeting of the EAC, I received a paraphrase of Molotov’s letter forwarded by Eden to the Foreign Office.
Summary follows: Molotov recalls that in conversation with Eden on October 14, he agreed to accept latest United Kingdom draft of article XVIII subject to provision that Chairman of Control Commission should be a representative of Soviet High Command in order to meet desire of Eden and Winant to differentiate between first and second period of Control Commission work. Letter emphasizes that direction of Control Commission would belong to Soviet High Command during both first and second period. It adds that “leading role” of Soviet Command in second period would “to some extent be restricted in favor of British and American representatives”. Molotov repudiates suggestion that the three Governments must have equal participation in second period in practical work and responsibility of the Commission. Molotov insists that in practice this would mean the elimination of the Soviet Command from the direction of the Control Commission which “in view of the present circumstances in Bulgaria” would only lead to the absence of all direction of the work of the Commission in enforcing the armistice terms and would thus not be in the interests of the Allies. End of summary.
In an accompanying telegram, Eden states his views regarding Molotov’s letter.
Summary follows: In my opinion it will get us nowhere to oppose Molotov’s interpretation and I propose simply to acknowledge his letter as being confirmation of his remarks to me on October 14. It now appears that the Soviet Government intends to maintain forces in Bulgaria so long as the Control Commission operates and neither we nor Americans are in position to send troops to that country. Hence, I fear we must simply accept the really embarrassing situation, however disagreeable that may be. Whether we like it or not, we must accept the fact that, for the time being, the Soviet Government hold most of the cards with respect to Bulgaria. End of summary.
The Foreign Office is unwilling to make further protest to Eden and I believe will accept the Soviet interpretation as an accomplished fact.
Today Rosh14 who is substituting for Gousev had the Russian texts of the armistice and protocol. Instead of accepting the texts with a recommendation for their acceptance by the three Governments as I had planned (my 8839, October 17, 5 p.m.), we limited the action of the Commission to a comparison of the Russian and English texts which was carried out by a subcommittee. I explained to my colleagues that I would have to forward the agreed text to my Government. I am not certain in my own mind as to whether the Molotov letter is binding on our Government since, in the discussions in Moscow, our Embassy there was probably put on formal notice by the Russians with respect to their position. The British appear to me to be largely committed by the exchange of letters despite Eden’s statement that he will do no more than acknowledge the correctness of Molotov’s written expression of his previous oral remarks.
The language of article XVIII is capable by reasonable interpretation of giving us a position of sharing in effective control in the second period. But if there is a prearranged understanding defined in an exchange of letters regarding the second period, we shall have curtailed our rights under the armistice and will not be able at a later date to assert the rights which have been formally assured to us under article XVIII of the armistice as now written.
In the immediately following telegram (my 8905, October 18, 9 p.m.) I am forwarding the full texts of the armistice and accompanying protocol which have been checked against the Russian text received from Moscow.
I would very much like to have your judgment as to the action to be taken next in the EAC. Could the Commission recommend the text as it stands without relating it in any way to the Eden–Molotov exchange of letters in Moscow? The formal position is that the formulation of armistice terms for Bulgaria is properly before the Commission. I should think that a recommendation of agreed armistice terms by the Commission if accepted and agreed to by the three Governments without specific reservations would ultimately permit the language of the agreed armistice document to prevail.
- Alexey A. Rosh, Counselor of the Soviet Embassy in the United Kingdom.↩