C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 20: Hungary Treaty
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Philip E. Mosely, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State (Dunn)
| Present: | Mr. Paul Auer, Minister of Hungary to France; |
| Mr. Stephen Kertesz, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Hungary; | |
| Mr. Mosely. |
Subject: Present Status of Hungarian-Rumanian Frontier Question.
Mr. Auer and Mr. Kertesz called today at their request. The purpose of their call was evidently to secure some information concerning the present status of the Hungarian-Rumanian boundary question. Mr. Auer emphasized several times the “hints” which Stalin himself had given to the Hungarian Delegation during its recent visit to Moscow. He also stated that the Hungarians had not been successful in opening direct negotiations with Rumania or even in securing the acceptance of a Hungarian Envoy, whose name was something like Szabaszy.
I reviewed sketchily the various stages in the discussion of this question, pointing out that in London the Secretary had not advanced any proposals for a revised frontier but had merely pointed out that the question existed and should be studied to see if the boundary could be improved over that established in 1920 and of which the United States Government had been critical at that time. I stated that the Soviet Delegation had been unwilling at all times to agree even that the question deserved study.
I explained that in providing for the annulment of the Vienna Award of 1940 the Secretary had always had in mind that the drafts prepared by the Ministers would be preliminary in many respects and that any question relating to them could be raised during the conference of the twenty-one governments. To Mr. Auer’s question whether Hungary would have an opportunity to raise the question at the Peace Conference, I stated my personal understanding that Hungary would be free to present its views on any aspect of the treaty [Page 442] which affected its position or interests. I implied fairly clearly that the U.S. Delegation was not likely to reopen the question of the boundary but that it would consider sympathetically any moderate proposals for adjustment which might be put forward.
To Mr. Auer’s question concerning my opinion of the various suggestions for readjustment which had been advanced by the Hungarian Government, I avoided any detailed discussion but stated that the concept of a numerical balancing of minorities on opposite sides of the frontier might seem somewhat mechanical in approach and might be interpreted to imply a willingness to provide for large-scale exchanges of population. I stated as my strictly personal view that a moderate suggestion for rectification based mainly on ethnic and economic factors might have a better hearing.
Mr. Auer stated that the news of the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers had caused profound discouragement in Hungary and might have important internal effects. I avoided discussion of this aspect of the problem but emphasized that the Secretary felt that such questions as freedom of economic access and free navigation of the Danube were of great importance for the future position of all the Danubian countries. In conclusion I emphasized a moderate optimism regarding the prospect for a settlement of the question of the treaties during the next few months and made it clear that I considered the American interests in this area as based on broad political principles of self-determination and not on any specific political interests.
[On May 20, 1946, the Secretary of State delivered a nationwide radio address in which he reported on the meetings in Paris of the Council of Foreign Ministers. For the text of the address, which was made in Washington following the Secretary’s return from Paris on May 18, 1946, see Department of State Bulletin, June 2, 1946, page 950.]