C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2080: CFM Minutes

United States Delegation Minutes, Council of Foreign Ministers, Third Session, Sixth Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, November 11, 1946, 4:30 p.m. 56

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY) 6th Meeting

The Hungarian Treaty 57

Article 2 A

M. Couve de Murville: The agenda for this afternoon includes the consideration of recommendations on the Hungarian treaty. The first of these applies to Article 2 A and contains the same provisions as those examined in the Bulgarian and Rumanian treaties regarding the treatment of certain minorities.58 This Article has been voted upon by [Page 1096] the Conference, 14 voted in favor of it and 6 against and one Delegation abstained.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I regard this article as on the same footing as in the Rumanian treaty. We desire to retain it.

Mr. Molotov: The opinion of the Soviet Delegation on this subject is the same as expressed in the Rumanian treaty.

Article 13

M. Couve de Murville: If there is no further comment we may pass on to Article 13.59 This article is identical with those examined in the case of Rumania and Bulgaria and the attitudes of the Delegations are unchanged.60 I think we might just as well pass onto the next article.

Article 21

M. Couve de Murville: The next article is Article 21, reparations.61 The Article has been adopted by 11 votes to 2 with 8 abstentions.

Mr. Molotov: Perhaps my records are not accurate, but I have 12 votes to 2 with 7 abstentions.

Secretary Byrnes: My information is that the original vote was changed. In my text it is 11 to 2. The South African Delegate changed his vote.

Mr. Molotov: In what respect did South Africa change?

M. Couve de Murville: The documents we have at hand are the verbatim report of the Plenary Meeting of the Conference, giving the results which Mr. Molotov indicated, namely, 12 to 2 with 7 abstentions, and second, the document which is the result of the work of the drafting committee which indicated that the vote was 11 to 2 with 8 abstentions.62 The explanation is probably the explanation given by Mr. Byrnes.

Secretary Byrnes: The correction appears on page 27, reading, “the delegate of the Union of South Africa rose and said, ‘I wish to rectify a statement in connection with the vote on Article 21. We wish the vote of the South African Delegation to be recorded as an abstention.’”63

[Page 1097]

M. Couve de Murville: The way the South African Delegation voted does not alter the fundamental character of the results, since it is a simple majority whether it be 12 to 2 or 11 to 2. Are there any observations as regards Article 21, or is the Council agreeable to accept it in its present form?

Secretary Byrnes: The United States Delegation was opposed to the adoption of the article at the Peace Conference. We were convinced that the representatives of Hungary were right in their statement as to their lack of capacity to pay reparations in such an amount. I desire to call to the attention of the Council a communication addressed to us on November 9. In that communication, it is said “the Hungarian Government on the basis of pertinent evidence is obliged to reaffirm that the economic burdens established in the draft peace treaty far exceed Hungary’s economic capacity and can only result in the collapse of the Hungarian economy, with all that this would entail. Hungary’s economy is utterly unable to bear burdens over and above the sums already allotted in the stabilization program for meeting the country’s obligations under the armistice terms and the terms anticipated in the treaty of peace.” This is a copy of a letter which was delivered to us today and, I presume, is in the Secretariat’s office.64

In as much as it has not been distributed, I ask that the article be passed until the Secretary General can distribute it so that consideration can be given to it.

Mr. Molotov: Mr. Chairman, we are not familiar with this letter, which I assume will be distributed. But the Soviet Delegation does not consider it advisable to pass over this question because the view expressed by the Hungarian representative does not represent anything definite and cannot serve as a convincing argument. At the Paris Conference, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Hungary made a statement and he, far from raising any objections to the amount of reparation fixed for Hungary and subscribed to by her, stated that the Hungarian Government considered it to be its duty to pay reparations. Therefore, the Soviet Delegation suggests that we consider this question. Of course, the Soviet Delegation supports the proposal agreed to in the Council of Foreign Ministers prior to the Conference. This proposal was adopted by the Conference by a majority vote at the Paris Conference. But now I want to go back to the verbatim record of the plenary [session] of the Conference in order to clear up the misunderstanding that has arisen. The stenographic record of the [Page 1098] plenary session of the Conference on October 12 states the following results of the vote on Article 21:

“The following countries voted in favor of this article: China, Great Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Byelorussia, Ethiopia, France, India, U.S.S.R., Ukraine. The United States of America and Canada voted against this proposal.”

Seven countries abstained, including the Union of South Africa. At the end of the plenary session the representative of the Union of South Africa asked the results of the vote and stated that the Union of South Africa wanted its vote to be recorded as an abstention. After this statement was received the chairman of the plenary session announced the final results of the vote, which were 12 votes for, 7 abstentions, and 1 vote against. This shows that no change was made in the result of the vote after the statement by the representative of the Union of South Africa. That is to say, the original results of the vote coincided with those announced by the chairman at the end of the meeting. Twelve countries voted for and not 11, and 7 countries abstained, and not 8 countries, and Mr. Byrnes presided at that meeting.

Mr. Bevin: If the abstentions were counted as argued this morning it was only carried by 2 votes.

Mr. Molotov: Still, that is not the result.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is important, hut the difficulty is that my good friend of the Soviet delegation did not read the last of the President’s statement. The statement is:

“The delegate of the Union of South Africa arose and said ‘I wish to rectify a statement in connection with the vote on Article 21. We wish the vote of South African delegation to be recorded as an abstention.’”

The President, Secretary Byrnes presiding at the time, said:

“Article 21 was adopted by 12 votes to 7, with 2 abstentions, the vote of the Union of South Africa being recorded in favor.”

Now I will go on to the next page:

“Since the delegation of the Union of South Africa says that it abstained from voting this abstention will be recorded in the results of the vote.”

And when you take 1 from 12 it leaves 11.

Mr. Molotov: I must repeat the fact recorded in the official record of the plenary session which I have now before me. It shows that in the beginning the Union of South Africa was not among the 12 countries which voted for, but was among the 7 countries which abstained. When the Delegate of the Union of South Africa made his [Page 1099] statement at the end of the meeting, he probably wanted to make sure that his vote was correctly recorded. It proved to have been correctly recorded; among the 12 countries that voted for the proposal the Union of South Africa does not appear. I must say, in addition, that we have not in our record the statement that was read by Mr. Byrnes.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, it is evident that somebody in the Secretariat made a mistake if in the Russian copy it makes one statement and in the English copy it makes a different statement. Mr. Molotov is right and Mr. Byrnes is right, and somebody in the Secretariat is wrong. The French copy, they tell me, is like ours. But it doesn’t matter as far as I am concerned whether it is 12 or 11 votes. Either one would be a majority and should receive the consideration of the Council. But I do think that it is important when Hungary submits a letter, even if it is submitted at a very late hour, that we should give consideration to the arguments that are presented. I am advised by the Secretariat that the letter from the Hungarian Government was received this afternoon and is being translated and mimeographed and that copies will be distributed. I do not think we should act until we have considered their plea.

M. Couve de Murville: I think, gentlemen, that as regards the correction of this vote of the Conference we might leave it aside now. The best course to follow would be to instruct the Secretary General to check with the secretaries of the various delegations what is the exact verbatim record of the Paris Conference, since there seems to be a discrepancy between the French and English on one hand and the Russian on the other.

Mr. Molotov: If there is such great concern displayed for the economic situation in Hungary then there is one thing that remains to be desired, namely, that Hungary be given back the Danubian ships as well as its property in the occupied territories. We consider that these ships held in the American zone of Germany and other property held by the American forces in Germany constitute a means by which pressure is exercised on Hungary, on her policy, and this, of course, serves to aggravate her economic and political situation. It will be a good thing to denounce this means of pressure.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, of course it has nothing to do with this matter, but all ships of Hungary or of any other country on the Danube in the American zone have been ordered to be returned.65 All property in Germany which was in the American zone, the Americans wanted to return long ago, and because of an agreement they could not take unilateral action. Last week notice was given that if [Page 1100] the others agreed or not we were going to turn back Hungarian property.

Mr. Molotov: We can only express satisfaction in the fact that this has already been done, that Hungary has already received her ships and Hungary will probably receive her rolling stock and locomotives as well as other property. The Soviet Union returned long ago property of other countries situated in its zones, and there was nothing that could prevent the other Allies from acting likewise.

Secretary Byrnes: My friend, the only thing that prevented it was an agreement between the Allies, and we like to live up to agreements. An agreement between our representatives was entered into last April that there should be no unilateral action returning property of this kind,66 and because of that since April we have been holding it up. But we gave notice last week that we were no longer going to stand by. We asked for a revision of the agreement. If the Soviet Government, without regard to that agreement had returned such property—I wish we had known it. We would have been tempted to do the same thing. We are going to do it now.

Mr. Molotov: In any event, there is no agreement that could have prevented us from taking this commendable action to return property to those to whom it belongs. We have previously stated that we turned over to Hungary and Yugoslavia the property that belongs to them, and far from preventing the other Allies from doing so, we have been willing to cooperate with them in this respect. But let us rest satisfied with the fact that this means of exercising pressure upon a small country no longer exists as well as with the fact that the property belonging to them will be returned to them. They are fully entitled to this.

Secretary Byrnes: My friend can say that he does not care about the agreement and he is willing to violate it but he cannot say that there was no agreement, because his representative and his Government were parties to it. Because of that agreement the United States has been prevented for months from returning this property. As long as he wishes to discuss the matter he must know that the representative of France took the position that he did not want to agree to the return of property to Hungary while there was French property in other countries which had not been returned. France did not want to permit the return of such property until last week, or two weeks ago when [Page 1101] France said they were going to help us out by looking for the property that we wished to return in order to make certain that it was not French property.

That is the story, substantially, of the representative of the United States on the Commission. In any event we have the hope that we can reach agreement and we prefer to stand by the agreement rather than to violate it.

May I say this, Mr. Chairman, because the Soviet representative has referred to the matter—I would like to dispose of it. I intended, if it did not work out in the Council in Germany, to bring it up in the Council of Foreign Ministers at a later date. As long as we have had this much conversation about it, I would like to know now whether I can have the authority of my colleagues to return to Hungary property identified as property belonging to Hungary, and if they would now express their view in favor of this proposal, it would be very easy for me to pursue that course. If they are not ready, I shall wait until France has had an opportunity to present its views.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, this is not on the agenda. I have been interested in the discussion. I really think we ought to stick to our agenda, which is reparations. If anything else is to be decided, we should have notice of it in order that we can look into it. It is not in accordance with the agenda and I suggest we go on with the agenda.

Mr. Molotov: In any event I am not suggesting that we continue this debate.

M. Couve de Murville: I think we might close this discussion now. I simply want to say on behalf of the French Delegation which has been involved in this question that I do not know the background. I did not know I had such a heavy responsibility to bear in this regard. I will be ready and willing to consider it at some other meeting if the Council considers this fit, either before the Council or in private talks with the American Delegation, if Mr. Byrnes deems this necessary.

I return to the question of Hungarian Reparations, Article 21 of the treaty. I will ask the Council whether there are any other observations in this respect.

If there are none, I think we might pass this question, it being understood that when we come back to it at some other meeting, every one of us will have taken cognizance of the Hungarian statement, of the Hungarian note, and shall be able to discuss the question in full knowledge of the facts.

Article 23, para. 467

Then we might pass on to the next item. It is a question which we have already considered in other treaties. It is Article 23, paragraph 4, dealing with compensation.

[Page 1102]

If there are no new comments on this point, we might pass it, since we have already had a discussion on it in the other treaties.

Article 23, para. 968

The next item is paragraph 9 of the same Article 23, dealing with a special provision for Hungary and the Danube-Sava-Adriatica Railway Company. This paragraph has been recommended by the Conference by 13 votes to 6 and 2 abstentions.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation sees no reason to add this paragraph to the draft.

The Soviet Delegation believes that Hungary and her neighbors are able to reach agreement on this subject and no interference of outside parties is required.

M. Couve de Murville: I must say that the French Delegation is interested in this question because most of the bonds of this railroad company are in the hands of French nationals. The French Delegation would be extremely happy if my colleagues could see their way to adopt it.

Mr. Bevin: We support the Conference decision.

Secretary Byrnes: The United States thinks it should be included in the treaty.

Article 23 A69

M. Couve de Murville: As there is no agreement, then we pass on to the next item, which is Article 23A. This is an article which also appears in the Rumanian treaty and to which no agreement was reached by the Council. Then I pass it.

Article 2570

The next article is Article 25 dealing with the seizure and liquidation of Hungarian property in Allied territory. It is the same question which we have considered this morning in the case of Bulgaria and to which no agreement has been reached as yet. Then we might pass on.

Article 26;71 Article 29, para. C72

The Article 26 has also been considered this morning in the case of Bulgaria. It is the waiver of Hungarian claims as regards property [Page 1103] in Germany. We might pass it, as well as the next item, which is paragraph C of Article 29. It is the same question in all the treaties which we have already considered.

Mr. Bevin: This article is the same as the one we were on this morning when we reached Bulgaria?

Article 29A, 30, 33, 3573

M. Couve de Murville: Yes. The same applies to Article 29A, which we considered this morning in the case of Bulgaria, concerning railway traffic and transit. The same applies, I think, to Article 30, concerning the settlement of disputes arising out of the implementation of the economic provisions, Article 33, the Danube, and 35, Settlements of Disputes in General.

The Hungarian Annexes 74

As regards the annexes, which we are reaching now, the situation is exactly the same as in the case of Rumania, with the exception of petroleum. There are no petroleum clauses in the case of Hungary. I think that we might adopt the same course in this case.

This completes the consideration of the recommendations of the Conference on the Hungarian treaty. I would like to ask my colleagues now whether there are any provisions which have not been the subject of recommendations and which one of the Delegations here would like to take up.

Mr. Bevin: One matter, Mr. Chairman, that was not put on the agenda at the Paris Conference at all on which I’d like to ask a question. When we discussed Italy, Molotov suggested that in order to get our troops out of Italy, Great Britain should make arrangements with U.S. to go through Germany. I was wondering now whether it would be possible to review the retention of troops on the lines of communication in the Balkan countries, whether the Soviet would agree to alternative routes so that the whole area might be cleared of troops. We didn’t agree on Article 20,75 but in view of the very useful suggestion made in the case of Italy, I raise the question as to whether the occupation forces couldn’t be assigned less routes in Hungary and Rumania, and the other countries, and that the troops be withdrawn just as we agreed to withdraw from Italy.

Mr. Molotov: I must say that there is no such question on our agenda, and it is not possible to discuss it without the necessary preparations on the part of military authorities. The Soviet Delegation is not prepared to take this question up now.

[Page 1104]

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t expect an answer now. I am just interested because it was mentioned to me on a previous occasion and having mentioned it, I thought perhaps we might recall it before we complete our work.

Finnish Treaty

Article 16

M. Couve de Murvtlle: Any other observations regarding the treaty with Hungary? If there are none, I think we have enough time left to go over to the consideration of the recommendations concerning the Finnish Draft Peace Treaty.76 The first recommendation concerns Article 16.77 It deals with the Prohibition of Certain Weapons.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has no fears of Finnish aggression. They cannot threaten anyone else.

Article 22

M. Couve de Murville: The next question is Article 22, Reparations.78 The Article has been adopted by the Conference by 11 votes to 5 and 5 abstentions. Can we agree on this article?

Secretary Byrnes: The United States did not participate in the final drafting of the Treaty. It did participate in the Conference and protested against the article.79 It hopes that members charged with the final drafting will have consideration for the views expressed by the United States as a member of the Conference.

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has already stated its views on this subject and there is no need to repeat one’s self.

Mr. Bevin: We’ll stand on the agreement.80

Article 26 [24, paragraph 4?]81

M. Couve de Murville: If the Delegations of the UK and the Soviet Union are in favor of this Article, we may take it that it is [Page 1105] adopted. We can pass on to the next item with regard to Article 26 [24, paragraph 4?]. It’s still the question of compensation.

Mr. Bevin: I have stated my case on that two or three times.

Articles 28, 29, 33, Annexes 82

M. Couve de Murville: We might pass it. The next question is Article 28, sub-paragraph (c), on which there is recommendation which has been adopted by 12 votes for, 6 against, with 3 abstentions. This, as well as the next question, has already been considered for the other treaties, so we might pass it. The same applies to the two other items, Article 29, Settlement of Disputes Arising out of the Carrying Out of Economic Provisions, and Article 33, Settlement of Disputes in General. There remains the annexes in connection with which I think there is no new question. All those problems have already been considered in connection with other treaties. It remains for me to ask whether there are any questions which have not been the subject of recommendations and which certain Delegations would like to take up in connection with the Finnish Treaty.

Article 26, para. 383

Mr. Molotov: Article 26, paragraph (3), remains. We have not discussed it. The Soviet Delegation considers it desirable to keep that paragraph. There is no reason to impair in any way Finnish property in Germany, and we should place no obstacles in the way of Finland retaining this property. It would be desirable to hear the views of the British Delegation on this.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot accept this article, but I would be quite prepared for it to go to the Deputies in conjunction with the similar principle applied to the other Balkan countries to see if they can work out some formula.

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection.

Mr. Bevin: I would like this to apply to the Italian Treaty too in connection with restitution of certain property.

Mr. Molotov: But we should bear in mind the fact that when Finland is mentioned it is a question of property which was moved from Finland after September 19, 1944, that is, after the signature of the Armistice terms, and if the question is formulated in the same manner with regard to Italy, I have no objection to this question going to the Deputies for consideration as proposed.

[Page 1106]

M. Couve de Murville: Do we all agree to refer this question to the Deputies as well for Finland as for the Balkan countries and for Italy?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I don’t follow Mr. Molotov’s point about the Armistice.

Mr. Molotov: I want to point out that paragraph (3) refers to the restitution of property which was removed from Finland after September 19, 1944. This is the date on which Great Britain and the Soviet Union signed the Armistice terms with Finland. If the same approach is applied to the other countries, that is to say, to the Balkan countries and Italy, we should have no objection, it seems to me, to try to find a suitable formula. This should be entrusted to the Deputies.

Mr. Bevin: I agree.

M. Couve de Murville: Are there any other observations on the peace treaty with Finland? If there are none, this completes today’s agenda. The only thing left to us is to fix the date and the agenda of our next meeting.

Mr. Bevin: Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the Deputies are going to meet first. We have withdrawn one clause and referred another to the Deputies. I suggest with all these economic and other matters already referred to them, the Deputies might be able to get on with the work tomorrow morning.

Secretary Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I think that is possibly about the only thing to do, and I would suggest that we meet tomorrow afternoon when we can determine whether or not it is possible for us to have any treaties agreed to by the Council. While certain questions have been referred to the Deputies, the most important provisions of the treaties have not been referred to the Deputies, but are before the Council. We could proceed with the discussion of those proposals tomorrow afternoon.

M. Couve de Murville: There is a proposal to the effect that the Deputies meet tomorrow morning, and the Council meet in the afternoon. Are we all agreed?

Mr. Molotov: I have no objection.

M. Couve de Murville: What time tomorrow afternoon for the Council?

Secretary Byrnes: 4:30?

Mr. Bevin: What time should the Deputies meet?

M. Couve de Murville: 10:30 for the Deputies, and 4:30 for the Council.

(The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.)

  1. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
  2. Under consideration at this point was the Record of Recommendations by the Paris Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary, vol. iv, p. 937.
  3. For text of the proposed new paragraph to article 2 of the Draft Hungarian Treaty, see vol. iv, p. 939. Equivalent proposals had been made for the Bulgarian and Rumanian treaties as articles 2a and 3a, respectively, vol. iv, pp. 934 and 920. The new Rumanian treaty article had been considered by the Council at its 4th meeting, November 8, 3:30 p.m., and the new Bulgarian treaty article had been considered by the Council at its 5th meeting, November 11, 10:30 a.m. For the United States Delegation Minutes of these meetings, see pp. 1044 and 1077.
  4. Vol. iv, p. 941. The article related to the ban on special armaments.
  5. The articles of the draft Rumanian and Bulgarian treaties in question, articles 14 and 12, respectively, were considered by the Council at its 4th and 5th meetings, November 8 and 11; see the United States Delegation Minutes of those meetings, pp. 1044 and 1077.
  6. The reference here is to article 21 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary as submitted to the Paris Peace Conference; for text, see vol. iv, p. 105.
  7. The Verbatim Record of the 45th Plenary Meeting of the Paris Conference, October 12, 1946, 9:30 p.m., at which the voting on the articles of the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary was recorded, is printed in vol. iii, p. 822. The two documents referred to here cannot further be identified. The Record, as printed, records South Africa’s abstention on article 21.
  8. The document quoted by the Secretary of State at this point cannot further be identified.
  9. The reference here is to the note of November 9, 1946, from the Hungarian Minister in Washington to the Council of Foreign Ministers, circulated to the Council as document C.F.M. (46) (NY)9, November 11, 1946, p. 1073.
  10. Regarding the decision of the United States Government as to Danube river craft belonging to certain central European and Balkan countries, see the memorandum of November 1, 1946, from the Secretary of State to President Truman, vol. v, p. 279.
  11. The reference here is presumably to document CORC/P(46)143, April 17, 1946, of the Coordinating Committee of the Allied Control Authority for Germany, not printed. This document set forth agreed methods, procedures, and definitions to be observed by the four Zone Commanders in Germany with respect to restitution, and included a quadripartite agreement defining the nations eligible for restitution and the property which could be returned. The document was included as an enclosure to despatch 3224, April 27, 1946, from Berlin, not printed (740.00119 EW/4–2746).
  12. Vol. iv, p. 942.
  13. Vol. iv, p. 948.
  14. Ibid., p. 942, where the proposal is identified as article 23 his. The article was concerned with discrimination with respect to property in Hungary.
  15. Ibid., p. 943.
  16. Ibid., p. 944; the article was concerned with Hungarian claims on Germany.
  17. According to the Record of Decisions of this meeting, infra, the items under consideration at this point were article 29, paragraphs 1c and 2, which were concerned with exceptions with respect to state enterprises and civil aviation in the article on general economic relations. The propositions specifically under consideration here are printed in vol. iv, p. 945.
  18. Vol. iv, pp. 945946.
  19. Ibid., pp. 946949.
  20. Article 20 (Withdrawal of Allied Forces) of the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary is identical, mutatis mutandis, to article 21 of the Draft Rumanian Treaty; for text, see ibid., p. 68.
  21. Under consideration at this point was the Record of Recommendations of the Peace Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland, vol. iv, p. 949.
  22. Ibid., p. 951.
  23. For text of article 22 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland, see ibid., p. 112.
  24. The opposition of the United States Government to article 22 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland was explained by Senator Vandenberg in a statement at the 46th Plenary Meeting of the Peace Conference, October 14, 1946; see the U.S. Delegation Journal Record of that meeting, vol. iii, p. 840.
  25. In telegram Delsec 1095, November 12, 11:30 a.m. from New York to the Department, Secretary Byrnes explained the Council’s decision on Finnish reparations as follows:

    “British and Soviet members of CFM at meeting November 11 agreed to $300 million reparations for Finland. Since USSR and UK are under Potsdam responsible for final drafting of treaty, this fixes definitively Finnish reparation obligation.” (740.00119 Council/11–1246)

  26. See the Record of Recommendations of the Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland, vol. iv, p. 951, and p. 953, for the proposed revisions to article 24, paragraph 4.
  27. Vol. iv, pp. 944946.
  28. For text of the proposed article 26, paragraph 3 (Restitution of Identifiable Property), of the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland, see ibid., p. 113. The Peace Conference had made no recommendation to the Council of Foreign Ministers regarding this article.