Office of the Historian

740.00119 Council/4–1146: Telegram

The Assistant Secretary of State (Dunn) to the Secretary of State

secret
London, April 11, 1946—6 p.m.
[Received April 11—5:36 p.m.]

4044. This is Delsec 373 from Dunn. The following are the principal unresolved issues which have arisen (reDelsec 354, April 9)75 in connection with the Rumanian peace treaty.

1.
Difference in treatment between Italian and Balkan treaties. Soviet deputy has declared that the basis for the Italian treaty is Italy’s partnership in the Axis and its unconditional surrender, whereas the same basis does not exist for the Balkan treaties in which he insists that reference be made to the active part in the war taken by Rumania and Bulgaria. Gusev has pointed out that the Allies already recognized a difference in treatment in that they did not impose unconditional surrender upon the Balkan states. Whereas discussions on this point have been limited to a large extent to the wording of the preamble, it is clear that the Soviets attach considerable importance to it as providing the reason for imposing less severe conditions upon the Balkan states, particularly Bulgaria. We have maintained that our approach to all of these treaties should in general be the restoration of peace and rehabilitation of the economic life of the countries concerned and that the wording of the treaties should be such that no invidious comparisons can be drawn.
2.
Withdrawal of Allied troops. Provision for withdrawal of all troops except those necessary to maintain communication lines to Austria was agreed in principle last September. Deputies have not been in a position to consider review of this decision in light of US [Page 53] proposal for preparing convention reestablishing Austrian independence until governments have made known their views on the proposal.
3.
Transylvania. See Delsec 362, April 10.76
4.
Information on location of Soviet-Rumanian frontier.
5.
Reparations.
6.
Restitution.
7.
Commercial relations.
8.
Freedom of navigation on the Danube.
9.
Accession to the treaty by States at war with Rumania but not represented at Paris Conference.
10.
Prohibition of “Fascist” organizations. On this point it has been my view that treaty should not contain clause opening way to demands for suppression of any organization which might arbitrarily be labelled “Fascist”.

The positions taken by the various delegations here on these issues have been reported in Delsec telegrams. Our proposal on Transylvania has not been discussed. On other points listed above UK position has been virtually the same as ours but it has been impossible to reconcile our views with those of Soviets and I fear that agreement is not likely before Paris meeting of Foreign Ministers.

Points 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are also still outstanding in discussions on draft treaties for Bulgaria and Hungary. The issues are largely the same for all three treaties, and it is probable that agreement on them for any one treaty would cover the others also.

The question of defining all the frontiers of the three Balkan ex-enemy states in the treaties has also been raised but has been opposed by the Soviets. We have considered it particularly important that the Bulgarian treaty contain such a provision, or at least a provision relating to the present Greek-Bulgarian frontier.

[
Dunn
]
  1. Not printed, but see footnote 74, p. 49.↩

  2. Telegram 3991, not printed; it reported that Dunn had circulated the following clause for inclusion in the draft Rumanian treaty:

    “The decisions of the Vienna award of August 30, 1940 are declared null and void, without prejudice, however, to direct negotiations between the Govts of Rumania and Hungary looking toward an adjustment of the frontier which would substantially reduce the number of persons living under alien rule.” (740.00119 Council/4–1046)

    ↩