CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 37
The Delegate of the Union of South Africa61 characterized the Bulgarian claim to Western Thrace as outrageous and expressed surprise that it had received support in the Commission. He said that South Africa would not take part in any action which would place a premium on aggression. He was sympathetic toward the Greek claim, but before stating any final view on it wished to wait until the Greek proposal was properly formulated and information was available concerning the minority problem which might result. Mr. Warner (U.K.) also expressed surprise that Bulgaria should have made a claim to Greek territory and that some delegations had supported that claim. He characterized it as wholly unjustified on either ethnic or economic grounds. He understood that no delegation had actually sponsored the Bulgarian amendment as such and accordingly hoped that it could be disposed of without further discussion. Mr. Warner believed that the Greek claim deserved consideration because of Greece’s Record in the war and special need for security at the present time. Since the Greek claim was based on strategic considerations, the U.K. Delegation wished to have a military opinion before expressing its views on that aspect. With reference to the statement of the Yugoslav Delegate concerning a claim to territory in Greek Macedonia, the U.K. Delegation hoped that no claim would be put forward by one Allied state against another.62
M. Bondar (Byelo-Russia) stated the view of his Delegation that the award of Western Thrace to Bulgaria would correct an historic injustice. He reviewed the history of this territory characterizing it [Page 409] as having been, until its incorporation into Greece and the consequent reign of terror brought about by the Greeks, Bulgarian in population and in its economic ties. He expressed the certainty that the Commission would consider Bulgaria’s case favorably. M. Bondar characterized the Greek claims as absolutely unfounded and illustrative of the aggressive character of the Greek Government. M. Pipinelis (Greece) replied to the statements made by the Soviet Delegation at the previous meeting. He expressed astonishment that a great Allied power had backed the unjustified claims of Bulgaria against an Allied state. He also expressed surprise and bitterness that the Yugoslav Delegation had added a new demand for Greek Macedonia. M. Pipinelis dealt in detail with the various points made in the statement of M. Novikov, stressing particularly the argument that Bulgaria did not need an economic, much less a territorial outlet to the Aegean. In defense of the Greek claim he pointed out that the present Greek frontiers had been established in 1923 after Greece had lost the war. Greece had accepted its frontiers but now demanded the right to a better frontier in the north because of the recent Bulgarian aggression. M. Pipinelis put forward the Greek amendment describing the proposed new frontier line in rather general terms (CP(Bul/P)Doc 9).63 He said that, if this proposal were accepted in principle by the Commission, he would propose then that the Commission request the Military Commission to examine the strategic advantages for the defense of the northern Greek provinces which would be brought about by a rectification of the present frontier within the limits of the Greek amendment. The Military Commission should also be asked to recommend to the Political Commission for Bulgaria any modification as an alternative to the existing frontier which would afford to Greece the necessary measure of security. M. Nosek (Czechoslovakia) then said that his Delegation could not regard favorably the Greek claim to Bulgarian territory as a guarantee of protection. This claim, based on strategic considerations, touched upon the important question of the nature of international relations in the future. These relations must be based on confidence. The Czechoslovak Delegation believed that Bulgaria, which had now entered upon the democratic path, should not be suspected of aggression in the future and that territorial demands should not be made on those grounds.
- Jan Ruiter Jordaan.↩
- The reference is presumably to remarks by Mosa Pijade of the Yugoslav delegation at the 7th Meeting of this Commission, September 6; for the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, see p. 380.↩
C.P.(Bul/P) Doc. 9 proposed that article 1 be revised to read as follows:
↩“The frontiers of Bulgaria, as shown on the map annexed to the present Treaty (Annex 1), shall be those which existed on January 1, 1941, with the exception of the frontier between Bulgaria and Greece, which shall follow the line:
- a)
- Pirim Planina,
- b)
- Mt. Rhodope (Dospat Dagh)
- c)
- Karlek Balkan
- d)
- Chain of Besh Tepe with the Arda Valley.”