Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 9, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 37

After adopting the Record of the 8th meeting and hearing a letter from the Chairman of the Rumanian Commission regarding the desire of the Rumanian Delegation to make certain observations regarding the frontier with Hungary, the Commission continued discussion of the Czechoslovak amendment to paragraph 4 of Article 1, the territorial claim opposite Bratislava [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.Q.3]. General Smith (U.S.A.) stated that the U.S. Delegation felt the Czechoslovak proposal deserved some sympathetic consideration, although a reduction in the size of the territory might help to meet the economic and ethnic objections raised by the Hungarian Delegation.⁶⁴ However, the proposal involved the transfer of Magyars to Czechoslovakia at a time when that country was proposing to transfer Magyars to Hungary. Therefore, the two Czechoslovak amendments were a part of the larger and unsettled problem between the two countries and should be examined simultaneously. Although sympathizing with a desire of the Czechoslovak Government to establish a homogeneous state, the transfer of the minority would place an additional economic burden on Hungary aside from the humanitarian considerations involved. Moreover, the U.S. Delegation felt very strongly there should not be inserted in a peace treaty the principle of a forced transfer of populations. Such a transfer should be made dependent on the acquiescence and ability of the receiving country to absorb the minority in question. General Smith believed it would be possible, however, to effect an arrangement whereby a limited number of Magyars could be transferred to Hungarian soil and suggested that the Commission (1) consider at the next meeting the Czechoslovak amendment concerning the transfer of population [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.Q.5], (2) invite the Hungarian Delegation to express its views orally after the Czechoslovak presentation and (3) invite the Czechoslovak and Hungarian Delegations to meet together to endeavor to work out urgently a mutually satisfactory arrangement which would take into account both the boundary and population questions. General Smith concluded by hoping that the Commission would defer a formal decision on both the Czechoslovak amendments until an opportunity had been afforded the two governments concerned to place before the Commission a joint recommendation.

Mr. Stirling (Australia) recalled that in the last meeting a motion had been made to set up a subcommittee. He felt such a committee should not only study the facts involved but serve as liaison with the Hungarian and Czechoslovak Delegations. The subcommittee might also settle other matters which might arise subsequently between the two countries. M. Clementis (Czechoslovakia) did not oppose the setting up of a subcommittee and supported the Australian proposal. He said he intended to reply to the U.S. statement at a later date.

The New Zealand and U.K. Delegations also supported the proposal to form a subcommittee while adjuring discussion of the U.S. statement as did M. Novikov (U.S.S.R.), who specifically stated that the transfer of population should not be linked with the territorial claim. When the Commission had taken up Article 4 it could then consider the Czechoslovak amendment to expel the Magyars [C.P.(Gen)1.Q.5] and could also hear the Hungarian point of view. The Chairman then suggested that discussion should continue on paragraph 4 of Article 1.

M. Slavik (Czechoslovakia) then rebutted the Hungarian statements made in the previous Commission meeting, pointing out that a small territorial adjustment had no connection with the Atlantic Charter. Bratislava had actually expanded across the river until 1938 when the territory was occupied by the Germans. No expansion had occurred since then because the Czechs had felt themselves menaced on the right bank of the Danube. He stated that the Czechs were not influenced by strategic considerations whatsoever and concluded by stating that he had no objection to the formation of a subcommittee but could not agree that a question of “town planning” should be connected with the transfer of a minority. Consequently there should be an independent decision on the bridgehead.

General Smith (U.S.) stated that he would not oppose the formation of a subcommittee. He preferred, however, that the subcommittee should consider also, if it seemed desirable, the question of the minority. It did not seem right to inflict more penalties on Hungary, and it was best in his view that the two countries negotiate and settle such problems between themselves. The terms of reference of the subcommittee should be broad and it should decide whether or not an on-the-spot investigation was necessary. The Czechoslovak Delegation, supported by the U.K. and U.S.S.R., proposed that the subcommittee’s terms of reference include only investigation of paragraph 4, i.e., that part of the frontier which concerns the bridgehead, but including both Czechoslovak amendments to that paragraph. The Australian proposal to form a subcommittee was then adopted unanimously with the understanding that it should examine all pertinent documents and maintain close connection with the Czechoslovak and Hungarian Delegations. The U.K. reserved the right to expand the terms of reference of the subcommittee.

General Smith (U.S.) nominated Australia, New Zealand and the Ukraine to be members of the subcommittee. The Ukraine proposed that Czechoslovakia also be a member of the subcommittee. The U.S. Delegate pointed out that the Czechs would probably be embarrassed to sit on a subcommittee in which they were the most interested party.

M. Clementis (Czechoslovakia) then stated that his Delegation must be present at all deliberations and proposed extending the subcommittee to five members. France then proposed that Czechoslovakia and Canada be elected members of the subcommittee. General Smith (U.S.) said that in his original nomination he was influenced by his understanding that the Czechoslovak Delegation had always wished to retain complete impartiality in discussions of certain articles of the Treaty in which it was closely concerned. He pointed out that for that very reason the Czechoslovak Delegation had resigned its position on the Commission as rapporteur. Of course, Czechoslovakia had the right to attend the meetings of the subcommittee as did anyone.

There being no further objections, the Chairman announced that a subcommittee would be formed to include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ukraine and Czechoslovakia.

64. A memorandum by Mr. Merrill to Ambassador Smith and Messrs. Matthews, Reber, and Bonbright, August 5, included the following: “The Czechoslovak claims for expansion of ‘the bridgehead’ on the southern bank of the Danube opposite Bratislava appears to be justified on economic grounds and we might well consent to the inclusion of this small territorial adjustment in the Hungarian treaty, particularly providing it could contribute to a general solution of the Magyar minority problem. As indicated by Mr. Reber’s conversation with Masaryk August 4 [3], an exchange of territory would now seem more possible. The Czech claim on ethnic and strategic grounds does not appear reasonable, but the need for improved dock and warehouse facilities connected with the growth of the river port seems justified in view of the greatly increased tonnage handled by the port in recent years. The southern bank of the Danube appears to be the only direction this expansion could take.” (CFM Files)

    Reber’s memorandum of the August 3 conversation is printed on p. 122.