CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 39
The Commission continued its discussion of Article 1 on the Greek-Bulgarian frontier. Mr. Caffery (U.S.) stated that the U.S. Delegation, although feeling that the text of Article 1 represented the best basis for general peace and security and for friendly relations between Greece and Bulgaria, had wished that every opportunity be given for full discussion of both claims. The U.S. Delegation had not been impressed by the arguments advanced in favor of the Bulgarian claim and did not think that such a claim, after Bulgaria’s invasion and occupation of Western Thrace, should even have been advanced. Mr. Caffery praised Greece’s contribution to the Allied cause in the war and recognized fully the stupendous problems facing Greece in repairing the devastation caused by the war. The United States understood the desire of the Greeks for security and had considered with full sympathy the Greek claim to a rectification of the frontier. The strategic consideration upon which the claim was based might require further study and the obtaining of the expert opinion of military advisers. This study might enable the Commission to consider whether some variation of the Greek proposal which would not entail the acquisition by Greece of an important new ethnic element, for example, some arrangement for demilitarization of the Bulgarian side of the frontier, might not meet Greece’s security requirements.77
The Delegate of the Ukraine stated that Bulgaria’s claim to Western Thrace was just since this territory had always been linked with Bulgaria and since the whole economic life of Bulgaria had been threatened as a result of being cut off from the Aegean Sea. The Ukrainian Delegation believed that the acceptance of the Greek claim would be a great blow to Bulgaria and would result in no advantages to Greece. Peace could not be assured by the perpetration of another historical [Page 423] injustice in addition to the one which was inflicted upon Bulgaria in 1919. The basis of the Greek claim was in fact not to assure peace but to prepare for war.
The Delegate of Australia was not convinced that even a prima facie case had been made in support of the Bulgarian claim. He saw no good ethnic or economic reason to support it. Bulgaria’s need for an economic outlet to the Aegean Sea was an entirely different question from the question of direct territorial access to the sea. The Australian Delegation believed that the Commission should give careful consideration to the Greek claim although it was not quite clear just what territory Greece was demanding. The Greek proposal to send the question to the Military Commission for a report on technical military aspects seemed justified. On the other hand, these were not the only aspects on which the Commission’s decision must be based, and the Australian Delegation therefore suggested that a subcommission might be set up to report on the economic and population factors involved.
The Delegate of France said that he could not support the Bulgarian claims to Western Thrace. The decisive reason against it being the fact that it would be unreasonable and unprecedented for an ex-enemy state to acquire territory at the peace settlement from an Allied state. As to the Greek claim the French Delegation had serious reservations and felt that the satisfaction of the claim would not benefit Greece but would contribute to bad relations between Greece and Bulgaria.
M. Vlahov (Yugoslavia) then shifted the discussion to Greek-Yugoslav relations, pointing out that Greek Government circles had designs on Yugoslav as well as on Bulgarian and Albanian territory. He accused the Greek Government of pursuing a policy of extermination of the Slav element in Greek Macedonia and of planning to seize other parts of Macedonia now beyond the frontier of Greece.
Mr. Warner (U.K.) asked the Chairman to restrict the discussion to Article 1 and also asked for a ruling on how matters stood with respect to the Bulgarian claim. It was his understanding that no one had sponsored it. The Chairman replied that the Commission would at the next meeting wind up the general debate on Article 1 and would proceed to vote on the amendments and other proposals before it.
-
In connection with Caffery’s statement, see telegram 4642 (Delsec 951), September 16, from Paris, vol. iv, p. 865. That telegram was in response to telegram 731, September 13, from Sofia, ibid., p. 859, reporting on the reaction in Bulgaria to Caffery’s statement. The full text of the statement was released as USD(PC)(PR)–21, September 11.
In telegram War 99285, September 4, to Bonesteel, the War Department had urged support for the Greek request for demilitarization of the Bulgarian side of the frontier. The telegram included the following:
“As to demilitarization of the Bulgar side of the Greek-Bulgar frontier, from the narrow military point of view there appears to be no strong arguments for it. The nature of modern war is such that demilitarization of narrow terrain strips is not likely to be an important element. However, from the broader political-military standpoint, support for Greece is considered valuable in the interests of US security.” (CFM Files)
For other documentation on the United States position regarding the Greek-Bulgarian frontier question, see vol. vii, pp. 88—288, passim.
↩