CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

USDel (PC) (Journal) 40

Three prepared statements were delivered by the Italian Representatives: the first by General Trezzani (Doc. 4(A)), the second for [Page 441] Admiral De Courten (Doc. 5(a)) and the third by General Ajmone-Cat (Doc. 6(A)),88 The general tenor of the three statements was to the effect that Articles 40 through 44 were too strict and that a time limit should be included in Article 39; that the Italian Fleet should not be treated as war booty and that reserve aircraft should be allowed to the Italian Air Force.

The U.S. Delegation asked what governmental reorganization would be required to permit Italy to man the navy permitted to her and what the size of the personnel for manning shore stations should be. The Italian Representative replied that in regard to the personnel for manning the fleet, 14,000 officers and men, and that 18,000 would be needed to man the shore stations.

The New Zealand Delegation had a question regarding the provision included in Article 46 prohibiting the employment of former officers and non-commissioned officers of the Fascist republican army in positions of trust in the new Italian armed forces; had any action been already taken to effectuate this provision and, if not, what did the Italians propose to do to effectuate it. The Italian Representative replied that the first act of Marshal Badoglio after the Armistice had been to close down on Fascist organizations; there were now no more Fascist officers in any of the armed forces. The South African Delegate asked what percentage was indicated in the Italian memorandum where it referred to a reserve quota of armaments in Article 52. The Italian Representative replied between 20 and 30% for arms and war material but for the air force the reserve consisting of aircraft only, should be 14% [40%]. The U.K. Delegate asked if the Italian recognized that the Allied Powers had given full consideration to the post-Armistice services of the Italian navy when they allowed Italy to maintain a permanent navy whereas other ex-enemy states had been deprived of navies completely. The Italian Representative replied that the main objection of Italy with regard to Article 48 was that it treated the Italian navy as war booty. Such a concept was not in accord with the actions of the Italian fleet after the Armistice. The Italian objection to Article 47 was that it left a minimum of homogeneity and organization to the Italian fleet and that the spirit of concession to Italy was very much diminished by it. There were no more questions and the Italian Delegation was shown out.

On a motion by Admiral Conolly to satisfy General Pika (Czechoslovakia) the time limit for tabling amendments to the Balkan treaties was extended to midnight September 14.

[Page 442]

General Catroux (France) offered a corrected French text for the last sentence of Article 15 of the draft peace treaty with Rumania. This correction was adopted for all the Balkan treaties and the Finnish treaty.89

Article 15 was adopted unanimously.

The Australian amendment to Article 16 [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.B.21], similar to the ones proposed for Articles 48 and 58 of the Italian treaty which were defeated [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.B.8], was considered to have been rejected and the Polish amendment to Article 16 [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.0.6] was withdrawn because a Polish amendment to Article 24 of the economic clauses had been already adopted [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.0.8]. General Balmer issued a statement for the three drafting powers regarding disposal of excess war materials. The text was exactly similar to the declaration made by General Catroux during the discussion of the Italian treaty.90

Articles 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were adopted without discussion or amendment.

General Balmer said that the U.S. Delegation withdrew its reservation regarding war graves.91

Annexes 2 and 3 were adopted.

The Chairman then proposed to invite the Rumanian Representatives to be heard according to the same procedure which had been followed in hearing the Italian Delegation. General Pika delivered a half-hour speech emphasizing the contributions of the Rumanians to the Allied victories in comparison to the smaller contributions of Italy which had much greater resources in manpower. Mr. Alexander suggested that it was not appropriate for a delegate to seize this occasion to make a propaganda speech and hoped that General Pika would not repeat his declaration when he introduced his amendments to Articles 15 and 16. Mr. Alexander also maintained that the Italians had made contributions to Allied victory which compared very favorably with anything that Rumania had done.

The next meeting will be held September 12, 10:00 a.m.

The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.

  1. None printed. The document symbols are Italian designations.
  2. The French wording accepted here appears in C.P. (Plen) Doc. 18, Report of the Military Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, p. 476.
  3. For earlier discussion on the question with respect to the Italian treaty, including the text of the statement by Admiral Catroux, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 10th Meeting, September 4, p. 360.
  4. The United States reservation follows article 20 in the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, p. 68.