CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 56
The Commission discussed the question addressed to it by the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria concerning the [Page 587] strategic aspects of changes in the Greco-Bulgarian frontier.87 Following attempts by the Polish, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav representatives to have the Commission rule that the question asked was not within its competence, the Commission agreed, on the proposal of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. representatives, to hear the Greek presentation of their case and to attempt to formulate an answer. The Greek Military expert made a technical presentation of the thesis that Greek security required greater depth of Greek territory along the Bulgarian frontier, and that a line north of Mont Belas (just north of the present frontier and east of the Yugoslav frontier) would be the minimum required for Greek defense against invasion from the north.88 At the conclusion of his speech the Greek representative stated that the letter from the political Commission had spoken of “other means” of contributing to Greek security. In so far as this might refer to demilitarization of the frontier, demilitarization would have no real value to Greece and any sense of security resulting from it would be illusory.
The U.K. representative expressed sympathy for Greece’s position and favored the minimum Greek demand for a defense line north of Mont Belas.
The U.S. representative discussed the difference between “strategic security” and local defense and recommended a reply to the Bulgarian Commission to the effect that any increase or decrease of territory would probably improve or weaken the possibilities for local defense, but that strategic security included political, economic and ethnic problems outside the province of the Military Commission.
General Balmer’s proposal was adopted by a vote of 15 to 2, Greece and South Africa voting in the negative and Australia, Belgium, Ethiopia, and New Zealand abstaining.89
The Commission then heard the Bulgarian representative’s observations on the military clauses.90
- For substance of the request, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 22, Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria, October 5, vol. iv, p. 478. The United States Delegation Journal account of the 11th Meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria, September 16, at which the decision to make the request was taken, is printed on p. 463.↩
- The Greek amendment providing for rectification of the Greek-Bulgarian border was contained in C.P.(Bul/P) Doc. 9; for text, see footnote 63, p. 409.↩
- Regarding subsequent action by the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria and for text of the reply adopted here, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 15th Meeting of that Commission, October 1, and footnote 27, p. 610.↩
The Bulgarian representative described Bulgaria as a democratic nation seeking the friendship of her neighbors. He attacked Greek amendments regarding motor torpedo boats (C.P.(Gen.) Doc. 1.J.22), frontier fortifications (C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.J.21), restitution of war material (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.J.23), mine clearance (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.J.24), and an inter-Allied military commission (C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.J.35). In answer to a Soviet question he stated that the August 27 legislation concerning frontier militia was purely an administrative matter and would not modify the number of effectives authorized by the Treaty. (CFM Files: United States Delegation Minutes).
For the United States position on the frontier militia question, see the extract from the United States Delegation Minutes of the 22nd Meeting, September 20, p. 495.
↩