CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 58
After approving the Record of decisions of its 14th meeting, the Commission took up consideration of the conclusions of the Military Commission on the question referred to it with respect to the Greco-Bulgarian frontier (CP (Bul/P) Doc 12).27
M. Diamantopoulos (Greece) stated that the reply of the Military Commission evaded the issues presented and asked that the Commission continue discussion of the frontier change proposed by the Greek Delegation and arrive at a means of ensuring the security of the Greek frontier.
M. Novikov (U.S.S.R.) stated that the Commission had received the reply that was to be expected and that, despite Greek dissatisfaction, the Commission should pass to the vote and defeat the Greek amendment.28 He said he was authorized by his Government to say that the territorial change sought by Greece can not take place.
Mr. Caffery (U.S.) stated that the U.S. Delegation was frankly not surprised that the Military Commission was unable to take a decision on a matter in which political and other factors were involved, but stressed American conviction of paramount importance that Allied nations [Page 611] should provide the needed security for Greece’s frontier. The U.S. Delegation had not been impressed by statements regarding “democratic conditions” in Bulgaria; it had, in fact, grave doubts in this respect and all the evidence pointed to the contrary. Believing that demilitarization on the Bulgarian side of the frontier would be desirable until conditions of general security could be established, he was unconvinced that territorial change would contribute to the required security and believed that Article 1 should stand.29
The Yugoslav Delegate associated himself with the statement of M. Novikov.
The British Delegate regretted it was impossible to give ratification [satisfaction] to Greece, and made a statement regarding gallant Greece’s title to frontier security.
The Greek amendment was rejected by 8 votes to 2 (Greece, South Africa), with 3 abstentions (U.K., New Zealand, India).
M. Diamantopoulos saying that he did not believe the question of Greek security should be disposed of summarily, especially since Greek fears with respect to Bulgaria were unallayed proposed that a note be attached to Article 1 to the effect that the frontier therein established would be subject to the “exception of such modification as might be determined by the Council of Ministers.[”] After some discussion as to the precise nature of the Greek proposal, the Chair stated that it would be included in the Record of the meeting.
The Yugoslav representative moved to vote on Article 1 as it stands, stating his Delegation’s confidence that the CFM will give full study to the Bulgarian proposal that the Greco-Bulgarian frontier be as established by the treaty of Bucharest.
Mr. Caffery (U.S.) said that before proceeding to the vote he wished to note that the map before the Commission as Annex 1 to Article 1, while satisfactory for general purposes, was not sufficiently detailed for formal inclusion with the treaty, and asked that his indication for the need of a more detailed map be included in the Record.30
Article 1 of the treaty was then adopted by 10 votes to 1 (Greece), with 2 abstentions (India, South Africa).
After considerable further discussion of the map, it was accepted with the understanding that a more detailed map would be provided later for submission to the CFM with the treaty. The vote of adoption was 9 for, and 2 against (Greece, Australia), with 2 abstentions (India, South Africa). (Mr. Caffery’s affirmative vote was accompanied by the proviso that a more detailed map be provided later.)
[Page 612]The British representative stated that the report of the Rapporteur could now be completed by inclusion of today’s proceedings, would be distributed tomorrow, and could be placed before the Commission for adoption on Thursday evening, October 3. The Chairman announced that the Commission would meet at 9:00 p.m. on that date to consider the report.
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
The Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria had, at its 11th Meeting, September 16, decided to request the opinion of the Military Commission; the latter agreed upon a reply at its 29th Meeting, September 28. For the United States Delegation Journal account of these meetings, see pp. 463 and 586, respectively. C.P.(Bul/P) Doc. 12, the reply from General Mossor, the Chairman of the Military Commission, stated the following:
↩“In reply to the letter of the 17th September of the Chairman of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria, the Military Commission considers that any extension or any diminution of territory will probably strengthen or weaken the possibilities of local defense; but that strategical security, in the form in which it is mentioned in the annex of the letter, would cover political, economic and ethnical problems, which are not within the purview of this Commission.”
- For text of the amendment under reference, C.P.(Bul/P) Doc. 9, see footnote 63, p. 409.)↩
- Text of Caffery’s statement was released to the press, October 1, 1946.↩
- The map before the Commission was that which accompanied the Russian text of the Draft Peace Treaty; no maps accompanied the English and French texts.↩