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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 1, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 58

The Commission examined the Subcommittee’s report on the bridgehead (Czechoslovak amendment 1.Q.3) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.Q.3].⁴⁹ The Chairman read a letter from the Hungarian Delegation suggesting certain reservations in the event the Commission should decide to cede the bridgehead to Czechoslovakia, including freedom of transit on the Vienna-Budapest road, rights for the Magyar population of the area and demilitarization. The U.K. Delegate stated the question of the bridgehead and the expulsion of the minority should be discussed together. He still hoped the whole problem could be solved by bilateral negotiation and therefore discussion of the bridgehead should be postponed until the Commission had the report of the Subcommittee on the Czech amendment to expel 200,000 Hungarians. He would abstain if the bridgehead amendment were now brought to a vote. The U.S. Delegate also hoped the two questions would be considered together and preferred that no vote be taken on the bridgehead but the U.S.S.R. and Czech Delegates believed it was better to settle the problem at once. The U.S. Delegate replied he had just seen the report and moreover no satisfactory answers had yet been made to the Hungarian observations. If the question came to a vote at this time he would be forced to vote against the amendment. M. Masaryk (Czechoslovakia) said he realized only the members of the Subcommittee had had the opportunity to study the question closely. He was willing to have the matter held over to the next meeting. After several delegations spoke in favor of continuing the discussion of the Subcommittee’s report the Commission adjourned for a half an hour while certain changes were made in the Subcommittee’s recommendations concerning the proposed frontier of the bridgehead.

After the recess, the Subcommittee’s rapporteur (New Zealand) read a revised text describing the boundary.⁵⁰ The Czech Delegate made a statement to the effect that if no bilateral agreement was made between the two countries regarding the cession of territory, Czechoslovakia would grant full civil rights to the Hungarians remaining in the territory or permit them to opt for Hungary with similar privileges as provided for in the recent exchange of populations agreement. M. Masaryk also gave certain assurances concerning water rights and freedom of frontier transit through the ceded territory.

The New Zealand Delegate suggested that the Commission should at least either approve or reject the Subcommittee’s report. General Smith (U.S.) pointed out that a vote on the report was equivalent to a vote on the amendment and restated the U.S. position. The Commission then agreed to adjourn the vote until the next meeting. The U.S. Delegate stated that he was satisfied with the Subcommittee’s report as now amended. However, the U.S. position that the bridgehead question was an integral part of the whole settlement of the population problem between the two countries was well known. He preferred that the Commission wait until after receiving the Subcommittee’s report on the transfer of populations. If the bridgehead problem came to a vote now, it would be necessary for the U.S. to abstain. He moved that the Commission postpone a decision. The U.K. Delegate supported the U.S. motion. The Chairman said if the vote should be posponed it did not necessarily mean that the two amendments were to be linked later. The U.S.S.R. and Czech Delegations agreed that a vote need not be taken until the next meeting at which time a definite amendment could be prepared based on the Subcommittee’s recommendations.

After hearing a report by the rapporteur (India) of the Subcommittee to draft a new article for the return of cultural objects and documents, the Commission adjourned without discussion of the substance.⁵¹

49. Regarding the work of the Subcommission, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 27, report of the Commission, vol. iv, p. 526. The Subcommission’s Report, C.P.(H/P) Doc. 18, recommended: “That the Chechoslovakian claim for frontier rectification in the Bratislava region south of the Danube as defined on the west by the present Hungarian-Austrian frontier as far as a point roughly 500 metres south of hill 134 (3, 5. km N.W. of the church at Rajka, thence approximately by a line running slightly south of East therefrom to a point on the right bank of the Danube roughly 200 metres N.E. of Hill 128 (3.5. km east of the church of Rajka), be accepted as justified, on condition that the population of the ceded area

    receive full human rights inside the Czechoslovak Republic

    or

    are voluntarily transferred to Hungary

    or

    come under the terms of any bilateral agreement on the subject existing or to be made in the future between the Government of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.”

50. The revised text provided that a dam and a spillway would remain in Hungarian territory (CFM Files: United States Delegation Minutes).
51. The report of the Subcommission, C.P.(H/P) Doc. 19, is not printed; regarding the work of the Subcommission and for text of the new article ultimately adopted by the Commission, see report of the Commission, C.P.(Plen) Doc. 27, vol. iv, p. 526.