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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 3, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 60

The Chairman read a letter from the Hungarian Delegation regarding the amendment proposed by Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia requesting the return of cultural documents and archives.⁸¹ The U.K. Delegate contended that Article 22 provided for the return of these cultural and historical documents and that the amendment in its present form covered too wide a field and might lead to prolonged dispute between the countries concerned. He said he was unable to vote in favor of the Subcommittee’s report⁸² but nevertheless hoped that the Hungarian letter would now be taken into consideration and the matter solved to the satisfaction of the Allies. The Yugoslav Delegate reiterated arguments previously made in support of the return of cultural documents, particularly archives. General Smith (U.S.) said that several delegations had reservations concerning the wording of the proposed amendment and suggested that the Commission adjourn in order to permit the Yugoslav, Czech, French and U.K. Delegations to examine the Hungarian letter and draft an amendment acceptable to all members of the Commission.

After the recess the Czech Delegate indicated the changes agreed on. These proved to be satisfactory to all members of the Commission and the Subcommittee’s report was adopted as well as a new article (after Article 9) which incorporated the new proposals.

The Commission then considered the Czech amendment (1.Q.5) to transfer the Magyar minority. The rapporteur (New Zealand) expressed satisfaction that the report of the Subcommittee had been approved unanimously.⁸³ The Delegate of France was also satisfied and said that he was extremely glad that the Czech Delegation had made an effort to contribute to peaceful relations in Central Europe. Furthermore, he hoped the Hungarian Government would give loyal and effective execution to the proposed bilateral negotiations. The U.K. Delegate also was happy to support the new Czech amendment and said that it was the attitude of His Majesty’s Government that bilateral negotiations were the best solution. General Smith said it was not necessary to restate the American position which all delegations knew was that both countries should solve this problem by bilateral negotiation. The proposed negotiations between the two countries would be watched by the 21 nations here assembled. He stated that he would support the amendment and added that he thought the Czech attitude towards this proposal was a fine piece of statesmanship.⁸⁴ The Yugoslav Delegate said that good relations could now be established between all countries in Central Europe and he expressed gratitude to the Czech Delegation for finding a compromise. M. Masaryk (Czechoslovakia) rose to say that his Delegation was of course disappointed that the Commission could not accept its one political amendment, particularly in view of the democratic attitude shown by his government between 1918 and 1945 (sic). He talked of the scars and wounds of Munich and he regretted that decisions had to be made at a time when elections were impending. He hoped he was not too “naughty” to suggest that the veto power would be ultimately operative in any final consideration. M. Manuilsky (Ukraine) remembered that he had supported the amendment originally, particularly because of the successful exchange of populations between Poland and Byelorussia. Nevertheless he was glad to see that a concession had been made by Czechoslovakia to Hungary. He said that if a similar spirit had pervaded the Conference a great deal more could have been accomplished and this spirit here gave him hope that future negotiations would be carried on in a smiliar way. The new Czech amendment (to be placed after Article 4, as reported by the Subcommittee) was then adopted unanimously. [This amendment provides that the Hungarian Government should negotiate a settlement of the minority problem and lacking such settlement will give the Czech Government the right to bring the matter to the attention of the CFM within 6 months.]⁸⁵

The Commission then discussed the Subcommittee’s report on the Czech territorial amendment (i.e., Bratislava bridgehead), (1.Q.3).⁸⁶ General Smith took the occasion to say that he intended to vote for this amendment but he wished to point out to the Czech Delegation and particularly to M. Masaryk that this intention was not predicated on any impending Congressional election and as M. Masaryk well knew the U.S. foreign policy was a matter of agreement between both political parties in the United States. The Commission then unanimously adopted the Subcommittee’s report which in effect was an amendment to cede 3 communes opposite Bratislava. M. Masaryk gave written assurance to General Smith that international traffic through this bridgehead would be assured and would not be subject to such regulations as visas and customs inspection.

The only remaining article which had not been adopted by the Commission was Article 4. General Smith pointed out that there was an error in the drafting of this article which he was sure M. Gusev (U.S.S.R.) understood.⁸⁷ M. Gusev admitted the error. Article 4 was then adopted unanimously with the reservation that the wording should coincide with the recommendation of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The Chairman announced that the Commission’s work was finished and that the rapporteur would submit his report on Saturday morning.

81. Regarding the amendment, C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.32 b, see footnote 19, p. 528.
82. Regarding the Subcommission report, C.P.(H/P) Doc. 19, see footnote 51, p. 624.
83. The Subcommission report under reference, C.P.(H/P) Doc. 21, is not printed. Regarding the work of the Subcommission and for the text of the new article following article 4 which was adopted by the Commission, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 27, report of the Commission, vol. iv, p. 526.
84. The text of General Smith’s statement was released to the press October 3, 1946.
85. Brackets appear in the source text.
86. For partial text of the Subcommission report under reference, C.P.(H/P) Doc. 18, see footnote 49, p. 622. The Czechoslovakian amendment, C.P.(Gen) Doc.1.Q.3, as revised by the Subcommission, was designated C.P.(H/P) Doc. 20; for text of the latter, article 1, paragraph 4, as approved by the Commission, see the Commission report, C.P.(Plen) Doc. 27, vol. iv, p. 526.

87. The issue under reference was discussed by John C. Campbell in a memorandum of August 6 to Reber, which was as follows:

    “Article 4 of the Draft Treaty with Hungary contains a reference to ‘organizations conducting propaganda hostile to the Soviet Union or any one of the other United Nations’. You will recall that there was considerable controversy over the inclusion of this wording in the Treaty with Rumania, and that we finally agreed to have it appear in that treaty since it merely repeated the wording of the corresponding article of the Rumanian Armistice. The Hungarian Armistice, on the other hand, did not contain the special reference to the Soviet Union, and it was never proposed that such a reference should be included in this article in the Hungarian Peace Treaty. The attached copies of the report drawn up by the Deputies after their London meeting (C.F.M.(D) (B) (46)38 revised), and of the report submitted by the Deputies to the Foreign Ministers on May 9 (C.F.M. (46)92) both contain the text of the article as agreed on by the Deputies in London. This text refers merely to ‘organizations conducting propaganda hostile to the United Nations’. Somewhere in the process of putting together the Draft Treaty for presentation to the Peace Conference the special reference to the Soviet Union seems to have sneaked in. As our representative on the Drafting Committee, you are probably in a position to see that the text is corrected to read in the way it was agreed upon by the Council of Foreign Ministers.”

    Neither document referred to by Campbell by number is printed (CFM Files).