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

CFM Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Cavendish W. Cannon of the United States Delegation

Paris, October 7, 1946.

Participants:	The Secretary
	A Greek Delegation (see below)
	Mr. Cannon

Following the Secretary’s conversation with Mr. Tsaldaris the Greek Prime Minister yesterday,⁵ the Secretary this morning received the Delegation of “opposition” leaders who arrived with Mr. Tsaldaris from Athens three days ago.

The Delegation consisted of the following Greek political personalities:

• Three former Prime Ministers:
  • Mr. G. Papandreou (Social Democrat)
  • Mr. S. Venizelos (Liberal)
  • Mr. P. Canellopoulos (Unionist)
• Representatives of Mr. Sophoulis (Liberals)
  • Mr. Rendis
  • Mr. G. Varviotis
• General Zervas, Unionist
• Mr. G. Michalopoules, Interpreter.

Mr. Papandreou acted as spokesman for the group. He began with a rather long account of Greek-American friendship, gratitude for the Secretary’s efforts on behalf of Greece thus far, and Greek aspirations in the peace settlement. He then spoke of the three aspects of the Greek problem, which he termed national, political, and economic.

All Greece, he said, was united in the expectation that the Greek people would be rewarded for their valiant services in the war by satisfaction of their territorial claims against Albania and Bulgaria. He said that failure to achieve these ends would have the direst consequences for the Greek nation. The foregoing covers what Mr. Papandreou meant by the “national” claims. In the “political” category he spoke particularly of the alignment of Greece with Great Britain and the United States in all questions of foreign policy and said that it would be very important for the Greeks to know if there should be any change in American policy, particularly as regards our relations with the Soviet Union, since Greece was wholeheartedly committed to our present policy and “must not be abandoned”. Under the “economic” heading he spoke first of the reparation claims against Italy and Bulgaria, and then of the tremendous needs of the country for reconstruction, giving an impassioned account of the country’s present state of economic ruin.

The secretary replied to Mr. Papandreou’s three main topics. He spoke firmly but with great patience since it was clear that these Greek gentlemen had taken no account of the political realities of the international situation, or the developments in the several weeks since the present Conference convened. On the question of Albania he explained the situation under the Potsdam Protocol and repeated his assurance given to Mr. Tsaldaris that when the matter came before the Council of Foreign Ministers as a proper and normal item of business he would do his best to have the topics kept before the Council for discussion. As regards the claims against Bulgaria the Secretary-spoke of the attitude of the Soviet bloc as regards territorial changes in the Greek-Bulgarian frontier region, and went into considerable detail on the matter of general collective security as being the fundamental assurance for Greece as far more realistic than any transfer of territory, which with modern methods of warfare would not constitute a genuine security factor. He also made reference to Greece’s inability to take care of her own security, in the lack of a modern air-force, or of the means for large scale military expenditures; and mentioned the provision for demilitarization of the Bulgarian side of the frontier as a factor to the advantage of Greece. He spoke with particular emphasis of the determination of the United States to support in every way the work of the United Nations, to which small countries should look for their security. He said that we are all trying here to work out treaty texts with the best possible provisions having in mind that no power is obliged to sign the treaties and consequently we can hardly insist on provisions which we know in advance would never be accepted by some of the important governments concerned.

Discussing Mr. Papandreou’s “political” argument the Secretary said that he personally had given more attention to Greek affairs at the present Conference than to any other topic before the Conference unless it be the question of Trieste; and that he had had many long talks both with members of the Greek Delegation and with Mr. Bevin concerning the situation in Greece. He said that there could be no doubt of the depth of our friendship and our enduring interest in Greek affairs, and that every effort had been made here and in the meetings of the United Nations at New York to show our support of Greece.

With reference to the “economic” argument the Secretary spoke first of the help rendered by the American people to Greece under the UNRRA program. (This was with particular reference to a remark Mr. Papandreou had made concerning American aid to Italy, which seemed to require some clarification of the direct or indirect aid given by the United States to European countries.) The Secretary then mentioned the fact that he had telegraphed to Washington two weeks ago to urge energetic action for supplying surplus property to Greece, that he had in mind particularly ships, road machinery, railway equipment, even though some of the goods which he hoped could be made available to Greece might have to be taken away from other countries for whom it had already been earmarked. On the matter of reparations he said that no nation could hope to have its war damages covered by post-war settlements, since in modern warfare the battlefields are cities and industries. He then set forth the plan under which the Soviet Government would receive reparations from Italy and explained the theory under which the furnishing of raw materials by the claimant country enters into the reparation account (see detailed discussion of this topic in the Secretary’s earlier conversation with Mr. Tsaldaris). He warned the group that it would not be to Greece’s advantage to work for increases in reparations by appealing to the Council of Foreign Ministers in the final stages of the treaty preparation, since they could take it for certain that the Council would not be in a position to revise these schedules.

He then spoke of American interest in a program for general reconstruction in Greece, and explained the functions of the International Bank in this connection. He said that it had occurred to him that a good way to approach this problem would be to have three experts sent into Greece to make a technical survey, and observed that he had made this suggestion to Mr. Tsaldaris who, he thought, would send to him a letter bearing on this matter.

Although this interview had lasted nearly an hour and a half the Secretary took time at the end to make some general observations on the difficulties of the Conference and gave various examples which would be helpful to this new group, unfamiliar as they are with the difficulties here, in deciding in what way they can be really helpful to their Delegation and to the general reestablishment of normal relations with the former enemy states.

5. No Record of the Byrnes–Tsaldaris conversation of October 6 found in Department files. For an account based on Greek sources, see Stephen G. Xydis, Greece and the Great Powers, 1944–1947 (Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1963), p. 378.