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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 10, 1946, 3:30 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 67

Mr. Bevin, speaking during the general discussion of the treaty with Rumania, said that Great Britain was not opposed to nationalization of industry but was not content to see the interests of the United Nations squeezed out and discriminated against. It would be difficult for Great Britain to accept the treaty unless equal treatment were accorded to all nationals in Rumania. He pointed out that Allied oil interests were still bound by legislation forced on Rumania by Hitler. He said that Rumanian oil was not earning foreign exchange to rehabilitate the oil industry and that consequently production would remain low and the whole economy of Rumania was hurt. He said that the cause of the difficulty was a mistaken price policy and that the Soviet-Rumanian prices were below the cost of production.

Mr. Bevin was glad to note that Stalin had subscribed to the principle that free contact between individuals in different countries was an essential of peace.

With regard to navigation on the Danube Mr. Bevin said that the situation was worse than before the war. Soviet policy in regard to navigation on the Danube gave rise to suspicion as to the objectives of Soviet policy in this part of the world. Modification of the policy would do much to close the division between East and West. Mr. Bevin said Great Britain was willing to adopt the French proposal for a conference on the Danube question to be attended by the riparian states and the interested Allied States. He said that Great Britain stood for freedom of navigation on the Danube and for the organization of an international control body. A control body was necessary now because the river was silting up particularly the Saluna Canal. He asked the Conference to accept Article 34 and oppose restrictions to commerce.

The Belgian Delegate waived his right to speak and said that his Delegation would present its views on the treaty with Rumania in writing under Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure. His Delegation would vote in favor of the treaty with Rumania. He requested that his remarks be recorded in the minutes.

Mr. Molotov asked M. Fouques Duparc to take the Chair while he spoke for the Soviet Delegation. He said that the treaty with Rumania was a matter of great importance for the peace of Europe. Rumania was now a democratic state and it was essential that the question of Transylvania be settled to the satisfaction of the Rumanian people. He said that the speech of Senator Vandenberg had contributed to the present general approach to the discussion of the Rumanian treaty. Senator Vandenberg had centered his speech on the Danube question and upon equality of economic opportunity in Rumania. M. Molotov thought that Mr. Kardelj’s speech had been an excellent reply to the other speeches made during the Conference and earlier on the Danube question. While the US and UK Delegations considered equality of economic opportunity a matter of supreme importance they desired to settle the Danube question by way of dictation to the vanquished countries. They wished to apply the terms imposed on the ex-enemy states to Allies. There was no right to dictate to the latter. At Potsdam President Truman and Mr. Byrnes had widened the scale of discussion by taking up the question of the regime for the Danube, the Rhine and the Black Sea Straits at one time. The previous Danube regime established in 1856 was the expression of imperialism and while Mr. Bevin had said that Great Britain had abandoned the imperialism of the 19th century a regime similar to the previous imperialistic regime was now put forward. It was not possible for the Soviet Union to accept this project. Why was there such concentration on nondiscrimination for the Danube when there were other important waterways, specifically, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal? In judging this matter it should be noted that some countries had suffered very heavily during the war whereas others had not. M. Molotov cited a figure of 679 billion rubles which he represented as the cost of the damage done in Russia. On the other hand, he quoted figures from the World Almanac of 1946 showing the increase in the national income of the US from $96 billion in 1941 to $160 billion in 1944. He thought that if one judged by these figures the US had been enriched by the war and therefore had no right to claim large amounts in reparations. He said that if American and British capital had free reign in countries which had suffered heavily during the war such as Rumania and Yugoslavia that their few remaining assets could be readily purchased with dollars or with sterling. The countries which were weak economically would be ruled by private capital in England and America. Here M. Molotov referred to Senator Thomas’ expression “dollar democracy”. He also referred to the statement of the US Delegate to the Social and Economic Council where it had been said that the US would not release the 800 ships which it held on the Danube until the US demands were accepted. M. Molotov said that this method of pressure and threat should not be used against small countries. He concluded by saying that the Conference should make sure that there were no Fascist countries in Europe or attempts to take advantage of postwar difficulties to further the interests of powerful states in weakened states and that the question of the Danube must not be settled in a hurry.³⁹

39. For text of Molotov’s statement, see V. M. Molotov, Problems of Foreign Policy, Speeches and Statements, April 1945–Novemoer 1948 (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1949), p. 207.