CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 68
The afternoon meeting, with Secretary Byrnes in the Chair, opened with Mr. Caffery’s (US) discussion of the important respects in which the Bulgarian Treaty differs from the Rumanian and Hungarian. There was no arrangement made for the payment of reparations by Bulgaria in the Armistice. Consequently, it will be necessary for the Conference to reach a conclusion on the subject. The United States supports the recommendations of the Economic Commission, namely $125 million to be divided equally between Greece and Yugoslavia. A second major task of the Conference has been, Mr. Caffery added, to provide for the particular security requirements of Greece which has suffered three times in a generation from Bulgarian aggression. One important measure to this end, supported by the United States, would prohibit the construction of certain permanent fortifications along the Bulgarian frontier with Greece. This would assure that there would be no threat to the long and exposed communications route east of Salonika. The United States, in this connection, takes note of a recent Bulgarian law establishing a frontier militia, and has placed on record its position that this militia would be illegal under the treaty unless it is counted in as part of the total strength permitted. Lastly, there is the Greek request for a rectification of Greece’s frontier with Bulgaria, which has been studied by the United States long and earnestly because the United States recognizes its importance to the future security of Greece. However, Mr. Caffery said, the United States believes that the firm security for Greece lies rather in the powers of the United Nations and its measures for international security. The United States can be counted on to act through the United Nations if Greece’s security should be endangered by an aggressor.44
M. Vyshinsky (USSR) prefaced his specific remarks with a general discussion in which, among other things, he called attention to the reserved attitude toward Bulgaria presently evinced by the United States and the United Kingdom. This appears to put Bulgaria in a position less favorable than that of any of the other ex-enemy countries with whom peace treaties are being concluded. M. Vyshinsky then touched on the following points in the Bulgarian Treaty: 1) He termed as unjustified the proposed demilitarization of the Bulgarian frontier with Greece; 2) he trusted that the Conference would also [Page 795] reject the Greek claim on Bulgarian Territory, and described even the earlier annexation by Greece of Western Thrace with Kavalla as a mistake; 3) he took exception to the proposed prohibition of torpedo boats for the Bulgarian Navy; and 4) while recognizing the damage inflicted by Bulgaria and her obligation to pay, he felt that the Greek claims for reparations were excessive and hoped that the whole question would be referred to the CFM for further study and decision.
Mr. Alexander (UK) took the rostrum to answer M. Vyshinksy, pointing out in opening that Bulgaria has twice in the past thirty years been an enemy state and that the bulk of the Bulgarian effort in this war was directed against Greece. He then commented on Greece’s territorial claims against Bulgaria which he did not think had received sufficient consideration. However, recognizing that these claims will probably not be met, he felt that the demilitarization of the Bulgarian frontier was indispensable. This was no more than France and Yugoslavia had asked and received in respect of their frontiers with Italy, and in fact put no particular burden on Bulgaria since she has never fortified the frontier in the past. In regard to the prohibition of torpedo boats for the Bulgarian navy, Mr. Alexander felt that this was a perfectly logical extension of the decision already taken to prohibit such boats in the Italian navy since they were of an offensive character. Already the Bulgarian navy has been permitted to grow to a strength six times its pre-war level, and should torpedo boats be permitted, a sizable part of the navy could be constituted of these offensive weapons. Although the $125 million figure for reparations to Greece and Yugoslavia was low in Mr. Alexander’s opinion, in view of the losses inflicted on those countries by Bulgaria, he felt that it had the virtue of not placing too heavy a burden on Bulgaria and of giving certain badly needed assistance to the two recipients.
Dr. Sokaninova (Czechoslovakia) explained the Czechoslovak attitude on the Bulgarian Treaty in general. Ex-enemies are judged, she said, on the basis of their contribution to the war effort and their progress since the war toward the establishment of truly democratic institutions. Bulgaria appears favorably in this light, having contributed substantially to the fight against Germany and being well on the path to democracy.
M. Kisselev (Byelo-russia) reviewed Bulgaria’s part in the war including casualties numbering 32,000 and material losses amounting to $290 million. He also spoke favorably of the establishment of the republic and the new constitution, and the elimination of Fascist elements within the country. M. Kisselev did take exception to the proposal that Bulgaria pay $125 million in reparations to Greece and Yugoslavia; he felt that the sum requested was high compared to the [Page 796] damage suffered and that it did not follow the principle of partial compensation. He added that the larger part of the damage done in the area of Greece occupied by Bulgaria in the latter years of the war had been done earlier, almost entirely by Italy and Germany, and should be charged against them. He stated, moreover, that the Greek calculations of loss are highly exaggerated. Furthermore, the Bulgarian standard of living is already low and would be seriously reduced by heavy reparations, and so he recommended that the Conference either adopt a lower figure for reparations from Bulgaria or perhaps submit the whole matter for the consideration of the Council of Foreign Ministers.
- For text of Ambassador Caffery’s statement, see Department of State Bulletin, October 20, 1946, p. 714.↩