CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 22
M. Neves da Fontoura (Brazil) presented the viewpoint of his government on the Peace Treaty with Italy. He said that he was interpreting the feeling of all Latin America in asking for equitable treatment for Italy. He referred to the Atlantic Charter, the principles of which he said should be applied, and characterized the Draft Treaty as unjust to Italy since it amputated a part of her metropolitan territory and her colonies. He referred to a recent statement by the Soviet Delegation that Rumania should be congratulated and encouraged for taking the democratic path. Brazil felt that the same attitude should be taken toward the Italian Republic. Italy had done a great deal for the Allied cause in the war, as the Great Powers had recognized in the Potsdam Declaration. Brazil based its plea for a just peace for Italy on the traditions of Brazilian policy and on the principles of law and justice which were the basis of Latin and Western culture.
[Page 270]Sir Samuel Runganadhan (India) commented on the statements made by the Egyptian and Iranian Delegations. India hoped that the requests of Egypt concerning territorial modifications and reparations would be given full and sympathetic consideration by the Conference. India also hoped that Libya would be given its independence at the earliest possible date and that Italian administration would not be returned in any form.
M. Tsaldaris (Greece) in a speech replying to the statement of the Albanian Delegation, referred to Greece’s heroic part in the war and expressed astonishment that former satellite states such as Bulgaria and Albania had the nerve to come to the Conference and claim Greek territory. He said that Greece was in a state of war with Albania, which had been declared by a freely elected Albanian national assembly. He said Albania had attacked Greece and had participated in the occupation of Greece. This was the continuation of an Albanian policy of alliance and association with Fascist Italy which had begun before 1939. He said that the present Albanian regime could not be excused of all responsibility for the acts of so-called Albanian quislings between 1939 and 1944. He quoted from a statement of the present head of the Albanian state in which the latter in 1940 had praised Fascism. On the subject of Greek claims to Northern Epirus, M. Tsaldaris said it was rightfully part of Greek territory and was necessary to Greece for reasons of security. He said that there were 120,000 Greeks there in 1919 and that if there were less today, it was the result of persecution by the Albanians, which had reached its height since the end of the recent war. In countering the Albanian allegations concerning persecution of the Albanian minority in Greece, M. Tsaldaris said that these people had been a source of agitation and had cooperated with the aggressors against Greece; they had spontaneously fled to Albania to escape the consequences of their crimes. M. Tsaldaris said that the Northern Epirus question was an obstacle to cooperation between Greece and Albania. The Council of Foreign Ministers should take it up but had not done so. The Greek Delegation reserved the right to submit a paper on the subject to the Peace Conference and hoped that it would be given favorable consideration.
M. Manuilsky (Ukraine) made a reply to the speech of M. Tsaldaris, in which he denounced the latter for his interventions which served only to cause confusion in the Conference. M. Manuilsky said, with reference to M. Tsaldaris’ remarks on the head of the Albanian state, that he preferred democrats who might have committed errors in the past to those who today were placing democratic principles at the service of Fascism. M. Manuilsky then connected the Greek territorial claims against Bulgaria and Albania with recent frontier incidents [Page 271] which he said illustrated the aggressive policy of Greece. He denounced the treatment of minorities in Greece and called it a danger to the peace of the Balkans. He said also that Greece had adopted a policy of antagonizing, through press attacks and in other ways, neighboring states, including Yugoslavia, an Allied state. M. Manuilsky criticized the Greek Government as reactionary and unrepresentative of the people, quoting members of the British Labor Party in support of this view. He held that the referendum about to be held in Greece would be falsified and that the results would not reflect the will of the Greek people.
The Chairman reminded the delegates that under a rule adopted by the Conference on August 12 speeches dealing with the statements of the Albanian, Mexican, Cuban, Egyptian and Austrian Delegations were to be limited to subjects connected with the Peace Treaty with Italy.46 He said that he had not insisted on the application of this rule earlier as he had trusted the good sense of the Delegations. He felt that now he must remind them of its existence and wished to point out also that they could, of course, supplement their oral statements before the Plenary Conference with written and oral presentation of views before the competent commissions. M. Dragoumis (Greece) then reserved the right of the Greek Delegation to present observations to the competent commissions since it would not be possible now to reply to certain allegations which had been made.