Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

CFM Files

Report of the Military Commission on the Military, Naval, and Air Clauses of the Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria

C.P.(Plen)Doc. 19

Paris, October 7, 1946.

I. Introductory

The Commission held nine Meetings on the Clauses of the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria. It submits to the Plenary Conference recommendations concerning Articles 9 to 18 and Annexes 2 and 3 of the Treaty. The Commission considered proposals for amendments put forward by the Delegations of Belgium, Greece and Yugoslavia, which are designated by the following letters and numbers: C.P.(Gen) Doc.C.3; C.P.(Gen)Doc.1J21, 1J22, 1J23, 1J24, 1J36; and C.P.(Mil) Doc.15 and 18.

It heard the representatives of Bulgaria and considered their written and oral observations.

All the Articles of the Draft Peace Treaty, which were examined by the Commission, had been approved by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The United States Delegation had made a reservation with respect to an Article concerning War Graves; but it withdrew the reservation.

II. Decisions on Articles

a. Articles adopted without change

The following Articles of the Draft Peace Treaty were adopted without change and unanimously: 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Annexes 2 and 3.

b. drafting amendment adopted

The French version of Article 13 was redrafted in order to bring the last sentence into line with the English and Russian texts. As revised, the Article in French reads as follows:

“La Bulgarie ne devra pas conserver, fabriquer ou acquérir par d’autres moyens, de matériel de guerre en excédent de ce qui est nécessaire au maintien des forces armées autorisées par Particle 9 du present Traité. Elle ne conservera pas d’installations en excédent de celles nécessaires à l’armement des forces armées autorisées par l’Article 9 du present Traité.”

c. amendment of substance adopted

Article 12.

A Belgian amendment to add “any atomic weapon” to those prohibited to Bulgaria was adopted. Some other technical changes were made in the Article, which now reads as follows, and was adopted unanimously, subject to the statements given in Report II⁵⁴ on the point raised in sub-paragraph (f) below:

“Bulgaria shall not possess, construct or experiment with any atomic weapon, any self-propelled or guided missiles or apparatus connected with their discharge (other than torpedoes and torpedo launching gear inherent to naval vessels permitted by this Treaty), sea-mines or torpedoes of non-contact types actuated by influence mechanisms, torpedoes capable of being manned, submarines or other submersible craft or specialised types of assault craft.”

The representatives of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R. state that in their opinion the wording of this Article was adopted unanimously without any reference to the future decisions of the question about motor torpedo boats.

d. amendments which were rejected or withdrawn

The Greek Delegation submitted a series of amendments to Articles 9, 12 and 14 of the Draft Treaty, and some in the form of new articles to be added to the Military Clauses.

The amendments concerning the reduction of the Bulgarian armed forces, the proportion of officers and N.C.O.’s in the armed forces, and the training and instruction of reserve officers and N.C.O.’s, were withdrawn. The Greek Delegation withdrew also its amendment concerning the Gendarmerie (part of Doc. 1.J.21), after having heard the declaration stating that there was no Gendarmerie Corps in Bulgaria, and the declarations of the U.S.A. and U.K. Delegations summarised in sub-paragraph (e).

An amendment proposing the reduction of the naval forces was rejected by 10 votes to 6, with 5 abstentions; the amendment concerning the limitation of the number of aircrew and rate of replacement of aircraft was rejected by 13 votes to 3, with 5 abstentions.

The Greek Delegation withdrew an amendment, in the form of a new article, concerning the destruction of permanent Bulgarian fortifications to the north of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier, after having agreed that there are no fortifications on the Bulgarian side.

The Greek Delegation withdrew an amendment to Article 14 concerning the disposal of war material, after a declaration was made by the U.S. Delegation, supported by the Delegation of the U.S.S.R., that the interpretation given to the word “property” in Article 65 of the Draft Treaty with Italy should be applied to Article 21 of the Draft Treaty with Bulgaria, so as to cover the restitution of war material removed from any of the United Nations.

The Greek Delegation withdrew also an amendment, in the form of a new article, concerning mine clearance by Bulgaria in the areas occupied by her on Greek territory.

e. declarations made

Declarations were made by the Delegations of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. with regard to the establishment in Bulgaria of a Frontier Militia which had been provided by a law introduced since the Peace Conference started its work. The declaration of the United Kingdom states that in their view, the Frontier Militia comes within the provisions of Article 9 limiting the strength of the Bulgarian armed forces. The declaration of the U.S.A. states that, if the Frontier Militia is not included in the total armed strength, then, under Article 11, it will be illegal for Bulgaria to have such a force with military training. The U.S.S.R. Delegation declared on behalf of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and the Ukraine, that there was no reason to insert these declarations because this question was fully clarified at the meetings of the Commission.

A declaration was made by the U.S. Delegate, on behalf of the Three Powers who prepared the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, that excess war material of Bulgarian and German origin, surrendered by Bulgaria, would be placed in its entirety at the disposal of the U.S.S.R., U.S.A. and U.K.; but in the disposition to be made of this material by joint decision of the Three Powers, the latter would take into consideration any request made by the other Allied and Associated Powers, in particular by the Powers from which material had been taken by Bulgaria.

The Greek Delegation asked for their view to be recorded that the Bulgarian army and air forces, as provided by the Draft Peace Treaty, and the fact that these forces will be in possession of armaments not specifically designated, without, moreover, any real form of military supervision of the application of the Military Clauses of the Treaty, constitute a threat to Greek security.

f. amendments which were not unanimously adopted

1. An amendment prohibiting the construction of permanent fortifications to the north of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier, where weapons capable of firing into Greek territory can be placed, obtained a simple majority of 11 votes to 7, with 3 abstentions. The majority was composed of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K. and the U.S.A. The minority was composed of Brazil, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Byelorussia and the U.S.S.R. (See the Reports of the majority and minority attached hereto—Additional Report I).

2. An amendment to Article 12, about the addition of Motor Torpedo Boats, obtained 13 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions. The majority was composed of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K. and the U.S.A. The minority was composed of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.

In the latter case, the question whether the two [-thirds] majority or a simple majority was obtained arose on account of the abstentions, and the Commission decided to apply the resolution of the Secretary General—C.P.(Sec)NS131—and to present two separate Reports of the majority and of the minority on these questions. (See the Reports of the majority and minority attached hereto—Additional Report II).

Conclusion

The Military Commission has the honour to recommend to the Plenary Conference:

(i) to decide upon the fresh draft of the clauses set out in paragraphs II b. and c. above; namely Article 12 and Article 13 (French text);

(ii) to consider Additional Reports I and II of the majority and minority and decide upon the amendments.

[Annex 1]

Additional Report I for the Limitation of Fortifications on the Greco-Bulgarian Frontier

a. views of the majority

1. An amendment prohibiting the construction of certain permanent fortifications to the north of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier obtained, in the following form, a majority of 11 votes to 7, with 3 abstentions:

• “(a) The following construction to the north of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier is prohibited: permanent fortifications where weapons capable of firing into Greek territory can be emplaced; permanent military installations capable of being used to conduct or direct fire into Greek territory; and permanent supply and storage facilities emplaced solely for the use of the said fortifications.
• (b) This prohibition does not include the other types of non-permanent fortifications or surface accommodations and installations which are designed to meet only requirements of an internal character and of local defence of the frontiers.”

2. The recommendation of the majority in favour of the limitation of fortifications on the Greco-Bulgarian frontier was influenced by the following arguments:

a. Greece having suffered from unprovoked aggression by Bulgaria three times in one generation, and her own frontier fortifications having been destroyed during the last Bulgarian occupation, was entitled to security.

b. Since the Greek territory east of Salonika is long and narrow, and its lateral communications are in places within field Artillery range of the Bulgarian frontier, a prohibition against permanent mountings for weapons, capable of firing into Greek territory, will assist in the maintenance of Greek communications during the early stages of a defensive war; and so increase her security.

c. The proposed measures do not restrict Bulgarian right

(i) to construct permanent fortifications not capable of directing fire into Greek territory or territorial waters, or non-permanent fortifications of whatever type, or

(ii) to station troops or air forces on or near the frontier.

The proposed measures, therefore, do not deny to Bulgaria the right to organise the local defence of her frontiers.

d. Similar measures have been agreed upon for the Franco-Italian and Yugoslav-Italian frontiers, and it was deemed unjust, in principle, to deny to a small Ally what had been given to bigger Allies.

3. It was not until representations had been made by France and Yugoslavia that, in the interests of their security, restrictions were placed on the frontier fortifications of Italy. The U.S.A., U.K. and French Delegations, therefore, considered it just that the Greek request should be given similar consideration to that already accorded to the like requests of France and Yugoslavia.

4. The U.S.A., French and U.K. Delegations were further influenced by the fact that since no such Greek request had been received by the C.F.M., the question of restricting Bulgaria’s fortifications on the Greek frontier had never been specifically discussed by that body.

Delegations of:

• Australia,
• Belgium,
• Canada,
• France,
• Greece,
• India,
• Netherlands,
• New Zealand,
• South Africa,
• U.K.,
• U.S.A.

b. views of the minority

The Military Experts of the Council of Foreign Ministers studied for a long time and thoroughly the question of the limitation of frontier fortifications for the Balkan ex-enemy States and Finland in order to find such a general formula of the limitations of fortifications, which would meet the tasks of an internal character and local defence of frontiers of each of these States.

As a result of this, a general formula, acceptable to all experts of the Four Powers, was found, which imposes sufficient and, at the same time, justified limitations on frontier fortifications. It reads in identical language for Article 9 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 11—with Roumania, Article 10—with Hungary, and Article 13 with Finland, as follows:

“Maintenance of land, sea and air armaments and fortifications shall be closely restricted to meeting tasks of an internal character and local defence of frontiers”

These Articles were approved by the Council of Foreign Ministers and adopted unanimously by the Military Commission. It was thought that the limitations on frontier fortifications provided for in these Articles, are sufficient enough.

However, for reasons which cannot be justified either from the formal point of view or from the point of view of substance, some members of the Military Commission eagerly try to impose upon Bulgaria some considerable additional limitations. The limitations adopted by simple majority of the Commission read as follows:

“3. (a) The following construction to the north of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier is prohibited: permanent fortifications where weapons capable of firing into Greek territory can be emplaced; permanent military installations capable of being used to conduct or direct fire into Greek territory; and permanent supply and storage facilities emplaced solely for the use of the said fortifications and installations.

(b) This prohibition does not include the other types of non-permanent fortifications or surface accommodations and installations which are designed to meet only requirements of an internal character and of local defence of the frontiers.”

Such limitations have not been imposed upon any other ex-enemy Balkan States or Finland, but for some unknown reason, they try to impose these limitations upon Bulgaria, and by doing so, to put Bulgaria into an exceptional position in comparison with the other Balkan States and Finland, and to break the very basic principle, which had been established for all these States when the experts of the Council of Foreign Ministers worked out the Draft Peace Treaties as well as during the discussion of the limitations to be imposed upon these States in the Military Commission.

Such an exceptional situation has been created only for Bulgaria. This neither represents justice nor is it necessitated by anything.

Bulgaria is a democratic, peace-loving, and territorially small State. The Experts of the Council of Foreign Ministers adhered to a right principle of not imposing such limitations upon small States, inasmuch as these States should be allowed to possess the necessary means of defence of their territories, which is in complete order with justice.

Bulgaria has no frontier fortifications, and this fact has been confirmed by the Greek Delegate at the Military Commission. Therefore, her frontiers are absolutely open and unprotected, which is contrary to the principle of the assurance of the internal security and of local defence of frontiers as it is supposed to be provided for in Article 9.

Bulgaria sincerely endeavours to be in peace with her neighbours. The representatives of Bulgaria have confirmed these peaceful aims of the Bulgarian people when they made their observations at the Commission. It is because of these peaceful aims of the Bulgarian people that it would be a great injustice to impose such limitations only upon Bulgaria alone.

The Delegates of Brazil, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Byelorussia, Ukraine and U.S.S.R. firmly believe such limitations to be unjust and apply the same limitations to Bulgaria as adopted for other Balkan States and Finland. They are certain that the Plenary Conference will demonstrate its justice in respect to Bulgaria and reject the Greek amendment to Article 9 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria. They hope that the Plenary Conference will fully adopt the wording of this Article, proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Delegates of:

• Brazil,
• Poland,
• Czechoslovakia,
• Yugoslavia,
• Ukraine,
• Byelorussia,
• U.S.S.R.

[Annex 2]

Additional Report II on Amendment to Article 12 About Prohibition of Motor Torpedo Boats

a. views of the majority

1. At the 27th Meeting of the Military Commission on 27th September, that part of this amendment which relates to prohibition against possession or construction of or experimentation with Motor Torpedo Boats by Bulgaria was carried by a vote of 13 to 6, with 2 abstentions.

2. The majority of the Commission based their recommendation on the principle that since M.T.B’s were considered primarily offensive and were consequently prohibited weapons, in the case of Italy, they should be so prohibited in the case of all ex-enemy States. Their decision was also based on the opinion that M.T.B’s are not required by Bulgaria for local defence and internal security purposes.

3. In order to implement the principle that there should be no des-crimination between ex-enemy States in the matter of prohibitions against offensive weapons, the Commission unanimously adopted the following resolution tabled by the United States Delegation:

“The Commission agrees that the Articles on prohibitions in the Balkan and Finnish Treaties (Article 12 of the Bulgarian Treaty, Article 14 of the Roumanian Treaty, Article 13 of the Hungarian Treaty, and Article 16 of the Finnish Treaty) should be in identical language, i.e. that decided upon for Article 12 of the Bulgarian Treaty.”

Delegations of:

• Australia,
• Belgium,
• Brazil,
• Canada,
• China,
• Greece,
• India,
• Netherlands,
• New Zealand,
• Norway,
• South Africa,
• U.K.,
• U.S.A.

b. views of the minority

Report to the Plenary Session of the Paris Peace Conference on the Amendment of the Greek Delegation to Article 12 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, Prohibiting the Latter to Have Motor Torpedo Boats Among the Units of Her Navy.

The naval, military and air experts of the Council of Foreign Ministers, after a long and careful consideration of the question of limitation of the war navies of the former ex-enemy Balkan powers and Finland, arrived at a formula acceptable to all the experts of the Four Powers, which imposes sufficient and at the same time just limitations on the above-mentioned navies.

In accordance with this formula, certain limitations were laid down in regard to naval tonnage and the number of navy personnel for each of these countries and the prohibition of special weapons was formulated. Especially so far as Bulgaria was concerned, submarines, specialised types of landing craft and other special weapons were prohibited. Besides, the tonnage allowed Bulgaria, which is limited to 7,250 tons, does not enable her to have any capital ships (cruisers, battleships and others) which were not prohibited to Italy.

All considered that the prohibitions and limitations imposed on the navies were sufficient and just.

They were approved and recommended by the Council of Foreign Ministers. However, some of the members of the Military Commission, for motives independent of the substance of the matter, are attempting to impose upon Bulgaria a considerable supplementary limitation, forbidding her to have motor torpedo boats.

It is brought forward as an argument in favour of the acceptance of the Greek proposal, that because similar limitations are imposed upon Italy, they should also apply to other countries, and that motor torpedo boats are offensive vessels. These arguments are without foundation, as they are not in harmony with the spirit of the limitations imposed on the Bulgarian navy. It is obvious that within the limits of the small tonnage allowed her—7,250 tons—only a limited number of small vessels can be built.

The contention that motor torpedo boats are offensive vessels and must therefore be prohibited is without foundation. Any ship can be used for defensive or offensive operations. This fact alone shows that motor torpedo boats are not exclusively offensive vessels. In this sense we can only talk of the superiority of the offensive power of one class of ships over other classes of ships.

However, even a superficial comparison of motor torpedo boats with the battleships and cruisers left to Italy shows that the latter can boast of an offensive potential many times superior, as they have a wider range of action, more fire power, heavier armour, good survival chances, etc.

But since no one prohibits Italy from having battleships and cruisers because they are offensive vessels, there is all the less reason to prohibit Bulgaria having motor torpedo boats.

The formal principle of automatic extension of the limitations applied to Italy, to the Balkan countries and Finland in the same degree, is also unjustified, for in this case, according to this principle, there would be no reason not to extend the limitations imposed upon the Balkan countries and Finland to Italy in the same degree.

It would thus be necessary to forbid Italy from having battleships and cruisers, since the limitation of tonnage allowed prevents the Balkan countries and Finland from having them.

Motor torpedo boats, besides, do not belong to the specialised types of assault craft as is already laid down in point 2 of Article 50 of the Peace Treaty with Italy, adopted by the Military Commission.

In view of the above, it would evidently be unjust and unjustified for the Plenary Session of the Paris Peace Conference to impose on Bulgaria an additional limitation making it impossible for her to have motor torpedo boats.

Besides, by a resolution adopted on the proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation on 28th September of this year, the Military Commission unanimously decided the Articles concerning prohibitions in the Treaties with the Balkan countries and Italy will be drafted in the same terms as laid down by the decision concerning Article 12 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

Since Article 12, as recommended by a decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers, contains no prohibition for Bulgaria to have motor torpedo boats, and since the Military Commission has already taken a unanimous decision concerning the adoption of this Article in the form it was written into the Minutes of the 27th Meeting of the 27 September, 1946—the adoption of the amendment of the Greek Delegation would be in open contradiction with decisions already adopted.

The representatives of the Delegations of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R. are convinced that the Plenary Session of the Conference will manifest the necessary spirit of justice as far as Bulgaria is concerned by rejecting the Greek amendment to Article 12 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, and adopting this Article in the draft which was unanimously adopted by the Military Commission.

Representatives of the Delegations:

• Byelorussia,
• Czechoslovakia,
• Poland,
• Ukraine,
• Yugoslavia,
• U.S.S.R.

54. Post, p. 523.