Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

501.BC Greece/5–1247: Telegram

Mr. Mark F. Ethridge to the Secretary of State

secret

Geneva, May 12, 1947—4 p. m.

299. Ethridge No. 70. Set forth below is full text of our revised draft of conclusions which we are distributing as a confidential provisional draft this morning. It was shown to British yesterday and agreed to in its entirety. Australia presented us today with draft conclusions which they had prepared for their own use and not for distribution. They are surprisingly similar to our own.

US Draft Conclusions

i. albania, bulgaria and yugoslavia and guerrillas in greece

The charge by Greek Govt that its northern neighbors were supporting guerrilla warfare in Greece was directed jointly against Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Evidence submitted, however, related primarily to Yugoslav intervention in this regard and only to a lesser degree to that of Albania and Bulgaria. Although liaison representatives repeatedly denied these charges and attacked credibility of witnesses who testified in their support little direct evidence was brought forward [to] disprove them.

A. Yugoslavia.

1. Commission heard considerable amount evidence by direct testimony and by deposition that assistance had been rendered in Yugoslavia to guerrillas taking form training refugees from Greece within borders of Yugoslavia, recruiting and dispatching them to Greece for action with guerrilla units there as well as supplying them for this purpose with arms, supplies, transport, guides, hospitalization, et cetera and providing an avenue of escape for guerrillas fleeing from Greek Govt forces.

2. Commission heard the testimony of several witnesses that in spring 1946 special course for guerrilla leaders was established in refugee camp Bulkes, Yugoslavia, which was designed give theoretical and practical training to refugees from Greece in guerrilla warfare. There was presented to Commission copy of a military manual for training guerrilla tactics and several witnesses testified that it was used as text book in Bulkes school. Indeed one witness, a Greek refugee, testified that he was one of authors of manual when it was written in summer of 1945. It seems clear from the evidence that during spring and at least through summer 1946 actual training in Partisan warfare was given to selected personnel among refugees at Bulkes Camp. Furthermore, Commission heard evidence which demonstrated that at least some of refugees who had received military training returned Greece and participated in operations of guerrilla bands. Evidence was also presented Commission that certain Greek refugees were incorporated in Yugoslav Army and some who had served were later released so that they might return to Greece and join guerrillas.

3. Commission was provided with considerable evidence indicating that preparatory to returning to Greece the Greek refugees at Bulkes Camp and in other places in Yugoslavia were provided with arms and other military supplies, clothing and food. Other refugees testifying before Commission stated that in crossing from Greece into Yugoslavia and from Yugoslavia into Greece transportation was provided them and that they were conducted by Yugoslav guides including Yugoslav soldiers and were provided with a network of liaison agents who facilitated crossings. Evidence also showed that Yugoslav frontier guards permitted guerrilla bands escape into Yugoslavia when pursued by Greek Army.

4. In addition evidence showed that as part of pattern of assistance to guerrilla movement, arrangement was made for transportation guerrillas wounded in Greece into Yugoslavia where hospitalization was provided in infirmaries there.

Three witnesses testified they themselves had transported wounded guerrillas on donkeys to or across Yugoslav border.

5. Commission visited camp at Bulkes April 2, 1947 and there found no evidence of military activities. Accordingly Commission is of opinion that at present time such military training as had theretofore been carried on at Bulkes has been discontinued.

6. Nor is there doubt that at Bulkes Camp refugees from Greece were subjected political indoctrination and propaganda looking toward overthrow Greek Govt. Witnesses uniformly testified that March 25, 1946, Greece’s Independence Day, the leader of Greek Communist Party Zachariades visited camp at Bulkes and made speech urging refugees prepare themselves return Greece “When Greek people will need them”. Refugees at Bulkes heard similar propaganda from other official personnel including Yugoslav Minister Education for Voi-vodina and a Bulgarian Commission of several officers who paid visits to camp. While at Bulkes, Djevdjelija and Strumitsa, the Commission witnessed political demonstrations by refugees antagonistic to present Greek Govt which indicated political activity among refugees continued to be sanctioned.

B. Albania.

7. In case of Albania evidence presented to Commission indicated that at Rubig, a villiage about 50 miles north of Tirana a camp for Greek refugees had been in existence from spring 1945 to October 1945. During that period refugees there received political instruction as well as pratical and theoretical military training. A military training manual written in Greek at Rubig similar to the one used at Bulkes was presented in evidence to Commission. Moreover, Commission heard testimony that manual which was published in Albania was mimeographed on paper furnished by Albanian Press Ministry.

8. Witnesses testified before Commission that after Varkiza Agreement of February 12, 1945, former members of ELAS (military arm of EAM) were advised by the KKE (Communist Party of Greece) or their ELAS comrades to cross into Albania as well as into Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to avoid persecution. Certain witnesses testified that officers of KKE made arrangements with Albanian security authorities for their reception, transportation, food, and lodging, and it was testified that before returning to Greece these refugees were supplied in Albania with food, clothing, military equipment, and transportation to border. Several witnesses also testified that they were given assistance by Albanian military personnel in their efforts cross frontier between Greece and Albania.

9. Evidence presented Commission indicated there was no military or other training of Greek refugees in Albania after October 1945 when the refugees in camp at Rubig were transferred to Bulkes in Yugoslavia. However, evidence indicated that as late as November 1946 Albanian assistance to Greek guerrillas continued in form of providing arms, ammunition and routes of entry as well as making available guides and liaison assistance for guerrilla groups returning to Greece from both Albania and Yugoslavia.

C. Bulgaria.

10. Evidence submitted to Commission re Bulgarian aid to Greek guerrilla movement indicates that Greek guerrillas in groups and individually were assisted in crossing Bulgarian territory from Yugoslavia to Greece and that sizeable Greek guerrilla groups had on a number of occasions taken refuge on Bulgarian soil with assistance of Bulgarian authorities. Evidence was also presented to show that on at least two occasions Greek guerrillas were given arms in or near Sofia while on the way to Greece from Yugoslavia and that hospital facilities were offered to Greek guerrillas who were transferred for this purpose to Bulgarian territory.

11. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that aid was provided the Greek guerrillas by the Bulgarian Government in the form of assistance in entering and leaving Bulgarian territory, provision of transportation for guerrillas crossing Bulgaria to and from Yugoslavia and hospitalization guerrillas wounded in Greece. Less evidence was provided Commission, however, as to the arming and equipping of guerrillas.

ii. movement to detach macedonia and western thrace from greece

1. The Greek Government charged that support was being given by the Yugoslav and Bulgarian Governments through propaganda and otherwise looking towards the detachment of Province of Macedonia from Greece and its incorporation into the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia.

2. Evidence was introduced in Commission consisting of quotes from speeches by responsible Yugoslav and Bulgarian statesmen and from Government controlled press which indicated in unequivocal fashion that their Governments adopted a policy of support for a separate Macedonian state within the Yugoslav Federation and exploited the aspirations of Slavo-Macedonians in Greece for an autonomous Macedonia. This exploitation had the inevitable result of fomenting dissatisfaction and disturbances among the Slavo-Macedonians.

3. In addition the Commission heard witnesses who testified that there was in Yugoslavia an organization known as NOF (National Liberation Front), one of whose objects was to detach Greek Macedonia from Greece and to incorporate it into Federation of Yugoslavia. These witnesses testified that activities NOF were directed from its headquarters in Skoplje and during its most active phase through a special “Aegean bureau” in Bitolj (Monastir). Its program included propaganda supporting Macedonian movement.

4. There is no doubt of existence of NOF which is, in fact, no more than the name of Greek EAM in Slavic translation. Both Yugoslav and Bulgarian representatives denied, however, that it was engaged in activities of the type described in the Greek charge. Although certain witnesses testified to the Commission that they had not heard of this aspect of the functions NOF, the references to NOF’s relationship to the Macedonian movement were so numerous and so uniform as to leave little doubt on this point in the minds of the Commission.

5. In case of Bulgaria, the Greek Government offered the hypothesis to Commission that Bulgaria was willing to give up Bulgarian Macedonia as well as its traditional claim to Greek Macedonia in return for Yugoslav support of her claim to the Greek province of western Thrace. At Paris Peace Conference in 1946, Yugoslavia did support Bulgarian claim, but no other evidence was offered to the Commission in substantiation of the Greek hypothesis.

6. It’s nevertheless quite clear that Bulgaria did support movement for unification of the three parts of Macedonia as a republic within the Yugoslav Federation. As late as November 16, 1946, an article in official Communist paper Rabotnechesko Delo welcomed creation of Republic Macedonia within the Yugoslav Federation and asserted that “unification of other parts of the Macedonian nation can take place only on basis of this republic. Such unification is in the interests of the future peaceful development of Bulgaria in close cooperation with Yugoslavia.”

7. In explaining attitude of Yugoslav Government with regard to Macedonian question, its representative stated that Yugoslavia could not be indifferent to “terrible state” of Slav minority in Macedonia. He stated that Yugoslavia’s interest was in assisting this minority in its achievement of full political and cultural rights and that this was to be achieved within framework of Charter of UN.

8. It was pointed out to Commission and not disputed that after Varkiza Agreement over 20,000 Greek citizens had fled into Yugoslavia either directly or through Albania or Bulgaria and approximately 5,000 into Bulgaria, a substantial proportion in each case being of Slavo-Macedonian origin. Evidence was also presented in support of the charge that Greece had sanctioned persecution of its Slavo-Macedonian minorities. Furthermore, the Commission heard some testimony that the Slavic dialect spoken by Slavo-Macedonians who comprise about 85,000 was not taught in schools, and that in certain areas, use of this dialect by Greek nationals was prohibited.

9. The Commission is of the opinion that as long as such discriminatory treatment continues, there will be unrest and discontent on the part of the Slavic minority in Greek Macedonia which will provide fertile breeding ground for separationist movements. This does not, of course, absolve northern neighbors from their responsibility in this regard.

10. Although it is undoubtedly true that during war the Axis occupying authorities had themselves supported a Macedonian autonomist movement in effort create controversy among Balkan states as pointed out by Yugoslav representative, it seems equally clear that since war the Yugoslav and Bulgarian Governments, by speeches of responsible officials and articles in press have themselves revived and promoted a separationist movement among Slavo-Macedonians.

iii. frontier violations not involving aid to greek guerrillas

1. Greek Government charged that Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia were deliberately provoking incidents on their common frontier. In turn Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia made similar accusations against Greece. In each case, a substantial number witnesses were heard by Commission as well as extensive documentation in support of charges. The incidents brought to the Commission’s attention ranged from penetrations across border of a few yards to sheep-stealing and exchanges of shots between frontier guards. In report of Commission clear distinction is made between activities of Greece’s three northern neighbors in support of guerrillas in Greece as set forth in Chapter I, and frontier provocations and incidents not connected with aid to guerrilla movement as set forth in the present chapter.

The Greco-Albanian frontier.

2. The Greek Government submitted list of 108 incidents on Greco-Albanian frontier during 1946, declaring they were characteristic of a “policy of systematic provocation adopted by Albanian Government.” Majority these incidents concerned theft livestock, shooting affrays between Greek and Albanian patrols, and abduction Greek soldiers and civilians into Albanian territory. Total casualties resulting from these incidents amounted between 20 and 30 persons killed, wounded, and captured.

3. Similarly Albania charged Greece with 111 provocations on frontier during year 1946, including as well as traditional sheep-stealing incidents and skirmishes between border patrols, violations of Albanian territorial rights on land, on sea, and in air. Total casualties resulting from these incidents amounted to 4 persons killed, and 2 wounded as well as a certain relatively minor damage property rights. The Albanian liaison representative charged that incidents deliberately provoked by Greek Government in pursuance of its claim to Albanian region of northern Epirus, and further that they were deliberate incursions evidencing aggressive intentions of Greek Government.

The Greco-Bulgarian frontier.

4. It was charged in Greek case that 32 incidents had occurred in 1946 and 2 in 1947 on Greco-Bulgarian frontier, for which it regarded Bulgarian authorities responsible. These incidents had cost the lives of 11 Greeks, although majority them were minor incidents and of non-political character. Bulgarian case in turn made mention of 33 incidents attributed to Greek initiative in 1946 and 46 violations of the frontier from 23 January to end of February 1947, including numerous territorial violations by planes.

5. These charges were denied by Greek and Bulgarian representatives respectively. To the Bulgarian assertion that the provocations were a result of fact, Greek frontier posts had been withdrawn to depth several kilometers and Greek territory along frontier was not under control Greek authorities, it was replied that frontier posts had been withdrawn for very purpose preventing undue friction.

6. In reply to Greek charges on the other hand, Bulgarian representative pointed out that its Government faithfully notified Allied Control Commission in Sofia of all frontier incidents, and that during two years since war, there had been no disturbances or disorders on Bulgarian side of frontier. In case of most incidents cited by two countries, Commission did not find that Governments of Greece and Bulgaria were directly implicated. In spring 1946 Bulgarian Government expressed its willingness put into effect again Greek-Bulgarian frontier accord of 1931 which has been inoperative since 1941, and requested Greek Government to execute a protocol to implement 1931 accord with modifications necessary give effect to changes which have taken place in border service since the original agreement. Greek Government did not respond on ground that diplomatic relations did not exist between the two countries stating however, that it, on its part, had lived up to spirit of 1931 agreement.

The Greco-Yugoslav frontier.

7. It was charged by Greek representative that 57 incidents had occurred along Greco-Yugoslav frontier in 1946, which had cost lives of 19 Greek military personnel. Yugoslav representative in turn cited 35 frontier incidents alleged to have occurred between 13 June 1945 and 18 December 1946 in addition to 43 flights over Yugoslav territory by 77 Greek planes between May 18, 1945, and December 3, 1946.

8. Evidence submitted the Commission shows clearly that there have been since war a large number violations on frontier on each side. On other hand, no evidence of probative value was introduced which tended indicate that frontier violations of type considered in this chapter were deliberately provoked either by Governments of northern neighbors, or by that of Greece, or that there was any policy of systematic provocation on either side, or that incidents themselves were evidence of aggressive intentions of either country.

9. Conclusion is inevitable, however, that large number incidents, the accusations and counter-accusations, were by Governments against one another, and willingness of authorities on both sides magnify minor incidents into important skirmishes accompanied by shooting and bloodshed is clear evidence of strained relations between the countries.

iv. greek domestic policy in relation to frontier incidents

1. The representatives Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia charged that the present régime was responsible for state of civil war in Greece, and for disturbed conditions in northern provinces. Greek Government took position that an investigation this charge would involve internal affairs of Greece which were not before Commission, and were not thus within its competence. Accordingly, Greek Government did not on these grounds present evidence in refutation. It was, nevertheless, felt by Commission that insofar as it might constitute a factor contributing to disturbed conditions northern Greece along Greek frontier, Greek internal situation could not be ignored.

2. Evidence presented to Commission left no doubt that great majority of clashes between guerrillas and forces of Greek Government had occurred in northern Greek provinces of Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace. Of two estimates submitted to Commission purporting to be based on official Greek sources, one showed that 707 out of 922 clashes had occurred in the three northern provinces of Greece, and the other that out of 1,338,769 had taken place there. Sufficient number incidents were recorded in central and southern Greece, however, to impress Commission that, while conditions in northern Greece were far more acutely disturbed than elsewhere, there was general condition of unrest in Greece as a whole. Commission does not find, however, that this condition amounts to state of civil war.

3. In connection with present situation, Greek Commission was presented with body of evidence in support of charge that responsibility for situation lies in Greek domestic policy. This evidence was presented not only by representatives of Greece’s three northern neighbors but by representatives of EAM, the Left Liberal Party, the Central Committee of General Confederation of Labor, EPON, and a number of individual witnesses. This evidence was to effect that opposition political groups in Greece had been persecuted by Greek gendarmerie and by right-wing bands, and that civil rights of the Macedonian and Chamuriot minorities had been restricted. Evidence was also presented indicating that certain opposition elements had been subjected persecution in violation of the Varkiza Agreement, February 12, 1945. Persecution of opposition groups took form of large-scale arrests, of imprisonment or exile, beatings, and other brutalities, and burning of houses as punitive measure. Evidence indicated that this persecution was conducted by some members of Greek gendarmerie and by officially tolerated right-wing bands (suppression of which has recently been ordered by Greek Government), and extended to wide variety political groups, especially parties of EAM coalition. In statement to Commission EAM representatives asserted that in period October 1946 to January 1947, 12,000 persons were under detention. These figures were not, however, verified by Commission.

4. Commission also received sufficient evidence to warrant conclusion that immediately after liberation of Greece, the small Slav-speaking and Chamuriot minority in Greco-Macedonia and Epirus had been victims of retaliatory excesses, and Chamuriot minority had virtually fled en masse from the country. As regards treatment of minorities, Greek Government asserted that the acts in question were committed before it had established control areas concerned, and that many members of these minority groups had collaborated with Axis occupying forces during war.

5. Against this, Commission must record that Rector of University of Athens, who represented some sixty organizations, including certain labor groups, testified to the contrary, asserting that it was Communists who carried on terrorism in Greece, and the disorders were due, not to social or political causes, but to foreign interference. Moreover, there was considerable body evidence to show that EAM had itself violated the Varkiza Agreement by failing carry out its obligation surrender all its arms to Greek Government, and by urging its members to hide their arms and leave Greece or go underground. Furthermore, EAM had refused take part in 1946 elections, although these elections were held under international observation in the spirit of the Varkiza Agreement.

6. Albanian representative charged that numerous war criminals and leading members of quisling régime established while Albania was under Axis domination had been granted asylum in Greece. It was alleged that these war criminals and quislings were not only given exceptionally favorable treatment in Greece as regards rations, housing, and personal liberty, but were encouraged in their political activity by Greek authorities. Similar charges as regards some 40 alleged war criminals and quislings were made by Yugoslav representative who claimed that since war Greece had become “the meeting point” of Yugoslav war criminals and quislings. To a lesser degree, charges of similar character were also made by Bulgarian representative.

7. In reply Greek liaison representative asserted that, while indeed a considerable number refugees from three northern countries had entered Greece since end war, Greek Government had dealt with them under procedure in accordance international practice. It was pointed out that all these refugees had been established in camps in southern part of Greece, and that they had not been permitted engage in any activity whatsoever which could be regarded as inimical to Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. A team of the Commission visited number places where these refugees were held and although there was some testimony indicating political activities on part of internees directed against Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia, the Commission does not feel that Greek Government itself had encouraged it. On basis of team’s visit, Commission is also of opinion that the charge that internees received preferential treatment was refuted.

8. Commission is of opinion the discrimination and persecution to which those minorities and political opposition groups had been subjected by Greek Government as result of atmosphere of bitterness and reprisal following civil war of 1944–1945 had caused several thousand persons to flee to mountains or take refuge on soil of Greece’s three northern neighbors where they formed groups actively hostile to Greek régime. To this extent, it is the Commission’s opinion that this persecution on the part of Greek Government and present general disturbed conditions in Greece are factors which help explain and thus bear an indirect relation to disturbed situation along Greek frontiers. On other hand, it in no way relieves the three northern neighbors of their duty to prevent and suppress subversive activity on their territory aimed against another Government, nor does it relieve them of direct responsibility for their support of Greek guerrillas.

9. In its evaluation of charges made against Greek Government, Commission recognized that disturbed conditions in Greece were heritage of tragic experiences which had been endured during war, and to consequent inability of Greek Government since liberation to stabilize its economy or to carry on a program of economic rehabilitation. Furthermore, the Commission saw and heard evidence especially in Athens and Salonika of a considerable degree of apparent political freedom, freedom of speech, press, and assembly despite the disturbed conditions Greece.

v. territorial claims

1. It was alleged in Albanian case that Greek insistence that a state of war still existed between Albania and Greece and Greece’s continued assertion of its territorial claim on southern Albania (northern Epirus) was an important factor contributing to frontier disturbances. In reply Greek representative recalled that it was Albanians who had initiated state of war when they participated in Italian aggression against Greece in 1940, and that such territorial claims as Greeks might have against Albania had been placed before appropriate international bodies.

2. Commission did not investigate the Albanian charges regarding Greek foreign policy as they related more to official territorial claims made before Council of Foreign Ministers, and to traditional Greek-Albanian rivalry than to matters coming within scope of Commission’s inquiry. Commission believes, however, that fact that Greece has maintained an uncompromising attitude in its continued assertion of existence of state of war with Albania and has reiterated its claim to Southern Albania has undoubtedly increased the tension between two countries and contributed to psychological atmosphere evidenced in part by frontier clashes.

3. Bulgarian charges with regard to the alleged expansionist foreign policy of Greece made reference both to Greek territorial claims made at Paris Peace Conference, and to extremist statements which have appeared in Greek newspapers and pamphlets and at public meetings. To these charges Greece replied by pointing out that Greek claims against Bulgaria had been restricted to strategic frontier rectifications while Bulgaria had persistently made claims for whole province of western Thrace.

4. Yugoslav charges regarding Greek territorial ambitions alleging Greece desired annex extensive territories southern Yugoslavia were based on several unofficial statements, and three newspaper articles 1946. These charges categorically denied by Greek representative, and were not investigated by Commission.

5. Commission did not regard official territorial claims which had already been raised before appropriate international bodies as within scope of its work. It nevertheless felt continued reiteration of Greece’s claims against Bulgaria and Bulgarian claim to western Thrace after they had been rejected at peace conference, as well as Greece’s claim against Albania was factor which tended increase tension between countries. Commission noted EAM coalition had supported Greek territorial claims both against Albania and Bulgaria, and must, therefore, share responsibility of Greek Government in this regard.

[

Ethridge

]