CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 47
The Commission considered a revised amendment by the Czechoslovak Delegation to Article 4 to insert the words “especially revisionist propaganda directed against neighboring states”.63 General Smith (U.S.) stated that in view of the strong personal appeal made by Mr. Masaryk at the last meeting, he wished to move that the first three words be included. The USSR Delegate suggested the word “including” instead of “especially”, and retention of the other four words. After some discussion the Commission unanimously adopted [Page 499] the U.S. wording, substituting the word “including” for “especially” as proposed by the USSR.
The Commission considered the subcommittee’s report on the first Czechoslovak amendment to paragraph 4, Article 1.64 Viscount Hood (UK) thought the recommended addition to the paragraph now appeared to be economic in content and therefore suggested it be referred to the Economic Commission. Mr. Hajdu (Czechoslovakia) declared that in this case his original amendment to add the words “with all the consequences ensuing therefrom” should be accepted. Canada and New Zealand, which were members of the subcommittee, had considered the report solely as an attempt of delimitation of the field in which the principle should apply. There was considerable discussion between the Czech, U.K., Ukraine and U.S. Delegations. The Commission finally adopted unanimously a U.S. proposal that the first four paragraphs of the report be accepted by the Commission and the fifth paragraph, which had recommended certain wording to be added to paragraph 4 of Article 1, be referred to the Balkan Economic Commission with the recommendation that the amendment be included in the economic section if it were not inconsistent with other decisions under consideration by that Commission.
Mr. Clementis (Czechoslovakia) spoke in refutation of the Hungarian Delegation’s statement in the previous session opposing the Czech expulsion amendment [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.5]. He questioned the accuracy of Hungary’s statistics, pointed to its bad faith in carrying out the exchange of populations agreement, and came to the conclusion that revisionism still existed in that country. He assured the Commission that Czechoslovakia had every intention of carrying out the transfer in as humane a manner as possible and suggested that the Czech amendment if accepted could contain a pledge to this effect.
General Smith (U.S.) said the United States did not question the ultimate objective of the Czechoslovak amendment but the method by which it would be accomplished. The U.S. was trying to avoid a situation where it would be necessary to vote against the Czech proposals, which it would have to do if it were necessary to incorporate in a peace treaty the principle of a forced transfer of populations. This principle was unacceptable. In urging a bilateral approach General Smith emphasized that it held the most promise for the future good relations between the two countries. He then proposed that the question be referred to the Commission’s subcommittee to reach a constructive [Page 500] solution. The U.S. Delegation would be more inclined to favor an expansion of the Bratislava bridgehead if it were part of a wider agreement. He hoped that bilateral negotiations under the auspices of the subcommittee would lead to a mutually acceptable recommendation, which might then be adopted by the Commission and subsequently by the Conference.
M. Vyshinsky (USSR) spoke for 45 minutes in support of the Czechoslovak amendment. He referred to the direct negotiations between the Czechoslovak and Hungarian Governments last year, and attributed to the Hungarians the failure of the exchange of population agreement arrived at at that time. He saw nothing unethical about the transfer of populations, pointing out that over half a million people, including Poles and Ukrainians, had been transferred to the USSR. He felt that the return of people to their Motherland should be encouraged and that the best solution of the nationality problem is to free a given state of the nationals of another state. He felt that only two alternatives were presented: (1) to follow the old policy of laissez faire and (2) to take the decision in our own hands and assist the country (Czechoslovakia) which is seeking a positive solution. He argued that the previous acceptance by the Commission of an amendment against revisionist organizations justified Czechoslovak fears for the future. He said that 500,000 people had been moved from Hungary to Germany, as General Smith knew, so that there was lots of room in Hungary and even a forced transfer would not be inhumane. He was sure that the Czechoslovak proposal would be carried out in a humane way in accordance with the traditions of the Czechoslovak people and in accordance with the assurance given earlier by Mr. Clementis. (The English translation of M. Vyshinsky’s speech took only 20 minutes so it is obvious that a great deal of it was omitted.)
- The revised amendment, proposed in C.P.(H/P) Doc. 14, is not printed. The original Czechoslovak amendment was proposed in C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.4.↩
- The Czechoslovak amendment under reference is C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.2. The Subcommission Report, C.P.(H/P) Doc. 13, is not printed. Regarding the work of the Subcomniission and for text of article 1, paragraph 4, as approved by the Commission, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 27, October 7, Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary, vol. iv, p. 526.↩