Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

July 31, 1946, 4 p.m.

C.P. (Plen) 4

President: M. Bidault

The President: I call on Baron van Boetzalaer van Oosterhout, First Delegate of the Netherlands.

Baron van Boetzalaer van Oosterhout (Netherlands) (Interpretation): The Netherlands Delegation would first like to associate itself with the tributes paid to the French Government for the hospitality which it has so generously extended. My Government accepted the French Government’s invitation in the firm belief that, notwithstanding the major difficulties which we shall certainly encounter, it will be possible to overcome them if we direct all our efforts to a common end.

We live in a world which has been smitten by a scourge unparalleled in history. All our Governments are preoccupied with the overwhelming task of national reconstruction. It is, however, certain that real improvement at home will depend on a satisfactory solution of international problems.

This Conference will be considering treaties of peace with countries which have not committed acts of direct aggression against Netherlands territory; they have, on the other hand, been associated with the invaders of our country and have thus given them substantial support.

While we insist that the nations which have caused so much suffering to the human race should accept responsibility therefor, we are not animated by any spirit of vengeance: we only’insist on justice being done and we are ardently anxious to preserve the future. May I, in this connection, be allowed to quote the words of Haricourt: “Only God is entitled to punish; we do not mete out punishment, we save the future”.

The people of the Netherlands are not easily carried away by their feelings. We are regarded as people of moderation and good sense. It is, however, precisely this objectivity, together with an acute sense of justice, as evidenced through our country’s history by many of its prominent men, which objects to resuming international relations, once the criminal attack has been repulsed, as if nothing had happened.

We realise that those at present in power in the countries concerned were not themselves the initiators of these acts of aggression. We know that the people of those countries now disapprove, at least to some extent, the policy which they followed for so long. Such a change of attitude, though, cannot be alleged by them as an excuse for evading responsibility for the injustice done. Every nation must answer for the consequences of its rulers’ actions, particularly when its people acclaimed their policy just as long as they hoped it would be profitable to them. It is to be hoped that the nations which now realise how criminal was the policy formerly followed will have enough sense of justice to be prepared to make good as far as possible the wrongs which were committed.

To prevent catastrophes such as have been experienced in the past, however, it is not sufficient for the vanquished to exhibit a change of mind; the victors too must refrain from a policy of intimidation, egoism and intolerance. In the course of history great as well as small Powers have sinned in this respect; but the consequences are more disastrous in the case of great Powers. Admittedly, the present situation is not very reassuring. The way in which the great Powers have secured a privileged position in the United Nations does not augur well for the future development of that institution, and the use to which it has been put has certainly not allayed those apprehensions. The procedure suggested for the present Conference on the bases of the Moscow Declaration is rather of a nature to maintain them.

We certainly do not underrate the necessity that the great Powers should occupy a special place in the family of nations. We are fully conscious of the fact that a greater burden of responsibility for world security falls on them and that they are entitled to exercise a corresponding influence in international affairs. But we cannot agree that the great Powers should dictate their will to others or claim for themselves a monopoly of wisdom in the international sphere. We are not stubborn defenders of equality of States at all costs. We do not adopt the narrow view of absolute sovereignty which would require, in all circumstance, the same treatment for all; but we are of opinion that inequality of treatment should not go beyond certain limits.

As far as concerns the organisation of the present Conference, I have already had the honour to set forth more fully the point of view of the Netherlands Government during the general discussion in the Commission on Procedure.

Gentlemen, if our meeting is to lead to the results which the world expects from it, we must realise that any system which does not serve the interests of all, and reduces the position of medium and small powers must be prejudicial to the peaceful development of the international community.

In making these few observations, the Netherlands Delegation is impelled solely by the desire to co-operate in a constructive way in the task before us. We have, indeed, no other aim than to contribute our assistance in the drawing up of peace treaties that shall be just and lasting and that shall not contain the germs of future conflicts.

M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation)

Mr. President, Gentlemen, At the present moment, millions of people throughout the world are looking towards Paris in the hope that, at this first general Peace Conference, the responsible representatives of The Allied and Associated States may reach conclusions which, along with those that will follow them, may lay the firm foundation of a lasting peace.

The Delegation of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia wishes first to thank the heroic and suffering nation of France for a hospitality which has largely facilitated the work of the Conference. On behalf of the Yugoslav nation the Yugoslav Delegation also greets the Allied peoples and their representatives who have met here to deal with this responsible task and with the hope that in a spirit of mutual comprehension all our efforts will be directed toward enabling this Conference to achieve its lofty aim with the utmost possible success.

Modern history is a record of numerous wars and numerous peace conferences. Many of these latter have been accused of having acted blindly, guided exclusively by the victor’s feelings of hate or violence, or shortsightedly of having done things by halves and failing to destroy the basic causes of war. Mistakes like these have led to further aggression and new wars. In the treaties of peace which we are now called upon to draw up, such errors must be avoided. Tomorrow, the pitiless light of history will be brought to bear upon any line of action that is adopted at this Conference. Such action, too, will be judged not by the words in which they are expressed but by their real objectives and the consequences to which they lead. We should merit the severest judgment of humanity if, at least within the limits provided by the peace treaties which we are about to discuss, we did not sincerely endeavour to strike aggression a decisive blow and thus save coming generations from the sufferings and the tortures which war brings in its train.

When we, in Yugoslavia, found ourselves treacherously attacked by the German-Italian invaders and subjected to an occupation which by its mass persecutions decimated the population, we transformed our whole country into a battlefield, where no distinction was made between front and rear, between soldiers, and civilians, where mothers, young girls and children took up arms and where whole regions were devastated. That is why we will never forget what aggression and war means. We should fail in our undertaking if we were to decide that the peace treaties in themselves could suffice to prevent war. Our task is sufficiently hard without cherishing such illusions. But what we can do here is to say to those millions who have sacrificed their all, convinced they were fighting for a truly righteous cause: Our object is to work for human progress, for the happiness of the individual, with our very best will, whatever the nation to which he may belong.

What is necessary is to eliminate the causes of such aggression as that with which we have had to cope and to raze to the ground the system built up by the aggressors of the past.

We would of course be excessively over-estimating our powers if we said that the present Peace Conference would succeed in abolishing wars once and for all. What we will be able to achieve here, however, and what we are bound to do here in view of the millions of victims who have given their lives in the conviction that they were fighting for a truly just cause; what we are bound to achieve for the sake of human progress and the happiness of each individual, is to endeavour on the one hand to be just and fair to the nations and peoples, irrespective of the State or country to which they belong and, on the other hand and for that very reason, to be resolute to the utmost when it is a question of destroying the sources of aggression against which we were until recently fighting and when it is a question of overthrowing to its very foundations the whole structure erected by the forces of the aggressors of yesterday. Some people assume that the parties guilty of launching this war are merely individual personalities from the higher ranks of Fascist aggressor states of yesterday. This Conference however could not seriously strike at the roots of aggression and war if it were to adopt such a standpoint. The roots of aggression lie much deeper and, just as it would be unjust to accuse a whole people indiscriminately, so it would be equally unjust to discern the roots of evil merely in the ideology of a few individuals. I do not propose to undertake any kind of analysis but we are all aware that it was not the people who put forward Hitler and Mussolini but primarily the banks, trusts and cartels and I feel it essential to emphasise that, both before Hitler and under Hitler, the fundamental manifestations of aggressive tendencies took the form of an unceasing and more or less violent trend towards the seizure of foreign territory and their gradual economic and political enslavement, the destruction of the freedom and independence of peoples, the development of economic expansion, the creation of semi-dependent vassal states with anti-democratic regimes etc. What does all this lead to? The Yugoslav Delegation considers that, as a principal factor for the present Conference, it implies that the Conference should strike precisely against this basic manifestation of aggression. Consequently, if the present Conference really wishes to create a firm and permanent basis for international peace, it must in the first place completely destroy all remnants of the domination of Germany, Italy and their vassals and resolutely eradicate not only the relics of their domination in this war but also of their earlier encroachments. The Conference must make it possible for those peoples who were rent to pieces between the various former aggressor states to come together finally and become free. It must do all this in order to ensure peace on their borders. The Conference must further bear in mind that the liberated peoples must be really freed from all economic and political pressure from outside and from all interference in their internal affairs. Further the countries which have been subjected to war and enemy occupation with all the terror and destruction must be given corresponding compensation by the aggressor who devastated them, as otherwise they themselves will be unable to recover. In the view of the Yugoslav Delegation this is the only proper path to follow if the Conference wishes to achieve success. Only thus will aggression be justly punished.

There are some who suggest a different, and in the Yugoslav view, a very dangerous method. They reject objective considerations and suggest that the sole criterion should be merely what part has any specific aggressive state taken in the war. Starting from this standpoint some people, for instance, ask for conciliatory decisions to be adopted in the case of Italy, the practical expression of which would be to give Italy part of Venezia Julia. The Yugoslav Delegation also considers that in concluding a peace consideration should be given to the part played by the individual aggressor state in the war. Further the delegation desires and will itself endeavor to see that the Peace Treaties should afford those states, as soon as possible, conditions favouring a normal existence and reconstruction and should guarantee the peoples and individual persons national and democratic rights. If however there is to be conciliation and concessions, these can only and should only be accorded within the frame-work of the rights and just requirements of those states and peoples; there should be no tolerance in regard to the aggressive and greedy demands profferred at the expense of other peoples. The Yugoslav Delegation considers that no tolerance whatsoever can be shown to aggression or aggressive imperialism.

The Yugoslav Delegation agreed with the speakers who declared that good will should be manifested towards the peoples of the former aggressor countries so as to give them an opportunity for a democratic rebirth. This good will however should manifest itself in respect of the democratic and natural rights of the individual and the race but should not take the form of conciliating an ex enemy in the place where he committed and still continues to commit acts of violence against other peoples. Good will should be directed towards enabling the broad popular masses of the former aggressor countries to live a normal existence and enjoy every form of personal happiness and progress and also to ensure respect for their national rights—such rights as that of taking their own decisions in their own country. It would however be quite erroneous to think that the former aggressor countries can be brought to follow the path of good will, peace and democratic co-operation by leaving them part of the booty in the form of other peoples national territory which they had previously wrongly obtained. Such action would encourage the forces of aggression and strengthen their belief that violence can prove a successful form of aggressive policy. First condition of peace is that the aggressor and the invader should leave the territories which they have wrongly seized and go back to their own racial frontiers. If this Conference fails to achieve this it will have failed to convince the powers of aggression that right is more powerful than wrong and it will therefore be unable to prevent a fresh aggression.

That is the point of view of the Yugoslav Delegation regarding the principles which above all must form the foundation of the work of the present Conference.

We must pay due tribute to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and France, who, in preparing the Peace Treaty, carried out a difficult but an important task. In many cases they made objective and just proposals which could, in actual practice, form the basis of a stable peace.

But not every one of their decisions is of this nature. Among them there are decisions which directly contradict the principles to which I have already referred. The Yugoslav Delegation stresses this point because it is a matter of a fundamental principle and because it intimately concerns the national rights of Yugoslavia. In our opinion such decisions could in the first instance have only arisen because neither in all circumstances, nor in every Allied country are the rights and interests of certain small and medium Allied nations or of their governments taken into account. It would be fatal to the Conference to allow the individual interests of separate Allied countries to prevail against objective criteria. It is obvious that under such circumstances a just peace could not be obtained.

Thus, in the case of the frontier between Yugoslavia and Italy, the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers, is in the main based on the so-called French Line.²⁶ The French Line has exchanged an ethnic frontier for a so-called ethnic balance. The French Line stands for the negation of what is most fundamental, in that our nations were fighting for in the universal struggle with Fascism, Aggression and Imperialist subjection. The French Line deprives the Slovene and Croat nations of the opportunity to be reunited in their own national state within the framework of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and exposes large numbers of them to a new subjection to the Italian Imperialism. Furthermore the draft Peace Treaty has severed Trieste from its Yugoslav hinterland. By taking Trieste from Yugoslavia the draft Peace Treaty commits a further injustice. It establishes between Trieste and Italy a corridor carved of an ethnically absolutely pure Slovene territory. In addition it takes away from Yugoslavia a considerable portion of Istria which is also mainly inhabited by a Yugoslav population.

So much for ethnic and territorial problems. In the economic sphere the draft Peace Treaty fails to offer to Yugoslavia any guarantee of compensation for a more or less reasonable proportion of the enormous losses inflicted on it in the course of the war by the Italian Fascism and Imperialism when it occupied one-third of the entire territory of Yugoslavia for two and a half years. All this it is the more difficult to understand if it is borne in mind that in the course of the war with Italy alone Yugoslavia lost over 400,000 lives. It is obvious that a country which sacrificed so much in the struggle with the Fascist oppressors cannot accept any such conditions.

Despite its mainly consultative character, this Conference can greatly assist in the course of the preparation of the Peace Treaty the furthering of the case and efficacy of objectivity against prevailing subjective criteria. Provided a sincere desire prevails at this Conference to arrive at a completely satisfactory agreement with the countries which are immediately concerned with certain articles of the peace treaties: provided the decisions at this Conference are not made formally, by a simple majority which in some cases may prove to result in a simple imposition on the directly interested countries of conditions which they cannot accept: provided lastly that every delegation lends a sympathetic ear to, and accepts in a spirit of goodwill any truly objective argument, then I have no doubt that the present Conference can play an important part in the final formulation of a Peace Treaty which will be just to all concerned to the greatest possible extent. It is for this reason that Yugoslavia cannot deem it proper that decisions concerning her own people and territories which were liberated by Yugoslavia and her people inhabiting these territories or that decisions in other vital questions connected with the Peace Treaty with Italy should be taken without her agreement. Far be it from Yugoslavia to desire to impose her will. She has so far proved this in all her actions. Therefore the Yugoslav Delegation today once more declares that her only aim is to reach a just agreement with her Allies of the late war in the matter of the peace with Italy.

In this spirit the Yugoslav Delegation considers that the fundamental task of the present Conference is to make possible a full discussion of any arguments put forward by the Allied countries concerned so that an agreement is reached with these directly interested countries. Only under such conditions could any recommendation made by the present Conference be of real value in the preparation of the peace treaties. Remembering the one million seven hundred thousand sons and daughters of their country who fell in Yugoslavia’s war with the Berlin-Rome Axis, the Yugoslav Government and all Yugoslav peoples consider that it is their duty to adopt this attitude. While fighting the enemy, her valiant soldiers were dying inspired with steadfast belief that they were engaged in a fight for the final liberation of all their nations, which means that they were fighting for the principle proclaimed by all the Allied nations in their declarations during the war.

In this spirit I once more express the ardent desire of the Yugoslav Delegation for a successful completion of the work of the present Conference. This would constitute yet another great and decisive victory for the Allied peoples, a triumph of peace and cooperation between the nations over the surviving aggression which attempts to sew discord between the forces which have successfully defended the world against Fascist barbarity.

Mr. Mason (New Zealand):

Mr. President, and fellow delegates, I join with other speakers in expressing to the Government of France, and to the people of this most beautiful and historic city, the warmest appreciation for the hospitable and manifold arrangements, which have been made for the delegations attending this Conference.

I represent the country farthest removed in distance from the conflict in Europe, but one which did not hesitate for an instant to join the resistance to aggression in September, 1939. Twice in one generation our men have poured forth their blood in heavy measure; without stint New Zealanders have devoted their whole productive effort to the needs of war.

I cite this fact of the remoteness of New Zealand from the European theatres of war to stress the importance we attach to the well-known observation that peace, like war, is indivisible. An act of aggression in Abyssinia, or in Danzig, or in China, is but the stone cast into the world’s waters causing the ripples which touch with fatal impact the shores of every country of the world.

We knew that remoteness provided no safeguard, and that failure to resist aggression would mean the loss of the liberties and principles of justice upon which we had built our way of life. We are no less determined to preserve those principles in this making of the peace.

For six years our men fought continuously, proud to fight alongside those armies of free men whose representatives are seated here to-day in this hall of victory. They fought in Greece and Crete, then in North Africa, and later, through the whole length of Italy. They fought against the Japanese in the Pacific when our own homeland was threatened. Our sailors fought on every sea, and our airmen brought war to every enemy of the United Nations.

I recall the heavy sacrifices of my country in the cause of democratic freedom, to emphasize our direct interest in the peace—in the settlement—and in the maintenance—of which we are as willing to take as full a share of responsibility as we did in the conduct of the war.

In view of the wide scope of previous speeches, I have no desire to repeat the sound and excellent principles ably expressed by the most distinguished speakers who have preceded me. I should like, however, to express appreciation of the speech by Mr. Byrnes, the first I heard, having arrived late at this Conference. It was worthy of the greatness of America, and it must give encouragement and hope to all peoples to hear such truths and ideals set forth as the practical basis of the policy of a nation of such strength and power as the United States. I warmly uphold, also, the principles of peacemaking enunciated with such vigour by my colleague from Australia—Dr. Evatt—and also those of his proposals regarding the economic aspects of the peace settlement—proposals which mean so much to the ordinary men and women we represent.

For my own part I am deeply conscious that we are dealing primarily with human beings. We must not yield to the temptation to reward this nation, or to punish that, by giving to the one, and taking from the other, some territory so easily marked on a map. We are dealing not with maps—or abstractions. We are dealing with living men and women, their homes and families—with their lives, their hopes. Human beings are not fit subjects to serve as prizes and rewards.

The New Zealand Delegation endorses what previous speakers have stressed regarding the positive task of peacemaking—the creation of goodwill and good-neighbourliness, and the avoidance of perpetuation of old antagonisms. Though we do not forget the baseness with which some of the now defeated enemies struck at us when our fortunes were at the lowest ebb, we are none of us actuated by the spirit of revenge at the Conference. We know, full well, that there can be no lasting advantage to be gained from a policy actuated by revenge. What we seek above all is a settlement that will avoid the recurrence of war.

In defeating aggression we hoped to see established an international order which would provide the maximum discouragement to aggression in the future. The war was not fought to aggrandize any one of the victors. Such purpose is expressly disowned in the Atlantic Charter. While we do not object to the punishment of the aggressor powers, the effects of punishment must clearly be such as to promote the security of the United Nations.

The peace at which we aim must not only be based on justice, but it must also appear just to those who come after us. Let us therefore see to it that our conception of justice to-day is farsighted and thus avoid those elements of instability that will disrupt our settlement.

In our approach to the Peace the New Zealand Delegation consider that the Atlantic Charter, as a statement of principles and pledge of common faith by the United Nations, is of full effect. In particular, territorial changes should not, we think, be adopted unless a very strong case has been presented, and certainly not until the wishes of the inhabitants of the territories concerned have been clearly ascertained. We believe that the beneficiaries of such changes should give effective guarantees as regards the protection of human rights and economic collaboration.

In many cases we shall have no alternative but to accept compromises reached by the Great Powers; let us, however, have a clear guarantee that the Great Powers regard these compromises as something more than temporary reconciliation of divergent interests and hopes.

New Zealand would welcome, in certain instances, the establishment of international control of areas which involve the economy of more than one country, or of territories whose people would not otherwise be able to maintain their political or cultural independence. But we consider that the Great Powers should not take the responsibility of proposing an international solution of such problems, unless they are unitedly resolved to uphold that solution as a permanent settlement, and that they should make it fully clear to the Conference that this is their resolve. Given such conditions we believe that international solutions can be workable.

We trust that the various settlements will be such as to commend themselves to the United Nations Organisation, which is charged with the responsibility of preserving world peace. The areas dealt with in the Peace Treaties may be the sore spots and trouble centres which will occupy the attention of the United Nations. In this connection we would like to remind this Conference that we cannot bind that Organisation, which is bound only by its Charter, and that before any tasks proposed for the United Nations in the Treaties become effective, they must be fully accepted by the United Nations itself, acting through its organs.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that the New Zealand Delegation reserves for the work of the Commissions its detailed proposals affecting the draft treaties. On this occasion I will say no more beyond expressing the earnest hope that we, in common with other nations represented here, may have the wisdom and breadth of vision to devise a peace that will be as just as humanly possible—a peace that will endure, and one which our children—less deeply involved and with less vivid memories than ourselves—will consider it worth maintaining; and, not of least importance, a peace that the Powers—Great and Small—will unite in upholding.

Mr. Lange (Norway) (Interpretation): Mr. President. My Government was very glad on behalf of the Norwegian people to accept the invitation of the Council of Foreign Ministers to the Conference of Paris and it is with the keenest interest that we are participating in its work. From many points of view this Conference will certainly create precedents in regard to the settlement of the German problem and also the conditions of peace to be formulated for Japan. The essential feature, from our point of view, is to be found, however, in the importance, not only for the future of Europe, but for the future of the whole world that will be assumed by the principles on which the Conference will base its work. It cannot be too frequently repeated that peace is one and indivisible. The peace treaties with the ex-enemy countries of southern and eastern Europe will directly or indirectly have inevitable repercussions on the political, economic and social evolution of the whole world. Moreover, the principles by which we shall be guided will exercise a powerful influence over public opinion in all free countries.

For many years past Norway has taken an active part in every effort directed towards the establishment of peaceful relations and co-operation between nations. In particular, there exists in my country a long tradition in the matter of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The people of my country hope that the peace, of which we are here to lay the first and partial bases, will be inspired by the ideas and conceptions which govern relations between the citizens of democratic countries. Like all the other Allied Governments, the Norwegian Government during the war constantly expressed the hope that the peace would be a peace of peoples, safeguarding all men in the future against poverty and against oppression. For long years we have struggled against the scourge of Nazism and Fascism. We have won the victory. But we must see to it that those forces of evil which are not yet everywhere vanquished are made powerless to endanger the peace of mankind and to oppress peoples as they are still doing to-day in certain countries.

Here at this Conference, however, we find ourselves faced by a task that is delimited and concrete. We have to discuss the draft peace treaties with those countries known as “vassals” or “satellites” of Hitlerite Germany. What line of conduct should be adopted so as in this particular case to arrive at a just and lasting peace? The Governments of those States have all collaborated and have voluntarily subjected themselves to the demands and direction of Hitlerite Germany. They are, therefore, in different degree, it is true, all accomplices in those crimes. The countries which have been attacked, pillaged, exploited and tortured are in the very first place entitled to demand that the indispensable military and political precautions should be taken to guarantee them against fresh aggression. And then they are entitled also to demand that the aggressor States, within the limits of their possibilities, should contribute towards reconstructing what they have destroyed.

Finally, and this is a question of principle and of morality, it is of the greatest importance to demonstrate and to make all the peoples understand that a war of aggression does not pay, that it is a crime which entails grave responsibilities for those States which launched it. This is of capital importance for small nations which, in general, having regard to their population and their resources, will be the most seriously affected and will have the least possibility to defend themselves against aggression.

There are no divergences of opinion amongst us on these points. It is understood that these considerations must play a predominant part in the drawing up of treaties of peace with ex-enemy states. This does not mean that the United Nations desire a peace of vengeance. Our essential object must be by laying the foundations of a lasting peace, to create conditions favourable to the development of worldwide co-operation. For this reason the ex-enemy countries must be put in a position to participate, as soon as possible after the signature of the peace treaties, in the life and in the common efforts of the democratic nations and to be admitted to the United Nations. The condition precedent for such admission will be the establishment in those States of a stable system of government built up on the principles of democracy and the rights of man.

The Allies realise also that the conditions of peace must not be of such a nature as to render impossible the democratic development of the ex-enemy States. It must not be forgotten that in those countries there arose, particularly during the latter part of the war, movements of opposition to the pro-Hitlerite régime. The existence of these elements, which are now playing an important part in the governments of ex-enemy countries, allows us to hope that those countries will set their feet on the path of human progress. The countries attacked and despoiled are fully entitled to demand priority as regards the apportionment of the limited resources which remain available in a world impoverished by six years of war. An effort must, however, be made to prevent, as far as possible, sapping the economic foundations which are necessary to the restoration of ex-enemy countries, for that would have the result of plunging them into chaos. It will be difficult to settle territorial problems. Many factors must be taken into consideration and no one principle can be exclusively pushed to its utmost limits. Economic and strategic necessities must be taken into account, but it may be advisable to stress the fact that a high degree of importance must be attributed to the nationality of those populations whose fate is at stake. We know the harmful effects on the peace of Europe and the world that have followed in the past from national claims. There is no reason, in connection with the questions that we have to settle, to create any antagonism between great and small nations.

It is practical and reasonable that the great Powers should first of all discuss problems among themselves and subsequently submit the results of their deliberations to the other Allied nations which have taken an active part in the war.

In the present case there is every reason to be unreservedly glad that the Council of Foreign Ministers has succeeded in reaching agreement beforehand on some of the most important questions. We all recognize that understanding and collaboration between the great Powers constitute a necessary condition if it is to be possible to draw up peace treaties with ex-enemy States.

That does not mean that certain decisions cannot be modified as a result of discussions with the other nations assembled here. If we agree to the suggestions put forward by the four Powers, this Conference can only pass recommendations, and the terms of the treaties of peace must be determined by the inviting Powers. True, the other Allied States would naturally have liked to be able to take part in the final decisions, but we confidently hope that the Great Powers will take into consideration the recommendations of the Conference and the views put forward here by the other Allied nations. We have noted with great satisfaction the statements made in this sense during our discussions.

All nations, great or small, must work together to bring about a peace that shall be lasting and just, that shall make it possible to reconstruct European civilisation on newer and broader foundations than in the past. In this task we may draw inspiration from the glorious traditions of this great capital whose guests we are, from this city which reminds us at every street corner of the struggle that they waged for freedom and civilisation in the old days and also in our own times.

Procedure

The President: The Commission on Procedure will meet tomorrow at 10 a.m.

The Plenary Conference will meet at 4 p.m. to continue the general discussion. The following delegates have expressed a desire to speak:

• M. Masaryk (Czechoslovakia).
• M. Aklilou (Ethiopia).
• M. Rzymowski (Poland).
• Mr. Mackenzie King (Canada).
• M. Kiselev (Byelorussia).

(The meeting rose at 6:40 p.m.)

26. For identification of the “French Line”, see footnote 7, p. 46.