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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 30, 1946, 3:30 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 57

The French proposal for Article 34 (Danube), simply laying down the principle of freedom of navigation on the Danube and providing for an international conference to consider a regime for the Danube, was adopted by 8 votes to 5 (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia), with one abstention (India).¹⁷

The Australian amendment to Article 26 (Rumanian Property in Allied Territory), exempting Rumanian literary and artistic property from retention under the Article, was carried without a roll call vote by 8 votes to 5, with one abstention. Without roll call votes paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 26 were then adopted by 10 votes to 3, with one abstention, paragraph 4 as amended by 8 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions, and paragraph 5 by 9 votes to none, with 5 abstentions.

A vote on Article 33 (Full Effect of Annexes 4, 5, and 6) was adjourned until the Commission had considered Annexes 5 and 6 (Contracts; Prize Courts and Judgments). The consideration of these Annexes was adjourned until the report of the sub-commission created by the Italian Economic Commission to consider the corresponding Annexes of the Italian treaty should be available.

The Commission unanimously adopted Article 23 (Restitution) as a whole (this vote had not been taken previously because of an oversight).

The Commission then turned to the Bulgarian treaty. M. Politis (Greece) spoke at length on the Greek claim for reparation from Bulgaria, discussing Bulgaria’s war guilt, the serious damages (estimated at nearly $1 billion) inflicted on Greece by the Bulgarian occupation forces, and Bulgaria’s capacity to pay reparation. In the latter connection he cited the September report to ECOSOC by the Sub-commission on Reconstruction as showing that Bulgaria had suffered no serious damage during the war. He attempted to show by comparative statistics that even before the war Bulgaria was richer and had a higher standard of living than Greece. He analyzed present economic conditions in Bulgaria and sought to show that these would permit substantial reparation payments. The Yugoslav representative spoke briefly of the heavy damages, estimated at $1.5 billion, caused to Yugoslavia by Fascist Bulgarian forces, but went on to say that the Yugoslav Delegation recognized that many Bulgarians had resisted the Fascist Bulgarian Government and that, as a result, this Government had never been able to send Bulgarian troops into the main theaters of war. It also recognized the economic conditions of Bulgaria, the efforts to create a new and democratic government, and the elimination of Fascist elements and would, therefore, claim only such reparation as Bulgaria could pay without economic ruin. Mr. Smith (U.K.) noted that Yugoslavia was prepared to reduce its claim to a minimum, but that Greece was not ready to make such a sacrifice. He recognized the justice of the Greek claim, but recommended and proposed that reparation to Greece by Bulgaria should be fixed at a substantial sum, but well below the Greek claim, on the understanding that deliveries by Bulgaria would include food and would commence immediately, thus alleviating present and future Greek shortages.

After an exchange of views, in the course of which Mr. Thorp (U.S.) and M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) indicated their opposition to it, M. Politis withdrew the Greek amendment (1.J.25) [C.P.(Gen.) Doc. 1.J.25] to Article 20 (Reparation), by which the reference to Bulgaria’s participation in the war against Germany and to the consequence that reparation would be paid only in part would have been deleted from the Article. As no one had proposed a sum to be paid by Bulgaria, final consideration of Article 20 was deferred until October 2.

Mr. Politis withdrew the original Greek amendment to Article 21 (Restitution) [C.P.(Gen.) Doc. 1.J.26] and proposed instead the amendment which had been introduced by the U.S. Delegation and adopted in the case of Italy and which provided for limited replacement of non-restitutable works of art.¹⁸ Consideration of this amendment was deferred until the next meeting.

Without discussion the Commission unanimously adopted Annex 4 A (Industrial, Literary, and Artistic Property), paragraphs 4 and 7 being adopted in the same text as approved for Rumania.¹⁹ The Commission unanimously adopted Article 23 (German Assets in Bulgaria) without discussion.

17. For text of the French proposal, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, ibid., pp. 434, 447.
18. For substance of the United States proposal, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 18th Meeting of the Economic Commission for Italy, September 17, p. 473.
19. Regarding the revision of paragraphs 4 and 7, see the United States Delegation Journal accounts of the present Commission’s 13th Meeting, September 9, and 17th Meeting, September 14, pp. 405, and 454, respectively.