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

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

August 2, 1946, 4 p.m.

C.P. (Plen) 5

President: M. Bidault

The President: I call on M. Masaryk, First Delegate of Czechoslovakia.

M. Masaryk (Czechoslovakia)—Mr. President and fellow delegates, at the beginning of my very short speech, I wish to pay a tribute to our generous hostess—France. France has been the western neighbour of many Germanys, who periodically behaved in the same uncivilised Teutonic manner towards us. Bohemia, later known as Czechoslovakia, has been the eastern neighbour from time immemorial. The western and eastern neighbours should be made secure in order to keep a continuous watch for many years to come, no dozing, no appeasement and not too many illusions. So I pay my modest tribute to the past and future greatness of France in three words: “La France éternelle”.

The Delegations assembled in this historic Palais du Luxembourg are studying the drafts presented by the Foreign Ministers of the Great Powers—drafts of peace treaties with countries whose Governments, some for a longer, some for a shorter time, but all of them long enough, affectionately held Hitler’s hand during that unspeakable period when Nazism became the government of the so-called Third Reich and the second World War in our generation was unleashed.

The Czechoslovak Delegation is going to have something to say on some of these points. We realise full well that they are the result of long and sometimes difficult negotiations. They are a compromise between different points of view, and we shall respect that fact when we take part in the ensuing conversations.

One fact though, I wish to bring to the attention of this plenary session of the Paris Conference at this very time. It would be most especially difficult to persuade the people of Czechoslovakia to consider the idea of reverting to minority treaties such as we had between 1919 and 1938. A Czechoslovak Government which tried to do so would most likely be overthrown. Czechoslovakia lived up to those treaties as well as any one in Europe—maybe a little better. What happened to Bohemia as the result of her western neighbour and her German minority running amok, you know full well. What happened to Slovakia as the result of the most ardent and utterly satellite behaviour of her south eastern neighbour, Hungary, is also a well established historic fact. We in Czechoslovakia, fellow delegates, have had much more than our portion of scheming minorities.

Among others I also speak to you as the representative of a small country, small in size, thickly populated for its size, but not quite so small in tradition in making European history and in its contributions to European culture. We have no great open spaces and it is well known that we have no sea. A small country, a rather lovely one, land-locked, in the very heart of Europe, such is our proud and difficult heritage.

From Prague I can motor in less than half an hour to the sacred site of that erased village Lidice. In just over an hour, I can take you to the concentration camp of Terezin where I went the other day for a little silent prayer before hundreds and hundreds of graves of our beloved martyrs,—Jews and Christians; their graves are not identified, all heaped together are our unknown soldiers.

Munich and Nuremberg are not very far from Prague either. So, although I am not assuming to be the champion of small countries, I most assuredly speak for one. When Czechoslovakia was attacked, she was in excellent company. Great, brave, unconquerable China came first, valiant Abyssinia next and then Czechoslovakia, the first one in Europe. It has been said here and repeated here that we should not seek revenge but justice. I heartily agree with that, but Czechoslovakia has not forgotten, not yet. We know our Central Europe, the causes and roots of the two world wars. We hope that our voice is going to be listened to by our twenty co-belligerents. We are going to tell you that where old methods have failed, and failed most lamentably, new ones and, so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, permanent new methods should be tried. What we want is a peaceful, progressive, democracy of Czechoslovakia and Slovakia. We wish to achieve this by open methods compatible with the Charter of the United Nations, and we believe, that by so doing, a source of conflicts irredentism and, if I may say so, bilateral excitement would be eliminated. Sometimes, I even make bold to hope and think that perhaps we could be given a Slight benefit of the doubt, but I must not pursue the point. Czechoslovakia, loyal to her allies, is very proud to be a Slav country, proud that her sons fought in the Ukraine and entered Prague with the victorious liberating Red Army, that her boys took part in the Battle of Britain and fought at Tobruk, that her brigade besieged and delivered Dunkirk, proud to have fought alongside the victorious great armies of the great United States of America and alongside the armies of the other Allies who are assembled in this hall, and, remembering the Slovak uprising behind the lines of the German army, barricades of Prague and the wonderful, magnificent behaviour of her population during seven endless years of Hitler’s inferno. Czechoslovakia is looking forward with reasonable, realistic optimism to the ultimate result of this and the following peace meetings. We all want peace. We all need peace. We all really must have peace. Otherwise,—well—I am not going to finish that sentence. Foolish or very naughty people who speak glibly of the next war are doing an outstanding dis-service to their unborn grandsons. Imagine, fellow delegates, a long, long peace, maybe even permanent peace—wouldn’t that be wonderful!

Mr. Mackenzie King (Canada)

Mr. President and fellow delegates: The nations represented at this Conference have willingly accepted the invitation of the great Powers to be associated with them in the task of making peace with Italy and the Eastern European belligerents. It was with particular pleasure that the Government of Canada received this invitation at the hands of the Government of France. The special ties between Canada and France reach back for more than four hundred years. During two centuries our countries shared a common history. Twice in the past thirty years, in the defence of civilisation, French and Canadian fighting men have been valiant comrades on the battlefields of Europe. Canada is happy to-day to be associated with France in rebuilding the peace in Europe.

Canada’s interest in the successful outcome of the deliberations of this Conference is obviously less immediate and direct than that of some of the participating countries. Clearly there are many countries represented here that will be more closely and directly concerned with the specific solutions of questions of territorial boundaries, population transfers, war damage indemnities and so on. I can truly say that Canada has no specific national interest in the adoption of any particular formula for the solution of individual conflicts and differences which, in the aggregate, will constitute the general settlement. But we have a vital and compelling interest in the kind of settlement that results from these deliberations. Our principal duty and interest lies, it seems to me, in helping the countries more directly concerned to work out agreed solutions which are fair and likely to endure. Our concern as a nation is to see that as far as we can help to make them so, the peace treaties will be based upon broad and enduring principles of justice and equality. Canada seeks no territory, no reparation, no special concessions of any kind, but we do seek to build a lasting peace. Canada’s interest in the peace springs from deep within the heart of Canada’s nationhood. It might be thought, from our geographical position, that we were remote from and had no concern with central Europe. But the fact that we were early in the struggle and that Canada entered the war by the deliberate decision of the Canadian Parliament was evidence of our immediate realization that the peace of the world is one and indivisible. If the peace and security of Europe were threatened, so also were the peace and security of Canada. No one could say where the aggressor might strike.

The war effort of Canada was an all-out effort. It was planned and carried out to the limit of our ability for two main reasons. We wanted to help to bring the war to a victorious close at the earliest possible day. We also wanted Canada’s contribution to be of an order which would entitle us to share effectively in the making of peace.

May I say a word in reference to those nations of Europe against which Canada, in common with her Allies, declared the existence of a state of war, and with whose future the present Conference is immediately concerned.

Italy and Finland, Hungary and Roumania, have, like other nations of Europe, each made their contribution to the upbuilding of the Canadian people. Many thousands of our citizens, whose parents came to Canada as humble immigrants not so very long ago, returned to fight in Europe as Canadian soldiers, volunteers in the war to preserve democracy from Fascist aggression. We welcome the opportunity, which the making of peace affords, for the emergence, in the lands of their forefathers, of new governments and institutions dedicated to the realization of those ideals of right and justice for which we believe the war was fought. Of the countries in the world taking part in this Conference, Canada has, from these close associations of blood and history, a particular interest in hoping that out of the peace treaties will come settlements which will be definitive, because they will be recognized as fair and just.

The process of peacemaking is seldom an easy process. Let us frankly admit that the course which has been followed has not in all respects been that which some of us have hoped for. This perhaps may be said of all countries represented here.

We in Canada felt that the measure of our participation in the war against aggression would have warranted a similar measure of participation in the decisions of peace. In the event, these hopes are not being realized. We have, however, the limited opportunity afforded by our participation in this Conference not only to assist in shaping the first of the peace treaties, but also to make known our views on certain instalments of the general peace settlement.

We all have a stake in helping as best we can to bring about wise and agreed solutions to the problems the war has left in its wake. If our opportunity to shape decisions is limited, we cannot, if peace should not be secured, place a similar limit on our liabilities. For this reason I hope that the Conference arrangements will permit of each nation making its maximum contribution to the solution of the problems confronting us.

It would be unfortunate if, in this Conference, the real issues were to be obscured by any false antithesis between the interests of the larger and smaller nations.

The determining factor in the making of peace should not be the size or power of the participants, nor of their relative contribution to victory. The final test is what is right and what is just.

Already difficulties have arisen and divisions have appeared in relation to procedure. Views strongly held have given emphatic expression, within these walls and without, in opposition to and in support of some of the proposals of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

I have been in public life a long time, perhaps longer than anyone here. It certainly cannot be said of me that I under-estimate the importance of being in the majority. It has not, therefore, been difficult for me to sympathize with the positions stated by both Dr. Evatt and Mr. Molotov. I have learned, however, that even better than a majority is unanimity and common consent.

With this in mind I would like the four great Powers willing to consider and consider promptly, any changes in the Foreign Ministers’ proposals which are seriously suggested and supported by strong argument. I should like to see any suggested changes considered by them before a vote is taken. In other words, I would venture to suggest, and I believe the suggestion to be important, that the Council of Foreign Ministers should not wait until the Conference has ended to examine recommendations. I would suggest that the Council of Foreign Ministers, all of whom will be attending the Conference, should meet from time to time during the Conference to review and discuss proposals as they arise out of our deliberations. This course would facilitate the immediate acceptance of any agreed modifications of the draft treaties. It would tend to avoid the necessity of voting and divisions, and in saying that it is of the highest importance at this time to do everything possible to minimize divisions, I think I can speak for everyone here, indeed, for the people of an anxious world.

Then there is the question of time. For many reasons, it would be unfortunate were the Conference to be unduly prolonged. It is certainly our duty to see that our work is done thoroughly. It is of almost equal importance that it be done quickly.

Were the Council of Foreign Ministers to meet, during the Conference, in the way I have suggested, it would require no changes in the formal position. The final stage provided for under the Moscow Agreement would still take place and the Foreign Ministers would convene for the purpose of approving the final draft treaties. But if there is merit in this proposal, they would, I believe, find at that time, that many problems of the final stage had been resolved.

Indeed, it might not be too much to hope that final agreement would rapidly ensue. Furthermore, this course would have the advantage of emphasizing our common partnership in the making of peace.

Too great significance cannot be attached to the present Conference; if for no reason other than that it is the first of the Conferences concerned with the treaties of peace, it must pave the way for future conferences. If it succeeds, the success of future conferences will be commensurately ensured. Should it fail, what hope would be left of future success in the making of peace?

If we succeed, we shall immediately remove one burden from the shoulders of mankind. We shall lighten humanity’s load as it seeks to be relieved of its heaviest burdens. To lighten a man’s spirit by giving him fresh hope, is to give him fresh strength and ability to pursue his way. It is the same with nations as with men. To fail to bring this Conference to a successful conclusion, or to prolong it indefinitely, would be to discourage the nations, and to hold them back in their onward march.

I would be untrue to my deepest convictions were I not to give to the Conference a statement of the magnitude of the task with which, as I see it, our world is faced. Fortunately, for what I have to say, I have high scientific authority. Ours is an age in which there has been much of scientific progress, and in which great store is placed upon scientific discovery. High honour is paid to science itself.

Of her many contributions to the advancement of science and to the betterment of the human race, France has bestowed no gift comparable to that of the research of her great scientist, Louis Pasteur. On the inauguration of the Pasteur Institute, in the City in which we are assembled to-day, Louis Pasteur, in whose honour the Institute was founded, enlarged upon the significance of scientific research. Overcome at the reception accorded him by the scholars and statesmen of France, this great benefactor of mankind asked his son to read for him from the manuscript he had prepared. In that notable document there appeared the following epoch-making paragraph:

“Two contrary laws seem to be wrestling with each other nowadays; the one, a law of blood and of death, ever imagining new means of destruction, and forcing nations to be constantly ready for the battlefield, the other a law of peace, work and health, ever evolving new means of delivering man from the scourges which beset him. The one seeks violent conquest, the other the relief of Humanity. The latter places one human life above any victory, while the former would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to the ambition of one.”

This profound analysis of the nature of international conflict was made a little over half a century ago. It has not yet received the attention it merits. We would do well to recognize that beneath all else, and stronger than all else, are unseen forces which are very powerful and which have operated, not in our day only, but from the beginning of recorded time. The wars the world has witnessed have been no matter of chance or circumstance. They are the hideous manifestations of contrary laws wrestling in human society—their work the destruction of civilisation from within.

The years of war have surely taught us that no man liveth to himself, and that no nation liveth to itself. We are all members one of another. Henceforth, in the interests of its people, no nation can afford to serve selfish, nationalistic ends, and whether these be isolated self-defence or world domination, it is for every nation to remember that over all nations is humanity. We have had enough of the mailed fist. What our world needs to-day is the hand of the Physician. By blood and by death forces of aggression have sought to extend the frontiers of their already vast domains. By peace, work and health, obeying the laws of humanity, we, in the words of Louis Pasteur, shall seek, with the aid of science, to extend the frontiers of life.

M. Wincenty Rzymowski (Poland) (interpretation): Mr. President, Gentlemen, We welcome the Peace Conference as the concrete expression of an effort to bring the world back to normal conditions. Our discussions must succeed in finally normalising post-war conditions in one of the most important sectors of the European political field. Various voices have been heard, even before we met here, endeavouring to minimize the significance of this Conference and emphasing that the only important problem for the peace of the world is the problem of Germany.

Our country was the victim which suffered most from the Nazis. We lost about six million inhabitants. Our capital, Warsaw, is now only a heap of ruins, evidence of deep-rooted and savage barbarism, the sole example in modern history of such an attack on the capital of a country. For that reason we realize, perhaps better than any other nation in the world, the importance of the German problem. When the time comes, we shall take an active part in the lasting settlement of the fate of vanquished Germany. We consider, however, that, at the present moment, the transformations which the German nation has undergone are not sufficient to enable us to take up hastily the solution of that problem.

Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania and Finland, on the other hand, have undergone such far-reaching changes that questions relating to them are ripe for a final and lasting solution. It is our duty therefore by means of adequate peace treaties to restore normal conditions of existence in those countries as soon as possible, and to permit them to enter the community of peace-loving nations. We should hold out our hands to these nations and allow them to build up a new future on new bases—a future that shall be free from the vices of Fascism. We shall remain faithful to this line of conduct towards each nation. We shall support the aspirations of free Spain and we shall support the aspirations of liberty and real democracy of all peoples.

I have said that the questions submitted to the present Conference concern one of the most important sectors of European policy. I should like to explain briefly my Government’s point of view. The ferocious war which broke out seven years ago was prepared in a new spirit of determined savagery but it followed the old traditional path of German policy. The war, which according to the plans of Berlin, was to result in the extermination of many countries, was not prepared by the efforts of German diplomacy alone. Before deciding to unleash the tempest, Hitler and his clique of collaborators did everything in their power to seize certain territories politically. In many cases, this was rendered possible only by economic conquest. The Danube basin and the Balkans constituted one of the most important fields for that German economic expansion which opened the way to political conquest.

In the past, the world looked with an indifferent eye on the German efforts directed towards the Berlin-Baghdad axis. In some quarters, where the objects of the economic policy of Germany were beginning to be realised, this indifference gave place to a feeling of profound impotence. Consequently the Germans were able, to carry out their plans without encountering any obstacles. German exports to these territories were followed by an ideological expansion. In the train of machine-tools, motor-cars, watches and other merchandise there was a penetration by agents responsible for propagating the Fascist and Nazi ideology. Thus the Danube basin and the Balkans became not only an outlet for German goods but a propaganda zone in which doctrines of the Third Reich took root. The nation which submitted to this acquired in Germany an outlet for its raw materials. The Third Reich became the master of the existence and of the economic development of such countries. The Germans tried the same methods in the Baltic. In this way, Finland, Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria were dragged into the orbit of German economy and policy. The success of this method enabled Germany to create the economic and political bases of conquest. The alliance with Fascist Italy opened to Hitler the Mediterranean, the zone in which Powers possessing interests in Asia and Africa were to clash.

Poland considers that the work of the present Peace Conference constitutes an important stage in the preparation for future decisions concerning Germany. As we wish for peace, we can never again allow Germany to play a preponderant part in the Danube basin, the Balkans and the Baltic. In no case can we permit Italy to fall once more within the sphere of German influence. The conquest of Poland by Germany in 1939 was made possible, in the first place, by the fact that some of our neighbours to the north and south were under the orders of Berlin.

I wish to recall the fact that at the time when the Polish armies were struggling for freedom—one being reborn in the Soviet Union and fighting side by side with the Red Army and the other, in the west, helping to crush the Germans in North Africa and in all the battlefields of Europe side by side with their British, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and French comrades—in Poland, the Hungarian troops were taking part in the occupation of our country by Germany and in the destruction of Poland’s heritage. It is, therefore, not only the general decisions of this Conference which affect us but also the details of the peace treaties with Italy and Hungary.

Concern for our own interests, however, does not lead us to forget that the fate of millions of people to the north and to the south of our frontiers depends on our decisions. We know that our work must create conditions favourable to the development of our Czech and Yugoslav friends. We know, too, that we are concerned with the fate of nations which have fought in the enemy camp, but which, as soon as warlike operations ended, proved that they had been able to rid themselves of fascist and Nazi influences.

In our desire to co-operate sincerely with all those who are taking part in this Conference and who wish justice to put an end to past events and desire that a wise circumspection should govern the establishment of a lasting peace, we approve the latest results of the Conference of the Four Ministers for Foreign Affairs, who have devoted to the preparation of our Conference long and sometimes difficult discussions. I am happy to pay a tribute here to the part played by our host, the Prime Minister of France, M. Bidault. It is thanks to his political wisdom and his good counsel that it was possible to reach an agreement on various problems of a general and of a special nature, although certain prophets of ill had already said that there was no possibility whatsoever of any agreement being reached.

We desire that our work should not be prolonged for weeks but should be concluded as soon as possible, so that, behind the decisions of this Conference, the whole world may see the outlines of peace taking shape.

If the Peace Conference has been able to start its work, this is thanks to the collaboration of four Powers. It is they, let us remember, who are ultimately, and in a decisive way, responsible for the settlement of relations between the countries of the world and for the fate of peace. It is in their close collaboration that we see the strongest and perhaps the only basis for a lasting peace. Accordingly, on behalf of the Polish Delegation, I would venture to assert that we shall be serving our cause well if, through our deliberations, we confirm the results obtained by the Four Powers.

In this hall, there are assembled the representatives of all the nations which made an effective contribution to the victory. We have been able to meet here owing to the tragic sacrifice of millions of our brothers who have fallen for freedom. Let us prove to all that the victory gained through unity in the war effort will be perpetuated through unity in peaceful co-operation. The world, at present, wants no further manifestations of divergences of opinion. The world needs unity of action. The Polish Delegation desires to contribute to the realisation of that unity, which must be an essential object of the Peace Conference.

M. Aklilou (Ethiopia) (Translation)

Mr. President: It is with profound emotion that I address you who are assembled to work out the treaties of peace after a war which lasted, for Ethiopia, longer than for any other country called upon to defend itself against Fascist aggression. It was only after a bitter and prolonged struggle that Ethiopia, with the help of her valiant Allies, was at last victorious over her enemies and was the first country to be liberated.

May I be permitted here, in the name of my country, to render a tribute to all those, great and small, who, through steadfast resistance to aggression and through their immense sacrifices, were the artisans of the victory which should assure to the people of the world peace in justice.

I wish also to associate myself with other delegations in expressing my gratitude for the generous hospitality extended to us by the French Government. Ethiopia’s perseverance in war for ten years has borne fruit by the liberation of her soil, and gives her also the right to affirm before the Conference the principles of collective security for which we have all made great sacrifices. Ethiopia is convinced that by the effort of the United Nations the peril of war will be abolished. Yet these efforts will be ineffective unless the peace is founded on justice. The necessity of preventing the causes of war has become now, more than ever, after the loss of millions of lives and unspeakable suffering, a sacred and imperative duty. We must never forget that the causes of war go back much further than the occasions of war. The causes are often clear; and to ensure their removal we must face up to them and expose them frankly.

As regards the causes of aggression against Ethiopia, it is manifest that they long preceded the Fascist régime. Just as France had to endure the invasion of one State three times within a century, so Ethiopia had to face invasion three times within half a century from one enemy. Ethiopia is, therefore, concerned not merely with the question of getting rid of the menace of the Fascist régime, but with securing positive assurance that she will not any longer be exposed to continual invasions, as in the past. After three wars which were forced upon her, she cannot allow Italy to have control in any form whatsoever, over those territories from which Italy launched her aggression.

These invasions entailed immense sacrifices on the part of Ethiopia, because she had to face an infinitely more powerful foe.

Ethiopia asks that justice should be done to her. It is just that she should be able, at last, to live in peace, free from fear of fresh invasion. It is just that the losses caused by past invasions should be repaired.

It is unjust that her children, torn from her by Italian aggression, should be separated from her any longer. Finally, it is just that Ethiopia should no longer be deprived of the right, enjoyed by every independent State, of direct access to world markets.

It is not for her to speak about the other Italian colonies, but Ethiopia asks that the question of the colonies of East Africa which has greatly troubled this region, shall be considered by the Conference. She does so because we think, we are convinced, that the solution of the problem is clear and simple. It must not be forgotten that the territories which she claims have been, for ages, an integral part of the empire with which they have ties of history, culture, economy and geography; and these ties have prevailed over fifty years of Italian oppression.

Any proposal that this territory should remain separated from Ethiopia would not only be a great injustice to the peoples concerned, but would not yield a workable solution. It is impossible for poor countries, which are simply outlets for the rich hinterland of Ethiopia, to live in separate units, cut off from the empire which sustains them.

It is only in Ethiopia that the products and the means are available which are necessary for the life of the populations of these territories, and those populations can never enjoy true independence outside Ethiopia. Thanks to her unexpectedly rapid recovery Ethiopia is able to undertake these responsibilities. The best way of assuring liberty to these peoples, who have suffered long from Italian oppression, is to reintegrate them in the Empire to which they are attached by many ties.

We speak of the recovery of Ethiopia after the dire sufferings of the Italian invasion. Through the terrible war which has just ended, we have been able to regain our liberty, but at the price of immense losses and sacrifices which have been, and still are, a heavy burden on our efforts towards recovery. It is just and indispensable that the burden be lightened. According to official statements, 750,000 persons, 7 per cent, of the total population, were killed. Five hundred thousand homes, 2,000 churches were destroyed, and 14,000,000 farm animals were killed. These figures do not give the full measure of the loss. They do not reveal the tragic fact that the victims include more than three-quarters of the educated Ethiopians. For the same destructive purpose, the Italian invader systematically suppressed all the Ethiopian schools. Italy makes much of the material contribution which she brought to the country, as if that could compensate for thousands of lives and unspeakable sufferings. Moreover, of the material goods, which might have been useful at the time to the country, a very great part, and, in the case of military supplies, the whole, was destroyed in the war, or transferred to other theatres of war as a contribution to the combined effort of the Allies.

The war cost us all our resources. It was a total war. To aid in the recovery of the country we ask, in justice, that Italy should be required to make reparation, at least for some of the injuries inflicted on the first victim of her aggression.

Ethiopia seeks, not a peace of revenge, but a just peace, which will enable her to live in peace with her former enemies. She did not hesitate to support the granting of help to Italy for her reconstruction by the United Nations Rehabilitation Administration. But Italy must show sincere repentance for the wrongs she committed and must make a serious effort to repair them.

The united efforts of all nations are necessary to lead the world back on to the road of peace. Ethiopia undertakes to make her modest, but sincere, contribution.

M. Kiselev (Byelorussia) (own interpretation): Mr. President, Fellow Delegates, More than a year has already passed since the cessation of hostilities in Europe. Our generation has twice experienced all horrors of world war. As a result of the second world war people have endured incalculable calamities and privations, they have paid millions of human lives for the lack of timely measures to liquidate aggression in its very conception.

The people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Yugoslavia and the other countries who were the first to be treacherously attacked by Hitlerite Germany and her satellites have endured colossal sufferings and privations. Those sufferings are especially familiar and understandable to us because the peoples of the Soviet Union have borne the main burden of the war.

During this war the Byelorussian people underwent exceptional calamities caused by the invasion of their territory by enemy armies, but they did not lose their spirit or fall on their knees at the feet of the fascist aggressor. They selflessly fought defending every inch of their native land and their national independence.

Throughout the country the Byelorussian people abandoned themselves to a selfless fight against the fascist invaders. Over a million Byelorussian soldiers and officers fought in the ranks of the Red Army, and 300,000 armed partisans, actively supported by the entire Byelorussian nation, fought behind the enemy’s lines.

This contribution to the cause of the victory over fascist Germany and her satellites cost the Byelorussian people enormous human sacrifices and unprecedented destructions. Suffice it to say that the total damage caused to the Byelorussian public constitutes half of her national wealth.

As a result of the enormous exertion and war efforts of the Red Army, the armies of Great Britain, the United States of America and other Allies of the anti-Hitlerite coalition, the armed forces of Germany and her satellites were routed on the battle fields, they surrendered and at last the long awaited peace has come.

The Governments and peoples of 21 states have sent their delegates to this Conference to consider and sign the peace treaties with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungaria and Finland who, through the fault of their former reactionary Governments, were involved in the second world war, and whose armies had fought on the side of Hitlerite Germany against the freedom-loving peoples of the world.

In the course of the war itself there was established a powerful Anti-Hitlerite coalition consisting of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States of America and of other democratic states uniting all the progressive forces of mankind into a single anti-fascist bloc, with the result that the people of the world were saved from Hitlorite enslavement.

The experiences of the Second World War has shown that the Governments of democratic countries, carrying out the will of their peoples, could successfully agree on, and solve the most complicated political, economic and military question arising in the course of the war. This unity in the long run has ensured a complete victory over fascist Germany and her satellites whose mad dream was to secure world domination.

The wartime co-operation can and must be extended into peacetime conditions. The democratic countries are, in the interests of the strengthening and maintenance of peace and security, called upon to solve peacefully all problems of a political or economic nature which face them.

The peoples of the whole world expect from us, a just and wise settlement of all questions placed for the consideration of the present Peace Conference.

Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, because of the activities of their Governments, must bare the responsibility for being partners of plundering Hitlerite Germany. They must be held responsible for the misery, ruination and crimes which their armies inflicted on peace-loving peoples. But we do not harbour vengeance in our hearts. The peoples of these countries have learned much in this war. They have become aware of the great dangers represented by Fascism. It is for this reason that, honouring the sovereignty and national feelings of Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, we must help the peoples of these countries to rid themselves forever of the shameful blot of having participated in Fascist aggression. We must welcome and fortify by all available means such democratic changes as have taken place in these countries to date.

The Byelorussian Delegation feels that the Council of Foreign Ministers have accomplished a great task in preparing drafts of peace treaties. This will aid us immeasurably in the work of this Conference.

We agree with the draft Peace treaties for Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania and Finland, and we are in accord with the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. However, the Byelorussian Delegation finds it necessary to make a few comments and to propose some amendments.

Article 17, Section III, of the draft peace treaty with Italy,³⁰ as presented to us by the Council of Foreign Ministers, notes the fact that Italy will relinquish all rights to its territorial possessions in Lybia, Eritrea and Italian Somaliland.

The same draft notes that the disposition with regard to these territories will be finalised by the Four Foreign Ministers within one year from the effective date of the treaty with Italy.

For the time being the above territories will remain under their present administration.

Such a solution cannot be said to be a proper one. Any further presence of British troops in these Italian colonies is being interpreted by public opinion as an attempt by England to occupy these territories.

In the opinion of the Byelorussian Delegation, the Council of Foreign Ministers must expedite a final solution of this problem.

These former Italian colonies in Africa must be accorded full opportunity for full political, social and economic progress of their peoples, progress in education and in the direction of national self-determination.

The next question to which I would like to draw your attention concerns the Julian March and Trieste. Everybody knows that the Yugoslav people, by their heroic fight against the Fascist invaders, made an invaluable contribution to the common cause of the United Nations. Hundreds of thousands of the best sons and daughters of the Yugoslav people gave their lives to defend their national independance, to save humanity from Fascist tyranny. The peoples of Federated Yugoslavia have the right to expect from us a just solution of the question which is of such importance to them.

After the first World War, Trieste, Istria, and the Dalmatian Coast were given to Italy under the terms of the Treaty of St. Germain, as a reward. Historically this action was not correct and the Yugoslav people could not agree to such an encroachment upon their national rights and privileges.

The Byelorussian Delegation hopes that the national aspirations and prayers of the Yugoslav people will find support among the members of this Conference.

The Byelorussian Delegation supports the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers in regard to the organization of a Free Territory of Trieste. But we feel it essential that a solution of this problem should take into account the political and economic interests of that city.

During the last twenty years, when Trieste was in the hands of Italy, that city remained in a condition of economic depression. The only country which can fulfil the conditions necessary for an economic rehabilitation of Trieste is Yugoslavia. It is from Yugoslavia that Trieste is in a position to receive the raw materials, food, and labour needed for its industries. On the other hand, Trieste is a natural seaport, accessible from all parts of Yugoslavia, with which country it is closely linked both ethnically and from an economic standpoint. All of these factors must be taken into consideration when the final statutes of the Free Territory of Trieste are worked out. The Byelorussian Delegation hopes that the rightful demands of the people of Yugoslavia will be ratified in the present Conference.

Fellow Delegates, the Byelorussian people desire to see the conclusion of such treaties as will ensure the security of all peoples. We must take into consideration the fact that Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland while they entered the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, did, during the course of the war, break with Fascism and become democratic States.

It is for this reason that the peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, Hungary and Finland must be such as to ensure the economic revival of these countries, their progress and a betterment of the standard of living of their peoples.

The Byelorussian Delegation is certain that the problems confronting this Conference will receive a just and equitable solution.

Procedure

The President—I remind you that the Commission on Procedure will meet tomorrow Saturday, 3 August, at 10 a.m.

The Plenary Conference will meet at 4 p.m.

The following speakers will take part in the discussion:

• Sir Samuel Runganadhan, first Delegate of India,
• Mr. Tsaldaris, first Delegate of Greece,
• Mr. Manuilski, first Delegate of the Ukrainian S.S.R.,
• Mr. Spaak, first Delegate of Belgium,
• Mr. Theron, first Delegate of the Union of South Africa.

(The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.)

30. For text of treaty, see vol. iv, p. 1.