Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

CFM Files

Observations on the Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria Submitted by the Bulgarian Delegation

C. P. (Gen) Doc. 4

Paris, August 26, 1946.

Table

I. Political and Territorial Clauses

II. Military Clauses

III. Reparation

IV. Economic Clauses

I. Amendments to and Observations on the Preamble to the Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria

1) The Bulgarian Delegation proposes to include in the Preamble a reminder that Bulgaria started military operations against German troops, not after the signing of the armistice on October 28, 1944, as appears from the text of the present Preamble, but as early as September 10, 1944, as soon as the Fascist Government was overturned and power taken over by the Fatherland Front.

2) The Delegation proposes that Bulgaria be recognised as a co-belligerent in the anti-Hitler coalition and that this recognition be included in the Preamble to the Peace Treaty.

3) Without proposing to change the text of the Preamble at this point, the Bulgarian Delegation declares that Bulgaria’s participation in the war on Germany’s side can be summed up in the following paragraphs:

a) Bulgaria signed an alliance with Hitlerite Germany and agreed that her territory be transformed into a German military base;

b) On the cessation of military operations in this region she held a part of the Aegean region of Greece in occupation by Bulgarian troops, as well as part of Yugoslavia’s territory where she put down uprisings organised by the resistance movement;

c) She declared war on Great Britain and the United States and forced the U.S.S.R. and other United Nations to declare war on her;

d) Bulgarian forces of occupation participated on several occasions in the operations undertaken by the German trops against the National Army of Liberation of Yugoslavia.

These criminal acts performed by pro-Hitlerite leaders to whom the Bulgarian People’s Court has meted out a severe punishment, characterise Bulgaria’s participation in the war against the United Nations and must be considered as Bulgaria’s maximum responsibility in this war.

4) Without proposing any amendment to the text of the Preamble at this point either, the Bulgarian delegation declares that long before breaking off the alliance with Germany, and long before Bulgaria’s participation in the war on the side of the United Nations mentioned in the Preamble, the Bulgarian people pursued a fierce fight against the Fascist dictatorship and the German occupation. As far back as 1923, there were three armed uprisings against the Fascist Governments. During the war an important resistance movement sprang up under the leadership of the Fatherland Front, and a strong partisan army was active behind the German lines.

Thanks to the resistance of the people and the army and in spite of a strong pressure on the part of Hitler no Bulgarian troops were sent to the Eastern front. The fascist Governments were also compelled to refrain from sending any troops against Great Britain and the United States. For the same reasons, the campaign aimed at sending “volunteers” against Soviet Russia was a complete failure. The oppositions of the people and the army were a serious obstacle in the way to a fuller participation of the Bulgarian troops in the operations undertaken by Germany against the Yugoslav Army of Liberation. When the Red Army entered Bulgaria, the people and the army revolted and after overturning the pro-Hitlerite Government on September 9, 1944, sided with the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S.A.

Without waiting for the Armistice to be formally signed, the Government of the Fatherland’s Front immediately undertook operations against Germany, at the same time ordering the drafting of its entire armed force which reached the figure of 418.000 men. Several Bulgarian armies totalling 250.000 fighters fought against the German troops in Yugoslavia, Hungary and Austria. For eight months the Bulgarian Army was a part of the 3rd Ukrainian Front and acted in close collaboration with the Yugoslav Army of Liberation.

Through these operations, Bulgaria hastened the evacuation of Greece and contributed to the liberation of Yugoslavia and to the final defeat of Hitlerite Germany. In this war Bulgaria lost more than 32.000 killed and wounded and suffered material losses exceeding 290 million dollars.

Although not formally recognised as a co-belligerent, Bulgaria nevertheless exhibited every characteristic of a co-belligerent state.

II. Amendment to Article I of the Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria (Territorial Clauses)

The Bulgarian Delegation proposes that Article I of the Draft Peace Treaty be amended in such a way that the Greco-Bulgarian frontier, fixed by the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10, 1913, is re-established.

This frontier left Bulgaria in possession of Western Thrace, although it was drawn after a war which had an unfortunate end for Bulgaria. In this manner, Bulgaria would keep a natural outlet to the Aegean Sea which is of vital importance for her national economy.

The separation of Western Thrace from Bulgaria which took place later created an abnormal situation by dividing regions which form an indivisible geographical and economic whole. This decision was, moreover, imposed against the opinion of certain delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919 and in the absence of certain Great Powers. Since then, the problem of Western Thrace and Bulgaria’s outlet to the Aegean Sea has remained open and unsolved.

The return to Bulgaria of Western Thrace would remove a grave injustice committed against the Bulgarian people. This solution would, at the same time, create favourable conditions by which not only Bulgaria but neighbouring countries would profit and would help in the establishment of true and lasting collaboration among Balkan peoples.

The Bulgarian delegation therefore proposes that Article 1 of the draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria be amended and worded as follows:

“The frontiers of Bulgaria, as shown on the map attached to the present Treaty (Annex 1) shall be the same as existed on 1st January 1941, with the exception of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier which shall be the same as was established by the Treaty of Bucharest of 10th August 1913.”

III. Observations on the Political Clauses

The Bulgarian Delegation can here and now declare that Bulgaria has already applied, is now applying and will continue to apply the principles underlying the political clauses of the Treaty, particularly since these principles form the basis of the policy of the democratic regime now obtaining in the country.

IV. Observations on the Military Clauses

New Bulgaria is resolved to be a pacific country which for its future security counts in the first place upon the protection and strength of the United Nations Organisation and upon the good understanding and collaboration with her neighbours. The Bulgarian Government has already on its own initiative, considerably reduced her armed forces by bringing them down to below pre-war strength. A further and even more important reduction is planned and will result in bringing these forces down to approximately the strength provided for in the Draft Peace Treaty.

Bulgaria does not therefore in principle object to the reduction of her armed forces.

However, it would be unjust to impose on Bulgaria various military restrictions because she has never taken any active part in the war against the United Nations but on the contrary, mobilised all her forces in order actively and efficiently to contribute to the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. Her contribution is acknowledged in the Preamble to the Draft Peace Treaty.

The loss of many lives and the considerable sacrifices borne in the fight against Germany together with the numerous proofs which the Bulgarian people and Government have given of their devotion to the cause of peace and the principles of democracy would make such restrictions seem gravely unjust. The Bulgarian people would not understand the reasons underlying these measures and would regard them as an unjustifiable humiliation.

For this reason the Bulgarian Delegation considers that it is fully justified in requesting that the provisions in question be deleted from the Draft Peace Treaty as they may hurt the dignity of the Bulgarian people.

V. Summary of Observations on the Question of Reparations (Article 20)

In view of Bulgaria’s effective participation in the war against Germany, Article 20 of the Draft Peace Treaty stipulates that Bulgaria would be liable to only a partial compensation of the losses suffered by Yugoslavia and Greece as a result of military operations and of the occupation by Bulgaria of the territory of these states.

As regards Bulgaria’s participation in the war on Germany’s side, we refer to our observations on the Preamble.

Claims brought forward by Greece for compensation exceeding 708 million dollars are in open contradiction with the provisions of Article 20, and considered objectively quite arbitrary and groundless. Many fantastic demands such as claims for the return of railway, rolling stock, cattle, etc. . . in quantities which before the war never existed in the territory occupied by Bulgarian troops.

If we compare these Greek claims with the budgetary resources of the Bulgarian state and with her capacity for export, the fantastic character of these claims becomes at once apparent. The entire revenue from taxes which normally amounts to about 25 milliard leva a year (about 80 million dollars) would be required over a period of ten years in order to meet the Greek claims for compensation. If one half of Bulgaria’s exports, which, in normal time amount to 15 milliard leva a year (50 million dollars) were reserved for reparations, a period of 30 years would be necessary to satisfy the Greek claims.

In bringing forward those claims, the Greek government took no notice of the following important considerations:

(a) Since no Bulgarian troops took part in the invasion or fought with the German Army in Greece, they could not have caused the destruction for which the Greek Government blames them. On the contrary, a considerable amount of construction was carried out on Greek territory occupied by the Bulgarian authorities.

(b) Since from October 1940 onwards, Greece was at war with Italy her economic resources were already considerably impaired. The intrusion of the German Army into Thrace in April 1941, resulted in the complete economic exhaustion of the occupied territory. Not only the Bulgarian forces of occupation but also the native population were eventually maintained on supplies imported from Bulgaria.

A fact of primary importance is the maintenance in regions occupied by the Bulgarian troops from the moment of their entry and until their evacuation in 1944 of an absolutely identical economic and financial regime with that of Bulgaria, i.e. the same method of carrying out transactions, the same prices for goods, the same means of payment, no exceptional fiscal changes, but in 1941, exemption from payment of all direct taxes.

By her direct and effective cooperation with the United Nations in the war against Germany and by her close collaboration with the Yugoslav People’s Army of Liberation, Bulgaria contributed to the liberation of the territory of Yugoslavia and hastened the evacuation of Greek territory by German troops. Retreating German troops were thus prevented from carrying out mass destructions and devastations in Greece. This co-belligerency cost Bulgaria more than 32.500 lives and material losses totaling 290 million dollars.

Being an essentially agricultural country, Bulgaria came out of the ordeal of the war and the German occupation with the principal resources of her national economy seriously impaired. Even before the war the standard of life in Bulgaria was very low, her national income of 60 or 80 dollars per head per year being the second lowest in Europe.

With an even smaller national income (50 dollars per head per year) with her agricultural and industrial equipment worn out with the serious destruction wrought by air-raids her finances showing a deficit and with a passive commercial balance, Bulgarian national economy can now carry only a modest share of the burden of reparations.

The disastrous drought of 1945 struck the economic as well as the agricultural life of the country. The drought of 1946 destroyed a high proportion of the harvest of Indian corn, sunflower seed, cotton and even tobacco.

In these circumstances, any disbursements by way of reparation would lead to disastrous results, since they will hinder the economic reconstruction of the country and the restoration of finances, still further reduce the miserable standard of life of the Bulgarian peasants, workmen and public officials for many years to come and paralyse the development of the commercial relations with the United Nations.

VI. Amendments to the Economic Clauses of the Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria

Article 8

1. Each Allied or Associated Power of the one part, and Bulgaria of the other part, will notify within a period of six months of the coming into force of the present Treaty, which pre-war bilateral treaties they have decided by common agreement to keep in force or revive. Any provisions not in conformity with the present Treaty shall however be deleted …

Article 22

1. Paragraph 2: The restoration of legal rights and interests shall imply the annulment of the effects of all discriminatory or restrictive measures introduced during the war and not the complete restoration of the pre-war situation, regardless of eventual changes arising from the general legislation of the country.

4. U.S.S.R. proposal.

The Bulgarian Delegation accepts this proposal.

6. United Nations nationals and their property shall be exempted from any exceptional taxes, levies or imposts in excess of those imposed on Bulgarian nationals and their property, etc.

Article 23

Paragraph 2. The transfer of German assets shall be effected after deduction of arrears of taxes, preferential claims or costs of management and all other charges payable on the basic components of these assets, including all legitimate contractual rights of the former German owners of such assets.

Article 24

U.S.S.R. proposal.

The Bulgarian Delegation accepts the text of this proposal in its entirety.

Article 25

U.S.S.R. proposal.

The Bulgarian Delegation accepts the text of this proposal with the following proviso: after the word “property” add “and all other assets”.

Article 27

1. Bulgaria waives all claims of any description against the Allied and Associated Powers on behalf of the Bulgarian Government or Bulgarian nationals arising directly out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war between Bulgaria and the Allied and Associated Powers.

2. The provisions of this Article will bar, completely and finally all claims of the nature referred to herein, which will be henceforward extinguished, whoever may be the parties in interest. Persons who furnished supplies or services on requisition to the forces of the Allied and Associated Powers in Bulgarian territory, and those who suffered non-combat damage in Bulgarian territory shall not be entitled to make any claim against the Armed Forces of the Allied and Associated Powers.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 27 should be deleted.

Article 28

The Bulgarian Delegation requests this Article be deleted.

Article 32

The Bulgarian Delegation requests that this Article be deleted.

Annex 4

B. Insurance

U.K. proposal.

The Bulgarian Delegation requests that this proposal be withdrawn.

Annex 6

The Bulgarian Delegation requests that this Annex be deleted.

VII. Observations on the Economic Clauses of Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria

Article 8

The revival or keeping in force of pre-war bilateral Treaties between Bulgaria and Allied and Associated Powers should be by common consent of the contracting powers.

Article 22

(a) It would be just and equitable to return any property belonging to Allied and Associated Powers on April 24, 1941 in the state in which it actually is.

In any case the Bulgarian Delegation draws attention to the fact that the restoration of rights and interests of the United Nations and their nationals should be interpreted as the annulment of the effects of all discriminatory or restrictive measures introduced during the war and not as the complete restoration of the pre-war situation, regardless of eventual changes arising from the general legislation of the country.

(b) Compensation for destroyed or damaged property (proposal of the American Delegation, Art. 22 para. 4) should only be claimed insofar as the damage results from acts on the part of Bulgarian authorities or from illegal acts on the part of Bulgarian nationals.

(c) Indemnity would only be paid up to one-third, at the current rate of the leva (see proposal of the U.S.S.R. Delegation).

(d) If the proposal of the United States Delegation is adopted as it stands, no indemnity can be claimed for participation in corporations or associations of any nationality other than that of one of the United Nations for, in this case, property and interests in fact belong to legal persons and not to the physical persons participating in these corporations. Furthermore, in case of participation in corporations the capital of which is of ex-enemy e.g., German origin, any compensation to United Nations nationals corresponding to their participation will, in practice, result in payment in favour of these corporations or payment by Bulgaria of reparations to Germany.

(e) Exemption from any exceptional taxes, levies or imposts imposed by the Bulgarian Government or by Bulgarian authorities on United Nations nationals and their capital assets (para. 6) is only acceptable inasmuch as this taxation is heavier than that which is levied on Bulgarian nationals and their holdings.

Article 23

A provision should be inserted Article 23, whereby German property in Bulgaria is transferred to the U.S.S.R. free of payment of arrears of taxes or any liabilities in favour of third persons, the claims of German firms and establishments being compensated by claims of Bulgarian firms and establishments.

This principle was admitted in Article 6 of the Agreement drawn up in Paris on 21st December 1945, concerning reparation to be received from Germany.

Article 24

(a) Measures of seizure of Bulgarian property, rights and interests in territory of the United Nations in order to guarantee the payment of their claims and those of their nationals are unreasonable and their adoption would create the greatest confusion and numerous difficulties in the economic relations between Bulgaria and the United Nations. In this connection, it must never be forgotten that property of Bulgaria and of her nationals in United Nations territory (with the exception of property to which the provisions of Article 24 do not apply, paragraph 5 of the Article) mainly consists of assets of the Bulgarian National Bank and generally speaking exceptional and provisional economic assets (outstanding payments, etc.).

(b) The conditions imposed by Article 24 are too severe as they demand the eventual liquidation of Bulgarian property to an extent which exceeds the amount of compensation due to the United Nations in respect of their claims on Bulgaria, as this liquidation may be effected in a lump sum on condition that the excess over and above the amount of the claim be repaid to the person entitled to it. In particular, in the case of artistic and industrial property, this amounts to confiscation pure and simple (Paragraph 4). This Article, therefore, defeats its own object.

(c) In view of the goodwill shown by the Bulgarian Government in meeting its obligations, it would be superfluous to look for indirect guarantees in case these obligations were not satisfied by seizing Bulgarian State property or even that of private persons which obliges the Bulgarian State to compensate them. Besides only the Bulgarian Government can decide whether and to what extent it shall compensate Bulgarian nationals for any damage resulting from the war.

(d) The Bulgarian Government would accept the full text of Article 24 proposed by the Soviet Delegation. This proposal has also been accepted by the other Delegations in the case of the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland.

Article 25

(a) The transfer to the Soviet Union of German assets in Bulgaria (Article 23 of the Draft Peace Treaty, relating to the provisions of the Potsdam agreements), deprives Bulgaria of the possibility of setting off her claims on Germany against German property in Bulgaria. The waiving of all claims on Germany will therefore apply not to the balance of Bulgaria’s war-time account with that country, but to the sum total of Bulgarian claims,—a heavy and unjustifiable burden on the Bulgarian state.

(b) The waiver in Article 25 (U.K., U.S. and French proposal) concerns not only credits arising out of contracts but all claims arising out of the war, and, consequently, claims in respect of reparation. This matter will be dealt with in drawing up the Peace treaty with Germany, but it should here and now be stressed that the proposed solution is unjust since, compared with Germany, Bulgaria is not a conquered country but in the conquerors’ camp.

(c) Article 25 stipulates that Bulgaria shall waive all claims but fails to explain in whose favour she must waive them. Since under the Draft Peace Treaty, Yugoslavia and Greece are the only countries entitled to claim reparations and since Article 20 provides for the satisfaction of their claims in this respect, the countries which are to benefit and the exact extent of the renunciation required of Bulgaria are not clear, unless we are to understand that Germany is to benefit by the Bulgarian reparations.

(d) In the case of the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland the Soviet proposal was agreed to inasmuch as any restrictions imposed in respect of any Finnish property in Germany shall be removed after the coming into force of the treaty in question. There is no reason why Bulgaria should be more harshly treated than any other ex-satellite of Germany.

(e) The Soviet Draft of Article 25 appears to the Bulgarian Delegation to be satisfactory. Bulgaria should in any case now be allowed to reserve the right to claim reparations from Germany when the peace treaty with the latter is being drawn up.

Article 27

(a) The waiving of claims against the United Nations should apply to claims arising out of the state of war between Bulgaria and any one of the United Nations, and should not date from 1st September 1939, since on that date relations between Bulgaria and all the United Nations were normal and peaceful.

(b) Paragraph 2, which obliges the Bulgarian Government to compensate Bulgarian nationals for damages suffered either through any requisition of supplies or services or as the result of military operations, should be deleted.

(c) Paragraph 3, which provides that Bulgaria shall likewise waive all claims against countries with which she was not at war is unjustified.

(d) Paragraph 4 should also be deleted. Under Article 16 of the Armistice Convention, Bulgarian merchant ships were in the general interest of the Allies placed under the Allied (Soviet) High Command. Instead of confiscation, Bulgarian merchant ships were, therefore, merely placed under Allied control. Furthermore, paragraph 4 provides for the waiving of all claims arising out of action taken by the Allies with respect to merchant ships irrespective of the nature of such action. The provisions of the Peace Treaty should not be any harder than those of the Armistice Convention.

Article 28

Under Article 8, each Allied or Associated Power will notify Bulgaria within a period of six months of the coming into force of the present Treaty, which pre-war bilateral treaties it desires to keep in force or revive. Since pre-war trade agreements and treaties between Bulgaria and Members of the United Nations contained clauses for the mutual granting of most-favoured-nation treatment, a further reference to the most-favoured-nation principle in another Article of the Peace Treaty is superfluous, more particularly in the case of Article 28, since the appropriate provisions of that Article would remain in force for only 18 months.

Furthermore, the provisions of Article 28, inasmuch as they relate to cases not covered by the above-mentioned treaties would interfere with the freedom of Bulgarian economic legislation during a period of 18 months from the coming into force of the Peace Treaty.

Article 32

Bulgaria being a Danubian country, it would be in her interest if navigation on the Danube were regulated by a Conference on which Bulgaria would be represented on equal terms with the other Danubian countries.

Annex 4

B. Insurance

U.K. proposal

In view of the proposed amendment to Article 22, paragraph 1 this proposal should be entirely deleted, since its adoption would frustrate the application of the law under which all insurance is nationalised.

Annex 6

As revision of judgments rendered by default is a universally recognised principle of law, and as its application is fully ensured by Bulgarian legislation, there can be no object in inserting a provision for the revision of judgments rendered by default in the Bulgarian courts against United Nations nationals.