'^/j 
 
 REPORT ON THE 
 
 Paris Peace 
 Conference 
 
 by the Secretary of State 
 
 ^©NT o^ 
 
 •^tes 
 
 ««»i-yx rf«««*w«*»5aa»'^ 
 
 uNtV. Of-Fi. L«. 
 
 u.i. mrommN 
 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
 
 PUBLICATION 2682 
 CONFERENCE SERIES 90 
 
 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government 
 l^iinting Oflice, Washington 25, D. C. Price 6 cents 
 
Report on the 
 
 Paris Peace Conference 
 
 ADDRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
 
 It is now 15 months since the decision was 
 reached at Potsdam to set up the Council of For- 
 eign Ministers to start the preparatory vv'ork on 
 the peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania, 
 Hungary, and Finland. 
 
 Those months have been hard, difficult months. 
 
 At the Council of Foreign Ministers and at the 
 Paris Peace Conference your representatives were 
 a united and harmonious delegation acting under 
 the guidance and instructions of the President of 
 the United States. The difficult tasks were im- 
 measurably lightened by the splendid work and 
 cooperation of my associates. Senator Connally, 
 Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations 
 Committee, and Senator Vandenberg, spokesman 
 for the Republican Party in foreign affairs. In 
 the Conference we have represented no political 
 parties. We have been united in representing the 
 United States. 
 
 After every great war the victorious allies have 
 found it difficult to adjust their differences in 
 
 Delivered by radio from Washington on the occasion 
 of the return of Secretary Byrnes from the Paris Peace 
 Conference, which took place from July 29 to Oct. 15. 
 The address was broadcast over the national network of 
 the National Broadcasting System, stations WOL and 
 WOR of the Mutual Broadcasting System, and stations 
 WWDC and WINX of Washington, on Oct. 18. 
 
 ;20897— 46 
 
the making of peace. Even before the fighting 
 stopped, President Roosevelt warned us that 
 
 "The nearer we came to vanquishing our ene- 
 mies the more we inevitably became conscious of 
 differences among the allies." 
 
 That was why President Roosevelt was so in- 
 sistent that the United Nations should be estab- 
 lished before the peace settlements were made. 
 
 It was inevitable that in the making of concrete 
 peace settlements the Allies should discuss and 
 debate the issues on which they disagree and not 
 those on which they agree. It was also inevitable 
 that such discussions should emphasize our differ- 
 ences. 
 
 That is one reason I have continuously pressed 
 to bring about agreements upon the peace settle- 
 ments as rapidly as possible. 
 
 Leaving unsettled issues which should be set- 
 tled only serves to increase tension among the Al- 
 lies and increase unrest among the peoples affected. 
 
 We cannot think constructively on what will or 
 will not contribute to the building of lasting peace 
 and rising standards of life until we liquidate the 
 war and give the peoples of this world a chance 
 to live again under conditions of peace. 
 
 It is difficult to deal with the problems of a con- 
 valescing world until we get the patient off the 
 operating table. 
 
 These treaties are not written as we would write 
 them if we had a free hand. They are not written 
 as other governments would write them if they had 
 a free hand. But they are as good as we can hope 
 to get by general agreement now or within any 
 reasonable length of time. 
 
Our views on reparations are different from the 
 views of countries whose territories were laid waste 
 by military operations and whose peoples were 
 brought under the yoke of alien armies and alien 
 gestapos. 
 
 The reparation payments are heavy — excessively 
 heavy in some cases. But their burdens should 
 not be unbearable if the peoples on which they are 
 laid are freed from the burdens of sustaining oc- 
 cupying armies and are given a chance to rebuild 
 their shattered economic lives. 
 
 For Europe with her mingled national economies 
 there are no ideal boundary settlements. 
 
 The proposed settlement for the Trieste area was 
 long and warmly debated. The Conference ap- 
 proved the proposal of the Council of Foreign 
 Ministers that this area should become a free ter- 
 ritory under the protection of the United Nations. 
 The Conference also by a two-thirds vote made 
 recommendations for an international statute de- 
 fining the responsibilities of the United Nations 
 in relation to the free territory. Such recom- 
 mendations are an expression of world opinion 
 and cannot be arbitrarily disregarded. 
 
 Those recommendations of the Conference pro- 
 vide that the governor appointed by the Security 
 Council should have sufficient authority to main- 
 tain public order and security, to preserve the in- 
 dependence and integrity of the territory, and to 
 protect the basic human rights and fundamental 
 freedoms of all the inhabitants. 
 
 The minority proposal which was supported by 
 the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and other Slav 
 countries would have made a figurehead of the 
 United Nations governor and would have given 
 
 3 
 
Yugoslavia virtual control of the customs, cur- 
 rency, and foreign affairs of the territory. Cer- 
 tainly we could not agree to that. It would make 
 the territory a protectorate of Yugoslavia and 
 would leave the United Nations powerless to pre- 
 vent it becoming a battleground between warring 
 groups. There must be no seizure of power in 
 Trieste after this war as there was in Fiume after 
 the last war. 
 
 The Yugoslav Delegation advised the Confer- 
 ence it would not sign the treaty recommended. 
 My hope however is that after consideration 
 Yugoslavia will realize that just as other states 
 have made concessions she must make concessions 
 in order to bring about the peace. 
 
 Although the Council of Foreign Ministers were 
 unable to agree to any change in the Austrian- 
 Italian frontier, the representatives of Austria 
 and Italy at Paris were encouraged by the Amer- 
 ican Delegation to reach an agreement which 
 should help to make the South Tyrol a bond rather 
 than a barrier between the two peoples. 
 
 It is my earnest hope that Czechoslovakia and 
 Hungary and Rumania and Hungary may find 
 by common agreement somewhat similar solutions 
 to their complicated nationality problems on the 
 basis of working together as friends and as neigh- 
 bors. We in America know that people of many 
 different races and stocks can live together in 
 peace in the United States. They should be able 
 to live together in peace in Europe. 
 
 At Potsdam in the summer of 1945 President 
 Truman stressed the importance of providing for 
 free navigation of the great international rivers 
 
in Europe on terms of equality for the commerce 
 of all states. 
 
 President Truman was not seeking any special 
 advantage for the United States. He was seek- 
 ing to promote peace. He was seeking to ensure 
 that these great waterways should be used to unite 
 and not divide the peoples of Europe. 
 
 The Delegations representing the Soviet Re- 
 public and the Slav countries have vigorously 
 opposed the proposal. 
 
 The Paris Conference recommended by a two- 
 thirds vote that the treaties should ensure free- 
 dom of commerce on the Danube on terms of 
 equality to all states. 
 
 I hope that when the Foreign Ministers meet 
 we can agree upon the adoption of this recom- 
 mendation. 
 
 In recent weeks much has been said about acri- 
 monious debates and the divisions in the Paris Con- 
 ference. Back of those debates and divisions were 
 real and deep differences iil interest, in ideas, in 
 experience, and even in prejudices. 
 
 Those differences cannot be dispelled or recon- 
 ciled by a mere gloss of polite words. And in a 
 democratic world those differences cannot and 
 should not be kept from the peoples concerned. 
 
 In a democratic world, statesmen must share 
 with the people their trials as well as their tri- 
 umphs. 
 
 It is better that the world should witness and 
 learn to appraise clashes of ideas rather than 
 clashes of arms. 
 
 If this peace is to be lasting, it must be a people's 
 peace; and the peoples of this world who long 
 
for peace will not be able to make their influence 
 felt if they do not know the conflict in ideas and 
 in interest that give rise to war, and if they do 
 not know how the statesmen and the peoples of 
 other countries view those conflicts. 
 
 But it is our hope that in international democ- 
 racy, as in national democracy, experience will 
 prove that appeals to reason and good faith which 
 unite people count for more in the long run than 
 appeals to prejudice and passion which divide 
 people. 
 
 In a world where no sovereign state can be com- 
 pelled to sign or ratify a peace treaty, there is no 
 perfect peacemaking machinery. Where boun- 
 daries, colonies, and reparations are involved, a 
 peace treaty cannot be made effective unless it is 
 satisfactory to the principal powers. 
 
 Under these circumstances the Paris Confer- 
 ence provided as adequate an opportunity for the 
 smaller states and the ex-enemy states to express 
 their views on the proposed treaties as it was prac- 
 tical to provide. 
 
 The thing which disturbs me is not the lettered 
 provisions of the treaties under discussion but the 
 continued if not increasing tension between us and 
 the Soviet Union. 
 
 The day I took office as Secretary of State I 
 stated that "the supreme task of statesmanship the 
 world over is to help the people of this war-rav- 
 aged earth to understand that they can have peace 
 and freedom only if they tolerate and respect the 
 rights of others to opinions, feelings and ways of 
 life which they do not and cannot share." 
 
 It is as true now as it was then that the develop- 
 ment of S3^mpathetic understanding between the 
 
Soviet Union and the United States is the para- 
 mount task of statesmanship. 
 
 Such understanding is necessary to make the 
 United Nations a true community of nations. 
 
 From the Potsdam Conference, which took place 
 at the beginning of his administration, President 
 Truman and I have worked and we shall continue 
 to work to bring about an understanding with the 
 Soviet Government. 
 
 Two states can quickly reach an understanding 
 if one is willing to yield to all demands. The 
 United States is unwilling to do that. It is equally 
 unwilling to ask it of another state. 
 
 Every understanding requires the reconciliation 
 of differences and not a yielding by one state to 
 the arbitrary will of the other. 
 
 Until we are able to work out definite and agreed 
 standards of conduct such as those which govern 
 decisions within the competence of the Interna- 
 tional Court of Justice, and such as those which we 
 hope may be agreed upon for the control of atomic 
 energy, international problems between sovereign 
 states must be worked out by agreement between 
 sovereign states. 
 
 But if states are to reach such agreements they 
 must act in good faith and in the spirit of concili- 
 ation. They must not launch false and misleading 
 propaganda against one another. 
 
 They must not arbitrarily exercise their power 
 of veto, preventing a return to conditions of peace 
 and delaying economic reconstruction. 
 
 No state should assume that it has a monopoly 
 of virtue or of wisdom. No state should ignore 
 or veto the aggregate sentiments of mankind. 
 
States must not unilaterally by threats, by pres- 
 sures, or by force disturb the established rights of 
 other nations. Nor can they arbitrarily resist or 
 refuse to consider changes in the relationships be- 
 tween states and peoples which justice, fair play, 
 and the enlightened sentiments of mankind 
 demand. 
 
 We must cooperate to build a world order, not 
 to sanctify the status quo^ but to preserve peace 
 and freedom based upon justice. 
 
 And we must be willing to cooperate with one 
 another — veto or no veto — to defend, with force if 
 necessary, the principles and purposes of the 
 Charter of the United Nations. 
 
 Those are the policies we have pursued. In 
 following those policies we have been criticized at 
 times for being too "soft" and at times for being too 
 "tough". I dislike both words. Neither accu- 
 rately describes our earnest efforts to be patient 
 but firm. 
 
 We have been criticized for being too eager to 
 find new approaches after successive rebukes in 
 our efforts to effectuate our policies. And we have 
 likewise been criticized for not seeking new ap- 
 proaches. We will not permit the criticism to 
 disturb us nor to influence our action. 
 
 We will continue to seek friendship with the 
 Soviet Union and all other states on the basis of 
 justice and the right of others, as well as ourselves, 
 to opinions and ways of life which we do not and 
 cannot share. 
 
 But we must retain our perspective. 
 
 We must guard against the belief that deep- 
 rooted suspicions can be dispelled and far-reach- 
 
 8 
 
ing differences can be reconciled by any single act 
 of faith. 
 
 The temple of peace must be built solidly, stone 
 upon stone. If the stones are loosely laid, they 
 may topple down upon us. 
 
 We must equally guard against the belief that 
 delays or set-backs in achieving our objective make 
 armed conflict inevitable. It is entirely possible 
 that the failure or inability of the Soviet leaders 
 to rid themselves of that belief lies at the very root 
 of our difficulties. We will never be able to rid the 
 world of that belief if we ourselves become victims 
 to it. 
 
 For centuries devout men and women thought it 
 was necessary to fight with one another to preserve 
 their different religious beliefs. But through long 
 and bitter experience they learned that the only 
 way to protect their own religious beliefs is to re- 
 spect and recognize the rights of others to their 
 religious beliefs. 
 
 War is inevitable only if states fail to tolerate 
 and respect the rights of other states to ways of 
 life they cannot and do not share. That is a truth 
 we must all recognize. 
 
 Because in the immediate aftermath of war our 
 efforts to induce nations to think in terms of peace 
 and tolerance seem to meet with rebuff', we must 
 not lose faith. What may be unrealizable now 
 may be realizable when the wounds of war have 
 had a chance to heal. 
 
 We must not lose faith nor cease to struggle to 
 realize our faith, because the temple of peace can- 
 not be completely built in a month or a year. 
 
 9 
 
But if the temple of peace is to be built the idea 
 of the inevitability of conflict must not be allowed 
 to dominate the minds of men and tear asunder a 
 world which God made one. 
 
 It is that idea of the inevitability of conflict 
 that is throttling the economic recovery of Europe. 
 It is that idea that is causing artificial tensions 
 between states and within states. 
 
 The United States stands for freedom for all 
 nations and for friendship among all nations. We 
 shall continue to reject the idea of exclusive 
 alliances. We shall refuse to gang up against 
 any state. 
 
 We stand with all peace-loving, law-abiding 
 states in defense of the principles of the Charter 
 of the United Nations. 
 
 Any nation that abides by those principles can 
 count upon the friendship and cooperation of the 
 United States, irrespective of national differences 
 or possible conflict of interests. 
 
 No country desires unity among the principal 
 powers more than we or has done more to achieve 
 it. But it must be unity founded on the Charter 
 and not unity purchased at its expense. 
 
 We deplore the tendency upon the part of the 
 Soviet Union to regard states which are friendly 
 to us as unfriendly to the Soviet Union and to con- 
 sider as unfriendly our efforts to maintain tradi- 
 tionally friendly relations with states bordering 
 on the Soviet Union. 
 
 We deplore the talk of the encirclement of the 
 Soviet Union. We have it from no less authority 
 than Generalissimo Stalin himself that the Soviet 
 Union is in no danger of encirclement. 
 
 10 
 
During the war the Baltic states were taken over 
 by the U.S.S.R. The Polish frontier and the 
 Finnish frontier have been substantially modified 
 in Russia's favor. Konigsberg, Bessarabia, 
 Bukovina, and Ruthenia are to be given to her. 
 In the Pacific, the Kuriles, Port Arthur, and 
 Sakhalin have been assigned to her. Certainly the 
 Soviet Union is not a dispossessed nation. 
 
 We know the suffering and devastation which 
 Nazi aggression brought to the Soviet Union. The 
 American people came to the support of the Soviet 
 Union even before the United States was attacked 
 and entered the war. Our people were allies of 
 the Soviet people during the war. And the Amer- 
 ican people in time of peace desire to live on terms 
 of friendship, mutual helpfulness, and equality 
 with the Soviet people. 
 
 Before the Paris Peace Conference the United 
 States spared no effort to reconcile its views on 
 the proposed treaties with the views of the Soviet 
 Union. Indeed it was the Soviet Union which in- 
 sisted that our views be reconciled on all questions 
 which the Soviet Union regarded as fundamental 
 before they would consent to the holding of the 
 Conference. 
 
 If, therefore, in the Conference we differed on 
 some questions, they were not questions that were 
 fundamental from the Soviet viewpoint. 
 
 While there were many issues which attracted 
 little public attention on which the Soviet Union 
 and the United States voted together, it was re- 
 grettable that on many issues which did command 
 public attention the Soviet Union and the newly 
 established governments in central and south- 
 
 11 
 
eastern Europe voted consistently together against 
 all the other states. 
 
 Whatever considerations caused this close align- 
 ment of the Soviet Union and her Slav neighbors 
 on these issues, other states were not constrained 
 to vote as they did by any caucus or bloc action. 
 
 It requires a very imaginative geographic sense 
 to put China or Ethiopia into a Western bloc. 
 And it was quite evident to discerning observers 
 at Paris that not only China and Ethiopia, but 
 Norway and France were particularly solicitous 
 to avoid not only the fact, but the suspicion, of 
 alliance with any Western bloc. 
 
 If the voting cleavage at Paris was significant, 
 its significance lies in the fact that the cleavage 
 is not between the United States and the Soviet 
 Union, or between a Western bloc and the Soviet 
 Union. The cleavage is based upon conviction 
 and not upon strategy or hidden design. 
 
 I should be less than frank if I did not confess 
 my bewilderment at the motives which the Soviet 
 Delegation attributed to the United States at 
 Paris. Not once, but many times, they charged 
 that the United States had enriched itself during 
 the war, and, under the guise of freedom for com- 
 merce and equality of opportunity for the trade 
 of all nations, was now seeking to enslave Europe 
 economically. 
 
 Coming from any state these charges would be 
 regrettable to us. They are particularly regret- 
 table when they are made by the Soviet Govern- 
 ment to whom we advanced more than 10 billion 
 dollars of lend-lease during the war and with 
 whom we want to be friendly in time of peace. 
 
 12 
 
The United States has never claimed the right 
 to dictate to other countries how they should man- 
 age their own trade and commerce. We have 
 simply urged in the interest of all peoples that no 
 country should make trade discriminations in its 
 relations with other countries. 
 
 On that principle the United States stands. It 
 does not question the right of any country to de- 
 bate the economic advantages or disadvantages of 
 that principle. It does object to any government 
 charging that the United States enriched itself 
 during the war and desires to make "hand-outs" to 
 European governments in order to enslave their 
 peoples. 
 
 Long before we entered the war President Roose- 
 velt took the dollar sign out of the war. He es- 
 tablished lend-lease as the arsenal of democracy 
 and opened that arsenal to all who fought for 
 freedom. Europe did not pay and was not asked 
 to pay to build or to replenish that arsenal. That 
 Avas done with American labor and American re- 
 sources. 
 
 The lend-lease settlements inaugurated by Pres- 
 ident Roosevelt have been faithfully and meticu- 
 lously carried out by President Truman. 
 
 We want to assist in European reconstruction 
 because we believe that European prosperity will 
 contribute to world prosperity and world peace. 
 That is not dollar democracy. That is not imper- 
 ialism. That is justice and fair play. 
 
 We in America have learned that prosperity 
 like freedom must be shared, not on the basis of 
 "hand-outs," but on the basis of the fair and honest 
 exchange of the products of the labor of free men 
 and free women. 
 
 13 
 
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
 
 3 1262 08484 2383 
 
 America stands for social and economic de- 
 mocracy at home and abroad. The principles em- 
 bodied in the social and economic reforms of re- 
 cent years are now a part of the American her- 
 itage. 
 
 It would be strange indeed if in this imper- 
 fect world our social and economic democracy were 
 perfect, but it might help our Soviet friends to 
 understand us better if they realized that today our 
 social and economic democracy is further away 
 from the devil -take-the-hindmost philosophy of 
 by-gone days than Soviet Kussia is from Tsarist 
 Russia. 
 
 Whatever political differences there may be 
 among us, we are firmly and irrevocably committed 
 to the principle that it is our right and the right 
 of every people to organize their economic and 
 political destiny through the freest possible ex- 
 pression of their collective will. We oppose priv- 
 ilege at home and abroad. We defend freedom 
 everywhere. And in our view human freedom and 
 human progress are inseparable. 
 
 The American people extend the hand of friend- 
 ship to the people of the Soviet Union and to all 
 other people in this war- weary world. May God 
 grant to all of us the wisdom to seek the paths 
 of peace. 
 
 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEi \»l»