874.00/10–445: Telegram
The United States Representative in Bulgaria (Barnes) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 5—11:48 a.m.]
576. I passed several hours in conversation yesterday with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister separately. These were my first talks with them since returning.
[Page 340]I told two Ministers in effect that it was my impression from having visited London that a reasonable Bulgarian Government could hope for US efforts in favor of fair peace treaty; in fact that I was of opinion that local government propaganda line that only Russia will defend ultimate rights of Bulgaria is not only tendentious but definitely contrary to fact.
We discussed reparations. Both Ministers agreed that Bulgaria should pay for damages caused in Greece and Yugoslavia, should restitute or pay for property as stipulated by Article XI of armistice and should compensate for war damage to United Nations property in Bulgaria. They appeared to be of my opinion that reparation obligations should be determined at once and that doubtless best procedure would be discussions in Moscow between Three Powers (possibly by way of Reparations Commission in Moscow) and immediate despatch of Three Power Commission to Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to verify claims on spot. They both spoke of compensation for property left by Bulgaria in areas formerly occupied by it. On territorial issues they admitted that Russia herself could never hope alone to obtain by treaty such favorable treatment for Bulgaria as retention of pre-war southern boundaries. When I suggested that US view would doubtless be that treaty should provide for full restoration Bulgarian sovereignty Ministers did not hide their preoccupation with presence of large number of Russian troops and their concern with question of when, if left to herself, Russia would withdraw these forces.
At this point in both conversations I said that there were no strings attached to US fairness but that US remained faithful to Yalta Declaration and naturally expects to negotiate treaty with representative Govt that it can recognize. As it seems self-evident that repetition of August election crisis and last moment postponement should be avoided, I suggested that Govt was faced with immediate problem of finding way to dissipate fear, distrust and lack of confidence sufficiently to induce real Agrarians and Social Democrats and rest of legitimate opposition to participate in general elections now scheduled for Nov. 18.
Only 2 weeks remain for Govt to act in this sense as under electoral law list of candidates must be filed with courts one month before election date. For reasons that will be explained my next following telegram both Ministers were doubtful of success in this respect. At same time they made it clear to me that elections will be held as scheduled this time and that ensuing Parliament and Govt that issues from it will “regularize” all that has happened in country since Sept. 9, [Page 341] 1944, thus clearing way for early convocation Grand National Assembly to deal with question of future form of Govt.
Foreign Minister made it clear that South Slav union remains definite FF (Fatherland Front) objective but professed opinion that union can come only after considerable passage of time and therefore not now live issue in Bulgarian external relations. Both Ministers revealed that significance for Bulgaria our disposition to enter into official relations with Hungary had not been lost on them. They complained that Hungarian Govt in composition more Russian-trained and Russian-dominated than Bulgarian Govt. To Prime Minister I did not hesitate to point out that pattern of Communist domination in Hungary appears not to be as advanced dogmatic as in Bulgaria and, at any rate, that in Hungary personal liberties do appear to exist whereas in Bulgaria fear inspired by Communist-dominated militia and administrative organs of Ministry of Interior conditions every aspect of life.
Both Ministers interpreted London meeting Foreign Ministers as complete failure and ill omen for peace and world security system. They are obviously more impressed with fact that Russia was intransigeant than that US and UK appear to have stood firm on fundamental European issues. I made point that neither Russia nor western democracies can live alone and that way to international agreements is by mutual compromise and that before compromise is possible clarification of respective positions of those who must ultimately compromise is essential. I express view that this is what had been happening in London and that in more restricted field similar problem obtains in Bulgaria, that is, that postponement of elections had served to provide legal status for opposition and had given opposition right publicly to express views; that now it is up to govt and opposition, by mutual compromise, to find way to elections in which all can participate, thereby assuring common action by great powers looking to early and fair treaty of peace for Bulgaria.
I asked the Prime Minister whether he perceived any objection to my repeating to Communist and opposition leaders what I had already expressed to him and Foreign Minister. He replied that, on the contrary, he hoped that I would do so; also that I would find the opportunity to say much the same thing to Russian authorities.
Whether he meant it or not, he said that it was duty of all of us to do our utmost to bring about elections that would assure Bulgaria early and fair peace, but thus he remained skeptical, perhaps knowing that Russians and Communists have no intention real compromise.
Repeated to Moscow as 259 and repeated to London as 10.