874.00/12–2945: Telegram
The United States Representative in Bulgaria (Barnes) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 2, 1946—9:50 a.m.]
785. Govt press takes line that decision with respect to Bulgaria of Foreign Ministers Conference constitutes final acceptance by three Great Powers of FF Govt—that only its completion by inclusion of two more Ministers remains to be effected before recognition is accorded [Page 419] by US and UK. However, within Govt itself doubt exists that situation quite so simple.
Speaking in Assembly yesterday evening, Minister Foreign Office states that, as always, FF Govt will act on advice that Russia gives. He said that Russian authorities here had on previous night informed him of decision. Despite this suggestion that discussions already opened with respect to “desirability of inclusion in FF Bulgarian Govt, now being formed, of additional two representatives of other democratic groups”, I know that Govt has not yet received any advice from Soviet authorities nor has it or National Committee of FF met to consider practical implementation of decision.
The phrase “now being formed” did not when drafted jibe in any way with local situation. Until word came of agreement, Govt entertained no thought of reorganization and last night in connection with debate on reply to speech from throne continued with its original plan by vote of confidence that was given to it without change of a single Minister.
Assembly is composed of deputies hand-picked by Communist-dominated FF Central Committee. New groups entering Govt would possess no means of making their voices heard in Assembly. There are four Obbov Agrarian Ministers in Cabinet and two Neikov Socialist Ministers. Under circumstances neither Agrarian leader Petkov nor Socialist leader Lulchev could hope to effect materially any decision of govt merely by accepting posts in Cabinet. Fundamental reconstruction would be necessary to give their views any weight in Council of Ministers. Also Russia has come to look upon these two leaders as “disloyal” because of their opposition both in field of domestic and foreign policy to Communist designs.
It is therefore not surprising that today both Govt and opposition leaders are asking themselves whether Moscow formula is not further proof of inability of Russia and western democracies to arrive at sincere meeting of minds. All (the opposition most woefully) are therefore inclined to believe that Yalta is dead and that Moscow Conference served merely to bury the cadaver. In meantime both sides, one with confidence, the other with fear and some resentment toward the western democracies, await Russia’s next step.
Repeated Moscow as 348.