CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 35
The representative of Poland spoke on the problem of Trieste and the Italo-Yugoslav frontier, supporting the Yugoslav claims (CP Gen Doc. 1 U 3 and CP(IT/P) Doc. 25)43 and the Byelorussian amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 D 1). M. Winiewicz drew a parallel between the 1919 solution for Danzig and the CFM solution for Trieste, elaborating this similarity in its physical, economic and political aspects throughout his speech. He disagreed with Senator Connally’s statement that Trieste should be a “new independent state”, declaring that in Poland’s views Trieste’s ties with Yugoslavia should be close and its territory small. Finally the Polish Delegate declared a complete lack of bias in his Delegation’s point of view.
Mr. McNeil (U.K.) said that his Delegation had, of course, studied the Danzig plan closely and desired to avoid the dangers inherent therein. In reply to M. Winiewicz’s concern for the “corridor” between Trieste and Italy proper, Mr. McNeil pointed out that Trieste to be viable must have a common frontier with Italy as well as with Yugoslavia, The British Delegation did not like the “French line” either, he said, but it was the best that could be found, when ethnic, economic and political conditions were equally considered. The Delegates must bring an international spirit to the consideration of this problem, which was unhappily lacking from M. Vyshinsky’s speech of yesterday. It is no crime to be an Italian, he said, and the United Kingdom Delegation is not without gratitude to Italy for her part on the Austrian front in the First World War. The U.K. cannot accept the text of “how much can we punish Italy.” Turning to the Free Territory and Free Port of Trieste, Mr. McNeil said that they must be placed strictly under the control of UNO, and this thought is reflected in the British draft statutes. He could not say the same for the Soviet and Yugoslav drafts and referred to the many provisions in those two proposals linking the Free Territory to Yugoslavia or providing for Yugoslav domination. If the statute of Trieste comes out of the Conference warped and the independence of the Free Territory impaired, the U.K. reserves its right to review its attitude not only [Page 379] on the Free Territory but on all related subjects when the statute comes before the CFM for final decision.
M. Couve de Murville (France) said that the settlement of the status of Trieste and the Italo-Yugoslav frontier would prove the most difficult question of all the peace treaties until we reached the German settlement. Trieste, he said, is equally important to Yugoslavia and to Italy, as well as having a great importance for Central Europe. The French Delegation has a special responsibility for the present solution, although not all of its suggestions had been accepted. The so-called French line has been accepted by the CFM and is now the Anglo-Soviet-French-American line. The French Delegation opposed the Brazilian as well as the Yugoslav amendments (CP Gen Doc. 1 E 2 and CP(IT/P) Doc. 25, respectively). Italy must not be embittered and the satisfaction of her needs must likewise be considered, he said. Turning to the statute of Trieste, the French representative declared that the Free Territory was the core of the problem and that it was essential to guarantee to the new little state independence and the respect of its two great neighbors.
- C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 25, a memorandum defending the Yugoslav claim, is not printed.↩