1 For the texts of the four armistices see below, supplement, pp. 85-103.

2 Reference is made to the capitulation of the residual Polish forces in Warsaw late in September, 1939; that of the Netherlands High Command on May 16, 1940; that of the Belgian High Command and the King on May 27, 1940; to the surrender of representatives of the Yugoslav High Command at the end of April, 1941, and of the Greek High Command in mid-May, 1941, as examples. The terms of surrender of Axis forces in Syria in June, 1941 antedate the formation of the United Nations and therefore do not possess a character comparable to the agreements hex discussed.

3 For the proclamation of the Italian armistice by General Eisenhower on September 8, 1943, see The New York Times,September 9, 1943. For an alleged statement of the terms see Revue de Droit International(Sottile), XXII’ Annie,No. 2 (April-June, 1944), p. 170.

4 See Bordwell, Percy, The Law of War between Belligerents: A History and Commentary,Chicago, 1908, pp. 294-295Google Scholar, and Hall, W. B., International Law,Oxford, 1895 (4th ed.), pp. 564-565.Google Scholar

5 See Paul Fauchille, Traité de Droit international public,Tome II, pp. 326-334 and 536- 540 for an excellent statement of Continental practice.

6 See United States, Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States,1918, Supplement 1, Vol. I, pp. 1-498.

7 Thus the Rumanian Delegation consisted of a Minister of State, a General, a Prince and a civilian; the Finnish Delegation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense (a General), the Chief of Staff and a general officer; the Bulgarian delegation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance and two Ministers without portfolio—a whollycivilian delegation, which is an exception to the general rule. The Hungarian Delegation consisted of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a General and the State Secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers.

8 Rumania, Art. 20; Finland, Art. 23; Bulgaria, Art. 19; Hungary, Art. XX.

9 According to the Department of Stale Bulletin,Vol. X, No. 252 (April 22, 1944), pp. 374- 376, Rumania was at war with the United States of America, Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Haiti, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, while relations with her had been severed by Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia; Finland was at war with Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, while relations had been severed by Belgium, Egypt, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia, and—a few months later, the United States of America; Bulgaria was at war with the United States of America, Australia, Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Haiti, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia, joined at the last minute by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, while relations had been severed by Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland. Hungary was at war with the United States of America, Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Haiti, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia, while relations were severed by Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland and Uruguay. It is apparent from the foregoing that Rumania was, with three relatively unimportant exceptions, chiefly involved in war with the United States, the British Commonwealth and Russia; Bulgaria with the United States, the British Commonwealth but not Russia—up to the last minute; Finland with Russia, the British Commonwealth, but not the United States, and with no severance of ties by any of the American Republics. Hungary was, accordingly, at war with Yugoslavia and all the states at war with Rumania, and so fell almost exactly into the pattern set by her European neighbor while additionally drawing the wrath—to the degree of severance of relations—of Uruguay. The status of Polish-Hungarian relations has never been satisfactorily cleared up, although the Polish Legation in Budapest ceased to function in January of 1941.

10 It will be recalled that in the peace settlement following World War I the preambles to the treaties of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Neuilly, Trianon, and Sevres indicated in each instance by name the “Principal Allied and Associated Powers” and also separately enumerated the states classified merely as “Allied and Associated Powers“; nowhere was there a corporate capacity or designation.

11 This is stated in the conclusion of each agreement.

12 In keeping with previous domestic practice, it is to be expected that Finland will publish an official version of the armistice in Swedish, but it will possess an “official” value only within the country and not internationally.

13 The phrase, as a legal description for the anti-Soviet coalition built up by Hitler, is new but occurs frequently in the three armistices. It appears not only as a convenient label for the classification of puppet regimes, but is apparently also intended to put in question—in terms of Rumania's own experience—the “sovereignty” and “independence of such areas in view of their previous manifest subordination to the Third Reich. No such designation is found in the Hungarian armistice, Hungary itself being obviously the last important satellite.

14 Article 5 and Annex; Hungary, Art. XVI and Annex.

15 Rumania, Art. 2; Finland, Art. 2; Bulgaria, Art. 1 (B); Hungary, Art. I (B).

15a German nationals of Jewish origin, temporarily domiciled in Hungary, were exempted from internment. Rumania, Art. 2, Annex; Hungary, Art. I, Annex.

16 Rumania, Art. 3 and Annex; Finland, Art. 3 and Annex; Bulgaria, Art. 3; Hungary, Art. III and Annex.

17 Rumania, Art. 5; Finland, Art. 10; Bulgaria, Art. 4 and Protocol. The Hungarian armistice speaks of providing “adequate food, clothing, medical services and sanitary and hygienic requirements“—another evidence of reference to objective rather than juridical, i.e., conventional, standards.

18 Rumania, Art. 6; Finland, Art. 20; Bulgaria, Art. 5; Hungary, Art. V.

18a Because of the complicated and ill-defined position of a number of categories of persons found in Hungarian territory, the Hungarian armistice added to Article V a special paragraph obligating the Hungarian Government to take “all necessary measures to ensure that all displaced persons and refugees within the limits of Hungarian territory, including Jews and stateless persons, are accorded at least the same measure of protection and security as its own nationals.”

19 Rumania, Art. 14; Finland, Art. 13; Bulgaria, Art. 6; Hungary, Art. XIV. The Hungarian armistice additionally provides for “the surrenderto the governments concerned of persons accused of war crimes”. This is a stipulation obviously intended to forestall and override objections of a statutory or constitutional character, such as that laid down in Art. 112 of the Weimar Constitution of the German Reich against a nation's surrender of its own nationals. This may well forecast an analogous provision in the armistice terms for a defeated Germany.

20 Rumania, Arts. 4 and 19; Finland, Arts. 6, 7, 8, and Annex 9; Bulgaria, Art. 4 and Protocol; Hungary, Art. II.

21 Rumania, Art. 7; Finland, Art. 15; Bulgaria, Art. 12; Hungary, Art. VII, and Protocol, Art. 2. Only Germanmaterial and shipping are to be surrendered by Hungary.

22 Rumania, Arts. 8-9; Finland, Arts. 16-17; Bulgaria, Arts. 13-14; Hungary, Arts. VIII-X.

23 Cf. Briggs, Herbert W., “Non-Recognition in the Courts: The Ships of the Baltic Republics,” this Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October, 1943), pp. 585-596.

24 Rumania, Art. 10; Bulgaria, Art. 15, and Protocol 4, Art. 17; Hungary, Art. XI and Annex. Oddly enough, only a general pledge to respond to requisitions was required of Finland in Art. 19.

25 The phraseology involved is almost strained in its circumlocution (our italics): “Lossescaused to the Soviet Union made made good”by Rumania; “Lossescaused by Finland … will be indemnified,”but Bulgaria will make such reparation… as may be determined.” Rumania, Art. 11; Finland, Art. 11; Bulgaria, Art. 9; Hungary, Art. XII.

26 Rumania, Art. 11; Hungary, Art. XII, Annex. Finland is held to similar “indemnification in the future, and the amount of the compensation is to be fixed separately.”

27 Rumania, Art. 12; Finland, Art. 14; Bulgaria, Art. 11. Greece and Yugoslavia are likewise to benefit by Bulgaria's acts of restoration; no analogous article is found in the Hungarian armistice.

28 Rumania, Art. 13; Finland, Art. 12; Bulgaria, Art. 10; Hungary, Art. XIII.

29 Rumania, Art. 15; Finland, Art. 21; Bulgaria, Art. 7; Hungary, Art. XV. This type of stipulation has been insisted upon by the Soviet Government as a part of nearly every basic settlement with foreign countries. Such anti-propaganda guarantees were inserted in the Baltic peace treaties of 1920, and in the various settlements with other countries such as China and Japan. They are found in the multiple exchange of notes constituting the settlement with the United States on November 17, 1933. The negotiation of the three armistices under review afforded the Soviet Government a special opportunity to extend the stipulations to cover the entire bloc of the United Nations, thus broadening and more nearly universalizing the anti-propaganda guarantees.

30 Rumania, Art. 16; Bulgaria, Art. 8, Hungary, Art. XVI and Annex. The Finnish armistice contains no analogous provisions.

31 Rumania, Art. 18 and Annex; Finland, Art. 22 and Annex; Bulgaria, Art. 18; Hungary, Art. XVIII and Annex.