Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume II
763.72119/3484
The British Chargé ( Barclay ) to the Acting Secretary of State
Sir: I have the honour to transmit to you, herewith, by direction of my Government, a letter signed by Admiral Sir Rosslyn Wemyss, together with a report of the Allied Naval Mission appointed to ensure the execution of Article 28 of the conditions of Armistice with Germany.
I have [etc.]
Admiral Sir Rosslyn Wemyss to the British Admiralty
I have the honour to attach herewith a Report of the Allied Naval Commission appointed by the Allied Governments and the Government of the United States to ensure the execution of Article XXVIII of the Conditions of Armistice.
[Page 67]2.—Since the receipt of this report two British Officers have made a tour of the Belgian Waterways for the purpose of enquiring into the movements of river craft from Belgium into Holland (or Germany) subsequent to the signing of the Armistice.
3.—As the result of this further enquiry it is clear that the Germans made no organised attempt to remove Belgian river craft after the Armistice came into force.
4.—It is possible that a few barges passed through Loosen into Holland, and others may have gone from Liege to Maastricht, but the evidence is quite insufficient on which to base a claim that there has been an infraction of Article XXVIII of the Armistice Conditions.
5.—There is, however, definite evidence that the French sailing vessel Vercingetorix was removed from Antwerp after the signing of the Armistice.
The case of the Vercingetorix has been brought to the notice of the French Government.
6.—With the exception of this case, and that of two empty barges from Antwerp, names or numbers of which could not be ascertained, the evidence indicates that the terms of Article XXVIII have been carried out.
Report of the Allied and United States of America Commission Entrusted With the Carrying Out of Clause XXVIII of the Armistice
President:
Vice Admiral Sir Roger J. B. Keyes, KCB., CMG., CVO., D. S. O., Representing Great Britain.
Members:
Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, Representing the United States of America.
Capitaine de Vaisseau de Boisanger, Representing France.
Commander Giuseppe Viganoni, Representing Italy.
Colonel Cornellis, the Belgian Member of the Commission was unable to attend, but Commander Hennebique, who is in charge of the Belgian Canal System, was kindly placed at the disposal of the Commission by General de Rubbel. He undertook to furnish the Commission with all the information he was collecting regarding the Belgian Waterways.
Other British Officers accompanied the Commission to assist in the examination of Aircraft Aerodromes, etc., and for secretarial duties.
2. The Commission arrived at Antwerp on the 19th November, 1918.
An examination was made of the Port of Antwerp. From this examination and from information received from the local Belgian Authorities, the enemy, in withdrawing from Antwerp, appear to [Page 68] have left the harbour, tugs, cranes, goods sheds, etc., in working order, and do not appear to have carried out any destruction of allied or enemy property.
The following three enemy war vessels were found in the Port:—
| Torpedo | Boat | A. | 4. |
| “ | “ | A. | 12. |
| “ | “ | A. | 14. |
These boats have been partially disarmed and their engines disabled, but from enquiries it appears that this disablement was carried out prior to the signing of the Armistice.
The Belgian Captain of the Port provided the Commission with a list of enemy ships which had sailed from Antwerp for Holland. (This list is attached as Enclosure No. 1).36 From this list it will be seen that twenty-nine German and two Austrian Merchant Ships proceeded to Holland between the 13th October and 4th of November 1918.
Five sailing vessels were also taken to Holland between the 2nd and 13th of November; of these vessels, two were British and one French, i. e.:
| British | Thames | renamed | Moritz | by the Germans. |
| “ | Vindex | “ | Max | “ |
| French | Vercingetorix | renamed | Bremen | “ |
The latter vessel sailed for Holland on the 13th November and her removal on that date therefore constitutes a violation of Articles XXVIII and XXX of the Armistice.
This was brought to the notice of the French Authorities.
Enclosure No. 1. shows that eleven German Torpedo Boats, Class A, sailed for Holland on the 9th of November.
3. The German Aerodrome on the plain of Wilryck was visited; a number of enemy aeroplanes were found here; many of these were not in working order, but it is impossible to say that the damage was caused by the enemy after the 11th November, as local inhabitants had been allowed into the aerodrome and much reckless looting had taken place.
A larger number of aeroplanes were found in trucks in good condition.
It was impracticable to decide which of the aeroplanes were meant for Naval and which for Military Service, and it was therefore arranged that the Belgian Authorities, who were making an inventory of all aircraft and their stores, assisted by German Officers, should provide the Commission with a complete list, noting which were earmarked for Naval Service.
[Page 69]This list has not yet been received and will be forwarded separately.
A list, compiled by Belgian Officers, of aircraft in Antwerp, is attached as Enclosure No. II.37
The two German Officers mentioned in paragraph 4 had no knowledge of the aircraft situation. They stated that Captain Shultz, late Chief of Staff, Antwerp, possessed this information. Attempts were made to get in touch with Captain Shultz, but he could not be found.
4. The German Officers detailed to confer with the Commission arrived on the afternoon of the 20th November. They were—
- Kapitain Lieutenant Bartling—an officer of Reserve, and
- Engineer Captain Ilgenstein, of the German Army—employed on the Belgian Inland Waterways Control during the war.
Kapitain Lieutenant Bartling had no knowledge of affairs at Antwerp or in the canals, and had apparently been employed at Berlin; therefore, except to act as interpreter (he spoke excellent English), he was of no assistance to the Commission.
The Officer originally detailed for this duty—Lieutenant Commander Kiep—did not appear, and the substitution of Kapitain Lieutenant Bartling did not assist matters.
Engineer Captain Ilgenstein furnished the following information:—
(1) Between Bruges and Ghent, four German torpedo boat destroyers had been sunk about a month ago.
This was verified and the boats located—two about six miles north of Ghent and two more about two miles farther north. They have been blown up and sunk across the canal so as to block it; only the masts and tops of the bridges and funnels are out of water. The boats appear to be larger man the “A” class torpedo boats.
(2) He stated that no damage had been done to any canals behind the fighting line of the 11th November, and that all these canals—including the Charleroi–Brussels Canal—were in good working order.
Subsequent enquiries and inspection tend to confirm this statement.
(3) He stated that there were about 1,000 barges at Antwerp, of which fourteen were privately owned, the remainder having been requisitioned by the Germans. He also stated that much of the canal traffic to the Eastward of Antwerp was carried in Dutch barges—of these he had no information.
(4) He stated the Germans employed about sixty motor boats (he could not give the exact figures) about half of which were private craft hired by the Germans. The remainder had left Antwerp prior to the 11th November for Holland; this latter statement tallies with information obtained from Belgian Officials.
[Page 70](5) He furnished a German plan of the Belgian Canal System, which is attached as Enclosure No. III.38
(6) Commander Hennebique had an interview with Engineer Captain Ilgenstein in which he obtained information of value, regarding the waterways and facilities for conducting repairs, etc.
5. The German Representatives asked what would be done with German property in Antwerp. They referred to some thirty-five tugs hired from the Dutch.
They had apparently received orders to arrange for the return of these tugs.
They based their claims on their interpretation of the word “abandon” in Clause XXVIII, which they maintained did not include the seizing of such vessels by the Allies. They were informed that this question was outside the province of the Commission and they agreed to furnish a list of the tugs involved.
This list will be forwarded as soon as received.
To prevent the return of any of these tugs to Holland before the Allied Authorities had decided as to their disposal, General de Rubbel, Military Governor of Antwerp was requested to issue orders that none of them were to be permitted to leave Antwerp for the present. Orders to this effect have been issued, and no tugs are authorised to return from Antwerp to Holland, except those placed at the disposal of the Relief Committee.
6. The German Representatives could furnish no information as to the stores, etc., which they had abandoned at Antwerp.
They therefore agreed to supply a complete list of stores, etc, left by them in Antwerp. This list will be forwarded directly it is received.
7. The Commission proceeded to Brussels on the 21st November to inspect the aerodrome there and the canal System between that City and Antwerp.
The Canals all appear to be in working order. The aerodrome was visited on the 22nd November and was found intact.
It contained one Zeppelin shed and some seventy-eight German aeroplanes, the majority of which appeared in serviceable condition.
8. The Commission spent a few hours at Bruges and Ghent, where extensive damage has been done to the canals, but as both these towns were in Allied possession before the signing of the Armistice, it appeared unnecessary to enquire closely into the German depredations.
9. The Commission returned to Dover on the evening of the 23rd November.
- V. de Boisanger
- G. Viganoni
- Roger Keyes
- Mark L. Bristol