Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume IV

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/54

BC–47 SWC–14

Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the 17th Session, Supreme War Council, Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Saturday, 8th March, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, March 8, 1919, 3 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
Hon. R. Lansing.	General Tasker H. Bliss.
Hon. E. M. House.	Mr. Hoover.
Secretaries	Mr. Baruch.
Mr. A. H. Frazier.	Mr. Davis.
Mr. L. Harrison.	Mr. Strauss.
Mr. G. Auchincloss.	Mr. Lamont.
British Empire	Mr. Haskins.
The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.	Mr. McCormick.
Secretaries	Mr. Robinson.
Lt. Col. Sir M. P. A. Hankey, K. C. B.	British Empire
Sir P. Loraine, Bt.	The Rt. Hon. Lord Robert Cecil, K. C., M. P.
France	Sir Eyre Crowe, K. C. B., K. C. M. G.
M. Clemenceau.	Rear Admiral G. P. W. Hope, C. B.
M. Pichon.	Sir W. Beveridge.
Secretaries	Mr. J. M. Keynes, C. B.
M. Dutasta.	France
M. Berthelot.	Marshal Foch.
M. Arnavon.	General Alby.
M. de Bearn.	General Weygand.
Italy	Admiral de Bon.
H. E. Baron Sonnino.	M. Klotz.
M. Salvatore Barzilai.	M. Clementel.
Secretaries	M. Leygues.
Count Aldrovandi.	M. Loucheur.
M. Bertele.	M. J. Cambon.
Japan	M. Tardieu.
H. E. Baron Makino.	M. de Lasteyrie.
H. E. M. Matsui.	Lieut. de V. Odend’hal.
	Italy
	H. E. M. Crespi.
	Admiral Grassi.
	Col. Laghezza.
	Japan
	Admiral Takeshita.
	Captain Nomura.
	Captain Yamamoto.

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of	Lieut. Burden.
British Empire	Major A. M. Caccia, M. V. O.
France	Captain A. Portier.
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi.
Japan	M. Saburi.
Interpreter:—Prof. P. J. Mantoux.

1. M. Clementel said that on the 24th February, 1919, the Inter-Allied Blockade Council had passed a resolution to the following effect:—

Raisin of the Blockade in the Adriatic “The Blockade of the Adriatic shall forthwith be raised and the trade of all countries shall be allowed free access to all ports.”

He wished to ask the Conference to approve this Resolution.

M. Sonnino enquired whether the Resolution referred only to the commercial blockade of the Adriatic.

Mr. Lansing replied in the affirmative.

(It was agreed that the commercial blockade of the Adriatic should forthwith be raised.)

2. M. Clemenceau enquired whether the representatives of the Great Powers were prepared to hand in the names of the Generals, who were to proceed to Laibach. Nomination of the Generals to Proceed to Laibach

(The following names were handed in:—

United States of America	General Treat.
Great Britain	General Gordon.
France	General Savy.
Italy	General Segre.)

Mr. Clemenceau, continuing, said that subject to the approval of the Conference he, as President of the Peace Conference, would forward the following telegram to the President of the Inter-Allied Relief Commission in Trieste:—

“The Supreme War Council at meeting held on 8th March, 1919, approved the following Resolution:—Firstly, a Commission composed of four Generals (1 American, 1 British, 1 French, 1 Italian) shall forthwith proceed to Laibach to enquire into the incidents which took place at Saloch and at Laibach on the 12th and 20th February. After ascertaining the facts of the case, they will issue all necessary instructions, which will include the punishment of the guilty, and such amends and indemnification as may be considered to be due to the Italian Government. Secondly, the Commission of four Generals, after having ascertained the facts, will issue a notification in the names of the Allied and Associated Governments, to the effect that a recurrence of similar incidents would immediately be followed by an Inter-Allied Military occupation of the localities where such incidents might occur, in accordance with the terms of Article 4 of the Armistice of 3rd November, 1918, combined with such other more stringent measures as the Commission may consider proper.

As soon as the Commission will have been appointed, and as soon as the local authorities of Laibach have been informed thereof, the Italian Government will authorise the passage of the necessary supply trains via Laibach.”

(It was agreed that the above telegram should be forwarded in the name of the Great Powers to the President of the Inter-Allied Belief Commission in Trieste by M. Clemenceau, as President of the Peace Conference.)

3. M. Tardieu said that the Commission on Belgian Affairs entrusted by the Supreme Council at its meeting on 26th February, 1919,¹ with the study of the question of the Revision of the Treaty of 1839, had arrived at the following conclusions:— The Report of the Belgian Commission on the Treaty of 1839

(1) In law, the three treaties and all their clauses together constitute a single entity.

The treaty between Belgium and Holland is not separable from the other two.

Without examining the argument that the three agreements may be said to have been terminated by the fact of their violation, the Commission holds that since three of the Signatories consider revision necessary, such revision is called for.

(2) In fact, the three treaties which were directed against Belgium and imposed upon her and upon Holland by the Great Powers have not afforded Belgium any of the guarantees which these treaties promised to her, and by their clauses relative to her territory and her rivers have seriously impaired her capacity for defence, and are thus in great measure responsible for the injuries she has sustained. As far as concerns Germany, Austria and Russia, it is now in fact impossible to give to Belgium the guarantee of the five Great Powers to which she is entitled by the treaties. On this ground also, the revision of the treaties in their entirety is called for.

(3) In principle, the basis accepted for the Peace Conference contemplates the abandonment of the neutralisation of Belgium which constitutes a limitation upon her full sovereignty. Revision of the treaties is thus a matter of general interest. This neutralisation is at present guaranteed to Holland by Great Britain and by France under the treaty between the five Powers and Holland. The participation of Holland in the revision of the Treaties is thus called for.

The conclusion suggested accordingly is as follows:—

(a) The treaties of 1839 should be revised in the entirety of their clauses at the joint request of the Powers which deem their revision necessary.

(b) Holland should take part in this revision.

(c) Those of the Guarantor Great Powers which have fulfilled their obligations should also take part therein.

(d) Similarly the Great Powers at the Peace Conference whose interests are general should take part therein.

(e) The general object of this revision is, in accordance with the aim of the League of Nations, to free Belgium from that limitation upon her sovereignty which was imposed on her by the treaties of 1839, and, in the interest both of Belgium and of general peace, to remove the dangers and disadvantages arising from the said treaties.

With respect to the procedure to be followed the Commission submits to the Supreme Council that:—

The Supreme Council entrusts the Guarantor Powers which have been faithful to their obligations with the duty of informing Holland that the Council deems the revision of the treaties of 1839 to be necessary, and of inviting her to send her representatives to set forth before the Supreme Council the views of the Dutch Government in regard to such revision.

The whole question of the revision of the treaties would then be before the Supreme Council. This revision could be examined with regard to the interests of Belgium and of Holland by the Commission on Belgian Affairs, as well as by the Commission of ports, waterways and international communications, on the basis of investigations carried on by each of these two Commissions.

The provisions of the final treaty would come under the guarantees contemplated by the League of Nations.

(The report of the Commission on Belgian Affairs on the Treaty of 1839 was duly accepted.)

4. M. Jules Cambon said that he had presided at a Meeting of the Small Powers, which had met together yesterday to elect their representatives on the Economic and Financial Commissions. It had been agreed that the Small Powers should elect five regular delegates in addition to four supplementary members to act as a panel. Unfortunately, an understanding had previously been reached by the South American States to form a combination, with the result that out of the five delegates elected to sit on the Financial Commission, four belonged to South American States, namely, Brazil, Panama, Bolivia and Peru, and the fifth representation was given to Portugal. The small European Powers, thus finding themselves out-voted, had refused to take any further part in the proceedings, and had refused to vote for the remaining four supplementary Delegates. Representation of the Smaller Powers on the Financial and Economic Commissions: (a) Reports by M. Jules Cambon

The same manoeuvre had been followed in the case of the election of representatives for the Economic Committee with the result that the five seats fell to Brazil, Chili, [China?], Cuba, Siam and Equador.

The Smaller European Powers having refrained to vote for the Supplementary members, the representatives of the following states were elected by the votes of the other Small Powers, namely:—

• For the Finance Committee—Roumania, Belgium, Chili [China?], Greece.
• For the Economic Committee—Belgium, Serbia, Roumania, Greece.

The Small European States since then had continued to protest and Mr. Politis, the Greek Foreign Minister, had declared that it was “shocking” that the Small Powers who had fought in the war should remain unrepresented on the Economic and Financial Commissions, whilst States that had merely broken off relations with Germany had obtained full representation.

M. Clemenceau said it was obviously very unjust that the South American States, who had made no sacrifice during the war, should obtain all the representation, whereas Belgium, Serbia and Roumania were excluded after the great sacrifices they had made during the war. He wished to enquire whether the Conference would accept this decision, or whether it would decide to upset the result of the election.

(b) Mr. House’s Proposal for Fractional Representation Mr. House suggested that each of the European Small Powers should have a representative on the Financial or Economic Commission, but without full voting powers. In his opinion the Small Powers did not care very much about voting, but each one was anxious to be represented. In his opinion, the difficulty would be solved if arrangements were made to include all the Small Powers mentioned by M. Pichon, giving them say half a vote apiece.

Mr. Balfour remarked that fractional voting was quite a new idea to him.

(c) M. Pichon’s Proposal—Conference to Select Representatives of Small Powers M. Pichon thought that the States that had merely broken off relations with the enemy Powers could not be allowed to have representation to the exclusion of those States that had taken a lively part in the war. He thought the latter States had a right to be represented. Belgium, Serbia, Roumania, Greece, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and perhaps even Portugal had an undoubted right to be represented on a Committee dealing with reparation and finance, whereas the other States had no excuse for having an effective representation on these Commissions at the expense of the States he had mentioned. As a solution, he wished to propose that the Conference should select the States to be represented on these Commissions.

Mr. Lloyd George understood that the incident was holding up the work of an important Commission, whose report was required before the Peace Treaty could be drawn up. Consequently, in his opinion, the first thing for the Conference to decide was that the Committee should proceed with its work. In regard to the second question, namely, the representation of the Small Powers, he found himself in complete agreement with M. Pichon. The non-belligerent Small Powers, other than those mentioned by M. Pichon, could be heard by the Commission, whenever any question concerning them came up for discussion.

Mr. House expressed his concurrence with M. Pichon’s proposal.

Mr. Lansing said that a few days ago he himself had drawn attention to the names of the Small Powers who had been elected to sit on various Commissions and Committees. He had then pointed out that many of these names belonged to Countries that had merely broken off relations with the Central Powers, but had not declared war. For instance, on the previous occasion he had pointed out that Panama and Cuba had not been elected to sit on any Commission. Now, both Panama and Cuba had received representation, but the same objectional features still continued of putting on nations that had merely broken off relations without going to war. He, therefore, entirely agreed with M. Pichon’s views on this question, and suggested that Brazil, Cuba and Peru should be added to this list of interested Countries given by M. Pichon.

Baron Sonnino enquired whether a distinction could not be made between countries entitled to vote and those entitled to attend meetings. If such a distinction could be made, five countries could be admitted to vote, the remaining five or six countries being admitted merely for consultation.

M. Pichon remarked that in accordance with the decrees of the Conference every State forming part of the Peace Conference had a right to be heard when questions concerning its interests were discussed. The important question, however, was that Countries with special interests should have a seat on the Economic and Financial Commissions; otherwise it would be impossible for them to have a voice in deciding the amount to be paid by Germany. How could the Financial Commission decide the amount to be paid by Germany without Belgium and Poland, for instance, having a voice in the matter?

M. Jules Cambon remarked that M. Pichon had suggested that six Delegates should be appointed to represent the Small European States. He thought the Small States would be quite satisfied if three out of the six representatives were appointed to the Economic Commission, and three to the Financial Commission.

M. Pichon insisted that certain of the small Powers such as Belgium, had a right to sit on both the Financial and Economic Commissions.

Baron Sonnino asked permission to explain his previous statement which was not in contradiction with M. Pichon’s views. He thought the Conference should select the five representatives of the Smaller Powers from among the belligerent States; the remaining small Powers having a right to sit on the Conference with a consultative vote, that is to say, without having the full rights of Delegates.

M. Pichon drew attention to two important points. In the first place it was essential that there should not be too many Delegates on any Commission, since that interfered with the expeditious despatch of work. In the second place, the representatives of the Great Powers should not be swamped by an excessively large number of representatives of the Smaller States.

Mr. Lloyd George pointed out that when the Financial Commission had been set up, amongst other objects allotted to it, had been the division of the Ottoman debt. How could such a question, for instance, interest Ecuador or Panama? Again, there was the question of the Austrian debt, a most important matter. If Austria vanished, Czecho-Slovakia was very nearly concerned. But what had the other South American countries to do with it, whether belligerent nor [or] not? He wished to suggest, therefore, that the representatives of the Great Powers on the Commission should forthwith get to work, and at the end of a week the question could be considered as to whether the Small Powers should be admitted or not.

M. Crespi pointed out that unless the representatives of the small Powers were appointed, the Commission would not be legally constituted, and unless properly constituted, work could not be commenced.

M. Clemenceau, summing up, proposed that on Monday next M. Pichon should submit a draft resolution, giving effect to his proposal, which had apparently met with general approval.

(It was agreed that M. Pichon should, at the meeting to be held on Monday next, March 10th., submit a draft resolution giving effect to his proposals that the Conference should select the small Powers to be represented on the Financial and Economic Councils.)

5. Lord Robert Cecil said that the Supreme Economic Council had that day been considering the situation created by the breakdown of the negotiations at Spa, and certain definite conclusions had been reached. The Food of Germany: The Breakdown of the Negotiations at Spa. (a) Reports of Supreme Economic Council

In the first place he wished to bring to the notice of the Conference that the question of the surrender of the merchant ships by Germany was one thing, and the understanding that the Allies should supply food to Germany was quite another thing. Article 26 of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918, read as follows: “The Allies and the United States contemplate the provisioning of Germany during the Armistice, as shall be found necessary”. Again, in the agreement for the prolongation of the Armistice, dated the 16th January, 1919, it had been said: “In order to assure the provisioning of Germany and the rest of Europe, the German Government shall take all necessary steps to place the German Merchant Fleet for the duration of the Armistice, under the control and power of the Allied flags and the United States, who shall be assisted by a German Delegate. This arrangement shall in no wise affect the final disposal of such vessels”. That was the position so far as the Armistice was concerned. There was, however, another aspect of the case to which he need not refer at any great length, he meant the obligations of humanity and the grave danger of Germany drifting into Bolshevism unless food were sent into Germany.

When the negotiations at Spa had been broken off, the Supreme Economic Council had met together to consider the situation, and had arrived at certain decisions, which had been embodied in the report which he would proceed to read to the Conference. Unanimous decision had been reached on all but two points, regarding which very strong differences of opinion appeared to exist.

Lord Robert Cecil then read the following draft report of the Supreme Economic Council:—

“The Supreme Economic Council report that, in their opinion a communication on the lines hereinafter stated, should be made to Germany.

The Supreme Economic Council should be authorised and directed to appoint a Committee with full powers to prepare the actual terms of the proposed communication including the financial and other arrangements necessary to carry it out.

Germany should be informed that—

(1) She is bound by the terms of the Armistice to hand over her mercantile fleet forthwith, under the terms settled at Tréves on [in] January last.

(2) On grounds of humanity, the Associated Governments reiterate their decision to deliver to Germany the food now available in Europe for which payment has been arranged as soon as Germany shows her genuine intention to carry out her obligations referred to in the first paragraph, by sending to sea for that purpose the ships to be selected by the Associated Governments, and the Associated Governments will themselves provide (as quickly as transportation can be arranged) or will give permits for import from neighbouring neutrals for the balance of the month’s supply, that is, of 270,000 tons agreed on, as soon as at least … ships have been similarly sent to sea, and as soon as payment for such food has been arranged.

(3) She may import up to (300,000) tons of breadstuffs and (70,000) tons of fats monthly until September 1st.

(4) She must pay for this food and may pay in any of the following ways:—

(a) By the hire of the ships.

(b) By the export of commodities and the sale of cargoes of German ships now in neutral countries.

(c) By credits in neutral countries.

(d) By the outright sale of foreign securities or properties.

(e) By the arrangement of advances against the use of foreign securities of properties as collateral.

(f) Further, gold also may be used as collateral for loans to be released as other means of payment to provide means of liquidating such loans. The outright sale of gold can only be permitted in the event of its being agreed by the Associated Powers that the above named means of payment are inadequate.

(5) She may export commodities (except those on a black list) to any neutral or other agreed destination. The proceeds from these exports must be converted into payment for foodstuffs.

(6) A definite amount of the Shipping handed over will be continuously available to transport food to Germany until next harvest.

(7) She may purchase and import foodstuffs within the limits above stated, from neutrals who will, when necessary, be allowed to re-import equivalent quantities.

(8) It is understood that the declaration of the Associated Governments under this communication will be null and void should a state of hostilities be renewed.

Clauses 1 and 2 Clause 3 Lord Robert Cecil, continuing, said that in regard to Clause 1 and 2 above, complete agreement had been reached. But two objections had been raised in regard to Clause 3, namely, in connection with the relaxation of the blockade, and in connection with the engagement to feed the Germans until September 1st.

In regard to the first objection, it was obvious that if any food at all were to be imported into Germany, that would necessarily imply a certain relaxation of the blockade. But, in his opinion, the importation of food, far from weakening the power of the blockade, would strengthen it. The only way in which the blockade could be weakened would be by sending into the country so much surplus food as to allow large stocks to be constituted. On the other hand, if only just as much food as was required for immediate consumption were allowed to be sent in, the power of the blockade would thereby be strengthened. Once the Allies started feeding the German people, it would be easy for the latter to realise the full force of a threat to cut off further supplies.

In regard to the second objection, the French representatives held that the clause, as worded, implied an absolute engagement to feed the Germans until September 1st. He did not think that was the correct English interpretation of the text. Obviously, as soon as the Armistice came to an end, further supplies of food could also cease. Moreover, Clause 8 made the supply of food dependent on a non-renewal of a state of hostilities.

Clause 4 In regard to Paragraph 4, the Council agreed that Germany must pay for the food supplied to her, but the gravest differences of opinion had been expressed in regard to the manner of payment, particularly in connection with Clauses (d) (e) and (f). As a matter of fact, he did not think his French colleagues had yet had an opportunity of considering Clause (f), which had been re-drafted in order to meet, if possible, some of the objections raised by them.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 Finally he would add that Clauses 5, 6 and 7 had been unanimously accepted.

(b) Views of French Representatives on Supreme Economic Council M. Clementel thought it would be necessary, in the first place, to bring to the recollection of the Conference the exact terms of the decisions taken by the Supreme War Council, with particular reference to any promises said to have been made to Germany. In Clause 2 (b) of the first armistice, dated November 11th, the Allies had merely contemplated the provisioning of Germany during the armistice: But at the time of the second armistice, in accordance with a decision reached by the Supreme Economic Council, it had been agreed to supply to Germany from time to time such quantities of food as might be considered sufficient to meet her immediate requirements. Accordingly, on the advice of Mr. Hoover, 270,000 tons had been fixed as the amount of the first instalment of food-stuffs: But difficulties had arisen as regards the payment, so that nothing had as yet been sent. That, however, was all that had ever been promised by the Allies to Germany. During the last negotiations, the Germans had asked for a guarantee that food would be supplied up to the next harvest. That request had been discussed by the Supreme Economic Council and the French Delegates had maintained that no undertaking could be entered into for so long a period: No agreement should be entered into for more than one month at a time, and the agreement should only apply to the duration of the armistice. That is to say, the Germans would continue to obtain, their food requirements during the period of the armistice, but should the armistice be broken for any reason, the supply of food would ipso facto cease. The British and American delegates had agreed to add Clause 8, which laid down that in the event of a renewal of hostilities, the engagements entered into by the Associated Governments would become null and void. The French Representatives had accepted this Clause only on the understanding that the Military experts were satisfied that it did not contravene any of the terms of the armistice.

Clause 3 had been accepted by the French delegates in principle on the understanding that the figures given merely represented maxima and that the final quantities to be entered should be referred to the Economic experts. The Experts had not yet been consulted, but no delay need thereby be incurred, as the four competent Ministers could settle that question within a few hours.

Clause 4 In regard to Clause 4, the French Representatives held the view that people who wanted to eat should work. It was a well-known fact that in Berlin, for instance, the unemployed received an unemployment indemnity of 8 marks per day and as a result, at the present moment, there were no less than 300,000 unemployed in receipt of gratuities. Furthermore, peasants were pouring into the town to have a rest and to draw their gratuities. This fact had had an enormous influence on the output of coal, potash, and other raw materials. In his opinion, therefore, the Germans should be given an ultimatum; they should be told that they would only receive food in return for raw materials. The Supreme Economic Council had thought this to be too harsh a condition to introduce into an agreement, but it had been decided to communicate it verbally to the Germans during the course of the recent negotiations at Spa. Unfortunately these negotiations had been broken off before that stage had been reached.

In regard to the method of payment for the food to be supplied to Germany the French representatives held that methods (a), (b) and (c) would be sufficient to meet all payments likely to fall due within the next few months. They had further suggested that the following Clause should be substituted for Clauses (d), (e) and (f), namely: “Should the above 3 ways be found insufficient to yield the sums required, it would be the duty of the Finance Committee to find supplementary ways”.

Clause 7 Clause 7 laid down that Germany could purchase and import food stuffs from neutrals, who would, when necessary, be allowed to re-import equivalent quantities. This meant that unlimited quantities of food could be purchased by neutral countries to replace equivalent quantities sold to Germany, thus practically abolishing the system of rationing which was still enforced in the case of neutral countries.

Lord Robert Cecil pointed out that in the British text the Clause in question read: “She may purchase and import food stuffs within the limits above stated from neutrals, who will, when necessary, be allowed to re-import equivalent quantities”.

M. Clementel said that the word[s] “Within the limits above stated,” gave complete satisfaction.

He wished finally to lay stress on the fact that in renewing the negotiations with the Germans the conclusion reached by the Conference should be communicated to the Germans by the President of the Armistice Commission at Spa, so as to avoid discussions being carried on by a large body of representatives.

M. Klotz suggested that Marshal Foch’s views should be heard.

Marshal Foch held that Clause 3 created a somewhat dangerous situation, since the Allies thereby bound themselves to supply food to the Germans until September 1st, unless, as stated in Clause 8, hostilities were renewed. Consequently, that Clause had the effect of disarming the Allies, who would be obliged to start hostilities should any difference arise with Germany, since, as long as the Clause remained, pressure could not be exerted by the fear of withholding food.

Mr. Lansing enquired what was the connection between the subject under consideration and the military situation.

M. Clemenceau replied that at the present moment the Allies possessed a method of applying pressure to Germany, without appeal to arms, but if the Clause suggested were accepted, the only method of exerting pressure would be the renewal of hostilities.

Mr. Hoover held that a very important difficulty had apparently been overlooked. It was essential that the Allies should obtain the German merchant ships in order to deliver the food supplies required by all countries of Europe, both friendly and enemy. It was evident, in his opinion, that Germany would refuse to give up her ships unless she were assured a supply of food until next harvest. If a monthly agreement alone were desired, Germany did not consider that a sufficient guarantee to justify the surrender of her ships. It may become desirable to shut off the supply of food in order to exert pressure on Germany. But, the delegates who went to Spa were positive that the German ships would never be surrendered unless the guarantee asked for were given. It would be possible for the Allies to go into German harbours and take the ships by force, but a great many of the ships were in neutral ports, and could not, therefore, be taken by force. Consequently, the Allies were faced by a dilemma: either to abandon the point raised by Marshal Foch and so obtain the ships required, or deliberately to refuse to supply food to Germany and break the promises made. He must, however, insist on the situation in Germany to-day. During the last four years Germany had divided its own food supplies into eleven packets, and a twelfth packet had been made up of the food stolen from the occupied territories. Since the armistice the twelfth packet had been lost to Germany and the remaining eleven packets had, through unemployment and disintegration, been greatly reduced in size. Consequently, Germany now only possessed food sufficient to feed the country for eight months, and some time about the 1st May next, food would become so scarce in all the towns of 50,000 inhabitants and more, that starvation would stare the people in the face, and that would constitute a very grave danger for the whole Government of the country. That was the substance of the report received from the most trustworthy sources in Germany. Therefore, unless the Allies were willing to run the risk of supplying certain quantities of food to Germany, in return for the possible surrender of her merchant ships, thus enabling her to maintain a stable Government, the efforts of the representatives now sitting in the Council Chamber would be washed out to nothing within the next sixty days.

Mr. Lloyd George said that he had been rather staggered by Marshal Foch’s proposition that we were parting with a very great effective power of exerting pressure on Germany. The difficulty was, however, more apparent than real, for the Allies were not in reality parting with the considerable power which food gave them. As a matter of fact, there were only two contingencies which might call for the exercise of that power. The Germans might refuse to carry out the terms of the armistice, but in that case the armistice would at once come to an end, and therefore the provisions of Clause 8 would apply. Again, the Preliminary Terms of Peace would shortly be presented to Germany, and if Germany refused to accept those terms, that would put an end to the armistice. But, when that happened, the Allies would be quite entitled to decide not to advance into Germany and to exert the necessary pressure by the stoppage of food supplies. Consequently, the only two contingencies when food pressure might be required, had been duly provided for. The Conference was therefore not parting with any potent weapon. On the other hand, he wished to urge with all his might that steps should at once be taken to revictual Germany. The honour of the Allies was involved. Under the terms of the armistice the Allies did imply that they meant to let food into Germany. The Germans had accepted our armistice conditions, which were sufficiently severe, and they had complied with the majority of those conditions. But so far, not a single ton of food had been sent into Germany. The fishing fleet had even been prevented from going out to catch a few herrings. The Allies were now on top, but the memories of starvation might one day turn against them. The Germans were being allowed to starve whilst at the same time hundreds of thousands of tons of food were lying at Rotterdam, waiting to be taken up the Waterways into Germany: These incidents constituted far more formidable weapons for use against the Allies than any of the armaments it was sought to limit. The Allies were sowing hatred for the future: they were piling up agony, not for the Germans, but for themselves. The British troops were indignant about our refusal to revictual Germany. General Plumer² had said that he could not be responsible for his troops if children were allowed to wander about the streets, half starving. The British soldiers would not stand that, they were beginning to make complaints, and the most urgent demands were being received from them. Furthermore, British Officers who had been in Germany said that Bolshevism was being created, and the determining factor was going to be food. As long as the people were starving they would listen to the argument of the Spartacists, and the Allies by their action were simply encouraging elements of disruption and anarchism. It was like stirring up an influenza puddle, just next door to one’s self. The condition of Russia was well-known, and it might be possible to look on at a muddle which had there been created. But, now, if Germany went, and Spain: who would feel safe? As long as order was maintained in Germany, a breakwater would exist between the countries of the Allies and the waters of Revolution beyond. But once the breakwater was swept away, he could not speak for France, but trembled for his own country. The situation was particularly serious in Munich. Bavaria, which once had been thought to represent the most solid and conservative part of Germany, had already gone. He was there that afternoon to reinforce the appeal which had come to him from the men who had helped the Allies to conquer the Germans, the soldiers, who said that they refused to continue to occupy a territory in order to maintain the population in a state of starvation. Meanwhile the Conference continued to haggle. Six weeks ago the same arguments about gold and foreign securities had been raised, and it had then been decided that Germany should be given food. He begged the Conference to re-affirm that decision in the most unequivocal terms, unless this people were fed, if as a result of a process of starvation enforced by the Allies, the people of Germany were allowed to run riot, a state of revolution among the working classes of all countries would ensue with which it would be impossible to cope.

(c) M. Clemenceau’s Criticisms of Mr. Lloyd George’s Proposals M. Clemenceau expressed his desire to make a few observations in reply to Mr. Lloyd George’s statement; and he would preface his remarks with the affirmation that his conclusions agreed with that of Mr. Lloyd George, namely, that Germany must be fed as soon as possible. That however, was not the question now under discussion. Mr. Lloyd George had said that the honour of the Allies was involved, since they had given the Germans to understand that food would be sent into Germany. That was not altogether a correct statement of facts. In the Armistice no promise had ever been made to feed Germany.

Mr. Balfour, intervening, remarked that almost a promise had been made.

M. Clemenceau, continuing, said he would not argue the point, because, as he had already said, he was ready to give the food, whether promised or not. On the other hand, his information tended to show that the Germans were using Bolshevism as a bogey with which to frighten the Allies. If the Germans were starving, as General Plumer and others said they were, why did they continue to refuse to surrender their fleet? The Germans certainly did not act as if they were in a hurry, and it was curious that a people who was said to be so hard up for food should appear to be in no hurry to assist in obtaining it by giving up their ships. No doubt very pitiable reports were being received from certain parts of Germany in regard to food conditions; but those reports did not apparently apply to all parts of Germany. For instance, General Mangin had told him that there was more food in Mayence than in Paris. In his opinion, the food hardship was probably due to bad distribution. Mr. Lloyd George had said that the Germans must be made to observe the conditions of the Armistice. But the Germans had promised to surrender their mercantile fleet, and so far they had not done so. In his opinion, the Germans were simply trying to see how far they could go; they were simply attempting to blackmail the Allies. To yield to-day would simply mean constant yielding in the future. He had that day received the following telegram dated the 7th. March, 1919, from the French Naval Attaché, in London:—

“Having been informed of the refusal of the German Merchant Shipping Commission to surrender the German mercantile fleet to the Allies, a refusal which had led to negotiations being broken off and to the return of the Allied Mercantile Marine Commission to Paris, the Armistice Commission has forwarded the following telegram to the Allied Admiralties:—

Begins. Urgent:—

With reference to your 394 ANAC,³ it is proposed that the following action be taken, a limit of 3 days being imposed:—The Allied and Associated Powers shall insist that the Germans shall on or before the. … March next execute without further discussion or reservations the conditions set forth in Article 8 of the agreement for the prolongation of Armistice, dated 16th January, 1919, in regard to the surrender of the German merchant ships in Allied ports. The draft agreement dated . . . . . shall be accepted in its entirety. Should these conditions not be executed in their entirety within the prescribed period, the authorisation accorded to German merchant ships, including fishing boats and mine-sweepers, to proceed to sea, shall forthwith be cancelled. Further, no neutral ship shall be authorised to proceed to German ports and the blockade shall be completely re-established. Message ends.

ANAC requests that the above message be submitted to the Supreme War Council.”

He himself did not wish to champion that text, but he accepted the spirit which it breathed. In his opinion Marshal Foch should be instructed to meet the German Peace Delegates at Spa, and to tell them that the Allied and Associated Powers refused to argue or to discuss matters concerning the accepted clauses of the armistice. The Germans had promised to surrender their mercantile fleet, and immediate compliance must be demanded. The Germans could at the same time be told that food would be sent, but the conditions of Article 8 of the Armistice of 16th January, 1919, must in the first place be fulfilled. It was essential that no signs of weakness should be displayed on the eve of the settlement of other large territorial, military and economic questions. The Germans must not be given any advantage to-day that might give them the impression that the Allied Powers could be intimidated and made to yield. Therefore, in his opinion Germany should be asked point blank: “Are you or are you not going to execute the conditions set forth in Clause 8 of the [agreement for the prolongation of the] Armistice?” If his proposal were accepted, the position of the Great Powers would be extremely strong and promises to supply food could then safely be made.

Marshal Foch had made an objection which he (M. Clemenceau) considered to be very strong, but a slight amendment of the text would easily put that matter right. In regard to the manner of payment, he would be prepared to waive his objection to the earmarking of gold for the purpose, provided he knew that the Germans would work for their food. This was not an unreasonable request, and it would be found to be in agreement with the teachings of Christianity. In conclusion, he could not too strongly urge his view that the Germans should be made thoroughly to understand that the Allies would allow no nonsense in regard to the minute observance of the terms of the clauses of the Armistice. As soon as the Germans recognised this fact, he felt sure his colleagues, M. Loucheur, M. Klotz and M. Clementel, who were ever ready to be guided by feelings of humanity, would easily arrive at an agreement in regard to the supply of food to Germany, and the payment therefor.

(d) Baron Sonnino’s Amendment to Clause 8 M. Sonnino said that by way of conciliation, he desired to suggest a slight amendment to Clause 8 which, he thought, would give satisfaction to all parties. Mr. Hoover had argued that the Germans refused to surrender their ships to the Allies because such a surrender would merely act as an incentive to the Allies to ask for new conditions. He (Mr. Hoover) therefore maintained that a complete agreement in regard to the two questions, (the surrender of the ships, and the supply of food), must be reached simultaneously. On the other side, Marshal Foch had said that the acceptance of Clause 8 as at present drafted, would imply the renunciation by the Allies of all means of exercising pressure on the Germans, short of the renewal of hostilities. The Germans would thereby be given an incentive to break all the minor conditions of the Armistice, because they would know that the Allies would never go to war for small things, especially after demobilisation had proceeded further. In order to meet these divergent views, he proposed that the words “should Germany break the terms of the armistice”, should be inserted at the end of Clause 8 instead of “should a state of hostilities be renewed.”

Mr. Balfour pointed out that M. Clemenceau’s point was that the Germans had already broken the terms of the Armistice by their refusal to surrender the ships. On the other hand M. Sonnino’s amendment meant that no food would be supplied until the ships had actually been delivered. Mr. Hoover had, however, laid the greatest stress on the importance for the immediate supply of food. Consequently he did not think Sonnino’s amendment really met the difficulties of the case.

(e) Mr. Lloyd George’s Amendment to Clause 1 Mr. Lloyd George said that he was most anxious to get on with the supply of food to Germany. No conditions requiring the surrender of the German mercantile fleet had been included in the original Armistice, but in the agreement for the prolongation of the Armistice, it had been stated that: “In order to assure the provisioning of Germany and the rest of Europe, the German Government shall take all necessary steps to place the German fleet for the duration of the Armistice under the control and the flags of the Allied Powers and the United States.” That agreement had been entered into on the 16th. January last, and for two months nothing had been done.

Personally, he accepted M. Sonnino’s amendment, and if it should meet with the approval of the Conference, he would propose to add to Clause 1 of the proposed communication to be made to Germany, the following sentence: “On condition that Germany formally acknowledges her obligations under Clause 8 of the Armistice of January 16th.”

(f) M. Clemenceau’s proposal in Regard to Procedure in Presenting Resolutions to Germans M. Clemenceau said that he would accept Mr. Lloyd George’s proposal in regard to Clause 1. Furthermore he would suggest that Clause 1 be communicated forthwith to the Germans by Marshal Foch. In addition the Conference should that day also come to an agreement in regard to the remaining clauses of the draft under consideration, on the clear understanding, however, that those clauses would not be communicated to the Germans until Clause 1 had been accepted by them.

Mr. Lloyd George enquired how long it would take for a telegram embodying Clause 1 to reach the German Delegates and for a reply to be received thereto.

Marshal Foch replied that a telegram would have to be sent to Spa and then repeated either to Berlin or Weimar. He thought a reply might be received, at the earliest, on Monday evening, always supposing that the Germans were prepared to send an immediate affirmative or negative reply.

M. Clemenceau said that he had overheard a remark to the effect that an ultimatum of this nature would inevitably lead to war. In his opinion if the Germans were prepared to go to war over a question of food supplies, they would not hesitate to do so when the military economic and financial peace conditions came to be presented to them.

Mr. Lloyd George said that on second thought, it would probably be better to summon the German Delegates to a meeting rather than to send a telegram. He was afraid the latter procedure might result in the despatch of a long argumentative reply by the Germans. In his opinion, the Allied Delegates sent to Spa should receive definite instructions to tell the Germans that a formal acknowledgement to undertake their obligations under Clause 8 of the Armistice of January 16th. 1919, was required as a preliminary to any discussions whatsoever in regard to the conditions for the supply of food.

Mr. Lansing remarked that Admiral Hope had already put forward that very same proposition twice during the recent negotiations.

M. Clemenceau in reply pointed out that Admiral Hope had merely spoken as a great Admiral: he had [not?] delivered a message to the Germans in the name of the Great Powers.

In regard to the statement made by Mr. Lloyd George, he wished to urge very strongly that the case of the Allies would be lost irretrievably should any discussions take place prior to the acceptance of the conditions contained in Clause 1. But as soon as the Germans had accepted their obligations under that clause, the remaining clauses could then be discussed. In conclusion, he wished to propose that Clause 1 should be presented to the German Peace Delegates by Marshal Foch himself since the terms of the Armistice were in question. Marshal Foch would naturally be accompanied by the Economic experts, and he would retire as soon as the revictualling clauses came under discussion. He would merely present Clause 1, dealing with the German Mercantile Fleet.

M. Clementel said he agreed with the proposal contained in the document, but he wished to raise a very strong protest against the suggestion that an Allied Commission consisting of a large body of men should proceed for the third time to Spa, there to enter into lengthy disputations with a corresponding number of German experts. He would like to remind the Conference that the question of the surrender of the German Mercantile Fleet had been settled by Marshal Foch alone at an interview with Mr. Erzberger within the space of 20 minutes. Marshal Foch had given Mr. Erzberger a time limit which left the German Delegate no option but to accept the conditions imposed. On the other hand, at the last meeting, the Germans had been represented by three separate sections within their Delegation, namely, representatives of the Treasury, Food Department, and the Shipping Department. Each section had held different opinions and had expressed antagonistic views. He did not think it was at all dignified that twenty representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments should enter into violent disputations with the Germans. He felt very strongly on that subject. In his opinion, only one delegate should be appointed to represent the Allies in any further negotiations, and that single delegate so selected, should be a Military representative. In addition, technical advisers could accompany the official delegate merely as his advisers.

Mr. Lloyd George thought that the two questions, namely, the drafting of the text of the communication to be presented to the Germans and the procedure to be followed in communicating the same, should not be mixed up. Before proceeding further, however, he asked permission to read the following telegram which he had just received from General Plumer at Cologne dated 8th March, 1919, 2.45 p.m.:— (g) Mr. Lloyd George’s Proposed Final Draft of Clause 1

“Please inform the Prime Minister that in my opinion food must be sent into this area by the Allies without delay. Even now the present rations are insufficient to maintain life and owing to the failure of supplies from Germany they must very soon be still further reduced. The mortality amongst women, children and sick is most grave and sickness due to hunger is spreading. The attitude of the population is becoming one of despair and the people feel that an end by bullets is preferable to death by starvation. All this naturally results in great activity by subversive and disorderly elements. Apart from the imminence of danger from the situation the continuance of these conditions is unjustifiable. I request therefore that a definite date be fixed for the arrival of the first supplies. This date should not be later than March 16th even if from that date regular supplies cannot be maintained.”

He thought General Plumer’s telegram disclosed a very serious state of affairs and he felt certain that the Conference did not wish to create sympathy with Germany by a continuance of a system of starvation. To bring the discussion to a head he desired to make the following definite suggestion, namely, that the terms of the ultimatum to be presented to the Germans prior to the discussion of the conditions for the supply of food should be made to read as follows:—

“On condition that Germany formally acknowledges her obligations under Clause 8 of the Armistice of January 16th, that is to say, (Here enter Article 8 of the agreement for prolongation of the Armistice dated 16th January, 1919), the delegates of the Associated Governments are authorised and directed to proceed upon their instructions as to revictualling.”

Marshal Foch thought that the mere recognition of Germany’s obligations under Clause 8 of the Armistice would hardly be sufficient, as the Germans had already recognised their obligations by accepting the clause. He suggested that the clause should be made to read:—

“On condition that Germany formally acknowledges and undertakes to execute her obligations.”

Mr. Lloyd George accepted this amendment.

(h) Proposal Regarding Delivery of Resolutions to Germans M. Clemenceau said that the next thing to settle was how the message should be delivered. He suggested that Marshal Foch should be authorised to meet the German delegates and communicate the message to them.

Mr. Lloyd George said he was the last man to have any distrust of Marshal Foch, whom he admired for his great qualities. On the other hand, the surrender of the ships really constituted a naval question and up to the present the shipping part of the Armistice had always been left to Great Britain. Thus, Admiral Wemyss had been sent to negotiate all matters relating to ships. And although he realised that Marshal Foch was a master on land, he thought Admiral Wemyss should be allowed to retain his mastership of the ocean: otherwise he feared the British Admiralty might think they had been deposed. He wished to propose, therefore, that the procedure followed hitherto should be adhered to and that a British Admiral should be sent to deliver to the Germans the message relating to the surrender of ships.

M. Clementel said that the French delegates were firmly agreed that only one representative of the Allies should be appointed to meet a representative of the Germans. Should that principle be accepted, the one delegate could be accompanied by experts, if so desired, for consultation outside the Council Chamber. The French representatives quite agreed that the one Allied delegate should be a British Admiral. He would arrange to meet the German delegate and say to him:—“I come from the Supreme War Council to demand that you accept these conditions without further discussion”.

(i) Conditions for Supply of Food M. Clemenceau said that that proposal having been agreed, the conditions to govern the supply of food should next be settled. Clause I of the original draft now disappeared and would constitute a separate document to be presented to the German Peace delegate by a British Admiral, as a preliminary to the discussion of the remaining clauses of the original draft.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the original draft had been unanimously accepted. In regard to Clause 4, sub-heads (a), (b), and (c) had been accepted, but he would call on M. Klotz to make a statement in regard to sub-heads (d), (e) and (f).

M. Klotz expressed the view that sub-heads (a), (b) and (c) by themselves would be sufficient to meet all requirements, and M. Clemenceau’s statement that the Germans should be made to work in order to earn their food had merely confirmed that view. If the Allies put on the table all the German gold and foreign securities which the Allies held in trust, there would be no incentive for the Germans to work. In order to reach an agreement he would, however, suggest the addition of the following paragraph at the end of Clause 3, namely:—“The methods of payment provided in (d), (e) and (f) shall not be resorted to until, in the judgment of the Supreme Economic Council, the possibility of payment under (a), (b) and (c), shall have proved inadequate.”

M. Loucheur thought that some misunderstanding existed in regard to the text. The American delegates had stated to him that two or three months would have to elapse before it could be known whether methods (a), (b) and (c) would provide sufficient funds. That was not the intention of the Committee. The wherewithal for the necessary payments would at once be made available by releasing the necessary quantities of gold and other securities. On the other hand, the Germans should be required to work in order to produce the raw material which would pay for the food supplies. Consequently, if at the end of a month or two it were found that the Germans were not producing any greater quantities of coal and other raw materials, the question as to whether the Allies should continue to feed people who refused to work would have to be reconsidered. It was essential that the Germans should not live at ease on the gold which was required for the payment of reparation for the damages deliberately committed by them.

Mr. Lloyd George said that on January 13th exactly the same speeches had been made by M. Klotz and he had then been overruled by the Supreme War Council. M. Klotz should, therefore, submit to the decisions then given by the Supreme War Council. In support of his statement, he would read to the Conference excerpts from the procès-verbal of the meeting of the Supreme War Council held on Monday, January 13th, 1919:—(I. C. 104) [IC–105]⁴

“President Wilson expressed the view that any further delay in this matter might be fatal, as it meant the dissolution of order and government. They were discussing an absolute and immediate necessity. So long as hunger continued to gnaw, the foundations of government would continue to crumble. Therefore, food should be supplied immediately, not only to our friends but also to those parts of the world where it was to our interest to maintain a stable government. He thought they were bound to accept the concerted counsel of a number of men who had been devoting the whole of their time and thought to this question. He trusted the French Finance Department would withdraw their objection as they were faced with the great problems of Bolshevism and the forces of dissolution which now threatened society.

M. Klotz said he would gladly meet President Wilson’s wishes. But it was not altogether a question of food supplies. They were all fully agreed as to the necessity of feeding the Germans but he would appeal to President Wilson to consider also the question of justice. He was quite willing to admit that German foreign securities should be earmarked for this purpose. But they were creating a new German debt. There were other German debts which were just as honourable and noble. Therefore, he would ask, as a matter of justice, why Germany should pay for food in preference to paying off debts incurred for the restoration and for the reparation of damage committed elsewhere. Why should exclusive priority be given to such a debt? As a solution of the difficulty he would agree that payment for this food should be made in foreign securities and values. But he would add that ‘these assets shall be pooled and distribution shall be made by the Allies, taking into account such privileged claims as the Peace Conference would admit.’

He would merely point out that it was not a question of food supply, it was purely a financial question and no delay need therefore occur in the supply of food.

President Wilson urged that, unless a solution for the immediate situation could be found, none of these debts would be paid. The want of food would lead to a crash in Germany. The great point, however, was this, that the Associated Governments have no money to pay for these supplies. Therefore Germany must pay for them, but if they were not paid for and supplied immediately there would be no Germany to pay anything.

Mr. Bonar Law pointed out that, in calculating the sums, they had been going on the assumption that the supply of food would last for one year. He did not think that it would need to last more than a few months, or, say, up to the harvesting of the next crop. The suggestion had also been made that the German merchant ships to be requisitioned would yield funds for the payment of a portion of the sum in question.

M. Klotz proposed that they should accept, for a period of two months, the text as it stood. At the end of that period the Peace Conference would be able to come to a decision on the whole question of policy.

Mr. Bonar Law considered that if sanction for two months’ payment only were obtained, the food supplies could only last for two months.

M. Klotz thought that this showed some confusion of ideas. It was not a question of supplying food for two months. Food supplies could continue. The question to be settled during the course of the two months was merely as to the priority to be given to the payments to be made by Germany. It would be Admitted that foreign securities must be considered as gilt-edged securities.

Mr. Bonar Law thought they were arguing in a circle. The first question to be settled was whether a new debt which they had no necessity to incur should be added to previous debts.

M. Klotz agreed, but suggested that at the end of the two months a priority list could be prepared.

M. Pichon said he thought that an agreement had now been reached. Everyone was agreed that payment had to be made. The proposal could therefore be accepted. But the Conference could reconsider the question later on, should they wish to do so.

(This was agreed to.)”

It was true that M. Klotz had then suggested that the question should be reconsidered at the end of two months, but in the interval nothing had been done and as long as people were starving they could not be expected to work, as M. Klotz proposed.

M. Klotz asked permission to point out that his contention in reality was in complete agreement with what had originally been settled on January 13th. It had then been agreed that two months later the whole clause would be reconsidered. In other words, he had then agreed to the sum of 450 million francs being expended during a period of two months, an expenditure which could, in his opinion, be incurred without endangering the finances of his country. Now, however, the proposal involved an expenditure of 2 milliards of francs up to the 1st September next, and for that purpose it was proposed to use up all the funds which might eventually become available for the payment of reparations. That was what he objected to. He had been willing and he was still willing to agree to an expenditure of 450 million francs; but he hesitated to go beyond that sum without a full and careful reconsideration of the whole question. Consequently, he had already shown a very conciliatory spirit and had made great sacrifices in agreeing to accept clauses (d), (e) and (f), with certain reservations; but it would be impossible for him to go further without compromising his country’s interests, which had been placed in his charge.

Mr. Lloyd George appealed to M. Clemenceau to intervene in the matter. It was true that on January 13th it had been suggested that the question might be reconsidered at the end of two months. Nothing had however, been done during those two months and now the question had been brought up for discussion with all the old arguments. He would not have raised the matter, but for the fact that during the past two months, in spite of the decision reached by the Supreme War Council in January last, obstacles had continually been put in the way, with the result that nothing had been done. He appealed to M. Clemenceau to put a stop to these obstructive tactics, otherwise M. Klotz would rank with Lenin and Trotsky among those who had spread Bolshevism in Europe.

Mr. House said that it always made him unhappy to take sides against France. But the American delegates had told him that they had gone to the utmost limits to meet the wishes of the French, and unless Clause 4 were accepted practically as it stood, it would have no value.

M. Clemenceau exclaimed that his country had been ruined and ravaged; towns had been destroyed; over two million men had lost their lives; mines had been rendered unworkable; and yet what guarantees had France that anything would be received in payment for all this destruction? She merely possessed a few pieces of gold, a few securities, which it was now proposed to take away in order to pay those who would supply food to Germany; and that food would certainly not come from France. In a word he was being asked to betray his country and that he refused to do.

Lord Robert Cecil thought that there had been some misapprehension as to Clauses (d) and (e) which in his opinion, could easily be accepted by all the delegates. The strong opposition of the French representatives concerned Clause (f) which dealt with the question of gold. He would point out to M. Klotz that the Clause as redrafted now read as follows: “gold also may be used as collateral or loans to be realised as other means of payment, provide means of liquidating such loans. The outright sale of gold can only be permitted in the event of its being agreed by the Associated Powers that the other means of payment are inadequate”. M. Klotz himself had admitted that something of the kind would have to be done, that is to say, that some liquid assets would be required in order to get over the period until money could come in from other sources, such as mines. Consequently, he had confidently hoped that an agreement could have been reached as the British, American and Italian Delegates had gone a long way to meet the views of the French Delegates.

M. Crespi said that the draft of Clause (f) which had been presented at that morning’s meeting, had been different. He himself had suggested a new form as a compromise to reconcile the views of the French, American and British. In his opinion, he thought, the clause as now amended, should satisfy all parties. Italy, who was sadly in need of coal, was prepared to accept it. He hoped, therefore, that M. Klotz would do the same.

(f) Mr. Loucheur’s Proposal to Open a Credit for 1 Milliard Francs M. Loucheur thought that there had been a good deal of misunderstanding. He himself quite agreed that the Germans could not be expected to work until they had been fed. Two months ago a credit of 450 million francs had been voted; but so far that sum had been utilised. He fully agreed that Mr. Hoover should at once take all the necessary measures for the immediate supply of the necessary food stuffs to Germany. Obviously, the credit of 450 million francs would not suffice. It had been thought that this sum could be supplemented by money to be obtained by the exportation of raw material from Germany: but there did not appear to be much likelihood of any great sums becoming available in that way in the near future. Consequently, as the matter was urgent, it would be necessary forthwith to open a credit for a much larger sum than 450 million. On that day, the Allies were, in fact, taking engagements to supply food up to a value which might amount to two milliards. He proposed, therefore, that the Conference should forthwith agree to open a credit for one milliard, to be made available immediately, and later on, if necessary, further credits could be opened.

(M. Loucheur’s proposal, having been accepted, the Conference adjourned for a short time for the re-drafting of the text of the communications to be made to Germany in such a manner as to embody the various amendments accepted that afternoon.)

After the adjournment the following draft was approved:—

1. As a preliminary to any discussion whatsoever with the German representatives, the principal representative of the Allied and Associated Powers is to make the following statement:—

On condition that Germany formally acknowledges and undertakes to execute her obligations under Clause VIII of the Armistice of January 16th, that is to say—

VIII. “In order to assure the provisioning of Germany and the rest of Europe, the German Government shall take all necessary steps to place the whole of the German merchant fleet, for the duration of the Armistice, under the control and the flags of the Allied Powers and the United States, who shall be assisted by a German delegate.

This arrangement shall in no wise affect the final disposal of such vessels. The Allies and the United States shall, if they consider this necessary, replace the crews either entirely or in part, and the officers and crews replaced shall be repatriated to Germany.

Suitable compensation, to be fixed by the Allied Governments, shall be made for the use of such vessels.

All questions of detail, as also any exceptions to be made in the case of certain types of vessel, shall be settled by a special agreement to be concluded immediately.”

The Delegates of the Associated Governments are authorised and directed to proceed upon these instructions as to revictualling.

2. Subject to the above undertaking by Germany the principal representative of the Allied and Associated Powers is authorised to make a communication to the German representatives. (On the basis set forth in Annexure I.)

3. An Admiral, to be nominated by the British Government, will be the principal representative of the Allied and Associated Powers in these negotiations.

4. In order to avoid delay, the negotiations shall take place at Brussels.

The French Government undertake to make the necessary arrangements with the Belgian Government.

Marshal Foch undertakes to make the necessary communication to the German Delegates.

Villa Majestic, Paris, 10th March, 1919.

Annexure I

Supreme Economic Council

1. On grounds of humanity, the Associated Governments reiterate their decision to deliver to Germany the food now available in Europe for which payment has been arranged as soon as Germany shows her genuine intention to carry out her obligations, by sending to sea for that purpose the ships to be selected by the Associated Governments, and the Associated Governments will themselves provide (as quickly as transportation can be arranged) or will give permits for import from neighbouring neutrals for the balance of the month’s supply, that is, of 270,000 tons agreed on, as soon as at least—ships have been similarly sent to sea, and as soon as payment for such food has been arranged.

2. She may import up to (300,000) tons of breadstuffs and (70,000) tons of fats monthly until September 1st.

3. She must pay for this food and may pay in any of the following ways:—

(a) By the hire of ships.

(b) By the export of commodities and the same of cargoes of German ships now in neutral countries.

(c) By credits in neutral countries.

(d) By the outright sale of foreign securities or properties.

(e) By the arrangement of advances against the use of foreign securities or properties as collateral.

(f) Further, gold also may be used as collateral or loans to be released as other means of payment provide means of liquidating such loans. The outright sale of gold can only be permitted in the event of its being agreed by the Associated Powers that the above named means of payment are inadequate.^*

4. She may export commodities (except those on a black list) to any neutral or other agreed destination. The proceeds from these exports must, however, be converted into payments for foodstuffs.

5. A definite amount of the shipping handed over will be continuously available to transport food to Germany until next harvest.

6. She may purchase and import food stuffs within the limits above stated, from neutrals who will, when necessary, be allowed to re-import equivalent quantities.

7. It is understood that the declaration of the Associated Governments under this communication will be null and void should Germany break the terms of the armistice.

1. See BC–40, p. 141.
2. Gen. H. C. O. Plumer, Commander of the British Army of the Rhine.
3. Abbreviation for Allied Naval Armistice Commission.
4. See BC–1 (SWC–2), vol. iii, p. 516.
5. The methods of payment provided in (d), (e), (f), shall not be resorted to beyond the sum of $200,000,000 (in addition to the financial arrangements already agreed upon in payment of the first 270,000 tons of food), until in the judgment of the Supreme Economic Council the possibilities of payment under (a), (b) and (c) have proved inadequate). [Footnote in the original.]