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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/57

BC–50 SWC–16

Minutes of a Meeting of the Supreme War Council Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, March 12th, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, March 12, 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	Admiral W. S. Benson
Secretaries	Major General M. N. Patrick
Mr. A. H. Frazier	Colonel Garrett
Mr. L. Harrison	British Empire
Mr. G. Auchincloss	General Sir H. H. Wilson, K. C. B., D. S. O.
British Empire	Major General Hon. C. J. Sackville West, C. M. G.
*The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.	Brigadier General P. R. C. Groves, D. S. O.
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.	France
Secretaries	M. Leygues
Lt. Col. Sir M. P, A. Hankey, K. C. B.	Marshal Foch
Hon. T. A. Spring-Rice	Admiral de Bon.
France	General Belin
M. Clemenceau	General Weygand
M. Pichon	General Duval
Secretaries	Comdt. Lacombe
M. Dutasta	Comdt. de V. Levavasseur
M. Berthelot	Lieut. de V. Odend’hal.
M. Arnavon	Italy
M. de Bearn	General Cavallero
Italy	Japan
*H. E. M. Orlando	Captain Nomura
H. E. Baron Sonnino	Captain Yamamoto
Secretaries
Count Aldrovandi
M. Bertele
Japan
H. E. Baron Makino
H. E. M. Matsui

Joint Secretariat

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

1. Mr. Lloyd George said that a telegram had been received from the British Military Representative at Vienna to the effect that a bill would be introduced by the Austrian Government, probably during the course of the present week, providing for the abdication and banishment of the Emperor Charles. The Austrian Government, wishing to prevent any personal annoyance or danger to the Imperial Family, had apparently requested the British Mission in Vienna to grant facilities for the Emperor’s journey out of Austria. The Swiss Government had expressed its readiness to allow without condition the passage of the Austrian Imperial Family through Switzerland: but it refused to grant permission to the Emperor to reside in Switzerland, unless a guarantee were given by the Allied Governments that no difficulties would hereafter be raised in regard to his extradition. Abdication and Banishment of the Empire Charles from Austria

He did not know what views the Conference held on the question: but he, (Mr. Lloyd George) was inclined to think that the Swiss Government might be given a guarantee that the Allies would not desire to ask for the Emperor’s extradition. In his opinion, the Emperor was not [to] be held responsible for the war. The whole responsibility rested with his uncle, Francis Joseph. Furthermore, when the Emperor Charles had ascended the throne, he had done his best, though rather clumsily, to bring about peace. In view of the present situation in Austria, he would suggest that the Swiss Government be given the desired guarantee so as to avoid the occurrence of an awful tragedy.

M. Sonnino said that he saw no objection to the thing itself. But, in his opinion, somewhat complicated issues might be raised if an attempt were made at this stage to make a distinction between this particular Monarch and the other Sovereigns who might, or might not, eventually be held responsible for the war.

M. Clemenceau suggested that the question might be referred to the existing Committee dealing with the responsibilities for the war.

Mr. Lansing explained that the Committee on Breaches of the Laws of War, of which he was President, had not attempted to draw up a list of criminals, because the Sub-Committee, dealing with the responsibility for the war, had decided that no one could be tried under that particular head. That is to say, the Sub-Committee had come to the conclusion that the accused could not be brought before any legal tribunal, since they were only guilty of a moral responsibility.

Mr. Lloyd George thought that the Committee on Breaches of the Laws of War could be asked to report whether the Emperor Charles could, in any way, be held responsible for the war. His information went to show that the Emperor was now being treated very badly in Austria, where the situation was daily more nearly approaching that of Russia. The Empress also had been treated somewhat brutally; and since the Emperor could in no way be held responsible for the war, it would be a pity if he were murdered. For that same reason, the Austrian Government was rather anxious to get him away.

Mr. Balfour suggested, as carrying out Mr. Lloyd George’s idea, that a telegram should at once be despatched to Vienna, in the name of the Conference, stating that, as far as the Allied and Associated Governments were concerned, the Emperor should forthwith be permitted to go to Switzerland. At the same time, the Great Powers would ask the Swiss Government to receive the Emperor pending a final decision being reached on the question to be referred to the Committee on Responsibility. In that way, the Emperor would be permitted to remain in Switzerland for a few days, pending the final decision. He did not know whether the Swiss Government would accept a provisional guarantee of that nature, but he thought the proposal would meet M. Sonnino’s views.

To sum up: a telegram would at once be sent to the British Military Representative at Vienna, in the name of the Great Powers, asking him to facilitate the Emperor’s journey to Switzerland. At the same time, the Swiss Government would be asked to give the Emperor a temporary hospitality in Switzerland.

Mr. House questioned whether that proposal would reassure the Swiss Government. He thought that the Swiss Government would require a definite guarantee that no difficulty would be raised about extradition.

Mr. Lansing thought that the great difficulty lay in the fact that the Committee on Responsibilities had reached the conclusion that the late rulers of the various enemy States could not be held responsible for making the war; but they could be held liable for the violations of the customs and laws of war, which had taken place through their failure to prevent or to put a stop to such occurrences. The Committee held that the Emperor of Austria could also be made responsible for the latter acts.

M. Sonnino agreed that, owing to the danger of the situation in Austria, the Emperor should, provisionally, be put in a place of safety.

M. Clemenceau enquired whether the British Government really had any positive evidence that the Swiss Government would refuse to receive the Emperor Charles without a guarantee that no difficulties of any kind would be raised about extradition. He, himself, had been informed by M. Dutasta, who had only recently visited Berne, that the Swiss Government would be ready to receive the Emperor without any guarantee.

Mr. House enquired whether the Conference could not there and then frankly state that the Emperor’s extradition would not be demanded.

M. Sonnino agreed. He thought that perhaps a guarantee could be given that for two or three months the Great Powers would not ask for anything in regard to the extradition of the Emperor Charles.

M. Clemenceau thought that the Conference could well take that on itself.

Mr. Balfour agreed and said he felt quite confident that the Great Powers were not going to prosecute the Emperor Charles. He certainly could not be tried before a legal tribunal under any existing code: though an attempt might be made to set up some international court for the purpose.

(It was agreed to authorise Mr. Balfour on behalf of the five Great Powers:—

(1) To telegraph to the British Mission in Vienna to grant facilities for the Austrian Imperial Family’s journey out of Austria into Switzerland, and

(2) To ask the Swiss Government to give hospitality to the Imperial Family; a guarantee being given, if so required by the Swiss Government, that no difficulties would be raised.)

2. M. Clemenceau called on General Duval to read the conditions to be imposed on the German Government in regard to Military and Maritime Aeronautics. He understood that reservations had been made by some of the Allied Officer Air Delegates in regard to certain of the conditions of the draft Convention, and he asked General Duval to call the attention of the Conference to the controversial clauses in question, when read. Air Terms of Peace

General Duval replied that the document had been unanimously accepted without reservations by any of the members of the Commission.

(General Duval then read the aerial peace terms, Article by Article, for text of which, see Annexure “A”.)

Article I. (1) (a) Mr. Balfour pointed out that apparently at the present time the most effective method of maintaining order was by Aeroplanes. He had read in the newspapers that the Spartacists’ nests in Berlin had been attacked and put out of action by Aeroplanes.

General Duval agreed that order could obviously be maintained by using Aeroplanes; but he had no information in regard to their use in Berlin.

Mr. Balfour said that he did not wish to press the matter further.

(1) (d) Mr. Lansing expressed the view that the entire suppression of dirigible balloons was, in his opinion, a little too stringent. Were not certain classes of dirigibles used for commercial purposes?

General Duval replied that the clause applied only to military material, and he drew attention both to Article 9 and to the title of the Convention wherein it was clearly laid down that the conditions to be imposed on Germany related to Military and Maritime Aeronautics only.

Mr. Lansing said he was prepared to accept the clause.

(2) (c) M. Clemenceau suggested that the words:—“from date of signature of present Convention” should be added. The clause would therefore read:—“The whole personnel … within one month from date of signature of the present Convention (but the effectives provided for in the Military and Aerial statute must not be exceeded)”.

(This was agreed to.)

(Article 1 was approved, Clause (2) (c) being amended, as above stated, by the addition of the words: “from date of signature of present Convention.”)

Article II Mr. Lansing enquired whether this Article related only to Military Aviation Grounds, and if so how could a distinction be made between Military Aviation grounds and commercial Aviation grounds?

General Duval replied that the whole question of the organisation of a commercial Air Service had been reserved for future study, and he invited attention to Article IX, which read as follows:—

“The rules relative to the organisation of a commercial Air Service in Germany after the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace, and to its being granted international circulation shall be determined by the said Treaty of Peace”.

Mr. Lansing enquired why the Article in question had been inserted before a decision had been reached on the question of the distinction to be drawn between Military and Commercial aeronautics.

Mr. Balfour said that Mr. Lansing’s point was well worth considering, namely, the distinction to be drawn between Military and Commercial Aeronautics. Reference had been made to Article IX which merely deferred a decision on the really difficult question connected with flying, that is, the distinction to be drawn between Military and Commercial machines, until after the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace. In his opinion, it would be most difficult to draw a distinction between Military and Commercial Aeroplanes. Article I forbade all Military aviation, though provisions were made in the Convention for the organisation of a future Commercial Air Service. Under those conditions, the Revolutionists of the future might have commercial Aeroplanes which they could convert into fighting machines, whilst the police would, by the terms of the Convention, find themselves without Aeroplanes of any kind with which to face the danger. Article IX merely evaded the question by referring the decision to a body not yet appointed.

Mr. House explained that it was not the fault of the Official Air Delegates that the question had been so dealt with, because in accordance with the terms of reference, the delegates had merely been asked to suggest the conditions to be imposed on the German Government in regard to Military and Maritime Aeronautics. The commercial question really did not form part of their terms of reference.

Mr. Balfour agreed and suggested, as a practical way out of the difficulty, that an Inter-Allied Aerial Commission should at once be appointed to consider and to submit recommendations in regard to the distinction to be drawn between Commercial and Military Aeronautics: all conditions contained in the draft Aerial Convention, which required a distinction to be drawn up between Military and Commercial Aeronautics, being thus reserved for further consideration. He would therefore ask the Conference to accept the following Resolution:—

“It is agreed:—

That a Commission consisting of two representatives each (with technical delegates as required) of the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, with five representatives elected by the other States at the Conference be appointed to consider:—

(a) Aerial matters arising out of the work of the Preliminary Peace Conference or referred by the Commissions set up by the Conference.

(b) A Convention in regard to International Aerial Navigation in time of peace.”

Mr. House pointed out that a Commission had already been appointed to consider Commercial Aerial Questions.

Marshal Foch said the Allies were now engaged in carrying out the complete disarmament of Germany and the armaments with which she had fought the Allies, both in the Air and on the Earth, were being taken away from her. Why should any exception be made in the case of the aerial armaments of Germany? Why should the Allies not proceed forthwith to take away all the military aircraft? He thought the Allies were fully entitled to do that. On the other hand, he quite agreed with Mr. Balfour that a special Inter-Allied Commission should be appointed to study the question of Commercial Aeronautics; but that should be kept as a separate problem. He was firmly of the opinion that, in the interests of the Allies, it was urgent forthwith to commence the disarmament of the German Military Air Service. Eventually it would be possible to decide where the line could be drawn between Military and Commercial Aeronautics; but no delay should occur in depriving the Germans of their military aircraft which had wrought such evil work throughout the war in connection with the unjustifiable bombing of open towns. The Conference should, therefore, adopt the principle of the Aerial disarmament of Germany.

Mr. Lansing expressed his complete agreement with Marshal Foch’s point of view. But, as long as aeroplanes existed which could be used for commercial purposes, they could always be converted into military machines. The problem presented the same difficulties as that connected with horses, which could be used to draw guns or to draw ploughs. Everything depended on the use made of the article in question. Consequently, he, personally, was far more impressed with the necessity for the removal of the guns and armaments in the aeroplanes, in preference to depriving the Germans of the use of flying machines which would be of value to them for purely commercial purposes.

General Groves held that it was impossible to get away from the point of view that all aircraft was inherently an implement of war. Leaving that question out of consideration, however, the Inter-Allied Aerial Commission had been obliged to decide on the purely military aspect of the case. In regard to the future, however, it was evident that all machines, commercial or otherwise, would be capable of being converted very quickly into machines suitable for military purposes. It would, therefore, be very difficult to prevent Germany setting up a large potential military air service under the guise of commercial enterprise. He thought that question, which was one of great difficulty and complexity, should, as proposed, be referred to a special Inter-Allied Commission.

Marshal Foch agreed that, as suggested by Mr. Lansing, the armament of aeroplanes could be removed; but the Convention drawn up the Officer Air Delegates aimed at the complete disarmament of Germany. Consequently it forbade the organisation of a military Flying Corps, maintained as a military body, capable of acting militarily in the manner which had during the war rendered possible the perpetration of those ghastly bombing raids, so universally condemned.

General Duval asked permission to explain the circumstances which had guided the Officer Air Delegates in drawing up the Convention under consideration. The terms of reference included the complete disarmament of the German Military Air Service; and commercial aviation had in no way been referred to. As a matter of fact at the present moment no commercial air service existed in Germany, and it could only be created by the conversion of military machines. Consequently, by imposing the surrender of all military machines and by prescribing the prohibition of the construction of new machines, the draft Convention solved for the present and until the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace, the question of the maintenance both of a commercial and of a military air service in Germany.

Should the Conference now wish to reach a decision on the question of commercial aeronautics, that could still be done; but he felt compelled to point out that the question was a very big one, and could not be settled within a reasonable time. Mr. Balfour’s resolution proposed that a convention in regard to International Aerial Navigation in time of peace should be drawn up. That raised a very complex question, so great that no one country had ever yet been able to draw up even its own national convention. Should the Conference, therefore, decide to draw up a convention in connection with International Aerial Navigation, he despaired of ever reaching a conclusion before the signing of the Peace. For that very reason Articles IV and IX had been introduced in the convention as the only practical means of arriving at an immediate settlement.

M. Pichon said in support of General Duval’s statement that in the past many attempts had been made to draw up a Convention in regard to international Aerial Navigation, but without result. He thought eventually a decision might be reached, but it would be a very lengthy work requiring careful consideration and if it were to form part of the Air Terms of Peace, it would indefinitely postpone the signing of the necessary Convention.

Mr. Balfour thought that some misunderstanding appeared to exist. The previous speakers appeared to labour under the impression that nothing was to be done in regard to the German Military Air Service until the question of commercial Aerial navigation had been settled. In his opinion, the Allied Aerial Commission had been quite right in framing the conditions of the Convention under discussion. But in raising this question, Mr. Lansing and he had meant to point out that the disarmament of Germany would not be permanently effected as long as the question of Commercial Aeronautics was left unsettled.

Mr. Lansing suggested that as a Commission to study Aerial navigation already existed, this question should be referred to it for consideration, with special reference to the difficulty of distinguishing between Military and Commercial Aviation; the Commission being required to submit their report with as little delay as possible.

M. Clemenceau said he wished to set forth the situation as it existed at the present moment. As Marshal Foch and General Duval had correctly explained, the Inter-Allied Aerial Commission had been instructed to study the disarmament of Germany and the Convention under consideration gave the formal means of accomplishing that desideratum. The discussion of the Articles from that point of view should therefore be proceeded with.

On the other hand, Mr. Balfour and Mr. Lansing had stated that it would be very difficult to carry out a proper disarmament of Germany unless a definite agreement were reached in regard to the distinction to be drawn between Military and Commercial aviation. In his opinion, that question could most satisfactorily be referred to the existing Commissions. No doubt, it would be impossible to attain perfection since the Germans could obviously always be able to evade whatever conditions might be laid down. Consequently it would be sufficient for the present to consider only the military aspect of the case and to demand the immediate surrender of all military machines.

Finally, in his opinion, Article 9 could be amended so as to discriminate between Commercial and Military machines, the question being referred to a Commission whose function would be to suggest what amendments were necessary in order to give effect to the views expressed.

(It was agreed that the question of making a distinction between Commercial and Military Aviation would be considered in connection with Clause IX.

Article II was approved, subject to the last sentence of the Article being amended to read:—“this is to be carried out within one month after the signature of the present convention.”)

Article III General Duval explained that Article III had been included at the request of the British representatives in order to allow for the establishment of an aerial line of postal communication with Bohemia, and also to maintain communications with Poland by the air route across Germany.

Mr. Balfour said that the only comment he had to make in regard to Article III was that nothing had yet been settled as to how long the Allied and Associated troops would occupy German territory. He thought that the Article might provisionally be accepted, pending the drafting of the terms of peace, when the question of the period of time applicable to the conditions imposed in Article III might be reconsidered.

(It was agreed, until the final terms of peace had been settled, to reserve the decision of the period of time during which Germany should allow to all Allied aircraft free passage through the air, free transit and right to land on her territory.)

Article IV Mr. Balfour expressed the view that in accordance with the conditions of Article IV, the German motor industry would be absolutely stopped until the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace. The Germans would not be able to build even the most innocent motors for lorries.

General Duval suggested that the words “aeroplane motors” could be inserted instead of the word “motors”.

Mr. Balfour continuing, enquired whether experts could be sure of distinguishing between a combustion motor engine suitable for an aeroplane or a dirigible, and one suitable for a motor lorry.

General Duval explained that aeroplane motors were made of very great power, 120 to 180 H. P. No lorries would use motors of so great a power.

(Mr. Balfour withdrew his objection.)

Mr. Lansing asked permission to raise a question in connection with the statement that the Article would be made operative “until the signature of the definite treaty of peace”. He assumed that the Article in question would be inserted in the definite treaty of peace. Consequently, he failed to see what was the use of the Article.

General Duval explained that, in drafting this Article the Officer Air Delegates had in mind that the Convention would be presented to the Germans for acceptance without delay. Subsequently, there would be a final act embodying all the terms of peace. He thought that the Article could, if necessary, be re-drafted to make this clear.

M. Sonnino understood that the Article was intended to mean that as long as it was impossible to define a military as distinguished from a commercial flying machine, the manufacture of all parts of aeroplanes, hydroplanes, water gliders, dirigibles and motors should be forbidden. In the Peace Treaty all those questions would be settled, and accordingly the conditions contained in the Convention would cease to operate. But, as a safeguard, until the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace, all manufacture should be suspended.

Mr. Lansing quite agreed with M. Sonnino that the Article in question should be included in the Treaty of Peace. That being the case, he could not understand why provision should be made for a duration of time which did not exist. The whole of the Aerial Convention would in fact be included in a Treaty, which would go to the Senate of the United States of America for approval. That Preliminary treaty would, however, cover questions of boundaries, indemnity, and practically everything that would go into the definite Treaty of Peace, though not necessarily in such minute detail.

Marshal Foch thought that Mr. Lansing’s objection might be met by substituting for the words “until the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace”, the words “until the signature of the Convention which will fix the statutes of commercial and aerial navigation in Germany”.

Mr. Lansing agreed that that would be a rational way of settling the affair. Personally, he could not see what constituted the difference between a Preliminary and a Final Peace in regard to aviation. Consequently, he failed to understand why commercial aviation should not be re-established in Germany as soon as the Preliminary Terms of Peace were signed.

Mr. Balfour thought there would be some danger in first signing a Preliminary Peace, then a final definite Treaty of Peace, and lastly, in addition, to have subsequently a Convention about aerial matters. Germany might disapprove the Convention [or] refuse to sign it: it would then be very difficult to go to war about a Convention after the Preliminary Peace and the Final definite Treaty of Peace had been signed.

M. Clemenceau suggested that the Article might be accepted as it stood.

(Article IV was approved without modification.)

Article V Mr. Lansing pointed out that Article V contemplated the handing over of all photographic and cinematographic apparatus. In his opinion, their cession was not a necessity, but they might be described as spoils of war, and he wished to enquire whether in the opinion of the experts such apparatus constituted a real danger.

General Duval explained that since it had been agreed to demand the surrender of all war material, it was only logical that photographic and cinematographic apparatus should also be included. He also wished to point out that the apparatus in question could only be used on board air-ships.

(Article V was accepted without amendment.)

Article VI (Article VI was accepted without amendment.)

Article VII General Duval pointed out that paragraph 2 of Article VII, which laid down that the special Control Commission should work at the seat of the Central German Government, might require to be slightly modified, in order to agree with the similar condition laid down in the Military Convention. In this connection, he wished to draw attention to the note inserted at the end of the Convention, which read as follows:—“The Officer Air Delegates request that the Commission instituted by Article VII as regards aviation shall form part of the Commission instituted with the same objects by the Military Convention, and should operate according to the same principles and within the same time limits.”

Mr. Lansing enquired why a provision had been entered requiring the German Government to give to all Delegates of the Special Control Commission every facility “to take any photographs and sketches”.

General Duval said that this condition had been inserted at the request of the American Air Delegate, and he personally would be glad to see it struck out.

General Patrick agreed to the omission of this condition.

(It was agreed to accept Article VII, the words: “to take any photographs and sketches” being deleted.)

Article VIII General Duval pointed out that just as in the case of the Military Convention it was proposed that the whole Convention should be referred to the Drafting Commission for such minor additions and alterations as might be found necessary.

(Article VIII was accepted without amendment.)

Article IX General Duval expressed the view that Article IX should be retained in the Convention. In drawing up this Article, the Officer Air Delegates had not thought it right to prevent Germany from constituting a commercial air service; but the conditions which should govern such an aerial service could not be settled within the time available. Consequently, it had been agreed to forbid to Germany all forms of aviation, not particularly with the intention of forbidding commercial aviation, but to prevent any developments from taking place until the rules relative to the organisation of a commercial air service could be laid down in the Peace Treaty.

Mr. Lansing said he agreed with the general purpose of the Article; but, in his opinion, it should not properly be included in the Convention which dealt with Military Aviation. He thought the whole question of commercial aeronautics might perhaps be dealt with in a second document, which need not even necessarily form part of the Peace Treaty.

M. Clemenceau said that Mr. Balfour had handed in the following text of a resolution, the second paragraph of which he thought would probably give satisfaction to Mr. Lansing.

Mr. Balfour’s resolution read as follows:—

“It is agreed—

1. That the existing aviation Commission, consisting of two representatives each of the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, with five representatives of other States at the Conference shall be recognised and invited to consider:—

(a) Aerial matters arising out of the work of the Preliminary Peace Conference or referred by the Commissions set up by the Conference.

(b) A Convention in regard to International Aerial Navigation in time of peace.

2. That the question of the commercial aviation to be allowed to Germany be referred to this Commission.”

(This Resolution was adopted.)

M. Clemenceau, continuing, said that Article IX of the Convention should be referred to the existing Aviation Commission for report as to whether it should be included in the Convention, either in its present form or with amendments.

Marshal Foch suggested that a date should be fixed for a reply to be received from the Aviation Commission in regard to Article IX.

M. Clemenceau said that two questions had been referred to the Aviation Commission: a practical question relating to Article IX, a reply to which should be given within the next two days; and a more ideal part relating to the preparation of a Convention in regard to International Aerial Navigation in time of peace, which would require time for careful study.

General Duval remarked that the terms of reference to the Aviation Commission were exceedingly large.

Mr. Balfour said he could not quite understand what objection there could be to the proposals contained in his resolution. Article IX merely contained a statement of good intention, but supplied no machinery for the organisation of a commercial air service in Germany, whereas his resolution would, he hoped, lead to the creation of the required machinery.

M. Clemenceau agreed, and proposed that Article IX be referred to the existing Aviation Commission with a request that a report be submitted within 48 hours.

(It was agreed that Article IX be referred to the existing Aviation Commission for report within 48 hours as to whether it should be included in the Aerial Convention, and, if so, to make such amendments thereto as might be considered necessary.)

Articles I to IX of the Air Terms of Peace (It was decided that the Drafting Committee of the Conference should furnish the Council with a complete draft of the Convention dealing with the conditions to be imposed on the German Government in regard to Military and Maritime Aeronautics (see Annexure “A”) taking into account the following reservations and amendments:—

(i) —Article I) (2) (c). After the words “within one month”, add “from date of signing of present Convention.”

(ii) —Article II. After the words “This is to be carried out within one month”, add the words “from date of signing of present Convention.”

(iii) —Article III, is reserved for further consideration.

(iv) —Article VII. Delete the words “to take any photographs and sketches.”

(v) —Article IX. See resolution above.

In addition, the Drafting Committee should reconcile the conditions and statements made in the Aerial Convention with those contained in the Military Contention, especially in regard to the control to be exercised by the Special Commission to be sent to Germany (Article VII), and in regard to the time limits prescribed for the execution of the terms of the Convention.)

3. Mr. Balfour said that he wished to raise a further question. By the Convention, Germany would quite properly be deprived of aircraft and material, which would have to be disposed of somehow. That material possessed great military and commercial value, and he wished to know how it was proposed to distribute it. Naturally, he quite understood that no reference to this question would be made in the Convention which had just been approved. Disposal of Aircraft to be Surrendered by Germany

Mr. Lansing thought that the taking over of all the property referred to in the Convention looked to him far more like the taking over of spoils of war rather than disarmament. In his opinion, if the whole of this material could not be used for commercial purposes, it should be destroyed: but, if it could be used for commercial purposes, it should be left to Germany.

M. Clemenceau said that his reply to that would be that the question could not be settled at once, and, in any case, it should not be dealt with in the Convention. He thought the question should be adjourned for consideration at a later date.

M. Sonnino remarked that the matter could be discussed when the disposal of the ships and submarines came under discussion.

(It was agreed to adjourn further discussion regarding the disposal of the aircraft to be surrendered by Germany.)

4. M. Sonnino asked permission to draw attention to a question of urgency. A declaration had been received from the Czecho-Slovak Govt. to the effect that it declined to accept responsibility for any share of the Austro-Hungarian debt, whether incurred before the war or during the war. The Conference would recollect that the question had been discussed at their meeting held on 25th February last,¹ when a decision had been reached to address a telegram to the Financial Conferences of the former Austrian Empire, then sitting at the Ballplatz in Vienna. The Austrian Debts Payment of Coupons Due 1st March, 1919

In his opinion, the Czecho-Slovak communication called for immediate action; otherwise the Austro-Hungarian Governments would refuse payment, and serious consequences might therefore ensue.

M. Pichon said the communication referred to by Baron Sonnino had been circulated to all the Delegations.

(For full text of communication, see Annexure “B”.)

The Czecho-Slovak Government whilst refusing to pay any part of the interest on the debt, held by enemy countries, were apparently willing to contribute towards the payment of the interest due to bond-holders in Allied and Associated countries. On the 25th February last the Conference had passed the following resolution:—

(It was agreed that a copy of the following telegram should be addressed by the French Foreign Office in the name of the five Great Powers to the Gesamter Konferenz, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ballplatz, Vienna:—

“The Allied and Associated Governments are informed there is some danger that when the coupons of the Austro-Hungarian loans fall due on March 1st, they will not be paid owing to the inability of the Austrian Government, the Hungarian Government and the other Governments concerned to come to an understanding as to the respective quotas due on such payments.

The Allied and Associated Governments declare that as far as they are concerned any arrangement now made with regard to the payment of the coupons in March out of common funds will not prejudice in any way the settlement by the Peace Conference of the quotas to be imputed to each for the Austro-Hungarian debt.[”]

The British Delegation would also send a copy of the same telegram to the British Military Mission in Vienna.)

He agreed with Baron Sonnino as to the gravity of the situation, and he would suggest that the question be referred for consideration and report to the Allied Financial Commission.

(It was agreed to refer the question of the payment of the coupons of the Austrian debt due on 1st March, 1919, to the Allied Financial Committee for consideration and report.)

5. M. Clemenceau stated that the Territorial Coordination Committee would not be prepared to submit their report on the Western frontiers of Poland for a day or two. He suggested, therefore, that the consideration of the question should be postponed until Saturday, and suggested that the Conference should adjourn until that date, when President Wilson would also be present. The Agenda for Saturday might therefore contain:— Agenda for Next Meeting

1. —The final revised draft of Military, Naval and Aerial Terms of Peace.

2. —The Western frontiers of Poland.

Mr. Lansing asked that a Meeting should, if possible, be held on Friday afternoon to discuss the eastern boundaries of Germany.

(It was agreed to adjourn until Saturday afternoon, March 15, the President being empowered to call a Meeting for Friday afternoon in the event of the report on the Western frontiers of Poland being available.)

Paris, 13th March, 1919.

Annexure “A”

Air Terms of Peace.—Conditions To Be Imposed on the German Government in Regard to Military and Maritime Aeronautics

Article I.

The effectives of the German Air Service in material and personnel shall be reduced to the following figures:—

(1) Material.

(a) Aeroplanes.

The military forces of Germany having to be limited to the necessary minimum to allow her to maintain order in the interior, must not comprise any military aviation.

(b) Hydroplanes.

Germany can for a period not longer than 1st October, 1919, maintain a total of 100 hydroplanes or water gliders for the purpose of seeking out submarine mines, with the necessary equipment, but without armaments, munitions or bombs.

(c) Motors.

In addition to the motors mounted on hydroplanes, and water gliders mentioned above, one motor may be allowed for each hydroplane or water glider.

(d) Dirigibles.

No dirigibles shall be kept.

(2) Personnel.

(a) Land Aviation.

Land aviation being suppressed, no personnel is allowed under this heading.

(b) Naval aviation.

Until the 1st October, Germany may maintain a total number of 1000 all ranks which will comprise all the personnel flying and non-flying of all formations and establishments.

(c) The whole personnel, excepting a total of 1,000 men mentioned in Paragraph I (2) (b) figuring at present on the control lists of the German land and sea forces will be demobilised or sent to other arms or services within one month (but the effectives provided for in the Military and Naval Statute must not be exceeded).

Article II.

No aviation ground and no shed for dirigibles must be maintained or established:—

(1) to the East of the Rhine, at a distance of less than 150 Kilometres from that river.

(2) to the West of the Eastern German frontier at a distance of less than 150 Kilometres from that frontier.

(3) to the North of the Southern German frontier at a distance of less than 150 Kilometres from the frontier of Italy or of Czecho-Slovakia.

All grounds now existing which do not satisfy these conditions are to be immediately placed out of use. The sheds are to be dismantled and the earth is to be ploughed up. This is to be carried out within one month.

Article III.

Germany will allow to all Allied aircraft free passage through the air, free transit and right to land on her territory until complete evacuation of German territory by the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers.

Article IV.

The manufacture of parts of aeroplanes, hydroplanes, water gliders, dirigibles and motors shall be forbidden in the whole of German territory until the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace.

Article V.

The material now existing in the German land and sea forces or in process of manufacture, in excess of the figures given under Article I shall be handed over to the Allies. In that material must be comprised in particular:—

• complete aeroplanes and hydroplanes, as well as those in process of manufacture, repair, or of being put together;
• dirigible balloons able to take the air in process of manufacture, repair or being put together;
• machinery for the manufacture of hydrogen;
• dirigible sheds and every kind of shelter for balloons or dirigibles.

Pending their delivery dirigible balloons are to be maintained blown out with hydrogen at Germany’s expense and the apparatus for the manufacture of the hydrogen, as well as shelters for dirigibles may, at the discretion of the Allied and Associated Powers, be left to Germany until the moment when the dirigibles are handed over.

• Motors.
• Cells.
• Armament (guns, machine guns, light machine guns, bomb throwers, torpedo throwers, synchronisation apparatus, aiming apparatus).
• Munitions (cartridges, shells, bombs, loaded and unloaded, stocks of explosives or material for their manufacture).
• Instruments for use on aeroplanes.
• Wireless apparatus; photographic or cinematograph apparatus.
• Detached parts connected with any of the preceding categories.

Article VI.

Any movement of material mentioned in Article V shall be forbidden without special authorisation by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Article VII.

The terms of the various Articles of the present Convention shall be carried out under the control of a Special Commission delegated for that purpose by the Allied and Associated Powers.

This Commission shall work at the seat of the Central German Government, but shall be able to send a sub-Commission or delegates to any other part of German territory.

This Commission will have every power to settle directly and without appeal any disputes which may arise in regard to the execution of the present Convention.

The German Government will immediately hand over to it:—

(1) A numerical list of the personnel belonging to all the German Air Services and of the existing material as well as of that in process of manufacture or on order.

(2) A complete list, with their position, of all establishments working for aviation, and of all landing grounds and sheds.

The German Government will immediately place at the disposal of this Commission all documents relating to the German Air Service.

The German Government will give to all the delegates of this Commission every facility to carry out their mission, and in particular:—

• to effect over the whole extent of German territory a census of the material mentioned under Article V;
• to inspect, whenever called upon, aeroplane, balloon and motor manufactories, and arms, munitions and explosive factories, aerodromes, sheds, landing grounds, parks and depots.
• to take any photographs and sketches.

The German Government will immediately hand over to this Commission all the information and documents set forth in Articles V and VII, and all the material mentioned in these Articles shall be handed over as rapidly as possible, and within a time limit of three months.

Article VIII.

The Commission instituted under Article VII will work until the conditions of this convention have been carried out by Germany within the prescribed period; if for any reason anyone of these provisions be not carried out within the allotted period the delegates of that Commission will immediately bring these facts to the knowledge of their respective Governments who will give them new instructions.

Article IX.

The rules relative to the organisation of a commercial air service in Germany after the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace, and to its being granted international circulation shall be determined by the said Treaty of Peace.

Note:—The Officer Air Delegates request that the Commission instituted by Article VII as regards Aviation shall form part of the Commission instituted with the same objects by the Military Convention, and should operate according to the same principles and within the same time limits.

Annexure “B”¹

Paris, March 6, 1919.

M. Benes, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, to M. S. Pichon, Minister for Foreign Affairs [of France]

I have the honor to submit to you herewith a communication sent to me from Prague by the Minister of Finances following a decision of the Council of Ministers.

It is a decision of the Czecho-Slovak Government on the subject of the payment of the coupons of the Austro-Hungarian National loan at the time of their maturity on 1 March 1919. This decision was reached as the result of a telegram from the French representative at Berne, sent to the representatives of the nations of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire at Vienna. This despatch was as follows:

“The governments of the Allied and Associated States have learned that there is danger that the coupons of the Austro-Hungarian National Debt, at the time of their maturity on 1 March 1919, shall not be paid, for the reason that the Austrian and Hungarian governments, as well as the other interested governments, are not in a position to agree on the share incumbent on each.

“The Allied Governments state that no arrangement which may be made to insure the payment of the coupons in the month of March from the common funds can influence in any way the decision of the Peace Conference concerning the reapportionment of the Austro-Hungarian debt.

“Signed: Pichon, Balfour, Lansing, Sonnino, Martino.”

I take the liberty of sending you herewith the decision of the Czecho-Slovak government bearing on this despatch, and of adding that this question obviously is intimately connected with the problem which is now being discussed in certain commissions of the Peace Conference, and that it particularly affects the question of the economic and financial liquidation of Austria-Hungary.

The Czecho-Slovak Government is obviously particularly interested in this problem; it is a question of its fundamental existence.

I have had the honor personally to state on several occasions that the Czecho-Slovak State will do all that it can to insure that the Allied and Associated States will not lose a single sou in the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary.

This principle, which we have always recognized and which also will guide us, when we submit before the Peace Conference our plan concerning the financial liquidation of Austria-Hungary, is in no way influenced by this decision. We wish, simply, to negotiate directly with the Allied and Associated States in dealing with questions which affect us so directly, and we do not wish to dispute these troublesome and difficult questions again with our enemies, the Austrians and the Magyars.

Moreover, the attached document itself indicates sufficiently what our point of view is.

Requesting you, Sir, to be so good as to let me know whether the French Government accepts this point of view, or otherwise what are its objections to this procedure, I beg you to accept the assurances of my highest esteem.

Enclosure to Annexure “B”

The Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic cannot enter into negotiations, which are to assure the payment of the March coupons and cannot contribute any amount, even in case where by this act, no prejudice would be brought into the decision of the Peace Conference, relative to the reparation of the guarantee, for the debts of Austria-Hungary. The situation of the Czecho-Slovak Republic differs essentially from that of the other Governments as well in that which concerns the Austrian war debt as the pre-war debt. The Czecho-Slovak Government can neither pay the Austrian and Hungarian war debts nor even the interest that would result therefrom, because in this way it would render itself liable towards the Allies and the engagements it made with them. The Austrian and Hungarian war loans were issued with the object in view of conducting the war against the Allies and against the Czecho-Slovak people which has been recognized by the Allies as a friendly nation, of which the Paris Government and the armies in the Entente countries were recognized as being an Allied government and army. According to principles in the Allied countries, all the transactions of the war loans and the payment of interest on such loans as were directed against the Allies have been cancelled and the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic would act disloyally against the Allies if it contributed in part to the payment of the coupons of the war loans.

This disloyalty would be so much the more serious because these war loans are found in the hands of the subjects of the states who up to the present are still considered by the Allies as enemies; it would thus be to enemy countries that the Czecho-Slovak Republic would pay them.

Outside of this the government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic remarks, that, on the contrary, it has the right and the duty to claim for its citizens reparation for the damages that were caused them by the anti-constitutional and illegal war loans. The subscription to these was imposed by the infraction of all laws of liberty: the citizens were menaced by the threat of having all their goods confiscated, by threat of imprisonment, and of being sent to the first line of the front, by condemnation to death even of those who faithful to the Czecho-Slovak government of Paris refused to give money for the carrying on of the war against the Allies. Should the government of the Czecho-Slovak republic contribute to the payment of the coupons of the war loans, it would approve of the terrible injustices which were permitted against the Czecho-Slovak people on the part of those the incontestable inheritors of whom are the Austro-German and Magyar republics and which still today are in most intimate relations with the enemies of the Allies.

In that which relates to pre-war debts, the government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic cannot participate either, in the slightest measure to the payment of the March coupons, because these pre-war debts are placed for the most part in countries hostile to the Entente. The government of the Czecho-Slovak republic will charge itself to pay for its subjects in seasonable time, the coupons of the pre-war debt and will come to an understanding directly with the Allied governments as to the method of paying loan coupons, found in the Allied countries where it is diplomatically represented, and can independently and indirectly settle the questions of interest on these pre-war debts.

For these reasons, the government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic does not think it necessary to have any discussions relative to this matter brought up at the meeting of the plenipotentiaries of the Governments of the states created from the territory of old Austria-Hungary.

1. Present for cells 1 and 2 only.

2. Present for cells 1 and 2 only.

3. Present for cells 1 and 2 only.

1. See BC–39, p. 118.
1. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.