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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/68

BC–61

Secretary’s Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Monday, 12th May, 1919, at 4 p.m.

Paris, May 12, 1919, 4 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
President Wilson	Dr. Seymour
Hon. H. White	Dr. Day
Secretary	Mr. A. W. Dulles
Mr. L. Harrison	Dr. W. E. Lunt
British Empire	Major D. W. Johnson
The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M.P.	British Empire
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.	Sir Eyre Crowe
Secretary-General	Hon. H. Nicolson
Lt. Col. Sir M. P. A. Hankey, K. C. B.	Mr. A. Leeper
Secretary	Major H. W. V. Temperley
Mr. H. Norman	Major Barnes.
France	France
M. Clemenceau	M. J. Cambon
M. Pichon	M. Tardieu
Secretary	M. Aubert
M. Arnavon	M. Hermitte
Capt. de St. Quentin	Italy
M. de Bearn	M. de Martino
Italy
H. E. M. Orlando
H. E. Baron Sonnino
Secretary-General
Count Aldrovandi
Secretary
M. Bertele
Japan
H. E. Baron Makino
H. E. Viscount Chinda
Secretaries
M. Saburi
M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of	Lieut. Burden.
British Empire	Captain E. Abraham.
France	Captain A. Portier.
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi.
Interpreter:—Prof. P. J. Mantoux.

M. Clemenceau asked M. Tardieu to explain the finding of the Committee on Jugo Slav affairs.

Frontiers of Austria and Hungary: (a) Frontier Between Jugo-Slavia and Austria M. Tardieu gave an explanation of the finding of the Committee substantially identical to that given in I. C. 182¹ and in I. C. 184.²

Mr. Balfour asked whether any method of obtaining a plebiscite in the Klagenfurt Basin had been thought out.

M. Tardieu replied that no methods had been suggested, as the Committee had not thought it necessary to propose any, until the plebiscite had been accepted in principle.

M. Clemenceau enquired whether the principle of the plebiscite was accepted.

President Wilson replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Lloyd George also agreed.

Baron Sonnino expressed the view that if a plebiscite were resorted to in this area, there should be one in Marburg and in other doubtful corners along the proposed frontier.

Mr. Balfour said that it was true there were other regions with mixed populations, but if the Conference were satisfied that it possessed sufficient knowledge to solve these problems without a referendum, he could see no reason why a plebiscite should not be resorted to in the isolated case of the Klagenfurt Basin if the Conference did not think itself sufficiently well-informed to decide its fate without one.

M. Tardieu pointed out that the Commission had been unanimous not only regarding the rest of the frontier, but in recommending a plebiscite in this area.

President Wilson pointed out that the most urgent business before the meeting was to frame a clause for the Treaty. Some definite stipulation should be put down. He read the draft prepared by the Committee on Roumania and Jugo-Slavia, given as Article 5 on page 31 of Report No. 2 (W. C. P. 646.):—

“In the whole of the basin of Klagenfurt, as defined below, an Inter-Allied Commission will be charged by the five Allied and Associated Powers with the duty of ascertaining on the spot the wishes expressed by the inhabitants as to the attachment of their territory to that of the Jugo-Slav State.

If the conclusions of this Commission establish the formal desire of the population to be attached to the Jugo-Slav State, the five Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right to give satisfaction to such desire”.

Mr. Balfour agreed that all Austria need know was that the people in the area in question would be consulted.

M. Orlando said that if he understood the clause aright, it meant that the fate of this territory was reserved until the conclusion of the labours of the Commission set up by it. On these terms he would accept the draft Article.

(The draft Article regarding the consultation of the population in the Klagenfurt Basin by an Inter-Allied Commission was accepted.)

M. Tardieu then proceeded to explain the difficulty regarding the triangle south-east of Tarvis. (See I. C. 184 and Annexure.)³

Baron Sonnino asked at what date the final attribution would be made. He expressed the opinion that the occasion of making a Treaty with Austria was the best moment for settling this.

Mr. Balfour explained that the result obtained at the last meeting of the Foreign Ministers (see I. C. 184) a compromise had been reached solely in order to obtain means of settling speedily with Austria. He agreed with Baron Sonnino that the final attribution of this territory must be made at some date. He suggested that if it were not settled immediately, it might be considered when the Conference came to decide on the boundaries of Jugo-Slavia.

M. Clemenceau suggested that this course should be adopted.

Baron Sonnino adhered to the view that the matter should be settled immediately; not only was it an Italian interest, but it was also a first rate Austrian interest. It concerned the Austrians to know by what means they would communicate with the sea. The territory in question was a small mountainous wedge with a very small population. It was quite separate from the question of Fiume, and it could readily be decided in connection with the forthcoming Treaty with Austria.

President Wilson pointed out that two questions were involved. One was that of the ultimate sovereignty to be acknowledged by the population of the district. As this population was predominantly Jugo-Slav, the natural answer would be that the sovereignty should be Jugo-Slav. The second question was that of direct railway communication between Austria and Italy. In a similar instance the Conference had found no great difficulty in settling an almost identical problem. Arrangements had been made to ensure unimpeded transit between Eastern and Western Prussia.

Baron Sonnino pointed out that in order to give Czecho-Slovakia some 60 kilometres of railway, about 60,000 Magyars were to be subjected to Czecho-Slovak sovereignty. This had been done in order to ensure unimpeded railway communication between Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania. Similarly, no less than 280,000 Magyars had been handed over to Roumania, and in Poland, together with 100 kilometres of railway, some 100,000 Germans had been made Polish subjects.

(Considerable dissent was expressed from this statement. Such solutions might have been proposed by Committees, but had not yet been accepted by the Council.)

M. Clemenceau said that the proposal which he asked the Council to accept or reject was, that the limits of Austria should be fixed provisionally, and that the final attribution of the triangle in question be reserved until the frontiers of Jugo-Slavia were determined. This would be in accordance with the decision of the Foreign Secretaries of the previous Saturday. (I. C. 184.)

(This was finally agreed to and the frontier of Austria as proposed by the Committee on Jugo-Slavia in the report, and in the annexure to I. C. 184 was accepted.)

(The southern frontier of Hungary as set forth in the document annexed to these Minutes (Annexure A) was also accepted.)

B. Frontier Between Czecho-Slovakia and Austria M. Cambon made a statement explaining the findings of the Committee on Czecho-Slovak affairs. He pointed out that the administrative boundary between Austria and Bohemia had been followed almost throughout. There were two small deviations. Firstly, at Gmund, the railway junction of which was to be left within Czecho-Slovakia. This junction was situated at some 4 kilometres from the town and was the junction of the two main lines serving Bohemia. The second deviation was near Feldsberg, at the join of the rivers Thaya and Morava. These two streams were the main arteries of Moravia and gave access to the Danube. The line had therefore been drawn in such a way as to give the stream to Czecho-Slovakia, while the railway parallel with the stream which was necessary to Vienna, was left within Austria.

M. Clemenceau asked whether any objections were raised to the solution proposed by the Committee.

(No objections were raised, and the frontier proposed by the Committee was adopted.)

C. Frontier Between Austria and Hungary President Wilson pointed out that it would be necessary to specify the frontier between Austria and Hungary in the Treaty with the former. He reminded the Meeting that it had been decided to set up a Commission to investigate this matter in order to prepare the Conference for the raising of the question by either of the parties interested. He was informed that the Austrians would raise the question, and that the Allied and Associated Powers would be called upon to decide it. He read the decision recorded in I. C. 182 Para. 1, D,⁴ and asked whether any nominations had been made.

(No nominations had been made.)

Baron Sonnino asked whether it would not be enough to require Austria to recognise the independence of Hungary, and Hungary that of Austria, without raising the frontier question at all.

President Wilson said that he was informed the Austrians would raise the question.

(After some discussion it was decided that Austria would be required to recognise the frontier of 1867 between Austria and Hungary, and that if any difficulty arose regarding this frontier, the Allied and Associated Powers might if necessary arbitrate.)

D. Remaining Frontiers of Hungary After a short statement by M. Tardieu the frontiers of Hungary, as laid down in Annexure A, were accepted.

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Paris, May 12th, 1919.

Annexure “A” to IC 185 [BC–61]

Paris, 8th May, 1919.

Articles Regarding Hungarian Frontiers Proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace With Hungary

In accordance with the instructions given to it by the Supreme Council of the Allies, the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs studied the question of Hungarian frontiers at its meeting of 8th May.⁵

It begs to suggest to the Supreme Council the adoption of the draft Articles proposed:—

1. By the Committee on Czecho-Slovak Questions in Annex III of its Report, relating to the frontier between the Czecho-Slovak Republic and Hungary.

This frontier is fixed as follows:—

(1) From the point where the frontier between Austria and Hungary meets the Danube as far as its confluence with the Eipel.

The Talweg of the main stream of the Danube, as far as the confluence of the Danube and the Eipel (Ipoly).

(2) Between the confluence of the Eipel and the Sajo.

The course of the Eipel as far as a point about 10 kilometers south-south-west of the Losonez station;

A line following the watershed running from north-west to south-east; cutting the Salgo-Tarjan; Losonez railway; continuing along the watershed towards the south-east, and then south as far as point 628, 7 kilom. east-north-east of Salgo-Tarjan.

Following the watershed, at first in a general north-easterly direction, and then, after reaching point 278 (south of the confluence of the Sajo and the Rima) in an east-north-easterly direction to meet the Sajo.

(3) Between the Sajo and the Ung.

A line cutting the Putnek-Losonez railway at Banreve station (about 6 kilometres west of Putnek) so as to pass between the bifurcations of the two railways, leading respectively, northwards to Pelsocz, and southwards to Borsodnadasd.

Following the watershed in a general north-easterly direction as far as a point 7 kilometres east of Pelsocz.

Following a general east-north-easterly direction and cutting the Torna-Edeleny railway 4 kilometres southwest of Torna.

Following in an easterly direction the ridge of the left bank of the Bodva, passing north of Keny and South of Buzita, to meet the Hernad 6 kilometres north-east of Hidasnémeti, then following this river upstream as far as a point just west of Nádasd.

Turning east and passing south of Nádasd, meeting and following the watershed between the Bozsva and the Ronyva.

Meeting this latter river 8 kilometres north-north-west of Satoralja-Ujhely and following its Talweg southwards.

Cutting the railway triangle south-east of Satoralja-Ujhely, in such a way as to leave to the Czechoslovaks the complete possession on their territory of the Kassa–Csap railway.

Crossing the Bodrog about 5 kilometres south of Bodrog-Szerdahely.

(4) Between the Bodrog and the frontier of Ruthenian territory.

A line parallel to and to the south of the Satoralja-Ujhely-Csap railway, passing north of Lacza and south of Perbenyik and Tarkany to meet the Tisza (Theiss) west of the latter village.

Following the Talweg of the Tisza upstream to the point (2 kilometres east-south-east of Csap) where the frontier between Ruthenian territory and Hungary touches that river.

2. By the Committee on Roumanian and Yugoslav Affairs in Annex VI of its Report No. 1 relative to the frontier between Roumania and Hungary.

This frontier is fixed as follows:—

Leaving the point of junction of the frontiers of Roumania, the Czecho-Slovak State (Ruthenian territory) and Hungary; the boundary between Roumania and Hungary runs in a general south-south-westerly direction, roughly parallel to and to the west of the railway Halmi; Szatmár-Németi; Nagy Károly; Nagy-Várad; Nagy-Szalonta.

Cuts the railway Nagy-Szalonta; Gyula about 12 kilometres from Nagy-Szalonta, passes between the two bifurcations formed by the junction of this railway and the railway Szeghalom-Erdögyarak.

Passes east of Kötegyan, east of Gyula, west of Ottlakam, east of Kevermes, and east of Dombegyhaz, between Battonya and Tornya, where it meets the administrative boundary between the Comitats of Csanad and Arad.

Following this administrative boundary to its salient north-north-west of Nemet-Pereg, whence it runs towards the river Maros which it reaches about 1 kilometre south of Nagylak station, passing between the town and the railway station.

Follows the Talweg of the Maros downstream to a point about 3.5 kilometres upstream from the railway bridge on the line Mako-Szeged. Thence it runs west-south-west, following the Talweg of a backwater as far as the bend which it makes at a point about 1 kilometre south-east of point 84 and about 9 kilometres south-west of Makó, of approximate position 46°10′ North and 20°22′ East of Greenwich. This point is the meeting place of the three frontiers of Roumania, Hungary and Yugoslavia.

3. By the Committee for Roumanian and Yugoslav Affairs, in Annexe VI of its 2nd Report, relative to the frontier between Yugoslavia and Hungary.

This frontier shall be fixed as follows:—

Leaving the meeting-place of the frontiers of Yugoslavia, Roumania and Hungary, 9 kilometres south-west of Makó.

A line running in a general north-westerly direction, passing between Szt-Ivan and Gyalo and meeting the main stream of the river Tisza.

Following downstream the Talweg of the main stream of the Tisza, and then following upstream that of its backwater, thus making a détour round the south of the island of Nagyret.

A line in a general E. W. direction, passing south of Roszke; cutting the railway line from Szabadka to Kishunhalas at about 3 kilometres to the south-east of the station of Kelebia.

A line in a general north-easterly-south-westerly direction, cutting the railway line from Szabadka to Baja at about 1.5 kilometres to the east of the station of Csikeria.

Meeting the river Kigyos at the bend which it makes 4 kilometres east-north-east of Bacsmadaras;

Following the Talweg of this river westwards;

Crossing the marshy region lying north and west of Rigyicza leaving this village to Yugoslavia, the exact trace to be determined on the ground by the Boundary Commission.

Rejoining the Talweg of the river Kigyos west of Rigyicza and following it to a point about 8 kilometres south-west of the railway junction at Rigyicza.

Turning west-south-west, passing between the villages of Szantova and Bereg, reaching the main stream of the Danube at about 8 kilometres to the north of point 169 (Kisküszeg).

The Talweg of the main stream of the Danube southwards to its confluence with the river Drave.

The Talweg of the main stream of the Drave towards the north-west of its confluence with the river Mur.

The Talweg of the Mur to the point where the frontier between Hungary and Austria meets that river from the north.

In the region between Czecho-Slovak and Yugoslavia territory, Hungary is coterminous with Austria.

1. FM–12, p. 671.
2. FM–14, p. 697.
3. FM–14, pp. 696, 701.
4. FM–12, p. 674.
5. See FM–12, p. 670.