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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/6

FM–6

Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, on Saturday, April 19, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, April 19, 1919, 3 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
Hon. R. Lansing	For Questions 2 & 3
Secretary	Mr. Hoover
Mr. L. Harrison	Mr. McCormick
British Empire	For Questions 4 & 5
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M. P.	Mr. J. Brown Scott
Secretaries	British Empire
Mr. H. Norman	Sir Eyre Crowe
Mr. E. Phipps	Lt. Col. F. H. Kisch
France	Mr. Waterlow
M. Stephen Pichon	France
Secretary	M. A. Tardieu
Capt. de St. Quentin	M. Seydonx
Italy	M. Fromageot
M. G. de Martino	Italy
Secretary	M. A. Ricci-Busatti
M. Bertele
Japan
H. E. Baron Makino
Secretaries
M. Kawai
M. Ashida

Joint Secretariat

United States of America	Col. U. S. Grant.
British Empire	Major A. M. Caccia.
France	Capt. A. Portier.
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi.
Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck.

1. Enrolment of German Subjects in the Army of Foreign Powers M. Pichon said that he had received a letter from Baron Sonnino expressing his regret at his inability, owing to a pressing engagement elsewhere, to attend the meeting that afternoon. The Italian Government would, therefore, be represented by M. de Martino.

The first subject on the Agenda paper related to the enrollment of German subjects in the army of foreign powers for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof. The following draft had been submitted for approval by the British Delegation:—

“No German male subject shall be permitted to become enrolled in the Army of any Foreign Power or to be attached to such army for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof.”

It was proposed that the clause should form Article 19A of the Military Peace terms.

Mr. Balfour said that the arguments in favour of the Article proposed were very obvious. Germans had before the war been the greatest instructors of aggressive armies. Shortly, as a result of the Peace Treaty, large numbers of German officers would be thrown out of employment, and should they offer their services to all would-be militant powers, it was doubtful whether the last stage of the military situation of the world would be any better than the first. In his opinion, it was a moot question whether it would be worth while entering a special clause dealing with this matter in the Peace Treaty, but a good deal could obviously be said in favour of the proposal made by the British Delegation.

Mr. Lansing declared himself heartily in accord with the purpose of the proposed resolution; but he was doubtful as to its ensuring the object sought. He thought the burden should be placed on the employer rather than on the employee. He wished particularly to call attention to the fact that German officers when so employed as military instructors in the Army of Foreign Powers would cease to be under German jurisdiction. In his opinion, the more sensible solution would be obtained by the Allied and Associated Governments entering into an agreement not to employ German officers as instructors in their armies.

M. Pichon thought that under the circumstances, the question should be dealt with by the League of Nations.

M. Tardieu pointed out that something of the same sort had already actually been done in respect to the export of other war materials from Germany. This being the case, he failed to see why measures should not be taken to prevent Germany from exporting human war material in the shape of military instructors.

Mr. Balfour said that he was greatly impressed by what Mr. Lansing had said. M. Tardieu had enquired why Germany should not be made to forbid the export of human war material. He would point out, however, that whereas “inhuman” war material could only be exported with the consent of the Government, no Government could stop any human being from taking a ticket to proceed to a foreign country where, after arrival, he could take employment as a military instructor.

M. Tardieu thought that though the Government could not definitely prevent a subject from proceeding to a foreign country, it might nevertheless be possible to frame a law preventing or prohibiting a subject under definite penalties from taking service in a foreign army.

Mr. Lansing said he was very much in sympathy with the proposal to attempt to prevent German military training from being dispersed throughout the world. The question, however, was how best to accomplish this purpose. In the first place, Germany should be made to agree to send no military missions to foreign countries, and to take no official cognisance of military instructors sent abroad. Secondly, as a supplement to the above, all the signatories; of the Peace Treaty must agree not to employ German military instructors. Thirdly, this prohibition should extend to the employment of Germans, naturalised after the signature of the peace treaty: otherwise there would be no security, as it would easily be possible for Germans to change their allegiance for the purpose of taking military service abroad.

Mr. Balfour thought that similar provisions should be inserted in their respective treaties prohibiting all other enemy countries, e. g. Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria, from employing German instructors.

Mr. Lansing added that they should also get the Governments to agree not to send military students to Germany for military training.

(It was agreed that Mr. Lansing should draft a clause for presentation to the Foreign Ministers at their next meeting, embodying the ideas set forth in the preceding discussion.)

2. M. Pichon proposed that these two subjects should be adjourned to the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers, as it would be necessary for him to consult the French technical advisers, and to receive replies from the French representatives on the Economic Council. Establishment of a German Commission at or Near Paris To Facilitate the Conduct of Current Economic Negotiations

3. Present Status of the Commissions Set Up Under the Armistice With Germany & Their Relations to the Supreme Economic Council Mr. Balfour said that he wished in this connection to invite the attention of the Conference to the very real inconvenience which was now being caused by divided control in both the occupied and unoccupied parts of Germany. In these territories there were a number of purely civil questions to be settled, which required co-ordination between the various organizations, both in the area occupied by the French, British and American troops, and in the unoccupied areas. He felt very strongly that nothing should be done to interfere with the military control those areas, or with the full freedom of action of Marshal Foch. But since the questions of food, finance, and commerce were far more important than the narrow military standpoint, something should forthwith be done to improve the organisation which at the present moment was acting very slowly and in a very unsatisfactory manner. Consequently, though he did not press for the question to be discussed and settled at once, especially in view of M. Pichon’s request that the matter should be postponed to the next meeting, he wished, nevertheless, to point out that the question, in his opinion, brooked no delay and should be settled as quickly as possible.

M. de Martino said that the Italian Delegation were also studying the question and they would not be in a position to discuss it that afternoon. He supported M. Pichon’s proposal that the question should be adjourned to the next meeting.

(It was agreed to postpone the question of the establishment of a German Commission at or near Paris to facilitate the conduct of current economic negotiations, and the question of the present status of the Commission set up under the Armistice with Germany and their relations to the Supreme Economic Council to the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers.)

4. M. Pichon read the following note, which had been submitted by the British Delegation:—

Dutch Proposal for the Revision of the Treaties of 1839 as Between Belgium and the Netherlands “Mr. Balfour has received a suggestion from Mr. Van Swinderen¹ that a Conference should immediately be set up in Paris’, for the purpose of considering the question of the revision of the 1839 treaties, consisting of the five Ministers of Foreign Affairs with the Allied and Associated Great Powers, (or four, if Japan were to disinterest herself), and of the representatives of Holland and Belgium”.

M. Pichon continuing, enquired whether the proposal therein contained was accepted.

Mr. Balfour said, in regard to the date for holding the proposed meeting, the question to be considered would not be included in the Peace Treaty with Germany. At the present moment, all the Foreign Ministers were overburdened with work in connection with the preparation of the Peace Treaties with the enemy powers. Consequently, he himself would not be prepared at the present moment to meet the representatives of Holland and Belgium, as suggested.

M. Pichon enquired whether a mission of plenipotentiaries could not be appointed to deal with the question.

Mr. Balfour explained that the Dutch Government would very much prefer to discuss the question with the Foreign Ministers themselves. They were anxious not to be put under a Commission.

M. Tardieu pointed out that the Belgian Government was also anxious to discuss the question at an early date with the Foreign Ministers.

Baron Makino said that it was the first time he had heard of this matter. He would therefore be obliged to reserve his definite adhesion for the present. This did not mean that any difference of opinion existed, but he would like to have an opportunity of examining the question.

(It was agreed that a Conference should be held in Paris as early as possible, for the purpose of considering the question of the revision of the 1839 treaties, consisting of the five Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Allied and Associated Great Powers and of the representatives of Holland and Belgium.

It was thought that this meeting could be held during the week commencing 28th April, 1919.

It was understood that the Japanese representative would participate in the Conference unless a notification to the contrary were communicated to the Secretariat General within the next 3 days.)

5. Situation in Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia M. Pichon presented the following memorandum, dated April 11th, 1919, submitted by the Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council to the latter Council:—

“The Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council has received the most urgent appeals from the Governments of Lithuania, Latvia, and Esthonia, and from the representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments in these countries.

The Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council finds it impossible to reply to these appeals until answers to the following questions have been obtained:—

1. Do the Allied and Associated Governments intend to support the maintenance of independent Governments in Lithuania, Latvia, and Esthonia?

2. If so, would this decision be in any way affected should an agreement be entered into between any one or all of these States and the Bolshevists Government, whereby their integrity and their territorial independence would be guaranteed?

3. Are the Allied and Associated Governments agreed that one or more of the Associated Powers should, once this responsibility has been accepted, help these Governments by every means in their power (e. g. financial, moral, and material assistance) other than the despatch of Allied troops?

4. Are any of the Associated Powers prepared to make to any one or all of these Governments a loan or to open credits in their favour?

5. Is the Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council correct in assuming that the effective occupation of Latvia and Lithuania by the German troops must continue until the next harvest?

6. Are the Allied and Associated Governments agreed that the Russian white troops in Esthonia must be assisted, both morally and materially, by the supply of food and by giving them other assistance, both—

(a) in order to maintain the independence of Esthonia, or

(b) in order to carry out a possible attack against the actual Russian Government?

7. What is the line of demarcation that the Allied and Associated Governments intend to lay down between Poland and Lithuania in connection with the distribution of food supplies?”

Mr. McCormick said that the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers had authorised the relaxation of the blockade in the case of Latvia, provided the military authorities approved. The military authorities had approved, and the Blockade Committee had taken steps to obtain the necessary guarantees. But during the last 2 or 3 days, news had been received to the effect that the Germans had taken over the Government of Latvia, and at the meeting of the Blockade Committee held on that day, it had been decided: first, to continue the individual licensing of imports, because it was thought that these could be supervised by the representatives of the Admiralty; second, to stop all shipments from Germany, except coal, which was needed for transportation purposes in connection with the maintenance of the German front against the Bolshevists.

M. Seydoux pointed out that the London Blockade Council, who had been instructed with the duty of obtaining the necessary guarantees from the Letts, had so far been unable to do so. Consequently, the blockade still continued unaltered. Furthermore, according to latest information, the Germans had taken control of Libau, which was the only available port of access. Under these circumstances, he thought the British and French ships in the Baltic would automatically stop all trade.

M. Pichon explained to the Committee that the Germans now controlled Libau; they had overthrown the Lettish Government, but it was not clear whether this had been done by the Germans themselves or at their instigation. In his opinion, it would be very difficult to arrive at a decision in regard to the question presented to the meeting.

Mr. McCormick understood there would be no difficulty in ensuring that shipments of food should reach the proper authorities. He could therefore see no reason why relief measures should not continue.

M. Seydoux agreed. He thought that since food went to the Germans it could also go to the Letts. That, however, instituted only one side of the question. There was also the question of ordinary trade, which he considered should not be permitted.

Mr. Lansing said that he could not understand how this question had come to be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers. In his opinion, it fell altogether outside their province.

Mr. Balfour enquired whether the Meeting did not think that the whole question could be summed up in the following two proposals:

(1) Food should continue to be sent to the Baltic provinces in question, provided the local allied authorities were agreed that it would reach the right people, and

(2) Coal should continue to go through on the understanding that it should only be used for the purpose of supplying the front now set up against the Bolshevists.

Mr. Hoover explained that German troops and authorities in Latvia had seized the Government and disarmed the Army, and had set up there a Government of their own, probably controlled by the German Landowners. This Government was in entire opposition to the wishes of the Lettish people. The question was whether the Allies would continue to feed the Letts, or not. On the one hand, there was no desire to starve the people of Latvia; on the other hand, there was equally no wish to support the German Government.

Mr. McCormick thought that if the Allies were feeding the Germans in Germany, there was no good reason why they should not continue to feed the Letts.

Mr. Balfour expressed the view that the Germans were doing two things, firstly, fighting the Bolshevists, a measure the Allies thoroughly approved of, and, secondly, oppressing the Letts, a measure which the Allies disapproved of.

M. Pichon thought that the Germans had carried out a regular “coup d’état” against the Letts, and by sending food into the country the Allies would indirectly be supporting the German usurpation.

Mr. Lansing enquired as to the reliability of the information received. He had seen various reports, but had not been impressed by their apparent validity.

Mr. Hoover said that the Lettish Commander-in-Chief and some of the Government officials had come to the American Food Mission and had asked for protection. At the present moment, the American representatives in Latvia were defying the Germans.

M. Pichon pointed out that there were English men-of-war on the spot, and enquired whether correct information could not be obtained from that source.

Mr. Balfour replied that the information received from that source agreed with all other reports received from those regions.

M. Pichon expressed the view that if all sources of information concurred, the Ministers would be entitled to accept the information as correct.

Mr. Lansing said that if he remembered the circumstances correctly, they had been told that the withdrawal of the Germans from Latvia would result in the whole country being over-run by the Bolshevists. He thought the feeding of the Letts should be continued, and, by the Treaty of Peace the Germans should be required to evacuate Latvia.

Mr. Balfour thought there might be some objection to that procedure. Under the Armistice the Allied and Associated Governments were fully empowered to order the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces by the German troops. The reason, however, why that had not been done, was that the Allied and Associated Governments had no troops wherewith to replace the Germans. The Allied and Associated Governments were therefore in the “humiliating” position of having to employ Germans to suppress the Bolshevists whilst the Germans had stopped the Letts from raising armies of their own. Obviously had Allied troops been available it would have been easy to order the withdrawal of Germans, leaving the former troops to assist the local levies in re-constituting the countries in question.

M. de Martino expressed the view that food supplies should continue to be sent to these provinces, all necessary precautions being taken to ensure that none of this food should reach the Bolshevists. He must warn the meeting, however, that the Italian Government would be unable to take any share in furnishing supplies for this purpose.

M. Pichon pointed out that the Letts were wholly anti-Bolshevists, and at the same time the Germans were fighting the Bolshevists. He saw no reason, therefore, why food relief should be stopped.

Mr. Balfour explained that the difficulty lay in the fact that though both the Germans and the Letts were anti-Bolshevist, the Baltic Barons were also anti-Letts.

Colonel Kisch explained that according to latest information the Germans had arrested all members of the Lettish Government; they had also disarmed the Lettish troops and seized all arms and munitions. A further report stated that the food stores landed at Libau had been looted, but it was not clear by whom this had been done. It was, however, thought that the German Army of Occupation was behind the whole trouble that had now arisen in that country.

Mr. Lansing said that the situation was as follows: for a time the Germans and Letts had co-operated against the Bolshevists. Now, either at the instigation of the Germans or as an independent movement, a rising had occurred, and as a result the Letts might be driven to become Bolshevists, which would constitute a very dangerous situation. In his opinion, under these circumstances, all that the Allied and Associated Governments could do would be to insist on the withdrawal of the German troops and on the restoration of the Lettish Government. But if that were done the Allied and Associated Governments would then have to rely upon the ability of the Letts to resist the Bolshevists.

Mr. Hoover called attention to the fact that the Lettish Government had been dispossessing the Baltic Barons of their property as fast as possible, and not without violence.

Mr. Balfour proposed that food should continue to be sent, instructions being issued to the Allied authorities on the spot not to land it unless reasonable security existed that it would not find its way into the hands of either the Bolshevists or of the Baltic Barons.

Mr. Hoover said that Mr. Balfour’s proposal raised another difficulty due to the difference of opinion existing between the local British and American authorities. The former thought that no further food supplies should be landed; while the latter thought that local machinery could be set up to ensure its distribution to the proper people. In his opinion, both the British, who were furnishing a considerable portion of the food supplies, and the Americans, should continue to send relief as long as there was reasonable assurance that the food so sent would reach the people and not the Bolshevists.

Mr. Balfour reminded the Conference that on Thursday last April 17th, the Council of Four had decided to despatch an Inter-Allied Commission to the Baltic States. The particular question under reference could obviously not be referred to that Commission since it would not reach those regions for some time to come.

(It was agreed:—(1) to continue to send food supplies into Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia, provided the local Allied authorities were satisfied that these supplies would reach the right people, and (2) to continue to allow coal from Germany to go through, provided it was only used for supplying the front now set up against the Bolshevists.

It was further agreed that instructions should be issued to the representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments on the spot that the food should not be landed unless reasonable security existed that it would reach the people and not the Bolshevists.)

6. M. Pichon read the following draft article relating to the disposal of property of enemy religious missions in Allied territory:—

Disposal of Property of Enemy Religious Missions in Allied Territory “The Allied and Associated Governments agree that in all territories belonging to them, or of which the government is entrusted to them in accordance with this Treaty, the property which the German Missions or Missionary Societies possess, including that of Trading Societies whose profits were devoted to the support of the Missions, shall continue to be devoted to missionary purposes. In order to assure the due execution of this undertaking, the Allied and Associated Governments will retain full control and disposition of such property, and full control as to the persons by whom the Missions shall be conducted and as to the application of the property for missionary purposes.

Germany, taking note of the above undertaking, agrees to accept all arrangements made or to be made by the Allied or Associated Government[s] concerned for carrying on the work of the said Missions or Trading Societies, and waives all claims on their behalf.”

Mr. Balfour explained that a very large German missionary organisation existed in Western Africa which, whilst carrying out admirable educational work, had also undertaken important industrial work. The profits of the commercial part of the undertaking had annually been handed over for missionary purposes. It was felt that the commercial asset should not be merged in the general assets taken over from the Germans in conquered territories; but that the profits should be kept in order to carry on the missionary work in those territories.

Mr. Lansing agreed with Mr. Balfour, but he thought it should be made clear in the text that the proposed article related to religious missionary enterprises and not to diplomatic or other missions.

Baron Makino enquired whether the draft article was intended to apply to all German foreign religious enterprises. He called attention to the fact that it would be necessary for someone to decide whether the work of such missions was really benevolent or not.

Mr. Balfour thought that the draft article was intended to apply to all German foreign missions. In addition to those in West Africa to which his previous remarks had particularly referred, he understood there were others in India and China. He thought the idea would be for the property so taken over to be kept in trust with a view to continuing the same religious work.

Mr. Lansing called attention to the fact the second paragraph of the English text read “the Allied and Associated Governments will retain full control” whereas the French text said “the Five Allied and Associated Governments will retain full control.”

Mr. Scott pointed out that in the French text the expression “the five Allied and Associated Governments” alone was used.

Mr. Fromageot explained that the Drafting Committee had invariably to employ definite formulas to cover definite cases. Thus by “the five Allied and Associated Governments” would be meant France, Great Britain, Italy, United States and Japan; while the words “Allied and Associated Governments” would be used to mean all the nations who had participated in the war on the side of the Allies.

Mr. Lansing suggested that the proposal of the British Delegation be accepted in principle, but that the draft article be referred back to the Drafting Committee to be re-drafted in the light of the discussion just held. He thought the text should be made perfectly clear, even though some difficulty might be experienced in doing so. As at present drafted it was not clear whether the control rested with all of the five Allied and Associated Governments as a whole, or whether it would rest in each case only with the one Government particularly concerned.

M. Fromageot replied that it was his understanding that the control would rest with the Power specially concerned in each case.

M. de Martino suggested that the following words should be added at the end of the first paragraph, namely: “in conformity with the principles of the local laws now in force in the respective territories”. He was anxious that no difficulty should arise through interference with local laws in the country where the mission was operating.

Mr. Balfour agreed that the idea that M. de Martino had in mind was right; but he thought it should be left to the Drafting Committee to give effect to the proposal.

Baron Makino expressed the view that in re-drafting the clause the object of the missions should be made quite clear.

(It was agreed to refer the text of the draft article submitted by the British Delegation to the Drafting Committee for the preparation of a revised text embodying the ideas set forth in the course of the above discussion.)

7. M. Pichon read the following new proposed draft article relating to the Opium Traffic which had been submitted by the Drafting Committee for insertion in the Treaty of Peace:—

Draft Article Regarding the Opium Traffic “Those of the High Contracting Parties who have not yet signed, or have signed but not yet ratified the Opium Convention signed at The Hague on January 23rd, 1912, agree to bring the said Convention into force, and for this purpose to enact the necessary legislation without delay and in any case within a period of twelve months from the coming into force of the present treaty.

Furthermore they agree that ratification of this treaty should in the case of the Powers which have not yet ratified the Opium Convention be deemed in all respects equivalent to the ratification of that Convention and to the signature of the special protocol which was opened at The Hague in accordance with the resolutions adopted by The Third Opium Conference in 1914 for bringing the said Convention into force; and for this purpose the Government of the French Republic is requested to communicate to the Government of the Netherlands a certified copy of the protocol of the deposit of ratifications of this treaty and to invite the Government of the Netherlands in accordance with the provisions of the article to accept and deposit the said certified copy as if it were a deposit of ratifications of the Opium Convention and a signature of the additional protocol of 1914.”

(It was agreed to accept the above draft regarding the Opium Traffic for insertion in the Treaty of Peace.)

(The Meeting then adjourned to Monday afternoon, 21st April, 1919, at 3 p.m.)

Paris, 19th April, 1919.

1. Jonkheer R. de Marees van Swinderen, Netherlands Minister at London.