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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/7

FM–7

Secretary’s Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Monday, 21st April, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, April 21, 1919, 3 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
Mr. R. Lansing	Mr. McCormick
Secretary	Mr. Legge
Mr. L. Harrison	Mr. Hoover
British Empire	British Empire
Lord Hardinge	Maj. Gen. W. Thwaites (Item 1 only)
Lord Robert Cecil	M. E. F. Wise
Secretaries	France
Mr. H. Norman	M. Seydoux
Mr. E. Phipps	M. Tirrard
France	Italy
M. Pichon	M. Ricci-Busatti
Secretaries
M. Berthelot
M. Arnavon
Capt. de St. Quentin
Italy
M. de Martino
Secretary
M. Bertele
Japan
H. E. Baron Makino
H. E. Viscount Chinda

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of		Lieut. C. G. Burden.
British Empire		Major A. M. Caccia.
France		Capt. A. Portier.
Italy		Lieut. Zanchi.
Japan	{	M. Saburi.
		M. Kawai.
Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck.

1. Enrolment of German Subjects in Foreign Armies M. Pichon said that the first item on the agenda paper concerned the enrolment of German subjects in foreign armies. The following article had been drafted by Mr. Lansing for insertion in the Treaty of Peace:—

“Germany hereby agrees from and after the signature of the present treaty not to accredit to any foreign country or to send or to allow any military mission to leave its territory for any foreign country, and Germany further agrees to take appropriate measures to prevent German nationals from leaving its territory 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, or otherwise for the purpose of giving military, naval, or aeronautic instruction in any foreign country.

The Allied and Associated Powers agree, on their part, from and after the signature of the present treaty not to enroll in their armies, or to attach to their armies or naval or air forces, any German national, for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof, or otherwise to employ any such German national as military, naval or aeronautic instructor; and the Allied and Associated Powers further agree not to enroll or employ as aforesaid, any former German national.”

M. Pichon, continuing, said that he understood that the draft article would apply only and solely to military instructors, and on that understanding he would be prepared to accept it. He would, however, be glad to have an assurance on that point.

Mr. Lansing replied that M. Pichon had correctly interpreted the intention of the article. It was merely intended that Germans should not be employed as instructors in any armies. He himself, would however, be quite prepared, with M. Pichon’s approval, to prohibit the enrolment of any German nationals in foreign armies; and, to give effect to this suggestion, he would propose that the concluding portion of the first paragraph of the draft article be altered to read somewhat as follows:—

“… and Germany further agrees to take appropriate measures to prevent German nationals from leaving its territory to become enrolled in the army of any foreign Power or for the purpose of instruction in the military training of such army to be attached thereto, or otherwise for the purpose of giving military, naval, or aeronautic instruction in any foreign country.”

Should this proposal be accepted, he would ask that the whole text should be referred back to the Drafting Committee to be redrafted in such a manner as to prohibit the employment of any German nationals in any army.

M. Pichon said that, in his opinion, if the Article were redrafted as suggested by Mr. Lansing, it would prevent the enrolment of German nationals in the French Foreign Legion. He would point out that according to the existing regulations no enquiries were made as to the nationality of men wishing to join the Foreign Legion; but he agreed that the men so enrolled could not be defined as instructors.

Mr. Lansing expressed the view that the procedure followed by France in regard to their recruitment for the Foreign Legion would, if retained, leave a very wide door for the enrolment of Germans in large numbers by other countries. The American Army, for instance, contained large numbers of Germans; but the United States’ Government were anxious to get rid of them.

M. Pichon said that, if Mr. Lansing’s proposal were adopted, he could only accept the clause under reserve, for the following reasons. Firstly, recruitment for the French Foreign Legion, constituted a military question, which the President of the Council as War Minister would alone be competent to decide. Secondly, the employment of any German nationals in foreign armies constituted a political question, which he thought would have to be submitted to the Council of Four for final decision. Subject to those reservations, he was prepared to accept the draft clause.

Mr. Lansing suggested that a new paragraph should be drafted, whereby the Germans would further agree not to admit into Germany persons of foreign nationality either for instruction at a military school or for the purpose of receiving military instruction of any kind.

M. de Martino enquired what was the correct interpretation to be given to the last four words of the draft article, namely:— “any former German national”, particularly in regard to the word “former”. If those words were intended to mean that Germans who had acquired the nationality of a new country would be excluded from enrolment in the army of the country of their allegiance, he thought very important questions of national law would thereby be involved, and very serious difficulties would arise.

Mr. Lansing agreed with M. de Martino, and suggested that the words quoted might be modified to read as follows:— “Any person of German origin naturalised after the signature of the Treaty of Peace.”

Lord Robert Cecil asked why so much importance was attached by Mr. Lansing to the second paragraph of the draft article. He enquired why the Allied and Associated Powers should not be left a free hand in the matter.

M. Pichon agreed. Furthermore, he wished to point out that the clause would be in entire contradiction with the existing laws of France, which allowed the enrolment of volunteers after naturalisation. In his opinion, the second paragraph as it stood at present could not be accepted as long as the present laws existed in France.

Mr. Lansing pointed out that unless some regulation to that effect were included in the draft article, certain nations not represented at that Meeting, whose armies had always been organised by German instructors, would continue to employ such instructors, merely naturalising them for the purpose.

M. Pichon agreed. On the other hand, he thought it would be impossible to adopt a text which would be in direct contradiction with the existing laws of the country.

Lord Hardinge enquired whether the difficulty would not be met by omitting the last two lines of the draft article, namely, the words: “and the Allied and Associated Powers further agree not to enrol or employ as aforesaid, any former German national.”

(This was agreed to.)

(It was agreed to accept the following draft article, which would be referred to the Council of Four for final decision in view of the reservation made by M. Pichon.

“Germany hereby agrees from and after the signature of the present treaty not to accredit to any foreign country or to send or to allow any military mission to leave its territory for any foreign country, and Germany further agrees to take appropriate measures to prevent German nationals from leaving its territory 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, or otherwise for the purpose of giving military, naval or aeronautic instruction in any foreign country.

The Allied and Associated Powers agree, on their part, from and after the signature of the present treaty not to enrol in their armies, or to attach to their armies or naval or air forces, any German national, for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof, or otherwise to employ any such German national as military, naval or aeronautic instructor.”)

2. The Establishment of a German Commission at or Near Paris to Facilitate the Conduct of Economic Negotiations M. Pichon said that the next question on the Agenda Paper related to the creation of a German Commission at or near Paris to facilitate the conduct of economic negotiations. The following memorandum dated April 15th 1919, submitted by the Supreme Economic Council had been circulated to the delegates of the Five Great Powers:—

“With a view to facilitating, giving unity to, and expediting the current negotiations in Germany of the Associated and Allied Powers, in connection with the provision of foodstuffs to Germany, the Supreme Economic Council strongly recommends that the German Government shall be requested to send immediately to a place to be designated in the very near neighbourhood of Paris technical experts on food, shipping, finance, raw materials, trade, and communications.

These delegates should be entrusted by their Government with full power to decide on all questions arising out of the provision of foodstuffs to Germany and on immediate economic relations with Germany.

They should be provided with proper and sufficient means of communication with their Government and with all necessary facilities to enable business to be transacted conveniently and rapidly.”

(It was agreed to accept the proposal to establish a German Commission at or near Paris to facilitate the conduct of economic negotiations, as above proposed.)

3. Present Status of the Commissions Set Up Under the Armistice With Germany and Their Relations to the Supreme Economic Council M. Pichon said that a memorandum (See W. C. P. 578) had been submitted by the Supreme Economic Council dealing with such questions as were not economic in their nature, and fell therefore outside the scope of the Supreme Economic Council. The proposals contained in the memorandum had received the approval of the French authorities. Briefly those proposals could be summed up as follows:—

• “1. That an Inter-Allied Commission, consisting of four Commissioners, one from each Ally concerned with the administration of the occupied territories, should, together with an Italian liaison officer, be set up with full authority to co-ordinate the administration of the four Army Commands on all economic, industrial and food questions, in accordance with the policy laid down from time to time by the Supreme Economic Council.
• 2. That orders should be issued under the authority of the Supreme War Council to the Army Commands in the various areas, that directions given by the Commission shall be uniformly executed throughout the whole area.”

Mr. Lansing enquired for what period of time the proposed Inter-Allied Commission would be expected to function.

M. Pichon explained that the Supreme Economic Council had only been created for the period of the armistice. Consequently, as soon as the Peace Treaty came to be signed, the armistice would end, and the Supreme Economic Council would cease to function, unless steps were taken to prolong its existence. The same procedure would obviously apply to the new proposed Inter-Allied Commission.

Lord Robert Cecil agreed.

Mr. Lansing said that on that understanding he was quite willing to accept the proposals contained in the memorandum submitted by the Supreme Economic Council for the Council of Ten.

(It was agreed to accept the proposals contained in the Memorandum submitted by the Supreme Economic Council. See W. C. P. 578.)

(The Meeting then adjourned to Tuesday afternoon April 22nd at 3.00 p.m.)

Paris, 21st April, 1919.