Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/8
FM–8
Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, 23rd April, 1919, at 3 p.m.
| Present | Also Present |
| America, United States of | America, United States of |
| Hon. Henry White | Captain L. McNamee |
| Secretary | Colonel E. G. Gorrell |
| Mr. L. Harrison | Captain Perrin |
| British Empire | Dr. R. H. Lord |
| The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour | Mr. J. F. Dulles |
| Secretaries | Dr. Seymour |
| Mr. H. Norman | Dr. S. E. Mezes |
| Mr. E. Phipps | British Empire |
| France | Sir Eyre Crowe |
| M. Pichon | Sir Herbert J. Read |
| Secretaries | Sir Robert Garran |
| M. Arnavon | Brig. General P. R. C. Groves |
| Capt. de St. Quentin | Lt. Col. J. H. M. Cornwall |
| Italy | Capt. E. H. Tindal Atkinson |
| M. de Martino | France |
| Secretary | M. Simon |
| M. Bertele | M. Cambon |
| Japan | M. de Peretti |
| H. E. Baron Makino | Capt. Roper |
| Italy | |
| Marquis della Torretta | |
| M. Piacentini | |
| Commdt. Guidoni |
Joint Secretariat
| America, United States of | Lieut. Burden |
| British Empire | Capt. E. Abraham |
| France | Capt. A. Portier |
| Italy | Lieut. Zanchi |
| Japan | M. Kawai |
| Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck. | |
1. M. Pichon asked Mr. White to read the draft Article which he understood had been prepared by the American delegation.
Article for Insertion in Treaty of Peace, Freeing From Responsibility to Germany, Powers Which Broke Off Diplomatic and Commercial Relations Mr. White read the following draft which had been prepared by Mr. Lansing, in accordance with the general principle agreed to by all Powers:—
“Germany hereby agrees not to make any pecuniary claim of any kind directly or indirectly against any of the Allied and Associated belligerent Powers, or against any of the Powers which have severed diplomatic relations with her, based on events which occurred at any time before the coming into force of the present treaty. All such claims, whether by Governments, states, municipalities, corporations, or private individuals, are hereby declared to be barred, and finally extinguished.”
M. Pichon inquired whether any delegates had any comments to make on this draft.
Mr. Balfour said that the draft appeared to him to be unobjectionable, but he would enquire whether it had been before the Drafting Committee; if not, it would seem reasonable that it should be referred to it after the meeting had considered it in principle.
Mr. White concurred that if the Council approved the tenor of the proposed Article, the draft should be referred to the Drafting Committee.
(The proposed Article was approved in principle, and the American draft was referred to the Drafting Committee for adaptation and insertion among the clauses of the Preliminary Treaty of Peace.)
2. The following draft was before the meeting:—
- 1.
- Articles for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace Giving the Allied and Associated Powers the Right To Fly and Alight on Enemy Territory After the Conclusion of Peace Without Reciprocity “The aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall be accorded full liberty of passage and landing over and in the territory and territorial waters of Germany, and shall while exercising any rights of passage or landing in Germany enjoy full national treatment particularly in case of distress by land or sea.
- 2.
- The aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall, while in transit to any other State, enjoy the right of flying over the territory and territorial waters of Germany without landing.
- 3.
- All aerodromes in Germany open to national public traffic shall be open for the aircraft of Allied and Associated States, and in any such aerodrome such aircraft shall be treated on a footing of equality with German aircraft as regard charges of every description, including charges for landing and accommodation. In addition to the aerodromes mentioned above Germany undertakes to provide and construct aerodromes in such other places as may, within one year from the date of the signature of the Treaty of Peace, be designated for this purpose by the Allied and Associated States and the provisions as to charges mentioned above shall apply in the case of any such aerodromes.
- 4.
- All certificates of nationality, certificates of airworthiness, certificates of competency and licences, issued or rendered valid by any of the Allied or Associated States shall be recognised by Germany as valid and as equivalent to corresponding certificates and licences issued to German aircraft.
- 5.
- As regards internal commercial air traffic the aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall enjoy throughout Germany treatment accorded to aircraft of the most favoured nation.
- 6.
- Germany undertakes to adopt measures to ensure that every German aircraft flying above its territory shall comply with the Rules as to Lights and Signals, Rules of the Air and Rules for Air Traffic on and in the vicinity of aerodromes contained in the Convention relating to International Air Navigation made between the Allied and Associated States.
- 7.
- The obligations imposed by these clauses shall continue until such time as Germany (is admitted either to the League of Nations or,) by consent of the Allied and Associated States, is permitted to adhere to the Convention relating to International Air Navigation made by the latter States.
Note: Similar clauses can be adapted for application to other enemy powers.”
M. Pichon said that he understood this draft was agreed to by the French and British Delegations.
Mr. Balfour said that he had examined the draft together with his experts, and the only article which appeared to him questionable was Article 3. The second clause of this Article stipulated that the Germans should construct aerodromes wherever it might appear convenient to the Allied and Associated Powers to have aerodromes established. This, he thought, was an irritating clause, and one from which the Allies would derive little benefit. He raised no objection to the first clause in the third Article, but the second clause appeared to him unreasonable, and he would prefer to suppress it.
Mr. White expressed agreement with Mr. Balfour.
M. de Martino said he was informed that the object of this provision was to give power to demand the creation of aerodromes in Germany, which might be required for the establishment of big International air routes. It was quite possible that the Germans might exhibit systematic ill-will towards international arrangements of this kind. Without some such clause as the one under discussion the Allies would have no power to enforce compliance from them.
Mr. Balfour admitted that there was much force in the argument put forward by M. de Martino. He pointed out, however, that for traffic from east to west, there already existed in Germany a sufficient number of aerodromes. The use of these aerodromes by the Allied and Associated Powers was ensured by the first part of Article 3. The second part of Article 3 stipulated that the Allied and Associated Powers must signify their wishes within one year of the [Page 604] date of the signature of the Treaty of Peace. He questioned whether this interval was sufficient to give the means of fulfilling M. de Martino’s purpose.
M. de Martino said that he did not wish to insist, in as much as he felt that the obvious advantage of facilitating international traffic would ultimately be sufficient to prevail over any remaining ill-will from the Germans. It would alone in time, induce them to build the desired aerodromes.
Baron Makino agreed to the suppression of the second clause of Article 3.
M. Pichon then declared this clause suppressed and the remainder of the Article accepted.
Captain McNamee said that he had a comment to make on Article 7. This Article provided for the admission of Germany to the Convention relating to International Air Navigation, either as a consequence of admission to the League of Nations, or by consent of the Allied and Associated States. He pointed out that this was inconsistent with the Convention, itself, which contained no provision for the adhesion of Germany. Article 40 of that Convention provided that powers which had not taken part in the present war should be admitted to adhere, but there was no provision for Powers other than the signatories which had taken part in the war.
Mr. Balfour suggested that the matter be referred to the Drafting Committee with the object of reconciling the two texts.
Captain Roper said that there was really no contradiction as the Commission dealing with the Convention on Aerial Navigation had never intended to exclude Germany for ever from the Convention. He thought the period after which Germany might be admitted was a matter for the Supreme Council to decide. The present text of the Convention was not final, and was being considered by the Drafting Committee of the Commission. A change could easily be made in order to produce harmony between the Convention itself and the clauses to be inserted in the Treaty.
Captain McNamee expressed the opinion that there should be a time limit expressed; otherwise there was an appearance of tampering indefinitely with the sovereignty of Germany.
M. Pichon said that if this were regarded as a derogation to German sovereignty, Germany would have to complain of many other such. The same might be alleged with regard to her admission to the League of Nations, which could only be by the consent of the original members.
Mr. Balfour observed that the clause contained two alternatives; one, that Germany should become a party to the Convention as soon as admitted to the League of Nations; secondly, that she might become a party to the Convention when the Allied and Associated [Page 605] Powers consented. He was personally willing only to state the first alternative, should the American Delegates prefer it.
Captain McNamee said that he preferred the second alternative.
M. Pichon said in that case, it would be preferable to maintain both.
Mr. White said that he would prefer to reserve consent of the American Delegation to this Article until he had had time to consult Mr. Lansing, who was an authority on International Law.
Captain Roper observed that the preservation of both alternatives in the Article was advantageous to Germany, as she might be admitted to the Convention before becoming party to the League of Nations. Commercial reasons might make it desirable to allow this.
(The draft articles for insertion in the Peace Treaty as stated above, with the omission of the second sentence in Article 3, and subject to the agreement of Mr. Lansing, were adopted.
It was further decided to ask the Drafting Committee of the Commission framing the Convention on International Air Navigation to adapt the Convention to the above Articles.)
3. The Meeting had before it a French proposal for the text of which see Appendix “A”.
Articles for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace Regarding the Disposal of the German Colonies Mr. Balfour said that he had one general observation to make. The French Delegation proposed an elaborate code applicable only to German Colonies. He asked whether it would not be simpler to apply to such territory stipulations already made for European territory to be ceded by Germany. He was not aware of any reason which necessitated a different system in Togoland, for instance, from the system imposed in territory to be ceded to Poland, or to any other country in Europe.
M. Pichon said perhaps the Drafting Committee might be able to judge whether there were colonial cases which were not covered by the principles laid down for European territory. It was desirable to see that all cases were covered, and he therefore suggested that the proposals be referred to the Drafting Committee.
M. Simon said that there was little analogy between the way Germany was asked to part from European territory, and that in which she was compelled to cede territory in Africa or in the Pacific. He gave as an example the demand made on Germany that all European Germans in the Colonies should be repatriated within a certain time.
M. Pichon said that this made it clear that a comparative study was necessary.
Mr. Balfour observed that he did not deny the existence of differing cases. The differences, he thought however, were rather between the conditions of the various Colonies than between Colonial territory as such and European territory. He suggested, with reference to [Page 606] the former, that it might be better to leave the Mandatory Power freedom to deal with German subjects and property in the territory entrusted to them.
M. Pichon said that, even so, mention of the matter must be made in the Peace Preliminaries. Otherwise the Powers to whom control of Colonial territories was entrusted would be without legal status as regards Germany to take any action concerning German subjects. Some general principles should, therefore, be inserted in the Treaty.
Mr. Balfour then suggested that as the matter was one of policy it might be as well, before referring it to the Drafting Committee, to have it dealt with by a Commission composed of one expert from each of the five nations.
Mr. White expressed the opinion that many of the questions involved had already been dealt with by the Economic and Financial Commissions. The remainder, he thought, should be left to the League of Nations.
M. Simon said that the task of the Commission suggested by Mr. Balfour would be to adapt to Colonial territory the principles already adopted by the Economic and Financial Commissions.
Mr. Balfour asked whether it would be possible to refer the question to the Economic Commission.
It was pointed out that this Commission had terminated its work.
Baron Makino said that he noticed after reading the proposed Articles that some were of general application while others appeared to concern French interests alone. There were other special interests to be considered. He therefore thought that there should be a body whose task it would be to see that no special cases were missed. He was afraid that the conclusions reached by the Economic Commission might not cover all the special cases relating to the Colonies. The lacunae could be filled by the Commission proposed by Mr. Balfour. He therefore supported Mr. Balfour’s proposal.
M. de Martino also expressed his agreement.
M. Pichon said that the task of the Commission would be to take into consideration the decisions of the Economic and Financial Commissions affecting the subject under discussion, to examine to what extent they covered the cases of Colonial territory and, if necessary, to suggest supplementary clauses for insertion in the Preliminary Peace Treaty.
(It was then decided that a Commission, with the terms of reference expressed by M. Pichon, be set up immediately, and that it be asked to report to the Council as early as possible. The following Members were then nominated:—
| For United States of America | Mr. G. Beer |
| For Great Britain | |
| For France | M. de Peretti |
| For Italy | M. Piacentini |
| For Japan | M. nagaoka.) |
4. M. Pichon proposed the following draft:—
Article for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace Regarding Arms Traffic “Germany undertakes to recognise and approve special provisions agreed upon or to be agreed upon by the Allied and Associated Powers with all other Powers, relating to traffic in arms and spirits, as well as other substances considered in the general Convention of Berlin of February 26th, 18851 and of Brussels of July 2nd, 1890.”2
(This Article was adopted for insertion in the Preliminary Treaty of Peace.)
5. M. Pichon said that as M. Cambon was detained in a Meeting of the Central Committee he would ask Mr. Laroche to explain the question.
Report on Czecho-Polish Frontiers, Particularly in the Region of Teschen, W. C. P/625: (a) Region of Spisz and Orava Mr. Laroche said that there were three questions for examination, that of Teschen, that of Spisz and Orava and that of Ratibor. The line of demarcation between Czecho-Slovakia and Poland in the East had first been fixed so as to follow the crest of the Carpathians. There were a few Polish villages south of that line, but it had been held preferable to follow the crest as offering a natural frontier, which, moreover, had the advantage of being identical with the administrative frontier between Galicia and the Hungarian province south of it. This solution preserved established administrative habits.
At the request of the Polish delegates who appealed to ethnic considerations, the matter was studied afresh by the Commission on Polish affairs and the Commission on Czecho-Slovak affairs jointly.
This re-examination confirmed the conclusions previously reached regarding the region of Orava. The frontier following the watershed appeared incontestably the best.
As regards the region of Spisz, the Special Commission made some modifications; the frontier in this region did not follow the crest of the mountains. A frontier geographically more satisfactory was adopted which yielded some dozen villages to the Poles. The possession of Orava, on the other hand, would have given the Poles a footing in the upper valleys of Czecho-Slovakia.
Mr. Balfour said that he had no criticisms to make. The question had been studied in a most careful manner, not by a committee which might have been suspected of partiality, but by two committees jointly, both extremely well-informed of the questions in hand. This mixed commission had reached an almost unanimous conclusion and he did not feel competent to question what had been decided.
[Page 608](The Report of the Joint Czecho-Slovak and Polish Commissions dated April 6th, 1919 (WCP/625) relating to the regions of Spisz and Orava was adopted.)
(b) Region of Teschen M. Laroche said that this region had been the subject of bitter contest between the Poles and the Czecho-Slovaks. The larger part of the region was Polish but it also contained a considerable number of Czechs. The object of the controversy was firstly, the mining district of Karwin, secondly, the railway line running east and west from Cracow to Ratibor and the line Oderberg–Teschen–Jablunkau, requisite to establish communications in the Czecho-Slovak State with the Slovak regions south of the Carpathian.
The Duchy of Teschen was part of regions attached to Austria and the view had been frequently put forward in the Commission that the Duchy should be attached to Galicia, also formerly part of Austria. In reality the district had been chiefly connected with Hungary, whereas Poland would mainly be constituted out of territory taken from Russia and Silesia.
The ethnological question had been taken into account. One district had been assigned to Poland and the three districts of Friedek, Freistadt and Teschen were assigned to the Czecho-Slovak State. The question was really a larger question—that of reconciling the Czechs and the Poles. On the Czech side the economic argument has been used showing the absolute necessity of coal and coke for the new State. On the Polish side ethnological reasons had been given first place and economic reasons had also been alleged; but Poland was able to find coal elsewhere. As to the railway lines 4 delegations voted in favour of the partition described; the Italian Delegation offered a line more favourable to the Poles.
At an earlier stage a solution had been unanimously accepted which left the eastern portion to the Poles, keeping for the Czechs the railway line Oderberg-Jablunkau, giving to the Poles the town of Oderberg and the line Cracow-Ratibor. This solution was impracticable.
At the request of a delegation from Teschen the creation of an independent State was considered but the proposal was rejected. It would have set up in the centre of Europe at a very point where national struggles are so acute, a frail state unable to survive.
It then became necessary to consider the attribution of this region as a whole to one State or its partition. Partition was unanimously agreed on, even by the Italian Delegation, though the latter proposed a slightly different line of demarcation.
This long summary indicated the care with which the Commission had dealt with this delicate matter. Though there was not unanimity, [Page 609] 4 delegates had adopted a line slightly at variance from the first; because, seeing that an ideal line was not to be found, they thought it best to disturb as little as possible the administrative habits of the populations concerned. The division proposed left Bielitz to the Poles and gave to the Czecho-Slovaks 3 districts, one of which was undoubtedly Czech—that of Friedek and the other Freistadt and Teschen, mainly Polish. The Czechs further obtained the mining district of Karwin and the line connecting Moravia and Slovakia. The Commission was in the following dilemma; it must either reject the ethnological principle or sacrifice the economic future of the country. The Teschen Commission had proposed a line ethnologically more accurate but it was thought undesirable to cut in two the mining district of Karwin which represents an economic unit chiefly in relation with Czecho-Slovak districts. Many of the delegates reluctantly abandoned the ethnological principle, but nevertheless did so in the hope that in a few years the passions of the moment would be appeased and that economic interests would preserve their importance. The Italian Delegation nevertheless had held fast to a slightly different line. The majority was unwilling to neglect ethnological considerations entirely and concluded that the feelings of the populations might more easily be appeased if they were not too directly in contact with Czecho-Slovak administration. In consideration of the mixture of races, tempered no doubt by community of interest, it appeared desirable to arrange for local autonomy in as large measure as possible for this region, by common agreement between the Czecho-Slovaks and the Poles. Finally, though the economic reasons were more vital to the Czechs than to the Poles, the latter had not been sacrificed in this respect and the Commission had suggested that an economic agreement be made at once in favour of the Poles in order that friction should in future be avoided.
M. Martino said that he proposed to explain briefly the slightly different point of view of the Italian Delegation, especially as the American Delegates at the beginning had appeared to share that point of view themselves. The Italian Delegation was of the opinion that the solution just explained to the Meeting did not take sufficiently into account the Ethnological conditions, and that it damaged Polish economic interests. No doubt economic unity deserved consideration, but as regards communications this consideration should not be too narrowly adhered to, seeing that there were quite separate mines in the district. Many Polish industries in these areas depended on local coal; these industries should not be sacrificed. It was true that Poland had coal elsewhere but this coal was far distant. The solution adopted by the majority gave no coal to Poland. The Italian proposal would give Poland three to four million tons out of a yearly output of eleven million tons. From the ethnological point of view [Page 610] the majority solution handed over to Czecho-Slovakia a Polish population of 167,000 souls. This was a great danger and various persons lately returned from these regions asserted that this would produce a very perilous future for the country. The Italian Delegation considered therefore that the line it proposed safeguarded national sentiment to a greater degree, as it only attributed 50,000 Poles to the Czecho-Slovak state. It also divided the mining resources more equitably, in the proportion of one quarter to Poland and three quarters to Czecho-Slovakia. Finally, out of the four railway lines, the frontier only cut the line Oderberg-Teschen. To preserve Czecho-Slovak interests all that was required was to put down a connecting line, no longer than 15 kilometres, which would make the whole line independent. While this work was in hand the line might be worked under the control of the Allies. Further, this shortening of the line would be very favourable to the Czecho-Slovaks as goods sent from Prague to Jablunkau would be saved the detour to the North via Teschen. It would seem therefore that the connecting line was sure to be built at some date. Lastly, the agitation among the mining population of Karwin must be taken into account. There were among this population more than 20,000 Poles absolutely determined to be attached to Poland. The Italian Delegation did not think that the proposal for wide local autonomy would satisfy the ethnological and economic desiderata of the Poles. The Italian Delegation therefore requested the Council to consider their proposal, which like the proposal of the majority, only sought the best means of reconciling two future states which ought to preserve friendly relations.
Mr. White said that Mr. Lansing who was unfortunately unwell, had asked him to make a statement on his behalf. He greatly regretted that Mr. Lansing had been unable to attend as he had studied the question very carefully. Mr. Lansing did not consider that the decision on the subject of Teschen was very urgent, as it did not affect the frontiers of Germany with which the Conference was at present concerned. Mr. Lansing thought that it would be far better that representatives of the two states, namely, M. Paderewski and M. Benes, should discuss this problem in order that, failing complete agreement, they should at least reduce the divergences of view to the finest possible point. Should there remain any difficulties, an umpire could then be appointed. Mr. Lansing further proposed that the Drafting Committee should slightly modify the article by which Germany undertakes to recognise new states, among others, the Czecho-Slovak Republic, in such a way as to require from Germany recognition of this state “within the frontiers subsequently to be laid down for it by the Allied and Associated Powers.” Mr. Lansing’s impression was that there had already been conversations between M. Paderewski and M. Benes and that little remained to bring about [Page 611] an agreement between them. Both these statesmen were Allied statesmen and it was in the interests of all that they should come to a mutual agreement if possible, without having any solution imposed upon them by the Conference.
Mr. Balfour said that the statement just made by Mr. White was very important. He was not aware that M. Paderewski and M. Benes were on the point of reaching an agreement; such a solution was undoubtedly the best as it would avoid any dictated agreement. For this reason, even if the chances were very small, he would prefer to adjourn the discussion, seeing that an immediate solution was not indispensable for the framing of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. He therefore supported Mr. White’s proposal.
M. Pichon agreed that this appeared to be the best solution and asked whether the Commission had any objection.
M. Cambon said that he saw none. He would point out, however, that the matter must form part of the Treaty with Austria. The solution therefore should not be too long delayed.
Mr. White said he would see M. Paderewski that evening and would, if so desired, beg him to hasten the solution as much as possible.
M. Cambon said that, as Mr. Lansing had been informed of these conversations, he thought it would be as well if he begged the Polish and Czecho-Slovak Ministers to reach not only a speedy agreement, but one likely to avoid any sense of soreness in future for either party. It must be remembered that Czecho-Slovakia was a state with a curious outline; this state would have to reorganise its means of communication radically. The connecting line proposed by M. de Martino might appear trifling in itself, but was not unimportant in connection with many other works of this kind that would have to be undertaken.
M. Martino said that he very willingly supported Mr. White’s proposal and was glad to learn that there was good hope of a solution. He had been quite unaware of any such conversations, but he had hopes that an agreement would be reached, as on November 5th last the two governments had already signed a compact,3 both concerning territorial questions and the possession of the mines.
Mr. White said that he would inform Mr. Lansing of the opinions just expressed. Mr. Lansing had not been present at the conversations mentioned but had only been informed that they had taken place.
M. Cambon said that as the Council proposed to allow conversations to continue between M. Paderewski and M. Benes, he could only express the wish that they would reach a satisfactory conclusion. [Page 612] He would point out, however, that the agreement of the 5th November had never been executed and for this reason the Commission had prepared a Note, in view of the decision to be taken by the Council, with the object of requesting the Governments at Prague and Warsaw to see that any decision reached should be executed. He suggested that this point should be made clear by Mr. Lansing.
Mr. White said he would inform Mr. Lansing.
(It was decided to postpone for the moment any solution of the Teschen question in the hope that M. Paderewski and M. Benes would reach an agreement).
(c) Region of Ratibor M. Cambon said that this question was intimately connected with the question of Teschen. He thought that the Council might wait for the solution of the latter question.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that it was urgent to settle the Ratibor point as it concerned the frontiers of Germany.
M. Laroche said that the Commission had unanimously adopted a line which was submitted to Council. The object of this line was to attach to Moravia certain islands of Moravian population while respecting the Leobschutz-Ratibor line of communication which remained in Polish territory.
(The line of demarcation proposed by the Commissions on Polish and on Czecho-Slovak affairs in their report of April 6th (W. C. P. 625) was accepted.)
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Paris, 24th April, 1919.
- Great Britain, C. 4739, Africa No. 3 (1886).↩
- Great Britain, C. 6048, Africa No. 7 (1890).↩
- For text of compact, see Commission polonaise des travaux préparatoires au Congrès de la Paix, Mémoire concernant la délimitation des frontières entre les états polonais et tchéco-slovaque en Silésie de Cieszyn, Orawa et Spisz, annexe B 4, pp. 27–31. (Paris Peace Conf. 186.3114/5)↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩