Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/20
FM–20
Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Saturday, 24th May, 1919, at 3 p.m.
| Present | Also Present |
| America, United States of | America, United States of |
| Hon. R. Lansing | General Tasker H. Bliss |
| Secretary | Mr. Hoover |
| Mr. L. Harrison | Mr. Morison |
| British Empire | British Empire |
| The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P. | Rear Admiral G. P. W. Hope, C. B. |
| Secretary | Capt. C. T. M. Fuller, C. M. G. |
| Mr. E. Phipps | Major Gen. W. Thwaites, C. B. |
| France | Sir Esme Howard, K. C. B., K. C. M. G. |
| M. Pichon | I. Malcolm, Esq., M. P. |
| Secretaries | Lt. Col. S. Peel |
| Capt. de St. Quentin | Mr. O. T. Falk |
| M. de Bearn | Hon. A. Akers-Douglas |
| Italy | France |
| H. E. Baron Sonnino | Admiral Ronarch |
| Secretary | Capt. Levavasseur |
| M. Bertele | Colonel Georges |
| Japan | Italy |
| M. Matsui | Marquis della Torretta |
| Secretary | Count Vinci |
| M. Kawai | Capt. Guidoni |
| Capt. Jung |
Joint Secretariat
| America, United States of | Lieut. C. Burden | |
| British Empire | Major A. M. Caccia | |
| France | { | Capt. A. Portier |
| M. Fould | ||
| Italy | Lieut. Zanchi | |
| Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck. | ||
1. M. Pichon said that the first question on the Agenda Paper related to the withdrawal of the German troops from the Baltic Provinces and Russian Polish Front. The question had been raised by Marshal Foch in a letter dated 13th May 1919 which had been circulated on the 17th May 1919 (See W. C. P. 805). He would call on Colonel Georges to state the facts of the case. Withdrawal of German Troops From Baltic Provinces and Russian Polish Front
[Page 767]Colonel Georges said that in a letter dated the 9th May 1919, General von Hammerstein, the President of the German Armistice Commission, had informed the President of the Interallied Armistice Commission that the German Government would, within a short time, withdraw all the fighting forces from Lettland and Lithuania. General von Hammerstein’s letter went on to state that the German Government had already taken preparatory measures with a view to bringing about a suspension of arms with a consequential Armistice with the troops opposed to them: that the withdrawal of the troops would take place within a period sufficient to assure the security of the property of the German Empire in Lettland and Lithuania; and that the responsibility for the consequences following upon the evacuation of Lettland and Lithuania would fall upon the Allied and Associated Powers.
At the same time, the Polish National Committee had requested the Allied and Associated Governments to intervene with Marshal Foch in order that he might summon the German troops to evacuate the territories of Grodno and Suvalki and to retire within the territories of Germany.
Both these demands had reference to the interpretation to be given to Clause 12 of the Armistice of the 11th November, 1918, namely:—
“All German troops at present in any territory which before the war belonged to Russia, Roumania, or Turkey, shall withdraw within the frontiers of Germany as they existed on August 1st, 1914, and all German troops at present in the territories which before the war formed part of Russia must likewise return to within the frontiers of Germany as above defined as soon as the Allies shall think the moment suitable having regard to the internal situation of those territories.”
It appeared, therefore, that on the one hand the Germans threatened to withdraw their troops from the territories in question; whilst on the other hand, the Polish Government on the strength of Article 12 of the Armistice, called for the evacuation of the zone at the back of the Polish forces.
Mr. Lansing enquired whether the zone of Vilna was at present occupied by the Poles.
Colonel Georges replied that Vilna itself was at present occupied by the Poles; at the back of Vilna existed a zone which was traversed by railway lines, which were necessary for the despatch of supplies from Poland to the Polish forces on the Vilna front. It was an interesting fact, calling for serious consideration, that the Germans had remained in occupation of those railway lines, and that they had lately concentrated considerable forces in that quarter.
Mr. Lansing enquired whether Colonel Georges referred to the railway line between Vilna and Grodno?
[Page 768]Colonel Georges replied that he would enter into that question in greater detail when dealing with the suggestion for fixing a line of demarcation between the Polish and German zones of occupation.
Colonel Georges, continuing, said that the object Marshal Foch had kept in mind in referring General von Hammerstein’s Note of the 9th May to the Council, had been to obtain a ruling in regard to the conditions which should govern the application of Clause 12 of the Armistice of the 11th November in regard to the Polish-German-Lithuanian front. These conditions were three in number, namely:—
- Firstly—the immediate evacuation by the German troops of the zone at the back of the Polish Army operating in the Vilna region;
- Secondly—to draw the attention of the Germans that it is their duty to maintain their forces on Lithuania and Lettish fronts until the Entente should authorise them to withdraw the same;
- Thirdly—to organise with as little delay as possible under an interallied control, the local forces in Lithuania and Latvia in order to enable these to take the place of the Germans on their respective fronts.
On the 23rd May, an agreement had been reached in regard to questions 2 and 3 above.
Mr. Lansing enquired by whom this agreement had been reached.
Colonel Georges replied that the decision had been reached by the Foreign Ministers themselves at the meeting held yesterday.
Mr. Lansing maintained that at yesterday’s meeting no mention had been made of Poland. The Ministers had only dealt with Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia.
Colonel Georges agreed. He explained, however, that Poland was in no way involved. He had considered the question as a whole and had divided the same into two parts: the one, dealing with Latvia and Lithuania, which had been discussed and disposed of at Yesterday’s meeting; the other, relating to the Polish zone of occupation in the region of Vilna, which it was proposed should be settled at that meeting.
Mr. Lansing enquired whether the question which Colonel Georges raised had anything to do with the dispute between the Letts and the Poles, who were at the present moment furiously fighting with one another.
Colonel Georges replied that the question under consideration was merely a Germano-Polish one.
Mr. Balfour enquired whether the only problem to be brought before the Council on that date related to the withdrawal of the Germans from the territory now occupied by them at the back of the Polish lines.
Colonel Georges replied in the affirmative, since the rest of the problem had been settled on the previous day.
Colonel Georges, resuming, said that the Polish front under consideration [Page 769] began south of the Lettish town of Vilkomir, then ran in a south-easterly direction, passing 40 miles to the East of the town of Vilna, whence it passed through Soli and proceeded in the direction of Baranovichi. The northern portion of this zone, the region of Vilna, was crossed by two railway lines—the Byelostok-Grodno-Vilna line, and the Suvalki-Olita line, which joined the previous one at Roani [Orany]. These railway lines constituted the only means of communication between Poland proper and the Polish front in the region of Vilna. It was therefore, absolutely necessary that the Poles should have the full control and the free use of these railway lines. With that object in view, General Henrys had proposed that the Germans should be compelled to withdraw their troops from the territory in question, a line of demarcation, separating the Polish zone of occupation from the German zone of occupation, being laid down to the north, to pass through Lyudvinof, Balverjishki, Dersunishki, Jigmori, Chakiski, and south of Vilkomir. It was hoped that this would definitely put a stop to the concentration of German troops which continued to take place at Suvalki, and at Augustovo in the railway zone.
Mr. Lansing said that he had been supplied with a map giving the line of demarcation proposed by General Henrys. That line had been referred to the Commission on Polish Affairs by whom it had been rejected. Consequently, he thought, much time would be saved if the proposed line of demarcation between Lithuania and Poland were not discussed further.
Mr. Balfour enquired whether the line of demarcation now under discussion constituted a military or a political line. In other words, was it a line which was to form the actual future political boundary between the States of Lithuania and Poland? Or, was it merely a temporary line which was to be laid down in order to ease the existing military situation? If the line was intended to represent the future political boundary line, he agreed with Mr. Lansing that the Council was not competent at present to discuss the question. But, if the line were a purely military one, then, he thought, Mr. Lansing need feel no anxiety in arriving at a decision.
Mr. Lansing held that if the proposal were to lay down a temporary military line, the question should be referred for decision to the Military Representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments. His information went to show that the Lithuanians were actually in arms, ready to resist further Polish advances. Consequently, the Council should be very careful in dealing with this question.
Colonel Georges explained that the line of demarcation proposed by General Henrys was based solely on military considerations. The Polish front at present extended to the East of Vilna and it was impossible to leave all the lines of communication in possession of the [Page 770] Germans, as it would enable them at any moment to interrupt the flow of supplies to Vilna. Furthermore, in the event of an attack by the Germans, the possession of the lines of communication would at once constitute a serious menace to the Polish troops around Vilna. From a military point of view, the question required immediate attention; but the solution of the military problem did not in any way imply a solution of the purely territorial question. The German troops occupying Lithuania to the north of the line of demarcation had no reason for occupying the railway to the south serving the Polish front, especially as the region in question was not German. Under these circumstances, Marshal Foch had recommended that the line of demarcation proposed by General Henrys should be accepted, thus separating the Polish and German zones of occupation. Marshal Foch had, at the same time, proposed certain slight improvements in General Henrys’ line of demarcation, so as to follow more closely the administrative boundaries, especially in the district of Vilkomir. It was extremely urgent, however, that some line of demarcation should be adopted, and that constituted the problem which the Council had been asked to solve.
Mr. Lansing said that he quite understood the position and, in a general way, he accepted the proposals made. Nevertheless, it should be provided that the area around Suvalki and Augustovo, which was Lithuanian, should be occupied only by Lithuanian troops and not by Polish troops. In this [his?] opinion, the Poles should be prevented from occupying Lithuanian territory just as much as the Germans.
Colonel Georges said that two obstacles could be opposed to Mr. Lansing’s proposals. In the first place, the Lithuanians had no troops which could be spared to garrison the territory in question. The Lithuanian forces at the present moment consisted of 4,000 men guarding the Eastern front and 3,000 men at depots in the interior. In the second place, it had been proposed to organise Lithuanian forces in order to defend the Eastern front. Should those troops be employed, as suggested, to garrison the vast territory to be evacuated by the German troops, no troops would be left with which to defend the Lithuanian frontiers against the advance of Bolshevik forces.
Mr. Lansing maintained that guarantees should be given that the Poles would not occupy the territory in question after the withdrawal of the Germans.
Colonel Georges explained that the zone to be evacuated by the Germans, including Suvalki, Augustovo and Seini, had been attributed to Poland by the Polish Territorial Commission. On the other hand, the Vilna zone was already occupied by Polish forces, and it was merely proposed that measures should be taken to prevent the Germans from going there. It had been suggested, in order to re-assure the Lithuanian Government, that the Allied and Associated Governments [Page 771] should inform it that the occupation of these territories by Polish forces was purely a temporary measure necessitated by the existing military situation and that it would in no way prejudge the final settlement of the territorial question.
Mr. Lansing thought that the Council could accede to the demands made by the Polish Government: but General Henrys’ proposals went a long way beyond the demands put forward by the Polish Government.
Colonel Georges explained that there were two questions to be considered. Firstly, the request of the Polish Government, aiming at the occupation and acquisition of the Augustovo-Suvalki-Seini zone. Secondly, the military question which called for the temporary occupation by the Poles of the areas at present occupied by German troops, situated at the back of the Vilna front, where the Polish forces set up a strong defensive line against Bolshevism. No reason existed why the zone at the back of that defensive line should be occupied by Germans, and the Allied and Associated Governments were, in accordance with the terms of Article 12 of the Armistice, justified in demanding the withdrawal of the German troops therefrom.
Mr. Lansing said he agreed to the withdrawal of the Germans from the Augustovo-Suvalki-Seini zone: but the area so evacuated should, in his opinion, be occupied by the Lithuanians, to whom the territory in question belonged, and not by the Poles.
M. Pichon invited attention to the decision reached by the Baltic Commission on this question, which read as follows:— (See W. C. P. 847).
“The withdrawal of the German troops provided for by the Armistice of the 11th November, must begin immediately in the districts (Powyats) of Augustovo, Suvalki, and in that part of the district of Seini to the west of the river Czernahanja (Marycha), districts which will in all probability be comprised within the future frontiers of Poland as well as in the district of Grodno.
“As regards the other territories affected by the line of demarcation of General Henrys, supplementary information should be obtained in regard to the political consequences of a withdrawal of the German troops in so far as the relations between the Lithuanians and the Poles are concerned so that as little really Lithuanian territory as possible may be occupied by Polish troops.”
He thought that the recommendations therein contained had an important bearing on the objections raised by Mr. Lansing.
Mr. Lansing said he would accept the proposals made by the Baltic Commission.
M. Sonnino thought that the proposals just read likewise gave effect to the wishes of Colonel Georges, who had asked that the Germans should withdraw from the Augustovo-Suvalki-Seini zone; the object in view being attained by laying down the line of demarcation proposed [Page 772] by General Henrys. He wished, however, to enquire from Colonel Georges whether the line of demarcation was intended to ensure free communication with the Lithuanian troops, or with the Polish troops in the Vilna region.
Colonel Georges replied that the line of demarcation was intended to protect the Polish troops on the Vilna front, since the Lithuanians had no troops there. The demarcation line, however, was essential to prevent the Germans from spreading from Vilkomir into the Vilna region, in the same way as they had spread into the Augustovo and Suvalki zone. The acceptance of the recommendations of the Baltic Commission disposed of one part of the question under reference. He would have preferred that a settlement should have been reached in regard to the whole problem. Under the circumstances, however, he asked that a telegram should be sent to General Nudant at Spa to communicate to him the decision taken in regard to the Augustovo-Suvalki region, a copy of the same being sent to General Henrys, in order that immediate effect might be given to the decision taken.
Mr. Lansing said that he, personally, would be prepared to go even beyond the recommendations of the Baltic Commission. He thought the Germans should be instructed to withdraw from the whole of the disputed area between General Henrys’ line of demarcation and the ethnic boundary line, on the understanding that the Poles should not occupy the territories so evacuated.
Colonel Georges understood this to mean that no German should be permitted to occupy territory to the south of the line of demarcation proposed.
Mr. Lansing agreed, but he added that his proposal also implied that no Pole should be allowed to advance north of the ethnic line. The intervening region between the line of demarcation and the ethnic line would, under these conditions, be occupied by the Lithuanians.
Colonel Georges remarked that no Lithuanian troops would be available to occupy that area.
Mr. Lansing said that, under those circumstances, the Germans should not be withdrawn. The only solution, therefore, would be to adhere strictly to the recommendations made by the Baltic Commission.
(It was agreed:—
- 1.
- To accept the resolutions of May 19th by the Commission on Baltic Affairs with regard to the proposals in Marshal Foch’s letter of May 13th concerning the German forces in Latvia (W. C. P. 847).
- 2.
- To forward a copy of the following resolution to General Nudant, President of the Permanent Armistice Commission at Spa, and to General Henrys, Head of the French Military Mission in Poland, for necessary action:—
“The withdrawal of the German troops provided for by the Armistice of the 11th November, must begin immediately in the districts (Powyats) of Augustovo, Suvalki, and in that part of the district of Seini to the west of the river Czernahanja (Marycha), districts which will in all probability be comprised within the future frontiers of Poland as well as in the district of Grodno.
As regards the other territories affected by the line of demarcation of General Henrys, supplementary information should be obtained in regard to the political consequences of a withdrawal of the German troops in so far as the relations between the Lithuanians and the Poles are concerned so that as little really Lithuanian territory as possible may be occupied by Polish troops”).
2. M. Pichon said that a memorandum prepared by the British Delegation had been circulated that afternoon in regard to the control of sailings to Northern Russia (W. C. P. 844). The Delegates had had no time to consult their experts. He asked, therefore, that the question should be adjourned to the next Meeting. Restrictions to be Imposed on Commercial Navigation With Northern Russia
Mr. Lansing agreed that the question should be adjourned. He wished to enquire, however, whether the proposals contained in the memorandum, submitted by the British Delegation, applied only to Murmansk and Archangel.
Admiral Hope replied that the proposals related only to the control of sailings to the White Sea ports.
Mr. Balfour said that he understood the American, Italian and Japanese Delegations had no objections to offer to the proposals put forward by the British Delegation. Should the French authorities, after carefully studying the memorandum likewise have no objections to offer, he thought the recommendations therein contained should forthwith be given effect to, without further reference to the Council.
Mr. Lansing agreed to accept Mr. Balfour’s proposal on the understanding that it would not form a precedent.
(It was agreed that the recommendations contained in the memorandum (W. C. P. 844) submitted by the British Delegation in regard to the control of sailings to Northern Russia (White Sea ports) should be adopted, subject to the approval of the French authorities, which would be communicated direct to the British Naval authorities.)
3. M. Pichon invited attention to a letter dated 16th May 1919, addressed by Dr. Benes to M. Clemenceau, containing a request from the Czecho-Slovak Delegation for the insertion of financial clauses in the Treaty of Peace with Austria and Hungary. (See W. C. P. 851.) The proposals of the Czecho-Slovak Delegation had reference to four subjects, namely:—(1) the pre-war debt; (2) the war debt; (3) the question of State property of liberated Czecho-Slovak territory; and (4) the question of Austro-Hungarian bank notes. Financial Clauses for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace With Austria-Hungary
[Page 774]Mr. Lansing proposed that questions (1) and (2) should be referred to the Financial Commission and questions (3) and (4) to the Commission on Reparations.
(In regard to the note received from the Czecho-Slovak Delegation, it was agreed to refer the draft dealing with (1) the pre-war debt and (2) the war debt to the Financial Commission, and the draft clauses dealing with (3) the question of State property of liberated Czecho-Slovak territory and (4) the question of Austro-Hungarian Bank Notes to the Reparation Commission.)
4. M. Pichon said that in a letter dated 13th May 1919, M. Hymans, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Belgium had transmitted a demand of the Belgian Government for the restoration of objects of interest now in Austria, (Appendix A). He proposed that the whole question should be referred to the Commission on Reparations for report. Demand of the Belgian Government for the Restoration of Objects of Interest Now in Austria
Mr. Lansing thought that the request for the return of a picture by Rubens, known as “The Tryplique [Triptyque] de St. Ildephonse”, required some consideration. The work of art in question had apparently been sold to the Vienna Gallery for 40,000 Florins. He failed to see why that picture should now be restored to Belgium. In his opinion objects of value which had been stolen by Austria or taken for safe custody to Vienna should be restored, but he did not think that ruling should apply to objects of Art that had been sold, even under pressure.
Mr. Balfour in this connection invited attention to the claim put forward by Belgium for the return of the treasure known as the “Fleece of Gold”. This treasure originally belonged to the ancient Dukes of Burgundy. In the course of centuries part of the Duchy of Burgundy became attached to the Crown of Austria, and accordingly orders were given by the Monarchy of Austria for the removal of certain treasures from the Duchy to Vienna. It did not appear quite clear on what ground Belgium claimed to inherit property, which had belonged to the Duchy of Burgundy.
Baron Sonnino invited attention to the fact that the question of the delivery of the “Fleece of Gold” to Belgium had already been considered by the Commission on Reparations and the following draft Article had received approval:—
“Article XVI. In carrying out the provisions of Article VIII, Austria undertakes to surrender to each of the Allied and Associated Powers respectively, all records, documents, objects of antiquity and of Art, and all scientific and bibliographical material taken away from the invaded territory whether they belonged to the State or to provinciali, communal, charitable or ecclesiastical administrations or other public or private Institutions.
[Page 775]Annexe II. Objects and documents removed for safety from Belgium to Austria in 1794:—
- (a)
- Arms, Armour and other objects from the Old Arsenal of Brussels.
- (b)
- The treasure of the “Toison d’or” preserved in previous times in the “Chapelle de la Cour” in Brussels.
- (c)
- Coinage, stamps, medals, and counters by Theodore van Berckel which were an essential feature in the Archives of the “Chambre des Comptes” at Brussels.
- (d)
- The documents relating to the map “carte chorographique” of the Austrian Low Countries drawn up by Lieut. Gen. Comte Jas de Ferraris.”
Under these circumstances he thought there was no necessity for the Council to consider the demand of the Belgian Government, which had already been admitted by the Commission on Reparations.
(It was agreed that no action was required in regard to the demand of the Belgian Government for the restoration of certain objects of interest now in Austria, in view of the fact that a Clause had already been inserted in the Draft Reparation Clauses of the Treaty with Austria.)
5. (The Council decided to adjourn this question without discussion.) Addition as an Annex to the Treaty of Peace With Germany of the French Note Relative to Zones
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Paris, May 24th, 1919.