Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/23
FM–23
Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, 11th June, 1919, at 10 a.m.
| Present | Also Present |
| America, United States of | America, United States of |
| Hon. R. Lansing | Dr. C. Day |
| Secretary | Dr. C. Seymour |
| Mr. L. Harrison | Mr. Johnson |
| British Empire | British Empire |
| The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P. | Sir Eyre Crowe |
| Secretary | Mr. H. Nicolson |
| Mr. H. Norman | Colonel Twiss |
| France | Major Temperley |
| M. Pichon | Mr. A. Leeper |
| Secretaries | Colonel A. M. Henniker |
| M. Berthelot | France |
| Capt. de St. Quentin | M. J. Cambon |
| M. de Bearn | M. A. Tardieu |
| Italy | M. Laroche |
| H. E. Baron Sonnino | M. Aubert |
| Japan | M. Hermitte |
| H. E. Baron Makino | Italy |
| Secretaries | M. A. Stranieri |
| M. Saburi | Count Vannutelli-Rey |
| M. Kawai | Roumania |
| Roumania | Dr. Vaida-Voevod |
| M. Bratiano | M. C. Dimitresco |
| Tchecho-Slovakia | M. Constantin Bratiano |
| M. Kramarcz | Tchecho-Slovakia |
| M. Benes |
Joint Secretariat
| United States of America | Col. U. S. Grant. |
| British Empire | Major A. M. Caccia, C. B., M. V. O. |
| France | Capt. A. Portier. |
| Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck. | |
Boundaries of Hungary: (a) With Roumania 1. M. Pichon said that the reason for the meeting of the Foreign Ministers that morning was fully set forth in the following letter, addressed by the Secretary of the Supreme Council to the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference:—
“In confirmation of my telephone message this evening, I am directed to inform Your Excellency that at a meeting of the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers this afternoon, the Military situation on the Roumanian and Czecho-Slovakia borders of Hungary was under consideration. M. Bratiano and M. Misu were present to represent Roumania and M. Kramarcz and Dr. Benes represented Czecho-Slovakia.
A radio telegram from the Government of Bela Kun intimating the readiness of his Government to enter into some arrangement for the cessation of fighting and for the early commencement of Peace negotiations, was also read.
It was agreed that instead of drawing an Armistice line and making temporary arrangements, which are apt to prove unsatisfactory, the best plan would be, as a preliminary step to the cessation of the fighting at the earliest possible moment, to fix the permanent boundaries between Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia and between Hungary and Roumania. As soon as these boundaries have been agreed between the Allied and Associated Powers, it is proposed to notify them to the Hungarian Government and to arrange for the withdrawal behind these frontiers of all the contending forces. Any subsequent violation of these lines will bring about an immediate cessation of the Peace negotiations.
I am directed to request that Your Excellency will arrange for a meeting of the Foreign Ministers to take place tomorrow morning, Wednesday, June 11th. The object of this meeting is for the Council of Foreign Ministers to communicate to the Delegations of Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia the boundaries they have recommended between Hungary and Roumania and Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia. M. Kramarcz and Dr. Benes for Czecho-Slovakia and M. Bratiano and M. Misu for Roumania should be invited to attend this meeting.
I am further to request that a report of the meeting and in particular of the frontiers agreed to may be furnished to the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers before 4 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11th.”
Mr. Balfour enquired whether the representatives of the Jugo-Slavs had been invited to attend.
M. Pichon replied in the negative. The terms of reference did not relate to Jugo-Slavia. He would call on M. Tardieu to explain to the Roumanian Delegates the decisions reached in regard to the boundaries of Hungary with Roumania.
M. Tardieu thought that it would be a loss of time to describe in detail the boundaries of Hungary with Roumania as agreed upon by the Council of Four on the recommendation of the Foreign Ministers, and of the Commissions who had studied the question. A draft giving the boundaries in detail had been circulated, (Annex A), and [Page 804] he would also ask the Roumanian Delegates to refer to the map accompanying the report.1
M. Bratiano2 said that he was not in a position to make any remarks in regard to the boundaries of Roumania, as described in the report, which he had only just seen for the first time. The boundaries, as therein described, differed so materially from those accepted by the Treaty of 19163 that it would be impossible for him to take the responsibility of expressing any opinion without first consulting the Roumanian Government and the Roumanian General Staff. His remarks applied more particularly to the Northern and Southern portions of the boundary between Hungary and Roumania, which differed entirely from the frontiers claimed by Roumania. Consequently, he could not take upon himself the responsibility of discussing the question. He wished to lay stress upon the fact that the study of the problem had been carried out by a Commission representing the Principal Allied and Associated Powers4 without the assistance of Roumanian representatives. As a result, the Roumanian Delegation and the Roumanian Government had been kept in entire ignorance as to the reasons which had guided the Commission in reaching a decision. Under the circumstances, he would press that the minutes of the meetings of the Commission should be communicated to the Roumanian Delegation in order to enable the latter to study the question in conjunction with the Ministers of the Government of Roumania, who would alone be able to accept the responsibility of abandoning the just territorial claims of Roumania.
(At this stage Dr. Kramarcz and Dr. Benes entered the chamber.)
M. Tardieu expressed the view that the Council of Foreign Ministers would have to decide in regard to the request made by M. Bratiano that he should be supplied with a copy of the proceedings of the Commission on Roumanian Affairs. He, himself, would be prepared to answer any questions on that subject, which M. Bratiano would care to put to him; but he thought M. Bratiano, in making his statement, intended to ask for an adjournment of the meeting.
M. Bratiano replied that he had not exactly intended to ask for an adjournment: but, in his opinion, it was imperative that he should be supplied with copies of the reports and of the arguments, (as contained in the procès-verbaux), which had caused the Allied and Associated Powers to take decisions so materially differing from the claims advanced by the Roumanians.
[Page 805]Mr. Balfour noted with pleasure that M. Bratiano had no desire that the debate should be adjourned. In arriving at that decision, he, (M. Bratiano), was acting in the public interest. Should the discussion be deferred, great inconvenience would occur, both locally, in connection with military operations, and here in Paris, in connection with the Peace negotiations. Every effort should, therefore, be made to arrive at an agreement with the least possible delay.
He (Mr. Balfour) ventured to think that M. Bratiano could be made sufficiently acquainted with the work done by the Commissions, who had studied the boundaries, to enable him to co-operate in the work now to be concluded.
M. Bratiano said he was fully convinced of the necessity of avoiding all possible delay in arriving at a decision. The question which had been put to him did not, however, relate to matters of detail, but it involved the relinquishment by Roumania of her just territorial claims. In regard to matters of detail, he would have been perfectly ready to discuss and examine these, and to give a decision. But he could not agree to abandon the claims of Roumania without again putting forward arguments which the Commission had already heard. To avoid a repetition of those arguments, he had been led to ask that he should be supplied with the reasons which had led the Commission to give a verdict against Roumania. In any case, it would be impossible for him to give a decision on questions of such great importance, without first referring the matter to the Government who represented the people of Roumania.
He wished to emphasise the fact that the results of the deliberations of the Commission had only been communicated to him for the first time on that day at 10 o’clock. The Roumanian Delegation could not, therefore, be blamed if a delay occurred in arriving at a decision. Nevertheless, he would be quite prepared to help in every way in endeavouring to clear up the situation; but he could not, under any circumstances, bind his Government on such an important question as the final acceptance of a frontier, which in no way expressed the aspirations or sentiments of the people concerned. With a desire to facilitate matters, however, on the lines suggested by Mr. Balfour, he would propose that the delimitation of the boundary line between Csap and Nagykaryoli should be left in suspense, a temporary line being laid down, subject to a reconsideration of the whole question at a later date.
Mr. Lansing enquired whether, as a matter of fact, M. Bratiano had not had unofficial knowledge of the decisions reached by the Principal Allied and Associated Governments in regard to the question under reference. He quite realised that, rightly or wrongly, the decision had not been officially communicated to him, but he understood that he had seen the Report and the maps relating thereto.
[Page 806]M. Bratiano replied that he had only received very conflicting reports, which had not enabled him to form any opinion or to reach a decision.
Mr. Lansing enquired what kind of conflicting reports had been received by M. Bratiano.
M. Bratiano said that all sorts of boundary lines had been suggested, some went further, some fell far short of the lines claimed by Roumania. For instance, one report received by him indicated that the boundary of Roumania with Hungary would be situated beyond the Maros. As a matter of fact, the boundary now proposed was the one he had least expected.
He felt compelled, with all due respect, to point out that considering the length of time taken by the Supreme Council to study this question in all its details, extending over a period of some months, it would hardly be consistent to expect the Roumanians, who were the most interested parties, to give a decision off-hand, in the absence of any information regarding the arguments and reasons which had led to the decisions reached. For that reason, he had asked that the reports and the procès-verbal of the Commission should be supplied to him.
Dr. Kramarcz asked permission to support the proposal made by M. Bratiano in regard to the boundary line between Csap and Nagykaryoli. He too, would ask that, the final delimitation of that portion of the boundary should, for the present, be left in abeyance. He would point out that the future economic prosperity of Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania depended on the decision taken in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of railway lines.
M. Pichon thought that M. Bratiano had raised a question of principle, which had already been decided by the Supreme Council. In the first place, M. Bratiano had asked to be given certain explanations. He thought M. Bratiano’s request should be complied with, and the President of the Commission would be prepared to give all necessary information. M. Bratiano had, however, also asked to be supplied with the procès-verbal of the Commission in question. Such documents had never been supplied to anyone, for they had always been regarded as strictly confidential. He thought that M. Bratiano could only claim to be supplied with the reasons which had led to the decisions given, but he could not expect to have copies of all the remarks which might have been made.
M. Bratiano said that he only wanted copies of the reasons which had led to the decisions taken.
M. Pichon, continuing, said that he wished also
to draw attention to the urgent necessity for taking immediate action,
owing to the fact that hostilities were actually taking place in
Hungary. In this [Page 807] connection,
he would invite attention to the following telegram which had just been
received from General Pellé5 at Buda-Pesth:—
In view of General Pellé’s statement, he thought that a decision should be taken at once, and that an adjournment would not be permissible.
Mr. Lansing expressed the view that M. Bratiano’s request for an opportunity to examine the report, which had only been supplied to him that morning, could hardly be ignored. M. Bratiano’s demands appeared to him to be absolutely justified. At the same time, M. Bratiano must realise the urgent necessity for speed in finally determining the boundaries between Hungary and Roumania, because the only thing which would stop the continual hostilities and unrest in those regions would be the definite fixation of the frontier lines. He wished to enquire how long M. Bratiano would require in order to place himself in a position to fix the boundaries of Roumania with Hungary.
M. Bratiano replied that it would be necessary for him to be given sufficient time to allow a messenger to proceed to Bucharest, where he would get into touch with the Roumanian Government, who would require two or three days to examine the question. The messenger would then return to Paris. Should this suggestion be accepted, he would at once warn the Roumanian Government at [Page 808] Bucharest in order that a decision might be taken within three days after the arrival of the messenger.
He wished to return, however, to his original proposal, namely, that a temporary boundary should be fixed in the northern and southern sectors of the frontier between Hungary and Roumania, that is to say, between Csap and Nagykaryoli, and between Nagyvarad and Szeged. The fixing of a temporary line of demarcation would, ipso facto, put a stop to hostilities.
In conclusion, he would be pleased to give his views in regard to the question of relations with the present Hungarian Government; but he thought such political questions lay outside the present reference.
Mr. Lansing thought that M. Bratiano should realise that the Supreme Council had already examined the question of the boundaries of Hungary with Roumania, and that a final decision had been reached. Should Roumania therefore wish to have the question re-opened, it would be for her to convince the Heads of the Principal Allied and Associated Governments as to the necessity for doing so.
M. Bratiano replied that he would be quite ready to state his case. He would never refuse to give reasons to show why the line proposed by the Supreme Council ran counter to the interests of Roumania.
Mr. Balfour said he wished to put a question to the Chairman on a point of order. He took blame to himself for not having carefully read the official letter conveying the views of the Supreme Council. He would, however, call attention to the following paragraph:—
“I am directed to request that Your Excellency will arrange for a meeting of the Foreign Ministers to take place tomorrow morning, Wednesday, June 11th. The object of this meeting is for the Council of Foreign Ministers to communicate to the Delegations of Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia the boundaries they have recommended between Hungary and Roumania and Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia. M. Kramarcz and Dr. Benes for Czecho-Slovakia, and M. Bratiano and Mr. Misu for Roumania should be invited to attend this meeting.”
There was nothing said in that paragraph which would justify a discussion in regard to the boundaries between Roumania and Hungary. The instructions issued to the Foreign Ministers were to the effect that they should communicate to the Delegations of Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia the boundaries between Hungary and Roumania, and Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia, which had been agreed to first, by the Commissions, secondly by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and thirdly by the Supreme Council. If he correctly interpreted the wishes of the Supreme Council, as set forth in the excerpt which he had just read, he thought the Foreign Ministers were not required to go over ground which had already been traversed, or to [Page 809] subject to revision the decisions already taken by the Supreme Council.
Mr. Lansing invited attention to the concluding paragraph of the letter of the Supreme Council just quoted, which read as follows:
“I am therefore to request that a report of the Meeting, and in particular, of the frontiers agreed to, may be furnished to the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers before 4 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11th.”
He thought that the sentence might be interpreted to mean that the Foreign Ministers should also report in regard to the frontiers not agreed to. In other words, a report should be submitted to the Supreme Council, showing what portions of frontiers were accepted and what portions of frontiers were rejected by Roumania.
M. Bratiano said that he would be quite prepared to make a full statement setting forth the Roumanian frontier claims, but he would refuse either to accept definitely or to reject definitely the boundary lines proposed.
M. Pichon thought that the statement made by Mr. Balfour complemented by Mr. Lansing’s remarks, set forth the case with great accuracy. In other words, he thought the Foreign Ministers should ask the Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak Delegates, there present, whether they accepted the proposed boundaries of Hungary with Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia, or not. The replies of the Delegates would then be transmitted to the Supreme Council for information. On the other hand, he felt that it was not part of the duty of the Foreign Ministers to enter into a discussion as to the reasons for the decisions given.
Mr. Lansing interpreted M. Pichon’s statement to mean that should M. Bratiano be unable to agree to accept the boundaries proposed, a report to that effect would be submitted to the Supreme Council.
M. Bratiano said that under those circumstances he could only refer the Council of Foreign Ministers to the remarks which he had made at the commencement of the meeting.
M. Pichon enquired whether M. Bratiano’s remarks applied to the whole of the boundaries of Roumania with Hungary, or whether he would be prepared to accept certain portions of the boundaries in question.
M. Bratiano replied that he was desirous of uniting with his colleagues in arriving at a settlement, but he failed to see how any decision could be reached without a reconsideration of certain of the boundaries proposed. In this connection he wished to invite particular attention to the stretch of railway line running from Nagykaroly to Nagyvarad and onwards. This railway line constituted [Page 810] the great artery of communication with all the northern countries, with the Adriatic, and with the mountain regions of Transylvania. The railway line was, therefore, of the greatest importance to Roumania from an economic point of view; but the question which he wished to raise was not only one of principle, but also one of security, since the railway line in question lay in an open country within rifle-shot distance of the proposed frontier.
M. Pichon thought that the statement made by M. Bratiano again raised the question of frontiers, which it had been decided lay outside the scope of their instructions. M. Bratiano had asked for time to consult his Government. He thought that was the only reply which could be given to the Supreme Council.
M. Bratiano thought that if his proposal to lay down two temporary lines of demarcation, in the north between Csap and Nagykaroly, and in the south between Nagyvarad and Szeged, were adopted, a speedy solution of the difficulty would be reached. On the other hand, if his proposal could not find acceptance, he would feel compelled to reserve his decision in regard to the whole of the frontier.
Mr. Lansing pointed out that the points made by M. Bratiano had all been presented to the Commission, which had reached a unanimous decision. Under these conditions, he thought no useful purpose would be served by hearing those arguments repeated.
M. Pichon thought that under the circumstances the best plan would be to submit to the Supreme Council a report to the effect that the Foreign Ministers had communicated to the Roumanian Delegation the proposed boundaries between Hungary and Roumania and that M. Bratiano had replied that a delay of some days would be required in order to enable him to consult his Government in Budapest.
M. Bratiano said that a period of ten to twelve days would be required in order to enable him to communicate with his Government.
M. Pichon thought that so long a delay might lead to serious inconveniences.
Mr. Lansing enquired whether M. Bratiano, himself, as head of the Roumanian Government, intended to proceed to Bucharest.
M. Bratiano replied that he would either go himself or send one of his colleagues, who was fully acquainted with the facts of the case.
Mr. Balfour thought that the course to be followed was quite clear. The Council of Foreign Ministers should report to the Supreme Council that the boundaries recommended between Hungary and Roumania had been communicated to the Roumanian Delegation. M. Bratiano had expressed his inability to accept the frontiers proposed or to discuss the same without first consulting his Government, for which purpose a period of ten to twelve days would be [Page 811] required. In his opinion nothing more was required; the report would show the communication made to M. Bratiano and his reply.
(b) Hungary With Czecho-Slovakia M. Kramarcz said that in principle, the Czecho-Slovak Government accepted the proposed boundaries of Hungary with Czecho-Slovakia (Annex B). There were, however, two slight concessions which he would ask the Council to make. The first request was in itself intrinsically small, but it involved questions of the utmost importance to the future economic welfare and development of a State, since it was proposed to exclude a vital line of communication from the territory to be allotted to Czecho-Slovakia. He alluded to the railway line running between Losoncz and Csata, through the railway junction of Ipolyska. It would be seen that the two extremities of this railway line, namely Losoncz to Kalonda and Csata to a point west of Kalonda, were situated within Czecho-Slovakia, but the remainder of the line would, if the proposals of the Supreme Council were accepted, run immediately south, (within two or three kilometres), of the proposed boundary line. It was true that the Commission on Ports, Railways and Waterways had recommended the free use of this railway line by Czecho-Slovakia, subject to agreement with Hungary; but a rather precarious situation would thereby be created. On the other hand, slight alterations in the frontier, which from a national point of view would not in any way be prejudicial to the Magyars, would forthwith remedy the inconveniences and disabilities complained of. In this connection he wished particularly to invite attention to the fact that Ipolyska, the railway junction between the line in question and the Korpona line, which served the whole of the country to the north, would remain in the hands of the Magyars. It would be seen that the question was one of capital importance to Czecho-Slovakia, whilst the Magyars possessed other good alternative lines of communication. He trusted, therefore, that the Council of Foreign Ministers would make a favourable recommendation in regard to this bit of frontier line to the Supreme Council.
A second minor point, though one of great local importance to the Czecho-Slovaks, related to a small strip of territory situated on the Southern bank of the Danube over against Pressburg, known as Edor. The land itself was actually owned by the town of Pressburg; but its occupation by the Magyars had enabled some of the more turbulent elements of that race to fire across Czecho-Slovak territory, and so to cause Government House to be evacuated. He begged, therefore, that this small strip of territory, a question of a few acres, might be included within the boundaries of Czecho-Slovakia.
Mr. Lansing thought the case put forward by Dr. Kramarcz was similar to that which had been submitted by the Roumanian delegates.
Dr. Kramarcz explained that at the Plenary Conference held on [Page 812] the 31st May, 1919, the Czecho-Slovak delegation had asked for certain slight modifications to be made in the boundaries proposed, in order to include the railway station of Gmünd in Czecho-Slovakia. The matter had been referred to the Committee on Czecho-Slovakian affairs who had acceded to the Czecho-Slovak request.
M. Pichon thought that the Council of Foreign Ministers should transmit to the Supreme Council the views expressed by Dr. Kramarcz.
Dr. Benes wished to emphasise the fact that the loss of the railway junction of Ipolyska, deprived the Czecho-Slovaks of the use of an important means of communication with a large tract of otherwise inaccessible country. He trusted the Foreign Ministers would favourably recommend the request just made by the Czecho-Slovak delegation.
(The Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak delegations then withdrew.)
M. Pichon drew attention to the fifth paragraph of General Pellé’s telegram recommending that a temporary line of demarcation passing south of Tiszalucz, Miskolcz and Waitzen should be laid down.
Mr. Lansing said that, in view of the fact that the Czecho-Slovaks had practically accepted the line proposed by the Supreme Council, his personal view was that a permanent frontier line should be accepted in preference to the line suggested by General Pellé. He thought the demarcation of a temporary line would only irritate the Hungarians; it would justify the occupation of a large section of Hungarian territory by the Czecho-Slovaks; and thus create future difficulties.
Mr. Balfour said that by way of supplementing Mr. Lansing’s remarks, he would enquire whether it was not the deliberate policy of the Supreme Council to take the permanent boundary line and not the temporary Armistice line.
Mr. Lansing thought that in submitting the question to the Supreme Council, the Foreign Ministers should definitely state that they recommended the immediate acceptance of the permanent boundary line.
Mr. Balfour felt confident that was the correct thing to do from a political point of view. He knew nothing, however, in regard to the military aspect of the case.
M. Sonnino agreed. He thought that military considerations must have been given full weight when the permanent line was fixed. In any case he felt that the acceptance of the permanent line had the advantage that it removed the impression that anything would later on be taken away.
M. Tardieu said that General Pellé at the time of sending his telegram, had not been informed of the decision of the Supreme Council that the definite boundary line should be accepted. In his opinion, [Page 813] it would be inadvisable at the present moment to lay down anything but the permanent line, which was the one which had that day been communicated to the Czecho-Slovak Delegation.
(It was agreed to send the following report to the Supreme Council, and to ask M. Cambon and M. Tardieu to hold themselves in readiness to attend the meeting of the Council in order to give supplementary explanations if so required:—
In accordance with instructions given by the Council of the Heads of Governments, the Council of Foreign Ministers have called before them the representatives of Roumania and of the Czecho-Slovak State on June 11th, at 10 a.m.
1. The Council have communicated to Mr. Bratiano and Mr. Vaida-Voevod the boundaries between Roumania and Hungary which have been agreed on by the Supreme Council of the Allies.
Mr. Bratiano remarked that the line was for the first time brought to his notice. He declared that under those conditions he could not assume the responsibility of stating his opinion without consulting the Royal Government. He asked that he might be allowed to postpone his final answer for ten or twelve days, this delay being necessary for a messenger to go to Bucharest and return.
2. The Council communicated to Mr. Kramarcz and Mr. Benes the boundaries between the Czecho-Slovak State and Hungary which had been agreed on by the Supreme Council of the Allies.
Mr. Kramarcz declared that the Czecho-Slovak delegation accepted on the whole those decisions, but he requested that the kind attention of the Supreme Council might be called to two alterations, which in his opinion both involved but a slight change in the frontier; the first of which being of primary importance for the Czecho-Slovak State.
A—The present frontier assigns to the Czecho-Slovak State both ends, and to Hungary the Central portion of the railroad Czata-Kalonda-Losoncz, which ensures direct communication from west to east to southern Slovakia.
Thus the frontier leaves in Hungarian territory the junction of this line with the Korpona branch-line which is almost entirely included in the Czecho-Slovak territory.
The Czecho-Slovak delegation pointed out that in spite of the international guarantees which might be given with regard to the working of the said line, the vital economic interests of southern Slovakia and more especially of the Korpona district might be subject to suffer from the unamicable feelings of the Hungarian authorities.
Therefore they requested that the frontier might be shifted a few kilometers to the south so as to include in the Czecho-Slovak territory the whole of the Csata-Kalonda-Losoncz railroad.
B—The Czecho-Slovak delegation requested that a portion of territory on the southern bank of the Danube opposite Pressburg might be assigned to the Czecho-Slovak State, so as to remedy the inconvenience which would result from the close proximity of the town to the frontier line.
3. The Council of the Foreign Ministers have examined the telegram sent to the Ministère de la Guerre by General Pellé, suggesting [Page 814] that the Hungarian troops should be withdrawn to a line to be subsequently determined south of the localities of Tisza-Lucz, Miskolcz, Vacz, thence to the West of this latter town and as far as the Austrian frontier, to a line running 25 kilometers south of the Danube.
The Council of the Foreign Ministers agreed that it would be undesirable from a political standpoint to fix a military line of demarcation divergent from the frontier laid down by the Supreme Council and accepted by the Czecho-Slovak delegation.
They were of opinion that the Supreme Council only was in a position to decide on the military considerations which might support the solution suggested by General Pellé.)
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Paris, June 11th, 1919.
- Map not filed with the minutes.↩
- An alternate version of the proceedings from this point on, differing in some respects from that given here, is to be found filed with the minutes and is printed post, p. 818.↩
- Italy, R. Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Trattati e convenzioni fra il regno d’Italia e gli altri stati, vol. 23, p. 412.↩
- The Commission on Roumanian and Yugoslav Affairs.↩
- French general appointed February 17, 1919, as chief of the general staff of the Czecho-Slovak forces.↩
- See the military convention between the Allies and Hungary, signed at Belgrade November 13, 1918, vol. ii, p. 183.↩