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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/23

[FM–23]

Secretary’s Notes on Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Office at Quai d’Orsay at 10 a.m., June 11th, 1919¹

Paris, June 11, 1919, 10 a.m.

I

boundaries of hungary and roumania (map, inclosure 1,² and description of the boundary, inclosure 2,³ recommended by the commission on roumanian affairs, were distributed)

Mr. Bratiano stated that he was unable to report the attitude of the Roumanian Government in regard to the frontier shown on the map, since it had only just been communicated to him at 10 a.m. and departed so far from the frontier claimed by Roumania and approved in the Treaty of 1916 and since these departures involved questions of vital importance to Roumania and required consideration by the Roumanian military experts as well as by the Roumanian Government. (During the discussion it was developed that the reference to the Roumanian Government would require time necessary for Mr. Bratiano or some other member of the Roumanian Delegation to go to Bucharest, discuss the matter there with the members of the Government, and return. This period Mr. Bratiano estimated at not less than ten to twelve days). He drew special attention to the fact that Roumania had been deprived in the north of the territory including the railroad from Csap to Nagykaroly and in the south of the territory including the railroad from Szeged to Bekescaba, and, finally, to the fact that, while the frontier was so placed as to include in Roumania the railroad from Nagykaroly to Nagyvarad, it was so close to the said railroad as to leave it within artillery fire of the enemy, in open level country.

The Foreign Ministers after a short discussion decided that a reopening of the question of the proper frontier between Roumania and Hungary was not included within the terms of reference and that, having informed the Roumanian Delegation of the frontier proposed and approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers they could only report back the reply made by the Roumanian Delegation. Mr. Lansing inquired of Mr. Bratiano whether, although not officially informed of the boundary recommended by the Commission, he had not actually been cognizant for some time of what it was likely to be. Mr. Bratiano said that he had received information informally as to various lines which might be recommended, but that the reports were conflicting and that the line actually adopted was one which had seemed most unlikely to him. He said that he was not prepared, on his own responsibility, to express the attitude of the Roumanian Government on this subject, all-important to his country.

II

boundary of hungary and czecho-slovakia (map, inclosure 1,⁴ and description of the frontier recommended by the commission on czecho-slovakia, inclosure 3,⁵ were distributed)

Mr. Kramarcz stated that the frontier between Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia was acceptable in principle as proposed. However, he wished to call attention to the necessity, in order to preserve the economic life of the province of Slovakia, that the IPO railroad line should remain in the new state of Czecho-Slovakia throughout its entire length. One-third of this line, including the two extremities, was now left within Czecho-Slovakia; while two-thirds were left in Hungary. Mr. Benes invited attention to the fact that by depriving Czecho-Slovakia of the central portion the connection with the railroad to Korpona was left in enemy territory which would deprive a large territory inaccessible from the rear on account of the mountains, from any railroad communication. Mr. Kramarcz continued to the effect that only a small strip of territory of five or ten kilometers width, inhabited by a few thousand Magyars, was involved. It was not desired to include any more Magyars than was absolutely necessary in the Czecho-Slovak State but the free possession of this railroad was a matter of incalculable importance to the economic life of the new state. There was another slight change desired at Presbourg (Pozsony) giving to Czecho-Slovakia a “tete-de-pont” on the right (south) bank of the Danube. With the boundary as proposed, Hungarian riflemen could shoot into the city and they had actually amused themselves doing this so that it was necessary for one of the Ministers to move out of the building in which he was working and into the court-yard and carry on his business there, in order to be out of rifle range. He called attention to the fact that these were slight changes in the nature of the one requested in regard to the frontier with Austria, which had been considered by the Commission and approved at the last moment and finally had received the approval of the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

The Foreign Ministers decided that here, as in the case of Roumania, it was not for them to reopen the question of the proper boundary but merely to report the attitude of the Czecho-Slovak Delegation.

III

line of demarcation between hungary and czecho-slovakia recommended by gen. pellé

M. Pichon read a telegram from General Pellé referred to him that morning, containing a recommendation that, in order to interrupt the aggressive action taken by the Hungarians against the Czecho-Slovaks, they be required to stop at, or withdraw to, a line running from Tisza-Lucz through Miskolcz and thence in a westerly direction to the Danube and along the south bank of the latter.

Mr. Lansing suggested that as the boundary line proposed between Czecho-Slovakia and Hungary was acceptable in principle to the Czecho-Slovak Delegation and would probably be the permanent line, he was opposed to the establishment at the present time of another temporary line which would justify the Czecho-Slovaks in invading a large portion of Hungarian territory and would be likely to become a source of further trouble in Hungary. Mr. Balfour supported this opinion with the remark that if permanent lines could be established they should be made the basis of action as soon as possible and that he had no doubt that the course of action proposed by Mr. Lansing was the proper one from the political standpoint; whether there were any military objections to it, he was not informed.

Mr. Lansing’s opinion was concurred in by the other two Foreign Ministers.

1. This alternate version of the minutes printed on p. 804 was apparently made by the American member of the Joint Secretariat, Col. U. S. Grant.
2. Map not filed with the minutes.
3. For description, see appendix A attached to the first version of the minutes, p. 814.
4. Map not filed with the minutes.
5. For description, see appendix B attached to first version of the minutes, p. 815.