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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/24

FM–24

Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Thursday, 12th June, 1919, at 10 a.m.

Paris, June 12, 1919, 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. A. W. Dulles
British Empire	British Empire
The Rt. Hon. Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, K. G.	Sir Eyre Crowe
Secretary	Hon. H. Nicolson
Mr. H. Norman	Colonel Twiss
France	Mr. A. Leeper
M. Pichon	Major Temperley
Secretaries	Colonel A. M. Henniker
Capt. de St. Quentin	France
M. de Bearn	M. J. Cambon
Italy	M. A. Tardieu
H. E. Baron Sonnino	M. Laroche
Secretary	M. Hermitte
M. Bertele	M. Aubert
Japan	Italy
M. Matsui	M. A. Stranieri
Secretary	Count Vannutelli-Rey
M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of	Col. U. S. Grant.
British Empire	Major A. M. Caccia.
France	Captain A. Portier.
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi.
Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck.

Boundaries of Hungary With Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia: (a) Communication of Boundaries to the Representatives of Roumania M. Pichon said that in a letter dated 11th June, 1919, the Supreme Council had referred certain definite questions to the Foreign Ministers, having reference to the meeting held yesterday. (I. C. 194).¹ The first question was drawn up in the following terms:—

“First, they think that some enquiry should be made as to why the frontiers between Roumania and Hungary, which were approved at a Meeting of the Council of Ten on May 12th, were never communicated to the representatives of Roumania, or presumably the other States concerned.”

M. Pichon, continuing, said the answer to that question would be that the precedent applicable to all similar cases had been followed in regard to Roumania. For instance, the boundaries of Austria had been communicated to the parties concerned only on the day preceding the presentation of the Peace Treaty to Austria. The Council of Foreign Ministers had, therefore, been justified in supposing that the same procedure would, under normal conditions, have been followed in the case of Hungary.

Mr. Lansing thought that the Foreign Ministers should go further and point out that even in the case of Germany, the frontiers fixed had not been communicated in advance to any of the parties concerned, except Belgium. Furthermore, the communication to the Belgian Government had been made by the Council of Four and not by the Foreign Ministers. It would appear, therefore, that the practice had become well established that the frontiers approved by the Supreme Council should not be communicated in advance to the parties concerned, except under instructions from the Council of Four.

M. Tardieu asked the Council to consider what procedure would have been followed, in the ordinary course of events, in regard to the communication of the boundaries of Hungary, had not the present military operations occurred, which had made it desirable as an exceptional measure for some definite boundaries to be fixed. It was evident that the Hungarian Delegation would have been summoned to Paris, and the day before their arrival, the territorial clauses of the Treaty would have been communicated to the plenipotentiaries of the Allied and Associated Powers at a Plenary secret meeting. Consequently, the question of principle had not in any way been altered, and it was only for special reasons that the Foreign Ministers had been instructed on this occasion to communicate the boundaries of Hungary with Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania to the Czecho-Slovak and Roumanian Delegates.

(At this stage, Lord Hardinge entered, and M. Pichon gave a summary of the statements recorded above.)

M. Sonnino said that in the reply to the Supreme Council, a rider should be added to the effect that in future, as soon as definite decisions were reached in regard to frontiers, these should forthwith be communicated to the parties concerned.

Lord Hardinge doubted whether it would always be advisable forthwith to communicate the decisions taken in regard to frontiers—for instance, in certain cases only one part of the frontiers might have been fixed whilst other parts still remained undetermined. He had in mind the case of Roumania, where the boundaries of Bessarabia and Dobruja still remained unsettled. The same remark would probably also apply to Greece, when those frontiers came under discussion.

Mr. Lansing accepted M. Sonnino’s recommendation that agreed frontiers should be communicated to the parties concerned with as little delay as possible. He thought, however, that the Council of Four should be responsible for determining the opportune moment for communicating the same to the interested parties, thus avoiding the danger of producing complications such as Lord Hardinge had contemplated.

Lord Hardinge expressed the view that Mr. Lansing’s suggestions would cover the cases quoted by him.

(It was agreed to inform the Supreme Council that the established practice, heretofore approved by that Council, had been followed in the case of Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia, namely, that the boundaries of States should not, as a rule, be communicated in advance to the parties concerned, except under special instructions from the Supreme Council.

The Foreign Ministers also expressed the opinion that, in future, the boundaries of States should be communicated to the parties concerned, as soon as possible after a decision had been reached, on instructions to be issued by the Supreme Council.)

M. Pichon said that the second question read as follows:—

(b) Frontiers with Roumania: Views of M. Bratiano “The Council would also like to be informed as to whether M. Bratiano gave any indication as to whether the proposed frontiers were acceptable or not, and whether of he offered any criticism on the subject.”

M. Pichon, continuing, said that M. Bratiano had raised certain objections. In the first place, he had definitely stated his inability to accept two portions of the proposed boundary line, namely, the portion between Csap and Nagykaroli and the portion between Nagyvarad and Szeged.

M. Tardieu said that M. Bratiano had asked that the two bits of railway line in question should be included in Roumania. In addition to that, however, he had also invoked strategic reasons in support of his contention that the whole of the boundary line between Nagykaroli and Nagyvarad and onwards would be unacceptable, as it ran within two or three kilometres of an important railway line, As a result, he understood M. Bratiano to dispute the whole of the boundary line. M. Bratiano, on behalf of the Roumanian Government, had not definitely rejected the boundaries proposed, but he had asked to refer the whole question to Bucharest for examination and report.

Mr. Lansing accepted the statement made by M. Tardieu. He thought, however, that the Foreign Ministers should, in addition, express an opinion to the effect that the boundaries proposed should be accepted without alteration.

(It was agreed to inform the Supreme Council, in regard to the boundaries of Hungary with Roumania, that 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 10 to 12 days would be required.

Further, the Foreign Ministers expressed the opinion that the boundaries, as approved by the Foreign Ministers and the Supreme Council, should be adhered to without alteration.)

(c) Frontiers With Czecho-Slovakia: Alterations Proposed by Dr. Kramarcz M. Pichon said that the third question referred to the Foreign Ministers by the Council of Four had reference to the alterations in the frontiers of Hungary with Czecho-Slovakia, namely:—

“The Council would be glad to receive, as early as possible, the recommendations of the Council of Foreign Ministers as to the alterations in the frontier asked for by the Czecho-Slovak Delegation.”

M. Cambon said that the Czecho-Slovaks had, in principle accepted the proposed boundaries of Hungary with Czecho-Slovakia. Dr. Kramarcz had, however, asked for two slight modifications to be made.

The first modification related to a small strip of territory situated on the southern bank of the Danube, over against Pressbourg. The area in question, known as Edor, constituted a suburb of Pressbourg and the Magyars had been firing from there across the Danube into Pressbourg. The Commission on Czecho-Slovak Affairs were, however, unanimously agreed that the Danube formed an excellent boundary and that no reasons existed for any alterations to be made to the boundary proposed.

(It was agreed that no alterations should be made in the proposed boundaries of Czecho-Slovakia in the region of Pressbourg.)

M. Cambon continuing said that the second request made by the Czecho-Slovakia Delegation related to the railway line running between Kalonda and Komoron, which, in accordance with the decision reached by the Commission would remain in the hands of the Hungarians including the railway junction Ipolysk. Should the demands of the Czecho-Slovak Delegates be accorded, a large number of Magyars would have to be included in Czecho-Slovakia. On the other hand the railway line running from Ipolysk to Korpona served an important stretch of Czecho-Slovak territory which was practically inaccessible except from the South, and the fact that the Junction of this railway line (Ipolysk) had been allotted to Hungary, would undoubtedly cause very grave inconveniences to the Czecho-Slovaks.

Under these conditions he would, as President of the Commission, strongly recommend that the proposed boundary line in the immediate vicinity of Ipolysk be slightly altered in order to place the railway junction inside the boundaries of Czecho-Slovakia.

Baron Sonnino understood that the boundary line accepted by the Commission had been the result of a compromise.

M. Cambon agreed. He said that for that very reason the Commission had recommended that the boundary between Kalonda and Csad as a whole should not be altered. He had merely suggested that a very slight modification should be made at the Railway junction, such a modification being really essential in order to obtain full use of the Korpona railway line which merely served Czecho-Slovak territory. No material alteration in the agreed boundary line was intended.

Baron Sonnino understood M. Cambon’s proposals to be that a small corner of territory round the railway junction of Ipolysk should be transferred to Czecho-Slovakia. In this connection he invited attention to the following recommendation of the Committee on Czecho-Slovak affairs:—

“The railway which follows the valley of the Eipel (Ipoly) between Losoncz and Csata, as well as the junctions of this line with the lines situated to the north and south, shall be administered under the ultimate supervision of the Allied and Associated Governments in such a manner as to assure to the neighbouring interested States the free use of these lines during the period required for the construction in Tchecho-Slovak territory of the sections linking up a continuous line of railway on the right bank of the Eipel.

The conditions of this supervision and the period during which the free use of the line shall be guaranteed equally to the nations interested shall be determined by the Allied and Associated Governments.”

He wished to enquire whether that recommendation still held good?

M. Cambon replied that the stipulation in question would still remain.

(It was agreed that the boundaries of Czecho-Slovakia in the vicinity of the railway junction of Ipolysk should be so altered as to include the railway junction itself in Czecho-Slovak territory.

The Committee on Czecho-Slovak questions were asked to meet without delay and to submit definite proposals to this effect.)

(d) Boundaries With Czecho-Slovakia: General Pellé’s Proposals M. Pichon said that the last of the four questions, referred to the Foreign Ministers by the Supreme Council, read as follows:—

“Finally, they would also like to receive the recommendations of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the proposals of General Pellé. The Council of Foreign Ministers are, of course, at liberty to obtain any Military or other expert advice they desire.”

At the meeting held yesterday, the Council of Foreign Ministers had expressed the view 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. At the same time the Foreign Ministers had admitted that military reasons might exist which would necessitate the delimitation of a temporary line as suggested by General Pellé. He, personally, did not think that it would be necessary to take military advice, especially as the matter under reference appeared to be extremely urgent. He thought the Foreign Ministers could forthwith agree to the opinion expressed yesterday, namely, that the Hungarians should be asked to withdraw their troops forthwith to the permanent boundary line.

Mr. Lansing enquired whether the Hungarians had crossed the permanent boundary line.

M. Pichon replied that the Hungarian forces were now a long way, about 40 miles, north of the permanent boundary line, and their advance continued. He added that General Pellé’s line would be situated further in Hungarian territory than the proposed permanent line.

M. Tardieu added that the line proposed by General Pellé possessed the further inconvenience that it coincided with the boundary originally claimed by the Czecho-Slovaks. He thought that fact made it imperative to avoid accepting General Pellé’s proposal.

Baron Sonnino agreed. He understood that the boundary to be laid down would apply to both parties concerned. That is to say, the Hungarian forces would be ordered to retire to the permanent boundary line, and the Czecho-Slovaks would be similarly prevented from crossing that line.

(It was agreed to recommend that the permanent boundaries of Hungary with Czecho-Slovakia, as approved by the Council of Foreign Ministers and the Supreme Council, should forthwith be laid down, and that the Hungarian forces should be required forthwith to withdraw their troops within their own territory, as thus defined.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Paris, 12th June, 1919.

1. FM–23, p. 802.