Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/42
CF–42
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Friday, May 30, 1919, at 4 p.m.
Paris, May 30, 1919, 4 p.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
- France
- Italy
| Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B.—Secretary. |
| Count Aldrovandi.—Secretary. |
| Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter. |
1. M. Orlando handed round the attached
document in regard to the situation in Carinthia (Appendix 1). He
suggested that Allied Commissioners should be sent to the scene of the
fighting between Austria and the Jugo-Slavs with instructions to secure
at once the cessation. Carinthia: Fighting Between
Austrians and Jugo-Slavs
President Wilson suggested that the best plan
would be for M. Clemenceau, on behalf of the principal Allied and
Associated Powers, to present a note to the Serbo-Slovene-Croat
Delegation.
(It was agreed that Mr. Philip Kerr should draft for consideration a note
to the Serbo-Slovene-Croat Delegation warning them that the fighting
must cease if they wished the boundaries to be settled, and that the
result of the fighting would not prejudice the final decision as to the
boundaries.)
With reference to C. F. 41, Minute 9,1 the following instructions to the Drafting
Committee, prepared by Sir Maurice Hankey in accordance with directions,
was approved and initialled by the four Heads of States:—
“With reference to the attached note C. F. 41, Minute 9, the
Drafting Committee are instructed that any articles of the
Treaty of Peace with Germany which are inconsistent with the
text of articles 102 and 104 as notified to the Drafting
Committee on May 24th., are to be brought into conformity with
these articles.”
[Page 116]
2. M. Clemenceau said he had received an
application from the Turkish Grand Vizier to come to Paris and enlighten
the Peace Conference. Applications From the Grand
Vizier for Turkish Representatives To Come to Paris
Mr. Lloyd George supported the proposal. He
thought that it was unnecessary to treat the Turks in in the same manner
as the Germans. He could see no harm in hearing the Turkish side of the
case. The same would apply to the Bulgarians if they wished to come.
President Wilson said their first object would
be to protest against what had been done in Smyrna.
M. Clemenceau asked why they should not
protest.
Mr. Lloyd George said he would let them
protest.
(It was agreed that the Turkish application should be granted and the
[that?] Mr. Philip Kerr should draft a reply
for M. Clemenceau to send.)
3. Sir Maurice Hankey read a note received from
M. Fromageot on behalf of the Drafting Committee, proposing in Article
228 of the German Treaty to omit the word “military” before the word
“law”, so as to make the sentence read “such person shall, if found
guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law”. (Appendix II.)
Penalties: Articles 228 of the German
Treaty
M. Orlando pointed out that if Belgium chose to
send her military culprits before a Civil Tribunal, it was a domestic
matter which did not affect the other States.
(After a short discussion, the proposals of the Drafting Committee were
approved, and Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to notify the
Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)
4. With reference to C. F. 37B, Minute 10,2 the question was raised as to whether the political
articles affecting territory to be transferred to Italy would be ready
for inclusion in the Treaty to be handed to the Austrian Delegates on
Monday, June 2nd. Austrian Treaty: Political Articles
in Connection With Territory Transferred to Italy
Count Aldrovandi reported that the Commissions
to which some of the draft clauses had been referred, were meeting that
afternoon at 3 o’clock.
(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to ascertain whether the Reports of
the Commissions would be ready for consideration on the following
day.)
Note. Sir Maurice Hankey made enquiries, and
ascertained that the Report of the Financial Commission was ready. The
Report of the Reparation Commission, with which was bound up the
Economic questions, was not ready.
[Page 117]
5. There was a short conversation in regard to the German counter
proposals.2a
President Wilson said that he had sent the
German document to his Experts, and asked them merely to summarise what
counter proposals had been made by the Germans. He proposed to consider
these, and not their counter arguments. German
Counter Proposals
Mr. Lloyd George said he had had a preliminary
conversation with his colleagues on the British Empire Delegation, and
had invited several members of the British Government to meet him in
Paris on Sunday. There were certain statements of fact in regard to the
eastern frontier, for example, the distribution of population in Poland,
on which he would like to elicit the truth.
President Wilson referred to the statement that
750 years had passed since Silesia was Polish.
(After some further discussion, it was agreed to adjourn until Monday at
the earliest any further consideration of the question by the Council,
in order to give members an opportunity to study the question with their
respective Delegations.)
6. The Council had under consideration the second German Note dated May
22nd., on the subject of International Labour Legislation (Appendix
III), and the reply suggested by Mr. Barnes’ Committee (Appendix IV).
Reply to the Second German Note on the Labour
Organisation
(After the reply had been read aloud, it was approved.)
(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to notify the Secretary-General in
order that it might be presented for M. Clemenceau’s signature and
forwarded to the German Delegation.
It was further agreed that the Note should be published after
despatch.)
7. The Council had before them the remarks of the Drafting Committee on
the proposals of M. Kramarz on the Political Clauses for the
Czecho-Slovak State.
The discussion was adjourned owing to the fact that the Articles of the
Treaty to which M. Kramarz’ observations referred, were not available.
Austrian Treaty: Proposals by M.
Kramarz
8. With reference to C. F. 41, minute 8.3
Mr. Lloyd George asked leave to refer to the
despatches from Poland handed round by M. Clemenceau on May 29th.
(Appendix V.) The Polish-Ukrainian Armistice: General
Haller’s Position
The point to which he wished to call attention was the statement that
General Haller had said he had no recollection of any promise made by
him to anyone not to use his Army against the Ukrainians. This raised
the
[Page 118]
question as to whether
Marshal Foch had ever carried out his instructions to notify General
Haller that he was not to do so. He recalled that Marshal Foch had, at
one time, been exceedingly desirous of sending General Haller’s Army to
Lemberg.
M. Clemenceau undertook to make full enquiry
into the matter.
President Wilson read a report from a United
States Officer, a Lieutenant Foster, who had visited Sambor and
Stanisslau, and reported that in the districts he had visited, the
peasants, who were Ukrainians by nationality, had returned to the land
and showed no antipathy to the Poles; the Poles had behaved with great
tact and judgment, and had released all their prisoners; the Ukrainian
Government, according to this report, had proved most unsatisfactory—had
been unable to keep order and had made many requisitions mainly at the
expense of the Polish population. The Ukrainian transport had been
disorganised and the currency system hopeless. The Ukrainian troops had
perpetrated many outrages on the Poles, and this Officer marvelled at
the restraint shown by the Polish troops. In his view, the Ukrainians
were not capable of self-government, but he qualified his report by
stating that he had only visited a limited part of the country, and this
only applied to what he himself had seen.
9. With reference to C.F. 13, Minute I.4
M. Orlando again raised the question of the
action to be taken in cases where subjects of the old Austro-Hungarian
Empire had committed breaches of the laws of war and had subsequently
assumed some fresh nationality such as Czecho-Slovak or one of the other
nationalities formed out of the old Austrian Empire. He said that
according to his recollection, the previous decision had been to refer
this to the Drafting Committee but that the Drafting Committee had
received no instructions.*
Breaches of the Laws of War
President Wilson said that the difficulty was
that the Austrian Treaty could not bind the Czecho-Slovak State.
M. Orlando made the suggestion that the
Czecho-Slovaks should undertake in the Treaty to bring to trial in their
own Courts, persons accused of Breaches of the Laws of War.
This proposal was accepted.
(The attached Resolution (Appendix VI) was approved and initialled, and
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it immediately to the
Secretary General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)
Villa Majestic, Paris, 30 May, 1919.
[Page 119]
Appendix I to CF–42
situation in carinthia
After a period of violent disorders the situation in Carinthia had
once more become relatively calm after the American Professor
Coolidge, who had been asked to act as arbiter, had (January 31st
ult.) marked out a temporary frontier line while awaiting the
decisions of the Paris Conference.
On the night of April 29th ult. Jugoslav forces suddenly crossed the
aforesaid temporary frontier line in the sectors of Arnoldstein,
Villach, Rosenbach, Rain, making a determined thrust in the
directions of Rosenbach–St. Michael and Pass of Leitel [Loibl?] Ferlach.
The Austrian troops were driven back to the left of the Drava losing
men the number of whom has not been stated and leaving 10 guns in
the hands of the Jugoslavs. On April 30th, however, the Austrian
troops succeeded in re-occupying the lost territory, and on the
following days they, in their turn, crossed the temporary frontier
line, and came to a stand on what was practically the former
administrative frontier of Carinthia.
It seems that on or about May 9th, negotiations were entered into,
favored by the representatives of the Entente in Austria. They took
place at Klagenfurt between the Austrian Minister Deutsch and the
Jugoslav representatives, but no definite results were achieved, and
at last, on the afternoon of May 16th they were broken off by the
Jugoslav delegates (all Serbians). While the Austrians proposed that
the whole question should be left to the decisions of the Peace
Conference, the Jugoslavs insisted in maintaining their point of
view and reestablishing themselves on the line occupied by the
Jugoslav troops prior to April 29th.
The Austrian Government, and the Carinthian Provincial Government,
made anxious by the breaking off of the negotiations, aware of their
own weakness, and convinced of the imminence of a renewed attack by
the Jugoslavs, appealed to the Entente Powers, asking them to
interfere to obtain a cessation of hostilities.
The suspension of operations, which began about May 10th, lasted
until the 26th inst., but during all this time insistent rumours of
Jugoslav military preparations came to hand.
On May 27th, the Jugoslavs reopened hostilities. The attacks in the
nature of demonstrations on the western sector (Arnoldstein–St.
Jacob) have been conducted in a resolute way. On the eastern sector
(Eisenkappel–Lavamünd), the Carinthian troops, compelled to retire
on the lines of the Freibach and the Drava, are in a most critical
position; so much so that yesterday afternoon, May 29th., the
delegate of the Austrian Government to the Carinthian Government
informed
[Page 120]
the nearest
Italian Command that the Jugoslavs would probably enter Klagenfurt
to-day, and that Villach also was in danger.
It would seem that the Austrians have already sent a bearer of a flag
of truce to request the enemy to cease hostilities,
unconditionally.
Appendix II to CF–42
Note for the Supreme Council
The Drafting Committee have the honour to submit the following point
to the Council of Prime Ministers.
By Article 228 (Part VII, Penalties) the German Government is to
recognise the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring
before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts
in violation of the laws and customs of war. These persons, if found
guilty, are to be sentenced to punishments laid down by military
law.
The intention of this article is quite clear. It imposes upon Germany
the obligation to recognise the jurisdiction of the Allied and
Associated Powers to bring these men to justice after the end of the
war, but on the other hand it protects them by the prevention of the
imposition of arbitrary or unjust punishments as it lays down that
the punishments to be imposed by the military courts shall be
punishments laid down by military law.
It appears that in the case of Belgium the presence of the word
“military” before the word “law” will cause difficulty as it is the
rule in that country that certain classes of offences, when
committed by persons subject to military law, are tried, not by
military courts, but are transferred to civil courts. Consequently
military law in that country makes no provision for the punishment
of such offences. It is, therefore, maintained that the effect of
the above article as at present drafted will be in Belgium that
though individual German officers were brought to justice for
offences against the laws and customs of war committed during the
German occupation of that country, they will escape all punishment
as no punishments are laid down by the military law and, therefore,
none can be imposed.
The remedy would be to suppress the word “military” before “law” and
make the sentence read “such persons shall, if found guilty, be
sentenced to punishments laid down by law”. The punishments could
then be imposed which are laid down by the civil law but the purpose
of preventing arbitrary and capricious sentences would still be
achieved as the punishments must be punishments laid down by
law.
The Chairman of the Commission on Responsibilities (Hon. R. Lansing)
has been consulted and concurs in the proposal to make the above
change.
[Page 121]
The Drafting Committee therefore propose to omit the word “military”
before the word “law” in article 228 of the German Treaty and in the
corresponding Treaties with Austria and with Hungary unless the
modification is disapproved by the Council of Prime Ministers.
Pour le Comité de Rédaction:
Henri Fromageot
May 22, 1919.
Appendix III to CF–42
German Peace
Delegation,
Versailles, May 22, 1919.
international labour
legislation
Translation of German Note
Sir: In the name of the German Delegation I
have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Reply-Note, dated
May 14th, 1919,5 which has been given us on our
Note concerning International Labour Legislation.
The German Delegation takes note of the fact that the Allied and
Associated Governments are of one mind with the German Democratic
Government in believing domestic peace and the advancement of
humanity to be dependent on the solution of labour questions. The
German Delegation, however, does not agree with the Allied and
Associated Governments as to the ways and means of arriving at the
solution.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and false impressions, the German
Delegation deems it to be necessary to elucidate the fundamental
conditions precedent underlying their Note of May 10th, 1919.6
In the opinion of the German Democratic Government the final decision
in questions of Labour Law and Labour Protection belongs to the
workers themselves. It was the intention of the German Delegation to
give occasion, even while the negotiations of Peace are proceeding,
to the legitimate representatives of the working people of all
countries of casting their vote on this point and bringing into
conformity the Draft of the Conditions of Peace, the proposal of the
German Democratic Government and the resolutions of the
International Trade Unions Conference held at Berne from February
5th
[Page 122]
to 9th 1919. Contrary
to this proposal, the Allied and Associated Governments do not think
it necessary to call a Labour Conference at Versailles for this
purpose.
The International Labour Conference contemplated to be held at
Washington, to which you refer in your Reply-Note of May 14th 1919,
cannot replace the Conference demanded by us, because it is to be
held on the principles which are established by the Draft of the
Treaty of Peace for the organization of Labour. The latter, however,
disregards the demands raised by the International Trade Union
Conference at Berne in two material directions.
The first divergence is in respect of the representation of the
workers. According to the proposal of the International Labour
Conference at Berne, one-half of the members of the Conference
entitled to vote must consist of representatives of the workers of
each country who are organised in Trades Unions. The German
Delegation has endorsed this proposal by transmitting the Protocol
of the International Trade Union Conference at Berne. Contrary to
this, the draft of the Treaty of Peace grants to the workers only
one quarter of the total votes at the International Conference; for,
according to the Draft of the Allied and Associated Governments,
each country is to be represented by two Government Delegates, one
employer, and only one worker. The Governments are even in a
position, according to Article 390 of the Draft of the Treaty of
Peace, to exclude the workers’ vote by not nominating an employer
and thus giving to Governmental bureaucrats the casting vote as
against the representatives of practical life. This system is at
variance with the democratic principles which have, to the present
day, been upheld and fought for in common by the whole international
work-people, and will deepen the impression held among the workers
that they are, as before furthermore only to be the object of a
legislation governed by the interest of private capital.
The second divergence refers to the legally binding force of the
resolutions of the Conference. According to the resolutions of the
International Trade Union Conference at Berne the International
Parliament of Labour is to issue not only International Conventions
without legally binding force, but also International Laws which,
from the moment of their adoption, are to have the same effect
(legally binding force) as national laws (Proclamation to the
workers of all countries, adopted by the International Trade Union
Conference at Berne, 1919, at the motion of Jouhaux, the delegate of
France). The Draft of the German Democratic Government endorses this
resolution and makes the passing of such laws depend on the assent
of four fifths of the nations represented. No such resolutions can
be passed by a conference which is called on the basis of Part XIII
of the Draft of the Treaty of Peace, but only Recommendations or
Drafts which the Governments
[Page 123]
concerned may adopt or repudiate,—and for such non-obligatory
proposals a majority of two thirds of the votes cast is even
required.
In so providing, the Draft of the Conditions of Peace deviates to
such an extent from the resolutions of the International Trade Union
Conference at Berne that a discussion and decision by [of?] the Organisation of Labour, as part of
the Peace Negotiations, is absolutely imperative. This would at the
same time be in accordance with the demand raised by the
International Trade Union Conference at Berne that the minimum
claims of Labour agreed upon be, already at the conclusion of Peace,
turned unto [into?] International Law by the
Society of Nations. Moreover a firm foundation for the Peace of the
World shall be erected by this means, whereas a Treaty concluded by
the Governments alone without the assent of the organised workers of
all countries will never bring forth social peace to the world.
The Allied and Associated Governments give no place to these
considerations in their Reply. As have above been illustrated, the
resolutions of the International Trade Union Conference at Berne
are, in fact, not taken into consideration by Part XIII of the Draft
of the Treaty of Peace, so that the fears expressed by the German
Democratic Government with regard to social justice are in reality
not taken into account. This fact must be noted. If we are apprized
by the Reply-note that the representatives of the Trade Unions of
the countries represented by the Allied and Associated Governments
have taken part in the elaboration of the clauses of the Conditions
of Peace relating to labour, we must on the other hand make note of
the fact that they have made no announcement of any kind notifying a
change of their views on the resolutions of the International Trade
Union Conference at Berne, much less of an abandonment of these
resolutions which they themselves have adopted.
The German Delegation again moves to call a conference of the
Representatives of the national organisations of all Trade Unions,
before the Negotiations of Peace are terminated. Should this motion
again be rejected, an utterance of the leaders of the Trade Unions
of all countries is at least necessary. In moving this in the second
line, we desire to bring about, that the provisions of the Treaty of
Peace relating to Labour may also have the approval of all Trade
Union Organisations.
Accept [etc.]
His Excellency
The President of the Peace Conference,
M. Clemenceau.
[Page 124]
Appendix IV to CF–42
Conference de
la Paix,
Le President,
Paris, 28 May,
1919.
international labour
legislation
Reply to German Note
Sir: In the name of the Allied and
Associated Governments I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of your further Note dated May 22nd, 1919, on the subject of
International Labour Legislation.7 (Conditions
of Peace, Part XIII.)
The reply is as follows:—
1. The German Delegation states the principle for the German
Democratic Government that to the wage-earners belongs the final
decision in questions of Labour Law. The Allied and Associated
Democracies, who have had a very long experience of democratic
institutions, hold it to be their duty to collaborate with labour in
the formulation of such Law. But the laws must be passed by
representatives of the whole community.
2. The Allied and Associated Governments draw attention to a
fundamental misconception in the Note of the German Government of
the 22nd May, 1919, namely, that the views and interests of
Governments must necessarily be antagonistic to those of Labour.
Accredited Labour representatives now form part of some of the
genuine democratic Governments of the world, and the assumed
antagonism is not likely to be found anywhere save in the case of
Governments which are democratic only in name.
3. The Allied and Associated Governments fail to find in your letter
any useful guidance as to how the principles involved could in any
case find definite expression in the Peace Treaty. The Labour
Organisation which was submitted to representatives of Labour can
deal in a practical manner with any proposal put forward by any one
of the affiliated members. It is not correct to say that the demands
raised by the International Trade Union Congress at Berne are
disregarded, inasmuch as the points raised in these resolutions, as
well as all other relevant considerations, were discussed and
carefully considered, and for the most part are embodied in the
preamble of Part XIII or in the general principles which are
accepted to guide the League of Nations and the Labour Organization
in the attainment of social justice. There is manifestly no need for
another Conference to repeat those resolutions or to cause
unnecessary confusion or delay by adding to or departing from
them.
[Page 125]
The widest publicity has been given to the plan of Labour
Organisation, and the responsible Trade Union Leaders have been
given an ample opportunity to formulate definite suggestions.
4. The Allied and Associated Governments have already decided to
accept the idea of early admission of German representatives and to
ask the Washington Conference to admit them immediately thereafter
to full membership and rights in respect to the International Labour
Organization and the Governing Body attached thereto.
5. While the Resolutions passed by the Berne Conference in February,
1919, gave expression to the wishes of the workers and defined their
aspirations for the future, the Washington Conference provides the
means of giving effect to such of those aspirations as can be
embodied in legislation without delay, and the Labour Organisation
will give opportunities for progressive expression to others, in
accordance with the guiding principles already mentioned. The Labour
Commission set up by the Peace Conference, moreover, envisaged all
the points mentioned in your letter, as coming within the scope of
the Labour Organisation, including an International Code of Law for
the protection of seamen, to be specially drawn up with the
collaboration of the Seamen’s Union. (Copy annexed.)8
6. It also adopted a resolution (copy annexed)9 in favour of the Organisation being given power, as
soon as possible, to pass resolutions possessing the force of
international law. International Labour Laws cannot at present be
made operative merely by resolutions passed at conferences. The
workers of one country are not prepared to be bound in all matters
by laws imposed on them by representatives of other countries;
international conventions as provided for under the Peace Treaty are
therefore at present more effective than international labour laws,
for the infringement of which no penal sanctions can be applied.
7. In reply to the statement as to divergence from democratic
principles, the proposal of the Allied and Associated Governments as
has already been pointed out, goes farther than that of the German
proposition for three-quarters of the Delegates at the Labour
Conference will directly and indirectly represent the wishes of the
population, the two Government delegates representing the people at
large and the Labour delegates representing the workers directly,
the employers of labour being granted a representation of only
one-quarter. The theory of the German delegation that Article 390 of
the draft
[Page 126]
“may exclude the
workers” is wholly fallacious, as the so-called governmental
representatives, at least those of the Allied and Associated Powers,
would be representatives of the people of those countries. It is to
be remembered that in many countries a very large part of the
workers are engaged in agriculture and that these workers are not
generally united in industrial organizations, and it is therefore
peculiarly appropriate that their interest should be represented on
labour conferences through the governments.
8. Furthermore, the proposal of the German Delegation would permit
the prevention of the most beneficent legislation if it was opposed
by one-fifth of the Governments represented at the Labour
Conferences. It is of particular importance to notice that according
to the proposal of the German Delegation, each country in such a
conference would have one vote and thus the votes of Governments
representing perhaps only an insignificant minority of the workers
of the world would be able to defeat any proposal whatsoever. In
striking contrast with this autocratic idea is the proposal of the
Allied and Associated Powers, which not only permits voting in
conference to be by delegates and not by Governments, but also
permits a definite proposal to be made by two-thirds of the
delegates.
9. At the present time active preparations are being made for the
first meeting of the International Labour Organisation in October.
It is obvious, therefore, that no need exists for interposing a
Labour Conference at Versailles. Moreover, the suggestion of the
German Delegation that the peace negotiations should be delayed in
order to permit of another labour conference, is contrary to the
interests of the workers throughout the world, who are more
interested than anyone else in a return to peace and a relief from
the conditions produced by four years of German aggression. The
Allied and Associated Governments taking account of this most just
desire, are endeavouring not to postpone, but on the contrary to
hasten the conclusion of peace, and to secure the adoption of these
measures of social amelioration which would doubtless have been
adopted ere this had it not been that the commencement of the war by
Germany turned the efforts and thoughts of the world’s population
toward a struggle for liberty, during which time other ideals were
necessarily subordinated to that of freedom itself.
[No signature on file copy]
To His Excellency Count
Brockdorff-Rantzau
President of
the German Delegation, Versailles.
[Page 127]
Appendix V to CF–42
(Telegram No. 97 dated
Warsaw, 27th May,
1919.—19.18.
Received 28th May 1919, 11
hours.)
Translation of Despatches From the
French Minister at Warsaw
(Circulated at the request of M. Clemenceau)
I hastened immediately on its receipt to transmit to General
Pilsudski Telegram No. 68 which Your Excellency had sent me on the
subject of the employment of Haller’s Army in Galicia.10
On learning the contents of this document the Head of the Polish
State immediately stated that he had never heard of the engagement
taken by the Head of the late Polish Army in France to which the
Supreme Inter-Allied Council referred. On the afternoon of the same
day Mr. Udderewski made to me a similar statement. Thereupon the
Head of the Polish State decided to make enquiries from General
Haller.
The following reply was given to me yesterday evening by General
Pilsudski for transmission to the President of the Peace
Conference:—
From General Pilsudski to M. Clemenceau.
“On the 11th May at the time of Mr. Paderewski’s return from
Paris, a part of Haller’s troops were grouped close to our
frontier in the vicinity of Belz. Having been informed by
Mr. Paderewski of the reservations which one of the Powers
of the Entente had insisted upon in regard to the said
troops, I at once ordered a fresh regrouping in order to
avoid the possibility of a conflict between Haller’s troops
and the Ukrainians. As a result, one part of Haller’s troops
was transferred to Volhynia in the direction of the
Bolshevik Front, and another part was withdrawn from the
Front and placed in reserve with a view to its transfer to
the Western Front. I would particularly draw attention to
the fact that these movements were extremely difficult to
carry out quickly, and called for great efforts both on the
part of the troops and on the part of the
Commanders”.
Telegram No. 98 dated Warsaw, 27th May 1919, 23
hours 40.
Received 28th May 1919. 8 hours—15.
(Continuation of telegram No. 97)
It will not escape the notice of Your Excellency that in his
telegram the Head of the Polish State only mentions the
provisions which he has made in order to conform, as far as the
situation permits, with the promise made in Paris by Mr.
Paderewski to President Wilson, and to comply with the wishes
directly expressed by the British Government
[Page 128]
in the stipulations which were
reported to the Department in my telegram No. 60.
On the other hand, General Pilsudski refrains from making any
mention of General Haller and of the precise engagements which
the latter may have taken.
Now I have been able to learn that the Head of the Polish State
sent one of his Aide-de-camps to General Haller and that the
latter plainly stated that he had no recollection of any promise
made by him to any one on the lines indicated by the Supreme
Inter-Allied Council.
General Pilsudski decided to give the reply above quoted in order
to avoid transmitting General Haller’s flat contradiction to the
Supreme Council.
Telegram No. 99 dated Warsaw 27th May, 1919.
23–43.
Received 28th May 1919. 9 hours.
(Continuation of telegram 98)
Furthermore I would add for the information of your Excellency
that the sequence of events appears to have been as
follows:—
The original position of Haller’s Divisions was along the portion
of the Volhynia front opposite to the fortress of Lustk and
extended beyond this on Galician territory opposite Rawa-Ruska
north-west of Lemberg.
On Mr. Paderewski’s return, Col. Haller. the chief of the Polish
General Staff reported that the Grey Divisions of Iwaskiswiewicz
were alone advancing in Galicia in the sector south-west of
Lemberg. But as a matter of fact Haller’s Divisions in front of
Rawa-Ruska also took part in this movement. It was only later
that Haller’s second Division left its position north of Lemberg
in order to take up a position along the Silesian frontier in
front of Czentochau; and it was only yesterday that the Polish
General Staff reported that Haller’s 1st Division had left this
sector of Volhynia in order to take up a position on the right
of the 2nd Division on the Silesia front.
Appendix VI to CF–42
Resolution12
The provisions of articles 228 and 230 apply also to the governments
[Page 129]
of those states to
which have been assigned territories formerly a part of the old
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, in so far as they concern persons accused
of having committed acts contrary to the laws and customs of war and
who may be in the territory or within the control of those
states.
If the persons concerned have acquired the nationality of one of the
said states, the government of that state obligates itself to take
all measures necessary to ensure their pursuit and punishment, upon
the request of and in agreement with the interested power.
- G. C.
- W. W.
- D. Ll. G.
- V. E. Or.
May 30, 1919.
