Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/52
CF–52
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, June 7, 1919, at 4 p.m.
Paris, June 7, 1919, 4 p.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, O. M., M. P.
- France
- Italy
| Sir Maurice Hankey. |
} |
Secretaries. |
| Count Aldrovandi. |
| Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter. |
Note: M. Orlando did not arrive until 4.30.
Before his arrival, his three colleagues read and finally approved the
proposal handed to M. Orlando later in the Meeting in regard to the
Italian Claims in the Adriatic.
After the Memorandum had been agreed, there were short preliminary
discussions on matters interesting the four States, and which are
briefly recorded below.
1. Mr. Lloyd George said he had just seen the
United States Experts, who were anxious to fix on a figure for Germany
to pay.
M. Loucheur considered this difficult, and he was inclined to agree with
him. Reparation in the German Treaty
President Wilson said that it might be
difficult, but it would undoubtedly be best if it could be done.
Mr. Lloyd George said the figure would be so
high that Germany would not be able to accept it.
President Wilson said the object of the figure
was to get the Germans to agree.
Mr. Lloyd George said he preferred the plan to
which he and M. Loucheur were nearly agreeing on, by which Germany would
be given three or four months in which to name a figure, and by which
she would be allowed to pay a part of her reparation in material and
labour. He thought this would be better for the Germans also, and that
they would prefer it.
M. Clemenceau said he took the same view.
2. With reference to C. F. 47, Minute l,1 the Council had before them the Report of the
Military Representatives at Versailles.2
Fighting Between Czechoslovaks and
Hungarians
M. Clemenceau said that this report would
require study by the respective Military Advisers of the members
[Page 241]
of the Council. He thought
that some immediate action could be taken pending this study. He
recalled that the Roumanians had three times crossed the Armistice line
that had been drawn, but they had been stopped from advancing. The
Magyars had got to know that the Roumanians were being held back, and
had concentrated their forces and fallen on the Czecho-Slovaks, with
very serious results. Pending the study of the Versailles Report, he
proposed that a dispatch should be sent to the effect that this attack
on the Czechs had been made at the very moment when the Hungarians were
asked to come to Paris to make peace. If they would stop, we would make
peace with them. If they would not, we would take active measures
against them.
(It was agreed that General Albi, who was in attendance in the next room,
should prepare a draft.
At a later stage of the Meeting, General Albi’s draft was presented and
approved, subject to one slight modification, namely, the substitution
of some such words as “extreme measures” instead of “force” This was
inserted at President Wilson’s suggestion, as he did not like to
threaten force when no available force was on the spot.
The agreed dispatch is reproduced in Appendix I.
M. Clemenceau undertook to send the dispatch on behalf of the
Council.)
3. The Council approved the attached dispatch prepared by Sir Maurice
Hankey under instructions given at the morning’s Meeting, in regard to
the fighting in Carinthia. (Appendix II.) Carinthia:
Fighting Between Austrians and Yugo-Slavs
M. Clemenceau signed the despatch, and handed
it to M. Mantoux, to give to the Secretary-General for immediate
dispatch.
4. M. Lloyd George said that he had seen M.
Venizelos and M. Paderewski. M. Venizelos was quite definite that he
would prefer references to the League of Nations to be permissible only
to members of the Council of the League. Both M. Venizelos and M.
Paderewski had made the point that the Treaty ought not to enable
minorities to insist on the use of their own language. M. Paderewski had
said that the Yiddish language used in Poland was not Hebrew, but only a
corrupt form of German. To make it an official language would be almost
to make German a second official language in Poland. Report of Committee on New States in Regard to References to the
League of Nations
President Wilson pointed out that this was not
the question on which their opinion had been asked.
Mr. Lloyd George said that, nevertheless, both
of them had raised it.
[Page 242]
M. Paderewski had promised a written answer, and, when he had received
it, he would report again.
(M. Orlando and Count Aldrovandi entered during the following
discussion.)
5. The Council had before them a report dated June 6th from the
Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs, which had met to consider
the Klagenfurt question. (Appendix III.)
President Wilson read the report. Klagenfurt. Request for Instructions From the
Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs
M. Orlando said that, given the present
situation, which was accepted, the plebiscite appeared to him useless.
The Commission recognised that in Sector B the majority of the
population was Austrian, in Sector A the majority was Yugo-Slav. The
result of the plebiscite in these areas was therefore a foregone
conclusion, and it seemed useless to carry it out. The only basis for a
plebiscite would be one for the whole area, with a view to obtaining
unity for the whole district. He suggested, therefore, that it would be
better to take a decision at once that area A, on President Wilson’s
map, (i. e., the southern part of the area) should be Yugo-Slav; and
area B (namely, the northern part) should be Austrian. He pointed out
that there was a small section of the area which was traversed by the
Assling-Villach railway. He must make reserves in regard to this. The
reason for this was that he had already asked for the question of
disposition of Assling to be reserved, and claimed it for Italy. If the
railway north of it ran through the territory assigned to the
Yugo-Slavs, there would be no object in his reserves in regard to
Assling.
President Wilson said he must say frankly to M.
Orlando that he had gone out of his way in order to assign the junction
of Tarvis to Italy on the understanding that Villach should be Austrian
and Assling should be assigned to the Yugo-Slavs. The object of this was
to take the line Tarvis-Trieste right out of Yugo-Slav territory. He
could not assent, however, that both the lines together with all three
junctions should go to Italy.
Mr. Lloyd George said he was by no means
certain that M. Orlando was right in saying that area A would vote
Yugo-Slav. He had gathered from M. Vesnitch’s evidence that he also was
very doubtful. M. Vesnitch’s insistence that the area should be
allocated to the Yugo-Slavs without a plebiscite confirmed this view. He
thought M. Vesnitch’s evidence rather tended to support the views
expressed by President Wilson’s Experts.
M. Orlando said that in this case it would be
necessary to organise the plebiscite with all guarantees, and he did not
like the proposals of the Yugo-Slav-Roumanian Commission.
Count Aldrovandi pointed out that proposal 3 of
the Commission was not in accordance with their instructions.
[Page 243]
Mr. Lloyd George agreed. He asked why the
administration could not be by five Commissioners using the local
authorities.
President Wilson said the assumption was that
the local authorities were Austrian. However, any undesirable officials
could be excluded during the plebiscite, and his suggestion would be
that the Commission should be directed to conform with its previous
instructions.
M. Orlando agreed.
(After a short discussion, Sir Maurice Hankey was directed to reply to
the Commission in the following sense:—
1. The reply to the question in the second paragraph of the Commission’s
Report is that the régime of local Government should apply to zone B, as
well as to zone A.
2. The Council agree that the actual procedure at the plebiscite will be
very different, according as the date for it is fixed at six months
after the signature of the Peace, or three years after, or more. The
Council have received a communication from M. Vesnitch, but, instead of
giving a reply on this point, it only contained a counter proposal. M.
Vesnitch has been asked to give a definite reply to the question that
was put to him.
The Council agrees with the Commission that, in the first case, it will
be advisable to make arrangements like those proposed for Allenstein and
Sleswig, and, in the second, like those adopted in the case of the Saar
Basin.
3. As regards the remainder of the memorandum, the Council has read and
taken note of the observations of the Commission, but adheres to the
original instructions to Mr. Leeper as the basis of the Commission’s
work.)
(Admiral Hope was introduced.)
6. Admiral Hope read extracts from a Memorandum
prepared by Sir Esme Howard, General Thwaites and himself, and from a
Report by General Gough at Helsingfors with regard to the situation in
the Baltic Provinces. These Reports revealed a very complicated state of
affairs. The Germans were advancing North and North-East from Riga,
thereby preventing the Esthonians from advancing on Petro-grad. They
appeared to be taking this action in collusion with a Russian
Anti-Bolshevist force under Prince Lievin, with whom they had
established liaison by aircraft. From the available information it was
evident that the Germans intended— Baltic Provinces:
Action of the Germans
- 1.
- In conjunction with the German Baits in Latvia to advance into
Esthonia, and with the co-operation of the German Bait element
in the latter country to crush the Esthonian national
movement.
- 2.
- To make common cause with the North-Russian corps, (whose
sympathies are entirely pro-German) in an advance on Petrograd,
where they presumably proposed to instal a Government of their
own choosing.
[Page 244]
Admiral Hope urged that the Germans should at
once be ordered:
- (a)
- To stop all further advance Northwards in the direction of
Esthonia.
- (b)
- To make preparations for the evacuation of Letland under the
orders of the Allied High Command as laid down in Article 12 of
the Armistice Commission.
(After some discussion it was agreed that the question should be referred
to for report to the Military representatives of the Supreme War Council
at Versailles, with whom should be associated for the purpose of this
enquiry the United States of America, French and Italian navies.)
(Admiral Hope withdrew.)
7. President Wilson on behalf of M. Clemenceau,
Mr. Lloyd George and himself, handed M. Orlando the attached Memorandum,
containing proposals agreed to by himself and his colleagues in regard
to the Italian claims in the Adriatic. (Appendix 4.) He explained that
the Memorandum was only a sketch containing principles, and the scheme
had not yet been formulated in detail by experts. The only parts of the
project worked out in detail were the boundaries of the proposed free
state. It was hardly necessary for him to remind M. Orlando of the
scruples he had in arriving at any half-way agreement. He had thought
and still thought that it would be an assumption of unwarranted
authority on his part to concur in any suggestion for the transfer of
people against their will from one sovereignty to another. At every
turn, however, he found himself faced with the difficulty in which his
British and French colleagues were involved, but in which the United
States of America was not involved in agreeing. Rather than reach an
absolute impasse and after conferring repeatedly with his colleagues, he
had in association with them formulated this suggestion. Without
discussing or expounding it he would place it in M. Orlando’s hands as
the joint suggestion of the three Governments. He could not help adding
that reasonable people in the United States of America would probably
think he was not justified in assenting to the scheme until he had had
an opportunity to explain to them the whole circumstances. He made this
explanation only to indicate to M. Orlando the impossibility for his
Government to go further. He begged M. Orlando to put that aspect of the
matter before his colleagues in considering this proposal. As a matter
of detail he said he had changed one or two words as compared with a
copy sent to his experts owing to the difference in the nomenclature on
the map. He would also mention that there was a reference in the
memorandum to the line of the Treaty of London. The line adopted was
what experts called the Italian version of the
[Page 245]
line of the Treaty of London. He recalled that the
streams in this part of the country ran under ground for a certain
distance, and the British had drawn the line at the point where the
streams disappeared below ground, whereas the Italians had drawn it
where they came out again. Italian Claims
M. Orlando said it was impossible to study the
scheme here and now. He thanked President Wilson for all the trouble he
had taken in the matter. In loyalty he felt bound to declare that the
Tardieu scheme had been studied with an open mind, and when accepting it
the Italian Delegation had felt they were making an extraordinary
sacrifice. In doing so they went beyond what was their minimum. They
only accepted it in a spirit of resignation. He himself was not an
extremist and always sought compromise. After waging this war, however,
he felt very distressed that the doors of Italy were not closed. He had
something in him of the Franciscan spirit, but it was extremely bitter
for him to have accepted the Tardieu scheme. On Fiume Italy had received
no satisfaction. This was an Italian town that was treated in the same
way as some barbarous half civilised people, or as an enemy town. Here
was a people of the highest and most ancient civilisation, who had
emerged from a victorious war, and yet they were subjected to the same
system as some Pacific Island or the Saar Valley. This was a terrible
sacrifice, but nevertheless he had accepted it. It was the extremity of
the effort which he could make in sacrifice, and he must assure the
President and his colleagues that if, as he feared, the new proposal was
less favourable than the Tardieu proposal, it would be impossible for
him to accept it.
President Wilson said he hoped M. Orlando would
not say this, because there were impossibilities on his side also.
Mr. Lloyd George asked what M. Orlando meant by
not closing the gate?
M. Orlando said he referred to the Alps and the
Istrian Peninsula.
President Wilson pointed out that the crest of
the ridge was given to Italy.
M. Orlando pointed out that the proper crest of
the Alps was to the eastwards of this ridge.
Mr. Lloyd George objected to the suggestion
that the people of Danzig were semi-barbarous. They were one of the most
civilised and cultured people in the world.
M. Orlando said he only referred to them as an
enemy people.
He undertook to consider the proposal.
[Page 246]
8. President Wilson read a proposed reply to
Germany’s demand for admission to the League of Nations which he had
received from Colonel House, Lord Robert Cecil, M. Leon Bourgeois and
their associates (Appendix V.) Proposed Reply to
Germany’s Demand for Admission to the League of Nations
Mr. Lloyd George said he could not agree to the
admission of the Germans to the League of Nations within a few
months.
President Wilson agreed and suggested to
substitute within a “short time.”
M. Clemenceau expressed the gravest doubt as to
the wisdom of some of the proposals.
(After a short discussion it was agreed that the document required very
careful study, and Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to get it copied
and circulated to the Council the same evening.)
9. The Council had before them a report from the Financial Commission on
various points raised by the Polish, Roumanian, Serbian and
Czecho-Slovakian Commissions. (Appendix VI.) Report
by Financial Commission on Points Raised in Connection With the
Austrian Treaty (Reference to CF–51, Minute 92a)
These reports had been remitted to the Financial Commission by the
Co-ordinating Commission whose report had been approved on the same
morning.
The report of the Financial Commission was approved and initialled by the
four Heads of the State. Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it
to the Secretary General for the information of the Drafting
Committee.
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, 7 June,
1919.
Appendix I to CF–52
WCP–940
Telegram to the Hungarian Government
at Buda-Pesth, Communicated by Secretariat-General
Translation
The Allied and Associated Governments are on the point of summoning
Representatives of the Hungarian Government before the Peace
Conference at Paris in order that the views of the Conference on the
proper frontiers of Hungary may be communicated to them.
It is at this very moment that the Hungarians launch violent and
unjustified attacks against the Czecho-Slovaks and invade
Slovakia.
The Allied and Associated Powers have, however, already shown their
firm determination to put an end to all useless hostilities by twice
stopping the Roumanian Armies which had crossed the Armistice
[Page 247]
lines and then those of
the neutral zone, and by preventing them from continuing their march
on Buda-Pesth; also by stopping the Serbian and French Armies on the
Southern Hungarian front.
In these circumstances, the Government of Buda-Pesth is formally
requested to put an end without delay to its attacks on the
Czechoslovaks, otherwise the Allied and Associated Governments are
absolutely decided to have immediate recourse to extreme measures to
oblige Hungary to cease hostilities and to bow to the unshakeable
will of the Allies to make their injunctions respected.
A reply to the present telegram should be made within 48 hours.
Appendix II to CF–52
Telegram
From:—The President of the Conference.
To:— The French Minister at Belgrade.
For the Government of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene
Kingdom.
On May 31st the attention of the Government of the Kingdom of the
Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was called to the situation in Carinthia
and a request was made that explicit instructions should be issued
to the local Jugo-Slav Commanders to cease all hostile operations in
this area and withdraw their troops behind the frontier laid down by
the Conference. It was pointed out that such independent action
could not but prejudice the cause of those responsible for the
continuance of these hostilities.
On the 4th June a reply was received that the Minister of Foreign
Affairs had given an assurance that hostilities were terminated.
The Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers now learn
that the offensive which had declined in vigour on May 31st and June
1st was resumed by the Jugo-Slav forces from the 2nd to the 3rd.,
when they effectively bombarded the ground south of Klagenfurt, and
the surroundings of Grafenstein. On June 5th the Jugo-Slavs are
reported to have passed the Drava and arrived at a distance of from
6 to 8 kilometres from Klagenfurt. They continued to advance in
spite of the fact that Italian Officers notified them of the request
to cease hostilities which had been transmitted from Paris to the
Serbian Government. A little before midnight on June 5th., two
Jugo-Slav Officers entered Klagenfurt.
The Council are unable to reconcile this information with the
statements made to the French Minister in Belgrade. You should at
once demand explanations from the Government of the Kingdom of the
Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes and insist on immediate compliance with
the requests in my telegram No. 205 of May 31st.
G. Clemenceau
7 June, 1919.
Appendix III to CF–52
M–240
From: The Chairman of the Commission on Roumanian
and Yugoslav Affairs.
To: The Secretary General of the Peace
Conference.
The Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs met on June 6th
2.30 p.m.
The Commission has first the honour to ask whether the régime of
local government provided for applies, as the Commission believes,
to zone B as well as to zone A.
It further observes that it has not yet received from the
Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation the answer promised in paragraph 2 of
the Note of June 5th relative to the date of the plebiscite. It
thinks that the regime to be established as well for the provisional
administration of the territories in question as for the actual
procedure at the plebiscite, will be very different, according as
the date for it is fixed at six months after the signature of the
peace, or three years after, or more.
It considers that, in the first case, it would be advisable to make
arrangements like those proposed for Allenstein and Sleswig, and in
the second, like those adopted in the case of the Saar Basin.
Should the second solution be adopted, the Commission would beg leave
to draw the Supreme Council’s attention to the following
considerations:
The territory in question—even zone A—contains a Slovene population
of peasants and small artisans only, who will afford to the proposed
local Government no material for the formation of an administration.
Consequently, with a view to form one, the International Government
Commission will have to apply either to the Germans living in the
territory in question, or to the Slovenes assigned by the Treaty to
Yugo-Slavia, who being the only people speaking both German and
Slovene, will be the only ones capable of administering the
territory. In both cases serious difficulties may be expected.
The Commission further observes that the military occupation of the
country, and the judicial, fiscal, monetary, customs and commercial
systems would require, as in the case of the Saar Basin, a detailed
examination, for making which, no material is at present
available.
The Commission (exclusive of the Italian Delegation, whose point of
view is set forth below) thinks it its duty to ask the Supreme
Council whether it would not be more expedient to establish the
following regime in the zones A and B defined by the Supreme
Council:—
- 1°.
- The appointment of a Commission of five members nominated
by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, charged with
the task of preparing, in zones A and B, under the authority
of the League
[Page 249]
of
Nations, for a free expression of the wishes of the
population by ensuring the impartiality of the local
administration through the exercise of a right of
supervision and veto.
- 2°.
- The local administration of zone B provisionally entrusted
in these conditions, to the Austrian authorities in
accordance with the general rules of Austrian
legislation.
- 3°.
- The local administration of zone A entrusted in the same
conditions to the Serbian, Croatian and Slovene authorities
in accordance with the general rules of Serbo-Croat-Slovene
legislation.
- 4°.
- In each of the two zones a vote allowing the population
freely to express its opinion, according to the procedure
laid down by the Commission, regarding its final assignment
either to Austria or to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. This
vote shall take place, in zone A. at the end of a period of
. . . . . . . from the coming into force of the present
treaty and, in zone B, . . . . . . weeks after the
promulgation of the result of the vote in zone A.
This solution would avoid the above mentioned difficulties.
The Commission has furthermore the honour to convey to the Supreme
Council the two observations of the Italian Delegation, which, owing
to the terms of the Note of June 5th, they did not consider that
they had authority to discuss, and which are as follows:—
- 1°.
- The Italian Delegation thinks that, owing to the
geographical and economic conditions of the Klagenfurt
Basin, it is desirable to delimit the two zones provided for
in connection with the plebiscite, not from east to west,
but from north to south following a line running to the east
of Klagenfurt.
- 2°.
- The Italian Delegation asks that in any case the triangle
in which lies the Northern entrance to the tunnel of
Karawanken, and which comprises a section of railway about
10 kms in length essentially important for the port of
Trieste, should be excluded from the plebiscite.
The same régime ought to be applied to this triangle as to the zone
further to the south in which the territories ceded by Austria are
reserved for definitive assignment to the decision of the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers.
Appendix IV to CF–52
M–243
Memorandum as to a Suggested Basis
for Settlement of the Adriatic Question, Submitted for
Elaboration and Definition re [by]
Experts
(Handed by President Wilson on behalf of M. Clemenceau,
Mr. Lloyd George and himself to M. Orlando on 7th June, 1919)
- First. A free state to be set up within the following limits,
except as it may be deemed best by the experts to realign these
limits to
[Page 250]
correspond
with the natural configuration of the country: beginning at the
“American” line on Parallel 14° just North of Kirchheim, and
following that line South to Fianona on the Istrian Peninsula,
where it should run to the sea, extending it from Fianona
Southward around the Island of Cherso, thence Northward and
around the Island of Veglia, striking the mainland just West of
the Bay of Buccari, and running thence North and North-east to
Mount Risnjak, and thence North-west to join the “London” line
due East of Adelsberg or Zirknitz, and thence North-westward
along the “London” line to the point of beginning.
- Second. Fiume, within this free state, to be a corpus separatum only in the limited
sense in which it has been a corpus
separatum under the sovereignty of Hungary. The state
to enjoy absolute self-government under the superintendence of a
Commission of the League of Nations consisting of two
representatives of Italy, one representative of the free state
itself, one representative of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats
and Slovenes, and one representative representing a power other
than these and chosen by the Council of the League of
Nations.
- Third. Full guarantees and safeguards to be provided that the
States lying back of the Port of Fiume shall have free use of
and access to the port upon terms similar to those upon which
the use of the Port of Dantzig is secured to Poland. Full
guarantees and safeguards also as to rights of residence without
discrimination of nationality, and as to equal opportunities for
the use and investment of capital in the development of the port
or of its business, without discrimination between
nationalities.
- Fourth. At the end of a period of five years from the signing
of the agreements upon which this settlement is based, a
plebiscite to be taken within this free state as a unit (not by
parts) for the determination of the question whether the people
of the state desire to be placed under the sovereignty of
Jugo-Slavia, or under the sovereignty of Italy, or to remain a
free state under the League of Nations. A special commission to
be provided for to conduct and superintend this plebiscite,
which shall have the right to lay down the conditions under
which it is to be held. One of those conditions to be that no
one shall have the right to vote in the plebiscite who was not a
resident of the area included within the state on the first of
August, 1914.
- Fifth. The islands enclosed within a red pencil mark on the
attached map3 to be assigned in sovereignty to the Kingdom
of Italy, with the exception of those in the immediate vicinity
of the Port of Sebenico, on the condition that Italy is to
maintain no fortifications whatever on those islands and no
naval bases. The same limitations
[Page 251]
to be imposed upon the Kingdom of the
Serbs, Croats and Slovenes with regard to the islands remaining
in their possession.
- Sixth. The rights of national or racial minorities to be
guaranteed and safeguarded within all the districts in question
in this settlement by both the sovereignties concerned.
- Seventh. The City of Zara to be created a free city under the
League of Nations, representation of the city in respect of all
its foreign relations to be assigned to Italy.
- Eighth. The Assling Junction triangle to be definitely
assigned to the Sovereignty of Jugo-Slavia.
Appendix V to CF–52
M–242
Report to the Council of the Allied
and Associated Powers
Proposed Reply to the German
Proposals With Regard to the League of Nations
1. It has never been the intention of the Allied and Associated
Powers that Germany should be indefinitely excluded from the League
of Nations. On the contrary, it is their hope that the League will
as soon as possible include all nations that can be trusted to carry
out the obligations accepted by Members of the League. As soon as
they are satisfied that Germany possesses a stable government which
has given clear proofs of its intention to observe its international
obligations and to take the necessary steps towards disarmament, the
principal Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to support
Germany’s candidature for admission to the League, and they see no
reason, provided these necessary steps are taken, why Germany should
not become a Member of the League within a few months.
2. The Allied and Associated Powers do not consider that an addition
to the Covenant in the sense of the German proposals regarding
economic questions is necessary. They would point out that the
Covenant already provides that “subject to and in accordance with
the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to
be agreed upon, the Members of the League … will make provision to
secure and maintain freedom of communications and of transit, and
equitable treatment for the commerce of all Members of the League”,
and that a General Convention with regard to Transit questions is
now being prepared. So soon as Germany is admitted to the League,
she will enjoy the benefits of these provisions.
Further, the Allied and Associated Powers agree that so soon as
Germany is admitted to the League, Parts IX, X and XII of the
present
[Page 252]
Treaty shall be
subject to revision by the Council, with a view to determining
whether some, or all of the obligations thereby laid upon Germany
shall no longer apply except on the basis of reciprocity, provided
that the special necessities of the regions devastated during the
war of 1914–1918 shall be borne in mind.
3. The Allied and Associated Powers have already pointed out to the
German delegates that the Covenant of the League of Nations provides
for “the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point
consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action
of international obligations”. They recognise that the acceptance by
Germany of the terms laid down for her own disarmament will
facilitate and hasten the accomplishment of a general reduction of
armaments; they intend to open negotiations immediately with a view
to the eventual adoption of a scheme of such general reduction, and
they hope that substantial progress will have been made when the
Assembly of the League meets for the first time, as is intended, in
October of the present year. In these negotiations the question of
universal military service will be carefully considered. The actual
execution of any scheme that may be adopted must depend largely on
the satisfactory fulfilment by Germany of the disarmament terms of
the present Treaty.
4. The Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to accord to Germany
guarantees, under the protection of the League of Nations, for the
educational, religious, and cultural rights of the German Minorities
in territories hitherto forming part of the German Empire. They take
note of the statement of the German Delegates that Germany is
determined to treat foreign minorities within her territory
according to the same principles.
Appendix VI to CF–52
M–239
Peace
Commission,
Financial
Commission—Secretariat,
Paris, June 6,
1919.
The secretariat of the Financial Commission has the honor to send to
the Secretariat General of the Peace Conference copies of the
letters addressed to the Polish, Roumanian, Serbian and
Czecho-Slovak Delegations by the Financial Commission, in reply to
the observations submitted by these Delegations on the draft of the
financial clauses to be inserted in the Peace Treaty with
Austria.
[Page 253]
The Financial Commission has replied to all questions of a financial
order raised by the Polish and Czecho-Slovak Delegations before the
Supreme Council, the examination of which had been referred to the
Financial Commission by the Territorial Commission of which M.
Tardieu is chairman.
The Financial Commission has thought that, in order to take into
account certain observations submitted, it was necessary to submit
to the Supreme Council the few modifications or definitions,
herewith included, to the text of the clauses adopted by the Supreme
Council in its session of May 27, 1919.
Article 7, Par. 25
After the words “respective territories” at the end of paragraph 1 of
Clause 2 of Article 7 insert the following words: “In making the
above calculation the revenues of the Provinces of Bosnia and
Herzegovina shall not be included.”
Article 10, Clause 7, Financial
Chapter
Take out the words “and shall observe the priorities … hereinafter
described” in the second sentence, and substitute the words
“subject, however, to the special provisions of this Article.”
Note for Drafting
Committee
Article 12
Property belonging to “the old or new Austrian Government.”
It should be made clear that such “property and possessions” includes
property belonging to the former Austrian Empire and also the
interests of that Empire in the joint property of the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This will leave the “Hungarian Monarchy”
property to be covered by the Hungarian Treaty.
Article 15, Line 12
Omit the word “China”.
