Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/69
CF–69
Notes of a Meeting Held in President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, June 14, 1919, at 6 p.m.
Paris, June 14, 1919, 6 p.m.
-
Present
-
United States of America
-
British Empire
- Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
-
France
-
Italy
-
Japan
| Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
} |
Secretaries
|
| M. di Martino |
| Professor P. J. Mantoux—Interpreter
|
1. The Council had before them a memorandum on the observations presented
by the German Delegation relative to Part 9 of the Treaty, (Financial
Clauses) prepared by the Financial Com-Financial mission. (Appendix I.)
Financial Clauses: Reply to the German
Observations
(This Memorandum had been read by Members between the morning and
afternoon meetings and was approved without amendment.)
A copy of the Memorandum was initialled by the representatives of the
five States, since it provided for certain alterations in the Treaty of
Peace.
The initialled copy for the Drafting Committee, was handed to Mr. Hurst,
who, with M. Fromageot, attended the Council later in the meeting, in
connection with another question.
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to communicate a copy of the Memorandum
to the Secretary-General, for the information of the Editing
Committee.
M. Fromageot and Mr. Hurst, of the Drafting Committee, were present
during the following discussion.
2. The Council had before them the draft reply of the Commission [Page 454] on Belgian and Danish affairs
to remarks of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace (Appendix
II).
The reply with regard to Belgium was approved subject to a verbal
alteration in line 5 of the English version, the word “offset” being
substituted for “effect”. Belgium and Schleswig:
Reply to German Note
In regard to Schleswig, the Council decided in principle to drop the idea
of the plebiscite in the most southerly of the three zones. This
decision was taken in view of the objections of the Danish
Government.
M. Fromageot and Mr. Hurst, of the Drafting Committee were instructed
without waiting for any initialled authority to proceed with the
necessary alterations in the Treaty of Peace with Germany to give effect
to this decision.
The Council felt, however, that in view of M. Tardieu’s exceptional
knowledge in this subject, the matter should be brought to his personal
notice in case he might have any special objections to offer, in which
case he should arrange with the Drafting Committee not to make those
alterations without further questions.
M. Tardieu’s attention was also to be drawn to the fact that, if the
plebiscite were dropped, the memorandum on Schleswig would require
alteration accordingly.
The whole of the memorandum from the Heading “Article 34” onwards was
struck out by the Council. A question raised in the note of the
Financial Commission attached to the report of the Commission on Belgian
and Danish Affairs gave rise to a discussion which led to no change in
the Treaty of Peace or in the reply to the Germans (See below).
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to communicate these decisions to the
Secretary-General for the information of the Editing Committee.
3. After the reading of the memorandum from the President of the
Financial Commission dated 11th June, 1919 (Appendix III) attached to
the report on Belgian and Schleswig Affairs,
Mr. Lloyd George said that this raised a very
important question, namely, as to what was the position in regard to
Reparation of territories which were German at the beginning of the war.
For example, were Dantzig and Upper Silesia, both very wealthy states,
to bear no part of the burden of the reparation?Memorandum by the Financial Commission Dated 11th June,
1919
M. Clemenceau said that they ought to pay.
Mr. Hurst said that in regard to Dantzig,
nothing was provided as to a contribution for reparation.
President Wilson said that whatever views
anyone might hold [Page 455] about
Poland, the Polish people had been compelled to fight for the Central
Powers. They had had no choice. Their territory had been devastated by
Russia as well as by Germany. They had suffered as hard a fate as any
nation in the war. As all had from the first agreed that Poland was one
of the nations to be redeemed by the war, the question arose as to
whether any share of German reparation ought to be subtracted from her.
The question which Mr. Lloyd George raised, he said, had been discussed
again and again and had been given up because no decision could be
reached. He recalled the discussions on the subject in connection with
Austria and the proposals for a book-keeping arrangement.
Mr. Lloyd George reminded his colleagues that
in the Austrian Treaty, an arrangement had been reached which he
understood was going to be incorporated in the Treaty after discussion
with the States formerly constituting Austria.
President Wilson urged that to take up this
question involving a long delay was risky, in view of the urgency of
obtaining peace in the following week.
Mr. Lloyd George said at least it was important
to ascertain how the matter stood.
President Wilson said it had been a fixed
principle that nothing must be added to the burden imposed on Germany by
the Draft Treaty handed to the German Delegates.
Mr. Lloyd George pointed out that to make
Dantzig and Upper Silesia take a share of Reparation would not be
increasing, but lightening the burden on Germany, since these
territories would not be German.
M. Sonnino suggested that as Dantzig was to be
separated from Germany against its will, some consideration ought to be
allowed to it.
M. Clemenceau said the amount involved was
small.
Mr. Lloyd George said that there were 1,000,000
people in the Dantzig area, while Upper Silesia provided one-third of
the coal of Germany. The sum involved, therefore, was by no means small.
He would like to make some provision in the parts of the Treaty relating
to Upper Silesia providing that if any part of Upper Silesia went to
Poland, there should be a joint consideration between Germany, Poland
and the Commission as to how much of the burden of reparation was to be
borne.
M. Sonnino said that this would furnish a
tremendous argument against a vote in favour of going to Poland.
President Wilson said he regretted the matter
had been overlooked, but he thought it was now too late.
M. Clemenceau suggested that some agreement
should be made with the Poles.
[Page 456]
Mr. Lloyd George said it could only be a
free-will offering on the part of the Poles.
President Wilson thought that in view of the
political considerations involved this was the only fair method.
Mr. Lloyd George said that by not adopting his
proposal, the Council would not be letting off the Poles, but only the
rich Germans inhabiting Silesia would be released from their appropriate
share of reparation. It was not just to say to Silesia that if she voted
out of Germany, she would escape a payment of perhaps 500 million
pounds. This was loading the dice against Germany.
President Wilson protested strongly against the
use of this term. He pointed out that he was not obliged under the
Armistice to agree to a plebiscite in Upper Silesia at all, as No. 13 of
the Fourteen Points was perfectly clear on the subject. He had only
conceded the plebiscite to meet Mr. Lloyd George’s principles. So far as
Germany was concerned, having accepted the Fourteen Points, she had no
case to claim a plebiscite. He did not say that Mr. Lloyd George had no
case to claim this, but only that Germany had not. As the population had
been ground down under the land-owners, it would not be loading the dice
to make it exempt from sharing Germany’s burden of reparation.
M. Sonnino pointed out that the effect of no
share of reparation being taken by Upper Silesia, would be to offer the
rich proprietors of the land and of the mines a strong inducement to use
their influence to the utmost to vote against Germany.
Mr. Lloyd George said he must make a strong
protest against the release of Upper Silesia from taking any share of
reparation. He did not feel that he could withdraw the suggestion that
it was loading the dice, although of course, this had no personal
application.
President Wilson said that nevertheless he must
strongly demur to the use of this term.
M. Clemenceau said that as a matter of
principle Mr. Lloyd George was right, but he thought to adopt his plan
in practice would probably not be politic.
Mr. Lloyd George said that this might cost
scores of millions of pounds to the British Empire, and hundreds of
millions to France, and he had felt bound to make the strongest
protest.
(The discussion was adjourned.)
4. The Council had before them a note by Mr. Hurst on the question of
Dantzig, which they discussed with Mr. Hurst and M. Fromageot (Appendix
IV).
As the result of this discussion, it was decided that the sentence as to
the protection of the League of Nations in Paragraph 102 of the Treaty
of Peace with Germany, [Page 457] which
had been suppressed in consequence of a decision taken by the Council on
May 24th,1 should be reinstated. Dantzig
M. Fromageot and Mr. Hurst were authorised to make this alteration
without further authority. Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to
communicate the decision to the Secretary-General.
5. Mr. Hurst said that he and M. Fromageot had
been deputed by a joint meeting of the Drafting Committee and the
Editing Committee to obtain a decision of the Council as to whether the
five days to be allowed for the German Delegation to decide whether or
not they would sign the Treaty of Peace included the three days’ notice
which had to be given for the denunciation of the Armistice. A further
question arose as to whether the notification of the denunciation of the
Armistice should be made in a separate note or at the end of the letter
covering detailed replies to the German note. Expiration of the Armistice
It was agreed:—
- (1)
- That the five days allowed for the German Delegation within
which to make a declaration as to whether they were prepared to
sign should include the three days required for the denunciation
of the Armistice.
- (2)
- That a separate communication on this subject should be sent
to the German Delegation.
- (3)
- That the letter covering the detailed replies to the German
Delegation should also end with a statement to the same
effect.2
6. On the suggestion of M. Fromageot and Mr. Hurst, it was agreed that
the Drafting Committee should prepare for the use of the Germans a clean
copy of the Treaty of Peace, showing in red ink the alterations provided
for in the reply to the to the Germans German Note. Owing to the
numerous alterations in the Military Section and the Polish Section,
however, re-prints of those two sections would be presented. Communication of the Final Treaty of Peace to the
Germans
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, 14 June,
1919.
Appendix I to CF–69
WCP–959
Memorandum on the Observations
Presented by the German Delegation Relative to Part IX of the
Treaty (Financial Clauses)
Before examining each of the articles on which the German Delegation
has presented observations, the Allied and Associated Governments
wish to recall the reply made by Monsieur Clemenceau [Page 458] in their name on May 22,3 to a note from Count
Brockdorff-Rantzau dated May 13,4 and
especially Paragraph XIII of this letter:
“All the nations of Europe have suffered losses, they are
bearing and will still bear for a long time burdens almost
too heavy for them. These burdens and these losses have been
imposed on them by the aggression of Germany. It is just
that Germany, the primary cause of these calamities, should
repair them to the full extent of her power. Her sufferings
will be the result, not of the Peace conditions, but of the
acts of those who provoked and prolonged the war. The
authors of the war can not escape its just
consequences.”
Germany must accept burdens and very heavy burdens being laid on her:
financial obligations and guarantees taken by the Allied and
Associated Governments to obtain the payment of their claims.
Germany will be able to meet her financial obligations either by
means of property and resources that she possesses within the
Empire, or by means of property that she possesses abroad.
Within the Empire the Allied and Associated Governments have claimed
a charge only on the property and resources of the Empire and the
German states. Their right in this regard, resulting from the
financial clauses, has been limited as far as possible, and an
effort has been made to avoid giving it any vexatious character.
Finally, all exceptions compatible with the rights of the Allied and
Associated Powers have been granted which will permit the economic
interests and credit of Germany to be protected as far as
possible.
Outside the Empire the Allied and Associated Governments have
abstained from claiming the transfer of German property and
resources in neutral countries; they ask only the cession of
property which is not indispensable to Germany’s existence and which
can be given up without causing any profound disturbance in her
internal life.
In a word, in view of the burdens that Germany must assume, the
financial provisions adopted by the Allied and Associated Powers
spare the essential interests of Germany as far as possible.
Article 248 (1).
The Allied and Associated Powers again assert their right to obtain
the payment of reparations and other charges resulting from the
Treaty, in priority to the settlement of all other debts of the
Empire or of the German States.
Nevertheless, they consider it proper to provide, in certain special
cases, for the granting of exceptions to the general principle thus
laid down, and they are ready to insert at the beginning of Article
248 the following sentence: [Page 459]
“Subject to such exceptions as the Reparation Commission may
approve a first charge.”
This new stipulation will permit measures to be taken with a view to
protecting Germany’s credit as far as possible.
Article 248 (2).
The provision prohibiting the export of gold is a guarantee for the
Allied and Associated Powers; the latter have not, however, intended
to use their right without reserve, and they have provided that
Germany may export gold after receiving authorisation from the
Reparation Commission.
The latter will therefore have power to grant to the Reichsbank,
whenever it sees fit, “the right of export when it is a question of
guarantees that this bank has furnished and that it could not
furnish by any other means.”
Article 249.
The military occupation constitutes for the Allied and Associated
Governments one of the essential guarantees of the Allied and
Associated Governments; there can therefore be no argument about
it.
The cost of maintenance of armies of occupation has always been borne
by the nation subject to the occupation; Germany applied this
principle in 1871 when she imposed on France the cost of the German
armies of occupation (Convention of Ferrières, March 11, 1871).5
Article 250.
No distinction can be made between the war material lost by the enemy
in the course of military operations and the war material
surrendered in execution of an armistice which terminates these
operations. It is just therefore that the Reparation Commission
shall not credit Germany with the value of material thus
surrendered.
Article 251 (2).
The provision inserted in Paragraph 2 grants, in favour of the food
supply of Germany, an exception to the order of priority established
by Paragraph 1 of the same article.
Moreover, it applies solely to the food supply effected through State
organisations, since no charge has been established upon the
property of German nationals.
This clause is established in favour of Germany, and if the Allied
and Associated Governments have reserved a right of control over the
German food supply effected through State organisations, it is
because it appears impossible to consent to so important an
exception to the principle laid down in Article 248, without
reserving control.
[Page 460]
Articles 252 and 253.
The German Delegation has made observations relating solely to the
provisions respecting German property under the jurisdiction of the
Allied and Associated Governments. This question is dealt with in
another place.
Article 254.
The partition of the pre-war debt of the German Empire and of the
German States will be made in proportion to the contributory power
of the various ceded territories. The determination of this
contributory power is obviously very delicate, in view of the
diversity of fiscal systems in the different German confederated
states. Therefore it has not been thought desirable to settle this
question at present, and it has been left to the Reparation
Commission to estimate which of Germany’s revenues will make it
possible to compare the resources of the ceded territories and those
of the Empire.
Moreover, the Allied and Associated Governments can not consider the
assigning of a part of Germany’s war debt to the liberated
territories; such a division would in fact make the Powers receiving
these territories support a part of Germany’s war debt, which is
inadmissible.
Article 255 (1).
The exception made in favour of France to the provisions of the
conditions of Peace, whereby the State receiving a territory assumes
part of the public debt of the state ceding this territory, and pays
for the State property situated on the territory ceded, is justified
very easily. In 1871 Germany, in taking Alsace-Lorraine, refused to
assume any part of the French debt, and paid for no French State
property. The railways whose value has been credited to the
indemnity of war were private property being owned by the Compagnie
de l’Est. Today France ought to recover Alsace and Lorraine under
precisely the same conditions, and hence she ought not to assume any
part of the German debt or pay for any state property, including
State railways.
Article 255 (2).
It cannot be contemplated that Poland should bear either directly or
indirectly the burden of a debt contracted to extend Prussian
influence at the expense of Polish rights and traditions.
Article 257.
The German colonies having deficits cannot possibly assume a part of
the German Debt. It is to be noted moreover that a large part of the
expenses incurred in the German Colonies was military and
unproductive in character.
[Page 461]
It would be unjust under these conditions to demand that the State
made a mandatory by the League of Nations should assume a debt that
the colony cannot support.
Article 258.
The Allied and Associated Governments have a right, after the events
that have happened since 1914, to demand that Germany be no longer
intimately involved in their financial and economic life, nor in
that of her former Allies, nor in that of Russia.
Moreover, it seems almost certain that Germany, in order to meet the
burden of reparations, will find herself obliged to alienate the
greater part of the foreign securities held by her nationals. The
protection of German holders, whose interests will by this fact be
very much reduced, would no longer justify German participation in
international organisations.
Article 259.
The German Delegation has presented in Annex II6 of these remarks,
as well as in a special note of May 29, 1919,7 a certain number of
observations.
The first relate to the transfer of sums deposited in Germany in the
name of the Ottoman Debt, of the Imperial Ottoman Government, or of
the Austro-Hungarian Government.
The details furnished by the German Delegation on certain transfers
effected in Germany necessitate two modifications.
In Paragraph 1 substitute: “… the sum in gold which was to be deposited in the Reichsbank in the name of . . .
. .” for: “the sum in gold deposited in the Reichsbank in the name
of . . . . . . “.
In Paragraph 3 substitute: “… the gold deposit constituted in the
Reichsbank or elsewhere representing …” for: “the gold deposit
constituted in the Reichsbank representing …”.
But the Allied and Associated Governments cannot do otherwise than
maintain the other provisions of Article 259.
In the first place, the Allied and Associated Governments have not
lost sight of the fact that the obligation assumed by the German
Government toward Turkey has for its counterpart the engagement of
the Turkish Government to reimburse Germany later for the sums
advanced by her. Article 259 must be compared with Article 261. The
latter provides that the German credit shall be transferred to the
Allied and Associated Governments.
In the second place, the Allied and Associated Governments have in
their possession evidence showing under what conditions transfers
[Page 462] of gold and silver
were made in November, 1918, to the Turkish Ministry of Finance.
In the third place, they are of the opinion that if “no sum in gold
or any pledge has been transferred to the German Government nor to
the banks concerned, for the advances that Austria-Hungary has
received through the medium of German banks”, the provision in
paragraph 5 will be without effect, and consequently it cannot give
rise to any protest on the part of the German Delegation.
The other observations relate to the renunciation by Germany of the
Treaties of Bucarest8 and Brest-Litovsk.9
The German Delegation claims the annulment of the engagements
incumbent on Germany by reason of these Treaties, as well as of the
advantages stipulated in her favour.
These observations are not well founded.
In fact, Article 292, which the German Financial Delegation seems to
have overlooked, abrogates purely and simply these Treaties, of
which moreover the German Delegation declares (General Remarks, Part
VII) that “there can be no further argument”, since “Germany has
already renounced the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Peace of
Bucarest was never ratified.”
The Allied and Associated Governments have, moreover, searched in
vain in the Peace of Bucarest for “engagements made by Germany”.
Article 260.
The Allied and Associated Governments are of the opinion that the
cession of the rights and interests of German nationals in every
enterprise of public utility and in every concession in Russia and
in the countries formerly allies of Germany impose on the latter one
of the obligations which are the least harmful to her.
These rights and interests are not indispensable to the existence of
Germany, and their transfer can cause no serious disturbance in her
commercial and industrial life.
The Allied and Associated Governments have been able, moreover to
appreciate, in the course of the war, what use Germany was capable
of making of the control she possessed over her allies and over
Russia, and they consider that they have the right to withdraw from
Germany all devolution of public authority in these countries.
Article 261.
The Allied and Associated Governments reserve the right to demand
from Germany the transfer of all her credits on Austria, Hungary,
Bulgaria and Turkey.
[Page 463]
But Article 243 provides that the amount of these credits shall be
entered to Germany’s account under the category of reparations at
such value as the Reparation Commission shall deem suitable.
Article 262.
The obligation to pay in specie cannot be interpreted as an
obligation to pay in actual gold.
On the other hand, the Allied and Associated Governments cannot admit
that Germany should pay “in the currency of the country in which the
injury has been committed.”
The countries which have suffered heavy damage must, to rebuild their
ruins, have recourse to the aid of the Allied and Associated
countries, and will have to incur heavy expenditures abroad; it
would be inadmissible not to leave them the choice of claiming
payment in the currency of which they may stand in need.
Moreover, the bonds to be issued by Germany on account of the sums
due for reparation must have a very wide market, and their interest
must be payable in several currencies.
Finally, whenever it is a question of defining an obligation to pay,
it must be done in a fixed currency.
Article 263.
In a note of May 29, 1919, the German Delegation has made certain
observations relative to this article.
The product of the sale of São Paolo Coffee at Trieste having been
deposited in the Bleichroder Bank, the Allied and Associated Powers
cannot accept the suggestion of the German Delegation that these
sums should not be included in Article 263.
At the same time the Allied and Associated Powers recognise that the
words “with interest at 5% from the day of deposit” should be
changed as follows: “with interest at the rate or rates agreed
upon”.
The Allied and Associated Powers are willing, moreover, to omit the
word “compulsory” from Article 263, if the Delegation of the German
Government so desires.
The German Government having refused to authorise the withdrawal of
these sums and having agreed to return them “intact” at the end of
the war, the Allied and Associated Powers must insist that the
reimbursement be effected at the rates of exchange existing at the
time that the deposits were made.
[Page 464]
Appendix II to CF–69
WCP–991
Draft Reply of the Commission on
Belgian and Danish A fairs to the Remarks of the German
Delegation on the Conditions of Peace
Belgium
The territories of Eupen and Malmedy were separated from the
neighbouring Belgian lands of Limburg, Liêge, and Luxemburg in
1814–15, when they were assigned to Prussia in making up the number
of people on the Left Bank of the Rhine taken over as an effect [offset] for certain renunciations in Saxony.
No account was taken of the desires of the people, nor of frontiers,
of geography or language. Nevertheless, this region has continued in
close economic and social relations with the adjacent portions of
Belgium, and in spite of a century of Prussification the Walloon
speech has maintained itself among several thousand of its
inhabitants. At the same time the territory has been made a basis
for German militarism by the construction of the great camp of
Elsenborn and various strategic railways directed against Belgium.
These reasons seem sufficient to justify the reunion of the
territory to Belgium, provided the petitions to this effect are
sufficiently supported by the population of the district. The Treaty
makes provision for consulting the population under the auspices of
the League of Nations.
In the neutralized territory of Moresnet which Prussia claimed under
the Treaty of Vienna,9a the Prussian claim of
sovereignty has never been admitted by Belgium. The Treaty settles
this dispute in favour of Belgium and at the same time awards to
Belgium, in compensation for the destruction of Belgian forests, the
adjacent domanial and communal woods in Prussian Moresnet.
Schleswig
In Schleswig, taken from Denmark by Prussia in 1864, Prussia promised
by the Treaty of Prague in 186810 that the populations of the northern
districts should be ceded to Denmark if by a free vote they
expressed a wish to be united to Denmark. In spite of repeated
demands on the part of the inhabitants, no measures have ever been
taken by Prussia or the German Empire to carry out this promise, and
the Government of Denmark and the people of Schleswig have asked the
Peace Conference to secure for them a plebiscite. This the Treaty
now guarantees. At the request of the Danish Government provisions
have been drawn up for the evacuation of the territory as far as the
Rider and the Schlei by German troops and the higher [Page 465] Prussian officials, and for the
temporary administration of the territory and the holding of the
plebiscite by an impartial International Commission representing
Norway and Sweden as well as the Allied and Associated Powers.
Besides the two northern zones in which a plebiscite has been
requested by the Danish Government, it has seemed wise to extend the
plebiscite to the rest of the evacuated territory, reaching to the
historical Danish frontier of the Dannevirke, in order that the
widest and freest opportunity might be given for the
self-determination of the population, and that a clear expression of
its political sympathies might remove all occasion for future
agitation and uncertainty. On the basis of the plebiscite thus held
in these three zones the International Commission will recommend a
definite frontier between Germany and Denmark, the line being drawn
with due reference to geographical and economic conditions.
Article 34
Germany renounces in favour of Belgium all rights and titles over the
territory comprising the whole of the circles (Kreise) of Eupen and Malmedy.
During six months after the coming into force of the present Treaty,
the Council of the League of Nations will send to the communes of
Eupen and Malmedy delegates, who will collect in whatever manner
they shall decide, the free and secret expression of the wishes of
those of the inhabitants who desire to see the whole or part of
these territories continue to remain under German sovereignty.
It will be the duty of the League of Nations to decide upon the
result of this enquiry. Belgium undertakes to accept the decision of
the League of Nations on the subject, founded upon the results of
this public expression of opinion and to make any transfer of
territory which may be required of her in consequence thereof.
The Commission on Belgian and Danish Affairs has considered to what
extent Article 114 of the Treaty should be amended in order to give
satisfaction to the wishes expressed by Denmark.
Considering first, that the question is essentially of a technical
nature, second, that it is both legitimate and politic to take into
account to the largest possible extent the desires of Denmark, and
third, that it is necessary to ensure to the Allied and Associated
Powers the full benefit of the rules laid down in Articles 254, 255
and 256;
The Commission would be glad if the Supreme Council would invite the
Financial Commission to propose a draft, taking into account these
various considerations.
Paris 13 June. 1919.
[Page 466]
Appendix III
WCP–992
From: The President of the Financial Commission.
To: The President of the Peace Conference.
The Financial Commission has examined the draft Article which the
Danish Government proposes to substitute for Article 114 in the
draft Treaty with Germany.
In the first place, this draft proposes to alter the rules laid down
for the repartition of the debt of the German Empire and the German
States among the States to which German territory is to be
ceded.
The Financial Commission only laid down the principles contained in
Article 254, after a detailed examination of the question, and after
having discussed all the possible methods of repartition. They are
of the opinion that the reasons put forward by Denmark are
insufficient to cause them to alter the decisions already taken.
In the second place, Article 256 of the draft Treaty provides that
“the value of the property belonging to the German Empire or to the
German States—shall be fixed by the Reparation Commission and paid
to the credit of the German Government on account of the sums due
for reparation.”
The Financial Commission is of opinion that it is impossible to limit
the complete liberty of the Reparation Commission and to lay down
that the property shall be reacquired at its “pre-war value.”
Moreover, the compensation proposed by Denmark enters on the one
side, the sums due by Denmark on account of the repartition of the
debt and of the transfer of public property, and on the other hand,
“the credits due to Denmark from Germany, resulting from the
restoration of territory or from the world war”, seems to be
contrary to the priority established over all the property and
resources of the German Empire and States for the payment of
Reparation and for charges resulting from the Treaty, (Article
248).
The Financial Commission is of the opinion that the Commission
appointed to study the Articles dealing with Reparation should have
been consulted on this matter. So far as they themselves are
concerned, they are of opinion that the sums due by Denmark on
account of the division of the debt and the cession of public
property ought to be paid in full to the Reparation Commission.
There has, in addition, been referred to the Financial Commission the
Note of the Danish Legation, proposing to provide in the Treaty for
the Creation of “a mixed Danish-German Commission, the Chairman of
which should be nominated by the Allied and Associated Powers, and
to which there should be entrusted, reserving the final approval of
the Reparation Commission, the final financial settlement; questions
relating to the valuation of the different items to [Page 467] be brought into account, those
referring to Danish Credits which result from the restoration of
Schleswig as well as questions dealing with the restoration of works
of art, collections, libraries and other artistic and scientific
objects.”
The Treaty provides that a very large number of these questions
should be examined by the Reparation Commission and that Commission
has full powers to entrust to any such special Commission which it
thinks fit to appoint, the examination of any particular
question.
As to the other “questions that arise from the transference of the
territories to the guarantee States” to be ceded in virtue of the
Treaty, they must be regulated according to special Conventions.
There is a general regulation laid down, not only in Article 114,
but also in the Articles relating to the Czecho-Slovak State, to
Poland, to Alsace . . . . . and any alteration of Article 114 would,
it is thought, entail consequential amendments in Articles 79, 86,
and 92. The question whether these amendments are desirable, is
outside the competence of the Financial Commission.
Paris, 13 June, 1919.
Appendix IV
M–267
danzig
Sir Maurice Hankey: By instructions dated
the 24th May the Drafting Committee was instructed to revise
Articles 102 and 104 of the German Treaty in accordance with the
original instructions as set out in the communication in
question.
I am not certain whether it was realised when these instructions were
forwarded that the effect was to eliminate the provision which had
been inserted placing Danzig under the protection of the League of
Nations.
The original instructions relating to Danzig were dated 22nd April.
Shortly afterwards M. Paderewski urged that Poland should be
authorised to send troops into Danzig for its protection in case of
attack. This suggestion was rejected by the Council of Four who
considered that responsibility for the protection of the Free City
should rest with the League of Nations as it would be open to the
League of Nations to authorise Polish intervention for the purpose
if required. This decision was communicated in a letter dated 26th
April to Mr. Headlam-Morley confirming decisions which had been
reached by the Supreme Council in his presence that morning.11 Paragraph 2 was to the
effect that responsibility for the protection of Danzig against [Page 468] external attack should be
vested in the League of Nations. A copy of this letter was sent to
the Drafting Committee and the wording of Article 102 was modified
accordingly.
The decision of May 24th12 to restore the original
proposals of the Danzig Committee entailed the suppression of this
sentence as to the protection of the League of Nations and may lead
to complaint by M. Paderewski to whom the decision had probably been
communicated at the time.
C. J. B. Hurst
June 12, 1919.
