Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/85
CF–85
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Monday, June 23, 1919, at 12:10 p.m.
Paris, June 23, 1919, 12:10 p.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, O. M., M. P.
- The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.
- France
- Italy
- Japan
| Secretaries— |
{ |
Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
| Count Aldrovandi. |
| Interpreter—Prof. P. J.
Mantoux. |
1. The Council had before them the draft, prepared by the Committee on
New States, of the Covering Letter to be addressed to M. Paderewski in
transmitting to him the Treaty to be signed by Poland, under Article 93
of the Treaty Letter Thereto; Peace with Germany, which had been
prepared in accordance with a decision taken on June 21st, C. F. 77,
minute 1,1 (Appendix I). The Polish Treaty and the Covering Letter Thereto;
(Mr. Headlam-Morley and Mr. Hudson Were Present During This
Discussion)
Mr. Lloyd George raised the question of the
language to be employed in the Jewish schools in Poland. He thought that
M. Paderewski’s criticisms in this respect had force. In the United
States of America or in Great Britain, for example, the religious
idiosyncracies of particular sects were given some latitude, but were
fitted into the educational system of the country. It was a question,
however, whether the Jews ought to be allowed separate schools in
Poland.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that under the
stipulations of the Treaty, the schools for Jews in the Polish State
were to be administered by Committees of Jews.
Mr. Lloyd George asked if that gave them more
power than under the system in force in the United Kingdom, where Roman
Catholics and Jews supervised their schools, but the general system and
curriculum was a part of the education of the country and under the
State.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that the system in the
Treaty had been deliberately arranged so that the education should
remain under the
[Page 625]
Polish State,
though the management of the schools would be under persons of the
Jewish faith. This point was explained in the covering letter.
Mr. Hudson said that the principles adopted in
the Treaty were very elastic so as to leave the schools under the
general control of the State.
Mr. Lloyd George asked who would arrange the
curriculum.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that the State would be
in a position to lay it down.
Mr. Lloyd George said that this was not M.
Paderewski’s reading of the Treaty.
Mr. Hudson suggested that the draft letter
might be amplified to make it quite clear to M. Paderewski.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said he had suggested that
the word “persons” should be substituted for “Committees” in regard to
the schools, the object being that people were apt to be frightened by
the use of the word “Committee”. His colleagues, however, had not agreed
in this. In their latest draft, the Commission had cut out all reference
to a Central Polish Committee, and had substituted the word
“Committees”.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that in the United
Kingdom a Roman Catholic school was a local Roman Catholic school. No
such provision was made here. Under this Treaty there might be a great
Central Jewish Committee in Warsaw.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that alterations had
been inserted to meet this.
Mr. Balfour suggested that in Article 10 the
word “local” should be added before “Committee”.
(This was agreed to.)
Mr. Lloyd George asked if it should not be made
clear that Yiddish should not be taught. There was no objection to
Hebrew, which was a recognised language, but he did not think that
Yiddish ought to be taught.
President Wilson pointed out that Yiddish was a
spoken language in many parts of the world, including the United States.
The Polish Government ought not to be in a different position towards it
from other countries.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that the Commission
were informed that in the case of very small children, no other language
but Yiddish could be used. They spoke Yiddish in their homes, and, when
they first came to the school, they knew no other language. It ought not
to be used, however, when the children were older.
Mr. Lloyd George asked what was done in New
York? President Wilson said that teachers were
appointed, who understood Yiddish, and they gave their instruction in
Yiddish.
[Page 626]
Mr. Lloyd George said that there was all the
difference between giving instruction in Yiddish and teaching the
Yiddish language. Every effort ought to be made to merge the Jews of
Poland in Polish nationality, just as the Jews in Great Britian or
France became merged in British or French nationality. He was told there
was an active movement to keep the Jews not merely as a separate
religion, but as a separate race.
President Wilson pointed out that in this case
we were not dealing with Great Britain or France or the United States,
where the Jewish population knew that they were governed on the same
principles as the other subjects of the State. If the Polish State would
adopt the same principles, it would help matters.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that in Poland there
was an extremely aggressive Jewish national movement.
Mr. Lloyd George read the following resolution,
which had been adopted on Saturday (C. F. 77, Minute 1):—2
“The Commission was also authorised to consider the nature of
alterations required in the draft Treaty with Poland, in order
to provide that in all except the primary schools, Jewish
children should be instructed in the Polish and not in the
Yiddish language, thereby avoiding the risk of encouraging the
use of Yiddish as one of the national languages for a part of
the population of Poland.”
He thought that that went rather too far, as it
suggested that the children would be taught Yiddish in the primary
schools.
President Wilson read the following extract
from Article 9 of the draft Polish Treaty:—
“Poland will provide in the public educational establishments in
towns and districts, in which a considerable proportion of
Polish nationals of other than Polish speech are residents,
reasonable facilities for ensuring that instruction shall be
given to the children of such Polish nationals in their own
language.”
He proposed to add after the word “public” the word
“primary”.
Mr. Headlam-Morley pointed out that that would
enable the Germans to be instructed in the German language. The majority
of the Committee, he said, thought that the decision on Saturday applied
only to Yiddish children. Germans in the transferred districts could be
taught in the German language, but they would have no Committee as the
Jews would have. In the case of the Jews, Yiddish might be used in the
primary schools as a medium of instruction, but not in secondary
schools. The majority of the Committee thought that it was not fair to
ask the Polish Government to devote funds for secondary instruction in
the Yiddish language. The American Delegation, however, had dissented
from this view.
[Page 627]
President Wilson read the following extract
from a memorandum giving the view of the American Delegation:—
“2. In pursuance of his suggestion to the Supreme Council on
Saturday, Mr. Headlam-Morley wants to add to Article 10,
concerning the Jews’ control of their own schools, a statement
that
‘Nothing in this article shall prevent the Polish
Government from making obligatory the use of Polish as
the ordinary medium of instruction in the higher
schools.’
This addition goes beyond my understanding of
his suggestion on Saturday. It is strongly opposed by the
American Jews here. I have opposed it for the following reasons:
- (a)
- It would encourage the Poles to forbid Yiddish
instruction in Jewish superior schools, thereby greatly
diminishing the value of Article 10.
- (b)
- Since the Jewish schools are to be “subject to the
general control of the State”, the Polish Government is
not forbidden by the articles as they stand to regulate
the languages to be used in them.
- (c)
- The articles as they stand leave the Polish Government
free to require that all college and university
instruction should be in Polish.
- (d)
- The unity of the Polish State, so far as languages in
schools are concerned, is already sufficiently protected
by the provision that the teaching of Polish may be made
obligatory.”
It was not a question, he said, of whether children
should be taught Polish, but whether it should be used as the sole
medium of instruction in all the primary schools.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that the view of the
majority of the Commission was that as the children came from homes
where Yiddish only was spoken, it must be the medium of instruction in
the first instance.
M. Sonnino asked why the teaching of Yiddish
should be prohibited.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said it was not prohibited.
The only question was how much the Polish Government was to be forced to
do in the way of providing facilities for the use of Yiddish in the
schools.
Mr. Lloyd George said that he was not in favour
of imposing as an international obligation on the Polish Government the
teaching of Yiddish. He would only assent to its use as a medium of
instruction in primary schools.
M. Sonnino asked whether, supposing Poland
prohibited the teaching of Yiddish, would not this be inflicting the
hardship which it was desired to avoid? The Jews would then either have
to teach Yiddish at home, or maintain special schools for it.
Mr. Headlam-Morley said that the Jewish
movement in Poland was not with the object of promoting a religious
movement, but a separate Jewish nationalism. A Jewish friend of his, who
had just returned from Poland, had told him that there was an increasing
use of Yiddish in the streets.
[Page 628]
(After some further discussion, it was agreed:—
- 1.
- With regard to the use of languages other than Polish, the
Polish Government should be given a free hand in all schools
except primary schools. But, in those cases where there was a
considerable minority, as provided in Article 9 and 10 of the
draft Treaty with Poland, of children of Polish citizens
speaking a language other than Polish, facilities should be
given for them to receive instruction in the primary schools
through the medium of their own language. The Commission on New
States were authorised, in conjunction with the Drafting
Committee, to make the necessary modifications in the draft
Treaty with Poland.
- 2.
- The draft letter to the Polish Delegation submitted by the
Committee was approved, subject to a re-drafting of the passage
dealing with schools, in accordance with the above
decision.)
2. Mr. Balfour urged that the term “persons of
Jewish faith” should be used instead of Jews in the Treaty with Poland.
He was strongly in favour of only giving privileges to Jews on the
ground that they were of Jewish religion and not because they were of
Jewish faith [sic]. Political
and Religious Use of the Term “Jew”
M. Sonnino pointed out that if a Jew became a
Christian, he would then not receive the protection.
(Mr. Headlam-Morley and Mr. Hudson withdrew.)
(M. Tardieu, Captain Johnson, Mr. Leeper,3 Colonel
Pariani4
and Captain de St. Quentin5 were introduced.)
3. M. Tardieu explained a difficulty that had
arisen in the Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs in regard to
the reference that had been given to it on June 21st.6 In
the Treaty with Austria, certain frontiers had been drawn subject to a
reservation that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers reserve the
right to define the plebiscite area in the Klagenfurt district. The
frontiers given to Austria in the Treaty included a small section of the
district now proposed for the Klagenfurt plebiscite. The Italian
Delegation urged that the frontiers granted to Austria should be
maintained, and that the portion affected should be excluded from the
plebiscite district. The majority of the Commission, however, maintained
that the right to draw the plebiscite area justified the Allied and
Associated Powers in including the whole area as now proposed. Klagenfurt
M. Sonnino urged that Austria had provisionally
been given a certain line, with a possible expectation of obtaining
something
[Page 629]
more. It was not
fair to Austria to alter this line. The implication to the Austrians was
that for the moment they must content themselves with that line with a
possibility of getting something more.
M. Tardieu pointed out that the ultimate result
might be a considerable improvement in the situation from Austria’s
point of view.
(After some discussion, it was agreed that no change should be made in
the plebiscite area as already drawn.)
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, June 23,
1919.
Appendix I to CF–85
WCP–1050
Draft of the Covering Letter To Be
Addressed to M. Paderewski in Transmitting to Him the Treaty To
Be Signed by Poland Under Article 93 of the Treaty of Peace With
Germany
Sir: On behalf of the Supreme Council of
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, I have the honour to
communicate to you herewith in its final form the text of the Treaty
which, in accordance with Article 93 of the Treaty of Peace with
Germany, Poland will be asked to sign on the occasion of the
confirmation of her recognition as an independent state and of the
transference to her of the territories included in the former German
Empire which are assigned to her by the said Treaty. The principal
provisions were communicated to the Polish Delegation in Paris on
the … May, and were subsequently communicated direct to the Polish
Government through the French Minister at Warsaw. The Council have
since had the advantage of the suggestions which you were good
enough to convey to them in your Memorandum of June 16 [15],7 and as the
results of a study of these suggestions, modifications have been
introduced in the text of the Treaty. The Council believe that it
will be found that by these modifications the principal points to
which attention was drawn in your Memorandum have, in so far as they
relate to specific provisions of the Treaty, been adequately
covered.
In formally communicating to you the final decision of the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers in this matter, I should desire to take
this opportunity of explaining in a more formal manner than has
hitherto been done the considerations by which the Principal Allied
and Associated Powers have been guided in dealing with this
matter.
[Page 630]
1. In the first place, I would point out that this Treaty does not
constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established
procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created,
or even when large accessions of territory are made to an
established State, the joint and formal recognition by the Great
Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such State
should, in the form of a binding international Convention undertake
to comply with certain principles of government. This principle, for
which there are numerous other precedents, received the most
explicit sanction when at the last great Assembly of European
Powers, the Congress of Berlin, the sovereignty and independence of
Serbia, Montenegro and Rumania was recognised. It is desirable to
recall the words used on this occasion by the British, French,
Italian and German Plenipotentiaries, as recorded in the Protocol of
June 28, 1878:8
“Lord Salisbury recognises the independence of Serbia but is
of opinion that it would be desirable to stipulate in the
Principality the great principle of religious liberty.
. . . . . . .
“Mr. Waddington believes that it is important to take
advantage of this solemn opportunity to cause the principles
of religious liberty to be affirmed by the representatives
of Europe. His Excellency adds that Serbia, who claims to
enter the European family on the same basis as other States,
must previously recognise the principles which are the basis
of social organisation in all States of Europe and accept
them as a necessary condition of the favour which she asks
for.
. . . . . . .
“Prince Bismarck, associating himself with the French
proposal declares that the assent of Germany is always
assured to any motion favourable to religious liberty.
“Count de Launay says that in the name of Italy he desires to
adhere to the principle of religious liberty which forms one
of the essential bases of the institutions in his country
and that he associates himself with the declarations made on
this subject by Germany, France, and Great Britain.
“Count Andrassy expresses himself to the same effect, and the
Ottoman Plenipotentiaries raise no objection.
“Prince Bismarck, after having summed up the results of the
vote, declares that Germany admits the independence of
Serbia, but on condition that religious liberty will be
recognised in the Principality. His Serene Highness adds
that the Drafting Committee, when they formulate this
decision, will affirm the connection established by the
Conference between the proclamation of Serbian independence
and the recognition of religious liberty.”
2. The principal Allied and Associated Powers are of opinion that
they would be false to the responsibility which rests upon them if
[Page 631]
on this occasion they
departed from what has become an established tradition. In this
connection I must also recall to your consideration the fact that it
is to the endeavours and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am
addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its
independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is
being re-established over the territories in question and that the
inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated in the
Polish nation. It is on the guarantee of these Powers that for the
future Poland will to a large extent depend for the secure
possession of these territories. There rests, therefore, upon these
Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most
permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights,
which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection
whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the
Polish State.
It is in accordance with this obligation in that clause 93 was
inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Germany. This clause relates
only to Poland, but a similar clause applies the same principles to
Czechoslovakia, and other clauses have been inserted in the Treaty
of Peace with Austria and will be inserted in those with Hungary and
with Bulgaria, under which similar obligations will be undertaken by
other States which under those treaties receive large accessions of
territory.
The consideration of these facts will be sufficient to show that by
the requirement addressed to Poland at the time when it receives, in
the most solemn manner, the joint recognition of the
re-establishment of its sovereignty and independence, and when large
accessions of territory are being assigned to it, no doubt is thrown
upon the sincerity of the desire of the Polish Government and the
Polish nation to maintain the general principles of justice and
liberty. Any such doubt would be far from the intention of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
3. It is indeed true that the new Treaty differs in form from earlier
Conventions dealing with similar matters. The change of form is a
necessary consequence and an essential part of the new system of
international relations which is now being built up by the
establishment of the League of Nations. Under the older system the
guarantee for the execution of similar provisions was vested in the
Great Powers. Experience has shown that this was in practice
ineffective, and it was also open to the criticism that it might
give to the Great Powers, either individually or in combination, a
right to interfere in the internal constitution of the States
affected which could be used for political purposes. Under the new
system the guarantee is entrusted to the League of Nations. The
clauses dealing with this guarantee have been carefully drafted so
as to make it clear that Poland will not be in any way under the
tutelage of those Powers who are signatories to the Treaty.
[Page 632]
I should desire moreover to point out to you that provision has been
inserted in the Treaty by which disputes arising out of its
provisions may be brought before the Court of the League of Nations.
In this way differences which might arise will be removed from the
political sphere and placed in the hands of a judicial court, and it
is hoped that thereby an impartial decision will be facilitated,
while at the same time any danger of political interference by the
Powers in the internal affairs of Poland will be avoided.
4. The particular provisions to which Poland and the other States
will be asked to adhere differ to some extent from those which were
imposed on the new States at the Congress of Berlin. But the
obligation imposed upon new States seeking recognition have at all
times varied with the particular circumstances. The Kingdom of the
United Netherlands in 1815 formally undertook precise obligations
with regard to the Belgian provinces at that time annexed to the
Kingdom which formed an important restriction on the unlimited
exercise of its sovereignty; it was determined at the establishment
of the Kingdom of Greece that the Government of that State should
take a particular form, viz: it should be both monarchical and
constitutional; when Thessaly was annexed to Greece, it was
stipulated that the lives, property, honour, religion and customs of
those of the inhabitants of the localities ceded to Greece who
remained under the Hellenic administration should be scrupulously
respected; and that they should enjoy exactly the same civil and
political rights as Hellenic subjects of origin. In addition, very
precise stipulation[s] were inserted safeguarding the interests of
the Mohammedan population of these territories.
The situation with which the Powers have now to deal is new, and
experience has shown that new provisions are necessary. The
territories now being transferred both to Poland and to other States
inevitably include a large population speaking languages and
belonging to races different to that of the people with whom they
will be incorporated. Unfortunately the races have been estranged by
long years of bitter hostility. It is believed that these
populations will be more easily reconciled to their new position if
they know from the very beginning they have assured protection and
adequate guarantees against any danger of unjust treatment or
oppression. The very knowledge that this guarantee exists will, it
is hoped, materially help the reconciliation which all desire, and
will indeed do much to prevent the necessity of its enforcement.
5. To turn to the individual clauses of the present Treaty. Clauses
2–5 are designed to ensure that all the genuine residents in the
territories now transferred to Polish sovereignty shall in fact be
assured of the full privileges of citizenship. Article 6 guarantees
to all inhabitants
[Page 633]
those
elementary rights which are as a matter of fact secured in every
civilised State. Articles 7 and 8, which are in accordance with
precedent, provide against any discrimination against those Polish
citizens who by their religion, their language or their race differ
from the large mass of the Polish population. It is understood that
far from raising any objection to the matter of these articles, the
Polish Government have already of their own accord declared their
firm intention of basing their institutions on the cardinal
principles enunciated therein.
The following Articles are of rather a different nature in that they
provide more special privileges to certain groups of these
minorities. In the final revision of these Articles, the Powers have
been impressed by the suggestions made in your Memorandum of June
16th [15th] and the articles have in
consequence been subjected to some material modifications. In the
final text of the Treaty it has been made clear that the special
privileges accorded in Article 9 are extended to Polish citizens of
German speech only in such parts of Poland as are, by the Treaty
with Germany, transferred from Germany to Poland. Germans in other
parts of Poland will be unable under this article to claim to avail
themselves of these privileges. They will therefore in this matter
be dependent solely on the generosity of the Polish Government and
will in fact be in the same position as German citizens of Polish
speech in Germany.
6. Clauses 10 and 12 deal specifically with the Jewish citizens of
Poland. The information at the disposal of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers as to the existing relations between the Jews and
the other Polish citizens unfortunately compels them to recognise
that special protection is necessary for the former. These clauses
have been limited to the minimum which seems necessary under the
circumstances of the present day, viz: the provisions for the
maintenance of Jewish schools and the protection of the Jews in the
religious observance of their Sabbath. It is believed that they will
not create any obstacle to the political unity of Poland; they do
not constitute any recognition of the Jews as a separate political
community within the Polish State. The educational provisions
contain nothing beyond what is in fact provided in the educational
institutions of many highly organised modern States. There is
nothing inconsistent with the sovereignty of the State in
recognising and supporting schools in which children shall be
brought up in the religious influences to which they are accustomed
in their home. Ample safeguards against any use of non-Polish
languages to encourage a spirit of national separation have been
provided in the express acknowledgment that the provisions of this
Treaty do not prevent the Polish State from making instruction in
the Polish language obligatory in all its schools and educational
institutions.
[Page 634]
7. The economic clauses contained in Chapter II of the Treaty have
been drafted with the view of facilitating the establishment of
equitable commercial relations between independent Poland and the
other Allied and Associated Powers. They include provisions for
reciprocal diplomatic and consular representation, for freedom of
transit and for the adhesion of the Polish Government to certain
international conventions.
In these clauses the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have not
been actuated by any desire to secure for themselves special
commercial advantages. It will be observed that the rights accorded
to them by these clauses are extended equally to all States who are
members of the League of Nations. Some of the provisions are of a
transitional character and have been introduced only with the
necessary object of bridging over the short interval which must
elapse before general regulations can be established by Poland
herself or by commercial treaties or general conventions approved by
the League of Nations.
In conclusion, I am to express on behalf of the Allied and Associated
Powers the very sincere satisfaction which they feel at the
re-establishment of Poland as an independent State. They cordially
welcome the Polish nation on its re-entry into the family of
nations. They recall the great services which the ancient kingdom of
Poland rendered to Europe both in public affairs and by its
contributions to the progress of civilisation which is the common
work of all civilised nations. They believe that the voice of Poland
will add to the wisdom of their common deliberations in the cause of
peace and harmony and that its influence will be used to further the
spirit of liberty and justice, both in internal and external
affairs, and that thereby they will help in the work of
reconciliation between the nations which, with the conclusion of
peace, will be the common task of humanity.
The Treaty, by which Poland at the same time solemnly declares before
the world her determination to maintain the principles of justice,
liberty, and toleration, which were the guiding spirit of the
ancient Kingdom of Poland, and receives in its most explicit and
binding form the confirmation of her restoration to the family of
independent Nations, will be signed by Poland and by the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers on the occasion of, and at the same
time as, the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.
