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

763.72119/6088

HD–13

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Friday, July 25, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.

Paris, July 25, 1919, 3:30 p.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. H. White.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Jr. Harrison.
  • British Empire
    • The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. H. Norman.
    • Sir Ian Malcolm, K. C. M. G.
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau.
    • M. Pichon.
  • Secretaries
    • M. Dutasta.
    • M. Berthelot.
    • M. de St. Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. Tittoni.
  • Secretary
    • M. Paterno.
  • Japan
    • Baron Makino.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Chapin.
British Empire	Lieut.-Commander Bell.
France	Capt. A. Portier.
Italy	Colonel Jones.
Interpreter—Prof. P. J. Mantoux.

1. Mr. White stated that before dealing with the questions on the Agenda he would like to communicate to the Council some information that had been received with regard to General Boehm’s visit to Vienna. The information in question had been transmitted through Mr. Hoover whom he requested the Council to ask for information. Allied Action in Hungary

(At this moment Mr. Hoover entered the room.)

Mr. Hoover stated that the proposal in question had been submitted to the Allied representatives at Vienna by General Boehm, who had been the Commander-in-Chief of the Bolshevik Hungarian armies. General Boehm had stated that if he could be suitably supported by the Allies and given certain assurances, more particularly on the subject of raising the blockade, and the importation of foodstuffs, together with the re-opening of traffic on the Danube, he on his part, would be ready to set up a social democratic government with himself as temporary dictator. Bela Kun would be deposed from power; all terrorist actions would cease, and order would be restored.

Mr. Balfour stated that he had seen Mr. Hoover on the previous evening who had communicated the contents of the telegram to him, and that, moreover, he had had the advantage of discussing the matter with his Military Experts. He now wondered whether the best way of getting rid of Bela Kun was by means of military intervention. It was now possible that the best solution lay in adopting the suggestions contained in Mr. Hoover’s telegram. As the Hungarians had now assumed the offensive and had crossed the Theiss they opened their flank to an attack from the south by the Serbian and French armies. It was evident that it would be preferable to conduct military operations with Hungarian assistance, but the following question presented itself. Was it possible to place full confidence in General Boehm? Even though it were possible to place full confidence in him, he would not be disposed to enter into an elaborate political arrangement with him. He thought that it would be best to direct General Boehm to carry out his promises by means of the army which he stated was under his control, and to tell him to confine his action to establishing some kind of military dictatorship with a view to calling a Constituent Assembly which should be in a position to express its will freely. Such a solution had a great advantage. In each of our countries there are sections of opinion which, without being actually Bolshevik, have none the less a certain sympathy for Bolshevik programmes. Those portions of the public were most strongly opposed to military action against the Bolsheviks. All these disadvantages would be avoided by proceeding through General Boehm. He would be given the moral support of the Allies, who would promise him the guarantees demanded, if he was actually in a position to set up his dictatorship and to convene the Assembly which would determine the future of Hungary. The one question which had to be determined was whether confidence could be placed in General Boehm’s promises. Before deciding, it was necessary to have a formal assurance to the effect that he was able to carry out his promises, because, if he were not, fresh delay would be caused by entering into further discussions, which would prejudice the opportunity of successful military action which now presented itself.

M. Clemenceau stated that he believed it would be well to take this question up again on the following day, in order that the Council might have time to reflect upon it. He considered it would be well to have Marshal Foch at the meeting in order that he might give his advice on the military situation.

Mr. Balfour observed that the important question was to know whether the Allies could have complete confidence in General Boehm.

Mr. Coolidge¹ stated that he had with him a copy of a telegram which he had personally sent three months ago. In this he had stated that General Boehm was very popular in Hungary, that he had a strong political party supporting him, that his political views did not tend to the extremists and other parties of the Left, but rather inclined to those of the Right. He further observed that General Boehm was not a military man, but was none the less popular in army circles and with the working classes and that, if the situation had not changed since the time in question, he still had a powerful political faction behind him.

Mr. Balfour asked whether the Council had any reason to believe that General Boehm was solely actuated by personal ambitions, and was working for his own selfish interests.

Mr. Coolidge stated that he did not believe this to be the case, for the reason that General Boehm had mentioned in the course of his conversations, three men whom he, Mr. Coolidge, knew personally, and whose names he had mentioned in his telegram and in whom he had the greatest confidence.

Mr. Hoover asked whether the Supreme Council could not at once establish a general principle, and declare that it was ready to sustain any non-terrorist Government and furnish supplies of food to it. By doing this the Council would in no way bind itself adversely, even though the movement instituted by General Boehm should fail. Military operations should always be preceded by a political declaration. The important thing he believed was to make such a declaration at once.

Mr. Balfour asked whether the proposition tended [extended?] to raising the blockade and furnishing food supplies to the country without undertaking military operations.

M. Clemenceau stated that the difficulty was not in going to Budapest, but as to what steps should be taken thereafter.

Mr. White stated that he would prefer to have the military operations carried out by the Hungarians themselves.

Mr. Balfour observed that he would prefer to see a written proposition before taking a definite decision on the matter, and asked whether Mr. Hoover could not submit a report to the Council on the following morning.

M. Clemenceau stated that he would request Marshal Foch to be present at the meeting which could be fixed for 10.30 the following morning, and that the proposals of Mr. Hoover could then be examined.

Mr. Balfour observed that he would like to know what was the decision from the point of view of international law in which Hungary now stood in regard to the armistice. She had accepted the Allies conditions, and yet at the present moment was attacking one of the Allied Powers, and he felt that in acting thus she had re-opened hostilities against all the Allies.

(It was decided that the question of further action on the part of the Allied and Associated Governments in Hungarian affairs, in view of the latest information received with regard to General Boehm’s proposals, should be discussed by the Council on the following day, and that Marshal Foch and Mr. Hoover should attend.)

2. (M. Cambon² entered the room.)

M. Cambon said that the Supreme Council had granted the governments of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia a period of ten days in which to attempt to settle between themselves the question of Teschen, and that this period expired to-day. The representatives of these governments had not yet reached a satisfactory solution. A dispatch received from Warsaw indicated that the Polish Government wished to obtain an extension of time. He had brought this matter to the attention of the Czecho-Slovak and Polish Sub-Committees, and these bodies were disposed to grant the extension. He had also taken the matter up with M. Benes and M. Moski [Dmowski?], and these latter were also disposed to grant the extension but believed that the same should be short. He stated that it was therefore proposed to grant an extension of ten days. If, on the expiration of this, no agreement had been reached the matter should be decided by the Supreme Council. He believed that the Governments at Prague and Warsaw were doing everything in their power to reach an agreement, as they had already constituted two small committees for the matter, and these were at present studying the question. Extension to the Poles and Czecho-Slovaks Regarding Question of Teschen

Mr. White stated that he thought that the Czecho-Slovak and Polish Committees ought to take advantage of the extension of time by themselves examining the question and preparing a solution for the Supreme Council, in the event of the two governments concerned not being able to come to an agreement.

(It was decided that a further period of ten days should be granted to the Governments of Czecho-Slovakia and Poland, to arrive at an agreement between themselves on the Teschen question.

It was further agreed that the Czecho-Slovak and Polish Committees should in the meantime examine the question in order that the Council should be in a position to decide, if no agreement should be reached by the aforesaid Governments.)

3. (At this point the military representatives of the Supreme War Council and General Thwaites entered the room.)

Military, Naval & Aerial clauses of the Bulgarian Treaty (Mr. Hoover and Mr. Coolidge left the room.)

M. Clemenceau stated that the Council had received the proposed Military, Naval and Aerial Clauses of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty, which had been prepared by the Supreme War Council at Versailles. (Appendix A.) He requested General Belin to inform the Council regarding the matters upon which the experts had differed.

General Belin stated that no differences of opinion between the military experts existed with one exception, that the Italian military representative had made one reservation, which was indicated on the draft, regarding the method of recruiting. Briefly the Italian military representative insisted upon the reservation which he had already made for the Austrian and Hungarian States, namely:—that the Bulgarian army should be organised on a basis of one year compulsory service.

M. Tittoni said that this was a question of detail which he did not wish to press.

(It was decided that the report of the Military Representatives with regard to the Military, Naval and Aerial Clauses of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria should be accepted.)

4. (At this point the Military Representatives left the room, and M. Larnaude³ entered.)

Clauses of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty Relating to Responsibilities M. Clemenceau asked M. Larnaude to explain the question.

M. Larnaude stated that he merely wished to outline the manner in which the Committee had discussed the question. They had found themselves faced by Articles 227, 228 and 229 of the German Peace Treaty, and the question had come up whether these Articles should be adopted as they stood in the Bulgarian Treaty. The Greek, Serbian and Roumanian Governments had opposed this, as indicated in the Report presented by the Committee. (Appendix “B”.) They feared that their good faith would be questioned adversely and therefore preferred that persons guilty of crimes against their citizens should be brought to judgment before international tribunals and not before national military tribunals of each of the Powers whose citizens had been injured, as was the case in the German Treaty. The American Delegates had made certain reservations and the French Delegates, whom he represented, had merely requested that note be taken of the position which they held with regard to this proposal. The French Delegates believed that it would be difficult and dangerous to adopt a different method of punishing the same criminal acts, should they agree to the proposal to grant to Bulgaria international guarantees of impartiality, which they had refused to grant to Germany.

M Clemenceau observed that it would be well to know whether the same differences of opinion existed in the Council.

M. Larnaude stated that the United States and France had made certain reservations, but that the British Government supported the Greek, Serbian and Roumanian proposals.

Baron Makino observed that the Japanese Delegates had also made reservations, having reiterated those which they had already made regarding the Treaty with Germany, and that he wished to take the same position as his experts on the Committee.

M. Larnaude stated that the Japanese Delegates had merely renewed the reservations which they had previously made, in regard to the prosecution for breaches of the laws and customs of war of enemy Heads of States, before a tribunal constituted by the opposite party.

M. Tittoni said that, if the question arose theoretically as to a choice between two tribunals, the Council might hesitate, but, as the Greek, Serbian and Roumanian Governments themselves believed that they might be suspected of bad faith, and therefore requested the support from an international government, it seemed to him difficult for the Council to refuse them its support.

M. Clemenceau observed that another question was involved, namely, that of the precedent established in the German Treaty.

M. Tittoni answered that, in the case of Germany, the good faith of the Allies’ judgment was not questioned and no one of the Allies thought of it. In the case of Bulgaria, the very Powers themselves who were interested in the matter had brought the question up.

M. Clemenceau remarked that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had had the courage to undertake their responsibilities, and that the Council should reply that the Governments now in question should take theirs.

M. Tittoni stated that he did not wish to carry his point of view as the solution of the matter. It did not vitally concern him.

Mr. Balfour said that the Council must not lose sight of the fact that the Greek, Serbian and Roumanian Governments considered themselves competent to try the Bulgarian prisoners actually in their hands before military courts, but that they did not believe themselves competent to try persons who might be turned over to them under the terms of the Treaty.

M. Larnaude said that the point in question had not been missed and that he had drawn the attention of the representatives of these various Governments to the fact that they were open to the charge of inconsistency. One of these latter, however, M. Politis,⁴ had stated that the number of persons to be brought before military courts was not great.

Mr. White stated that it was for this reason that they wished to place the responsibility of trying the numerous persons who were to be handed over to them by the Treaty upon the Great Powers. It had been stated that the Serbians had a list comprising from 15,000 to 20,000 persons.

M. Larnaude stated that he did not wish to enter into a discussion, but only to explain the point of issue. He did not see why there should be any difference between the two countries, and that justice should be applied everywhere in the same manner.

Mr. Balfour stated that the proposal originally submitted to the Council of Four with regard to Germany was that an international tribunal, such as was now demanded by the Greek, Serbian and Roumanian Governments, should be set up. In spite of the favourable view taken by the Committee, the Council had actually decided otherwise. He did not know why the modification had been adopted, but it must certainly have been based upon strong arguments. For this reason, he was not inclined to adopt a contrary principle.

M. Tittoni said that the decision would be a matter of indifference to him.

M. Clemenceau then stated that he proposed to adopt the same formula as had governed the German Treaty.

(It was decided that the Clauses relative to Responsibilities in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria should be drafted on the same principle as that governing the corresponding clauses in the Peace Treaty with Germany (National Military Tribunals competent to judge the crimes committed by the Bulgarians.) See Articles 228–230 of the German Peace Treaty.)

5. (At this point M. Larnaude left the room and M. Tardieu entered.)

The Report of the Committee Supervising the Execution of the Peace Treaty With Germany on the Subject of Belgium M. Tardieu stated that the Committee supervising the execution of the Peace Treaty with Germany did not foresee any difficulty in the nomination of five members by the Allied and Associated Powers to the Committee of Seven Members, who, by virtue of Article 35 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, should lay down locally the new frontier between Belgium and Germany. There was, therefore, no special recommendation to be made. It would be sufficient if the Allied and Associated Powers would nominate their representatives, in order that the Committee might start work as soon as possible.

(It was decided that, at the next meeting of the Supreme Council, each Delegation should nominate its representative on the Committee provided for under Article 36 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, for the purpose of determining, locally, the new boundary line between Germany and Belgium.)

6. M. Tardieu stated that Article 48 of the Peace Treaty provided for the nomination of three members by the League of Nations, who could act in a Commission of five members, which should be charged with the duty of delimiting locally the boundary line of the Saar Territory as laid down in the Treaty. He admitted that it was not impossible, theoretically, for the League of Nations to make the necessary nominations within the fifteen days following the signature of the Treaty. The Convention in question was part of the Treaty, and the Powers represented on the Council of the League of Nations were named; the Committee supervising the execution of the Peace Treaty thought, however, that it would be difficult in practice for nations whose members were on the Council of the League of Nations, and who should not have ratified the Treaty, to be able to nominate representatives to the Committee. If such a participation were impossible, the Delimitation Committee might be nominated in the manner foreseen in the Peace Treaty, but the Supervising Committee thought that the necessary nominations might be made temporarily by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Such a procedure would make an agreement with Germany necessary, since nominations made in this manner were not foreseen in the text in the Treaty. The ratification of the Pact of the League of Nations would take place as soon as possible. The Committee therefore recommended that the Supreme Council should come to a decision on the subject. Report of the Committee Supervising the Execution of the Peace Treaty With Germany on the Delimitation of the Saar Basin

Mr. Balfour stated that the League of Nations had certain defined duties with regard to the Basin of the Saar, but the League could only act after ratification. It followed that the American Government, which did not appear to be able to give the necessary ratification in a short time, would be prevented from taking its place on the Commission for some while. It was therefore proposed that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should make a temporary nomination; it was open to question, however, if they had the right to do so.

M. Tardieu stated that they had not such a right without arriving at an agreement with Germany.

Mr. Balfour stated that he did not favour any request being made of Germany, but, that in the case in question, he thought no difficulty would arise.

M. Tardieu stated that at the present moment there was no use in approaching the German Government, but that the Council could agree to the principle which should be applied when the time came.

Mr. White stated that he could not take any decision with regard to the ratification without referring to President Wilson.

M. Pichon stated that the point was important, since the American Government had the duty of convening the Council of the League of Nations.

M. Tardieu stated that the text of the telegram to be sent to President Wilson could be made out.

(It was decided:—

That M. Tardieu, at the next meeting of the Supreme Council, should present a draft telegram for transmission to President Wilson, on the subject of the Commission for the delimitation of the Saar Basin.)

7. M. Tardieu stated that the Committee had submitted a Note (see Appendix “C”), which had been sent to the various Delegations. Note From the Drafting Committee on the Subject of the Sale of State Property in Slesvig

The Committee proposed a slight modification to the text submitted to the Supreme Council. A formal assent was all that was necessary. (It was decided:—

That the Drafting Committee’s proposed modification in the text of the notification to be sent to the German and Danish Governments on the subject of the sale of State property in Slesvig should be adopted.)

6. M. Tardieu suggested that a Note dated 8th July had been received from the German Delegation on the subject of the preparatory measures which should immediately follow the ratification of the Peace Treaty, in order that the clauses of the Treaty with regard to the Eastern Provinces of Germany, should be carried out. (See Annex “D”.)Evacuation of Territories Ceded by Germany to Poland

The Committee supervising the execution of the Treaty submitted a draft reply (see Annex “E”).

(It was decided that the draft reply to the German Delegation, submitted by the Committee to supervise the execution of the Peace Treaty with Germany, with regard to the opening of negotiations between the Allied and German Governments, on the subject of the preparatory measures to be taken for enforcing the provisions of the Treaty dealing with the cession of the Eastern Provinces of the German Empire, should be accepted.)

9. M. Tardieu stated that the German Delegation had sent a Note dated 16th July 1919 (see Annex “F”) asking that the names and powers of the Allied Commissioners for Eastern Prussia, should be communicated to the German Government. The Committee had drafted a reply (Annex “G”). Allied Commissioner for East Prussia

(It was decided that the draft reply to the German Delegation, submitted by the Committee, to supervise the execution of the Peace Treaty with Germany, with regard to furnishing the German Government with the names and powers of the Allied and Associated Commissioners in East Prussia, be accepted.)

10. (At this point M. Tardieu left the room and Mr. Ignace⁶ entered.)

Clauses in the Peace Treaty With Bulgaria With Regard to Prisoners of War Mr. Ignace stated that the clauses inserted into the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria and submitted by the Committee (see Annex “H”) were only a repetition of similar clauses in the Austrian Treaty with the exception of Article 9, which provided for an Inter-Allied Committee of Enquiry to examine the question of subjects of the Allied and Associated Powers not yet repatriated. The Inter-Allied Committee would further examine the cases of those persons who desired to remain in Bulgaria, and would investigate criminal actions which might be punished. The Article provided for the manner in which the Committee should be constituted. It lays down also that its enquiries shall be communicated to each Government concerned, and after that, to the Tribunal provided for in Article 3 of the Treaty. He had just learned that the Supreme Council had decided that there should be no Inter-Allied Tribunal, but that each Government should judge actions coming under the above head, by means of a Military Court.

M. Clemenceau stated that it had been decided to act in the same way as had been done in the case of Germany.

Mr. Ignace stated that it would be sufficient to make a slight modification in the text of Article 9, and to suppress the second paragraph, numbered 2.

(It was therefore decided

That the proposed Articles for the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, presented by the Prisoners of War Committee should be accepted with the exception of the second paragraph numbered 2 in Article 9, which should be deleted.)

(At this point Mr. Ignace left the room.)

11. M. Clemenceau read the Austrian Note dated 21st July, (see Annex “I”). He drew attention to the statement in the Note:—

Austrian Reply on the Subject of the Delivery of Arms and Munitions to the Czecho-Slovaks“That all arms and munitions demanded hitherto are being handed over to the Royal Italian Armistice Mission at Vienna. The Mission in question has undertaken to transmit the materials to the Czecho-Slovakia Government, which procedure has been decided upon with the full consent of the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers at Vienna”.

He drew attention to the fact that he had no knowledge of this.

Mr. Balfour stated that he also had no information and would like to have certain points cleared up. He asked whether the arms and munitions had been handed over to the Head of the Italian Mission only, or to the French and Italian representatives conjointly?

M. Clemenceau stated that the arms and munitions belonged to all the Allies.

Mr. Balfour said that he would like to know how long it was since the delivery of arms and munitions had been taking place, what quantity had been handed over, and how much was still to be delivered.

M. Clemenceau stated that it was also necessary to know who had consented to the procedure.

(It was decided:—

To send the following telegram to the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers at Vienna with regard to the delivery of arms and munitions to the Czecho-Slovaks:—

“The Austrian Delegation has replied to a communication from the Peace Conference, wherein the aforesaid Government was directed to deliver up its war material in the following terms:—

All the arms and munitions demanded up to date are at present being handed over to the Royal Italian Armistice Mission at Vienna. This Mission has undertaken to transmit the materials in question to the Czecho-Slovak Government with the knowledge and consent of the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers at Vienna. The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers therefore request that it may be informed:—

1. Who gave the consent referred to in the Austrian reply and in what form?

2. Whether the arms and munitions delivered by the Austrian Government have been handed over to the Royal Italian Mission only, or to the French and Italian representatives conjointly.

3. Since what date has this delivery taken place.

4. What are the total amounts of the different classes of war material, and what proportion of them have been delivered.”)

12. After a short discussion it was decided that the texts of the following draft instructions for the Interallied Commission of Enquiry into the events in Asia Minor should be accepted. The enquiry of the Committee should take as its subject matter the acts which had taken place during and after the occupation of Smyrna, Aidin, Aivali and the adjacent regions by the Greek troops. These acts had been reported in the form of a complaint by the Sheikh-ul-Islam.⁷ The enquiry was to be extended to all events relative to the above from the date of occupation to the present moment. The Committee was to determine the responsibilities and to submit its report to the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers, together with such conclusions as it might consider relevant as soon as possible. Instructions To Be Given to Committee on Enquiry Into the Events in Asia Minor

13. (At this moment M. Seydoux entered the room.)

Blockade of Russia M. Seydoux stated that the question had to be resumed from where it had been left off at the last discussion.^7a The American reply had not been received.

Mr. White stated that the American Government thought that it could not collaborate with the Allies in the Blockade of Russia since it was not in a state of war with Bolshevik Russia. The President had sent him a reply (see Annex J) in the above sense. The President thought that the practical difficulties of commerce would prevent any suitable assistance being given to Soviet Russia.

M. Seydoux said that the President’s reply put the Supreme Council into a difficult position for it had been desired to block the Gulf of Finland. The Scandinavian Governments had made requests to be authorised to renew commercial relations with Petrograd. No reply had been given, since it was thought that Petrograd would soon fall. This, however, had not taken place. Since that date Koltchak had been informed that the Allied and Associated Powers were ready to support him;⁸ this had, in fact, been done. He asked whether it was now possible to authorise certain nations to assist Koltchak’s enemy by their commerce. The Swedish Government had demanded quite openly that it might be allowed to re-open commercial relations with the Government of Lenin. By acceding to this, Lenin would be assisted, and by taking the measures necessary, might distribute what he received in whatever manner he chose. The excuse of assisting unfortunate peasant populations could not be brought forward. A new note had been received moreover to the following effect: The French Minister at Copenhagen who has been informed of the questions laid before the Supreme Council by the Blockade Committees in Paris and in London, on the subject of commercial relations with Bolshevik Russia, reports that the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated, in an official letter addressed to the English Minister, that the Danish Government would not assist the exportation of any merchandise from Denmark to Soviet Russia, before the deliberations on the subject, now going forward in Paris, had been concluded.

Mr. Balfour stated that he knew nothing of this communication.

M. Seydoux said that information had been received from Stockholm to the effect that the Swedes had not renewed their request and had not despatched vessels since they knew that they would be stopped. They had not been undeceived. The questions might be raised again at any time however, and it would be difficult to know how to deal with them.

M. Clemenceau stated that the discussion with President Wilson should be taken up again since new arguments could now be brought forward. Everyone had to undertake a certain amount of responsibility. Should they not, therefore, submit the questions afresh and wait for his reply.

M. Tittoni stated that it was known from an authoritative source that the Soviet Government was making a large number of Allied bank notes. If commercial relations were renewed it would facilitate the circulation of these false notes.

Mr. Balfour stated that Mr. White’s remarks submitted to President Wilson were very complete. On the other hand one or two important points had been omitted.

Mr. White had spoken of Koltchak and of the assistance that should be given to him. In his opinion the question was much more serious for at that moment British forces were fighting at Archangel. In addition to this the populations of the Baltic States were being organised and armed in order that they might fight against Bolshevism. So at the moment we were asked to assist our enemies by allowing them to receive arms, munitions and material of every kind, which although they were not sent to men with whom we were legally at war, were none the less being despatched to persons who were fighting against us. What would be the position of the League of Nations if it were in existence? Supposing that it had existed and decided, as the Supreme Council had decided, to assist Koltchak, Denikin and the Baltic States to fight against the disorder of Soviet Russia. How would it operate? Undoubtedly it would declare a blockade for no other means would be at its disposal. Englishmen, and soldiers in Koltchak’s and Denikin’s armies were being killed daily in the fighting against the Bolsheviks. If a state of war did not exist legally, it existed none the less in point of fact. The position of the Allied and Associated Powers was, however, difficult. If the question were examined from the political point of view, was it possible to ask peoples already pressed by heavy taxes to make new sacrifices in order that arms should be sent to our friends; whilst at the same time, arms were being allowed to pass into the hands of those against whom we were fighting.

Mr. White stated that he would have to consult an expert in international law. He desired, however, to draw attention to President Wilson’s reply. What the President had said was not an article of a Treaty binding upon all, and the other Powers were free to set up a blockade without American help.

M. Clemenceau stated that before arriving at any solution, he thought President Wilson should again be approached and he proposed that Mr. Balfour should draw up a telegram in the sense of his remarks.

Mr. Balfour stated that in reply to Mr. White, he recognised that President Wilson in his reply did not bind us, but he asked what position should we be in if an American vessel were to carry munitions.

M. Clemenceau stated that, if it became necessary to act without American assistance, President Wilson would have to be asked to give an undertaking to send no ships.

M. Seydoux stated that, in his opinion, this was a point which should be insisted upon. Assistance to the Bolshevik Government could not be justified by the argument that relief was being given to an unfortunate populace. The Government of Lenin was such that his agents centralised all foodstuffs and distributed them as they wished. Little or no food would be sent to the populace. The only result would be that Lenin’s Government would be strengthened.

(It was decided that Mr. Balfour should prepare, for the next meeting of the Supreme Council, a new dispatch to be sent to President Wilson on the subject of the Blockade of Russia.)

(At this point M. Seydoux left the room.)

14. M. Clemenceau stated that a declaration which was to be signed by the Austrian Plenipotentiaries had been submitted to the Conference. (Appendix “K”.)Agreement by the Austrian Government With Regard to Vessels Sunk by Their Naval Forces

(After a short discussion, the draft declaration was accepted.)

15. M. Tittoni stated that, as the Agenda had been worked off, he wished to draw attention to the grave situation in Italy with regard to coal. The stocks of that material would be practically exhausted in a fortnight. During the war an Inter-Allied body had decided on the manner in which coal should be distributed amongst the Allies. This body no longer existed. He asked whether it would be possible to re-constitute it and asked, further, that this should be done, because the situation in Italy was of the utmost gravity. Coal Question in Italy

Mr. Balfour stated that it was one of the most urgent questions of the immediate future.

Mr. White said that Mr. Hoover was in agreement with Mr. Balfour.

M. Clemenceau said that he proposed that M. Tittoni in collaboration with Mr. Hoover should make a proposal in writing.

Mr. Balfour stated that Mr. Hoover had reported on the coal situation in Europe in an extremely pessimistic sense. He thought that the cause of the evil was that workmen were no longer working. This was more particularly the case in Central Europe and Upper Silesia. The reduction of the number of hours had made the situation even worse. It had been improved by the fact that the German authorities had threatened to cut off the provisions from mining districts where production diminished. This measure had increased the quantity of mineral taken from the mines, but the progress had been short. It was, therefore, not a question of war but a social crisis.

(It was decided that M. Tittoni should submit to the next meeting of the Supreme Council his proposals with regard to the re-constitution of the Inter-Allied Committee for the distribution of coal.)

16. M. Clemenceau stated that the Drafting Committee had brought the following note before them:— Languages of the Treaties

The Drafting Committee would be obliged if the Supreme Council would give information as to whether Treaties with the Serbian, (Croat-Slovene) State, and with Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania, all of which are to be signed at the same time as the Treaty with Austria should, like this latter, be drawn up in English, French, and Italian. The French text being authoritative in case of divergence.

(After a short discussion, it was decided that the proposal of the Drafting Committee to the effect that the Peace Treaties with the Serbian (Croat-Slovene) State, with Czecho-Slovakia, with Roumania and with Bulgaria, should be drawn up in three languages, the French text being authoritative in cases of divergence.)

17. M. Clemenceau said that the French Delegation had submitted a note with regard to the credentials of the German Diplomatic Agents. (Appendix “L”.) It had drafted a letter to the President of the German Delegation. (Appendix “M”). (This draft was accepted.)Credentials of the German Diplomatic Agents

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Villa Majestic, Paris, 26 July, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–13

CONDITIONS OF PEACE (BULGARIA)

Military, Naval and Aerial Clauses

Military Clauses

Chapter I.—General

Article 1

Within three months of the coming into force of the present Peace Treaty, the military forces of Bulgaria shall be demobilized to the extent prescribed hereinafter.

Article 2

Universal compulsory service shall be abolished in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Army shall in future only be constituted and recruited by means of voluntary enlistments.^*

Chapter II.—Effectives and Cadres of the Bulgarian Army

Article 3

The total number of military forces in the Bulgarian Army shall never exceed 20,000 men, including Officers and depot troops.

The formations composing the Bulgarian Army shall be fixed in accordance with the wishes of Bulgaria, subject to the following reservations:—

(1) The effectives of units shall be compulsorily fixed between the maximum and minimum figures shown in Table 4 attached.

(2) The proportion of officers, including personnel, staffs, and special services, shall not exceed one-twentieth of the total effectives with the colours, and that of N. C. O.’s shall not exceed one-fifteenth of the total effectives with the colours.

(3) The number of machine guns, guns, and howitzers shall not exceed those fixed in Table 5 attached per thousand men of the total effectives with the colours.

The Bulgarian Army shall be exclusively employed for the maintenance of order within Bulgarian territories and for the control of the frontiers.

Article 4

In no case shall units be formed of greater than a division, the latter being in accordance with Tables 1, 2 and 4 attached.

The maximum size of the staffs and of all formations are given in the attached Table; these figures need not be exactly followed, but they must not in any case be exceeded.

The maintenance or formation of any other group of forces, as well as any other organization concerned with military command or war preparation, is forbidden.

Each of the following units may have a depot:—

• A regiment of Infantry.
• A regiment of Cavalry.
• A regiment of Field Artillery.
• A battalion of Pioneers.

Article 5

All measures of mobilization or appertaining to mobilization are forbidden.

Formations, administrative services and staffs must not in any case include supplementary cadres.

It is forbidden to carry out any preparatory measures for the requisition of animals or any other means of military transport.

Article 6

The number of gendarmes, customs officials, forest guards, local or municipal police, etc., shall be fixed by a Commission of Inter-Allied Officers and shall not as a rule exceed the number of men employed in a similar capacity in 1911 within the territorial limits fixed for Bulgaria by the present Treaty.

In no case shall the number of these officials who are armed with rifles exceed 10,000, so that the total number of rifles in use in Bulgaria shall not exceed 30,000.

The number of these officials may only be increased in proportion to the increase of population in the localities or municipalities which employ them.

These officials, as well as those employed in the railway service, must never be assembled for the purpose of taking part in any military exercises.

Article 7

Any other military formation not dealt with in the above Articles is forbidden, and those which exist shall be abolished within the period laid down in Article I of the present Clauses.

Chapter III.—Military Recruiting and, Training

Article 8

All Officers including the gendarmerie, customs and forest services, etc., must be regulars (officiers de carrière). Officers at present serving who are retained in the army, gendarmerie, or the above-mentioned services, must undertake to serve at least up to the age of 40. Officer at present serving who do not join the new army, gendarmerie, or the above-mentioned services, shall be free from any military obligations. They must never take part in any military exercises, theoretical or practical.

Officers newly appointed must undertake to serve on the active list of the army, gendarmerie, or the above-mentioned services, for at least 20 consecutive years.

The proportion of officers leaving the service for any cause before the expiration of their term of engagement must not exceed in any year l/20th of the total effectives of Officers provided by Article 3 of the present Clauses.

If this percentage is unavoidably exceeded, the resulting deficit in the cadres shall not be filled up by new appointments.

Article 9

The total length of engagement of N. C. O.’s and men shall never be less than 12 years’ consecutive service with the colours.^†

The proportion of men dismissed before the expiration of their term of service for reasons of health, disciplinary or any other reasons, must not exceed in any year l/20th of the total effectives fixed by Article 3 of the present Clauses. If this number is unavoidably exceeded, the resulting deficit shall not be filled by fresh enlistments.

Chapter IV.—Schools, Educational Establishments, Military Clubs, etc.

Article 10

On the expiration of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, there must only exist in Bulgaria one Military school, strictly set apart for the recruitment of officers for the authorised units.

The number of students admitted to instruction in the said school shall be strictly in proportion to the vacancies to be filled in the officer cadres.

The students and the cadres shall be reckoned as part of the effectives fixed by Article 3 of the present Treaty.

Consequently, within the time fixed above, all military colleges or similar institutions in Bulgaria, as well as the various schools for officers, student officers, cadets, N. C. O.’s or student N. C. O.’s other than the school above provided for, shall be abolished.

Article 11

Educational establishments, other than those referred to in Article 10 above, the universities, societies of discharged soldiers, touring clubs, boy scouts’ societies, and associations or clubs of every description must not occupy themselves with any military matters. They will on no account be allowed to instruct or exercise their pupils or members in the use of arms.

These educational establishments, societies, clubs, etc., must have no connection with the Ministry of War or any other military authority.

Article 12

In all schools and educational establishments of every description, whether under State control or private management, the teaching of gymnastics shall not include any instruction or drill in the use of arms or training for war.

Chapter V.—Armament, Munitions and Material, Fortifications

Article 13

On the expiration of three months from the coming into force of the present terms, the armament of the new army of Bulgaria shall not exceed the figures fixed per thousand men in Table 5 attached. Any excess in relation to effectives shall only be used for such replacements as may eventually be necessary.

Article 14

The stock of munitions at the disposal of the Bulgarian Army shall never exceed the amounts fixed in Table 3 attached.

Within three months from the coming into force of the present conditions the Government of Bulgaria shall deposit any existing surplus of armament and munitions in such places as shall be notified to it by the principal Allied and Associated Powers.^‡

No other stock depot, or reserve of munitions shall be formed.

Article 15

The number and calibre of guns constituting the fixed normal armament of fortified places existing at the present moment in Bulgaria shall be immediately notified to the principal Allied and Associated Powers, and will constitute maximum amounts which may never be exceeded.

Within three months of the coming into force of the present Terms the maximum stock of ammunition for these guns will be reduced to and maintained at the following uniform rates:—

• 1,500 rounds per gun for those, the calibre of which is 105 mm. and under.
• 500 rounds per gun for those of higher calibre.

No new fortifications or fortified places shall be constructed in Bulgaria.

Article 16

The manufacture of arms, munitions and of war material, shall only be carried on in one single factory, which shall be controlled by and belong to the State, and whose output shall be strictly limited to the manufacture of such arms, munitions and war material as is necessary for the military forces and armaments referred to in Articles 3, 6, 14 & 15 above.

In three months from the coming into force of the present terms, all other establishments for the manufacture, preparation, storage, or design of arms, munitions, or any other war material, shall be abolished or converted to purely commercial uses.

Within the same length of time, all arsenals shall also be suppressed except those to be used as depots for the authorised stocks of munitions, and their staffs discharged.

The plant of any establishments or arsenals, existing in excess of the needs of the authorised manufactures, shall be rendered useless or converted to purely commercial uses, in accordance with the decisions of the Inter-Allied Commission of Control.

Article 17

Within three months from the coming into force of the present Conditions, all arms, munitions and war material, including any kind of anti-aircraft material, of whatever origin existing in Bulgaria, in excess of the authorised quantity, shall be handed over to the principal Allied and Associated Powers.

This will also apply to special plant designed for the manufacture of military material with the exception of that which shall be considered necessary for authorised manufactures.

This delivery shall take place at such points in Bulgarian territory as may be appointed by the said Powers, who shall also decide on the disposal of such material.

Article 18

The importation into Bulgaria of arms, munitions and war material of all kinds is formally forbidden.

The manufacture for foreign countries and the exportation of arms, munitions and war material, shall also be forbidden.

Article 19

The use of flame throwers, asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all similar liquids, materials or processes being prohibited, their manufacture and importation are strictly forbidden in Bulgaria.

Material specially intended for the manufacture, storage, or use of the said products or processes is equally forbidden.

The manufacture and importation into Bulgaria of armoured cars, tanks, or any similar machines suitable for use in war, are equally forbidden.

Table 1

Composition and Maximum Effectives of an Infantry Division

Units	Maximum effectives of each unit		Remarks
	Officers	Men
Headquarters of an Infantry Division.	25	70	(a) Each Regiment comprises 3 Battalions of Infantry, each Battalion comprises 3 Companies of Infantry and 1 machine gun Company. (b) Each Battalion comprises 1 Headquarters, 2 Pioneer Companies, 1 Bridging Section, 1 Searchlight Section. (c) Each Regiment comprises 1 Headquarters, 3 Groups of Field or Mountain Artillery, comprising 8 batteries, each Battery comprising 4 guns or howitzers (field or mountain). (d) This detachment comprises:— Telephone detachment 1 Listening section 1 carrier pigeon Section.
Headquarters of Divisional Infantry.	5	50
Headquarters of Divisional Artillery.	4	30
3 Regiments of Infantry (a) (on the basis of 65 Officers and 2,000 men per Regiment).	195	6,000
1 Squadron	6	160
1 Battalion of Trench Artillery, (3 Companies).	14	500
1 Battalion Pioneers (b) (3 Companies).	14	500
Regiment Field Artillery (c)	80	1,200
1 Battalion Cyclists (comprising 3 Companies).	18	450
1 Signal Detachment (d)	11	330
Divisional Medical Crops	28	550
Divisional Medical Corps	14	940
Total for an Infantry Division.	414	10,780

Table 2

Composition and Maximum Effectives For a Cavalry Division

Units	Maximum number authorised	Maximum effectives of each unit		Remarks
		Officers	Men
Headquarters of a Cavalry Division.	1	15	50	(a) Each Regiment comprises 4 Squadrons. (b) Each group comprises 9 fighting cars, each carrying one gun, 1 machine gun and 1 spare ma chine gun, 4 communications cars, 2 small lorries for stores, 7 lorries, including 1 repair lorry, 4 motor cars.
Regt. Of Cavalry (a)	6	30	720
Group of Field Artillery (3 Batteries).	1	30	430
Group of motor machine-guns and armoured cars (b).	1	4	80
Miscellaneous Services		30	500
Total for a Cavalry Division.		259	5,380

Note:—The large Cavalry Units may include a variable number of regiments and be divided into independent brigades within the limit of the effectives laid down above.

Table 3

Composition and Maximum Effectives for a Mixed Brigade

Units	Maximum effectives of each unit		Remarks
	Officers	Men
Headquarters of a Brigade	10	50	a) Each Regiment comprises 3 Battalions of Infantry, each 3 Companies of Infantry and 1 Machine gun Company.
2 Regiments of Infantry (a)	130	4,000
1 Cyclist Battalion	18	450
1 Cavalry Squadron	5	100
1 Group Field Artillery	20	400
1 Trench mortar Company	5	150
Miscellaneous service	10	200
Total for Mixed Brigade	198	5,350

Table 4

Minimum Effectives of Units Whatever Organisation is Adopted in the Army (Divisions, Mixed Brigades, &c.)

Maximum effectives (for reference)		Units	Minimum effectives		Remarks
Officers	Men		Officers	Men
414	10,780	Infantry Division	300	8,000
259	5,380	Cavalry Division	180	3,650
198	5,350	Mixed Brigade	140	4,250
65	2,000	Regiment of Infantry	52	1,600
16	650	Battalion of Infantry	12	500
3	160	Company of Infantry or machine-guns	2	120
18	450	Cyclist Group	12	300
30	720	Regiment of Cavalry	20	450
6	160	Squadron of Cavalry	3	100
80	1,200	Regiment of Field Artillery.	60	1,000
4	150	Battery, Field Artillery	2	120
3	150	Company of Trench Mortars	2	100
14	500	Battalion of Pioneers	8	300

Table 5

Maximum Authorised Armaments and Munition Supplies

Material	Quantity for 1,000 men	Amount of Munitions per arm (rifles, guns &c.)	Remarks
Rifles or Carbines	1,150	500 rounds	Automatic rifles or carbines are counted as light machine guns.
Machine guns, heavy or light.	15	10,000 rounds
Trench Mortars, medium		1,000 rounds
Trench Mortars, medium	2	500 rounds
Guns or howitzers (field or mountain).	3	1,000 rounds

Note:—No heavy gun, i. e. of a calibre greater than 150 mm. is authorised with the exception of the normal armament of fortified places.

Naval Clauses

Article 20

From the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, all Bulgarian warships, submarines included, are declared to be finally surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 21

All warships, including submarines, now under construction in Bulgaria shall be broken up.

The work of breaking-up these vessels shall be commenced as soon as possible after the coming into force of the present Treaty.

Article 22

Articles, machinery and material arising from the breaking-up of Bulgarian warships of all kinds, whether surface vessels or submarines, may not be used except for purely industrial or commercial purposes.

They may not be sold or disposed of to foreign countries.

Article 23

The construction or acquisition of any submarine, even for commercial purposes, shall be forbidden in Bulgaria.

Article 24

All arms, ammunition and other naval war material, including mines and torpedoes, which belonged to Bulgaria at the date of the signature of the armistice of 29 September, 1918,⁹ are declared to be finally surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 25

During the three months following the coming into force of the present Treaty, the high-power wireless telegraphy station at Sofia shall not be used for the transmission of messages concerning naval, military or political questions of interest to Bulgaria or any State which has been allied to Bulgaria in the war, without the assent of the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. This station may be used for commercial purposes, but only under the supervision of the said Governments, who will decide the wavelength to be used.

During the same period Bulgaria shall not build any more high-power wireless telegraphy stations in her own territory or that of Germany, Austria, Hungary or Turkey.

Air Clauses

Article 26

The armed forces of Bulgaria must not include any military or naval air forces. No dirigible shall be kept.

Article 27

Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the personnel of the air forces on the rolls of the Bulgarian land and sea forces shall be demobilized.

Article 28

Until the complete evacuation of Bulgarian territory by the Allied and Associated troops the aircraft of the Allied and Associated Powers shall enjoy in Bulgaria freedom of passage through the air, freedom of transit and of landing.

Article 29

During the 6 months following the coming into force of the present Treaty, the manufacture, importation and exportation of aircraft, parts of aircraft, engines for aircraft, and parts of engines for aircraft, shall be forbidden in all Bulgarian territory.

Article 30

On the coming into force of the present Treaty, all military and naval aeronautical material must be delivered by Bulgaria and at the expense of Bulgaria, to the principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Delivery must be effected at such places as the said Governments may select, and must be completed within 3 months.

In particular, this material will include all items under the following heads which are or have been in use or were designed for warlike purposes:—

Complete aeroplanes and seaplanes, as well as those being manufactured, repaired, or assembled.

Dirigibles able to take the air, being manufactured, repaired or assembled.

Plant for the manufacture of hydrogen.

Dirigible sheds and shelters of every kind for aircraft.

Pending their delivery, dirigibles will, at the expense of Bulgaria, be maintained inflated with hydrogen; the plant for the manufacture of hydrogen, as well as the sheds for dirigibles may, at the discretion of the said Powers, be left to the State of Bulgaria until the time when the dirigibles are handed over.

Engines for aircraft.

Nacelles and fuselages.

Armament (guns, machine-guns, light machine-guns, bomb-dropping apparatus, torpedo-dropping apparatus, synchronisation apparatus, aiming apparatus).

Munitions (cartridges, shells, bombs, loaded or unloaded, stocks of explosives or material for their manufacture).

Instruments for use on aircraft.

Wireless apparatus and photographic or cinematograph apparatus for use on aircraft.

Component parts of any of the items under the preceding heads.

The material referred to above shall not be removed without special permission from the said Governments.

Air Navigation

Article 31

The aircraft of the Allied and Associated Powers shall have full liberty of passage and landing over and in the territory and territorial waters of Bulgaria, and shall enjoy the same privileges as aircraft belonging to Bulgaria, particularly in case of distress by land or sea.

Article 32

The aircraft of the Allied and Associated Powers shall, while in transit to any foreign country whatever, enjoy the right of flying over the territory and territorial waters of Bulgaria without landing subject always to any regulations which may be made by Bulgaria, and which shall be applicable equally to the aircraft of Bulgaria and those of the Allied and Associated countries.

Article 33

All aerodromes in Bulgaria open to national public traffic shall be open for the aircraft of the Allied and Associated Powers, and in any such aerodrome such aircraft shall be treated on a footing of equality with Bulgarian aircraft as regards charges of every description, including charges for landing and accommodation.

Article 34

Subject to the present provisions, the rights of passage, transit and landing, provided for in Articles 31, 32 and 33 are subject to the observance of such regulations as Bulgaria may consider it necessary to enact, but such regulations shall be applied without distinction to aircraft belonging to Bulgaria and to the aircraft of Allied and Associated countries.

Article 35

Certificates of nationality, air worthiness, or competency and licenses, issued or recognised as valid by any of the Allied and Associated Powers, shall be recognised in Bulgaria as valid and as equivalent to the certificates and licenses issued by Bulgaria.

Article 36

As regards internal commercial air traffic the aircraft of the Allied and Associated Powers shall enjoy in Bulgaria most favoured nation treatment.

Article 37

Bulgaria undertakes to enforce the necessary measures to ensure that all Bulgarian aircraft flying over her territory shall comply with the rules as to Lights and Signals, Rules of the Air, and Rules for Air Traffic on and in the neighbourhood of aerodromes, which have been laid down in the Convention relative to Aerial Navigation concluded between the Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 38

The obligations imposed by the preceding provisions shall remain in force until the 1st January, 1923, unless before that date Bulgaria shall have been admitted into the League of Nations or shall have been authorised by consent of the Allied and Associated Powers to adhere to the Convention relative to Aerial Navigation concluded between those Powers.

Inter-Allied Commissions of Control

Article 39

All military, naval and air clauses contained in the present Treaty and for the execution of which a time limit is prescribed, shall be executed by Bulgaria under the control of Inter-Allied Commissions (Military, Naval and Air) appointed for this purpose by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

The above mentioned Commissions will represent the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in dealing with the Bulgarian Government in all matters concerning the execution of Military, Naval or Air clauses. They will communicate to the Bulgarian Authorities the decisions which the Allied and Associated Powers have reserved the right to take or which the execution of the Clauses may necessitate.

Article 40

The Inter-Allied Commissions of Control may establish their organisations at Sofia, and shall be entitled as often as they think fit to proceed to any point whatever in Bulgarian territory or to send sub-Commissions or to authorise one or more of their Members to go to any such point.

Article 41

The Bulgarian Government must furnish to the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control all such information and documents as the latter may think necessary to ensure the execution of their mission, and all means (both in personnel and in material) which the said Commissions may need to ensure the complete execution of the Military, Naval or Air Clauses.

The Bulgarian Government must attach a qualified Representative to each Inter-Allied Commission of Control with the duty of receiving the communications which the Commission may have to address to the Bulgarian Government and of furnishing it with or procuring all information or documents demanded.

Article 42

The upkeep and cost of the Commissions of Control and the expenses involved by their work shall be borne by Bulgaria.

Article 43

It will be the special duty of the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control:—

(i) To fix the number of gendarmes, customs officials, forest guards, local or municipal police, etc., which Bulgaria shall be authorised to maintain as laid down by article 6 of these Clauses.

(ii) To receive from the Bulgarian Government any information relating to the location of the stocks and depots of munitions, the armament of the fortified works, fortresses and forts and the location of the works or factories for the production of arms, munitions and war material and their operations.

It will take delivery of the arms, munitions, war material, and plant intended for war construction; will select the points where such delivery is to be effected and will supervise the works of destruction and of rendering things useless or the transformation of material which are to be carried out in accordance with the present Treaty.

Article 44

It will be the special duty of the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control to take delivery of arms, munitions, and other naval war material, and to supervise the destruction and breaking up provided for in Article 21.

The Bulgarian Government must furnish to the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control all such information and documents as the Commission may deem necessary to ensure the complete execution of the Naval Clauses, in particular the designs of the warships, the composition of their armaments, the details and the models of the guns, munitions, torpedoes, mines, explosives, wireless telegraphic apparatus, and in general everything relating to Naval war material, as well as all legislative or administrative documents or regulations.

Article 45

It will be the special duty of the Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control to make an inventory of the aeronautical material which is actually in possession of the Bulgarian Government, to inspect aeroplane, balloon (including airship) and motor manufactories and factories producing arms, munitions and explosives capable of being used by aircraft, to visit all aerodromes, sheds, landing grounds, parks, and depots situated in Bulgarian territory and to authorise where necessary the removal of material and to take delivery of such material.

The Bulgarian Government must furnish to the Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control all such information and legislative, administrative, or other documents which the Commission may think necessary to ensure the complete execution of the air clauses, and in particular a list of the personnel belonging to all Bulgarian Air Services and of the existing material as well as of that in process of manufacture or on order, and a complete list of all establishments working for aviation, of their positions and of all sheds and landing grounds.

General Clauses

Article 46

After the expiration of a period of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the Bulgarian laws must have been modified and shall be maintained by the Bulgarian Government in conformity with this part of the present Treaty.

Within the same period all the administrative or other measures relating to the execution of this part of the Treaty must have been taken by the Bulgarian Government.

Article 47

The following portions of the Armistice of the 29th September, 1918:—

• Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 & 6.
• Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 & 4 (Military Conventions—Secret Articles)

remain in force in so far as they are not inconsistent with the above stipulations.

Article 48

Bulgaria undertakes from the coming into force of the present Treaty not to accredit to any foreign country any military, naval or air mission, and not to send or allow the departure of any such mission; she undertakes moreover to take the necessary steps to prevent Bulgarian nationals from leaving her territory in order to enlist in the Army, fleet or air service of any foreign Power, or to be attached to any such Power with the purpose of helping in its training, or generally to give any assistance to the military, naval or air instruction in a foreign country.

The Allied and Associated Powers undertake on their part that from the coming into force of the present Treaty they will neither enlist in their armies, fleets, or air services, nor attach to them any Bulgarian national with the object of helping in military training, or in general employ any Bulgarian national as a military, naval or air instructor.

The present arrangement, however, in no way hinders the right of France to recruit the Foreign Legion in accordance with French military laws and regulations.

Article 49

So long as the present Treaty remains in force Bulgaria undertakes to submit to any investigation which the League of Nations by a majority vote may consider necessary.

Appendix B to HD–13

CONDITIONS OF PEACE WITH BULGARIA

Report Presented by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties

The Commission on Responsibilities was requested by the Secretariat-General of the Conference to meet for the purpose of examining the bases of a report to be presented to the Supreme Council of the Conference as regards the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.

Meetings of the Commission were accordingly held on the 15th and 17th July for the purpose of drafting the text of a provision or provisions applicable to the same object as Articles 227 to 230 of the Treaty with Germany, and designed to take the place of those Articles in the Treaty with Bulgaria.

With this object the Delegations of the three States bordering on Bulgaria, i. e. Greece, Roumania, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, had already elaborated a preliminary draft which they communicated at the end of June to the President of the Conference.

The Commission considered this preliminary draft, in formulating which its authors, as stated in their covering letter to his Excellency M. Clemenceau, “followed as closely as possible the text of the above-mentioned Articles (227 to 230 of the Treaty with Germany), and were guided in other respects by the conclusions adopted by the Commission on Responsibilities with the unanimous consent of the Delegates of all the States who should apparently be signatories of the Treaty with Bulgaria.”

The Delegates of the United States expressed, as regards this communication, certain objections of a general character, from which it appears that the United States only accepts the proposals which are in conformity with Articles 228, 229, and 230 of the Treaty with Germany, and makes reservations as regards those parts of the proposals which are contrary to or inconsistent with those Articles.

The French Delegates on the Commission, for their part, while noting that the system proposed simply reproduces that previously adopted by the Commission, to which they had adhered, but which was not adopted in the Treaty with Germany, observed that it was a matter for regret that the Commission should be led to depart from uniformity in this respect between the various Treaties of Peace. In reply, it was pointed out that the special considerations set forth below justify this new departure.

While taking note of the reservations and observations of the Delegates of the United States and of France respectively, the Commission proceeded to discuss the proposal made by the Delegates of Greece, Roumania, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and as a result agreed upon a draft of eight Articles to be substituted in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria for Articles 227 to 230 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. The text of this draft is annexed hereto (Annex I).

In framing this draft, the Commission took into account the opinion expressed by the representatives of the Balkan States to the effect that there was no occasion to give special treatment to the case of the ex-Tsar of Bulgaria, as his responsibility should be judged according to the general rules laid down in the draft.

The Delegates of Japan recalled and renewed in this connection the reservations which they had previously made in regard to “the prosecution for breaches of the laws and customs of war of enemy heads of States before a tribunal constituted by the opposite party” (the 4th April, 1919, Annex III to the Report of the Commission).

The Commission’s draft diverges in two respects from the system of responsibilities and penalties set up by the Treaty with Germany.

In the first place, with the special object of settling more promptly the thousands of cases in which the penal responsibility of Bulgarian subjects is involved, the Balkan States proposed and the Commission agreed to entrust to an international tribunal the trial of persons accused of having committed or ordered acts in violation of the laws and customs of war, or who, though having authority to intervene, did not oppose these acts. The reasons adduced by the Delegations interested in support of this system are chiefly of a practical nature. There are so many cases in which the penal responsibility of Bulgarian subjects is involved that, if the initiative as regards prosecutions and the trial of these cases were entrusted solely to the military tribunals of the Balkan States, the result would be that for a very long time the relations of those States with Bulgaria would thereby be injuriously affected; great harm would thus be done to the common interest, which requires that the passions aroused by the war, and aggravated by the manner in which Bulgaria conducted it, should quickly be assuaged. The Delegations concerned observed, moreover, that their respective Governments, under the pressure of public opinion in their own countries, could not themselves make the choice (which could only be done by an international body) between cases requiring absolutely to be kept in hand and cases which could be set aside with a view to expediting matters. The Delegations added that real harm would be done if account were not taken of the fact that the sentences resulting from the prosecutions, if pronounced by local tribunals, ran the risk of appearing, however unjustly, to bear the stamp of acts of political vengeance; these sentences would, however, be cleared of such an imputation, and would be recognised by all men as true sentences of justice, if they were pronounced by an international tribunal. In the second place, the draft provides, by means of a special organ called the “Commission on Prosecutions,” that the designation of individuals supposed to be guilty, and as such to be handed over by the Bulgarian Government, shall not remain in suspense for a long time.

In other cases the draft preserves, as regards breaches of the laws and customs of war, the system of prosecution by military tribunals of the Allied Powers set up in the Treaty with Germany: that is to say, that the only exception made is as regards accused persons who will be handed over by Bulgaria and as such will come within the jurisdiction of the international tribunal.

In accordance with the above, the first of the draft Articles reproduces with a slight variation the first sentence of Article 228 of the Treaty with Germany and recognises the right of the Allied and Associated Powers “to bring to justice all persons accused of having committed or ordered acts in violation of the laws and customs of war.”

Article 2 reproduces the whole system for trial by military tribunals of the Allied Powers as laid down in Article 228 (first paragraph) and Article 229 of the Treaty with Germany; but an exception is made as regards the persons mentioned in Article 3. As will be seen, this concerns persons who are to be handed over by the Bulgarian Government.

The last paragraph of Article 2 reproduces word for word the last sentence of the first paragraph of Article 228, providing that the whole of this system, i. e., trial by the military tribunals of the Allied Powers, shall apply “notwithstanding any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Bulgaria or in the territory of her allies.” In this connection it is necessary to recall that the term proceedings or prosecution (in French “procédures ou poursuites”) means in this place, as was expressly stated in connection with the German Treaty, not merely the preliminary judicial steps, but also the sentences pronounced by the Courts of Bulgaria or her allies; the rights of the tribunals of the Allied Powers will therefore not be affected even if sentences have been passed by tribunals of Bulgaria or by those of the Powers allied with her.

Article 3, unlike Article 2, is specially concerned with accused persons who will only come into the power of the Allies by means of the obligations to surrender them which is imposed upon the Bulgarian Government. These persons shall be brought before a tribunal composed of seven judges, appointed respectively by the Governments of Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

In this connection, the Delegates of the United States having enquired whether Belgium had been in a state of war with Bulgaria, the Belgian Delegate replied that Belgium had never been in a state of declared war with Bulgaria, and that there had only been a rupture of diplomatic relations. The Commission decided that, whatever the supposition were, Belgium should be requested to appoint one of the seven judges on the tribunal.

Article 4 embodies a useful provision in the previous Report of the Commission regarding the Treaty with Germany, and specifies that the [high]¹² tribunal shall regulate its own procedure (Chapter IV, Section (b), Sub-Section 5 in the Report of the Commission). It also provides for a case being referred to a judicial authority of the three Allied Powers bordering on Bulgaria, but solely “for examination in first instance, for inquiry or for report” and not for the purpose of passing sentence as the Commission had previously proposed.

Finally, this Article deals with the seat of the tribunal, which is to vary according to the circumstances.

Article 5 likewise embodies a recommendation in the Report of the Commission (cp. Chapter IV, Section (b), Sub-Section 3), and states that “the law to be applied by the [high] tribunal shall be the principles of the law of nations as these result from treaties and usages established among civilised peoples.” Further, in accordance with the terms of Article 228 and in the exact language of the previous conclusions of the Commission (Chapter IV, Section (b), Sub-Section 4), it provides that the punishments to be imposed shall be such “as may be imposed for such an offence or offences by any court in one of the countries represented on the [high] tribunal or in Bulgaria itself.”

Finally, the last paragraph of Article 5 provides, as is also stated in Article 2 in regard to the military tribunals, that the [high] tribunal can exercise its authority notwithstanding any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Bulgaria or in the territory of her allies, and also excludes all consequences that might result from an order for amnesty. In this place, as in Article 2, it must be understood that the term “proceedings or prosecution” includes also any sentence which may have been pronounced by a tribunal in Bulgaria or in the territory of her allies.

Article 6 of the draft meets the desire expressed that the designation of the persons supposed to be guilty and to be handed over by the Bulgarian Government may not remain in suspense for a long time. With this object the draft embodies in accordance with the previous proposals of the Commission, the idea of setting up a “Commission on Prosecutions,” international in its composition like the tribunal itself, which is to draw up within three months the list of persons to be brought before the [high] tribunal and to bring this list to the notice of the Bulgarian Government. After this period of three months the list is to be closed. This system is clearly at variance with that set up in the Treaty with Germany (Article 228, paragraph 2); but the reason is that objections were raised on this point in connection with the German Treaty, and the Allied and Associated Powers took these objections into account in Clause 3 of the Protocol of the 28th June annexed to the Treaty with Germany.

Article 7 of the draft contains a necessary provision regarding the execution of the sentences, which is entrusted to the Government of the country in which the [high] tribunal pronounces judgment. The Article stipulates, moreover, that the costs of proceedings shall be borne by the Bulgarian Government and regulated by the Reparation Commission under the supervision of the [high] tribunal.

In conclusion, Article 230 of the Treaty with Germany, regarding the documents and information to be furnished by Bulgaria, is reproduced verbatim in Article 8 of the draft; it is clearly understood that this clause applies not only as regards the [high] tribunal, but also as regards the military tribunals for which provision is made in Article 2.

Apart from the general reservation made by the Delegates of the United States and the special reservation made by the Delegates of Japan, and while taking note of the observation made by the French Delegates, the Commission on Responsibilities and Penalties decided unanimously that the eight draft Articles annexed to the present Report should be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria instead and in place of Articles 227 to 230 in the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

United States of America—
(Subject to the reservations set forth in the declaration annexed hereto (Annex II).)

James Brown Scott

Henry G. Crocker

British Empire—

Ernest M. Pollock

France—

F. Larnaude

R. Masson

Italy—

Vittorio Scialoja

Gustavo Tosti

Japan—

M. Adatci

Sakutaro Tachi

Belgium—

Roun-Jaequemyns

Greece—

N. Politis

Poland—

L. Lubienski

Roumania—

C. Antoniade

Serb-Croat-Slovene State—

S. Yovanovitch

July 22, 1919.

Annex I

Treaty With Bulgaria.—Penalties.—Preliminary Draft

Article 1

The Bulgarian Government recognises the right of the Allied Powers to bring to justice in the manner hereinafter provided all persons accused of having committed or ordered acts in violation of the laws and customs of war, or who though having authority to intervene did not oppose these acts.

Article 2

These persons will be brought before the military tribunals of the Allied Powers, except in the cases referred to in Article 3 below.

Persons guilty of criminal acts against the nationals of one of the Allied Powers will be brought before the military tribunals of that Power.

Persons guilty of criminal acts against the nationals of more than one of the Allied Powers will be brought before military tribunals composed of members of the military tribunals of the Powers concerned.

In every case the accused will be entitled to name his own counsel.

Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law.

These provisions will apply notwithstanding any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Bulgaria or in the territory of her Allies.

Article 3

The persons referred to in Article 1, who are to be handed over by the Bulgarian Government, shall be brought before a tribunal composed of seven judges, one appointed by each of the following Powers, namely: Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Roumania, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

Article 4

The tribunal shall determine its own procedure, including the arrangements for prosecution and for the guarantees essential to the defence.

It will sit, according to circumstances, in Greece, in Roumania, or in the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

It shall have power to refer any case for examination in the first instance, for enquiry, or for report to any judicial authority of these three Powers.

Article 5

The law to be applied by the tribunal shall be the principles of the law of nations as these result from treaties and usages established among civilised peoples, and the tribunal shall impose on the persons found guilty such punishments as may be imposed by any Court in one of the countries represented on the tribunal or in Bulgaria itself.

This provision will apply notwithstanding any order for amnesty or any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Bulgaria or in the territory of her allies.

Article 6

The duty of deciding what cases are to be brought before the tribunal for trial shall be undertaken by a Commission on prosecutions appointed by the Governments of the States represented on the tribunal.

The Commission on prosecutions shall, within three months from the date of its appointment, draw up the lists of persons to be brought before the tribunal and shall notify the Bulgarian Government thereof.

The Bulgarian Government shall hold the persons thus designated at the disposal of the tribunal so that they may be handed over to the latter as and when the procedure may so require through the agency of the Government in whose territory these persons are to be tried.

Article 7

The execution of the judgments of the tribunal shall be entrusted to the Government of the country where the tribunal shall have delivered its sentence.

The costs of the proceedings which result in convictions shall, after examination and approval by the tribunal, be borne by the Bulgarian Government and settled by the Reparation Commission.

Article 8

Whatever may be the tribunal called upon to deal with each case, the Bulgarian Government undertakes to furnish all documents and information of every kind, the production of which may be considered necessary to ensure the full knowledge of the incriminating acts, the discovery of offenders and the just appreciation of responsibility.

Annex II

Declaration by the Delegation of the United States of America

The Delegates of the United States of America are unable to accept the Report of the majority of the Commission on Responsibilities containing the Articles on Penalties to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria for the reasons set forth at length in the memorandum which the American Delegates felt obliged to present to the Commission on Responsibilities, and which is appended as Annex II to the Report of the Commission, dated the 29th March, 1919, containing the provisions to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

The Delegates of the United States recognise that the present Commission has adopted for some cases the system of trial before Military Commissions of Allied and Associated belligerent Governments contained in the Treaty with Germany, but they call attention to the fact that even in such cases the persons to be tried before such Commissions are not only those accused of having committed, but also those accused of having ordered, without adequate definition or limitation, acts contrary to the laws and customs of war, and that the laws to be applied are “the principles of the law of nations as these result from treaties and usages among civilised peoples,” not singly and solely the laws and customs of war as required by the submission of the Conference of the 25th January, 1919.¹⁴

The Delegates of the United States further call attention to the fact that the provisions of the present project adopted by the Commission are, in so far as they differ from those of the Treaty with Germany, similar to those previously adopted by the Commission and recommended in its Report of the 29th March, 1919, to the Conference, but rejected by the Supreme Council in favour of the provisions which were actually inserted in the German Treaty.

The Delegates of the United States of America therefore feel themselves constrained to recall and to confirm the statement entered in the proceedings of the Commission on the 17th July, 1919, that—

“The United States accepts so much of the proposals as are in accord with Articles 228, 229, and 230 of the Treaty with Germany, and reserves as to those parts of the proposals contrary to or inconsistent with those Articles.”

• James Brown Scott
• Henry G. Crocker

Appendix C to HD–13

[Translation¹⁵]

July 23, 1919.

[Note From the Drafting Committee to the Supreme Council]

In its report addressed to the Supreme Council on the question of Schleswig,¹⁶ the Committee on the Execution of the Territorial Clauses of the Treaty of Peace proposed “to notify the German Government and the Danish Government that the Allied and Associated Powers consider as null every sale of real property of the State occurring since November 11, 1919 [1918] in that part of Schleswig subject to plebiscite.” (Paragraph 6, page 2 of the report.)¹⁷

The Drafting Committee of the Conference pointed out that in making this notification in the terms which have just been reported, the powers would invoke a principle which was not sanctioned by the armistice nor by the treaty, and that they would expose themselves to receiving from the Germans a justified exception. It has drafted the text of the notification that the powers, according to it, have the right to address to the German and Danish Governments as follows:

“In conformity with the principle laid down by article XIX of the armistice of November 11, 1918,¹⁸ by the terms of which ‘while the armistice lasts, no public securities shall be removed by the enemy which can serve as a pledge to the Allies for the recovery of reparation for war losses.’ Every sale of public properties occurring since November 11, 1918 in that part of Schleswig subject to plebiscite shall be, for the purposes of the application of the treaty of peace, considered null and void.”

Appendix D to HD–13

German Peace Delegation,
Versailles, July 8, 1919.

[The President of the German Delegation (Von Lersner) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

Sir: The execution of the Treaty of Peace in the Eastern Provinces of Germany requires that immediately after ratification important preparatory measures should be taken. The sudden withdrawal of all German Authorities in the provinces to be returned would undoubtedly cause great confusion, and the internal administration and the working of justice and of the transport system would especially suffer therefrom. Security and order seem all the more gravely threatened owing to the fact that in the territories in question national antagonism has already caused great excitement amongst the entire population. For these reasons the German Government considers it indispensable that direct negotiations should at an early date be entered upon with the Polish Government. The object of these negotiations would be, by appealing in the first instance to the different Prussian ministerial departments concerned, to ensure that these various administrations should be handed over to Poland in good order: they would moreover settle the details of the methodical withdrawal of Prussian officials. In view of the important part which the Prussian Bureaux will play and of the necessity of consulting original documents, the best solution would be to select Berlin as the seat of these negotiations. The Polish delegates would in such case receive all the necessary facilities.

It is requested that an early reply may be given as to whether the Polish Government agrees to this proposal and whether it be ready to appoint its representatives with the least possible delay, and that I may be informed of the date of their arrival at Berlin.

I have [etc.]

Freiherr von Lersner

Appendix E to HD–13

July 23, 1919.

Proposed Reply to German Note of July 8th Regarding the Opening of Negotiations at Berlin between the Polish and German Governments

Translation

From: President Clemenceau.

To: President Von Lersner.

The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers has made note of the communication of the German Delegation, under date of July 8, 1919,¹⁹ relative to the preparatory measures which should immediately follow the ratification, for the execution of the Treaty referring to the Eastern provinces of Germany.

The Supreme Council is favourable, in principle, to the opening of negotiations with the Polish Government in Berlin, but considers that the Allied and Associated Powers, as guarantors of the Peace Treaty, should participate in these negotiations and be represented.

It is only under these conditions that the request of the German Delegation could be considered.

Appendix F to HD–13

[Translation²⁰]

German Peace Delegation,
Versailles, July 16, 1919.

To: M. Clemenceau, President of the Peace Conference, etc.

Mr. President:—According to communications from East Prussia, a Commissioner of the Allied and Associated Powers has arrived in Memel, in order to assume the administration of the territory north of Memel. The German Government has, up to the present, received no official information of the arrival of this commissioner, nor has it as yet received a statement of his powers. The German Government takes the view point, and has explained this view point in the note of July 8,²¹ that it is desirable to open negotiations as soon as possible regarding the transfer of the territory to be assigned to Poland. It also considers it desirable that preliminary steps be taken as rapidly as possible for similar negotiations with regard to the Free Town of Dantzig and District, and the District north of Memel. It considers it imperative, however, that the name and powers of the commissioners concerned be communicated to it prior to the arrival of these commissioners at their place of duty, since only in this way can the negotiations commence in good order immediately.

The German Government takes the liberty, accordingly, of asking whether Commissioners with full powers have already been appointed for the territory north of Memel and for the Free Town of Dantzig, and requests that the names and full powers of these Commissioners be communicated to it, in case such Commissioners are soon to be appointed. In view of the wide range of the necessary fundamental questions and of the services concerned, Berlin is considered the most suitable place for these negotiations.

Accept, etc.

Freiherr von Lersner

Appendix G to HD–13

[Translation]²²

July 23, 1919.

From: President Clemenceau.

To: President Von Lersner.

The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers has taken note of the communication received from the German Delegation under date of July 16, 1919,²³ requesting that the names and credentials of the Representatives of the Allied Powers to Eastern Prussia be communicated to the German Government before the arrival of these Representatives.

The Supreme Council estimates that these nominations cannot be made before the ratification and entry into force of the Peace Treaty. At the proper time, the German Government will be, through the mediation [medium?] of the German Delegation, informed of the names and credentials of the said Representatives.

Appendix H to HD–13

[Translation²⁴]

conditions of peace with bulgaria

Report Submitted to the Supreme Council by the Committee on Prisoners of War

Most of the provisions that the Commission has the honor to submit for the approval of the Supreme Council are identical with those which have already been adopted by it for Austria; the same grounds of law and fact suggest them; and the same necessities justify them. Only one article has been changed—article 9. Its new wording tends to enlarge its import. This was brought about by the petitions of the Greek, Roumanian, and Serbian delegations for whom the Commission has on several occasions held hearings. It has seemed necessary to the Commission to request that the Greek, Roumanian, and Serbian representatives collaborate directly in drafting the clauses of the treaty with Bulgaria. These three countries were, indeed, especially affected in the course of hostilities with the Bulgarian Army and are especially interested in the settlement of the serious questions raised by the conclusion of peace.

The petitions presented by the three delegations related especially to the following points:

1. The atrocities committed by the Bulgarian troops and the crimes committed at the instigation of this country call for sanctions. The Allied and Associated Powers should therefore establish a procedure and provide sanctions.

2. Numerous civilians of Greek, Roumanian or Serbian nationality have been deported into Bulgaria, many Allied prisoners of war have been concealed there. Because of these facts, of which they have cited numerous examples, the three delegations have requested the organization of special missions and the institution of exceptional guarantees.

3. The three delegations have requested that it be specified that the prisoners could not to any degree be kept in captivity for political crimes or misdemeanors.

On this last point, the Commission on Prisoners thought that it had no changes to make in the text of the conditions of peace with Austria. The stipulations provided therein are sufficient, indeed, to remove all ambiguity.

But the other two propositions presented by the three delegations have engaged its attention, and it has believed that it could give satisfaction to them.

The new wording of article 9 substitutes for the Commissions To Search for Missing Persons established by each of the Allied and Associated Powers, a single Inter-Allied Commission whose composition and powers have been extended.

Its mission is threefold:

1. It should proceed to search for all nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers now in Bulgarian territory and provide for their repatriation;

2. If there are among them those who desire to remain in Bulgaria, it shall identify them, and it will thus be led to verify the sincerity and the free expression of their desire;

3. It will have to ascertain on Bulgarian territory, where it shall function, the atrocities committed on the persons of prisoners, interned persons, or deportees. Its mission is not limited, therefore, to a search for missing persons; it consists of a general investigation of atrocities, and admits of the protection of those who could still be victimized. By reason of the importance of the tasks which shall thus devolve upon them, the members who compose it should possess appropriate authority; therefore it shall include a representative of each of the Great towers,—with the exception, however, of the Japanese Government which declared that, because of the very limited number of delegates which it had at its disposal, it would forego being represented,—and, in addition, a Representative of the three Powers more specially interested: Greece, Roumania, and Serbia.

This Commission should be established immediately after the coming into force of the treaty. Its designation will clearly demonstrate the intention of the Allied and Associated Powers to put an end to the violent acts committed or encouraged by the Bulgarian authorities, and their determination to enforce, by means of the necessary sanctions and punishments, respect for the laws and customs of war.

The Commission shall have free access everywhere. The Bulgarian Government should furnish it with all useful means of transportation, and put at its disposal all the documents which it shall call for. The Roumanian delegation requested that it be specified that the Commission could enter all “public and private premises.” The Committee considered that the formula “in all other premises” was sufficient to cover private homes as well as public establishments, and it seemed useless to make a change in this formula which could be interpreted as an exception applicable exclusively to the conditions of peace with Bulgaria. The Interallied Commission of Inquiry and Control should, therefore, have every facility for investigation necessary to the pursuit of the purposes which are assigned to it.

The Committee thought that it could propose to the Supreme Council the establishment of this exceptional organ without encroaching upon the competency of the Commission on Responsibilities, which should present to it all proposals on the nature of the sanctions to be taken, and on the procedure to be followed to render them effective.

Moreover, the Commission on Responsibilities, when consulted, raised no objection thereto; it merely offered the opinion that the result of the investigations of this Interallied Commission, to the extent that it could give rise to sanctions, be transmitted:

1. To each of the interested governments;

2. To the International Court proposed by the Commission on Responsibilities to, take cognizance of crimes against the laws and customs of war.

A special provision was inserted in the text in response to this suggestion.

Consequently, the Committee on Prisoners of War has the honor to submit for the approval of the Supreme Council the set of provisions appended hereto.

[Translation²⁵]

Draft Articles To Be Inserted in the Preliminaries of Peace With Bulgaria

Article 1

The repatriation of prisoners of war and interned civilians who are Bulgarian nationals shall take place as soon as possible after the coming into force of the present treaty, and shall be carried out with the greatest rapidity.

Article 2

The repatriation of Bulgarian prisoners of war and interned civilians shall, in accordance with article 1, be carried out by a commission composed of representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part, and of the Bulgarian Government on the other part.

For each of the Allied and Associated Powers a subcommission, composed exclusively of representatives of the interested power and of delegates of the Bulgarian Government, shall regulate the details of carrying into effect the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

Article 3

From the time of their delivery into the hands of the Bulgarian authorities the prisoners of war and interned civilians are to be returned without delay to their homes by the said authorities.

Those amongst them who before the war were habitually resident in territory occupied by the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers are likewise to be sent to their homes, subject to the consent and control of the military authorities of the Allied and Associated armies of occupation.

Article 4

The whole cost of repatriation from the moment of starting shall be borne by the Bulgarian Government who shall also provide the means of transport and working personnel considered necessary by the commission referred to in article 2.

Article 5

Prisoners of war and interned civilians awaiting disposal or undergoing sentence for offences against discipline shall be repatriated irrespective of the completion of their sentence or of the proceedings pending against them.

This stipulation shall not apply to prisoners of war and interned civilians punished for offences committed subsequent to June 1, 1919.

During the period pending their repatriation all prisoners of war and interned civilians shall remain subject to the existing regulations, more especially as regards work and discipline.

Article 6

Prisoners of war and interned civilians who are awaiting trial or undergoing sentence for offences other than those against discipline may be detained.

Article 7

The Bulgarian Government undertakes to admit to its territory without distinction all persons liable to repatriation.

Prisoners of war or Bulgarian nationals who do not desire to be repatriated may be excluded from repatriation; but the Allied and Associated Governments reserve to themselves the right either to repatriate them or to take them to a neutral country or to allow them to reside in their own territories.

The Bulgarian Government undertakes not to institute any exceptional proceedings against these persons or their families nor to take any repressive or vexatious measures of any kind whatsoever against them on this account.

Article 8

The Allied and Associated Governments reserve the right to make the repatriation of Bulgarian prisoners of war and Bulgarian nationals in their hands conditional upon the immediate notification and release by the Bulgarian Government of any prisoners of war and other nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers who may still be retained in Bulgaria against their will.

Article 9

An Interallied Commission of Inquiry and Control shall be formed for the purpose of:

1. searching for non-repatriated nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers;

2. identifying those who have expressed their desire to remain within Bulgarian territory;

3. establishing criminal acts punishable by the penalties referred to in articles . . . . . of the present treaty, committed by Bulgarians against the persons of prisoners of war or Allied and Associated nationals during their captivity.

This Commission shall consist of a representative of each of the following powers, viz: the British Empire, France, Italy, the United States of America, Greece, Roumania, Serbia.

The result of its inquiries shall be transmitted:

1. To each of the interested governments;

2. To the High Court provided for in article 3 of the present treaty (art. 3 of the clauses relating to penalties).

The Bulgarian Government undertakes:

1. To give every facility to the Interallied Commission, to furnish it all necessary means of transportation, to allow it free access to camps, prisons, hospitals, and all other places; and to place at its disposal all documents, whether public or private, which would facilitate its inquiries.

2. To impose penalties upon any Bulgarian officials or private persons who have concealed the presence of any nationals of any of the Allied or Associated Powers, or have neglected to reveal the presence of any such after it had come to their knowledge.

Article 10

The Bulgarian Government undertakes, from the coming into force of the present treaty, to restore without delay all articles, money, securities and documents which have belonged to nationals of the Allied or Associated Powers and which have been received by the Bulgarian authorities.

Article 11

The High Contracting Parties waive reciprocally all repayment of sums due for the maintenance of prisoners of war in their respective territories.

Section II.—Graves

Article 12

The Allied and Associated Governments and the Bulgarian Government will cause to be respected and maintained the graves of the soldiers and sailors buried in their respective territories.

They agree to recognize any commission appointed by any one of these Governments for the purpose of identifying, registering, caring for, or erecting suitable memorials over the said graves, and to facilitate the discharge of its duties. Furthermore they reciprocally agree to afford, so far as the provisions of their laws and the requirements of public health allow, every facility for giving effect to requests that the bodies of their soldiers and sailors may be transferred to their own country.

Article 13

The graves of prisoners of war and interned civilians who are nationals of the different belligerent states and have died in captivity shall be properly maintained in accordance with article 12 of the present treaty.

The Allied and Associated Governments on the one part and the Bulgarian Government on the other part reciprocally undertake also to furnish to each other:

1. A complete list of those who have died, together with all information useful for identification;

2. All information as to the number and position of the graves of all those who have been buried without identification.

Appendix I to HD–13

[Translation]²⁶

No. 799

St. Germain-en-Late, July 21, 1919.

Verbal Note

From: Delegation of the German Austrian Republic.

To: General Secretary of the Peace Conference, Paris.

His Excellence, President of the Peace Conference, was kind enough, in a note of the 17th instant, to inform the German Austrian Delegation, at St. Germain-en-Laye, of a declaration made by the Supreme Economic Council on the subject of foodstuffs and indispensable raw materials to be furnished to the German Austrian people.²⁷

Noting with great satisfaction the friendly assurances given, the Delegation hastened to obtain information upon the delivery of arms and ammunition upon which will depend, according to terms of the said Note, the continuation of supplies.

Treating the information as confidential, the German Austrian Delegation begs to bring to the attention of the President of the Peace Conference, that all arms and ammunition asked for up to the present time are being delivered to the Royal Italian Armistice Mission at Vienna. This Mission has agreed to transmit the materials in question to the Czecho-Slovak Government, an agreement made with the full knowledge and consent of the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers at Vienna.

Adding that grave interior political reasons render it impossible to deliver the materials mentioned directly to the Czecho-Slovak State, the undersigned Delegation begs to insist upon the confidential character of this communication.

Appendix J to HD–13

Trade With Bolshevist Russia

Immediately following the meeting of the Supreme Council at which this was last discussed,²⁸ Mr. White cabled the President,²⁹ describing in considerable detail the proposed notification to be given to neutrals with the object of preventing such trade and stating as reasons for reconsideration of the attitude formerly taken:

(1) That the action of June 17th³⁰ was taken in expectation of an early fall of Petrograd, which expectation had not been realised;

(2) That military and naval operations were active in and about the Gulf of Finland and that it would be difficult for the Allies to permit neutral shipping to proceed freely in the Gulf of Finland without thereby disclosing to the Bolshevists the naval disposition of the Allies, thereby permitting the Bolshevists to take the Anti-Bolshevists in the rear;

(3) That the prior action of the Supreme Council related both to Bolshevist Russia and Hungary and that the Supreme Council had itself modified the decision in respect to Hungary, thereby indicating that the decision as a whole should be regarded as having been provisional only;

(4) That the Allies, by virtue of their promise of aid and assistance to Koltchak, were under a moral obligation to prevent the Bolshevists from receiving aid.

The view was further expressed that it would be desirable for the United States to go as far as possible with our associates in assisting Koltchak and preventing aid from reaching the Bolshevists and that the only apparent objection to the proposed course of action was the precedent involved in a group of nations exercising a control over a portion of the high seas other than by virtue of recognised belligerent rights.

In reply to this telegram from Mr. White to the President, the President stated his view to be that the United States could not join in the proposed notification in view of the fact that the status of belligerency did not exist with respect to Bolshevist Russia.³¹ It was added that it was felt that the practical difficulties in the way of trade with Bolshevist Russia would prevent any substantial relief being received by the Bolshevists in this way.

Appendix E to HD–13

M–370 (Admiralty M. 21300)

Draft of Declaration To Be Signed by the Austrian Plenipotentiaries

With a view to minimising the losses arising from the sinking of ships and cargoes in the course of the war and to facilitating the recovery of ships and cargoes which can be salved and the adjustment of the private claims arising with regard thereto, the Austrian Government undertake to supply all the information in their power which may be of assistance to the Governments of the Allied and Associated Powers or to their nationals with regard to vessels sunk or damaged by the Austrian naval forces during the period of hostilities.

Appendix L to HD–13

[Translation]³²

ministry of foreign affairs
direction of political and commercial affairs
french republic

Paris, July 16, 1919.

Note of the French Delegation

Credentials of German Diplomatic Agents The approaching resumption of diplomatic relations between the Allied States and Germany raises the question of relations between representatives of the Allied Governments and accredited German representatives to a same government.

At Stockholm, for example, the Minister from Germany is senior to most of the Allied ministers; according to custom, it would be thus the Allied Ministers who should call first upon their colleague. The same situation will arise in many posts, if the representatives of Germany in foreign countries do not receive new credentials. It does not seem that the German Government has given them such credentials up to the present time. Now the voting of the German constitution should in any case bring about this renewal of credentials; otherwise, it would be necessary to conclude that the regime in Germany has not changed, since its diplomatic agents now in office hold their position from the Emperor.

It seems that it might be interesting to draw the attention of the German Government to the necessity of renewing the credentials of its diplomatic agents at present accredited to foreign countries.

From another point of view, the German Government might be invited to replace those of its diplomatic agents who had been invested by the Imperial Government, in such a way as to mark clearly the rupture between the old and new regimes.

Appendix M to HD–13

[Translation³³]

Draft of a Letter to the President of the German Delegation

Letters of Credence of the German Diplomatic Agents

Mr. President: The Allied and Associated Governments wish to know if the German Government has furnished new letters of Credence to those of its Diplomatic Agents, at the present time on duty, who had received their foreign credentials from the former Imperial Government.

I believe it my duty to point out that it would be difficult for the Diplomatic Representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers to carry on official relations with their German colleagues, after the resumption of diplomatic relations between Germany and the Allied and Associated Powers, whose papers had been delivered by the collapsed Government.

The Allied and Associated Powers believe it to the interest of all concerned, that in the shortest time possible, precise information thereto be furnished, in view of the instructions they will have to give to their Representatives in the different Countries concerning the attitude they are to adopt towards the accredited German Diplomats in the same countries with them.

1. Prof. Archibald Cary Coolidge, chief of the Coolidge Mission to Austria.
2. Jules Cambon, French representative and president, Commission on Czechoslovak Affairs and Commission on Polish Affairs.
3. Fernand Larnaude, French representative, Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and the Enforcement of Penalties.
4. Nicolas Politis, Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs and plenipotentiary to the Peace Conference.
6. Edouard Ignace, French representative and president, Commission on Prisoners of War.
7. Appendix A to HD–10, p. 200.
8. HD–7, minute 3, p. 131.
8. Appendix I to CF–37, vol. vi, p. 73.
9. The Italian Military Representative nevertheless maintains his reservation already expressed in the case of the state of Austria and of Hungary that the Bulgarian Army should be organised on a basis of 1-year compulsory service. [Footnote in the original.]
10. The Italian Military Representative maintains his reservation on the subject of recruitment, (See page i). [Footnote in the original. The reference is to the footnote on p. 269.]
11. The Acting American Military Naval and Air Representatives make the following reservation:—“The use of the term “Allied and Associated Powers” in the text of the Military, Naval and Aerial terms shall not be construed to infer that the United States of America will be represented on the Commissions of Control, or otherwise participate in the enforcement of any of those articles.” [Footnote in the original.]
9. vol. ii, p. 241.
12. Brackets enclosing “high” throughout this document appear on the original.
14. Annex 2 to Protocol No. 2, Preliminary Peace Conference, Plenary Session of January 25, 1919, vol. iii, p. 202.
15. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
16. Appendix B to HD–8, p. 162.
17. Ibid., p. 163.
18. vol. ii, p. 1.
19. Supra.
20. The translation is that found under Paris Peace Conf. 185.1141/9.
21. Ante, p. 291.
22. The translation is that found under Paris Peace Conf. 185.1138/39.
23. Supra.
24. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
25. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
26. The translation is that given in S–H Bulletin No. 547, July 24, 1919 (Paris Peace Conf. 184.611/604).
27. HD–9, minute 2, p. 173.
28. HD–7, minute 3, p. 131.
29. Telegram No. 3152, July 15, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1919, Russia, p. 151.
30. CF–74, minute 5, vol. vi, p. 530.
31. For the President’s reply, see telegram No. 2594, July 18, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1919, Russia, p. 153.
32. The translation is that given in S–H Bulletin No. 548, July 24, 1919 (Paris Peace Conf. 184.611/605).
33. The translation is that given in S–H Bulletin No. 548, July 26, 1919 (Paris Peace Conf. 184.611/606).