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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/29

HD–29

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 Tuesday, 12 August, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.

Paris, August 12, 1919, 3:30 p.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. F. L. Polk.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison.
  • British Empire
    • The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
  • Secretaries
    • Mr. H. Norman.
    • Mr. P. Kerr.
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau.
    • M. Pichon.
  • Secretaries
    • M. Dutasta.
    • M. Berthelot.
    • M. de St. Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. Tittoni.
  • Secretary
    • M. Paterno.
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Chapin.
British Empire	Capt. E. Abraham.
France	Capt. A. Portier.
Italy	Lt. Col. A. Jones.
Interpreter—Professor P. J. Mantoux.

1. On Mr. Balfour’s proposal it was agreed:—

Instructions to Committees Preparing Clauses for Treaty With Hungary That all the Committees engaged in the preparation of clauses for insertion in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary except those which have already forwarded their recommendations to the Secretariat General for submission to the Supreme Council, should do so forthwith.

2. M. Clemenceau said that the French Chargé d’Affaires in Vienna stated that General Graziani would be in Budapest on the 12th August. Situation in Hungary

M. Tittoni said that he had no news.

Mr. Polk said that General Bandholtz had arrived in Budapest on the previous day.

M. Pichon drew attention to a Note prepared by General Weygand regarding the means of communication with Budapest (see Appendix “A”).

(Note was taken of the statement of General Weygand regarding means of communication with Budapest.)

3. (M. Tardieu, M. Aubert, Mr. Nicolson, Col. Castoldi, Prof. Coolidge and M. Adatci were present during the following discussion.)

Frontiers of Bulgaria in Thrace M. Tardieu said that he could not offer the Council any agreed solution of the problem; the margin of disagreement, however, had been reduced. He would briefly recall various phases which the question had passed through. The first phase was the blue line suggested by the Commission on Greek Affairs. This line had been rejected in the Committee on Bulgarian frontiers by the American Delegation. A compromise had been sought by means of mutual concession. The initial demand of the American Delegation had been to leave Western Thrace to Bulgaria with the 1915 frontier. The British, French and Japanese Delegations had disagreed.

After a variety of views had been proposed, the American Delegation suggested that Eastern and Western Thrace should be attached to the International State of Constantinople. This had not been accepted by the other Delegations. Then, M. Tittoni had proposed an ethnographical line intended to give more Greeks to Greece and more Bulgarians to Bulgaria. A solution had been sought in this direction giving both Bulgaria and Greece a frontier with the International State. No success had been achieved. The line suggested took Greece up to Lule Burgas leaving the northern part of Eastern Thrace to Bulgaria. The American Delegation had objected that this left Bulgaria no exit on the Aegean. Then it had been suggested that the South Western part of Western Thrace should be given to Greece and that an International State with an outlet at Dedeagatch should be created with control over the railway from Dedeagatch to Adrianople. Eastern Thrace would then be attributed to Greece up to a line from the Gulf of Xeros to Midia. To this the American Delegation had objected that the Western part of Western Thrace was not economically connected with the rest. The International State would therefore be economically unsound. The American counter-proposal was that North Western Thrace should be given to Bulgaria whilst the International State should be limited by a line 10 kilometres east of the Maritza including Adrianople. Disagreement was therefore limited; for it was admitted by all that the best solution was some form of international control over Dedeagatch and the railway. The French, British and Japanese Delegations wished to extend this International State West and North, maintaining on the East the 1915 frontier. The Americans wished to extend it to the East 10 kilometres from the Maritza and including Adrianople while ceding North West Thrace to Bulgaria.

M. Tittoni said that a very slight concession would now produce agreement. A free State might be formed with a capital at Adrianople.

M. Tardieu said that there were in Adrianople 26,000 Turks, 23,000 Greeks and a few Bulgarians.

Mr. Balfour said that Adrianople was a Turkish Town in a Greek area. He saw considerable advantages in giving it to the free State as it was a Holy City for the Mohammedans.

M. Tardieu said that his private opinion was that an International Commission at Dedeagatch with complete control over the railway would be quite enough to ensure all the guarantees required by Bulgaria.

M. Clemenceau said that in any case he would not agree to any territorial reward to Bulgaria. He thought that no International State would live long and that all the personal solutions suggested promised new wars.

After considerable further discussion it appeared that the principal alternatives before the Council were:—

1. The separation of Eastern and Western Thrace by an International State under the League of Nations, or

2. The mere control of Dedeagatch and the railway to it from Adrianople by an International Commission.

To the former scheme were attached the following proposals:—

(a) In Western Thrace Greece to obtain at least the districts of Xanthi and Gümuldjina, with a frontier sufficient to protect the coastal railway.

(b) That the Port of Dedeagatch, the town of Adrianople and an area covering the railway connecting these two should be constituted into an autonomous State under the League of Nations.

(c) That with the exclusion of Adrianople, the whole of Eastern Thrace, as comprised between the existing Turco-Bulgarian frontier, and a line drawn from the Gulf of Xeros to South of Midia, should be given to Greece.

Mr. Polk stated that he was committed to the plan of an international state. But he was willing that M. Venizelos should try and persuade President Wilson to accept the second plan. If President Wilson accepted, Mr. Polk would be willing to be overruled.

(It was then agreed that Mr. Polk should confer with M. Venizelos, explain both solutions to him, and submit them to President Wilson. Mr. Polk would inform M. Venizelos that he was at liberty to send himself any message he desired to President Wilson.)

4. The Council had before it a communication from M. Jules Cambon. (See Appendix B.)

Recognition of the “Republic of Austria”, Under That Title Only Mr. Balfour said that the Allied and Associated Powers might insist on addressing the State of Austria as the Republic of Austria and in using that designation in the Treaty of Peace. More than this he thought could not be done. Should the people of Austria choose to call themselves citizens of German Austria it did not seem possible to compel them to do otherwise.

M. Clemenceau said that he entirely agreed.

(It was decided to maintain the expression “Republic of Austria” in dealings with the Austrian Peace Delegation and in the Treaty of Peace.)

5. The note of the Commission on Political Clauses was read and accepted (see Appendix C).

Clauses for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria Proposed by the Greek Delegation(It was decided in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on Political Clauses—

(1) to send for redraft to the Drafting Committee Articles 32, 33, 34, 35 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.

(2) to send Articles 36 & 37 to the Central Territorial Commission with a request that it should consult on this subject the Commission on New States.

(3) to send to the Financial Commission Articles 38 and 67. The last should also be examined by the Committee on Ports, Waterways and Railways.)

6. The Council had before it the following resolution—

Clauses on Responsibilities in Treaty with Hungary The Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on the Enforcement of Penalties, having been invited, in accordance with the resolution of the Supreme Council dated July 30, 1919,¹ to hasten the conclusion of its report relating to the Treaty with Hungary, and taking into account the fact that its liberty of decision is restricted by the solutions already reached as regards penalties in the Treaty with Germany as well as the Conditions of Peace with Austria and with Bulgaria, is of the opinion that the Articles relating to penalties to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary probably cannot differ from the solutions already adopted with regard to the other enemy Powers.

July 31—August 5, 1919.

(The resolution proposed by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on the Enforcement of Penalties in respect to the Treaty of Peace with Hungary was accepted.)

(The Meeting then adjourned for an informal discussion on the situation in the Adriatic.)

Villa Majestic, Paris , August 12, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–29

11 August, 1919.

[Note From General Weygand Regarding the Means of Communication With Budapest]

c. in c. allied armies
general staff, 3rd section

Translation

Note

The contingency may be foreseen of the Roumanians seizing all postal and other means of communication in Hungary, thus rendering uncertain all electrical communications between the Allies and the Mission of General Officers in Budapest.

Should this possibility be realised, one of the following means of liaison (set forth in order of preference) would have to be chosen, viz:—

1. Paris. H. Q. of French Army in Hungary at Nagy Kikinda, by W/T or telegraph

From Nagy Kikinda to Budapest by aeroplane^* distance of 230 kilometres

2. Paris. General Hallier at Vienna by W/T or telegraph

From Vienna to Budapest by motor^† distance of about 250 kilometres

3. Paris. General Pellé at Prague by W/T or telegraph General Pellé to Mittelhauser group (at Léva Czech front) by telegraph

Mittelhauser group at Budapest by aeroplane^‡ distance of 100 kilometres

(See sketch herewith.)^1a

Weygand

Appendix B to HD–29

M–452

August 12, 1919.

[Note From M. Jules Cambon Concerning the Title of the State of Austria]

[Translation]²

Note

On May 29, 1919, M. Jules Cambon, chairman of the Committee for Verification of the Powers of the Conference, under instructions of the Supreme Council, addressed the following letter to Chancellor Renner:

“Paris, May 29, 1919.

“Mr. Chairman:

“I have the honor to return herewith to Your Excellency the full powers which you were so good as to deliver to me on May 19, last, and on the subject of which I have received instructions to address to you the following notification:

“The Allied and Associated Powers have decided to recognize the new republic under the denomination of ‘Republic of Austria.’ They declare, therefore, that they accept the full powers delivered on May 19 as authorizing the delegates bearing them to carry on negotiations in the name of the Republic of Austria.

(Signed) J. Cambon

“To His Excellency M. Renner,
Chairman of the Delegation
of the Republic of Austria.”

The Austrian delegation has not paid any attention, however, to this notification. All the communications which it has addressed to the President of the Peace Conference since that date have been made in the name of the “Delegation of German Austria.” Such is in particular letter No. 914 which forms the covering note of the “observations presented by the German Austrian delegation upon the conditions of peace, as a whole, with German Austria.” The counter draft of a treaty, which appears as annex II to this covering note, never fails, even when it reproduces textually certain articles of the conditions, to have the word “Autriche” followed by the word “Allemande,” the latter word being printed in italics to underline the intent.

There is reason, apparently, to consider whether the Allied and Associated Powers ought not to make unmistakable to the Austrian delegation their intention to recognize the “Republic of Austria”, under that title and to the exclusion of any other.

Appendix C to HD–29

Translation

Note for the Supreme Council [From the Commission on Political Clauses]

In conformity with the resolution of the Supreme Council dated 2nd August, 1919,³ the Commission on Political Clauses proceeded to examine the clauses proposed by the Greek Delegation for insertion in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.

These clauses contained a certain number of provisions drafted in the form of articles, numbered 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 67.

With regard to Articles 32, 33, 34, and 35 which are formal clauses used in the other Treaties, the Commission thought it would be well to refer them to the Drafting Committee which would insert them in the Treaty with Bulgaria, should the latter include territorial concessions in favour of Greece.

Examination of Articles 36 and 37, relative to the acquisition of Greek nationality by Bulgarian nationals living in territories ceded to Greece has emphasized the importance of the study of such a complex question, affecting populations of composite nature in countries where protection cannot be as efficacious as in Western States, by the Central Territorial Commission, which is specially qualified for such study since it has examined the question of the frontiers of Bulgaria. The Central Commission would nevertheless do well to get into touch with the Commission on New States which is dealing with a scheme relative to exchanges of population between the Balkan States by means of voluntary emigration.

Article 38, relative to the free cession to Greece of possessions of the Bulgarian State situated within ceded territories should apparently be referred to the Financial Commission which has dealt with questions of that kind.

The same applies to Article 67 relative to railway lines within ceded territory; the Financial Commission would nevertheless do well to consult the Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways with regard to this Article by reason of its last paragraph.

To sum up:—

The Commission on Political Clauses has the honour to propose to the Supreme Council:—

(1) that Articles 32, 33,34 and 35, which are purely formal clauses, should be referred to the Drafting Committee;

(2) that Articles 36 and 37 should be referred to the Central Territorial Commission, with a suggestion that it would be well to consult on this subject the Committee on New States;

(3) that Articles 38 and 67 should be referred to the Financial Commission. The latter Article should also be examined by the Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways.

1. HD–19, minute 6, p. 408.
2. The French Army in Hungary has 2 air squadrons, one being a scouting squadron. [Footnote in the original.]
3. On 7th August, General Hallier telegraphed for authorisation to assure this liaison. He must therefore have already taken steps in the matter. [Footnote in the original.]
4. The Czech Army has 6 air squadrons. [Footnote in the original.]
5. The sketch does not accompany the minutes.
2. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
3. See HD–22, minute 4, and appendix C, pp. 484, 491.