Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/31
HD–31
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 Thursday, 14 August, 1919, at 5 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.
- Sir George Clerk.
- France
- M. Pichon.
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta.
- M. Berthelot.
- M. de Saint Quentin.
- Italy
- M. Tittoni.
- Secretary
- M. Paterno.
- Japan
- M. Matsui.
- Secretary
- M. Kawai.
- America, United States of
Joint Secretariat | |
America, United States of | Captain Chapin. |
British Empire | Lt.-Commander Bell. |
France | M. de Percin. |
Italy | Lt.-Colonel Jones. |
Interpreter—M. Meyer. |
1. M. Pichon communicated a letter from the Rumanian Minister in Paris (see Annex A), and the Council took note of a further communication from the same source intimating that Mr. Diamandy had been appointed High Commissioner for Rumania at Budapest. He then asked if Mr. Balfour had any observations to make on the Rumanian reply to the Note1 of the Allied and Associated Powers. (Annex B.)Hungarian Affairs: Rumanian Reply to the Communication of the Allied and Associated Powers
Mr. Balfour said that the letter as a whole was satisfactory, since the Rumanian government consented to abide by the decisions of the Entente Powers. With regard to the remainder of the letter, he asked whether it would be profitable to reply to all the controversial points raised. He did, however, think that the Rumanian Government had advanced several arguments, which called for discussion, and possibly a reply. The first of these arguments was that dealing with the supposition on the part of the Rumanian government, that the Armistice [Page 684] of November, 1918, had lapsed, owing to subsequent acts of war initiated by the Hungarian government, and owing to the explicit invitation of the Conference, by virtue of which Rumania was called upon to take military action against Hungary.
M. Tittoni said that he regarded the first argument as a strong one, since the attack of the Hungarian army was a positive violation of the armistice. He regarded the second argument as weak, because, whilst admitting that the Rumanians had been invited to initiate military action against the Hungarians, a similar invitation had been sent to the Czecho-Slovaks and the Yugo-Slavs; and no action by any of the parties consulted had followed upon these negotiations.
M. Pichon said that the Rumanians were not in a position to claim that the armistice had lapsed on account of the invitation sent to them by the Allied and Associated Powers for the simple reason that they were invited to enforce it by the communication to which they referred. He agreed with Mr. Balfour, that there was a satisfactory side to the Rumanian reply. He thought, however, that the Rumanians were attempting to take up too isolated an attitude. They spoke of collaborating with the Conference; they were not called upon to do that; but to obey its decisions.
M. Tittoni said that M. Pichon’s remark was a matter of nuance, since, if the Rumanians wished to conform with the decisions of the Conference, they would evidently have to collaborate with it.
Mr. Balfour said that under the circumstances, it would probably be better to make no reference, in our answer, to the ambiguous phrases of the Rumanian note; but to lay emphasis on the satisfactory assurances that it contained. The next point, to which he wished to draw attention, was the protest of the Rumanian Government on the subject of the Conference decision with regard to war material. It was obviously necessary that they should be assured, in a most formal manner, that the war material captured by them belonged to the Allies as a whole. The statement in their note, to the effect that they had not compromised the economic activities of the countries they had invaded, was contradicted by the information submitted to the Conference. It seemed as though the Rumanians assumed, that, because they had been robbed by the Hungarians at an earlier period of the war; and because booty had been carried from their country into the territories that they had now invaded, they had a right to carry away with them, whatever they could seize in order to equalise matters. This argument should be replied to, by showing them that France, Belgium, Serbia and Italy had suffered in the same manner, and would never recover the booty that had been taken from them by the German and Austro-Hungarian armies in the days of their successes.
[Page 685]M. Pichon said that according to the information at the disposal of the Conference, the Rumanians had requisitioned 50% of everything they could lay their hands on; railway rolling stock, live stock, and agricultural implements.
M. Berthelot said that when General Mackensen had invaded Roumanian territory, a large amount of the railway material (2000 locomotives) requisitioned by him had remained in Hungarian territory. These engines could not be restored under the armistice because they were of German make and were indistinguishable from the ordinary machines, used normally on the Hungarian railways.
Mr. Balfour said that he would like to know the opinion of the French Foreign Office, and of his colleagues on the Rumanian protest, to the effect that the Allies had allowed themselves to be swayed by the calumnious accusations of an unscrupulous enemy.
M. Pichon said that we had not received information from such a source, but from our accredited representatives. He further remarked that the Rumanians admitted implicitly the accusations, against which they protested, by trying to justify them on the plea of military necessity.
M. Tittoni suggested that there should be no recriminations; the main point being that the Rumanians should be made to conform to the decisions of the Conference.
M. Pichon said that he agreed with M. Tittoni, but thought that the question of war material must be dealt with in our reply, which, he thought, M. Berthelot might possibly draft.
M. Berthelot said that he would draft a reply, and asked whether it should not deal also with the entire disarmament of the Hungarian army, and the withdrawal of the Rumanians behind the Theiss; since these points had been decided upon by the Conference, before sending out instructions to the Mission of Allied Generals to Budapest.
Mr. Balfour remarked that the Rumanians must be made to retire to their frontier and not only to the Theiss. They had already promised to do so after the disarmament of Hungary.
M. Tittoni remarked that the moment at which the withdrawal of the Rumanians should begin ought to be left to the Generals to decide. Further events in Hungary might make it most desirable to have a strong force of Rumanians present in Budapest, which had been, during the past few months, the scene of Bloodshed and massacre.
General Weygand said that, under the circumstances, it might be best to examine carefully the instructions given to the Generals, and to see whether they were complete in all points. If it should be found that they were not, they could be revised and added to them if necessary.
[Page 686]Mr. Balfour asked whether it had not been decided in these instructions what particular strategic points should be occupied by the Rumanian army.
General Weygand replied that the Generals had been left free to decide on the points in Hungarian territory which ought to be occupied by the Rumanians, and what forces should be employed by these latter for this purpose.
M. Berthelot then read the draft of the telegram that he had prepared for communication to the Rumanian government. (See Annex C.)
Mr. Balfour asked whether special mention should not be made of the rule laid down with regard to war booty and requisitions since the rule in question had been accepted by the governments of other Allied countries which had been invaded. He further asked whether these countries should not be mentioned by name.
Mr. Berthelot [said] that it would, in his opinion, be unwise to mention Allied countries by name in this connection, on account of the Serbian actions in the Banat.
Mr. Polk asked whether it was desired that the Rumanian statement with regard to the lapse of the armistice should be allowed to stand.
M. Berthelot said that he thought it would be unwise to argue the question closely. There had been two armistices with Hungary. The first had not been very successful, and it had been altered by subsequent decisions of the Conference, since, by its provisions, Hungary was allowed to remain in Slovakia. The second armistice had then been substituted. It was now superseded by a third one, imposed on the Hungarians by the Rumanians. The Conference could not very well re-open the whole discussion on armistices by replying in detail to the Rumanian argument on the subject.
Mr. Polk said that the sentence of the Rumanian note stating that the armistice had lapsed owing to an invitation to take military action, communicated to Rumania by the Allied and Associated Governments, could hardly be allowed to stand.
Mr. Balfour suggested that a general sentence might open the reply, saying that the Conference did not wish to discuss the controversial points in the Rumanian note.
(It was agreed to send a telegram drafted by M. Berthelot (see Annex C) to the Rumanian Government and to the Mission of Allied Generals at Budapest.)
(At this point Mr. Hutchinson1a entered the room.)
2. Mr. Hutchinson reported and commented on the Report of the Economic Commission with regard to the Economic Clauses in the [Page 687] Peace Treaty with Bulgaria (see Appendix D). Economic clauses in the Peace Treaty
Mr. Balfour asked whether the modification proposed to Article 25 would entail the acceptance on the part of the Allied and Associated Governments of the clauses in the Peace Treaty of Bucarest of 19132 whereby Roumania obtained a certain portion of the Dobrudja.
Mr. Hutchinson replied that he was unable to answer Mr. Balfour’s question as the Economic Commission could not deal with territorial questions.
(It was decided:—
- (1)
- That the proposed modification to Article 25 should be submitted to the Drafting Committee who should inform the Council whether by virtue of the aforesaid modification the Allied and Associated Governments would be bound to recognise as valid the territorial clauses in the Peace Treaty of Bucarest of 1913, more particularly those whereby a certain portion of the Dobruja was ceded to Roumania.
- (2)
- That the proposed modification to Article 36 should be accepted.)
3. The Council took note of a telegram from the High Commissioner at Constantinople (see Appendix E).
Commission of Enquiry Into the Events at Smyrna M. Pichon said that he believed that it was intended that the Greek Officer should be present at the meetings of the Commission. (See H. D. 12 paragraph 5.3)
M. Tittoni remarked that in his opinion the decision only implied that the Greek Officer was to be at the disposal of the Commission without being present at every sitting.
Mr. Balfour said that he agreed with M. Tittoni.
M. Tittoni then accentuated his previous statement by saying that in his opinion the witnesses cited before the Commission would be intimidated by the presence of a Greek Officer.
M. Pichon said that a decision in the same sense as the one previously taken must be made with regard to the Turks.
M. Tittoni then remarked that he did not think that the resolution in H. D. 12, paragraph 5, had been accurately drafted, and pointed out that he had drawn attention to the inaccuracy in question on the following day.
Mr. Balfour replied that the decision had been communicated to the Greeks and could not now be altered or modified.
M. Pichon then said that the previous decision could be interpreted as excluding the Greek Representative from the deliberations of the Commission. The words of the decision had been that he was [Page 688] to “follow the labours of the Commission”. He was therefore in a position which could be compared with that of a foreign Military Attaché who followed the deliberations of the Headquarters Staff to which he was attached, without taking part in them.
(After some further discussion, it was decided that the previous decision of the Council (See H. D. 12, Article 5) should be explained to the High Commissioner at Constantinople in the sense that the Greek Representative should not be present at the meetings of the Commission of Enquiry at Smyrna. All necessary data should be communicated to him, however, and similar facilities should be given to a Turkish Representative, if subsequently appointed.)
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Villa Majestic, Paris, 14 August, 1919.
- Appendix B to HD–26, p. 615.↩
- H. J. Hutchinson, British economic expert.↩
- British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cvii, p. 658.↩
- Ante, p. 238.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Appendix B to HD–26, p. 615.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Telegram drafted August 12; transmitted to the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest, August 14. (Paris Peace Conf. 181.9202/12a.)↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩