Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/36


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, August 22, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.

  • Present
    • America, United States of
      • Hon. F. L. Polk.
    • Secretary
      • Mr. L. Harrison.
    • British Empire
      • Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
    • Secretaries
      • Mr. H. Norman.
      • Sir George Clerk
    • 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 Captain Chapin.
British Empire Lieut. Commander Bell.
France Captain Portier.
Italy Lieut. Col. Jones.
Interpreter—M. Meyer.

1. M. Clemenceau asked Mr. Hoover to make his statement on the affairs of Silesia.

Affairs in Silesia Mr. Hoover said that he and Mr. Loucheur had interviewed the German delegates at Versailles, and had made an informal suggestion to them. He had told them that if the present situation developed, it would lead the German Government into a very difficult position. In two months time, however, by the provisions of the Treaty, Silesia was to be occupied by Allied troops for the purpose of the plebiscite. He suggested to them that the German Government should, in its own interests, advance the date of the Allied occupation, and invite the Allies to send troops earlier. The German Representatives had received the suggestion favourably, and had stated that a reply from Berlin would be received on the following day. It was, however, to be noted that the German Delegates in question belonged to the Reparation Commission, and had no diplomatic attributions. Their attitude on the point at issue was, therefore, not very important. He had further told [Page 781] them, that a Sub-Commission, to inquire into the means of increasing the coal output, was shortly to be sent to the Silesian, Teschen, & Dombrova coalfields. If the Germans should prove willing to co-operate with this Sub-Committee, the Allies would doubtless be willing to appoint a German member to it. He thought that his suggestion in this respect might be a fair bait to the German Government.

Col. Goodyear’s dispatch was then read. (See Appen. A.)

In conclusion, he thought that the further information received from General Dupont should be placed before the Council.

M. Pichon then circulated a telegram from the French Representative in Berlin. (See Appendix B.)

Mr. Balfour, commenting upon the telegram, said that he thought the number of Commissions now acting in Germany was very great, and asked which Commission was referred to in para. 2.

Mr. Polk asked the same question.

Mr. Loucheur replied that the Allied Military Representatives at Berlin must have delegated some of their members with orders to proceed to Silesia, and he thought that the body so formed would be the Commission referred to in the telegram. He suggested that the Allied Representatives at Berlin ought to be informed of the measures which the Council proposed to carry into effect, and that they might know that the Coal Commission was being sent out on Monday. He further suggested that the delegated Commission from the Allied Representatives in Berlin should act in collaboration with the Coal Commission which was shortly to be sent out. In the meantime he strongly recommended that Col. Goodyear should continue to act as a local arbitrator in the interests of the Council.

Mr. Hoover remarked that he felt the Council should know the composition of the Commission which was being sent out by the Allied Representatives in Berlin; and, if an American officer were to be included on this Commission, Col. Goodyear should be designated as the American representative by the Council.

Mr. Balfour remarked that according to the information at present available there were two Commissions at present acting in Germany, (i) The Inter-Allied Commission which was coming to an end on the following day; and (ii) the sub-ordinate body delegated from No. (i) to act in Silesia. Col. Goodyear ought certainly to be a member of this latter Commission, but the Council did not at the moment know of whom it was composed.

Mr. Polk suggested that it might be a group of generals who were endeavoring to arrange matters between the Germans and the Poles.

General Weygand explained that, at the present moment, there was a Committee negotiating between the Germans and the Poles. [Page 782] (See H. D. 23, Min 4.1) General Malcolm, General Dupont, and General Bencivenga were assisting this body. The negotiations between the two countries had continued until the events in Silesia had produced such a state of tension, that they could not be proceeded with. General Dupont had wanted, in the first place, to send out a local Committee to Silesia, but the proposal had been opposed by the Poles. The German Government had received the suggestion favourably, and it was probably for this reason that a Delegated Committee had now been sent.

Mr. Tittoni remarked that his information did not quite agree with that supplied by General Weygand. He had been told, that, after the rupture of negotiations, a committee had been sent out locally at the request of the Poles. He also thought that the original committee in Berlin had been negotiating on behalf of prisoners of war.

General Weygand replied that the Council had sent out a committee to deal with the question of Russian prisoners, and that it was this same committee, which had assumed the conduct of present negotiations, owing to the fact that the various members of the committee had collaborated on many other questions in the past.

M. Clemenceau then read out the decision of H. D. 23, [Minute] 4, and remarked that the Americans had not nominated a member to the Committee created under the resolution, as they were waiting for the ratification of the Peace Treaty.

M. Loucheur said he thought that the Inter-Allied Committee at Berlin must be informed of the present measures taken by the Council. They should be told that a coal committee was leaving on Monday. Col. Goodyear ought, at the same time, to be asked to continue the action that he initiated; whilst on the other hand, the new Coal Commission should be kept fully informed of what Col. Goodyear had done; and be told that he was at present staying at Mahrisch Ostrau, and that they should collaborate as closely as possible with him.

Mr. Polk said that Mr. Hoover had suggested that Col. Goodyear should be attached to the Delegated Committee sent out to Silesia from Berlin. A telegram should therefore be sent, instructing the Committee (a) to proceed at once to Silesia and (b) to establish relations with Col. Goodyear. At the same time, it was not possible for Col. Goodyear to be an active member of the Delegated Committee prior to the ratification of the Peace Treaty. He would, therefore work as the representative of Mr. Hoover in matters connected with food and coal and would be in touch with the Generals of the Delegated Committee.

[Page 783]

Mr. Balfour asked what would be the relation between the Delegated Committee and the Coal Commission, both of which were being sent at the same time to the same place.

Mr. Loucheur replied that the Coal Committee was a purely technical body, and could be placed under the orders of the Delegated Committee.

Mr. Hoover said that the functions of the Coal Committee would be confined to questions of production and distribution. He did not believe that it could concern itself with questions of politics, and he felt that the work of this body should not be subordinated to a military committee.

M. Clemenceau suggested that M. Loucheur and Mr. Hoover should draw up draft instructions to the Allied Representatives at Berlin, and should submit the text to the Council.

Mr. Hoover then suggested that General Weygand should assist them.

M. Pichon said that he had received a visit from Mr. Grabsky of the Polish Delegation. He had informed him that he would transmit a copy of the instructions sent by the Allied Generals, to the Polish authorities. He would tell them that he fully agreed with the instructions sent, and would ask that the local Polish authorities should collaborate with the Commissions sent out by the Council.

Mr. Balfour remarked that a decision had been arrived at on the previous day to attach a German, a Czech, and a Pole to the Coal Committee.

Mr. Loucheur then read the draft instructions to be sent to Berlin. (See Appendix C.)

It was decided:—

That Colonel Goodyear should be instructed to continue the negotiations that he had initiated in Upper Silesia, pending the arrival of the Coal Committee, and the Committee delegated by the Inter-Allied representatives at Berlin. He was further to place himself in touch with these Bodies on their arrival and to act in close collaboration with them.
That the draft telegram to General Dupont (see Annex “C”) should be accepted and despatched through Marshal Foch.

2. Mr. Balfour asked, in connection with the previous resolution, whether the troops, which might have to be despatched to Upper Silesia at very short notice, were now ready. Allied Troops for the Plebiscite Zone in Upper Silesia

General Weygand said that it had only been decided that the troops for Upper Silesia should be formed out of four equal Allied contingents (see H. D. 27, Minute 7, and Appendix “F”2). On the same day that the decision [Page 784] had been taken, Marshal Foch had been requested to study the method of victualling and the distribution of the troops in Silesia, in collaboration with the military Representatives at Versailles. The Military Representatives had referred the matter to their respective Governments, and had not yet replied. He did not think that the discussions between Marshal Foch and the Military Representatives would be particularly fruitful, since the supposed difficulty of victualling did not exist. Far more complicated problems of the same kind had been solved in the past. There remained, however, the question of the total strength of effectives. On the proposal of the Military Representatives one Division had been considered sufficient. This figure had been arrived at before the appearance of the existing difficulties. When one Division had been decided upon, the military problem consisted only in maintaining order in a tranquil country. At the present moment, the country, which contained Four Million inhabitants, 360,000 of whom were labourers, was in a state of ferment and insurrection. The fact that these insurgents had disarmed troops should not be lost sight of; for it showed they were capable of military action. In his opinion, two Divisions were required under present circumstances. His opinion had been formed without local knowledge, and it would be advisable to ask General Dupont, who was proceeding to Silesia, to report on the matter. In the meantime, however, independently of anything that General Dupont might ultimately say, two Divisions ought to be put into a state of military preparedness.

M. Tittoni said that he had no objection to a simple military occupation of Silesian territory; but that if fighting occurred, parliamentary difficulties might arise in the Allied countries, and the idea that we were carrying out repressive measures might gain ground. The revolution in Silesia had an essentially Polish character. Was it not therefore desirable to obtain a declaration from the Polish Government, telling the local Polish population to receive our troops in a friendly spirit, and assist them as much as possible.

Mr. Balfour said that the despatch of troops was part of a policy decided upon. All that could be done therefore, was to have the troops in a state of readiness.

M. Tittoni replied that he did not question Mr. Balfour’s statement but thought that a proclamation from the Polish Government would be of great help. He had interpreted General Weygand’s statement in the sense that severe repressions might occur.

M. Clemenceau replied that he did not think the question arose, since the Poles would obviously welcome our assistance against the Germans.

Mr. Polk stated that he doubted whether authority existed under the American constitution for the United States to send troops into Silesia for the purpose of quelling a revolution in that country, [Page 785] since the Treaty with Germany provided only for troops of occupation during the Plebiscite. If the matters under discussion dealt simply with preliminary arrangements for the eventual despatch of troops, he was prepared to agree, but he could not commit himself to the despatch of forces for the purpose of quelling the revolution.

General Weygand said that when one Division had been decided upon for the Army of Occupation, during the Plebiscite in Upper Silesia, it had further been decided, that the Force in question should be drawn from the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.3 At that time it had been decided to maintain a Force of 150,000 men on the Rhine. Subsequently, however, this figure had been reduced to 114,000 men. Marshal Foch had thought that the troops necessary for Upper Silesia should be formed from the 36,000 men who became available owing to the reduction in the original figure. As an example, France had six Divisions, i. e. 85,000 men, formed for the Army of Occupation in Germany, and one extra Contingent for Silesia. Marshal Foch would like the British Government to get ready, in addition to the mixed brigade detailed for the Rhine, a supplementary contingent which could be drawn upon for Silesia. He also wished that the American Government would provide a force available for Silesia in addition to the 6,800 men which was its share in the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.

Mr. Balfour said that Field-Marshal Wilson had arrived in Paris and he would like General Weygand to consult with him on the present question.

Mr. Polk remarked that General Weygand might also confer with General Pershing.

It was decided:—

That Marshal Foch should be requested to make all arrangements necessary for putting two Divisions, which might ultimately be despatched to Upper Silesia on the orders of the Council, in a state of readiness.
That General Weygand should consult with Field Marshal Wilson and General Pershing with regard to the furnishing of British and American troops for Upper Silesia from sources other than the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.

3. (At this point M. Serruys, Mr. Headlam-Morley the experts of the Economic Commission, and the Editing Committee entered the room.)

Report of the Economic Commission With Regard to the Austrian Counter-Proposals M. Serruys read and commented upon the report contained in Appendix D.

(1) Coal Supply to Austria:

The question before the Council was, whether the [Page 786] supply of coal to Austria from Poland and Tchecho-Slovakia should be guaranteed by a special clause in the Peace Treaty. The opinion of the Italian Delegation had been that it should. The other solution was, that the guarantee should be obtained by clauses in the Peace Treaties with Small States.

M. Tittoni said that he agreed to the guarantee being given in the Treaty with Tchecho-Slovakia; but the Treaty with Poland had already been signed.

M. Serruys said that an additional clause might be inserted in the Polish Treaty, but remarked that Italy would obviously obtain more coal from Tchecho-Slovakia than from Poland.

M. Tittoni suggested that the question could be referred to the Coal Committee, which could consult with Economic Commission as to the best method of securing the necessary guarantees; and could advise the Council as to which Treaty it had better be included in. He did not insist on any alteration in the Peace Treaty with Austria.

(It was agreed that the questions of obtaining the necessary guarantees for a coal supply by Czecho-Slovakia, and Poland, to Austria, to the new States created from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, and to the territories of that Empire ceded to the Allies, should be referred to the Coal Committee and to the Economic Commission jointly. The above Commissions should report to the Council, on the Peace Treaties, in which the clauses ensuring the above guarantees, should be inserted.)

(2) Articles 225 and 226 of the Peace Treaty With Austria: Subject of Nationalities:

M. Serruys said that the Economic Commission had replied to the Austrian Note with regard to the Nationality Clauses in the Peace Treaty only on the economic aspect of the economic problem. There was another juristic side to it. It was very necessary that the Editing Committee should co-ordinate and unify the replies to the Austrian Note on the subject of nationalities, under the two aspects that they presented.

M. Tittoni said that he did not see the use of discussing an essentially political and juristic question from an economic point of view. The economic side of the question was obviously the less important. In his opinion the Economic Commission, the Committee on Political Clauses, and the Drafting Committee, ought to confer together, and present a single report.

M. Serruys said that the Economic Commission had been unanimous in their decision, and he did not see the use under the circumstances, of inviting other bodies to confer with it. It would be [Page 787] enough to communicate the Report of the Economic Commission to them.

M. Tittoni replied that the Economic Commission had evidently been able to discuss only one side of the question. If the Commission in question had been able to say that it had examined every side of the problem, he would have no reluctance in accepting their conclusion.

M. Serruys replied, that the general structure and intentions, of the Peace Treaty with Austria had decided the manner in which the problem was to be solved. He drew attention to the fact, that the Economic Commission had been obliged to deal with questions not purely economic, such as the consular establishments, the repeal of the Delbruck Law, etc. The division between the functions of the Economic Commission, and those of the Political Committee, had been somewhat artificial; and, for this reason, it was necessary to co-ordinate the notes of each.

Mr. Balfour said that he did not see any reason for continuing the discussion. Both the Economic Commission and other bodies were in agreement. It was therefore obvious that they could confer together and sign a complete report to the Council.

(It was decided that the Austrian Counter Proposals on the subject of Articles 225 and 226 (Nationality Clauses) in the peace treaty with Austria, which Counter Proposals also affected Articles 57, 65, and 69 of the aforesaid peace treaty, should be referred to the Economic Commission and the Drafting Committee for examination and report.)

(3) The Solidarity Between the Old Austro-Hungarian Empire and the New Austrian Republic:

The Council was called upon to consider the Austrian contention, that there was a complete break of historical continuity, between the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and the new Austrian Republic.

M. Serruys in drawing the attention of the Council to the above point, said that almost every clause in the existing Peace Treaty with Austria was dependent upon the standpoint previously adopted by the Council. The Economic Commission, however, could not assume a final decision, without a definite ruling from the Council on the point in question.

Mr. Balfour said that it was obvious that the previous decision of the Council of Four must be upheld. The new Austrian Republic was in an absolutely different position from the other States, which had arisen out of the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The former was an enemy State, and the latter were now friendly and allied Powers. On the other hand, it was in the interests of the Allied and Associated Powers that the financial and economic clauses of the [Page 788] Peace Treaty with Austria should be framed in such a way, that ruin and bankruptcy should not be forced upon the Austrian Republic. The result of this would be that the Government at Vienna would think that their only hope of salvation lay in joining the German Empire. If any changes were to be made in the Peace Treaty, he thought they ought to be carried out with the above object.

M. Clemenceau asked whether it was decided that the Austrian contention contained in Letter No. 707 was rejected.

Mr. Balfour replied in the affirmative but added that he thought some of the objections raised by the Austrian Delegation were valid. For this reason, he reserved to himself the right to propose modifications in the Financial and Economic Clauses when they came up for final discussion.

M. Tittoni said that he wished to make a reservation. Mr. Balfour’s proposal, if accepted, would result in a lessening of the total guarantees to be obtained from Austria. If Mr. Balfour proposed a more equitable distribution of guarantees among the States of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, he agreed; but he insisted that the total amount of Reparation due to the Allies should not, on that account, be diminished. For this reason, if Mr. Balfour proposed to lessen the reparation payable by Austria, he would maintain that a corresponding increase should be placed upon the obligations of the other States of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire.

(After some further discussion, it was agreed that the question of the Financial and Economic guarantees should be adjourned until the consideration by the Council of the final reply to the Austrian Note.)

(4) Economic Clauses in the Peace Treaty With Austria:

(After some further discussion, it was agreed that the modifications introduced into the Economic Clauses of the Peace Treaty with Austria should be communicated by the Economic Commission to the States concerned, who should report, in writing, through their Delegations, any observations that they had to offer to the Supreme Council by Monday, August 25th.)

(5) Distribution of Funds Accumulated in Social Insurance Schemes Amongst States Deriving Territory From the Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy:

M. Serruys said that in order to ensure a satisfactory solution of the problem, it had been suggested by the Italian Delegation, that the matter should be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the League of Nations, if disagreement arose.

[Page 789]

M. Tittoni said, that, as the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for arbitration in such cases as these, he could [not?] see why special bodies should be called into existence for settling disputes of this nature. If they were called upon to adjudicate in questions arising out of insurance funds, other bodies would be called into existence for other problems, and, in referring the matter to the League of Nations, he considered that the Italian Delegation was doing no more than calling upon that organization to carry out some of its Recognised functions.

(It was decided that the following point should be laid before the Drafting Committee for report:—

Since numerous points in the Peace Treaty had to be settled by Conventions between the States concerned, what procedure was to be followed, and what form of arbitration adopted, if one of the States opposed the decisions?

Was the procedure laid down in Article 13 of the Covenant of the League of Nations adequate and sufficient?)

Austrian Insurance Companies. The question before the Council was the retention or rejection of Article 12 in Section 5 of the Peace Treaty with Austria.

Mr. Balfour said that he had been advised by his expert, that the clause in question had first been proposed by the Belgian Delegation. After some discussion it had been so amended as to become almost inoperative. The British Delegation and the Five Principal Powers thought that it ought to be suppressed. The Belgian Delegation, however, desired its retention, even in its present form.

(After some further discussion it was decided that Article 12 of Section 5 of the Peace Treaty with Austria dealing with the suppression of Insurance Contracts between an Austrian Insurance Company and its nationals, “under conditions which shall protect its nationals from any prejudice”, should be suppressed.)

At this point Mr. Serruys, Mr. Headlam-Morley, and the other experts left the room.

4. At this stage Capt. Roper entered the room.

Captain Roper reported on the answer to the request of the Supreme Council (see H. D. 25–146) on the subject of the sale and alienation of aeronautical material by the German Government. (See Appendix E.) The Committee on Aerial Clauses had attempted, without arriving at a unanimous agreement, to find a legal argument, whereby the German Government could be forbidden to alienate its aeronautical material. It had, however, been discovered, that in the Brussels Convention,7 the Germans had agreed not to sell their war material, [Page 790] whilst the aforesaid Convention remained in force. One member of the Committee had thought that the Brussels Convention terminated with the raising of the blockade, and that this had removed the obligations remaining on the German Government. The majority of the Committee, however, thought that the raising of the blockade, being an advantage to the German people, could not destroy the obligations which they had accepted, in order to obtain the advantages which accrued to them under the Brussels Convention. The legal point at issue was whether the Supreme Economic Council had been right in stating that the prohibition on the sale of aeronautical material would remain in force until the end of the armistice, that is to say, until the complete ratification of the Peace Treaty. Another question arose, which was whether the Supreme Economic Council was entitled to decide on such a point. The Supreme Council is the only judge of the matter. An obvious obligation is imposed by the Peace Treaty with Germany, since if the German Government alienated its material before the ratification of the Treaty, they would not be able to make the deliveries called for under that document. This point had been unanimously admitted by the Committee on Aerial Clauses. This might be regarded as a form of moral obligation which the Germans had acknowledged, as far as war material was concerned, in their letter to General Nudant, dated August 6th, 1919. (See Appendix E.)Sale of Aeronautic War Material by Germany

General Weygand said that General Yudenitch8 was at present asking for permission to purchase from Germany Russian war material previously captured by the former power. Czecho-Slovakia was making a similar request to be allowed to purchase war material from Bavaria. He thought that the two questions should be considered con-jointly.

Captain Roper suggested that the principle of Allied ownership of war material in the hands of Germany should first be upheld. Thereafter the Allies might grant special authorisations for the sale of such material.

M. Clemenceau agreed with this proposal, and suggested that, in accordance with the above principle, sales to General Yudenitch and the Czecho-Slovaks might be authorised at once.

M. Tittoni said, that as General Yudenitch’s request for financial and material assistance could not be granted, it was incumbent upon the Council to accede to his wishes in this respect.

Mr. Polk suggested that the entire question might be referred to the proposed advance Delegations of the Commissions of Control, which were about to proceed into Germany.

[Page 791]

Admiral Knapp said that he had been a member of the Committee on Aerial Clauses, but had entertained certain doubts as to the legal position. His opinion had been that the Brussels Convention had not been binding on Germany after the Convention had lapsed. Morally he had not felt any doubt in the matter. If the majority point of view were to prevail, Germany would be restrained from consummating any future sales to neutrals, and would therefore be obliged to turn over to the Allies any sums which she had realised in the past.

Mr. Balfour said that as everybody was agreed as to the existence of a moral obligation upon the German Government, he thought it would be best to make a specific demand on Germany, leaving it to her to bring forward such legal objections as might be made. He wished that the draft telegram to be sent to the German Government should be placed before the Council on the following day.

(It was agreed that the Allied and Associated Powers should inform Germany that they maintain the principle that Germany should not alienate its war material, more particularly material of an aeronautical description. At the same time, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, by virtue of their rights of property over this material, should reserve to themselves the right to grant special licenses in certain cases.

It was further decided that, in execution of the above resolution, a special authorisation should be granted to Germany for the sale of material asked for by General Yudenitch, and by the Czechoslovak Government. A draft telegram on the above lines, to be sent to General Nudant, should be prepared by General Weygand and submitted for approval at the next meeting of the Council.)

5. The Council took note of the telegram from the French Minister at Belgrade. (Annex “F”.)

Roumanian Intention in the Banat M. Tittoni said that he thought explanations Intentions should be asked for from Bucharest,

Mr. Balfour said that whilst agreeing with M. Tittoni, he thought it essential that the Government at Bucharest should be informed that the frontiers laid down by the Supreme Council in the Banat and elsewhere, were final.

(It was decided that M. Pichon should send a telegram to the French Minister at Bucharest in the name of the Supreme Council, asking for further information on the intentions of the Roumanian Government with regard to the Banat. He should also inform the Roumanian Government that the frontiers laid down by the Council in the Banat and elsewhere, were final.)

6. M. Clemenceau asked Mr. Hoover to make a statement with regard to the situation in Hungary.

[Page 792]

Situation in Hungary Mr. Hoover said that he had little to add to his statement on the previous day. He did not think that it would require much pressure to dispossess the Archduke of the Throne that he had seized.

Mr. Balfour proposed that a telegram which he had drafted (see Annex “G”) should be despatched.

After some discussion it was agreed that the telegram drafted by Mr. Balfour should be published immediately, and sent to the Mission of Allied Generals at Budapest.

Mr. Hoover then read a further telegram from Mr. Gregory at Budapest (see Annex “H”).

M. Clemenceau said that the telegram in question made it all the more necessary to send off Mr. Balfour’s despatch.

7. The Council took note of the letter from Marshal Foch on the subject of the use of the Port of Dantzig and the Kiel Canal (see Annex “I”).

General Weygand said that the use of the Port of Dantzig was connected with the Polish question, which was now very acute. Although Marshal Foch was in agreement with the German proposals, he did not think that the discussion could be continued at the present time. The question was therefore adjourned.

8. The Committee took note of Marshal Foch’s proposals with regard to the immediate despatch of certain members of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control into Germany (see Annex “j”).

Mr. Polk stated that he agreed with Marshal Foch’s conclusions but that he was unable to send any American Delegates until the ratification of the Treaty of Peace. He agreed, however, that General Bliss should be kept informed of the action taken by the advanced Delegations.

It was decided that Marshal Foch’s proposals with regard to the immediate despatch into Germany of Delegations representing the Commissions of Control, should be accepted; and that the representation of the United States on the aforesaid Delegations should be held in abeyance for the present.

General Weygand was instructed to draft a letter for communication to the German Government informing them of the above proposals.

9. General Weygand reported and commented on the documents contained in Appendix K. He said that the Inter-Allied Transport Committee was independent of the Supreme Economic Council, and was composed of military representatives of each of the Allied Powers. The body in question had urged that the British and American armies using French rolling-stock should pay different rates. The difference in question [Page 793] should be regulated by the use made of French and Belgian rolling-stock, or of German railway material, delivered under the armistice. The latter had cost nothing. Use by the British and American Rolling-Stock Taken Over [Surrendered] by the Germans Under the Armistice

Mr. Balfour said that he would like to consult General Mance.

General Weygand, continuing, said that Marshal Foch, when he had dealt with the question, had only divided up the German material surrendered, in such a way that transport should be facilitated. Railway carriages had been given to France and Belgium. Locomotives had been divided up between France and Belgium, and had been assigned to the British and American armies in France. Everybody had agreed to the principle on division. The British and Americans had now surrendered the German engines allotted to them, which had fallen into the hand of France and Belgium for the time only. But when the Peace Conference finally decided the manner in which the railway material was to be divided, every country would pay for its share. There would therefore be no ultimate difference in the nature of the rolling-stock employed, since it would belong to the country in which it was used. For this reason, he could not see that the principle of different rates of payment could be upheld.

Mr. Balfour asked whether the Inter-Allied Transport Committee had been aware of General Weygand’s standpoint when it had drawn up its report.

General Weygand said that he did not know.

The question was then adjourned.

10. (It was decided that the proposal of the Committee supervising the execution of the clauses of the Peace Treaty with Germany (See Appendix L) should be adopted.)Proposal of the Schleswig Commission Suggesting Despatch of One Member to Flensburg

The meeting then adjourned.

Villa Majestic, Paris, 22 August, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–36

[The Representative at Vienna of the American Relief Administration (Gregory) to the Director General of Relief (Hoover)]

13x go 100

Hoover, Paris.

Following received over phone from Mahrisch Ostrau: “insurrectionists retiring to Poland have taken with them several hundred hostages. Germans have numerous prisoners including a number of Polish soldiers in uniform. Am leaving for Poland and will [Page 794] attempt to secure immediately return of all hostages. In the meantime have arranged with commanding general for suspension of execution by Germans until tomorrow morning. Hope in meantime to negotiate some arrangement between Germans and Poles. If possible secure authority for me from Entente and Germany to act as arbitrator in present situation until arrival Upper Silesian Commission. Under martial law Germans will doubtless execute many prisoners including Polish soldiers unless arrangements can be made to turn them over to Polish military authorities for discipline. To avoid further clashes hope to arrange this. Goodyear.”


Appendix B to HD–36

[Telegram From the French Representative in Berlin (Haguenin)]


The Germans and the Poles have just come to an agreement on the following points:

The Germans will no longer carry out any executions.
An Interallied commission will depart tomorrow for Upper Silesia.
The Polish delegation will leave for Warsaw; it will remain there until the Interallied mission has presented its report.
Tomorrow at 10 o’clock a final session will take place; at the close of the session the Polish delegation will quit Berlin.

The National Assembly has set up the committee on foreign affairs provided for by article 35 of the constitution. Scheidemann is chairman, Haussmann vice chairman; the Socialists are represented on it by Braun, Franconia, Hildenbrand, Stucklen, and Weiss; the Center by Herschel, Pfeiffer, Tricorn; the Democrats by Schiffer and Von Richtofen; the German Nationals by Graafe and Traub; the German Popular Party by Heinze. The commission charged with the examination of the question of responsibility has also been formed today under the chairmanship of the Democrat Petersen; deputy Spahn of the Center was named vice-chairman. The sessions will be public.

[Page 795]

Appendix C to HD–36


Telegram to General Dupont

Referring to your telegram No. …11 we understand that the commission composed of yourself, General Malcolm, and General Bencivenga is about to proceed to Upper Silesia. The Conference desires that you hasten your journey and that upon arrival you associate Colonel Goodyear with you as the American representative of your commission.

Colonel Goodyear has been the representative of the Supreme Economic Council to arrange for the distribution of coal, and he is now in Upper Silesia at Mahrisch-Ostrau.

The American delegation received this morning from Colonel Goodyear the following telegram which indicates what he is at present doing“…”11

Our wish is that all questions be taken in hand by the commission as a whole.

At the same time, we are advising Colonel Goodyear of these arrangements and are instructing him to continue his efforts in the sense indicated by him until our [your?] arrival.

The Conference considers that everything possible ought to be done by the commission to achieve the restoration of order and it hopes that the personal influence of the members of the commission will be exerted for that purpose. The commission should keep the Conference informed and particularly should telegraph, upon its arrival, what the exact situation is and the plan which it proposes.

For your information we advise that at present, in the light of information received, the Conference considers that the only solution capable of ensuring public security and of ensuring at the same time the production of coal, consists in immediate occupation by Allied troops.

That cannot be done without the assent of Germany until 15 days after the ratification of the treaty. On the other hand, Germany must suffer greatly from actual destruction and from the stoppage of production.

An unofficial suggestion has been made, through the channel of the German delegation at Versailles, that the German Government request an immediate occupation. In accordance with the treaty, such an occupation will, in any case, be inevitable within a few weeks. You are requested to give us your opinion on the number of effectives necessary for this occupation under the present circumstances.

[Page 796]

We are informing you, moreover, that a special and technical commission has been sent by us to Marisch-Ostrau to study the means for increasing the production of coal and its distribution, not only in Upper Silesia, but also in Teschen, Dombrowa, and other neighboring coal-fields. This commission will include not only delegates of the four powers, but also a Czechoslovak delegate and a Polish delegate. We have invited the Germans to cooperate in it by designating a member. This commission will arrive on Thursday. America has designated Colonel Goodyear as its representative.

Appendix D to HD–36


From the Chairman of the Economic Commission,

To the President of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

The Special Committee of the representatives on the Economic Commission of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in transmitting to the Supreme Council the draft which it has prepared for reply to the Austrian notes and proposals, believes that it ought to bring to the attention of the Council the questions enumerated below, which, although they have been the subject of unanimous resolutions by the Special Committee, seem nevertheless either to necessitate the adherence of the powers with limited interests who are not represented on this Committee, or to require on the part of the Committee charged with drawing up the definitive reply to Austria, a certain coordination with the resolutions taken by other commissions of the Conference on related subjects.

(1) The Special Committee acknowledges the justice of some discerning observations by the Austrian delegation on the problem of supplying coal to Austria, and proposes the insertion in the treaty, subject to the assent of the Commission on Reparations of the Peace Conference of a provision forbidding Czechoslovakia and Poland to obstruct the supplying of coal to Austria by means of export duties or any other restrictive measure.

The Supreme Council will no doubt consider that this arrangement ought to be submitted for the approval of the two interested states.

The Special Committee is likewise of the opinion that a similar guarantee should be given for the furnishing of coal by Czechoslovakia and Poland to states which have sprung from the Dual Monarchy, and to Austro-Hungarian territories ceded to any of the Allied and Associated Powers.

[Page 797]

But it considers that it is reserved to the Supreme Council to pronounce upon the question whether this guarantee ought to be inserted in the treaty with Austria by a provision stipulating that paragraphs 1 to 3 of the proposed article for Austria will be applicable to the ceded territories, or whether, on the contrary, an extension of the article imposed upon Austria ought to be the subject of negotiations with Czechoslovakia and Poland, for the purpose of inserting a special article in some other treaty.

(2) In the preamble to some final observations (pages 19 and 20), the Austrian delegation has raised against articles 225 and 226 of the treaty (part X, economic clauses) objections which apply equally to a certain number of articles of a political nature (articles 57, 65, and 69).

To these objections the Special Committee of the Economic Commission has given its reply, insofar as concerns itself; but it would be useful if the committee which will draw up the definitive reply to Austria would proceed, for the discussion of these problems of nationality, to the coordination of data furnished by the Economic Commission with those which it will have collected from the competent territorial and political commissions.

(3) The Special Committee has given a reply, as respects the “treaties” section to the declaration of principle contained in note 707 from the Austrian delegation, according to which the German Austrian Republic, which was formed under exactly the same conditions as was the Czechoslovak state or the original Yugoslav state, could not be bound by the treaties and contractual obligations of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

The Special Committee, in conformity with the fundamental scheme of the draft treaty as it was decided upon by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and according to which the Republic of Austria shares in the liabilities of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, does not believe that it can retain in their entirety the Austrian counter proposals regarding the treaties.

In case the Supreme Council should modify its earlier instructions, the Economic Commission would be obliged to take up again the examination of the articles which it has drafted and which are based on the principles previously laid down by the Allied and Associated Powers.

In the present state of things, the Economic Commission felt it could admit only two slight changes in articles 229 and 241.

(4) The Special Committee wishes to point out to the Supreme Council that some of the modifications proposed in the draft of the treaty of peace considerably affect the interests of the new states and the states receiving cessions of territory which formed part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[Page 798]

If the Supreme Council gives its approval to these modifications, it will no doubt judge it expedient to communicate them immediately to the delegations of the interested states for their information.

(5) A proposal was made by the Italian delegation regarding article 270 (economic clauses), which provides for a division, among the states receiving cessions of territory from the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, of the accumulated reserve funds of the various social insurance organizations, and which stipulates that special arrangements to that end will be concluded among the interested states.

The Italian delegation proposed to the Economic Commission that, in order to ensure the conclusion of these special conventions, a provision be introduced into the article providing that in case of disagreement the difference should be resolved by an arbitrator appointed by the League of Nations.

The Italian proposal would extend this arbitral procedure, not only to matters falling under article 270, but to all articles of the treaty in which there is provision for the conclusion of bilateral conventions between Austria and other states, successors to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Committee was of opinion that so general a proposal was beyond its competence, and it observes, moreover, that as regards article 270, the procedure advocated by the Italian delegation had been recently adopted, since, in virtue, no doubt, of a decision of the Supreme Council, it was stipulated in a provision added to article 270, in the second version of the draft treaty delivered to the Italian delegation on July 19.

While the question has been thus settled for article 270, the Special Committee feels that it ought to give an account of the Italian proposal in view of other applications of which it is susceptible, but on which the Committee refrains from expressing any view.

(6) The assent given by the Special Committee to the Austrian request looking toward the elimination of paragraph 12 in section 5, has drawn from the Belgian delegation, which has no membership in the Committee, a protest which seems to call for a decision by the Supreme Council.

[Page 799]

Appendix E to HD–36


From General Duval, Chairman of the Commission on Air Clauses,

To the President of the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference.

I have the honor to submit to you a statement of the opinion of the Commission on Air clauses, which met on Thursday, August 14, 1919, at the request of the Supreme Council, to study afresh the text of the three resolutions taken by the Council on August 6, 1919,14 on the subject of the sale of aeronautical material by the German Government.

The Commission unanimously agreed:—

—That it is necessary to consider as war material:
All material built before the signing of the armistice;
All material in the course of construction at the time of that signature;
All material which has been built since that date, according to plans in use before the armistice.
—That it is proper to consider as civil aircraft those which were built after the armistice and according to entirely new designs; but that it is almost certain that there does not exist at this time in Germany any apparatus which would fulfill these conditions or which could be justly called “civil aircraft.”
—That there is not at present any true difference between so-called civil aircraft and military aircraft; and that it is necessary to regard as military aircraft all aircraft recently transformed into so-called civil aircraft.
—That on even stronger grounds it is necessary to consider as “war material” the 500 motors alluded to in the 3d resolution of the Supreme Council on August 6, since these 500 motors were captured by Germany on machines belonging to the Allied and Associated Powers.

The Commission then made a search, among the existing official texts, for the grounds of any legal argument tending to deny to Germany the right to export its aeronautical material:—

In the text of the armistice convention, there exists no provision which would be of use. It provided only for the surrender of a certain quantity of material, the surplus was not considered.
In the treaty of peace, there exists no provision applicable to the period prior to the coming into force of the treaty of peace, that is to say before ratification.
In the Brussels Convention only there appears a formal prohibition of the exportation of certain materials enumerated in a list contained in a telegram of March 25, 1919, addressed by the Supreme [Economic] Council to the German Government through the Interallied Armistice Commission.

But the Brussels Convention ceased to be operative on July 12, 1919, the date of the raising of the blockade.

What, then, is the rule to be applied between this date of July 12, 1919, and the date on which the treaty of peace will be applicable?

The above-mentioned telegram of the Supreme Economic Council specifies that the exportation of the articles referred to as “war material” will be prohibited for the whole duration of the armistice, a period that would last to the date of the ratification of the treaty of peace. The majority of the members of the Commission on Air Clauses thinks, moreover, that the raising of the blockade would have no power to relieve the Germans of the engagement taken at Brussels to forego any exportation of the specified materials, an engagement which won for them a relaxation of the blockade and an immediate provisioning. The raising of the blockade being an amelioration of their condition and a very great favor, it cannot absolve Germany from obligations previously taken.

Nevertheless, certain members of the Commission on Air Clauses have called in question the competence of the Supreme Economic Council in declaring in its telegram that the prohibition of export would last up to the end of the armistice, that is to say, beyond the duration of the Brussels Convention, in virtue of which the list of prohibitions was drawn up.

The Supreme Council of the Peace Conference alone can judge of the validity of this decision of the Supreme Economic Council, a decision against which the German Government has not raised any protest.

No legal argument, then, can be maintained unanimously by the Commission on Air Clauses, but there is a moral argument in favor of the prohibition of the export of German aeronautical material, and the Commission on Air Clauses believes unanimously that:

Aeronautic material constitutes a part of war material.
War material, since it is reserved, under the terms of the treaty of peace, for delivery by the Germans to the Allied and Associated States, must not be exported before the ratification of the said treaty of peace.
From which it follows that aeronautic material, even the so-called civil planes, must not be exported.

Moreover, this moral obligation has been acknowledged in writing by the German Government itself in a letter dated August 6, 1919, [Page 801] addressed by the President of the German Armistice Commission to the President of the Interallied Armistice Commission, General Nudant.

Copy of that letter is attached.


A A 11.7207

The Chairman of the German Armistice Commission to the Chairman of the Interallied Armistice Commission

Subject: Sale of airplanes.

To the Note of July 20, No. 1441/G

The reply to the note from General Nudant, on the subject of the exportation of airplanes, has not been made because the list of prohibitions forbidding the exportation of particular articles and based upon the government of [agreement of?] Brussels had lost meanwhile its reason for existence, in consequence of the raising of the blockade. This list of prohibitions resulted, for the German Government, in the following situation:—

In the list of prohibitions, airplanes are not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, planes came within the meaning of war material, insofar as it was a question of there being among them military equipment intended to be used for military purposes by a foreign country. There was a distinction to be made, therefore, between military planes, of which the exportation was forbidden, and planes for civil purposes, which were not subject to any prohibition against exportation. The German Government has proceeded rigorously against the exportation of military planes or of parts of such planes as soon as it has learned of any case of the kind. At present, so far as concerns the exportation of planes on the part of Germany, action will be taken according to the terms fixed by the treaty of peace.

As regards the charge made by Marshal Foch in his telegram of June 14, No. 2930, on the subject of the exportation of old military equipment to Scandinavian countries, an investigation could not be made for want of detailed information.


Appendix F to HD–36

[Telegram From the French Minister at Belgrade (Fontenay)]


The President of the Council has just brought me disturbing news which the S.C.S. Government is receiving from Bucharest.

[Page 802]

M. Bratiano is continuing his propaganda; he claims the Banat up to Tisza; M. Marghiloman18 supports him, and declares that it will be taken by the army if necessary, that in any case the Great Powers cannot do anything to stop it. They both refuse to recognize the delimitation which has been made in the Banat. Certain diplomats at Bucharest are anxious and admit that Roumania is on the eve of committing an act of folly.

In Transylvania there are already (?) Roumanian divisions of infantry and two of cavalry. It is believed that they will receive the order to invade the Serbian Banat.

The Serbs are determined to defend themselves, no matter how great their weariness. Will there be a reversal of the effect of the decree demobilizing three territorial classes signed yesterday by the Prince Regent?

The Serbian General Staff believes that it will be obliged to send reinforcements into the Banat.

The S. C. S. Government appeals to the Conference and asks earnestly that it come to a decision which would put an end to the machinations of M. Bratiano, and that it declare formally that the partition of the Banat and its delimitation must be considered as definitive. This is what I have already been saying in my telegrams Nos. 341 and 342, and in my despatch 428. The Conference has assumed a genuine responsibility toward the Serbs in obliging them to evacuate strategic points in the Banat which they had to hand over to the Roumanians, and territories of which the Magyar and Schwabian population would, in case of a conflict, march by the side of the Serbs against the Roumanians.

The S. C. S. Government has received from the Czechs an urgent warning to be on their guard. From Budapest comes the most alarming information of the aggressive intentions of the Roumanians. Along the new frontier in the Banat great nervousness reigns, provoked by the threats of the Roumanians.

This evening the Council of Ministers contemplated the eventuality of a new general mobilization, although yesterday it had caused a first decree of demobilization to be signed.

It is of extreme urgency to speak out firmly.

[Page 803]

Appendix G to HD–36

Telegram Sent by the Supreme Council to the Interallied Mission of Generals at Budapest

The Allied and Associated Powers have been further considering the information derived from your reports and from other sources as to recent events in Budapest:—their conclusions are as follows:—

They are most anxious to conclude a durable peace with the Hungarian people, but they feel that this cannot be done while the present Hungarian Government is in power. That Government has been brought into existence not by the will of the people but by a coup d’état carried out by a small body of police under the protection of a foreign army. It has at its head a member of the House of Hapsburg, whose policy and ambition were largely responsible for the calamities under which the world is suffering, and will long suffer. A peace negotiated by such a Government is not likely to be lasting, nor can the Allied and Associated Governments give it the economic support which Hungary so sorely needs.

If it be replied that the Archduke Joseph is prepared, before approaching the Allied and Associated Governments, to submit his claims to the test of popular election, we must reply that this procedure cannot be satisfactory if the election is carried out under the auspices of an administration which the Archduke himself controls. The difficulties in the way of obtaining, by election, a faithful reflexion of the popular will, are, in the present unhappy state of Hungary, of the most serious kind. They would be overwhelming if the election were carried out under Hapsburg influences. Even if the Assembly elected under such circumstances were really representative, no one would think so. In the interests, therefore, of European Peace the Allied and Associated Governments must insist, that the present claimant to the headship of the Hungarian State should resign, and that a Government in which all parties are represented should appeal to the Hungarian people. The Allied and Associated Powers would be prepared to negotiate with any Government which possessed the confidence of an Assembly so elected. You should have this message published locally.


[Page 804]

Appendix H to HD–36

[The Representative at Vienna of the American Relief Administration (Gregory) to the Director General of Relief (Hoover)]

7x u 224 Rush

Hoover, Paris.

Ham No 1192 At Conference yesterday afternoon participated in by different parties in Hungary, it was determined to ask the Entente for a statement as to whether the Archduke was persona grata or not. In view of the repeated declarations which have been made directly and indirectly to the four generals and to other persons on this subject it would appear either that there is a studied attempt on the part of the Archduke and his man Friday, Friederich, to cause delays during which time the Roumanians continue to heavily propagandize the situation, or second, that the four generals to whom these instructions have been given have not with sufficient force conveyed and interpreted them to the members of the Government. In the meantime Roumanians are working very strongly with certain members of the Government who say that unless entente gives clear answer to their question that it will [be?] best for them to throw their lot with the Roumanians. Naturally this talk is being made by the Archduke and Friederich his prime minister in view of the situation. Can you not arrange to have a direct and final answer given to these people upon this subject which will settle this business once and for all. Can you not do this today.


Appendix I to HD–36


the supremem command of the allied armies,
general staff, general bureau of communications and
supplies for the armies
allied general headquarters

No. 2118/C. R.

Note for the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers

In execution of the resolution taken July 21 by the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers,20 Marshal Foch informed the German Government, through the intermediary of the C. I. P. A., of [Page 805] the following matters relative to the transportation of war material of all kinds sent to Poland via Danzig.

Use of the port of Danzig—furnishing of the necessary rolling-stock for transshipment—effectuation of transportation on sections of the German lines.
Use of the Kiel Canal to facilitate effectuation of transportation by sea (letter No. 1309/C. R. of July 28—document No. 1 attached21).

By telegram of August 15, transmitted by the general president of the C. I. P. A. (document No. 2 herewith) the German Government pointed out:

First of all, that, as appears from its declarations at the time of negotiations on the transportation of the Haller Army, it recognizes no obligation to authorize the passage of material for the Polish Army through Danzig;
That, however, it is ready to enter into negotiations on this subject;
That it seems to it particularly advisable to make use for this purpose of negotiations now taking place in Berlin with the delegates of the Polish Government and to have the question discussed by the Special Commission for Military Affairs which was set up for the purpose of negotiations of this kind.

On the first point there is no objection to be made to the reservations formulated by the German Government which is fully within its rights. Such rights have, moreover, never been questioned.

On the second point it seems that, as a matter of fact, it is at Berlin, through direct negotiations between representatives of the German and Polish Governments that the question of transportation via Danzig of war material intended for the Polish Armies may be settled under the best conditions.

Accordingly, Marshal Foch suggests that the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers accept the proposals of the German Government, it being understood that General Dupont will receive from the Marshal the necessary instructions most thoroughly to support the requests of the Polish Government in the discussions to be held.

[Page 806]

Appendix J to HD–36


the supreme command of the allied armies,
general staff,
allied general headquarters

No. 3940

Marshal Foch, Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies,

To the President of the Council, President of the Peace Conference, (Secretariat of the Conference)

By letter dated August 11, the German delegation at Versailles requested that, in order to prepare, in accord with the German Government, for the execution of part V of the peace treaty, regarding the military, naval and air clauses, the Allied and Associated Powers should send a qualified commission to Berlin as soon as possible.

The reasons given by Germany—necessity of taking a series of most important financial, legislative and administrative measures as soon as possible; advantage of avoiding from the beginning any divergence in views and of thus guaranteeing itself against any subsequent modification of the measures taken—have indisputable weight.

From the point of view of the Allied and Associated Powers, Marshal Foch has pointed out on several occasions how useful it would be for our Commissions of Control to enter into action immediately upon the coming into effect of the treaty, following a well thought out plan and with the necessary means. The proposal of the German Government is of a kind greatly to facilitate and accelerate the work of these commissions. It thus seems that it ought to be accepted.

On the other hand, considering that the Commissions of Control, which, under the terms of the treaty, represent the Governments of the Allied and Associated Powers near the German Government, will have the duty of overseeing the execution of the clauses of part V of the treaty, there would be the most serious disadvantages to having the matters in question discussed by a new commission which would parallel and even supersede others. It is accordingly requested that the Commission to be sent to Berlin shall be a sort of advance guard of the Commissions of Control and be composed of a small number of members of each power having a place on each of the military, naval and air commissions. These members shall be chosen from among the highest ranks, in view of the importance [Page 807] of the decisions which they will have to make or, in important cases, submit to the Supreme Council of the Governments.

Finally, the German delegation speaks of negotiations, of measures to be taken in accord between the Allied and Associated Governments and the German Government. It seems necessary to make it clear that if the Allied Commission sent to Berlin is to take under serious consideration and to examine with all desirable care the observations and proposals of the German Government in order to arrive at a practical execution of the treaty’s clauses, there can be no question of negotiations properly so-called. It has only to regulate the modalities of putting into effect a treaty which is not susceptible of any change.

Therefore, I have the honor to submit to the Supreme Council of the Governments the following resolution:

“For the purpose of preparing with the German Government for the execution of the military, naval and air clauses of the treaty, each Commission of Control will send to Berlin as soon as possible a small delegation composed of the chairman and most important members of that Commission in such manner that each power sharing in the control may be represented thereon.

“The mission of these delegations is to determine, in accord with the German Government, the modalities of executing the clauses of part V of the treaty of peace signed June 28 at Versailles, which are not susceptible of any modification of principle. In cases of continuing divergence of views with the German Government, as likewise in the case of a particularly important decision, these delegations must refer to the Supreme Council of the Governments through the intermediary of Marshal Foch.

“Marshal Foch is instructed to decide on the composition of these delegations and the date of their departure and to apprise the German Government thereof.”

For the Major General:

Appendix K to HD–36


supreme war council,
french section

No. 2685/C. S. A.

From General Belin, Permanent French Military Representative

To the Ambassador of France, Secretary General of the Peace Conference, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris

I have the honor to send you herewith 15 copies of a resolution dated July 5, 1919, issuing from the Interallied Transportation Committee and relative to the conditions of use, by the British and American [Page 808] Armies, of rolling-stock surrendered by the Germans after the armistice and assigned to the French and Belgian systems.

After a careful study, the Military Representatives felt that, as the matter in question is of an exclusively financial order, it was beyond their power and that it did not devolve upon them to express an opinion as to the solution to be adopted.

They felt accordingly that their role should be limited to transmitting the resolution of the Transportation Council, unconditionally and without any opinion, to the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers for decision.

General Belin

interallied transportation

Resolution Adopted by the Interallied Transportation Committee at Its Session of July 5, 1919

On the subject of communication No. 3200/D. C. F. C, made by the Marshal commander in chief of the Allied Armies to the Permanent French Military Representative on the Supreme War Council under date of April 16, 1919, in which the following statement occurs:

“The temporary distribution of all the rolling-stock derived from the Germans (locomotives and cars) results from an agreement reached at my general headquarters on November 13, 1918, between the representatives of the American, Belgian, British and French Armies and a representative of the Ministry of Public Works and Transportation.

“This provisional distribution was intended to respond to the needs of the Belgian, French and American Armies during the period of the armistice.

“The definitive distribution of this material must be determined by the Peace Conference, which is informed of the matter.”

The English and the Americans accordingly have a right to this equipment for their transportation on the French front but they are not authorized to export them.

Furthermore, the British representative, at a meeting of the Inter-Allied Transportation Committee held in Paris June 13, 1919, spoke “of the vague situation resulting from the ill-defined method of distribution and use of German rolling-stock at the armistice, as a consequence of which the French and Belgian authorities were using the cars surrendered by the Germans, and the English were paying the French and Belgian transportation authorities the full rate for goods traveling on this rolling-stock, which is obviously an error in principle.”

“The British authorities propose that all this material surrendered [Page 809] by Germany be entered in the Government system under conditions analogous to those of English war material. In this way, England would receive rental charges for German cars assigned to it.”

The question was again taken to the Marshal commander in chief of the Allied Armies, who made the following reply in his note dated June 20:

“In accordance with the agreements reached November 13, 1918 at my general headquarters fry the representatives of the Allied Armies, the rolling-stock (locomotives and cars) surrendered by the Germans was to be used for general transportation by the Allied Armies.”

The question was again taken up at the meeting of the Inter-Allied Transportation Committee on June 27, 1919. The French representative stated that the 70,000 German cars temporarily registered with the French systems corresponded:

In part, to the cars captured by the Germans at the beginning of the war (47,117 cars).
Secondly, in part also to the exceptional wear resulting from extensive transportation effected during the war for all the Allied Armies and the destruction of the material resulting from war operations.
Thirdly, in part, to the aid given since the armistice to small Allied Powers, whether it involved material placed entirely at their disposition or material furnished to transport supplies, a large part of which has not been returned.

The French representative accordingly felt that the French systems had with perfect right collected the usual fees for the use of this material.

The Belgian representative concurred in the statements given in paragraphs 1 and 2 above and pointed out that, after having received 80,000 cars, Belgium still has a deficit of 13,980 cars in relation to its pre-war supply.

The British representative, after having heard these explanations and on the basis of the letter from the Marshal commander in chief of the Allied Armies, declared that the matter had not been settled to the satisfaction of his Government.

Accordingly, as the Inter-Allied Transportation Committee has not been able to reach an agreement on this matter, it has the honor to request the Supreme War Council kindly to decide whether the principle adopted by the French and Belgian authorities of charging the usual rate for British and American transport effected with the assistance of German armistice material on the western front is an equitable principle or whether, on the contrary, America and England should not share in the use of this material which, according to Marshal Foch’s note, was to be used for transportation by all the Allies on the western front during the armistice period.

[Page 810]

Appendix L to HD–36


committee on execution
of the clauses of the treaty

Note for the Supreme Council

The Committee on Execution of the Clauses of the Treaty has taken cognizance of the request of the International Schleswig Commission now at Copenhagen.

It unanimously proposes:

that a delegate of the International Commission be sent to Flensburg;
that a note be sent to the German delegation to inform it of this decision and to request that the delegate of the Commission be authorized to establish contact with the German authorities throughout the zone subject to plebiscite in order forthwith to prepare the conditions of operation of the International Commission.

The local German authorities would receive instructions in this sense from their Government.

  1. Ante, p. 515.
  2. Ante, pp. 625 and 641.
  3. HD–12, minute 3, and HD–14, minute 5, pp. 236 and 308.
  4. Ante, p. 563.
  5. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3 sér., tome xi, p. 224.
  6. Gen. Nicholas N. Yudenitch, commander in chief of the White Russian forces in the Baltic provinces.
  7. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  8. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  9. Omission indicated in the original French.
  10. Omission indicated in the original French.
  11. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  12. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  13. HD–25, minute 14, p. 563.
  14. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  15. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  16. Alexandre Marghiloman, of Roumania, President of the Council and Minister of the Interior, March 12 to November 9, 1918.
  17. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  18. HD–12, minute 4, p. 237.
  19. The documents referred to do not accompany the Appendix.
  20. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  21. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  22. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.