Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/36
HD–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.
- America, United States of
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:—
- 1.
- 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.
- 2.
- 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:—
- 1.
- 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.
- 2.
- 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.
[Page 795] [Page 799] [Page 803] [Page 804] [Page 806] [Page 810]- Ante, p. 515.↩
- Ante, pp. 625 and 641.↩
- HD–12, minute 3, and HD–14, minute 5, pp. 236 and 308.↩
- Ante, p. 563.↩
- Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3 sér., tome xi, p. 224.↩
- Gen. Nicholas N. Yudenitch, commander in chief of the White Russian forces in the Baltic provinces.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Omission indicated in the original French.↩
- Omission indicated in the original French.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- HD–25, minute 14, p. 563.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Alexandre Marghiloman, of Roumania, President of the Council and Minister of the Interior, March 12 to November 9, 1918.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- HD–12, minute 4, p. 237.↩
- The documents referred to do not accompany the Appendix.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the editors.↩