Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/37
HD–37
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 Saturday,
23 August, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.
Paris, August 23, 1919, 3:30 p.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.
- Secretaries
- Mr. H. Norman.
- Sir Geo. Clerk.
- France
- Secretaries
- M. Berthelot.
- M. de St. Quentin
- Italy
- Secretary
- Japan
- Secretary
| Joint Secretariat |
| America, United States of |
Col. U. S. Grant. |
| British Empire |
Lt. Commander Bell. |
| France |
Capt. A. Portier. |
| Italy |
Lt. Colonel Jones. |
| Interpreter—M. Meyer. |
Field Marshal Sir H. Wilson, Mr. J. F. Dulles, and General
Sackville-West, together with M. Loucheur and General Weygand were
present.
1. The Council took note of a draft telegram (see Appendix “A”), which it
was proposed to send to the Roumanian Government at Bucarest in the name
of the Council. Roumanian Requisitions in
Hungary
M. Loucheur said that the telegram in question
had been drafted by the Organisations [Organising?] Committee of the Reparations Commission.
(It was decided that the telegram for communication to the Roumanian
Government at Bucarest, on the subject of the requisition of war
material by the Roumanian Army in Hungary, should be accepted and
despatched.)
Mr. Polk informed the Council, that, when the
Roumanians first showed an inclination to collect in Hungary whatever
they thought due to them for reparation, he had asked the Government at
Washington to stop the delivery of contracts undertaken between the
United [Page 812] States and Roumania.
The Roumanians had expressed indignation at this measure, but he thought
it necessary to cut off all supplies to that country. He asked whether
it had any other source of supply.
M. Clemenceau said that he did not know of
any.
General Weygand said that the Council had
previously decided to supply war material to Roumania, some of which had
not yet been delivered.
M. Clemenceau said that the supplies not yet
sent, ought to be stopped.
Mr. Balfour said that similar measures could be
taken from London.
General Weygand asked whether supplies for
which payment had been made should also be stopped.
M. Clemenceau said that they should.
M. Tittoni said that the Council of Four had
decided on a previous occasion to reduce the armaments of new
states.1 This decision had never been
put into effect. The Military Representatives at Versailles ought to
have suggested concrete proposals, but had not done so.
General Sackville-West said that a preliminary
report2 had been given and a request
made for further information on certain points; when this had been
received, a final report could be sent.
M. Loucheur said that he had been the Chairman
of the Committee dealing with the question, [and?] he and his colleagues
had wished to know what material had been sent to the small States, but
the Military Representatives at Versailles wanted to know the total
armament under the control of each separate State. This was information
that could not be obtained, since the countries concerned would not
supply the necessary data. The amount of material delivered by Great
Britain, Italy, and other Powers, had been communicated to Versailles,
who could now make a report.
M. Tittoni, insisting on his previous point,
stated that, despite the wish of the Council that armaments should be
limited, so as to avoid future wars, no real effort was being made to
impose this decision on the small States. It would appear that every
nation was making further warlike preparations, which fact made the
early solution of the question important.
M. Clemenceau said that when the question had
been discussed, he had made considerable reservations. He had not seen
how such restrictions could be imposed upon victorious States by their
own Allies.
M. Tittoni remarked that some of the victorious
countries appeared to be making ready for war.
[Page 813]
(It was decided that all delivery of war material to Roumania by the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be stopped immediately,
and that the prohibition should remain in force until further orders.
The aforesaid prohibition was to extend to war material to be delivered
under contract, and to war materials for which payment had been
made.)
2. The Council took note of a telegram from Colonel Goodyear on the
subject of the situation in Silesia. (See Appendix “B”.)
Situation in Silesia
M. Loucheur said that he and Mr. Hoover were
going to meet the German Representatives at Versailles, who hoped that a
reply from the German Government would be to [on?] hand during the course of the afternoon.
Mr. Balfour said that it would be unwise to
send the telegram, drafted by the Organizing Committee of the
Reparations Commission until we knew whether the German Government would
consent to the despatch of troops to Silesia, before the date specified
in the Peace Treaty.
M. Loucheur replied that the German
Government’s consent was only necessary for the despatch of troops, and
not for the Coal Committee.
(M. Loucheur and Mr. J. F. Dulles then withdrew.)
3. Mr. Balfour said that he desired to make an
appeal to his colleagues of the Council. Under the provisions of the
Peace Treaty, German Prisoners ought to be returned to their own country
on ratification. If the Parliaments of Italy, France and of other Allied
countries had been able to ratify the Treaty, the prisoners would have
been returned by now. He did not wish his colleagues to think that this
remark implied any criticism whatsoever upon the parliamentary procedure
in Allied countries. He did, however, draw the attention of the Council
to the fact that the result of the delay was extremely burdensome. He
had been informed by Field Marshal Wilson that there were 220,000
prisoners in English hands, and that the cost of keeping them was
£90,000 a day, that is, £1,000,000 in 11 days. There was no military
advantage to be gained from the retention of these prisoners. On the
contrary, they detained British troops which were needed elsewhere. He
hoped, therefore, that the Council might give a “bienveillant”
consideration to the point that he laid before them. German Prisoners of War in Allied Countries
Mr. Polk said that the same question arose for
the United States. The Americans had 40,000 prisoners guarded by 10,000
men. The demobilization of the specially raised American Armies was
proceeding, and by the 30th September, the dissolution of the American
War Forces should be complete. He had asked his legal advisors whether
the prisoners in question might be transferred to another Power, and [Page 814] the answer had been, that,
under the provisions of existing Treaties, such a transfer would not be
legal. General Pershing had stated that the question was urgent. The
total cost of paying the troops guarding the prisoners and of
maintaining the prisoners themselves came to about 2,000,000 dollars a
month.
Field Marshal Wilson then said that the total
number of troops necessary for the custody of German prisoners was
60,000.
M. Clemenceau said that he approached the
question from a different standpoint, in that he had 350,000 German
prisoners employed in useful work on the devastated regions. He would
therefore have preferred that the German prisoners should be transferred
to him, so long as they remained under the control of the Government of
the captor. He knew nothing of the legal aspect of the question of
transfer, but wondered whether some form of contract could not be drawn
up. Speaking frankly, he intended to return the German prisoners as late
as he possibly could, but he had no intention of doing anything contrary
to the provisions of the Peace Treaty. Whilst seeing the force of the
British point of view, it did not seem to him possible to return the
prisoners before the date stipulated under the Treaty. If, however, it
were possible to do so, he wanted to retain the German prisoners in
France to the last moment. The French Government had opened a discussion
with the Austrian and Polish Governments, with a view to obtaining
labour for the devastated regions, and he had reasons for hoping that
negotiations would be successful. The German prisoners did not work
well, and they were under custody of young soldiers of 19 and 20 years
of age, who could not exercise much control over them. On the other
hand, he would rather have German prisoners than nobody. He asked on
what date the Peace Treaty would be ratified in Allied countries.
Mr. Balfour replied that he thought Great
Britain would ratify on the 10th September.
M. Clemenceau said France would ratify about
the 15th September.
M. Tittoni gave the same date.
Mr. Polk said that America might ratify later,
possibly on about the 1st October.
Mr. Balfour remarked that it was not necessary
for the other Allied Powers to wait for America. The ratification by the
British Colonies would be early in September. The Treaty would come
fully into force when Great Britain, France and Italy had ratified
it.
M. Clemenceau said that in accordance with the
dates just given, the Treaty would come into force in three weeks’ time.
He suggested that Field Marshal Wilson should consult with General
Weygand. It would, of course, be understood that Great Britain should
retain all her rights over the prisoners taken by her Armies. He
suggested that some kind of transfer might be found possible.
[Page 815]
Mr. Balfour asked what were the provisions of
military law on the point in question.
M. Clemenceau replied that he did not know: he
only wanted the two Generals to confer and report.
Field Marshal Wilson said that the question
seemed rather to be one for lawyers.
Mr. Polk asked that General Pershing should
also discuss the matter with Field Marshal Wilson and General
Weygand.
M. Clemenceau said that Generals should bear in
mind that prisoners could not be sent back at once. Such a measure would
put France in a most difficult position, since it was evident that she
had been devastated, and required work, whilst Great Britain and America
had no such special needs.
M. Berthelot remarked that a precedent for the
transfer of prisoners of war existed in the case of Belgium, which
country had allocated seven or eight thousand men to France.
M. Tittoni added that after Serbia had been
invaded, and the Austrian prisoners taken by that country delivered to
Italy, Italy had made a loan of them to France.
(It was decided that Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, General Pershing and
General Weygand [and] General Cavallero should examine conjointly by
what means German prisoners in American and British hands, and at
present in France, could be transferred to the French Government. The
rights of the British and American Governments over the aforesaid
prisoners should remain without alteration. A report on the above
question should be submitted to the Council.)
4. Mr. Balfour said that Allied troops had been
promised for plebiscite areas in Dantzig, Memel, Upper Silesia,
Schleswig, and Klagenfurt. He did not wish in any way to raise the
question of the number of troops that each of the Eastern Europe Allies
was to supply. He wished to take the opportunity of repeating that Great
Britain would carry out all engagements that she had entered into. He
was only going to raise the question of how the troops should be
distributed. He had been told that mixed forces raised difficulties of
command and supply. The great harmony which existed between the Allied
troops did not overcome the difficulties to which he had drawn
attention. Troops were accustomed to be commanded by their own officers.
They did not like passing under the orders of foreign Generals. They
were, moreover, accustomed to have their own food, and be treated in
their own hospitals. In a mixed division, every kind of supply had to
come from four separate sources. He would therefore like to see each
body of troops in a given locality, homogeneous. It was not [Page 816] quite possible, for the
numbers of troops necessary for different localities varied. He wished,
therefore, that the military experts could advise the Council how far
some such measure could be put into effect. Inter-Allied Troops for Plebiscite Areas in Eastern
Europe
M. Clemenceau said that he regarded Mr.
Balfour’s argument as conclusive. There was, however, another,
political, side to the question. He did not desire that any military
occupation of Poland should take place without the French being
represented. The relations between France and Poland were intimate, and
he thought it most important that the French Army should go to that
country. He considered Mr. Balfour’s remarks so forcible, however, that
he thought his proposals might be considered at once with regard to
Silesia.
General Weygand said that on the previous day,
the Council had taken a decision for the despatch of two divisions.3 He had already been in consultation with
General Pershing and Field Marshal Wilson on the subject. The discussion
had been based on the understanding that each country should supply
one-quarter of the total force.
M. Tittoni suggested that each contingent might
be placed under its own command.
M. Clemenceau remarked that the French troops
in Asia had been placed under the orders of a British General without
the slightest discord arising. He thought, therefore, that General
Weygand should continue to examine the question.
Mr. Balfour said that he thought that France
should not only be represented in any military occupation of Poland, but
that she should be largely represented.
General Weygand, remarking on Mr. Balfour’s
last statement, said that the decision communicated to him had been that
each Allied contingent should be equal.
M. Tittoni said that he had only agreed to
equal contributions for one division. He made a reservation on the same
principle being applied to the composition of two divisions.
Mr. Polk asked if he was right in understanding
that the Committee of General Officers would report back their
recommendations to the Council for final action.
(It was decided that Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, General Pershing and
General Weygand should recommend a distribution among the Allies of the
contingents to be furnished for the various plebiscite zones, such as to
make each contingent a homogeneous national unit as far as consistent
with the political necessity of having all the Allies represented in
each region.)
5. General Weygand read the draft of a telegram
to be transmitted to the German Government on the sale of aeronautical
war [Page 817] material (see Appendix “C”
and H. D. 36, Minute 44). Sale of
Aeronautical War Material by Germany
Mr. Polk said that he was ready to accept the
draft telegram, subject to his military advisers raising no objection.
If any points were raised, he would let General Weygand know in the
afternoon so that the transmission should not be delayed.
(It was decided that the draft telegram for transmission to the German
Government on the subject of the sale of aeronautical war material
should be accepted, subject to notification by Mr. Polk that he had no
objection.)
(At this point General Weygand & General Sackville-West left the
room.)
6. The Council took note of the report of the Blockade Committee on the
subject of the measures to be taken in order to prevent trade with
Bolshevik Russia (see Appendix “D”). Blockade of
Russia
Mr. Polk said that certain points raised by his
experts made it necessary for him to withhold his assent from the note
for the present. In order to save time, however, he suggested that the ‘
note should be referred back to the Blockade Committee, and he would see
that the American representative would lay before his colleagues such
objections as might be raised, from an American point of view.
(It was decided that the draft note of the Blockade Committee should be
referred back to that body for a further consideration of the American
standpoint.)
7. The Council took note of a draft declaration prepared by the British
Delegation on the subject of the blockade of Hungary. Modification of Declaration To Be Signed by Austria Undertaking To
Maintain the Cessation of Commercial Relations With
Hungary
(It was decided that the special declaration for signature by the
Austrian Delegation (see Appendix with Hungary “E”) should be
accepted.)
8. (At this point, M. Haas, Mr. Tyman, Mr. Headlam-Morley, and M. Adatci
entered the room.)
Clauses Dealing With Ports, Waterways and Railways in
the Peace Treaty With Austria
M. Haas reported and commented upon Appendix
“F”. He stated that the immediate application of the reciprocity
clauses, as requested by Austria, had been refused in the case of the
Germans, on the ground that it was not wished that the latter should
profit by the devastations committed by its Armies. The Committee on
Ports, Waterways and Railways thought another reason existed for
postponing the application of these articles. The reason was, that the
economic position of the New States, previously under the government of
Vienna, should be supported in the years immediately following the war.
The Committee on Ports, Waterways and Railways also considered, that it
could not alter clauses involving material changes in the principles of
the Peace Treaty.
[Page 818]
Mr. Balfour said that the Council was surely of
the opinion that some kind of economic unity between the States of the
late Austro-Hungarian Empire should be encouraged. If this could not be
effected, the States in question would be powerless and would become
subject to German economic penetration on a more extended scale than had
existed before the war. Each State formed out of the old
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy could be given a fair power of bargaining. If
the Peace Treaty were presented in its present form, the Austrian
Republic would not be in a position to bargain with its neighbours. We
had a right to impose this disadvantage upon her, but it was not in our
interest. But he certainly considered that it was to the advantage of
the Allied Powers, that Austria should not be in a position to bargain
with them. He would like to know the views of his colleagues on the
subject.
M. Tittoni said that the Council might well
consider whether immediate reciprocity could not be extended to Austria
and the New States of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He thought that
the second argument brought forward by the Committee on Ports, Waterways
and Railways, as to the necessity of stabilizing the economic conditions
of the States of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, was a weak one. He
did not see how the previous system of centralised government could
affect transport problems in the New States. He added, that the
transport system, which had previously been centralised at Vienna and
Budapest, had worked very well.
Mr. Polk said he thought that they might be
placing a severe handicap on the Austrian Republic by postponing the
application of the reciprocity clauses. The Czecho-Slovak State would
find it to their interest to have the restrictions, placed on Austria,
removed. Bohemia had been so connected with Austria in the past, that an
interference in the commercial exchange between the two States would
obviously be a disadvantage to Czecho-Slovakia.
Mr. Haas said that the Committee on Ports and
Waterways had made no specific proposal; but had drawn the attention of
the Council to the problem. Its opinion coincided with that of Mr.
Balfour. If the Council thought that the States concerned were to be
regarded as possessing equal rights, reciprocity should be applied
immediately. If they were not in that position, it should be withheld
for a time.
Mr. Balfour said that he was in favour of
granting immediate reciprocity between Austria and the New States formed
out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
M. Tittoni said that he would only agree on the
understanding that the reciprocity under discussion should exist between
Austria and the New States formed by the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He
further insisted that the reciprocity should apply only to the clauses
dealing with Ports, Waterways and Railways.
[Page 819]
(It was agreed that the articles dealing with Ports, Waterways and
Railways, (Part XII) of the Peace Treaty with Austria, should be amended
so as to allow of the immediate application of the reciprocity clauses
between Austria and the States formed from the old Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy by virtue of acquisitions of part of her territory.)
9. (It was decided that the alterations proposed in the Articles of the
Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria dealing with Ports, Railways and
Waterways, should be accepted.) (See Appendix G.)Clauses on Ports, Waterways and Railways in the Peace Treaty With
Bulgaria
(At this point, Mr. Haas, Mr. Tyman, Mr. Headlam-Morley and Mr. Adatci
left the room.)
10. Mr. Polk asked that the consideration of
the proposed draft (See Appendix H), should be postponed to the next
meeting. Reply by the Communication Section of the
Supreme Economic Council to the Roumanian Note Relative to
Regulation of Traffic on the Danube
(This was agreed to.)
11. Draft Treaties Between the Allied & Associated
Powers and Poland, Roumania, Jugo-Slavia and Czecho-Slovakia, on the
Subject of the Cost of Liberation of the Territories in the Former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, (See Appendix I.)
12. Agreement Between the Allied & Associated
Powers Relative to the Contribution Payable by Italy for the
Liberation of Territories Belonging to the Former Austro-Hungarian
Empire. (See Appendix J.)
(It was agreed that the consideration of the above draft agreements
should be postponed.)
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Villa Majestic, Paris, 23 August, 1919.
Appendix A to HD–37
Telegram From the President of the
Peace Conference to the Roumanian Government at
Bucharest
The Peace Conference has received information, the veracity of which
it unfortunately feels it impossible to dispute, indicating [Page 820] that the Roumanian forces
in Hungary are continuing systematically to seize and carry off
Hungarian property.
In view of the correspondence recently exchanged between the Peace
Conference and the Roumanian Government, it is difficult to
understand such action on the part of the Roumanian Government
except on the hypothesis that the Roumanian Government is unaware of
the principles of reparation agreed to.
Yet, by reason of its participation in the labors of the Peace
Conference and as one of the signers of the treaty of peace with
Germany, the Roumanian Government should not be unaware of the care
which the Allied and Associated Powers took in establishing a
rational plan of reparation. If the principle that compensation for
losses suffered had depended solely upon such factors as the
proximity of enemy property or upon the result of competition
between Allied States to take possession of such property, flagrant
injustices and serious disagreements would have been the inevitable
result. Thus the treaty with Germany, to which Roumania is a
contracting party, set down certain fundamental principles of
reparation and, in particular the following:
- 1.
- All the enemy states are jointly and severally liable and
to that effect their assets are pooled in the interest of
all the powers.
- 2.
- A system of accounting is established so that all of the
interested states may share in the common fund in proportion
to the amount of their approved claims, from which is
deducted the amount of approved indemnities.
- 3.
- A Central Reparation Commission, which will operate as the
exclusive representative of the Allied and Associated
Powers, will have the duty of collecting enemy assets and
distributing them as reparations.
The action of the Roumanian forces, to which reference has been made
above, can only be considered as defection from this plan of joint
liability, in the sense that it implies appropriation for its
personal use of enemy property which in reality constitutes the
common security of all the Allies. The actions mentioned above
likewise contravene the accepted principle that the Reparation
Commission is to act as the exclusive representative of the Allied
and Associated Powers in verifying, for reparations purposes, the
amount of enemy property.
In this respect the attitude of Roumania is incompatible with that of
a state which desires and hopes to profit by the reparation clauses
of the treaty of peace concluded or to be concluded.
Still further, the Government of Roumania cannot be unaware of the
fact that M. Antonesco, its plenipotentiary at the Peace Conference,
on June 27, accepted subject to the approval of his Government, the
principle of a contribution by Roumania to the expenses [Page 821] of liberating the enemy
people and territories which it acquired, this contribution being
compensated by offsetting the amount against the first claims of
Roumania for reparation.
Nor can the Roumanian Government be unaware of the fact that a
stipulation was made at that time that no new payment could be made
as reparations until the other states to which reparation is due had
received their proportionate share.
It is on the basis of this agreement that the other Allied and
Associated Powers agreed not to take advantage of their rights to
impose a scale of indemnity based on the considerable resources
which Roumania is to acquire from the enemy.
Saving retraction on its part, Roumania’s recent acts can only be
considered as a renunciation by its Government of the agreement of
June 27.6 Such
renunciation would give back to the Allied and Associated Powers
their full freedom of action with respect to the imposition of a
lien for reparations on all the territories of the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which the Government of Roumania may hope
to receive.
The other possible consequences of the line of conduct which Roumania
seems to have adopted are so serious and would be such a danger to
the equitable restoration of Europe that the Allied and Associated
Powers would feel themselves compelled, should necessity force them
to it, to adopt a much firmer line of conduct in order to avoid
these consequences. It is quite evident that, if the principle of
reparations were to degenerate into individual appropriation and a
competition between the various interested powers, injustice would
result therefrom, appetites would be created and, in the confusion
produced by these disordered actions, either the enemy “would get
away” or it would be impossible to exact of him the maximum of
reparations. Nevertheless, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot
believe that the Roumanian Government would wish to create such a
danger and to force them to cause this danger to disappear.
Accordingly the Peace Conference expects the Roumanian Government,
immediately and without equivocation, to furnish it with the
following declaration:
- 1.
- The Roumanian Government recognizes the principle that the
property of enemy states constitutes a common security for
all the Allied and Associated Powers.
- 2.
- It recognizes the Reparations Commission as the exclusive
representative in verifying property for reparations
purposes, the amount of enemy property.
- 3.
- Hungarian assets received by Roumania since the armistice
on November 3, 1918, shall be the subject of an itemized
inventory on the part of the Roumanian Government which
shall be placed at the disposition of the Reparations
Commission or the intermediary which [Page 822] the Peace Conference may designate
while awaiting the establishment of the Commission. Roumania
will retain the right to dispose only of property which can
at this time be identified as former Roumanian property
seized by the enemy and shall do this in agreement with the
Reparations Commission.
- 4.
- All new shipments of Hungarian property into Roumania
shall cease immediately unless they are made in agreement
with the Peace Conference or its representatives.
- 5.
- The Roumanian Government will ratify the agreement of June
27, signed by M. Antonesco and mentioned above.
The Peace Conference authorizes the Allied Generals at Budapest to
name the agents who will represent the Peace Conference in all the
proceedings which may be envisaged.
Appendix B to HD–37
Mahrisch Ostrau
Aug. 21,
1919.
A.R.A. Received Aug. 22, 1919, 1:04
p.m.
[The President of the Goal Commission
for Central Europe (Goodyear) to the Director General of Relief (Hoover)]
lx. u. 200
Hoover, Paris.
Conferences this morning and evening with mine owners and military
authorities has resulted in agreement by commanding general of
district that no more executions will take place until further
conference. I agreed to undertake return of prisoners taken into
Poland by retiring insurgents and have had meeting with General
Commandant Polish front this afternoon. All these prisoners have
been sent to Crakow and held there under charge of Haller. I
communicated with Haller and he agreed to hold there until further
notice from me. I have appointment with Haller tomorrow noon and
will arrange with them to return the prisoners with an American
officer accompanying them. Polish authorities have directed Haller
to follow my directions in these matters. I will have further
meeting with the German General Friday afternoon. Will instruct
strongly against any action before arrival of Upper Silesian
committee. Haller’s troops are behaving very well and without their
presence here a state of war would have arrived before now. It is of
utmost importance that announcement be made of appointment of Upper
Silesian Commission at once, this announcement to state when
Commission will commence to act and to be published in German and
Polish newspapers. If Paris does not act now after all the months
delay that have produced so much bitterness between Poles and
Germans I can guarantee that there will be another war.
[Page 823]
Appendix C to HD–37
Telegram to the Inter-Allied
Armistice Commission
Please notify the German Armistice Commission for German Government
following decision of the Supreme Council of the Allies:
First: Article 169 of the treaty of peace stipulates that all German
war material in excess of the amounts which Germany is authorized by
the treaty to keep must be surrendered to the Allied and Associated
Powers.
Accordingly, Germany must not sell, transfer or export such war
material which is henceforth the property of the Allies.
Second: In particular, it must not sell, transfer or export any
aeronautical material (airplanes, motors, spare parts), including
motors captured from the Allies and airplanes transformed into
so-called civil airplanes which are, in fact, war material.
Third: As an exception, the Allies, in the use of their right of
ownership of the material which must be surrendered to them,
authorize Germany to transfer:
- a)
- To General Yudenitch: 8 captured Russian cannons,
1,000,000 cartridges for rifles, 50 Russian revolvers, 3
German airplanes, clothing for 1,000 men (material requested
by telegram 977/P. G. 2 from C. I. P. A.)
- b)
- To Czechoslovakia: 50,000 Mauser rifles, 10,000 Mauser
carbines, about 2,000 machine guns with 10,000 cartridges
for each and 100,000 rounds of artillery ammunition for
field mortars (material requested by note 1685 from C. I. P.
A.), in addition to 500 signal projectors with accessories
requested by Czechoslovakia.
Appendix D to HD–37
Note To Be Sent by the Inter-Allied
Armistice Commission to the German Government
The Allied and Associated Governments have decided to send the
attached note to the Governments of neutral states, to invite them
to take immediate measures with a view to preventing a resumption of
commercial relations with Bolshevik Russia.
The German Government is requested on its part to take similar
measures.
[Page 824]
Note—Blockade of Bolshevik Russia
The avowed hostility of the Bolshevists to all governments and the
program of international revolution which they propagate constitute
a serious danger for the national security of all powers. Any growth
in the strength of the Bolshevists would increase the danger and
would be contrary to the desire of all nations which seek to
establish peace and social order.
It is in this spirit that the Allied and Associated Powers, after
raising the blockade of Germany, did not authorize their nationals
to resume commercial relations with Bolshevik Russia. Such
relations, in fact, could take place only through the medium of the
heads of the Bolshevik Government who, disposing as they liked of
the products and resources which commercial freedom would afford
them, would draw therefrom a considerable increase in strength and
in the tyranny which they exercise over the Russian peoples.
In these circumstances, the Allied and Associated Governments request
the Government to be good enough to take immediate measures to
prevent its nationals from engaging in any trade with Bolshevik
Russia and to give the assurance that it will strictly carry out
this policy in agreement with the Allied and Associated
Governments.
The measures in question to be applied by the Allied and Associated
Governments from the date of the present note are the following:
- a)
- Refusal of clearance papers to any vessel departing for
Russian ports in the hands of the Bolshevists or coming from
the said ports.
- b)
- Establishment of a similar measure on all goods intended
to be sent either directly or indirectly to Bolshevik
Russia.
- c)
- Denial of passports to all persons going to Bolshevik
Russia or coming from it (except on understanding with the
Allied and Associated Governments in special cases).
- d)
- Provisions in order to prevent banks from having business
with Bolshevik Russia.
- e)
- So far as possible, denial by each Government to its own
nationals of communication facilities with Bolshevik Russia
by mail, telegraph or wireless.
The attention of the . . . . . . Government is called to the fact
that no proclamation of these measures is necessary and that it is
sufficient to advise the administrations and banks concerned
regarding them by administrative channels.
It will, of course, be understood that any warship of an Allied or
Associated Power charged with the execution of the above measures
will act in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers as a
group.
[Page 825]
Appendix E to HD–37
M–492
Note by British Delegation
While the Government of Bela Kun was still in office in Budapest the
Supreme Council decided that a Declaration was to be drawn up for
signature by the Austrian Delegation at the same time as the
signature of the Austrian Treaty, undertaking to enforce the
complete cessation of all commercial relations with Hungary—to
maintain in fact a blockade of Hungary.
Now that Bela Kun’s Government has fallen it would seem desirable to
modify the terms of this Declaration. The following form is
suggested:—
Special
Declaration
The Austrian Government will continue, in the absence of a
request to the contrary by the Governments of the United
States, the British Empire, France and Italy, effectively to
prohibit the import, export and transit of all articles
between Austria and Hungary, and to maintain such
prohibition up to the time of the formal acceptance by the
Government of Hungary of the terms of peace proposed by the
Allied and Associated Governments.
British Delegation, August 22, 1919.
Appendix F to HD–37
commission on the international
régime of
ports, waterways and railways
Report of the Commission on the
International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways on the
Subject of the Observations of the Austrian Delegation
Concerning Part XII of the Conditions of Peace
The Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and
Railways has the honor to forward herewith (Enclosures 1 and 210) a draft reply to the observations
of the Austrian delegation and a draft of amendments to the text of
the conditions of peace with Austria. The Austrian delegation, while
accepting certain unilateral stipulations vis-à-vis powers which
have been at war with the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, requested, on
the other hand, immediate reciprocity with respect to its relations
with states which it claims are successors to the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy on the [Page 826] same basis as Austria itself. The Commission
did not believe itself competent to examine the advisability of a
profound change in this direction of the clauses, as such a problem
arises in the same way in connection with a great many economic and
financial stipulations of the treaty, its settlement must be
reserved to the political authorities of the Peace Conference.
Coromilas
,
Acting Chairman
Appendix G to HD–37
commission on the international
régime of
ports, waterways and railways
From: The Chairman of the Commission on the
International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways.
To: The President of the Peace Conference.
Sir: As an Annex to its report of 21st
June, 1919,11 the Commission on the
International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways transmitted
certain draft articles for insertion in the Treaty of Peace with
Bulgaria.
Subsequently, when the proposed amendments in connection with the
Conditions of Peace with Austria were being discussed, the
Commission inserted in the text of these articles certain
alterations and improvements with regard to form.
The Commission is unanimous in considering that it would be most
desirable for these alterations to be also introduced in the
articles to be inserted in that section of the Treaty of Peace with
Bulgaria which deals with Ports, Waterways and Railways.
A list of the said alterations is sent herewith. The articles
referred to in this list are those which were transmitted as an
annex to the Report of 21st June, submitted by the Commission on the
International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways on the clauses
to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.
Annex*
Amendments to the Articles To Be
Inserted in the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria, Proposed by the
Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and
Railways
Article 8. Add a second paragraph worded as
follows:—
“It shall be open, by subsequent agreements concluded between
the riparian states similarly to declare international any
part of the above-mentioned river system which is not
included in the general definition.”
Article 9. Omit the two last paragraphs.
[Page 827]
Article 9a. New articles consisting of the two
paragraphs from the preceding Article 9.
Article 16. Bulgaria shall cede to the Allied
& Associated Powers concerned within the maximum period of three
months from the date on which notification shall be given her, a
proportion of the tugs and vessels remaining registered in the ports
of the river system referred to in Article 8, after the deduction of
those surrendered by way of restitution or reparation. Bulgaria
shall in the same way cede material of all kinds necessary to the
Allied and Associated Powers concerned for the utilisation of that
river system.
The number of the tugs and vessels and the amount of the material so
ceded, and their distribution, shall be determined by an arbitrator
or arbitrators nominated by the United States of America, due regard
being had to the legitimate needs of the parties concerned,
particularly to the shipping traffic during the five years preceding
the war.
All craft so ceded shall be provided with their fittings and gear,
shall be in a good state of repair, and in condition to carry goods
and shall be selected from among those most recently built.
Wherever the cessions made under the present Article involve a change
of ownership, the arbitrator or arbitrators shall determine the
rights of the former owners as they stood on the 15th October 1918,
and the amount of the compensation to be paid to them, and shall
also direct the manner in which such payment is to be effected in
each case. If the arbitrator or arbitrators find that the whole or
part of this sum will revert directly or indirectly to States from
whom reparation is due, they shall decide the sum to be placed under
this head to the credit of the said States.
As regards the Danube, the arbitrator or arbitrators referred to in
this Article will also decide all questions as to the permanent
allocation and the conditions thereof, of the vessels whose
ownership or nationality is in dispute between States.
Pending final allocation, the control of these vessels shall be
vested in a Commission consisting of representatives of America,
Great Britain, France and Italy, who will be empowered to make
provisional arrangements for the working of these vessels in the
general interest by any local organisation, or failing such
arrangements, by themselves, without prejudice to the final
allocation.
As far as possible, these provisional arrangements will be on a
commercial basis, the net receipts by the Commission of the hire of
these vessels being disposed of as directed by the Separation
Commission.
Article 19. Add: “The decisions of this
International Commission shall be taken by a majority vote. The
salaries of the Commissioners shall be fixed and paid by their
respective countries.”
As a provisional measure any deficit in the administrative expense
[Page 828] of this International
Commission shall be borne equally by the States represented on the
Commission.
In particular, this Commission shall regulate the licensing of
pilots, charges for pilotage and the administration of the pilot
service.
Article 35. 1st Para. Omit the Words: “after
five years,” and substitute “after three years.”
Line 1. Substitute: “stipulations of Articles 1 to 7, 9, 25, and 27
to 29” by “stipulations of Articles 1 to 7, 9a, 25, and 27 to
29.”
2nd para. Omit the words: “The period of five years,” and substitute
“The period of three years.”
Appendix H to HD–37
M–91
regulation of trade on the
danube
Draft Letter From the President of
the Conference to M. Bratiano
(Draft Agreed by Communications Section of Supreme
Economic Council)
Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 26th June on the subject of the Danube
which was addressed separately to the Heads of the European States
represented on the Supreme Council at Paris.
I regret the delay in sending a reply which has been due partly to
the delay in bringing into touch officials to whom the separate
letters had been referred, and partly because it was desired to
await the decisions resulting from certain proposals which were
already under consideration in the sense of the requests made by
you.
It is observed that the first part of your letter which is historical
deals largely with matters which have been very contentious and
cannot be regarded as complete. The questions referred to will
doubtless be fully dealt with at the Conference on the Danube
referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, and
it does not appear necessary to consider them further at the present
moment. It is sufficient to draw attention to the fact that under
Articles 346, 347 and 348 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, a
provisional arrangement is arrived at:—
- (a)
- For the reconstitution of the European Commission of the
Danube with the powers it possessed before the War, but
limited to representatives of Great Britain, France, Italy
and Roumania.
- (b)
- For the constitution of an International Commission to
undertake provisionally the administration of the river
above the point where the competence of the European
Commission ceases until such time as a definitive statute
regarding the Danube is concluded by the Conference referred
to in Article 349.
[Page 829]
The European Commission of the Danube is in effect in existence.
Members of the different nations represented on it have been
designated and it is understood the question of the necessary
credits is receiving the attention of the Governments concerned. As
regards the Commission for the provisional administration of the
Upper Danube, this is to take effect as soon as possible after the
coming into force of the Peace Treaty. As, however, several Enemy
States are concerned, it is essential that arrangements should be
made for the functioning of this Commission before the Peace
Treaties have been concluded with all such Enemy States.
At the present moment the only International regime possible on the
Danube is a military one under the Allied Commander-in-Chief, who
has the necessary control over the Enemy States in virtue of the
conditions of the Armistice and of his powers for the maintenance of
order. In order, however, that normal conditions may be resumed on
the Danube at the earliest possible moment, notwithstanding the
uncertainty as regards frontiers, the contested final ownership of
many of the river craft and until recently the maintenance of the
Blockade, the Supreme Economic Council arranged for the necessary
instructions to be sent to the Allied Commander-in-Chief to give
facilities for the re-opening of all river traffic under conditions
of equality of treatment underlying the Treaty of Peace. For this
reason an Allied Commission under the Presidency of Admiral
Troubridge was constituted, one of whose functions was the issue of
licences to enable relief and commercial traffic to pass freely
along the river, notwithstanding the Blockade. This Commission is
further responsible to the High Command for the provisional
administration of common services, such as pilotage and the
organization of the Iron Gates, some of which were previously
carried out by Enemy States.
It will be seen therefore, that the functions of the Commission are
vital to the re-establishment of commercial traffic on the Danube
during the present period of the military control of the river. It
is recognised however, that, in so far as control of the
International regulation of the river is concerned, there should be
continuity between the present régime and that which will be
established under Articles 347 and 348 of the Treaty of Peace with
Germany. An invitation will, therefore, be sent to the non-enemy
riparian States to nominate each a representative to be attached to
the provisional Inter-Allied Commission in order to co-operate in
working out the regulations for the navigation of the Upper Danube.
It is hoped that the riparian States will designate as their
representatives their proposed representatives on the Upper Danube
Commission referred to in Article 347 of the Treaty with Germany, as
in this way it should be possible to transfer to this Commission the
functions of regulating [Page 830]
the navigation of the Upper Danube at a considerably earlier date
than would have been possible without the transitional
arrangement.
It is well known that a complex situation has arisen as regards the
ownership of a large number of vessels on the Danube. A final
solution of all these cases has been provided for in the Peace
Treaty by extending the competence of the arbitrator, to be
designated by the United States, to the settlement of all questions
of disputed ownership of vessels, the interim period being provided
for by the constitution of a special Commission consisting of
representatives of America, Great Britain, France and Italy to
exercise provisional control over vessels of disputed ownership.
In order to facilitate the circulation of vessels which are at the
present moment understood to be retained within national frontiers
by the fear of their being claimed and taken possession of by
adjacent States, it is proposed to anticipate the formation of the
above special Commission by constituting the existing Allied
Commission as trustee for all vessels the ownership of which is
disputed until such time as the final decision has been given by the
American arbitrator under the Treaty of Peace as to the ownership of
these vessels. This Commission would arrange for all vessels of
undisputed ownership to be returned as quickly as possible to their
proper owners and, as regards vessels, the ownership of which
involves disputes between two States would have authority to place
them at the disposal of the most convenient local administration or
if necessary provisionally to operate them in order to assure the
unmolested working of such vessels in all parts of the river without
in any way prejudicing the decisions of the American arbitrator as
to final ownership.
It will be evident from this explanation that all the action taken
has been in the interests of that complete freedom of navigation
which the Roumanian Government desires to see re-established, and
tends to the earliest possible introduction of the regime which has
been prescribed in the Treaties of Peace.
Appendix I to HD–37
Agreement Between the United
States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, the British Empire,
China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, the
Hedjaz, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama,
Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Siam,
the Czechoslovak State, and Uruguay, With Regard to the
Contributions to the Cost of Liberation of the Territories of
the Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
The undersigned, duly authorised by their respective Governments,
have agreed on the following provisions.
[Page 831]
Article 1
Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and the Czechoslovak
State, as States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy is transferred or States arising from the dismemberment of
that Monarchy, severally agree to pay, as a contribution towards the
expenses of liberating the said territories, sums not exceeding in
the aggregate the equivalent of 1,500,000,000 francs gold, the gold
franc being taken as of the weight and fineness of gold as enacted
by law on January 1, 1914.
Article 2
The total amount of the contribution referred to in Article 1 shall
be divided between the said States on the basis of the ratio between
the average for the three financial years 1911, 1912, and 1913 of
the revenues of the territories acquired by them from the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the revenues of the provinces of Bosnia
and Herzegovina being excluded from this calculation. The revenues
forming the basis for this calculation shall be those adopted by the
Separation Commission, in accordance with Article 199 of Part IX
(Financial Clauses) of the Treaty of Peace with Austria as best
calculated to represent the financial capacity of the respective
territories. Nevertheless, in no case shall the sum paid by the
Czecho-Slovak State exceed the sum of 750,000,000 francs. Should the
contribution attributable to the Czecho-Slovak State exceed the sum
of 750,000,000 francs, the difference between that sum and the sum
of 750,000,000 francs shall be in diminution of the agreement sum of
1,500,000,000 francs and shall not be attributable to the other
States.
Article 3
The amount due as above by each State for liberation, together with
the value of the property and possessions of the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy transferred to each of them, assessed in
accordance with Article 204 of Part IX (Financial Clauses) of the
Treaty of Peace with Austria, shall be set off against the approved
claims, if any, of these States for reparation.
Article 4
If in the case of any of the above States the amount due for
liberation and the value of property transferred is in excess of the
approved reparation claims, that State shall, within three months of
the notification [Page 832] to it by
the Separation Commission of the amount, if any, of its approved
claims for reparation, issue bonds to the amount of this excess and
shall deliver them to such person or body as the Governments of the
United States of America, the British Empire, France and Italy may
designate.
The above bonds shall be to bearer, principal and interest being
payable by the issuing state without deduction for any tax or charge
imposed by or under its authority. The bonds shall bear interest at
the rate of five per cent, per annum payable half yearly, beginning
on January 1, 1926. They shall be repaid in twenty-five equal annual
drawings, beginning on January 1, 1931. The issuing State, however,
may, at its option, redeem all or part of the bonds issued by it, at
par and accrued interest, at any time, provided ninety days’ notice
of its intention so to do is given to the Governments of the United
States of America, the British Empire, France and Italy.
Article 5
In the case of those states whose approved claims for reparation are
in excess of the amount due for liberation and the value of property
transferred, the amount chargeable to these States in accordance
with Article 3 shall be reckoned as payments by way of reparation,
and no further payments on account of reparation shall be made to
them until the other States to which Reparation is due shall have
received payments on account of a like proportion of their approved
claims for reparation.
Done at . . . . . the … day of . … 1919.
Appendix J to HD–37
Agreement Between the United
States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, the British Empire,
China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, the
Hedjaz, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama,
Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Siam,
the Czecho-Slovak State, and Uruguay, With Regard to the Italian
Reparation Payments
The undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments,
have taken note of the declaration made by Italy in Article I of the
present Agreement, and have agreed on the subsequent provisions.
Article 1
Italy declares that she has made the greatest sacrifices and borne
the heaviest financial burdens in the war waged for the liberation
of [Page 833] Italian territory
remaining subject to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and for
the other lofty aims of the Allied and Associated Powers;
That, in addition, the territories ceded to Italy have sacrificed, as
a result of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, a large proportion of
their wealth, and that they have already contributed in other ways
to the reparation of damages caused by the war in which they have so
cruelly suffered;
That, nevertheless, with the object of facilitating an agreement
between the States arising from the dismemberment of Austro-Hungary,
or acquiring territories of the former Monarchy, as to the
contribution to be made by them towards the cost of liberating the
territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and of
reparation, Italy agrees to contribute to these expenses in the
manner provided in the present Agreement.
Article 2
Italy, as a State acquiring territories formerly part of the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, agrees, on account of such acquisition,
to be debited against her approved claims for reparation under the
Treaties of Peace concluded with Germany, Austria, and the Powers
which fought upon their side, with a sum in gold francs (the gold
franc being taken as of the weight and fineness of gold as enacted
by law on January 1, 1914) to be calculated as set out in Article 3
below.
Article 3
The ratio between the sum to be debited to Italy in accordance with
Article 2 and the sum of 1,500,000,000 francs gold (or between such
sum and the total amount of the contributions to be made by the
Czecho-Slovak State, Poland, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene
State, if this amount is less than 1,500,000,000 francs gold, as
provided in the agreement of even date between the High Contracting
Parties) shall be the same as the ratio between the average revenues
for the three financial years 1911, 1912, 1913 of the territories
transferred to Italy and the average revenues for the same years of
the whole of the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
transferred, whether to Italy or to the other Powers mentioned
above, under the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary. It is
understood however that the revenues of the provinces of Bosnia and
Herzegovina shall be excluded from this calculation.
The revenues serving as the basis of this calculation shall be those
accepted by the Reparation Commission, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 199 of Part IX (Financial Clauses) of the
Treaty of Peace with Austria, as best representing the financial
capacity of the respective territories.
[Page 834]
Article 4
The sum so calculated, together with the value of the property and
possessions of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy transferred to
Italy, assessed in accordance with Article 204 of Part IX (Financial
Clauses) of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, shall be set off
against the approved claims of Italy for reparation. The total of
these two sums shall be reckoned as payments by way of reparation,
and no further payments shall be made to Italy on account of
reparation until the other States to which reparation is due shall
have received payments on account of a like proportion of their
approved claims for reparation.
Done at . . . . . . . the . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . 1919.
