Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/55
HD–55
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
Wednesday, September 17, 1919, at 11 a.m.
Paris, September 17, 1919, 11 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- France
- M. Clemenceau.
- M. Pichon.
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta.
- M. Berthelot.
- M. de St. Quentin.
- Italy
- Secretary
- Japan
- Secretary
| Joint Secretariat |
| America, United States of |
Capt. Chapin. |
| France |
Cmdt. A. Portier. |
| Italy |
M. Zanchi. |
| Interpreter—M.
Camerlynck |
The following were also present for the items in which they were
concerned:
- America, United States of
- Mr. A. W. Dulles.
- Mr. B. L. Dresel.
- Mr. F. K. Nielsen.
- British Empire
- France
- M. Tardieu.
- Marshal Foch.
- General Weygand.
- General Le Bond.
- M. Laroche.
- M. Kammerer.
- M. Jouasset.
- M. Serruys.
- Italy
- M. Dell’Abbadessa.
- M. Galli.
- Colonel Castoldi.
- M. Pilotti.
[Page 231]
1. M. Clemenceau said that he had requested
Marshal Foch to be present at this meeting of the Council for the
purpose of further studying the question of the evacuation of the Baltic
provinces by the German troops. He had received a letter from Mr. Polk
regarding this matter. (The letter contained in Appendix “A” was then
read to the Council.) He would like to know what answer had been given
by Mr. Lloyd George in the course of his conversation with Mr. Polk.
Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces by the German
Armies
Mr. Polk stated that he did not like to quote
the words of another person, but that he understood Mr. Lloyd George to
say that he preferred to let matters stand as they were. Mr. Lloyd
George had thought that the question should not be brought up again
until the Germans had indicated a refusal to carry out the withdrawal,
should they so refuse. He had answered Mr. Lloyd George that he believed
the question should be brought up at once, and for this reason had
written the letter to M. Clemenceau, which had just been read.
M. Clemenceau suggested that Marshal Foch might
read the instructions which he proposed to send to General Henrys.
Marshal Foch said that he had sent the
instructions to General Henrys in accordance with the decision reached
by the Council.1 He had told him that the
principle of an ultimatum to Germany had been decided upon, but that his
opinion was asked before the same should be transmitted to Germany.
Mr. Polk asked whether it was agreed that the
Council should take no decision until the receipt of the answer from
General Henrys.
Marshal Foch stated that his instructions to
General Henrys had been based on the fact that the principle of an
ultimatum had been decided upon. If this ultimatum was now considered as
conditional, it would be necessary for him to modify the instructions
which he had sent.
Mr. Polk pointed out that he was not opposed to
an ultimatum, but wished solely to formulate objections to the use of
the Polish troops.
Marshal Foch said that the sending of an
ultimatum without deciding upon the means to carry it into execution
would be a useless procedure. He had made a study of this question and
believed that the Polish troops constituted the only force which could
be used. If the Council were of the opinion that no use could be made of
these troops, it was unnecessary to send an ultimatum.
Mr. Polk stated that the feeling of the
American Delegation on this question was that the use of Polish troops
against Germany in the Baltic provinces would be to cause hostilities,
which had been suppressed in Upper Silesia with great difficulty, to
spring up again. A [Page 232] military
operation of this character would certainly lead to war between Germany
and Poland. It was extremely necessary to maintain the situation in
Upper Silesia in a calm state, in order not to increase the actual
difficulties of the coal shortage. After the Treaty had been ratified by
three great Powers, Upper Silesia would be occupied by Interallied
troops. When this occupation became a fact, and when no further
disorders in the coal districts were likely, the Council might then
decide to use the Polish forces. He was not opposed to their eventual
use, should the need arise.
M. Clemenceau said that in view of Mr. Polk’s
statement he believed the best course at present was to adjourn the
discussion and to take the question up again when Upper Silesia should
be occupied by the Interallied troops.
Mr. Polk said that the matter seemed to him
particularly serious. The Council was obliged to decide whether it was
preferable to allow the Germans to remain in Lithuania for the moment,
or drive them therefrom even at the risk of shutting down the production
of coal in Upper Silesia. He had talked with Mr. Loucheur and with Mr.
Hoover, who had both stated that the cutting off of the coal supply
would have very serious consequences. He had talked with Mr. Tittoni on
the previous evening regarding the matter and the latter had agreed with
him that an unnecessary risk would be run through this operation.
Marshal Foch pointed out that the Conference
alone was capable of choosing between these two political courses of
action.
M. Clemenceau said that he personally regretted
that this operation, which he believed excellent, should not take place.
In the face of the opposition of the American Delegation, however, the
matter must be suspended, for it was exceedingly dangerous to commence
it without being sure of carrying it to a successful completion.
Marshal Foch said that on three separate
occasions threats had been sent which had not been followed up.
Mr. Polk said that the gravity of the situation
in Silesia appeared worthy of considerable thought and should compel the
Council to hesitate.
M. Clemenceau said that he would hesitate if he
believed that the proposed action in the Baltic provinces would have an
effect on the situation in Silesia, but he was not of this opinion.
Mr. Polk answered that he had recently
interviewed the different American representatives, who had arrived from
Poland, Silesia and the Baltic provinces, namely, Mr. Gibson, Colonel
Goodyear and Colonel Greene. These gentlemen were all of the opinion
that the coal situation would be seriously aggravated and threatened
should the proposed action be taken. He had also seen Mr. Paderewski and
[Page 233] had asked him whether he
was ready to bear the expenses of the operation in question. Mr.
Paderewski had replied that France was to bear the expense. He had then
informed Mr. Paderewski that the United States would not incur any
obligations therein. He believed, however, that it would be well to ask
General Henrys what his opinion in the matter might be.
Marshal Foch said that General Henrys could
only report on one element of the problem, namely, the condition and
state of the Polish Army. It should not be lost sight of, however, that
the Council, in insisting upon the evacuation of the Baltic provinces,
was simply carrying into effect one of the clauses of the Treaty. The
Allied and Associated Powers should stand together on this matter. It
should be understood that the Polish Army would be in charge of the
operation, but it would be supported both by the Czecho-Slovak troops
and the Allied detachments on the Rhine. General Henrys would answer
that he could not defeat Germany with the Polish forces alone—more
particularly should Germany be able to concentrate all her troops
against Poland.
M. Clemenceau said that the Poles had notified
the Council that they possessed an army of 450,000 men.
Marshal Foch pointed out that these figures
were accurate but that this force would not be sufficient to defeat
Germany and that the Allies would risk seeing Poland severely dealt
with, which was obviously not a situation to be desired.
Mr. Polk said that he had no objections to the
sending of an ultimatum, but only to the use of Polish troops. He
believed that another method of pressure to compel the execution of the
ultimatum could be found, either from an economic standpoint through the
Economic Council, or by the retention of prisoners of war. He did not
think that the risk of starting a new war between Poland and Germany
should be run, because no one of the Powers was at present disposed to
render financial aid to Poland. On the other hand, economic pressure
might be exceedingly effective. For example, the Germans at the present
time are in the process of borrowing money from the United States
through the agency of private banks. The Council might put a stop to
this procedure. The recent example of Rumania, who had acted as an agent
of the Allied and Associated Powers, seemed to him extremely
unsatisfactory and should not lead the Council to stir up a similar
operation elsewhere. He suggested therefore that an ultimatum might be
sent, making use of economic pressure.
M. Tardieu said that the retention of the
prisoners of war constituted an excellent means of pressure as well, for
their immediate [Page 234] repatriation
was necessary to the internal political situation of Germany.
M. Clemenceau proposed that Marshal Foch should
read the text of an ultimatum which he had prepared, and that if such
text were satisfactory to the Council, it might be modified in the way
suggested by Mr. Polk.
Marshal Foch then read his proposed letter to
the German Government (see Appendix “B”).
Mr. Polk stated that he found this text
satisfactory.
Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether the steps which
had been discussed as a method of pressure would be sufficient to bring
about the execution of the matters covered in the note.
M. Clemenceau said that Mr. Polk was favorable
to an economic means of pressure, such as a blockade.
Mr. Polk said that he was particularly anxious
not to commit the Council at the present time to the use of the Polish
Army. He did not wish to intimate that this Army might not be made use
of at some future time, but he wished to leave the decision of this
question open.
Marshal Foch said that on three different
occasions ultimatums couched in mild language had been sent to the
German Government on the following dates: June 18, August 1 and August
24.
Mr. Polk remarked that as the Council had
already sent three ultimatums a fourth was scarcely necessary. The best
method of procedure would be to notify Mr. von Lersner that the Council
insisted upon the carrying out of the Armistice in question, and that in
case of refusal certain measures, such as blockade, other means of
exerting economic pressure, retention of prisoners of war, and, as a
last resort, the use of the Polish Army, had been decided upon.
M. Clemenceau said that this notice should be
in writing.
General Weygand said that he was prepared to
draft the text of such a letter, as he was familiar with the question.
An answer had been received from the Germans to the effect that they
were willing to evacuate the territory in question but that they could
not enforce the execution of their orders.
(It was decided that General Weygand should submit to the Council at its
next meeting, a draft letter to the German Delegation demanding the
withdrawal of the German forces from the Baltic provinces. This letter
should draw attention to the means of exercising pressure on the German
Government proposed by Mr. Polk, viz., blockade and other economic
pressure, retention of prisoners of war, and possible use of the Polish
forces.)
(Marshal Foch and General Weygand then withdrew.)
[Page 235]
2. Upon the proposal of Mr. Scialoja the resolution taken on September 11
(H. D. 52, minute 6)2 regarding
the languages used for the convention on Aerial Navigation was modified
to read as follows: Languages To Be Used in the
Convention on Aerial Navigation
“It was decided that the Convention on Aerial Navigation should
be drafted in English, French and Italian, each text to be of
equal authority.”
3. (At this point the members of the Central Territorial Commission
entered the room.)
M. Tardieu stated that the Greek Delegation had
sent a letter to the Central Territorial Commission on September 13
relative to certain points with regard to the territorial clauses of the
Bulgarian Treaty (see appendix C). The Central Territorial Commission
had been of the opinion: Peace Conditions With
Bulgarian. (a) TerritorialClauses
- 1.
- That the request put forward by the Greek Delegation is
ethno-graphically just.
- 2.
- That the line proposed by the Greek Delegation should, from a
geographical point of view, be modified in accordance with the
red line on the map annexed to the commission’s report.
The Italian delegate, in view of the principle put forward by the Greek
Delegation, suggested a change in the line of Western Thrace to the
advantage of Bulgaria.
The American delegate, while not denying the weight of the opinions of
the other delegations, drew attention to the inconvenience which would
result from changing a line already unanimously decided upon and it
further did not believe itself to be in a position to advance an opinion
without a more careful study of the whole question.
Mr. Polk said that he had certain objections to
formulate. President Wilson, before his departure, had personally
proposed a line of demarkation. He had already agreed to a considerable
modification of this line and did not feel that he had authority to make
a further change therein. He pointed out that he had already consented
to the taking of certain territories in the region of Adrianople from
Bulgaria, although there was a large population of Bulgarians in such
territories. He could do nothing further along these lines and in
addition felt that the proposed change, even though ethno-graphically
just, was unsound from a geographic point of view.
(It was decided to reject the proposal of the Greek Delegation with
regard to a further modification of the frontiers of Bulgaria in Western
Thrace.) (See appendix “C”)
[Page 236]
M. Tardieu said that he wished to draw the
attention of the Council to the necessity of asking the Bulgarians to
withdraw their troops from Western Thrace as they were still occupying
that region as well as the Stroumitza salient. This occupation might
last for a long time, as the Bulgarian delegation had requested a period
of twenty to twenty-five days in which to prepare their answer to the
Peace Conditions of the Allies. The Bulgarian occupation compelled the
Allies to maintain troops in the neighborhood which were not absolutely
necessary. He suggested that the Bulgarians might be told that the
Allies were likely to grant them the delay requested, on condition that
they would evacuate the territories in question immediately. Evacuation of Western Thrace by the Bulgarian
Troops
Mr. Polk asked what forces would relieve the
Bulgarian troops.
M. Tardieu answered that the military experts
believed that three battalions only would be necessary to maintain order
in Thrace. This force was already on the ground and there was in
addition a division in Sofia which could profitably be recalled. He
pointed out that there was no question of inserting a clause in the
Bulgarian Treaty regarding this matter.
Mr. Polk said that as the matter had no place
in the Bulgarian Peace Treaty he proposed the consideration of the
Treaty itself be terminated and the proposition of M. Tardieu be
adjourned to the following day.
(This proposal was accepted.)
(Mr. Tardieu then withdrew and Mr. Kammerer entered the room.)
M. Kammerer said that the Greek Delegation had,
on September 15 sent to the Secretary General some additional remarks
relative to the political clauses in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.
(See appendix “D”.) The Committee on New States Article 56 had prepared
a report on the matter which had been submitted to the various
delegations (see appendix E). (b) Political Clauses.
Article 56
(It was decided to accept the following clause proposed by the Greek
delegation for insertion in Article 56, with regard to the protection of
minorities and voluntary emigration:
Article 56, paragraph 2: “Bulgaria undertakes to recognize the
provisions which the Allied and Associated Powers shall deem
opportune relative to reciprocal and voluntary emigration of
ethnic minorities.”
M. Kammerer continuing said that the Greek
Delegation had also asked that a paragraph be added to Article 50
dealing with the protection of minorities. (See Appendix D.) The
Committee on New States believed that the Treaty should be limited to
general provisions with regard to the different religious sects, and
therefore that by accepting the addition proposed by the Greek
delegation the risk would be incurred of entering [Page 237] into details and thereby creating a
precedent. For this reason the Committee on New States had recommended
that the Council reject the Greek proposal. Article
50
(It was decided to reject the paragraph proposed by the Greek delegation
for insertion in Article 50 of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty.)
M. Laroche said that the Greek Delegation had
proposed a change in Article 44 of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty (See
appendix F). By this proposal the Greek Delegation asked solely that it
be treated in the same manner as the Slav [Serb]-Croat-Slovene State,
and it had appeared difficult to refuse the addition requested. The
Drafting Committee upon being consulted had approved of the text drawn
by the Greeks. Article 44
(After a short discussion it was decided to insert the following
paragraph in Article 44 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, in accordance
with the request of the Greek Delegation:
“Bulgarian nationals, however, who became resident in this
territory after October 18, 1912, will not acquire Greek
nationality without a permit from Greece.”)
M. Kammerer said that the Greek Delegation had
formulated certain objections with regard to Article 46 by which Article
Greece agreed to execute a special treaty for the protection of
minorities. The refusal to execute the article was based on the fact
that no additional territory was given to Greece by the Bulgarian
treaty. The committee on New States was of the opinion that this point
was well taken and therefore proposed that Greece, while agreeing to
sign the clause of the Bulgarian treaty obligating her to execute the
minorities treaty, should not be compelled to sign the latter treaty
until such time as she should be assured of the grant of new
territories. Article 46
(It was decided that a letter should be sent by the President of the
Peace Conference to the Greek Delegation requesting the latter to accept
Article 46 of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty and notifying them that the
special treaty provided for in this article would not be submitted for
signature until such time as the Conference should be able to make known
to the Greeks the territory which might be attributed to them.)
M. Kammerer said that the Greeks had in
addition raised certain objections with regard to the signature of
special clauses in the treaty with Greece. The Committee on New States
had rejected all the Greek proposals with the exception of that dealing
with the option of nationalities. Should the Council accept the proposal
of the Committee a simple modification of Article 3 of the proposed
treaty with Greece would give effect to the objection. Special Treaty With Greece
[Page 238]
(It was decided that Article 3 of the proposed treaty between the
principal Allied and Associated Powers and Greece should be so modified
as that the first paragraph should read as follows:
“Greece recognizes as Greek nationals with full rights and
without any formalities Bulgarian, Turk (or Albanian) nationals
domiciled at the date of the entry into force of the present
treaty, on territory transferred to Greece since January 1,
1913.[”])
(At this point Mr. Laroche and Mr. Kammerer withdrew, and Mr. Jouasset
entered the room.)
Mr. Jouasset said that the Greek Delegation had
formulated certain objections relative to the reparations clauses in the
Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria (See Appendix “F”). The Commission on the
Reparation of Damages had studied these criticisms and had submitted its
report in the matter to the Secretary General. (See Appendix “G.”) (c) Reparation Clauses
It was decided to accept the proposal of the Reparations Commission with
regard to Article 121, the sixth paragraph of which should be amended to
read as follows: Article 121
“These sums shall be remitted through the Interallied Commission
referred to in Article 130 of this part to the Reparation
Commission created by the Treaty of Peace with Germany of June
28, 1919, such as it is constituted by the Treaty with Austria
of September 10, 1919, (Part VIII, Annex II, Paragraph 2); This
Commission is referred to hereinafter as the Reparations
Commission. It will assure the effecting of payments in
conformity with the arrangements already made.”
After a short discussion it was decided to accept the proposal of the
Delivery of Reparations Commission and to add the following additional
paragraph to Article 127: Delivery of Livestock by
Bulgaria
“In addition to the deliveries mentioned above, the Interallied
Commission shall have the authority? should they recognize it as
possible, to attribute to Greece, Roumania and the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State during the two years which shall follow
the entry into force of the present Treaty, such quantities of
livestock as may appear to them justified; the value of these
deliveries shall be placed to the credit of Bulgaria.”
Mr. Jouasset then read that portion of the
report of the Commission on Reparations dealing with this question. (See
Appendix “G”, Paragraph II.) He said that the French Delegation had made
a proposal which, after liquidation of the debts and credits of Bulgaria
to Germany, gave the Reparations Commission the right to decide whether
the remainder of the Bulgarian debt should be demanded or whether
Bulgaria should be granted certain terms or intervals of payment, or a
complete remission of the debt. Such a formula would be simple and would
not commit anyone to a fixed course of action in the future. It [Page 239] would have the further
advantage of giving satisfaction to the five small States and of
nullifying any pretext which the latter might have to refuse advance
payments accorded them by the Allies. On the other hand, if a part of
the debt were remitted in the first instance to Bulgaria, an enemy
Power, the small States might take advantage of this precedent and
refuse to settle their debts to the Allies. Debts of
Bulgaria With Relation to Germany, Austria, etc.
Sir Eyee Crowe said that the debt of Bulgaria
in relation to Germany and Austria should not be compared to the debt of
the different small States with relation to the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers. The British Delegation was of the opinion that
changes in the text of the Treaty would constitute a sign of weakness
and that the most simple course to pursue was to uphold the text in its
present form.
Mr. Polk said that it was certain that Bulgaria
could not pay more than it was actually called upon. To make a change in
the article in question would be to raise false hopes in the minds of
the small Powers, that they might obtain something which they were
certain not to receive. He therefore believed that the text as drafted
should be upheld.
Mr. Scialoja said that the French proposal
simply transferred the difficulty to the Reparations Commission. This
would lead to a delay of three months, during which time Bulgaria would
not be able to obtain the credit which she needed. It was to be feared
that in addition she would dispute certain of her debts, and such a loss
of time might even result in the enhancement of the payment of such sums
as she indisputably owed for the purpose of reparations.
(After a short further discussion, it was decided to make no change in
the text of Article 124 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.)
(At this point Mr. Kammerer and Mr. Jouasset withdrew, and Mr. Serruys
entered the room.)
Mr. Serruys said that the Roumanian Delegation
had presented three proposals regarding Articles 171, 175 and 177 of the
Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria. (See Appendix “H”.) The Economic
Commission had studied these proposals and had submitted a report
thereon to the Secretary General indicating its opinion. (See Appendix
“I”.) (d) Economic Clauses
(After a short discussion, it was decided to accept the report submitted
by the Economic Commission:
- Article 171: The English text of Article 171 being the only
one which is accurate, it was decided to revise the French and
Italian texts to conform therewith.
- Article 175: It was decided to maintain the text of this
Article without change. The benefit of capitulations in Bulgaria
in favor of Japan is upheld but is not to be extended to all the
Allied and Associated Powers.
- Article 177: The Roumanian proposal was rejected and the
Article maintained without change.)
4. On the proposal of M. Clemenceau, it was decided that the text of the
conditions of the Peace with Bulgaria should be presented to the
Bulgarian Delegation at the meeting of the Supreme Council on Friday,
September 19, 1919, at 11:00 o’clock, in the Salle de l’Horloge, Quai
d’Orsay. Presentation of the Treaty of Peace to the
Bulgarian Delegation
The Meeting then adjourned.
Hotel de Crillon,
Paris
, September
17, 1919.
Appendix A to HD–55
Paris, September 16,
1919.
[Mr. Frank L. Polk to the President
of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]
Dear Mr. Clemenceau: I have been giving a
good deal of thought to the subject we discussed yesterday, namely,
what to do with the German forces in Lithuania. After taking the
matter up with our experts and with my colleagues I have come to the
conclusion that it would be most unwise at the present moment to
authorize the use of the Polish troops against the Germans in case
of their refusal. It would, in our opinion, probably bring on
trouble in Silesia, thereby threatening, if not destroying, the coal
supply of Central Europe, a serious thing in itself, but it would
also bring on a conflict between the Poles and the Baltic Provinces.
Mr. Gibson, our Minister to Poland, is convinced that General Henrys
will be of the same opinion. It would seem, therefore, wiser not to
commit ourselves to the use of the Poles at present, but to wait
until we see what attitude the Germans will take and then decide the
question.
In the light of existing circumstances I think this has a further
advantage, inasmuch as after the Treaty is ratified the German
military forces will be reduced and Allied occupation of Silesia
will be possible.
I saw Mr. Lloyd George this morning and told him what our view was
and attempted to see you, as I thought it was important that you
should know our decision at the earliest possible moment. I will
tell Mr. Tittoni this afternoon and will bring the matter up at the
Conference tomorrow so that our views can be formally recorded. I
regret to have to change my views, but under the circumstances I
feel I made a mistake yesterday in consenting to this
arrangement.
Believe me [etc.]
M. Clemenceau
President of the Peace Conference,
Quai d?Orsay,
Paris.
[Page 241]
Appendix B to HD–55
Note for the German Government
3rd Section
(1) Article XII of the Armistice of November 11 stipulates that:
“German troops at present in territories which before the war
belonged to Russia shall withdraw within the frontiers of Germany as
they were on August 1, 1914, as soon as the Allies shall think best,
after taking into account the internal situation of these
territories.”
Article 433 of the Treaty of Peace confirms these provisions in all
points.
(2) The Allied and Associated Governments, who on several occasions
have requested Germany to carry out the evacuation of its troops
from the Baltic Provinces,* have decided that this
evacuation should be accomplished without any delay.
Moreover, they are prepared to take, in agreement with the
Governments of the Baltic Provinces, all suitable measures to ensure
the maintenance of order and security in the Baltic territories
after the withdrawal of the German troops.
(3) The German Government is called upon, therefore, by the present
note, to proceed immediately to the complete evacuation of its
military forces from the Baltic Provinces, under the conditions and
within the time limits of which the particulars are laid down in No.
5 hereafter.4
This complete evacuation is to apply not only to self-contained
units, but also to general staffs and departments, and to all
isolated German military units now stationed in Russian
territory.
(4) The German Government is held responsible for the carrying out of
these stipulations.
In case of non-execution, the Allied and Associated Governments have
determined upon the necessary measures to enforce respect for their
decision.
In the event that they should be obliged to resort to these measures,
all the German military remaining in Russian territory would be made
prisoners of war.
[Page 242]
Appendix C to HD–55
greek delegation
to
the
peace conference
Paris, September 13, 1919.
Supplementary Remarks on the Peace Conditions With
Bulgaria
Pursuant to its note of September 9 the Greek Delegation has the
honor to submit to the examination of the Supreme Council of the
Conference the following supplementary remarks on the subject of the
frontier line indicated in Articles 27, 30 (page 22).
The proposed frontier in Western Thrace is composed of two parts, one
of which runs from west to east, the other from north to south; the
latter follows for most of its length the Bulgarian Turkish frontier
of 1913.
If this second part of the line were to be definitely maintained it
would offer, from the ethnographic and military points of view,
serious disadvantages, to which the Greek Delegation thinks it its
duty to call the attention of the Supreme Council of the
Conference.
I.
The Bulgarian Turkish frontier of 1913 in Western Thrace, south of
the Arda, cuts in two, and more or less at right angles to the
thalwegof this river, the basin of the Kisildeli, a tributary of the
Maritsa.
The trace proposed would leave thus to Bulgaria the upper valley of
the Kisildi, taking in the principal part of the casa [Caza?]of
Ortakoui.
Now, except for the north-west district, in which are grouped most of
the Bulgarians living in the region (4060 souls) the rest of the
casa has a population essentially Mussulman and Greek; the first
numbering 15,273 souls, the second, 14,562. This would therefore be
subjecting nearly 30,000 inhabitants to the Bulgarian yoke, from
which, after having equally suffered from it, Greeks and Mussulmans
ask only to be delivered.
II.
To avoid this serious disadvantage, the Greek delegation has the
honor to propose that, in this region, the Bulgarian frontier be
traced along the crest which closes the basin of the right bank of
the Arda, from Douk-Doumanlik-Dag (east extremity of the Tokatjik)
to midway between the villages of Papas-koui and Orta-koui, then [Page 243] following the crest which
runs from south to north, west of the village Karatope, as far as
the course of the Arda; then the course of the Arda to its junction
with the Bulgarian-Turkish frontier of 1913; and from there, the
line of this frontier to the Maritsa.
This line would not only be more in conformity with the ethnographic
situation of the country, but it would offer, from the strategic
point of view, an incontestable advantage over the frontier
indicated in Articles 27 and 30.
[Appendix D to HD–55]
hellenic delegation
to the
peace congress
The Secretariat of the Greek Delegation, in continuation of its
previous comments on the subject of the conditions of peace with
Bulgaria, has the honor to submit to the Secretariat General of the
Peace Conference:
- (1)
- A draft of a paragraph to be added to article 50 of the
draft treaty with Bulgaria, concerning the protection of
minorities.
- (2)
- A draft of a paragraph to be added to article 56, on the
subject of the protection of minorities and relating to
voluntary emigration.
Paris, September 15,
1919.
Secretariat General of the Peace
ConferenceQuai
d’Orsay.
[Enclosure 1]
treaty with bulgaria
Draft of a Paragraph To Be Added to Article 50 of the
Treaty With Bulgaria
(Protection of Minorities)
“The adherents of the Greek Patriarchate who will elect to continue
to reside in Bulgaria are attached, from the ecclesiastical point of
view, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Their
communities in Bulgaria are recognized as legal persons, capable in
particular of holding property and of maintaining churches and
schools which use the Greek language, and in which freedom of
attendance is guaranteed.”
[Page 244]
[Enclosure 2]
treaty with bulgaria
Draft of a Paragraph To Be Added to
Article 56
(Protection of Minorities and Voluntary Emigration)
Article 56, paragraph 2
“Bulgaria undertakes to recognize the provisions which the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers shall adopt regarding the reciprocal
and voluntary exchange of racial minorities.”
Appendix E to HD–55
Report of the Commission on the New States
bulgarian treaty
Reciprocal and Voluntary Emigration in Macedonia
On September 4 the Supreme Council accepted the report of the
Commission on the new States on a proposal of Mr. Venizelos tending
to the establishment of mixed commission to facilitate the
emigration in Macedonia.6 It authorized that
Commission to agree with Mr. Venizelos on the best way to give full
effect to the proposals of the latter, the principle of which had
seemed excellent to the Commission on the new States.
However, since the Drafting Committee had asked an immediate answer
as to the final draft of the Bulgarian Treaty, which was to be
delivered the next day, the Supreme Council has decided to give up
any insertion in that Treaty of the clauses relative to reciprocal
emigration in the Balkans, clauses whose drafting have not yet been
discussed.
Following the decision of September 5 [4], the
Commission on the new States has entered into relation with Mr.
Venizelos who declared himself in accord in principle with the
proposed text. But the Greek Delegation observed that if no
provision on that subject was inserted in the Treaty with Bulgaria
there was no possibility to make that State accept that draft
willingly.
That remark is correct. Since, on account of a delay, the Treaty with
Bulgaria had not yet been delivered and it does not seem that it is
going to be delivered for several days, the Commission on the new
States, unanimously in accord with the Greek Delegation takes the
[Page 245] liberty to submit to
the Supreme Council the following draft which should be imposed on
Bulgaria as alinea of Art. 56 in the section on the protection of
the minorities:
“Bulgaria undertakes to recognize the provisions which the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers shall deem opportune
relative to the reciprocal and voluntary emigration of the
ethnic minorities.”
Appendix F to HD–55
[Note From the Greek Delegation]
Remarks on the Peace Conditions
With Bulgaria
After having noted the peace conditions with Bulgaria which the
Secretary General of the Conference communicated to it yesterday,
the Greek Delegation hastens to submit to the examination of the
Supreme Council the following remarks, which it requests the Council
to take into account in the final draft of the Treaty which will be
presented to the Bulgarian plenipotentiaries.
i.—political clauses
(Articles 44 and 46.)
1. —Article 44 contains no reserve on the subject of the automatic
acquisition of Greek nationality by Bulgarian nationals established
in the territories assigned to Greece.
It is otherwise, in Article 39, on the subject of the acquisition of
Serb-Croat-Slovene nationality, which is acquired by Bulgarian
nationals established in the territories assigned to the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State later than January 1, 1910, only by virtue
of an authorization from this state.
This provision is inspired by analagous clauses contained in the
Peace Treaty with Germany (Articles 36, 53, 91, and 112) on the
subject of the settlement of the questions of nationality in the
relations of this state with Belgium, France, Poland and
Denmark.
The Greek Government has already, before the Commission on the New
States, expressed the wish that, by analogy, it be specified that
the acquisition of Greek nationality only by its authorization to
the Bulgarian nationals who may have established themselves on the
territories assigned to Greece, later than the beginning of the
Balkan Wars (October 18, 1912) or than the Treaty of Bucarest
(August 10, 1913),7 which brought
them to an end.
[Page 246]
The Greek Delegation has, in consequence, the honor to propose that
Article 44, on the model of Article 39, be completed by a second
paragraph as follows:
“However, Bulgarian nationals who may have established
themselves in these territories later than October 18, 1912,
shall be able to acquire Greek nationality only on the
authorization of Greece.”
2.—Article 46, relative to certain engagements on the part of Greece
concerning the protection of minorities and the freedom of transit,
does not seem to find its proper place in the Treaty with Bulgaria.
Analogous provisions, inserted in the Treaty with Germany, for
Poland, or in the Treaty with Austria, for Czecho-Slovakia, Rumania
and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, figure in these treaties as the
counterpart of the territorial acquisitions realized by the said
states by virtue of these treaties.
Article 46 has no counterpart in the Treaty with Bulgaria, since
Greece realizes no territorial acquisition by this Treaty.
It would be, it seems, better placed in the later treaty which is to
settle the new frontiers of Greece, on the subject of which the
Greek Delegation has the honor to recall the fact that it maintains
territorial claims in Thrace.
ii.—reparations
(Articles 121, 124, 127)
1. Article 121, paragraph 6, establishing the powers of the
Reparation Commission on the subject of the payment of the war
indemnity imposed on Bulgaria, mentions the Commission created by
the Treaty with Germany. However, since the signing of that Treaty,
the composition of the Reparation Commission has been changed in the
Treaty with Austria (Article 175 and Annex II, Article 2), which
admitted to it, under certain modalities, the collaboration of a
Greek delegate.
If the Reparation Commission were to remain from [for?] Bulgaria as it was created by the Treaty with
Germany, Greece would not be represented on it, while the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State would. There would thus be created a
situation strange, to say the least: Greece would have a
representative for Austria, with whom she has interests relatively
secondary, while she would have none with Bulgaria, with which her
interests are vital and of first importance.
The Greek Delegation is of the opinion that it would be just and
logical to change Article 121, paragraph 6, taking as a basis the
aforesaid texts of the Treaty with Austria; a Greek delegate should
be added to the Commission, with the right to take part in the
debates and to vote whenever questions concerning Greece were being
examined.
[Page 247]
2. Article 124 stipulates that Bulgaria recognizes the transfer
provided by Article 261 of the Treaty with Germany and the
corresponding articles of the Treaty with Austria, Hungary and
Turkey, to the profit of the Allied and Associated Powers, of all
the credits of her former Allies with regard to her. But it adds, in
its second paragraph, that the Allied and Associated Powers
undertake to enter against Bulgaria no further claims under this
head, for the reason that they have taken these credits into account
in fixing the sum to be paid by Bulgaria at two billion, two hundred
and fifty million francs (2,250,000,000 francs).
Under the form of a remission of debt, this is a liberality pure and
simple, which, shown to a hostile country charged with so many
misdeeds, seems all the more unjust and shocking since it is done at
the expense of Allied and friendly states, who have suffered cruelly
from the war and have been the victims of Bulgaria.
However unusual may be the form of such a clause in a chapter dealing
with the reparation due by Bulgaria, one might, as to content,
understand it if by fixing at 2,250,000,000 francs the sum total to
be paid by this state, the extreme limit of its capacity to pay had
been reached.
But it is nothing of that sort. The Delegations of the principal
states concerned have tried to establish, and they think they have
established, before the second Sub-Commission on Reparation, that
Bulgaria can perfectly well pay more as reparation. No account has
been taken of their argument, but it has never been shown to be
false.
As to the Greek Delegation, it can only continue to be of the opinion
that the sum of 2,250,000,000 is far within Bulgaria’s capacity to
pay.
It considers, therefore, that Article 124 consecrates a veritable
injustice, by depriving Greece of a part of the right that she
acquires by virtue of Article 261 of the Treaty with Germany, not
only because the sum total fixed by Article 121 is far below
Bulgaria’s ability to pay, but also because, as a result of the
proposed liberality, Bulgaria will find herself in regard to her
foreign debt, in a situation more favorable than her neighbors, and
notably Greece.
Under these conditions, the Greek Delegation is of the opinion that
if it is just to take into account Bulgaria’s ability to pay, it
would be entirely iniquitous not to take into account the ability of
Greece, in order to avoid a disproportion of charges between the two
countries which would make it possible for Bulgaria to rise in spite
of her crimes, while it would condemn Greece to vegetate in spite of
her sufferings and her victory.
The Greek Delegation appeals to the Supreme Council’s sense of
justice to request the suppression of paragraph 2 of Article
124.
[Page 248]
3. Article 124 [127] obliges Bulgaria to
deliver to Greece, as restitution of animals taken by her in the
course of the war from Greek territories, various categories and
quantities of livestock, forming a total of 12,015 head.
More than once the Greek Delegation has already had the honor to call
the attention of the Reparation Commission to the fact that the
livestock removed by Bulgaria reaches a total of 313,411 head, of
which 87,087 were carried away by the Bulgarians of Eastern
Macedonia after the armistice and in express violation of its
provisions.
The quantity fixed by Article 127 therefore represents only 4% of the
total losses of Greece, or 15% of the losses after the
armistice.
Greece might doubtless be satisfied with this if Bulgaria were not
able to make larger restitution without her livestock suffering
greater loss than she imposed on her neighbors. But this is not
true. According to Bulgarian statistics themselves, Bulgaria had in
1910 nearly thirteen million head of livestock; since then, her
livestock has considerably increased by natural increment, by the
acquisition of livestock in the provinces acquired after the Balkan
Wars, and finally as the result of innumerable thefts from Serbia,
Rumania and Greece. In Greece, on the contrary, the livestock,
diminished by the Bulgarian thefts, has literally been decimated to
supply for three years the most urgent needs of the Allied and Greek
troops, which, on account of the difficulties and dangers of
transport, have very often been obliged to live off of the
country.
Under these conditions, the quantities of livestock which Article 125
[127]indicates as being due to Greece,
beyond the fact that they are infinitesimal in proportion to the
losses suffered by the Greek livestock, represent only an
insignificant part of the assets that Bulgaria might consent to
abandon to her neighbors, still keeping a number of livestock
greater than theirs.
The Greek Delegation insists, therefore, that Bulgaria be obliged to
deliver to Greece at least the quantity of livestock taken by her
after the Armistice, that is, 87,087 head.
Appendix G to HD–55
commission
on
reparation of damages
Finance
Ministry,
Paris, September 12,
1919.
Note for the Secretariat General of the Conference
The Secretariat of the Reparations Commission of the Peace Conference
having received in the evening of September 11th, three letters [Page 249] emanating from the Greek
(Annex I attached hereto),8 Rumanian
(Annex II) and Serb-Croat-Slovene (Annex III) Delegations, and
concerning the project of the Treaty with Bulgaria, the Reparations
Committee met on September 12th at 10:30 to deliberate on the
matter.
The Commission esteemed in the first place that the letter from the
Jugo-Slav Delegation called for no action.
Concerning the request of the Greek and Rumanian Delegations, which
introduced three important questions, the Commission emits the
following views:
I.—Representation on the
Reparations Commission
The Commission proposes to the Supreme Council that satisfaction be
given one of the requests of the Greek Delegation and that, in
consequence, the sixth paragraph of Article 121 of the Peace
Conditions with Bulgaria be modified as follows by adding the
underlined words below:
“These sums shall be remitted through the Inter-Allied Commission
referred to in article 130 of this part to the Reparation
Commission created by the Treaty of Peace with Germany of June
28, 1919, such as it is constituted by the
treaty with Austria of September 10, 1919 (Part VIII, Annex
II, paragraph 2); this commission is referred to
hereinafter as the Reparations Commission. It will assure the
effecting of payments in conformity with the arrangements
already made.”
This modification causes Greece, Poland, Rumania, the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State and Czecho-Slovakia to have representation
by a common delegate to the Reparations Commission when the
Commission will take up the application of the Treaty with Austria.
The actual text does not accord representation to Greece, Poland,
Rumania or Czecho-Slovakia.
On the other hand, the Commission did not think it possible to agree
to the request made by Greece, that she be accorded a special
representative on the Reparations Commission.
II.—The Debts of Bulgaria With
Relation to Germany, Austria, etc.
The Greek Delegation protests against Article 124, Paragraph II, of
the Peace Conditions with Bulgaria, by which the Allied and
Associated Powers, although supporting the transfer for their profit
of the credits of Germany, Austria, Hungary and Turkey on Bulgaria,
[Page 250] in fact they undertake
to formulate no claim under this head against this latter Power.
The Commission deemed that it was not necessary to modify Article 124
because the limit of Bulgaria’s paying capacity appeared to it to be
reached by the obligations imposed on that country as reparations
and because they thought it preferable that all the sums the payment
of which are to be obtained from Bulgaria be paid under a
reparations head.
A proposition made by the French Delegation, tending not to have this
remission of debt officially affirmed, or to leave it open only to
possibility, was not recognized; the American and British
Delegations pronounced themselves against it and the Italian
Delegation expressed reserve.
III.—Delivery of Stock by
Bulgaria
The Greek and Rumanian Delegations request that the totals carried in
Article 127 of the Peace Conditions with Bulgaria be raised
regarding the delivery of stock which Bulgaria is to make to their
countries.
The Commission does not think this request opportune. But it appeared
to the Commission possible that provision be made that supplementary
deliveries might, at the will of the Inter-Allied Commission which
will operate at Sofia, be attributed to the countries interested.
These deliveries would be subordinate to economic, political and
other possibilities—they would be calculated by the Inter-Allied
Commission itself and would be made, no longer as a restitution
claim and aside from reparations, but under the head of reparations
and their value would be placed to the credit of Bulgaria.
In consequence the Commission proposes to add to Article 127 an
additional paragraph conceived as follows:
“In addition to the deliveries mentioned above, the Inter-Allied
Commission shall have the authority, should they recognize it as
possible, to attribute to Greece, Rumania and to the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State during the two years which shall follow
the entry into force of the present treaty, such quantities of
stock as may appear to them justified; the value of these
deliveries shall be placed to the credit of Bulgaria”.
| For the American Delegation: |
E. L. Dresel |
| For the British Delegation: |
S. D. Waley |
| For the French Delegation: |
G. Jouasset |
| For the Italian Delegation: |
M. D’Amelio |
[Page 251]
Appendix H to HD–55
rumanian
delegation
to the
peace conference
Paris, September 9, 1919.
To: The Secretary General of the Peace
Conference.
The Rumanian Delegation to the Economic Commission, while thanking
the Secretariat General of the Peace Conference for sending the
draft of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, which it has just received,
wish to call attention to the fact that, probably by an error in the
transposition of a phrase in the text of Article 171 of the French
edition, the following draft is found in this text:
“Bulgaria recognizes as being and remaining abrogated all
treaties, conventions or agreements that she has concluded,
before August 1, 1914, or since that date, until the entry into
force of the present Treaty, with Russia or with any other State
or Government whose territory formerly constituted a part of
Russia after August 15, 1916, as well as with Rumania, until the
coming into force of the present Treaty”.
in place of the draft, which corresponds exactly
with the draft of the same article in the English and Italian
editions, should be as follows:
“Bulgaria recognizes as being and remaining abrogated all
treaties, conventions or agreements that she has concluded,
before August 1, 1914, or since that date until the entrance
into force of the present Treaty, with Russia, as well as with
Rumania, after August 15, 1916, until the entrance into force of
the present Treaty.”
In calling your attention to this subject, the Rumanian Delegation
requests that arrangements be made to change the text to conform
with the latter draft, before it is sent to the Bulgarian
Delegation.
Although it has already stated in its note of August 30, 1919, handed
to the Secretariat General of the Economic Commission, relative to
Article 244, paragraph 1, of the Treaty with Austria, which
corresponds with Article 177, paragraph 1, of the Treaty with
Bulgaria, that the provisions of these texts do not apply to
Rumania, the Rumanian Delegation thinks, nevertheless, that it
should call the attention of the Conference to the fact that the
provisions contained in the texts are contrary to the good and just
principles admitted in the Treaty with Germany in favor of all the
Allied and Associated Powers.
[Page 252]
Consequently, the Rumanian Delegation requests that in the Treaty
with Bulgaria a return be made to the principles which, in the
matter of liquidations, have been admitted in the Treaty with
Germany.
The Rumanian Delegation to the Commission on Prisoners has the honor
to communicate to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference the
satisfaction that it feels at seeing admitted in the Treaty with
Bulgaria Article 113, proposed by the Rumanian Delegation—to which
adhered also the Delegations of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and
Slovenes and Greece, referring to the Inter-Allied Investigating
Commission on the subject of prisoners of war and interned
civilians. The drafting of this article constitutes an act of
profound justice towards the unhappy prisoners of war and interned
civilians, in whose name we beg you to accept our heart-felt
thanks.
Appendix I to HD–55
conference on
peace
preliminaries
economic commission
Paris, September 12, 1919.
From: The Secretary General of the Economic
Commission.
To: The Secretary General of the Peace
Conference.
The Rumanian Delegation has entered three objections to the text of
the Treaty with Bulgaria, concerning Articles 171, 175 and 177.
Concerning Article 171, the decision taken by the Supreme Council on
September 311 admits of no doubt, and
it is evident that the text as it appears in the Treaty arises from
an error, as is shown moreover in the obvious divergence between the
French Text and the Italian Text.
The French text should be changed so as to read: “as well as with
Rumania after August 15, 1916, until the entrance into force of the
present Treaty”, (ainsi qu’avec la Roumanie après
le 15 août 1916 jusqu’à la mise en vigueur da présent
traitè.)
In the Italian text the change has been made; it is necessary to add:
“until the entrance into force of the present treaty”, (fine all’entrata in vigoro del presento
trattato.)
Concerning Article 175, paragraph 2, it has not seemed possible to
extend this provision to all the Allied and Associated Powers,
because in that case the benefit of the capitulations in Bulgaria
would have been accorded to Powers which are themselves subject to
that regime. The Text is therefore to be maintained, unless the
Supreme Council decides otherwise.
[Page 253]
Article 177 of the Treaty with Bulgaria takes into account the
principles accepted in the Treaty with Germany (Articles 297 h, 2) and in the Treaty with Austria
(Articles 249, l, and Article 267).
In this matter, the remarks contained in the Rumanian Note of
September 912 seem to be without
foundation.
D. Serruys
Secretary General of the Economic Commission of
the Peace Conference
