Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/62
HD–62
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,
September 27, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
Paris, September 27, 1919, 10:30
a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- Mr. H. Norman
- Hon. H. Nicolson
- France
- Secretary
- M. Dutasta
- M. Berthelot
- M. de St. Quentin
- Italy
- Secretary
- Japan
- Secretary
| Joint Secretariat |
| America, United States of |
Mr. C. Russell |
| British Empire |
Capt. Hinchley-Cooke |
| France |
M. Massigli |
| Italy |
M. Zanchi |
| Interpreter—M.
Camerlynck |
The following were also present for the items in which they were
concerned.
- America, United States of
- Mr. J. B. Scott,
- Mr. E. L. Dresel.
- British Empire
- General Groves,
- General Sykes,
- General Sackville-West,
- Lieutenant-Colonel Kisch,
- Lieutenant-Commander Dunne,
- Mr. Ibbetson-James,
- Mr. Brigstocke.
- France
- M. Claveille,
- M. Loucheur,
- M. Berenger,
- M. Laroche,
- Commander Levavasseur,
- M. Fromageot,
- Captain Roper.
- Italy
- M. Galli,
- Admiral Orsini,
- Lieutenant-Colonel Guidoni,
- Lieutenant-Colonel Piccio.
- M. Ricci-Busatti.
- Japan
[Page 403]
1. The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation of
September 24th (See appendix “A”).
M. Loucheur said that he wished to make a brief
summary of what had taken place. The Inter-Allied Maritime Transport
Council had taken decisions in regard to the distribution of the German
Oil Tank Ships which had, in accordance with the Brussels decision, been
left temporarily to Germany. At a meeting which had taken place in
London, it had been decided upon request of the American Delegate that
the question should be referred for a definite decision to the Supreme
Economic Council. The Council had met at Brussels on the 20th September.
Unfortunately an incident had occurred which was the cause of the
present discussion. A telegram sent to Brussels by the American
Delegation had arrived in a mutilated condition. It was necessary to ask
for a repetition which had arrived too late. When the Supreme Economic
Council confirmed the resolution of the A. M. T. E. it believed that it
was acting in full accord with the views of the American Delegation. He
wished to call the attention of the Council to the following points: (1)
The German Oil Tank Ships had been left to Germany only temporarily and
the Inter-Allied Council at London was alone competent to decide as to
their allocation. It was not a matter for the Committee on the
Organization of the Reparations Commission. It was a question of a
distribution made by virtue of the Armistice. The American Delegation
held that it had been decided to leave these ships to Germany to assure
the transport of oil. There was a disagreement on this point. The Ships
had not been left indefinitely to Germany and the proof of this lay in
the fact that, far from protesting against giving up the ships, the
German Government had given orders for their delivery. (2) That the
Standard Oil Company claimed that the ships belonged to it because the
Company owned all the stock of the German Company which owned the ships
in question. He wished to say with reference to this point that that was
a question which could not be dealt with at the moment and was a matter
for the Reparations Commission. German Oil Tank
Ships
Mr. Polk said that he agreed that the question
should not be discussed at present.
M. Loucheur said that his next point was: (3)
That the ships ought not to lie idle. There was a shortage of tonnage
from which all the world, including Germany, suffered. There was no
doubt but that Germany needed oil and it was necessary to furnish it.
The Standard Oil Company was prepared to furnish credit to Germany for
oil and asked that the ships in question be placed at its disposal for
the purpose of effecting the delivery. He wished to suggest, as his own
opinion, the following:
[Page 404]
The German ships in question would be turned over to the Powers in
accordance with the decision of the A. M. T. E. They should immediately
undertake a voyage to transport oil furnished by the Standard Oil
Company to Germany with the understanding that the Standard Oil Company
should open a credit of sufficient length of time to make it unnecessary
to ask Germany at an early date to use part of its gold supply to pay
for the oil.
Mr. Polk said that he would like to ask whether
the decision taken in London provided for a definite or only temporary
allocation of these ships.
M. Loucheur replied that it was only a question
of temporary allocation.
M. Henry Berenger said that the distribution
had been made in the following manner and that with the exception of the
American Delegate there had been a unanimous opinion. The percentage of
losses during the war had been taken into consideration and on this
basis France had received 50 percent of the tonnage (30,000 tons dead
weight and 23,000 tons gross weight), Italy 10,000 tons and Belgium
12,000 tons. It had been decided that Great Britain should receive
three-quarters of the remainder, and America one-quarter. The reasons
for this decision were as follows. Of the 47 German Oil Tank Ships
existing at the outbreak of the war, 17 had taken refuge in American
ports; 5 had been destroyed; 14 were discovered at Hamburg and 7 had not
been found. The Shipping Board had opened an investigation to ascertain
where these ships were. They were the ships which were to be divided
between Great Britain and the United States and their value was
considerable. The distribution had been made in accordance with the
terms of the Armistice and were effective until the moment when, after
the Treaty of Peace became effective, the Separations Commission should
take definite steps as to the final division of the ships in question.
Of the 14 ships found at Hamburg, only 11 were available. Of these 7
belonged to the Deutsch-Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft, two to the
Deutsche Erdoel Gesellschaft, and two to Messrs. Albrecht.
Mr. Polk asked whether the 11 ships would be
used for a voyage to Germany.
M. Loucheur replied that they would, and that,
if the question of making a second voyage should arise, it would be
necessary for the Supreme Council to re-examine the question.
M. Henry Berenger said that M. Loucheur’s
proposal was in conformity with the resolution taken by the A. M. T. E.
He wished to make certain points clear, and to ask whether it was the
Standard Oil Company alone which should furnish Germany with the oil
which was needed. There were other American Companies. He asked
[Page 405]
whether a contract existed and
whether part of the price had already been paid. Mr. Polk had said so a
few days before and the New York Heraldhad
published his statement. He also wished to ask whether the Standard Oil
Company was prepared to make a long term credit. The representatives of
that company, who had called upon him on the preceding day, had made no
definite statement on that subject.
M. Loucheur said that he wished to point out
that Germany could not dispose of her funds without the authorization of
the Financial Commission. It was proposed to notify Germany that she
should make contracts with whatever American company she wished to and
it was the duty of the Financial Commission to examine the conditions of
payment. It was there that the question of a long term credit would be
passed upon.
Mr. Polk said that he was certain that no money
had passed but he would ask for complete information and would be glad
to furnish such information to the Council. He wished to ask under what
conditions the ships would be navigated and by what crews they would be
manned.
M. Loucheur replied that the ships would fly
the flag of the nation to which they had been allocated temporarily and
also the Inter-Allied flag.
M. Henry Berenger said that, so far as the
officers and crews of these ships were concerned, it had been decided,
and Germany had made no objections, that they should be manned by
officers and crews of the Allied nations in question.
Mr. Polk said that, if he understood correctly,
there was no question of the ships being allocated to the United States.
The suggestion had been made that the United States guarantee their
return. He was willing, if the Naval Armistice Commission desired it, to
give an assurance on this subject. It was understood that the Standard
Oil Company could not keep these ships which they claimed as their
property.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he considered it
important that the Armistice Commission should be notified without delay
and that a telegram should be transmitted to them on that day.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that the provisional exemption of tankers granted at Brussels
on the 14th March, 1919, should be cancelled. This cancellation
should be without prejudice to any previous action taken by the
A. N. A. C.;
- (2)
- that the vessels should be delivered for temporary management
to the Allied and Associated Governments according to the
decision decided on by the A. M. T. E. on the 17th September,
1919, under the usual armistice terms which should in no way
prejudice the final decision to be made by the Reparations
Commission provided for by the Treaty of Versailles;
- (3)
- that, should the German Government so desire, the said ships
should be employed under the above terms for one voyage for the
conveyance of oil to Germany; should a second voyage be asked
for by the German Government, the matter would be again referred
to the Supreme Council;
- (4)
- that in consequence the said vessels should be sent forthwith
to the Firth of Forth in compliance with the instructions of the
A. N. A. C.
The Council also took note of Mr. Polk’s declaration to the effect that
he was prepared
- (1)
- to give assurance that no payment had as yet been made by Germany
for the delivery of the oil in question and
- (2)
- to furnish to the Naval Armistice Commission, if they should
desire it, an assurance that the vessels in question would not be
retained by the United States.
2. The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation of the
26th of September (see Appendix “B”). Authorization
for German Ships To Proceed to Turkish Ports
M. Laroche read and explained the note
presented by the French Delegation. The proposals contained in this note
were adopted.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that the German ships authorized by the Permanent Allied Naval
Armistice Commission to proceed in Turkish waters and in the
Black Sea could not make any movements other than those for
which provision would be made in the laissez-passer:
- (2)
- that upon approaching Turkish waters and in the Black Sea each
of these ships should carry at least one representative of the
Allied and Associated Powers;
- (3)
- that they should in addition fly the Inter-Allied, blue, white
and blue, flag;
It was also decided:
that this resolution should be communicated for action to the
Permanent Allied Armistice Commission at London.
3. Mr. Polk brought to the attention of the
Council the résumé of certain conversations which had taken place at
Versailles between an American Representative and Baron von Lersner (see
Appendix “C”). He wished to add that Baron von Lersner desired to
emphasize the point that the Allied and Associated Governments should
make a distinction between the German Government and the German people.
They should make the threat to the German people in such a form as to
make them understand the harm which their Government was doing in
supporting the military party. Baron von Lersner said that the movement
in the Baltic Provinces was clearly
[Page 407]
reactionary in character. He (Mr. Polk) desired to
make it clear that the American Delegation did not agree with what Baron
von Lersner had said. He (Mr. Polk) felt strongly that it was entirely
possible for the German Government to stop rationing the army of General
von der Goltz by closing the East Prussian frontier. Communication to the German Government Relative to the Evacuation
of the Baltic Provinces
M. Berthelot said that there was serious
grounds for doubting the good faith of the German Government in this
matter.
M. Pichon said that on that very morning the
newspapers had published a telegram from Berlin which contained a report
from the German Conservative Press in regard to an exchange of letters
between the British General Burt and General von der Goltz. General von
der Goltz had used most insolent language to General Burt. He had
threatened to break all relations with him and to expel British subjects
from the territories under German occupation. He expressed the hope that
the German Government would reply to the “injurious pretentions” which
the Entente Mission thought themselves able to address to a German
General in a foreign country, in a befitting manner.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that this letter only
strengthened the opinion of his Government that it was necessary to take
action as quickly as possible.
M. Fromageot read the draft note to the German
Delegation prepared by the Drafting Committee in accordance with the
resolution1 taken by the Council on
the 25th of September (see Appendix “D”). He said that in the first
paragraph on the 2nd page the Drafting Committee had substituted the
words, “all troops” for the words, “these troops”, which appeared in the
draft previously prepared by the British Delegation.2 The Committee had desired in this manner to
refer to all German troops, no matter under what authority they were.
They desired also to omit the last sentence of the third paragraph on
the 2nd page, which actually dealt with a matter of interior
arrangement. It was hardly necessary to notify the Germans of the
instructions given to the Supreme Economic Council.
Mr. Polk said that America was not represented
on the Supreme Economic Council and for this reason he wished to ask if
the German demands in question were pending before the Committee on the
Organization of the Reparations Commission.
M. Fromageot said that if there was any
question the words “Supreme Economic Council” could be removed wherever
they appeared.
[Page 408]
Sir Eyre Crowe said that it had been decided to
act immediately. The use of the future tense as in the words, “they will
be forced”, tended to weaken the weight of the action.
M. Fromageot said that the Committee had had a
scruple upon the subject. They remembered that the Allied and Associated
Powers had promised Germany in July that the blockade would be raised
after Germany had ratified the Treaty. The Committee had wished to use
an expression which would show that they were not unmindful of the
former engagement which had been taken and that they took recourse to
these measures only because Germany had failed to live up to her
obligations. It would be simpler to say, “they will take into
consideration”, at the end of the paragraph; they would suppress the
words “Supreme Economic Council” wherever they occurred.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Council had just
decided to furnish oil if the supply of foodstuffs under discussion was
to be stopped. It should be understood that the Supreme Council were in
a position, if they considered it advisable, to cancel the decision
which they had just taken.
M. Pichon said that the Council were in
agreement on this point, but that he did not consider it advisable to
notify the Armistice Commission of this reservation.
M. Fromageot said that in case the Council
decided to hold up the repatriation of the German prisoners of war, the
Committee had prepared a formula which could be inserted before the last
paragraph on page two and which stated that the repatriation of German
prisoners of war would be stopped from that day.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he thought this
formula was too definite. In spite of his repeated telegrams, he had so
far not received instructions from his Government. When the subject had
been previously discussed, the Council had spoken of a total or partial
suspension of repatriation.
M. Pichon said that he thought it would be
better to make no mention of prisoners of war.
M. Berthelot said that it was an efficacious
means of pressure, even though it was somewhat objectionable.
Mr. Polk said that he thought it would be
advisable to make some intimation on the subject through the Press.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that at the meeting at
which Mr. Lloyd George had been present, it had been decided to send the
ultimatum through the intermediary of Marshal Foch.5 Later they had thought of addressing the German
Delegation.6 Now they
had returned to
[Page 409]
the formula of
the ultimatum. He thought it would produce a stronger effect if it was
communicated to the German Government through the intermediary of
Marshal Foch. From a technical point of view, he wished to say that all
questions concerning the Armistice had been taken up with the German
Government through the intermediary of Marshal Foch and in this
particular case the question was one relating to the terms of the
Armistice.
M. Fromageot said that the note of September
23rd [3rd?] had been addressed to Marshal
Foch.
Mr. Polk said that he had no objections to this
procedure.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he suggested the
advisability of making the note public.
M. Pichon said that the Press could be informed
of the note on that day, and the terms could be published on the
following Monday.
It was decided:
- (1)
- to accept the draft note to the German Government respecting
the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces prepared by the Drafting
Committee with the modifications in text approved by the Council
(see Appendix “E”).
- (2)
- to transmit this note to the German Government through the
intermediary of the Marshal, Commander in Chief of the Allied
Armies;
- (3)
- to notify the press of the transmission of this note and to
make public the text on the 29th of September.
It was also decided:
that the Council, in conformity with the spirit of this note,
should reserve the right to stop, if they should consider it
advisable, the cargoes of oil, the delivery of which to Germany
had been authorized by the Council.
4. M. Fromageot read and explained a note of
the 18th of September addressed by the Drafting Committee to the Supreme
Council on the subject of the Air Convention which had been adopted by
the Supreme Council at its meeting of September 10th7 (See Appendix “F”) Note From the Drafting Committee Air
Convention
The Proposals of the Committee were adopted except in regard to Article
18 respecting which the following discussion took place:
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Article raised
very delicate questions. If the Article were entirely suppressed the
result might be that aircraft might, upon landing in a foreign country,
be prevented from flying for an indefinite period, on the ground that
some breach of patent had taken place. He wished to have it stated
definitely that in a case of this kind the aircraft would not be
detained.
[Page 410]
M. Fromageot said that the same question had
arisen in the Automobile Convention and at that time it was considered
advisable to omit the Article. In point of fact there was no danger that
aircraft would be detained for months. It would be sufficient to avoid
detention to deposit a bond. It was possible to maintain the article
under discussion, but there was no doubt that certain of the Powers
would make reservations.
Captain Roper said that the French Delegation
had made a reservation in respect of this Article for the purpose of
protecting industrial property. They could not agree that a foreigner
knowingly committing a breach of patent should land in France and leave
without being disturbed. The detention of the aircraft in question
appeared to be the only method of dealing with the situation, but in
view of the fact that the Legal Advisers of the Conference were of the
opinion that industrial property would be equally well protected if
after their detention the deposit of a bond were called for, the French
Delegation would withdraw their reservation against Article 18 upon
condition that the last sentence, concerning suits to be brought in the
country of origin against the aircraft, be eliminated.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he was willing to
accept the suppression of such a statement. He suggested that the
Article be referred to the Drafting Committee which should endeavor to
modify it, so that the right of detention or seizure should be limited
by the right to set the aircraft free upon the deposit of a bond.
M. Pichon said that he would agree to this.
M. Matsui said that he was obliged to make a
reservation. His Government was not yet in possession of the text of the
Convention. A period of six months had been allowed in which each Power
might say whether or not it agree.
Mr. Polk said that the United States had also
made a reservation and understood that they would be given a period of
six months in which to communicate their reply.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that the Drafting Committee should be called upon to modify
the text of Article 18 of the Convention Relative to Air
Navigation in such a manner as to make it possible for aircraft
to avoid detention for violation of patent by depositing a
security.
- (2)
- to accept, with reference to Articles 15, 22, 24, 34, and 36
the proposals of the Drafting Committee. (See Appendix
“F”.)
5. M. Berthelot said that he was directed by M.
Clemenceau to say that he considered it inadvisable to publish portions
of the Conditions of Peace in their original text. He was not opposed to
the publication of all of the text and of the notes which had been
exchanged in the premises with the German Government. Publication of Documents Annexed to the Treaty of Peace With
Germany
[Page 411]
Sir Eyre Crowe said he agreed in principle, but
the publication of the whole of the text might be somewhat expensive. He
would refer the matter to his Government.
(The question was adjourned)
6. Sir Eyre Crowe read and commented upon a
note from the British delegation, dated September 24th, proposing that
an article be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary identical
with Article 310 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria. This article
provided for an understanding with the parties interested to enable a
state to use sources of electric and hydraulic energy, which, by reason
of the formation of new frontiers, were situated in the territory of
another state. (See Annex “G”.) Insertion in the
Treaty With Hungary of an Article Identical With Article 310 of the
Treaty With Austria
(The British proposal was accepted.)
(It was decided:
to request the Drafting Committee to insert an article in the
Treaty of Peace with Hungary identical with Article 310 of the
Treaty of Peace with Austria.)
7. (The Council had before it a memorandum from Mr. Hoover asking that a
Committee be formed to make arrangements for and undertake the
repatriation of the German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners in Siberia
(See Annex “H”).) Creation of a Commission To Study
the Repatriation of German, Austrian and Hungarian Prisoners in
Siberia
M. Berthelot said that the Council would,
without question, be unanimous in approving Mr. Hoover’s proposal. It
was a question of humanity, but he felt that it should be understood
that, before repatriating the Germans and others, it would be necessary
to repatriate the fifty thousand Czechoslovak troops who were at present
in Siberia.
Mr. Polk said he agreed with M. Berthelot.
There were a number of difficult questions in connection with the
repatriation of these prisoners, just as there were in the case of the
Czecho-Slovak troops, but as the question of the repatriation of the
latter was being considered at the present time, it would be possible to
study at the same time the questions relating to the Germans and
Austrians.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he felt some doubt as
to whether the nomination of a Commission would bring about practical
results.
M. Pichon thought that there might be favorable
results and that they would lead to a means of repatriating the
Czecho-Slovak troops.
(It was decided:
that a Commission composed of one American, British, French,
Italian and Japanese officer should be created to deal with the
repatriation of German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners in
Siberia.
[Page 412]
It was also decided:
that the repatriation of the Czecho-Slovak troops in Siberia
should be effected before that of the German, Austrian and
Hungarian prisoners.)
8. (The signature then took place of the decision previously taken by the
Council for the organization of a plebiscite in the Duchy of Teschen and
in the districts of Spisz and Orava.8
Signature of the Decision Taken by the Principal
Allied Powers for the Organization of a Plebiscite at
Teschen
The decision was signed by Mr. Polk, Sir Eyre Crowe, M. Pichon, M.
Scialoja and M. Matsui.)
(The meeting then adjourned)
Appendix A to HD–32
Translation
[french delegation]
Note on the German Tank
Vessels
Origin of the Question
The Brussels Protocol concerning merchant tonnage9 is only the result of several
interviews) notably those of Treves of January 15–17 and of Spa of
March 4.
The surrender of the German merchant fleet was stipulated by Article
VIII of the Convention renewing the Armistice signed at Treves on
January 16.10 This article provided, to
settle the details of execution, the conclusion of a civil
agreement, which was signed in the same place on January 17.11
The Germans not having fulfilled their obligations, a meeting of
experts was held at Spa. Admiral Hope, Chief of the Allied
Delegation, submitted a note with two memoranda annexed, one
relative to finances and the other dealing with tonnage. This latter
memorandum defines the nature of the exemptions accorded and
confirms clearly their revocability.
The Germans, without raising objections to the terms of the
memorandum, declared that they could not deliver their vessels
without obtaining precise guarantees of food.
Therefore the whole question of food supply, tonnage and finance was
treated again at Brussels on March 13 and 14, 1919.
[Page 413]
The exemptions accorded, whose provisional character is emphasized in
every particular case, form the subject of the first paragraph of
Annex V/a (tonnage) of the Brussels Protocol.
Concerning the tank vessels the drafting is perfectly clear; it is in
fact stipulated that “for the moment, the Associated Governments
would not insist on the delivery of the tank-steamers”.
Other exemptions granted at that time have since been revoked, for
example those covered in paragraph 3 of S 1 of said Annex V/a.
Point of Law
A. Status of the vessels.
Consequently the tank-steamers in question, included in the German
fleet that is to be handed over to the Allies, remain still at their
disposal.
In March the Allies agreed not to insist on the immediate delivery
solely because of the abundance of tank tonnage at that time
available (on this subject see the English and German stenographic
reports of the discussions).
The Allies are therefore perfectly justified, in law, in demanding
the delivery of these steamers, and the Germans moreover can not
refuse them (see on this subject the telegrams exchanged between the
Coventry and the Admiralty).
B. Competence.
On February 4, the Allied Council of Maritime Transports asked the
Supreme Council to sanction the creation of an organism charged with
dealing with all questions relative to enemy vessels.
The Supreme Council referred this letter for decision to the Supreme
Economic Council, which in the meantime had been constituted, to
decide among other questions those brought up by the application of
the armistice (other than strictly naval, military or political
questions).
It is under these conditions that the Supreme Economic Council
decided the question in its session of February 25, 1919 (paragraph
17 of the minutes).
Since that time numerous questions brought up—not only on the subject
of the assignment or reassignment of the enemy vessels, but also on
the extension of the restriction of exemptions granted—were always
decided without reference by the Supreme Economic Council (notably
the exemption of the vessels between 1600 and 2500 tons and the
withdrawal of the exemption of food for the German army in
Curland).
There is so little question about this that in the note that the
American Delegate addressed to the Allied Executive of Maritime
Transports
[Page 414]
on September
17, this Delegate asks that the question be decided by the Supreme
Economic Council.
The Supreme Economic Council and the A. M. T. E. have therefore
received explicit powers from the Allied and Associated Governments
for all enemy vessels, whatever their status.
Point of Fact
The inclosed note of the Allied Executive of Maritime Transports12
sums up this point perfectly, and the French Delegation has accepted
it completely.
On receipt of this note, the Supreme Economic Council took the
decision which is entered as follows in the minutes of the meeting
of September 20th:
“315 [316]—delivery
of german tank steamers to the allies
The President of the Transport Executive states the question
and asks the Council to ratify the proposals contained in
the note of the Transport Executive (document 291).
He calls especial attention to the note of the American
Delegate (annex B) in this document, requesting that the
Supreme Economic Council be asked to decide on the
revocation of the provisional exemption in regard to these
vessels granted by the Brussels Agreement.
The Council, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the
Supreme Council at the time of the Brussels Agreement,
decides to approve the proposal of the Transport Executive,
as follows:
- 1.
- That the provisional exemption of the German tank
steamers granted at Brussels shall be revoked. This
revocation shall go into force without affecting any
measure previously taken by the permanent Naval
Armistice Commission.
- 2.
- That the vessels shall be delivered to the
management of the Allied and Associated Governments
under the ordinary Armistice conditions.
- 3.
- That if the German Government desires, the vessels
shall be employed, at least for one voyage, in
carrying petroleum destined for Germany.
It is recalled that the American Delegate of the Transport
Executive declared that if the Supreme Economic Council
approves of the revocation of the exemption, no objection
would be raised by his Government to these resolutions.
The French Delegation declares that it will insist to the
French Ministry of the Navy that the Vestabe sent to
Italy.”
The present situation is therefore as follows:
- 1.
- The Supreme Economic Council, ratifying the proposition of
the A. M. T. E., presented in agreement with the Permanent
Naval
[Page 415]
Armistice
Commission (P. A. N. A. C), has decided that the vessels in
question could not in any case be authorized to fly the
German flag.
- 2.
- These organizations agree with the Germans that the
vessels in question be delivered to the Allies and fly the
Interallied flag, under the general conditions fixed for the
German boats delivered to the Associated Powers after the
Armistice (see telegrams P. A. N. A. C).
- 3.
- The Supreme Economic Council, ratifying the proposals
presented by the A. M. T. E. at the request of the Committee
of Organization of the Reparations Commission (itself acting
at the instigation of the American Delegate), has decided
that if the German Government so desires, these vessels
shall be assigned to carrying petroleum bought by
Germany.
The interests of the German supply are thus safeguarded in the method
favored by the American Government for the food supply.
In fact the transport of petroleum is assured under the same
conditions as that of the American supplies, and, since the
furnishing depends only on the transport, Germany’s supply of
mineral oils is assured.
In point of law there can be no connection between the delivery of
petroleum to be made by American private interests and the execution
of Armistice Clauses.
Appendix B to HD–62
Translation
french delegation
Note
German Vessels en Route to
Turkey
On September 5, a German boat, the Dianais
signaled en route from Pireus to Constantinople.
The French and British High Commissionaries called the attention to
the fact that the arrival of a German boat in Turkish waters would
produce the worst impression. Besides, it would be contrary to the
terms of article 23, of the Armistice Convention with Turkey, thus
conceived: “Twenty three: obligation on the part of Turkey to cease
all relations with the central Powers”.
The High Commissionaries give orders to the Allied forces to prevent
the German vessels from passing through the Dardanelles.
On September 8, the French Government approves the instructions given
by its High Commissionary and invites its representatives in London
and Rome to see that the interdiction ordered by the High
Commissionaries be maintained.
[Page 416]
On September 15, the French High Commissioner announces that a
German, arrived with a permit from the Interallied Commission of
Repatriation of War Prisoners in Berlin, announces the near arrival
of seven German ships for the repatriation of German prisoners in
the Near East and the Black Sea, with a cargo destined for Bulgaria
and authorized to take some freight on their return trip.
The French Embassy in London to which this information is
communicated notified that indeed:
Taking into account the resumption of normal economic relations with
Germany, the Interallied Naval Commission of Armistice has
authorized seven ships to go to the Near East and the Black Sea.
Three of those vessels have cargoes for Rumania and Czecho-Slovakia,
the other four are intended for the transportation of German
prisoners. They have all already left the German ports.
By reason of the general shortage of tonnage, it would be hard to
make them turn back: an important tonnage would be lost for several
weeks. Moreover, they are carrying cargo destined for Rumania and
Czecho-Slovakia.
On the other hand the inconveniences which have given rise to the
instructions given by the High Commissionaries in Constantinople
would become still more serious on account of the fact that the
Germans have spread the news that, in spite of these instructions,
their flag would soon reappear in Turkish waters.
Under these conditions, it is proposed that orders be given so that:
- 1.
- —these vessels be allowed to make no other operations
within Turkish waters and the Black Sea except those for
which they have a permit.
- 2.
- —that on their approach of Turkish waters and the Black
Sea, each vessel should receive on board a representative of
the Allied and Associated Powers.
- 3.
- —that they fly on their stern the Interallied flag, blue,
white and blue.
Appendix C to HD–62
Versailles, September 26,
1919.
[Résumé of Certain Conversations Between an American
Representative and Baron von Lersner]
german peace
delegation
The German Government has for weeks been taking the greatest pains to
withdraw the insubordinate troops from the Baltic provinces and
Lithuania. The troops, in case of their continuing to disobey
orders, have been threatened with the stoppage of food supplies, pay
and all canteen service. General von der Goltz had summoned to this
[Page 417]
effect the leaders of
all detachments to his headquarters. General von der Goltz has in
point of fact followed all the instructions of the Government. He is
now recalled, because he failed to carry through the orders of the
Government. It must be admitted that in military quarters they fear
that his successor will have still greater difficulty to succeed in
obtaining the necessary authority against the insubordinate troops.
The troops in the Baltic Provinces are partly demoralized.
In order that the Allied and Associated Governments may form a
correct idea of the situation in the Baltic Provinces, and in order
to further the prompt evacuation of the Baltic Provinces as desired
by the German Government themselves, the latter agree that a mixed
German Interallied Commission should proceed to the Baltic
Provinces.
The German Government deem it desirable that this Commission should
travel via Berlin and should ascertain by direct negotiations with
the German Government that Germany is willing to further the
evacuation of the Baltic Provinces in every way.
In order to hasten the evacuation the German Government have
proceeded to execute the decision taken in the former Cabinet
Council to stop the pay of the troops, and have given orders that
all troops, who refuse to obey the command to return, are to receive
no more pay. Orders have been likewise given that all refractory
troops shall lose their claims to maintenance or pension. The
Minister for Public Defense has, already a few days ago, despatched
a special officer to Courland, who sends daily reports on the
situation there and receives orders from Berlin.
It is of great consequence to the German Government that Interallied
representatives) should cooperate in the German-Interallied
Commission, also on account of the fact that German Nationals
established in the Baltic Provinces [wish?] to flee from the country
together with the retreat of the German troops. They do not wish to
experience another summer there under Bolsheviki rule. It is a case
of 170,000 people, whose lives and property have to be protected.
Germany is in no way in the position to procure, within the Empire,
dwellings and food for these German subjects, established up to the
present in the Baltic Provinces. After the retreat of the German
troops they would have to be placed under the protection of the
Entente.
Up to the present time adventurers from all parts of the Empire have
been trying, contrary to the wishes of the German Government, to
join the troops in the Baltic Provinces. Sharp admonitions have been
issued against these tendencies. The frontier has been closed;
soldiers, who, nevertheless, endeavour to pass the frontiers are
fired upon. All supplies of ammunition to the Baltic troops have
been strictly prohibited for weeks past.
[Page 418]
The government have for the present deemed it preferable not to
publish in the German press, as has been proposed, the menace of
American reprisals, in order that no panic should arise from the
impending occupation of further German districts. However, orders
have been given to acquaint the troops of the Baltic Provinces at
once with the threatened reprisals, in order that they may see the
extent of the danger in case that they should not return.
It is absolutely erroneous that a great proportion of the German
people by open or clandestine means are supporting the troops in
their insubordination. On the contrary the opinion prevails in
Germany that the troops can in no case hold out any longer in the
Baltic Provinces. Even the leading Conservative paper Kreuz-zeitung wrote last Wednesday that it
is wise and necessary to put a stop to the existing state of affairs
in the Baltic Provinces, and drew the attention to the necessity of
good German relations with the Lettish and Lithuanian people, as
well as with their newly arising states.
A further question to be discussed with the Interallied Commission is
the following:
What is to become of the Russian detachments which remain in the
Baltic Provinces, standing partly between the German troops.
Appendix D to HD–62
Draft of a Note to the German
Delegation on the Subject of the Evacuation of the Baltic
Provinces
(Proposal of the Drafting Committee)
According to the terms of article XII of the armistice of November
11, 1918, Germany subscribed to the following engagement:
“All German troops at present in any territory which before the
war belonged to Austria-Hungary, Rumania, or Turkey shall
withdraw within the frontiers of Germany as they existed on
August 1, 1914;
All German troops at present in territories which before the war
formed part of Russia must likewise return to within the
frontiers of Germany as above defined as soon as the Allies
shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal
situation of these territories.”
Under date of August 27, the Marshal of France, Commander in Chief of
the Allied and Associated Armies, made known that the time had come
for Germany to evacuate the said territories and summoned the German
Government to proceed thereto immediately.
[Page 419]
By its note of September 3, the German Government endeavored to evade
the engagement above referred to, by alleging pretexts which the
Allied and Associated Powers are unable to consider.
The Allied and Associated Governments refuse particularly to admit
that the German Government can, in order to avoid the responsibility
incumbent upon it, shield itself behind the alleged inability to
enforce obedience of its orders by the troops in the Baltic
regions.
They therefore request the German Government to proceed without delay
to the evacuation of all German troops, staffs and services
included, now in the Baltic provinces. The German Government will
immediately take the necessary steps to withdraw within the
aforesaid boundaries all German officers and soldiers who have
enlisted since demobilization in Bussian corps organized in the said
Baltic provinces and will withhold authorization for and strictly
forbid enlistment in said corps.
The evacuation must be started immediately and must continue without
interruption.
The Allied and Associated Governments hereby notify that until they
are satisfied that their demand is being effectively executed they
will not entertain any of the applications submitted to the Supreme
Economic Council by the German Government for the supply of
foodstuffs and raw materials. They have, consequently, given
instructions to the Supreme Economic Council not to proceed with the
examination of any of these applications.
Furthermore, the Allied and Associated Governments will refuse all
financial facilities which the German Government is enjoying at the
present time or which it is seeking from the Allied and Associated
Governments or their nationals.
In the event of noncompliance on the part of the German Government,
the Allied and Associated Powers will take such measures as they
shall judge necessary to enforce the aforesaid terms of the
armistice.
Appendix E to HD–62
Note to the German Government From
the Allied and Associated Governments
According to the terms of Article XII of the Armistice of November
11, 1918, Germany subscribed to the following engagement:
All German troops at present in any territory which before the
war belonged to Austria Hungary, Rumania, or Turkey shall
withdraw
[Page 420]
within the
frontiers of Germany as they existed on August 1, 1914, and all
German troops at present in territories which before the war
formed part of Russia must likewise return to within the
frontiers of Germany as above defined as soon as the Allies
shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal
situation of these territories.
Under date of August 27, the Marshal of France, Commander-in-Chief of
the Allied and Associated Armies, made known that the time had come
for Germany to evacuate the said territories and summoned the German
Government to proceed thereto immediately.
By its note of September 3, the German Government endeavored to evade
the engagement above referred to, by alleging pretexts which the
Allied and Associated Powers are unable to consider.
The Allied and Associated Governments refuse particularly to admit
that the German Government can, in order to avoid the responsibility
incumbent upon it, shield itself behind the alleged inability to
enforce obedience of its orders by the troops in the Baltic
regions.
They therefore request the German Government to proceed without delay
to the evacuation of all German troops, staffs and services
included, now in the Baltic provinces. The German Government will
immediately take the necessary steps to withdraw within the
aforesaid boundaries all German officers and soldiers, who have
enlisted since demobilization, in Russian corps organized in the
said Baltic provinces and will withhold authorization for and
strictly forbid enlistment in the said corps.
The evacuation must be started immediately and must continue without
interruption.
The Allied and Associated Governments hereby notify that until they
are satisfied that their demand is being effectively executed they
will not entertain any of the applications put forward by the German
Government for the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials. They have
consequently given instructions not to proceed with the examination
of any of these applications.
Furthermore the Allied and Associated Governments will refuse all
financial facilities which the German Government is enjoying at the
present time or which it is seeking from the Allied and Associated
Governments or their nationals.
In the event of non-compliance on the part of the German Government,
the Allied and Associated Powers will take such measures as they
shall judge necessary to enforce the aforesaid terms of the
Armistice.
[Page 421]
Appendix F to HD–62
Paris, September 18,
1919.
Translation
Note to the Supreme Council
The Drafting Committee has finished drawing up, in view of its
signature, the Convention on Aerial Navigation, adopted by the
Supreme Council in its Session of September 10.15
On that subject, the Drafting Committee has the honor to call the
attention of the Supreme Council to the reservations made by several
Delegations which are in disaccord relative to the following
articles:
1) Article 18—That
article solves certain questions of International Law in matters of
industrial ownership (exemption of seizure in case of counterfeit,
attribution of judicial jurisdiction).
Nothing seems to prevent the signatory powers from making
reservations on that article. The pure and simple suppression of
that article can be conceived. The silence of the convention as
regard automobiles creates a precedent.
2) Article 22—Alineas
1, 2, and 5, (Right of Police for the States over their atmosphere)
are the result of the principle of sovereignty established by
article 1. Their maintenance is therefore not necessary.
The Drafting Committee considers that it is not necessary to solve
those general questions, apropros of a technical regulation of
aerial navigation which makes the subject of the present
Convention.
Later agreements can regulate these questions of a purely judicial
nature, if need be.
3) Article
34—(International Commission on Aerial Navigation). Cuba
protests against the mode of the Constitution of that
Commission.
The Drafting Committee considers that this provision adopted by the
Commission is the basis of the Convention, which each state is free
to sign or not—and that reservations on that score are practically
equal to a refusal to sign.
4) —The United States have made reservations on articles 15, 24 and
36; the objections refer to questions of an internal nature and of
customs.
But a time limit of six months has been provided for the signing of
the Convention, precisely to settle these difficulties.
Under these conditions, the Drafting Committee has the honor to
propose to the Supreme Council:
- 1.
- —Article 18. Either suppress that
article, or accept the reservations which the signatory
powers wish to add to their signature.
- 2.
- —Article 22. Suppress that
article.
- 3.
- —Article 34. Take no account of the
Cuban protest.
- 4.
- —Articles 15, 24 and 35. Make no
objection to the provisional reservations made by the United
States.
For the Drafting Committee,
Henri Fromageot
Appendix G to HD–62
Paris, September 24,
1919.
Translation
From: The British Delegation.
To: M. Dutasta.
The remarks formulated by the Austrian Delegation regarding the water
and the electric light installations in the city of Klagenfurt
resulted in, as is known to Your Excellency, the addition of a new
article (No. 310) in the Peace Treaty with Austria at the last
moment.
This article is drawn up in general terms in such a way as to be
applicable to all similar cases and might be advantageously inserted
in the Peace Treaty with Hungary.
However, the drafting committee does not feel authorized to adopt
this line of action without the approbation of the Supreme Council
and, consequently, I have the honor to suggest that this matter be
submitted to an examination by the Council in the course of an early
meeting.
Accept, etc.
(signature)
Appendix H to HD–62
[Note From the Director General of
Relief (Hoover)]
Repatriation of Prisoners of War
From Siberia and Elsewhere
It appears that there are some 200,000 German-Austrian and Hungarian
prisoners in Siberia, and that these prisoners are suffering greatly
and are a constant menace to the Siberian Government. There are also
certain Polish prisoners and civilians now scattered all over the
world who will require more systematic assistance at repatriation,
but there is an entire deficiency of funds with which to pay the
incidental expenses. There are probably also other odd lots of
expatriates of various nationals as the result of the war, who need
systematic repatriation. It would appear to me that this problem
requires definite organization, and I should like to submit the
following plan in the matter for action by the Council.
First, that a Commission, comprising a British, French, American and
Italian military officer, should be set up and undertake the
management of this repatriation. That this Commission should
communicate
[Page 423]
their
appointment to the Austrian, Hungarian and Polish and other
Governments, and that they should offer to undertake the
repatriation, provided funds are placed to their credit in advance
by each of the Governments concerned.
It would appear to me that if such a body is set up under capable
officers that they would be able to work out a solution in this
manner and to secure from the Allied Governments the necessary
shipping and other services which would be necessary. They could
invite a delegate of each of the Governments concerned to sit with
them in respect to the matters which concerned such a Government and
they could engage the necessary staff to carry on the work. They
would probably need to appeal to the various Allied Governments and
to charitable societies for some assistance in respect to prisoners
originating from quarters unable to supply these funds, but, in any
event, they would create a center around which all effort of this
kind could be directed.
With the repatriation of the Allied troops nearing completion, it
would appear to be an appropriate moment for the erection of such a
body. I attach two memoranda on the subject indicating the volume of
the problem involved, the first from the British authorities on
“Prisoners in Siberia”, the second from the Polish Officer for
Repatriation.
Herbert Hoover
26 July 1919.
[Enclosure 1]
food section
Memorandum From British
Delegates
Ex-Enemy Prisoners of War in
Siberia
There are about 200,000 German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners of
war in Siberia. They are in a destitute condition, and it is
considered essential, both on humanitarian and political grounds,
that food and clothing should be supplied to them. The
representatives in Siberia of the Danish and Scandinavian Red Cross
Societies have undertaken to carry out the work if they are supplied
with funds, estimated at £100,000 a month. The Austrian Government
have offered to provide the funds for their nationals, and the
British Foreign Office stated on the 24th of June that the Hungarian
Government stated that they were unable to contribute to the
expenses, but asked that notwithstanding the Relief should be
carried out.
It is suggested that the best way to deal with the problem (which has
now become a very pressing one) would be to ask the Director General
of Relief to approach the Red Cross authorities in order that
[Page 424]
they may make the
necessary arrangements to receive the contributions of the Austrian
and Hungarian Governments, and to carry out such measures of Relief
as are possible with the finance thus made available.
It is possible that on re-consideration the German Government would
also consent to provide the necessary finance. It may be mentioned
that the Austrian representative who deals with this matter is at
present at St. Germain.
It is suggested that the Red Cross representatives should be informed
that the Allied Governments will permit the necessary remittances to
be made by the ex-enemy Governments concerned and will facilitate
the Relief measures undertaken as far as possible.
[Enclosure 2]
Translation
central polish office for
the
repatriation of prisoners of war,
civilian refugees
and workmen
Memorandum on Polish
Repatriation
by
Stanislaw Gawronski
up to the 1st June 1919
In reply to your esteemed communication of the 11th July, I hasten to
communicate to you:
- 1.
- The approximate figures of Polish subjects in foreign
countries awaiting repatriation.
- 2.
- The number of foreigners actually in Poland whom it is
necessary to repatriate.
- 3.
- The number of foreign prisoners of war, interned
civilians, refugees and work-people which the Central Polish
Repatriation Office has transported across Polish territory
at Polish national expense.
I
From the figures possessed by the Central Office for Repatriation of
prisoners, interned civilians and refugees at Warsaw, the following
Poles still await repatriation in foreign countries:
1. Germany, in which is included the occupied territories and the
provinces recaptured by France:
- a)
- 15,000 to 20,000 Polish prisoners of war, the vast
majority of which are invalids, wounded and sick (Polish
Consul-General, Berlin).
- b)
- about 600,000 Polish workers interned in Germany during
the war and taken by force during the German occupation of
Polish territory formerly belonging to Russia.
Germany: total between 615,000 and 620,000.
This figure does not include interned civilians and workers, formerly
Russian subjects in Posnania, and the Polish subjects of foreign
nationalities (Lithuanians, Ruthenians, Jews, etc.) of which the
Central Repatriation Office has not adequate figures.
2. Russia: prisoners of war who were formerly soldiers in the Russian
Army, who had been evacuated by force from the Polish territory
formerly belonging to Russia and occupied by Germany during the war.
- a)
- Russia in Europe, in which is included the Ukraine and the
Don country. The figures which are obtainable at the moment,
having in view the state of war with the Bolshevists and the
absolute lack of communications, are very incorrect. Taking
as a basis the original figures obtained by the Polish Poor
Relief organization which functioned in the territory of the
Russian Empire during the war, and deducting the number of
repatriated people up till the first of June, a certain
number who enlisted in the Allied armies in Russia, and
those who have already gone over the Hungarian and Roumanian
frontiers, there remain in Russia in Europe between 165,000
and 180,000 Poles to be repatriated.
- b)
- Siberia: about 40,000. These figures come from Polish
organizations in Siberia, and are confirmed by various
Allied and neutral missions.
- c)
- Caucasus and Turkistan: about 20,000 (Polish
organizations).
- d)
- Finland, Murmansk, Archangel: 3,000 (Polish delegates at
Archangel).
- e)
- Baltic Provinces: about 3,000 (idem).
Russia: total between 231,000 and 246,000.
3. Austria: between 20,000 and 25,000, of which 17,000 are registered
by the Polish Mission at Vienna as being in that city or its
immediate environs.
4. Hungary: about 30,000, of which 20,000 registered at Budapest by
Major Tabaszymsky of Colonel Vix’s Military Mission as coming from
the south-eastern provinces of Russia.
5. Roumania: about 30,000 from the south-eastern provinces of Russia,
(Polish Mission at Bucharest).
6. Serbia: at least 6,000, of which the condition is most deplorable.
(Special Polish Mission.)
7. Albania: about 3,000 (Special Polish Mission).
8. Greece: about 1,000 (Special Polish Mission).
9. Jugo-Slavia: about 2,000 (Special Polish Mission).
10. Turkey, Europe and Asiatic: between 10,000 and 15,000 (Special
Polish Mission).
11. Denmark: 1,000
12. Holland: 1,000
13. England: 3,000
14. Italy: 5,000 (Polish Consul-General at Rome).
[Page 426]
15. France: in which is included the English and American
camps:—between 15,000 and 20,000 prisoners of war and between 10,000
and 12,000 workers and refugees, in which are included the refugees
from Odessa brought by sea to Marseilles.
recapitulation
| 1) |
Germany |
615,000 |
to |
620,000 |
| 2) |
Russia |
231,000 |
to |
248,000 |
| 3) |
Austria |
20,000 |
to |
25,000 |
| 4) |
Hungary |
about |
30,000 |
| 5) |
Czecho-Slovakia |
“ |
2,000 |
| 6) |
Roumania |
“ |
60,000 |
| 7) |
Serbia |
“ |
6,000 |
| 8) |
Albania |
“ |
3,000 |
| 9) |
Greece |
“ |
1,000 |
| 10) |
Turkey |
10,000 |
to |
15,000 |
| 11) |
Denmark |
about |
1,000 |
| 12) |
Holland |
“ |
1,000 |
| 13) |
Italy |
“ |
5,000 |
| 14) |
England |
“ |
3,000 |
| 15) |
France |
25,000 |
to |
32,000 |
|
Total in round figures |
1,010,000 |
to |
1,050,000 |
|
Polish subjects prisoners of war, interned
civilians and refugees awaiting repatriation. |
In this figure of between 1,010,000 and 1,050,000 are not included
the Polish subjects of foreign nationalities from the German
provinces allotted to Poland by the Peace Treaty. The number of
these Polish subjects is not very large, but they must be taken into
consideration when arranging the repatriation of Polish subjects who
are prisoners of war in the French, English and American prisoner of
war camps.
II
The number of foreigners in Poland whose repatriation is necessary
and indeed urgent is difficult to formulate. It increases from day
to day. Above all there are the Russian subjects fleeing before the
Bolshevists and placing themselves under Polish protection after
having passed the Polish Bolshevist front. These refugees arrive
with their wives and children in a deplorable state, ragged,
verminous, starving, bring with them every sort of disease. Among
these there are many Bolshevist agents, who under the pretext of
fleeing before the Bolshevists penetrate into Polish territory in
order to carry out dangerous Bolshevist propaganda. Apart from these
and in spite of the Allied order forbidding Germany to repatriate
Russian prisoners of war across Polish territory, there are
constantly arriving from Germany prisoners who are Russian subjects,
who having in view the lack of forces to guard the Polish frontier,
[Page 427]
cross this frontier on
foot and disseminate themselves little by little in Polish
territory. The number of these men vary from between 500 and 2,000
per week. The numbers have greatly diminished during the last few
weeks. These prisoners of war who are Russian subjects, are also
without any means of existence, and naturally they have to be lodged
and fed at the expense of the Polish Government.
The number of Russian subjects actually on Polish territory can be
said without exaggeration to be between 250,000 and 300,000. The
larger part of these prisoners are Russian subjects, but among them
is a large number of Jews and Ukrainians and also small parties of
White Russians, Lithuanians, and others. Having in view the lack of
provisions, the lack of medical requirements and disinfectants, the
absolute lack of linen and clothes, the absolute lack of means of
transport and the lack of work, all these people without resources
or means of existence are a heavy burden on the Polish Government,
and present a real danger from the moral and medical point of view,
not only for Poland, but for the whole of Western Europe in
general.
III
The number of foreign prisoners of war recorded as having passed
through Polish territory from November 1918 to the first June 1919
at the expense of the Polish Government is stated below:
| 1) |
Russians |
481,171 |
| 2) |
Germans |
7,640 |
| 3) |
Lithuanians |
5,930 |
| 4) |
Ukrainians |
14,235 |
| 5) |
French |
1,549 |
| 6) |
Serbians |
524 |
| 7) |
Hungarians |
19,792 |
| 8) |
Italians |
1,266 |
| 9) |
Bulgarians |
171 |
| 10) |
Czechs |
10,427 |
| 11) |
Roumanians |
1,865 |
| 12) |
Austrians |
6,583 |
| 13) |
English |
62 |
| 14) |
Belgians |
17 |
| 15) |
Americans |
5 |
| 16) |
Turks |
871 |
| 17) |
Various |
3,050 |
|
Total |
555,158 |
This total of 555,158 foreign prisoners is very much below the actual
figure, as the Central Repatriation Office did not at first take
into account the foreign prisoners of war transported by Galicia,
and consequently figures were lacking. Immediately after the
Armistice,
[Page 428]
on account of
internal troubles in Germany and the withdrawal of Austrian
authorities from Polish territory, the number of foreign prisoners
of war in Polish territory was so large that tens of thousands of
Russian, German and Austrian prisoners of war were transported from
east to west and from west to east of the Polish frontiers without
being recorded on account of the impossibility of exercising
control. It would be perfectly just and not an exaggeration to
augment the total of 555,158 by at least 150,000.
