Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/68
HD–68
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,
October 11, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
Paris, October 11, 1919, 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- France
- Secretaries
- 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. Mantoux |
The following were also present for the items in which they were
concerned:
- America, United States of
- Mr. Dresel
- Mr. Shepardson
- Mr. A. W. Dulles
- British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- Sir George Clerk
- Mr. Leeper
- Mr. Carr
- France
- Marshal Foch
- General Weygand
- M. Laroche
- Italy
- M. Brambilla
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
[Page 576]
1. (The Council had before it a draft of a reply to the letter of Baron
von Lersner1 prepared by Mr. Polk. (See
Appendix “A”).) Admission of German and Austrian
Representatives to the International Labor Congress at
Washington
M. Clemenceau said that, if he understood Mr.
Polk’s proposition correctly, it was a question of saying to the Germans
that everyone would have full rights at the Conference.
Mr. Polk said that this was not what he
meant.
The proposal, which he submitted for the approval of the Council, stated
that the question would be decided by the Congress itself. His letter
contained no promise whatever.
M. Clemenceau said that the Council were in
agreement in regard to the matter.
(It was decided:
to accept the draft of a letter prepared by Mr. Polk in reply to
the letter of Baron von Lersner of 4th October. (See Appendix
“A.”))
2. (The Council had before it a draft of a telegram for transmission to
the French Minister at Bucharest and for communication to the Roumanian
Government (See Appendix “B”),2 as
well as a draft of a telegram to M. Friedrich (See Appendix “C”).) Notes to the Roumanian Government and to M.
Friedrich
Mr. Polk said that he wished to raise a
question in regard to the draft telegram to M. Friedrich. He questioned
whether it was advisable to send a written communication expressing the
views of the Entente. He did not think that the Allied and Associated
Governments should dictate to Hungary as to her internal policies. It
was true that the Council had taken such action at the time the Archduke
Joseph had assumed power, but in that case they were dealing with a
Hapsburg. Today the situation was not quite the same; they were dealing
with Hungarian political parties. He thought that it would be preferable
to send to Budapest a representative who should be charged to
communicate with the various parties. He feared that the action proposed
would create an unfavorable impression in the United States. He wished
to ask whether it would not be possible to send Sir George Clerk to
Budapest.
M. Clemenceau suggested that the telegram
should be addressed to the Allied Generals at Budapest and that they
should be directed to take the necessary action.
Mr. Polk pointed out that the Generals would
not be in the same position as a special representative. Up to the
present time they had played a somewhat different role.
M. Clemenceau said that the situation would be
the same whether the communication were in writing or were communicated
in person
[Page 577]
by a special
representative; all the world would know of it just the same.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he thought all the
world should know of it. It was important that the note should be
published in all the Hungarian newspapers.
Sir George Clerk said that M. Friedrich was the
man who had called the Archduke to power. What the Allied and Associated
Governments had criticized in his Government was the fact that it was a
continuation of the Government of the Archduke. It was that which the
Council opposed. There was no desire to interfere with the internal
affairs of Hungary.
(It was decided:
to postpone the discussion of this question until the following
Monday. Mr. Polk reserved the right to propose certain
modifications to the draft telegram before the Council.)
Mr. Polk said that so far as the note to be
transmitted to the Roumanian Government was concerned, he approved of
the contents. He wished, however, to make two remarks. He asked what the
Council proposed to do in the event of a refusal by the Roumanian
Government. It was most important that the Allies should be in entire
accord.
M. Clemenceau said that he thought the question
could not be discussed at the present time, but that he agreed with Mr.
Polk that it was necessary for the Allies to stand together. He wished
to ask M. Scialoja if he shared this view.
M. Scialoja replied that he was in entire
agreement.
Mr. Polk said that in the first paragraph of
the second page of the draft telegram he thought that it would be better
to say instead of, “the Supreme Council regret that they are unable to
consent to any change in their original decision” to “the Supreme
Council regret that they are unable to modify in favor of Roumania their
original decision.”
M. Berthelot asked whether the note to the
Roumanian Government should be published.
M. Clemenceau said that he thought it should
not be until it had reached its destination.
Mr. Polk asked whether the note should be
transmitted to the Roumanian Government by the four Allied Ministers at
Bucharest.
M. Clemenceau said that he was entirely in
favor of common action in order that every means should be taken to
assure the note reaching its destination.
M. Berthelot said that the note could also be
transmitted to the Roumanian Delegation at Paris.
[Page 578]
(It was decided:
- (1)
- to accept the draft telegram to the French Minister at
Bucharest prepared by Sir George Clerk and M. Berthelot (See
Appendix “B”)
- (2)
- to substitute in the text of the telegram (page 2, paragraph
numbered 1) for the words “unable to consent to any change in
their original decision”, the words “unable to modify in favor
of Roumania their original decision”;
- (3)
- that the note of the Supreme Council should be transmitted to
the Roumanian Prime Minister by the four Allied Ministers at
Bucharest.)
(It was further decided:
to publish the text of the note after it had been transmitted to
the Roumanian Government.)
3. (The Council had before it a note addressed to the President of the
Peace Conference by two Bessarabian Delegates. (See Appendix“B” [“D”]).) Roumanian Action in
Bessarabia
M. Berthelot said the question had been placed
on the agenda by the American delegation.
Mr. Polk said that M. Misu had informed him on
the previous day that the Roumanian Government were about to hold
elections in Bessarabia.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Bessarabian
question had not yet been settled. He thought that the note of the
Bessarabian delegates could be examined at the time that the question of
Bessarabia was discussed.
Mr. Polk pointed out that the question was
somewhat important in view of the fact that according to the information
which he had received, the Roumanians were holding elections, applying
conscription and confiscating large properties.
M. Laroche said that the Bessarabian question
was somewhat peculiar. It was at the request of the Russian General
Tcherbatcheff that the Roumanians had been asked, at the beginning of
the Russian debacle, to occupy the country. In order to stop the
development of Bolshevism, it had appeared to be the simplest method to
favor the autonomist element in Bessarabia. Soon afterwards Bessarabia
had declared herself independent. Later the National Assembly pronounced
itself in favor of a union with Roumania. The Council were now faced
with the wish expressed by the population. The Conference had not yet
decided the Bessarabian question, but it should take account of all that
had occurred, for there was no doubt that “the journey which M. de
Martonne3 recently made in Bessarabia had brought new proofs”
to show that the country was really a
[Page 579]
Roumanian land. As far as the agrarian question
was concerned, the matter was most important. The distribution of landed
property was particularly unequal in Bessarabia, and the majority of the
population was in favor of a necessary reform. The persons who protested
were Russified landowners, whose interests were menaced.
Mr. Polk said that he did not intend to ask the
Council to take a decision. He had simply wished to bring to the
attention of the Council the fact that the Roumanians were exercising
rights of sovereignty in Bessarabia, and that the silence of the
Conference in regard to this matter might give the Roumanians grounds
for believing that the Council consented to their having assumed this
sovereignty. In a conversation which he had had with M. Misu on the
preceding day, he had pointed out the possible danger to Roumania, if
Roumania tried to make a fait accompli. He had
asked him what would happen when Russia was reconstituted and when she
claimed Bessarabia. Roumania would have to rely upon a position of fact.
In order to retain Bessarabia, Roumania depended upon the good will of
the League of Nations and of the Conference. Roumania should be
discouraged from making any attempt, apart from the decisions of the
Conference, to annex Bessarabia definitely. He thought that M. Misu
would, in all probability, transmit a communication to the Conference on
this subject.
4. (General Weygand presented to the Council the text of the resolution
which he had prepared with General Sackville-West in accordance with a
resolution taken by the Supreme Council (See Appendix “E”).)4
Russian Prisoners of War in Germany
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he approved of the
text as a whole. He desired, however, to point out that in the second
paragraph (Section C) the International Commission at Berlin was to be
directed to make all necessary proposals to the Supreme Council. On the
other hand, it was said that the Special Interallied Commission sitting
at Paris should be charged “with bringing matters to the attention of
the Supreme Council”. He thought that it was unnecessary to make the
Supreme Council intervene throughout. It would be enough to say that the
Commission at Berlin should be charged with making “all necessary
proposals”. The Commission could bring matters to the attention of the
Special Commission at Paris and not to the Supreme Council. At the same
time, as regarded the Commission at Paris, the text could be modified by
saying that the Commission could “request a decision of the Supreme
Council when necessary”. These changes in the text would give the
Commission greater freedom of action.
Mr. Polk asked how the Council proposed to
regulate the question of funds.
[Page 580]
Sir Eyre Crowe said that, so far as he knew,
there was no question but that the German Government would be obliged to
furnish the money.
General Weygand said that there were
difficulties as regarded the past arising from the time when the Allied
and Associated Governments had assumed charge of the prisoners.
M. Scialoja said that he wished to recall that
Italy had borne heavy expenses in respect of several thousand Russian
Prisoners of War. He wished to ask that this observation be referred for
examination to the Financial Commission.
M. Clemenceau said that the Council were in
agreement.
Mr. Polk said that so far as the Financial
question was concerned, he was not in a position to make a definite
engagement. He did not know whether his Government had funds to pay for
the deficit. Only the American Congress could vote new credits and he
could not bind his Government.
It was decided:
- (1)
- to approve the draft resolution prepared by General Weygand
and General Sackville-West on the subject of Russian Prisoners
of War in Germany, (See Appendix “E”);
- (2)
- to substitute for the words, “d’adresser au Conseil Suprême”
paragraph II, Section C, the words, “de faire” and for the
words, “de préparer la décision”, paragraph III, last line the
words, “de provoquer au besoin la décision”.
The American Representative in approving this resolution remarked that so
far as a question of a deficit was concerned, he could make no
engagement without instructions from his Government.
5. (The Council had before it a report from the Military, Naval and Air
Representatives at Versailles of the 6th October, 1919, (See Appendix
“F”).) Interallied Commissions of Control in
Austria
In view of the fact that the Supreme War Council were unanimous,
It was decided:
to approve the report presented by the Military Naval and Air
Representatives at Versailles respecting the organization of
Commissions of Control for Austria.
6. (The Council had before it a note transmitted by the Russian Political
Conference dated Paris, 6th October, 1919 (See Appendix “G”).) Restoration of Russian War Material Taken By
Germany
M. Clemenceau said that in view of the fact
that the Allied and Associated Governments were sending war Material war
material to Russia, it seemed only logical not to refuse their request
for war material which had formerly belonged to them.
[Page 581]
M. Scialoja thought that a difficulty might
arise on account of Article 169 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the question was not
one of German war material which the Allies were to divide, but
concerned Russian war material taken by the Germans.
M. Berthelot said that according to the article
169 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, German war material was to be
delivered to the Principal Allied and Associated Governments to be
distributed or destroyed. So far as war material coming from a foreign
country was concerned, it was to be delivered to these Governments, who
should decide as to what was to be done with it. The Russians asked that
the war material should not be destroyed, but given to them.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Commissions of
Control could be directed to settle this question.
It was decided:
That the Interallied Commissions of Control created by articles
203 to 210 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany should direct, if
they found it possible, that Russian arms, munitions and war
material retained by Germany should be delivered to the Russian
Armies recognized by the Allied and Associated Governments.
7. (The Council had before it a note from the Italian Delegation of the
8th October, 1919, (See Appendix “H”).) Insertion in
the Treaty of Peace With Hungary of an Article Identical With
Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace With Austria
M. Scialoja read and commented upon the note
from the Italian Delegation.
Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether Hungary was to
cede territory to Italy.
M.Scialoja replied that this was not the case,
but Hungary had had certain claims to Austrian territory. His proposal
was intended to regulate the situation of Hungarian citizens residing in
the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy ceded to Italy, in
the same manner as the situation of Austrian citizens residing in these
territories had been regulated. So far as cessations [cessions?] of territory were concerned, the only question at
the moment between Italy and Hungary was the Cession of the Palais de
Venise at Rome. The question could be referred to the Drafting
Committee.
It was decided:
to refer to the Drafting Committee for report the note from the
Italian Delegation, asking for the insertion in the Treaty of
Peace with Hungary of articles equivalent to articles 36 to 45
of the Treaty of St. Germain. The Drafting Committee was to be
directed to submit to the Supreme Council a draft article in
this sense.
8. (The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation of the
9th October, 1919, (See Appendix “I”).)
[Page 582]
M. Laroche said that the question raised here
was one of secondary importance, which had been asked by the Legal
Advisers, who had pointed out that no arrangement had been made as to
the disposal of Western Galicia. The question could be settled at the
same time as that of Eastern Galicia. The best method would be to refer
the question to the Commission on Polish Affairs. Disposal of Western Galicia
It was decided:
to refer to the Commission on Polish Affairs for examination and
report the note from the French Delegation of the 9th October,
1919 concerning the attribution to Poland of Western Galicia
(See appendix “I”).
9. Mr. Polk said that the United States had no
Representatives on the Commissions of Control, and, for this reason, he
was not voting. He desired, therefore, to withdraw the reservation which
he had made at a former meeting of the Council (H. D. 66).5
Allowances to the Presidents of the Naval and Air
Commissions of Control in Germany
It was decided:
that the Presidents of the Naval and Air Commissions of Control
in Germany, as well as the Presidents of the Sub-Commissions
should receive the same allowances as the President of the
Military Commission of Control in Germany and the Presidents of
the Military Sub-Commissions of Control in Germany.
10. Mr. Polk said that M. Misu had informed him
on the preceding day that, at the request of the British and French
Governments, the Roumanian Government had despatched large quantities of
Russian war material, which were in Roumania, to General Denikin. Question Raised by Mr. Polk in Regard to Alleged
Delivery of War Material by the Roumanian by the Roumanian
Government to General Denikin
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he was without
information as to any such action on the part of the British Government,
but he would inquire of his Government.
M. Clemenceau said that Marshal Foch should be
consulted.
M. Berthelot said that M. Bratiano had always
refused to give arms to General Denikin, because he (M. Bratiano) was
supporting the Ukrainians. It was therefore, possible that several
months before and through the intermediary of the French Military
Mission in Roumania a small part of the Russian war material deposited
in Roumania, amounting to about 60,000 rifles, had been sent to Russia.
But since that time no action of this kind had been taken, as M.
Bratiano had refused to make any deliveries whatsoever.
Mr. Polk said that the Roumanians had informed
him that the British and French had asked them to send 60,000 rifles to
General Denikin, but they had said quite the opposite to the American
Minister at
[Page 583]
Bucharest, who was
in Paris at the moment. He had raised the question simply to ascertain
what had actually occurred.
(The meeting then adjourned.)
Hotel Crillon,
Paris
, October
11, 1919.
Appendix A to HD–68
[Reply Prepared
by Mr. Polk to the Letter of October 4, 1919, From Baron von
Lersner]
Draft
Sir: I am directed by the Supreme Council
to reply to your letter of October 4,6
concerning the membership of the Labor Conference which will shortly
be held in Washington at the invitation of the Government of the
United States.
Owing to the urgency and importance of the questions to be considered
by the Conference, the Supreme Council is of the opinion that the
States named in the annex to the Covenant of the League of Nations,
whether signatories of the Treaty of Peace or neutral states, should
be privileged to participate in the first meeting of the Conference
from the outset, in spite of the fact that the League of Nations has
technically not yet come into being. By direction of the Council, I
am communicating this interpretation to my Government for its
guidance.
At the same time, the Council is making a recommendation to the
Organizing Committee of the Labor Conference (within whose
competence the matter lies) that the question of the admission of
German and Austrian delegates to full participation in the
Conference shall be considered by the Conference as the first item
on its Agenda.
Please accept, etc., etc.
Appendix B to HD–68
Telegram to British Chargé
d’Affaires, Bucharest, October 11, 1919
The Supreme Council to-day decided on following joint communication
to Roumanian Government. You should concert with your colleagues in
presentation to Roumanian Government, whether as identic or
collective note.
Text follows:—
“Supreme Council have received with great satisfaction the
assurances of the Roumanian Government, reported by Sir George
Clerk,
[Page 584]
that they have
always intended, and still intend, to adhere firmly to the
Alliance. The Supreme Council never doubted that such was the
real wish of Roumania, and they are happy to think that the
Mission of Sir George Clerk has only served to confirm the
conviction they already held.
The Supreme Council feel however that recent events have once
more demonstrated the necessity of avoiding, so far as possible,
all ground for misunderstanding. Such has been the experience of
all the Allies during the war, and perfect frankness on even the
most difficult and delicate points of difference such as are
bound to arise in the complicated relations and conflicting
interests of a group of Allies has proved to be the only way to
secure harmonious and successful progress.
The Supreme Council therefore desire to put before their
Roumanian Allies their decisions on the three questions which
form the principal subjects of divergence between Roumania and
the Allies to-day. These decisions will be expressed quite
definitely and frankly, but the Supreme Council trust that the
Roumanian Government will realise that they have been taken, not
with any desire to foster other interests at the expense of
Roumania nor without the most sympathetic consideration of the
Roumanian case, but because the Supreme Council firmly believe
that they correspond most nearly to the general interests of
peace and well-being.
The three points may be entitled: 1. Territorial Frontiers. 2.
The Minorities Treaty. 3. Hungary.
1. After renewing and careful study of the requests made by
Monsieur Bratiano for both banks of the river Maros up to its
mouth, for Bekes-Csaba, and for a frontier line 20 kilometres
outside the Szatmar–Arad railway and of the arguments put
forward by Monsieur Bratiano in favour of these modifications,
the Supreme Council regret that they are unable to modify in
favour of Roumania their original decision taken after the
closest examination of all the relevant factors and made known
as definite to all the parties interested.
2. The Allied Powers represented on the Supreme Council are
absolutely united in their determination to uphold the principle
underlying the Minorities Treaty. They feel that this principle
is one of the vital elements in removing the causes of further
wars and they intend to maintain it intact. It underlies the
whole spirit which has led the world to accept a system of a
society of Nations and it cannot be abandoned. This principle
finds its expression, so far as Roumania is concerned, in
Article 71 [60?] of the Treaty with
Austria and in Article 13 of the Draft Treaty respecting
minorities submitted to the Roumanian Government.
The Supreme Council feel that possibly these two Articles have
been misinterpreted in Roumania. In the view of the Supreme
Council there is nothing derogatory to the independence of
Roumania. She is only asked, in common with other states, which
like herself have, as the result of the war, profoundly altered
the extent and nature of their dominions, to accept such
obligations towards the Society of Nations as arise from
membership of that body to which she is already pledged.
[Page 585]
But as soon as the Supreme Council learn that the Roumanian
Government is prepared to sign the Treaty with Austria without
reservation, they, for their part, will be happy to consider in
common with Roumania, such modifications of those clauses as
affect Roumania individually, as apart from the general
principle, in order to see whether it is not possible to meet
the views of the Roumanian Government. The Supreme Council had
the advantage, while the text of the Minorities Treaty with
other Powers was being drafted, of the collaboration of
representatives of other Powers, to the great advantage of both
parties.
Hitherto this collaboration has been denied to them by the
Roumanian Government, but the Supreme Council hope that if the
Roumanian Government will now discuss the clauses with them, an
equally satisfactory result may be reached.
Lastly the Supreme Council trust that their Roumanian Allies will
announce their decision on this point forthwith. It is essential
for the establishment of conditions of peace and for the renewal
and restoration of economic life in Europe, that the treaties of
peace with the enemy powers and the various agreements and
arrangements arising out of those treaties, should be brought
into force at once.
3. The Hungarian question has two main issues. The first is the
question of requisitions by the Roumanian Army of Occupation.
The general view of the Supreme Council with regard to the
action of the Roumanian requisitioning for herself, without
consultation and agreement with her Allies, supplies of material
which should, by the agreement to which Roumania herself is a
party, form part of the common reparation stock of the Allies
has already been expressed to the Roumanian Government.7 The
Supreme Council have received and considered the Roumanian point
of view as expressed by M. Bratiano, and it seems to them there
is now no difference of opinion about the general principle. As
regards the application of that principle, the Allies propose
the following machinery for deciding what material shall be
definitely allocated to Roumania and what part, or its value,
assigned to the common stock. They are despatching an
Inter-Allied Sub-Commission of the Commission on Separation to
Buda-Pesth with authority from the Supreme Council to
investigate and examine all the requisitions that have been made
and to report on the distribution to be effected between
Roumania and the Allies. The Supreme Council trusts that the
Roumanian Government will appoint a representative, with full
authority to speak for them, to act on this Commission.
There is, however, an aspect of the question, which the Supreme
Council feel that they cannot ignore. The Supreme Council
recognizes that the Roumanian Government have given orders to
confine their requisitions to those of railway materials,
materials of war and supplies to the Army of Occupation.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Council have in their possession a
mass of evidence which leaves no room for doubt that the orders
of the Roumanian Government to this effect are deliberately and
continuously disobeyed. They do not question the good faith of
the Roumanian Government, but on the
[Page 586]
other hand, they cannot suffer because the
subordinates of that Government do not carry out the orders
given to them. The Supreme Council accordingly propose that an
Inter-Allied Organization, including Roumanian officials, should
be established at once at the bridges of Szolnok and Czongrad to
check and verify the way-bills of all trains passing over those
two bridges into Roumania. This organization should have full
powers to open sealed wagons and to remove all goods that have
been improperly despatched to Roumania. At the same time, the
Sub-Commission of the Commission on Reparation will have
authority to receive all complaints already filed by the
Inter-Allied Commission of Generals, or that may subsequently be
made as to improper requisitions, and the Supreme Council has no
doubt that the Roumanian Government will, in such cases as are
definitely established, be prepared to make full reparation.
The other important point in the Hungarian situation is the
establishment of a Hungarian Government which can maintain law
and order, can hold the elections freely and impartially, and
can negotiate peace with the Allies. The Government, of which M.
Friedrich, as the titular Minister President of Hungary, is the
head, does not, in the opinion of the Supreme Council, fulfill
the conditions necessary to ensure these requirements. The
Supreme Council consider that M. Friedrich should include in his
Government representatives of the various political parties in
Hungary, and should he be unwilling or unable to do so, the
Hungarian people must realize that the Allies can only recognize
and deal with a Government which fulfills these conditions. The
Supreme Council are confident that this is also the view of
their Roumanian Allies, since it appears that to them that what
they desire is as much in the interests of Roumania as of the
Allies generally.
Finally, the Supreme Council would be glad to receive assurances
that the rifles for the Hungarian police and gendarmerie already promised by the Roumanian
authorities in B. P. to the Mission of Allied Generals, will be
immediately delivered and that the Roumanian forces will at once
evacuate the country. They know that Roumania herself wishes to
be relieved of this heavy charge upon her resources, and they
consider that the burden which it also lays upon the
impoverished State of Hungary should, in the interests of the
Allies generally, be lifted as soon as possible. [”]
Appendix C to HD–68
Draft Telegram to Monsieur Friedrich,
Budapest, by Wireless
On August 18th last the Allied and Associated Powers informed the
Archduke Joseph,8 through
the Mission of Inter-Allied Generals at Buda-Pest, that they could
not recognise nor make terms of peace with a Government which did
not represent the country. On receipt of
[Page 587]
this intimation the Archduke Joseph resigned
his position as head of the Hungarian State. But the Government
which represented him and his views remained in Office. The Allies
have waited in the hope that that Government, recognising its
inability to meet the conditions required by the Allied and
Associated Powers, would either arrange itself so as to include
representatives of all parties in Hungary, or would withdraw from
Office and leave the way open for a Government more in consonance
with the requirements of the Allied and Associated Powers.
As there are no signs of such action on your part and as it is vital
to the existence of Hungary that she should as soon as possible,
have a Government capable, in the view of the Allied and Associated
Powers, of maintaining law and order, of holding free and impartial
elections within the territorial limits assigned to Hungary by the
Peace Conference, and of concluding peace with the Allies, the
Allied and Associated Powers are constrained to invite you either to
combine with all the other parties in Hungary to form a
representative Government, whose constitution will be a guarantee of
its ability to satisfy the conditions of the Allied and Associated
Powers or to withdraw from Office and to allow some other Statesmen
to undertake the task.
The Allied and Associated Powers will be glad to receive your reply
within 3 days.
Appendix D to HD–67 [68]
From: The Delegates of Bessarabia.
To: The President of the Peace Conference.
In the official statement of the organ of the Rumanian Government in
Bessarabia, the Cassa Nostra published in the
newspapers of Kishinev of August 10, 1919, the Bessarabian land
proprietors are informed that a time limit of one month has been
fixed to obtain their subjection to Rumania, as well as to name
charges d’affaires to replace them to assist in the work of the
Commission on the expropriation of their lands.
The Bessarabian Delegation has already once before protested on this
subject before the Peace Conference on April 15, 1919.
The Russian Political Conference addressed on April 20, 1919, a
memorandum on this subject to the Peace Conference.
At the present moment we are forced to make another plea to the Peace
Conference in the hope of obtaining its support in the just cause
which we are defending.
[Page 588]
It is to be observed that the official statement, a translation of
which is attached, clearly indicates that those proprietors who
accept Rumanian subjection will be treated differently from those
who refuse. The difference will evidently be in favor of those
proprietors who bow to the desires of the Rumanian Government.
Speaking in the name of all our mandatories, we consider the
exactions of the Rumanian Government as tending to force the
proprietors in Bessarabia to swear oath of allegiance to the King of
Rumania, as an act profoundly unjust and outraging their dignity of
citizens of a country which does not form part of the Kingdom of
Rumania. It is also an outrage to international law as well as to
the respect due to the decisions of the Peace Conference which has
not accorded to Rumania the possession of this Russian province.
The regime established by the Rumanian Government in Bessarabia is
truly intolerable for the population, and if the Peace Conference
does not raise its voice against the Rumanian abuses of power in the
name of justice and with the authority that it alone possesses,
bloody uprisings in the Bessarabian population will be
inevitable.
In defiance of all justice and rights of peoples, the Rumanian
Government forces all the population, under the penalty of heavy
fines, to take part in the parliamentary elections of Rumania, that
is to say of a country which, until today, was foreign to her.
Through you, M. President, we ask the Peace Conference to condemn the
illegal and unjust acts of the Rumanian Government and to declare
them as such before the civilized world.
Delegates of Bessarabia
Alexandre N.
Kronpensky
Alexandre Ch. Schmidt
[Enclosure]
journal “bessarabia”
The Cassa Nostra informs the landed
proprietors abroad that a time limit of one month, dating from the
day of the present notice, is accorded them in order to make a
request to obtain Rumanian subjection and in order to name chargés
d’affaires duly qualified to represent them during the course of the
work of the Commission on Land expropriation if they cannot come in
person.
In case neither the proprietor nor the chargé d’affaires is present,
the expropriation will take place in their absence.
The present notice shall be the last invitation.
Director (Signed)
Secretary (Signed)
[Page 589]
N. B. Without speaking of the juridical nullity of this order, it
can have no value, not even formal, for the sending of
Bessarabian newspapers abroad is prohibited and in order that
Bessarabians living abroad be informed, it would be necessary
that a like notice be printed in all the large foreign
newspapers, as the majority of the landed proprietors of
Bessarabia were forced to leave their native country and take
refuge abroad.
Appendix E to HD–68
Draft Resolution on Russian Prisoners
of War in Germany Prepared by General Weygand and General
Sachville-West
[This appendix does not accompany the minutes in the Department
files.]
Appendix F to HD–68
supreme war
council
military, naval and air representatives
Annexure A to S. W. C. 471
Copy No. 59
S. W.
C. 472
Versailles, 6 October, 1919.
Report With Regard to the
Organization of the Commissions of Control for Austria
The Supreme Inter-Allied War Council in its Meeting of 25th
September, 1919,10 passed the following
Resolution:—
“It is decided that the Permanent Military Representatives at
Versailles be directed to draw up in conjunction with the Naval
and Air Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated
Powers, a detailed Scheme with regard to the Military, Naval and
Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commissions of Control, charged with
the supervision of the execution by Austria of the Military
Naval and Air Clauses of the Treaty of Peace,”
In consequence, the Military, Naval and Air Representatives of the
Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers in the Joint meeting
held at Versailles on October 6th, 1919, after consideration of the
question, have agreed to draw up the attached Draft Organisation of
the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control provided for in Articles
149–158 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria.
[Page 590]
Gal Belin K. C. B.
,
K. C. M. G.Military Representative French Section, Supreme War
Council
Le
Vavasseur
Captain, French
Naval Representative
Duval
,
General, French
Air Representative
Ugo
Cavallero
Military
Representative Italian Section, Supreme War
Council
Grassi
Admiral, Italian
Naval Representative
Orsini
,
Admiral,
Italian Air Representative
C. Sackville-West
Major
General, Military Representative, British Section, Supreme War
Council
C. T. M.
Fuller
Captain, R. N.,
British Naval Representative
P. R. C. Groves
Brig-General, British Air
Representative
Tasker
H. Bliss
Military
Representative, American Section, Supreme War
Council
McCully
Rear-Admiral,
American Naval Representative
A. Lippincott
Colonel, American Air
Representative
Sato
General, Japanese
Military Representative
Osmuni
Captain,
Japanese Naval Representative
Watanabi
General, Japanese Air Representative
[Enclosure]
supreme war
council
military, naval and air representatives
S. W. C. 472
Versailles, 6 October, 1919.
Organisation of the Inter-Allied
Commissions of Control Provided For in Articles 149–158 of the
Treaty of Peace With Austria
General
Article 1
3 Inter-Allied Commissions of Control shall be established:
- A military Inter-Allied Commission of Control;
- A Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control;
- An Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control.
[Page 591]
They shall represent with the Austrian Government the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers in everything that concerns the
carrying out of the Military, Naval and Aeronautical Clauses
(Article 149) respectively.
These Commissions shall enter on their duties on the coming into
force of the Treaty of Peace.
Article 2
The Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control shall be charged with
supervising the execution of the Military Clauses (Article 149) and
particularly with carrying out the stipulations contained in Article
153.
It will be presided over by an Italian General.*
Article 3
The Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control shall be charged with
the supervision of the execution of the Naval Clauses (article 149)
and particularly with carrying out the stipulations contained in
Article 154.
The Naval Inter-Allied Commission shall be presided over by an
Italian Admiral.
Article 4
The Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control shall be charged
with the supervision of the execution of the Air Clauses (Article
149), and particularly with the carrying out of the stipulations in
Article 155.
The Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control shall be presided
over by a French General.
Article 5
The General Officers and the Admiral mentioned in Articles 2, 3 and 4
shall each of them attach to the two others a Permanent
Representative (assisted if necessary by other officers), charged
with ensuring liaison between them.
[Page 592]
Powers of the Inter-Allied
Commissions of Control
Article 6
The Powers of each of the Inter-Allied Commissions of control are
defined in Articles 149–155 of the Treaty of Peace.
Article 7
The General Clauses (Articles 156–158 of the Treaty of Peace) shall
be under the Supervision, in so far as each of them is concerned, of
the Presidents of the Military, Naval and Air Inter-Allied
Commission[s] of Control.
Expenses of the Inter-Allied
Commissions of Control
Article 8
The Maintenance and Expenses of the Commissions of Control and their
working expenses are chargeable to Austria in accordance with
Article 152 of the Treaty of Peace.
These expenses shall be paid direct through the Presidents of the
Commissions to the parties concerned, by the Allied and Associated
Governments, who shall obtain repayment of such expenses from the
Austrian Government.*
Article 9
The Austrian Government will be notified of the accommodation
required for the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control, and of the
duty incumbent upon it of providing such accommodation in accordance
with Article 151 (paragraph 1) of the Treaty of Peace.
Article 10
The Officers and Men forming part of the Military, Naval and
Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commissions of Control, shall receive
Financial assistance which shall be identical to that fixed for the
corresponding Commissions in the case of Germany.
The question of the Transport in Austria of the Inter-Allied
Commissions of Control (Military, Naval and Aeronautical) as well as
that of their accommodation, and of the provision of their supplies
[Page 593]
during their stay in
this country shall be regulated and co-ordinated by the Staff of
General Diaz.
The amount of the allowances to be arranged for in these Conditions
ought to be a generous one and ought to be chargeable to the first
payment to be made by Austria. It is in the general interest to
reduce [the amount of allowances?] as far as possible in [by?] attaching to the Inter-Allied
Commissions of Control no more than the absolutely indispensable
number of officers.
Duration of the Activities of the
Inter-Allied Commissions of Control
Article 11
The Duration of the Activities of each Commission shall be limited to
the complete execution of the Military, Naval and Air Clauses under
its supervision, in the time limit fixed by the Treaty of Peace.
In case the execution of these clauses be not completed within the
period fixed, this fact will be reported by the Commission concerned
to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,
who will decide on the measures to be adopted.
Until a decision is reached, the Commission will continue to
supervise the execution of the particular clause in question.
Organization of the Military
Inter-Allied Commission of Control
Article 12
The General Officer presiding over the Military Inter-Allied
Commission of Control shall be assisted by a Staff which shall
include officers of each of the armies of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers.
He shall, moreover, be assisted by the necessary technical personnel
(legal, financial, etc.).
The Commission shall sit at Vienna.
Article 13
The Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control shall include 2
sub-Commissions
- (a)
- A Sub-Commission for Munitions, Armament, Material and
Fortifications;
- (b)
- A Sub-Commission for Establishments, Recruiting and Military
Training.
[Page 594]
Sub-Commission for Munitions,
Armament Material and Fortifications
Article 14
This Sub-Commission shall include in its duties the supervision of
the execution of Articles 129–135 and Table V of the Military
Clauses of the Treaty of Peace.
It shall be presided over by an Italian General, assisted by Officers
of the various Allied and Associated Armies:
It shall sit at Vienna.
The total number of Officers necessary for this Sub-Commission shall
be decided by the President.
This Sub-Commission shall be represented by Officers at Gratz, Linz,
Innsbruck, and other places which may be considered necessary.
Sub-Commission for Establishments,
Recruiting and Military Instruction
Article 15
This Sub-Commission shall include in its duties the execution of
Articles 118–128 and Tables I, II, III and IV of the Military
Clauses of the Treaty of Peace. It shall be presided over by a
French General assisted by Officers of the various Allied and
Associated Armies; it shall sit at Vienna.
The total number of Officers necessary for this Sub-Commission shall
be decided by the President.
This Sub-Commission shall be represented by Officers at Gratz, Linz,
Innsbruck, and other places which may be considered necessary.
Article 16
The number of Officers who are to form part of the Military
Inter-Allied Commission of Control might be fixed, in principle, on
the following proportion:—
| The United States of America |
4/20. |
| France |
4/20. |
| Great Britain |
4/20. |
| Italy |
6/20. |
| Japan |
2/20. |
Organization of the Naval
Inter-Allied Commission of Control
Article 17
The Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control, which is charged with
the supervision of the execution of the Naval Clauses of the Treaty
of Peace, will consist of:—
[Page 595]
The Main Commission with necessary Staff, with headquarters in
Vienna:—
A Sub-Commission to deal with the questions contained in Article
20.
Article 18
The Main Commission shall be presided over by an Italian Admiral, and
shall be composed of an Admiral or other Senior Officer of each of
the other principal Allied and Associated Powers.
Article 19
The Sub-Commission shall be composed of 4 Senior Naval Officers of
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, (with the exception of
Japan), and an Italian Interpreter.
It shall be presided over by a French Captain.
The Sub-Commission, moreover, shall be entitled to consult the
technical Experts of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers if
the presence of the latter is considered necessary by the
Commission.
Article 2011
The Sub-Commission shall be concerned with:—
- (1)
- The destruction of ships under construction;
- (2)
- The surrender of stocks of munitions and Naval War
Material, in accordance with Article 142 of the Treaty of
Peace.
Organization of the Aeronautical
Inter-Allied Commission of Control
Article 21
The Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control charged with the
supervision of the carrying out of the Air Clauses of the Treaty of
Peace shall be composed as follows:—
- A Main Commission with staff which shall sit at
Vienna.
- A Sub-Commission for Production.
- A Sub-Commission for Military and Naval
Aeronautics.
Article 22
The Main Commission shall be presided over by a French General and
shall be composed of a General or Senior Officer of each of the
other Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
[Page 596]
Article 23
The Sub-Commission for Production shall supervise in particular the
execution of the clauses contained in Article 147.
It shall be presided over by a British Colonel, and shall sit at
Vienna.
The total number of Officers necessary for this Sub-Commission shall
be decided by the President.
Article 24
The Sub-Commission for Military and Naval Aeronautics shall supervise
in so far as each of these branches is concerned, the carrying out
of the clauses other than those contained in Article 147. It shall
be presided over by an Italian Colonel and shall sit at Vienna.
Article 25
The proportion of Officers to sit on the Aeronautical Inter-Allied
Commission of Control shall be the same as that fixed in Article
16.
Appendix G to HD–68
[Note Transmitted by the Russian
Political Conference]
(From the Russian Embassy)
In addition to the considerations exposed in its memorandum of August
the 20th and September 27th, concerning the supplying of General
Youdenitch’s Army, the Russian Embassy has the honor to inform the
Government of the United States that it appears from the last
information that there are actually certain stocks of war material,
of Russian origin, at the arsenals of Koenigsberg and Graudentz;
these stocks contain several hundred cannons, 400,000 rifles, the
correspondent quantity of shells and cartridges, a certain number of
military camions and so on.
The Russian Embassy, transmitting this information to the United
States Government hopes that these data will be taken into
consideration and will contribute to give a satisfactory solution to
the request exposed in the above mentioned memorandum.
To the United States Delegation
[Page 597]
Appendix H to HD–68
italian
delegation
to the
peace conference
hotel edouard
vii
No. 744
Paris, October 6, 1919.
From: Scialoja.
To: President Clemenceau.
In the third part of the Treaty concluded at St. Germain on September
10 between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria there is a
Section relative to Italy (Articles 36–45).
That section contains:
- (a)
- the renunciation of Austria, as far as she is concerned,
to her rights over the territories of the former double
Monarchy, recognized as constituting a part of Italy by the
said Treaty or by any other Treaties concluded with a view
to regulating the present affairs.
- (b)
- the solution of certain particular questions in connection
with the state of war which existed between Italy and the
double Monarchy.
Considering that from an international point of view the Austrian
Empire and the Hungarian Kingdom constituted a single power, with
which the Allied and Associated Powers were at war, it is desirable
that a renunciation corresponding to that which was made by Austria,
be also made by Hungary as far as she may be interested. This
appears especially useful in view of the pretentions which Hungary
has never abandoned over certain parts of the Austrian territory in
the true sense of the word.
Furthermore, nearly all the particular questions resolved in the
section concerning Italy are also applicable in their relations with
Hungary. For instance, the declaration that no sum shall be due by
Italy by reason of her entry into possession of the palace of Venice
at Rome must be valid also as far as Hungary is concerned, as long
as this estate was a part of the common dominial property of the
double Monarchy.
In the same way the annulment of the judgments rendered against
Italian nationals for political offenses by the judiciary
authorities of the former Monarchy, ought to be pronounced also in
so far as Hungary is concerned.
The plan to have Hungary recognize Italian sovereignty over the
territories which Italy requires [acquires?],
and to apply in the case of Hungary the special clauses of Section I
of Part III of the Treaty of
[Page 598]
St. Germain, could be easily attained by introducing in the
Treaty project with Hungary a provision conceived in the following
terms:
“Hungary renounces, in all that concerns her, in favor of
Italy, all rights and titles over territories of the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy recognized as being part of Italy
by the Peace Treaty concluded on September 10, 1919, between
the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria or by any other
Treaties concluded with a view to regulating the present
anairs.
“Are applicable, in their relations with Hungary and with
Hungarian nationals, the provisions of Section I of Part III
of the said Treaty of September 10, 1919, in so far as they
may interest her.”
Consequently, I have the honor to beg you in this instance, to kindly
place on the order of the day of an early session of the Supreme
Council, the proposition of having the above clause inserted in the
Treaty with Hungary.
Appendix I to HD–68
french delegation
Note
Attribution of Western Galicia to
Poland
By virtue of Article 91 of the Peace Treaty with Austria, that Power
ceded to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers those of her
territories which were not specially attributed. Among the
territories thus ceded to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers
is Galicia.
Until now the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have not yet
disposed of that province. As regards Eastern Galicia, the draft of
a treaty with Poland is being studied, but its drafting depends on
the decision which the Supreme Council shall take on the point of
whether Eastern Galicia shall be attributed to Poland provisionally
or finally.
Nothing has been done concerning Western Galicia, the attribution of
which to Poland is however contested by no one.
There results from it:
- 1.
- —That at present Polish sovereignty is recognized over the
territories ceded by Germany to Poland; (Treaty of June 29
[28]).
- 2.
- —That it is going to be recognized over the former Russian
territories, by virtue of the draft of the treaty between
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland which
is now being prepared by the Drafting Committee in
conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Council.
- 3.
- —That the sovereignty of Poland over Eastern Galicia shall
be the subject of a special treaty;
- 4.
- —That nothing has been provided for Western
Galicia.
It would be advisable, however, to put an end, as soon as possible,
to that state of affairs, as far as this last region is concerned,
which is unquestionably the one whose character is the most
exclusively Polish.
The French delegation considers that the Supreme Council should come
to a decision in that respect as soon as possible.
Several solutions could be considered:
- 1.
- —Unite the attribution of Western Galicia with that of
Eastern Galicia, that is to say to make it the subject of a
single treaty in which it shall be specified that the
Western part is ceded in full sovereignty, without any
conditions, while the Eastern part is subjected to certain
conditions.
- 2.
- —To make it the subject of a special treaty.
- 3.
- —To take advantage of the separate treaty with Poland for
the attribution of the former Russian territories, to add to
it an article relative to the attribution of Eastern [Western?] Galicia to Poland.
It would seem preferable to adopt this last solution in order to
leave its special character to the question of Western [Eastern?] Galicia.
