Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/74

HD–74

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, October 22, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

  • Present
    • America, United States of
      • Hon. F. L. Polk
    • Secretary
      • Mr. L. Harrison
    • British Empire
      • Sir Eyre Crowe
    • Secretary
      • Mr. H. Norman
    • France
      • M. Pichon
    • Secretaries
      • M. Dutasta
      • M. Berthelot
      • M. de Percin
    • Italy
      • M. Tittoni
    • Secretaries
      • M. Paterno
      • M. Barone Russo
    • Japan
      • M. Matsui
    • Secretary
      • M. Kawai
Joint Secretariat
America, United States of Capt. B. Winthrop
British Empire Capt. G. Lothian Small
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. E. L. Dresel
    • Dr. I. Bowman
    • Mr. A. W. Dulles
  • British Empire
    • General Sackville-West
    • Mr. A. Leeper
    • Commandant Lucas
  • France
    • Commandant Levavasseur
    • Commandant Aron
    • M. Cheysson
  • Japan
    • M. Shigemitsu

1. Sir Eyre Crowe said that he wished to bring to the attention of the Council a telegram which had just been received, according to which a German aeroplane had made a forced landing in the neighborhood of Kovno. This aeroplane car German civilian pilots and three passengers, [Page 732] one of whom was Russian and the other two Turkish; this aeroplane was travelling from Berlin to Moscow and was being held until further orders. Landing of a German Aeroplane at Kovno

2. Sir Eyre Crowe wished to bring to the notice of the Council the fact that the British Government, called upon by a number of Delegates, was making every effort to secure berths for Delegates who wanted to proceed to Washington in connection with the Labor Congress, but was not absolutely sure of securing same. He would make every effort for this purpose; perhaps the Council could give direct orders to the Allied Maritime Transport Executive. Journey of the Delegates to the Labor Congress at Washington

Mr. Polk said that he felt the same way, and had already cabled to Washington asking whether it would be possible to take care of these Delegates on transports which were sailing from Brest within the next few days; he doubted, however, whether this could be done, considering that every available berth had been taken. An answer was expected the following day.

M. Pichon said that it would be wise to settle the question at the meeting of the Council to be held on the following day, and meanwhile to instruct the Allied Maritime Transport Executive in the way suggested by Sir Eyre Crowe.

Mr. Polk feared that the Allied Maritime Transport Executive would reply that all available tonnage which it controlled had been allotted to commerce.

3. M. Tittoni wished to announce that Italy had appointed Count Bonin-Langare, Italian Ambassador in Paris, as its Delegate on the permanent Committee charged with the execution of the Treaty, and Professor Pagliano as second Delegate. The Committee on Questions Relating to the Interpretation and Execution of the Treaty of Peace

M. Pichon said that France would be represented on the Committee by himself, and by M. Berthelot as second Delegate.

4. (The Council had before it a note from the Finance Commission dated October 15th, 1919, relative to a telegram from the French High Commissioner at Constantinople dated September 23rd, 1919, and a draft telegram to be sent by the Government of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the Allied High Conamissioners at Constantinople (See Appendix “A”).) German and Austro-Hungarian Banks in Turkey

M. Cheysson read and commented upon the note from the Finance Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he had consulted the Legal Advisors of the British Delegation on the subject, and that the latter felt that two points had to be distinguished, liquidation and control. With regard to liquidation, the Legal Advisors approved of the proposals of the Finance Commission. With regard to control, they had remarked that two questions were to be considered, not only the Treaty with Germany [Page 733] but also the Armistice conditions with Turkey; the Armistice conditions prohibited the Turks from allowing Germans to resume their position in Turkey. He thought the question had better be referred back to the Drafting Committee which would be able to furnish a report in short time.

M. Tittoni thought that the question should certainly be submitted to the Legal Advisors. The question was important: were the Armistice conditions with Turkey, or rather, as he thought, the provisions in the Treaty of Peace with Germany to govern the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey.

(It was decided:

to refer to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the note of October 15th, 1919 from the Finance Commission, relative to the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey, as well as the draft telegram to the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople prepared by this Commission (See Appendix “A”).)

5. (The Council had before it a note from the Greek Delegation to the Peace Conference dated October 15th, 1919 (See Appendix “B”).) Sequestration of Property Belonging to the Greek Orthodox Community of Budapest

M. Tittoni said that the Economic Commission was competent to examine this note. The Draft Treaty with Hungary contained, in Section 4, Part 10, clauses which were pertinent to the above case in the protest of the Greek Delegation.

(It was decided:

to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report the protest of the Greek Delegation relative to the sequestration of property belonging to the Greek Orthodox Community of Budapest. (See Appendix “B”).)

6. (The Council had before it a telegram from the High Commissioner of the French Republic in the Near East, transmitting a telegram from the Grand Vizier to the Chargé d’Affaires of Turkey, at Vienna (See Appendix “C”).) Repatriation of Staff of Turkish Embassy at Vienna

After a short discussion it was decided:

To authorize the repatriation of the Turkish Embassy Staff at Vienna in accordance with the request made by the Grand Vizier to the French High Commissioner, also to authorize the transmission to the Turkish Chargé d’Affaires at Vienna of the telegram prepared by the Turkish Government (See Appendix “C”).

7. (The Council had before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, dated Paris, October 7th, 1919, requesting that authority be given by the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to exploit the coal mines situated in the basin of Pecs (Petchoui) for a period of five years beginning with the coming into force of the [Page 734] Treaty (See Appendix “D”).) Permission To Work the Pecs coal Mines

Commandant Aron said that M. Loucheur wished to have this question postponed.

M. Tittoni did not think that a postponement was necessary: the Reparation Commission had examined this question and was unanimous in proposing that the Serbian request be rejected.

Commandant Aron then said that the Reparation Commission had decided that the question was not one which came within its province.

Mr. Polk wished to ask whether this application had been referred to the Coal Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that he did not know. He considered the question a local one because the competent local Commission had already refused to accede to the Serbian request that the mine district of Pecs should be included within the frontiers of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. On account of this refusal, the Serbs had formulated their new demand.

M. Tittoni said that if the mines of Pecs were taken away from Hungary, that country would have no coal at all. The Coal Commission was not competent, and in his opinion, it was only the Economic Commission which was qualified to deal with this question.

M. Pichon remarked that M. Loucheur wished to be heard by this Commission.

(It was decided:

to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation dated October 7th, 1919 (See Appendix “D”), requesting for the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government the exclusive right of exploitation of the coal mines situated in the Petchoui (Pecs) Basin for a period of five years after the entrance into force of the Treaty of Peace.)

8. (The Council had before it a revised draft of a note addressed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government dated October 20th, 1919, which had been prepared by the American delegation (See appendix “E”).) Note to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government

Mr. Polk said that he had asked for certain modifications of form in the draft1 which the Council had examined at last Monday’s meeting; the text which he had prepared had been distributed to the various Delegations.

M. Berthelot said that the Serbian delegation had refused to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria on account of the Minorities Treaty: this had not been done without hesitation on its part. The only reason that the Serbs gave for not signing immediately was that they were without a cabinet at the time. Now, however, after a long crisis, a cabinet had been formed. Mr. Trumbić had left Belgrade [Page 735] and he and Mr. Patehitch had instructions to sign. Under these circumstances it was a question whether the proposed step was a necessary one. In a conversation which he had had with Mr. Vesnitch, the latter had insisted upon his demand that if the Minorities Treaty be modified to give satisfaction to the Greeks or Roumanians, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government should also benefit by these modifications.

Mr. Polk said he had received a telegram from the United States Minister at Belgrade announcing the departure of Mr. Trumbić who had received instructions to sign the Treaty: under these conditions it was perhaps not necessary to send a note.

M. Pichon was of the same opinion.

M. Tittoni inquired whether the Serbs meant to sign the Treaty only after it had been modified.

M. Berthelot stated that no modifications had been made to the Treaty since the Council had last heard Mr. Vesnitch, at which meeting Mr. Tittoni was present.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the situation was not the same for the Treaty with Serbia as regards Minorities as for Treaties with Greece and Roumania. The Principal Allied Powers had already signed the Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government.

M. Berthelot said that the question had already been brought up in connection with Poland: Poland had asked that if on any important point a more favorable situation was granted to the Roumanians, concerning the Jewish question for instance, the same advantages should be granted to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that it was important that no promise should be given.

M. Berthelot said there was no question of giving a promise, for should it be given, such a promise would not amount to very much. The modifications requested by the Roumanians, as a matter of fact, either concerned the very essence of the Treaty, and therefore could not be accepted, or questions such as the Jewish question did not concern the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government. Under these conditions the Serbs would have difficulty in availing themselves of the Treaty with Roumania in order to ask for a more favorable regime. Should it be necessary to introduce certain modifications in the Serbian Treaty, the fact that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had already signed would not be an obstacle thereto.

M. Pichon said that for the moment it was only a question of finding out whether we could tell the Serbs that if the other Treaties concerning Minorities were modified, they should benefit by the same modifications. As far as he was concerned he thought it advisable [Page 736] to ask the Serbs to sign purely and simply. Mr. Trumbic had left Belgrade with instructions to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria, therefore, it would be better to await his arrival.

Sir Etre Crowe was of the same opinion.

It was decided:

to adjourn until a further meeting of the Council the sending of a note inviting the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to sign the Treaty with Austria and the Minorities Treaty. (See Appendix “E”.)

9. (The Council had before it a note from the German Delegation dated, Paris, October 17th, 1919, (See Appendix “F”).) Seizure of German Shipping in the Baltic

Sir Etre Crowe said that a certain latitude had always been given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces in the Baltic, and the Council had always avoided giving a decision on the measures taken by him. We were bound to recognize the decisions by virtue of which the German shipping in the Baltic had been stopped. Perhaps these decisions had been executed too strictly; in fact, he was informed that their execution sometimes entailed unnecessary inconvenience not only for the Germans but also for Neutrals, and for this reason sailings of German ships which were carrying food-stuffs from Denmark to the plebiscite zone of Schleswig had been held up. It was therefore necessary to direct the Naval Commanders to act with great discretion and to carry out their measures in such a way as not to affect without good cause navigation in the Baltic; we should instruct the Admirals to interfere as little as possible with traffic between neutral ports, and even, in certain cases, to authorize traffic between German ports.

M. Tittoni remarked that it was the intention of the Council to prevent in an effective way commerce with ports of Bolshevik Russia: its object was not to interfere with traffic in the Baltic.

Sir Etre Crowe said that it was not only a question of the blockade of Russia; he also had in mind the situation brought about by the action of the Germans in Courland. The Naval experts should be requested to prepare the draft of an answer to the German note.

Mr. Polk asked that the draft of this answer be submitted to the Council.

It was decided:

(1)
that the Allied Naval Armistice Commission should be asked to execute the measures prescribed by it with regard to the situation in the Baltic Provinces in such a way as to take into account the legitimate interests of neutral commerce and certain urgent needs with respect to supplies for German ports;
(2)
that the Naval Experts should present to the Council as soon as possible a draft answer to the German note of October 17th, 1919. (See Appendix “F”.)

[Page 737]

10. (The Council had before it a note from the Roumanian Delegation dated October 18th, 1919, requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the recovery of material, which were functioning in Germany in the interests of France and Belgium in execution of the Armistice Clauses (See Appendix “G”).) Representation of Roumanian on the Armistice Commissions charged with the recovery of material in Germany

M. Berthelot said that it was difficult to accept the Roumanian demand. As a matter of fact the right which the Roumanian Delegation was demanding had been recognized by the Armistice in favor of France and Belgium alone; on the other hand, the Roumanians had not hesitated to go ahead and recover alone material in Hungary. It was therefore difficult to grant them this favor. He therefore proposed that this note should be referred back to the Reparation Commission with a request that it should examine and advise in what measure it was possible to grant it.

M. Tittoni did not think that this was a question of application of the Treaty. The Armistice only stipulated a recovery of material taken away by German troops in favor of France and Belgium. Once the Treaty came into force, the situation would be different, and recovery of this kind would be made in favor of all the Allies. He thought, however, that the Reparation Commission was best qualified to examine the Roumanian request.

It was decided:

to refer to the Committee on the Organization of the Reparation Commission for examination and report the note of the Roumanian Delegation dated October 19th, 1919, (See Appendix “G”), requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the recovery of stolen material which are operating in Germany under the clauses of the Armistice.

11. M. Pichon said that Mr. Henry Simon2 asked whether the Council would adjourn the examination of this question. Offer of the National Lutheran Council of the United States With Regard to the Exexution of Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace With Germany

Mr. Polk said that he had only received instructions to submit the document3 in question to the Council but that he had not been asked to press with any special force its conclusions: the opinion of the Council was only asked for.

(The examination of this question was therefore adjourned.)

(The meeting then adjourned.)

Hotel Crillon, Paris, October 22, 1919.

[Page 738]

Appendix A to HD–74

[Note From the Financial Commission]

financial commission

The Financial Commission is in receipt of a telegram in which the French High Commissioner at Constantinople requests specific and identical instructions for all delegations as to the attitude to be adopted in regard to German banks in Turkey from the date of the coming into force of the Treaty with Germany.

The Commission wished, in this connection, to examine the questions brought up by the attitude adopted by the High Commissioners since the Armistice in regard to the German and Austrian banks and the claims which have been brought in this connection by the parties concerned, particularly a letter sent August 11th, 1919, by the Wiener Bank Verein to the Financial Control at Constantinople.

The Commission is of the opinion that the decisions of the High Commissioners were wisely taken. They should be regarded as due to political rather than economic causes. German and Austrian banks in Turkey were founded under the patronage of, and were favored by, the German and Austro-Hungarian Governments and by their action they helped to consolidate Germany’s and Austria-Hungary’s hold on Turkey, and they may justly be considered as agents of German and Austro-Hungarian propaganda. The measures taken in regard to them are therefore primarily protective measures that come strictly within the jurisdiction of administrators whose duty it is to ensure the policing of occupied territory.

The Economic Commission considered that the decisions of the High Commissioners may be regarded as “exceptional measures” according to Article 297d and paragraphs 1 and 3 of the annex to this article of the Treaty with Germany and the corresponding articles in the Treaty of Saint Germain.

The Financial Commission is of the opinion that at least one article should be inserted in the Treaty with Turkey to specify clearly that no such measure can give rise to the payment of any indemnity nor claim by Germany, Austria-Hungary or Turkey. This article would be applicable to Germany, Austria and Hungary in accordance with article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding articles of the Treaties concluded or to be concluded with Austria and Hungary, agreeing to “recognize the full force of Treaties … which may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of Germany.”

[Page 739]

As to the future, the Financial Commission considers that “exceptional measures” cannot be maintained in regard to German and Austrian banks when the Treaty of Peace with these Powers comes into force. The German and Austrian banks should, from the date of the going into effect of the treaty, be placed on the same footing as neutral banks and not subject, in the future, to other than general measures taken or to be taken by the High Commissioners to ensure the policing of occupied Ottoman territory. Consequently, it seems to the Financial Commission that in reply to telegram No. 1792 of September 23d sent by the French High Commissioner, the Governments of the Principal Powers should send the High Commissioners identical telegrams of which the main lines are indicated in the draft telegram attached hereto.

[Enclosure]

financial commission

Draft Telegram To Be Sent by the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople

After having reexamined the questions brought up by your telegram No. 1792 of September 23d, regarding the attitude to be taken with respect to German and Austrian banks in Turkey, the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Financial Commission, consider that the decisions of the High Commissioners have been wisely taken and that they are, from all points of view, protective measures designed to ensure the policing of occupied territory.

As for the future, the above mentioned Governments consider that no exceptional measure can be maintained in regard to German and Austrian banks after the coming into force of the respective Treaties with Germany and Austria.

These banks will then be free either [to] resume their operations or to proceed with their liquidations. They will, however, remain subject to the police measures which the high Commissioners may find necessary to take in view of maintaining order in regard to all neutral banks.

[Page 740]

Appendix B to HD–74

greek delegation to
the peace conference

Note From the Greek Delegation Relative to the Sequestration of Property Belonging to the Greek Orthodox Community of Budapest

To the Secretary General of the Peace Conference:

There were at Budapest, and in other cities of Hungary, Greek orthodox communities which had property, the ownership of which in the case of the dissolution of these communities, was to have been returned to the Greek State.

The Soviet Government of Hungary proceeded July last to sequestrate property belonging to the Greek orthodox community of Budapest, recognized as having belonged to the community since the 18th Century, by the law of 1868.

This measure, taken by a revolutionary government, being contrary to the rights acquired and to prerogatives assured by the Treaties to all ethnic minorities, the Greek Delegation has the honor of begging the Peace Conference to be kind enough to insert in the Peace Treaty with Hungary a clause by virtue of which she would pledge herself to restore to their legitimate owners the property constituting the patrimony of the Greek Orthodox Communities in its territory.

Appendix C to HD–74

high commissariat
of the
french republic
political service
direction of political
and commercial affairs.

Asia Oceania No. 545

Letter From M. Defrance, Relative to the Repatriation of the Staff of the Turkish Embassy in Vienna

From: M. Defranee, High Commissioner of the French Kepublic in the East.

To: M. Pichon, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In re: Sending of telegram
From Damad Ferid Pacha.

The Grand Vizier having begged me to insure the transmission of a telegram to the Chargé d’Affaires of Turkey at Vienna, relative to the return to Constantinople of the personnel of the Ottoman Embassy and the maintenance of Ottoman Consuls in the Austro-Hungarian [Page 741] ex-Empire, I deemed it my duty to submit this request for the consideration of my colleagues of Great Britain and Italy.

In their meeting of the 18th instant, the Allied High Commissioners were of the opinion that the decision requested by the Ottoman Government depended on the assent of the Allied Governments.

Consequently, I have the honor of transmitting herewith to your Excellency, a copy of this telegram,5 leaving to your Excellency the care of forwarding it to the proper party, if an agreement is reached on this subject with the British and Italian Governments.

Appendix D to HD–74

delegation of the kingdom
of the serbs, croats and slovenes
to the peace conference

To the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference, Paris.

The total production of the coal mines located on the territory of the present kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, including the mines of Petchoui which are still in the territory occupied by our troops, amounted in 1913 to 292,720 tons monthly. The monthly consumption of coal in these territories amounted at the same time to 322,230 tons. The difference of 29,510 tons was to be covered by the importations from Germany, Austria and Great Britain.

It is well known that during the war the enemy has destroyed not only all the means of communication but has as well, especially during his retreat and by criminal action, rendered unexploitable and flooded almost all the coal mines in Serbia. The coal production has been thus completely annihilated and represents only at present, in spite of all the hard works of reconstruction, only one-tenth (1.10) of what it was before the war; it will only become normal again after several years.

The total production of the mines in the Kingdom of the S. C. S. has amounted in the month of July 1919, but only thanks to the help furnished by the mines of Petchoui, to 208,100 tons, a quantity which hardly suffices to assure the traffic of our roads of communication, which are only partly reestablished. The difference between the coal production before the war, for that matter insufficient at that time, and the present production amounts consequently to 300 carloads or 3,000 tons daily, which gives a deficit of 90,000 monthly, and that fact has a fatal repercussion upon the normal exploitation of the means of communication. If we take into account the necessities of industry which is at present, on account of the lack of coal, absolutely stopped, and also the needs in coal for heating in our country where winter lasts [Page 742] six months (nine-tenths of the territory being under continental climate), we can only foresee profound distress for our populations in a short time. The lack of coal necessary for the heating cannot be made up by wood because the coal deficit in the railways renders impossible the exploitation of the forests. There results for our country a pressing want of coal which can only be satisfied by the cession of the exploitation of the Petchoui mines under our administration.

The Petchoui mines are also indispensable to us for other reasons.

All the mines of our Kingdom produce presently nearly 800 carloads a day of which 300 carloads are extracted from the only mines of Trifail, in Slovenia. But the coal of Trifail cannot be used alone for the heating of the machines on account of its inferior quality (insufficience of calories); in order to be used it must be mixed up, as it has constantly been done so far, with coal of Petchoui. To deprive us of the latter would be equivalent to put us in the impossibility to use the coal of Trifail which would bring about a veritable catastrophe in our railroad communications which are considerably limited.

As we have just mentioned, our coal deficit before the war was covered by importations from Austria, Germany and Great Britain. We cannot rely upon the importations from Austria any more, the latter being also in want of coal. It is the same with Germany on account of her obligations of reparations, towards other Allied countries. On our side, we have addressed several requests to the Supreme Council in order to obtain the introduction into the Peace Treaty, as well with Germany as with Austria, of clauses according us, as reparations, the indispensable quantities of coal necessary to our consumption. Neither in the Treaty with Germany nor in the Treaty with Austria have our demands been taken into consideration, so that we shall receive nothing at all from those two countries.

As to the importation of coal from Great Britain, it is out of the question for a long period after the war, because the wants of Great Britain itself, as well as those of France and Italy who also are supplied by English mines, are very important. Moreover, the neighboring countries of our Kingdom, such as Italy, Rumania and Greece, either are deprived of mines, or have a small production.

In the Treaty with Bulgaria, it is true, a quantity has been granted to us but being only 50,000 tons a month, it is quite insufficient. We must, besides, add that the Treaty with Bulgaria contains restrictive conditions which render our right, even concerning that small quantity, illusory, the Interallied Commission being in reality, authorized to impose its veto if it deems that that coal is necessary for Bulgaria.

Finally, we should like to mention that the maintenance of the communications in our country depends exclusively upon the indispensable quantity and upon the necessary quantity of coal we shall dispose of; that maintenance has not only a vital importance for us, but has also [Page 743] a great international importance as it insures the liaison between the Orient and the Occident. Moreover, we produce great quantities of agricultural and forest products which would remain unutilized for lack of means of transportation; that is what happened to the harvest of last year which, after the armistice and for lack of means of transportation, has been wasted in greater part, despite the want which was felt for it in Western Europe and even in the different parts of our country. The same would happen to the present harvest if the present state continues.

All these facts are very well known to our Allies, who have verified them by their different missions sent to our country for that purpose. We hope that our State will succeed by working with great activity to reconstitute the destroyed mines and to improve the productions of the others, to produce in a few years a quantity of coal which, added to that which we shall receive, thanks to the facilities of the importation will satisfy our needs.

That is why we request that the exploitation of the Petchoui mines be, by the Treaty with Hungary, given to us for a short period of five years after which we think we shall be able to produce sufficiently for our consumption.

Consequently, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. has the honor to ask the Supreme Council to insert in the Treaty with Hungary, in the Chapter of Reparations, the following text:

“In compensation of the destruction of the coal mines in Serbia, and to be deducted from the amount of reparations of war damages owed by Hungary, the latter cedes to the Kingdom of the S. C. S. the exclusive right of exploitation of the coal mines located in the Petchoui basin (Pecs), for a period of five years after the going into force of the present treaty.

“In order to insure to the Kingdom of the S. C. S. the full liberty of exploitation of the said mines, Hungary promises henceforth to respect all the regulations made by the Government of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. concerning the exploitation of the said mines, as well as all other provisions relating thereto.”

Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to the Peace Conference

Appendix E to HD–74

Revised Draft of Communication From the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government Relative to the Signature of Peace With Austria

The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers have the honour to address to the Royal Government of the Serb-Croat-Slovene [Page 744] State an urgent reminder that they have not yet signed the Treaty of Peace with the Republic of Austria concluded at St. Germain-en-Laye on the 10th of September last, and the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State which was signed by the former on the same date.

Anxious to accord to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State every opportunity for consideration of the many important questions now before them, the Supreme Council have hitherto refrained from presenting to the Royal Government any request which might embarrass their position during a period of internal stress for the Council have always been animated by the warmest feelings of friendship and sympathy for the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, which they have been proud to consider an ally and associate alike in the conduct of the war, in the work of the Peace Conference and in the organization of the League of Nations.

They feel confident, therefore that the Royal Government will not persist in objections which could only be regarded as foreshadowing a policy tending to separate that country from the Allied and Associated Powers, who have heartily cooperated in the creation and in the full international recognition of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

It has, however, become impossible further to prolong the delay, and the Supreme Council must earnestly request that the Royal Government be good enough to notify them promptly that they are prepared to sign the Treaties without reservation.

Appendix F to HD–74

Note From German Delegation Dated October 17, 1919, on the Subject of Blockade Measures Enforced in the Baltic Sea

german peace delegation

The German Government urgently requests that the blockade measures taken concerning the Baltic Sea be limited to those which are militarily necessary and that the fishing rights, navigation between German ports, ferry navigation, the maintenance of light ships (Seesichendampfer) be unmolested.

Furthermore, the German Government requests the liberation of the German vessels captured because of unfamiliarity with orders issued, as is particularly the case concerning the coal tenders plying to Königsberg.

[Page 745]

Appendix G to HD–74

rumanian delegation
to the peace conference

Translation

From: M. Alex Voida Voevod.

To: M. Clemenceau.

The Rumanian Delegation has the honor of calling the kind attention of the Supreme Council of the Conference to the following facts:

By the Peace Treaty with Germany it was decided (Article 258 [238]) that Germany was obliged to restore the machines taken away, seized or sequestrated, as well as animals or objects of all kinds and securities taken away, seized or sequestrated; it is added that these restorations are to be made in conformity with the procedure established by the Reparations Commission.

We are informed that Members working on the execution of the Armistice Convention with Germany, in the commissions entrusted with effecting the said recoveries, have often found during the course of their researches objects of all kinds belonging to Rumania. In the same way, we are informed that in Germany endeavors have been made to return objects, machines, etc., taken away from Rumania, impossible of identification when the Commission, working in conformity with the procedure of the Reparations Commission, shall come to identify them.

This is why the Rumanian Delegation begs the Supreme Council of the Conference to kindly permit the attachment of Rumanian Delegates to the Commissions now operating in Germany for France and for Belgium, in execution of the Armistice Convention, with a view to effecting the recoveries. These delegates will indicate to the Commission, on every occasion, the property which belonged to Rumania so that proceedings may be drawn up, establishing the nature of the object, the place where it was found, etc.

In the same way, we beg the Supreme Council of the Conference to allow Rumanian Delegates to make researches in this respect, even in the localities where the Commissions have already finished their work.

Owing to the importance of the interests at stake, and that Rumania is not in a position—as is shown above—to recover her property, which in this way would remain to the profit of the Germans, I dare hope, Mr. President, that thanks to the kind support which your excellency will be good enough to give our demand, it will find in the midst of the Supreme Council a speedy solution.

Please accept, etc.

[No signature on file copy]
  1. Appendix A to HD–73, p. 718.
  2. French Representative, Commission on Colonial Mandates.
  3. The document referred to is a letter containing the proposal of the National Lutheran Council of the United States to take over the German Lutheran Missions in different parts of the world. (Paris Peace Conf. 185.18/35, 38.)
  4. The document referred to does not accompany the minutes.