Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume VIII

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/75

HD–75

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 Thursday, October 23, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, October 23, 1919, 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. Scialoja
  • Secretary
    • Don Ascanio Colonna
  • Japan
    • M. Mafcsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. 6. A. Gordon
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
  • Dr. J. B. Scott
  • Mr. A. W. Dulles
• British Empire
  • Mr. Tufton
  • Mr. A. Leeper
  • Commander Macdonald, R. N.
• France
  • Marshal Foch
  • General Weygand
  • General Le Bond
  • M. Fromageot
  • M. Aubert
• Italy
  • M. Ricci-Busatti
  • M. Vannutelli-Rey
• Japan
  • M. Shigemitsu.

1. (The Council had before it a communication from the President of the German Peace Delegation, dated Paris, October 22, 1919, addressed to Mr. Polk (See Appendix “A”).) Communication From the German Peace Delegation Relative to the Sending of German and Austrian Delegates to the International Labor Congress at Washington

Mr. Polk called the attention of the Council to the second paragraph of the communication from the President of the German Peace Delegation, which stated that,

“The Austrian Government will probably likewise appoint delegates who will travel together with the Germans, and whose number and names will likewise be communicated at a very early date.”

He thought that it was most surprising that the German Peace Delegation should undertake to answer with respect to the attendance of Austrian Delegates to the International Labor Congress. He stated that a liaison officer of the American Delegation had been instructed to call Baron von Lersner’s attention to this matter and that Baron Rochoff would likewise be asked by what authority the German Delegation assumed to speak for the Austrian Government in this matter. These inquiries would be made orally and he would communicate the result thereof.

M. Pichon said that the Council approved of the action of the United States Delegation; it could not be admitted that the German Peace Delegation should assume this authority.

2. (The Council had before it a report of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty with Germany, dated October 21, 1919 (See Appendix “B”).) Report of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty With Germany Relative to the Organization of Plabiscite Commissions in Silesia, Allenstein and Marienwerder

General Le Rond read and commented upon this report. He pointed out that the British maintained their exception with respect to members of Plebiscite Commissions being paid by their respective Governments.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that, pursuant to a resolution of the Council adopted October 15, 1919 (H. D. 70 Minute 4 [5]),¹ he had referred the question of payment of members of Commissions of Delimitation by their respective Governments to his Government, which had replied that it accepted the principle that “ordinary army pay” of these members should be defrayed by their respective Governments.

General Le Rond observed that these words were the English equivalent of the “solde” mentioned in the Committee’s report.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he was not sure of the exact definition of “ordinary army pay”, inasmuch as officers in the British Army were entitled, over and above such pay, to ordinary and special allowances. He would refer the question to his Government for an exact definition, but he felt confident that his Government would admit the same principle relative to the payment of members of Plebiscite Commissions. He wished, however, to now raise a somewhat more important question: strictly speaking, the cases of Dantzig and Memel were not exactly similar: the Treaty had not provided specifically for troops of occupation in these two districts, and therefore there was no provision that the: payment of such troops as might be used as troops of occupation should be a charge on local revenues. The Council, however, had decided that troops of occupation might be used in these two districts;² it was therefore necessary to decide in principle as to the method of payment of such troops, should they be used as troops of occupation. He thought that on the principle laid down in the Treaty with respect to other troops of occupation the payment of such troops should be a charge upon local revenues.

M. Pichon saw no objection to this.

Mr. Polk suggested that, although no formal occupation of Dantzig had been decided upon, it had, nevertheless, been designated as a base. Should not the payment of these base troops, therefore, be deemed part of the expenses of the occupation of Upper Silesia?

General Le Rond added that, in accordance with this suggestion, the payment of these troops should rather be deemed part of the expenses of the occupation of Allenstein and Marienwerder, inasmuch as Dantzig was to serve as a base for these two districts.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that the base troops, however, might be used as troops of occupation of the city of Dantzig upon the demand of the High Commissioner, in which case Dantzig should bear the expense of the maintenance of such troops.

General Le Rond desired to point out to the Council the situation which his Committee had considered. In determining whether or not troops of occupation should at once be sent to Dantzig, it had thought that inasmuch as the present situation in Dantzig was a provisional one there was no basis in right, at the present time, for sending troops of occupation to Dantzig. The troops which would be sent there could at present only be used as base troops, but could not be used as troops of occupation before the appointment of the High Commissioner; thereafter they could only be so used upon the demand of the High Commissioner.

(It was decided:

(1) to approve the recommendations of the report of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty with Germany relative to the organization of Plebiscite Commissions in Silesia, Allenstein and Marienwerder (See Appendix “B”), with the reservation that Sir Eyre Crowe should request the agreement of the British Government to the opinion, expressed by the other Delegations, that the members of such Commissions should be paid by their respective Governments;

(2) that the principle that the payment of troops of occupation should be a charge upon the local revenues of the territories occupied should apply to such troops as might be used as troops of occupation in Dantzig and Memel.)

3. (The Council had before it a report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty with Germany on the Commissions to be named during the first weeks following the entry into force of the Treaty. (See Appendix “C”.)) Report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty With Germany on the Commissions To Be Named During the First Weeks Following the Entry into Force of the Treaty

The report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty was read, and in the course of its reading the following remarks were made:

Mr. Polk reminded the Council that the United States could not be represented on any Commissions prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the Senate.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that although he had a complete list of British appointments to the Commissions in question, he thought it inadvisable to present these piece-meal during the reading of this report and suggested that each Delegation present to the Secretary-General of the Conference its nominations for the Commissions mentioned in the Committee’s report. This suggestion was approved.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that with respect to the Delimitation Commission for Dantzig, the Treaty provided that three Nations should be represented on this Commission, but it had not yet been decided which three nations were to be so represented.

General Le Bond pointed out that the Council had already approved the recommendations of a prior report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty that the members of the Delimitation Commission for Dantzig should be drawn from the Germano-Polish Delimitation Commission and that the presidency of these two Commissions should be held by the same person, in this case General Dupont.³ Therefore, only two members of this Commission still remained to be named.

M. Pichon thought it would be well that one of these members should be British.

Sir Eyre Crowe agreed.

M. Pichon added that since the United States could not be represented the choice lay between Italy and Japan.

General Le Bond thought it was more suitable for Italy to be represented, since Japan had fewer representatives on the Germano-Polish Delimitation Commission.

M. Scialoja said that although Italy did not ask to be represented it did not object to being represented.

General Le Rond pointed out that the Treaty provided that Germano-Polish Delimitation Commission should be constituted 15 days after the entry into force of the Treaty, but that the Supreme Council on July 16th⁴ had decided that this Commission should be on the spot and enter into operation on the day of the entry into force of the Treaty. The same was true of the Dantzig Delimitation Commission by virtue of the Supreme Council’s decision of October 15, (H. D. 70, Minute 4 [5]).⁵

M. Berthelot observed that this brought up again the whole question of what was the proper day for putting the Treaty into force: he remarked that it had also been decided that the troops of occupation were to be on the spot on the day in question.

General Weygand pointed out that there were three questions to be considered; first, the Delimitation Commissions, second, the Plebiscite Commissions, third, the troops of occupation. Did the Council fully intend to have the troops ready to be at their appointed destinations on the day the Treaty came into force?

M. Pichon said that this was the Council’s opinion and he wished to know what date the troops would be ready to start.

General Weygand replied that the French troops could entrain on November 5th, and he thought the British troops were now ready. The question of the number of battalions to be furnished by Italy was still unsettled: the three battalions that Italy had agreed to furnish for service in Upper Silesia were now ready to start, but the question of whether Italy would furnish the remaining four battalions designated as her share in the report of the Special Commission (See Appendix 1 [A], H. D. 72),⁶ was still undetermined. He had been informed by General Bliss that, although American troops could not be used as troops of occupation prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate, troops were now on their way to Coblenz and would be held there until such time as this ratification might take place. They would then at once be ordered to proceed to zones of occupation. He pointed out that the question of transportation still remained to be solved. This question was most serious with respect to troops destined to occupy Upper Silesia. It was extremely difficult to ask the Germans for more transportation than they had been asked for upon the occasion of the passage of General Haller’s troops. Having in mind the transport of supplies, as well as of troops, at the rate of six trains per day, the movement would require fifteen days.

M. Berthelot calculated that on this basis the 11th of November might be a suitable date for putting the Treaty into operation.

General Weygand said that this date was satisfactory as far as the troops were concerned but it should be remembered that very little time was left in which to take various other necessary measures. The various Commissions had to arrive at their destinations prior to the entry into force of the Treaty and likewise the Germans should be informed of that date as far ahead as possible in order that they might take all necessary measures of evacuation.

Mr. Polk asked, for information, whether the troops of occupation were to be at their appointed destination on the day of ratification or within fifteen days thereafter.

General Weygand replied that the troops were to be in place within fifteen days after ratification but that in order to effect this result it would be necessary for the troops of occupation to begin to arrive in their respective zones on the day the Treaty came into force: clearly these zones could not be occupied prior to the ratification of the Treaty.

M. Pichon asked again if the Council desired to decide on the 11th November as the day of putting the Treaty, into operation.

General Weygand repeated that this would be satisfactory from a military point of view, except that the question of the contingent to be furnished by the Italians must be settled before a definite decision could be arrived at. He wished to add that the Italian Military Representative had always maintained a reservation on this point.

M. Pichon said that the distribution of forces decided upon by the Supreme Council must be followed out, and he desired to insist most pressingly upon Italy furnishing the full contingent demanded of her by the Special Commission’s report, especially since, prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate, the four American battalions destined for Upper Silesia would not be sent there.

Sir Eyre Crowe inquired if the absence of American troops of occupation prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate would not adversely affect the distribution of troops of occupation provided for by the report of the Special Commission.

M. Pichon said that the eventual use of United States troops was to be considered, and added that he did not wish an attitude to be adopted which would appear to exclude United States troops from eventually participating in occupation.

Mr. Polk remarked that everything depended upon the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate. He wished to repeat that United States troops were en route and would be held at Coblenz ready to be sent to zones of occupation.

M. Pichon asked Marshal Foch whether, in the present absence of United States troops destined eventually for participation in the occupation of Upper Silesia, he had enough troops to maintain order there.

Marshal Foch said that he must first know if he was going to have at his disposal the remaining fourteen battalions, all ready to move on November 5th.

M. Scialoja said he would try to obtain a satisfactory reply from his Government immediately.

General Le Rond pointed out that the Plebiscite Commissions, for instance in Silesia, being essentially Government Commissions, they should arrive at their destination in plenty of time to confer with the outgoing German officials, so as to be able on the day of the entry into force of the Treaty to take up the Government of these districts without any hitch.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that as soon as the date of the entry into force of the Treaty was definitely determined upon, someone should be designated to settle all such matters with the German Government.

M. Pichon said that Marshal Foch was the best person to do this.

M. Scialoja objected that plebiscite Commissions were not of a military nature.

M. Berthelot replied that they were closely concerned with military affairs. Until the Armistice came to an end Marshal Foch was the properly qualified person to treat with the German Government on all such matters.

Mr. Polk asked with reference to the Committee’s report respecting “Persons to be delivered by Germany”, when the demand for such individuals would be made.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that, for many reasons which had already been discussed, the day of the entrance into force of the Treaty would be the appropriate date for making such a demand.

M. Berthelot, in pointing out the provision in the Committee’s report with reference to the Government of Memel, said that in view of the small size of the Memel district there was no objection to the British Commander exercising both civil and military functions.

M. Pichon suggested that the whole question could be settled by agreeing to take all necessary measures for putting the Treaty into force on November 11th, 1919. M. Dutasta had informed him that he was going to see Baron von Lersner on that night, and he wished to inquire whether M. Dutasta should tell Baron von Lersner that the Treaty would be put into force on November 11th.

Mr. Polk observed that if Baron von Lersner were told this he would undoubtedly publish it immediately.

Marshal Foch said that it would be better to simply inform Baron von Lersner that his Government would be notified of the date of entrance into force of the Treaty in sufficient time for it to take all measures necessary to be taken by it prior to that date.

(It was decided:

(1) that the Delegations of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should immediately submit to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference the list of the representatives they desired to name upon the Commissions which, under the terms of the Treaty with Germany, must begin to operate during the first weeks following the entry into force of said Treaty;

(2) that the 11th day of November, 1919, should provisionally be considered the date of the entry into force of the Treaty with Germany;

(3) that everything should be done to insure the completion prior to that date of all measures constituting conditions precedent to the proper and effective entry into force of said Treaty, and to effectually dispose of all reservations hindering or preventing such entry into force;

(4) that the German Peace Delegation should not yet be informed of the tentative date of the entry into force of the Treaty, but that in reply to this Delegation’s inquiry as to such date it should be informed that the German Government would be informed of the date of the entry into force of the Treaty in ample time to enable it to take all measures necessary to be taken by it prior to such date.)

4. (The Council had before it a report of the Drafting Committee on the cost of transportation to and maintenance in foreign countries of German subjects convicted of serious offenses against members of the forces of occupation or against the property or authority of forces of occupation in Germany. (See Appendix “D”.) Report of the Drafting Committee on Cost of Transportation to and Maintenance in Foreign Countries of German Subjects Convicted of Serious Offences Against Members of Forces of Occupation or Against the Property of Authority of Such Forces in Germany

Mr. Polk stated that he was entirely satisfied with the report of the Drafting Committee. He wished to add that he had already recommended to the military authorities that the procedure in question should only be followed in very serious cases and he hoped there would be very few more of these.

(It was decided:

to adopt the report of the Drafting Committee on cost of transportation to and maintenance in foreign countries of German subjects convicted of serious offenses against members of the forces of occupation or against the property or authority of forces of occupation in Germany. (See Appendix “D”).)

5. (The Council had before it a note from the Bulgarian Delegation dated Neuilly-sur-Seine, October 12th, 1919, (See Appendix “E”), and another note from the Bulgarian Delegation dated Neuilly-sur-Seine, October 21st, 1919, (See Appendix “F”).) Protest of the Bulgarian Delegation Against the Evacuation of Western Thrace

M. Berthelot read the two notes of protest. He pointed out that a fait accompli now existed and that the question raised by the Bulgarian Delegation had become purely academic. He added that the occupation of the district in question by the Greek troops had taken place without any disturbance, and he thought that as the Bulgarians would deliver their answer to the Peace terms on the following day there was nothing further to be done until this answer had been received.

Mr. Polk submitted a draft of the following questions to be addressed to General Franchet D’Esperey and requested that General D’Esperey should be asked to report immediately by telegraph on the following points:

(a) whether the Bulgarians were actually evacuating Thrace.

(b) what troops were proceeding to the evacuated territory.

(c) whether other Allied troops than Greek were taking part in the preliminary occupation.

(d) whether satisfactory precautions were being taken to prevent a possible Greek occupation of territory outside of their zone of occupation.

General Weygand replied that Marshal Foch was in possession of the information requested and that he would reply to all these questions.

Mr. Polk stated that if all the information was here he would merely ask Marshal Foch to give him the answers to these questions.

(It was decided:

(1) that there was no necessity at the present time of replying to the Bulgarian protest against the evacuation of Thrace;

(2) that Marshal Foch should supply the Council with all pertinent information relative to the conditions of the evacuation of Thrace and its occupation by Allied troops.

5 [6]. M. Berthelot referred to the decision of the Supreme Council (H. D. 72, Minute 1, (7), October 18th, 1919)⁷ “that the Inter-Allied Commissions sent into the zones of occupation should choose their own Presidents, without it being necessary for them to be of the nationality as the Commanding Officers in the corresponding zones of occupation.” He stated that M. Clemenceau thought it better for the Council to designate the Presidents of these Commissions after the lists of appointees to these various Commissions had been transmitted to the Secretary General of the Conference by the various Delegations. Presidency of Commissions in Zones of Occupation

M. Pichon said that when the lists were submitted to the Secretary General, this question could be taken up again.

(The meeting then adjourned)

Hotel Crillon, Paris , October 23, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–75

president of the
german peace delegation

Paris, October 22, 1919.

[The President of the German Peace Delegation (Von Lersner) to Mr. Frank L. Polk]

Mr. Under-Secretary for State: In reply to your esteemed letter of October 13,⁸ I have the honor to state that, in accordance with the constitution of the German Labor Organization, The German Government is prepared to send delegates to the Conference at Washington. Provisionally, their number will be eleven; I must still reserve, most respectfully, the communication of the names of the gentlemen.

The Austrian Government will probably likewise appoint delegates who will travel together with the Germans, and whose number and names will likewise be communicated at a very early date.

I should be grateful to Your Excellency for the kind provision of places on a steamer, and for information of the time and place of its sailing.

Please accept [etc.]

Baron von Lersner

To His Excellency,
Mr. Under-Secretary for State, Frank L. Polk,
Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the United States of North America, Paris, Hotel Crillon.

Appendix B to HD–75

peace conference
sub-committee on execution
of the clauses of the
peace treaty

October 21, 1919.

Note to the Supreme Council

In compliance with the resolution taken by the Supreme Council in its session of October 18,⁹ the Sub-Committee on Execution assembled to determine the basis upon which it must establish “the rate of indemnities of the plebiscite Commissions, after having consulted the representatives of these Commissions.”

The study of the question brought up the following points which the Sub-Committee on Execution has the honor to submit to the Supreme Council:

a) By the very terms of the Treaty, the said Commissions are directed, at a fixed date, to assume, in the name of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers the government of the territory submitted to their authority, in lieu of the German Government, and to exercise this government until the delivery of this territory to the State or States to which it may be attributed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers after the execution of the plebiscite.

These various Commissions, although, at times, they have been designated as Plebiscite Commissions, are, therefore, Government Commissions both in fact and in deed.

b) By the terms of Articles 88, 95 and 97, which define the duties, the authorities, and the responsibilities of these various Commissions, as in the spirit which guided the drafting of these Articles, these Commissions should govern, by maintaining in function in so far as possible to be judged by them according to circumstances—the functionaries of administrative order.

Their composition therefore will allow them:

on one hand, to insure the governing of the territory,

and on the other, to direct, supervise and control thoroughly the execution of the various administrative services by the existing functionaries.

From the date on which the powers of government will be transferred from the German authorities to the Commission, the responsibility of the government and of the administration devolves, in fact, entirely upon the Commission, mandatory of the P. A. A. P.;¹⁰ it is probable, furthermore, to expect ill will and inertia, and perhaps certain more serious forms of resistance, on the part of the German administrative personnel, at the disposition of the Commission.

It is important therefore to place in each commission, at the disposition of the representatives of the P. A. A. P., the necessary means for the effective accomplishment of their difficult mission, and, in particular, a personnel of technical and administrative order, destined for the supervision and control of the various branches of the administration of the territory.

c) Aside from these general characteristics in common, the Commissions of Government to Upper Silesia, Allenstein and Marienwerder will vary according to the extent of the territory, the population, the political and economic importance of the country, as well as for the duration of their mission, to be provided for, and its responsibilities.

d) The composition of these various commissions will, naturally, be consistent both in the general characteristics which are common to them, as with the conditions of operation which differentiate them.

The Treaty made provision, in the Articles relative to each one of these commissions, only for the representatives of the P. A. A. P., in a word, the directing committee of the Commission. It authorized the P. A. A. P. to provide for the detailed constitution of each one of these commissions with a view to responding to its particular functions.

It seems that, concerning each particular commission, it appertains to the representatives of the P. A. A. P., which constitute the directing committee to proceed with the detailed study relative to the composition of the commission.

e) Although the sub-Committee on Execution must await the results of this preliminary study, it esteems that, at the present time, it is expedient to determine certain principles for the establishment of the rates of indemnity:

The above cited articles of the Treaty stipulate that “the expenses of the Commission, both concerning its operation and for the administration of the zone, shall be deducted from the local revenues.”

The various indemnities to be allotted to the personnel of the commission by virtue of its functions in the commission are incontestably comprised in this definition.

There remains for decision whether the salaries or the normal indemnities of the officers and functionaries are to be included therein, or if they shall be paid to the officer or to the functionary by his own Government.

On this point, the Sub-Committee on Execution proposes, with the exception of the British Delegation, which reserves its acceptance, that the normal salaries of the officers or functionaries be paid them out of the budget of the State to which they belong.

As to the operating expenses, the sub-Committee on Execution esteems it fitting to establish the following classes of indemnities, variable, for that matter, according to the importance and the duties of each commission:

1st—Representatives of the P. A. A. P. in the Commission; the representative^* who shall exercise the Presidency of the commission, shall receive a supplementary indemnity corresponding with his expenses as President.

2nd—First class functionaries, civil or military.	}	classification to be established according to the importance of the function exercised.
3rd—do. Second Class
4th—do. Third Class

Appendix C to HD–75

List of the Commissions Which Should Be Nominated During the First Weeks Following the Entry Into Force of the Treaty, and Measures Already Adopted and To Be Adopted

Time limit	Article or page	Commissions	Countries having designated members			Countries having organized the personnel
(A) By the Allied and Associated Governments
I.?Delimitation Commissions
15 days after entry into force	Art. 35, p. 24	Germano-Belgian	G. B.—F. I.—J. yes			J. G. B.	}	en
						F.		route
						I.J.		yes
15 days	Art. 87, p. 50	Germano-Polish	yes			yes
15 days	Art. 101, p. 60	Dantzing	yes			Yes
15 days	Art. 83, p. 48	Polono-Czecho-Slo-vak	in preparation			in preparation
15 days after plebiscite	Art. 3[111], p. 64	Schleswig	in preparation			in preparation
II.—Plebiscite and Government Commissions
Upon the entry in force of the Treaty	Art. 88, annex p. 52	Upper Silesia	G. B.	}	yes	G. B. yes
			I.			I.	}	no
			Fr. no			F.
15 days	Art. 95, p. 56	Allenstein	G. B.	}	yes	G. B. incomplete
			J.			J. yes
			F.	}	no	F.	}	no
			I.			I.
15 days	Art. 97, p. 57	Marienwerder	G. B.	}	no	G. B.	}	no
			F.			F.
			I.			I.
			J. yes			J. yes
Upon the entry in force	Art. 109, p. 63	Schleswig	in action			in action
III.—Miscellaneous
No time specified	Arrangement Art. 2, p. 2.	Rhine territories	in action			in action
	Art. 203 and following arts. p. 93 & following	Military Control	}	in action		in action
		Naval
		Aerial
To be specified	Art. 115, p. 66	Destruction of Heli-goland fortifications	To be drawn from Naval Supervision Commission
As soon as possible after entry into force	Art. 215, p. 97	Prisoners of War	G. B.	}	yes	yes
			I.
			F.
			J.
Upon entry into force	Art. 233, p. 102 and annex 2, p. 107	Reparations	G. B.	}	yes	Progressively by the organization Commission.
			J.
			I.
			F. no.
Upon the entry in force	Art. 354, p. 180	Rhine	G. B.	}	no.	no.
			F.
Upon entry into force 1	Art. 346, p. 178	Danube	Nothing			Nothing
3 months	Art. 340 & 343, p. 177	Elbe	Nothing			Nothing
3 months	Art. 341 & 343, p. 177	Oder	Nothing			Nothing
		Persons to be delivered by Germany	F.	}	yes
			G. B.
			I.
			J.
Upon entry into force	Art. 99, p. 58	Government of Memel	Military Occupation provided Govern’t no.
Upon entry into force	Art. 102, p. 60	Temporary administration of Dantzig.	English member designated to be replaced.
Upon entry into force.	Art. 119, p. 68	German Colonies	Prolongation of present regime
3 months	Art. 300 & 304 pp. 153 & 160	Mixed arbitral Tribunal	Nothing
	Art. 296, p. 140	Verification and compensation offices.	Nothing
No time specified	Art. 227, p. 100	International Tribunal to Judge Wm. II	Nothing
No time specified	Art. 364, p. 185	Delimitation of neutral zones for Czecho-Slovaksin ports of Hamburg & Stettin.	(3 delegates to be named: 1 German, 1 Czechoslovak) nothing done.
do.	Art. 371, 30 p. 188	Distribution of Railroad material.	Nothing (concerns Reparations Commission)
1 month	Art. 259, 30 p. 126	Reception of gold of Ottoman public debt deposited in Reichsbank.	Nothing (concerns Reparations Commission)
B.—By the League of Nations
Upon convocation by Prest. Of U. S.	Art. 4 & 5, p. 10	Council	Yes (under reservation of telegram sent by Mr Polk).
15 days	Art. 48, p. 28	Delimitation of Saar Basin
No time specified	Art. 50 Annex Par. 17, p. 32	Government of Saar Basin
do	Art. 103, p. 60	High Commissioner Dantzig.

Appendix D to HD–75

October 21, 1919.

Note for the Supreme Council

(Expenses of penitentiary services in the occupied territories)

By the terms of Article IV of the Armistice, the upkeep of the troops of occupation in the Rhineland (not including Alsace-Lorraine) will be at the expense of the German Government.

The expenses for the maintenance of order and of the police, and consequently for the repression of crime and misdemeanors committed against the troops of occupation, are expenses necessitated by the maintenance of the said troops and must therefore be paid by Germany.

The question to regulate is, whether, in the case of serious crimes and misdemeanors, the presence of the sentenced party presents dangers for the troops of occupation and justifies removal outside of occupied territory, this is a question of fact, capable of being judged only by the military authority.

Consequently, the Allied and Associated Power, responsible for the occupying military authorities, is justified in charging Germany on the occupation expense account with the expenses above referred to. Thus it is with expenses of transport to and upkeep in the United States of parties sentenced for serious crimes to more than 5 years imprisonment by the American military authorities of occupation.

For the Drafting Committee

Henri Fromageot

Appendix E to HD–75

bulgarian delegation to
the peace conference
No. 387

Neuilly-sur-Seine, October 12, 1919.

From: M. K. Sarafov,

To: M. Clemenceau.

The Royal Government has just informed me by telegram, dated October 9, which arrived today, that the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies of the East, basing himself on Article 27 of the Peace Conditions, has asked the Bulgarian Government to proceed to the evacuation of Thrace, stipulating that this operation must be terminated on the 14th of this month, at noon.

On this subject, the Bulgarian Delegation has the honor of presenting the following remarks:

From a legal point of view, the present obligations of Bulgaria concerning its frontiers with regard to the Allied and Associated Powers are explicitly regulated by the Armistice Convention of September 29, 1918,¹¹ which in one of its clauses provides for the evacuation of Thrace.

On the other hand, the evacuation of Thrace cannot be based on Article 27 of the project of the Treaty, because it has not legal force, owing to the fact that Bulgaria up to the present time has not given her adhesion to it, and consequently one cannot impose upon Bulgaria such an obligation.

The very fact of demanding this evacuation, it being based on this project, has caused a painful surprise to the entire people. The Bulgarian Delegation has just been informed by Your Excellency that the Supreme Council, granting its request, has decided that the delay for the handing over of the answer by Bulgaria to the Peace Conditions is extended for 10 days. The execution of the demand of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies would be equivalent therefore to the application of a project on the subject of which Bulgaria has not yet even presented her remarks.

Besides, no consideration of fact whatsoever justifies at the present time the demand formulated by the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies of the East and its premature execution would be of a nature to raise serious difficulties in the country.

The question of the previous evacuation of Thrace at a time when the Bulgarian people is yet under the impress of the great territorial sacrifices which are required by the Treaty, and at a moment when Bulgaria is going through a political crisis of an exceptional importance, would submit the country to the most painful trials. Under these conditions, the maintenance of order and calm would constitute an overwhelming task for any government.

The delay fixed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies of the East expiring October 14, the Bulgarian Delegation by order of its Government has the honor to beg the Supreme Council not to refuse to take the necessary measures before this delay expires.

With the hope that Your Excellency will be good enough to take a kind interest in this matter, please accept, etc.

[No signature on file copy]

Appendix F to HD–75

bulgarian delegation to
the peace conference
No. 424

Neuilly-sur-Seine, October 21, 1919.

From: M. Th. Theodoroff,

To: M. Clemenceau.

In its note of October 12th,¹² the Bulgarian Delegation, by order of its Government, had the honor of setting forth the reasons of right and of fact for which it begged that the unjustified demand of the General, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies in the East, relative to the evacuation of Western Thrace by the Bulgarian authorities, be revoked.

Even before being honored by a reply from the Conference the Bulgarian Delegation has just learned that the order, forming the subject of the note in question above, has begun to be executed.

A telegram, sent from Sofia the 13th instant, and received the 19th, informs us “that the IX Greek Division intends to enter Xanthi on October 16th. The local population, despite the advice given it, despite encouragements tending to reassure it, has begun to leave their homes. The state in which these unfortunates are is indescribable.”

On the other hand, this morning’s papers announce that the IX Greek Division, received, on October 19th, at the Xanthi railroad station by the Commander of the Allied troops in Thrace, General Charpy, entered the city and General Charpy entered Gumurdjina on the same day.

From this information it may be seen that not only the occupation of a part of Western Thrace is already an accomplished fact, but that it has been carried out by Greek troops.

Now, on October 8th again the Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. Mad jar off, following the declarations of the Commander of the Danube Army, General Claudel, concerning the eventual occupation of Thrace by Greek troops, categorically objected inasmuch as these facts are in absolute contradiction with Article II of the Armistice Convention, concluded on September 29th, 1918, at Salonika. The Article referred to prescribes only the occupation of certain strategic points in Bulgaria, and only by troops of the Great Allied Powers and not by Greek troops.

The Bulgarian Delegation deems it its duty to observe once more that these facts constitute a most flagrant violation of the Armistice Convention of Salonika and of the regulations known as the Rights of People. The matter concerned in this case is only a previous and compulsory execution of Article XXVII of the Peace Scheme, before the Conference received the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation which are to be submitted to the Conference in writing on October 24, before this scheme be approved and signed by the interested parties, before its being put into effect and becoming obligatory.

The Bulgarian Delegation is all the more surprised by the events which happened in Western Thrace because it has not received, so far, any information of the decision of the Conference concerning that subject. If really such a decision has been taken, the Delegation was first entitled to receive notification of it.

In regard to the foregoing, the Bulgarian Delegation, following the instructions received by its Government, is obliged to make all necessary reserves on the subject of the arbitrary dispositions of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies in the East, concerning Western Thrace, as well as on the subject of the consequences which might result from them.

Please accept, etc.

[No signature on file copy]

1. Ante, p. 648.
2. HD–70, minute 3, p. 641.
3. HD–70, minute 5, and appendices C and D thereto, pp. 643, 651, and 655.
4. HD–8, minute 3 (c), vol. vii, p. 160.
5. Ante, p. 643.
6. Ante, p. 695.
7. Ante, p. 684.
8. For draft of letter, see appendix A to HD–68, p. 583.
9. HD–72, minute 10, p. 694.
10. Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
11. The mission of governing which devolves on the Commission, carries a permanent Presidency during the entire duration of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
11. Vol. ii, p. 241.
12. Supra.