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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/81

HD–81

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 Saturday, November 1, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.

Paris, November 1, 1919, 3:30 p.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. Berthelot
    • M. de Saint Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. Scialoja
  • Secretary
    • M. Barone Russo
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Gordon
British Empire	Capt. G. Lothian SmaU
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
  • General Bliss
  • Rear Admiral McCully
  • Lt. Commander Roehler
  • Dr. I. Bowman
  • Mr. A. W. Dulles
• British Empire
  • Hon. C. H. Tufton
  • Lt. Col. Kisch
  • Captain Fuller, R. N.
  • Commander Dunne, R. N.
  • Commander McNamara, R. N.
  • Mr. A. Leeper.
• France
  • General Weygand
  • General Desticker
  • M. Sergent
  • M. Henri Berenger
  • M. Laroche
  • M. Larnaude
  • Commandant Le Vavasseur
  • Commandant La Combe
  • M. de Montille
• Italy
  • General Cavallero
  • M. Vannutelli-Rey
  • M. Mancioli
  • Capt. de cor. Ruspoli
  • Prince Boncampagni
• Japan
  • M. Shigemitsu
  • M. Nagaoka
  • M. Adatci
  • Commandant Ohsumi

1. Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he had reached an agreement with Mr. Polk and M. Henri Berenger with respect to paragraph 3, page 3, of the Drafting Committee’s draft Protocol,¹ concerning which a reservation had been made at the preceding meeting of the Council. That paragraph now read[s] as follows: Protocol Relative to Unec=xecuted Clauses of the Armistice Clauses of the Armistice

“10—Convention of January 16th, 1919, Clause VIII: Obligation to put the entire German Mercantile Marine at the disposal of the Allied and Associated Powers. A certain number of vessels, whose delivery had been demanded by virtue of this clause, have not yet been handed over.”

The question of the final distribution of tank ships remained undecided as between the Allies.

(It was decided:

that the third paragraph of page 3 of the draft Protocol should read as follows:

“10—Convention of January 16th, 1919.—Clause VIII: Obligation to put the entire German Mercantile Marine at the disposal of the Allied and Associated Powers. A certain number of vessels, whose delivery had been demanded by virtue of this clause, have not yet been handed over.”)

2. (The Council had before it the draft reply prepared by the Central Territorial Committee (See Appendix “A”).) Reply to the Bulgarian Counter-Proposals

M. Laroche stated that, as a result of the decision the taken by the Council at its morning meeting,² this Committee had prepared a draft reply relative to the frontiers of Bulgaria (See Appendix “B”).

(He then read the text of this draft reply, which was approved.)

(The draft replies concerning Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), Part III, Section IV (Protection of Minorities), Part IV, Section II (Naval Clauses), and Part IV, Section III (Clauses concerning Military and Naval Aviation), were approved, with the exception that the third paragraph of this last draft reply (Part IV, Section III) was eliminated.)

M. Laroche said that the Military Representatives were in favor of suppressing Secret Articles I, II and III of the Military Convention. The Naval Commission, which had met that morning, was likewise in favor of suppressing Secret Article IV. Thus, all the Secret Articles were suppressed, and the answer could be made to Bulgaria that she would not have to concern herself with expenses of occupation after the coming into force of the Treaty, inasmuch as after that time there would be no occupation. The Military Representatives were disagreed on two points of the Military Clauses. Three Delegations thought that Bulgaria’s demands concerning the reintroduction of obligatory military service could not be accepted at the present time, but that the question should later be examined anew. This was the opinion of the American, French and Italian Delegations. The Japanese Delegation was not represented. The British Delegation was opposed to this concession. Likewise, the British Delegation could not agree to the recommendation of the majority of the Military Representatives that Bulgaria should be authorized to form a corps of frontier guards consisting of 3,000 men.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the first question was one on which the British Government could not change its position. If the head of his Government were there, he was sure that he would not yield; for a principle was at stake on which there could be no compromise. If a concession were made to Bulgaria on this point she would be granted an advantage which no other enemy had obtained. Moreover, having in mind the principle of eventual disarmament, the abolition of conscription was an unquestioned step in advance. The British Empire had introduced this principle and he thought the United States would likewise do so. On the other hand, with respect to the second point, the British Delegation might accept a compromise; it would accept the view of the majority if it were distinctly understood that the corps of frontier guards should only be recruited by voluntary enlistment.

M. Pichon said that he agreed with the British argument. This principle had been applied with respect to other enemy Powers, and there was no reason to make an exception here.

General Desticejsr explained that all the Military Representatives had realized that it was a serious matter to modify an accepted principle, but that Bulgaria had adduced concrete arguments which appeared to be of considerable weight; he pointed out that, for a population of 65,000,000 inhabitants in Germany, the Council had allowed an Army of 100,000 men. Being an agricultural country, Bulgaria, with 5,000,000 inhabitants could never recruit 20,000 men. If the proportion was to be maintained, either the Bulgarian Army should be reduced to 7,000 or 8,000 men, or the German Army should be increased to 260,000 men.

M. Pichon pointed out that the same reasoning could have been applied to Austria. Nevertheless the army of Austria, with a population of 6,000,000 had been fixed at 30,000. To violate a principle is more serious than to be illogical in a matter of proportion.

General Cavallero observed that the Military Representatives had not failed to bear in mind the question of Austria; they had thought, however, that Austria, a country with a large urban population and comprising in its territory the remnants of a large army, would only encounter difficulties of a financial nature in recruiting a volunteer army. On the other hand, Bulgaria was an agricultural country whose population showed no taste for military service. They had thought that an army of 20,000 men was necessary to Bulgaria. She should be able to recruit such an army, or else the contrary to what was necessary for the maintenance of order would be arrived at. Finally it should not be forgotten that there were in Bulgaria extreme elements, comitadjis and others. It was almost certain that these elements would constitute the bulk of the army, and they were elements of disorder.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that the arguments advanced by General Cavallero proved that the Council had been right in adopting the principle of voluntary recruiting. The difficulties which the Balkan States would encounter in the formation of volunteer armies would deter them from adopting a war-like policy.

M. Pichon thought that the most reasonable course was to maintain the principle which had been adopted.

Mr. Polk agreed.

M. Matsui likewise agreed.

M. Scialoja suggested that it could be said that the Council of the League of Nations would be competent to modify the Peace conditions on this point.

M. Laroche thought it would not be well to put this in writing.

M. Pichon pointed out that it was a reply that could be delivered orally to the Bulgarians if the question were raised.

The draft replies concerning Part V, Section I, (Prisoners of War and Graves), Part VI (Penalties), Part VII (Reparations), Part VIII (Financial Clauses), Part IX (Economic Clauses) and Part XI (Ports, Waterways and Railways), were approved.

The draft reply concerning Part XII (Labor), was adopted after suppressing the second paragraph thereof.

It was understood that if the Bulgarian Delegation asked that Bulgarian Representatives should attend the International Labor Conference at Washington a favorable reply should be given them orally.

M. Laroche pointed out that in the draft covering-letter the Bulgarian Delegation was accorded 10 days within which to submit its reply. This delay had seemed necessary on account of the distance and of the fact that there were no daily trains to Sofia.

Mr. Polk asked if such a long delay was absolutely necessary.

M. Pichon observed that the reply to the Bulgarian counter-proposals would be delivered on November 3rd and that the time for the Bulgarian final reply would run until November 13th. He proposed to grant the Bulgarians 10 days but not to consent to any prolongation.

Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that when the reply was delivered the Bulgarian Delegation could be orally informed that it would be useless for it to ask for a further delay.

Sir Eyre Crowe wished especially to thank the Commissions entrusted with preparing the replies to Bulgaria and the draft protocol, for the energy and ability they had shown: Thanks to their untiring efforts two very important questions had been settled in an exceedingly short time.

Mr. Polk wished to join in this expression of thanks.

M. Pichon said that the Council was glad to extend its hearty congratulations to these Commissions.

It was decided:

(1) to accept the draft reply prepared by the Central Territorial Committee to the three letters of the Bulgarian Delegation dated October 24th (See Appendix “A”), with the following modifications:

(a) Military Clauses.—In the reply to the Bulgarian Delegation it should not be stated that the Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right to examine anew article 65 of the Treaty of Peace, at such time as the Commissions of Control which will be sent to Bulgaria shall have given them exact information as to the possibilities for recruiting the Bulgarian Army.

(b) Military Clauses.—It should be stipulated that the special corps of frontier guards whose creation is authorized and whose strength may not exceed 3,000 men, cannot be recruited in any other way than by voluntary enlistment.

(c) Clauses concerning Military and Naval Aviation.—The third paragraph of the draft reply on this point should be eliminated.

(d) Part XII, (Labor)—The second paragraph of the draft reply on this point should be eliminated.

(2) that the draft covering letter should likewise be approved.

It was further decided:

to approve the reply prepared by the Central Territorial Committee, relative to the frontiers of Bulgaria, in conformity with the decisions taken by the Council at its preceding meeting. (Appendix “B”.)

3. M. Berthelot communicated to the Council a memorandum from Marshal Foch concerning a request for assistance made by the Latvian Government and a draft reply to this request (See appendix “C”). Assistance to the Latvian Government

It was decided:

(1) to approve the recommendations of Marshal Foch with respect to the reply to be made to the Latvian Government’s request for assistance;

(2) that Marshal Foch should communicate this reply to the Latvian Government. (See Appendix “C”.)

4. Captain Fuller read a report of the Naval Representatives dated November 1st, 1919, (See Appendix “D”).

Sir Eyre Crowe asked how much of this report should be inserted in the protocol to be signed by the representative of the German Government. Part of the report only concerned the Allied and Associated Governments and could only be discussed between them. Reparation for the Sinking of the German Fleet at Scapa Flow

Captain Fuller said that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 1 and all of Section 2 should be inserted in the protocol.

Sir Eyre Crowe inquired whether Section 3 should likewise be inserted.

Captain Fuller said that it was not necessary.

Mr. Polk felt sure that during the coming week it would not be difficult for an agreement to be reached as to the details of this Section but he thought it better to insert in the protocol only the provisions essential thereto.

Captain Fuller said that with respect to delivery of the light cruisers it should be specified that their delivery should take place within two months, that is to say, within the period which had elsewhere in the Treaty of Peace been provided for the delivery of vessels. On the other hand, the list of material to be delivered should be transmitted to the Allied Naval Commission of Control within 10 days as provided in the report. The majority of the Naval representatives thought that the Allied Naval Commission of Control should itself draw up the list of material whose delivery was demanded in accordance with certain principles indicated in the report. The American representative had asked that the powers of this Commission of Control should be limited to determining the percentage of the different classes of maritime material demanded. In order to arrive at an agreement with the American Representative the majority had been prepared to ask as much as 80% of the floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers which belonged to the German Government on November 11th, 1918, and 80% of the floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers in which the German Government had a predominant interest on November 11th, 1918, but it had not been possible to arrive at an agreement.

Mr. Polk said he had no objection to make with respect to light cruisers but that his Naval Advisers had made reservations with respect to floating docks of over 10,000 tons whose delivery was provided for.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that it was, nevertheless, necessary that the protocol indicate the total tonnage demanded from the Germans.

Mr. Polk inquired if it would not suffice to state in the protocol that the Germans should deliver a number of floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers equivalent to the displacement of 400,000 tons.

Captain Fuller thought not; he thought it important that the Germans should have definite information as to what they would be asked to deliver.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that the question was complicated by the fact that two of the most important floating docks owned by Germany were at Dantzig. If they were taken there was a risk of incurring protests on the part of the Free City of Dantzig and of the Polish Government. Therefore, it was important to specify the percentage of docks of over 10,000 tons displacement which were to be demanded.

Mr. Polk asked if Paragraph (b) of Section 1 of the report could not be drafted as follows:

“Such number of floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers, up to a total displacement of 400,000 tons, as the Allied and Associated Powers may demand.”

Captain Fuller thought that it was better to say: “equivalent to the displacement,” otherwise the Germans might think that the 400,000 tons constituted a maximum, and the Allied and Associated Powers would run the risk of not obtaining the full amount.

Mr. Polk said that he did not wish to make the Allies lose a single ton to which they were entitled, but if a wording was insisted upon which might involve stripping the German ports of all their maritime materiel he would have to ask for instructions from his Government.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that the information at his disposal showed that there was no question of stripping the German ports.

Mr. Polk said that he could not unreservedly accept the figures given by the majority because they had not yet been verified. However, he was ready to accept the wording proposed by the majority, if it was clearly understood that the German ports would not be stripped of all their matériel and that the composition of the reparation to be demanded would only be decided by the Council after he had received instructions from Washington on that point.

Captain Fuller pointed out that Sections 4 and 6 should equally be inserted in the protocol.

(This recommendation was adopted.) (It was decided:

(1) that paragraph 1–(b) of the report of the Naval Kepresenta-tives concerning the compensation to be demanded of the German Government for the sinking of its warships at Scapa Flow (See Appendix “D”) be modified to read: “Such number of floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers, equivalent to the displacement of 400,000 tons, as the Allied and Associated Powers may demand. The lifting power of a dock to be taken as displacement, and approximately 75% of the docks over 10,000 tons are to be included”; and that as thus modified, the said report should be approved; provided that the composition of the compensation to be taken from the German Government should only be decided by the Supreme Council after Mr. Polk had received the instructions of his Government on that point.

(2) that paragraph 1, modified as above, paragraph 2, paragraph 4 and paragraph 6, of the said report be incorporated in the Protocol relative to unexecuted clauses of the Armistice.)

5. M. Berthelot stated that the Drafting Committee had found, after examination, that it would be superfluous to send the draft reply submitted to it by the Council, in view of the stipulations contained in the Protocol to be signed by Germany (See H. D. 80, Minute 4).⁴ Draft Reply to the German Note of October 12th, Relative to the Sale of Aeronautical Matériel

(The meeting then adjourned)

Hotel Crillon, Paris , November 1, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–81

peace conference
the chairman

Paris, November 3, 1919.

Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the Bulgarian Delegation on the Conditions of Peace

To: His Excellency Mr. Theodorbff, Chairman of the Bulgarian Delegation, Neuilly.

Sir: The Allied and Associated Powers have considered, with the greatest care, the observations submitted to them by the Bulgarian Delegation, in its three letters dated October 24.

They have taken cognizance with satisfaction of the Bulgarian Government’s favourable reception of those clauses in the conditions of peace which relate to the League of Nations, the Protection of Minorities, and to Labour. They are pleased to observe in this adherence by Bulgaria to the various conditions of Parts I, III and XII of the Treaty, that country’s desire henceforward to conduct her policy in accordance with the broadly humanitarian principles and ideas of international solidarity which have inspired the Allied and Associated Powers.

In a second document, the Bulgarian Delegation further asked that alterations should be made in some of the provisions of the Treaty, and more especially those relating to the military, financial and economic clauses, etc.

Finally, in another letter relating to territorial questions, the Bulgarian Delegation, discussing the responsibilities incurred by its country through having entered the war against the Entente Powers, attempted to mitigate the same by urging that Bulgaria was forced into the war by a party Government, the large majority of the population being in favour of the Entente. In this connection the Bulgarian Delegation alleges that the German alliance was merely an accident as far as Bulgaria was concerned, whilst representing for other Balkan States the permanent basis on which they conducted their policy. It also denied the charge that Bulgaria ever entertained ideas of hegemony calculated to imperil the peace of the Balkans. On the other hand it denounced the ambitions of neighboring countries, to whom it ascribed the responsibility for the war.

The Allied and Associated Powers do not wish to follow the Bulgarian Delegation in this discussion. The eloquence of facts is sufficient for them.

If it were true that Bulgarian public opinion was not unanimously favorable to the idea of an alliance with the Central Powers, the support of the country was nevertheless given to a Government which satisfied its territorial cravings by undertaking a policy of conquest.

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot forget that the Bulgarian troops, sustained by popular sentiment, did not hesitate to attack the Serbian army from the rear and without provocation, thus paralyzing the heroic resistance which that army was opposing on another front to invaders who menaced the independence of Serbia.

When the Bulgarian troops were led against Roumania, not only did they seize the territories on the right bank of the Danube claimed by Bulgaria, but they also crossed the river, acting as the vanguard of the German armies. Everywhere they showed by their attitude that they wished to slake their hatred of the occupied country. There, as in Serbia and Greece, Bulgaria waged a war of conquest and pillage and public opinion applauded the success of her armies.

The Bulgarian Delegation alleges that its country did not believe that in the war which it had declared it would be opposed by the Powers of the Entente. How could the Bulgarian people believe for an instant that the Serbian Army would be left without help from its Allies, when the terrible struggle in which that Army was engaged with the Central Empires had for its origin the aggression of Austria-Hungary against Serbia? If the slightest doubt could have existed in this respect amongst the Bulgarian troops, how can it be explained that, when they found themselves in contact with the troops of the Entente, their country showed no disposition to withdraw and renounce a combat against the Powers who had contributed most towards Bulgarian independence? It was not until the Bulgarian Army was conquered in the field and forced to lay down its arms that Bulgaria asked for peace. She waited until that moment to disavow the Government which had dragged her into a fatal adventure.

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot lose sight of the fact that, by ranging herself on the side of the Central Empires and by remaining in that alliance until the moment when their defeat appeared certain, Bulgaria broke the principal line of communication between Russia and her Allies, opened to Germany the road to the east, and thus rendered inevitable the prolongation of the war. She is, therefore, responsible for the terrible evils which resulted therefrom.

Nevertheless, it is no idea of vengeance which has animated the Allied and Associated Powers in preparing the conditions of peace handed to the Bulgarian Delegation on September 19.

These Powers do not dream of making Bulgaria expiate all her faults of the past. They wish merely to establish a peace which shall be just and consequently durable and fertile. They feel that the conditions of peace, drawn up in no heat of passion, are calculated to ensure the peaceful development of Bulgaria and to allow her to reestablish her normal economic existence within a short period. In this connection, they would remind her of the fact that she is guaranteed a free economic outlet on the Aegean.

The Allied and Associated Powers have, none the less, examined the observations formulated by the Bulgarian Delegation with the most scrupulous attention. The appended Notes answer the various requests contained in the letters of October 24, but must not be considered an authorized interpretation of the Treaty.

If the Allied and Associated Powers do not answer all the questions raised by the Bulgarian Delegation it is because, after examining them they did not feel able to settle them as requested. Non-receipt of a reply must not therefore, be held to mean consent.

The Allied and Associated Powers have acceded to the wishes expressed by the Bulgarian Delegation in a certain number of points. The alterations thus made in the draft Treaty are final.

On all other points the text presented to the Bulgarian Delegation remains unchanged, as appears from the document appended to the present letter. This text can now only be accepted or rejected as it stands.

The Bulgarian Delegation will be so good as to inform the Allied and Associated Powers, within a period of ten days from the date of the present communication, whether it is prepared to sign the Treaty in its present form.

After that period, the Armistice concluded on September 29, 1918, will be considered at an end and the Allied and Associated Powers will take any steps they may think fit.

I remain, etc.

G. Clemenceau

[Enclosure]

Part I

The Covenant of the League of Nations

(Articles 1 to 26)

In expressing her wish to be received into the League of Nations as soon as possible, Bulgaria declares herself especially anxious to prove her good faith before an august legal Association capable of judging her according to her real deserts and her zeal to acquit herself of her international obligations.

The Allied and Associated Powers note this statement, which conforms to their ideas, with satisfaction. The future attitude of Bulgaria, if agreeing with the intentions above set forth, will no doubt be such as to facilitate and hasten her admission to the League of Nations.

Part II

Frontiers of Bulgaria

(Articles 27 to 35)

The Bulgarian Delegation has asked for certain alterations in the frontiers assigned to Bulgaria in the conditions of Peace in Thrace or in the direction of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State. The said Delegation has also stated Bulgaria’s claims to the Dobrudja, and requested that the “final status” of that region be settled by the Allied and Associated Governments.

As regards the latter point the Allied and Associated Governments consider that, in view of the purpose of the present Treaty, the question of the Dobrudja cannot be dealt with therein.

As to the line of the other frontiers commented on by the Bulgarian Delegation, it was adopted only after careful consideration, when every aspect of the problem was taken into account. The Allied and Associated Powers nevertheless examined with care the various arguments put forward. Although not denying the value of these arguments, the said Powers do not consider that they offer sufficient reason for revoking decisions which are the outcome of lengthy deliberation. They are of opinion, therefore, that it will be impossible to allow Bulgaria the desired alterations.

The Allied and Associated Powers have moreover taken special care to protect Bulgaria’s economic interests, in particular by granting to that country an outlet to the Aegean. In many cases these Powers have been obliged to have recourse to the same procedure in order to reconcile conflicting interests, and they have no doubt that if Bulgaria accepts this settlement in good faith, the future will prove that the guarantees thus granted to her are in no way illusory.

Part III

Political Clauses

section iv

protection of minorities

(Articles 49 to 57)

The Allied and Associated Powers have noted the Bulgarian Delegation’s acceptance of the principle of the protection of minorities guaranteed by the League of Nations. Bulgaria’s co-operation in this matter will undoubtedly contribute to the establishment of friendly relations between the Balkan peoples.

The Bulgarian Delegation considers it desirable that the same regime concerning the protection of minorities be established in all the Balkan States. With regard thereto the Allied and Associated Powers wish to point out that, in the Treaties of Peace with Germany and Austria and in the present Treaty, all provisions have been made for this purpose; the control of the League of Nations has been established, which ensures a guarantee for impartial treatment.

The Bulgarian Delegation has also drawn the attention of the Allied and Associated Governments to the position of Ottoman nationals formerly resident in the Dobrudja, Thrace and Macedonia and at present refugees in Bulgaria.

The Allied and Associated Powers have noted this remark and will take all necessary steps with a view to remedying the position in question.

Part IV

Military, Naval & Air Clauses

section i

military clauses

(Articles 64–82)

After consideration of the Counter-proposals formulated by the Bulgarian Delegation, the Governments of the Allied and Associated Powers have the honour to communicate below their decision with regard to the Military Clauses.

military clauses

1. The modification proposed to Article 65 would result in allowing the Bulgarian State to incorporate each year more than half of the annual class, and thus to give a military training to the majority of the able-bodied population.

However strong the social and economic arguments, put forward by the Bulgarian Delegation, may be, the institution of a military regime based on compulsory service is absolutely contrary to the principle of the reduction of armaments that the Allied & Associated Powers have agreed to impose on their former enemies, as alone being able to ensure the peace of the world in the future.

This modification cannot be accepted.

2. The modification proposed to Article 66 would result in raising the strength of the Bulgarian Army from 20,000 to 25,000 men. This addition would be contrary to the principle of the reduction of armaments mentioned above; it is also in no way justified by any argument contained in the Bulgarian Counter-proposals.

This modification cannot be accepted.

3. The modification proposed to Article 69 and which would result in the creation of a “Special corps of Frontier Guards” would appear to facilitate the maintenance of order on the Bulgarian frontiers, without forming any appreciable danger for the Powers neighbouring on Bulgaria.

This modification cam, therefore be accepted on condition that the corps in question shall be recruited by voluntary enlistment and shall not exceed 3,000 men.

4. The modification proposed to Article 66 and intended to raise the proportion of Officers from one-twentieth to one-fifteenth, would allow the Bulgarian Army to form supplementary cadres.

And also there is no reason to allow the demobilization of Officers by echelons within a two years’ time limit, this method not having been authorised for any of the former enemies of the Allied and Associated Powers.

It should furthermore be observed that the argument based on the impossibility of paying pensions to the large number of officers who are to be discharged immediately, appears to have but little value, since the Bulgarian Government, if it maintained these Officers on the Active List, would have to bear a much greater financial burden.

This modification cannot be accepted.

5. The modification proposed to Article 73 has for its object the creation of a school for Non-Commissioned Officers. It is incumbent on the Bulgarian State to organise the training of its Non-Commissioned Officers in their corps, and there is no need for instituting a special school.

This modification cannot be accepted.

general clauses

The request for the suppression of Article 102, in its entirety, cannot be accepted since the Allied and Associated Powers must ensure, through the organs of control at their disposal, that the conditions of the Armistice have been completely carried out.

However, the part relative to the military convention (Secret Articles, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4) will cease to be applicable at the moment of the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace.

Furthermore, in order to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding, the Allied and Associated Powers agree that only those dispositions of the Armistice Convention, which are not inconsistent with the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace shall remain in force.

They agree, therefore, that Article 102 of the Treaty of Peace shall be replaced by the following Article:

Article 102

“The following dispositions of the Armistice of September 29th, 1918, namely. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 6, remain in force in so far as they are not inconsistent with the stipulations of the present Treaty.”

section ii

naval clauses

Though of opinion that they cannot accept in its entirety the request made by the Bulgarian Delegation concerning Naval Clauses, the Allied and Associated Powers authorize Bulgaria to retain a small number of lightly-armed vessels for police and fishery duties.

In these circumstances, the following addition will be made to Article 83 of the Treaty:

“Bulgaria will, however, have the right to maintain on the Danube and along her coast, for police and fishery duties, not more than four torpedo-boats and six motor-boats, all without torpedoes and torpedo apparatus, to be selected by the Commission referred to in Article 99.

“The personnel of the above vessels shall be organized on a purely civilian basis.

“The vessels allowed to Bulgaria must only be replaced by lightly-armed patrol craft, not exceeding 100 tons displacement and of non-military character.”

The Allied and Associated Powers further agree that the scientific material claimed by Bulgaria for use in her Aquarium may, at the direction of the Commission referred to in Article 99, be allotted to her after the losses sustained by the Allies have been made good.

section iii

military and naval air clauses

(Articles 89 to 93)

The Allied and Associated Powers consider that no change is admissible in the clauses concerning military and naval aviation.

Article 89, which gave rise to the claims contained in Section III of (C) from the Bulgarian Delegation, was drafted with full knowledge of the matter in hand and with the firm intention of refusing to Bulgaria the right to possess any air squadrons or airships for any purpose whatsoever.

The Allied and Associated Powers see no reason for granting to Bulgaria a privilege which has been refused to Germany and Austria.

Part V

Prisoners of War and Graves

section i

prisoners of war

(Articles 105 to 115)

In reply to the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation concerning Article 109 of the Treaty of Peace, the Allied and Associated Powers agree to substitute the words “October 15, 1919” in the second paragraph of Article 109, for the words “June 1, 1919”.

On the other hand, they see no reason for the insertion in the Treaty of a special clause, authorizing the repatriation of prisoners of war as from the day of signature, without waiting for ratification. The interested Powers shall moreover be free to advance the date of repatriation of the prisoners in question, should they consider this desirable.

Part VI

Penalties

penalties

(Articles 118 to 120)

Articles 118 to 120, concerning penalties, cannot be altered in accordance with the Bulgarian request without endangering the very principle of justice on which they are based.

In claiming the right to bring the authors of acts in violation of the laws and customs of war before military tribunals of countries against whose nationals Bulgarian troops have committed such crimes, the Allied and Associated Powers are only conforming to the usual legal principles concerning competence. If, despite criticism based on the relations between the Balkan nations, the Allied and Associated Powers considered this jurisdiction preferable to a tribunal of which their own representatives were members, still less would they agree to establish jurisdiction from which belligerent Powers would be excluded whose competence was greatest (Greece, Roumania, Serbo-Croat-Slovene State).

Finally, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot agree that any weight be attached to legal proceedings, prosecutions or sentences instituted or pronounced by Bulgarian tribunals since Article 118 is only a necessary result of the system of legal proceedings which they desire to organise, failing which such proceedings would be absolutely without effect.

Part VII

Reparations

reparations

(Articles 121 to 131)

1. The Bulgarian Delegation asks for a reduction of the sum mentioned in Article 121 of the Conditions of Peace as representing the obligations imposed on Bulgaria by way of reparation; having calculated the various charges assumed by the country after Peace is signed—in which are included moreover her normal fiscal expenditure, the service of her public debt, and her war pensions and the upkeep of the army—the Delegation complains the Treaty will leave Bulgaria plunged in debt, and unable to bear the liabilities imposed on her.

Bulgaria will undoubtedly have heavy liabilities to bear. These will not, however, be the result of the Conditions of Peace, but of the war of aggression in which she voluntarily took part, into which she entered of her own free will, in a spirit of domination and conquest. Bulgaria has failed in a scheme undertaken contrary to the law of nations and of liberty, in the hope of illicit territorial and material gains. It is right and just that she should now atone. Are there not certain nations among the Allied and Associated Powers who, without sharing Bulgaria’s guilt, have merely defended their life and independence, but who will be obliged for generations to toil and endure hard sacrifices in order to regain their past strength and prosperity?

The Conditions of Peace are just and even lenient; the obligations imposed on Bulgaria have been limited to a sum which is decidedly lower than the amount of damage sustained by the Allied and Associated Powers by reason of her entry into the war. If the latter acted in this manner, it was precisely because they wished to take into account Bulgaria’s capacity for payment, which they made every effort to estimate with absolute impartiality. The second paragraph of Article 124 of the Conditions of Peace—which provides for Germany’s renunciation of a debt of Bulgaria’s transferred to the Reparation Commission for the benefit of the Allied and Associated Powers by the Treaty of Versailles—is proof positive of this desire not to demand from Bulgaria anything which may exceed her resources. There can therefore be no question of cancelling the figure of 2 milliard 250 million gold francs. But if, against all probability, it should in future become evident that, Bulgaria’s position not being as now estimated, she is at any particular time unable to pay the instalment corresponding to her contribution towards reparation, Article 122 of the Conditions of Peace is amply sufficient to permit of any justifiable modification being granted to her.

II. In connection herewith, the Bulgarian Delegation asks, in the first place, that a total sum be fixed representing the entire amount of liabilities devolving on its country under the various provisions of the Treaty, and secondly that the yearly payments mentioned in the fifth paragraph of Article 121 of the Conditions of Peace shall not be higher during the first few years, when the resources of the State will be most restricted, than during subsequent years.

As regards the first point, the Allied and Associated Powers are unable to give satisfaction to Bulgaria. The reasons for refusal are obvious when it is remembered that Bulgaria wishes to see her own military expenditure included in the total to be limited in advance. It would thus be very easy for Bulgaria to reduce to a minimum her obligation to share in the reparation for damage.

With regard to the second point, on the contrary, the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation did not appear unfounded. The Allied and Associated Powers agree therefore to insert an alteration in the fifth paragraph of Article 121, the second clause of which shall henceforth read as follows:—

“Therefore, each half-yearly payment shall include, over and above the payment of interest at the rate of 5% (five per centum) per annum, the provision of a sinking fund sufficient to extinguish the total amount due by Bulgaria in 37 years from January 1, 1921.”

In this manner, the yearly payments to be made by Bulgaria would not necessarily become less as time goes on, and instructions could be given to the Interallied Commission to arrange for these payments in accordance with practical possibilities.

III. It goes without saying that the Allied and Associated Powers cannot consider the possibility of fixing the reparation debt in levas, as requested by the Bulgarian Delegation; it is obvious that in that case Bulgaria would have no further interest in maintaining the international value of her currency, and could indeed reduce the actual value of her payments indefinitely.

It does not seem impossible under this head, however, to grant to Bulgaria certain facilities for payment by permitting the Interallied Commission, if necessary, to accept payment in levas—at their current value, which the Commission itself would fix—or various payments in kind.

The Allied and Associated Powers therefore consent to the insertion in the Treaty of a clause similar to Par. 19 of Annex II of the Chapter on Reparations of the Treaty of Versailles. This clause, which would be a fresh paragraph of Article 121 (inserted between the former paragraphs 6 and 7) should read as follows:

“Payments required to be made in specie in virtue of the above provisions may at any time be accepted by the Reparation Commission in the form of chattels, properties, commodities, businesses, rights and concessions, within or without Bulgarian territory, ships, bonds, shares, or securities of any kind, or currencies of Bulgarian or other States, the value of such substitutes for gold being fixed at a fair and just amount by the Reparation Commission itself.”

IV. It would be superfluous to dwell on the fact that it is impossible for the Allied and Associated Powers to contemplate the deduction of interest from the sums due from Bulgaria as reparation. Strictly speaking, the payment of reparation for damage already committed could be demanded immediately. It is merely out of consideration for de facto impossibilities that this payment has been deferred. The obligation to pay interest exists from the first day when a debt is acknowledged; it cannot be avoided.

The Bulgarian Delegation also requests that a delay of 50 years from 1st April 1925 (in reality, a delay of 54 years) be substituted for the delay of 37 years provided for in Article 121 of the Conditions of Peace; it is sufficient to remark that such a measure is at any rate unnecessary, seeing that Article 122 gives the Interallied Commission the power to grant any delays in payment which it shall consider necessary.

V. The Allied and Associated Powers are also unable to reconsider Articles 127 and 128 of the Conditions of Peace. These Articles have limited, by means of a special arrangement, the right of certain of the said Powers whose territories have been violated and looted by Bulgarian troops, to receive entire restitution. This arrangement risks indeed being unduly favourable to Bulgaria, nevertheless the last paragraph of Article 127 and that of Article 128 both illustrate the moderation and scrupulousness with which this undeniable right will be applied.

VI. Finally, the suggestion by the Bulgarian Delegation that some of the Allied and Associated Powers might pay for the works of military importance which Bulgaria carried out on their territory for the purpose of fighting against them, is not worthy of discussion.

Part VIII

Financial Clauses

financial clauses

(Articles 132 to 146)

The Allied and Associated Powers have most carefully considered the observations submitted by the Bulgarian Delegation concerning the clauses inserted in Part VIII of the Conditions of Peace.

The present reply will not discuss each of the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation, but confine itself to indicating the points on which it seemed necessary to supply further details, either for the purpose of removing a misunderstanding on the part of the Bulgarian Delegation or of proving the slight foundation of some of its observations.

Article 133. The observations of the Bulgarian Delegation on the obligation to pay for the upkeep of armies of occupation refer:—

(1) to occupation before the coming into force of the Treaty;

(2) to occupation after the coming into force of the Treaty.

As regards the first point, the Allied and Associated Powers see no valid reason for renouncing provisions inserted in the Treaties of Versailles and Saint Germain, according to which Germany and Austria undertook to pay the total cost of the armies of occupation. The Allied and Associated Powers cannot, furthermore, enter into any discussion with the Bulgarian Government as to the strategic use of the military units sent to Bulgaria.

As regards the second point, the Allied and Associated Powers are agreed in stating that they have no intention of continuing military occupation after the coming into force of the Treaty.

Consequently, and in order clearly to indicate this intention as well as to avoid any ambiguity which may have misled the Bulgarian Delegation, the wording of the first phrase of Article 133 will be altered as follows:—

Instead of: “There shall be paid by Bulgaria the total cost of all armies occupying territory within her boundaries, as defined in accordance with the present Treaty, from the date of signature of the Armistice of September 29, 1918, read: “There shall be paid by Bulgaria the total cost of all armies … occupying territory within her boundaries, as these are defined in the present Treaty, from the signature of the Armistice of September 29, 1918, and until the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

Article 136. The Allied and Associated Powers have agreed that only the value of material of a non-military character surrendered in execution of the Armistice or of the Treaty shall be credited to the State surrendering the same, and that the value of war material shall not be credited to the general Reparation account. The Bulgarian Delegation brings forward no arguments against this principle; and the Allied and Associated Powers agree that the text of Article 136 should be retained.

Nevertheless, to ensure unity of opinion in decisions establishing the non-military character of material surrendered by Germany, Austria and Bulgaria, the penultimate line of the second paragraph of Article 136 shall be altered as follows:—

Instead of: “There shall be credited to Bulgaria … the value … of material … for which, as having non-military value, credit should, in the judgment of the Reparation Commission acting through the Inter-Allied Commission, be allowed”, read: “There shall be credited to Bulgaria … the value … of material for which, as having non-military value, credit should, in the judgment of the Reparation Commission, be allowed.”

Articles 134–141. The Bulgarian Delegation asks that Powers to whom Bulgarian territory is ceded may assume responsibility for part of the Bulgarian public debt as it shall stand at the date of signature of the Treaty, and not as it stood on August 1, 1914.

Were such a claim allowed, the Powers to whom Bulgarian territory is ceded would have to bear the burden of part of the debt which Bulgaria contracted in order to wage an unjust war against those Powers. The Allied and Associated Powers cannot consider such a possibility. They agree, however, that part of the Bulgarian Debt contracted between August 1, 1914, and October 11, 1915, (at which date Bulgaria entered the war against Serbia) was used for the benefit of territory surrendered by Bulgaria in virtue of the Treaty, and they consider that the date of October 11, 1915, may be substituted for that of August 1, 1914 in Article 141.

They nevertheless consider that such part of the Bulgarian public debt as was contracted between August 1, 1914, and October 11, 1915 and directly used to prepare for war, cannot be divided among the Powers to whom Bulgarian territory is surrendered, and they leave it to the Reparation Commission to determine that part of the debt.

Consequently, the wording of Article 141 has been altered as follows:—

Instead of: “Any Power to which Bulgarian territory is ceded … undertakes to pay … such contribution towards the charge for the Bulgarian Public Debt as it stood on August 1, 1914 …”, read: “Any Power to which Bulgarian territory is ceded … undertakes to pay such contribution towards the charge for the Bulgarian Public Debt as it stood on October 11, 1915 (including … laid down in Article 134). The Reparation Commission, acting through the Inter-Allied Commission, shall determine the amount of the Bulgarian Public Debt on October 11, 1915, taking into account, in the case of the debt contracted after August 1, 1914, only that part of the debt which was not used by Bulgaria to prepare a war of aggression. The part of the Bulgarian Public Debt to be paid by each Power to which territory is surrendered shall be that which the Principal Allied and Associated Powers … etc.”

Article 139. This Article settles the question of the Loan contracted by Bulgaria in July 1914 with German Banks.

The Bulgarian Delegation claims that as the Loan Agreement was not carried out by the German creditors, it is now null and void, and asks for the omission of Article 139 as useless. According to certain information received, however, the German banks which signed the Loan Agreement consider the same to be perfectly valid and intend to stand by it.

To avoid all discussion, the Allied and Associated Powers therefore feel it necessary to retain Article 139. They prefer to run the risk of inserting a supererogatory provision in the Treaty, rather than expose themselves to future controversies.

Moreover, they wish to point out that the obligation imposed on the Bulgarian Government of transferring to the Reparation Commission all rights, interests and securities of every kind retained by Bulgarian nationals under loan agreements and conventions does not exceed the conditions imposed on Germany by Article 235 of the Treaty of Versailles and that this obligation has not been improperly imposed, as stated by the Bulgarian Delegation. In reality the value of all these rights, interests and securities will be credited to Bulgaria by the Reparation Commission, to be deducted from sums due as reparation.

Articles 129 and 145. The Allied and Associated Powers intend to credit Bulgaria (on account of the total amount fixed in Article 121 of the Treaty of Peace and owed by Bulgaria as reparation) with all sums and shares which the Reparation Commission may recover from sums owed to Bulgaria under the financial and economic clauses of the Treaty and the clauses concerning Ports, Waterways and Railways.

In order completely to reconcile the wording of Articles 129 and 145, Article 129 is altered as follows:—

“the following shall be placed to the credit of Bulgaria in respect to her reparation obligations:—Any ampunts which the Reparation Commission may consider due to Bulgaria under Part VIII (Financial Clauses), Part IX (Economic Clauses), and Part XI (Ports, Waterways and Railways) of the present Treaty.”

Article 146. The Allied and Associated Powers have no desire to claim from Bulgaria payment in gold currency of sums owed by her under the Treaty.

The Bulgarian Government may procure as it thinks best the necessary foreign bills and cheques to meet the payments required of it.

Part IX

Economic Clauses

section i

commercial relations

Article 151. With the object of safeguarding as far as possible the fiscal revenues of Bulgaria, the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to alter the text of Article 151 in such a way as to make it clear that customs duties upon their imports shall be payable in gold in all cases where, in virtue of Bulgarian law, such payment in gold could be demanded on 28th July, 1914, on condition that the rate of exchange of gold for notes shall be periodically fixed by the Reparation Commission.

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot, however, consider any alteration of Article 151 as regards the rates of duty applicable to their imports into Bulgaria within the period of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Only the most favourable duties in force on July 28, 1914, may be applied to these imports.

Nor can the proposal to reduce the period of application of Article 151 to six months be accepted. In Treaties previously concluded with Allies of Bulgaria provisions were introduced which, in the case of the products of certain adjacent countries, provided for free import or the benefit of conventional tariffs during a specified period sometimes extending to five years. Bulgaria has been spared similar provisions in the present Treaty.

The stable and uniform regime provided by Article 151 for the period of one year is necessary to allow of the resumption of international trade with Bulgaria, especially in view of economic conditions caused by the war, which the Bulgarian Delegation does not fail to recognize.

section ii

treaties

Article 162. The Bulgarian Delegation suggests that all multilateral Treaties existing before the war should be revived. It mentions, however, no omission as regards the list given in Article 162 and offers no definite suggestions.

The Allied and Associated Powers have provided for revival of all multilateral Treaties which they thought compatible with fresh conditions resulting from the war. They therefore see no reason to alter the Article in question.

The requests of the Bulgarian Delegation either arise from an insufficient comprehension of the text under discussion or are not founded upon specific instances, and cannot be granted.

Article 168. The Bulgarian Delegation states that it cannot agree to the revival of bilateral Treaties under the conditions laid down in that Article, since Bulgaria will not enjoy the same rights as the Allied and Associated Powers.

Germany and Austria have accepted a text identical with that of Article 168, and Bulgaria must do likewise.

The Bulgarian Delegation, however, commits a double error in the interpretation of this Article.

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot arbitrarily set aside certain provisions of a bilateral Treaty which they desire to revive. They can and should only omit from such a Treaty any provisions which do not agree with the general dispositions or specific provisions of the Treaty of Peace. The third paragraph of Article 168 is very clear on this point.

On the other hand, while the Article provides that the League of Nations shall be called upon to decide, this is only in case of a divergence of opinion between the Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 164. Article 164 gives Bulgaria the opportunity of participating in the drawing up of the proposed new radio-telegraphic Convention. It does not imply that the text of that Convention will be dictated to her and that she must accept it ne varietur; but merely provides against a systematic refusal to conclude the Convention or claims rendering its conclusion impossible in practice.

Article 165. The Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to substitute the following text for the text of this Article, viz:—

“Until the conclusion of a new Convention concerning fishing in the waters of the Danube to replace the Convention of November 29, 1901,⁶ the transitory regime to be established will be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the European Commission of the Danube.”

Articles 166 and 167. The period fixed by these Articles was considered sufficient by the Powers allied to Bulgaria; it cannot be prolonged, in view of the necessity for establishing as soon as possible the guarantees indispensable for economic relations between the nations concerned.

Articles 169, 171 and 172. It is not for the Allied and Associated Powers to free Bulgaria from charges and indemnities caused by her own fault; but it is to be recalled that Germany and Austria have undertaken in advance to accept the clauses of the present Treaty affecting them.

Article 175. This Article does not imply the perpetual maintenance of the Capitulations, since it expressly envisages the possibility of abolishing that regime by means of special conventions.

It is not for Bulgaria to revive the agreements she had concluded or prepared with certain Allied and Associated Powers, but for the Allied and Associated Powers to lay down, in conformity with the general principles of the present Treaty, the manner in which equitable treatment may be secured for foreigners in Bulgaria.

section iii

debts

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot consider relinquishing the system of Clearing-Offices.

Should certain Allied and Associated Powers opt for this system, even if they apply it only in their relations with Bulgaria, the result would not be, as the Bulgarian Delegation imagine, a more considerable depreciation of the Bulgarian leva than by application of the system of direct recovery; whether it is a question of settlement by the Bulgarian State or direct settlement by Bulgarian nationals, payment may always be claimed in the currency of the Allied or Associated State concerned.

Nevertheless, to allow Bulgaria to procure means of payment with less haste, the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to substitute the following text for the first paragraph of all of the Annex to Section III:—

“The balance between the Clearing Offices shall be struck every three months and the credit balance paid in cash by the debtor State within a month”.

section iv

property, rights and interests

Article 177. If, as the Bulgarian Delegation acknowledge, there is reason to regret the measures of seizure and liquidation taken by the Bulgarian Government, even against the property, rights and interests of Allied and Associated Powers who, far from resorting to the disposal of Bulgarian property, rights and interests, have not even applied measures of sequestration or any other war measures, it is none the less the obvious duty of Bulgaria to fulfil her obligations as completely and promptly as possible and with this object to use all means at her disposal and in particular the capital of her nationals invested abroad.

The treatment reserved for Bulgarian property, rights and interests may be different in certain countries. This may be the case in the United States, who are not at war with Bulgaria but who have taken part in the preparation of the Treaty with that Power, guided as they are by their interest in the general peace and consequently in the settlement of certain questions due to the war, which settlement must be such as to contribute to the maintenance of peace. Seeing that this is the reason for the participation of the United States in the Treaty with Bulgaria and also that no steps have been taken against Bulgarian property in the United States, it seems unnecessary to raise the question of the application of the Treaty to that property, at least if Bulgaria herself has respected American property within her territory during the war.

The question whether Bulgaria should be credited under Article 129 with the total proceeds of liquidations effected in virtue of Article 177, or only with the balance remaining after payment of compensation under paragraphs (e), (f) and (h) of the latter Article, will be decided by the Reparation Commission in accordance with Article 122.

Article 177 (b). The fears expressed by the Bulgarian Delegation seem groundless, in view of the guarantees offered by the third part of that paragraph and the fourth part of Articles 40 and 45.

Article 177 (e). The limitation proposed by the Bulgarian Delegation in the application of this paragraph cannot be considered. Nationals of all the Allied and Associated Powers who are signatories of the present Treaty are entitled to compensation, if injured by the measures of transfer or exceptional war measures referred to in pars. 1 and 3 of the Annex to Section IV.

Article 177 (k). The taxes and imposts in question are not simply those levied on the property, rights and interests of the nationals of Allied and Associated Powers to which the property, rights and interests of Bulgarian nationals were not subjected, but of all imposts or taxes on capital.

Article 177 (Annex). To meet the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation, the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to insert the following text at the end of the first sentence of paragraph (d) of the present Article, viz:—

“If however in the States referred to in paragraph (i) of this Article measures prejudicial to the property, rights and interests of Bulgarian nationals and not in accordance with the local law have been taken, the Bulgarian proprietor shall be entitled to compensation for the damage caused to him. This compensation shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Section VI.”

Articles 177 and 178. With regard to territories taken from Bulgaria to form independent States, the Treaty creating the independent State would determine the regime in regard to property, rights and interests.

section v

contracts, prescriptions, judgments

Article 180. The Bulgarian Delegation think that the maintenance of contracts is dependent upon the pleasure of the Allied States or their nationals. But, in the first place, the exception contained in paragraph (b) of Article 180 is limited to cases in which the execution of the contract is required in the general interest, and in the second place its execution can only be demanded by the Government of the Allied and Associated State concerned and not by a national of that State.

It must also be pointed out that it is not the case that this Government can, in virtue of paragraph (b), demand that one part only of the contract be upheld. The contract remains valid in its entirety and the exception provided for in paragraph 3 of the Annex only refers to the case of contracts one part of which is annulled by virtue of Article 180 and one part upheld by virtue of the general exception contained in paragraph 2 of the annex.

Article 182. The exceptional provisions of this Article are justified by the measures of spoliation applied by Bulgaria to Allied concessionaires.

Nevertheless, the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to alter the text of the Article as follows:—

“Concessions … may in case of abnormal conditions of working or of dispossession resulting from conditions or measures of war be extended on the application of the interested party, which must be presented within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

Annex, paragraph 12. The Allied and Associated Powers agree to omit this paragraph.

section vii

industrial property

Reciprocity has been granted in this Section in all cases in which it can be effectively accorded. Bulgarian legislation concerning industrial property has not hitherto been of a kind to justify the Allied and Associated Powers in exempting Bulgaria from provisions accepted by her Allies.

section viii

special provisions relating to transferred territory

Article 197. The Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to substitute the following text for the second paragraph, viz:—

“The amount of taxes and imposts on capital which have been levied or increased on the property, rights and interests of former Bulgarian nationals since September 29, 1918, or which shall be levied or increased until restitution in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty, or, in the case of property, rights and interests which have not been subjected to exceptional measures of war, until three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, shall be returned to the owners.

The property, rights and interests restored shall not be subject to any tax levied in respect of any other property or any other business owned by the same person after such property had been removed from Bulgaria, or such business had ceased to be carried on therein.

If taxes of any kind have been paid in anticipation in respect of property, rights and interests removed from Bulgaria, the proportion of such taxes paid for any period subsequent to the removal of the property, rights and interests in question shall be returned to the owners.”

resumption of official relations

The Bulgarian Delegation ask for reciprocity as regards the right reserved by the Allied and Associated Powers, in virtue of Article 159, of appointing consuls in Bulgarian towns and ports.

The Allied and Associated Powers are not prepared to grant Bulgaria this right; it should, however, be noted that nothing in that Article is opposed either to the revival under the terms of Article 168 of Consular Conventions between individual Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, or to the conclusion of fresh agreements between Bulgaria and these Powers concerning the admission of Bulgarian consular officers to their territory.

Part XI

Ports, Waterways & Railways

(Articles 212–248)

As regards the questions affecting Ports, Waterways and Railways, the Allied and Associated Powers have noted with satisfaction that the sentiments expressed by the Bulgarian Delegation were similar to those which had always inspired its deliberations.

With regard to the Articles to which the objections of the Bulgarian Delegation refer, on the other hand, the Commission do not, after careful examination, feel able to alter the text. Similar clauses have been inserted in the Treaties with Germany and Austria.

With regard to the question of railway communications between Paris and Constantinople, it does not come within the scope of the Peace Treaty and must form the subject of subsequent negotiations between the Governments concerned.

Part XII

Labour

(Articles 249 to 289)

While appreciating Bulgaria’s intentions, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot alter the provision of the Treaty of Peace which only admits the original members of the League of Nations as original members of the Labour Conference.

Appendix B to HD–81

[Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the Bulgarian, Delegation on the Conditions of Peace (Continued)]

Part II

Frontiers

(Articles 27 to 35)

The Bulgarian Delegation has asked that modifications be made concerning the frontiers as assigned to her in the Peace Conditions, both in Thrace, and on the Serb-Croat and Slovene side. The Delegation furthermore exposed Bulgaria’s claims to Dobrudja, and asked that the “Final statutes” of that region be regulated by the Allied and Associated Governments.

On this last point, the Allied and Associated Governments esteem that, in view of the object of the present Treaty, the Dobrudja question is out of place.

As to the outline of the other frontiers referred to in the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation, it was adopted only after an attentive study taking into account all the elements of the problem. However, the Allied and Associated Powers have examined the arguments invoked with care, but, without disregarding their value, they were unable to recognize any motive of a nature to justify a change in these carefully studied decisions. The Allied and Associated Powers, therefore, are unable to accord Bulgaria the modifications solicited.

The Allied and Associated Powers were, furthermore, particularly attentive to protect the economic interests of Bulgaria by guaranteeing, in particular, this country an outlet to the Aegean Sea. In numerous cases, the Powers were obliged to have recourse to the same procedure in order to reconcile the interests under debate, and they do not doubt, that if Bulgaria loyally accepts this solution, the future will show that the guarantees which have been given her will be in no manner illusory.

Appendix C to HD–81

commander-in-chief
of the allied armies
general staff
No. 5226

October 31, 1919.

[Memorandum From Marshal Foch]

Memorandum

In an interview with the Chiefs of the Military Missions of the Entente, which took place at Riga on October 27, the Lettish Government has renewed its request for assistance, and made precise the conditions of the support to be given to it by the Allies, with a view to enable it to continue the fight against the Germans and the Bolshevists.

Following are the conditions:

1st. —Aetive assistance against Germany, and reinforcement of the direct help given by the fleet.

2nd. —Cession of army and war material, to be sent immediately.

3rd. —Advance in the form of a loan of two millions pounds sterling.

4th. —New shipments of food supplies.

5th. —Interdiction to the Germans to send to Germany any Lettish provisions, absolute closing of the German frontier—surrender of the German material in Latvia.

6th. —Transfer to the Lettish authorities of the Riga-Libau railway, actually in the hands of the Germans, as this town (Riga) will, in six weeks, be blockaded by ice.

The Lettish Government asked for a reply by the 3rd of November in order to be able to determine its line of conduct.

It seems that, on account of the difficult situation in which this Government is placed, consequent to the fight engaged in on two fronts and the demands of the Esthonian Government, its neighbor, there is every advantage in answering its request within the proper time, in order to deprive it of any pretext to negotiate with its enemies.

1st.—Active assistance against Germany:

a) By its resolution of the 10th of October,⁷ the Supreme Council had decided to send to the Baltic provinces an Inter-Allied Mission for the purpose of assuring the control of the evacuation of the German troops, and to provoke all measures which may facilitate and accelerate this evacuation. This Mission is about to leave.

b) All supplies of food and raw materials, and all financial facilities are refused to Germany as long as the latter will not have obeyed the order of evacuation (decision of the Supreme Council of the 17th [27th] of September).⁸

c) Finally, the German navigation has been stopped in the Baltic, with the reserve of taking into consideration the trade necessities of neutrals (order of the Inter-Allied Naval Armistice Commission of October 10, confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Council of October 22nd.).⁹

Thus, the Allied and Associated Governments give to the Baltic provinces an active assistance, by imposing upon Germany an effective military control and serious economic penalties, the effect of which will be deeply felt by her.

These Governments, on the other hand, reserve the right to take, if necessary, all new measures which they may deem necessary, in order to obtain from Germany the executions of her agreements.

2nd—Cession of Arms and War Material:

The Allied and Associated Governments have already granted to the Lettish Government important cessions of war material and supplies.

During the first days of November a ship transporting armament and equipment for 10,000 men will leave the port of Boulogne, for Latvia.^*

Study is being made at the present time as to what extent it will be possible to satisfy a new request for material for 40,000 men.

3rd. Advance under the form of loans to the amount of 2,000,000 lbs. sterling	}	The question will be submitted to an examination by the Governments.
4th. New shipments of supplies in food-stuffs.

5th. a) Interdiction that Lettish provisions be sent into Germany by the Germans.

Any requisition, seizure, or coercive measure with a view to obtaining resources destined for Germany is forbidden to the German troops. (Article 14 of the Armistice of November 11, 1918.)

In execution of this provision, the Interallied Commission to the Baltic Regions has received an order: “to prevent the removal of any matériel or provisions which does not properly belong to the German troops”.

b) The surrender of German material in Latvia:

This surrender cannot be exacted by law. It may, however, be the object of transactions with the German Government.

However, the Supreme Council decided,¹⁰ that after October 11th, the Interallied Control Commission at Berlin would be authorized to order the delivery of munitions and Russian war material, deposited in Germany, to the Russian armies recognized by the Allied and Associated Governments. This provision shall be applicable to the Lettish army.

c) Closing of the frontier:

In notes dated October 3rd¹¹ and 16th, the German Government itself, specified that it had ordered the closing of the frontier, the discontinuance of supplies and munitions, and that it had organized, to this end, frontier surveillance posts, which were ordered to fire on German troops attempting to enter Courland.

The Inter-Allied Mission shall be especially entrusted with the strict execution of these prescriptions.

The occupation of the territory of Memel, which shall be effected upon the entry into force of the Peace Treaty, will facilitate the execution of this supervision, by permitting the greater part of the ways of entry to Latvia to be barred by Allied troops.

6th—Transfer of the Riga–Libau Railway line administration to Lettish authorities, now controlled by Germans.

This question is within the competence of the Inter-Allied Control Mission, the departure of which is announced above. The attention of the Head of this Mission shall be called to the necessity of solving this question as soon as possible.

F. Foch

Appendix D to HD–81

1 November, 1919.

Report of Meeting of the Naval Advisors Concerning the Compensation To Be Demanded of the German Government for the Sinking of Their Men-of-War at Scapa Flow on 21 June, 1919

1. In view of the reparation claims that Germany had already incurred under the terms of the Peace Treaty, it is not considered feasible to make any further financial or material demands other than the following, which however cannot be regarded as complete compensation to the Allied and Associated Powers for the losses incurred through the sinking of the modern German men-of-war at Scapa:—

(a) The five Light Cruisers

• Königsberg
• Pillau
• Graudenz
• Regensburg
• Strassburg

(b) Such number of floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers equivalent to the displacement of 400,000 tons as the Allied and Associated Powers may demand. The lifting power of a dock to be taken as displacement, and approximately 75% of the docks over 10,000 tons are to be included.

2. In order to put the above conditions into effect, the German Government shall undertake to supply to the Allied Naval Commission of Control within 10 days of the deposit of the ratification of the Peace Treaty, a complete list of all floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers in German possession. This list is to notify the material which was in the possession of the German Government on 11th November, 1918, or in which the German Government had considerable interests on that date.

3. The Allied Naval Commission of Control will select the floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers in accordance with the following provisions:—

The priority of selection will be:—

(i) Government docks, cranes, tugs and dredgers which were Government property on 11th November 1918.

(ii) Floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers in which the German Government had large interests on 11 November 1918.

(iii) Floating docks, floating cranes, tugs and dredgers, the removal of which will have the least effect on the working of the port in which they are situated.

4. The German officers and men belonging to the men-of-war which were sunk at Scapa and which are at present retained by the Allied and Associated Powers will, with the exception of any whose surrender is required by Articles 228 of the Treaty of Peace, be repatriated on the German Government giving their guarantee to the conditions contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 above being carried out.

5. The Allied and Associated Powers are placing any monies salved from the German men-of-war at Scapa which cannot be traced to any particular individual to the credit of the Reparation Fund. The amount of monies salved is 42,086 Marks 20 Pfennigs.

6. The Torpedo Boat Destroyer B. 98 can be considered as one of the 42 T. B. D.’s to be surrendered under Article 185 of the Peace Treaty.

United States of America
Great Britain
France
Italy
Japan

N. A. McCullt

1. Footnote 4, p. 847.
2. HD–80, minute 5, p. 856.
4. Ante, p. 855.
6. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 2 sér., tome xxxiii, p. 277.
7. HD–67, minute 4, and appendices D and B thereto, pp. 536, 546, and 547.
8. HD–62, minute 3, and appendix E thereto, pp. 406 and 419.
9. HD–74, minute 9, p. 736.
10. There remains about 40 cars, in course of transport, and which will not reach Boulogne before November 4th, to be shipped. [Footnote in the original.]
10. HD–68, minute 6, p. 580
11. Appendix A to HD–66, p. 517.