Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/82
HD–82
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 Monday,
November 3, 1919, at 10 a.m.
Paris, November 3, 1919, 10:00 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- France
- Secretaries
- M. Berthelot
- M. de Saint-Quentin
- Italy
- Secretary
- Japan
- Secretary
| Joint Secretariat |
| America, United States of |
Capt. B. Winthrop |
| British Empire |
Capt. G. Lothian Small |
| France |
M. Massigli |
| Italy |
M. Zanchi |
| Interpreter—M. Mantoux |
The following were also present for items in which they were concerned:
- America, United States of
- General Bliss
- Dr. James Brown Scott
- Mr. A. W. Dulles
- British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- Lieut-Col. Kisch
- Commander Dunne
- Captain Fuller, R. N.
- Mr. H. W. Malkin
- Mr. A. Leeper
- France
- General Weygand
- General Desticker
- M. Kammerer
- Commandant Lacomhe
- M. Fromageot
- Italy
- General Cavallero
- M. Ricci-Busatti
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
- M. Stranieri
- Prince Boncompagni
[Page 908]
1. (The Council had before it a report from the Military Representatives
at Versailles relative to the occupation of Memel prior to ratification
of the Treaty (See Appendix “A”).) Report of the
Military Representatives at Versailles Relative to the Occupation of
Memel Prior to the Ratification of the Treaty
General Desticker read and commented upon the
report.
(After a short discussion
It was decided:
to approve the report as prepared by the Military Representatives
at Versailles, and that no troops should be sent to Memel before
the entry into force of the Treaty.)
2. (The Council had before it the report of the Military Representatives
at Versailles relative to the suppression of the Inter-Allied the
Transport Commission (See Appendix “B”).)
General Desticker read and commented upon the
report. Report of the Military Representatives at
Versailles Suggesting the Suppression of the Interallied Transport
Commission
(It was decided:
to suppress the Inter-Allied Transport Commission, as proposed by
the Military Representatives at Versailles in their report.)
3. (The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation on the
Hungarian situation (See Appendix “C”).)
M. Berthelot read and commented upon the note
prepared by the French Delegation. He wished to bring to the attention
of the Council that in paragraph 2, of Page 4,1 the phrase relative to the Inter-Allied
force under discussion should be understood in the sense that the force
include only Serbian, Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak troops, under an
Inter-Allied command. Roumanian and Hungarian
Questions
Mr. Polk stated that he had not yet seen a
final report from Sir George Clerk and he thought it might be advisable
to await this information before discussing the question. He should,
however, inquire how the Council intended to treat the Inter-Allied
Commission of Generals; if this Inter-Allied Commission had not
succeeded, it was because the Supreme Council had not backed it up
sufficiently.
M. Berthelot thought that they had not carried
out with sufficient authority the instructions given them by the Supreme
Council, and on the other hand, they had not shown initiative, and did
not seem to have had a consistent policy. As for Sir George Clerk, he
did not seem to have succeeded in his mission with M. Friedrich. The
affair seemed to be dragging along; M. Friedrich had not yet retired and
the Democratic Government had not been formed as was expected by the
Council. He added that the French proposition was not to belittle
[Page 909]
the mission of Sir George
Clerk in any fashion, but it was important to clear up the situation and
settle this vexatious question.
M. Pichon thought it was extremely important to
solve this question as soon as possible.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Roumanian and
Hungarian questions of course involved each other. Sir George Clerk had
insisted on the importance of getting the Roumanians out of the country,
and a stable government could not be formed until this had been settled.
The information from Sir George Clerk said there might be disadvantages,
but the balance of advantage was that the Roumanians should be gotten
out. The Roumanians were defying the Council. M. Bratiano was dragging
on negotiations with no intention of following the instructions of the
Council. He certainly thought that they should insist on getting an
answer from Roumania and he thought that the Council should publish the
note2 which has been sent to
Roumania. M. Bratiano was spreading false versions of the note, sent in
the course of the electioneering campaign which was going on in
Roumania, and was pretending that there was no disagreement as between
the Allies and Roumania.
M. Berthelot stated it was quite evident that
the Roumanian troops should first get out but there was great danger if
the Roumanian troops were to leave the country before other troops were
sent to replace them. In that case, the Allies would find before them at
Budapest only a Friedrich Government which had in its hands a force of
police; outside of Budapest was Admiral Horthy with an army of 20,000
men or so; at any rate he was reactionary and was a symbol of the
Haps-burgs. In conclusion, first: the Roumanians should get out;
secondly, the Roumanian troops should be replaced in such a way that the
Allies would be in a position to impose their policy at Budapest; but
the departure of the Roumanians would be dangerous if the Allies did not
have other means of controlling the situation. As far as the Roumanians
were concerned, there was no doubt whatever they should be obliged to
answer the note which had been sent them, and it might become advisable
to publish this note, although this might not be of very great practical
value, as elections were being held at this time. M. Bratiano was
pretending that this note had never been delivered to the Roumanian
Government by the Conference. According to his theory, only three out of
the four Principal Allied and Associated Powers had presented the note,
and the Italian representative had not associated himself with this
step. General Coanda, who had just arrived in Paris, claimed that there
was no need to reply to a note which had not been received.
[Page 910]
Mr. Polk had noticed in the French note a
reference to the American General which he did not approve. He thought
the American General had been doing his best to follow his instructions.
His only contention was that Roumania was not on trial, but that the
Supreme Council should be obeyed. The impression was going abroad in
Roumania that the orders which were being executed by the Commission did
not correspond to the real orders of the Supreme Council and also that
if the text of the note did not sound quite French, it was because it
stood for an Anglo-American translation. On the whole the impression
there was that America was against Roumania; that was not so, it was
only a question, as he had said before, of the orders of the Supreme
Council being followed. If there were so little coordination of action
between the Allies in this case, it argued [augured?] badly for the future.
M. Pichon said they were all agreed that the
Inter-Allied cohesion should be maintained.
Mr. Polk asked how it was possible after they
had ordered the Roumanians to leave Hungary, to think of leaving them in
the Inter-Allied forces referred to in the latter part of the French
note.
Sir Eyre Crowe said M. Berthelot’s remark—that
the Supreme Council’s note had not been received,—was a surprise. If
that were so, then they could not insist upon its being carried out.
That lack of cooperation in Bucharest was very serious.
M. Scialoja remarked that he had no information
on the non-presentation of the note by the Italian representative; he
would, however, get more information on the subject.
M. Pichon stated that according to a telegram
from the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest there had been delay in
presentation of the note to the Roumanian Government for the reason that
the Italian representative had not received his instructions. A second
telegram had informed him that the note had been delivered by three out
of four representatives of the Allies without awaiting any longer the
instructions of the Italian representative. He did not know whether the
Italian representative had now received these instructions, but he
wished to point out that the Roumanians were still maintaining that they
had not received the note.
Sir Eyre Crowe mentioned that M. Bratiano was
spreading the report that this was an Anglo-American intrigue.
M. Pichon was of the opinion that the note
should be published so as to put a stop to these rumors, and also a
further note, should the Council so decide.
Mr. Polk wished to point out that the Council
could only repeat the conclusions it had adopted at its meeting of
August 5th or thereabouts.
[Page 911]
M. Berthelot wished to point out that one could
not reproach the French Government with having opposed itself to any of
the orders sent to Bucharest. The French representative had always
delivered the notes either in the name of the Allies or in the name of
the French Government. Should M. Bratiano wish to try and cause
disagreement between the Allies this should carefully be avoided. He
repeated that two points were to be distinguished; on the Roumanian
question there was no discussion possible as to the attitude to be
taken, but the Hungarian question remained. The departure of the
Roumanians from Budapest ran the risk of bringing about a state of
anarchy or the reappearance of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Mr. Polk thought that early in September the
Council had ordered the Roumanians to turn over 10,000 rifles to the
Hungarian police which was to be organized, and he understood that only
1,000 rifles had been delivered up to this time without bayonets,
without sufficient ammunition, and that the machine guns had been
delivered without tripods. He thought there would be no use sending
another Mission to Budapest if there was to be no compliance with the
orders already sent out by the Council. If the present Mission had not
done its work, it would then be advisable to recall it.
M. Pichon agreed that this might be exact, but
there remained the danger of an armed force under the orders of Admiral
Horthy, with the shadow of a Hapsburg reaction. The Roumanians might be
lying, but they again affirmed that they had given up these arms; it
would be easy to verify this through the Mission and the orders should
then be carried out. He again pointed out how dangerous it would be to
recall Roumanian troops without being able to oppose an Inter-Allied
force to the Horthy force. It was important to organize a democratic
Government at Budapest or it would be impossible to sign peace with
Hungary.
Mr. Polk wished to remark that four of the
Powers had sent representatives to report on conditions in Hungary—he
personally had great confidence in General Bandholtz,—and if the Council
did not have confidence in these representatives it was for it to recall
them. Later the Council had sent Sir George Clerk, in whom also he had
the greatest confidence. He thought the Council should have confidence
in the men they sent on these Missions, and he considered it had been
well represented so far.
M. Berthelot said that if the police force at
Budapest was armed, that did not inspire great confidence, for it was in
the hands of the Friedrich government. It was quite clear that the
Council got its information from representatives wherever sent; it had
also the advantage of a general view of all the problems. The important
question was that there should not remain a dangerous and ridiculous
center
[Page 912]
of disorganization in
central Europe; a negative policy was not sufficient. They should have a
positive policy.
M. Pichon asked what was to be done about
Hungary. Were they going to deliver it to the Friedrich government or to
the Archduke? As the Allies would not have forces available to send
there, it seemed that the best solution would be to have the occupation
force composed of Serbian, Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak troops under an
Inter-Allied command. If the Council had in mind a better solution, this
was the time to put it forward.
Mr. Polk asked whether the question should not
also be examined by the Financial experts.
Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that Sir George Clerk
should be informed by telegram of the discussion, and asked for an
opinion on the possibility of employing Roumanian, Serbian and
Czecho-Slovak troops.
Mr. Polk agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe, that the
Council should not think of acting without Sir George Clerk’s
opinion.
M. Pichon remarked that Sir George Clerk could
also consult the Generals.
Sir Eyre Crowe inquired whether, in the
existence of the disturbed state of the country, it would be expedient
to use Roumanian troops, and whether a force containing Roumanian and
Serbian troops would work well.
M. Berthelot thought that this was simply a
question of command. He thought, however, that the Roumanians might be
excluded, especially if this exclusion might be used to show them how
little confidence was put in them by the Supreme Council. But it was
most important that they should have the symbol of an Inter-Allied
force, so as to disarm Horthy. Telegrams would not be sufficient to do
this. This occupation would not be very long, and with an efficient high
command it would be easy to await the formation of a democratic
Government.
M. Pichon summed up, stating that the Council
was agreed to send immediately a telegram to Bucharest, insisting that
the Roumanian Government should answer the last note sent by the
Council. M. Berthelot would now prepare the text of this telegram.
M. Berthelot submitted to the Council a draft
telegram which was approved (See Appendix “D”). He thought it advisable
to give the text of this telegram to the Roumanian Delegation that same
afternoon, and to publish the new and the former note the next day.
Sir Eyre Crowe informed the Council he had at
that moment received a telegram from Sir George Clerk, which he
proceeded to read to the Council.
(The Council unanimously agreed to adjourn the examination of the draft
telegram to be sent until the next meeting of the Council)
(It was decided:
[Page 913]
- (1)
- to send a note to the Roumanian Government insisting on a
prompt answer to the note which had already been sent by the
Council on October 12th;
- (2)
- that this note should be immediately delivered to the
Roumanian Government at Bucharest by the four representatives of
the Powers without waiting for further instructions from their
respective Governments;
- (3)
- to give the Roumanian Delegation at Paris a copy of this note
that same afternoon;
- (4)
- that the present note, and also the original note, should be
published the following day.)
4. The Council had before it a report from the New States Commission (See
Appendix “E”), and a draft Treaty with Greece (See Appendix “F”).) Greek Minorities Treaty
M. Kammerer read and commented upon the report
of the New States Commission and the draft Treaty with Greece. He added
that the proposed Treaty concerned European territory only and should
any Asiatic territory be attributed to Greece at a later time, a new
treaty would be necessary. Greece should also be informed that the
Treaty would be communicated to her at this time, but that the signature
would only follow upon the final attribution to her of certain
territories.
(After a short discussion
It was decided:
- (1)
- to approve the draft Treaty between the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers and Greece, prepared by the New States
Commission;
- (2)
- that in communicating the text of this treaty to the Greek
Delegation the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference should
inform the Delegation that it only applied to territories
situated in Europe, and that Greece would not be asked to sign
the Treaty before the territories to be attributed to her had
been determined.)
5. M. Fromageot wished to inquire which Powers
should figure in the preamble of the Treaty with Bulgaria, and also
which Powers were to sign. America and Japan were not at war with
Bulgaria, but it seemed anomalous that they should not sign, taking into
account the different dispositions of the Treaty. Treaty With Bulgaria
Mr. Polk understood that the question had
already been settled and that it was agreed that all the Principal
Powers sign.
M. Fromageot said that, as for the other Allied
and Associated Powers, a certain number had not declared war against
Bulgaria, but their full powers had already been presented to the
Bulgarian Delegation; under those circumstances they had a right to
sign. He proposed that a circular letter should be sent them asking
whether they intended to sign, and he thought this would not delay the
delivery of the reply to the Bulgarian counter-proposals.
[Page 914]
It was decided:
- (1)
- that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should
sign the Treaty with Bulgaria;
- (2)
- that a circular letter should be addressed to the other Allied
Powers which had not declared war against Bulgaria, to inquire
whether it was their intention to sign the Treaty.)
6. (The Council had before it the note from the Dutch Government (See
Appendix “G”) and the draft reply prepared by the Drafting Committee to
this note (See Appendix “H”).)
M. Fromageot read and commented upon both
documents. He wished to add that the note sent by the Supreme Council on
October 15th to Germany3 conformed to the
declarations made in March at the Conference in Brussels concerning the
question of ships in course of construction. He wished to point out that
the decision was formerly that all ships in course of construction were
to be delivered to the Allies. Draft Reply to the
Dutch Government Regarding German Ships Sold to Dutch Navigation
Companies
M. Scialoja remarked that, in the reply to the
Dutch Government, paragraph 7, Annex 3, to Part VIII of the Treaty with
Germany should be had in mind. A possible objection from the Dutch
Government should be foreseen: the Treaty stated that Germany agreed to
take any measures that might be necessary for obtaining the full title
to the property in all ships which might have been transferred during
the war to neutral flags. It therefore followed that Holland might very
well tell the Allies that they should address their demands to Germany
and not to her. He would like the Drafting Committee to take into
consideration the possibility of that objection in the note to be sent
to Holland.
Mr. Polk stated that apparently the said
paragraph tied the hands of the Supreme Council; but as a matter of
principle, this would not be in accord with the American view of
International Law. Should not this note be sent back to the Drafting
Committee to prepare a text which would satisfy all the members of the
Council?
Sir Eyre Crowe wished to remark that if an
argument were begun with the Dutch Government, it would be difficult to
foresee how long this discussion might last.
(It was decided:
to refer back to the Drafting Committee the draft reply to the
note from the Dutch Government for further examination.)
[Page 915]
7. (The Council had before it a report from the Allied Railways
Commission in Poland relative to the opening for commercial traffic of
the three railroads crossing the German-Polish frontier north of Warsaw
(See Appendix “I”).)
Colonel Kisch read and commented upon this
report. He brought up the personal suggestion that the Armistice
Commission was not the proper authority, but that the question should be
referred to the Allied Representatives in Berlin. Proposal of the Allied Railways Commission in Poland To Open for
Commercial Traffic the Three Railroads Crossing the German-Polish
Frontier North of Warsaw
(After a short discussion
It was decided:
to approve the conclusions of the report as presented by the
Allied Railways Commission in Poland, with this modification:
that the Allied Military Representatives charged with the
Polish-German Affairs acquaint the German Government with the
agreements if any, concluded at Warsaw.)
8. (The Council had before it a request of the European Danube Request of
the Commission on the International Conference to establish the regime
of the Danube, as provided for in Article 349 of the German Treaty (See
Appendix “J”).) Request of the European Danube
Commission on the International Conference to Establish the Regime
of the Danube, as Provided for in Article 349 of the German
Treaty
(After a short discussion
It was decided:
to refer this request to the Drafting Committee for examination
and report as to points of law.)
9. (The Council had before it the request of the European Danube
Commission for the attribution of two tugs to that Commission (See
Appendix “K”).) Request of the European Danube
Commission for the Attribution of Two Tugs to That
Commission
(It was decided:
to attribute two tugs belonging to the Enemy Powers to the
European Danube Commission for an indemnity to be fixed by the
arbitrators.)
10. (The Council had before it the note from the German Delegation to the
Reparations Commission regarding the transport by sea of potatoes
purchased by Germany in Denmark (See Appendix “L”).) Note From the German Delegation to the Reparations Commission
Regarding the Transport by Sea of Potatoes Purchased by Germany in
Denmark
(It was decided:
to refer back to the Allied Naval Armistice Commission this
question for examination and report.)
(The meeting then adjourned.)
Hotel de Crillon, Paris, November 3, 1919.
[Page 916]
Appendix A to HD–82
supreme war
council
military representatives
S. W. C. 477
(89th M. R.)
Versailles, 30 October, 1919.
Report on the Occupation of
Memel
By a resolution dated October 25th, 1919,4 the
Supreme Council decided:
“to refer to the Military Representatives at Versailles for
examination and report the question of whether the situation in
the Baltic Provinces was such as to necessitate occupying Memel
before the prescribed date”.
The Military Representatives
Taking into consideration:
- (1)
- That Germany maintains her sovereignty over the Memel
district until the moment when the Treaty shall have come
into force.
- (2)
- That the occupation of Memel before the Treaty shall have
come into force would expose the troops of occupation to
possible attack by German troops from East Prussia on the
West, or from Lithuania on the East, or from both these
directions, and that as long as the allied force intended
for the occupation of the Plebiscite areas (Danzig, East
Prussia, &c) are not in position (which will not be the
case until after the coming into force of the Treaty) the
allied forces in the Territory of Memel would be left
without any reserves.
- (3)
- That the combatant strength of the German forces in East
Prussia and Lithuania appear to be approximately 20,000 and
40,000 respectively.
- (4)
- That it would be impracticable to occupy Memel in
sufficient force to make the troops of occupation safe
against such an attack.
- (5)
- That the Supreme Council has already decided (on October
14th [15th], 1919)5 to occupy Memel
after that region shall have passed to the hands of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
Are of the opinion
That the occupation of Memel before the prescribed date would offer
certain advantages in providing the Inter-Allied Commission
proceeding to the Baltic Provinces with an efficient means of
action, but that in view of the considerations reviewed above, this
occupation should not be effected before the coming into force of
the Treaty.
[Page 917]
Desticker
Military Representative, French Section, Supreme
War Council
Sackville-West
Major-General, Military Representative, British Section,
Supreme War Council
Cavallero
Military
Representative, Italian Section, Supreme War
Council
Embick
Military
Representative, American Section, Supreme War
Council
Appendix B to HD–82
Copy No. 26
supreme war
council
military representatives
S. W. C. 476
(89th M. R.)
Joint Note No. 46
Joint Note to the Supreme War
Council by its Military Representatives
subject—suppression of the
inter-allied transportation committee
To the Supreme War Council.
By its decision dated February 1st, 1918, (3rd Session), the Supreme
War Council approved Joint Note No. 8 of the Military
Representatives in which they proposed “The Constitution of an
Inter-Allied Transportation Committee … , to report to the Supreme
War Council.”
This committee was charged “To draw up a statement of the existing
position of affairs as regards Inter-Allied Transportation, the
projects now under way, the present state of, and future
possibilities in, construction … and to make definite
recommendations as to their coordination on the most efficient lines
… to advise as to execution, and to report as to progress.”
The Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council
Having taken into consideration
- 1.
- That the principal reasons for the formation of the
Inter-Allied Transportation Committee have ceased with the State
of War,
- 2.
- That all the questions which have been sent for examination
and report to the said Committee, by the Supreme War Council,
or, all preliminary technical examination having been completed,
have at present been submitted to the decision of the interested
Governments or of the Supreme Council,
- 3.
- That though, at the present moment, there may still exist
numerous questions interesting any two Governments, there no
longer exist from the point of view of transportation any
questions common to all, beyond those dealt with by the Supreme
Economic Council,
Are of opinion
That the maintenance of the Inter-Allied Transportation Committee is
no longer necessary, and that it would be advisable in consequence
to decide on its suppression.
Desticker
Military Representative, French Section, Supreme
War Council
Sackville-West
Major-General, Military Representative, British Section,
Supreme War Council
Cavallero
Military
Representative, Italian Section, Supreme War
Council
Embick
Military
Representative, American Section, Supreme War Council
Given at
Versailles, 30th October,
1919.
Appendix C to HD–82
Note From the French
Delegation
The Situation in Hungary
The Supreme Council has, on many occasions, studied the situation in
Hungary. Recently, it directed Sir George Clerk to proceed to
Budapest, bearer of a decision made by the Allies in which the
Friedrich Ministry was notified; that it was invited to modify its
Government and include democratic elements without delay.6
Since the arrival of the emissary of the Conference, the Ministerial
situation in Hungary has undergone no modification. If decisive
measures are not adopted and put into execution by the Supreme
Council, the situation in Hungary is very liable to become
decisively more aggravated.
The position of the three powers now co-existing in Budapest may be
presented in the following manner:
1st—Mr. Friedrich continues to elude the wishes of the Allies and to
refuse to constitute a democratic Ministry, representative of all
the elements of the country, the only Ministry which would be
capable of conducting equitable elections and concluding a peace
with the Allies in the name of the entire country.
On the other hand, Admiral Horthy, who is an energetic,
ultra-reactionary personality, susceptible of intriguing for his own
military
[Page 919]
dictatorship, has
constituted a force comprising about 20,000 men who are fully armed
and devoted to him.
These two elements (Mr. Friedrich and Admiral Horthy) represent, each
on his side, a mask of the former absolutism and in particular the
Archduke Joseph. If the Allies do not intervene, they will probably
witness, immediately after the departure of the Rumanian troops, and
even if a small police force has been constituted in the Capital,
the re-appearance, under one form or another, of the Hapsburg
dynasty. The democratic policy, which is the policy of our Allies in
Rumania, Bohemia, Jugoslavia, France, England, the United States and
Italy, will be justified in reproaching the Conference for allowing
the establishment of a clerical and reactionary government which
would finally reestablish fatal ties with Vienna and Berlin.
It must be added that Admiral Horthy, whose clique seems to favor a
military dictatorship, in no wise dissimulates his intention to take
advantage of the momentary difficulties existing in Slovakia to
resume on the very first pretext, the struggle against the Czechs
and to commence by taking possession of Presbourg: the vital danger
of that situation was pointed out by Mr. Benes.
2nd—The Rumanian army, despite the reproaches made toward it
concerning requisitions and the evident abuses of force committed by
it, represents, however, the only material force which is capable of
preventing the reconstruction of the Royalist Government at
Budapest. The Allies esteem, however, that the Rumanian army must
evacuate the Capital as soon as possible in order to permit a
regular Government to be constituted and operate freely. The
Rumanians declare that they are ready to withdraw their troops to
the rear, in view of the present situation, but point out that if
such decisions are taken, the situation will become still more
embarrassing for the Allies. They, have, moreover, furnished the
armies necessary for the organization of the city police force.
3rd—The Commission of Generals, it must be admitted, has not
succeeded, despite all efforts, to satisfactorily accomplish its
general mission, nor the special missions with which it was
entrusted by the Supreme Council on several occasions. The French
General has taken no action. His English colleague appears to be
acting in accordance with the original views which, however, do not
conform with the decisions and instructions of the Conference. The
American General and his Italian colleague, despite their efforts of
loyal documentation, do not appear to have been clearly conscious of
the views of the Allies. Under these circumstances, it does not
appear that the Commission of Generals is capable of resolving, in
itself, no matter what instructions may be sent them, the
difficulties of the Hungarian problem.
To find a practical solution of the difficulties of the Hungarian
Situation, and to place the country in a position to sign peace with
the Allies, a primary condition to the re-establishment of order and
for the functioning of a regular government, the following
provisions may be considered:
- 1st
- —Mr. Friedrich having shown that he could not or would not
constitute a Government in which all the democratic elements
of the
[Page 920]
population
would be represented, should be obliged to retire and make
place for a democratic government, the elements of which
exist in Budapest.
- 2nd
- —An Inter-Allied force of two divisions, placed under the
orders of an Allied Staff, in command of a General selected
by the Conference, and comprising Rumanian, Czech and
Serbian contingents, could replace the Rumanian troops which
are to fall back to the Theiss.
This small occupation corps would supervise the organization of a
local police, disarm Admiral Horthy’s army of adventurers, and would
guarantee freedom in the elections and the operations of the new
Hungarian Government. As soon as the situation would have been
regulated, and the return of the fallen dynasty averted, the Allies
would withdraw their troops. The signing of the peace would finally
be made possible and the country would resume its normal
situation.
If the Allies allow the situation at Budapest to continue, and if
they do not adopt a complete and precise plan of action, the
Hungarian situation is liable to compromise the entire condition in
Central Europe.
Appendix D to HD–82
Telegram
Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the French
Minister—Bucarest.
The Supreme Council has decided to request the Allied Ministers at
Bucarest to notify, jointly, without delay, the Roumanian Government
of the fact that it was unfavorably impressed upon learning that
General Coanda, sent as special envoy to Paris by the Roumanian
Ministry, arrived without the Roumanian reply to the last note from
the Powers,7 under the pretext that
the Italian Minister had not taken this step at the same time as
France, England and United States. The Supreme Council expresses the
formal desire to obtain, within the shortest time, a brief and clear
reply from the Roumanian Government on all the points discussed. As
the situation in Hungary demands an early decision in order to
ensure the re-establishment of normal conditions which is absolutely
essential for the security of Central Europe, the principal Allied
and Associated Powers cannot allow to [sic]
Roumania to prolong dilatory negotiations on the three questions
stated October 12th last.
Please communicate this in the name of the Conference, collectively
with your colleagues, who need not wait for special instructions
from their Governments, owing to the urgency of the situation.
[Page 921]
Appendix E to HD–82
conference
on
peace preliminaries
commission on new states
Report to the Supreme Council
Relative to the New Treaty With Greece
The Commission on New States has the honor to submit to the Supreme
Council the draft of Treaty which is to be presented for the
signature of the Greek Delegation.
During the elaboration of this draft, the Commission duly noted the
observations of Mr. Venizelos and the original text has been
modified on many points in order to comply with several of his
requests. In the preamble, for instance, he indicated, as is true,
that the Greek Delegation had always evidenced broad views.
Concerning this point, to which Mr. Venizelos attached great
importance, the Commission, however, did not deem it possible to
accord satisfaction. Article 9 imposes on Greece, concerning the
provinces which were ceded to her subsequent to January 1, 1913,
which are peopled with an important proportion of non-Greek
inhabitants, the obligation to insure instruction in the State
Schools in a language other than Greek. Thus the Greek Government is
expected, in certain regions, to insure to the Greek citizens of
Bulgarian language, instruction in their own tongue. Mr. Venizelos
indicated that the Greek Government would vigorously oppose this
decision.
In this matter, the Commission feels obliged to point out that the
general object of these Treaties is to guarantee that the foreign
populations which are united to Greece, or to any other State, have
full liberty to use their own language. This principle was
established and maintained in corresponding Treaties. It might also
be indicated that if Bulgarian schools are provided for by the Greek
Government, there would be considerably less danger that they would
be used for political propaganda and intrigue, for the Bulgarian
children, than in the private schools which would not be under State
control.
That question being considered as a matter of principle, the
Commission did not consider it necessary to make any concession to
Mr. Venizelos on this point.
The attention of the Supreme Council is called to another important
point. The Treaties of 18328 and 1863,9 establishing the
independence of Greece, obligated that nation, in conformity with
the views of France, Great Britain and Russia, protective powers, to
remain a constitutional monarchy. The Committee has esteemed that a
clause restricting
[Page 922]
the
sovereignty of the Greek people, with respect to the basis of their
own Constitution, should no longer be maintained, and that it is
fitting to liberate Greece from a situation which places her in a
state of inferiority in relation with the other States. For this
reason, the Commission proposes that the English and French
Governments release the Greek Government from the obligations
imposed on it by the Treaties of 1832 and 1863, in the present
Treaty. The Commission further proposes, that, in view of the
obligations borne by Greece, in conformity with the present Treaty,
on account of the engagements assumed by her, and assured under the
protection of the League of Nations, France and Great Britain
release Greece from the special obligations which she accepted
toward these two Governments in 1830 and which had reference to the
maintenance of religious liberty.10
The clauses of the present Treaty are, for the greater part,
analogous with those of the other Treaties. There are, however,
certain special articles concerning the protection of the Valaques
of Pindus, the non-Greek monastic communities of Mount Athos, and of
the Mussulmans. The stipulations in the article relative to the
protection of the Jews are much less strict than those which were
deemed necessary in the Treaty with Poland. The liberalism
manifested by the Greek Government in its relations with the Jews
has appeared of a nature to render more detailed restrictions as
needless.
The Commission adds that this Treaty was drafted without taking into
account any territories of Asia which might be ceded to Greece. If
cessions of that nature are accorded, protection for the non-Greek
populations of these territories should be the object of further
stipulations.
Appendix F to HD–8211
Draft of a Treaty
Between
The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, and
Japan.
Described as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,
On the
one hand;
And Greece
On the other hand;
Whereas since the 1st January 1913 large accessions of territory have
been made to the Kingdom of Greece, and
Whereas the Kingdom of Greece which has given to the populations
included in its territories, without distinction of origin, language
or
[Page 923]
religion, equality of
rights, is desirous of confirming these rights and of extending them
to the populations of the territories which might be added to the
Kingdom so that they shall have full and complete guarantee that
they shall be governed in conformity with the principles of liberty
and justice, and
Whereas it is desired to free Greece from certain obligations which
she has undertaken towards certain Powers and to substitute for them
obligations to the League of Nations, and
Whereas it is desired also to free Greece from certain other
obligations which she has undertaken to certain Powers and which
constitute a restriction upon her full internal sovereignty.
For this purpose the following Representatives of the High
Contracting Parties:
The President of the United States of America,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
His Majesty The King of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas,
Emperor of India,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
The President of the French Republic,
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
His Majesty the King of Italy,
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H. M. The Emperor of Japan,
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
His Majesty the King of the Hellenes.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form,
have agreed as follows:
France and Great Britain hereby renounce for their part to the
special rights of supervision and control devolving upon them under
the Treaty of London of May 7, 1832,12 under the
Treaty of London of November 14, 1863,13 and, as regard the Ionian Island,
by the Treaty of 29 March 1864.14
France and Great Britain, recognising that under the present Treaty
Greece has undertaken obligations for the maintenance of religious
liberty which are placed under the guarantee of the League of
Nations, hereby renounce for their part the rights conferred upon
them by the Protocol No. 3 of the Conference held in London on the
3rd February 1830, to ensure the protection of the principle of
religious equality.15
[Page 924]
Chapter I
Article 1
Greece undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 2 to 8
of this chapter shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no
laws, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with
these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action
prevail over them.
Article 2
Greece undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and
liberty to all inhabitants of Greece without distinction of birth,
nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Greece shall be entitled to the free exercise,
whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, whose
practices are not inconsistent with public order or public
morals.
Article 3
Greece admits and declares to be Greek nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality
Bulgarian or Turkish (or Albanian) nationals habitually resident at
the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty in
territories transferred to Greece since January 1st 1918 [1913?].
Nevertheless, the persons referred to above who are over eighteen
years of age will be entitled under the conditions contained in the
said Treaties to opt for any other nationality which may be open to
them. Option by a husband will cover his wife and option by parents
will cover their children under eighteen years of age.
Persons who have exercised the above right to opt must, except where
it is otherwise provided in the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria and
Turkey transfer within the succeeding twelve months, their place of
residence to the State for which they have opted. They will be
entitled to retain their immovable property in Greek territory. They
may carry with them their movable property of every description. No
export duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the
removal of such property.
Article 4
Greece admits and declares to be Greek nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality
persons of Bulgarian or Turkish nationality who were born in the
said territories of parents habitually resident there, even if at
the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty they are not
themselves habitually resident there.
[Page 925]
Nevertheless, within two years after the coming into force of the
present Treaty, these persons may make a declaration before the
competent Greek authorities in the country in which they are
resident, stating that they, abandon Greek nationality, and they
will then cease to be considered as Greek nationals. In this
connection a declaration by a husband will cover his wife, and a
declaration by parents will cover their children under eighteen
years of age.
Article 5
Greece undertakes to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of
the right which the persons concerned have, under the Treaties
concluded or to be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers
with Bulgaria or Turkey, to choose whether or not they will acquire
Greek nationality.
Article 6
All persons born in Greek territory who are not born nationals of
another State shall ipso facto become Greek
nationals.
Article 7
All Greek nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the
same civil and political rights without distinction as to race,
language or religion.
Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice and
[any] Greek national in matters relating
to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as for instance
admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the
exercise of professions and industries.
No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any Greek national
of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in
the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.
Notwithstanding any establishment by the Greek Government of an
official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Greek
nationals of non-Greek speech for the use of their language, either
orally or in writing, before the courts.
Article 8
Greek nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic
minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in
fact as the other Greek nationals. In particular they shall have an
equal right to establish manage and control at their own expense
charitable religious and social institutions, schools and other
educational establishments, with the right to use their own language
and to exercise their religion freely therein.
[Page 926]
Article 9
Greece will provide in the public educational system in towns and
districts in which a considerable proportion of Greek nationals of
other than Greek speech are resident adequate facilities for
ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given
to the children of such Greek nationals, through the medium of their
own language. This provision shall not prevent the Greek Government
from making the teaching of the Greek language obligatory in the
said schools.
In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of
Greek nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic
minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in
the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out
of public funds under the State, municipal or other budget, for
educational, religious or charitable purposes.
The provisions of the present article apply only to territory
transferred to Greece since the first of January 1913.
Article 10
In towns and districts where there is resident a considerable
proportion of Greek subjects of the Jewish religious [religion], the Greek Government agrees that
these Jews shall not be compelled to perform any act which
constitutes a violation of their Sabbath, and that they shall not be
placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend
courts of law or to perform any legal business on their Sabbath.
This provision however shall not exempt Jews from such obligations
as shall be imposed upon all other Greek citizens for the necessary
purposes of military service national defence or the preservation of
public order.
Article 11
Greece agrees to accord to the community of the Valachs of Pindus,
local autonomy in regard to religious charitable or scholastic
matters under the control of the Greek State.
Article 12
Greece undertakes to recognise and maintain the traditional rights
and liberties enjoyed by the non Greek monastic communities of
Mount-Athos under clause 62 of the Treaty of Berlin.15a
[Page 927]
Article 13
Greece agrees to grant to the Musulmans in the matter of family law
and personal status provisions suitable for regulating these matters
in accordance with Musulman usage.
The Greek government shall take measures to assure the nomination of
a Reiss ul Ulema.
Greece undertakes to insure protection to the mosques cemeteries and
other Musulman religious establishments. Full recognition and
facilities shall be assured to pious foundations (vakoufs), Musulman religious and charitable establishments
now existing and Greece shall not refuse to the creation of new
religious and charitable establishments any of the necessary
facilities guaranteed to other private establishments of this
nature.
Article 14
Greece agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing Articles, so far
as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic
minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and
shall be placed under the guaranty of the League of Nations. They
shall not be modified without the assent of a majority of the
Council of the League of Nations. The United States, the British
Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their
assent from any modification in these Articles which is in due form
assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of
Nations.
Greece agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations
shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any
infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these
obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and
give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the
circumstances.
Greece further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions
of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Greek
Government and any one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers
or any other Power, a Member of the Council of the League of
Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character
under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Greek
Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other
party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of
International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be
final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under
Article 13 of the Covenant.
[Page 928]
Chapter II
Article 15
Greece undertakes to make no Treaty, Convention or arrangement and to
take no other action which will prevent her from joining in any
general Convention for the equitable treatment of the commerce of
other States that may be concluded under the auspices of the League
of Nations within five years from the coming into force of the
present Treaty.
Greece also undertakes to extend to all the Allied and Associated
Powers any favours or privileges in Customs matters, which it may
grant during the same period of five years to any state with which
since August 1914 the Allied and Associated Powers have been at war
or to any State which in virtue of Article 6 of Part X of the Treaty
with Austria has special Customs arrangements with such States.
Article 16
Pending the conclusion of the general convention referred to above,
Greece undertakes to treat on the same footing as national vessels
or vessels of the most favoured nation the vessels of all the Allied
and Associated Powers [which?] accord similar treatment to Greek
vessels. As an exception from this provision, the right of Greece or
of any other Allied or Associated Power to confine her maritime
coasting trade to national vessels is expressly reserved.
Article 17
Pending the conclusion under the auspices of the League of Nations of
a general convention to secure and maintain freedom of
communications and of transit, Greece undertakes to accord freedom
of transit to persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails
in transit to or from any Allied or Associated State over Greek
territory, including territorial waters, and to treat them at least
as favourably as the persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and
mails respectively of Greece or of any other more favoured
nationality, origin, importation or ownership, as regards
facilities, charges, restrictions, and all other matters.
All charges imposed in Greece on such traffic in transit shall be
reasonable having regard to the conditions of the traffic. Goods in
transit shall be exempt from all customs or other duties.
Tariffs for transit across Greece and tariffs between Greece and any
Allied or Associated Power involving through tickets or waybills
shall be established at the request of the Allied or Associated
Power concerned.
Freedom of transit will extend to postal, telegraphic and telephonic
services.
[Page 929]
Provided that no Allied or Associated Power can claim the benefit of
these provisions on behalf of any part of its territory in which
reciprocal treatment is not accorded in respect of the same subject
matter.
If within a period of five years from the coming into force of this
Treaty no general convention as aforesaid shall have been concluded
under the auspices of the League of Nations, Greece shall be at
liberty at any time thereafter to give twelve months notice to the
Secretary General of the League of Nations to terminate the
obligations of the present Article.
Article 18
All rights and privileges accorded by the foregoing articles to the
Allied and Associated Powers shall be accorded equally to all States
members of the League of Nations.
The Present Treaty, in French in English and in Italian of which in
case of divergence the French text shall prevail, shall be ratified.
It shall come into force at the same time as the Treaty of Peace
with Bulgaria.
The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris.
Powers of which the seat of the Government is outside Europe will be
entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic
through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their
ratification has been given; in that case they must transmit the
instrument of ratification as soon as possible.
A procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn up.
The French Government will transmit to all the signatory Powers a
certified copy of the proces-verbal of the deposit of
ratifications.
In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Treaty.
Done at Paris, the . . . . . . . . 1919, in a single copy which will
remain deposited in the archives of the French Republic, and of
which authenticated copies will be transmitted to each of the
Signatory Powers.
Appendix G to HD–82
From: Roosmale Nepveu
To: Pichon, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Dutch Government has noted the text, as published in the papers,
of a note addressed to the German Government by the Supreme Council
of the Allied and Associated Powers.16
It is shown
[Page 930]
in this note
that the Supreme Council has requested the delivery of the following
five ships to the Allied Governments:
- Johan Heinrich Burchard,
- William Oswald,
- Braunschweig,
- Denderah,
- Nassau.
The “Koninklijke Hollansche Lloyd” Dutch Navigation Company purchased
the William Oswald and the Johan Heinrich Burchard on the 15th of June 1916. The
other three ships were purchased by the “Holland-Amerika Lijn” Dutch
Navigation Company on July 29, 1915, and August 7, 1915.
These ships, the purchase price of which was paid by the two
Companies in question, were in course of construction at the time of
the transaction. With reference to these ships, they were never at
any time, properly speaking, German property and were never carried
on the register of German ships. They were provided for the first
time with Dutch clearances.
As a consequence, the ships in question are incontestably Dutch
property, the more so in that at the time of the transaction there
existed no prescription prohibiting the sale of German ships, in
course of construction, or the purchase of German ships, by
neutrals.
The Dutch Government has indicated the rights of the Dutch Companies
to the German Government.
The Government of the Queen thought it advisable to bring the
preceding to the knowledge of the Supreme Council. The Government
entertains the hope that the Supreme Council will recognize the
rights of the Dutch Companies, and that measures will [not?] be
taken which would thwart the delivery of the ships in question to
their legitimate owners.
By order of my Government, I have the honor to apply to your
Excellency to act as intermediary in presenting this communication
to the Supreme Council.
Please accept, etc.
[No signature on file copy]
Appendix H to HD–82
A. S.
German Ships Ceded to Holland
Note From the Drafting
Committee
The Drafting Committee is of the opinion that the letter from the
Dutch Minister, dated October 28th,17 calls for the following
response:
[Page 931]
A ship of enemy origin cannot, during the war, escape the practice of
the rights of belligerents, that is to say the liability of capture
during hostilities, by sale or cession, nor upon the reestablishment
of Peace, escape the Peace Conditions covering enemy ships.
The letter from the Dutch Minister contends that upon the dates when
the purchase of these ships took place, there existed no
prescription prohibiting the purchase of German ships by
neutrals.
The Minister of the Netherlands appears to forget that by
international law, the purchase of enemy ships in the course of war
cannot in principle, be opposed to the belligerents.
Appendix I to HD–82
Copy
From: The Minister of France to Poland.
To: The Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Resumption of Commercial Traffic
on Railroads Crossing the Germano-Polish Frontiers
I have the honor of addressing herewith to Your Excellency a copy of
a note from the Allied Mission on Railroads proposing to ask the
Polish Government for the opening to commercial traffic of the three
railroads crossing the present Germano-Polish frontiers north of
Warsaw:
- Bialystok–Lyck
- Warsaw–Mlawa–Danzig
- Lowicz–Thorn.
I would be thankful to Your Excellency to be kind enough to inform me
if this proposition is agreeable. The Minister of the United States
has already informed the representative of his country at the Peace
Congress in Paris of the question and is expecting instructions
directly.
I am of the opinion, in accord with my English and American
colleagues, that in case of affirmative we could open negotiations
with Poland by identical verbal notes.
It would also be advisable, evidently, to ask Marshal Foch to start
similar negotiations at Berlin.
The Allied missions on railroads and supplies deem that it is now
time to take measures to open the railroad lines between Poland and
Germany (northern frontier) to traffic of travellers and
merchandise. The three lines considered are: the direct line between
Lowicz and Thorn; the line Warsaw–Mlawa–IUowo–Danzig; and the line
Bialvstok–Lyck.
[Page 932]
The most
important would seem to be the second. The only traffic existing at
the present time for merchandise is that which is exploited by the
Allied Commissions on Supplies, and the movement of travellers
consists only in a bi-weekly courier that only persons accredited to
the various missions are authorized to make use of.
The Missions on Railroads and Supplies think that it is of prime
importance to begin the exploitation of this line at as early a date
as possible, under reserve of maintaining the passports and
authorizations to the necessary extent.
They would like to remark that as the lines are now exploited to the
frontiers of Posnania, there are no good reasons to keep the
frontiers of the north closed.
Therefore, the Mission proposes to the Ministers of France, the
United States and Great Britain to ask the Polish Government if it
has any objections, and if it has, at what date shall it decide to
open the frontiers.
Moreover, as soon as the date shall have been fixed, these missions
would propose to their respective Ministers that they inform the
German Government requesting it at the same time to send a
representative to Warsaw to come to an understanding on the measures
of detail.
The operation of Frontier Commissions of Allied Officers and more
especially at Mlawa and Illowo would not appear necessary.
Delalain
French Delegate to the Allied Mission on
Railroads
Hammond
Brigadier General,
Chief of the Allied Mission on Railroads in
Poland
Joyce
Lieutenant: for the
American Commission of Supplies
Credwson
Captain in the “Irish Guards”, Chief of the
British Mission of Supplies
Appendix J to HD–82
[The European Danube Commission to
the Supreme Council]
The European Danube Commission:
Whereas Article 349 of the Peace Treaty with Germany provides for the
early meeting of an International Conference to establish the regime
which is to apply to the Danube throughout its entire
internationalized course; whereas it is indispensable that the
European Danube Commission be represented in this Conference to
indicate the
[Page 933]
interests it
represents and to furnish the benefits of its experience in Danubian
affairs;
Decides;
to request the Supreme Council of the Allies to kindly assure the
representation of the European Danube Commission in the said
Conference.
Appendix K to HD–82
Copy
From: Minister Plenipotentiary, President of the
European Danube Commission.
To: President Clemenceau.
The Peace Treaty with Germany provides, in Article 339, that Germany
shall cede, within a maximum period of three months after she shall
have received notification, a portion of the tugs and ships which
will remain registered in the ports of the fluvial systems declared
as international, after the deductions which will be operated as
restitutions or reparations, to the Allied and Associated Powers
concerned. The establishment of the number and of the distribution
of these tugs and ships shall be determined by one or several
arbitrators designated by the United States of America, with full
consideration for the legitimate needs of the parties concerned.
This cession is to be operated for considerations as stipulated in
Article 339. Similar provisions figure in Article 300 of the Peace
Treaty with Article [Austria], and in Article
328 of the Peace Conditions presented to Bulgaria on September 19,
1919.
The European Danube Commission, entrusted by the Treaties with the
execution of important operations in the Lower Danube, is urgently
in need of several high-powered tugs which it is unable to obtain
through commercial channels without great delay, even if orders were
immediately placed with naval shipyards; the present encumbrance
existing in the maritime construction yards of the entire world
would render the filling of orders impossible within a period of
several years.
The European Danube Commission esteems, that in view of the public
interests represented by it, an organization which represents four
of the Allied and Associated Powers is entitled to the benefits of
Article 339 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, as well as to
analogous provisions in the Treaties concluded, or to be concluded,
with the former allies of that Power. For this reason, during its
recent plenary session, held in Paris a few days ago, the European
Danube
[Page 934]
Commission, during
a meeting held October 17, 1919 (in the morning) took the following
decision:
“The French Delegate shall present a request to the Supreme
Council of the Allies, for the attribution of two high-powered
tugs, which are necessary in the services of the European Danube
Commission, in compliance with the Conditions fixed by Article
339 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, 300 of the Peace Treaty
with Austria, 228 of the Peace Conditions presented to Bulgaria
on September 19, 1919, and of the analogous Article which shall
be inserted in the Peace Treaty with Hungary; these ships to be
selected from among the tugs ceded by Germany, Austria, Hungary
and Bulgaria to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned, and
to be attributed by the arbitrators who are to be designated by
the United States of America, by virtue of the aforementioned
Articles”.
In bringing the preceding decision to your attention, I have the
honor to indicate to the Supreme Council the advantage there would
be, considering the operations necessitated on the Lower Danube to
facilitate navigation, to attribute the tugs in question to the
European Danube Commission, for an indemnity to be fixed by the
arbitrators.
The price of these tugs would be, moreover, deducted from the
indemnities which are due the European Danube Commission by Germany,
in compliance with Article 352 of the Peace Treaty with that
Power.
Appendix L to HD–82
Note Handed to Mr. Loucheur, by the
President of the German Peace Delegation
On account of the threatening nature of the food situation in
Germany, a contract has been concluded with Denmark for the delivery
of 50,000 tons of potatoes.
It is absolutely necessary that these potatoes be transported before
the commencement of the frosts.
It is impossible, however, to make the shipments in time without
having recourse to German tonnage and to cross the Baltic sea. The
transportation should be made by steamers and German lighters of
about 500 to 750 tons.
For this reason petitions have already been addressed to the Allied
and Associated Governments by Denmark on this subject.
