Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/85
HD–85
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 Thursday, November 6, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Hon. F. L. Polk
- Secretary
- Mr. L. Harrison
- British Empire
- Sir Eyre Crowe
- Secretary
- Mr. H. Norman
- France
- M. Pichon
- Secretaries
- M. Berthelot
- M. de Saint Quentin
- Italy
- M. de Martino
- Secretary
- M. Barone Russo
- Japan
- M. Matsui
- Secretary
- M. Kawai
- America, United States of
| Joint Secretariat | |
| America, United States of | Capt. G. A. Gordon |
| 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. J. B. Scott
- British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- Mr. A. Leeper
- France
- General Walch
- Colonel Roye
- M. Fromageot
- Italy
- Lieut.-Colonel Toni
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
- M. Pilotti
- Prince Boncompagni
- Japan
- M. Nagaoka
1. (The Council had before it two telegrams from Sir George Clerk to the Supreme Council dated November 4th (See Appendix “A”) and November 5th (See Appendix “B”), a telegram from situation in the Interallied Military Mission dated November 5th (see Appendix “C”), and another telegram from the same sources dated November 3d, (See Appendix “D”). Situation in Hungary
M. Pichon pointed out that the telegram sent by the Council to Sir George Clerk on the preceding day1 satisfied in great measure the requests contained in his two telegrams. Both Sir George Clerk and the Inter-Allied Military Mission were opposed to the despatch of Jugo-Slav and Czech troops. As the suggestion of the French Delegation had not met with approval the point would not be insisted upon.
Sir Eyre Crowe observed that Sir George Clerk had asked authority to recognize at once the coalition government which he hoped would be formed. It would be well to give him this authority. The telegram of the preceding day gave him, as a matter of fact, an answer on this point. Sir George Clerk likewise desired not to be obliged to insist on the immediate withdrawal of Friedrich. On this point also the Council should meet his views.
M. Pichon said that a telegram should be sent to Sir George Clerk confirming the previous instructions of the Council and stating, moreover, that the Council relied on his tact. But the question still remained: what would happen after the departure of the Roumanian troops? Would not the presence of an Inter-Allied force be necessary? Would the Inter-Allied Mission suffice for the maintenance of order?
Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that that question had already been raised in the telegram sent on the preceding day, which had crossed Sir George Clerk’s telegrams. He wished to call attention to another point: would it not be well to request the Jugo-Slavs and the Czechs to retire immediately within their frontiers as laid down by the Council? According to the telegram of November 3rd, from the Inter-Allied Military Mission, the Czechs were raising difficulties with respect to the evacuation of the mines of Salgo-Tarjan: they were demanding as a condition precedent, reimbursement for their expenses relative to the supply of the Hungarian population. Would it not be well to request the Czechs to withdraw, at the same time assuring them that the Council would take into consideration the question of reimbursement for their expenses? Likewise, in the south, the Jugo-Slavs were still occupying the mines at Pecs, whereas, according to the decisions of the Council, that territory was to remain in the possession of Hungary.
[Page 3]M. de Martino thought that that was the time to insist upon all States bordering on Hungary recognizing the frontiers of the Hungarian State.
Mr. Polk observed that the Governments concerned had been notified of the lines laid down as the northern and eastern frontiers of Hungary;2 he wished to inquire whether there had been a similar notification with respect to the frontier between Hungary and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.
M. de Saint Quentin explained that at the time the Council had disallowed the Jugo-Slav claims in Baranya and Batchka,3 the Serbian Delegation had been notified of its decision.4 As a result of this notification the Serbs had formulated new proposals: They had, in particular, asked the right of exploiting the mines of Pecs for five years.5 The Serbian request had been referred to the Reparation Commission and the Economic Commission but both of these considered themselves without jurisdiction, as the question, to their minds, was essentially a political one; however, the Serbian request had neither been examined by the Central Territorial Committee nor the Committee for the Study of Territorial Questions relating to Roumania and Jugo-Slavia.
M. Pichon said that the Serbs must be informed that the territorial question had been settled, but that this decision would not prejudice the decision to be taken by the Council with respect to the exploitation of the mines of Pecs. He suggested that the latter question should be referred to the Committee for the Study of Territorial Questions relating to Roumania and Jugo-Slavia.
Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that a new fact had occurred; on October 25th the Serbian Delegation had asked that the evacuation of the territories actually held by the Yugo-Slav troops should be deferred until the question of the exploitation of the mines had been settled.
M. Berthelot thought the Yugo-Slav request inadmissible from the territorial point of view.
M. Pichon said it was agreed that the Czecho-Slovaks and the Yugo-Slavs, as well as the Roumanians, should be asked to evacuate. Moreover, M. Berthelot would prepare a draft telegram to Sir George Clerk.
M. Berthelot read a draft telegram prepared in accordance with the views expressed by the Council.
[Page 4]Sir Eyre Crowe felt it useless, since it had been decided not to send Czech and Yugo-Slav contingents into Hungary, to ask Sir George Clerk if he deemed it expedient to send an Interallied force.
M. Berthelot thought that the question should nevertheless be raised, because if Sir George Clerk should say that such a force was necessary it would be worth while studying the plan anew. In view of Sir George’s report as to the attitude of Friedrich it might be well to reflect on what would happen when Friedrich, with 30,000 men, found himself opposed to the Supreme Council and a mission of Generals without any troops.
Sir Eyre Crowe wondered what would happen if Sir George Clerk indicated that the sending of an Inter-Allied force was essential or even desirable. The only possible reply would be that no one could be sent.
M. Berthelot acknowledged that the situation would be difficult but he thought that it would not present an absolute impossibility.
M. de Martino remarked that Italy would certainly not send any troops.
M. Pichon agreed that the French also would find great difficulty in sending any.
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the question was purely an academic one. The wording proposed by M. Berthelot presented the difficulty that Sir George Clerk might well think that he was being offered something which the Council could not give him.
M. Pichon agreed that the telegram should be modified in the light of Sir Eyre Crowe’s remarks and should state that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers would find it very difficult to send any troops if the need should arise.
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that Sir George Clerk should also be asked if he deemed the Hungarian Police force adequate to cope with the situation.
M. de Martino desired a further addition to the effect that the Police force could be placed under the control of the Interallied Military Mission.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that Sir Eyre Crowe should send to Sir George Clerk, in the name of the Supreme Council, the telegram prepared by M. Berthelot (See Appendix “E”);
- (2)
- that the Czech and Serb-Croat-Slovene Governments should be requested to withdraw their troops immediately beyond the frontiers of Hungary as laid down by the Council;
- (3)
- that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government should be informed that the decisions taken by the Council with respect to territorial questions were final, but that the evacuation requested would not prejudice the solution of the question of the exploitation of the mines of Pecs;
- (4)
- that the request of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation proposing the grant to that Government for five years of the exploitation of the mines of Pecs, should be referred to the Committee for the study of Territorial Questions relating to Roumania and Yugo-Slavia.
2. M. Berthelot informed the Council that the Germans had given to the Press a fairly complete summary of the note7 and annexed Publication of protocol8 sent to them by the Council. He inquired if, under the circumstances, it would not be advisable to publish the complete text of that note. Publication of the Note and the Annexed Protocol Addressed to the German Government by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers
After a short discussion,
It was decided:
to publish the text of the note addressed to the German Government relative to the putting into force of the Treaty of Peace as well as the draft protocol annexed to that note.
3. (The Council had before it a letter from General Nollet dated October 21, 1919 (See Appendix “F”), a note from the Drafting Committee dated October 28th [29th] 1919 (See Appendix “G”), and a letter from Marshal Foch dated November 3, 1919 (See Appendix “H”.).) Salaries of the Personnel of Commissions of Control in Germany
General Walch read and commented upon Marshal Foch’s letter.
Mr. Polk, with respect to the organization of the personnel of the Commissions of Control, asked why it was necessary to call upon civilian engineers?
General Walch explained that the military technical personnel was inadequate to control the manufacture of war material. It was necessary to call upon competent specialists who could not be found in the regular army.
General Nollet had called upon about 10 engineers and about 40 university graduates. In so doing he had only followed the example furnished by the British Commission of Control.
(It was decided:
that the payment of the salaries of the personnel of the Military Commissions of Control in Germany not belonging to regular military forces, should be assumed by Germany.)
4. (The Council had before it a note from the British Delegation dated November 3, 1919 (See Appendix “I”) Publication of the Correspondence With the Austrian Delegation
Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that the note of the British Delegation specified that extreme care should be exercised with respect to the publication of the Austrian Notes marked “Confidential”.
[Page 6]Mr. Polk said that evidently such notes could not be published without the consent of Chancellor Renner.
Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that Dr. Renner could be asked if he still objected to the publication of those Notes.
M. de Martino observed that the publication of the notes raised some questions which were delicate from an Italian point of view, and he asked that a decision on this point be postponed.
(The question was adjourned)
5. (The Council had before it a letter from Marshal Foch to the President of the Peace Conference dated October 30th, 1919 (See Appendix “J”), and a note from the Drafting Committee dated November 5th, 1919 (See Appendix “K”) Demobilization of the Men of Haller’s Army
M. Fromageot read and commented upon these documents.
(After a short discussion
It was decided:
to approve the recommendations of the note of the Drafting Committee relative to demobilized Poles who had borne arms against Germany.)
6. (The Council had before it a note from the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission dated October 31st, 1919 (See Appendix “L”) Financial Measures of Coercion Taken Against Germany on Account of the Non-evacuation of the Baltic Provinces
M. Fromageot read and commented upon this note. He observed that it was not correct to speak of the annulment of authorizations which might have been given: the question was one of revocation of said authorization. Germany could not now create new pledges by availing itself of authorizations previously given, inasmuch as any such authorizations were now revoked.
(It was decided:
that the Drafting Committee should prepare a reply to M. Lou-cheur’s letter dated October 31st, 1919, relative to the interpretation of the financial measures of coercion taken against Germany on account of the non-evacuation of the Baltic Provinces (See the Note of September 27th, 1919).9
7. (The Council had before it a note from the Drafting Committee (See Appendix “M”) Liquidation of the Property of Inhabitants of Schleswig
M. Fromageot stated that the Danish Government had pointed out that after the plebiscite the inhabitants of Schleswig would become Danish citizens. What would become of the interests of those newly-made Danish subjects whose property in the meantime might have been liquidated by one of the Allied and Associated Powers as belonging [Page 7] to enemy subjects? The Drafting Committee had considered this contingency in the note which the Council had before it. It appeared that answer might be made to the Danish Government along the lines of the last paragraph of the said note; the Allied and Associated Powers, however, would always be at liberty to avail themselves of their rights of liquidation with respect to such new Danish subjects as did not seem to merit the consideration therein contemplated. Moreover, if the Principal Allied and Associated Powers arrived at such a decision, they should notify the other Allied Powers who, doubtless, would raise no difficulty over adopting the same procedure.
M. Pichon suggested that the Drafting Committee should come to an agreement with the Economic Commission, which had the question in hand, on the draft of a resolution to be communicated to the other Allied Powers.
Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that the Danish Government would have to be approached.
Mr. Polk took it as understood that the draft resolution would be submitted to the Council. He pointed out that he would have to refer the matter to his Government.
8. M. Berthelot reminded the Council that at a previous meeting the question of an American Military Mission reported to be at Riga had been brought up.10 According to his present information there appeared to be at Riga, besides a mission of relief and supply and a Red Cross mission, a mission under Colonel Holliday, who was reported to have arrived at Riga on October 15th. The Colonel was reported to have stated that he did not desire to collaborate with the Anglo-French Mission. Military Missions at Riga
Mr. Polk explained that Colonel Holliday was there alone. His duties were purely to collect information, and he had no political role to play. Moreover, General Cheney would see that he did not exceed his powers.
9. M. de Martino informed the Council that the Italian delegates to the Plebiscite and Delimitation Commissions would arrive at Paris on November 10th. They would be ready from that day on to confer with their Allied colleagues. Plebiscite and Delimination Commissions
M. Pichon said that Marshal Foch would be informed of this.
10. M. de Martino said that he had been informed from Vienna that Serbian and Roumanian representatives wished to participate in the work of the Commission, presided over by Sir Francis Dent, which was charged with the distribution of rolling stock. This claim seemed inadmissible, [Page 8] inasmuch as neither Serbia nor Roumania had signed the Austrian Treaty. Commission at Distribution of Rolling Stock
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the Commission in question was only a provisional one.
M. de Saint Quentin explained that it had been decided to send to Vienna a provisional Commission which would become a permanent Commission when the Treaty came into force. The character of the Commission was apparent from the fact that Hungary, an enemy country, was represented on it; it would therefore be difficult to deny representation to the Serbs and Roumanians.
M. de Martino said that he would examine the question anew.
11. M. Polk said that his Government wished to know if the question of the recognition of Luxembourg was to be decided by the Council. Luxembourg Affairs
M. Berthelot summarized the history of the question: when the question first arose five or six months ago the French Government declared that, from a political point of view, it would refrain from active participation in the Luxembourg question, and that it thought that the Belgian Government should be the first to make a decision. Belgium had told the French Government that it was opposed to recognizing the Grand Duchess. The French Government had transmitted this information to Rome, Washington and London and the Principal Powers abstained from recognizing the Grand Duchess. Eventually, and after at first refusing, Belgium consented that the fiancé of the Grand Duchess should be allowed to go to Luxembourg. The marriage was taking place that very day. Two days previously the Belgian Government had asked the French Government if it intended to recognize the Grand Duchess and to be represented at the marriage ceremony. He himself had replied by putting the same question to the Belgian Ambassador, since France had decided that Belgium should have the first word in political questions concerning Luxembourg. The Belgian Government had not yet replied. The French Government had been informed from other sources that the British Government intended to recognize the Grand Duchess and to be represented at the marriage ceremony. The French Government had then acquainted the British Government with the exact situation, at the same time informing the Italian Government.
M. Pichon said that the Council would arrive at a decision on the Luxembourg question.
(The meeting then adjourned.)
Hotel de Crillon, Paris, November 6, 1919.
[Page 9] [Page 11] [Page 14] [Page 18]- Appendix B to HD–84, vol. viii, p. 959.↩
- Appendices V (E) and V (F) to CF–65, vol. vi, pp. 413 and 416.↩
- HD–21, minutes 6 and 7, and appendices F and G, vol. vii, pp. 454, 468, and 471.↩
- HD–32, minute 9, ibid., p. 705.↩
- HD–74, minute 7, and appendix D, vol. viii, pp. 733 and 741.↩
- Appendix B to HD–80, vol. viii, p. 863.↩
- Appendix C to HD–80, ibid., p. 865.↩
- Appendix E to HD–62, vol. viii, p. 419.↩
- HD–79, minute 5, ibid., p. 838.↩
- Appendix A to HD–85, p. 9.↩
- Appendix B to HD–85, p. 9.↩
- Supra.↩
- Appendix C to HD–85, p. 10.↩
- Appendix B to HD–84, vol. viii, p. 959.↩
- See appendix V (E) to CF–65, vol. vi, p. 413; HD–21, minute 6, and appendix F, vol. vii, pp. 454 and 468; HD–32, minute 9, ibid, p. 705.↩
- See appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.↩
- Appendix F to HD–85, p. 12.↩
- Does not accompany the minutes in Department files.↩
- The translation here of the passage from the note is not identical with that in appendix E to HD–62, vol. viii, p. 419.↩