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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/100

HD–100

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 Tuesday, November 25, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, November 25, 1919, 10:30 a.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. Henry White
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison
  • British Empire
    • Sir Eyre Crowe
  • Secretary
    • Mr. H. Norman
  • France
    • M. Cambon
  • Secretaries
    • M. Berthelot
    • M. de Saint Quentin
  • Italy
    • M. de Martino
  • Secretary
    • M. Barone Russo
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai

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
  • Mr. A. W. Dulles
  • Capt. H. Pierce
• British Empire
  • Lt.-Colonel Kisch
  • Mr. A. Leeper
  • Mr. E. H. Carr
• France
  • Marshal Foch
  • General Weygand
  • General Le Rond
  • M. Hermite
  • M. Kammerer
• Italy
  • M. Vannutelli-Rey
  • M. Stranieri
• Japan
  • M. Shigemitsu

1. Marshal Foch informed the Council that he had received a telegram from General Niessel, dated November 23rd (See Appendix “A”). According to this telegram the Germans were carrying out their evacuation by the Chavli-Tauroggen railroad. The Lithuanians, in spite of instructions received from General Niessel, had crossed that line at several points and attacked the Germans. In order to parry this attack General Niessel had dispatched Allied and German officers and hoped to succeed in checking the Lithuanians. In spite of this, the German Government had ordered troops to cross the frontier in order to protect the railroad, although they had been told not to send any additional troops to that district. One train had already passed through. General Niessel desired the Council to make strong representations to the German Government. He proposed to send a telegram to General Niessel telling him that he had full power to take whatever measures seemed to him fitting and that any action on the part of the Council seemed calculated only to retard a satisfactory solution. Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces

Sir Eyre Crowe asked if any news had been received from General Niessel regarding an armistice between the Germans and the Letts. He had received a somewhat obscure telegram from the Admiralty, evidently to the effect that there was such an armistice.

General Weygand said he did not think so. The last news received from General Niessel was that he had meant to go to Riga, but felt that his presence was necessary further south, especially as the Letts seemed able to hold their own against the Germans.

It was decided:

to approve the terms of the draft telegram prepared by Marshal Foch to be sent to General Niessel (See Appendix “B”).

2. Mr. White referred to the resolution adopted by the Council at its previous meeting (See H. D. 99, Minute 3),¹ and announced that he accepted the proposals of the report in question. Allowances to Personnel of Administrative, Government, and Plebiscite Commissions

3. M. Berthelot informed the Council that the Roumanian answer had not yet actually arrived. General Coanda, who was bringing this answer was on his way to Paris. According to the Roumanian calculation the time within which their answer was to be delivered only expired at noon of that day. Although, according to the idea of the Council that time had expired on Sunday, it seemed expedient to wait until General Coanda arrived, an event which would take place at any moment. In the meantime, a strong speech from the Roumanian throne had indicated that under no conditions was Roumania willing to permit a rupture between herself and the Allied and Associated Powers. M. Antonescu had confirmed this information. Answer of the Government to the Note of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers²

Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that a real difficulty existed. He had heard from the British Representative at Bucharest that the Council’s note had not been presented by the 22nd of November. The Council in discussing the draft note had changed several words and decided that the Roumanians were to have eight days from the presentation of the note. If then it had not been presented on the 22nd November the time could not be considered to have expired.

M. Berthelot informed the Council that he had received a telegram from the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest dated November 21st to the effect that the latter had received the first and last parts of the Council’s note to the Roumanian Government. An important part was still lacking and was being awaited before the note was presented. M. Misu, however, already knew the substance of the note through General Coanda. The French Chargé d’Affaires had made urgent representations to the Roumanian Minister of Foreign Affairs as to the gravity of the situation, which permitted of no delay, and had told him that the Roumanian Government must declare itself ready to sign the Minorities Treaty unreservedly in consideration always of the assurance given by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in their note of the 12th October that they would examine certain modifications as to form.³ M. Misu had replied to the French Chargé d’Affaires that he would prepare a reply of that tenor and would do his utmost to obtain a favorable consideration of the matter from the King and Council of Ministers.

Sir Eyre Crowe reminded the Council that the Roumanians had been told that they could not sign the Bulgarian Treaty until they had signed the Austrian Treaty.⁴

As they could not sign the Austrian Treaty within the two ensuing days he did not see how they could sign the Bulgarian Treaty on November 27th.

M. Berthelot suggested that a protocol could be signed, as had been the case at the time of signing the Austrian Treaty, giving the Roumanians additional time within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty. That time might be fixed at a week.

M. de Martino agreed that the Council should take no further action towards Roumania until the Roumanian reply had been received.

M. Berthelot pointed out that all indications were that the Roumanians were certainly going to sign. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government was prepared to sign the Treaty with Austria as well as the Minorities Treaty and the financial arrangements. The Drafting Committee had prepared a draft agreement of adhesion to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government which would be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain. With respect to the Roumanians the situation was different. The Minorities Treaty concerning Roumania had not yet been signed by anybody. Some modifications as to form would be made in this Minorities Treaty in order to meet certain views of the Roumanians. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers therefore could not sign this Treaty until the final terms thereof had been settled after consultation with the Roumanian Representatives.

Sir Eyre Crowe felt that the Roumanians must give an unequivocal agreement to sign the Minorities Treaty, taking into consideration the fact that certain modifications in their favor might be made therein.

M. Cambon suggested that after the receipt of the Roumanian reply the Roumanian Delegation be given a week from Nov. 27 within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty, and that within that week the Minorities Treaty should be put into final form after conference with the Roumanian representatives; that said Treaty, as well as the Treaty of Saint Germain and the agreements related thereto, be signed by Roumania within that week.

M. Berthelot read the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government (See Appendix “C”).

It was decided:

(1) that in connection with the signing of the Treaty with Bulgaria on November 27th a protocol be prepared allowing the interested Powers to sign said Treaty with Bulgaria within one week from November 27th:

(2) that within one week from November 27th Roumania should sign the Treaty with Austria, the Minorities Treaty, and the financial arrangements.

(3) to accept the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation;

(4) that the agreement of adhesion when signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain.

4. (The Council had before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the Minorities Treaty (See Appendix “D”).) Note From the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation Regarding the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities

M. Kammerer commented upon the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation and stated that, on the whole, this note was satisfactory. He pointed out that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation had presented its interpretation of the clauses relative to freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce, which were involved in Article 51 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, and had stated that in the absence of a contrary reply from the Council it would consider that its interpretation was correct. He thought that the Serbian interpretation was, in fact, correct and he therefore proposed that no reply be sent to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. The question could therefore be considered settled.

It was decided:

that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers were in full agreement with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation as to the interpretation of the Minorities Treaty, and that said Treaty be at once presented to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation for signature. (See Appendix “D”).

5. (The Council had before it the Bulgarian reply regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria, dated November 23rd, (See Appendix “E”).) Reply to the Bulgarian Delegation Regarding the Treaty on Reciprocal Immigration

M. Kammerer commented upon this note from the Bulgarian Delegation and stated that it was entirely satisfactory. The Bulgarian Delegation has asked for explanations with respect to two points. The Committee on New States agreed with the Bulgarian interpretation of these points. A satisfactory answer consisting of a few lines could be sent to the Bulgarian Delegation. A more serious question was the form of the Treaty. The United States representative had raised some question as to his Government’s being able to sign, and the Japanese delegate had thereupon stated that in such an event, his Government might likewise be unable to sign. The Drafting Committee considered that the Treaty between Bulgaria and Greece relative to reciprocal immigration was in no way dependent upon the signature of the Bulgarian Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. In fact Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Bulgarian Treaty itself, made that point clear. In order to meet the difficulty the Drafting Committee proposed the following solution: the Supreme Council should reach a decision which would be inserted in the preamble of the Greco-Bulgarian Treaty; for technical reasons it was preferable that this decision be dated Thursday, November 27th. The wording of the proposed decision was as follows:

“In view of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers deem it fitting that the reciprocal and voluntary immigration of ethnical, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece and Bulgaria should be settled by a convention concluded between these two Powers in the terms decided upon on this date.”

The foregoing solution represented the unanimous opinion of the Committee on New States, with the exception that the Italian representative had made the reservation that M. de Martino would have to give a final opinion on this point.

M. de Martino said that he had already expressed his opinion that for reasons of general interest it was advisable that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign this Treaty. The decisions already taken by the Council relative to affairs in the Balkans seemed to him to have created many opportunities for trouble in the future. As a general thing he felt that those Powers who were directly interested in maintaining peace in the Balkans should participate more actively in Balkan affairs. However, as it was of great importance that the present question be settled without further delay, he was willing to withdraw his reservation on that occasion.

It was decided:

(1) that the Secretary General of the Conference reply to the Bulgarian Delegation that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers were in agreement with the Bulgarian interpretation of the Treaty regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria;

(2) to adopt the following resolution, to be dated as of November 27th, 1919, and to be inserted in the preamble of the Treaty between Greece and Bulgaria regarding reciprocal immigration:

“In view of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers deem it fitting that the reciprocal and voluntary immigration of ethnical, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece and Bulgaria should be settled by a convention concluded between these two Powers in the terms decided upon on this date.”

6. (The Council had before it a draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas (See Appendix “F”).) Report of the Drafting Committee on Maintenance of Demobilized German Soldiers in the Schleswig in the Plebiscite Areas

M. Cambon read the draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.

It was decided:

to adopt the draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas. (See Appendix “F”).

7. M. Cambon read the resolution adopted by the Council at its preceding meeting (H. D. 99, Minute 5).⁵ The resolution had provided that the Council reserved to itself the final approval thereof until a further examination.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he accepted the text as read.

Mr. White proposed that paragraph 3 of the resolution be modified to read as follows:

“that, prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preliminary studies by a special technical committee shall be made at This committee shall be composed of representatives of both Poland and Dantzig with the addition of the Allied representative at Dantzig. These technical studies, which may serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for under paragraph 2, shall be forwarded to Paris by this committee not later than one month after the coming into force of the Treaty.”

Sir Eyre Crowe asked what the object was in the change suggested by Mr. White. He wished to know if the word technical was intended to exclude anyone. Resolution Recording the Seat of Negotiations having To Do With the Relationship Between Poland and the Free City of Dantzig

Mr. White replied that it was not.

M. Cambon said that he likewise was unable to understand the proposed change.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked if that excluded the preparation of a draft Treaty.

Mr. White said that the object of the proposed change was merely to make it clear that only preliminary studies should take place at Dantzig.

Mr. Dulles called attention to the fact that preliminary discussions had already taken place at Warsaw. If the resolution provided that preliminary discussions should take place at Dantzig it might imply the removal of the discussions from Warsaw to Dantzig. The Poles and the inhabitants of Dantzig both recognized that technical studies must take place at Dantzig. He also called attention to the fact that in the change proposed by Mr. White a time limit of one month after the coming into force of the Treaty was specified.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that it had been proposed to hold these preliminary discussions at Warsaw. That proposition had been rejected and a request had been made on the previous day that these discussions be transferred to Paris. He had then proposed that the preliminary discussions be held at Dantzig. He further added that the change proposed by the American Delegation contemplated that the Committee engaged in preliminary studies should report direct to the Supreme Council. He felt that this procedure was not correct and that as a matter of form it was the Allied Representative at Dantzig who should address the Supreme Council. He also felt that one month might prove to be too short a time within which to submit the report in question.

Mr. Dulles remarked that discussions had already begun. Therefore by the time the Treaty came into force a further delay of one month might well prove sufficient. He quite agreed that the Representative of the Allies could and should address himself directly to the Supreme Council but he thought that the Committee charged with the preliminary studies should also be able to do so.

M. Cambon suggested that paragraph 3 be modified to read as follows:

“that prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preparatory studies of a technical nature and preliminary discussions, to which the Allied Representative in the free city of Dantzig should be a party, take place at Dantzig. Within a maximum delay of two months after the coming into force of the Treaty the said Representative should send to Paris, together with a report, the proposals which would have been prepared at Dantzig and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in the preceding paragraph.”

Mr. White agreed to that modification if it were satisfactory to the Poles.

Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that under the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Germany that was a matter for the decision of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers only.

M. Cambon said that the Poles were interested in making preliminary studies and in participating in discussions, but they were not entitled to decide finally the question involved.

Mr. White wondered what the result would be if the Poles should refuse to accept the plan proposed.

M. Cambon inquired whether Mr. White really expected such a refusal on their part. He pointed out that the Poles had asked to have the negotiations transferred to Paris, and their request had been granted. All that was necessary was to tell the Poles that it had been decided to grant their request.

M. Berthelot observed that certain questions necessarily had to be studied on the spot. He thought however, that the Council could reach a decision on that day and if necessary communicate it to the Poles. If the Poles had any observations to present, the Council could, he thought, decide on the following day whether or not to take them into account.

Mr. White said that Dantzig had been taken away from Germany and made a free city not so much for the good of the inhabitants of Dantzig as for the benefit of the population of Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked Mr. White what action he thought should be taken in case the Poles did not accept the plan proposed. Was it his intention that the Council should yield to the Poles.

Mr. White thought that the matter could then be discussed again.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that there was no point in that as the Council alone was charged with the duty of deciding.

M. de Martino pointed out that in all probability the Poles would willingly accept this plan.

Mr. White felt that he could only accept the resolution proposed after hearing the view of the Poles.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that meant not coming to a decision.

(After some further discussion,

It was decided:

(1) to accept textually the first two paragraphs of the resolution taken at the preceding meeting of the Council (H. D. 99, Minute 5, November 24th, 1919);

(2) that the third paragraph of said resolution be modified to read as follows:

“that prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preparatory studies of a technical nature and preliminary discussions, to which the Allied Representative in the free city of Dantzig should be a party, take place at Dantzig. Within a maximum delay of two months after the coming into force of the Treaty the said Representative should send to Paris, together with a report, the proposals which would have been prepared at Dantzig and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in the preceding paragraph.”

(3) that the entire resolution be communicated on that day to the Polish Delegation, and that if said Delegation had any observations to present the Council would examine them at an early meeting.

8. (The Council had before it a letter dated November 15th from General Tcherbatcheff⁶ regarding Russian war material and supplies left in Roumania (See Appendix “G”).)

M. Berthelot pointed out that General Tcherbatcheff’s note alluded to a joint letter of the Ministers Plenipotentiary of France, England, the United States and Italy, dated March 3rd, 1918. As the text of that joint letter was not available he had telegraphed to the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest to obtain the same. He thought it would be well to await the receipt of that joint letter and to examine the same before taking any action on General Tcherbatcheff’s note. Disposal of Russian War Materiel Left Roumania After Demobilization of the Russian Army

(This was agreed to)

(The meeting then adjourned)

Hotel de Crillon, Paris , November 25, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–100

From: Tilsitt
Received 11/23/19—9:00 p.m.

Telegram From General Niessel to Marshal Foch

To the Supreme Council:

In order to assure free evacuation of the German forces, [I?] commanded the establishment of a line of demarkation east of the Tauroggen-Chavli railway. The Lithuanian Government was invited by us to observe this line. Nevertheless, the Lithuanian forces attacked this line in several places on each side of the latter locality.

In order to put a stop to the fights begun, I sent to the spot Allied officers of the Mission, with Colonel Dosse and Admiral Hoppman.

We informed the German Government that we cannot authorize it to transport troops beyond the frontier of East Prussia. However, Noske⁷ decided to send contingents to assure the protection of the railway. The first convoy is already past the frontier. The strength of the contingents to be sent has not been communicated to us. The forces at the disposal of General Eberhardt⁸ were sufficient to guarantee the security of the Tauroggen-Chavli railway. We think that the officers who were sent there will suffice to restore order.

It would be advisable to exercise, without delay, an energetic pressure on the German Government, in order to prevent the arrival of new troops from rendering more difficult the settlement of an already intricate situation.

Appendix B to HD–100

November 25, 1919.

From: M. Foch.

To: General Niessel, President of the Interallied Commissions on Baltic Territories, Tilsitt.

“In accord with the Conference:

I approve all measures taken in order to put a stop to the Lithuanian attacks against the Chavli-Tauroggen railway.

Full authority is given to you by the Conference, to assure the evacuation of the Baltic provinces by the Germans, and consequently, to take in Berlin the action which you might deem proper.

Any intervention of the Conference would only weaken your action, and would run the risk of being too late.”

Foch

Appendix C to HD–100

Declaration of Adhesion

The undersigned, plenipotentiary Delegates of His Majesty the King of the Serbs-Croats & Slovenes, acting by virtue of their full powers duly recognized as good and valid, declare that His Majesty the King of the S. C. S., adheres, on behalf of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, without condition or reserve:

1st) To the Peace Treaty signed at St. Germain-en-Laye by (enumeration of Principal Allied and Associated Powers) and Austria on September 10, 1919, together with protocol and declaration;

2nd) To the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the S. C. S. State, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers September 10, 1919;

3rd) To the arrangement between (enumeration of Principal Allied and Associated Powers) relative to the Reparations as regards Italy, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919;

4th) To the arrangement between (enumeration of Principal Allied and Associated Powers) relative to sharing of expenses for the liberation of the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919.

In faith whereof the undersigned have signed the present Declaration of Adhesion and have affixed their seals.

Done at: . . . . . . . on the . . . . . . day of . . . . . . ., 1919.

Appendix D to HD–100

delegation of the
kingdom of the serbs, croats & slovenes
to the peace conference
No. 4615

Paris , November 23, 1919.

From: M. Pachitch.

To: The President of the Peace Conference.

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 13th⁹ in which the Supreme Council was good enough to reply point by point to that part of my letter of November 5¹⁰ containing the observations of the Delegation of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. relative to certain provisions of the Minorities Treaty.

I note with pleasure the replies which the Supreme Council was kind enough to give to points 1, 2 and 4 to 8 of my letter, these replies giving satisfaction in general to the observations of the Delegation contained in the corresponding points. May I not be allowed to call attention to this fact, for it proves that our demands, maintained within a reasonable limit, were inspired by the desire to facilitate the task of the Supreme Council in the establishment of the necessary guarantees for the protection of Minorities in our State.

On the other hand, our Delegation can but express its keen regret that the Supreme Council has not excluded from this obligation the pre-war territories of Serbia (point 3). We still believe that our demand is not only based on the right acquired by Serbia, but that it is also compatible with the general principle of the Minorities Convention. It finds justification in Serbia’s conduct towards Minorities according to the engagements taken by the Treaty of Berlin which is formally admitted in your letter. We are also convinced that the Serbian Government and army have well deserved this consideration by the sacrifices consented to and the martyrdom endured for the common cause of the Allies, that of right and justice. In spite of everything, the perfect comprehension which the Royal Government has of the relations of our State with the Allied union leads us to accede on this point to the desires of the Supreme Council.

As to paragraph 3, of point 6 of your letter, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State willingly accedes to the desires of the Supreme Council; it formally declares that the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes grants to persons of Ottoman nationality complying with the conditions of Article 4, all rights expressly granted by the said Article 4 of the Convention to persons having belonged, up to the time of the signing of the respective Treaties, to Austrian, Hungarian or Bulgarian nationality. This recognition will become effective on the day the Convention is signed by our Delegation.

As to point 2 of the reply, it undoubtedly gives entire satisfaction to our corresponding demand: however, I insist upon pointing out that the Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State considers, as regards this point of the reply, that the signing of the Minorities Convention entirely fulfills and exhausts the aims sought by the insertion of Article 51 in the Peace Treaty with Austria providing not only for the protection of Minorities but also for freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce. Consequently, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers will, in this respect make no further request of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State to sign any contractual provision whatsoever concerning not only the said protection of ethnic minorities but also the freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce. Although we are certain that this interpretation of the second point of our reply entirely reflects the opinion of the Supreme Council, our Delegation is of the opinion that it is necessary to bring out more especially this interpretation, freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce not having been especially mentioned in your reply. In case the Supreme Council has no objection to this interpretation, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes will consider it just as authentic and valid as a confirmation in writing from the Supreme Council.

Moreover, the Delegation has the honor to declare that it shares entirely the viewpoint of the Supreme Council; according to the observations presented in our reply relative to certain moot clauses of the Minorities Convention, your letter suffices to affirm the value of these observations to be the same as though they were contained in the very text of the Minorities Convention; it considers that this affirmation gives sufficient satisfaction to our State and, in consequence, it is not indispensable to modify the Convention already signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Finally, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State expresses its satisfaction for the favorable solutions given to some of its demands; it again affirms the will of the Royal Government to collaborate in perfect harmony with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and thanks the Supreme Council for the assurance of the sentiments which it was kind enough to express regarding our State.

Please accept, etc.

Nik. P. Pachitch

Appendix E to HD–100

(Translation)

bulgarian delegation
to the peace conference
No. 537

Neuilly sur Seine , November 23, 1919.

Mr. President: The Bulgarian Delegation has the honor to inform the honorable Peace Conference that it entirely approves the provisions of the draft convention regarding reciprocal emigration between Greece and Bulgaria,¹¹ which was submitted to it by Your Excellency’s letter dated November 19, 1919.

Bulgaria has always appreciated the humanitarian principles of the protection of minorities by which the above-mentioned draft is inspired. Furthermore, the present legislation of Bulgaria contemplates no obstacles to the emigration of Bulgarian subjects of different nationality. The Bulgarian Delegation, which has ascertained with the greatest satisfaction that the draft presented to it is based upon entire reciprocity between the two states interested, hastens to adopt the provisions all the more willingly because the composition and function of the Mixed Commission provided for in Articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are of such a nature as to inspire in it the greatest confidence.

However, the Bulgarian Delegation ventures to present the following observations concerning certain details of the convention.

It is of the opinion that the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 8, and 11 do not invalidate any duties and debts which the state or individuals hold against emigrants and that these duties and debts should be liquidated before the emigrant in question obtains the permission to take his property with him outside the frontiers of his former country. The Bulgarian Delegation considers likewise that these provisions will not be of such a nature as to prevent the state interested from demanding from emigrants the payment of all taxes in arrears, a common case in Bulgaria, where, on account of the war, the collection of taxes is made very irregularly.

The Bulgarian Delegation understands that by virtue of Article 11, paragraph 2, and by application of the rules of reciprocity, the increase in value of immovable property liquidated shall be paid to the state interested and that particularly it shall not be retained on account of the unilateral application, with regard only to Bulgaria, of Article 177, b and h of the Peace Treaty. However, the conditions necessary for its application are completely lacking in this case. Otherwise, the reciprocity by which the draft convention is inspired would be vain and the financial situation of Bulgaria would have to support new charges, difficult at present to foresee.

I beg you, Mr. President, to accept the new assurances of my very high consideration.

Stamboluski

To His Excellency
M. Georges Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference.

Appendix F to HD–100

drafting committee of the
peace conference

Paris , November 24, 1919.

Re. demobilized Germans at Flensborg

Proposed Note To Be Addressed to Germany

According to information which has reached the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, German authorities are placing in the Schleswig plebiscite zone men supposed to be demobilized from the German military and naval forces.

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers inform the German Government that if, according to Article 109 of the Treaty of Versailles, “military persons, officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the German army, who are natives of the zone of Schleswig in which the plebiscite is taken, shall be given the opportunity to return to their native place in order to take part in the voting there”, it is not the intention of the said Powers to tolerate in the zone in which the plebiscite is taken, supposedly demobilized men who do not come within the category referred to in the Treaty.

Appendix G to HD–100

the representative of the
russian armies with the
allied governments and
high command
No. 11571

Paris , November 15, 1919.

From: General Tcherbatcheff, Military Representative of the Supreme Chief of Russia with the Allied Governments and High Command.

To: The President of the Council, Minister of War.

I have the honor to call your attention to the fact that, during the demobilization of the Russian Armies on the Rumanian front, I have as Commander-in-Chief of that front, and in accord with the plenipotentiary ministers of the Entente in Rumania, elaborated the order in which the material and war supplies left in Rumania were to be kept and restored afterwards to Russia.

The plenipotentiary ministers of France, England, United States of America and Italy, communicated to me in their joint letter of March 3–16, 1918, copy of two notes addressed by them to the Rumanian President of the Council and in which the plenipotentiary ministers explained their essential point of view on Russian goods, namely: That these goods remain the property of Russia, that the Rumanian Governments was to keep them temporarily, and had no right not only to use them, but still [less?], to transport them without previous authorization by the representatives of the Entente Powers which had guaranteed that property. The Rumanian Government consented to those stipulations.

During the German occupation of Rumania the plenipotentiary ministers of the above-mentioned Entente Powers, in a joint letter of July 13/26, 1918, confirmed to the Rumanian Government that they maintained the same point of view with respect to the Russian property which remained in Rumania.

After the organization of Denekin’s volunteer army, the question arose of using our material and war supplies which remained in Rumania.

With the assistance of the representatives of the Entente in Rumania, the authorization was obtained from the Rumanian Cabinet (Decision of December 14, 1918, No. 1103) to send a small part of this material and supplies to General Denekin’s army.

But, in spite of the entire help of the representatives of the Entente Powers in Rumania, and of the reiterated promises of the representatives of the Rumanian Government, General Denekin’s Army only received a very small part of our property.

Furthermore, hindering us by every means from receiving this property which belongs to us, the Rumanian Ministry of War, had not only been taking stock of all Russian store houses, but has been appropriating our goods for its own use, without any control or authorization, thus violating the principles which had been established by four Entente Powers, and to which the Rumanian Government had agreed.

The Military representative of the Russian Armies at Bucarest, has employed all possible means in order to obtain the shipment promised. But, in spite of all the steps of the plenipotentiaries of the Entente Powers in Rumania, the Rumanian Government goes no further than making promises.

On account of the foregoing, I deem it indispensable to beg you to kindly place on the calendar the question of the restitution to the Armies of Southern Russia of the Russian material and supplies which remain in Rumania, and to have sent, in the first place, rifles, cartridges and munitions, heavy artillery, and machine guns.

As the Entente Powers consented to protect the property of Hungary, their former enemy from the exaggerated pretensions of Rumania, they cannot (Were it only for the sacrifices made by Russia) ignore the plundering of Russian property which remained in Rumania, including war material of forty-three infantry divisions of twelve battalions each.

These goods are recognized as our property by the Entente Powers; and were only turned over for temporary safe-keeping to the Rumanian Government, and they are at the present time, indispensable to the Russian Armies, which are waging a hard war against the Bolchevists.

I beg you to kindly inform me of the decisions taken in this matter.

General Tcherbatcheff

1. Ante, p. 308.
2. Appendix A to HD–93, p. 182.
3. See telegram to the British Chargé, appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.
4. See HD–78, minute 3, ibid., p. 805.
5. Ante, p. 312.
6. Chief Military Representative in Paris of Admiral Kolchak’s Government.
7. Gustav Noske, German Minister of Defense.
8. German commander-in-chief in the Baltic Provinces.
9. See HD–89, minute 3, and appendix C, pp. 95 and 110.
10. Appendix B to HD–89, p. 103.
11. See HD–96, minute 1, and appendix A, pp. 221 and 228.