Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/86
HD–86
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 Friday,
November 7, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
Paris, November 7, 1919, 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- France
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta
- 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
- Dr. I. Bowman
- Dr. James Brown Scott
- Mr. A. W. Dulles
- British Empire
- Admiral Groves, R. N
- Lieut-Colonel Kisch
- Mr. Palairat
- Mr. E. H. Carr
- Mr. H. W. Malkin
- France
- M. Ignace M. Laroche
- General Le Rond
- M. Fromageot
- Commandant Lacombe
- M. Escoffier
- Italy
- Lieut-Colonel Piccio
- Commandant Scanagatta
- M. D’Amelio
- M. Stranieri
- M. Pilotti
- Japan
[Page 20]
1. Sir Eyre Crowe stated he could not nominate
the British Representatives as the experts of the British Delegation on
that subject were in London. Execution of Articles
228 and 229 of the Treaty With Germany
M. de Martino wished to remark that there
already was a Commission of Responsibilities.
M. Escoffier said the Commission of
Responsibilities has finished its work; this was a question for a
special Commission charged with the preparation of the execution of
Articles 228 and 229 of the Treaty with Germany.
M. Pichon said that the Council agreed that the
nomination of this Commission should be adjourned, but it was important
that this should be settled in as short a time as possible.
M. de Martino thought an adjournment necessary
as he would have to get in touch with his Government.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that a Commission would be nominated, (a) to compare the lists of individuals charged with
crimes to be delivered by the German Government; (b) to decide the composition, procedure
and seat of the mixed tribunals to be set up under Article 229
of the Treaty with Germany;
- (2)
- that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers nominate as
soon as possible their representatives on this
Commission.
2. (The Council had before it a report of the Military Representatives at
Versailles on the subject. (See Appendix “A”).) Request for Instructions From the Chairman of the Inter-Allied
Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany
After a short discussion,
It was decided:
to approve the report of the Military Representatives at
Versailles dated November 5th, in answer to the request for
instructions received from the Chairman of the Inter-Allied
Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany (See Appendix
“A”).
3. Sir Eyre Crowe regretted that this
declaration had been delayed by numerous communications with his
Government. The present proposal resulted from the proposition which had
already been made by the American Delegation and also by the Polish
Commission;1 in a few
words, this proposition tended to eliminate anything in the nature of a
temporary arrangement. The British Government was opposed to anything
leading to a final union of Eastern Galicia and Poland. It had also
discussed the question with Mr. Paderewski and had pointed out to the
latter that Poland would be acting in a sense diametrically opposed to
the claims made by Poland for the district of Teschen.
[Page 21]
A large majority of the population in
Eastern Galicia was not Polish. The British Government thought that they
ought not to shut the door to the real aims of Eastern Galicia which
would allow its population to join other nationalities. It wished,
therefore, to adopt the following suggestion, namely: Poland would get a
Mandate for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations for a determined
period, such as 15 years; the League of Nations could then consider
whether Eastern Galicia should be joined to Poland or make some other
political arrangement. The British point of view insisted that the
settlement should be provisional. He personally had done his best to
conciliate the views of the Council with those of the British Cabinet.
British Declaration on the Question of Eastern
Galicia
Mr. Polk regretted that they were unable to
reach an agreement on this subject; but he added that he had not given
up hope of finding a satisfactory solution. What impressed the American
Delegation was that if a date were fixed for a Mandate, it would mean
that Galicia would be in a state of ferment, and Poland remain in
uncertainty over this grave question. This case was not the same as that
of other countries where a Plebiscite was asked for; it would be
difficult to see where Eastern Galicia would go, if not to Poland. The
problem was all the more difficult for Eastern Galicia on account of
fighting taking place between Ukrainia and the Bolshevists on one side
and Denikin on the other side. He wished to ask Sir Eyre Crowe the
difference he made between the position of the British Government at
this time and the position that it had taken before.
Sir Eyre Crowe answered that it was no longer a
question of a plebiscite, but of giving a Mandate to Poland for Eastern
Galicia under the League of Nations.
Mr. Polk suggested that the views of the
British Delegation should be referred to the Polish Commission for
examination and report for Monday, November 10th.
M. Pichon agreed.
It was decided:
to refer to the Polish Commission for examination and report to
the Supreme Council on November 10th, 1919, the proposal made by
the British Delegation tending to give Poland a Mandate for
Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations for a determined
period.
4. (The Council had before it a note from the German Delegation dated
October 3rd, 1919, on the organization of the plebiscite in Eupen and
Malmedy (See Appendix “B”), and the observations presented by the
Belgian Delegation in its letter of October 14th, 1919 (See Appendix
“C”). Consideration of Note From the German
Delegation of October 3rd, on the organization of Plebiscite in
Eupen and Malmedy
Mr. Polk said this matter had been brought to
his attention and he understood the good faith of the Council was
involved. He would suggest that this be referred to the Belgian
Committee for examination.
[Page 22]
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the Belgian
Commission should prepare a draft answer to the German Note which the
Council would have before it on Monday.
It was decided:
- (1)
- to refer back to the Commission on Belgian Affairs for
examination the Note from the German Delegation dated October
3rd, on the organization of the plebiscite in Eupen and Malmedy
(See Appendix “B”), as well as the observations of the Belgian
Delegation dated October 14th, 1919 (See Appendix “C”).
- (2)
- that the Commission on Belgian Affairs should present to the
Supreme Council at its meeting on November 10th, 1919, a draft
reply to the German note.
5. (The Council had before it a report from the American representative
on the Inter-Allied Railway Mission relative to the removal by German
authorities of the material belonging to the German Government at
Dantzig (See Appendix “D”).) Removal by Germany
Authorities of Material Belonging to the German Government at
Dantzig
Mr. Polk suggested that this question be
referred back to the Drafting Committee for examination and report.
It was decided:
to refer back to the Drafting Committee for examination and
report the note of the American representative on the
Inter-Allied Railway Commission in Poland, with regard to the
removal of German Government property from
Dantzig.
6. Mr. Polk repeated what he had said at a
preceding meeting:2 the President would be very
glad to call the first meeting of the Council, but the question had been
raised in Washington as to his power under Article V of the Covenant to
call the meeting before the Treaty had come into force: under Article V
his power existed only from the date of the deposit of ratifications of
the Treaty; his suggestion was that the meeting should take place on the
following day, but he had no objection to the procedure adopted by the
Drafting Committee and in turn adopted by the other members of the
Council. The real trouble was that the letter would be issued at a time
when the pact had not yet come into force. Reply of
President Wilson to the Communications Regarding the First Meeting
of the Council of the League of Nations
M. Pichon thought in that case that the
convocation of the first meeting might be issued on the day when the
ratifications were exchanged, and then that the meeting could take place
the following day.
Mr. Polk made it clear that he did not wish to
insist on this, if the other members of the Council preferred the other
solution.
[Page 23]
M. Berthelot pointed out that the difficulty
lay in the period which would elapse between the deposit of
ratifications and the first meeting of the Council.
Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that the President of
the United States could now advise the Powers represented on the Council
of the League of Nations that as soon as the treaty had been put into
force by the deposit of ratifications, the President, acting under
Article V of the Covenant, would send a telegram calling the first
meeting, and it would be advisable to take all the necessary measures in
provision of this convocation.
Mr. Polk thought that Sir Eyre Crowe’s
suggestion was already covered by M. Clemenceau’s letter.3 He also suggested that the
State Department in Washington, on being advised of the exact hour of
the deposit of ratifications, could notify to the representatives at
Washington, of the Powers which were to be represented on the Council of
the League of Nations, the first meeting of the Council; on the other
hand, all the necessary measures would have been taken for the first
meeting to take place.
M. Fromageot said he understood the American
argument, but thought there was great analogy between this case and the
convocation of the Labor Conference at Washington.
Mr. Polk said that everyone in America was
attacking the legality of this convocation.
M. Fromageot thought that if the first meeting
of the Council of the League of Nations considered only the question of
nominating the Commission charged with the delimitation of the
boundaries of the Sarre district, the Council of the League of Nations
would then have fifteen days within which to nominate the
Commission.
Sir Eyre Crowe suggested there was the
possibility of a ratification by the United States, in which case the
first meeting might have a longer agenda: it was therefore important
that the convocation of the first meeting should be considered
immediately.
M. Pichon proposed that the question be
referred to the Drafting Committee to examine whether it was possible to
take into consideration the remarks made by Mr. Polk.
It was decided:
to refer back to the Drafting Committee for examination and
report the question of procedure to be followed for the
convocation of the first meeting of the Council of the League of
Nations, taking into account remarks of a legal character made
by the American Delegation.
7. M. Berthelot said that they had reasons to
think that the Germans were going to answer their last Note4 by proposing that
[Page 24]
the conferences which were made necessary by the
execution of the Treaty, should take place in Berlin on account of the
great number of experts the German Government wished to send; and only
the final conferences would take place in Paris. Execution of the Treaty With Germany
General le Rond thought that all the questions
which could not be considered in Paris should be taken up on the spot,
and that it was not necessary to have conferences in Berlin. He also
wished to add that, as the conferences between the Allies could not
begin before November 10th, it would not be possible to meet the German
representatives before November 15th.
8. M. Pichon stated that Mr. Venizelos would
ask to be heared by the Council on the day that the report of the
Inquiry Commission on Smyrna came under discussion. Agenda of the Supreme Council
9. Mr. Polk asked whether the question of the
temporary regime of Western Thrace should not be studied by a competent
Commission. He suggested that it might be referred to the Central
Territorial Committee. (This was agreed to.) Temporary Regime of Western Thrace
It was decided:
to refer back to the Central Territorial Committee for
examination and report the question of the temporary regime of
Western Thrace.
(The meeting then adjourned.)
Hotel de Crillon,
Paris
, November
7, 1919.
Appendix A to HD–86
military
representatives
supreme war council
SWC–478
90—MR
Versailles, November 4, 1919.
Draft Reply of Military
Representatives at Versailles to Three Requests for Information
Received From the Chairman of the Aeronautical Commission of
Control at Berlin
In its meeting of October 29th, the Supreme Council decided to refer
to the Military Representatives at Versailles for their
consideration and reply the following three requests for
instructions received from the Chairman of the Aeronautical
Committee of Control at Berlin:6
- 1.
- Whether the airship sheds in occupied Germany should be
pooled and counted in for distribution with the aeronautical
material in unoccupied
[Page 25]
Germany, or whether they should be allocated to the
Nation in occupation of that territory in which the airship
shed is?
- 2.
- Whether the phrase “No dirigible shall be kept” in Article
198 of the Peace Treaty shall be held to mean no dirigible
of naval or military type, or no dirigible of naval,
military or civil type?
- 3.
- Whether the military aircraft of the Allied and Associated
Powers are allowed under Article 200 of the Peace Treaty to
fly over Germany and land in Germany during Allied
occupation?
The Military Representatives having examined these questions in
consultation with their aeronautical advisers—are of opinion:
As regards question 1:
That the Airship sheds and all other Aeronautical Material in the
occupied areas in Germany shall be pooled and counted in for
distribution with the Aeronautical Material in unoccupied Germany.
The additional instructions contained in Article No. 7 of the report
of the Supreme War Council on the distribution of Aeronautical
Material, dated September 5th,7 are
provided for general guidance.
As regards question 2:
That the phrase “No dirigible shall be kept” in Article 198 of the
Peace Treaty, shall be held to mean “No dirigible of Naval or
Military type,” but the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of
Control shall decide whether a dirigible is of civil type or
otherwise.
As regards question 3:
That Article 200 of the Peace Treaty applies to the whole of Germany
and not merely to the areas occupied by the forces of the Allied and
Associated Powers.
Gal
Desticker
Military Representative,
French Section, S. W.
C.Ugo
Cavallero
Military
Representative,
Italian Section, S. W.
C.C.
Sackville-West
Military
Representative,
British Section, S. W.
C.Tasker H.
Bliss
Military
Representative,
American Section, S. W. C.Appendix B to HD–86
president
the german
delegation
of peace
No. 28
Versailles, October 3, 1919.
From: Von Lersner.
To: President Clemenceau.
The provisions contained in Article 34, paragraph 2, of the Peace
Treaty concerning the plebiscite at Eupen and Malmedy, are, in
[Page 26]
comparison with the
provisions provided for regarding the other territory submitted to a
plebiscite, so extraordinarily brief that a mass of important
questions, are either not at all resolved or remain very unclear.
The Allied and Associated Powers, in the several declarations made
in the notes sent by them before the signing of the Treaty, made
clear how these questions must be resolved.8 These
declarations constitute some precious general principles; they still
need however, a more ample development in their detail. The German
Government considers it urgent that this development be perfected as
soon as possible by an expose of the precise conditions. The German
Government believes it their duty to insist on the necessity of
complete clearness in all the questions treating the plebiscite; a
necessity which is increased by the worry of the populations
concerning the uncertainty which governs the application of the
details of the plesbiscite and concerning which the Belgian
authorities adopt an attitude which flagrantly contradicts the
solemn assurances of the Allied and Associated Powers which no
longer furnish the least guarantee of a free and uninfluenced
vote.
The German Government calls attention to the following points, which
are of special importance:
- 1.
- In opposition with the provisions provided concerning all
the other territories submitted to a plebiscite, it has not
been exactly defined what persons are qualified to
participate in the vote at Eupen and Malmedy. In Article 34,
paragraph 2, the question concerns only “inhabitants”. It is
evident that the definition of the term “within the shortest
possible time,” is indispensable. The German Government
believes it is in accord with the Allied and Associated
Governments by proposing to resolve the question in the same
manner as for the other territories submitted to a
plebiscite, a right of vote being accorded to every person,
without distinction of sex, who:
- A)
- shall have attained the age of 20 years at the
entry into force of the Peace Treaty, and
who:
- B)
- shall either have been born on he territory or
shall have resided therein for a determined period.
In this regard, it would be opportune, in the
opinion of the German Government, to fix the date as
November 11, 1918. It would be, furthermore,
understood that the persons having left the
territory after the fixed date, but who have still
retained their domicile, would have the right to
vote and that the persons living outside of the
territory and enjoying the right to vote therein,
could, either return to vote or send their
declaration, written, after having been previously
legalized.
- II.
- The question of settling what districts shall be subject
to plebiscite also needs to be regulated. Article 34,
paragraph 2, states that the registry shall be opened in
Eupen and Malmedy, but immediately
[Page 27]
after, Eupen and Malmedy are spoken of
as “these territories” (“the said territories”, “the above
territory”); it cannot therefore refer to the cities, but
rather to the spheres (cercles). The question concerning
where the registers are to be opened has not been resolved.
The German Government believes also that it is the intention
of the Allied and Associated Governments to have the
plebiscite take place by commune or, if the districts appear
too small, by localities possessing a burgomaster. A like
regulation would accord with the desires of the population,
to whom it was indicated that, if the registers of only the
cities of Eupen and Malmedy were opened, a number of
inhabitants from distant localities would be unable to
participate in the vote. Moreover, it appears opportune to
remark that only by a vote by commune, could the League of
Nations be furnished with the precise data necessary, in
order to decide, which is its mission, whether the
territories are to remain in part or wholly German.
- III.
- A particular unrest appears to reign, on the point of just
what question the inhabitants are to resolve by their vote.
In Article 34, par. 2, it is stated that the inhabitants
are, on the registers, to express the desire that “these
territories remain entirely or partially under German
sovereignty.” If it is to be supposed that by these words
the question which shall be introduced for the plebiscite is
already formulated, that would then signify that each
inhabitant should state not only if his own commune should
remain German, but also make a similar declaration for all
the other communes of the territory, even if they are
entirely foreign to him. One would therefore have to require
that each inhabitant make precise declarations concerning
the outline of the entire frontier, such as it would be,
from his point of view, desirable. But a very small number
of the persons who are to participate in the vote are in a
position to answer such a questiorf.J In view of the
manifest impossibility for its execution, the provision
mentioned in Article 34, paragraph 2, must not be
interpreted to the letter. Its true sense only appears when
the several declarations of the Allied and Associated Powers
On the plebiscite question are taken into consideration. In
Mr. Clemenceau’s note, dated June 15th [16th], it is stated that an annexion of territory
to Belgium should be operated only on a basis of the
decision of the population,8a
and in the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the
German counterproposals, assurance is given that an
attachment of territory to Belgium shall occur “only” in
case the petitions addressed by the population of the
territory shall be sufficiently supported.8b In that way, it is expressly declared
that the population will be asked to declare whether they
desire reunion with Belgium. If, to this is added the text
of the Treaty which speaks of a manifestation of the desire
of
[Page 28]
the inhabitants
to remain attached to Germany, and if it be considered that,
in the note, above referred to, by President Clemenceau, the
cessions of territory to Belgium are treated in the same
phrases and under the same terms as the cessions of
territory to Denmark, it results that the question which is
to be decided by vote will be: Eeunion with Germany or with
Belgium. This method of formulating the question is,
moreover, the only one which corresponds with the natural
interpretation of a plebiscite which it is possible to
reconcile with practical necessities.
- IV.
- It has just been shown, that for reasons of a juridical
nature, the question to be posed for a plebiscite, must be
in the sense of a decision either for Germany or for
Belgium. There remains to be shown that this manner of
formulating the question is also indispensable in the
interest of the liberty of the vote. If, in fact, the
inhabitants were asked to declare only if they wished to
remain German, everyone who would participate in the vote
would be considered as a protester and would run the risk of
being treated at a disadvantage by the Belgian authorities
on account of his vote.
If, therefore, guarantees are to be given to assure a free vote not
subject to any influence, it is necessary, in the first place to be
careful that the plebiscite question be formulated in the method
indicated.
The Allied and Associated Powers have fully recognized the importance
of guarantees for a free vote, not subject to any influence, and
have made reiterated solemn and nonequivocal declarations in this
matter. In particular, Mr. Clemenceau, President of the Council,
declared in his note of June 16th that: “The decision of the
inhabitants must be sought under conditions in which the complete
liberty of the vote is assured.” There also results from the perfect
comparison established on this subject between Belgium and Denmark
that, in the opinion of the Allied and Associated Governments, the
Eupen and Malmedy plebiscite vote should be conducted under the same
guarantees as the Schleswig vote. A still greater assurance is found
in the reply to the German Counter-proposals in which it is stated:
“The Treaty provides for the consultation of the population under
the auspices of the League of Nations.”
More clear and precise assurances could not possibly have been given.
The German Government is justified in admitting that the Allied and
Associated Powers, at the time that these assurances were given, had
an absolutely definite plan in view, and the Government is of the
opinion that, in order to soothe the population, the publication of
this plan should not be longer delayed. If the plebiscite is to take
place under the auspices of the League of Nations this method of
procedure could not, in the opinion of the German Government, give
efficacious results unless a Commission appointed by the League of
Nations, and on which
[Page 29]
there
should not be any Belgian or German member, is constituted and given
the authority to take all measures which it may consider necessary
to assure a free and untrammeled vote. In order to be free it is
necessary above all that the vote be secret.
With regret, the German Government is obliged to remark that the
attitude taken up to the present time by the Belgian authorities in
the Eupen and Malmedy districts does not coincide with the solemn
assurances given by the Allied and Associated Powers. Numerous
complaints and reclamations have reached the German Government from
these two districts which indicate how Belgian authorities are at
the present time attempting to impede a free and untrammeled vote.
While refraining from presenting new documents on this subject at
this time, the German Government restricts itself, for the time
being, to bringing the following facts to the knowledge of the
Allied and Associated Powers: promises of an economic order and of
other natures are made to the inhabitants by the Belgian
authorities, indicating that in case they did not vote in favor of
Germany they would enjoy certain advantages, for example,
exoneration of war charges; decrease in taxes; free entry of raw
materials; construction of general utility establishments, etc. The
Belgian administrative inspector at Eupen is particularly active in
these influence procedures. His attitude regarding the future vote
is characterized by the following: As the German Government is able
to incontestably prove, he has declared that the first person who
would vote unfavorably, would be thrown down stairs by him. In
another circumstance, he declared that if an excessive number of
persons came to vote he would close up the establishment and would
keep several persons locked up for several days. His secretary, in
the presence of a high Belgian functionary, made the declaration
that no vote would take place. Other Belgians have stated that if a
vote did take place, it would only be for form.
The Belgian functionaries are trying to influence the inhabitants by
threats and by proceedings which are of a vertible [veritable?]
blackmail nature. For some time, on occasions when the inhabitants
had to address these functionaries in connection with requests of
some nature or other, the Belgian authorities only agreed to their
demands in case they gave a written declaration that they accepted
annexation and would not vote against Belgium. Facts of this nature
have been brought to the attention of the German Government in great
numbers. Declarations of this nature are extorted from the
repatriated German soldiers in particular. In the City of Malmedy, a
sort of plebiscite rehearsal has been undertaken; lists called
protests were drawn up in which all persons who wished to vote for
Germany figured. The registration of this decision was made in the
presence of a Belgian officer, who warned the people that whoever
voted for Germany would
[Page 30]
have
to leave the country within a very short time. In other cases on the
Belgian side those who would vote for Germany were threatened with
expulsion, a threat which naturally has a powerful influence on the
inhabitants living on their lands and properties. Consequently, even
in the most enlightened circles the opinion is current that whoever
votes for Germany would at the same time opt for Germany. This
erroneous conception was intentionally encouraged from the Belgian
side, as it was affirmed to the inhabitants that the vote and the
option was the same thing, although, in Article 37 of the Peace
Treaty, the right of option is treated separately and has absolutely
no connection with the vote. Furthermore, from the Belgian side, it
is pretended that the vote shall be public and that whoever may vote
for Germany must make a complete exposition of the motives actuating
his vote. Although the Belgian functionaries have, concerning the
abuse of power which has been many times described, declared that
they were acting on orders received from Brussels, the German
Government does not wish to believe that these functionaries act in
accord with the Belgian Government. The German Government awaits,
hoping that the Belgian Government will immediately put a stop to
the machinations of its representatives, machinations which
intimidate the population and invite errors.
The best means for preventing a renewal of these regrettable acts,
is, in the opinion of the German Government, to have immediate light
shed on all the points above referred to and which are constituted
by the existing doubtful questions of the plebiscite. The German
Government, consequently, requests the Allied and Associated Powers
to give them a prompt declaration on these points.
Accept, etc.
Appendix C to HD–86
Contents
Note from the Belgian Delegation dated October 14, 1919, relative to
Eupen and Malmedy.
belgian delegation
From: The Belgian Delegation.
To: Secretary General of the Peace Conference.
Pursuant to the communication from the General Secretariat of the
Peace Conference under date of October 11,9 and after having duly
noted the note No. 28 from the German Delegation dated October 5
[3],10 concerning the
Eupen and Malmedy territories, the
[Page 31]
General Secretary of the Belgian Delegation has
the honor to expose herewith the views of the Government of the King
concerning Article 34, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Versailles.
The German note of October 5 [3] tends to
admit the organization of a plebiscite in the districts of Eupen and
Malmedy under certain conditions which are judged commendable, and
with a view to determining if these territories shall be finally
attributed to Germany or to Belgium.
Now, the entire question of the final attribution of these
territories and of the intervention in this settlement of the vote
of the population is wholly regulated by the above cited provision
(Article 34, alinea 2) drawn up as follows:
“During the six months which shall follow the entry into force of the
Treaty, voting booths shall be opened by Belgian authority in Eupen
and Malmedy and the inhabitants of the said territories shall have
the opportunity to express in writing their desire to have all or a
part of these territories maintained under German sovereignty.”
And the third and last alinea of Article 34 adds: “The Belgian
Government shall be expected to inform the League of Nations, whose
decision Belgium agrees to accept, of the result of this popular
consultation (in English: ‘public expression of opinion’).”
This text appears sufficiently clear in itself to require no further
comment, and if, in the views of the German Delegation, it seems
necessary to interpret and complete it, it is wholly because that
Delegation admits a priori that the
plebiscite question is analogous to the plebiscite which shall take
place in the Saar Basin and Upper Silesia, in Eastern Prussia and in
Schleswig, the conditions of which were minutely defined in the
special provisions of the Treaty concerning them.
By admitting this plebiscite procedure concerning Eupen and Malmedy,
the German note tends, naturally, to take into no account alinea of
Article 34 of the Treaty, which regulates the question and which in
no wise provides for a plebiscite.
In the first part of the German note, it is therefore proposed to
define the attribution of a pretended right of vote “as resolving
the question in the same manner as for the other territories
submitted to a plebiscite”. But in such an event it would be
necessary to commence by establishing, contrary to Article 34, that
the territories of Eupen and Malmedy shall be the object of a
plebiscite.
Part 2 of the note tends further to substitute for the two registers
opened in Eupen and Malmedy, as indicated in Article 34, a system of
voting by communes.
Continuing to deviate from the very clear text of Article 34, which
gives each inhabitant of the districts of Eupen and Malmedy the
[Page 32]
opportunity to express their
desire to see all or part of the district in which he lives
maintained under German sovereignty, Part 3 of the note proposes
that the vote be based on a question thus put: “Reunion with Germany
or with Belgium.”
Finally, the 4th part of the German note ends by stating that the
plebiscite should take place under the auspices of the League of
Nations. The League is to name a commission “in which there should
be neither Germans nor Belgians” and which would organize a free and
secret vote.
Thus, under an appearance of juridical argument, the note from the
German Delegation ends by completely changing the sense, although
very clear and simple, of the provision stipulated in alinea 2 of
Article 34 of the Treaty.
Article 34 states that Registers shall be opened by Belgian authority
at Eupen and Malmedy and that the inhabitants shall have the
opportunity to express in writing whether they desire to see all or
a part of these territories maintained under German authority. And,
in place of these open registers in the two principal towns, the
German Delegation offers to substitute a system of voting by
communes, a sort of a plebiscite according to which the inhabitants
would be invited to choose between Belgium and Germany, and finally,
although Article 34 expressly states that the registers shall be
opened by Belgian Authority, and further
states that it appertains to the Belgian
Government to bring the result of this popular expression
to the knowledge of the League of Nations, which is not called to
intervene in any matter up to this time; the system of the German
note consists in prescribing a plebiscite and of confiding its
organization to the League of Nations.
It is clearly evident that this series of considerations developed in
the German note amounts only to a wish to substitute for the
prescriptions of Article 34, alineas 2 and 3 of the Treaty of
Versailles, a plebiscite system which is in no wise provided for in
the Peace Treaty, at least as far as the territories of Eupen and
Malmedy are concerned, and which can only be based on an idea of
preference for the German Government.
It cannot be assumed for an instant that the representatives of the
Governments who drafted Article 34 wished to organize for Eupen and
Malmedy, a plebiscite system similar to that which was instituted
for the Saar Basin, Upper Silesia, Eastern Prussia and Schleswig,
and which, being clearly defined concerning these territories, was
not defined in the same manner concerning the territories of Eupen
and Malmedy. Since such is the case, it is evident, that it was
intentional.
In due time and place, the Belgian authorities shall not fail to
comply with Article 34, alinea 2 of the Treaty of Versailles, by
opening at Eupen and Malmedy registers by which the inhabitants of
these
[Page 33]
territories shall have
the opportunity to express by writing whether they desire to see all
or a part of these territories maintained under German authority.
Furthermore, the Belgian Government shall inform the League of
Nations, whose decision Belgium has agreed to accept, of the results
of this expression of opinion.
It shall be, therefore, the Belgian Government which shall act,
itself and alone, by permitting the inhabitants who may be hostile
or unfavorable to her to express themselves freely, and the League
of Nations shall not intervene until later to study the value of
these oppositions and the action to be taken concerning them.
By instituting this system of popular expression, the Allied and
Associated Powers expressed their confidence in the loyalty of
Belgium. The German Government, in reality, is attempting to
influence the Powers, by false interpretations, to substantially
modify the system established in formal terms by Article 34 of the
Treaty of Versailles.
With evident intent to influence the Supreme Interallied Council, the
German note concludes the considerations of a juridical order which
have just been analyzed with a certain number of criticisms and
accusations relative to the attitude of the Belgian authorities in
the districts of Eupen and Malmedy.
Two other notes bearing the respective dates of October 6 (No. 30)
and October 11 (No. 32) have arrived containing new accusations. The
latter refers directly to Lieut. General Michel, Commander-in-Chief
of the Belgian troops in occupied German territory, who is accused
of having issued a measure of expulsion regarding certain
individuals who evidenced a spirit of open hostility against Belgian
occupation. A detailed report concerning these acts is requested
from the Belgian authorities in occupied territory.
In the name of the Belgian Delegation,
Secretary GeneralP. O. Signed:
Guillaume
Appendix D to HD–86
Report From the American
Representative on the Inter-Allied Railway Mission to Poland
With Regard to the Removal of German Government Property From
Dantzig
Under date of October 29, the American Minister at Warsaw transmitted
the following as the substance of a report from the American
Representative on the Inter-Allied Railway Mission:
“On the protest of the workmen in the shipyards the German
authorities have refrained from removing floating cranes and
drydocks
[Page 34]
from
Dantzig, which they considered they had the right to do
under the terms of the Treaty. They have, however, removed a
large amount of other materials, claiming that this was
allowable under the Treaty.
“The American representative on the Inter-Allied Railway
Mission added that the foregoing information had been
transmitted to Paris, and that the Mission had taken no
other action in the matter which pertained exclusively to
the Armistice authorities.”
