Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/104
HD–104
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,
December 2, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
Paris, December 2, 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. Hinchley-Cooke |
| France |
M. Massigli |
| Italy |
M. Zanchi |
| Interpreter—M.
Camerlynck |
The following were also present for items in which they were concerned:
- America, United States of
- Admiral McCully, U. S. N.
- Mr. E. L. Dresel
- Dr. James Brown Scott
- Colonel Logan
- Mr. A. W. Dulles
- Lieut-Commander Koehler, U. S. N.
- British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- Captain Fuller, R. N.
- Commander MacNamara
- Mr. H. W. Malkin
- General Mance
- Lieut-Colonel Kisch
- Colonel Beadon
- France
- M. Leygues
- M. Camhon
- M. Laroche
- Commandant Le Vavasseur
- M. Fromageot
- Italy
- General Cavallero
- Rear-Admiral Grassi
- M. Ricci-Busatti
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
- M. Stranieri
- Commander Fea
[Page 430]
1. (The Council had before it an account of an interview which had taken
place on December 1st, 1919, between M. Dutasta, Secretary General of
the Conference, and Baron von Lersner. (See Appendix “A”). Interview Between M. Dutasta and Baron von
Lersner
M. Dutasta said that the Council had before it
a correct account of the conversation which had taken place the
preceding day between Baron von Lersner and himself. M. Arnavon had been
present at that meeting and had taken notes of the interview. At the
close of Baron von Lersner’s statements, he, M. Dutasta, had asked Baron
von Lersner to read over the notes, which had been approved by the
German Delegate.
M. Dutasta wished to point out: first, that Baron von Lersner had
referred to a conversation which had taken place between them on October
14th [13th?], 1919;1 his
contention then was that the possible nonratification by the American
Senate of the Treaty with Germany would lead to a new situation, and
that a new agreement would have to be entered into between the Powers
which had ratified the Treaty and Germany; he, Lersner, now maintained
that M. Dutasta had accepted his contention: this was absolutely false.
M. Dutasta had only taken good note of what Baron von Lersner had said
on that day without binding himself in any way. He had always pointed
out to Baron von Lersner that he, M. Dutasta, spoke only as an
Inter-Allied representative and that he could not express any personal
opinion which would commit him.
Secondly, Baron von Lersner had referred to a contradiction between the
note of November 22nd (last paragraph),2
which stipulated that the protocol of November 1st should be signed
unconditionally by Germany, and a conversation which he and Herr von
Simson had had with M. Berthelot and M. Dutasta, according to which they
had understood that they were invited to hold negotiations, both verbal
and in writing. He, M. Dutasta, wished to point out that they had never
held that language.
M. Clemenceau stated that as von Lersner’s
declaration brought up several difficult and important questions, he
thought it very advisable to adjourn the discussion to the next
meeting.
(The discussion was adjourned until the following day).
2. (The Council had before it a note of the Commission on Roumanian and
Jugo-Slav Affairs, dated December 1st, 1919. (See Appendix “B”). Exploitation of the Pecs Mines
M. Laroche read and commented upon the report.
He added that he strongly advised the Council to submit that question to
the Committee on Organization
[Page 431]
of the Reparation Commission, as the latter chiefly was concerned in
solving the problem of coal distribution in Central Europe.
Sir Eyre Crowe agreed, but wished to point out
that the solution should be offered in a very short time so as to be
included in the Hungarian Treaty.
Mr. Polk asked M. Laroche whether the
proposition as made in his report provided for the evacuation of the
Pecs district by the Serbs.
M. Laroche said that that was understood.
It was decided:
to refer back the question for immediate examination and report
to the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission,
recommending the adoption of the following paragraph to be
inserted in the Hungarian Treaty:
“Hungary shall furthermore give to the Allied and
Associated Powers an option, as reparation in part for
the annual delivery during the five years which follow
the coming into force of the Treaty, of a quantity of
steam coal from the Pecs mines, which shall be fixed
periodically by the Reparation Commission, and which the
latter will dispose of in favor of the
Serbo-Croat-Slovene State under conditions determined by
the Commission.”
3. (The Council had before it a draft reply to the German note of
November 27, 19193 on Scapa Flow (See
Appendix “C”). Answer to German Note of November 27th
on Scapa Flow
Sir Eyre Crowe thought it would be inadvisable
to separate the question of Scapa Flow from the question of the general
German attitude, which would be dealt with on the following day. He
wished to add that he considered the draft reply a very satisfactory
document.
Mr. Polk said he would be ready to discuss the
question at the next meeting.
(It was agreed to adjourn the discussion until the following
meeting.)
4. (The Council had before it a draft article concerning Fiume, to be
inserted in the Hungarian Treaty. (See Appendix “D”). Report of the Drafting Committee on the Hungarian Treaty
M. Fromageot read and commented upon the draft
article. He added that the Council should decide whether the second
paragraph should be drafted as in the first alternative or the
second.
M. Scialoja stated he agreed on the first part
of the draft: that was a formula which had already been used in the
Treaty with Austria. He thought it was useless to draft the second
paragraph according to the second alternative, for that would entail
great difficulties
[Page 432]
for the
future. He felt that Hungary should obligate itself to recognize the
Council’s decisions and should not have any kind of supervision thereon.
If the second alternative were accepted, Hungary could object that
because of disagreement between Italy and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State
it could not recognize the solution. A distinction was being made
between Italy and the Principal Powers. Why should this be so? There was
no reason why Italy should be distinguished from the other Principal
Powers and put on a standing with the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. If that
draft were accepted, it would mean adding another difficulty to those
which were already involved in the Fiume question.
Mr. Polk said that a reply could be made to one
of M. Scialoja’s objections by deleting the word “Italy”, and the
sentence should read: “The Principal Allied and Associated Powers in
agreement with the Serb-Croat-Slovene State …”
M. Scialoja said he wished to point out that
the second alternative would create a departure from the system which
had prevailed until then; this was a Treaty with Hungary and not a
Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. It would simply mean a
complication of the question which seemed quite useless.
M. Clemenceau thought it advisable not to
mention either Italy or Jugo-Slavia in the paragraph. He could not be
accused of partiality against the Jugo-Slavs, but he felt that he could
not let Jugo-Slavia have a control over decisions which the Conference
took as a sovereign body. It would be sufficient in the second
alternative, if the Jugo-Slavs were to refuse to accept the decision of
the Conference, for the whole question to be reopened once more by
Hungary.
M. Scialoja pointed out the analogy with the
Dalmatian question. It had been stated in the Austrian Treaty that
Austria accepted the decisions of the Conference regarding Dalmatia. Why
should Hungary be treated differently?
Sir Eyre Crowe said his views were entirely
covered by the precedents adopted by the Conference. In many other cases
a cession of territory and abandonment of sovereignty rights had been
decided upon, but a stipulation such as the one proposed in the second
alternative had never been, and could not now be made.
Mr. Polk thought it might be a little difficult
to settle that question according to precedents alone. This was the
first case where a party was a claimant and also a judge; Italy, he
thought, would be both in this case.
M. Clemenceau remarked that was not absolutely
accurate.
M. Scialoja said that Italy had already held
that position in the Trentino question.
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the Dalmatian
question could be cited as analogous with the case under discussion.
[Page 433]
Mr. Polk said that was the type of question
which might provoke war and he did not think they were doing justice to
the Serbs.
M. Scialoja thought the risk of war would be
greater if six Powers instead of five had to agree.
Mr. Polk stated the United States had always
felt that Jugo-Slavia should be consulted on the questions which
involved the security of peace in Central Europe: he did not wish to
obstruct the Treaty but wanted only to put on record his reservation on
the subject.
M. Clemenceau agreed with Mr. Polk on his
declaration that the Jugo-Slavs should be consulted, but it was
precisely for that reason that the question of an agreement with
Jugo-Slavia should not be mentioned in a Treaty with Hungary.
Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that he himself had not
wished to have it understood that the Jugo-Slavs were not to be
consulted. He thought the Serbs should be heard in the same way as the
Poles.
Mr. Polk repeated that in this case two
litigants were at swords’ point on the question, in which one sat as
judge and party at the same time, and the other one outside, but he did
not wish to insist.
It was decided:
to insert the following article in the Hungarian Treaty, (Part
III, Political Clauses, Section 5—Fiume):
“Hungary renounces all rights and title on Fiume and the
adjacent territories belonging to the former Kingdom of
Hungary, and included within the boundaries which shall
be fixed at a later date.
Hungary agrees to recognize the stipulations concerning
those territories, especially on the nationality of the
inhabitants, which shall be included in the Treaties
intended to settle the present questions.”
5. (The Council had before it a note of the British Delegation dated
December 1st, 1919 on the subject (See Appendix “E”). Appointment of a Committee To Distribute the Rolling Stock of the
Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
Sir Eyre Crowe read and commented upon the
British proposal.
M. Scialoja asked that the question be
adjourned until the following day as he wished to consult his Monarchy
experts and examine the question before giving his views thereon.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the question was
urgent as a meeting was to be held on December 11th.
(The discussion of this subject was adjourned until the following
meeting).
6. (The Council had before it a report of the Drafting Committee on the
question (See Appendix “F”).
[Page 434]
M. Fromageot read and commented upon report.
Report of the Drafting Committee Claims of
Inheriting States for Roiling Stock of the Former Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy
After a short discussion,
It was decided:
to approve the conclusions of the report presented by the Drafting
Committee on the subject.
7. (The Council had before it a proposed declaration submitted by the
Drafting Committee (See Appendix “G”). Approval of
Declaration Submitted by the Drafting Committee Relating to the
Provisional Eastern Frontiers of Poland
M. Fromageot read and commented upon the
proposed declaration. He added that taking into account the objection
which had been raised at the preceding meeting he had prepared a
document which took the form of a simple declaration to be signed by the
President of the Conference.
After a short discussion,
It was decided:
to approve the declaration as submitted by the Drafting Committee
relating to the provisional Eastern Frontiers of Poland. (See Appendix
“G”).
8. M. Fromageot stated that the rights of
Poland on the former German and Russian territories had been recognized;
Eastern Galicia was about to have a special status, but no disposition
had been made of the southwestern part of Poland (Western Galicia) and
the boundaries between Poland and Czechoslovakia had not yet been
determined. It should, therefore, be necessary to recognize the
sovereignty of Poland in Western Galicia on the one hand, and on the
other, the rights of Czecho-Slovakia on the territories which belong to
it should be recognized. He recommended that a treaty be drafted, which
would transfer the rights and title on the territories of the former
Austro-Hungarian Government belonging to the Allied and Associated
Powers by virtue of the Peace Treaties, to both Poland and
Czecho-Slovakia. Furthermore, the sovereignty rights of Poland on the
territories bordering Czecho-Slovakia should be recognized by the Allied
and Associated Powers on the one hand, and by Czecho-Slovakia on the
other. Lastly, the sovereignty rights of Czecho-Slovakia on the
territories which were attributed to it should be recognized by the
Allied and Associated Powers, and it was also of great importance that
the boundaries of Czecho-Slovakia should be determined by a single
document, which had not yet been done. He summed up by suggesting to the
Council that a draft Treaty be prepared which would solve only questions
of sovereignty rights as well as determine the frontiers. Western Galicia
M. Clemenceau said that the Council would
charge the Drafting Committee with the preparation of such a Treaty.
[Page 435]
It was decided:
that the Drafting Committee should prepare a draft Treaty which
would:
- (1)
- attribute Western Galicia to Poland, and fix its
boundaries;
- (2)
- determine the frontiers of the Czecho-Slovak State,
recognizing the sovereignty of that State over the
territories comprised within said boundaries.
9. (The Council had before it the French proposal concerning Enemy
Submarines, (See Appendix “B” to H. D. 102).4
Distribution of Enemy Submarines
M. Leygues said that on November 29th, 1919 the
Council had adopted the principle of the French proposal.5 He asked the Council to vote upon the same.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the American
Delegation had made certain reservations on the second paragraph of the
proposal.
Mr. Polk said he had no objection to offer with
regard to the first and third paragraphs. As for the second paragraph,
he could not accept the proportion given therein, but he expected to
receive instructions from his Government at any time. He had proposed to
his Government that it would be better to accept nothing on account of
the unfair ratio attributed to the United States.
M. Matsui said that his instructions allowed
him to accept paragraphs 1 and 3 of the French proposal. He wished
however to make a reservation on paragraph 2: a certain number of
submarines had already been distributed between the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers, i. e., 43 submarines; Japan had received seven, which
Japanese crews had taken from England to Japan at a great cost, and the
Japanese Government envisaged great material difficulty in bringing
those submarines back to Europe. He proposed that the submarines which
had been attributed for propaganda purposes should definitely belong to
the Power to which they had been attributed: it being understood that
those submarines should be broken up and the material taken therefrom
should belong to the Power to which attribution had been made. He added
that the same principle had been adopted for surface vessels.
M. Leygues said he accepted the Japanese
proposal.
Sir Eyre Crowe also accepted it, but wished to
state that the breaking up of those submarines should be made under the
supervision of the Inter-Allied Commission. He asked whether it would
not be advisable to omit the sentence beginning with the words,
“percentage already established … etc.” of the second paragraph.
(This was agreed to.)
Mr. Polk said he understood the Japanese
reservation applied to all Powers.
[Page 436]
Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether the American
Delegation made its reservation on the whole of the second paragraph or
only on the figures showing the percentage each Allied and Associated
Power should receive.
Mr. Polk said the American Delegation wished to
reserve the whole paragraph.
Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that the time limit
within which submarines should be destroyed had not been mentioned in
the French proposal, and he suggested one year.
M. Leygues said he accepted that time
limit.
Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether the American
decision would arrive before Mr. Polk’s departure.
Mr. Polk said he was sorry he could not give a
definite reply to Sir Eyre Crowe’s question.
M. Leygues said the French Delegation had
accepted the British declaration according to which the 10 submarines
attributed to France as a special compensation should be selected from
those which had not participated in the submarine warfare. It had done
this, provided that 10 such submarines could be found available for
delivery to France. If such were not available, he had understood that
the French Government could take those submarines wherever they happened
to be.
M. Leygues said that he had just received a
telegram to the effect that two of the German [floating?] docks at
Hamburg had been sold to Holland and had already been removed to that
country. He wished to bring the attention of the Council to the
dangerous situation in which the Allies would find themselves if they
were to find German ports empty of all materiel.
M. Clemenceau suggested that question should be
referred to the naval experts for examination and report.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that all the submarines turned over by the enemy Powers, with
the exception of the small number indicated in paragraph 4
below, should be demolished under the supervision of a Naval
Inter-Allied Commission;
- (2)
- that the submarines already distributed to the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers for propaganda purposes should not
be made the subject of a further attribution, but that said
attribution should be final. Those submarines should be
demolished by said Powers under the supervision of the Naval
Inter-Allied Commission;
- (3)
- that the principle and percentage of distribution of enemy
submarines be provisionally reserved;
- (4)
- that France, for the reason that she is the only Power not
having constructed submarines during the war, should receive ten
German submarines in good condition, as compensation; the latter
to be selected preferably amongst those which had not taken part
in submarine warfare, wherever they stood;
- (5)
- that the period granted to each of the Allied and Associated
Powers for the destruction of submarines to be broken up should
be one year; (See Appendix “B” to H. D. 102).
(The meeting then adjourned).
Hotel de Crillon,
Paris
, December
2, 1919.
Appendix A to HD–104
[Report of an Interview Between M.
Dutasta and Baron von Lersner]
Mr. Von Lersner, President of the German Delegation, requested to be
received by the Secretary General of the Conference, to whom he made
the following statements which have been collected almost textually:
“I am directed to inform you verbally of my Government’s
reply to the Supreme Council’s note of November 22 and
24.6
“Should you desire a written reply, I could hand it to you
later, but this reply is yet in Berlin and will require
time.
“I must set forth that the President’s doubts relative to our
intentions as to the fulfillment of the Treaty are, in our
opinion, absolutely deprived of all foundation. We reject
the reproach made us of being responsible for the delay of
the coming into force of the Treaty. We ratified on July 16,
and we have since then awaited the coming into force, that
is to say, the first protocol of exchange of ratifications.
Since the day following your ratification, I have had full
powers to sign the procès-verbal.
“It was not until November 2 that we were informed of the
ratification by three of the Great Powers.7
Nevertheless, the Powers did not declare themselves ready
for the coming into force of the Treaty as was provided at
the end of the Versailles document. This coming into force
was made subject to new conditions which were very severe
and which refer to the Treaty itself.8 The German
Government today, as before, is ready: it desires a prompt
reestablishment of peace by the coming into force of the
Treaty.
“A large number of stipulations of the Treaty provides the
participation of America. You recall, Mr. Ambassador, that
on October 14 we were agreed that an accord would be
concluded on this subject between the Ratifying Powers and
Germany. We now consider that this accord should not limit
itself only to the territorial questions of the East. We are
quite willing to do our share, but as you know all Germany
considers the participation of America as an important
guarantee. We will give our assent to the coming into force
despite the absence of America; but for us, it will be a
sacrifice, and, in compensation, we expect that you will
favor our requests relative to the extradition of the guilty
and prisoners of war.
[Page 438]
“The German Government opposes a refusal to the demand
contained in the Note of November 22 (last paragraph)
stipulating that the protocol of November 1 must be signed
unconditionally. This demand is in contradiction with your
declarations and those of Mr. Berthelot made to M. von
Simson and myself when you invited us to oral and written
negotiations.
“I again wish to touch on the objections which we raised
against the protocol. For us, the Baltic question has been
settled. On questions of lesser importance, agreement will
be easy (on rolling stock, for instance); but what we
absolutely refuse is: 1st) the demands presented as
compensation for the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa
Flow; 2nd) the eventual military measures provided for in
the last paragraph. For us, they are inacceptable.
“We trust with confidence that you will adopt our
viewpoint.
“We ask that a provision be inserted in the protocol
stipulating that the repatriation of prisoners of war will
not be allowed to be subjected to any condition whatsoever,
unless to that provided for in Article 221 (return of French
prisoners of war retained in Germany).
“As regards the promises which we declare were made us
relative to the repatriation of our prisoners of war, the
German Government reserves the right to reply later.”
Upon leaving, M. von Lersner stated that the German Government had
approved the departure of M. von Simson.
Appendix B to HD–104
Note Presented to the Supreme Council
by the Commission on Rumanian and Jugoslav Affairs
The Commission on Rumanian and Jugoslav affairs, in conformity with a
decision taken by the Supreme Council under date of November
6th,9 has examined the question
relative to the request made by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation,
asking that the exploitation of the Pecs mines be attributed to that
State for a period of five years.
The Commission is of the opinion that it is impossible to separate
this question from the general question of the situation in Central
Europe relative to the coal supply.
The Commission was also of the opinion that it is impossible for it
to obtain definite information concerning the respective needs of
the States in question, although fully recognizing the motives upon
which the Jugoslav Delegation bases its request, the Commission will
willingly favor the solution which was proposed by the Organization
Committee of the Reparations Commission concerning which it has
unofficial notice.
This solution would add to Annex V, Par. 1, of the Treaty with
Hungary, the following phrase:
[Page 439]
Furthermore, Hungary accords to the Allied and Associated
Powers, as partial reparation, an option on the annual
delivery during the five years which shall follow the entry
into force of the Treaty of a quantity of traction coal to
be taken from the Pecs mines, and which will be determined
periodically by the Reparations Commission, and will be
disposed of in favor of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State in the
conditions which will be fixed by the Reparations
Commission.
From a political point of view, as well as the economic interests in
question, this solution appears entirely satisfactory to the
Commission because it authorizes a qualified medium, that is, the
Reparations Commission, to take all useful measures concerning the
different interests, with a full knowledge of the case.
Consequently the Commission proposes that the Supreme Council
recommend an examination of this solution, which appears fair to it,
by the Reparations Commission. The Commission, however knows of no
better means than that the Reparations Commission present a definite
opinion to the Supreme Council.
Appendix C to HD–104
scapa flow affair
Proposed Answer to the German Note of
November 27, 191910
To: Baron von Lersner;
On November 27th last, you were kind enough to forward me a
memorandum in which the German Government rejected the reparations
demanded by the Allied and Associated Powers in their note of
November 111 for the destruction on
June 22 [21], 1919, of the German fleet
anchored at Scapa Flow, and proposed to submit this affair to
arbitration.
The German Government, to which the Allied and Associated point of
view was communicated on June 28 [25],
1919,12 and which, on June 28th
and September 3, 1919, made it the subject of its communications,
today claims that this destruction in no way constitutes a violation
of Germany’s obligation,—that the destroyed war ships were not, at
the time of their destruction, destined to be handed over to the
Allies,—and more than that, that the destruction should be imputed
to the Allied and Associated Powers themselves which, “in
contradiction with the provisions of Article 23 of the Armistice had
interned the war ships not in a neutral port, but in an enemy
port.”
The Allied and Associated Powers can only see in the German
memorandum an attempt, difficult to explain, to voluntarily delay
the coming into force of the treaty and the definite
re-establishment of peace.
[Page 440]
In its note of September 3 last, addressed to the Allied and
Associated Governments, after having noted the authentic statements
of the Admiral commanding the destroyed German fleet, the German
Government, far from disregarding the obligations incumbent upon it,
in this respect toward the Allies, had, on the contrary, set forth
that the Admiral had in no way had “the intention of violating the
obligations that the German Government had assumed.”
The German Government itself also recognized that in destroying the
German fleet the Admiral commanding had acted according to a general
order, it added that the Admiral was aware that the German proposals
themselves concerning the peace conditions provided that the fleet
be credited to reparations.
It is precisely the destruction according to the orders of the German
Government of what Germany thus should have handed over to the
Allied and Associated Powers which, whatsoever the personal
responsibility of Admiral von Reuter and his subordinates,
constitutes a violation of the Armistice as well as an act tending
to annul obligations already agreed to and on the point of being
definitely signed.
Finally, it is hardly necessary to recall that the choice of roads at
Scapa Flow for lack of proper neutral port is, in every way, in
conformity with the letter as well as the spirit of the text of
Article 23 of the Armistice.
Under these conditions, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers
consider that the German Government cannot repudiate today the
responsibility incumbent upon it or seek, through arbitration, a
solution for acts of war the settlement of which belongs to the said
Powers.
Consequently, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, invite the
German Government, in conformity with their note of November 1 last,
to sign without further delay the protocol, thereby allowing the
exchange of ratifications and the coming into force of the Peace
Treaty, and thus by the return to normal life appease the sufferings
of the people.
Please accept, etc.
Appendix D to HD–104
hungarian treaty
Part III—Political Clauses
Section V—Fiume
Article 53 (Proposed)
Hungary renounces all rights and titles over Fiume and adjacent
territories, belonging to the former Kingdom of Hungary and
comprised in the boundaries which will be fixed later.
[Page 441]
- 1st alternative: Hungary agrees to
recognize the stipulations which are to be drawn up relative to
these territories, notably concerning the nationality of the
inhabitants, in the Treaties destined to regulate the present
affairs.
- 2nd alternative: Hungary agrees to
recognize the stipulations elaborated by the Principal Allied
and Associated Powers in conjunction with Italy and the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State relative to these territories, notably
concerning the nationality of the inhabitants.
Appendix E to HD–104
Note by British Delegation Submitted
to the Supreme Council
Wagon Exchange in Central
Europe
In a telegram (copy attached “A”) dated 8th November, 1919, General
Mance, President of the Communications Section of the Supreme
Economic Council, as a result of personal negotiations in Vienna
with technical representatives of the States concerned, recommended
the formation of a Committee at Vienna to regulate provisionally,
the exchange of rolling-stock across frontiers.
On November 10th Mr. Lindley, British Commissioner at Vienna,
telegraphed strongly supporting this proposal, which met with the
approval of Sir Francis Dent.
The above communications were embodied in a note by the British
Delegation dated 13th November,13
which was considered by the Supreme Council on November 20th.14
Unfortunately, through a misunderstanding of the nature of the
proposal, the question was referred to the Organizing Committee of
the Reparations Commission, who are not concerned with the majority
of the countries affected by the proposal.
The Organizing Committee of the Reparations Commission in a report
dated 21st November made certain recommendations which were approved
by the Supreme Council on November 24th.15
These recommendations differ fundamentally from the original proposal
by General Mance, which was based on understanding with
representatives of the States concerned. The essence of General
Mance’s proposal is the bringing together of responsible
representatives of the various Railway administrations in Central
Europe under an independent Chairman, with a view to their
instituting a provisional scheme for freer wagon exchange in the
special conditions now obtaining, when the ownership of a large
proportion of the rolling-stock has not been determined. The Allied
and Associated Powers have
[Page 442]
of course no authority to impose such an arrangement. The
intervention of the Supreme Council was contemplated solely for the
purpose of facilitating its general acceptance by the several
States. On the other hand, the Organizing Committee of the
Reparations Commission propose to constitute a Commission on which
America, Great Britain and France will be represented, in addition
to the States primarily concerned, and which will be subordinated to
an inter-allied organization. Further, the proposal of the
Organizing Committee does not guarantee as a basis the right of
maintaining equality of wagon exchange, and incidentally does not
explicitly state that any arrangements entered into by the Committee
will be without prejudice to the ownership of the rolling-stock
established or claimed.
As it was evident during the negotiations in Vienna that the only
possible basis of agreement is one which will avoid the appearance
of interference with the internal organization of each railway
administration, and which will respect the existing distribution of
rolling-stock as a provisional starting point, General Mance is of
the opinion that the proposals of the Organizing Committee of the
Reparations Commission will not be acceptable or workable and would
therefore defeat their own object.
It is therefore recommended that the question should be reconsidered,
and that (1) invitations should be issued by telegram to the
countries concerned on the lines of the original proposal, (draft
attached—“B”), (2) the proposed Committee should in no way be
considered as subject to any inter-allied organisation, it being
left to Sir Francis Dent.
As regards the arrangements for a representation of the interests of
Eastern Galicia, the simplest procedure might be for the Committee
to co-opt the representative now at Vienna.
29:11:19.
A.
En clair Telegram From General Mance,
Vienna, to Astoria, Paris
D. 8/11/1919.
R. 9/11/1919.
Reference Sir Francis Dent’s suggestion re need of better wagon
movement—forwarded by Mr. Lindley. Have discussed matter with
technical representatives of Central European States now at Vienna.
Recommend Supreme Council should invite Governments of Austria,
Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Rumania, Jugo-Slavia, and Italy to send
representatives to form committee at Vienna.
First meeting on December 4th.
These representatives should have full power to enter into
arrangements for free wagon exchange without prejudice to the
ownerships
[Page 443]
of
rolling-stock established or claimed and based on the right of
maintaining equality of wagon exchange, subject to special
arrangements agreed to by the Governments concerned and of which the
committee should be advised. The committee should have the right to
make representations to the Governments concerned. The Allied
Generals at Budapest should nominate representative for Hungary and
a representative of Ukraine should if possible be similarly
appointed, as there is one on the existing Railway Committee at
Vienna. This latter committee cannot be used as they lack the
necessary powers. In issuing invitations Supreme Council might
express its concern at the aggravation of serious economic situation
in Central Europe by the present restrictions on wagon movement
between the different States and draw attention to the urgent need
for creating an effective organization for wagon exchange, if the
decisions of Sir Francis Dent’s Reparation Commission are to be
executed. Although the work of the proposed Committee is quite
distinct from that of Sir Francis Dent’s Commission, Supreme Council
might suggest desirability of appointing independent Allied Chairman
and that Sir Francis Dent acting when necessary through a deputy
should be designated for that post. Unanimous view here in favour of
independent Allied Chairman and Sir Francis Dent believed to be most
acceptable. We could find qualified deputy in which case Sir Francis
Dent would accept Chairmanship. American, French and Italian
representatives on Allied Railway Mission here agree with above
proposals. As matter is urgent trust action will be taken before my
return. Ends.
B.
Draft Communication to Government of
Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Roumania, Yugo-Slavia and
Italy
Copy to be sent to the Allied Generals at Budapest,
with a view to the nomination of a Hungarian Representative
As a result of reports received from its technical advisers, the
Supreme Council are greatly concerned at the aggravation of the
serious economic situation in Central Europe by the present
restrictions on wagon movement between the different states, and are
further impressed by the urgent need for creating an effectual
organization for wagon exchange, in view of the execution of the
decisions of the Reparation of Rolling Stock Commissions provided
for in the Treaties of Peace. They have therefore decided to invite
the Governments of Austria, Hungary, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland,
Roumania, Yugo-Slavia and Italy to send representatives to form a
provisional committee at Vienna; the first meeting of which should
take place on December 11th. It is important that the
representatives sent should have full
[Page 444]
power to enter into arrangements for free
wagon exchange without prejudice to the ownership of rolling-stock
established or claimed, and based on the right of maintaining
equality of wagon exchange, subject to special arrangements agreed
to by the Governments concerned, and of which the Committee should
be advised. The Committee would have the right to make
representations to the Governments concerned.
The Supreme Council suggest that it is desirable to appoint an
independent chairman to the proposed Committee, and while
recognizing that the work of the proposed Committee is quite
distinct from that of the Reparation Commission for the
rolling-stock of the late Austro-Hungarian Empire, they suggest that
Sir Francis Dent, acting when necessary through a deputy, should be
designated as Chairman. The Supreme Council trust that this
proposal, which is made in the common interests of all states
concerned, and after the fullest possible local enquiry, will
receive the cordial support of the Government. The favour of a reply
by telegram is requested.
Appendix F to HD–104
drafting committee
Note Concerning the Rolling Stock of
the State Railways in the Former Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy
1. The Serb-Croat and Slovene State claims:
1st.—The rolling stock captured by Serbia in 1918 and taken to
Salonika.
This claim is well-founded; it is in conformity with Article 53,
alinea 1 of the Hague regulations, which recognizes to the
belligerent the right to take over enemy state material.16
2nd.—The material seized in 1918 in Serbia and on the
Austro-Hungarian territory occupied by the S. C. S. Army.
- a)
- —The material found in freed Serbia before the Armistice
was legally taken. The claim, under this first item, is,
therefore justified.
- b)
- —No material could be captured after the Armistice. The
material delivered after the Armistice was turned over to
the Allies in common. Although the S. C. S. Army occupied
some territories after the expiration of the Armistice, it
could not legally capture any material. Therefore, the
claim, under the second item, is not founded.
3rd.—The material delivered by Hungary, by virtue of the Armistice of
November 13, 1918.17
[Page 445]
Article 4 of this Armistice provides for the delivery to the Allies
and not to Serbia, therefore the claim, under this item, is not
founded.
The fate of this material, with respect to Austria, is regulated by
Article 199 of the Treaty of St. Germain, and will probably be also
regulated by similar stipulations of the Hungarian Treaty.
II. Italy, as a power occupying the Austrian territory, and, for this
reason, in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers, objects
both to any particular claim on the material delivered, or to be
delivered by virtue of the Armistice of November 3, 1918,18 or
to a distribution of this material, by virtue of Article 318 of the
Austrian Treaty.
This objection is founded, as the material concerned was delivered in
common to the Allied and Associated Powers, and consequently ought
to be shared as a common property definitely attributed to the
Allied and Associated Powers by Article 199.
III. Poland claims the material found in Russian territory.
Before the Armistice, the Austro-Hungarian material found in Russian
territory, was reconquered by the Austro-Hungarian Armies, and the
Polish elements which were fighting among the Austro-Hungarians
could not acquire any right to this material.
After the Armistice, as the Polish troops were belligerent against
Austro-Hungary, the Armistice did not authorize Poland to take the
material found in the occupied territory and to attribute this
material to itself.
Poland will have rights on this material only according to the terms
of Article 318 of the Austrian Treaty and of the similar Article of
the Hungarian Treaty. Therefore, its present claim does not seem to
be founded.
IV. The Czecho-Slovakian State, Poland, the S. C. S. State, and Italy
are filing conditional claims concerning the material found in the
Austro-Hungarian territory occupied by them, when the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was dismembered.
It appears from the remarks made in the Above I, II, and III
paragraphs, that: 1st.—That part of the material which was legally
captured and that part of the material delivered, or to be delivered
by virtue of the Armistice, in order to become common property of
the Allies consequent to the Peace Treaty, should be excluded from
the distribution provided for by Article 318; 2nd.—The rest of the
material should appear in the inventory of the material to be
distributed according to Article 318.
In other words, the inventory provided for by Article 318 should be
established under the date of the Armistice, and should not
compromise the material, the fate of which was already regulated at
that date,
[Page 446]
either as a
result of legally valid war actions, or as a result of the Armistice
itself.
For the Drafting Committee
Henri Fromageot
Appendix G to HD–104
Declaration Relating to the
Provisional Eastern Frontiers of Poland
Declaration
The Principal Allied and Associated Powers recognizing, that it is
important as soon as possible to put a stop to the existing
conditions of political uncertainty, in which the Polish nation is
placed, and without prejudging the provisions which must in the
future define the eastern frontiers of Poland, hereby declare that
they recognize the right of the Polish Government to proceed,
according to the conditions previously provided by the Treaty with
Poland of June 28, 1919,19 to organise
a regular administration of the territories of the former Russian
Empire situated to the West of the line described below:
From the point where the old frontier between Russia and
Austria-Hungary meets the river Bug to the point where it is cut by
the administrative boundary between the districts of Byelsk and
Brest-Litowsk,
the course of the Bug downstream;
thence northwards this administrative boundary to where it forms an
acute angle about 9 kilometres north-east of Melnik;
thence north-eastwards to a point on the course of the Lesna Prawa
where the latter is cut by the forest road running from south to
north which passes about 2 kilometres west of Skupowo,
a line to be fixed on the ground leaving in Poland the villages of
Weipole, Stolbce, Piesczatka, and Wolka, cutting the railway
Byelsk-Brest-Litovsk, at the point where it crosses the road from
Vysoko-Litovsk to Kleshcheli;
thence northwards to a point where the Narev-Narevka road cuts the
Gainowka-Svisloch railway.
a line to be fixed on the ground along the forest road mentioned
above;
thence north-eastwards to a point on the river Svisloch 4 kilometres
to the north of Yalowka where it is joined by the river passing this
town,
a line to be fixed on the ground;
thence the course of the Svisloch downstream, then the course of the
Laszanka upstream, then the course of the Likowka upstream to a
point about 1½ kilometre west of Baranowo;
[Page 447]
thence north-north-westwards to a point on the Grodna-Kuznitsa
railway about 500 metres north-east of the bifurcation of
Kielbasin,
a line to be fixed on the ground;
thence north-westwards to a point on the course of the Lososna about
2½ kilometres south-west of its confluence with the Nyeman,
a line to be fixed on the ground;
thence the course of the Lososna downstream, then the course of the
Nyeman downstream, then the course of the river Igorka, which passes
Warwischki, upstream to its source;
thence west-south-westwards to a point on the course of the
Chernohanja (Marycha) near Sztudjanka,
a line to be fixed on the ground following a left bank tributary;
thence upstream the course of the Chernohanja to a point about 2½
kilometres to the east of Zelwa;
thence northwards to a point on the Berzniki-Kopciowa road about 2
kilometres south-east of Berzniki.
a line to be fixed on the ground;
thence north-westwards to the most southerly point of the reentrant
of the northern administrative boundary of the district of Suvalki
(about 7 kilometres to the north-west of Punsk),
a line to be fixed on the ground, proceeding generally parallel to
the line of the small lakes between Berzniki and Zegary and about 2
kilometres to the east of these lakes, turning west to reach a point
of Laka Galadusya about 2 kilometres north of Zegary, crossing this
lake to its north-western point and leaving Punsk in Poland;
thence northwards the administrative boundary of Suvalki to its
junction with the old frontier between Russia and East Prussia.
the rights that Poland may be able to establish over the territories
situated to the East of the said line are expressly reserved.
Made at Paris, the . . . . . . . 1919.
