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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/109

HD–109

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Monday, December 8, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, December 8, 1919, 10:30 a.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. F. L. Polk
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison
  • British Empire
    • Sir Eyre Crowe
  • Secretary
    • Mr. H. Norman
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau
  • Secretaries
    • M. Dutasta
    • M. Berthelot
    • M. de Saint Quentin
  • Italy
    • M. de Martino
  • Secretary
    • M. Trombetti
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Winthrop
British Empire	Capt. Lothian Small
France	M. De Percin
Italy	M. Zanchi
Interpreter—M. Mantoux

The following were also present for items in which they were concerned:

• America, United States of
  • Rear Admiral McCully
  • Mr. L. Dresel
  • Dr. I. Bowman
• British Empire
  • Capt. Hinchley Cooke
  • Lt. Col. Kisch
• France
  • M. Laroche
  • M. Kammerer
  • M. Cheysson
• Italy
  • Gen. Cavallero
  • Col. Castoldi
• Japan
  • M. Shigemitsu.

1. The Council had before it a letter from General Franchet d’Esperey relative to the expenses incurred in the occupation of Western Thrace. (See Appendix A).

Mr. Berthelot said that General Franchet d’Esperey explained that on account of England and Italy’s practical abstention, France was the only principal Power intervening in the occupation of Western Thrace with forces of a certain importance. She was therefore left alone to support rather high expenses incurred by that occupation. It would be advisable for the Council to decide under what conditions those expenses should be finally settled. Cost of Administration of Western Thrace

Mr. de Martino said that General Franchet d’Esperey’s letter indicated two possible solutions for the payment of expenses: either a distribution of same between all the Principal and [sic] Allied and Associated Powers, and [or?] the payment by the State to which the territories of Western Thrace would be finally attributed.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that concerned the final settlement of expenses. What they had to decide first was the question relating to the temporary settlement of the costs of occupation.

Mr. Clemenceau summed up by saying that it was a question of finding out who would advance the funds, whether it would be France or all the Allied states.

Mr. Berthelot said that as a matter of fact it was France which had been advancing the necessary amounts, as she alone had taken part in that occupation with forces of any importance.

Mr. de Martino said he found it difficult to discuss that question at that meeting. The Italian Delegation only received the night before, between eleven o’clock and midnight, the documents relating thereto. He would ask the Secretariat General to let him have the necessary documents in time so as to be able to study them at leisure, preferably two days before that when the matters came up for discussion before the Council.

Mr. Laroche stated that when the Central Territorial Committee had been charged with the examination of that question by a decision of the Supreme Council,¹ it had asked General Franchet d’Esperey for supplementary information. The Council [Committee] had the latter before it on all such information. On the other hand, it had charged the Financial Commission with a detailed examination of that question. The Council might decide to refer the question to the latter Commission, which would examine same in accord with the Central Territorial Committee. It would, however, facilitate the task of that Commission if the Council would take a decision as to whether France alone should continue to support the expenses incurred or whether a proportionate distribution should be examined.

Mr. de Martino said he did not wish to insist on his proposal to adjourn the question, and was ready to settle it on that day. He thought, with Mr. Laroche, that it could advantageously be referred to the technical experts. He should add, however, that in case the Council should decide that the expenses should be distributed in proportion to each Power, he could not accept such a decision without having received instructions from his Government.

Sir Eyre Crowe said he wished to remark that from the document before them it was only a question of meeting the costs of the present military occupation, as the civilian costs were entirely covered by the local budget. General Franchet d’Esperey pointed out that the proposed budget for the territories in question foresaw an excess of receipts of two millions. That circumstance seemed to him a means of evading the present difficulty. Such an excess might allow for the reimbursement, little by little, of advances made for the military occupation.

Mr. Laroche said that estimation only referred to a budget which was not yet in working. General Franchet d’Esperey had even had to accord to the government of Western Thrace an advance of 1,500,000 francs in order to enable it to function until such time when a regular financial regime should be established.

Mr. de Martino asked whether those 1,500,000 francs did not represent sums of money drawn upon the civilian administration of the Koritza district.

Mr. Berthelot said that was exact.

It was decided:

to refer back for examination and report, to the Financial Commission, in accord with the Central Territorial Committee, the question of the distribution of expenses incurred by the occupation of Western Thrace (see Appendix A).

2. The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation (See Appendix B). On Mr. Clemenceau’s proposal:

It was decided:

to refer that question to the Organization Committee of the Reparation Commission, for examination and report (see Appendix B). Belgo-German Convention Relative to the Reimbursement of German Marks Held by Belgium

3. The Council had before it a note from the Polish Delegation (see Appendix C). Rights of Poland to Reparation

Mr. Berthelot read and commented upon that document.

After a short discussion, it was decided:

to refer to the Organization Committee of the Reparation Commission the examination of questions relative to the rights of Poland to reparation, brought up by the note from the Polish Delegation (see Appendix C).

4. The Council had before it a list of outstanding questions to be settled, drawn up by the Secretariat General (see Appendix D). Mr. Berthelot read that document. He said it would be interesting to have Mr. Polk point out to the Council before his impending departure those questions upon which he had received instructions and those he was not ready to discuss.

Racapitulation of Question Still Remembering To Be Settled

Mr. Polk said that he had received a reply from Washington on the first question concerning the reorganization of the Supreme War Council of Versailles. He would take the liberty to speak about it with Mr. Clemenceau after the meeting.

Mr. Clemenceau said he would be happy to have a conversation with Mr. Polk on the subject. Then the question could be submitted at its next meeting.

Sir Eyre Crowe said he had not yet received a final reply from his Government, but he thought that their military experts favored the adoption of the proposal which had been submitted them.

Mr. Polk said that with regard to the extradition of the Kaiser he did not see why the question should come up again before the Council.

Mr. Berthelot asked whether there did not still remain the question of defining under what conditions the request for extradition should be drawn.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the text of the note to be addressed to the Dutch Government asking for the extradition of Wilhelm II had been settled a long time ago.²

Mr. Polk said that he thought the Togo-Cameroun Question was a question for the Council of the League of Nations.

Mr. Clemenceau did not agree. He said there had been decisions of the Conference on that question,³ and that he had conferred about it, especially with Mr. Lloyd George.

Mr. Polk said there had also been conversations on the subject in London between Mr. Lloyd George and Colonel House. The question had not come up before the Council during the time he had been present.

Mr. Clemenceau stated the question would be examined by the Council at its next meeting, and the minutes of the Council relating to that subject might be consulted.

Mr. Berthelot said that with regard to the designation of the authorities to whom should be remitted the sums mentioned in Article 259 of the Treaty of Versailles, they were confronted by an Italian request. The question of substance had already been settled; it was merely a matter of designating the competent authorities.

Mr. Polk said he did not remember that the question had been discussed in his presence.

Mr. Clemenceau said that question might be put on the agenda of the next day’s meeting.

Mr. Berthelot said the Italian Delegation had also brought up a request regarding the attribution to Italy, in the former German Colonies, of coaling stations for transatlantic navigation.

Mr. Polk said he could not take any position on that point without instructions from his Government.

Mr. de Martino said he did not insist to have that question put on the following day’s agenda.

Mr. Berthelot said that the question raised by the creation of a committee for the distribution of rolling stock of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire had already come up many times before the Council,⁴ and could be discussed the following day in the presence of Mr. Loucheur. On the other hand, he did not think that there was any need of putting on the agenda the question of the attribution of Western Thrace.

Mr. Polk said that it would certainly be impossible for him to give on the following day a final reply on that question.

Mr. Berthelot said that amongst the questions which concerned all the Allies, there remained to be settled the general distribution of enemy merchant shipping, as well as that of oil tank steamers.

Mr. Polk said that with regard to the question of oil tank steamers Mr. Dresel, who would remain in Paris, would continue the negotiations with Sir Eyre Crowe and Mr. Henry Berenger.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether the question of the distribution of merchant tonnage did not concern exclusively the Reparation Commission.

Mr. Berthelot said he would submit a note to the Council at its next meeting. They would then have certain objections to put forward, notably on private agreements which had taken place between some of the interested countries.

He thought it would also be necessary to settle the question of the cost of the armies of occupation. Differences in points of view had taken place on the subject, and Mr. Polk had proposed that only a fraction of those costs should enjoy a priority right with regard to reparations to be made by Germany.

Mr. Polk said he had made a suggestion of that kind, but from a personal point of view, without binding his Government. Now the American Treasury did not agree with the views he had expressed at that time. He thought the question might be referred to the Organization Committee of the Reparation Commission which might, after examination of same, submit a report to the Council of Ambassadors.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that that question concerned the military experts rather than the Reparations Commission.

He thought, furthermore, that an agreement had already been made.

Mr. Berthelot said that he would look up the texts and see where the matter stood: the question might come up the following day before the Council.

Mr. Polk said that he would, as a matter of fact, be enabled to give a decision at the next meeting on the subject.

Mr. Berthelot said that the great questions of general policy could not evidently be settled on the following day. There would, therefore, remain only the question of distribution of costs for the Chambery-Turin Railroad.

General Cavallero said that was a question of improvements which had been made on the Modane Railway during the war. They had been decided upon by the Supreme Military Council of Versailles and had for principal object to improve, in the common interest of the Allies, the conditions of military transportation between France and Italy. It had been decided, in principle, to distribute the costs between Great Britain, America, France and Italy. It still remained to determine the total cost of the work and the conditions under which the distribution should take place. That question had already been examined at different times by the Supreme War Council at Versailles and by other Commissions. A final solution, however, had not yet been obtained.

Mr. de Martino said that the Italian Delegation had sent to the Secretariat General, at its request, a list of the questions it believed should be taken up by the Supreme Council. He noticed that a certain number of those questions did not figure on the list submitted to them by the Secretariat General. He was quite ready to discuss the opportunity of putting on the list such or such a question, but he would have liked to have been enabled to point out the reasons for which the Italian Delegation thought it advisable that those questions should be discussed, and also to hear the arguments of the other side. He thought it would be opportune for the Secretaries of the various Delegations, assisted if need be, by technical experts, to agree between themselves to put on or leave off such and such a question.

Mr. de St. Quentin said that it was easy to take up, point by point, the enumeration which figured on the list prepared by the Italian Delegation. There was first a proposal for the appointment of a commission for the execution of colonial clauses provided for in the Treaty of Versailles. They had been of the opinion that the approaching coming into force of the Treaty made it unnecessary to organize such a commission, whose powers would necessarily expire as soon as the Treaty was put into force. The questions which that commission would have to examine would belong, after the Treaty came into force, to the Council of Ambassadors.

Mr. de Martino said that the technical experts of the Italian Delegation were of the opinion that the creation of that commission would still offer certain advantages.

Mr. de St. Quentin said that their technical experts did not see the use of creating such a commission on account of the short time which separated them from the coming into force of the Treaty.

Mr. de Martino said there also was the question which concerned the district of Radkersburg, about which the Austrian Delegation had offered a number of objections.

Mr. de St. Quentin said that indeed there had been various Austrian objections in that matter, but that, as long as the Serbs had not signed the Treaty of St. Germain, it was difficult to reproach them with regard to the execution of clauses of that Treaty.

Mr. de Martino said that there was also a question relative to the military clauses of the Treaty with Hungary.

Mr. de St. Quentin replied that the French Delegation had formulated a reservation on the total forces provided for the Hungarian Army under the conditions of peace. That reservation, however, had been withdrawn, and a unanimous decision had been taken so that the question no longer existed.

Mr. de Martino said that M. De St. Quentin was too familiar with all those questions to enable him to pursue such a discussion with him. Their list, however, contained other questions, and he contended it would be advisable to have an agreement on the subject between the different secretaries.

[5.] Mr. Berthelot said they had received a telegram from Bucharest dated December 6th, 7 P.M., of which only the first part had been deciphered; it was a telegram emanating from the four Allied representatives at Bucharest. M. Vaida Voevod, who was the chief of the new cabinet, had renewed to the Allied representatives the assurance that Roumania was disposed to sign the Treaty with Austria, which involved the acceptance in principle of the Minorities Treaty. They did not yet have the rest of the telegram, but the beginning thereof was certainly encouraging. Roumanian Question

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he also had received a telegram from Bucharest which did not give the text of Mr. Vaida Voevod’s declaration; it only stated that the text thereof was satisfactory on the whole.

[6.] The Council had before it a note from Marshal Foch on the question, dated December 5, 1919 (See Appendix E).

Colonel Georges commented upon that note. He said that General Tcherbatcheff had taken up with them the request to buy a part of the stock of Russian cartridges remaining in Germany and of which Denikin’s army was in urgent need. The German Government had conceded a great part of the 150 million Russian cartridges existing in Germany to private parties, and had demolished others so as to get the metal they contained. The question raised by General Tcherbatcheff’s request was a delicate one for the reason that Article 116 of the Treaty of Versailles expressly reserved to Russia the right to get back those cartridges, and because Article 169 of the same Treaty imposed upon Germany the obligation to restore to the Allies (and, consequently, to Russia) the war material belonging to them and still remaining in her possession. Russia might therefore in principle recover possession of that war material, once the Treaty came into force. To authorise the acquisition for money of that material might therefore seem contrary to the provisions of the Treaty. On the other hand it was difficult to reject the request presented by General Tcherbatcheff, taking into account the urgent needs of General Denikin’s army in cartridges for small arms. Purchase of Russian Munitions of War in Germany for Account of General Tcherbatcheff

The Supreme Council, the question having been brought up before it by Marshal Foch, had recently decided to let General Tcherbatcheff choose himself between the two systems which might be envisaged.⁵ General Tcherbatcheff had just informed Marshal Foch by a letter, dated December 3, that on account of the lack of supplies from which the Denikin Army suffered, he reiterated his request tending to obtain an authorization to purchase Russian cartridges in Germany. Under those conditions Marshal Foch submitted to the Council a draft resolution which specified the special reasons why such a purchase was authorized as an exceptional measure, so as to prevent the creation of a precedent. Colonel Georges then read a draft resolution, which was adopted. (See Appendix E, Document IV)

It was decided to accept the draft resolution presented by Marshal Foch as follows:

“Owing to the urgent need of the Russian Armies, the Allied and Associated Powers will not oppose the purchase by the representative of General Tcherbatcheff of cartridges for Russian rifles which the German Government is actually supposed to hold, or which it may have disposed of to individuals.

This decision, motivated by the exceptional situation of the Russian Armies, is strictly limited to cartridges for portative arms intended for these armies.

It does not imply in any way whatsoever that the Allied and Associated Powers recognize the validity of the transfers which the German Government may have made to individuals of a material which it should return to the Allied and Associated Powers in execution of Article 169 of the Treaty and which should go to Russia in execution of Article 116.

II. The above resolution shall be sent to General Tcherbatcheff and the German Government by Marshal Foch.

III. The notification to General Tcherbatcheff shall be completed by the following addition:

While raising no opposition regarding the purchase of these cartridges and while reserving, in regard to Germany, the rights conferred on Russia by virtue of Article 116 of the Treaty of Peace, the Allied and Associated Powers desire to confirm hereby the fact that General Tcherbatcheff has been informed, in advance, that the purchase of the cartridges existing in Germany must be effected by the Russian authorities at their own risk and peril, without guarantee or intervention by the Allied and Associated Powers.[”]

7. The Council had before it a note from Marshal Foch on the subject, dated December 5. (See Appendix “F”).

Colonel Georges read and commented upon that document. Purchase of Russian Munitions of War in Germany for Account of Finland

After a short discussion it was decided not to authorize the execution of the order for Russian cartridges effected in Germany by the director of a Finnish munition factory.

(The meeting then adjourned).

Appendix A to HD–109

commander in chief
of the allied armies
general staff

A. G. H. Q., November 15, 1919.

From: General Franchet d’Esperey, Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies in the Orient.

To: Minister of War, Paris.

In conformity with the instructions of the Peace Conference which you transmitted to me, I have proceeded with the interallied occupation of Western Thrace.⁶

Owing to the almost complete abstention of Italy and England, France remains the only large power taking part in this occupation with rather important forces, and consequently, obliged to shoulder considerable expenses.

To my mind, these expenses cannot be borne by us.

In order to safeguard the interest of the French treasury, and to enable it to cover the advances it is obliged to make, I have taken, owing to the urgency of the situation and without instructions from you, the following measures:

Absolute separation of civil and military expenses.

1. Military expenditures:

As France is operating in Thrace as the mandatory of the Allied and Associated Powers, the expenses occasioned by this occupation should be paid, either by being distributed among all the Powers, or else by the State to which Thrace will finally be attributed.

In order to establish our rights, all the accounts of all corps and services were closed the day before the occupation of Thrace. Dating from the first day of occupation, new accounts were opened under the usual headings, but forming separate accounts so that it is possible to keep track of all the expenses.

2. Civil expenditures.

Expenses of a civilian character will be entirely charged to the Thracian budget.

According to the instructions of the Conference, the local authorities have been maintained, and under the control of officers of the Occupation Corps, persons of the country have been chosen to take the place of high Bulgarian functionaries whom it was impossible to maintain.

A rough draft of the budget shows 6,000,000 expenditures and 8,000,000 assets,—the boni making it possible to reimburse, gradually, the military expenses.

In order to enable the Government of Western Thrace to function from the beginning, I am having a credit of 1,500,000 francs awarded to it.

As soon as the organization of Western Thrace shall have been completed I will send you a general report on the subject, but I wished at present to inform you of the measures taken to safeguard the interests of the French Treasury.

Franchet d’Esperey

Appendix B to HD–109

french delegation

December 7, 1919.

Convention Made Between Belgium and Germany for the Reimbursement of Marks Held in Belgium

I.

An understanding was reached at the end of 1918 between France and Belgium for the purpose of having the two countries act in agreement in regard to the liberation of German marks which they hold.

This agreement was inspired by the principle that an interallied policy in financial matters seems the only means of imposing the Treaty on Germany and that in acting separately the Allies would play into the hands of the latter power.

France has remained fervidly attached to this policy. Belgium would seem to have all the less reason to withdraw from it, as she obtained from the Supreme Council an allocation of 2 billions, 500 million francs as priority on reparations.

II.

The French Government, however, has just learned that Belgium has made a separate convention with Germany providing for the reimbursement of 6 billion marks left in Belgian territory and exchanged by the Belgian Government at the rate of 1 franc 25. The arrangement, negotiated in the greatest secrecy by M. Franqui, Director of the Société Générale de Belgique, is, in the main, as follows:

Belgium will remit to Germany, after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, the entire sum of the 6 billion marks. She will in exchange, receive bonds in marks, to be reimbursed within twenty years by six monthly payments. These bonds shall receive interest at 5% from May 1st, 1921. Each group and the interests on the entire amount will be payable in new bonds. Germany will assume, and will pay, by new bonds, whose interest shall be 5%, the difference of the exchange. In this way, for each check due, the German Government will deliver, in new bonds:

1. The capital of the bond, i. e., 150,000,000 marks.

2. The interest—i. e., for the first semester, 150,000,000 marks.

3. The difference between the exchange of the day on the bonds due and on the interests due at that time. The new bonds, issued for the settlement of the differences of the exchange will, in turn, produce an interest of 5%.

If in 1929 Germany has not entirely paid up the amount, a new delay of ten years will be given her, and new bonds will be issued for this period.

The operation planned by the Belgian Government would seem, from a double point of view, to require the intervention of the Allied and Associated Governments.

In the first place, Belgium, in obtaining a special advantage from Germany, acts against the interest, not only of France but of all the Allies in general, since Germany’s ability to pay will be diminished in regard to them.

In the second place, it would seem as if Germany would require the authorization of the Reparations Commission before she can issue the bonds necessary for the re-purchase of Belgian marks.

The French Delegation finds that the question is one that should be submitted to the Supreme Council, and requests that it be inserted in an early agenda.

Appendix C to HD–109

[Note From the Polish Delegation to the Supreme Council]

The President of the Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission informed the Polish Delegate, in an interview with him, that Poland’s rights to reparations for damages of war by Germany and her Allies, in execution of the Treaty of Peace, would be contested in the Reparations Commission.

It is this Commission, to which the Polish Delegate will only be called to set forth the rights of his country, that has the final word. A detailed memorandum will be sent it on the subject, in which the justification of the Polish claims will be set forth from a legal point of view.

But there is also a political side which the Commission might not consider but to which the Polish Government believes it important to draw the French Government’s attention.

A decision which would deprive Poland from all claims to reparations would produce a profound disillusion, it would alarm public Polish opinion in the extreme, and it might be interpreted by the public as a change of Allied policy in regard to Poland. For it would not understand why Russia, whose territory has suffered only slightly as a result of the war, should benefit by a right to reparations (Paragraph 116 of the Peace Treaty) while Poland is deprived of them, particularly as Poland has been almost exclusively the battleground of military operations in the East, and has been subject to devastation not less than Belgium or Serbia, and who, finally, has agreed to assume part of the Russian debt.

According to the Treaties of Versailles and Saint Germain, Poland is to contribute to the mutual reparations fund, considerable amounts to the credit of Germany and Austria. If the Polish claims are recognized if only in part, the liabilities which Poland assumes in this way would be balanced. If the contrary should take place, not only would Poland be deprived of all reparations, but would be obliged to contribute to those of the others.

The need of reconstituting the industrial and agricultural life of the devastated countries, as well as the precarious condition of Polish finances, so harmed by the war, a war defensive in the East against the Bolshevist danger which is threatening all Europe, make it absolutely impossible for the Polish Government to assume any new charges.

Paris, December 5, 1919.

Appendix D to HD–109

List of Questions To Be Settled

I. Special Questions

A.—Execution of the Treaty with Germany.

Reorganization of the Superior War Council of Versailles to centralize the executive measures for the military clauses of the Peace Treaty in Germany and in the different occupied territories.

Extradition and trial of the Kaiser.

Togo and Cameroun. Using contingents for defending metropolitan and colonial territory.

Choice of the authorities to whom should be turned in the sums of money referred to by Article 259 of the Treaty with Germany. (Transfer, within a delay of one month dating from the entry into force, of the sum in gold which was to have been deposited in the Reichsbank in the name of the Council of Administration of the Public Ottoman Debt to guarantee the first issue of paper money of the Turkish Government.)

Attributing to Italy coal deposits for transoceanic navigation.

B.—Execution of the Treaty with Austria.

Commission for the distribution of rolling stock of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.

C.—Execution of the Treaty with Bulgaria.

Attribution of Western Thrace. Administration of Western Thrace.

II. Questions To Be Treated Jointly

A.—Distribution of enemy merchant ships.

a) General distribution of merchant tonnage to the interested parties.

b) Question of tank ships.

B.—Cost of the Armies of Occupation.

III. General Political Questions

A.—The Adriatic Question.

B.—Russian and Baltic Questions.

• Aaland Islands,
• Bessarabia,
• The rights of the Danube Commission in Bessarabia.

C.—Treaty with Turkey.

D.—Treaty with Belgium and Holland for the Revision of the Treaties of 1839.

IV. Divers

Distribution of expenses of the Chambery-Turin Railroad.

Appendix E to HD–109

[No. 5585]
Document No. 1

A. G. H. Q., December 5, 1919.

From: Marshal Foch.

To: The President of the Peace Conference,—General Secretariat.

In execution of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of December 1,⁷ I have explained to General Tcherbatcheff, by letter No. 5541 of December 1st, of which copy is enclosed, the solution and the reservations proposed by the Supreme Council concerning the request addressed by this General Officer regarding the purchase of Russian cartridges for portative arms in Germany.

By letter No. 3–1170 of December 3, of which I am also enclosing a copy, General Tcherbatcheff replies that he maintains his request for the purchase.

In order to proceed with the final arrangements of this question, I have the honor to forward you a copy of a draft resolution, based on the one hand on the request of General Tcherbatcheff, and on the other on the opinions expressed at the meeting of December 1st of the Supreme Council.

by order of the Major General,

Weygand

[Enclosure 1]

II.
3rd Section,
No. 5541.

December 1, 1919.

From: Marshal Foch, Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies.

To: General Tcherbatcheff, Representative of the Russian Armies to the Allied Governments and High Commands.

Subsequent to my letter No. 3423 of November 21, replying to your letter No. 3–[1]103, of the 17th,⁸ I have the honor to inform you that the Supreme Council studied this morning the question of the delivery of cartridges for Russian rifles, now existing in Germany.

Two solutions were considered:

1. The execution, pure and simple, of the Article 169 of the Treaty of Peace (Restitution by the Commission of Control, at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty).

This solution is not of immediate realization, but it has the advantage of guaranteeing completely the rights of Russia in restitutions.

2. The purchase of cartridges existing in Germany by Russian authorities, at their own risk and without guarantee or intervention of the Allied and Associated Powers.

This solution has the serious drawback of implicitly recognizing the Germany’s right to dispose of Russian material. Besides the final payment will be hard to collect. Finally the carrying out of the deliveries will require a certain time.

The Supreme Council finds that this second solution would involve future operations concerning restitutions which Russia has the right to demand from Germany, and I would ask you, therefore, to examine the questions from both sides and to send me your final propositions in regard to the decision to be taken.

Foch

[Enclosure 2]

III.

Paris, December 3, 1919.

Representative of the Russian Armies, to the Governments and Allied High Commands

3–1170

From: General Tcherbatcheff.

To: Marshal Foch.

In reply to your letter of December 1, No. 5541, in which you propose two solutions to settle the question of the Russian cartridges in Germany, that is to say, either their restitution, according to Article 169 of the Treaty of Peace, or their purchase by my representatives, I have the honor to inform you that owing to the circumstances set forth in my letter of November 17th, No. 3–1103, and the report of my representative in Berlin, in which he tells me of the growing decrease of the cartridges (there are, at the time being, only 75 million instead of 150 million) as well as the urgent need of Russia for these munitions, and finally, to the delay in the entering into force of the Peace Treaty, I am obliged to choose the second solution.

Consequently, owing to the exceptional character of this measure, which concerns exclusively cartridges for Russian firearms, I have the honor to request the authorization to effect the purchase of these cartridges.

General Tcherbatcheff

[Enclosure 3]

IV.

December 5, 1919.

Draft Resolution

Owing to the urgent need of the Russian Armies, the Allied and Associated Powers will not oppose the purchase by the representative of General Tcherbatcheff of cartridges for Russian rifles which the German Government is actually supposed to hold, or which it may have disposed of to individuals.

This decision, motivated by the exceptional situation of the Russian Armies, is strictly limited to cartridges for portative arms intended for these armies.

It does not imply in any way whatsoever, that the Allied and Associated Powers recognize the validity of the transfers which the German Government may have made to individuals, of a material which it should return to the Allied and Associated Powers in execution of Article 169 of the Treaty and which should go to Russia in execution of Article 116.

II. The above resolution shall be sent to General Tcherbatcheff and the German Government by Marshal Foch.

III. The notification to General Tcherbatcheff shall be completed by the following addition:

While raising no opposition regarding the purchase of these cartridges and while reserving, in regard to Germany, the rights conferred on Russia by virtue of Article 116 of the Treaty of Peace, the Allied and Associated Powers desire to confirm hereby the fact that General Tcherbatcheff has been informed, in advance, that the purchase of the cartridges existing in Germany must be effected by the Russian authorities at their own risk and peril, without guarantees or intervention by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Appendix F to HD–109

General Staff, 3rd Section.
No. 5586

A. G. H. Q. December 5, 1919.

From: Marshal Foch.

To: The President of the Peace Conference.

By the telegram of which a copy is enclosed, the French Military Representative in the Baltic States advises of an order for Russian cartridges placed in Germany by the Director of a Finnish munition factory, and asks if this order can be authorized.

It is my opinion that the Allied and Associated Powers should, in principle, forbid these contracts which are in contradiction to the spirit of the Treaty of Peace.

The draft resolution enclosed with my letter No. 5585 of December 5,⁹ provides for an exception to this rule only as far as the Russian Armies are concerned, their military situation being exceptionally serious and their needs urgent.

The military situation of Finland does not seem to me to justify such an exception.

If the Supreme Council shares this view of the matter, I shall advise Colonel Etievant of this decision.

By order of the Major General:

Weygand

[Enclosure]

Telegram

Helsingfors, December 1, 1919.
At 19:50.

Representative of Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs that Engleberg, director munition factory Ruhimaki, Finland, left for Germany October 4 to place order for 25 million Russian cartridges. He is supposed to have placed this order between October 10th and 15, probably with the house of Burtmuller of Greusen-in-Harz, which had offered 100 million cartridges, setting forth the need of Finland to obtain without delay these cartridges, and the political situation of the German Government which makes it impossible to conclude such contracts openly.

Representative asks Minister of Finances and me to take the necessary steps that the factory of Ruhimaki may receive the munitions in question. I have replied I am studying matter.

These contracts seem to me to be contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Peace. I would ask you to let me have your instructions.

1. HD–86, minute 9, p. 24.
2. CF–93 and appendix II, vol. vi, pp. 699 and 704; CF–95, ibid., p. 721.
3. See BC–18, vol. iii, p. 797.
4. HD–66, minute 6, vol. viii, p. 510; HD–85, minute 10, ante, p. 7; HD–92, minute 5, ante, p. 169; HD–97, minute 3, ante, p. 238; HD–99, minute 7, ante, p. 314; HD–104, minute 5, ante, p. 433; HD–105, minute 4, ante, p. 450.
5. HD–103, minute 7, p. 391.
6. See HD–56, minute III, vol. viii, p. 263; HD–57, minute 2, ibid., p. 270; HD–58, minute 1, ibid., p. 300.
7. HD–103, minute 7, p. 391.
8. Appendix J to HD–103, p. 425.
9. Supra.