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.
- 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
- America, United States of
| 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).
[Page 518]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 [Page 519] 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.
[Page 521]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 [Page 522] 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 [Page 523] 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).
[Page 524]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 [Page 525] 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).
[Page 529] [Page 532]- HD–86, minute 9, p. 24.↩
- CF–93 and appendix II, vol. vi, pp. 699 and 704; CF–95, ibid., p. 721.↩
- See BC–18, vol. iii, p. 797.↩
- 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.↩
- HD–103, minute 7, p. 391.↩
- See HD–56, minute III, vol. viii, p. 263; HD–57, minute 2, ibid., p. 270; HD–58, minute 1, ibid., p. 300.↩
- HD–103, minute 7, p. 391.↩
- Appendix J to HD–103, p. 425.↩
- Supra.↩