Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/123
HD–123
Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, Tuesday, January 6, 1920 at 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Hon. Hugh Wallace
- Secretary
- Mr. Harrison
- Great Britain
- Sir Eyre Crowe
- Secretary
- Mr. Norman
- France
- M. Cambon
- Secretary
- 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. B. Winthrop, |
| Great Britain | 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:
- Great Britain
- Mr. Millington Drake
- Gen. Sackville-West
- Cmdr. MacNamara
- Mr. Carr
- France
- Gen. Weygand
- Gen. Le Rond
- Adl. Levavasseur
- M. Laroche
- M. Kammerer
- M. Hermite
- Italy
- Gen. Cavallero
- Vice-Adl. Grassi
- Cmdr. Scanagatta
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
- M. Stranieri
- M. Mancioli
- Japan
- M. Sawada
General Le Rond told the Council that in the course of conversations he had had with Mr. von Simson the latter recalled that the German delegation in a note of 28 October last had raised the question of the revision of the German-Polish frontier but that no reply had so far been made to their communication. He had replied that the German note amounted to nothing less than raising the whole question of the treaty of Versailles and that, he considered, could not be countenanced by the Allied Governments. Mr. von Simson had then said that he would take note of the comment but that the German delegation were none the less anxious to have a written reply in order to justify themselves in the eyes of the local population who had insisted upon the German Government’s obtaining some modification of the treaty. In those circumstances he had prepared a draft reply which had been submitted to Mr. Fromageot and which he would read to the Council. State of the Negotiations With the German Delegation Relative to the Signature of the Entry Into the Force of the Treaty of Peace. (a) Reply to the German Note of October 28, 1919 Proposing the Estabilishment of a Frontier Zone Between Germany and Poland
General Le Rond then read the document which appears as Appendix A.
It was decided:
to adopt the draft letter to the German delegation proposed by General Le Rond. (Appendix A.)
General Le Rond said that the German delegates had also recalled that in a letter of 5 November last they had asked that a certain limited territory, situated in the southwest of Upper Silesia and which, according to the treaty of peace, ought to go to Czecho-Slovakia, might be allocated to Upper Silesia and allowed to share the same fate as the plebiscite accorded to that province. He had confined his reply in that case also to saying that no modification of the Treaty of Versailles could possibly be considered. Mr. von Simson was satisfied with the reply and insisted only that it be communicated to him in writing. Nevertheless Mr. von Simson’s request emphasized the necessity of an understanding between the Germans and the Czecho-Slovaks if the evacuation of that territory by the Germans and its handing over to Czecho-Slovakia were to be assured. He had advised the Czecho-Slovak Delegation about that situation in order that it might take steps to be represented for that question in the negotiations actually taking place. A draft statute for the territories of Memel and Dantzig was to be submitted to the Council that very day. It had been prepared by the Commissions of Polish and of Baltic Affairs in joint session. It might be well if a sub-commission comprising two or three members of those Commissions would be good enough to take part in the negotiations that were going on.
That proposal was adopted.
[Page 808]General Weygand told the Supreme Council that, in accordance with its instructions,1 the commission which had fixed the numbers of troops to be sent into the areas of occupation had met on the previous day to examine the objections raised in Mr. von Lersner’s note.2 It had been unanimous in thinking that the troops proposed could not be reduced in number without serious inconvenience and likewise that the arguments put forward by the Germans could not be discussed at all. For example, the Germans had professed that their military barracks did not have sufficient accommodation, although, as a matter of fact, the numbers of the troops fixed for the occupation were very appreciably lower than the numbers stationed in the German barracks in those territories in time of peace. Nevertheless, so far as concerned Allenstein, since the British troops had had to be reduced to the extent of one battalion, they had in the draft letter he was submitting to the Council, offered as a concession in that case that the number of battalions to be sent would be reduced from four to three. (b) Revision of the Numbers of Allied Troops To Be Sent to the Areas of Occupation
On the other hand, since the Government of the United States had not yet ratified the Treaty, and consequently could not for the moment send into Germany the forces originally decided the total force anticipated was reduced by one quarter. The Germans had therefore at the moment partial satisfaction and he proposed to tell them that that circumstance would allow the Allies to make a trial of the reduction asked by them.
General Weygand then read the draft reply to the note of the German Delegation of January 2, 1920 (Appendix B).
It was decided:
to adopt the draft reply to the note of the German Delegation of January 2, 1920, (Appendix B.)
Mr. Laroche read a report on that question, presented jointly by the commissions of Baltic and of Polish Affairs. (Appendix C.)
He added that the basis of the arrangement with arrangement with Germany which appeared as an appendix to that report had been prepared by the Drafting Committee. The Commission had thought it well to make certain modifications and proposed to the Supreme Council the adoption of a text rectified in certain particulars. (c) Draft Arrangement With the German Government on the Transfer of Soverignty at Dantzig and Memel
Mr. Laroche then read the draft (Appendix D.)
He explained that the points on which they had modified the draft prepared by the Drafting Committee were two in number. One bore [Page 809] upon the condition in which the German officials of those territories would retain the rights they had acquired, and the other upon economic and revenue arrangements.
In agreement with the Drafting Committee they had deemed it necessary to give to the Germans, who would not fail to raise the question, certain concessions, but the formula of the legal experts had seemed too rigid, considering especially that the provisional regime, insofar as it affected Memel, might last for a considerable time; the draft they were proposing seemed to have the advantage of not prejudicing the future and of leaving to the Allied and Associated Powers greater liberty of action.
Mr. Wallace said that, so far as concerned Clause I, dealing with the procedure of the handing over of the ceded territories, he was obliged to state that the use of the formula “Principal Allied and Associated Powers” would make it necessary for him to ask instructions from his Government.
Mr. Laroche insisted that they could not in that document use any other term than the one which already appeared in the Treaty of Versailles.
Mr. Wallace said that he did not insist.
It was decided:
to accept the basis of arrangement with Germany on the transfer of German sovereignty over Memel and Dantzig and the provisional administration of those territories as appeared in Appendix D.
Mr. Cambon proposed to postpone until the following meeting the examination of that question as the Roumanian Government’s reply was known to them so far only by the telegrams of French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucarest. They had just received the text of the Roumanian reply itself; there was every reason, it seemed to him, to postpone the discussion of the question till the text of that reply could be distributed to the several Delegations. Reply of the Rumanian Government to the Two First Points in the Supreme Council’s Note of November 13th [15th] 19193
(The remainder of the discussion was postponed until the following meeting.)
Mr. Cambon commented upon the French Delegation’s note of January 4, 1920, (Appendix E). After a short discussion, Representations to the Hungarian Government in Favor of the Communists Condemned to Death
It was decided:
that the Allied generals at Budapest receive instructions to make representations to the Hungarian Government in order to ask its clemency towards the communists condemned to death.
Mr. de Saint Quentin explained to the Council that, in accordance with its instructions, the Drafting Committee had handed to the Secretariat General the list of questions affecting the Hungarian Treaty which were not yet definitely settled. The Secretariat General had obtained from the several competent commissions the necessary information on the stage reached in the decisions upon those questions. Status of the Treaty With Hungary
The first point concerned the liquidation of the property of Hungarian nationals by the Roumanians. That question had been the subject of a note from Sir George Clerk. The Drafting Committee had examined the possible consequences of that liquidation as it affected Hungarian or foreign nationals in the territories ceded to Roumania. As they were aware, Roumanian legislation prohibited foreigners from owning property, the Economic Commission had been apprised of the question and would send in its report that very day.3a
The second point concerned the military and naval clauses, modifications in which were demanded by the Czecho-Slovak Delegation (note of December 22 [20], 1919) and by the Serb-Croate-Slovene Delegation (note of December 27, 1919).
The military representatives at Versailles were then examining those two notes and their report would be ready probably towards the 8th or 9th of January.3b
A third point affected the mines of Pecs. The Commission on Roumanian Affairs had proposed to the Supreme Council to submit the exploitation of those mines for five years to the control of the Reparation Commission which would be in a position, if it considered that advisable, to take into account the Serb-Croate-Slovene State’s need of coal.4 The Serbs had then sent a note to the Conference on December 22nd, in which they maintained that that arrangement was not such as could give them complete satisfaction and that in any case it would leave them without coal until the Treaty came into force. The Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs was to meet on the following day to examine the Serb-Croat-Slovene note and would submit to the Supreme Council a report upon the possibility of acceding to the Yugo-Slav demand, both from the economic and from the political point of view.4a
The fourth point affected the economic clauses of the treaty. The Czecho-Slovaks had made a formal protest against the obligations imposed upon them by the Treaty to supply to Hungary a certain quantity of coal. A decision of the Supreme Council of December [Page 811] 31st had referred that question to the Coal Commission.5 But Powers with limited interests being represented on that Coal Commission, there would be great difficulties in arriving at unanimous results for the reason that the interested parties themselves were represented thereon.
Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that it was nevertheless impossible to make the conclusion of the Treaty await a decision of the Coal Commission.
Mr. de Saint Quentin thought it would be preferable to consult only the experts of the Principal Powers.
Sir Eyre Crowe believed that that solution would indeed be preferable and, even so, it was necessary to hasten matters since the Hungarians were to arrive the following day.
It was decided:
to cancel the decision of December 31, 1919, referring to the European Coal Commission the examination of the Czecho-Slovak protest against supplying coal to Hungary and to refer the examination of the question to the technical experts of the Principal Powers.
Mr. de Saint Quentin explained that another economic clause still remained in suspense, that namely which dealt with the liquidation of Hungarian property in the territories acquired by the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. The question was to be examined that day by the competent Commission.
A further question had been raised by the British Delegation: it dealt with the measures to be taken in favour of Allied nations who had been adversely affected by the issue of notes by the Hungarian Communist Government, notes which were then without value. The question had been referred to the Financial Commission. That Commission had asked the British Delegation for precise information about the conditions in which the issue and exchange of those notes had taken place. It had also asked the Economic Commission to let it know whether the financial measures of the Government of Bela Kun could be considered as coming under the definition “exceptional war measures”, mentioned in Article 232 of the Treaty. The Economic Commission had stated that it had no objection to the insertion in the treaty of an article taking into account the case cited by the British Delegation. The Financial Commission would continue to meet to come to a decision upon the question which had been submitted to it.
One last point, a request from the Serb-Croat-Slovene delegation, referred to canal administration in the Bachka, the Baranya and the Banat. The Serbs had presented two demands, one for the cession of the territory of Baya. It seemed to him that that demand [Page 812] could not be granted as the competent Commission had decided in favour of the maintenance of the frontier and the Supreme Council had approved its decision.6 The second demand of the Serbs on the same subject had been referred to the Commission of Ports, Waterways and Railways and the Secretariat General had asked that Commission to expedite its reply.
To resume, none of the points he had touched upon seemed to present insuperable difficulties and they might hope that the final text would be prepared by Friday.
Mr. de Martino asked whether that final text would be submitted to the Supreme Council.
Mr. de Saint Quentin answered that the text had already been approved by the Supreme Council except in the four or five points which he had just discussed and upon which the Council would still have to give its decision.
Mr. de Martino explained that his financial expert had told him on the previous day that certain economic and financial clauses of the treaty had not been communicated to him.
Mr. de Saint Quentin felt it difficult to understand how that could have happened. The clauses of the Treaties were as a matter of fact drafted by the Commissions and then, after approval by the Supreme Council, revised by the Drafting Committee. In any case the Italian financial expert might easily have communicated to him the clauses that interested him by applying to his colleague on the Drafting Committee.
The meeting then adjourned.
[Page 813]- HD–122, minute 1, p. 779.↩
- Dated January 2, appendix B to HD–122, p. 794.↩
- Appendix A to HD-93, p. 182.↩
- See appendix C to CM–1, p. 966.↩
- See appendix A to CM–1, p. 961.↩
- See appendix B to HD–104, p. 438.↩
- See appendix B to CM–1, p. 964.↩
- HD–120, minute 10, p. 732.↩
- HD–21, minute 7, and appendix G, vol. vii, pp. 454 and 471.↩
- HD–121, minute 2, p. 762.↩
- The text submitted in annex 2 to the report of January 5, 1920, of the Commissions on Polish and Baltic Affairs is identical with paragraph 5 of the “Bases for the Arrangement With Germany Concerning the Transfer of German Sovereignty in the Territories of Memel and Dantzig and the Provisional Administration of These Territories” which appears in appendix D, p. 816.↩