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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03701/1

CM–1

Notes of a Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Held at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Saturday, January 10, 1920, at Noon

Paris, January 10, 1920, noon

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. Hugh Wallace
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Harrison
  • British Empire
    • Lord Curzon
  • France
    • Mr. Cambon
  • Secretaries
    • Mr. Berthelot
    • M. de Saint-Quentin
  • Italy
    • Mr. Scialoja
  • Japan
    • Mr. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
United States of America	Captain Winthrop,
Great Britain	Captain Lothian Small,
France	Mr. Massigli,
Italy	Mr. Zanchi.

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

• Great Britain
  • Mr. Norman.
• France
  • Mr. Sergent,
  • Gen. Desticker,
  • Mr. de Fleuriau,
  • Mr. Hermite,
  • Mr. Serruys,
• Italy
  • Gen. Cavallero,
  • Mr. Mancioli,
• Japan
  • Mr. Sawada

The Council had before it a report of January 7, 1920 by the Military representatives at Versailles upon modifications to the military clauses of the Hungarian Peace Treaty requested by the Czecho-Slovak and the Jugo-Slav Delegations. (Appendix “A”). 1. Conditions of Peace With Hungary. (a) Military Clauses

General Cavallero read and commented upon the military representatives’ reports as well as a draft reply to those delegations prepared by the military representatives.

After a short discussion,

It was decided:

to communicate to the Czecho-Slovak and to the Jugo-Slav Delegations in accordance with the recommendation of the military representatives at Versailles the letter, the draft of which appears in Appendix “A”.

The Council had before it a report of the Commission on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs, dated January 9, 1920 (See Appendix “B”). 2. Conditions of Peace With Hungary. (b) Exploitation of Mines of Pecs

Mr. Laroche said that the report which the Council had before it was drafted in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by those members of the Commission who were present at its last sitting, but it had not been approved in a special meeting of the Commission.

The British Delegation, however, had promised its approval, and he thought that the report was also in agreement with the views of the Italian and American Delegations.

Mr. Laroche then read and commented upon the report in question.

Mr. Cambon asked what they would do if the Hungarians refused to conclude with the Reparations Commission the arrangement proposed by the Commission.

Mr. Laroche replied that they would be justified in letting the Hungarian Delegation know that, should the Hungarians, pending the coming into force of the Treaty, refuse to supply coal to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, they would feel obliged to authorize the Serbs to prolong their occupation until the Treaty came into force.

It was decided:

to adopt the proposals of the Commission on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs, made in its report of January 9th, 1920, concerning the exploitation of the mines of Pecs and the distribution of the coal drawn from those mines until the coming into force of the Peace Treaty.

The Council had before it a note from the Secretariat General of the Economic Commission, dated January 7, 1920. (Appendix “C”) 3. Conditions of Peace With Hungary. (c) Financial Sub-clauses

Mr. Sergent said that the Council would recall that the British Delegation put before it the case of Allied and Associated nationals who were adversely affected by measures which the government of Bela Kun adopted for the substitution of Hungarian “blue” bank notes by Bolshevist “white” notes, notes which, by an order of the new Hungarian Government, would be accepted at only one-fifth of their value.¹ The Economic Commission, to which the matter had been referred, considered that the losses thus borne, entered within the category of “exceptional war measures”, as defined in Article 232 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary; but it thought it well to take the opinion of the Financial Commission upon the question. That Commission, which met that same morning, considered that the case was in fact covered by Section E, of Paragraph 1 of the appendix to Article 232 and that, should those nationals have difficulties on the point, they could submit their case to the mixed arbitration Tribunal provided for in that appendix. Under those circumstances, it seemed unnecessary to insert in the Hungarian Treaty special ad hoc provisions.

The Financial Commission had also been informed of the modifications which the Serbian Delegation wished to have introduced to the regulations concerning the liquidation of enemy property.² The Serbian request had been already the subject of a report by the Economic Commission.³ The Financial Commission would be unable to consider that subject until its meeting on the following Monday.

The Commission was confronted further by a much more delicate problem. The Serbian Delegation asked that in the preparation of the Hungarian Treaty, account be taken of the fact that Croatia was not an integral part of Hungary but a distinct State, united to Hungary under the Crown of St. Etienne. From that circumstance the Serbian Delegation made a series of deductions which had important consequences from the financial point of view. Between Hungary and Croatia there existed, the Serbians maintained, a financial understanding, just as one existed between the Austrian Empire and the Hungarian Kingdom; this last understanding had been taken into account in determining, for example, what part of the Austro-Hungarian debt would have to be met by Austria and what part by Hungary. Account ought therefore to be taken of the Hungarian understanding in settling the allocation of enemy liabilities and assets. They had carefully examined the documents supplied them, as indeed it deserved careful examination. They were of opinion, nevertheless, that they were not competent to decide whether, from the legal point of view, the Serbian proposition was just. On that point they would like to consult the legal advisors, all the more so, since the decision which would be taken might affect other parts of the Treaty. The question was certainly pregnant with consequences, not on account of the significance of the amount involved, for that indeed was very slight, but from the point of view of Croatian pride. The Serbian Delegation maintained that the Croats had always claimed that there was an independent Kingdom of Croatia; they could hardly then admit that the Treaty of Peace proclaimed that there was not.

Mr. Cambon said that the question would be adjourned until Tuesday.

It was decided:

that there was no reason for inserting in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary a special clause concerning the losses sustained by Allied and Associated nationals through the “substitution by the Government of Bela Kun of Bolshevist “white” notes for the Hungarian “blue” notes in circulation, and by the decision of the new Hungarian Government to accept those “white” notes in payment at only one-fifth of their value. Compensation for the losses that Allied and Associated nationals might have sustained thereby was ensured by Article 232 of the Hungarian Treaty.

Lord Curzon stated that, in company with Mr. de Fleuriau, he had seen Mr. Bourgeois on the preceding day, with the object of deciding with him the date of the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. They had agreed upon the 16th of January at half past ten. The agenda would be limited to the nomination of the Commission of the delimitation of the Saar. Mr. Bourgeois would give a short address and he would himself make some remarks. It was further Mr. Bourgeois’ intention that on the eve of the first meeting the representatives of the various Powers who were to sit on the Council, should meet at his house to decide upon the procedure to be followed. 4. First Meeting of the Council of the League of Nations

Mr. Wallace said that if the Council ratified that decision, he would cable it to his Government.

It was decided:

(1) that the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations would be held at 10:30 A.M. on the 16th of January, 1920, at the Quai d’Orsay;

(2) that Mr. Wallace would inform his Government of the date fixed upon in order that the President of the United States might issue the official convocation.

Lord Curzon said that Mr. Lloyd George had just raised the serious question of South Russia and the Caucasus. (H. D. 125).⁴ The Bolshevist victories had given rise to a grave military danger. The Versailles Council would take up that matter, but the problem had also a political aspect which he would like to put before the Council. The following were the considerations he had proposed to submit to the Heads of Governments: 5. Situation in the Caucasus

There were three States in the Caucasus: Georgia, Azerbaidjan and Armenia. The fate of Armenia would be decided by the Peace Conference when it made its decision upon the Turkish problem. There remained, then, Georgia and Azerbaidjan whose independence for the past year and a half has been most precarious. These countries were exposed to a threefold danger: in the first place they lived in dread of the conquered army of Denikin which might perhaps come down upon them from the North; on the other hand, they were exposed to the Bolshevist peril, Bolshevist troops advancing upon them from two sides—along the Caspian and in pursuit of Denikin’s armies; finally, on the west and on the south, there was the Turkish danger—already in Azerbaidjan Enver Pasha and his brother Noury were at work. The military authorities would take the steps required by the situation; but, on the other hand, there was a political step which the British Government was very anxious to see taken, and from which it anticipated happy results; he meant the recognition of the “de facto” Governments of Georgia and Azerbaidjan. British troops had occupied those regions since the armistice and His Majesty’s Government had thus had, more than any other, the opportunity of manifesting its sympathy with those States. Later, they had evacuated those regions except Batoum; but they had consuls at Baku, Tiflis and elsewhere. The countries he mentioned had shown a firm desire to become real states. Their Governments were socialist but decidedly anti-Bolshevist. They were living in dread of a Bolshevist invasion, at once political and military. They turned, therefore, towards Europe as suppliants. They asked the Allies to accord their support; to recognize their “de facto” Governments would be equivalent to according them support. That was how they had acted towards the Baltic States.

Mr. Berthelot said that he had already discussed this subject with Lord Curzon in London. He had given Mr. Clemenceau an account of that conversation and he knew that he was willing to accord that “de facto” recognition subject to the reserve that the recognition of Georgia and Azerbaidjan in no wise prejudiced the future frontiers of Armenia.

Lord Curzon said that he agreed with him on that point.

Mr. Scialoja said that he was equally inclined to grant that “de facto” recognition on the same conditions as for the Baltic States.

Mr. Matsui remarked that, on a question of that nature, he would have to ask for instructions from his Government.

Mr. Wallace said that he was in the same situation.

Mr. Berthelot added that the Powers who were already disposed to recognize those “de facto” Governments would take such a step together.

It was decided:

that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should together recognize the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaidjan as “de facto” governments, subject to the reserve that the representatives of the United States and the representative of Japan would request instructions from their Governments on the question.

Mr. Berthelot said that he had received from Mr. Adatci a letter in which he asked to be informed of the day on which the Commission appointed to examine the question of handing over William II would meet. That problem would arise immediately; they were awaiting British proposals. 6. Handing Over of Wilhelm II

Lord Curzon asked whether he meant that the British Government should lay a special proposition before the Council.

Mr. Berthelot said that he merely wished to know whether the Commission that had met the preceding day under the Presidency of the Lord Chancellor was to examine the question.

Lord Curzon said he did not think so. That Commission was concerned only with reducing the list of criminals whose surrender was to be demanded from the Germans, for the reason that it would be easier to obtain the surrender of 500 of these, than 1,000.

Mr. Scialoja stated that a special commission was indeed useless: the Treaty itself stipulated that the surrender of William II be demanded. It was merely a matter of finding the formula in which the demand should be made. The formula should be as legal as possible. The task of drafting it should be left to the Drafting Committee.

Mr. Berthelot said that he would like simply to put the following question: the Peace Treaty provided for the handing over of William II to the Allies. Were they going to ask for it? In what form and at what moment?

Mr. Cambon remarked that it would appear that it was for the President of the Conference to formulate that demand. It was for him therefore to entrust the legal experts with drafting it and consequently it would be sufficient for them to refer it to the Drafting Committee.

Mr. Matsui said that Mr. Adatci’s question had been called by a sentence of Mr. Lloyd George uttered on the preceding day. He had understood that the Commission over which the Lord Chancellor presided would also deal with the question of the surrender of William II. They were not interested in the handing over of criminals but only in the surrender of William II.

It was decided:

to ask the Drafting Committee to submit to the Council at its next meeting a draft note asking the Dutch Government to hand over the ex-German Emperor.^4a

The meeting then adjourned.

Appendix A to CM–1

superior war council
military representatives

Paris, January 7, 1920.

Report Concerning the Modifications to the Military Clauses of the Peace Treaty With Hungary Requested by the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav Delegations

The Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav Delegations, by respective letters dated December 20, 1919, and December 27, 1919, requested the Supreme Council to authorize a certain number of additions to the Military Clauses of the Peace Treaty with Hungary (Clauses adopted by the Supreme Council during the Session of August 20, 1919).⁵

After having confirmed that the two requests were identical in their draft, and after examination of the said requests,

The Military Representatives Decided:

1)—Concerning the 1st addition demanded: namely: Insertion in Article 120 of the Peace Treaty with Austria (as alinea 2): “The military forces of Hungary shall be limited to two divisions of infantry and one division of cavalry.”

—that the total strength of the Hungarian forces authorized (35,000 men) and the limit of the maximum and minimum strength of each full unit, as imposed by the Military Clauses of the Treaty (Table 4), prohibit Hungary from mobilizing more than three divisions of infantry and one division of cavalry, of minimum strength;

—that Hungary’s obligation to group her forces in two divisions of infantry and one division of cavalry, whose strength might be more important, would constitute a decrease in her military power;

—and that, consequently, it will be unnecessary to change the method of limitation as applied to Austria and Bulgaria.^*

2)—Concerning the second addition demanded, namely:

Insertion in Article 122 (as alinea 2) of the following paragraph:

“The Hungarian General Staff and all other military formations will be dissolved and may not be reconstituted in any form.” (Similar to Article 160 of the Treaty with Germany);

—that Article 105 of the Military Clauses (corresponding with Article 121 of the Peace Treaty with Austria) prohibits any organization involving the commanding of troops or preparation for war” other than those prescribed in the annexed Tables;

—that these Tables indicate no Staff or organ superior to the Infantry Division or Cavalry Division Staffs;

—that the maintenance of the Hungarian General Staff or even of any staff of a Corps d’Armée or the grouping of the Divisions is clearly prohibited.

3)—Concerning the third addition demanded, namely:

Insertion in Article 120 (as the two last alineas) of the following paragraphs: “The Hungarian troops are to be quartered on the territory in their Peace garrisons and are not to be assembled in proximity to the frontiers.”

“During a period of five years after the entry into force of the present Treaty, no Magyar garrisons are to be installed within a distance of 10 kilometres from the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav frontiers; and that, within a zone 50 kilometres deep from the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav frontiers no concentration of more than one quarter of the Hungarian forces will be allowed.”

—that Article 104, last alinea, (corresponding with 120 of the Peace Treaty with Austria) stipulates that: “the Hungarian Army is to be exclusively employed in the maintenance of order throughout the territory, and in the police of the frontiers”.

that it is to the interest of the boundary states that the Hungarian Government be in a position to maintain order;

—that, for this purpose, military intervention may be necessary within 10 kilometres from the frontier;

—that the greater part of the Hungarian cities (inclusive of the capital) are located within 50 kilometres from the frontier and that the maintenance of order in these important centres may necessitate the concentration of more than one quarter of the Hungarian forces, that is, 9,000 men;

—that the servitude imposed on Hungary in favor of the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav States should be imposed under the same conditions in favor of the Roumanian and Austrian States, which, in view of the relatively small extent of the Hungarian State, would render any movement of Hungarian troops almost impossible.

4)—Concerning the 4th addition demanded, namely:

Insertion in Article 128 (as alinea 2) of the following paragraph: “No military organization outside of the Army (Preparation Societies, Police forces, Local Guards, etc.) will be allowed.”

—that the Peace Treaty authorizes Hungary to maintain police forces, on the condition that they do not exceed the strength for similar service in 1913, within the boundaries of Hungary such as they are determined by the Peace Treaty.

—that Article 112 of the Military Clauses with Hungary (corresponding with Article 128 of the Peace Treaty with Austria) prohibits the maintenance of any society having any interest, even incidental, in military questions.

—that, in consequence, the said clause prohibits any military organization outside of the Army, and renders the addition proposed unnecessary.

5)—Concerning the 5th addition demanded, namely:

Insertion in Article 128 (as alinea 3) of the following paragraph: “Hungarian nationals shall not take part in any military exercise or study within boundary territory,”

—that this clause would be without real value unless it were applicable to a frontier zone of a depth of at least 50 kilometres.

A zone of this depth in Hungary cannot be considered on account of the geographical situation of the country and the extensive area which it would include. A less extensive zone would offer no guarantee to the boundary states.

—that, moreover, such an interdiction would prevent Hungary from studying the eventual defense of her territory.

6)—Concerning the 6th addition demanded, that is to say:

Insertion after Article 128 of the Peace Treaty with Hungary, of an Article, corresponding to Article 180 of the Treaty with Germany, which would be drawn up as follows:

“All fortified works, fortresses and field works, situated in Hungarian territory, at a distance of 50 kilometres from the Czecho-Slovak or Jugo-Slav frontier shall be disarmed and dismantled.

—“That the construction of any new fortification, whatever its nature or importance, is prohibited within the zone determined in Alinea 1 of the present Article.”

“That no permanent modern fortified works exist at the present time in this zone.”

—That the servitude to be imposed upon Hungary, at the request of the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav Delegations may be claimed, for the same reasons, by the Roumanian and Austrian Governments.

—that there seems no justifiable reason for prohibiting Hungary to organize the defense of her frontiers.

7)—Concerning the 7th addition demanded, that is to say:

Insertion in article 136 (last Alinea) of the following paragraph: “The armed ships of the Hungarian Danube fleet (or of the Hungarian Danube Police) shall not navigate in that part of the Danube which forms the frontier, between Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia, (or the Kingdom of the S. C. S.)”

—that it is in the interest of the boundary states to allow the Hungarian Government the possibility of maintaining order.

—that to this effect an intervention by the armed ships of the Hungarian Danube Police, may be necessary in the frontier district itself.

—that, besides, the Peace Treaty only grants to Hungary, the right to keep three scouting launches, for the Danube Police Service.

Consequently, the Military Representatives Esteem:

That there is no reason to take into consideration, the demands presented by the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav Delegations, and that consequently it is not advisable, to make any modification, in the military clauses approved by the Supreme Council on August 20th.

Reservation of the American Military Representative.

Colonel T. Bentley Mott, as Representative of the United States of America, specified that he is not qualified to take any decisions in the name of the American Peace Delegation, or to make any agreement in the name of his Government—although he will take part in the debate, and give his opinion concerning the military questions which might be raised.

Colonel Mott called attention to the fact that, when Mr. Polk left Paris, the Treaty with Hungary was complete and ready to be presented to the Hungarians, and Mr. Polk signed the Treaty, in the name of the United States. That is why any modifications in this Treaty should be submitted to Washington, because nobody in Paris at present, is authorized to accept and sign, in the name of the United States any modifications which may be made.

The French Mil. Rep.

S. S. Desticker

The British Mil. Rep.

S. Sackville-West

The Italian Mil. Rep.

S. Cavallero

The American Mil. Rep.

S. Bentley Mott

The Japanese Mil. Rep.

S. Watanabe

Appendix B to CM–1

Paris, January 9, 1920.

Report Addressed to the Supreme Council by the Commission on Rumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs

–I–

Provision of the Treaty covering the exploitation of the Pecs Mines.

During its Session of December 5, 1919,⁶ the Supreme Council, upon a proposal submitted by the Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs and the Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission, decided to add to Paragraph 1, Annex 5, Section I, Part VIII of the Treaty with Hungary, the following phrase:

“Hungary grants, furthermore, to the Allied and Associated Powers, as partial reparation, an option on the annual delivery, for a period of five years to follow the entry into force of the Treaty, of an amount of traction coal to be taken from the Pecs Mines. This amount will be periodically fixed by the Reparations Commission and will be disposed of in favor of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, under conditions to be established by the Reparations Commission.”

–II–

Demand of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation.

In a Note dated December 22, 1919, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation requested that the Paragraph above referred to be completed, by stipulating:

a) —that the amount distributed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State by the Reparations Commission be not less than 60% of the total production;

b) —that special organizations, appointed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom, be entrusted with the execution of the decisions of the Reparations Commission;

c) —that, until the entry into force of the Peace Treaty, the exploitation of the Pecs Mines remain under the control of the military authorities of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom.

–III–

Opinion of the Commission,

The Commission on Roumanian and Yugo-Slav Affairs, after having heard the experts on reparations and coal matters, esteems that the two first proposals of the S-C-S Delegation would infringe on the prerogatives of the Reparations Commission, and would interfere with its action which, to be effective, must be freely exercised. Concerning the third proposal, tending to effect the insertion of a stipulation in the Treaty, establishing a regime before the entry into force of the same Treaty, the Commission is of the opinion that it is inadmissible, and is in favor of a rejection of the S-C-S demand.

However, the Commission fears, that in the absence of formal engagements, Hungary may refuse to supply the Serb-Croat-Slovene State with any coal from the Pecs Mines, before the entry into force of the Treaty, and that the S-C-S State in order to provide against the serious inconveniences which such action would cause in the operation of her railways, might attempt to postpone the evacuation of the mines despite the orders of the Supreme Council.

–IV–

Proposals of the Commission.

Consequently, the Commission has the honor to submit the following proposals to the Supreme Council:

1. —As soon as the credentials and powers of the Hungarian Delegation shall have been verified, the Reparations Commission of the Treaty of Versailles, acting as Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission provided for by the Treaty with Hungary, shall negotiate and conclude with the Hungarian Delegation an Arrangement established on the following basis:

a) —Hungary agrees to furnish from the present time until the entry into force of the Treaty, to the Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission, a certain quantity of traction coal to be taken from the Pecs Mines. This coal will be disposed of in favor of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, under conditions to be established by the Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission.

b) —The Arrangement to be assumed by Hungary will determine, in percentage, the proportion due the S-C-S State by Hungary from the total monthly production of traction coal from the Pecs Mines. In determining this percentage, account will be taken of the average distribution, in 1913, of this same coal to the territories now attached to each of the two States by virtue of the Peace conditions.

c) —Payment for the coal will be effected according to compensation methods which will be determined by the Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission.

d) —The Arrangement will come to an end upon the entry into force of the Treaty.

2. —Immediately after the conclusion of the Arrangement, the Supreme Council will renew the injunction already addressed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government on November 7, 1919, to the effect that all Hungarian territory situated beyond the boundaries assigned the S-C-S State, within which territory is located the Pecs Mines, must be evacuated.⁷

Appendix C to CM–1

peace conference
economic commission

Paris, January 7, 1920.

From: The Secretary General of the Economic Commission.

To: The Secretary General of the Peace Conference.

The special Committee of the Economic Commission has examined the two following questions, submitted by you:

a) whether the Economic Commission considers as “Exceptional war Measures” such as defined in Article 232 of the Peace Treaty with Hungary, the measures taken by the Government of Bela Kun, to substitute the Bolshevist “white” bank notes for the Hungarian “blue” bank notes.

Under the reserve of the necessary verifications and of the proof of the damage caused, which will be in certain cases very difficult to procure, the imposed substitution of Bolshevist “white” bank notes for the “blue” bank notes, seems to require compensation, according to Article 232, Paragraph 1, of the draft of Treaty with Hungary.

The form of proof to be furnished, and the kind of compensation to be accorded, should, however, be determined by the Financial Commission, which should, in particular, prove that this substitution has really been a general and compulsory measure and that, by submitting to it, our Allied nationals have not infringed their own laws concerning trading with the enemy.

b) the Economic Commission has examined, in detail the different British notes, relative to the liquidation carried out, up to the present, by the Roumanians, in the territories which are to be transferred to them, in execution of the Peace Treaty, as well as the report presented on this question by the Drafting Committee.

The Economic Commission is in full accord with the Drafting Committee in esteeming that the Roumanian Government has no right to take such measures on her territories, as long as the Treaties which confer them on Roumania, have not come into force.

On the other hand, the Economic Commission esteems that, after the coming into force of the said Treaties, Roumania may, under reserve of the clauses relating to nationalities, and of the Convention relating to the protection of minorities, apply, on the territories which she will have acquired, such legislation as she may institute, concerning the situation of foreigners.

In the course of its debates, and even before taking up the elaboration of the clauses concerning the situation of Allied and Associated nationals in enemy territory, the Economic Commission had admitted the principle of the complete Liberty of each Allied and Associated Power, in the matter of the establishment of foreigners, under the following form:

“Each of the Allied and Associated Powers shall keep its full freedom of action, in the regulation of the conditions under which former enemy foreigners may establish themselves on its territories, colonies, or Dominions.”

It is to be remarked, however, that, the above advices, formulated by the Economic Commission, were expressed in the absence of the British and American Delegates, to whom a copy of this text has been sent.

D. Serruys

1. Appendix D to HD–114, p. 621.
2. Appendix G to HD–119, p. 717.
3. Appendix H to HD–119, p. 719.
4. Minute 3, p. 837.
5. See ICP–20, minute 2, and appendix B, pp. 886 and 887.
5. HD–34, minute 5, and appendix E, vol. vii, pp. 736 and 747.
6. The French Military Representative esteems that it would be advisable to clearly specify that Hungary is forbidden to organize the military forces accorded her by the Peace Treaty, into Mixed Brigades, as such organizations are particularly adaptable to rapid mobilization by transferring the Mixed Brigades into as many Infantry Divisions. [Footnote in the original.]
6. HD–107, minute 6, and appendix F, pp. 477 and 499.
7. See HD–85, minute 1, p. 2.