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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/90

HD–90

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 Wednesday, November 12, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, November 12, 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. Barone Russo
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. G. A. Gordon
British Empire	Capt. G. Lothian Small
France	M. Massigli
Italy	M. Zanchi
Interpreter—M. Mantoux

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

• America, United States of
  • Mr. W. H. Buckler
• British Empire
  • General Sackville-West
  • Mr. Forbes-Adam
  • Mr. A. Leeper
• France
  • General Weygand
  • M. Laroche
• Italy
  • M. Galli
  • M. Vannutelli-Rey
• Japan
  • M. Shigemitsu

1. (The Council had before it a draft note to M. Venizelos relative to the report of the Commission of Inquiry, prepared by the British Delegation (See Appendix “A”),¹ a telegram from the French High Commissioner at Constantinople, dated Nov. 3 (See Appendix “B”), and a letter from the Greek Delegation, dated Nov. 4 (See Appendix “C”).) Note to M. Venizelos Relative to Incidents at Smyrna

M. Berthelot read the draft note prepared by the British Delegation.

M. Clemenceau raised the following point of form: on page 2 he thought the word “observed” should be changed to read “felt” in the sentence reading: “It hopes that the dangerous tension which at the present time does not seem to have ceased to make itself felt along the limits of the Greek occupation.”

Sir Eyre Crowe explained that in drawing up this note the British Delegation had wished to avoid mixing up two questions; he realized, however, that other questions, referred to on the previous day by M. Berthelot but not touched upon in this draft note, still remained to be settled. The question of the administration of Smyrna was a rather complex one and it might be well to turn it over to a Commission. A Commission on Greek Territorial Claims was already in existence. He understood that M. Venizelos had a good deal to say on this question and it would perhaps be better for him to be heard by that Commission.

M. de Martino agreed, particularly as he thought it was time that a decision should be reached relative to the relations between the Greek army of occupation and the local authorities on the one hand, and the central Government of Constantinople on the other. It would be well to be guided by the principles of The Hague Convention.² On the other hand, it would be well to show consideration to M. Venizelos, who throughout the war had shown qualities of the highest value and whose difficulties were well known.

M. Clemenceau suggested that the question be referred to the Commission on Greek Territorial Claims which, if necessary, could solicit the advice of the military experts.

M. Berthelot pointed out that as General Bunoust, who was entirely familiar with the situation, was present he might give the Commission valuable advice.

Mr. Polk called the attention of the Council to a paragraph of the draft note authorizing the Greeks to advance from Aidin up to the river Kochak Chai. That clause was a very important one. It should be remembered that any further advance meant fighting between the Greeks and Turks. General Milne himself had recognized that fact. He therefore wished to ask if the Council deemed it advisable to assume the responsibility for such further conflict.

M. Clemenceau again pointed out that he could send no troops; he felt that possibly the best solution would be to have M. Venizelos withdraw his troops from the region of Aidin where they had gone without the consent of the Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that that meant letting the Turks occupy this region.

M. Clemenceau inquired if the Italians were far distant from the Greeks in this region.

M. de Martino explained that they were not; that the Italian forces were within six hundred meters of the line of the River Meander and the parallel railroad. The Greek line was along the north bank of the river.

Sir Eyre Crowe explained that if the Greeks retired a triangle would be left between the river, the railroad and the Greek line, which included Aidin. To the south the line had been fixed by agreement between M. Venizelos and the Italian Government. He thought that it would not be advisable to withdraw the Greeks from the triangle in question and turn it over to Italian occupation.

M. de Martino pointed out that he had not made any such suggestion.

M. Clemenceau then suggested that the Greeks could be left at Aidin, but that they should not be allowed to advance.

Mr. Polk asked if General Milne himself had not said that a further advance by the Greeks would inevitably result in serious trouble.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that General Milne had rather said that he would be willing to authorize a further advance if the Council was prepared for the fact that such an advance would mean encountering armed opposition. General Milne had favored that advance on strategic grounds.

M. Clemenceau observed that as M. Venizelos felt capable of conquering Asia, the Greek troops certainly should be able to maintain their ground at Aidin. He agreed with Mr. Polk that if the Council ordered a further advance it would be in a position of creating further trouble.

Mr. Polk said that he could not agree to a letter authorizing the Greeks to advance in view of the fact that the authorities on the spot had said that trouble would certainly ensue. He thought that this would be tantamount to authorizing the Greeks to advance and conquer additional territory.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the only alternative was to let in the Turks who would then unquestionably start to massacre the Greeks.

Mr. Polk asked if Sir Eyre Crowe felt convinced of this?

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he did.

Mr. Polk said that his personal view was that if this line of action were followed all Asia Minor would eventually have to be occupied.

M. Clemenceau suggested that the Greeks be left at Aidin but that they be not authorized to advance further. (This was agreed to.)

M. de Martino wished to ask Sir Eyre Crowe if he could give him some information on the intentions of the British Government relative to the occupation of Aidin. According to a telegram which he had received from Italian Authorities on the spot, English troops were reported to be ready to advance on Aidin. General Montague Bates, commanding the 83rd Infantry Brigade, was said to be in command of those forces. On November 4th more than 70 cars were reported to have left for Afium Karahissar in order to transport the British Troops.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that the British arrangement had been made in contemplation of Inter-Allied occupation. As no French troops could be sent he thought that the British troops would likewise not approach Aidin.

It was decided:

to approve the draft note to M. Venizelos relative to the report of the Commission of Inquiry at Smyrna prepared by the British Delegation (see Appendix “A”) after making the following modifications therein:

(1) on the second page of this draft note the sentence: “It hopes that the dangerous tension which at the present time does not seem to have ceased to make itself observed along the limits of the Greek zone of occupation”, should be changed to read, “It hopes that the dangerous tension which at the present time does not seem to have ceased to make itself felt along the limits of the Greek zone of occupation”;

(2) the clause: “In the meanwhile allowing the Greek troops to advance from Aidin up to the river Kochak Chai, according to General Milne’s recommendation” should be eliminated.

It was further decided:

to refer to the Commission on Greek Territorial Claims the questions pertaining to the administration of Smyrna (See Appendices “B” and “C”), and that the Commission should be at liberty to take the advice of Military Experts, in particular that of General Bunoust.

2. (The Council had before it a reply from the Roumanian Government transmitted by the Chargé d’Affaires of France, dated November 2nd, to the note of the Allied and Associated Powers dated October 20th [12th]³ (See Appendix “D”).) Reply of the Roumanian Government to the Note of October 20th [12th]

M. Clemenceau observed that the answer was very unsatisfactory and was even of a nature to cause anxiety.

Sir Eyre Crowe agreed. He felt that the answer was practically a refusal of all the demands presented by the Supreme Council. The only point upon which the Roumanians had even partially agreed was the evacuation of Hungary, and even on that point the Roumanian Government had made a most formidable reservation with respect to the extent of the Hungarian territory to be evacuated. The Roumanian answer gave no satisfaction to the Council’s demand relative to the evacuation in so far as concerned the withdrawal beyond the river Theiss. On all other points the answer was evasive and defiant. The Council should carefully examine the present situation in Roumania. Its authority must be respected. M. Bratiano was merely dilly-dallying and playing for time, and the measures adopted by him had resulted in deluding the majority of his countrymen into thinking him a great patriot. He (Sir Eyre Crowe) felt that if the King and the majority of the Roumanians were made clearly to see that a persistence in their present attitude would necessarily mean a breach with the Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania’s exclusion from the Alliance, then Roumania would adopt a more compliant attitude. He thought that in such an event the present Government would be forced to retire and that a Ministry would be constituted which would see the wisdom of meeting the Council’s just demands and would act accordingly. He thought the above considerations should be put very plainly to Roumania and that it should be told that if its reply to the communication proposed to be sent by the Council were not satisfactory it would mean the breaking off of relations between Roumania and the Allied and Associated Powers. The Roumanians could not be driven out of Hungary by force as the Council had no force to dispose of, and it seemed to him that the only alternative was the line of action he had proposed.

Mr. Polk said he welcomed any strong action.

M. Clemenceau thought that the action proposed by Sir Eyre Crowe was strong enough to meet the requirements of the situation.

M. de Martino inquired if it would be wise to adopt in its entirety Sir Eyre Crowe’s suggestion, which involved threatening Roumania. The resulting situation if the Roumanians should refuse to agree to the action proposed should be examined. If the Roumanians refused the situation would be worse than it was before.

M. Clemenceau thought that the terms of the communication to be sent to Roumania were reasonably clear. They could be plainly told that they would be no longer in the Alliance.

M. Berthelot reminded the Council that at the time of signing the Austrian Treaty it had considered telling Roumania that Bukovina would not be attributed to it, but that in the Austrian Treaty it would be given to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. This had not been done as it had seemed too severe a measure to be judicious at that time. However, as it was now proposed to exert pressure on Roumania, it was well to examine the means of bringing this pressure to bear and a similar plan might now be considered. Roumania might be told that her claims to Transylvania would not be recognized and that the question of Bessarabia would not be discussed until it could be taken up with a reconstituted Russia. He pointed out that the Roumanian reply was satisfactory in so far as it announced the imminent withdrawal of the Roumanian forces to the Theiss; the result had been to facilitate negotiations with the Hungarians. What he was now suggesting was primarily theoretical. The question of the advisability of taking such measures must still be decided, for when considering the question of punishing a Government it would be well not to lose sight of the fact that the population should not be wholly antagonized.

Sir Eyre Crowe reminded the Council that Sir George Clerk had referred in a former telegram⁴ to Roumanian atrocities in Transylvania and the Council had inquired what part of Transylvania was meant.⁵ This question had not yet been answered but he had that day received a mass of documents relative to outrages in Transylvania, an examination of which might lead to the conclusion that the inhabitants of Transylvania were not as favorable to Roumania as might have been thought.

M. Clemenceau observed that two distinct questions were raised. First, was there a basis of right for taking away from Roumania the Hungarian territories in question? The second question related to the outrages committed by the Roumanians in Transylvania.

Mr. Polk said that he had always felt that if Roumania refused to accede to the very reasonable demands of the Council she should not have Transylvania given to her. He thought that such action was entirely too generous.

Sir Eyre Crowe felt that the difficulty was that if Transylvania were withheld from Roumania that would involve an occupation by Allied troops, which was obviously impossible.

Mr. Polk observed that if these territories were withheld from Roumania she would at least be in a position of never having been given them. Although occupation by the Allies was out of the question, he thought that such action would at least have a great moral effect.

M. de Martino thought that the point of prime importance was to rehabilitate the prestige of the Council. The action proposed by M. Berthelot was certainly rather severe. He would have to consult his Government on that point. In the meantime he thought that the Ministers at Bucarest might be instructed to take further action.

M. Clemenceau did not think this advisable in as much as the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers at Bucarest had already done all they could do.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that in his personal opinion a communication should be sent to Roumania in the nature of a real ultimatum. He would, however, have to consult his government before agreeing to send such a communication.

Mr. Polk inquired if it were necessary to send a communication of that nature. Could not an answer be sent to Roumania pointing out that her latest communication to the Council was no answer at all, and demanding a satisfactory answer from her.

Sir Eyre Crowe felt that the time for such action had gone by and that the present was the time to act firmly and decisively.

M. Clemenceau agreed.

Mr. Polk also agreed.

M. Clemenceau suggested that Roumania should be informed that the Allied and Associated Powers would withdraw their representatives from Roumania and that the Roumanian representatives in the various capitals, as well as her representatives at the Peace Conference, must also be withdrawn. He further suggested that M. Berthelot should draft a note, taking into account the views expressed at that meeting, this note to be submitted to the Council as soon as the Heads of Delegations had been able to consult their respective Governments.

M. Berthelot pointed out that a diplomatic rupture was a serious matter and inquired if it was to be resorted to at once.

M. Clemenceau said that his patience was utterly exhausted. He had been long suffering with the Roumanian Government and had even been reproached for that attitude. The Roumanians always tried to prolong pourparlers indefinitely, and this must be put an end to.

M. Matsui agreed to the action proposed. He, of course, would have to consult his Government, which he thought would not raise any objections. He wished to point out that his Government had no diplomatic representation in Roumania. In the meantime, in as much as he might not be able to receive an answer from his Government until some time after the other members of the Council had heard from their respective Governments, he was willing to agree with the view which would be adopted.

M. Berthelot summarized the contents of the communication to be prepared by him. He would recall to Roumania all that had been done for her and in her behalf by the Allied and Associated Powers and would point out the refractory attitude consistently maintained by Roumania with respect to the just demands of the Supreme Council.

M. de Martino called attention to one paragraph of the Roumanian note which seemed to him to have some merit. That was the paragraph dealing with the granting of authority to the Sub-Committee of the Reparations Commission to receive complaints relative to unauthorized requisitions. Roumania had pointed out that in this respect she had been treated worse than the Jugo-Slav State had been in the matter of its requisitions in the Banat.

M. Berthelot explained that the situations were not at all analogous. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government had never been in opposition to the Council on this question.

General Weygand stated that he had lately received a visit from Colonel Dimitrescu. He did not know the Colonel and was unaware how much importance should be attached to his statements. By way of information, however, he wished to tell the Council that Colonel Dimitrescu had complained of the Council’s attitude towards Roumania and had pointed out that the present Government in Roumania, mainly composed of Generals, was only able to attend to internal affairs; he therefore hoped that the Council would have patience with Roumania until elections had been held and a government constituted which was qualified to deal adequately with foreign affairs as well as internal matters.

M. Clemenceau thought that no importance should be attached to these remarks of Colonel Dimitrescu; M. Bratiano was behind the whole matter.

Sir Eyre Crowe observed that the Ministry of Generals had been put in power so that precisely that argument could be advanced.

It was decided:

That M. Berthelot should draft a note to the Roumanian Government, for submission to the Council, taking into account the views expressed by the Council at that meeting.

3. (The Council had before it a telegram from Sir George Clerk dated November 9th (See Appendix “E”) and a telegram from the Inter-Allied Military Mission dated November 10th (See Appendix “F”).) Situation in Hungary

Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that the situation in Hungary seemed to have greatly improved. He called attention to Sir George Clerk’s request that about 20 officers be sent to Hungary to be attached to various army and police units.

M. de Martino said that he was in favor of sending these officers if the other members of the Council were also.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the question of their payment would surely be raised. It seemed to him that they might well be paid by the Hungarian army.

M. Clemenceau agreed and said that he also favored sending these officers.

Mr. Polk said that at present Colonel Yates, he believed, was in charge of the reorganization of the Hungarian Gendarmerie. He thought that his Government would have no objection to sending a few officers to Hungary temporarily but he would of course have to consult his Government.

M. Clemenceau suggested that it might be well in replying to Sir George Clerk to warn him to be on his guard against a restoration of the Hapsburgs under any guise.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that this might be unnecessary in as much as Sir George Clerk had indicated that Friedrich’s departure was imminent.

M. Clemenceau pointed out that his retirement in many ways resembled that of M. Bratiano. Although nominally retiring he would still be remaining in power. He thought it would be well to include a general phrase of the tenor above suggested by him.

Sir Eyre Crowe agreed.

It was decided:

(1) that Sir Eyre Crowe should prepare, for submission to the Council at its next meeting, a telegram to Sir George Clerk in answer to the telegram, dated November 9th, received from him, and taking into account the telegram received from the Inter-Allied Military Mission dated November 10th;

(2) that the Heads of Delegation should examine the question of sending a total of about 20 Allied officers to Hungary.

4. (The Council had before it a note relative to the expenses of transportation of the Inter-Allied troops of occupation for Plebiscite Areas. (See Appendix “G”).) Expenses of Transportation of the Inter-Allied Troops of Occupation, and Maintenance of Said Troops and of Commissions, for Plebiscite Areas

General Weygand read and commented upon this note and pointed out that the German Government would certainly raise the question of the payment of expenses of transportation.

M. Clemenceau observed that the work to be done by these troops would be for the account of various interested countries. He thought that those countries might well bear the expenses.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the proper solution, but wished to point out that in the case of Danzig and Memel the Council had decided that those expenses should be borne by the local authorities.⁶

Mr. Polk suggested that the matter be referred to the Drafting Committee.

(This was agreed to.)

M. de Martino wished to bring up a question closely related to the foregoing one. In the plebiscite areas the expenses of maintenance of the Inter-Allied troops and Commissions would entail expenses which had not yet been estimated with exactness. These expenses, however, would be considerable. According to the terms of the Treaty these expenses were to be met by the local revenues of each plebiscite area. In the case of Allenstein, Eastern Prussia might be called upon for partial payment in case the local revenues were not sufficient. In the remaining areas the local revenues should suffice. Under these conditions it seemed necessary that a more or less accurate estimate of the expenses of maintenance of those troops and Commissions should at once be made by a Committee of Financial and Economic experts who would be charged with determining whether or not the whole of those expenses should be apportioned to the local revenues of the plebiscite zones.

General Weygand observed that he had only raised the question of the expenses of transportation. The question of the expenses of maintenance was a far larger one. There had as yet been no means of arriving at a very accurate estimate of the transportation expenses but from some figures at hand it seemed that they would amount to two or three million francs. The amount of the expenses of maintenance he thought could easily be calculated.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought that this latter amount could not be estimated with great accuracy because it was impossible at that time to know how long the various areas would be occupied.

M. Berthelot pointed out that the occupation would not be effected by a large number of troops and would not last for a long time, except possibly in the case of Upper Silesia where the local revenues would be amply sufficient.

M. de Martino suggested that the Drafting Committee also examine this question at the same time as the question of the expenses of transportation.

General Weygand stated that he would be able, with the aid of the Allied Military Representatives, to estimate the expenses of maintenance, and he would communicate that estimate to the Drafting Committee.

It was decided:

(1) that the note relative to the expenses of transportation of the Inter-Allied troops of occupation for plebiscite areas should be referred to the Drafting Committee for examination and report;

(2) that at the same time the Drafting Committee, after receiving from Marshal Foch an estimate of the expenses of maintenance of the Inter-Allied troops and Commissions in the plebiscite areas, should determine by whom such expenses should be borne in case the local revenues were not in all cases sufficient.

5. M. Berthelot informed the Council that a telegram had been received from Sofia saying that the Bulgarians were prepared to sign the Treaty without any conditions whatever. M. Stambouliski was anxious to be present at the signature of the Treaty, but as he was just leaving Sofia he would not reach Paris for several days. He, (M. Berthelot) thought there would be no harm in awaiting M. Stambouliski’s arrival before proceeding to the signature of the Treaty, all the more so as there were several details still to be settled. For instance the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government which had to sign the Austrian treaty before signing the Bulgarian treaty, was prepared to sign the former when the question of the distribution of tonnage had been adjusted. The Council had also decided that certain clauses were to be inserted in the Bulgarian Treaty relative to the neutrality of Switzerland. Signature of the Bulgarian Treaty

(It was agreed that there was no objection to awaiting the arrival of M. Stambouliski before proceeding to the signature of the Bulgarian Treaty.)

6. M. Berthelot informed the Council that according to a telegram from Prague the Czecho-Slovak troops had already been ordered to evacuate the mining district of Salgo Tarjan without awaiting a prior reimbursement of the Czecho-Slovak Government for expenses incurred by it on behalf of Hungary. M. Benes had desired to remain in occupation of two points in the neutral zone by way of guarantee, but if the Council did not agree with him he was not prepared to insist. Retirement Czexho-Slovak Troops From Mining District of Salgo Tarjan

7. General Weygand reminded the Council that at its meeting of November 4th⁷ it had approved the communication sent by Marshal Foch to the German Government relative to the interruption of railroad traffic in the occupied regions of Germany. The German Government had complied with the terms of this communication. Therefore, the day before Marshal Foch had consented to allow certain reductions in railroad traffic in the occupied territories. The matter was at that time settled satisfactorily to both sides. Interruption of Railroad Traffic in Germany

8. M. Berthelot informed the Council that a telegram from Belgrade had announced that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government was ready to sign the Austrian Treaty as soon as the distribution of Austrian commercial tonnage had been adjusted.

M. de Martino stated that he had been informed the previous day that his Government and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government had reached a complete agreement on this point. Distribution of Austrian Commercial Tonnage Between the Italian and Serb-Croat-Solvene Governments

(The meeting then adjourned.)

Hotel de Crillon, Paris , November 12, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–90

Note to Mr. Venizelos Relative to Report of the Smyrna Commission of Inquiry

Mr. President: The Supreme Council has received the letter which you were good enough to send on the subject of the Smyrna Commission of Inquiry. It has also taken note of the report of that Commission, and has examined their conclusions.⁸

During your hearing by the Supreme Council on Nov. 8th,⁹ you made certain reservations respecting the conditions imposed by that Commission on the Greek representative, Colonel Mazarakis. These conditions appear to have prevented him from questioning the Turkish witnesses, and even from reading and examining their depositions. As you already know, the Supreme Council had not been notified beforehand of the procedure contemplated by that Commission, and at the time when it decided to comply with your request relative to the communication of the testimony to the Greek Commissioner, the work of the Commission was already so advanced that it was no longer possible to give effect to the Council’s instructions.¹⁰

While thus admitting the reasonableness of the reservations which you thought fit to express, the Supreme Council does not think that the results of the Inquiry can be regarded as wholly vitiated, in so far as the excesses and acts of violence committed by the Greek troops are concerned. The Council has paid its tribute to the impartiality of the Members of the Commission, and to the scrupulous conscientiousness with which their work was performed.

The Council agrees that the incidents, which took place after the debarkation of the Greek troops at Smyrna, appear to indicate an almost total absence of the precautionary measures on the part of the Greek civil and military authorities, which the circumstances required; this omission was the principal cause of the unfortunate incidents reported by the Commission.

It is of opinion that, on the whole, the responsibility for the excesses committed and for measures the severity of which was not justified by the actual circumstances, rests upon the Greek military authorities. You yourself, moreover, with the loftiness and sincerity of your character, have recognized these faults and these abuses, and have ordered the punishment of the guilty.

The Supreme Council invites your most serious attention to these grave mistakes and trusts that the experience acquired by the Greek administration will enable it to avoid repeating them in the future. It takes note of your declarations respecting the order now prevailing in the city and in its neighborhood. It hopes that the dangerous irritation which at present appears not to have entirely ceased along the limits of the zone of Greek occupation will gradually be diminished by the wisdom and justice of the Greek administration, and through the work of delimitation recently completed by General Milne, Commander of the Allied Forces in Macedonia.

Respecting the region of Aidin, the Powers have decided that in view of the practical difficulties and of the political drawbacks which the organization of an Inter-Allied occupation might entail, they prefer to maintain the situation as it actually exists and the Greek occupation.

From another standpoint the Council wishes to obtain from you information as to the circumstances under which, in violation of the decisions of General Milne, the Greek troops are said to have crossed at Soma, under orders from the Greek Government, the line of demarkation fixed by the Inter-Allied High Command.

Lastly, the Supreme Council reminds you that the de facto occupation by the Greek troops of Smyrna and of the neighboring district was only decided upon because of existing circumstances, and creates no new right for the future. This is merely a provisional measure which leaves entire liberty to the Peace Conference to settle the various problems presented by the Eastern Question upon consideration of the General position of the world and of the wishes and interests of the populations concerned.

Appendix B to HD–90

Constantinople , November 3, 1919.

Telegram From the French High Commissioner at Constantinople

[2045]. The Allied High-Commissioners at Constantinople have the honor to inform their respective Governments that the Greek High Commissioner at Smyrna is attempting, more and more, to replace the authority of the Delegates of the High Commissioners and of the Turkish Government by taking complete charge of all matters.

The Allied organizations controlling the press censorship, the port and the industries are interfered with to a great extent. The local police and courts are unable to function, as the Greek authorities refer not only the cases resulting from acts which would come regularly under military justice, but also all crimes or misdemeanors and even cases coming under the sole competence of civil courts, to the Greek Court Martial.

On several occasions the Allied High Commissioners have called these facts to the attention of the Greek Minister at Constantinople, but without result. They request that the Supreme Council take any steps which it may judge opportune to provoke a change in Mr. Sterghiadis’ attitude, in order that the Interallied Organizations may perform the role which is assigned to them, and that the Ottoman Government functionaries may exercise their authority in accordance with the conditions covering the Greek military occupation.

Appendix C to HD–90

Paris , November 4, 1919.

Contents

Letter from the Greek Delegation on the situation at Smyrna, and the censorship exercised by the Delegates of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in that city.

greek delegation
to the peace congress

From: Venizelos,

To: President Clemenceau.

I have the honor to call to the attention of the Supreme Council of the Conference the situation created in Smyrna on account of the method employed by the Delegates of the Allied and Associated Powers concerning preventative censorship of the local press.

They have been particularly severe in treating all publications favorable to Greek occupation. Recently, they suppressed an article, in La Liberté in which Mr. Sartiaux, a French Engineer, maintained that French and Greek interests in Asia Minor, far from conflicting, were in perfect accord, and another in which the Greek High-Commissioner was praised for his action in insuring the public lighting system which was totally compromised by municipal negligence.

On the other hand, they show a growing sympathy toward the so-called Turk nationalists, by allowing the publication of articles tending to excite the Mussulman populations to revolt against the Greek authorities. In this way they give the impression to the agitators that their actions are tolerated and even encouraged by the Powers.

An incident which occurred last week in Smyrna furnished undeniable proof of this attitude.

The Turkish journal, the Sark, was allowed to publish a signed article, which was extremely violent in injuring Greece. This article stated, notably, that the Greeks, and, in general, those who have fought against Turkey, are, “Poisonous insects, sucking the blood of the Turks for a century and a half.” This publication produced a profound impression in Mussulman circles, who interpreted, as is natural, the toleration of the Inter-Allied censorship as an indication both of disfavor toward the Greek and sympathy toward the young-Turk revolution.

Greek authority immediately instituted proceedings against the author of the article, proprietor of the journal,—a Turk of Bulgarian origin, formerly secretary of the Bulgarian Consulate at Smyrna,—and the responsible editor, before a court-martial which sentenced the first two to one year imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 drachmas, and the third to six months imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 drachmas. The latter, having a good record, was put on probation and accorded immediate liberty. The French and Italian Delegates, at first alone, then accompanied by their English colleague, immediately protested to the Greek High Commissioner, stating that they could not agree to the actions taken against the publications authorized by the Inter-Allied censorship. The High-Commissioner replied, with reason, that the Greek Army assumes a triple responsibility in Smyrna, that of its own security, and the maintenance of public order, and finally the common interest of all the Allies, which is to see the vanquished enemy kept powerless to prejudice the Allied victories and resist the future decisions of the Conference as long as the armistice lasts. Conscious of these responsibilities, he fully approved the decision of the court-martial, as it was his strict duty to neglect nothing to prevent, in the zone of Greek occupation, an uprising of the Mussulman population. Mr. Sterghiadis further remarked that, from a juridical point of view, the visa of the censorship has no competence to suppress the publications of unlawful character, nor to prevent the proceedings to which such publications might give rise and which can, strictly speaking, include, in cases of extreme fault or fraud, the censors themselves.

He did not fail to add that these censors assumed a heavy responsibility by showing such a great severity toward everything favorable to Greek interest and so much indulgence toward everything which encouraged revolutionary actions on the part of the Turks. As to himself, if it were possible for him to be disinterested in the suppression of publications helpful or in praise of Greek occupation, it would be impossible for him to recognize that the Inter-Allied censorship has the right to protect the liberty of the Turkish press to the detriment of the security of the Greek army and of the maintenance of order.

I have hastened to give my full approval to this statement and to prescribe the proper measures for a checking of the dangers created by this state of affairs.

This occupation of Smyrna should have, naturally, caused the censorship of the press to be confided to Greek military authority. Desirous, however, of not wounding the susceptibility of the Allies, the Greek Government has tolerated the Inter-Allied censorship—and it is inclined to continue to do so—but in order to parry the serious incidents which have just been indicated, the Greek Government has decided to have a parallel and independent censorship exercised by the Greek military authorities. Thus, in the future, if the Inter-Allied censorship continues to prevent all publications which appear reprehensible to it, the Greek censorship can, in its turn, prevent all publications contrary to Greek interests. This procedure can be a particular advantage, and is authorized by the Salonika precedent, by which, during the war, the Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern armies reserved the right to exercise, parallelly with the Greek censorship, and Inter-Allied censorship, although the occupied country was Greek and therefore Allied. This system would have still greater justification in Smyrna, as the army of occupation is in enemy country, and has more to fear for its security.

In bringing the preceding to the attention of Your Excellency, I seize the opportunity to point out that certain agents of the Powers disregard the intentions of their Governments, and continue to manifest, in a most unpleasant fashion, the ill humor which they feel in seeing Smyrna occupied by Greek forces. Considering the responsibilities which it has assumed by virtue of the mandate vested in it in Asia Minor, the Greek Government is unable—despite the deference which it is disposed to show toward the Delegates of the Allied Powers—to allow the security of its army to be imperiled, or the maintenance of public order confided to its trust to be compromised.

I am persuaded that by these actions, the Greek Government complies with the real intentions of the Allied Powers, which for these reasons, should instruct their agents at Smyrna to consider the situation with the objectivity necessary in order to avoid the regrettable complications which the enemies of the Entente alone are able to take advantage of.

Please agree, etc.

Venizelos

Appendix D to HD–90

[Reply of the Rumanian Government to the Note From the Supreme Council of October 12]

Verbal Note

The Rumanian Government thanks the Supreme Council for the expressions of friendship and confidence which have been expressed and which are in accord with the firm desires of Rumania to maintain and develop her alliance and close collaboration.

The Rumanian Government leaves nothing undone to accord the interests of Rumania with those of the Representatives of the Conference in every instance.

To that end, anxious to avoid any delays which, under the present circumstances in Hungary, might aggravate the situation, it hastens to reply to the proposals of the Conference regarding the institution and operation of Inter-Allied Commissions at Budapest. The Rumanian Government thinks it opportune to not postpone their operation until the solution of the other two points presented in the last note from the Supreme Council concerning the Rumano-Hungarian frontiers and the Peace Treaty with Austria, relative to which the Rumanian Government begs to again call the attention of the Peace Conference by exposing the Rumanian point of view which it will have the honor to forward later.

The Rumanian Government is also happy to see that the Supreme Council, after having received and examined the Rumanian point of view as presented by Mr. Bratiano, affirm that there is not any noticeable difference of opinion on the general principle, in conformity with which the question of the requisitions made by the Rumanian army in Hungary is to be resolved.

As to the application of these principles, Rumania gladly accepts the proposal of the Supreme Council to have an Inter-Allied Commission instituted at Budapest, and is ready to designate a Rumanian representative to that Commission.

It further accepts—although not recognizing the necessity, that Inter-Allied organizations be established at Szolnok and Csongrad without delay for the control and verification of the car clearance of the trains crossing these bridges en route to Rumania. However, it would be opportune to accord other duties to these commissions and in particular give them full authority to enforce the unloading of merchandise.

Concerning the abusive application of the general instructions relative to requisitions, the Rumanian Government regrets to note that the Supreme Council considered them of an importance and nature which correspond neither with the spirit of the order or the discipline of the Rumanian army.

The isolated cases which have been indicated to the Rumanian Government shall be investigated and any abuses confirmed shall be repaired and punished. However, to give the sub-Commission on Reparations authority to receive complaints concerning abusive requisitions would be submitting the Rumanian military authorities to an International treatment to which none of the other Allied armies of occupation have been subjected. Under similar circumstances, it is well known that the Serbian army refused to admit the application of analogous measures in the Banat, at the time the French command made a proposal to that effect, and the representatives of the Conference did not insist on compliance by the Government at Belgrade, despite numerous complaints from those affected.

The Rumanian Government fully shares the point of view of the Supreme Council with regard to the nature of the Hungarian Government and the conditions it must comply with. Having already turned over the rifles and ammunition destined for the police and Hungarian gendarmerie, the Rumanian forces have received orders to evacuate Hungary as far as the Theiss. They have postponed this evacuation up to the present time only at the request of the Allied representatives. They will also leave the territories between the Theiss and the new frontiers as soon as the Hungarian Government is in a position to furnish the necessary guarantees for the security of these territories.

According to the agreement established between the Rumanian High Command and the Representative of the Conference at Budapest, the retreat of the Rumanian troops will commence on November 10, with a margin of 3 days more or less, according to necessity.

The Rumanian Government is now preoccupied entirely with the work of reconstructing the Rumanian countries drained and impoverished by the countless extortions effected by the German and Austro-Hungarian armies during their occupation.

General Vaitoianu

November 2, 1919.

Appendix E to HD–90

Telegram From Sir George Clerk, Budapest, to the Supreme Council, November 9, 1919

No. 6

With reference to telegrams Nos. 3¹² and 4.¹³

I venture to express my sincere opinion that decisions of Supreme Council in regard to evacuation by Roumanians Czechs and Serbians and to action to be taken at Prague on question of coal will greatly help situation here. Atmosphere generally is much better than it was a fortnight ago and much uneasiness and mistrust has been dissipated. Most significant sign is that Admiral Horthy and leaders of extreme left met in my house two days ago and Admiral Horthy’s declaration of impartiality and discipline of his army was fully accepted. There will always be a certain risk of incidents when Roumanians evacuate Budapest and Hungarians take over control but I had made up my mind as soon as I came here that such risk must be taken as nothing can really be done until Roumanians have left and I feel today danger is immeasurably less. Inter-Allied Mission of Generals, Admiral Troubridge and I have complete confidence in Admiral Horthy’s loyalty and sincerity and there is every reason to believe his hold over army is really effective.

Question of police and gendarmerie is somewhat different. I had already discussed matter with Inter-Allied Mission and I feel that their authority over police and gendarmerie is a guarantee against latter abusing their power. It is scarcely possible for Allies to send troops or even police in sufficient numbers and my considered opinion is that we must trust to our influence over Hungarian troops, gendarmerie and police.

Inter-Allied Mission of Generals agree but we would suggest immediate despatch of 20 Allied officers rank of major and captain to be attached to various armies and police units would be valuable safeguard and assistance.

Political situation is developing satisfactorily though there are still many obstacles to be overcome before complete solution can be reached. It must be realised that great bulk of opinion mostly ignorant in country stands behind Friedrich. Pendulum has swung violently from left to right but is now beginning to come slowly towards centre. But allowance must be made for present state of populace and to some extent to natural prejudice and changes of Government must be effected with as little disturbance of populace as possible.

All responsible politicians even these in Friedrich’s cabinet now realise that coalition government must come and idea is becoming familiar to masses. Difficulties now are mainly reconciliation of personal interests and private political ambitions. I am not without hope of overcoming these difficulties only patience is required.

General sentiment of political leaders in country today so clearly recognises lines on which solution must be found and general atmosphere is so much better than it was a fortnight ago that I am fairly confident that law and order will be maintained. Impartiality of my mission is I think universally recognised as well as desire of Allies to help Hungary and confidence felt in mission of Generals and Admiral Troubridge is a moral factor of immense value.

It may take a little time to get satisfactory solution and Friedrich may resign and talk big but I am now much less anxious about internal peace and quiet here and Hungarian forces being used for reaction and oppression. While we are all here Hungarians will behave soberly.

Mission of Generals and Admiral Troubridge agree with terms of this telegram.

Appendix F to HD–90

No. 831

Budapest , November 10, 1919.

From: Inter-Allied Military Mission,

To: Supreme Council of the Peace Conference, Paris.

The Rumanian Command today submitted a plan for the evacuation of Hungary as far as the Theiss river. The evacuation will commence on November 13th and will last 10 days. The Rumanian representative was requested to give details concerning the continuation of the retreat to the frontier, but replied that orders covering the evacuation beyond the Theiss had not yet been received from Bucarest. The Rumanian plan implies the removal of all temporary bridges on the Theiss. The Mission will demand that these bridges and also the pontoon bridges be preserved until the retreat toward the frontier be completed. At the request of the Rumanians, the Allied guards will take over the Danube bridges and those which unite Bude to Pest on the morning of the 14th, until such time as the Rumanians will have evacuated the city. An Inter-Allied Commission has been designated to supervise the Hungarian Government in its disposition of the war prisoners detained by the Rumanians. The Mission recommends that all war prisoners be released by the Rumanians and given a chance to choose between Hungarian and Rumanian nationality without any conditions as to their former residence.

Inter-Allied Military Mission, Budapest

Appendix G to HD–90

No. 1274 CRF

November 11, 1919.

Note on the Subject of Transportation Expenses of the Allied Contingents Designated To Occupy the Territories of Dantzig, Allenstein, Marienwerder, Memel, Schleswig, and Upper-Silesia

Marshal Foch has issued a memorandum of the questions for joint study with the Delegates of the German Government, relative to regulating the transportation arrangements of the Allied contingents designated for the occupation of Dantzig, Allenstein, Marienwerder, Memel, Schleswig and Upper-Silesia across Germany.

Among these questions is that of reimbursing the German railroads for the transportation cost.

All measures have been provided for the verification of transportation rights.

The question of final distribution of these expenditures will be decided later.

The Peace Treaty contains no provision relative to the transportation expenses of troops to the above-mentioned territories.

The only provisions carried in the Treaty treat expenses entailed by the Commissions, for their operations and the administration of the territories.

The provisions specified in Articles 95 (Eastern Prussia), 108 (Dantzig), 109 (Schleswig), differ, and are, at times, contingent upon a subsequent decision by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Under these circumstances, it is requested that the Peace Conference be asked to kindly decide upon whom the above-mentioned expenses will be incumbent.

P. O. Major General

Weygand

1. Appendix A is apparently a revision of the draft here referred to.
2. Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, October 18, 1907, Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. 2, p. 1204.
3. See telegram to the British Chargé at Bucharest, October 11, appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.
4. Appendix B to HD–83, vol. viii, p. 947.
5. HD–83, minute 2, ibid., p. 936.
6. HD–75, minute 2, vol. viii, p. 747.
7. HD–83, minute 1, vol. viii, p. 936.
8. Appendix A to HD–87, p. 44.
9. HD–87, minute 2, p. 36.
10. HD–64, minute 6, vol. viii, p. 463; HD–71, minute 3, ibid., p. 675.
12. Appendix A to HD–85, p. 9.
13. Appendix B to HD–85, p. 9.