Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/91
HD–91
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 Thursday, November 13, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Hon. F. L. Polk
- Secretary
- Mr. L. Harrison
- British Empire
- Sir Eyre Crowe
- Secretary
- Mr. H. Norman
- France
- M. Clemenceau
- M. Pichon
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta
- M. Berthelot
- M. de Saint Quentin
- Italy
- M. de Martino
- Secretary
- M. Barone Russo
- Japan
- M. Matsui
- Secretary
- M. Kawai
- America, United States of
Joint Secretariat | |
America, United States of | Capt. B. Winthrop |
British Empire | Capt. G. Lothian Small |
France | M. de Percin |
Italy | M. Zanchi |
Interpreter—M. Mantoux |
The following were also present for items in which they were concerned:
- British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- General Groves
- Lt.-Colonel Kisch
- Commander Lucas
- Mr. L. Leeper
- Mr. Palairat
- France
- Colonel Roye
- Captain Roper
- M. Laroche
- Italy
- Lt.-Colonel Piccio
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
- Japan
- M. Shigemitsu
M. Pichon stated that M. Clemenceau had asked him to apologize for being unable to be present at the opening of the meeting. He proposed to start with the second item on the agenda, viz; the draft telegram to Sir George Clerk.
[Page 142]1. (The Council had before it a draft telegram to Sir George Clerk prepared by Sir Eyre Crowe (See Appendix “A”).) Draft Telegram to Sir Clerk George
Sir Eyre Crowe called the attention of the Council to the last paragraph of the draft telegram. He had thought it necessary to call the attention of the Hungarian Government very specially to the necessity of its troops evacuating the Comitadjes of Western Hungary, which had been given to Austria by the Treaty of Saint-Germain.1
It was decided:
to approve the draft telegram to Sir George Clerk (See Appendix “A”).
2. (The Council had before it a note from the Drafting Committee dated November 3rd (See Appendix “B”) and a note from the British Delegation dated November 11th (See Appendix “C”).) Instructions to Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the Supreme Council at its meeting of November 1st1a had decided to obtain the advice of the Drafting Committee on the draft note prepared by the Aeronautical Representatives2 in answer to a communication of the German Government dated October 12th.3 The Drafting Committee, having alluded to the fact that the question was already covered by a paragraph of the protocol to be signed by the German Plenipotentiaries,4 had concluded that it was useless to send that note.5 Since then, the question had again been discussed by the Aeronautical experts and the Drafting Committee. They had come to the conclusion that the protocol did not cover all the violations which the Germans had committed under that heading. Under these conditions it appeared advisable to reply to the German note of October 12th, and he thought that it would be necessary to put the question once more before the Drafting Committee.
M. de Martino agreed that Sir Eyre Crowe’s proposal was very opportune. It was a most important point which they should not leave in the air, and he insisted that the proposal of the British representative be taken into consideration.
Captain Roper said it was indeed extremely advisable that the views of the Supreme Council on that point should be made clear. There were, however, two ways of proceeding: they could either reply directly to the German Armistice Commission, or confine themselves to [Page 143] sending instructions to General Masterman.6 The draft instructions could be sent immediately, but the Drafting Committee was of the opinion that it would be advisable to await the coming into force of the Treaty before answering the Germans.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Drafting Committee might prepare at the same time draft instructions for General Masterman and a reply to the German Armistice Commission, which would be sent at a later date.
Mr. Polk wished to ask to what extent the Germans could dispose of their aeronautical materiel, balloons, Zeppelins, etc.
General Groves stated that the Germans could not dispose of anything which might be considered military or naval aeronautical materiel.
Mr. Polk inquired who was the court of appeal on the military or naval character of that materiel?
General Groves answered that it was the Aeronautical Commission of Control.
It was decided:
to entrust the Drafting Committee to prepare in agreement with the technical experts.
- (1)
- draft instructions for General Masterman;
- (2)
- a reply to the German note of October 12th, concerning German aeronautical materiel. (See Appendices “B” and “C”).
3. (The Council had before it a draft letter to the German Delegation regarding elections in Upper Silesia (See Appendix “D”).) Municipal Elections in Upper Silesia
Mr. Polk said that the elections which had just taken place in Upper Silesia were partly favorable to the Poles. Would it not be inadvisable under these circumstances, to oblige the Plebiscite Commission to hold these elections in all cases null and void.
M. Laroche said he had asked himself the same question. The Polish Press considered those elections a great success for the Polish cause. The German papers, however, brought out the fact that the Poles had not obtained half the votes recorded. From a legal point of view it seemed difficult to annul the elections only in part; he thought it better to stick to the principle of declaring all elections void. The Plebiscite Commission might take on the spot all necessary administrative measures to maintain, in extraordinary cases the election in certain municipalities.
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that Mr. Polk’s observation might be satisfied by changing the last paragraph. They might use instead of saying, “That the Powers will consider as null and void”, the words, “That [Page 144] they will hold themselves entitled to consider null and void, etc.” On the other hand, the Powers wished this note to put an end to the exchange of correspondence with the Germans on that question. He, therefore, thought it more advisable to omit the paragraph beginning with the words, “in this connection the observations, etc.”; as a matter of fact that paragraph contained allegations of fact which the Germans would be tempted to answer. If this omission were approved, the fifth paragraph beginning with the words, “It is, however, a matter of surprise, etc.” might well be placed at the end of paragraph 2 which began with the words, “if the Versailles Treaty, etc.”
It was decided:
to approve the draft letter to the German Delegation concerning municipal elections in Upper Silesia, with the following changes:
- (1)
- omission of paragraph 4, beginning with the words, “In this connection, etc.”
- (2)
- paragraph 5, beginning with the words, “It is, however, a matter of surprise, etc.” should be placed at the end of paragraph 2, which begins with the words, “If the Versailles Treaty, etc.”
- (3)
- in the last paragraph replace the words, “that they will consider as null and void” by the words, “That they will hold themselves entitled to consider null and void, etc.” (See Appendix “D”).
4. (The Council had before it a letter from General Nollet to the President of the Conference, dated November 1st, (See Appendix “E”). Allowances to General Officers Attached to Military Control Who Are Not Chairmen Either of Commissions or Subcommissions
Colonel Rote read and commented upon the letter from General Nollet.
Sir Eyre Crowe said this was an important question, and he wished to know if the proposal made by General Nollet had the approval of the French Government.
M. Pichon said that the French Government had confined itself to communicating the letter of General Nollet to the Council without taking any position in the matter.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the questions with reference to the organization of these Commissions had been discussed very thoroughly and the draft which had been finally arrived at was the result of a compromise. It had been decided that the allowances would only be given in virtue of the function exercised by the officers, without taking into account their rank or situation. This question was an important one because its solution affected the problem of Reparations. If they now decided to give special allowances to officers on the ground that they were General Officers or because they were the senior representatives of their country, they would be departing entirely from the principles followed up to this time. He would very much like to have the opinion of the French Government on that point, on the one hand because the [Page 145] French element was very strongly represented on the Commissions of Control operating in Germany, and because, on the other hand, it had seemed to him that the French Government was opposed in principle to any measure calculated to diminish the Separations fund. Should the Council be of the opinion that the request of General Nollet should be answered, he personally would not oppose it, but he wished to point out that they would be committing themselves to a new principle on a question which affected the problem of Reparations.
(At this point M. Clemenceau entered the room.)
M. Clemenceau agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe that it was advisable to adhere to the ruling which they had previously fixed. The arguments given by General Nollet did not seem very convincing. They had decided to remunerate, not the rank or situation, but the function, and he did not believe that there was any reason to change their attitude on that point.
Colonel Roye said that it was to be feared that, on account of the existing high cost of living in Germany, the allowances to officers mentioned in the letter of General Nollet might not be sufficient.
M. de Martino said it was understood that no negative conclusion would be arrived at on this day, and that the question should be referred back to General Nollet for further information.
M. Clemenceau said General Nollet’s proposal did not seem to him to have sufficient grounds; but if he gave the Council some better arguments in a further note, he personally would not object to examining the question anew.
It was decided:
to adjourn the question raised by the letter of General Nollet dated November 1st, pending further information to be furnished by him. (See Appendix “E”).
5. (The Council had before it a draft note to the Roumanian Government prepared by M. Berthelot, (See Appendix “F”) Draft Note to the Roumanian Government
M. Berthelot read the draft note, the Roumanian
M. Clemenceau wished to inform the Council that he had been asked to receive General Coanda and M. Antonescu; he would receive them that afternoon, and he intended to confine himself to advising them to accept without further delay all the demands which were formulated by the Conference.
Mr. Polk asked whether, in making reference in the second last paragraph of the letter to: “arrangements to be concluded with Hungary, Bulgaria and Russia” they did not seem to commit themselves to giving Bessarabia to Roumania, in the event of the latter country complying with the Council’s demands.
M. Berthelot did not think so; the question certainly had been discussed by a Commission which had come to the unanimous decision to give the whole of Bessarabia to Roumania, but the Council had [Page 146] not taken any decision to that effect, and its liberty of action remained unimpaired.
M. Clemenceau stated they would wait before taking a final resolution until all the delegates had received their instructions.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated he had already received his.
Mr. Polk thought that the instructions he already had gave him sufficient authority to accept the draft under discussion. He would, however, let the Council know his decision at the next meeting.
M. de Martino said that, as far as he was concerned, he expected to receive his instructions that very evening. He felt the greatest confidence in the outcome of the interview which M. Clemenceau would have that afternoon with General Coanda and M. Antonescu. He expressed the hope that M. Clemenceau would speak to them with the firmness which he so well knew how to employ, and felt certain that he would obtain the results the Council desired. General Coanda was very intimate with M. Bratiano and capable of having a good influence upon him. He wondered whether it was wise to discuss, as they were doing in the draft before them, the behavior of Roumania during the war. They were running the risk of starting a polemic, for Roumania would certainly be sure to answer that she had herself been abandoned by Russia.
M. Clemenceau remarked that they also had been abandoned by Russia, which had not prevented their carrying on the war to an end. Three months before the Bucharest Peace6a he had warned M. Bratiano that he was committing his country to a disastrous policy. M. Bratiano had protested that he would never conclude a separate peace, a protest which had not prevented his doing so.
Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether a period of six days was not a little short.
M. Clemenceau replied he thought there was point in giving the Roumanians a rather short period; they would thus bring them to ask for a prolongation which the Council would grant. But the very fact of their having asked for a prolongation would, as a matter of fact, commit the Roumanians to an answer.
M. de Martino thought it would be necessary to impose upon the Roumanians a definite time for the evacuation of the Hungarian territory to the east of the Theiss.
M. Clemenceau wished to know whether the Council would give him authority to acquaint unofficially the Roumanian delegates he was to see that afternoon with the draft under discussion.
Mr. Polk said he would very willingly give this authority, especially as this document seemed to him remarkably well drafted.
Sir Eyre Crowe asked what their attitude would be should the Roumanian delegates, after having been unofficially acquainted with [Page 147] the draft note, ask for a postponement of the official communication of the note.
M. Clemenceau thought that they should in any case send the note as soon as it had been definitely approved.
It was decided:
to authorize M. Clemenceau to communicate unofficially to the Roumanian delegates the substance of the draft note to the Roumanian Government (See Appendix “F”).
6. Mr. Polk wished to ask, as a matter of information, whether the situation had been modified since the Luxemburg question had been discussed in the Council.7 He had been informed that the British Government had recognized the Government of the Grand Duchess. Recognition of Grand-Dual Government of Luxemburg
M. Clemenceau had not heard that there had been any such recognition on the part of the British Government. Great Britain had only sent a representative to the wedding of the Grand Duchess. He would, however, be glad if Sir Eyre Crowe would acquaint himself with the exact situation. The situation as between France and Luxemburg was as follows: The majority of the Luxemburgers was favorable to a “rapproachement” with France, but the French did not wish to commit themselves to a policy which might involve them in difficulties with Belgium. As for the present Government of Luxemburg, the Grand Duchess was German by birth, and he believed, by sympathy. She was, however, obliged at this time to appear very francophile. There were no present difficulties between France and Belgium on the general question. The only question in dispute was a certain railroad administered by the Alsace-Lorraine Railroads, which Bismarck had taken away from France in 1871. The Belgians were claiming this railroad, which the French could not give them. That was a very small difficulty, which furthermore, was on the point of being settled. It was essential that the Principal Powers should act in accord concerning the recognition of the present Luxemburg Government.
M. Berthelot said the Belgians had asked the French whether they intended to recognize the Grand Ducal Government. They had answered it was for the Belgians first to take a decision on that point. The Belgians had then said they preferred to abstain provisionally from recognizing the Government of the Grand Duchess, and the French has based their attitude upon the Belgian. The sending of a representative by the British Government to the wedding of the Grand Duchess had been a mere act of courtesy. Nevertheless from information they had received, it would appear that there had been at the [Page 148] same time recognition of the Luxemburg Government by Great Britain.
Sir Eyre Crowe said he would get information on the subject and communicate it to the Council.
(The question was then adjourned.)
7. Mr. Polk wished to say a few words to the Council on the question of German oil tank ships. On September 27th,8 the Supreme Council by a vote to which he was a party, had decided Tank ships to ask the Germans to deliver the 14 German oil tank ships which were lying at Hamburg. Since that date he had several times discussed the question with Sir Eyre Crowe and Mr. Henry Berenger. There was a good deal of feeling in America on the question: for that reason he earnestly wished that, pending the outcome of negotiations, the ships under discussion should stay where they were. He thought his proposal would not raise any difficulties, as he hoped to arrive at a solution within three or four days. German Oil Tank Ships
M. Clemenceau asked what were his objections to these ships being taken to an Allied port?
Mr. Polk said that certain declarations Mr. Hoover had made had given the impression in America that the fate of these ships was already settled. Out of that arose the question which was the object of the negotiations then in progress.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that in the protocol submitted for the German signature the Council had confirmed the decision of September 27th by asking the delivery of all these ships, without specifying them by name. It did not seem possible to ask the Germans now to keep these ships; that would be to publish a difference of views between the Allies. It was to be hoped, however, that the Germans had not yet delivered the ships in question. If by chance they had already done so it would be sufficient to instruct the Naval Armistice Commission to retain these ships without doing anything with them for the moment. He hoped Mr. Polk would not see any objection to this procedure.
Mr. Polk said that the record of the meeting of September 27th showed that those ships were to be delivered to the Allies, but did not specify under what conditions the temporary operation of these ships should be regulated. He feared that if these ships were to be delivered by the Germans in the Firth of Forth a wrong interpretation of this measure would spread in America.
M. Clemenceau asked that the discussion be adjourned to the following day.
(The meeting then adjourned.)
Hotel de Crillon, Paris, November 13, 1919.
[Page 149]- Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3149.↩
- HD–80, minute 4, vol. viii, p. 855.↩
- Draft note was prepared by the French delegation and not by the aeronautical representatives. For text, see appendix D to HD–80, ibid., p. 868.↩
- Appendix A to HD–78, ibid., pp. 811, 816.↩
- Appendix C to HD–80, ibid., p. 865.↩
- HD–81, minute 5, ibid., p. 880.↩
- President of the Interallied Aeronautical Control Commission in Germany.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1918, supp. 1, vol. i, p. 771.↩
- HD–85, minute 11, p. 8.↩
- HD–62, minute 1, vol. viii, p. 403.↩
- Appendix E to HD–90, p. 138.↩
- See appendix E to HD–85, p. 11.↩
- Appendix D to HD–90, p. 136.↩
- Appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.↩
- Note by the British Delegation. This paragraph has been added as it seems opportune to settle this question at the same time as the evacuation of the Hungarian territory. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- Appendix C to HD–80, vol. viii, p. 865.↩
- Appendix A to HD–78, ibid., pp. 811, 816.↩
- HD–80, minute 4, ibid., p. 855.↩
- Draft note was prepared by the French delegation. For text, see appendix D to HD–80, ibid., p. 868.↩
- Appendix A to HD–78, ibid., pp. 811, 816.↩
- Appendix C to HD–80, ibid., p. 865.↩
- HD–81, minute 5, ibid., p. 880.↩
- HD–78, minute 5, and appendix F, vol. viii, pp. 808 and 824.↩
- Appendix A to HD–88, p. 88.↩
- HD–73, minute 9, vol. viii, p. 716.↩
- Appendix H to HD–73, vol. viii, p. 728.↩
- Appendix D to HD–90, p. 136.↩
- Appendix C to HD–23, vol. vii, p. 517.↩
- Appendix A to HD–24, ibid., p. 541.↩
- HD–25, minute 2, ibid., p. 548.↩
- See appendix B to HD–26, ibid., p. 615.↩
- Appendix C to HD–31, ibid., p. 691.↩
- Appendix A to HD–37, ibid., p. 819.↩
- Appendix C to HD–38, ibid., p. 857.↩
- Appendix E to HD–47, vol. viii, p. 111.↩
- See appendix B to HD–68, ibid., p. 583.↩
- Appendix D to HD–82, ibid., p. 920.↩