100 Years Ago Today

[Sailor Steve]

Thursday, June 12, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 16:00

Meeting of the Council of Four, plus Japan


1. The Telegram prepared by Mr Philip Kerr to Admiral Kolchak is approved and signed.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it immediately to the Secretary-General to be telegraphed, on behalf of the Conference, to Admiral Kolchak.

It was further agreed:

That the whole of the telegrams interchanged between the Allied and Associated Powers and Admiral Kolchak should be published in the newspapers the following day.

Baron Makino while assenting with his Colleagues to the above telegram says he would liked to have gone further and to have recognised Admiral Kolchak. Nevertheless it was a step in the right direction.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Allied and Associated Governments cannot yet recognize Admiral Kolchak for the whole of Russia.


2. Mr Lloyd George says that Sir George Riddell has reported to him that the newspapers in London now have copies of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. They have not published it and he thinks they will not publish it without permission although there is no censorship. Sir George Riddell urges, however, that permission should now be given.

M Clemenceau says that at one time he had favored publication. It is, however, too late now and to publish it would be ridiculous.

President Wilson agrees that there is no use in publishing the Treaty now. The only treaty that can be published is not the one that is going to be signed. He has cabled to the United States that he is not willing to communicate to the Legislature what is only part of the Treaty. He thinks it would be ridiculous to release the document handed to the Germans as though it were the Treaty.

On the proposal of Mr Lloyd George it is agreed that when the reply to the Germans is released for publication the German proposals should also be published, and, at the same time or as soon as is physically possible thereafter the Treaty of Peace in its final form should be published.

(Mr Lloyd George instructs Sir Maurice Hankey to write officially to Sir George Riddell in this sense.)


3. Sir Maurice Hankey reports that he has received a letter from M Tardieu, proposing, as he himself has already done, the formation of a Committee to edit the reply to the German Note.

(It is agreed that the following Committee should be appointed, for the purpose of editing the reply to the German Note:

M Tardieu for France, and as President.
Mr Hudson for the United States of America.
Mr Philip Kerr for the British Empire.
Count Vannutelli-Rey for Italy.
Mr Nagaoka for Japan.

Sir Maurice Hankey is directed to request the Secretary-General to arrange for this Committee to meet with the least possible delay, and communicate to it the various portions of the reply as they were approved.)


4. Sir Maurice Hankey reports that he has ascertained that the English version of the reply in regard to the Saar Valley, which had been approved at the morning meeting, was a translation from the French, the French version itself being a translation from an original English draft. In these circumstances, he had felt justified in incorporating the decisions of the Council in the original English version. As a matter of fact, several of the alterations had thereby been found to be unnecessary.

(Sir Maurice Hankey’s action is approved.)


5. The draft reply to the German Note on the subject of Alsace-Lorraine, prepared by the appropriate Commission Lorraines and dated June 8th, is read and approved without alteration.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for communication to the Editing Committee.)


6. Sir Maurice Hankey says that he thought it had not been realized at the morning meeting that Mr Philip Kerr’s memoranda on the subjects of Responsibility of Germany for the War and the Legal Basis of the Peace Negotiations would not appear as a special pendant to the covering letter, but would merely take their place among the Negotiations other memoranda in the reply to the Germans. He had, as instructed, made inquiries from the Secretary-General about the German White Book, and had ascertained that this contained no documents that had not already been translated and circulated. The first document in the White Book was a reproduction of the Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, which had been published in an American newspaper.

The second document was the long German reply which had already been circulated. He was not quite clear what the decision at the morning meeting had been in regard to Mr Philip Kerr’s draft.

(It is agreed that the two memoranda referred to should be approved for incorporation in the reply.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate them to the Secretary-General for the information of the Editing Committee.)


7. The Council has before them a memorandum signed by M Jules Cambon on behalf of the Czechoslovak Commission of the Conference, recommending certain alterations in the Peace with Treaty of Peace with Germany, affecting the Kreis Provision of Ratibor and the Kreis of Leobschütz.

After President Wilson had read the document, it was appreciated that an expert explanation was required. M Jules Cambon not being available, Sir Eyre Crowe, Dr Lord, and M Laroche are sent for and introduced.

Sir Eyre Crowe explains that the district of Leobschütz was to have been attributed to Poland, but is now affected by the plebiscite in Upper Silesia. The northern part of Leobschütz is German, and the southern part is Czech. If Upper Silesia was attributed to Germany as a result of the plebiscite, the German portion of Leobschütz should go with it, otherwise, it should remain with Czechoslovakia.

(After some further detailed explanations by the experts on the map, it is agreed to approve the recommendations of the Czechoslovak Commission and the Article proposed was signed as an instruction to the Drafting Committee.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

(Sir Eyre Crowe, Dr Lord and M Laroche withdraw.)


8. The Council has before them the further report of the Council of Foreign Ministers on the questions referred to them on the previous day.

1) The proposal to maintain the frontier between Hungary and Romania adopted on May 12th, is accepted.

2) The recommendation against establishing the Czechoslovak State on the southern bank of the Danube opposite Pressburg is also accepted.

3) The recommendations of the Council of Foreign Ministers in regard to an alteration of the frontier, so as to include in Czechoslovak territory the junction of the Korpona railway with the Komarom–Losoncz railway line, and the insertion in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary of a provision to ensure to the Czechoslovak State the right of passage for its trains over the sections of railway included in Hungarian territory of the Komarom–Csata–Losoncz railway, are also approved.

President Wilson proposes that the boundaries as adopted in the preceding decision should now be communicated to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania, and that their observance should be insisted on.

M Clemenceau suggests that it might be better to adopt the Romanian boundary provisionally only.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Allies ought also to hear what Hungary has to say.

M Clemenceau says that Romania will present great objections.

President Wilson points out that the Romanian Delegates had presented their case at very great length.

Mr Lloyd George adds that Romania is more than doubling her territory.

M Clemenceau suggests that representatives ought to be sent, not to Vienna as proposed by Bela Kun, but to Budapest, to arrange an armistice.

President Wilson suggests it would be better to send a telegram to Budapest, Bucharest and Prague.

Mr Lloyd George doubts whether this course will be successful. His view is that the Hungarians had attacked the Czechoslovaks mainly owing to the Romanian advance, with a view to dividing the Romanian and Czechoslovakian forces.

President Wilson says that this is quite unjustifiable.

M Clemenceau doubts if the Romanians can be induced to retire behind the boundary line.

Mr Lloyd George says that if they refuse, Romania will have to be informed that she is outside the protection of the Allied and Associated Powers.

President Wilson says she will also be outside the recognition of the Allied and Associated Powers. Romania cannot expect the Allied and Associated Powers to fight for a boundary which they did not believe to be right.

M Clemenceau suggests that a document should be prepared to be sent to Mr Bratiano, Mr Kramarcz and Bela Kun.

President Wilson says that each paper will have to be carefully prepared and accompanied by a map of the boundaries.

Mr Lloyd George says it will be necessary to insist on the instructions being obeyed.

(It was agreed:

1) That a separate communication should be sent to each of the following:
Bela Kun for Hungary,
Mr Kramarcz for Czechoslovakia,
Mr Bratiano for Romania,

notifying them of the permanent territorial frontiers adopted by the Conference; insisting on the immediate cessation of hostilities; on the withdrawal of all military forces behind the frontier lines; and on an undertaking for the future observance of these frontiers, as a preliminary to the conclusion of a Treaty of Peace with Hungary.

2) That Mr Balfour should be invited to draft these documents for approval by the Council.

3) That maps should be prepared by experts to accompany the above communications.)


9. Arising out of the previous discussion, President Wilson suggests that a line should also be established between Poland and the Ukraine.

Mr Lloyd George thinks the same course should be adopted as in the case of Upper Silesia. Mr Paderewski had told him that the Ukrainians are anxious to enter Poland. The situation there, according to Mr Paderewski, is almost the same as in Upper Silesia. There is an area where there is one Pole to two Ruthenians, the upper grades of the population being Poles, but the Ukrainian population is also said to be in favour of junction with Poland. The best plan therefore, would be to hold a plebiscite.

President Wilson suggests that experts should be got together to draw a plebiscite area.

(On the suggestion of President Wilson, it is agreed that the Council of Foreign Ministers should be invited to examine this question with experts, and after hearing representatives both of Poland and of the Ukraine on the subject, should advise the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers

(a) as to whether they recommended a plebiscite.
(b) as to the area of the plebiscite.)


10. The Council has under consideration a draft reply to the German note prepared by the appropriate Commission on the subject Political of the Political clauses relating to countries outside Europe.

(After President Wilson has read the draft aloud it is approved subject to some quite minor alterations.


11. Mr Lloyd George says that one question has to be faced related to the property of Religious Missions in the German Colonies. The representative of the Vatican had called to see him and had seen Mr Philip Kerr and claimed that all Roman Catholic property is the property of the Vatican. Great Britain has always challenged this claim from the earliest times.

M Clemenceau says that these Missions are not really the property of the Vatican. He is prepared to give a guarantee that Roman Catholic property should be handed over to Roman Catholics of some other nationality, or even to the Vatican, but he is not prepared to say that it is property with which the Vatican could dispose of as it likes.

S Orlando says he had no relations with the Vatican.

President Wilson says that he has received a letter on the subject and the point made is that the Vatican desires a specific promise that missionary property should be transferred to some Church of the same connection.

Mr Lloyd George points out that this is not claimed by Germany and that all that is required is some assurance to the Vatican.

President Wilson suggests that the assurance given might be that the matter should be provided for in the mandates for the German Colonies.

Mr Lloyd George undertakes to instruct Mr Philip Kerr to prepare a draft declaration on the subject.


12. The Council has before them a draft reply to the German Note prepared by the appropriate Commission on the subject of Military Clauses.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that Paragraph I ought to be strengthened as it is a matter of great importance before coming to the concessions to indicate the great trouble that had been caused in the world by the development of the German military machine.

(This is accepted and two paragraphs drafted by Mr Philip Kerr are adopted later in the Meeting.)

(It is agreed to delete Paragraph 2 and the following words at the beginning of Paragraph 3: “With due regard to these points therefore”.)

Paragraph 4: M Clemenceau objects to the number of 300,000 men which Germany is to be allowed to have after three months. He points out that Marshal Foch had originally proposed an Army of 200,000 men for Germany. The Germans already have more than 300,000 men on the eastern front alone. He does not think that these are intended for fighting, but rather for passive resistance and to make difficulties in Upper Silesia. He proposes to reduce the number to 200,000.

(It is agreed that the number at the end of three months should be 200,000.)

Paragraph 5: The last six lines are deleted on the ground that this is not a convenient place at which to introduce a reference to the League of Nations.

(The draft articles for the Treaty of Peace with Germany are initialed by the Five Heads of States.

Sir Maurice Hankey is directed to communicate them to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.

Sir Maurice Hankey is directed to forward it to the Secretary-General of the Editing Committee.)


13. The Council has before them a joint note by the Allied and Associated Admirals containing the draft of a reply as regards the Naval clauses.

(After the Note has been read, it is approved.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for the information of the Editing Committee.)


14. The Council has before them the draft of a reply to the German Note on the subject of Prisoners of War prepared by the appropriate Commission.

(It is agreed that this Note is unduly long and should be shortened.)

(M Mantoux is instructed to communicate with M Cahens accordingly.)


15. S Orlando says that he has received the resignation of two Italian Ministers. He also has information that socialists are preparing some trouble.

M Clemenceau says this was the case in France also.

Mr Lloyd George says that he has seen someone who had seen Mr Ramsay MacDonald. The latter had reported that socialist trouble was brewing in Italy and had said that he himself had discouraged it.

S Orlando says he is less preoccupied with the internal situation than with the crisis in his Government. There is some trouble due to high prices and that in a recent riot in Spezia one person had been killed and two wounded.

Mr Lloyd George says that he was advised there will be no limit to the high prices unless the Inter-Allied Purchasing Commissions were maintained. Otherwise, there will be competition not only between one Ally and another, but the Germans who are half starving would enter the market and send prices still higher.

S Orlando agreed. He views with dismay the prospect of the abolition of the wheat executive.

President Wilson says that this question will have to be considered as part of the general economic question.

S Orlando says he must now leave as he might have to go to Italy in the evening.


16. The Council has before them a draft reply to the German Note on the question of responsibilities prepared by the appropriate Commission.

After the document is read, M Clemenceau expresses the view that it is a weak document.

Mr Lloyd George thinks a much stronger document is required.

Baron Makino points out that the points had been correctly made. This view is generally accepted.

Mr Lloyd George invites Mr Philip Kerr to redraft the reply.


17. President Wilson reads the Report of the Military Representatives at Versailles on the situation in the Baltic, after which M Mantoux reads the Report of the Baltic Commission.

Mr Lloyd George expresses the view that the Germans ought to be cleared out of the Baltic.

President Wilson agrees in principle but does not see how they were to be got out.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Armistice gives power to order their withdrawal. If this right is not exercised, the Germans will establish themselves there. We have information that they are colonizing Courland and he has even read a telegram that settlers are coming there from the Saar Valley.

Mr Lloyd George undertakes to discuss the question that evening with General Sackville-West, the British Military Representative, in order to ascertain whether it is necessary to see the experts on the following day.

[Jimbuna]

13th June 1919

Aftermath of War

Britain: Terms of New Victory Loan issued.

Cher Ami, the US Army homing pigeon who provided critical information to save the 77th Infantry from defeat during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive at the close of WWI, succumbed to injuries while at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. She remains one of the world’s most decorated war pigeons.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, June 13, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 11:00

Meeting of the Council of Four, plus Japan


1. Referring to the reply to the German Note on the subject of the League of Nations approved on the previous day, M Clemenceau says he thinks a mistake had been made in stating that the Allied and Associated Powers saw no reason why Germany should not become a member of the League “in the early future”.

Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson confirm the Secretary’s record that this has been approved, and insist that there is no object in inserting the sentence without these words. After rereading the whole passage, M Clemenceau withdraws his objections.


2. (It is agreed to receive the Turkish Delegation in a formal manner in one of the large rooms at the Quai d’Orsay, on Tuesday, June 17th, at 11:00.)

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to ask the Secretary General to prepare a letter to the Turkish Delegation for M Clemenceau’s signature and for dispatch, notifying them of this decision and asking them to be prepared to make a statement on that occasion of anything which they had to say.)


3. The Council has before them a Note from the Superior Blockade Council, dated June 11th, 1919.

Mr Lloyd George advocates a renewal of the blockade in the event of the Germans refusing to sign, as if this were known in Germany beforehand it would have a great effect.

President Wilson says he is opposed to the imposition of a blockade. A military occupation is justified, but he does not believe in starving women and children. It is the last resort and should not be taken at first.

M Clemenceau considered that the sea blockade would not be very effective so long as the land frontiers with neutral States were open.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the neutrals had at present no supplies to spare, consequently everything depended upon an effective sea blockade.

M Clemenceau says in that case he is in favour of it in the interests of humanity, to prevent a prolongation of the interval between breaking off negotiations, and signing the Peace. If the German people know that the blockade is being prepared it will stop the whole business.

Mr Lloyd George says he is apprehensive of difficulties that will arise from the military occupation.

President Wilson points out that in any case the Allies control practically all the food supplies of the world, and will not sell them to Germany if they will not sign. In any case therefore privation will begin at once. The imposition of the blockade will shock the sense of mankind. A military occupation is the regular and habitual way of dealing with a situation of this kind. Germany has disregarded all methods of humanity, but this does not justify the Allies in doing so. He does not anticipate any actual fighting.

Mr Lloyd George says that every military man will confirm that but for the contributory action of the Blockade the war might still be continuing. The German Army was still in occupation of Allied territory when it had capitulated. The reason was that the effect of the blockade on the German people was so great that they could not stand it any longer.

President Wilson says that if actual hostilities begin again the blockade might be justified, but Marshal Foch has assured the Council that there is not likely to be any military resistance.

Mr Lloyd George does not anticipate organised military resistance but he thinks there might be a great deal of unorganized resistance.

M Clemenceau points out that the Germans are a submissive people. They are not like the English or French, who in such a case would make great trouble.

President Wilson says that starvation would only bring about Bolshevism and chaos.

Mr Lloyd George says that the mere noise of preparing a blockade would do more to make the Germans sign than the military occupation. There were important elements in the population such as the rich industries and the wealthier classes of Berlin who would probably welcome an occupation as a means of insuring order. The mere threat of a blockade, however, would terrify the whole population.

President Wilson doe not want to threaten without carrying out the threat.

Mr Lloyd George says that while he fully appreciates the President’s motives and regards the blockade as a horrible thing, yet he thinks it necessary to shorten the agony. He feels sure that in the end we should be driven to the blockade.

M Clemenceau said that if the blockade were not adopted it would cause the deaths of many Allied soldiers.

President Wilson says he must refuse to cooperate in the blockade until military cooperation has been tried. His instinct on this matter is overwhelming. He notes that the Blockade Council has already brought the various parts of the blockade to the most advanced state of readiness. He wishes to know what more they require.

Sir Maurice Hankey says that the British Member of the Blockade Council had informed him that there are certain steps involving expenditure which the Blockade Council does not feel justified in insisting on without a decision of this Council. For example, the bottoms of a number of Destroyers have to be cleaned and crews had to be kept in a state of mobilization. The Destroyers are required for the blockade of the Baltic which is a new service which it had never been possible to undertake during the war.

Mr Lloyd George suggests the desirability of some Destroyers appearing in the Baltic in order to give the Germans the impression that preparations are being made. He wants the Germans to sign without the necessity of the Allies striking a blow.

(It is agreed that the Blockade Council should make every preparation for the reimposition of the blockade, but that its actual enforcement should not be undertaken, even in the event of a refusal by the Germans to sign the Treaty of Peace, without a decision from the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. No actual threat should be made public that the blockade is to be reimposed, but short of this steps should be taken to give the public impression that preparations are in hand. If practicable these steps should include the despatch of Destroyers to show this in the Baltic.)


4. Mr Lloyd George reads the following note from Admiral Hope:

“Referring to the Naval action to be taken in the event of the Germans refusing to sign the Peace Treaty, the Admiralty are anxious to know, as soon as possible, in order that the necessary preparations may be made, whether the Supreme Council approves in principle the following measures suggested by the Admirals in their joint Report of 10th.

(a) Officers and men of the ships interned at Scapa to be made prisoners of war.

(b) The interned ships at Scapa to be seized.

(c) All fishing by German vessels to be prohibited.

(d) All German vessels found at sea, either with or without permits, to be seized.

It would also greatly assist the Admiralty if the Council’s decision as to the blockade could be made known so that any necessary Naval dispositions could be arranged in good time.”

(It is agreed that the British Admiralty should make the necessary preparations for carrying out (a), (b), (c), and (d), above.)


5. The Council has before them a report by the Military Representatives at Versailles with whom are associated Naval Representatives.

Mr Lloyd George says that he has discussed the question with General Sackville-West and he finds his view to be that the evacuation by the Germans should be a comprehensive one. If the attempt is made to specify in detail the actual places to be evacuated, misunderstandings are liable to occur owing to the fact that many places had the same name, and some places have several names which would facilitate evasion by the Germans. His opinion was that the Germans ought to be ordered to clear out of the Baltic Provinces altogether under Article 12 of the Armistice terms. It would be very dangerous if the present German Ministry went out of Office and Haase came in, as then there would be a German force in the Baltic Provinces under the direction of a Bolshevik Government.

President Wilson and M Clemenceau agree with Mr Lloyd George.

There is some discussion as to the proposal of the Military Representatives that sums of money should be made available for the Baltic Provinces, but it is generally agreed that this is unnecessary for equipment, arms, ammunition, clothing and supplies were given.

After a short discussion, it is agreed that the following action should be taken:

1. Marshal Foch should order the Germans

(a) To stop all advance northwards towards Estonia.

(b) To evacuate Libau and Windau at once, and to complete the evacuation of all territory which, before the war, formed part of Russia, with the least possible delay, in accordance with Article 12 of the Armistice Terms.

2. That the local national forces in the Baltic Provinces should be supported with equipment, arms, ammunition, clothing, and supplies generally.

3. That the Military Representatives at Versailles should advise as to what supplies should be sent and by whom.

M Clemenceau undertakes to give the necessary instructions to Marshal Foch.

6. The alteration to the Czechoslovak frontier contained in the report of the Council of Foreign Ministers dated June and approved on the previous afternoon, is initialed by the five Heads of States.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Drafting Committee for their information.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, June 13, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 12:00

Meeting of the Council of Four, plus Japan


The following experts on the subject of the Rhine Provinces were also present:

M Loucheur for France.
Mr Wise and Mr Waterlow for Great Britain.


1. The Council had before them a Report dated June 9th, of the Commission appointed by them on May 29th to rewrite the draft convention relating to the occupation of the Rhine Provinces, on the skeleton plan suggested in the letter from Mr Noyes, the American delegate on the inter-allied Rhineland Commission, to President Wilson, dated May 27th, 1919.

This report and its first two annexes, the draft convention and the memorandum, are considered.

President Wilson reads out the English texts of these documents, which, after discussion, are adopted along with amendments.

The omission of the words “and the execution of the Treaty” from Article III (a) of the draft convention is, on the proposal of President Wilson, decided on the ground that to supervise the execution of the Treaty of Peace is outside the scope which it is desirable to give to the functions of the Rhineland High Commission.

In regard to Article IV of the draft convention, Monsieur Clemenceau explains that Marshal Foch has put forward certain objections to the principle on which it was proposed to base the administration of the occupied territory, but it is pointed out that the question of principle would arise in connection with the memorandum. When Article V of the memorandum is reached, Monsieur Loucheur (French Minister of Industrial Reconstitution), who is in attendance, explains that what Marshal Foch chiefly has in mind is the danger of setting up two separate authorities, viz., the Allied High Command and the Inter-allied Rhineland High Commission, to deal with the German authorities. The Marshal fears that any attempt to work such a system will lead to confusion, and he considers that the proper course is to vest all necessary powers for dealing with the German authorities in one single Inter-Allied authority, who might be assisted by an advisory council in respect of economic and civil matters. While taking note of this point of view, the Council decides to maintain the principle of making an Inter-Allied civil authority the supreme representative of the associated Governments concerned in the administration of the occupied territory.

The following are the amendments adopted in the draft convention:

(This is followed by a long list of minor wording changes for all Articles I through XIII.)


A new article to be added at the end of the memorandum as follows:

“VII. In issuing decrees and proclamations or otherwise interfering with civil administration under a state of siege, the Commander-in-Chief shall continue to act in consultation with, and only with the approval of, the High Commission. This shall, of course, not apply to action of a purely military nature.”

(The meeting then adjourns.)

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, June 13, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 16:00

Meeting of the Council of Four, plus Japan


1. Mr Lloyd George says he has received a letter from Sir George Riddell, suggesting that the newspapers would not be able to handle on one day both the German proposals in respect to the the Peace Treaty and the Allied reply.

(After a short discussion, it is agreed:

1) To publish the German proposals in the morning newspapers of Monday, June 16th.

2) To publish the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers in the morning newspapers of Tuesday. June 17th.)

Sir Maurice Hankey reports that a summary is in course of preparation by general arrangement between the British and American Delegations, and which can be put at the disposal of any other Delegation.


2. The Five Heads of States approve and initial the reply to the note of the Superior Blockade Council, dated June 11th, 1919.

"Decision of the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers at a Meeting Held on June 13th, 1919.

The Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have considered the Note of the Superior Blockade Council, dated June 11th, 1919.

They have decided that the Blockade Council should make every preparation for the re-imposition of the Blockade but that its actual enforcement should not be undertaken, even in the event of the refusal by the Germans to sign the Treaty of Peace, without a decision from the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. No actual threat should be made public that the Blockade is to be reimposed but, short of this, steps should be taken to give the public impression that preparations are in hand. If practicable, these steps should include the despatch of destroyers to show themselves in the Baltic.

W. W.
G. C.
D. L. G.
S. S.
N. M.

June 13, 1919."

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate it to the Blockade Council. Blockade in the Event of a Refusal by the Germans To Sign the Peace Treaty.)


3. The following documents were initialed by the Four Heads of States:

1) The draft Convention relating to the Military occupation of the Territories of the Rhine.

2) A memorandum defining the relations between the Allied Military Authorities and the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward them to the Secretary-General for communication to the Drafting Committee, who should use them as material for the drafting of the final Convention and Agreement.)


4. Mr Lloyd George circulates a draft reply prepared by Mr Philip Kerr, to the German note on the question of “Responsibilities” to take the place of the note considered on the previous day. The note is approved subject to the following alterations:Penalties for Individuals.

Page 2, line 3. Omit the words “in any way.”

Page 2, line 9. Omit the following sentence:

“There can be no question of admitting the right of jurisdiction of the representatives of countries which have taken no part in the War.”

(Sir Maurice Hankey is directed to forward the Report to the Secretary-General for communication to the Editing Committee.)


5. The Council has before them a Report from the Commission on International regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways.

President Wilson reads the Report aloud.

(The Report is approved subject to the following alterations:

Page 2. Delete the first paragraph. Also delete the word “Supreme” before “Council of the League of Nations” in the middle of the second paragraph.


6. The Council then considers the amendments to the Treaty of Peace proposed by the Commission, annexed to their Report.

Article 89. President Wilson feels some doubt as to whether this Article should be approved, unless he is convinced that Poland will receive exactly the same advantages under the Treaty as Germany is to receive under the substituted Article. It would appear to him that under this Article Germany will get rights the moment it becomes operative, while Poland will have to wait for the conclusion of the Convention.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith and Colonel Henniker are invited to attend, and reassure President Wilson on this point. They explain that in other portions of the document exactly the same treatment is accorded to Poland by Germany.

(The amended Article 89 is then accepted.)

Article 98. The amendments are accepted.

Article 325. President Wilson reads a letter from the United States Delegation urging that the whole Article should be deleted.

Mr Lloyd George concurs in the view of the American Delegation. He considers the Article, either in its old shape or in its new shape, as unfair and unworkable.

Baron Sonnino points out that the object of the Article is to prevent something akin to dumping, but he admits it would be difficult to enforce. He does not press strongly against its rejection.

(It is agreed to delete the Article.)

The amendments to Articles 341, 349 and 353 are approved.

Article 373. President Wilson points out that both the British and American Delegations wish to delete the whole Article.

(It is agreed to delete Article 373.)

Article 386 is accepted.

Subject to the above alterations, the annex to the Report is approved and initialed by the Five Heads of States.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward an initialed copy of the annex of the Report to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)


7. The Council has under consideration the Report of the President of the Labour Committee commenting on the German reply to the Note.

The Proposals under heading 2, namely: the admission of Germany to the League of Nations.

Heading 3. The offer made by Germany to supply German labor for the restoration of the devastated regions.

Heading 4. Rights and privileges of Allied workpeople admitted to enemy territory and vice versa are not accepted.

Heading 5. Containing the proposed addition to Article 312 to the Treaty with Germany, and the corresponding Article in the Treaty with Austria, is approved and initialed by the Five Heads of States.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.


8. The Council has before them the Report of the Committee on the Eastern Frontiers of Germany on the answer to be given to the German reply.

The report is read and generally approved, subject to the following amendments:

1) It is considered that the first paragraph of (A) should be strengthened by a reference to the treatment of Poland as having been one of the most notorious historical crimes.

2) A strengthening of the last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading “East Prussia” on page 2, by developing the reference to the fact of the slightness of the railway traffic between East Prussia and Germany and the habitual use of the sea.

3) The addition of a paragraph in regard to Upper Silesia.
(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to invite the Committee to alter the report accordingly.)


9. President Wilson draws attention to the second paragraph under the heading “(B) Possible Concessions” on page 3 of the above report: Enemy Proprietors in Transferred Territory

“Further, two Delegations are of opinion that Financial Clause F in regard to German proprietors in Upper Silesia ought to apply equally to German proprietors in the territory transferred from the sovereignty of Germany to that of Poland.”

Recalling that it has already been decided to apply this to the rest of Poland, he says he thinks this should be of application also to the corresponding clauses in the Austrian Treaty.

Baron Sonnino says that he is in general agreement, but he would not like to take a decision on the point without considering each case in detail.


10. The Council has before them a report by the Prisoners of War Committee, divided into the following parts:

1) Proposed alterations to Articles relating to Prisoners of War and Graves.

(It is generally agreed that, as these are stated to relate only to form, it is too late to incorporate them in the German Treaty.)

2) A draft reply to the German counter-proposals.

(The draft does not commend itself to the Council, and it is agreed that the Editing Committee should be instructed merely to make a reference to the note already sent to the German Delegation on the subject of Prisoners of War.)

3) An Annex to the report, containing the revised text of Articles 217, 221 and 225 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

(It is agreed that the changes proposed are of such minor importance as not to require action.)


11. (It is agreed that the reply to the German note on the subject of Memel should be referred to the Committee on the Eastern Frontiers of Germany.)

(Mr. Balfour was introduced.)


12. Mr Balfour reads the attached telegrams (Appendix V, A to F) which he has prepared at the request of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. He explains that they consist of the following:

1) A general telegram to be addressed to the Hungarian, Czechoslovak and Romanian Governments.

2) Three additions attached to the general telegram and addressed respectively to each of the above governments.

3) A separate telegram containing the frontiers between Hungary and Czechoslovakia and Hungary and Romania, respectively.

(Mr Balfour’s drafts are approved, and the Council thanks him for preparing them.)

(M Clemenceau signs each of the telegrams and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate them to the Secretary-General for immediate transmission, and for communication to the Romanian and Czechoslovak Delegations in Paris.)

(The meeting is then adjourned.)

[Jimbuna]

14th June 1919

Small group of civilians in Bailleul, France gather around a hut erected in the main square to receive their rations.


Brigadier General Wilds P. Richardson inspecting American troops participating in the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War at Archangelsk, Russia.


Alcock and Brown takeoff from St. John's, Newfoundland.


United States Navy pilot Charles Hammann dies in an aircraft crash at Langley Field, Virginia. He will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously in 1920 for a heroic World War I action on August 21, 1918, retroactively becoming the first U.S. aviator ever to receive the award.


The SSZ airship aboard HMS Furious.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 11:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


1. M Clemenceau produces a Report by the Military Representatives at Versailles on the situation in Bulgaria.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to raise the question on Monday, and to circulate the Report before then.)


2. President Wilson reads a re-draft of Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, which has been agreed to by a representative of the Vatican, who had seen a representative of the American Delegation.

Mr Lloyd George objects to one portion of the draft, in which it is suggested that the names of the trustees for missionary property in former German colonies should be submitted to the Vatican. He says that the British Government has always refused any claims of this character on the part of the Vatican.

(The alteration to Article 438 in Appendix I is approved.)


3. In view of the short time available before communicating the reply to the German Note to the German Delegation, it is agreed that no Plenary Conference should be held, but that, instead, the representatives of the States principally affected by the changes proposed, should be invited to meet the Council that afternoon.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to summon at 15:30 the representatives of Belgium, Poland and the Czechoslovak State.)


4. The Council has before them re-drafts of certain passages in the Report of the Committee on the Eastern Frontiers of Germany on the answer to be Frontier of given to the German reply, prepared in accordance with the decisions taken on the previous day.

(Subject to certain verbal modifications, these are approved. Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to report to the Secretary General for the information of the Editing Committee.)

(Note. Sir Maurice Hankey hands M Tardieu a corrected copy.)


5. M Tardieu reports that there are a number of outstanding points arising out of the German comments, to which, as yet, the Editing Committee believes no reply has been prepared. These include Luxemburg, Austria, Russia and Guarantees of Execution.

Sir Maurice Hankey adds to this list Reparation in Kind and Dye-stuffs.

M Tardieu then mentions several questions which are to be dealt with by the Council on the same afternoon.

(It is agreed that the Editing Committee should have authority to insert a paragraph in the reply, to the effect that there are certain points of detail raised in the German Note, to which it is not considered necessary to make a detailed reply, but that the points have been considered and the Allied and Associated Powers are unable to accept the arguments or to alter the Treaty.)


6. M Tardieu says that the Editing Committee has discovered a certain number of contradictions between the general covering letter to the Germans and the special replies.

(It is agreed that the Editing Committee should have authority to make the necessary changes either in the covering letter or in the special replies, to ensure uniformity.)


7. M Tardieu says that the Editing Committee has discovered that the English and French texts of the German Note, as published by the German Government, have been varied from the German text, in order to create a false impression among the British or French publics. He asks permission to mention this fact at the end of the Note on Responsibilities.

(This proposal is approved.)


8. M Clemenceau asks whether Mr Philip Kerr’s draft on the subject of Responsibilities has been approved.

President Wilson says the arrangement has been that it should be approved unless M Clemenceau wishes to change it.

M Clemenceau says that he doe not like the Note, but he does not press his objection.

(M Tardieu withdraws.)


9. The Council has before them a memorandum prepared by the Economic Commission regarding the Economic remarks of the German Delegation on the Economic Clauses of the Conditions of Peace.

President Wilson reads aloud the memorandum together with the supplementary Note.

(The Report is approved, subject to the following small changes.

Page 6, under the heading “German Appendix on Special Legal Questions.” Line 4. Before the word “activities” insert “political”

Page 7. 3rd Paragraph.3 For the word “likewise” insert “what she has forced her opponents to do.”

Page 13. Line 2.4 Instead of “English, French or Italian” put “English, French, Italian or Japanese.”

Page 13. Article 306. Paragraph 3.5 Delete the following words: “as we do not feel able to place any reliance on the character or fairness of the corresponding German measures. On the other hand,”

As a certain number of alterations in the Treaty of Peace with Germany are provided for by this Report and as these were summarized at the end, the Supplementary Note is initialed by the representatives of the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers as an indication to the Drafting Committee that the necessary alterations were to be made in the Treaty.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to notify the Secretary-General of these decisions, for the information of the Drafting Committee and the Editing Committee.)


10. The Council has before them a reply to the German Counter-proposals in so far as these affect questions of Air craft and aerial navigation, prepared by the Aerial Commission.

(The reply does not commend itself to the Council, and it is decided that this subject should be included among the questions to which no detailed reply is to be sent, and which will be covered by a general paragraph in the Reply, stating that the German proposals have been considered; that their arguments are not accepted; and that no modification can be made in the Treaty.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to notify the Secretary General, for the information of the Editing Committee.)

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 16:00

Meeting of the Council of Five with the Representatives from Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland.


1. President Wilson says that this Meeting has been arranged in order to enable a discussion to take place between the members of the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Representatives of certain States, not represented on that Council, in regard to the changes contemplated in the Treaty of Peace with Germany which especially affect them. There is one point more especially affecting Belgium and Czechoslovakia and he proposes to explain the contemplated change in the first instance. Article 373 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany would have compelled Germany to allow railways to be constructed in her territory by the Allied and Associated Powers. The Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways had proposed a fresh draft which would have enabled Belgium and the Czechoslovak State to construct certain specified lines. The Council had come to the conclusion, however, that this was not a just provision for among other things the proposed Clause provided for the possibility of some of the expense falling on Germany. This would have meant a burden heavier on Germany than was provided in the original Clause and it had been a fixed principle not to impose any greater burden on Germany than had been contained in the original Treaty.

Dr Kramarcz (Czechoslovakia) says that he had been a Member of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, and is familiar with this question. The subject had originated with a desire on Italy’s part to obtain certain junctions with the Tauern Railway. Belgium had then expressed a desire for improving the communications between Antwerp and Mannheim. The proposals now made are really much less than those contained in the original Treaty. Germany had protested against the original clause and was right in doing so, for it would have given an undefined right of railway construction by foreign powers in Germany, so that they could have constructed railways anywhere. Such a general provision is indefensible. The object of the new text had been to meet the German criticisms by defining and limiting what is required of Germany. The objects were, first, to show Germany that the Allied and Associated Powers had no desire to construct railways in Germany wherever they pleased; and secondly, to ask for certain definite improvements on specified lines. These proposals amounted to very little. The first proposal was for improvements for connecting Antwerp with the Rhine provinces. The second proposal provided for certain railways of considerable importance to Czechoslovakia, but, at the same time, he thinks that the new Article will satisfy the Germans. The United States Delegates have taken a strong line against the proposal, but the British Delegates had only made slight objections. If Belgium and Czechoslovakia are left to negotiate these railway constructions with Germany, they will be in an inferior situation. They want the support of their Allies in pressing for this construction, and they therefore ask for the maintenance of the Article.

M Hymans (Belgium) thanks Dr Kramarcz for his explanation in regard to Belgium as well as his own country. Dr Kramarcz has been a Member of the Commission and he himself has not, and is not familiar with the question. He has had no opportunity to confer with the Belgian Delegate on the Commission, but he is a very competent person and he knows that the lines he has asked for are only what is reasonable. He understands that the Germans object to the very general provisions in the original draft Treaty. The new text provides for the construction only of a few lines, none of them very extensive. This should be a great relief to the Germans and from their point of view, an improvement on the old Treaty. Hence, he agrees with Dr Kramarcz in pressing strongly for the retention of the amendment.

Mr Lloyd George asks Dr Benes (Belgium) and J Hymans whether the proposed railways are of sufficient importance for it to be worth while for the Czechoslovak and Belgian Governments respectively to construct the railways in Germany at their own expense.

Dr Benes explains that in regard to the connection between the stations of Schlauney and Nachod it would be worth while, as this railway is important for the conveyance of coal from Upper Silesia.

M Hymans is unable to answer the question, but undertakes to send an expert.

After some further explanations have been given by Dr Kramarcz and Dr Benes on a map, the Belgian and Czechoslovak Delegates withdraw.

(After consultation with the British expert, Colonel Henniker, the Council decides that instead of deleting Article 373 in accordance with the decision taken on the previous day, a new Article 373 should be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, providing that within a period of five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the Czechoslovak State may require the construction at the expense of the Czechoslovak State of a connection between the stations of Schlauney and Nachod.

An instruction to the Drafting Committee in this sense is initialed by the representatives of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers.)

(Note: The Belgian technical representative did not arrive.)

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 16:45

Meeting of the Council of Five with the Representatives from Poland.


1. President Wilson explains that the Council has three points which they wish to discuss with the representatives of Poland. The first relates to the re-adjustment of the frontier, with which Mr Paderewski is familiar. The Council wishes to leave the Germans with no excuse for a grievance on ethnological grounds. The second relates to Upper Silesia and the proposal for a plebiscite. The third point, with which he will deal first, is a financial one. A general clause in the Treaty provides that by way of reparation countries like France and Great Britain can appropriate property or assets of German nationals in their countries and use them to make good the loss of French or British nationals in Germany. The German Government has to reimburse their nationals in their own country. The Council feels that a different principle ought to apply in territory taken from Germany. In the Austrian Treaty for example they propose to apply a different principle in the case of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Considering the application of this to the case of Poland, he says that German property in Upper Silesia and in the part of Poland that had formerly been German can be liquidated by the Polish Government but under the proposed procedure the proceeds will have to be paid to the German owner. If he has any complaints to make he will refer them to a mixed tribunal. The proposal had first been made in the case of Upper Silesia but it had been decided to apply it to the whole of the territory transferred from Germany to Poland.

Mr Dmowski asks if it is clear that this principle only applies to Polish territory taken from Germany and not to the remainder of Poland.

President Wilson explains that the Council had begun by applying it only to Upper Silesia and then they had decided to apply it to the other territory taken from Germany.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Economic Commission had recommended the adoption of this principle everywhere without discrimination.

Mr Paderewski says that the Polish Government does not entertain the idea of any expropriation without payment.

President Wilson says the Council feels assured of this but nevertheless has not felt at liberty to make the change without the approval of the Polish Government.


2. President Wilson says that as regards the frontiers, the desire of the Council has been not to give any excuse to the Germans for incidents disturbing the peace. The Germans do not deny the preponderance of Poles in Upper Silesia. What they do deny is the desire of the population to become Polish. Provision is now in contemplation for a plebiscite by communes. He feels confident that the result will be that the industrial regions will elect to become Polish. In order to get rid of certain adverse influences the plebiscite is to be delayed and during this period an occupation by the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers is under consideration.

Mr Paderewski says that he cannot conceal the fact that this decision is a very serious blow to Poland. First, it will affect the people of Poland sentimentally. They believe President Wilson’s principles like the Gospel. The second reason is that it will cause bitter disappointment. If the plebiscite does not bring the result he hoped for it will be their poor neighbors of Polish race who will be the first to suffer. For centuries they have been treated like slaves. They have been driven out of their country and sent to Westphalia and compelled to forced labor in Berlin and elsewhere. They had hoped in future to live decent lives on their ancestral soil. If the plebiscite did not come up to expectations it will cause terrible disappointment. Thirdly, the country, owing to the plebiscite, will be in a chaotic condition and he hopes, therefore, that it will be taken within three or six months of the Peace in order to quieten things down. It will increase the excitement in Poland. The plebiscite is not like an election, since it is to decide the destiny of the country perhaps for centuries. The people will become demoralized. All sorts of impossible and unreasonable promises will be made. This is why the people of Poland do not accept the idea. The Polish Delegation can only accept the decision with profound respect but with deep sorrow.

President Wilson says that Mr Paderewski has taken up a very fine position which considerably shakes him.

Mr Lloyd George says that he also was much moved by the case put by Mr Paderewski for whom he had the very greatest personal respect. It was only after the deepest consideration that he had come to the conclusion that a plebiscite was desirable. According to his information, Mr Paderewski need not fear the result in the mining districts which were more independent than rural districts.

President Wilson says that an American observer who had just returned from Upper Silesia reported that there was a general desire for attachment to Poland.

Mr Dmowski says that he is fairly confident of the result, especially in the mining districts. Fifty years ago these people had only been Poles by language. Since then with the spread of education had begun the development of national conscience. In the western districts if the plebiscite should now give the wrong results this development would nevertheless continue and within twenty years there would be a great desire for union with Poland.

President Wilson points out that the League of Nations had made provision for such conditions. It is recognised that the present Conference cannot provide for all time and this is why this provision has been made under the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Mr Lloyd George says that in the House of Commons he had made a great point of this and had emphasized the impossibility of laying down conditions for all time.

Mr Dmowski asked whether provision was made for the evacuation of Upper Silesia by the Germans during the interval before the plebiscite. When they are withdrawn what administration will be enforced?

President Wilson says that the Commission to be set up will arrange this.

Mr Dmowski insists on the importance that the Commission should employ equally Germans and Poles.

President Wilson says that the scheme provides fully for this.

Mr Dmowski says that though he knows the decision was already taken he must, for the salvation of his soul, point out certain changes in the frontier, which, in his opinion, ought to have been made so as to include the districts of Bomst and Meserytz in Poland. In reply to a question he said he had put this point to the Commission.

(Mr Paderewski and Mr Dmowski then withdraw.)

(Later in the Meeting, it is agreed that the plebiscite instead of being held within one to two years after the establishment of the Commission in the district, should be held “not sooner than six months or later than eighteen months after the establishment of the Commission in the district”.

A copy of the Articles relative to the carrying out of the plebiscite in Upper Silesia, containing this amendment, is initialed by the representatives of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers and handed to Mr Fromageot and Mr Hurst, who are present in connection with another question.)

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 18:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


1. The Council has before them a memorandum on the observations presented by the German Delegation relative to Part 9 of the Treaty, (Financial Clauses) prepared by the Financial Com-Financial mission.

(This Memorandum had been read by Members between the morning and afternoon meetings and is approved without amendment.)

A copy of the Memorandum is initialed by the representatives of the five States, since it provides for certain alterations in the Treaty of Peace.

The initialed copy for the Drafting Committee is handed to Mr Hurst, who, with M Fromageot, attends the Council later in the meeting in connection with another question.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate a copy of the Memorandum to the Secretary-General, for the information of the Editing Committee.)

M Fromageot and Mr Hurst, of the Drafting Committee, are present during the following discussion.


2. The Council has before them the draft reply of the Commission on Belgian and Danish affairs to remarks of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace.

The reply with regard to Belgium is approved subject to a verbal alteration in line 5 of the English version, the word “offset” being substituted for “effect”.

In regard to Schleswig, the Council decides in principle to drop the idea of the plebiscite in the most southerly of the three zones. This decision is taken in view of the objections of the Danish Government.

M Fromageot and Mr Hurst are instructed without waiting for any initialed authority to proceed with the necessary alterations in the Treaty of Peace with Germany to give effect to this decision.

The Council feels, however, that in view of M Tardieu’s exceptional knowledge in this subject, the matter should be brought to his personal notice in case he might have any special objections to offer, in which case he should arrange with the Drafting Committee not to make those alterations without further questions.

M Tardieu’s attention is also to be drawn to the fact that, if the plebiscite were dropped, the memorandum on Schleswig would require alteration accordingly.

The whole of the memorandum from the Heading “Article 34” onward is struck out by the Council. A question raised in the note of the Financial Commission attached to the report of the Commission on Belgian and Danish Affairs gives rise to a discussion which leads to no change in the Treaty of Peace or in the reply to the Germans.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate these decisions to the Secretary-General for the information of the Editing Committee.)


3. After the reading of the memorandum from the President of the Financial Commission dated 11th June, 1919, attached to the report on Belgian and Schleswig Affairs,

Mr Lloyd George says that this raises a very important question, namely, as to what was the position in regard to Reparation of territories which were German at the beginning of the war. For example, are Danzig and Upper Silesia, both very wealthy states, to bear no part of the burden of the reparation?

M Clemenceau says that they ought to pay.

Mr Hurst says that in regard to Danzig, nothing is provided as to a contribution for reparation.

President Wilson says that whatever views anyone might hold about Poland, the Polish people have been compelled to fight for the Central Powers. They had had no choice. Their territory had been devastated by Russia as well as by Germany. They had suffered as hard a fate as any nation in the war. As all had from the first agreed that Poland was one of the nations to be redeemed by the war, the question arose as to whether any share of German reparation ought to be subtracted from her. The question which Mr Lloyd George raised, he says, had been discussed again and again and had been given up because no decision could be reached. He recalled the discussions on the subject in connection with Austria and the proposals for a book-keeping arrangement.

Mr Lloyd George reminds his colleagues that in the Austrian Treaty, an arrangement had been reached which he understood was going to be incorporated in the Treaty after discussion with the States formerly constituting Austria.

President Wilson urges that to take up this question involving a long delay is risky in view of the urgency of obtaining peace in the following week.

Mr Lloyd George says at least it is important to ascertain how the matter stands.

President Wilson says it had been a fixed principle that nothing must be added to the burden imposed on Germany by the Draft Treaty handed to the German Delegates.

Mr Lloyd George points out that to make Danzig and Upper Silesia take a share of Reparation would not be increasing, but lightening the burden on Germany, since these territories would not be German.

Baron Sonnino suggests that as Danzig is to be separated from Germany against its will, some consideration ought to be allowed to it.

M Clemenceau says the amount involved is small.

Mr Lloyd George says that there are 1,000,000 people in the Danzig area, while Upper Silesia provides one-third of the coal of Germany. The sum involved, therefore, is by no means small. He would like to make some provision in the parts of the Treaty relating to Upper Silesia providing that if any part of Upper Silesia goes to Poland there should be a joint consideration between Germany, Poland and the Commission as to how much of the burden of reparation was to be borne.

Baron Sonnino says that this would furnish a tremendous argument against a vote in favour of going to Poland.

President Wilson says he regrets the matter had been overlooked, but he thinks it is now too late.

M Clemenceau suggests that some agreement should be made with the Poles.

Mr Lloyd George says it could only be a free-will offering on the part of the Poles.

President Wilson thinks that in view of the political considerations involved this is the only fair method.

Mr Lloyd George says that by not adopting his proposal, the Council would not be letting off the Poles, but only the rich Germans inhabiting Silesia would be released from their appropriate share of reparation. It is not just to say to Silesia that if she votes out of Germany she will escape a payment of perhaps 500 million pounds. This is loading the dice against Germany.

President Wilson protests strongly against the use of this term. He points out that he is not obliged under the Armistice to agree to a plebiscite in Upper Silesia at all, as No. 13 of the Fourteen Points is perfectly clear on the subject. He had only conceded the plebiscite to meet Mr Lloyd George’s principles. So far as Germany is concerned, having accepted the Fourteen Points, she had no case to claim a plebiscite. He does not say that Mr Lloyd George has no case to claim this, but only that Germany had not. As the population had been ground down under the land-owners, it would not be loading the dice to make it exempt from sharing Germany’s burden of reparation.

Baron Sonnino points out that the effect of no share of reparation being taken by Upper Silesia would be to offer the rich proprietors of the land and of the mines a strong inducement to use their influence to the utmost to vote against Germany.

Mr Lloyd George says he must make a strong protest against the release of Upper Silesia from taking any share of reparation. He does not feel that he could withdraw the suggestion that it was loading the dice, although of course, this has no personal application.

President Wilson says that nevertheless he must strongly demur to the use of this term.

M Clemenceau said that as a matter of principle Mr Lloyd George is right, but he thinks to adopt his plan in practice would probably not be politic.

Mr Lloyd George says that this might cost scores of millions of pounds to the British Empire, and hundreds of millions to France, and he feels bound to make the strongest protest.

(The discussion is adjourned.)


4. The Council has before them a note by Mr Hurst on the question of Danzig, which they discuss with Mr Hurst and M Fromageot.

As the result of this discussion it is decided that the sentence as to the protection of the League of Nations in Paragraph 102 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, which has been suppressed in consequence of a decision taken by the Council on May 24th, should be reinstated.

M Fromageot and Mr Hurst are authorized to make this alteration without further authority. Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate the decision to the Secretary-General.


5. Mr Hurst says that he and M Fromageot have been deputized by a joint meeting of the Drafting Committee and the Editing Committee to obtain a decision of the Council as to whether the five days to be allowed for the German Delegation to decide whether or not they would sign the Treaty of Peace included the three days’ notice which had to be given for the denunciation of the Armistice. A further question arises as to whether the notification of the denunciation of the Armistice should be made in a separate note or at the end of the letter covering detailed replies to the German note.

It is agreed:

1) That the five days allowed for the German Delegation within which to make a declaration as to whether they were prepared to sign should include the three days required for the denunciation of the Armistice.

2) That a separate communication on this subject should be sent to the German Delegation.

3) That the letter covering the detailed replies to the German Delegation should also end with a statement to the same effect.


6. On the suggestion of M Fromageot and Mr Hurst, it is agreed that the Drafting Committee should prepare for the use of the Germans a clean copy of the Treaty of Peace, showing in red ink the alterations provided for in the reply to the to the Germans.

Note: Owing to the numerous alterations in the Military Section and the Polish Section, however, reprints of those two sections will be presented.

[Jimbuna]

15th June 1919

Aftermath of War

Counter proposals by German Government published.

British aviators John Alcock and Arthur Brown completes the first non-stop transatlantic flight from Newfoundland to Ireland.


John Alcock and Arthur Brown enjoying breakfast after their non-stop flight across the Atlantic.


American Federation of Labor demonstrates in Washington D.C. against prohibition of alcohol on grounds that drinking is a workers’ right.


The German Mephisto A7V Tank unloads off the SS Armagh at Brisbane.


Ship Losses:

Flottbeck (Imperial German Navy) The Ditmar Koel-class Vorpostenboot was sunk by mines 35 miles north west of Norderney.
Vesterby (Sweden) The cargo ship, en route from Antwerp to Kolding, sank after striking a mine in Danish waters. The crew was saved.

[Sailor Steve]

Sunday, June 15, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

16th June 1919

Aftermath of War

Allies reply to German counter proposals presented and published.

Troops under Pancho Villa attack Mexican government soldiers at Ciudad Juárez but are defeated by the combined forces of the Mexican government and U.S. troops crossing over from El Paso. U.S. armored cars at El Paso.


Helen Keller met with Charlie Chaplin during the filming of “Sunnyside.”


Ship Losses:

HMS Kinross (Royal Navy) The Aberdare-class minesweeper struck a mine and sank in the Aegean Sea.

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, June 16, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 11:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


(M Clemenceau and M Mantoux are not present during the discussion of the first few items.)


1. The Council has before them a memorandum by the Economic Commission, headed Periods of Time, recommending certain alterations in the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

(After the memorandum has been read, it is agreed that these alterations should not be approved.)


2. The Council has before them a suggested modification in Article 276c of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

(After the proposed alteration has been read, it is agreed that it is not necessary to make the alteration.)


3. The Council has before them proposals of the Special Aeronautical Committee in regard to the exportation and subsequent repurchase of aeronautical material in Germany. At the end of this memorandum it was proposed that the measures, if adopted, should be extended to all enemy States and to all war material.

(After the memorandum has been read, it is agreed that the proposals should not be adopted.)


4. The Council has before them Report No 5 by the Committee on New States, recommending an additional Article for insertion in the Treaty of Peace with committee on Germany after Article 93, or after Article 155.

Mr Lloyd George says that the only effect of this would be to make the Germans suspicious.

(After the proposed addition has been read, it is agreed that the proposals of the Committee on Minorities should not be adopted.)


5. Sir Maurice Hankey reports that on the previous day, a verbal alteration of the revised Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, on the subject of Religious Missions, which had been approved by the Council on Saturday, June 14th,1 had been initialed by President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George, and had provisionally been acted on by the Drafting Committee. They had felt justified in doing this, as the British and United States Governments were more concerned than other Governments in the alteration. He now asks for the initials of the representatives of the other states.

The alteration in question consists of the substitution for the following words, “composed of persons belonging to the same or corresponding religious denomination as the Mission whose property is involved” by the following, “composed of persons holding the faith of the Mission whose property is involved.”

Mr Lloyd George says that the reason for the change is that there is no religious denomination in the British Empire precisely corresponding to the German Lutheran denomination. The word faith had been substituted for denomination, as it would enable other denominations closely akin to the Lutherans, such as the Presbyterians, to take over the Lutheran Missions.

Baron Sonnino does not much like the word faith, the use of which, he says, would bring about difficulties with the Vatican.

(After a discussion, in the course of which the proposed declaration to the Vatican is brought up, Baron Sonnino withdrew his objections, and the revised Article 438 is initialed by M Clemenceau, Baron Sonnino and Baron Makino.)

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward the initialed copy to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.


6. Mr Lloyd George hands in the draft of a Declaration which it is proposed to make to the Vatican in regard to German Missions.

The draft is read, and in the course of the discussion, the following alterations were made:

Paragraph 2) Last line. At the suggestion of Baron Makino, the words “in Africa and Asia Minor” were omitted.

Baron Makino points out that there might be Missions in the Pacific Islands also.

Paragraph 3) Baron Sonnino suggests that the following words in lines 10 to 13 might cause considerable difficulties: “the property of Missions under the Holy See will be placed at the disposal of persons of the Roman Catholic faith authorized thereto by the Holy See.”

The Council approves of the following substitute:

“The property of Missions under the Holy See will be placed at the disposal of properly authorized persons of the Roman Catholic faith”, the following words being omitted: “authorized thereto by the Holy See.”

President Wilson says that he cannot accept the following additional paragraph, which had been proposed in case it were desired to apply the declaration to territory other than mandated territory:

“These principles laid down by International agreement for territories administered under mandate will also be observed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in all territories belonging to them.”

(It is agreed to omit this paragraph.)

Baron Makino asks, however, that the final decision might be reserved until the afternoon.


7. The Council has before them a draft paragraph for inclusion in the reply by the Allies to the German Counter-proposals on the subject of Memel.

(This reply is approved subject to the following addition after the word “sovereignty.”

“particularly in view of the fact that Memel is the only sea outlet for Lithuania.”

A copy of the paragraph, as finally approved, is handed to M Tardieu for the Editing Committee.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General.)


8. M Clemenceau says M Loucheur had pressed for a small verbal alteration on page 6 of the reply to the German Counter-proposals on the subject Reparation: of Reparation.

(After a short discussion, it is agreed that the following sentence should be deleted: “Suitable facilities for inspecting the damage done will be afforded to Germany’s Agents at reasonable times” and that the following sentence should be substituted:“The necessary facilities for making reliable estimates of the damage done by her will be afforded to Germany.”

The change was communicated by Sir Maurice Hankey to M Loucheur and M Tardieu, who were in the adjoining Room.)


9. Baron Sonnino hands in a letter, dated June 14th, 1919, addressed by S Orlando to M Clemenceau, as President of the Peace Conference, on the subject of the peculiar difficulties which would face Italy should the signature of the Conditions of Peace with Germany take place before the settlement of the future Italian boundaries. This, as explained in detail in the letter, arises from the fact that the signature of the Peace Treaty with Germany implies also the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations, one of the clauses of which, contemplates reciprocal guarantees for the territories of the signing powers.

S Orlando had telegraphed, Baron Sonnino continued, to ask that Italy’s reserve should be recorded, namely:

“That the Italian Delegation is of opinion that the Clauses of the League of Nations, just because they refer to a territorial asset already established, do not apply to any of those arrangements and to those questions connected with them, which form the object of the Peace and which have not been settled yet.”

S Orlando had always hoped, when giving his previous warnings on the subject, that the question of the Italian claims might be regulated before the signature of the German Treaty, and thus it is imperative to make these reservations now.

President Wilson suggests that these reservations are entirely unnecessary, since none of these mooted questions arise out of the Peace with Germany. The Austrian Treaty, he points out, also contains the Covenant of the League of Nations, and lays down that Austria agrees to recognize some of the States within boundaries to be decided by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Consequently, the League of Nations Covenant cannot apply to an unclosed question.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that Baron Sonnino should write a letter to the Council.

Baron Sonnino says that it will be sufficient for the moment if his reservation is taken note of on the procès-verbal.

(It is agreed to take formal note of the reservation contained in S Orlando’s letter of June 14th, 1919.)


10. The text of an agreement between the United States of America, France and Great Britain, in regard to the Rhine Provinces, was approved by M Clemenceau, Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson.

Mr Lloyd George points out that some similar arrangement will have to be made with Belgium. Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to prepare a copy for signature.


11. Sir Maurice Hankey says he has received a telephone message from the Drafting Committee stating that the Rhine Convention is now practically ready to be handed to the Germans. The material given the Drafting Committee had not specified who were to be the High Contracting Parties. As the Italian representative on the Drafting Committee had stated that Italy would like to be a High Contracting Party, notwithstanding that she was not represented on the High Commission, the Drafting Committee had included Italy as well as Belgium with the British, French and United States as High Contracting Parties.

Baron Sonnino says that the only object of making Italy a High Contracting Party is to enable her to send a Military Attaché to the High Commission in order to keep her informed of what was going on.

At the Commission which considered this subject Lord Robert Cecil had said that Italy could always send a liaison officer.

M Clemenceau doubts if there is much value to Italy in a liaison officer who would only [apparent omission] between operative bodies.

Baron Sonnino says that if there is to be no Italian liaison officer, it is no use Italy being a High Contracting Party.

(It is agreed:

1) That Italy should not be a High Contracting Party.

(This is immediately notified to the Drafting Committee by Sir Maurice Hankey.)

2) That the Convention should be handed to the German Delegation at the same time as the reply to the German Counter-proposals.)


12. President Wilson says he is to be away at Brussels from the evening of Tuesday, June 17th, until the morning of Friday, June 20th.

Mr Lloyd George says he too contemplates a short absence.

(The Council then adjourns upstairs for the discussion of certain military questions with the Military Representatives at Versailles, those proceedings being recorded as a separate meeting.)




ALLIED REPLY TO GERMAN COUNTER-PROPOSAL

(Finally approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on afternoon of June 11th, 1919, with a small amendment, approved on the morning of June 16th.)

The Allied and Associated Governments, consistently with their policy already expressed, decline to enter into a discussion of the principles underlying the Reparation Clauses of the Conditions of Peace, which have been prepared with scrupulous regard for the correspondence leading up to the Armistice of November 11th, 1918, the final memorandum of which dated 5th November, 1918, contains the following words:

“Further, in the conditions of peace laid down in his address to Congress of the 8th January, 1918, the President declared that the invaded territories must be restored as well as evacuated and freed, and the Allied Governments feel that no doubt ought to be allowed to exist as to what this provision implies. By it they understand that compensation will be made by Germany for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air.”

To the extent that your reply deals with practical phases of the execution of the principles enunciated in the Conditions of Peace, you appear to proceed on the basis of a complete misapprehension, which is the more difficult to understand as the inferences you draw and the statements which you make are wholly at variance with both the letter and the spirit of the Treaty Clauses. For purposes of clarification, however, and in order that there may be no possible ground for misunderstanding, the Allied and Associated Governments submit the following observations:

The vast extent and manifold character of the damage caused to the Allied and Associated Governments in consequence of the war has created a reparation problem of extraordinary magnitude and complexity, only to be solved by a continuing body, limited in personnel and invested with broad powers to deal with the problem in relation to the general economic situation. The Allied and Associated Powers, recognizing this situation, themselves delegate power and authority to a Reparation Commission. This Reparation Commission is, however, instructed by the Treaty itself so to exercise and interpret its powers as to ensure in the interest of all, as early and complete a discharge by Germany of her reparation obligations as is consistent with the true maintenance of the social, economic and financial structure of a Germany earnestly striving to exercise her full power to repair the loss and damage she has caused.

The provisions of Article 241, by which the German Government is to invest itself with such powers as may be needed to carry out its obligations, are not to be misconstrued as giving the Commission power to dictate the domestic legislation of Germany. Nor does Paragraph 12 (b), of Annex II, give the Commission power to prescribe or enforce taxes or to dictate the character of the German budget, but it is to examine the latter for two specified purposes. This is necessary in order that it may intelligently and constructively exercise the discretion accorded to it in Germany’s interest particularly by Article 234, with regard to extending the date and modifying the form of payments. The provisions of Article 240 with regard to the supply of information are similar in character and purpose and there should be little occasion for the exercise of these powers when once the amount of the liability of Germany is fixed, if Germany is in a position to, and does, comply with the schedule of payments which then will have been notified to her and with the specific provisions of the several Annexes relative to reparation in kind. It is further to be observed that the power of modification accorded by the said Article 234 is expressly designed to permit of a modification in Germany’s interest of a schedule of payments which events may demonstrate to be beyond Germany’s reasonable capacity. The Allied and Associated Powers vigorously reject the suggestion that the Commission, in exercising the power conferred by Article 240 and by Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Annex IV, might require the divulgence of trade secrets and similar confidential data.

The observations of the German Delegation present a view of the Commission so distorted and so inexact, that it is difficult to believe that the clauses of the Treaty have been calmly or carefully examined. It is not an engine of oppression or a device for interfering with German Sovereignty. It has no forces, which it commands; it has no executive powers within the territory of Germany; it cannot, as is suggested, direct or control the educational or other systems of the country. Its business is to fix what is to be paid; to satisfy itself that Germany can pay; and to report to the Powers, whose Delegation it is, in case Germany makes default. If Germany raises the money required in her own way, the Commission cannot order that it shall be raised in some other way; if Germany offers payment in kind, the Commission may accept such payment, but, except as specified in the Treaty itself, the Commission cannot require such a payment. The German observations appear to miss the point that the Commission is directed to study the German system of taxation for the protection of the German people no less than for the protection of their own. Such study is not inquisitorial, for the German system of taxation is not an object of curiosity to other Powers, nor is a knowledge of it an end in itself. If any plea of inability which the German Government may advance, is to be properly considered, such a study is necessary. The Commission must test whether a sincere application is being given to the principle, accepted in the observations “that the German taxation system should impose in general on the taxpayer at least as great a burden as that prevailing in the most heavily burdened of the States represented on the Reparation Commission”. If the German resources are to be properly weighed, the first subject of inquiry, and perhaps the first ground for relief, will be the German fiscal burden.

It is understood that the action necessary to give effect to the provisions of Annex IV, relative to reparation in kind, will be taken by Germany on its own initiative, after receipt of notification from the Reparation Commission.

The provisions of the Treaty are in no wise incompatible with the creation by Germany of a Commission which will represent Germany in dealings with the Reparation Commission and which will constitute an instrumentality for such co-operation as may be necessary. The Treaty specifically and repeatedly provides opportunities for the German Government to present facts and arguments with respect to claims and modes of payments, within the limits of the principles and express provisions of the Treaty. This may be done through a commission and no reason is perceived why such a commission could not work in harmony with the Reparation Commission. Certainly this is greatly to be desired. The Allied and Associated Powers are therefore ready to agree to such a procedure as the following:

Immediately after the Treaty is signed, Germany may present and the Allied and Associated Powers will receive and examine such evidence, estimates and arguments, as she may think fit to present. Such documents need not be final but may be presented subject to corrections and additions.

At any time within four months of the signature of the Treaty, Germany shall be at liberty to submit, and the Allied and Associated Powers will receive and consider, such proposals as Germany may choose to make. In particular, proposals will be acceptable on the following subjects and for the following purposes: Germany may offer a lump sum in settlement of her whole liability, or in settlement of her liability under any of the particular categories which have been decided upon and laid down. Germany may offer to undertake to repair and reconstruct part of the whole of any damaged district, or certain classes of damage in each country or in all the countries which have suffered. Germany may offer labor, materials or technical service for use in such work, even though she does not undertake to do the work herself. She may suggest any practicable plan, category by category, or for the reparations as a whole, which will tend to shorten the period of inquiry and bring about a prompt and effectual conclusion. Without making further specifications, it may be said in a word that Germany is at liberty to make any suggestion or offer of a practical and reasonable character for the purposes of simplifying the assessment of the damage, eliminating any question or questions from the scope of the detailed inquiry, promoting the performance of the work and accelerating the definition of the ultimate amount to be paid. The necessary facilities for making reliable estimates of the damage done by her will be afforded to Germany. Three conditions and three only are imposed upon the tender of these proposals. Firstly, the German authorities will be expected before making such proposals to confer with the representatives of the Powers directly concerned. Secondly, such offers must be unambiguous, and must be precise and clear. Thirdly, they must accept the categories and the reparation clauses as matters settled beyond discussion. The Allied and Associated Powers will not entertain arguments or appeals directed to any alteration. The Allied and Associated Powers have to remark that in the Observations submitted the German Delegation has made no definite offer at all but only vague expressions of willingness to do something undefined. A sum of £5,000,000,000 is indeed mentioned, and this is calculated to give the impression of an extensive offer, which upon examination it proves not to be. No interest is to be paid at all. It is evident that till 1927 there is no substantial payment but only the surrender of military material and the devolution upon other Powers of large portions of Germany’s own debt. Thereafter a series of undefined installments is to be agreed, which are not to be completed for nearly half a century. The present value of this distant prospect is small, but it is all that Germany tenders to the victims of her aggression in satisfaction of their past sufferings and their permanent burdens.

Within two months thereafter the Allied and Associated Powers will so far as may be possible, return their answer to any proposals that may be made. It is impossible to declare in advance that they will be accepted, and if accepted, they may be subject to conditions, which can be discussed and arranged. The Allied and Associated Powers, however, declare that such proposals will be seriously and fairly considered; no one could be better pleased than they, if, in the result, a fair, speedy, and a practical settlement were arrived at. The questions are bare questions of fact, namely, the amount of the liabilities, and they are susceptible of being treated in this way. Beyond this, the Powers cannot be asked to go.

The Powers will, however, make a declaration on another point, as follows: The resumption of German industry involves access by the German people to food supplies and by the German manufacturers to the necessary raw materials and provision for their transport to Germany from overseas. The resumption of German industry is an interest of the Allied and Associated Powers as well as an interest of Germany. They are fully alive to this fact and therefore declare that they will not withhold from Germany commercial facilities without which this resumption cannot take place, but that, subject to conditions and within limits, which cannot be laid down in advance, and, subject also to the necessity for having due regard to the special economic situation created for Allied and Associated countries by German aggression and the war, they are prepared to afford to Germany facilities in these directions for the common good.

Even if no settlement were arrived at, it must be evident that the early production of the German evidence would greatly abbreviate the inquiry, and accelerate the decisions. The information at present at hand comes from one side only. The German Authorities have had long occupation of a large part of the damaged areas and have been over the ground, forwards and backwards, within the last twelve or fifteen months. Their information must be extensive and exact. The Allied and Associated Powers have as yet had no access to this mass of material. The mere comparison of the evidence forthcoming on the one side and the other must greatly narrow the field of dispute and may eliminate dispute altogether. It is obvious that, if the class of damages done in the devastated areas can be dealt with in this fashion, the liability under the other categories can be quickly established, for it depends on the statistics and particulars of a far simpler character. By giving a satisfactory covenant to execute the work of rebuilding themselves, the Germans could at once dispose of the only difficult or long subject of inquiry.

Meanwhile, the draft Treaty must be accepted as definitive and must be signed. The Allied and Associated Powers cannot any longer delay to assure their security. Germany cannot afford to deny to her populations the peace which is offered to them. The Reparations Commission must be constituted and must commence its task. The only question open will be how best to execute the provisions of the Treaty.

The foregoing should suffice to demonstrate the reasonableness of the conditions under which Germany is to discharge her reparation obligations, and how utterly unfounded are the criticisms of the German reply. These are, indeed, explicable only on the theory that the German plenipotentiaries have read into the Conditions of Peace, in clear defiance of their express terms, an intent which it would be not unnatural to see evidenced by victorious nations which have been the victims of cruelty and devastation on a vast and premeditated scale. The burdens of Germany undeniably are heavy, but they are imposed under conditions of justice by peoples whose social well-being and economic prosperity have been gravely impaired by wrongs which it is beyond the utmost power of Germany to repair.

Paris, 11 June, 1919. (Published 16 June.)

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, June 16, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 12:30

Meeting of the Council of Five


1. (The Council agrees to accept the Military Clauses as amended by the Military Representatives.)

(The Council agrees to accept the Clauses relating to the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control.)

(The Council agrees to accept the Military, Naval and Aerial Clauses (General Clauses) as amended at the meeting held on May 15th, 1919.)


2. (The Council accepts Joint Note No. 44 to the Supreme War Council by its Military Representatives, on the subject of the Military Measures to be taken in Bulgaria.)