100 Years Ago Today [Archive] - Page 15 - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Sailor Steve

01-22-19, 08:07 PM

January 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 4

1100: This morning's meeting is again held in M Pichon's hotel suite.

1. With Marshall Foch in attendance the Polish matter is the topic of discussion. It is generally believed the best thing is to remove the Polish army from French control and send them to Danzig to protect against possible Bolshevist attacks. When M Orlando mentions Polish troops then in Italy, Marshall Foch replies that with the combined power in France and Italy it might be possible to raise as many as four full divisions of Polish troops. The Poles say that the Germans hold Danzig, and would not allow Polish troops to land there. It is decided that the troops should take the southern railway to get to Russian Poland only, and Marshall Foch estimates one month to complete the operation and have the troops in place.

Mr Balfour points out that the Poles want more than just Russian Poland, but that Danzig is comprised mostly of Germans who do not want to be part of Poland. President Wilson shares his doubts about all this, and states that he believes the Allies should support Polish occupation of Russian Poland only. His reasoning is that "If you have to take a thing by force, the inference is that it does not belong to you". Further, Polish Prime Minister Paderewski has stated that he doesn't need Allied troops, just arms and ammunition. Mr Lloyd George points out that the Romanians are in a similar situation but have not asked for help. President Wilson replies that Mr Paderewski has asked for help specifically for Eastern Poland, and doesn't mention Danzig in his telegrams. Lloyd George says that the Poles are not united, and Paderewski might not be able to maintain order or control once things get started. Wilson urges caution in dealing with this matter.

The last discussion of the morning meeting concerns British sea support for Poland. It is decided that discussions must wait until the British delegates can consult with London over the matter.

1515: The afternoon meeting is again held in M Pichon's suite.

1. The question of how to deal with the Russians is again raised. A proclamation written by President Wilson is read and adopted, saying that the Allies support the Revolution, will in no way interfere with internal Russian matters, and will respect whatever Russian government comes out of the current strife.

2. Mr Lloyd George presents a preliminary draft of resolutions for a League of Nations. It is mainly concerned with preparing a Constitution for that Body. Baron Makino gives the Japanese view of the League, but when asked if these opinions can be made public replies that he prefer they remain private. President Wilson points out that Lloyd George's draft contains nothing new, so Japan's feelings on the subject should be known to all involved. Mr Lloyd George inquires as to whether Japan wishes to not be represented on the League committee. Baron Makino replies that, to the contrary, Japan does wish to be represented. He further states that Japan agrees to most of the points, but would like to be able to adjust their views when further developments warrant it.

Mr Lloyd George proposes that two delegates from each nation be appointed to the League Drafting Committee. President Wilson suggests that the drafting committee only involve delegates from the Great Powers, with the smaller countries sending delegates to a "Criticizing Committee" to approve or reject the Drafting Committee's proposals. Mr Lloyd George then suggests that the Great Powers form the Drafting Committee, but then invite Lesser Powers of their choosing to join. President Wilson counters with the idea that, rather than allow delegates from the Lesser Powers, the Drafting Committee call in the best minds from those nations to advise and consult on the proposals of the Drafting Committee. M Clemenceau points out that, while the Lesser Powers would likely contribute nothing more than following the lead of the Great Powers, it was nevertheless necessary that the Lesser Powers see themselves as contributors and not just bystanders. He proposes that the Lesser Powers consult among themselves and between them select five delegates to sit on the Drafting Committee. M Sonnino points out that each of the more important Small Powers will want a delegate of their own, which will already total more than five. He suggests a larger committee. President Wilson objects that the Committee would be to unwieldly to get anything done. He proposes that the Drafting Committee remain small, but as soon as any draft is prepared it be immediately shown to all the Lesser Powers for consultation and approval or rejection. Mr Lloyd George states that the Smaller Powers are already complaining about being excluded from the current proceedings. He further points out that a draft of sorts has already been created, so a larger Committee should be able to handle it fairly quickly. M Clemenceau states that this discussion and its resolutions should be presented to the full Peace Conference this coming Saturday.

3. Mr Lloyd George proposes a Labour Committee to be comprised of two representatives from each of the five Great Powers and five representatives total from the Lesser Powers be formed to discuss industrial relations between the nations. President Wilson suggest that a note be placed in the resolution to make it absolutely clear that the documents drafted by this committee have nothing to do with the League of Nations. It is agreed and Mr Lloyd George says he will write a new draft including the statement.

4. Mr Lloyd George proposes a committee be created consisting of three representatives from each of the Major Powers plus Belgium and Serbia, to discuss the indemnity to be paid by the Central Powers nations. President Wilson suggests that the word "indemnity" be dropped in favor of "reparation". Mr Lloyd George agrees. M Pichon points out that Greece has been excluded from representation. Mr Balfour does the same for Russian Poland. M Sonnino mentions Romania. President Wilson suggests that Belgium, Greece, Poland and Romania be given two representatives each. M Pichon suggests that Greater Poland also be included. It is agreed that Mr Lloyd George will prepare a new draft to be presented at the next meeting.

Jimbuna

01-23-19, 10:14 AM

23rd January 1919

Aftermath of War

Split between MM. Lenin and Trotsky.

General Milne's despatch of 1 December 1918 on final Balkan operations published.

Result of German Elections declared.

Arabian Commission to the Paris Peace Conference with Emir Faisal in center and T.E. Lawrence on his right.
https://i.imgur.com/VTJltV9.jpg

Ship Losses:

No. 325 (French Navy) The torpedo boat struck a mine and sank in the Mediterranean Sea off Tunis, Tunisia.
Marguerite III (France) The cargo ship sprang a leak in the Irish Sea off the Wyre Lighthouse and was abandoned. Her crew survived.

Sailor Steve

01-23-19, 06:15 PM

January 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 5

1030: M Pichon's Hotel Suite

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting with the question of whether the delegates have made their nominations for Commissioners to Poland. America has made nominations. France does so now. Britain and Italy say they have not, but will this afternoon.

2. M Clemenceau states that France has made nominations for the Russian Commission. Baron Makino says that Japan will list nominations as soon as possible.

3. Commissioners for the League of Nations are named.

4. Mr Lloyd George presents his draft on disarmament. During the discussion on this Baron Makino suggests substituting the word "reduction" for the more absolute "disarmament". Mr Lloyd George points out that this draft is for discussion purposes only, and not meant to be shown to former enemy nations. He believes that former enemy forces should be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary for internal order to be maintained. President Wilson suggests that Germany be given time to show what forces they really need before proceeding. M Clemenceau says he will call Marshall Foch to testify. Mr Lloyd George he cannot accept any judgement from Marshall Foch without equal consultation with British experts. M Clemenceau states that he will be glad to hear from British, American, and any other experts on the subject.

5. It is pointed out that the situation in Germany has worsened over the past few days. With the fall of the Spartacist Party German commanders have become more arrogant and German forces seem to be massing against Poland. This said, it is pointed out that while the Allies support Poland, they cannot condone Poland attacking Germany while at the same time asking Germany to disarm.

6. Mr Lloyd George brings up the subject of Allied forces in Europe. He says that the numbers demanded by Marshall Foch cannot be maintained. M Orlando suggests that the subject of German disarmament is one for the Disarmament Committee, not the Peace Conference. He therefore believes that the Small Powers should not be concerned with this question. M Clemenceau states that he was unaware of any demands made by Marshall Foch, and suggests that one general from Britain, France, America and Italy should meet and discuss this subject and report their opinions to the Greater Powers Committee. President Wilson agrees. It is decided that the Supreme War Council should be present at tomorrow's morning meeting.

7. M Clemenceau reads a draft from Mr Lloyd George concerning the International Legislation on Industrial and Labour Questions. M Orlando requests that the draft be put to a vote by the full Conference on Saturday. M Clemenceau says that it will be put up for discussion, but not voted on. The five Great Powers will have two delegates each to this Commission, with the Lesser Powers having five delegates between them.

8. M Pichon points out that Poland, probably the greatest victim in this area, has been omitted from the Reparations Committee. It is agreed that Poland should have a place there. A resolution on delegates to this committee is adopted.

9. A Committee on "Breaches of Law", i.e. War Crimes, is discussed. This will only apply to such breaches committed by the Central Powers.

10. M Clemenceau states that the Agenda for Saturday's General Meeting will consist of discussions on the Resolutions proposed in this meeting and that of the previous day.

11. M Clemenceau states that a number of Territorial and Colonial questions still remain. It is pointed out that it will take some time for all the nations involved to prepare documents for presentation on this question.

12. A committee is proposed for governance of Ports, Waterways and Railways. Rules for delegates are laid down.

13. M Clemenceau points out that many Financial questions remain to be discussed, mainly concerning who owes what to whom. A committee is proposed to address these questions.

14. Mr Lloyd George brings up the question of whether Reparations claims should take precedence over the national debt of the enemy countries. It is agreed that this should be addressed by the committee formed for that task.

Born on this day:

Bob Paisley, English football player & manager, born in Hetton-le-Hole, United Kingdom (died 1996).

Ernie Kovacs, American comedian and television star, born in Trenton, New Jersey (died 1962).

Hans Hass, Austrian zoologist and underwater scientist, born in Vienna, Austria (d. 2013)

Nina Dumbadze, Soviet discus thrower (Olympic bronze 1952), born in Odessa, Ukraine (died 1983).

Jimbuna

01-24-19, 07:15 AM

24th January 1919

Aftermath of War

Greeks fight Turks at Smyrna.

Fighting erupts between Poland and Czechoslovakia as Czechoslovak forces invade the disputed region of Cieszyn Silesia.

The Russian Central Committee of the Communist Party issues a resolution stating, “Therefore it is necessary to conduct mass terror against rich Cossacks by exterminating them to the last man.” (Around 300,000 to 500,000 Cossacks were killed in 1919-20).

American battleship USS Vermont with troops aboard in Brest, 24 January 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/MCcuKO4.jpg

Sailor Steve

01-24-19, 01:32 PM

Friday, January 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 6

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 10:30

1. Listing of Allied forces to remain on the Western Front while the Armistice is still in force. Between 120 and 140 infantry divisions will remain in place until German demobilization is completed. M Clemenceau asks if there are enough men available to maintain those divisions. General Weygand replies that the forces available are:
France - 900,000
Great Britain-350,000
America-450,000
Belgium-120,000
Approximate total-1,820,000

Marshal Foch points out that these numbers are combatants only, and recommends that no changes be considered until March 31. Mr Lloyd George asks why the 37 German divisions still in place should be allowed to retain their arms, when their sole purpose seems to be waiting around supply depots for food and housing. He states that the total number of Allied troops still in France is around 800,000, and they all need to be supplied. If the Germans reduce their numbers the Allies can do the same. Marshal Foch says that he understands this to mean that disarmament should be forced on the Germans. Foch also mentions a problem, that being that the Commissioners assigned this job would only see what the Germans wanted them to see, making it impossible to determine Germany's true military strength at any given time.

President Wilson mentions that it has already been stated that the German leaders have no control over their men. This means that even if rearmament is ordered it could likely not be carried out. Germany is going to have enough trouble re-establishing and economy, let alone an Army. Mr Lloyd George questions whether Britain, not being a military country at heart, might no be able to maintain the troops required. Marshal Foch's plan really means that Germany can never be trusted. Some British troops have already gone home and are obtaining good jobs, and the ones still in France are growing restless. Mr Lloyd George says he believes that all this can only be obtained when the treaties are in force, and urges that the Peace Treaty is the most important consideration, as everything hinges on it.

General Pershing, called as an expert, states that in his opinion Germany is beyond the ability to resume the war, with no navy, all her ports open to the Allies and the army mostly demobilized and disorganized. General Sir Douglas Haig disagrees, saying that until the Peace Treaty is signed the Germans are still in a position to cause a lot of trouble. Mr Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, says that he wishes to discuss British plans with Marshal Haig and Secretary of State for War Mr Churchill before making a commitment. General Diaz states that Italy is already demobilizing, and the number of German factories capable of producing arms needs to immediately be reduced to the bare minimum required for that nation's survival. President Wilson says he does not believe the German People would be willing to take up arms again, and suggests that Mr Lloyd George's statements should be drawn up as a draft that will lay all this out in unmistakable terms. In this opinion Bolshevism is the greater danger at this point.

To this end a special committee is formed to oversee German disarmament, the delegates being Mr. Churchill, M. Loucheur, Marshal Foch, General Bliss, and General Diaz.

2. The next consideration involves Allied demobilization and the awarding of medals to Allied troops. It is decided that Marshal Foch will have oversight on the creation of campaign medals for all armies involved.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 12:15

1. President Wilson presents a document to be circulated concerning former belligerents who are trying to use the Armistice as a cover for gaining new territories by force. The message warns that any nation using force to gain new territories will be in danger of losing consideration in the Peace Talks.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau asks whether the Powers had nominated their delegates for the Commission to Poland. All delegates have been nominated, but one of the British delegates, General Botha, has not yet accepted. M Clemenceau states that the Commission should not start until receiving written instructions from the Council.

2. President Wilson points out that the press will not be included, as they are fully capable of sending their own commission. To the question of whether the press may try to influence the Commission, Mr Wilson says the American Press will not be working for individual interests but for dedicated news agencies. Since very little is known of Polish politics they will likely stick to just reporting the news. M Pichon says the same is true of the French press. Mr Lloyd George proposes that each nation only be allowed to send one press member. M Clemenceau agrees. It is decided that one member of the press from each of the Five Major Powers be sent, to be appointed by the press.

3. M Clemenceau points out that most Commissions have been organized and staffed, but Financial and Economic questions have yet to be addressed. At President Wilson's suggestion this is postponed until the next day's meetings.

4. The Prime Ministers of the various British Dominions are invited in to discuss the disposal of German colonies. Mr Lloyd George proposes that each of the PMs be heard separately before discussions begin. He opines, and President Wilson agrees, that there be no question of any of said colonies being returned to Germany. M Sonnino and Baron Makino agree. The idea is adopted, with the provision that no public announcement be made at this time.

Discussion then turns to the disposition of these former colonies. It is agreed that no matter what happens concerning the governance of the colonies, the native populations must be respected and allowed to form their own economies. They will be guaranteed the right of appeal to the League of Nations. Mr Lloyd George then speaks on the disposal of the former colonies. One option is direct supervision by the League of Nations. A second involves the conquering nations taking control.

German South-West Africa is a wilderness, and unless populated by British or Dutch colonists will remain so. General Smuts says the Union of South Africa is putting in a claim for this colony. He states that it is desert, fit only for ranching, and has no real native population. He also points out the sacrificed made by South Africa during the war.

Australia already controls 1/3 of New Guinea, and no one will care if they take control of the 1/3 formerly controlled by Germany.

Samoa was conquered by New Zealand, and according to Mr Massey it should stay that way. He points out Samoa's proximity to his nation, and the hardships faced by New Zealand during the war. He also states that the native populations willingly volunteered to fight for the British during the war, and as far as anyone knew not one native had volunteered to fight for Germany.

M Clemenceau thanks the Dominion PMs for their time and promises that no action will be taken without careful consideration of their claims.

Born on this day:

Leon Kirchner, contemporary classical composer who won the 1967 Pulitzer Prize for Music 1967, was born in Brooklyn, New York (died 2009).

Jimbuna

01-25-19, 08:30 AM

25th January 1919

Aftermath of War

Czecho-Slovaks beat Poles in Galicia.

League of Nations officially recognised as part of Treaty.

Ismail Qemali, the first President and Prime Minister of Albania and considered to be the Founding Father of modern Albania, has passed away.
https://i.imgur.com/uaNC5fR.jpg

"An Interesting Experiment" (Clemenceau tries to persuade Russian Bolsheviks to live peaceably with their neighbours.)
https://i.imgur.com/2o4eUTP.jpg

Ship Losses:

E. Starr Jones (United States) The schooner ran aground off Montevideo, Uruguay and was wrecked.

Sailor Steve

01-25-19, 11:31 AM

Saturday, January 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 7

Second General Meeting, 1500

1. President Wilson makes a long speech opening general discussion on the League of Nations. This is followed by a speech from Mr Lloyd George of Britain, Mr Orlando of Italy, and M Léon Bourgeois of France, followed by short statements from Mr Hughes of Australia, Mr Lou of China, Mr Dmowski of Poland and M Hymans of Belgium. The first point of order is the appointment of delegates to the Commission for the League of Nations, specifically for examination of the Constitution of that body. At this point Mr Calogeras of Brazil raises an objection to being told what has already been decided, and demands to know who has done this deciding. Mr Robert Borden of Canada attempts to explain the difficulties of having each and every point discussed by the Council as a whole. Then come statements from Mr Venizelos of Greece, Count Penha Garcia of Portugal, Mr Benes of Czechoslovakia, Mr Bratiano of Romania and Phiya Bibadh Kosha of Siam (Thailand).

M Clemenceau responds to these members by reminding them that the 'Big Five' were the ones who decided there would be a Peace Conference in Paris, and that the others were there by invitation. He points out that no rights have been denied any nation, and that all preliminary decisions are open to discussion and dissent, as is happening right now. He then states that if every question were left for the general body to decide, nothing would ever be decided. All decisions taken in private by the 'Big Five' are subject to a vote of approval by the General Committee.

M Klotz of France then presents the proposal for the Economic Commission for the League of Nations and the Commissions for Punishments and Reparations. M Clemenceau proposes that these appointments be made on January 27. This proposal is adopted.

Annex 1. That the League be considered a vital part of the Peace Conference.

Annex 2. That a Commission be appointed to deal with the responsibilities for the war, and that a War-Crimes tribunal be convened.

Annex 3. That a Commission be appointed to deal with the question of Reparations to be paid to nations which were invaded.

Annex 4. That an International Legislation on Labour be drafted and a Commission appointed to deal with it.

Annex 5. That a Commission be appointed to deal with International Control of Ports, Waterways, and Railways.

Annex 6. That the Minutes of private meetings of the 'Big 5' be made public.

Annex 7. List of all the Commissioners appointed to the above Commissions.

The Hotel Pennsylvania opens in Manhattan. At the time it is the largest hotel in the world.

Born This Day:

Edwin Newman, American journalist & author, is born in New York City, New York (died 2010).

Jimbuna

01-26-19, 05:51 AM

26th January 1919

Aftermath of War

At the Paris Peace Conference, delegates establish the commission on the League of Nations with President Wilson as its chair.

Memorandum issued by British War Office re: Army in transition period.

Fighting at Wilhelmshaven.

Poland conducts its first free elections since independence with universal suffrage, despite ongoing fighting against Germany and Czechoslovakia. Polish soldiers on the Polish-German front.
https://i.imgur.com/JUFcaAQ.jpg

Sailor Steve

01-26-19, 01:29 PM

Sunday, January 26, 1919

The Paris Peace Conference has the day off.

Born on this day:

Valentino Mazzola, considered by some to be the best Italian footballer of all time, won his fame playing for Venezia. Killed in a plane crash May 4, 1949.

William Edward Nicholson, English football player and coach, had a career with the Tottenham Hotspur that spanned thirty-six years. Died October 23, 2003.

Khanmohammad Cassumbhoy Ibrahim, top Indian Cricketer. Died November 12, 2007.

Jimbuna

01-27-19, 07:39 AM

27th January 1919

Aftermath of War

General Russki and hostages murdered at Piatigorsk.

A French saleslady shows off a lampshade made from a flour bag, originally sent as food relief by the U.S. during the war. The bags were then repurposed to make souvenirs and to conserve material.
https://i.imgur.com/cF1Laa5.jpg

King Albert I of Belgium and Edward, Prince of Wales, review British troops marching in Brussels.
https://i.imgur.com/GYSHHq4.jpg

Sailor Steve

01-27-19, 01:40 PM

Monday, January 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 8

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 10:30

M Clemenceau opens the meeting with several questions that require discussion before the meeting actually starts:

1. A Chairman needs to be appointed for the Small Powers meetings. He recommends M Jules Cambon. This is accepted unanimously.

2. Protests have been raised by Belgium and Portugal concerning arrangements for the Conference. He intends to answer these but notes it will take several days. This is agreed to.

3. That the term "guarantees" be included in the terms of reference for the Commission on Reparations. Agreed to.

4. That the suggestion of M Klotz that there should be a Financial Commission to the League of Nations be accepted. It is accepted, and sent for draft amendment.

5. That Delegates for this Commission be nominated. France appoints M Klotz, Great Britain appoints Mr Montagu, Italy appoints Signor Salindra and Japan appoints Mr Mori. The American Delegate will be appointed shortly.

6. That a Commission on Economic Questions be created. President Wilson suggests that a distinction be made between immediate concerns and those that are part of the Peace Conference itself. M Pichon suggests that the Commission be given the power to make those distinctions. Wilson points out that Germany cannot pay reparations if she has no economy, therefore it is in the interest of the Allies to make sure that Germany's industrial strength is supported. Sr Orlando states his belief that the Commission should only be allowed to raise the questions, and not to offer solutions. Discussion ensues on the appointments for Committee members.

7. That a Commission be established to govern Maritime and Personal Law questions, such as the restoration of War Prizes. Mr Lloyd George says he doesn't think the Peace Conference is equipped to handle problems of this size, and suggests that this would be better left to the League of Nations. Sr Sonnino agrees, but says he believes that while this is true of most questions, there are some that require immediate attention, and these should be settled in the Peace Treaty. M Clemenceau agrees, and the Proposal that the duties be divided between a Peace Commission and the League of Nations is adopted.

8. The question of Bessarabian participation in the Small Powers talks is raised. It is decided to leave that to the Bessarabians themselves.

9. Mr Balfour raises the question of whether former Russian territories should be invited to attend the Small Powers talks. It is decided that all should be invited.

10. Mr Balfour mentions that Finland, which had been friendly with Britain but had not asked for official recognition, has now done so. After some discussion it is decided that the question of Finland's official recognition should be a part of discussions on the Russia problem.

11. It is decided that instructions for the Poland Commission should be issued the next day.

12. Procedures for reception of Small Powers Delegates by the Major Powers is discussed. It is decided that when Small Powers Delegates are called to address the Conference they confine their participation to the specific subjects for which they were called.

13. It is decided that Representatives of all Pacific States should be present when Japan makes its formal presentation.

14. A general discussion is held concerning former German colonies in the Pacific which were taken during the War by Japan, specifically which ones, if not all, should become Japanese territories. It is decided that these discussions should be ongoing, and a terminal decision is not required at this point.

15. Baron Makino raises the question of the disposition of Kiaochow, and says he would prefer that China not be a part of that discussion, claiming it involves only Japan and Germany directly.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

M Clemenceau invites Baron Makino to continue the morning's discussion on the disposition of the German Pacific Islands, stating that the question of Kiaochow will be discussed later. Baron Makino reads a series of statements concerning the status of those islands under Germany, and states Japan's wish to continue with the same policies under Japanese influence. This turns into a lengthy speech about the situation in post-war Asia, and concludes with the Baron's promise to add specifics at a later date.

Dr C. Thomas Wang brings up the importance of these questions to China, and says he hopes the Great Powers will listen to China's views on the situation before coming to a decision. This is agreed to.

President Wilson then makes a long speech concerning The Union of South Africa and the League of Nations. This leads to another discussion about former German colonies. The consensus is that if any nation can annex these former colonies without said colonies' consent, it would undermine the very purpose of the League.

General Botha makes the claim that German South West Africa was originally part of South Africa, and was stolen from them. These lands should be returned to The Union of South Africa. They are a desert and Germany had never made any attempt to actually colonize the land there. On the other hand the few Germans living there had recently proclaimed a Republic. This discussion goes on for the remainder of the meeting, with no decisions made. It is decided that a continuation of this subject will be first on the agenda at tomorrow morning's meeting.

Jimbuna

01-28-19, 09:18 AM

28th January 1919

Aftermath of War

Bolsheviks execute the Russian Grand Dukes Paul Alexandrovich, Dmitry Konstantinovich, George Mikhailovich, and Nicholas Mikhailovich. Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich, uncle to the late Tsar Nicholas II.
https://i.imgur.com/xfNFe40.jpg

[January 28th, 1919] "History To Repeat Itself?" "WILSON: I mean to down him before I'm finished." (The hope that the League of Nations will bring an end to war.)
https://i.imgur.com/LQlBiRR.jpg

Ship Losses:

Reine d'Arvor (France) The schooner was wrecked at Port Quin, Cornwall, United Kingdom. Her crew were rescued by Brook ( United Kingdom).

Sailor Steve

01-28-19, 03:24 PM

Tuesday, January 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 9

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

Discussion of the disposition of former German colonies is continued. Mr Lloyd George says that, having consulted his Colonial Experts the previous night, he believes that colonies conquered by other powers should be treated differently than those taken by the Major Powers, and expounds on this concept. M Clemenceau says that the French Minister for Colonies would have a statement prepared the following day. M Pichon says he believes that France will probably agree with Britain on this. Baron Makino and Signor Orlando, when asked, both state that Japan and Italy will also likely agree that the colonies conquered by Lesser Powers should be considered as a special case.

Mr Massey says that he is not opposed to the idea of a League of Nations, but reminds the Council of the Congress of Vienna (1814), which was established to bring about universal peace and failed. He points out that Australia and New Zealand are in the same boat together - if one falls the other must fall with it. He states that Samoa is of vital importance to New Zealand and if was left in anyone else's hands New Zealand would be strangled. He then gives a list of islands and archipelagos already administered by New Zealand, and the quality of the work that has been done there in education and development. He describes Germany as an "outlaw among nations" and says that unless her former colonies are firmly in the hands of other countries Germany will make every effort to get them back. He closes with the question of how George Washington would have responded if at the end of the American Revolution something akin to a League of Nations had taken charge of the unsettled lands in North America. "There was little doubt that the American settlers would have protested at this offer, and rightly so, for, had this taken place, the United States would not have grown into one of the greatest Powers of the World."

President Wilson responds by pointing out that there has never been a situation exactly like the one facing them now; certainly not the one for which the Congress of Vienna was created. He then states that there is another power operating in the area that no one has mentioned, and that is the United States. He says that no one would dare try to play the part Germany did in that region without it coming to America's attention. M Clemenceau then declares this part of the discussion to be ended.

The talk then turns to Japan and Kiauchow. Baron Makino states that since taking that region from Germany, Japan has been in possession of it. Japan and China are on friendly terms at this point, and Japan intends to restore Kiauchow to China as soon as Japan has right of disposal from Germany. Mr Koo, speaking for China, agrees to these terms. President Wilson points out that the Council has been discussing the disposal of German colonies without consulting Germany at all. Mr Koo in his turn points out that while the Council speaks for countries of a few million people, he is expected to speak for four hundred million people, or one-quarter of the human race. He must consult his government before agreeing to any proposal laid before him. He then brings up the points that Germany extracted the annexation of Kiauchow and the Kantung Province by force, and that this densely-populated area was the cradle of Chinese civilization. It would be wrong to transfer this territory to anyone other than China. Baron Makino counters by saying that when China entered the war she gave up her right to direct restitution.

At this point M Clemenceau closes the meeting.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

Continuation of Territorial Discussions.

1. M Clemenceau asks M Simon, French Minister for the Colonies, to give the case for French possession of Cameroon and Togoland. M Simon starts by saying that of course these colonies cannot be given back to Germany. To whom should they be given? France had previously signed treaties with the two colonies, treaties that were revoked under force by Germany. The colonies had always been happy under French rule, and have asked to remain so. He believes the populations of the colonies would be better off under French rule than with any other system. France has spent a large amount of money and effort improving this area, and without that influx the area could wither and die.

2. Mr Lloyd George brings up the general principle of Mandatories (nations holding a Mandate from the League of Nations, usually to govern another country). he feels it would be better to settle on general principles before discussing the specifics of each case. President Wilson says he believes it would be wiser to have that discussion the next day rather than change the subject mid-meeting. Mr Balfour points out that while there has been much discussion of the League itself, there has been almost none concerning the powers of a mandatory nation. Mr Balfour brings up the question of whether Mandatory powers should be permanent or temporary. Mr Lloyd George reiterates the idea that the general idea should be decided on before discussing the specifics. President Wilson observes that it may look to the world as if the Great Powers had given themselves all the best parts, then created the League of Nations. The world would not accept the idea that the League of Nations was created just to support the claims of the Great Powers, and an effort must be made to ensure that did not happen. The League of Nations must the be body that determines these questions.

The question is then raised of how far Mandatory powers must extend. In some cases Trusteeship might mean nothing, while in others it might be equal to outright ownership. A lengthy discussion follows concerning all the questions involved in the League's powers to govern over the nations of the world. Most are agreed that this is necessary to a point; differences consist of where that point lies.

Finally Mr Hughes states that most of the world doesn't know the meaning of the word "Mandatory" in this context, and proposes that "Trustee" might be the better term. Mr Massey agrees.

Baron Makino asks whether the principle of Mandatory has been accepted. M Clemenceau tells him no, it has merely been postponed until the next meeting.

Born On This Day:

Francis Stanley "Gabby" Gabreski (born Franciszek Stanisław Gabryszewski), American fighter pilot and leading U.S. ace in Europe. His 28 confirmed kills there and 6 more over Korea make him one of only seven American pilots to become an ace in two different wars. Died 2002.

Jimbuna

01-29-19, 07:09 AM

29th January 1919

Aftermath of War

Fighting at Wilhelmshaven.

Bonus to British forces announced; Army Order re: transition period.

Allied again withdraw on Archangel front.

Aram Manukian, Armenian revolutionary leader and founder of the First Republic of Armenia, has passed away.
https://i.imgur.com/WiIRyO8.jpg

The Commodore Hotel opens in New York City (it will later be renovated in 1980 as Donald Trump’s first construction project in Manhattan).
https://i.imgur.com/pjKGylq.jpg

Ship Losses:

Piave (United States) The cargo ship ran aground on the Goodwin Sands, Kent, United Kingdom. She broke in two on 31 January. At least 30 of her 90 crew were rescued by the Deal Lifeboat; The Ramsgate Lifeboat rescued 23 crew.
Sphynx (Sweden) The cargo ship struck a mine and sank east of Scotland with the loss of seventeen crew, including the master. Only one survivor.

Sailor Steve

01-29-19, 03:09 PM

Wednesday, January 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 10

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting saying he had met earlier this morning with the Commission to Poland to discuss their instructions. He says that M Pichon had prepared the document but British members complained it was too long and convoluted. Mr Balfour had agreed and prepared a much shorter document. The original document and the British amendment are read to the Council. M Clemenceau states that he thinks the last paragraph is unsuitable and Mr Balfour agrees. The last paragraph is removed from the amended document.

Baron Sonnino says that Italy has some Polish prisoners ready to return to Poland and asks whether Italy should wait for the Commission's report before sending them home. M Clemenceau states that they should await the findings of the Polish Commission.

2. Mr Dmowski makes a statement to the Council, after which he and Mr Erasme Piltz are invited to enlighten the Council on the situation in Poland. Mr Dmowski asks if there is a particular point they would like him to start with, and M Clemenceau tells him it might be best if he addresses the subject as he sees fit, and they can ask questions later. President Wilson says that while he would like to know the whole case he agrees that since the object of the Allies was to help Poland Mr Dmowski's views would be most helpful.

Mr Dmowski states that the Armistice has not protected the Poles to any real extent. Under Article 12 the Germans would occupy the Eastern Frontier until asked by the Allies to remove their troops. Article 16 required the Allies be given access to Danzig via the Danzig-Thorn Railway. The German Revolution had forced Germany to withdraw her troops, leaving Poland at the mercy of the Bolsheviks. Further, the disorganized German forces had taken vital railway supplies with them, leaving the Railway unprotected. The Germans were becoming more hostile to the Poles, and the Railway runs through more than one hundred miles of German Territory. Taken together this means that Articles 12 and 16 of the Armistice are pretty much meaningless.

3. Mr Dmowski now turns to the situation in German Poland. There are between four and five million Poles living in Eastern Posen, Eastern Prussia, Western Prussia and Upper Silesia, and these are some of the most highly educated people in the nation. They desire to join other Polish provinces, and this in turn has caused the Germans in the area to form a special Corps to oppose this movement with force. The Poles see this as the beginning of a conflict that will almost certainly end with the destruction of Poland. To the Poles, Germany is looking toward peace in the West, but gearing up for conquest in the East. He further states that the Germans are preparing to remove the vital rolling stock (railroad engines and cars) from Posen to build up their own supplies.

4. Mr Dmowski now brings up Russian Poland. The Government there had been established by the Germans in 1916, but with the Armistice that Government was gone. Though they stood against the Bolsheviks, it was thought that the best idea would be if they established a Socialist Government. This had been done, but that Government had started to fail. Mr Paderewski had been sent to form a compromise Government, and this was the current one operating.

5. Mr Dmowski addresses the overall situation. Departing German troops had committed many crimes, but the worst was that they had given their arms and ammunition to the Bolsheviks. This left Poland with plenty of men for defense but no weapons for them to fight with.

6. Austrian troops departing the Ukraine and Eastern Galicia had given large amounts of weapons to the people there, and between the troops and the people more than 2,000 landowners and their families had been massacred. Ukrainian band had attacked the city of Lemberg and, though driven off, were even now camped nearby.

Mr Dmowski sums up by saying that Poland is threatened on three sides. The problem is not the lack of men, but of arms and supplies. It is essential that the railways be kept open.

7. The province of Teschen in upper Silesia is occupied partly by Czechs and partly by Poles, with the Poles having a much larger population. According to an agreement made on November 5, 1918, any joint population would be governed by whichever group was larger. While the Poles had agreed to this the Czechs had not, and now there were large armed Czech groups in this region. Mr Dmowski states that the only equitable solution is that these groups should be withdrawn from the region immediately.

8. Mr Dmowski now points out that the Germans are waging an anti-Polish campaign among their population, including ant-Polish laws, confiscation of Polish property and the prohibition against teach the Polish language in German schools. A special Company of troops has been organized for the purpose of colonizing parts of Poland with German immigrants. He feels that the main purpose of all this is to disrupt and the conquer Poland.

9. Mr Dmowski finishes with the statemen that when discussing Polish territorial claims they must start with the boundaries which were in place in 1772. He does not mean that they should return to those boundaries, but that the boundaries should be the starting point for discussions on what the current boundaries should be.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:30

1. Mr Dmowski continues his statement on territorial claims. He states that any territory Germany has lost in the West has been gained in the East. While the Germans claim that only 3% of the population of Danzig is Polish, he believes that number to be closer to 40%. He suggests that a small German Republic be established around Konigsberg, with that city as its capital. he believes that one nation controlling the coast and one controlling the land would be an invitation to conquest by one side or the other, and that this way both groups will hold some of each. His desire is that the borders be set so that Poland is no longer under any threat from Germany.

2. Mr Dmowski shows that while Poland's original Eastern borders had been set in by the 1300s, large portions of the population of that area are now Lithuanians, and he proposes that those parts of Eastern Poland should remain under Russia. Lithuania and the Ukraine themselves are not sufficiently advanced to maintain themselves as independent nations, and should be under the governance of some other more stable country. As the Lithuanian population is largely Polish he feels that country should be controlled by Poland.

3. Eastern Galicia is a disputed territory with a largely Polish population, and as such should be considered for Polish governance. Mr Piltz interjects that he agrees that the Bolshevists in Russia are highly dangerous, and that aid should be sent to Poland as soon as possible. Mr Balfour restates that the first part of Mr Dmowski's statement concerns the Polish situation and the second was about territorial claims, and that they were only discussing the first part on this day. M Clemenceau states that the Czechoslovakian Representatives are there to discuss Teschen, which is disputed territory.

4. Czechoslovakian Representative Dr Benes opens with a statement concerning Bohemia, Moravia, and Eastern Silesia. Mr Lloyd George interrupts to point out that they are not discussing the entire Czechoslovakian claim today, but only one territory held in dispute between them and the Poles. M Clemenceau says he believes it is necessary to discuss the whole situation as they had already done so with the Poles. President Wilson says that the only question relevant today was the dispute over Eastern Silesia., and suggests they stick to that one point. M Clemenceau then asks Dr Benes to confine his statements to that point. Dr Benes expounds at length on that dispute.

Dr Kramartz backs up Dr Benes' claims and says he thought that Czechoslovakia and Poland would resolve this dispute privately, but then the Poles had invaded the Teschen territory and set up a Government. he points out that Czechoslovakia cannot exist without the coal fields lying within this territory. He closes by saying that Czechoslovakia now desires to place herself in the hands of the Peace Conference. Mr Balfour recommends that both countries' representatives meet with the Polish Commission at 1000 the following morning to work out an arrangement. This is agreed to.

M Clemenceau asks to hear Mr Dmowski's views on this subject. M Dmowski says that there was no invasion by Poland, but rather the inhabitants of Teschen had organized themselves and created an army and a Government; not a single soldier had been sent from Poland.

5. Mr Balfour states that the Polish Commission will meet with the two governments' representatives tomorrow to discuss the Teschen dispute, and also to address the question of supplying arms and troops to Poland. M Clemenceau summarizes that the Commission and the Representatives will meet here in M Pichon's suite at 1000 tomorrow morning, and report their conclusions at the main meeting to begin at 1100 hours.

United States: The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, having been ratified by the States on January 16, is certified by Congress, and Prohibition becomes the law.

Born On This Day:

Norman Frederick "N.F." Simpson, British playwright, radio, film and television writer, famous for his one-liners and non-sequiturs. Died August 27, 2011.

Jimbuna

01-30-19, 10:32 AM

30th January 1919

Aftermath of War

South African War losses published.

At the Paris Peace Conference, Polish statesman Roman Dmowski argues that Poland should annex Prussian lands inhabited by Poles as well as Lithuania and western parts of Belarus and Ukraine.
https://i.imgur.com/NsyZGeM.jpg

The menu for the ‘Welcome Home Banquet’ held for returning prisoners of war at Portadown on 30 January 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/89h9A2F.jpg

Ship Losses:

Flirt (United States) The cargo ship caught fire in the Atlantic Ocean (25°07′N 56°09′W) and was abandoned. Eleven crew were rescued by City of Savannah ( United States).
Nimrod (United Kingdom) The barquentine ran aground on the Barber Sands in the North Sea off the coast of Great Yarmouth Norfolk and sank with the loss of ten of her twelve crew.

Sailor Steve

01-30-19, 01:37 PM

Thursday, January 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 11

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting with a discussion of the Mandatory system for determining what former colonies are ready for self-government. Mr Lloyd George says that he has handed out a document to representatives of the Great Powers that, while not reflecting the actual views of the Colonies, is accepted by them as being a legitimate attempt at a compromise. It has been decided that the Mandatory system should apply to the remnants of the late Turkish Empire as well as form German colonies.

First: Lands where the population is civilized but not yet organized for self-government, i.e. Arabia.

Second: Isolated tropical lands that are far away from any potential guiding hand, i.e. New Guinea.

Third: Lands which are almost part of an adjoining nation, which nation should be appointed as the Mandatory.

2. President Wilson brings up the question of everyday Press releases which contain more information than the Council has itself. He says the Press has called his own views "idealistic" without asking him exactly what his views really are, and says he is reaching a point where he may be forced to publish his own views himself.

3. The Constitution of the League of Nations is addressed, particularly that part referring to the League's appointment of Mandatory Nations to govern the former German colonies. President Wilson proposes a lengthy process by which each Colony is to be appraised and assigned a Mandatory govern it. Mr Lloyd George comments that with this process it could take so long that nothing will ever get done. These two gentlemen debate back and forth about what should be decided and how. Mr Lloyd George proposes a set of requirements that will be easy to follow and maintain, and Mr Wilson agrees. Much of this discussion concerns the Dominions (Nations that were formerly British Colonies).

A specific case in point is Poland. Yesterday Mr Dmowski had said that Poland must act as a barrier between Russia and Germany. This cannot mean an armed barrier, as if Germany is disarmed then there is no reason for Poland to be armed other than as a police force. Mr Wilson points out that drafting all of this into the League of Nations is the primary goal. Mr Lloyd George asks whether the League's Constitution must be settled before any of this can take place. Mr Wilson replies that no, it is not necessary to have the Constitution in place before these questions can be discussed, but it is vital to have the Constitution in place as soon as possible anyway because without it they are discussing questions to which there can be no possible answer.

4. Signor Orlando says he is pleased at the agreement reached, because it means that permanent Powers of Mandatory will be left to the League of Nations, which will become the official Administrator for the former Colonies. M Clemenceau asks what should be next on the agenda, since it is fruitless to discuss the Mandatory question further until the League of Nations is in place.

5. Baron Makino says that he is satisfied with the provisional agreement that has been reached, and he is now awaiting an official reply to the telegram he has sent to his Government.

6. Mr Hughes comments that as far as Australia is concerned he would rather see the questions settled before the League is in place, because his people trust the leaders who are making the decisions now, and the leadership of the League will be an unknown quantity and certainly not as wise nor as powerful as the current Council.

7. Sir Robert Borden also expresses satisfaction that an agreement has been reached, if only provisional. On behalf of Canada he strongly supports the League of Nations and hopes it will be capable of dealing the problems that lie ahead. He also hopes that the League be established as soon as possible as the entire world is awaiting the outcome of these meetings and is anxious to benefit from the results.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:30

Mr Massey of New Zealand expresses disappointment at the agreement reached concerning the Mandatory question, because it leaves out points that he considers to be of utmost importance, mainly the last paragraph of Clause 8, concerning the trading of slaves, arms, and alcohol. He states that Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are ready to accept these terms but is not clear on whether President Wilson is ready to accept them. He also brings up the subject of direct annexation by the Mandatory powers of the Colonies in question.

President Wilson asks whether Australia and New Zealand are presenting an ultimatum to the Council. Having presented cases for annexation are they now holding direct annexation as a contingent for acceptance of the agreement they have reached? If they cannot gain this concession now are they proposing to block the whole agreement? Mr Massey replies no, that is not their intent. Mr Hughes starts to reiterate his comments of that morning's meeting when President Wilson interrupts, asking if Mr Hughes had heard his question. Mr Hughes says no, he had not. Mr Wilson repeats his question as to whether Australia and New Zealand are giving an ultimatum, and if that is not met do they intend to block the agreement that has been reached? Mr Hughes responds that he feels President Wilson has put it very well. Australia is in favor of direct annexation, and if his colleagues are prepared to go further he will not object.

General Botha asks if he can say a few words. He first addresses President Wilson's earlier comments concerning the press. He feels that articles such as the one the President referred to should be suppressed, as they give the public the wrong impression about what is going on at the Conference. He then says that he stands with Mr Lloyd George on the current subject and not with his colleagues. He will do anything he can to ensure that the League of Nations is established, and give up anything to meet that end. He trusts the League will thrive because it will be made up of many of the same people who are here today.

Mr Hughes says he wants President Wilson to understand that there was no threat implied in his earlier comments. He merely wanted to express the importance he placed on this subject, and he would gladly follow Mr Lloyd George's lead concerning the next steps to be taken. Mr Lloyd George then states that everyone's opinion on the subject is crystal clear, and suggests that any decision taken today be considered provisional, and subject to revision once the League is in place.

Sir Robert Borden asks whether certain provisions in Clause 7 are meant to encourage the establishment of military or naval fortifications. President Wilson replies that they are meant to prevent such establishment. Sir Robert suggests a revision, because as currently worded it could easily be construed as meaning the opposite. He then reads aloud his proposed revision. President Wilson says that his version does make it clearer, and the revision is agreed to.

M Pichon raises the question of France raising troops in occupied countries. This only applies to volunteers; there will be no conscripts. President Wilson asks if this will apply to Mandatories, or just current colonies. M Clemenceau answers that Germany is right next to France and if Germany was not disarmed then France would be in immanent danger from which there might be no relief. Mr Lloyd George replies that there is nothing in any of the clauses that would prevent France from doing so, as long as France did not use that power to raise large armies, but only those for defense of the colonies. This is agreed to.

The talk then turns to the disposition of specific colonies, and how each one is to be treated. This goes on for some time and includes discussions on Romania and The Congo. It is decided that the potential Mandatory Nation should be allowed time to hash this out among themselves without the Council having to exercise control.

The discussion returns to the Press, specifically a Daily Mail article claiming that the Major Powers are at each other's throats and ready to walk out of the Conference or start a new war. The account is wildly inaccurate, but still close enough in detail to show that someone inside the Conference was talking to the Press. It is decided to put out a communiqué explaining a little of what is actually going on. This will say that they have arrived at a satisfactory provisional agreement concerning Germany and Turkey.

Jimbuna

01-31-19, 07:59 AM

31st January 1919

Aftermath of War

Three British gunboats arrive at Strasbourg.

American soldiers being trained in the cold conditions of Siberia by British officers near Vladivostok.
https://i.imgur.com/ETjrbp5.jpg

Convoy of Red Army ambulances on the streets of Moscow.
https://i.imgur.com/rlutR2W.jpg

Nimrod, the ship Ernest Shackleton used in his 1908 Antarctic Nimrod Expedition, runs aground and sinks off the coast of Norfolk, resulting in the death of 10 of its 12 crew.
https://i.imgur.com/r1WyX8i.jpg

Sailor Steve

01-31-19, 02:04 PM

Friday, January 31, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 12

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau introduces M Noulens, Chairman of the Commission to Poland. M Noulens addresses the Teschen question by stating that
Czechoslovakian troops have invaded that province, seized a railway line, occupied the mining region and taken several Polish citizens prisoner, and arrested some Polish delegates en route to Paris. When asked to explain this behavior the Czechoslovakian Delegates had stated that Teschen is a part of Czechoslovakia economically, ethnically, geographically and historically. Further, possession of this territory is necessary to stop the spread of Bolshevism. When the Commission had asked if the Czechs would be willing to withdraw their troops they had been told that the Poles were incapable of maintaining order in the mining districts. They did say that they would be willing to withdraw their troops if the Allies would place three battalions there. The Commission had then suggested that Czech troops remain in norther Teschen and control the railway while Polish forces occupied the South until the Peace Conference could reach a decision. The Czech Delegates had said there was too much danger of conflicts between the two armies, but would agree if one Allied battalion should be placed between them as a buffer.

M Noulens concludes by saying he believes the best solution would be for the Allies to send three battalions to occupy the whole territory. After much discussion it is decided that the Czechs will continue to control the northern part of the railway line and the Poles will take charge of the southern part, and that a Commission of Control will be created and sent to Teschen to report on the situation there.

2. Serbian and Romanian Delegates are brought in to discuss the territory of the Banat, which is claimed by both. Mr Bratiano reads the paper detailing the claims of Romania. Mr Vesnitch says he has not yet prepared a paper as he had only been informed of the meeting at 1100 this morning. The two Delegates then answer questions from various members of the Council. Mr Vesnitch says that Serbia doesn't want the whole of the Banat, just the parts traditionally occupied by Serbs. Discussion follows on the relationships between the various populations - Germans, Magyars, Romanians and Serbs - and the friendships and hostilities between the different groups. The history of the region as part of Hungary is also discussed. Mr Vesnitch closes by recounting Serbian resistance to Austria-Hungary during the War. Mr Bratiano then gives his views on the subject, insisting that the Banat be dealt with as a whole, going to one nation or the other.

The meeting is adjourned until the next day.

The Battle of George Square takes place in Glasgow, Scotland: troops deployed against protesters for fear of a Bolshevik uprising.

Born On This Day:

Jackie Robinson, first black major-league baseball player, is born in Cairo, Georgia. Died 1972.

Jimbuna

02-01-19, 10:01 AM

1st February 1919

Aftermath of War

New issue of British 5% National War Bonds commences.

Total casualties in British Flying Service announced.

Ship Losses:

USS Narragansett (United States Navy) The troopship ran aground in the English Channel off Bembridge, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom. Over 3,500 people were successfully evacuated from the ship. She was refloated on 17 February.

Sailor Steve

02-01-19, 06:12 PM

Saturday, February 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 13

There seems to have been no General Meeting on this Saturday.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. President Wilson summarizes a telegram he received from Georgy Chicherin, Bolshevik Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, about a press release announcing a Conference of Russian Delegates at Prinkipo, and asking for an official invitation. Mr Wilson wants to know what course he should take in this matter. Mr Lloyd George says that Mr Chicherin had received a notice just like everyone else. Mr Wilson replies that the announcement was made in the press and not directly. He will gladly ignore the request, but the Great Powers want to get these delegates together. For some reason Mr Chicherin wants a personal invitation. It is decided that further discussion is needed and the matter is postponed.

2. M Clemenceau says an agreement between the Czechs and the Poles concerning Teschen has been reached, and presents the documents for the agreement. The Ostrawa-Karwin mining district and the Oderberg-Jablunkau railway will be occupied by the Czechs, while the Poles will hold the southern part of the railway from Teschen to Jablunkau. The entire operation will be supervised by the Commission of Control.

3. M Clemenceau reads a note from the head of Allied troops occupying Turkey, requesting instructions on the distribution of said troops. M Clemenceau comments that the Conference had asked certain questions of the Military Representatives, and that the Military Representatives had replied by asking the same questions back again. Mr Lloyd George says that the Military Representatives ought to answer the questions asked of them. It is agreed that a message will be sent to the effect that there will be no joint occupations, there will be no new occupations outside the lands already occupied, the Military Representatives should give estimates of how many troops will be necessary for the occupation of each land, and the minutes of the January 30th meeting will be supplied to the Military Representatives, as they already address some of the these questions.

4. Instructions to the Commission for Poland need to be amended and then supplied to that Commission. One of the necessary tasks of the Commission is to create an armistice between the Poles and the Bolsheviks. The Commission will have the power to make binding agreements between the two parties, subject to approval by the Council.

5. Signor Orlando points out that the deadline for submission of documents expires today. Mr Balfour says that the time limit should not be extended, and if any documents are still not submitted then it is the issuing parties who are to blame.

6. Nominations for the Council on the Teschen question are to be submitted no later than Monday, February 3rd.

7. Romanian Representatives are admitted to the room to give their version of the Romanian-Serbian conflict. The descriptions and explanations of various parts of this question take up more than an hour of the meeting's time.

8. It is decided that a Committee will be created to draft the Naval clauses for the Peace Treaty with Germany.

The Council is adjourned until Monday, February 3.

Jimbuna

02-02-19, 09:48 AM

2nd February 1919

[February 2nd, 1919] "La Révolution A Berlin" (Petit Journal)
https://i.imgur.com/QRXz2oh.jpg

Troops of the Freikorps brought to Dusseldorf to suppress the Spartacists outside their headquarters. A pile of rifles taken from the Spartacists.
https://i.imgur.com/wKDtksI.jpg

"Will They Get Him?" (Will the League of Nations be able to end conflict?)
https://i.imgur.com/MUU5wgY.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-02-19, 01:02 PM

Sunday, February 1, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Born on this day:

Lesa Della Casa, Swiss soprano, became famous in the 1940s and sang for most of the major opera companies at one point or another. Died 2012.

Died on this day:

Xavier Leroux, French composer, famous for several operas. Born October 11 1863

Jimbuna

02-03-19, 08:32 AM

3rd February 1919

Aftermath of War

General Denikin routs Bolsheviks in N. Caucasus, 31,000 prisoners.

British tanks enter Glasgow due to fears that labour unrest and riots could spread across the country. Calm returns to the city and there are no deaths.
https://i.imgur.com/DJZ3fQa.jpg

Éamon de Valera (president of Sinn Féin) escaped from Lincoln Gaol, along with Seán McGarry and Seán Milroy. The escape was masterminded by Harry Boland and Michael Collins. All were members of Sinn Féin.

Sailor Steve

02-03-19, 02:41 PM

Monday, February 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 14

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. M Clemenceau asks for nominees to the Council on Teschen. M Velten, already a member of the Council for Poland, will represent France. Mr Lloyd George says that the British Military authorities felt that their delegate should be a military man, and they were looking. President Wilson stated that the United States delegate had not been found, and is was difficult as there are so few Americans of proper rank in Europe. Signor Orlando says the Italian delegate will be named tomorrow.

2. M Clemenceau announces that experts have been appointed for a commission to look into the Romanian territorial claims.

3. M Clemenceau raises the question of appointments from additional Small Powers to the Commission for the League of Nations. Delegates have been appointed from Belgium, Brazil, China, Portugal, and Serbia, but the Small Powers have asked to be allowed to appoint delegates from Czechoslovakia, Greece, Poland, and Romania. President Wilson says that would make the Committee too large, and place the Small Powers on an equal footing with the Great Powers. He says that the League of Nations Committee is meeting that afternoon and that he put the question to them. This is agreed too.

4. The five delegates presented by the Small Powers for Ports, Waterways and Railways include Belgium, China, Greece, Serbia, and Uruguay. The Small Powers have requested additional delegates to represent Czechoslovakia, Poland, Portugal and Rumania. It is agreed that the matter be referred to the Committee in question, and that they should make that decision.

5. The Commission on Reparation is to have 3 delegates from each of the Great Powers and 10 seats to be divided among the Small Powers. Belgium, Greece, Poland, Romania, and Serbia have appointed 2 delegates each. Czechoslovakia requests a seat, citing their interest in the final breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and because they have agreed to take over part of the Austrian debt. Mr Lloyd George says Czechoslovakia has a good case, and points out that if they are admitted then all the Powers with close interest in the liquidation of the Empire will be represented. It is agreed that 2 additional seats will be created and go to Czechoslovakia.

6. Mr Lloyd George announces the British appointments to the Commission on Breaches of the Laws of War.

7. It is agreed for all committees that if a member is unable to attend a meeting he may appoint a substitute.

8. Greek Delegates to the Peace Conference are invited to explain Greek territorial claims. These include Epirus, The Isles, Thrace and Asia Minor. Mr Venizelos says that Greece and Italy had already had private talks, and that they were working together to create an equitable situation for all parties. Signor Orlando says that he is in complete agreement, and only disagrees when Mr Venizelos calls Greece a Small Power, as he considers that country to be an noble country, entitled to an honored place in the world.

In Northern Epirus the population is mostly Greek. He admits that many of these "Greeks" only speak Albanian, but points out that while many Northern Albanians became true Turks under that Empire, Southern Albanian Christians still consider themselves to be Greek. Albanian sailors man Greek ships.

The Isles are mostly Greek already. While the Crusaders had left a lot of Latinizing influences in the Aegean Sea, these were confined mostly to architecture, and the population still spoke, looked and acted Greek.

Greece has not asked for Cyprus because they are confident that despite 50 years of rule there the British will decide on their own to give that island to Greece.

Greece is claiming all the islands in the part of the Mediterranean bordering the Aegean. These include Cyprus, the Dodecanese, Imbros, Kastelorizo, Rhodes and Tenedos.

Greece is claiming Thrace, which has a largely Greek population. While this would result in Bulgaria losing direct access to the Aegean, Greece plans to grant open access to all points anyway, so no Nation will be denied access to the prime shipping waters in the region. A discussion ensues with Mr Lloyd George asking several questions concerning the Muslim populations of the areas in question. The matter is left undecided until the following day's meeting.

Jimbuna

02-04-19, 11:23 AM

4th February 1919

Aftermath of War

The Red Army captures Kiev.

Wounded American soldiers getting a tour of London before heading back home.
https://i.imgur.com/5Jt05ez.jpg

Members of the 4th Corp Historical and Sketching party eating dinner next to a ruined house near Verdun, France.
https://i.imgur.com/QVblEqY.jpg

Ship Losses:

HMS Penarth (Royal Navy) The minesweeper struck a mine in the North Sea off the coast of Yorkshire, United Kingdom and sank with the loss of two of her 80 crew.

Sailor Steve

02-04-19, 12:42 PM

Tuesday, February 4, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 15

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. Mr Lansing brings up the point of press releases for committee meetings. He says that recently the Secretariat-General released information to the press concerning a committee meeting which he had not been present. The Committee in question had prepared their own press release, and Mr Lansing feels that the Secretariat-General should not give out press releases for committee meetings. M Clemenceau agrees, and states that in the future committees should issue their own press releases. Baron Sonnino asks whether the committees should give their press releases to the Secretariat-General and he should release them. M Clemenceau replies that this would be the proper procedure, but would result in a great loss of time. It is decided that committees will issue their own press releases.

2. Mr Venizelos brings up Greek Territorial Claims, as related to President Wilson's 12th point. How does that Article address Turkey as the major power remaining in Asia Minor following the fall of the Ottoman Empire? One of the actions already decided is that no territory shall be part of a new Ottoman Empire unless its population consists of an absolute majority of Turks. The western territory of Asia Minor, claimed by the Greeks, is both ethnically and geographically separate from the rest of that region.

Mr Venizelos goes on at length about the population and geography of the area. At the end President Wilson asks whether the Mahomdedan (Muslim) population figures come from Greek or Turkish sources. Mr Venizelos replies that the figures come from Greek Ecclesiastical sources, but he believes they were derived from official Turkish documents.

Mr Wilson asks about Trebizond, which has asked to be named an independent Republic. Mr Venizelos replies that he is opposed to this course of action as it is undesirable to have a large number of small nations in the region. He feels Trebizond should become a part of Albania. Mr Lloyd George asks Mr Venizelos what he thinks the Armenian State should consist of. The reply is the six Armenian vilayets, together with Russian Armenia and the vilayets of Trebizond and Adana. Mr Lloyd George asks whether Cilicia should be included. Mr Venizelos replies yes, he believes that territory should also belong to Armenia, as well as all the regions around Mount Ararat.

Mr Venizelos feels that Western Asia Minor has a majority Greek population, and ought to be allowed autonomy. After that they will likely ask to become a part of Greece itself. In the end it is agreed that Mr Venizelos' proposals will be referred to a Committee created for that purpose.

Jimbuna

02-05-19, 10:12 AM

5th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Guards' Memorial Service held at St. Paul's Cathedral.

Red Army soldiers in Kiev.
https://i.imgur.com/hQE14CB.jpg

Serbian soldiers being treated for the Spanish flu in Rotterdam.
https://i.imgur.com/dItJo9w.jpg

Ship Losses:

Caledonia (United Kingdom) The paddle steamer collided with Kalfond ( Norway) at Rouen, France and was beached.
Carmen (Denmark) The cargo ship struck a mine in the Skaggerak 20 nautical miles (37 km) south of Lista, Norway and sank with the loss of seventeen crew.
Therezina (Brazil) The cargo ship foundered in the Atlantic Ocean off Santos, São Paulo, Brazil.

Sailor Steve

02-05-19, 08:09 PM

Wednesday, February 5, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 16

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting, asking for the names of nominees to the Greek Committee. The Delegates are:
United States of America: Mr Westermann, Mr. Day.
British Empire: Sir Robert Borden, Sir Eyre Crowe.
France: M. Jules Cambon, M. Gout.
Italy:Signor de Martino, Colonel Castoldi.

2 Mr Benes of Czechoslovakia opens the discussion on his country with a speech on their goals as a nation.

i) The four provinces: Bohemia, Moravia, Austrian Silesia and Slovakia. Those provinces share a common history and are essentially the same people.

ii) Historical Considerations: The Czechoslovakian people consider themselves to be unified in their status as the Eastern bulwark against Germanic expansion and influences. They have rebelled against the Germanic Empires on three separate occasions.

iii) Czechoslovakia is exposed on its western borders to Germanic invasion, and has been invaded from that direction several times over the centuries.

iv) It is claimed by the Austrians that the population of Bohemia is largely German, but a careful census taken by the Czechs shows this to be wildly exaggerated. Mr Lloyd George asks when this census was taken. Mr Benes replies 1900. President Wilson asks how many Czechs are in Bohemia. Mr Benes replies 4.5 million.

v) Mr Benes now cites the economic considerations for consolidating the four provinces. Most of the industry in the region is located in Czechoslovak territory. Bohemia cannot survive if it is not part of the same nation. Mr Lloyd George asks what the reasons might be for that concentration of industry. Mr Benes cites the location of water, coal and minerals in that region. Mr Lloyd George asks whether the populations involved in these industries is German or Czech. Mr Benes replies that the majority of the workers are Czech, but the employers are mostly German. This is changing, however, due to the new educational movement in Bohemia. The questions and answers on German Bohemians goes on for some time.

vi) Mr Benes speaks on Teschen. The Polish population there was imported at the beginning of industrialization. A part of that population actually live in Galicia. The town of Teschen is German, but the industrial and mining districts are mostly Czech. The coal in Teschen is vital for the economy of Czechoslovakia.

vii) Moravia and Ratibor are extensions of the Teschen coal fields and belongs together with that district. Glatz, given by Austria to Germany in 1867, was traditionally Czech, and should stay there.

viii) Slovakia was always Czech until taken by the Magyars in the 900s. The people there consider themselves to be Czech and wish to remain so.

ix) The Danube frontier. Czechoslovakia has always had a riverfront along the Danube, and this had only been taken from them by the Magyars and then the Germans. Secondly, as an industrialized nation Czechoslovakia needs access to the sea, and the Danube is the only such access available.

Baron Sonnino asks what the Slovak populations are on both sides of the river. Mr Benes replies that those populations had been forcibly Magyarized. Czechoslovakia will be willing to let the Slovak population on the far side of the Danube go in exchange for absorbing the Magyar population on the near side. People on either side will be allowed to migrate if they so desire.

Baron Sonnino asks what portion of the population is Slovakian as opposed to Hungarian. Mr Benes replies that it varies by district, and that these areas were never used as districts for census purposes.

President Wilson asks whether communal statistics can be obtained and whether it's true that the Slovak population only touches the river at Pressburg. Mr Benes says the Slovak population also touches the Danube north of Budapest, but it is true that the majority of the riverside population is Magyar.

Mr Lloyd George asks if any other rivers in the area are navigable. Mr Benes replies that the Vah is, but only halfway up its course. Mr Kramartz adds that attempts are being made to render the Morava navigable, and if successful this will give Czechoslovakia access to the sea.

Mr Lloyd George asks whether, if the territories declare themselves Magyar, free access to the Danube would be satisfactory. Mr Benes replies that with most of the Czech rivers being at present unnavigable Slovakia would be completely cut off from the Danube.

Mr Lloyd George asks whether access by railroad between the two sectors would be good enough. Mr Benes replies that, one district being industrial and the other agricultural, the two districts would be effectively isolated from each other.

x) The frontier between Danube and Ung. Mr Benes says that it is vital for Czechoslovakia to control the only railway with east-west access over the mountains between these two districts.

xi) The Ruthenes in Hungary have expressed a desire to become part of Czechoslovakia. This possibility should be considered by the Conference.

xii) The Serbs in Lusatia have also said they would like to be independent but under Czech protection. Mr Benes says he has no opinion on this subject, and it might actually be hard for the Czechs to administer. He asks for the Conference to decide on behalf of the Ruthenes and Serbs.

xiii) Czechoslovakia asks for a small territory connecting them to Yugoslavia and Italy. Mr Benes says this is merely a suggestion for consideration, not a requirement nor even a request.

It is decided that a Committee will be formed to reduce these requests to a manageable size and make recommendations for a just settlement.

Jimbuna

02-06-19, 07:46 AM

6th February 1919

Aftermath of War

The German national assembly meets, away from the revolutionary upheavals in Berlin, at Weimar, a town noted for its humanism and learning rather than the militarism that has brought Germany to its knees.

Mehmed Reshid, former Ottoman governor of Diyarbekir Vilayet accused by the Allies of committing massacres of Armenians and Assyrians, commits suicide when he was about to be rearrested by police.
https://i.imgur.com/SKhso11.jpg

Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, and D.W. Griffith (left to right) establish the studio United Artists to take more control over their own works.
https://i.imgur.com/IbNqL4N.jpg

Ship Losses:

Sis (United Kingdom) The schooner ran aground at Point Saint Quentin, Somme, France and was abandoned by her crew.

Sailor Steve

02-06-19, 01:23 PM

Thursday, February 6, 1919

THE SEATTLE GENERAL STRIKE

Shipyard workers have gone two years without a pay raise. They are under the impression that they would receive a raise after wartime government wage controls ended. On January 21 35,000 workers had walked off their jobs. In an attempt to break the strike Charles Piez, head of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, sent a telegram to the shipyard owners threatening to withdraw their contracts if pay raises were granted. The telegram was meant for the Metal Trades Association, which consisted of the yard owners, but was instead delivered to the Metal Trades Council, the shipyard workers' union. As many as 110 local unions all agreed that a total work stoppage in the Seattle area was justified, and on February 6th 65,000 workers went home. The strike will last five days, be completely peaceful, and be hailed as the first General Strike in America and "The most successful General Strike in American history". On the other hand many people said it was the result of "Russian" or "Bolshevist" influences.

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 17

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting with a question concerning the destruction of German submarines. He had thought that only those under construction were to be destroyed, and those already completed were to be handed over to the various Powers. Mr Lloyd George says that it would be better "to destroy as many of these pests as possible". M Clemenceau says that some have already been given to France and some to Italy, and he thought it was wrong that some should be destroyed and some given away. Baron Makino says that seven have been given to Japan. Mr Balfour says he understands M Clemenceau to desire a uniform policy. M Clemenceau says that is exactly his meaning. It is decided that more information needs to be obtained, and the question will be settled later.

2. The question of the Hedjaz (Hejaz) is raised.

A)Emir Faisal says that in his paper of January 29th he had asked for the independence of all Arab-speaking peoples in Asia, from the line between Alexandretta and Diarbekir southward. His request is based on these points:

i)This area was once the home of important civilisations, and its people still have the capacity to play their part in the world.

ii) All its inhabitants speak one language—Arabic.

iii) The area has natural frontiers which ensure its unity and its future.

iv) Its inhabitants are of one stock—the Semitic. Foreigners do not number 1% among them.

v) Socially and economically it forms a unit. With each improvement of the means of communication its unity becomes more evident. There are few nations in the world as homogeneous as this.

vi) The Arabic speaking peoples fought on the side of the Allies in their time of greatest stress, and fulfilled their promises.

vii) At the end of the war the Allies promised them independence. The Allies had now won the war, and the Arabic speaking peoples thought themselves entitled to independence and worthy of it. It was in accord with the principles laid down by President Wilson and accepted by all the Allies.

viii) The Arab army fought to win its freedom. It lost heavily: some 20,000 men were killed. Allenby acknowledged its services in his despatches. The army was representative of Arab ideals and was composed of young Syrians, Lebanese, Hejazis, Mesopotamians, Palestinians, and Yemenis.

ix) The blood of Arab soldiers, the massacres among the civil populations, the economic ruin of the country in the war, deserved recognition.

x) In Damascus, Beyrout (Beirut), Tripoli, Aleppo, Latakia, and the other districts of Syria, the civil population declared their independence and hoisted the Arab flag before the Allied troops arrived. The Allied Commander in Chief afterwards insisted that the flag be lowered to install temporary Military Governors. This he explained to the Arabs was provisional, till the Peace Conference settled the future of the country. Had the Arabs known it was in compliance with a secret treaty they would not have permitted it.

xi) The Syrians who joined the Northern Army were recognized by the Allies as Belligerents. They demand through this delegation their independence.

B) Syria proclaims Unity and Independence, and the rest of the Arab-speaking world agrees that this would be best for all Arabs.

C) Lebanon is divided, with some of its people asking for guarantees from France while others wish to remain connected to Syria. Faisal admits Lebanese independence but hopes some sort of economic ties will be maintained.

D) The Arabs realize how much their country lacks economic development They hope to become the doorway between Europe and Asia, helping their own progress at the same time.

E) Faisal believes that Arabic religious differences are being exploited, and that their first interest is to maintain a melding of all groups in the area to accomplish true peace.

F) Faisal asks for the independence of certain Arabic areas of Palestine.

G) Finally Faisal asks that the various groups of Arabs in the region be treated separately and independently concerning aid and assistance they require. He feels that treating the region as a whole will create an injustice because all their needs are different.

3. Mr Lloyd George asks how many troops the Hedjaz had put into the field during the war. Emir Faisal replies that number is impossible to ascertain, but that the Arabs as a whole had fielded about 100,000 regular troops plus an uncertain number of irregulars. Mr. Lloyd George asks whether the Arab troops had taken any part on the Mesopotamian front. Emir Feisal replies that all their operations outside the Hedjaz had been in Syria. Five of his Commanding Officers, however, and many of his men were from Mesopotamia.

4. President Wilson asks whether, seeing that the plan of mandatories on behalf of the League of Nations had been adopted, he would prefer for his people a single mandatory, or several. Emir Feisal says that he doesn't wish to assume the responsibility of answering for all his people. President Wilson asks to know the Emir’s personal opinion. Emir Feisal said that personally he is afraid of partition. His principle is Arab unity. It was for this that the Arabs had fought.

5. Mr. Lloyd George asks for a short account of the services rendered by the Arab forces in the defeat of the Turkish Armies. Emir Faisal gives a recounting of the battles for Mecca and the spread of the Arab revolt. At M Pichon's request the Emir recounts the assistance the French gave the Arabs on this front. Faisal says he does not wish to praise the French troops because to his mind their actions were "beyond praise". He gives this same reason for not praising his own troops.

6. Mr Lloyd George enquires as to Arabs living in outlying provinces such as Anatolia. Emir Faisal says there are some minority Arab populations in the Adana district; a few in the Tarsus and Mersina area; but none in Anatolia. He says these populations constitute a small minority and the Arabs are not claiming minority rights anywhere. Mr Lloyd George asks if there is any affinity between the Arabs and the Kurds. Emir Faisal replies that he would love to claim all Kurds as Arabs, but he feels he would ruin his case if he made even one questionable statement.

The Emir says he hopes he will not be penalized because he only speaks Arabic, and the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-07-19, 07:37 AM

7th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Military protest in London (men from Folkestone) re: demobilisation.

The German National Assembly meets in Weimar, Germany as the first legislature to be elected by universal suffrage in the German Republic.
https://i.imgur.com/9K2jowh.jpg

Men of the US First Division, 1st Engineers who entertain troops by performing a musical comedy “Die Wacht Am Rhein” (The Watch on the Rhine) in Wirges, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/VzF3f3f.jpg

Ship Losses:

HMS Erin's Isle (Royal Navy) The minesweeper, a converted paddle steamer, was broken almost in two and sunk by a drifting mine in the Thames Estuary. Twenty-three of her crew were lost and 28 survived.

Sailor Steve

02-07-19, 12:19 PM

Friday, February 7, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 18

1st meeting of the 13th Session of the Supreme War Council

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:30

Renewal of the Armistice with Germany. Proposed Military Clauses:

A) M Clemenceau opens the meeting with a statement that the occupation of the enemy’s territory by the forces of the Allied and Associated Powers had been studied by a Committee, with M. Loucheur as Chairman, and by Marshal Foch. Their reports were now ready, and he asks Marshal Foch to make a statement in this regard.

Marshall Foch reads a report of the expected numbers of Allied troops still in the field as of April 5.

France: 2,257,000 men in 46 divisions, each with 4 regiments up to fighting strength, and 6 Cavalry Divisions.

Britain: 900,000 men in 10 divisions, plus 2 cavalry divisions. 552,000 of these will be stationed in France.

United States: Up to 1,400,000 men in 10 divisions in the field and 5 divisions at embarkation points, with a fighting strength of 680,000.

Italy: 1,540,000 men in 31 divisions.

B) M Loucheur gives a summary of his Committee's report on the state of Germany's war-making capabilities. This includes a list of all war machines of all categories - Land, Sea and Air - along with recommendations for methods of insuring that Germany is rendered incapable of further manufacture of war materiel. M Loucheur adds that he believes the German disarmament can be adequately supervised by a force of 200 officers.

President Wilson notes that the Committee's recommendations include additions to the original Armistice terms. He asks Marshal Foch whether the Germans would be willing to meet these new terms and if not, would it be necessary to undertake extra measures to enforce them. Marshal Foch replies that he does not think the Germans will accept the new terms without pressure. He says that when he meets the Germans he plans to tell them "Meet these terms or the Armistice is broken." He will not negotiate with the Germans. On the second question Foch says it will be necessary to establish control over Germany to enforce the new measures, but he does not know whether that control will be effective or not.

M Clemenceau asks if more effective measures are possible. Marshal Foch says that they might occupy the factories, but he doesn't see that as a practical solution. He doesn't see any real way to enforce the new terms to the Armistice.

M Clemenceau asks if Marshal Foch has anything to add. Marshal Foch says no. It would be impossible to prevent the Germans from doing whatever they wanted at home. They will always be able to manufacture arms.

Mr Lloyd George asks how long it will take Germany to manufacture new arms to replace those surrendered. M Loucheur says it will take two years. Mr Lloyd George observes that since the Allies had limited the amount of raw materials going into Germany it would take longer than two years, and he did not think Germany would be able to manufacture new arms with out the Allied inspectors knowing about it. M Loucheur agrees.

Mr Lloyd George asks whether setting a time for Peace to be enforced would help, and proposes the Treaty go into force in July. Marshal Foch replies that he does not know what peace conditions will be imposed, but at this moment it is still impossible to determine what arms Germany still possesses, let alone what should be surrendered.

President Wilson asks what will happen if Germany refuses to surrender the demanded arms. Marshal Foch says there is only one way - "By War". He says that can be avoided by the Allies taking control of all materiel going into Germany. If they control the food supplies Germany will have no choice but to comply with any Allied demands.

C) President Wilson proposes a Civil Commission to negotiate Disarmament with the Germans. He feels it his duty to oppose additions to the Armistice agreements. The Allies should have known what they were doing when they drew up the original terms, and to add to them now was unsportsmanlike. Occupying the factories would require even more troops, and that still might not be enough. Forced demobilization will cause a major influx of unemployed German workers, with no guarantee that there will be work for them anytime soon.

Mr Lloyd George says he does not think the Allies are bound by honour or obligation to feed Germany, but they are attempting to do so anyway as a means to prevent unrest. He says he recently talked to Field Marshal Haig, in which Haig had pointed out that the current situation might leave Germany with enough men and arms to wait until the Americans and British had gone home and the French were scattered and then field an army of up to four million men to renew hostilities.

President Wilson agrees that this is so, but feels that appointing a Civil Commission might aid in convincing the Germans that working together for peace is the best way. He says that he would like this Commission to be in operation before the date fixed for the renewal of the Armistice. M Clemenceau disagrees. He feels that France could be put in a position of grave danger if absolute firmness in not exercised in these matters. It is only a matter of a few months before Allied forces are greatly reduced in Europe.

D) Mr Lloyd George proposes an initial draft for the creation of a Civilian Commission to negotiate a proper disarmament for Germany. One of the provisions is for Marshal Foch to exercise force if necessary. M Clemenceau objects strongly. He then puts forth his own proposal to have soldiers offer to use force, after which Civilian negotiators will offer terms. President Wilson objects, saying that offering a concession after a threat will only serve to nullify the threat. Mr Lloyd George says that his draft was an attempt to reconcile the positions of M Clemenceau and President Wilson, but in fact his own views were in line with those of M Clemenceau.

E) Mr Lloyd George proposes a second draft, stating that the main objective is to disarm the Germans. He proposes that a Civilian Commission be attached to Marshal Foch's staff, and that negotiations be carried out by that group with the military in the background. M Clemenceau again objects, saying that this proposal discusses the reward first, whereas he feels the demand should be made first. President Wilson says he feels the Loucheur Report to be a panic program. He agrees the big guns should be surrendered, but feels that occupation of the factories will require troops to be sent in just when they are trying to send those troops home. Baron Sonnino says he believes the number of demands could be greatly reduced and still have the same effect.

F) Mr Lloyd George now proposes a Committee To Decide on Equipment To Be Surrendered by Germany. If the demands are reduced as suggested by Baron Sonnino, and a small number of factories are monitored, the desired result can be obtained. This is agreed to.

Jimbuna

02-08-19, 07:30 AM

8th February 1919

Aftermath of War

More fighting in Berlin.

Lieutenant General Sir H. F. M. Wilson, commander of the Allied occupation of the Bosporus and Gallipoli, greets French General Franchet d'Esperey at Constantinople.
https://i.imgur.com/0OH0VeF.jpg

Bulgarian prisoners of war unload Red Cross supplies headed to Serbia at Salonika, Greece. A Senegalese soldier stands guard.
https://i.imgur.com/GJNx2ID.jpg

Born this day, DESMOND DOSS was a US Army corporal who served as a combat medic and became the only conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor for his actions during the WWII. His life has been the subject of books, a documentary, and the 2016 film “Hacksaw Ridge.”
https://i.imgur.com/nyk6rA1.jpg

French pilot Lucien Bossoutrot completed the first commercial flight between London and Paris, flying a Farman F.60 Goliath carrying 12 passengers from Toussus-le-Noble, France, to RAF Kenley, England.

Ship Losses:

Satsei Maru No.1 (Japan) The cargo ship was wrecked on Daisee Island, Korea with the loss of all hands.
SM U-16 (Imperial German Navy) The Type U 16 submarine foundered in the North Sea (58°59′N 8°29′E).

Sailor Steve

02-08-19, 02:07 PM

Saturday, February 8, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 19

2nd meeting of the 13th Session of the Supreme War Council

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

M. Clemenceau opens the meeting with two subjects for quick discussion:

1. The German National Assembly at Weimar has requested an increase in Postal and Telegraph facilities. Marshal Foch has drafted a tentative reply saying that as a state of War still officially exists the Allies cannot allow the Germans free and unrestricted access to correspondence.

President Wilson says that he does not wish to grant the Germans any freedom it is not safe to give them, but it is desirable that Germany have some form of authority with which the Allies can deal. It is not good that currently telegrams are taking up to seven days to be delivered, and letters up to three weeks. Mr Balfour says that Marshal Foch's answer is probably the right one. M Clemenceau says the alleged delays are probably exaggerated. It is decided to ask Marshal Foch to expedite delivery of letters and telegrams as much as possible.

2. M Clemenceau reads the correspondence between Marshal Foch and Herr Erzberger on the subject of Repatriation of German Prisoners Of War. President Wilson asks whether Marshal Foch is in favor of repatriation of German prisoners. Marshal Foch replies that it is his impression that the German demand only covers certain categories, such as the wounded, unfit, and fathers of large families. He states that he is in favor of immediate repatriation of prisoners in those categories. M Clemenceau says he is under the impression that Herr Erzberger's request included all prisoners, and asks whether Marshal Foch supports all of the German demand, or only part of it. Marshal Foch replies that in his own letter he only specified certain categories, and that it would be up to the Allies to determine which categories would take preference. M Clemenceau says it will be impossible for the Allied Governments to give an answer without first consulting the appropriate ministers for each category. He suggests that Marshal Foch send a message to Herr Erzberger that the Governments will give him an answer as soon as possible.

Baron Sonnino suggests that the Powers might immediately give up the prisoners who have no value - the sick, the old, and the civilians. Marshal Foch replies that all he has done is to deliver a request. At this point Marshal Foch and General Weygand withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Balfour says he agrees that the Authorities should be fully consulted before giving up any prisoners. It is decided that no reply should be given to Herr Erzberger until a full consultation with the British and French Ministers governing Prisoners of War has been made.

3. André Tardieu, M Clemenceau's assistant and leader of the Council on Franco-American War Co-Operation, reads the report written by the Committee on the Reduction of German Armaments. The Committee does not wish to specify the number of Divisions the Germans will be allowed to keep, as they feel this to be the province of the Peace Council.
Article 1) The Germans should be required to furnish a list of all machine guns, field guns, heavy guns, aeroplane motors and seaplanes needed to supply the Divisions the Council decides the Germans may keep.
Article 2) All surplus will be yielded to the Allies.
Article 3) Since the numbering of all this equipment might take a long time, a specified quantity of all classes will be handed over immediately.

President Wilson says that Article 3 is the only one which lays out a determinate proposal. Article 2 is indeterminate, and allows the Germans themselves to calculate the numbers needed for the Divisions they will be allowed to maintain. Mr Wilson believes the Powers need to make a very specific plan to show the Germans exactly what is planned.

Lord Milner says that while he does not disagree with the President, he believes Mr Wilson's proposal to be outside the scope of the Committee's reference. The Committee was appointed to simplify the demands made on Germany, and he thinks that goal has been accomplished. M Tardieu agrees in thinking the Articles are very specific.

President Wilson quotes a report delivered to the Council yesterday, stating that the Germans have enough arms to equip 30 Divisions. Over and above that they have:
Heavy Guns - 1,500
Field Guns - 6,425
Machine Guns - 41,675

Article 2 of the Committee's report demands the immediate handing over of:
Heavy Guns - 1,000
Field Guns - 4,000
Machine Guns - 20,000

This will leave the Germans an excess of:
Heavy Guns - 500
Field Guns - 2,425
Machine Guns - 21,675

over and above what is required for them to outfit the divisions the Allies are permitting them to keep. This will leave them enough armaments to equip 60 divisions rather than 30.

M. Loucheur points out that these numbers only include what is currently held by the German army. Counting the munitions currently being completed in the factories will double that number. President Wilson says that this quadruples the amount demanded at the Armistice, only three months previous. This leaves the Allies appearing to the World to be mean and petty, and incredibly ignorant of what they are doing. He himself feels the Germans should be allowed to keep everything they now have, because the Germans are beaten, and they know it. Their spirit is broken, and they will not renew the struggle.

M Loucheur cites the potential production by the Germans of 15 new heavy guns, 50 field guns and 200 heavy machine guns, not counting light machine guns, every day. M Clemenceau says the figures are all hypothetical, then and now. He believes the Committee's report is reasonable and secures the safety of the Allies. Lord Milner says that previously they have changed the demanded numbers constantly, and that this report finalizes those numbers. After this the numbers cannot be changed. President Wilson says that definite numbers should be obtained before changing the demands made of the Germans. M Clemenceau says that the refusal of the Germans to cease hostilities with the Poles makes a good pretext for the demands, and President Wilson agrees.

M Clemenceau asks President Wilson to draft a new document combining his own views and the suggestions made concerning Poland. The President agrees.

4. Admiral Wemyss, current British First Sea Lord, states that the Naval questions are easier than the Military ones. The Admirals know exactly what the conditions are, exactly what they want, and what they can get. This must, however, be done quickly, as the German officers were exercising more control every day over the ships and men still under their command. This can be controlled by simply telling the Germans that the lists of ships to be handed over is not provisional, but final. The other Admirals present give their support to Admiral Wemyss.

5. President Wilson reads the draft of a recommendation for the creation of a Supreme Council on Economics.

The Meeting is adjourned until Monday.

Jimbuna

02-09-19, 08:01 AM

9th February 1919

Russian Bolshevik prisoners captured in the Allied Intervention in Siberia.
https://i.imgur.com/UwgbcrZ.jpg

American soldiers returning from France march in a victory parade in Philadelphia.
https://i.imgur.com/9ohVmX5.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-09-19, 01:20 PM

Sunday, February 9, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

02-10-19, 07:05 AM

10th February 1919

Aftermath of War

More fighting in Archangel region. White forces commanded by General Wrangel capture the Terek capital, Vladikavkaz.

British troops occupying Cologne, Germany enjoy playing ice hockey.
https://i.imgur.com/QIPa5xl.jpg

Residents of Mendig, Germany harvesting ice to be stored for summer use.
https://i.imgur.com/Do5WCAt.jpg

American soldiers being presented with Medal of Honors at Chaumont. One of them is Private Thomas C. Neibaur, the first Mormon to receive the decoration.
https://i.imgur.com/uZQF7rq.jpg

Ship Losses:

SM UC-91 (Imperial German Navy) The Type UC III submarine foundered in the North Sea (54°15′N 3°56′E) with the loss of seventeen of her crew.

Sailor Steve

02-10-19, 01:57 PM

Monday, February 10, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 20

3rd meeting of the 13th Session of the Supreme War Council

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau calls upon M. Klotz to explain the conclusions reached by the Inter-Allied Commission on the subject of the Renewal of Financial Clauses to be added to the Armistice when next renewed. M Klotz says that since the last renewal of the Armistice the Germans have sought to elude the financial clauses of the Armistice, or have executed them with the greatest ill-will:

(A) They have only handed over an insignificant quantity of bonds and securities stolen by them and deposited in Germany in the Kriegs Kassen and public banks.

(B) They have prevented the operation of the financial control over their foreign securities and only nominated the Commissioners, who were to be put into touch with the Allies, a few days ago.

(C) They have refused, contrary to their undertaking made in the same protocol, to examine, together with the Allies, measures tending to the restitution of property sequestered by them to the detriment of Allied subjects.

(D) The attitude adopted by them in the Financial Commission at Spa, and the tone in which their notes to the Allies were framed, were deliberately aggressive and should not be tolerated.

Taking these facts into consideration, the Inter-Allied Financial Commission has proposed that the following clauses should be added to the Armistice when next renewed:

(1) The German Government will, for the restitution of the property taken from the nationals of the Allied nations, follow, in all its conditions, the provisions which have been made by a common agreement by the Allied Delegations at the Financial Sub-Committee of the Spa Armistice Commission, and which will be notified by the Commander-in-Chief.

(2) This will also apply to the carrying-out of the obligations referred to in paragraph 3 of the Treves financial clauses of December 13th, 1918.

President Wilson asked that the terms of the financial clauses referred to might be read. M Klotz reads paragraphs III and IV of the Financial Clauses of the Agreement for the prolongation of the Armistice, dated Treves, December 13th, 1918, as follows:

“III. The German Government binds itself to pay at maturity and in conformity with current legislation to the natives of Alsace-Lorraine (Alsaciens-Lorrains) all debts or bills of exchange which have fallen due or which may fall due during the armistice and connected with German public funds, such as Treasury Bonds, bills of exchange, money or other orders, transfers, acceptances, etc., the corresponding transactions not being limited to those enumerated in the above recital.

The German Government binds itself not to place any special obstacle in the way of free disposal and enjoyment by Alsace-Lorrainers of all property, securities, shares and monies belonging to them and situate or being in Germany.

IV. The German Government binds itself to consider, in agreement with the Allied Governments, the steps to be taken for the speedy restitution of property sequestrated to the prejudice of nationals of the Allied countries”.

President Wilson says that an Inter-Allied Economic Commission had been formed to report on Economic and Financial matters, and that this question should be referred to that Commission. M Klotz says that a unanimous decision has already been reached by international financial experts meeting at Spa, and that he does not think any purpose will be served by referring the matter to a similar body. Mr Wilson responds that, though a decision has been reached, no means has yet been produced for enforcing the decision. That is the purpose of the new Commission.

Mr Balfour says that he has no objection to the matter being referred to a new Commission, but he suggests that the manner of the enforcement also be handled by the new Commission. He has just this day received a report from the Naval Armistice Commission in London saying the Germans had yet to begin the surrender of submarines and merchant shipping as promised. There are also no signs that they plan to surrender the merchant shipping at all. He says that some means needs to be provided to enforce this.

President Wilson agrees, but says that as far as he is aware the Naval experts have no adequate plan for enforcing the surrender of listed ships. He feels that because of this the experts should be consulted in each individual case. Mr Balfour agrees, but says that according to Admiral Hope the Navy has no means to enforce this, and that the Army should be asked to help. President Wilson is of the opinion that the use of force in this case will mean the end of the Armistice and resumption of the War. Mr Balfour says he meant the use of threats, and not actual force. President Wilson asks Admiral Hope what sort of military action might be necessary and practicable. Admiral Hope replies that no such Naval solutions exist. Any such means must be supplied by the Army.

President Wilson asks Admiral Hope what might happen if the Germans refuse to surrender the submarines under construction. Hope replies that it would require the occupation of several major dockyards and port cities, and that it was not possible.

M Clemenceau points out that they are now discussing two questions - the Economic and the Naval. He suggests the Economic question be resolved first, and that M Klotz should address the statement by Mr Wilson regarding differences between the American and French experts. M Klotz says there had been some disagreement regarding Clause 1 of the Armistice, but that on Clauses 3 and 4 they were in complete harmony. Clause 1 should be referred to the Inter-Allied Commission on Economics, but Clauses 3 and 4 should be adopted immediately. President Wilson says that the Peace Council is not competent to decide this question, and that the whole should be referred to the Commission on Economics.

Mr Balfour comments that these two questions - Economic and Naval - could not be more different, it was likely that their resolution would have to be by the same means. He does not think it the place of an Economics Commission to make decisions regarding enforcement of the Armistice, and it would best be handled by the Military. President Wilson points out the necessity for the Germans to have a means of purchasing from other countries, and so there is an Economic means by which to exert pressure on the Germans. Mr Balfour agrees with Mr Wilson's point, and accepts that the Economics Commission might well be the best body to make these decisions.

M Clemenceau accepts this proposal, but points out that whatever steps are taken must be taken immediately. The Germans' replies to Allied demands have become insolent. They have flatly refused to stop attacks in Poland. He feels the Weimar Government has chosen the worst possible President. He agrees that Economic action is the best means, but that action should take place now, as the Armistice expires on the 17th of this month. Marshal Foch points out that the new Armistice will have to be signed on the 16th, therefore negotiations must begin on the 14th and end on the 15th. M Clemenceau agrees, and says that each Nation should appoint one expert, either Economic or Naval, to report on the 12th the best means for applying pressure on the Germans to comply with the clauses of the Armistice.

President Wilson says that he is ready to stand by any choice taken, but that they must be aware of the gravity of the situation. If the Armistice is not renewed then the War must be. He points out that if they have not reached a decision on enforcement of the Armistice then they should renew the Armistice on the original terms for a short period, say two weeks.

M Clemenceau asks Marshal Foch for his opinions on this proposal. Marshal Foch replies that the situation is indeed grave, for if the Armistice is not renewed then they will again be at war. He agrees with the idea of a short renewal on the original terms being better than having to renew the fighting. President Wilson suggests that along with a short-term renewal it might be best if the Germans are fully informed that the reason for this is simply because the Allies are still deciding what measures to take for enforcement. He feels this might make the Germans sit back and think about the course they are currently taking.

Mr Balfour says he thinks the President's warning might make a big impression on the Germans. He thinks an Economic blockade of Germany might actually have a bigger impact than a renewal of hostilities. M Pichon is of an opposite mind. He thinks the Germans will believe the Allies are hesitant to give orders, and a short-term renewal might actually make things worse. President Wilson says that M Pichon's objection is just, and that they still have not found a real solution to the problem.

M Clemenceau suggests the issue be tabled until Wednesday the 12th. By that time they should have received the report of the Commission on Poland. President Wilson agrees, provided the matter be referred to a Committee of Economic and Naval experts and that they give their thoughts on that day. M Clemenceau asks that the experts be given instructions to have a report ready on Wednesday. The Commanders of the Allied Armies will be invited to attend that meeting. Mr Balfour says that the Allied Commanders should not serve as advisors to the Committee, but should only act as experts to give their opinions when asked.

Mr Clemenceau asks for a five-minute recess while the Council members assign their recommendations to the new Committee.

When the Council resumes, the members give their nominations.

America: Mr Norman Davis and General Bliss.

British Empire: Lord Robert Cecil and General Thwaites.

France: M Clementel and General Degoutte.

Italy: Signor Crespi and General Cavellero.

It is decided that these delegates will hold their first meeting at 1800 hours this evening at 4 bis Boulevard des Invalides.

2. M Clemenceau suggests that since discussion of the Armistice has been postponed, questions concerning the addition of clauses relating to Poland should likewise be tabled. This is agreed to.

3. Mr Balfour opens a discussion on The Arrest of Enemy Persons Guilty of Breaches of the Laws of War. He feels that it should be put into the new Armistice that, while no names would be given in that document, any persons asked for later would be given over for trial. Mr Lansing says that, though he agrees in principle, he does not consider this a proper question to be put into the Armistice. Further, knowing that a trial was to take place, the Germans, knowing exactly who the people in question were, would do everything in their power to conceal said persons. President Wilson agrees with this, and the consideration is tabled for later discussion.

4. M Clemenceau says that it has been decided that all discussions of a blockade on raw materials entering Germany would henceforth be referred to the Council on Economics. M Klotz agrees, but wishes to bring to light a recently-discovered document which revealed a German plan to destroy all French industries in occupied areas. This pamphlet was printed during the Verdun campaign of 1916 and referred to German actions if they had to withdraw from that region. President Wilson askes what object M Klotz has in bringing this up. M Klotz replies that it clearly shows that the Germans intended a premeditated destruction of French industries by German Authorities. President Wilson says he understands how this might affect their frame of mind, but asks what effect it will have on their plans. M Klotz says that the first duty of the Technical Committee is to see to the restoration of destroyed industries in occupied France.

5. M Clemenceau addresses the report submitted by the Military Representatives at Versailles regarding Territories in the former Turkish Empire and the Trans-Caucasus region. Lord Milner gives his opinion that this is better suited for the Peace Conference than the War Council. It is decided to postpone this question until the next day.

Subjects for the next meeting:
1. Belgian Territorial Claims.
2. Occupation of territories in the Turkish Empire and Trans-Caucasia.

Jimbuna

02-11-19, 12:53 PM

11th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Friedrich Ebert is elected the first President of Germany by the National Assembly, becoming the first democratically elected leader in the country.
https://i.imgur.com/xKIBRWB.jpg

A damaged British plane next to a German Gotha bomber at an airfield in Cologne, Germany, currently under British occupation.
https://i.imgur.com/nNKCBRI.jpg

A workshop testing dazzle painting on model ships which were used to help camouflage ships during the war.
https://i.imgur.com/ajODQQf.jpg

The General Strike in Seattle involving more than 65,000 workers comes to an end due to public pressure and increased police presence. Policemen with a mounted machine gun in Seattle.
https://i.imgur.com/S3OvMVl.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-11-19, 03:05 PM

Tuesday, February 11, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 21

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

M Clemenceau opens the meeting by asking M Hymans to make his statement of Belgian territorial claims.

1. M Hymans said that the general statement of the Belgian peace problem might be summarized in one comprehensive demand: the revision of the Treaty of 19th April 1839.

2. M Hymans gives a historical overview of the events leading to the War, ending with the statement that the War has ruined Belgium's economy.

3. M Hymans says that Belgium is asking Britain and France to help Belgium attain complete Sovereignty, and to become a strong and prosperous nation again.

4. Belgium is asking for control of the Scheldt River, as this is the vital artery of Belgium, connecting Antwerp with the sea, and the lack of access to the river has caused Belgium great suffering in both War and Peace.

5. Belgium is asking for control of the Canal linking Ghent to the Scheldt.

6. President Wilson brings up the question of how Belgium can negotiate with Holland, since that was the only other Nation who held any claim to the river in question. Holland had remained neutral during the war and had on representatives at the Peace Conference. M Hymans replies that Belgium wishes to remain on good terms with Holland, and to that end the Dutch be asked to send a Representative to the Peace Conference to negotiate a revision to the Treaty of 1839, which assigned the current borders.

President Wilson asks how M Hymans thinks Holland can be brought to a discussion of this proposal. M Hymans says he believes the Conference should provide the solution to that question. Mr Balfour says the real difficulty is that a neutral country is to be asked to modify a treaty and to surrender territory without any offer of compensation. M Hymans says that he would at a later stage make a suggestion on the subject of compensation but would like first to speak on the subject of Limburg as this matter was closely connected with the question of the Scheldt.

7. The treaty of 1839 had taken a part of the Limburg Territory from Belgium, which had deprived Belgium of the waterways in the region between the Meuse and Rhine rivers. The Dutch enclave at Maestricht is only five miles across, but a craft navigating the canal through that enclave must pass customs four separate times.

8. M Hymans now returns to the subject of a method of negotiation with Holland. The Dutch had remained neutral during the War, but it was Belgium's sacrifice that allowed them to do so. Holland had profited greatly selling supplies to the Germans, and thus took part in the war while remaining officially neutral. M Hymans says that Holland's neutrality should not be used to avoid negotiations with Belgium. He feels the Conference can use these facts for leverage to bring the Dutch to the table.

9. M Hymans returns to the question of Compensation for any lands claimed by Belgium. While Belgium has nothing to offer in the way of finances, it might be possible for Belgium to support a claim by Holland for the Prussian Guelderland region, which has close ties to Holland and whose population speaks mostly Dutch. Belgium would also support a Dutch claim to Eastern Friesland and Bentheim, possession of which would give Holland a strong buffer zone against possible future attacks by Germany. M Hymans says this proposal seems to him to offer military and economic advantages not only for Holland but for the Allies in general.

10. M Hymans requests the Conference look into a possible Belgian claim for Luxembourg, as that country's government is not recognized by the Allies. He says that there are three options:

1) Maintenance of the current Government. This is impossible because the Grand Duchess is not recognized.

2) Union with France. This is unlikely because France has made no claims against Luxembourg.

3) Union with Belgium. This is the only viable option.

11. Belgium makes a claim for the Walloons Cantons, especially Malmedy and Moresnet.

12. M Hymans says that if discussion arise later on the Rhine question, he reserves the right to restate Belgium's claim to that district.

M Hymans concludes by saying he hopes he has stated his country's claims clearly and reminding the Conference how much Belgium suffered under the German invasion. He hopes it is understood that Belgium is still suffering greatly, and these territorial claims are an attempt to alleviate that suffering and not in any way based on thoughts of conquest or imperialism.

The meeting is then adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-12-19, 01:44 PM

12th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Renewal of Armistice conditions settled by Allies.

Allied Mission arrives at Warsaw.

Ukrainians defeat Bolsheviks near Kiev.

U.S.A. passes three years' Naval Programme.

African American soldier of the 369th Infantry Regiment (Harlem Hellfighters) shows off a captured portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II framed by bullets that he carried around for luck.
https://i.imgur.com/gNmLg11.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-12-19, 08:44 PM

Wednesday, February 12, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 22

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting, then asks for the report of the Committee which had assembled at Marshal Foch’s Headquarters in accordance with the decision of the Supreme War Council, dated 10th February, 1919. General Weygand reads the conclusions of the Committee. M Clemenceau asks whether it is advisable to discuss the report immediately. President Wilson says the sooner the better. It is agreed to make the report the main topic of discussion.

Signor Orlando points out the clause which reads "The members of the Committee are of the opinion that naval and military terms of peace should be drawn up immediately by a Commission appointed for the purpose, and shall be imposed on the enemy," and says it seems that "naval and military terms of peace" are not the same are the same as the conditions in the report itself.

2. Mr Balfour agrees that the terms are two different questions: a) How to guarantee German cooperation with the execution of unfulfilled promises, and b) What should the Allied policy be regarding the renewal of the Armistice? Should it be renewed constantly with new sets of terms and conditions, or should the final terms be drawn up now and imposed upon the Germans?

M Clemenceau feels the final terms must not be discussed at this time, as the Council is not yet ready. On the other hand the terms already agreed to by the Germans must be enforced immediately. Marshal Foch points out that the Armistice expires at 0500 on the 17th, therefore the renewal must be signed on the 16th and he will have to leave Paris by the 15th at the latest. M Clemenceau says that more than two days will be required to decide the final naval and military clauses to be included in the Peace Treaty. Consequently, the consideration of that question would have to be postponed, but the conditions for a renewal of the armistice must at once be decided.

Mr Balfour says that it would be a bad idea to renew the Armistice every month with new and changing terms. There must be a finalized set of conditions, with only small changes allowed after that. President Wilson says that he is happy to hear that, since he has pointed out several times that they are constantly adding new secondary demands while at the same time fretting over the Germans not fulfilling the main plans already agreed to. They have discussed the possibility of renewing the War if major demands were not met, but kept adding new conditions which they knew they were not willing to go back to War over. Rather than debate the Germans endlessly over minor infractions, he wanted to present them a single demand along the lines of "The present situation is altogether unsatisfactory. You have failed to keep your promises. You have failed to carry out the terms of the Armistice. The Armistice will be renewed, on the present terms, for a period which will be terminated on a few days’ notice. Meanwhile the final Military and Naval terms of peace will be drawn up and presented to you for acceptance on the understanding that non-acceptance of the whole of the terms would mean an immediate resumption of hostilities."

M Clemenceau objects, saying that the future minor demands and the current major ones are ultimately tied together, and the exact nature of the Naval and Military terms for Peace hinged on what the future demands might entail. There are more than thirty nations represented at the Conference, and most if not all of them will be a part of the League of Nations. Their Political and Economic desires and needs cannot be separated from the Military conditions.

M Clemenceau then quotes President Wilson, who had previously said "I am ready to employ the whole strength of the American Army to obtain acceptance of the final conditions of peace. As to secondary questions—well, let them go. For vital questions, I am ready to renew the war, if necessary." He feels that the President's quote in the end is purely academic. The majority of the Peace will be accomplished after the American, British and Italian troops have all gone home. To enforce the President's proposal would require keeping 51 French, 10 British and 10 American divisions in the field indefinitely, along with all the means to supply them.

“The Supreme War Council agree that:

1) The armistice with Germany shall be renewed on the present terms for an undefined period terminable by the Allied and Associated Powers at . . . . . days’ notice.

2) Detailed and final naval, military, and air conditions shall be drawn up at once by a Committee to be presided over by Marshal Foch and submitted for the approval of the Supreme War Council: These, when approved, will be presented for signature to the Germans.

3) After the signature of these preliminaries of peace Germany will be permitted to receive such controlled quantities of food, and raw materials for the rehabilitation of her industry, as shall be deemed just, having regard to the prior claims of Allied countries, especially those on whose industries Germany has deliberately inflicted damage.

4) The question of the quantities of food and raw material to be allowed to Germany after the signature of the preliminaries of peace shall be referred to the Economic Council for examination and report.”

The meeting is adjourned until 1530, with Technical, Military and Naval advisors to be in attendance at 1700.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15"30

1. M Clemenceau opens the afternoon meeting with the suggestion that the discussion should begin where it left off that morning.

President Wilson says that upon reflection he has concluded that the differences of opinion can be reduced to one important point: The terms of the Peace should be finalized before the troops started demobilizing. M Clemenceau says that this was his plan all along, and his main objection. Mr Balfour says he is also in agreement.

President Wilson says one problem is that Germany cannot be disarmed until it is decided what arms they need to retain to fight off a possible Bolshevist attack and to maintain an internal police force. He feels the World has a moral right to disarm Germany, and believes the Military Advisors can come up with a plan for this within 48 hours. He's not sure, however, that the Governments can approve the plan in 48 hours. He does not wish the Armistice to go on for much longer, but it cannot be done away with until the governments all agree on Disarmament. The Peace terms must be served while the Allied armies are still in full force, or the Germans might decide they can win a renewed war.

M Clemenceau agrees that the experts must decide on terms of Disarmament as soon as possible. President Wilson says the American experts are ready now. M Clemenceau and Mr Balfour state that the French and British experts are also ready.

M Clemenceau now expresses concern that President Wilson has to leave the conference for a time, and might be gone as long as a month. M Clemenceau says he will not discuss the matter while the President is away, so it must be postponed until he has returned. Mr Wilson says this is an undeserved compliment. The brains he uses are not his own. If his military advisors say one thing he will follow that course anyway, so it doesn't really matter if he is there or not. He does not wish for any important business to he held up while he is gone, so he as appointed Colonel House to act for him while he's gone.

M Clemenceau says he is completely satisfied. M Pichon asks whether it might be possible for the experts to come up with the plan before the President leaves. Lord Milner says they have studied the matter in detail and the largest army Germany can sustain at present is 25 divisions.

Signor Orlando points out that they have still not decided whether the Armistice should be renewed monthly or finalized. President Wilson says he does not think that decision can be made in 48 hours. he feels, therefore, the Armistice should be renewed monthly but that a strong demand be delivered to the Germans that unless the comply with the terms laid down at the start reprisals will be harsh.

Mr Balfour presents a new draft for the Peace terms:
1) As a condition of the renewal of the armistice Marshal Foch shall stipulate that the Germans shall desist from all offensive operations against the Poles, whether in Posen or elsewhere.

2) The Armistice with Germany shall be renewed for a short period terminable by the Allied and Associated Powers at three days’ notice.

3) Detailed and final naval, military, and air conditions of the preliminaries of peace shall be drawn up at once by a Committee to be presided over by Marshal Foch and submitted for the approval of the Supreme War Council; these, when approved, will be presented for signature to the Germans, and the Germans shall be at once informed that this is the policy of the Associated Governments.

4) After the signature of these preliminaries of peace, Germany will be permitted to receive such controlled quantities of food, and raw materials for the rehabilitation of her industry, as shall be deemed just, having regard to the prior claims of Allied countries, especially those on whose industries Germany had deliberately inflicted damage.

5) The question of the quantities of food and raw material to be allowed to Germany after the signature of the preliminaries of peace shall be referred to the Economic Council for examination and report.

At President Wilson's suggestion clauses 4 and 5 are dropped from the list temporarily. This is agreed to.

2. M Clemenceau says that before adjourning he would like to two subjects:

A) That a Commission be appointed to look into the transfer of Malmedy and Moresnet to Belgium.

B) That the question of Belgian right-of-way on all waterways be assigned to the Commission on the International Control of Ports, Waterways and Railways.

This is approved without discussion.

3. Mr Balfour proposes a Committee To Deal With Reports From Polish Commission, which will refer big questions to the Council and deal with the smaller questions itself.

4. Nominations to the various committees should be certified to the Secretary-General as soon as possible.

5. M Clemenceau says he has received a demand from the Poles that the next Armistice Renewal contain a requirement that the Germans return agricultural implements stolen from the Poles. He feels that this is justified, since the same has already been done for the French and the Belgians. President Wilson thinks this is a bad idea since The Poles are technically on German territory. The Allies might have moral right on their side but the Germans would have the law on theirs. Mr Balfour asks whether it would be possible to put pressure on the Germans outside the Armistice and say "You cannot expect us to assist you as long as you keep goods stolen from our friends." President Wilson suggests this be referred to the Economic Council.

6. M Clemenceau agrees to the above proposal provided the return of French cattle also be referred to that Council.

7. M Clemenceau wants it stipulated that the Civil Commissioners attached to Marshal Foch do not contact the Germans independently. President Wilson agrees provided it is made clear that Marshal Foch should consult those Commissioners whenever an Economic question is being discussed.

8. M Clemenceau proposes and the Council agrees that commercial relations should be resumed with Turkey and Bulgaria.

At this point the meeting is adjourned and the Military Advisors invited into the room.

Meeting of the Supreme War Council
M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 17"00

9. M Clemenceau reads the first three clauses of the Resolution on the Renewal of the Armistice. Marshal Foch asks whether the First Clause could be made more clear. Using a map he shows how the Germans could, while not directly attacking Poland, move against other territories in a manner that could make the situation untenable for the Poles. It is decided that Marshal Foch will be empowered to create a line of demarcation between Poland and Germany.

President Wilson points out that the Poles have complained about attacks on the civil population as well as the military. M Clemenceau says that question cannot be settled by Marshal Foch, and that further such complaints should be directed back to the Council. This is agreed to.

10. M Clemenceau explains the intentions of the governments in Clause 2 concerning the length of the Renewal of the Armistice, and asks the Military and Naval experts to start on this immediately, and to remain in close contact with himself.

11. President Wilson proposes that the nominees for the Committee to Advise on Disarmament should be named at once. It is also decided that the Committee members will sit together at their own table during meetings.

The Members appointed are:

United States of America
General Bliss.
Admiral Benson.
General Mason N. Patrick.

British Empire
General Sir H. H. Wilson.
Admiral Wemyss.
General Sykes.
(Or their representatives)

France
General Degoutte.
Admiral de Bon.
General Duval.

Italy
General Cavallero.
Admiral Grassi.
(plus a third to be nominated later)

Japan
(The Japanese delegates remain to be chosen.)

12. It is agreed that M Clemenceau will give Marshal Foch the text for the Renewal of the Armistice, which he will present to the Germans.

The meeting is then adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-13-19, 07:34 AM

13th February 1919

The cabinet of the German Republic meets for the first time in Weimar.
https://i.imgur.com/gCBpYBk.png

Sailor Steve

02-13-19, 06:58 PM

Thursday, February 13, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 23

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. M. Clemenceau opens the meeting asking whether the representatives of the Great Powers to form part of the Poland and Belgium Committees, respectively, had been appointed.

The following names are given:

i) Committee on Poland.

Great Britain:
Sir W. Tyrrell.

France:
M. Jules Cambon.

Italy:
Count Vannutelli-Rey.

Japan:
M. Otchiai.

ii) Committee on Belgium.

Great Britain:
Sir Eyre Crowe.
Mr. J. W. Headlam-Morle.

France
M. Tardieu.
M. Laroche.

Italy:
M. Ricci-Busatti.

President Wilson says he regrets that through an omission the American representatives to sit on these two Committees had not yet been chosen. He would submit the names to the Secretariat-General during the course of the afternoon.

Signor Orlando says that the name of the second representative to sit on the Belgian Committee would shortly be submitted.

2. Signor Orlando raises a question related to the decision made yesterday on the disarmament of Germany. While the Western Front Armistice is being renewed, a state of war technically still exists between Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, despite the fact that said Empire has ceased to exist. There are new States left over from the Empire that are friendly to Italy, but there are also those which are still Hostile. S Orlando requests that the Inter-Allied Military Commission, created to deal with the German Armistice, be authorized to also address the situation between Italy and Austria-Hungary. President Wilson wholeheartedly agrees.

It is decided that the Inter-Allied Military Commission's powers will be expanded to include the handling of the Southern Front Armistice as well.

3. Dr Bliss is invited into the chamber to make a statement regarding Syria. After careful examination he has decided that the Syrian People are ready to govern themselves. He therefore recommends that a Commission be sent to Syria to enquire as to their own feelings on the subject, whether they feel ready to rule themselves or would rather be governed by a Mandate until they are ready to take that step. Either way the country would be guarded and helped by the League of Nations. Dr Bliss now gives a lengthy speech listing the details of Syria's current state of affairs.

M Pichon asks Dr Bliss whether his proposal applies to all former Ottoman territories or to Syria alone. Dr Bliss replies that he had been born in Syria and is now living there. While he feels his remarks should apply to other Religions and other Populations, he can only speak personally for Syria herself.

There follows a very long series of questions from Mr Balfour with answers from Dr Bliss, after which the members of the Syrian Commission are introduced:

Chekri Gamen - Chief Representative of the Central Syrian Committee.
Mardan Bey - Muslim Representative.
Mr Chedade - Orthodox Representative
There is also an Israelite Representative who is unnamed in the Official Documents.

4. Chekri Gamen reads an opening statement concerning the Syrian question, and it is agreed to put aside further discussion on Syria until a later date.

5. President Wilson makes a statement concerning legislation and conditions of Women and Children worldwide. He asks whether a Commission should be appointed to examine this situation. M Clemenceau asks whether this could be handled by the already-existing Inter-Allied Commission on International Labour Legislation. Mr Wilson replies that this would not satisfy the Suffrage Associations, which had asked for Official recognition. He feels this recognition should be given. Maharaja Bikaner says that such recognition would create considerable difficulty in Oriental countries. Mr Wilson says the inquiry would be restricted to European countries and to America.

M Clemenceau says he would not object to an inquiry into labor conditions for women and children, but he would object to an inquiry into the political status of women. President Wilson replies that this is the question Women are chiefly interested in. Mr Balfour says he is a longtime supporter of Women's Suffrage, but he feels that this is not a subject for the Peace Conference. Baron Makino says there is a Suffrage Movement in Japan, but at this time it is insignificant. Baron Sonnino says that he too supports Suffrage but like Mr Balfour he does not feel this is the proper time or place for such discussions. President Wilson says that with most of the Members opposed, he is withdrawing his proposal.

6. President Wilson suggests that the Plenary Conference on the League of Nations be called tomorrow to discuss submissions for plans to be submitted by Council Members. M Clemenceau asks whether reports should be first submitted to the Council. Mr Wilson replies that the League Commission is not of the Council of Great Powers but was created by the Plenary Conference. Therefore the reports should be submitted directly to the Plenary Conference. Mr Balfour asks that Mr Wilson explain his scheme to the Plenary Conference before departing for the United States. Mr Wilson agrees to this.

At this point the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-14-19, 10:11 AM

14th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Bolsheviks invade Estonia.

The first skirmishes of the Polish-Soviet War begin near the village of Bereza Kartuska (today Byaroza, Belarus) as the two sides clash in the power vacuum left by leaving German troops.

League of Nations Covenant approved; published following day.

Gates of the Kremlin in Moscow, showing damages caused by the fighting between the Bolsheviks and anti-Communists.
https://i.imgur.com/2P1L5RN.png

At the Paris Peace Conference, Japanese Ambassador Makino Nobuaki proposes the racial equality clause that would make “no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.”
https://i.imgur.com/iHrPGKu.png

A U.S. postal worker cancels the stamps of a woman “delivered” by the new U.S. aerial post service in San Diego.
https://i.imgur.com/AU7cseu.png

Sailor Steve

02-14-19, 04:46 PM

Friday, February 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 24

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:30

President Wilson presents the First Draft of the plan for the League of Nations. After he reads the draft several members spend the next three hours making speeches giving their thoughts on the Draft.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 18:30

1. Mr Balfour apologizes for calling a meeting at such a late hour, but there are some points that he feels need to be decided before President Wilson's departure. The first of these is that the Military Advisors have told him that the only way to keep British troops on the Rhine supplied except by passage through Holland. While this only concerns Britain Mr Balfour feels that it would be best if agreed upon by all the Allied Powers. He wishes that those Powers press the urgency of this matter upon the Dutch.

Army commanders from each Power state their current state of affairs in this regard. It is decided that if the Dutch refuse to cooperate some means of pressure will be found to coerce them to allow British passage to the Rhine.

2. Mr Balfour's second point is the meeting with the various Russian governments at Prinkipo. Mr Winston Churchill has been invited to the Council Meeting to give the views of the British Cabinet on the subject. Mr Churchill says that British soldiers are dying in the Russian conflict, and the British people want to know if this is part of a vital war for freedom or just a holding action until the Council had made up their minds. If the latter then they desired that British troops in Russia should be brought home immediately. Further, if all the different Russian governments were going to meet at Prinkipo then it could be hoped that something might be accomplished. If only the Bolsheviks were going to show up he didn't see the purpose of having the meeting at all.

M Clemenceau says that a matter of this importance could not possibly be settled in a short impromptu meeting.

President Wilson expresses his opinion that Allied troops are doing no good in Russia at all. The don't know who or what they are fighting for and they are not helping bring order to the whole of Russia, but merely assisting local groups such as the Cossacks, who in their turn refuse to leave their own territories to assist other Russians in their struggle. For these reasons he believes that all Allied troops anywhere in Russia should be brought home immediately.

Mr Churchill agrees that bringing home all Allied troops is a logical and clear policy, but warns that doing so will result in the complete destruction of all non-Bolshevik armies in Russia.

President Wilson replies that the Allied forces now in Russia cannot stop the Bolsheviks, and not one Allied Power is willing to send more troops there.

Baron Sonnino asks whether the Allies could not continue supplying arms to non-Bolshevik forces.

President Wilson replies that those forces aren't fully utilizing the weapons the already have.

Mr Churchill agrees that more arms will not help, but sending specialists to advise and major weapons such as aeroplanes and tanks might be furnished.

President Wilson says that once these weapons are in the hands of Russian forces the Allies will have no control over their use. There for if asked exactly what they are supporting they will be required to answer "We don't know".

Mr Churchill asks whether the Council will agree to supplying arms to non-Bolshevik Russians if the Prinkipo meeting fails.

President Wilson replies that he has stated what he would do if he were acting alone, but since he is not he will cast his lot with the rest when a decision is arrived at.

At this point the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-15-19, 07:25 AM

15th February 1919

Aftermath of War

President Wilson leaves France for U.S.A.

The conference room at the Hotel Crillon in Paris where delegates are discussing the creation of the League of Nations.
https://i.imgur.com/XyhvFq4.jpg

British occupation troops in Cologne, Germany enjoy a trip to the zoo.
https://i.imgur.com/YehuRhc.jpg

Ship Losses:

Hans (Norway) The cargo ship ran aground and sank in Fjensfjord, Norway.

Sailor Steve

02-15-19, 08:46 PM

Saturday, February 15, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 25

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

Mr Churchill continues where he had left off the previous evening. More than a month has passed and still no policy decision on the Allied Forces in Russia has been reached. At the same time conditions in Russia are deteriorating rapidly. The British Government feels that a decision on the Prinkipo Conference must be reached immediately. Either all the Russian Governments must be present at that Conference and allowed to negotiate freely or the Allied Forces must be withdrawn and Russia left to her own devises.

The Bolshevik Government has offered to discuss terms for repayment of loans taken by Russia from the Allies. Mr Churchill makes it clear that this is not the object for Allied interference in Russia. The sole desire is for peace in that country. The Bolsheviks have accepted the invitation to Prinkipo (or Prince's Island, as Mr Churchill calls it), but at the same time they are attacking the non-Bolshevik Russians on several fronts. February 25th is set as the date by which all Bolshevik attacks must cease or the Prinkipo Conference will be cancelled. If the Bolsheviks have ceased all attacks and withdrawn their forces by the 20th then the Allies will give the same ultimatum to the non-Bolshevik forces.

Mr Churchill also proposes setting up an Allied Council on Russian Affairs. This Council will draw up plans for war against the Bolsheviks if they do not cease their attacks on Allied and friendly forces.

Mr Lansing, speaking for President Wilson, says that with a few minor textual changes this proposal is satisfactory to the United States. M Clemenceau says he is not in favor of leaving Russia to her own devices, as she would quickly fall prey to the Germans.

At this very moment it is announced that a telegram has been received saying the Germans have begun attacking Poland on several fronts. It would appear that when they met Marshal Foch to discuss the Polish situation the Germans wanted to be able to argue from a point of being already in possession of the Polish lands they desired. Several Delegates to the Council give the opinion that the Allies' best interest would be served by using this German tactic to persuade undecided Governments to join the side against Bolshevism.

Baron Sonnino opines that the Allies must get out of the Prinkipo proposal. Mr Churchill says the British Government has too much invested in the Prinkipo Conference and will oppose abandoning it at this point, unless it can be shown that the Conference was proposed in good faith and everything possible was done to make it work.

Mr Balfour says that several points of great difficulty have been raised, and proposes postponing further discussion until Monday the 17th. This is agreed to, and the meeting adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-16-19, 06:53 AM

16th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Elections held in Austria for National Assembly.

A prolongation of the ceasefire between the Allies and German helped end most of the major fighting between the Germans and Polish rebels in Greater Poland, although skirmishes continued until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28.

British diplomat Mark Sykes, co-author of the Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided up the Middle East between France and Great Britain, dies of the Spanish flu at the age of 39.
https://i.imgur.com/wfuULyL.jpg

Soldiers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic massacre around 1,500 Jewish residents of Proskurov (Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine). There is still debate on the responsibility of Symon Petliura (pictured), head of the Directorate of Ukraine, in the massacre.
https://i.imgur.com/Bx0VPdt.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-16-19, 04:15 PM

Sunday, February 16, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

02-17-19, 07:12 AM

17th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Extension of Armistice; Terms signed.

Edward, Prince of Wales and General Pershing inspect American troops stationed in France.
https://i.imgur.com/Y8yL9ue.jpg

Austria holds its first elections since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Social Democratic Workers’ Party led by Karl Seitz wins the most votes.
https://i.imgur.com/Asxjc9L.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-17-19, 01:26 PM

Monday, February 17, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 26

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. Marshal Foch has returned from meeting with the German representatives on the 14th. Herr Erzberger has taken the papers relating the Allied views and returned two demands from the German side:

1) Repatriation of German prisoners.

2) To the action taken by the French in Alsace-Lorraine against German industrialists holding property removed from France and Belgium.

Marshal Foch relates his reply to the Germans:

a) Full repatriation is impossible at this time, but everything will be done to send home sick and wounded prisoners as soon as possible.

b) Herr Erzeberger’s view is that proceedings cannot not be taken against private individuals holding property removed from France and Belgium during the war, because they had received it from the German Government. The Allied point of view is that these goods could be recovered wherever found. Marshal Foch has told the Germans that these points will be submitted to Judicial Authorities qualified to decide points of law.

c) Marshal Foch had delivered an Ultimatum to the German Representatives. Since they have shown great reluctance to signing a Renewal of the Armistice, he will depart Treves and the Armistice will expire at 0500 on the 17th. At this point the Germans agreed to sign the renewed Armistice.

After the new Armistice was signed, Her Erzeberger handed Marshal Foch a declaration prepared by Herr Scheideman with the following objections:

I) The agreement ignores the fact that the German Government has been constituted by the popular will, in an orderly manner. The agreement imposes harsh restrictions on the Germans while ignoring Polish attacks on the German population, and taking what they want for their own.

II) Germany can prove that she has done everything possible to carry out the terms of the original Armistice.

III) Rather than a lasting Armistice with equitable terms Germany has been forced into a short Armistice that can be terminated on only three days' notice.

Marshal Foch proposes a telegram to the Germans stating that a cease-fire must be maintained by the Poles as well as the Germans. The Germans have asked for protection for the 400,000 Germans living in Polish territory. Marshal Foch says he cannot deal with this from a distance and requests that these questions be dealt with by the Inter-Allied Commission at Warsaw. It is agreed that such a telegram will be sent by Marshal Foch.

2. British Vice-Admiral Browning reports that the Germans want to bring an end to the submarine question. 45 submarines are still to be handed over, but it is reported that two of these have sunk at the mouth of the Elbe River. The Allies demand that these be replaced with engines and electrical plants. The Germans are also handing over submarine docks and lifting equipment.

3. Admiral Browning has also reported that the Germans are using naval wireless equipment to spread propaganda, and warned them that this must cease.

4. Admiral Browning has also pointed out that the Germans are reluctant to surrender merchant shipping until some minor financial problems have been straightened out. He says this does not sound like a country desperately in need of food.

5. Mr Balfour brings up the many requests from German Admiral Goette that merchant shipping restrictions be relaxed to allow German troops to be repatriated. He suggests that this be referred to the Military and Naval Committees. M Clemenceau asks whether this might no be better off in the hands of the Blockade Committee. Col House says these questions are more military than financial. It is finally decided to ask all Committees to submit reports.

6. M Clemenceau says that he has received a telegram from Mr Pachitch that the Serbian government intends to submit their case against Italy to President Wilson for arbitration. M Clemenceau makes it clear that this is not a request for discussion from the Council, but merely to inform them of the fact. Baron Sonnino says that Italy cannot give itself to arbitration on matters which they thought was part of the reason they fought the war.

7. A discussion is held on the Russian situation, with the verdict being that once again the matter will be postponed

8. M Clemenceau announces that the Serbian question will be discussed the following day. Baron Sonnino says that this is a delicate question, and that the Serbs should be heard with the Italians absent, or that if held in front of the Italians that no discussion should ensue. M Clemenceau says that there is precedent for this, and that the Serbs will be heard.

He then pronounces the meeting closed.

Jimbuna

02-18-19, 11:18 AM

18th February 1919

Jack Palance was born on this day.
https://i.imgur.com/hv3Waww.jpg

American and French soldiers building coffins during the Allied intervention in Russia against the Bolsheviks.
https://i.imgur.com/H0hQAKp.jpg

African American soldier of the 369th Infantry, the Harlem Hellfighters, marching in a victory parade in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/9aPAE3B.png

Princess Ōyama Sutematsu, the first Japanese woman to earn a college degree, has passed away due to the Spanish Flu.
https://i.imgur.com/41egxHg.png

American Red Cross tents with the Eiffel Tower in the background.
https://i.imgur.com/mSkKbem.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-18-19, 05:33 PM

Tuesday, February 18, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 27

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting asking the Serbian delegation to make their statement.

Mr Vesnitch begins by stating that the real cause of the war was German expansion toward Asia Minor and the Yugoslav people. Since 1848 Austria-Hungary had sought to bring under its rule all Serbian peoples. This had led to the Balkan War, which resulted in a victorious Serbia become a refuge for all Yugoslavian peoples, which ultimately led to conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary which ultimately led to the Great War.

Since the beginning of the war the Great Liberal Powers - Britain, France, Russia and later Italy, had fought not for National advantages but for certain Principles, among these Nationality, the Right to Self-Determination, and Freedom of the Small Nations. M Clemenceau had said that there is no difference between the Great and Small Powers. Herr Jagow, on the other hand, had prior to the war said there was no longer room in the world for the Small Powers.

Mr Vesnitch then spends some time explaining, with the aid of Dr Zolger, the proposed Yugoslavian boundaries. After the proposed boundaries are laid out the Serbian delegation withdraws.

2. M Clemenceau says that Mr Tchaikowski has asked to speak on the Arkhangelsk Government and Northern Russia. It is agreed that Mr Tchaikowski will speak at the next meeting.

a) Mr Balfour asks whether Mr Tchaikowski's appearance will really be part of a systematic attempt to hear from all Russian sides or just because Mr Tchaikowski happens to be in Paris at the time. M Clemenceau responds that two or three Russians in Paris whose statements might be of interest. Mr Balfour says he believes some investigation is in order. Mr Lansing agrees, otherwise there is a chance that only one side of the evidence will be heard.

b) Mr Balfour says that the case for Yugoslavia has now been heard, and asks for opinions on the matter. Baron Sonnino says that due to her involvement in the question Italy cannot take place in any Council or discussions on the subject.

3. M Clemenceau raises the subject of the Agenda for the next Council Meeting. Some suggestions are made, but nothing is decided.

4. Mr Lansing asks whether there should be an Inter-Allied Commission to Syria. The question is postponed.

5. Sir Robert Borden suggests that time might be saved if it were decided now what questions were to be sent to which Committees. Mr Lansing says that since this was discussed before President Wilson's departure. It was thought that several delegations waiting to make statements to the Council might be disappointed if they had to make them to Committees instead.

6. Mr Balfour presents a list of subjects still awaiting discussion:

Schleswig Holstein.

The Baltic Provinces.

Poland (Delimitation).

Luxembourg.

Albania.

Zionism.

Armenia.

The report of the Economic Drafting Committee.

a) Baron Sonnino suggested the hearing of the Persian statement. Mr. Balfour points out that as Persia is not a belligerent the case does not arise.

b) M. Clemenceau says that another item on the list should be the question of recognizing the Polish Government.

7. M. Clemenceau proposes that at the following meeting the question of the recognition of the Polish Government and the question of Danish claims in Schleswig Holstein should be discussed.

The meeting is then adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-19-19, 09:57 AM

19th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Attempted assassination of M. Clemenceau by Cottin.

Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air Winston Churchill arrives at a memorial service for airmen killed during the First World War at Westminster Abbey, London, on 19 February 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/amnWKKU.jpg

The Pan-African Congress commences in Paris to coincide with the Paris Peace Conference. Africans and African-descended activists (including W.E.B. Du Bois) tried to influence the Peace Conference as it related to the political and economic location of African and Caribbean colonies.
https://i.imgur.com/jK5N78T.jpg

A German observation post that was built inside a vault (on the right) in a graveyard at Montfaucon, France.
https://i.imgur.com/Qs2DOMh.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-19-19, 07:49 PM

Wednesday, February 19, 1919

French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau is leaving his apartment in the Rue Benjamin Franklin to drive to a meeting with Edward M. House, aide to President Wilson, and British Foreign Secretary Arthur House at the Hôtel de Crillon, when Louis Émile Cottin fired several shots at Clemenceau, hitting him once. Clemenceau survives the attack but carries the bullet in his body until he dies from cancer in 1929.

Clemenceau often joked about the "assassin's" bad marksmanship – "We have just won the most terrible war in history, yet here is a Frenchman who misses his target 6 out of 7 times at point-blank range. Of course this fellow must be punished for the careless use of a dangerous weapon and for poor marksmanship. I suggest that he be locked up for eight years, with intensive training in a shooting gallery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Clemenceau

The Peace Conference is closed for two days, resuming on Friday, February 21.

Jimbuna

02-20-19, 08:04 AM

20th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Emir of Afghanistan (Habibullah Khan) assassinated.

Allies beat Bolsheviks on Murman front.

A wounded Bolshevik prisoner of war being transported by the Allies in the Siberian Intervention.
https://i.imgur.com/23zI4xb.jpg

A British and American soldier eat together at a Red Cross canteen in Paris.
https://i.imgur.com/lObFjg6.jpg

Ship Losses:

SM UC-71 (Imperial German Navy) The Type UC II submarine foundered in the North Sea (54°10′N 7°54′E).

Sailor Steve

02-20-19, 02:29 PM

Thursday, February 20, 1919

It is announced that Georges Clemenceau's wound is relatively superficial, and he should be up and about within a very few days.

Jimbuna

02-21-19, 10:38 AM

21st February 1919

Aftermath of War

Kurt Eisner, the socialist Minister President of Bavaria, is assassinated by German nationalist Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley (Anton’s jail cell will later by occupied by Adolf Hitler in 1923)
https://i.imgur.com/NUCiVj1.jpg

Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, a surgeon who served in the American Civil War known for being the first (and still only) woman to receive the Medal of Honor, has passed away.
https://i.imgur.com/SuRtrzv.jpg

Habibullah Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan known for attempting to modernize the country and keeping it out of the war, is assassinated while on a hunting trip.
https://i.imgur.com/uCfwg2K.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-21-19, 02:12 PM

Friday, February 21, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 28

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. American Secretary of State Robert Lansing proposes French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon as temporary President of the Peace Conference. M Pichon is elected. After thanking his fellows for the honor M Pichon says he visited M Clemenceau a few hours earlier. M Clemenceau is recovering quickly and hopes he can take his place at the Conference on Monday. If this turns out not to be possible he will be back shortly.

2. The first subject for the day is the creation of a neutral zone in Transylvania. André Tardieu, Chairman of the Committee on Romanian Affairs, reports that Romanian forces are at this time advancing into Transylvania, and the Transylvanian borders have not yet been fixed. The Romanians give acts of cruelty by the Hungarians in the region as the reason for their continued advance. M Tardieu suggests the Supreme Council as the body to make decisions in this matter, and not his Committee.

3. M Pichon points out that the question of Polish recognition has been waiting for quite some time now. The Polish government is now requesting some action in this matter.

Britain: Mr Balfour agrees that it is time.

France: M Pichon remarked that the Allied and Associated Governments had already recognized the Polish National Committee and the independence of Poland. All that is needed now is official recognition.

United States: Mr. Lansing points out that the United States of America had recognized M. Paderewski’s Government about ten days previously.3 (https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv04/d4#fn:1.5.8.4.20.8.56.3)He saw no reason for renewing the recognition.

Japan: Mr Matsui says that his Government had not yet recognized either the Polish Government or the Polish National Committee. He is not authorized to do so without reference to his Government.

Italy: Baron Sonnino is prepared, on behalf of the Italian Government, to accept the proposal before the Conference.

It is agreed that the Great Powers will recognize M. Paderewski’s Government, taking note of the reservations made by the Japanese Representative.

4. Mr Balfour points out the fact that the French and English texts of the draft terms for the Economic Commission are not identical. Etienne Clémentel says the draft had been prepared in parallel columns and had been signed by all. Mr Balfour suggests the report of the Economic Drafting Committee be accepted, and that the French text should be altered to agree with the English text. Mr Lansing disagrees on the grounds that he has not seen the report, and proposes that discussions on the matter be postponed until the next session.

M Klotz points out that the Draft in question was not a binding agreement, but a questionnaire asking the members' thoughts on the constitution of such a committee. This is not a question of principle, but only one of procedure. M Clementel says that Mr Baruch, before leaving Paris for Brussels, asked that this be decided as soon as possible. Mr Lansing says that, given these circumstances, he would not insist on a postponement.

5. A letter from the Danish government is distributed, asking for an adjustment to the Danish-German border and a withdrawal of German forces from the area in question until the Council has made a decision. After much discussion it is decided that the Committee on Belgium should also look into these matters.

6. Mr Balfour asks for confirmation that Albanian problems will be discussed the following day. This is agreed to, and the meeting adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-22-19, 10:45 AM

22nd February 1919

Aftermath of War

Pan-African Congress concludes its meeting in Paris, which demanded a larger role for Africans in governing the colonies towards future independence.

Tennis players currently serving in U.S. uniform. 4th from the right of the picture is R. Norris Williams, survivor of the RMS Titanic and winner of the US Open in 1914 and 1916.
https://i.imgur.com/yuAD8wQ.jpg

German submarine SM U-21, which sank 40 ships including 2 battleships during the war, sinks while being towed on the way to its surrender. Painting of the SM U-21 by Willy Stöwer.
https://i.imgur.com/lja4v7N.jpg

Ship Losses:

SM U-21 (Imperial German Navy) The Type U 19 submarine foundered in the North Sea (54°19′N 3°42′W) whilst under tow.

Sailor Steve

02-22-19, 03:36 PM

Saturday, February 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 29

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. Mr Balfour opens the meeting with the claim that Portugal is the only nation to have suffered at the hands of the Germans during the war which still has no representative on the Allied Commission on Reparation. After some discussion it is decided that Portugal has the right to name two Representatives to the Commission, and that they should be invited to attend the next Commission meeting on Monday the 24th.

2. Mr Balfour proposes that Preliminary Peace terms be placed for discussion as soon as possible. This Resolution is passed.

3. Mr Balfour requests that the Reports of all the Commissions thus far created should be given to the Secretary-General no later than Saturday, March 8th. It is proposed that the Preliminary Peace Terms be discussed at that time.

The Preliminary non-Military terms are:

1) The approximate future frontiers of Germany,

2) The Financial Arrangements to be imposed on Germany.

3) Economic Relations with Germany after the War, and

4)The Responsibility for Breaches of the Laws of War.

Some objections are raised:

1) The problem faced by Italy of what would happen when the other Allied Armies had gone home, and Italy would face the Germans and the Hungarians alone.

2) It might be a mistake to treat Civil and Military peace terms separately.

3) Whenever the word "Germany" appears in the document the words "and Austria-Hungary" should follow. It is then proposed that where this might not fit the document well the term "Germany" be dropped and the words "Enemy Countries" be added.

There follows much wrangling over the placement of certain paragraphs within the document.

After this several topics for the next meeting are proposed, including Albanian claims, a French statement concerning Morocco, and whether to send troops into Poland.

The final order of business is the agreement that the question of a neutral zone between Germany and Yugoslavia is to be decided by the Military Committee already created to decide the border between The Banat and Transylvania.

Jimbuna

02-23-19, 08:16 AM

23rd February 1919

Aftermath of War

Fighting in Posen and at Lemberg (Galicia).

Destroyed blocks in Torcy, France 7 months after it was recaptured from the Germans and 3 months since the end of the war.
https://i.imgur.com/GH4GZkF.png

A troop station map of France in office of the Personnel Division in Tours, 23 February 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/zpORsXn.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-23-19, 08:44 AM

Sunday, February 23, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

02-24-19, 07:01 AM

24th February 1919

Aftermath of War

President Wilson arrives in New York.

Damage in the city of Lwów (Lviv/Lemberg), as Ukrainian troops continue to besiege the Polish defenders of the city.
https://i.imgur.com/NAVOxwc.jpg

The first anniversary of the independence of Estonia is celebrated in Tallinn.
https://i.imgur.com/dh7DrKG.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-24-19, 05:15 PM

Monday, February 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 30

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

M Pichon opens the meeting, the asks permission for Mr Balfour to raise a subject not on the agenda.

1. Mr Balfour says that Mr Montagu, Secretary of State for India and a member of the Financial Committee, has asked him to bring up the subject of Austria's debt. A payment is due on March 1st. If not paid, a distrust of Austria's credit could ensue, and there might be no way to pay for the food waiting to be delivered to a starving population. A discussion of the interest due is held. It is agreed that the Financial Advisory Committee would prepare declarations concerning the debt, to be delivered on Tuesday, February 25th.

2. Texts have been passed around covering the previous Saturday's Resolution, and Baron Sonnino is invited to make his remarks. The Baron reads the proposed changes to the Resolution on Austria-Hungary's territorial rights. Where Germany is concerned, the debate continues over finalization of the clauses regarding Reparations and Disarmament. Marshal Foch insists that the Military use of "Preliminary Conditions" means that the conditions imposed will only be temporary, and will have to updated from time to time. Lord Milner insists that the conditions will have to be made permanent before they can be approved. Germany may have been the enemy, but deserves to know what is and is not expected of them, and not to have the terms change every other week. M Tardieu says he sees no contradiction between the two sides, as long as all the conditions are finalized by March 8th. It is finally agreed that all four main conditions will be accepted.

3. Touran Pasha reads a list of Albanian claims. It is agreed that these will be examined by the same committee in charge of Greek claims.

4. M Pichon reminds the Council of Mr Noulens', Chairman of the Allied Commission to Poland telegram requesting a division of General Haller's Army. M Pichon believes this can and should be done as soon as possible. Marshal Foch says that the only way to do this is to occupy Danzig and the Danzig-Thorn Railway line, and since Germany currently in control of the line the best possible recourse is to make the Germans withdraw their troops from the region. After some discussion on this the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-25-19, 07:55 AM

25th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Guards' Division returns to England.

Photo of a grave of an American soldier sent to his family members who could not visit the graves in Europe.
https://i.imgur.com/jX17iQL.jpg

Ukrainian and Polish forces in the siege of Lwów (Lviv/Lemberg) sign an armistice, brokered by French and British delegates.
https://i.imgur.com/MPrXT31.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-25-19, 07:11 PM

Tuesday, February 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 31

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. Signor Crespi is called upon to give a report on Austrian debts due March 1st. S Crespi explains that the full sum is unlikely to be possible due to a lack of understanding between the Austrian and Hungarian governments and other governments concerned regarding the actual amounts due. Mr Balfour says he has no objections to the content of the telegram to be sent to the respective governments, but he wishes to know who will actually send the telegram. M Pichon says the telegram will be sent by the French Foreign Office in the name of the five Great Powers. The telegram is mainly to inform the Austrian and Hungarian governments that terms of Peace will not be affected by the results of this one-time payment.

2. M Cambon informs the Peace Conference that arrangements have still not been made for transportation of Allied troops to Danzig by sea. General Weygand points out the extent of the problem with an example: If 20 ships of 5,000 tons each were to transport the four divisions asked for, circulating constantly, it would still take three months to complete the operation. If it is to be completed in two months then 27 ships of 5,000 tons would be needed. One complication is the horses required. If those horses could be found in Poland then the operation could be accomplished int two months with only 20 ships. All this is assuming that appropriate facilities could be found for the troops to disembark.

The Allied Commission on Poland needs to report on those two problems:
1) The number of horses available in Poland to meet the needs of General Haller's divisions.
2) Available accomodations at Danzig for offloading the troops and their supplies.

Another problem is that the Port of Danzig and the railway lines are still controlled by the Germans, leaving the incoming divisions open to attack. One solution is the occupation of the port and the railway lines by the Allies, but the expense in both men and money would make this impractical. A second solution is to fix the eastern borders of Germany at the next meeting with Herr Erzberger.

That problem and possible solutions are compounded by problems within Germany, mainly the cities of Mannheim, Carlsruhe, Baden and Düsseldorf, which are plagued by a growing Soviet movement. Marshal Foch is convinced that the problems in western Germany must be solved before the eastern borders can be addressed.

Mr Lansing asks whether when Marshal Foch talks about settling the problems in western Germany he means a Peace Treaty must be established immediately. Marshal Foch replies that he means that a Preliminary Peace must be signed with Germany within the next fortnight. Without this discussions of Eastern Germany are impossible.

Mr Balfour states that his questions of the previous day only covered the transportation of Polish troops now in France to Poland. This is a very narrow and simple question, which Marshal Foch has expanded into a widespread and profound plan stretching from the Rhine to Vladivostok, and requiring an immediate conclusion of peace terms with Germany. Mr Balfour says that he also desires a quick resolution to a Peace Treaty, but when Marshal Foch makes that treaty a requirement before sending Polish troops to Poland he oversimplifies the problems involved. The West Bank of the Rhine, Danzig, the French-German border, the Danish-German border, the Polish-German border, and the Financial situation are all questions which require the presence of President Wilson, and so must wait for his return to France. On the other hand the Council can do nothing until the reports of the various Allied Commissions have been recieved, and that will be March 8th at the earliest. Reports must be filed on all these situations, and this will take five or six weeks at best, and sending the troops to poland is required immediately.

Marshal Foch replies that he is not adverse to sending a division to Danzig now, but Danzig happens to be closed at this moment. The Allied Commission to Poland could be asked, but he does not see how Polish troops, who are at war with Germany, can be sent by sea to a German port.

Lord Milner asks whether the Allies could simply order the Germans to allow the Polish divisions in under threat of a resumption of war on the Western Front. Marshal Foch agrees, and proposes a telegram be sent to the Allied Commission with the following questions:
1) Is it possible to send troops via the Danzig-Thorn Railway without first occupying the port of Danzig and the railway lines?
2) Does the port of Danzig have the capacity and the facilities for disembarking the required number of troops?
3) Are there sufficient transport facilities and rolling stock available on the Dantzig-Thorn and Dantzig-Mlawa railway lines?
4) Can horses could be obtained in Poland to meet the requirements of the troops to be dispatched?

Baron Sonnino points out that there are currently 10,000-12,000 Polish troo0ps in Italy. This is not a problem now, but when the time comes will it be possible to get them to Poland via the Danzig route?

Arrangements are made for a telegram to the Allied Commision on Poland, addressing all these points. It is addressed and sent by Marshal Foch. Mr Balfour asks whether a similar telegram should not be went to the Allied Maritime Council in London, asking that Council to provide a plan for transportation of the Polish divisions by sea. This is agreed to and the telegram sent.

3. M de Peretti is called upon to explain French views on the Moroccan question. M de Peretti reads a statement to the effect that, as the United States has no claims in Morocco, France would like to lay claim to the governance of that territory, emphasizing an open-door policy on the part of France. Mr White said that as a signatory of the Act of Algeciras he wishes to reiterate that the United States has no interest in Morocco and only desires an equal treatment of all nations involved there.

Mr Balfour says that Britain also makes no claims on Morocco. He does point out that Spain has an opposing claim, but that this is based on a treaty signed in 1904, and any differences between claims needs to be resolved betwee France and Spain privately. His only concern is that all nations are allowed free travel and free trade in Morocco. M de Peretti points out that the treaty referred to by Mr Balfour was modified in 1912, and that France had every intention of keeping to the terms of the modified treaty.

4. The agenda for the next day will include:
A) A statement by M Tardieu on the findings of the Committee for Belgium.
B) A report by the Supreme War Council on the neutrality of Transylvania.
C) Armenian claims.

The meeting is adjourned until the next day.

Jimbuna

02-26-19, 12:46 PM

26th February 1919

Aftermath of War

More strikes in Central Germany.

Statue of Kaiser Wilhelm I in Cologne vandalized by Australian Flying Corp members on the night before they head home. The text reads, “Deutschtlend [sic] unter Alles”
https://i.imgur.com/Vsr34S5.png

Belgian refugees returning to Ghent, Belgium. The locomotive carrying the refugees were turned over to the Allies by the Germans.
https://i.imgur.com/RPR7FKN.png

A French tank repurposed to aid in the reconstruction effort by pulling canal boats loaded with foodstuffs.
https://i.imgur.com/Jm3aAbN.png

Sailor Steve

02-26-19, 09:54 PM

Wednesday, February 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 32

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. Before the main talks start Mr Balfour points out that he has been laboring under the misaprehension that there is a Committee investigating the border between Germany and Poland. He has asked and found that no such Committee exists, rendering a Preliminary Peace Treaty impossible. Mr Balfour proposes that such a Committee be established immediately. The first question is whether a new Committee be created or the duties be handled by the Committee for Polish Affairs, run by M Cambon. It is proposed that the latter option be taken.

When asked if he agrees, Baron Sonnino says that there is at present no Committee at all assigned discussion on any German borders. Several Committees are investigating the question, and their reports aren't due until March 8th. Mr. Balfour points out that the German borders with Denmark, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Poland are all being investigated by various Commissions. The only German border currently not being addressed by a Committee is that with Austria. Mr Balfour asks if such a Commission is under proposal. Mr Lansing replies that he thought there was a Committee assigned to handle Germany's borders as a whole.

Mr Balfour suggests that all reports from the various Commissions could be handled as they were received. Baron Sonnino says he does not care if a special Commission for the German-Austrian border is created or not, but all reports must be in the hands of the Council as soon as possible if the question of German borders is to be settled by March 8th. Mr White asks whether any alteration is foreseen to the German-Austrian Border. Baron Sonnino replies that there might not be a need to alter that border, but there are other questions which have not yet been addressed, one example being the borders of Bulgaria and Turkey.

Mr Lansing suggests that all border questions not yet assigned be entrusted to a collective Commission yet to be created. He says he will have a new proposal ready tomorrow and asked that the question be postponed until then. Baron Sonnino agrees. It is planned that most of the border questions be finalized the next day, but that the German-Polish border question be assigned to a new Commission with a report due not later than March 8th.

2. M Tardieu now brings up the subject of German reparations to be paid to Belgium. A commission has been formed to investigate this question, but has not been specifically granted the power to question Dutch Delegates on the subject. After some debate on the question, Mr Balfour says that the scope of this Commission must remain "somewhat vague". Mr Lansing says that the Commission must take into account the views of the people living in German territories to be ceded to the Dutch and in Dutch territories to be ceded to the Belgians. Mr Balfour and Lord Milner both believe it unnecessary to bother the people living in those districts.

M Tardieu says that the claims of the Belgians are based on a treaty signed in 1839, and that Belgium had no wish to return to the conditions of that treaty. As it now exists, Belgium is tied to Holland, and neither of those countries is happy with the arrangement. Mr Lansing says that he doubts the mere outbreak of The Great War was enough to destroy a treaty. Mr Balfour says that the Peace Conference has no right to overturn a treaty of this type. M Tardieu asks if anyone would object to a line of questioning be opened to explore the elimination of this treaty. Mr Balfour says he has no objections, but the Council does not have the authority to call Dutch witnesses.

M Tardieu suggests that the Commission might give its own views on the treaty without calling any witnesses, either Dutch or Belgian. Once the Commission had filed its report the Conference would be in a position to make a decision on the subject. At that point the Belgian Commission would be in a position to call any witnesses it likes.

It is decided that this course will be taken.

3. M Pichon has General Belin read a report concerning a neutral zone between Hungarians and Romanians in Transylvania. The following experts are heard:

Romanian General Coanda on general conditions, historical, moral, political and ethnographical relating to these questions.

Romanian Colonel Dimitresco on the strategical conditions required to place the Romanian armies in a position to defend themselves against all eventual aggression by Hungarian troops.

Dr. Vaida, Romanian Minister, on the general internal conditions of Transylvania.

General Henrys, Commander-in-Chief of the French Army of the Orient.

General Charpy, Chief of Staff of the General Commanding-in-Chief the Allied Armies in the East, on the possibility of the occupation by these Armies of the neutral zone to be defined.

After hearing these witnesses it is decided that a neutral zone should be created. The Conference asks several questons of the witness concerning the problems which might be involved.

4. M Aharonian reads a long statement detailing the history of Armenia with Russia under the Tsars and the Bolsheviks, ending with a request to be acknowledged as an independent nation. He then makes another lengthy statement detailing the reasons why this should take place. Former Egyptian Prime Minister Boghes Nubar Pasha makes a statement supporting the Armenians in this quest.

It is suggested that this item be placed at the top of the agenda for the next day, and the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-27-19, 10:48 AM

27th February 1919

President Wilson participates in a victory parade in Washington DC during his brief return home before going back to Paris for the Peace Conference.
https://i.imgur.com/YP2lOJe.png

Women delegates representing several Allied nations who traveled to Paris for the Peace Conference to urge the acceptance of women’s voting rights across the world.
https://i.imgur.com/qmizQl9.jpg

Sailor Steve

02-27-19, 01:45 PM

Thursday, February 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 33

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. A copy of Colonel House's Draft Resolution in Regard to the Procedure for Determining Frontiers, which proposes a Committee specifically for the purpose of determining borders. There is the usual discussion on Committee Members - how many, how they are appointed, what specific powers they will have.

2. M Pichon introduces Mr Sokolow, representing the Zionist Organization and Jews in Palestine. Mr Sokolow distributes copies of a paper, 'Statement of the Zionist Organisation regarding Palestine', and makes a long speech detailing the history of Jews in Europe and America, and describing their desire for a homeland. He then declares himself ready to answer any questions the Conference might have.

This is followed by Zionist Organization memeber Dr Weizmann, who points out that the Great War has left the Jews the weekest prople in the world, having no land and no borders of their own. He shows that Palestine is currently sparsely populated, having only 10-15 people per square kilometer. he says that a Jewish population could easily fit into the unpopulated areas without bothering the people already there.

Next is a statement from Statement by Mr Ussischkins, Member of the Executive Committee of the Zionist Association and President of the South Russian Jewish National Assembly, which contains around three million people. He makes a short speech in support of the statements of the first two gentlemen.

Fourth is M Spire, representing French Zionists, who represent a minority of Jews in France. His purpose is to add another voice in behalf of European Jews. He appeals to France as a nation with a record of upholding human rights.

Fifth is Professor Sylvain Levi of the College de France at Paris. His speech details the suffering and oppression of Jews in Europe, but also lays out the difficulties involved in moving that many people to a new country, and the hardships they would find when they got there.

Mr Lansing asks Dr Weizmann to clear up the meaning of the phrase "National Jewish Home". Does this mean an autonomous Jewish Government? Dr Weizmann replies no, they are not looking for an autonomous government, but for an Administration run by a Mandatory, not necessarily Jewish, to help provide stability for themselves and others in the region.

3. M Pichon suggests questions to be addressed on the following Saturday's meeting:
A) Report of the Financial Drafting Committee.B) Report of the Economic Drafting Committee.
C) Report on Morocco.
D) Statement by the representatives of the Island of Aaland.This is agreed to.

4. Mr Balfour enquired what action has been taken on the resolution reached the previous day in regard to the creation of a neutral zone in Transylvania. Who would be responsible for carrying out the policy decided upon? M Pichon replies that a despatch has already been sent by the French Government to General Franchet D’Esperey, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies of the Orient, calling on him to take the necessary action.

The meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

02-28-19, 07:04 AM

28th February 1919

Aftermath of War

Italian war losses published.

Senator Lodge speaks against League of Nations.

Lord Reading arrives in New York.

Amānullāh Khan takes control of Afghanistan as Emir after his father Ḥabībullāh Khan’s assassination and declares the country’s independence from British influence.
https://i.imgur.com/VRFP6DP.jpg

Ship Losses:

General Gordon (Norway) The barque was driven ashore 20 nautical miles (37 km) north of Tybee Island, Georgia, United States. Her crew were rescued by W. B. Keene ( United States).
Lord Dufferin (United Kingdom) The cargo ship was in collision with Aquitania ( United Kingdom) at New York, United States and sank. Her crew were rescued by Aquitania.[31] She was later refloated and beached.

Sailor Steve

02-28-19, 02:13 PM

Friday, February 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Peace Conference did not meet this day.

Jimbuna

03-01-19, 08:02 AM

1st March 1919

Aftermath of War

Austrian losses published.

British losses published.

French losses published.

German losses published.

British Army Estimates published; 2,500,000 men, to be reduced to 952,000; cost for year, £287 million.

Fighting 140 miles south-east of Archangel; Allies withdraw a mile.

Ukraine Commander denounces truce with Poles.

American losses published.

3rd Canadian Division cheer as they prepare to return home from Liverpool.
https://i.imgur.com/gaUsZSd.jpg

Massive demonstrations break out in the Japanese colony of Korea, with Koreans declaring independence from Japan. Known as the “March 1st (Sam-il) Movement, the Japanese colonial authorities crack down on the protesters with force.
https://i.imgur.com/1LLS4WV.jpg

Belgian workers in Ghent work to rebuild the damage done in a railway station by the war.
https://i.imgur.com/4oMmQqt.png

Jimbuna

03-02-19, 10:22 AM

2nd March 1919

Belgian troops in occupied Germany guarding the bridge to Dusseldorf.
https://i.imgur.com/Jw2rzpV.jpg

First Congress of the Communist International (Comintern) is held in Moscow, attended by representatives from more than two dozen countries.
https://i.imgur.com/jDvsePE.jpg

Ship Losses:

Lewis McDonald (United States) The 9-gross ton motor vessel sank while at anchor in a cove in the southwestern part of Red Bay (56°20′N 133°18′W) on the coast of Prince of Wales Island in the Alexander Archipelago in Southeast Alaska when large waves broke over her during a snowstorm with high winds. The two people aboard survived.
Milos (Sweden) The cargo ship, en route from Blyth, Northumberland to Halmstad, struck a mine and sank off the Swedish west coast, with the loss of one crew.

Sailor Steve

03-02-19, 07:58 PM

Saturday, March 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 34

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau has resumed his duties as President of the Peace Conference. His first order of business is to ask whether the Conference will consider whether to accept the Military and Naval conditions for Peace set by Marshal Foch in a paper circulated the previous day. The Armistice had finally been renewed, but with no certain terms set nor an expiration date. As it now stands the Allies can terminate the new Armistice without prior notice. Mr Balfour recounts that they had discussed earlier the possibility of having the Military and Naval terms given to Germany separately from the Civil and Economic terms. This had been tabled due to the absence of M Clemenceau and the feeling that M Clemenceau had objections to that idea. At this point the general attitude is that the Preliminary Peace Terms should include all Military and Naval terms as well as Financial terms and Territorial Claims. M Clemenceau says that he agrees with Mr Balfour that that the Preliminary Peace Treaty must include all the different sets of terms in one package. The Conference, however, can only decide one set of terms at a time, and the Military and Naval terms should come first.

It is decided that the Military and Naval terms should be finalized on the following Monday, and that the Military experts should be a part of that discussion.

2. Signor Crespi, who had acted as head of the Chairman of the Financial Drafting Committee while Mr Salandra was absent, reads the report of that Committee detailing all the Financial and Economic questions involved when discussing the economic future of Enemy Nations, with special regard to the question of whether the debtor nation should be allowed to change the terms of the debts without permission of the creditors. The several Commissions involved in this part of the Peace Plan are instructed to have all their reports ready for the Conference by Monday, March 22nd. Mr House says he feels the Commissions should have their reports ready by March 15th instead. S Crespi agrees. M Klotz suggests that the Commission should be empowered to appoint its own Sub-Commissions. Mr Lansing suggests the name be changed from the Financial Drafting Committee to the Financial Commission, while still employing the same personnel.

It is agreed that all these changes will be made the following Monday, and the small powers will be invited to the meeting so they can nominate their new members.

3. M Klotz, as Chairman of the Allied Commission on Reparation, reads a statement assigning all blame for destruction of property and all costs of repairing affected countries to the Germans. After much discussion it is decided that this matter should be postponed until S Orlando, President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George are available again. It is agreed that two drafts should be prepared, one with the assumption that War costs should be part of the Reparation and one that they should not.

4. Further discussion is held regarding the Financial Commission, finalizing the plan that it will be the Economic Planning Committee with a new name. Following this the Commission's duties are ironed out, and the meeting adjourned.

Sunday, March 2, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

03-03-19, 08:58 AM

3rd March 1919

Aftermath of War

More fighting in Berlin, 3-14 March, and general strike, 3-6 March.

Rushdi Pasha, Prime Minister of Egypt, resigns.

Damad Ferid Pasha succeeds Tewfik Pasha as Grand Vizier.

The main square of Bailleul, France showing damages caused by the war.
https://i.imgur.com/xfQXv8t.png

American troops in France playing basketball indoors.
https://i.imgur.com/0HZgTIN.jpg

Ship Losses:

Hera (Finland) The cargo ship ran aground off Arholma, Sweden and sank.
SMS Senator Schaefer (Imperial German Navy) The Vorpostenboot was lost on this date.

Sailor Steve

03-04-19, 12:28 AM

Monday, March 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 35

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting asking if the Powers are ready to nominate their delegates for the Financial and Economic Commissions. Mr Lansing, speaking for the United States, asked for a day’s delay. It is noted that the names of the delegates should be communicated to the Secretary-General and that the Commissions should meet immediately, without awaiting the nomination of all the members.

2. Marshal Foch reads a short statement summarizing the report of the Military Commission, covering the Military and Aerial Statutes of Germany.

1) Strength:

A) The land forces of Germany shall not exceed a strength of 200,000 men (officers not included)—that the number of officers and those assimilated from the land forces shall not exceed 9,000;

B) The air forces shall not exceed 1,000 men (officers included) and these forces shall not be maintained after October 1st, 1919.

2) Staffing of large units:

Maximum number of the large units and staffs for the above strength at 15 Infantry divisions and 5 Cavalry divisions, 5 Army Corps HQ and one Army HQ.

3) Recruitment:

The principle of permanent armies is applied to the officers and to the non-commissioned officers of the land forces; they are recruited voluntarily under the obligation to serve a long term, i.e. 25 years for the officers and 15 years for the non-commissioned officers.

The men of the land forces are, on the contrary, taken exclusively in each class of recruiting by drawing numbers, or by any other method chosen by Germany, under the reserve:

A) The total length of these men’s service shall not exceed one year and that the service shall be continuous;

B) The number of trained men, in each class of recruiting shall not exceed 180,000.

(The British Delegation interjects the opinion that they would have preferred a long-term volunteer service, but they accept the above terms so a quick decision may be arrived at.)

4) Armament, War Machines and Ammunition:

Sufficient supplies of these are to be allowed according to the needs of an army of 200,000 men, as indicated in Paragraph 2, taking as a basis the armament of the German divisions shortly before the armistice.

All armament, war machines and ammunition over those amounts are to be handed over to the Allies to be destroyed or rendered useless.

5) Controlling Measures:

A) A Committee of Control is to be established to oversee all of this, and is only to function until the League of Nations is in a position to take over these operations.

Mr Balfour says that there are probably points on which all the Military experts are not agreed. M Clemenceau says there is one. Mr Balfour states that he would like the time to go over the entire document with his own military advisers. Marshal Foch says that all the Delegates had reached a unanimous decision, with the one exception of the British Delegation's desire for a voluntary enlistment system. This, however, had not been pressed, which gave the appearance of unanimous agreement.

B) Baron Sonnino asks if the Military Committees had made any recommendations on the disarmament of Austria-Hungary. Marshal Foch says he has prepared a report on this matter.

C) Marshal Foch says that talks with the Germans should take place by April 1st at the latest. He would actually like to start these talks by March 20th. Mr House says that since the Committees had not been required to submit their reports until March 8th, it might be best to wait until Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson had returned to Paris. Lord Milner points out that two of the Commissions had not been required to submit their reports until March 15th.

Mr Balfour says he had only received the resolutions on the previous day. There are certain large questions which do not exclusively affect one or other of the fighting services. There is one question which might be discussed immediately, the question of the period during which the various proposals were to be enforced. The Aviation authorities wish to enforce their terms until the final conclusion of peace. The Naval authorities wish to enforce theirs until Germany has fulfilled all the terms of the armistice. The Military authorities wish to enforce theirs for all time. It might be desirable, therefore, to discuss the principle here and now in the Council.

D) Duration of terms to be imposed on Germany:

Mr Balfour points out that due to the differing time limits from the different services nothing can be done until an agreement is reached concerning how long the conditions are to last. They can't tell the Germans three different time periods, one for each service.

Lord Milner says he understands from the notes of the discussions on February 12th that President Wilson and Mr Balfour both desire that the terms have no time limits, and be required to last forever. Mr Balfour says this point needs to be cleared up by the Council without further delay. M Clemenceau proposes that this be discussed further in the meeting on the following Thursday. He also says it is his impression that all conditions are to remain in force until the League of Nations takes over from the Peace Council and makes new arrangements.

It is agreed that these discussions be postponed until Thursday. It is also agreed that the three Military Committees need to meet and come to some agreement among themselves on a time limit for the Disarmament Terms.

It is also brought up that the case of Montenegro needs to be heard, and this is placed on the agenda. The meeting is then adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-04-19, 10:00 AM

4th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Britain: Mr. Justice Sankey's Coal Commission begins sittings.

Soldiers with the Canadian Expeditionary Force awaiting repatriation at Kinmel Camp, Bodelwyddan, in North Wales mutinied. The violence resulted in five deaths and 28 injuries. A total 25 Canadian soldiers were convicted of mutiny.

Estimate of total losses during the war given by C. of S., U.S.A.

Confident speech by President Wilson.

Germans living in Sudetenland demonstrate for the right of self-determination but are shot by Czechoslovak forces, resulting in 54 deaths and hundreds of injuries. Postcard depicting the massacre in Kaaden (Kadaň)
https://i.imgur.com/dHxFvyR.png

Sailor Steve

03-04-19, 02:18 PM

Tuesday, March 4, 1919

The Peace Conference did not meet this day.

Jimbuna

03-05-19, 08:13 AM

5th March 1919

Aftermath of War

President Wilson sails for Paris.

Hungarian revolutionaries in Budapest ride on an automobile and wave flags.
https://i.imgur.com/riwCv0t.png

Ship Losses:

Kersaint (French Navy) The sloop-of-war was stranded on reef at Tahiti.

Sailor Steve

03-06-19, 01:10 AM

Wednesday, March 5, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 36

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting with the announcement that he has received an application from the Belgian Delegation for Representation on the Supreme Council of Allied and Associated Nations. Belgium claims to have as strong an interest as any other Nation on the Council, and it would be difficult to refuse this request. Mr Balfour agrees it would be difficult to refuse, but allowing Belgian Delegates would open the door to other Small Powers making the same request, such as Poland, which has a vital interest in the decisions made. Mr Lansing says that the Bohemians might well claim an equal interest.

Mr House says the difference is that while the others are newly created States, the Belgians fought the entire war on the side of the Allies. Mr Balfour is not sure the distinction can be sustained. He would like to see a Representative from every Small Power sitting on the Council but that might seriously reduce the Council's ability to do business.

M Clemenceau points out that Delegates from every nation are already allowed to sit on the Council when the subject at hand is of interest to them. It is agreed that Belgium should only be allowed to sit on the Council according to that rule, that is when the subject is of direct importance to Belgium.

2. M Clemenceau says that the Danish House of Representatives has sent a special Delegation to be heard in the matter of Schleswig. As the Danish Minister had already been heard, he suggested that this Danish Delegation be referred to the special Commission on Belgian Affairs, to which the Danish claims had been referred. There are no objections, and it is agreed to refer the Danish Minister to the Commission on Belgian Affairs.

3. M Clemenceau says that Luxembourg has requested to be given a hearing. Luxembourg is not an Allied Power (if a power at all) but neutral or possibly enemy. The present Government in Luxembourg has not been officially recognized. He thinks that Luxembourg need not be heard for the time being. It is agreed that Luxembourg will not be given a hearing.

4. M Clemenceau says that Marshal Foch has submitted a Report of financial rather than military interest on the subject of the cost of maintaining the Allied Army of occupation in Germany. As this report has only just been distributed, it cannot be advantageously discussed immediately, but would be referred to the Finance Committee or put on the Agenda of a future meeting.It is agreed to postpone discussion of this report.

5. M Clemenceau says that he has received a proposal from the American Delegation requiring that the Commissions and Committees should attach to their Reports, to be handed in on the 8th or 15th March special drafting for such articles as were to find a place in the preliminary Peace Treaty. He suggests that examination of this proposal, which he understood was due to Mr Lansing, should be postponed to the meeting on Thursday, March 6th. This is agreed to.

6. M Jules Gambon delivers a report on the request by the Powers With Special Interests for increased representation on the Economic and Financial Councils. At a meeting of the Delegations of the Smaller Powers on Monday, March 3rd, Senhor Epitacio Pessoa of Brazil, represented the Small Powers in demanding 10 Delegates rather than 5 to the Economic and Financial Councils. This is not directed against the Great Powers but against perceived privileged treatment for the European Small Powers.

Mr House says it is his view that the original allowance of 5 Delegates should be maintained. Mr Lansing objects that some of the listed Powers - Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru - had never even declared war on Germany. Cuba and Nicaragua had both declared war, but were not listed among the ten Nations to be represented on the two Councils.

It is decided that the Small Powers should be restricted to the 5 total Representatives to each Council originally stated.

7. M Clemenceau raises the subject of supplying food to the former Austro-Hungarian Nations separately from Germany. After a lengthy discussion on how the food is to be paid for, delivered, and protected, it is decided to put of finalizing the plans until a later meeting.

8. Marshal Foch brings up a request from Germany that German troops be allowed to assist Poland in the struggle against Russian Bolshevism. This is put off for a later meeting.

9. General Jvoznenovitch of Montenegro reads a lengthy statement detailing Montenegro's history and its recognition by the Allied Councils. The General's purpose is to deny rumors that Montenegro wishes to become part of Serbia. Nothing could be further from the truth. Montenegro's desire is to be recognized as an Independent Nation and to take full part in the Peace Conference and the League of Nations. Their wish is to have all Serbian troops removed from their country immediately.

M Clemenceau thanks the Montenegrin Delegation, which then withdraws from the chambers. No decision is taken as to when discussions on this matter will begin, and the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-06-19, 06:43 AM

6th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Britain: Naval Estimates (£149,200,000) published.

Romanian losses published.

Soldiers laying telephone cables through the streets of Paris to the hotel President Wilson will be staying at for the Peace Conference.
https://i.imgur.com/aKKH0Jr.jpg

Canadian troops at Kinmel Park in Wales mutiny and riot due to delays in repatriating them back to Canada. Five Canadians are killed in the ensuing clash with loyal troops. Aftermath of the riot.
https://i.imgur.com/Ag1Ahns.jpg

American enlisted men assembling at Knotty Ash camp near Liverpool for registration and assignment to English universities, 6 March 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/KJPuAcG.jpg

Latvian War of Independence. After Soviet attack most of Latvia is under control of the Bolsheviks (pink).
https://i.imgur.com/hYnuDl9.png

Ship Losses:

Ejdern (Sweden) The steam trawler, fishing northwest of Skagen in Denmark, sank with the loss of her entire crew of 10, apparently after striking a mine, which is considered proven by state of wreckage found on the Swedish coast.

Sailor Steve

03-06-19, 06:35 PM

Thursday, March 6, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 37

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. Mr House hands in the Draft Resolution of Instructions for the Commissions and Committees whose reports are due on March 8th and 15th.

2. Mr Lloyd George announces that he has just received a telephone call from Spa telling him that negotiations relating to the supply of food and stores to Germany and the surrender of merchant ships by Germany has broken off. Germany has refused to surrender any ships until a firm guarantee of food supply has been received. The Allied Delegates refused to accept this demand and will report directly to the Council tomorrow.

3. Marshal Foch reports that he has assembled the combined military, naval and aerial experts to work together as instructed on March 3rd. This leads to a long discussion on the subject of how Germany's ability to wage war is to be restricted while still allowing them to maintain a 200,000-man army. Marshal Foch says that his plan is to let Germany recruit that many men every year but only allow them to serve one year. Mr Lloyd George says that with this plan Germany would have two million men trained for war in ten years. Mr Lansing points out that there are already two or three million trained soldiers in Germany, which makes the question not one of men but of disarmament. The solution is to make sure Germany surrenders the specified arms and armament.

Mr Lloyd George says that this will still lead to Germany's army increasing by 200,000 men every year, so that in twenty years they might muster four million men. It is his opinion that Germany must not be allowed to have a larger army than Britain.

Marshal Foch points out that this was the plan the combined military experts had come up with, and they were all agreed it is the best plan. Mr Lloyd George responds that this is not just a military question, but also a political one, and that heads of government should be able to express their views. M Clemenceau agrees, and states that the subject should be postponed until the British Delegates are able to prepare their own counter-proposal.

4. M Leygues brings up a subject that has been a sticking-point for the French, which is what is to be done with surrendered German warships. The Naval Clause contains the understanding that Germany will hand over warships only if they are subsequently broken up. M Leygues feels that German must by told to hand over ships. What is done with them is the Allies' business alone. This leads to another lengthy discussion concerning the various clauses of the Naval Disarmament plans. By the end of the Meeting most of the clauses have been agreed upon, with some reservations to be discussed later.

Jimbuna

03-07-19, 07:27 AM

7th March 1919

American soldiers participating in the Siberian Intervention against the Bolsheviks making use of sled pulled by reindeer at Archangelsk.
https://i.imgur.com/yrri2oA.jpg

Family members await the return of American soldiers of the 27th Division from Europe.
https://i.imgur.com/taNnQd3.jpg

Ship Losses:

HNoMS Thor (Royal Norwegian Navy) The monitor ran aground in the Skagerrak off Verdens Ende, Norway, and sank with the loss of two lives.

Sailor Steve

03-07-19, 05:18 PM

Friday, March 7, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 38

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting with the announcement that the Report of Belgian Commission on the Treaties of 1839 has been received. There had been several questions involving this old treaty and its influence on current discussions and negotiations. It iss decided that this should be circulated among the Council members.

2. Lord Robert Cecil informs the council that Admiral Hope has returned from Spa to verify that the information is true; negotiations over the surrender of German merchant ships has broken down entirely. The Germans refuse to hand over the ships until a finalized program of food deliveries has been arranged. The German delegates say they are willing to hand over a certain number of ships in exchange for an equal percentage of food deliveries, and to continue in that fashion until all the promised food has been delivered and all the ships handed over.

Earlier in the day the Supreme Economic Council had met, concluding that Germany handing over the merchant ships was part of the Armistice agreement, but then so was the food to be supplied by the Allies. Lord Cecil says that the British and American delegates are already agreed on this, but the French and Italian delegates would like to see this in writing before agreeing to it. He recommends a day's delay for the Supreme Economic Council to finalize its proposals.

M Clemenceau asks Lord Cecil if he can give an outline of the proposed resolutions. Lord Cecil replies that the Council had only broken up at 14:15 so it was impossible to deliver the texts yet. The first clause is that Germany must surrender the ships. The second clause is that the Allies will supply 270,000 tons of food as soon as Germany shows some sign that they will actually comply with the Armistice terms. A third clause, covering the final arrangements for supplying food to Germany, has not yet been concluded, and until it is the French and Italian delegates say they need to consult their own governments before they can commit to it.

This discussion is postponed until the following day.

3. Mr Lansing proposes the creation of a Commission to investigate the question of German-owned underwater telegraph cables, specifically whether a Nation which has captured such cables has the legal right to keep them as reparations. Mr Balfour says his only objection is the use of words "legal" and "legally" in this context, since there is no International Law yet in place which covers this question. Mr Lansing agrees to alter the text to eliminate the use of the word "legally".

Baron Makino asks whether, if it is decided that it is not legitimate to keep the cables, should they be returned to Germany? M Clemenceau replies that this decision is the responsibility of the Council. Baron Sonnino says the text refers specifically to cables which were cut or captured during the war due to Naval operations. Mr Lansing says that unless the cables were taken from the enemy they cannot be returned.

The proposal is accepted with the changes, specifically the elimination of the word "legally", and the members are appointed by their countries.

4. Mr Lansing invites Mr Hoover to make a statement about the supply of food to Austria and the Italian blockade of Lubiana. There follows a lengthy discussion on this subject, with many members offering opinions on the question.

Finally the question has to be postponed and the meeting is adjourned.

Note: The junior member of the Japanese Military Representation is one Captain Isoroku Yamamoto. One of the American negotiators for the Military discussions is future President Herbert Hoover.

Jimbuna

03-08-19, 06:50 AM

8th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Zaghlul Pasha, Ismail P. Sidki, Mohammed P. Mahmud and Hamed P. Basil depart from Egypt.

British authorities arrest Egyptian statesman Saad Zaghloul for his demands that Britain recognize the independence of Egypt. Zaghloul is then exiled to Malta.
https://i.imgur.com/85nJsYi.jpg

Dogs pulling French trench artillery.
https://i.imgur.com/7rZ6TFm.jpg

A French machine gunner at his post on the Rhine near Düsseldorf, occupied Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/VmudZjR.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-08-19, 03:15 PM

Saturday, March 8, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 39

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. On February 24th the Inter-Allied Blockade Council had passed a resolution removing the blockade of the Adriatic Sea. M Clementel, representing that organization, asks that the Conference approve this Resolution. Baron Sonnino asks whether the Resolution refers only to the commercial blockade of the Adriatic. Mr Lansing confirms this. It was agreed that the commercial blockade of the Adriatic should forthwith be raised.

2. Four Generals are appointed to travel to Laibach (modern Ljubljana), Slovenia to look into incidents which took place on February 12th, when men in Serbian uniforms fired on a train carrying Italian refugees through Saloch (modern Zalog), and on February 20th. They are to travel by train via Italy.

3. M Tardieu, speaking for the Commission on Belgian Affairs, says that his Commission has finished their study of the Treaties of 1839 and finds that those Treaties are in need of revision in order to meet guarantees made to Belgium by the Peace Conference. The report is accepted by the Conference.

4. M Jules Gambon reports on a Meeting of the Small Powers to elect Delegates to the Financial Commission. M Gambon reports that the South American Powers have appropriated four of the five seats, limiting the Small European Powers to one seat, which went to Portugal. The other Small European Powers had walked out of the Meeting in protest, and refused to take part in future elections.

M Clemenceau called it unjust that the South American Powers, who had sacrificed nothing during the war, garnered all the representation, while Powers who had sacrificed much had no representation at all.

Mr House proposes a fractional voting system in which of the European Small Powers receives a representative. Mr Balfour says that this concept is new to him.

M Pichon proposes a doctrine that States which had broken off relations with the Central Powers but had not taken an actual part in the War could not be represented to the exclusion of States which had taken an active role in the fighting.

Baron Sonnino asks if a distinction could be made between Powers entitled to a Vote and those who are merely allowed to attend meetings.

M Pichon says there is a difference between Powers with a General Interest in the proceedings and those with a Special Interest. He asks how a Commission could decide what reparations Germany must pay without Belgium and Poland having a say in the matter.

It is finally agreed that M Pichon should write a Draft Proposal consolidating the matters concerning Delegates to Economic Commissions, to be submitted at Monday's meeting.

5. Sir Robert Cecil reports that the Supreme Economic Council has been considering the problems created by the breakdown of negotiations at Spa. He states that they have concluded that the handing over of German ships and the supply of food to Germany are two unrelated matters. The original Armistice of November 11, 1918, states that “The Allies and the United States contemplate the provisioning of Germany during the Armistice, as shall be found necessary”, while the Revised Armistice of January 16, 1919 says “In order to assure the provisioning of Germany and the rest of Europe, the German Government shall take all necessary steps to place the German Merchant Fleet for the duration of the Armistice, under the control and power of the Allied flags and the United States, who shall be assisted by a German Delegate. This arrangement shall in no wise affect the final disposal of such vessels”. Sir Robert adds that they must consider the possibility of Germany drifting into Bolshevism if the food is not supplied.

The Supreme Economic Council proposes that a message be sent to Germany:

1) The merchant ships must be handed over immediately, as agreed.

2) As soon as the ships are handed over, the food will be sent to Germany via those same ships.

3) Germany may import up to 300,000 tons of bread and 70,000 tons of fats per month, until September.

4) This may be paid for in a number of ways, including the hiring out of the ships.

5) Germany may export commodities to a number of agreed-upon destinations, provided the money earned be used to pay for the imported foodstuffs.

6) A listed amount of the shipping handed over will be used for the importation of food until the next harvest.

7) Germany may also purchase food from neutral nations, within pre-determined limits.

8) This communication will become null and void if hostilities are resumed.

The French Delegates raise an objection. The English version of the message implies that once food supply is started it will not be cut off except for a renewal of hostilities. The objection is that food supplies might alos be cut off when the Armistice expires.

The more this is discussed the more objections are raised. Every Delegate to the Peace Conference points out flaws that cause more arguments. Mr Lloyd George makes an impassioned speech referring to earlier discussions which always came back to the promise of Germany being fed. It is his feeling that the bottom line is that if Germany starts to starve the people will run riot, and open revolution will ensue. M Clemenceau remarks that Mr Lloyd George's beliefs are far from the truth, and that in neither Armistice was a promise made. Mr Balfour says that the wording is "almost a promise".

M Clemenceau replies that it doesn't matter, since he is ready to give the food, promise or not. He believes the Germans are using the threat of Bolshevism as a bogeyman to frighten the Allies. If the Germans are starving, why do they keep refusing to surrender their merchant fleet? They don't seem to be in any hurry. In his opinion the Germans were trying to see how far they could go in attempting to blackmail the Allies.

M Clemenceau then reads a telegram he has received from the French Naval Attaché in London, to the effect that the Armistice Commission has proposed that the Germans be given three days to hand over the merchant fleet or the blockade will be fully resumed, with no shipping allowed to enter or leave German ports.

This leads to an argument which lasts for some time before the final draft of a message to the Germans is prepared, which differs from the earlier drafts only in the details. A meeting is planned to take place in Brussels, and the Council meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-09-19, 07:34 AM

9th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Riots in Cairo, 9-11 March.

Attempted assassination of M. Trotsky.

Graves of a hundred American soldiers who died at Paignton Military Hospital in Devon, England due to the Spanish Flu.
https://i.imgur.com/PIBBrvy.jpg

Girl students of Smith College doing relief work in France enjoy a ride on a Renault FT-17 tank.
https://i.imgur.com/X1koNvE.png

Armenian refugees who just arrived in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/XixaQ5t.jpg

American troops receiving training in gas warfare.
https://i.imgur.com/7jYbbxh.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-09-19, 11:56 AM

Sunday, March 9, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

03-10-19, 08:56 AM

10th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Germany's Army to be limited to 100,000 voluntary engagements, etc.

Britain: Return of reductions of armies since Armistice given in House of Commons.

General Plumer's telegram on food situation (very bad) to Peace Conference.

Statement issued re: U.S.A. shipping.

3rd Congress of Soviets in Ukraine declares the founding of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic.

Red Cross workers on wharf with Rear Admiral Wood waiting the arrival of the Nebraska, Boston, Mass.
https://i.imgur.com/J2iQSTs.jpg

Battleship USS Nebraska arriving in Boston carrying 1100 returning troops from Europe.
https://i.imgur.com/0BpHCRU.jpg

An American operated Sopwith Camel aircraft on the deck of the American battleship USS Texas to be used as spotters/scouts.
https://i.imgur.com/2AQHU2e.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-10-19, 05:51 PM

Monday, March 10, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 39

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Pichon has a Resolution prepared concerning a subject of Saturday's meeting, that Powers which had taken part in the War and thereby suffered damage requiring reparations cannot be excluded from Representation on the Economic and Financial Committees.

1) Belgium, Greece, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Serbia must be allowed one Delegate each on the Financial Commission.

2) Belgium, Brazil, China, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Serbia must be allowed one Delegate each on the Economic Commission.

M Jules Gambon has the task of informing the Committees of this decision.

2. M Clemenceau reads a Declaration by Marshal Foch, amending the Declaration of March 5th to read:

Article 1 is passed as written on the 5th.

M Clemenceau points out a discrepancy between Article 2 as written on the 5th, which specifies 140,000 men, and Marshal Foch's initial recommendation, which was for 100,000 men.

Mr Balfour asks how the original text read 200,000 men, which was now reduced to 140,000 and to be further reduced to 100,000. M Clemenceau replies that in terms of long-term service half the men are always in training, whereas in long-term service 140,000 men were considered sufficient. Mr Balfour asks if the American Delegates are agreed to this. General Bliss responds that he does agree in principle to a reduction in allowed German forces, but that 140,000 is the lowest number possible to still leave Germany with an effective police force.

Marshal Foch says that if the army in Germany is to act merely as a police force then 100,000 men is more than enough. If 140,000 soldiers and 15,000 sailors were allowed Germany, then the Allies would have to maintain a minimum of 206,000 total men to guarantee their safety. Even divided among the four main Allied Nations, they would still have to maintain more than 50,000 troops each in the field.

After many more points made by various members of the Council, the number of armed men allowed Germany at the national level is reduced to 100,000.

Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the March 5th Declaration are left intact with the exception of a proportionate reduction of troops reflecting the number just agreed upon.

M Clemenceau asks why an Army Staff is needed at all. France did not have one before the War, and the only purpose of such a Staff is to prepare for and plan a war. He feels that Army Corps Staffs should be maintained but a General Army Staff done away with.

Mr Lloyd George points out that Britain had had a very small army but had a General Staff. Baron Sonnino says that an Army Staff might be used to plan and prepare the defense of Germany, and not used offensively. M Clemenceau says that France had had to prepare for War, and yet had no Army Staff at the time.

Marshal Foch agrees, but says that Article 7 only allows for 300 officers, which is more than enough to organize their Army.

It is agreed to remove the words "...and one Army Staff."

Chapters II, III and IV, and all their Articles, are accepted after much discussion with some minor changes to the wording. This takes up the rest of the evening until the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-11-19, 04:27 PM

11th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Riots in Egypt for ten days.

President Wilson and Admiral Cary T. Grayson playing shuffleboard onboard the USS George Washington while traveling back to Paris for the Peace Conference.
https://i.imgur.com/EktxFdk.jpg

German women serving hot drinks to government troops in Berlin. The pro-Communist Spartacist Uprising was crushed in Berlin earlier this year, but periodic violence continue to erupt across the country.
https://i.imgur.com/HXRGnXb.jpg

US Supreme Court upholds a 10-year prison sentence for socialist politician Eugene V. Debs for his speeches opposing the draft (Debs runs for President while in prison in 1920 and wins 3.4% of the vote).
https://i.imgur.com/ONJ7t0R.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-11-19, 08:55 PM

Tuesday, March 11, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 40

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

Jimbuna

03-12-19, 10:37 AM

12th March 1919

Australian troops returning home onboard the SS Orca participating in human wheelbarrow races.
https://i.imgur.com/F3I0Md7.png

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, the “undefeated” German general who fought in the African theater of the war, after his return to Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/0qdxbqH.png

Sailor Steve

03-12-19, 07:58 PM

Wednesday, March 12, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 41

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. Mr. Lloyd George says that a telegram has been received from the British Military Representative at Vienna: A bill will be introduced by the Austrian Government providing for the abdication and banishment of the Emperor Karl. The Swiss Government says that the Imperial Family will be allowed to pass through Switzerland, but the Emperor will not be allowed to reside in Switzerland unless the Allies agree not to pursue extradition.

Baron Sonnino says he has no objections to this, but that complications might arise later if attempts are made to separate this particular monarch from other monarchs who were responsible for starting the war. M Clemenceau says that the matter might be referred to the Committee on Breaches of the Laws of War. Mr Lansing, the President of that Committee, says that no one can be tried under that heading because the Committee has already decided that the subject is not a legal, but rather a moral responsibility.

Mr. Lloyd George says he thinks that the Committee on Breaches of the Laws of War could be asked to report whether the Emperor Charles could, in any way, be held responsible for the war. The Emperor is now being treated very badly in Austria, where the situation is looking more and more like that of Russia. If the Emperor cannot be held responsible for the war, it would be a pity if he were murdered. For that same reason, the Austrian Government would like to get him out of the country as quickly as possible.

Mr Balfour suggests that a telegram should immediately be sent to Vienna saying that the Emperor should be allowed to stay there for a few days until the matter is decided. Mr House wonders if that proposal would placate the Swiss government. Mr Lansing says the problem is not responsibility for starting the war, for which no enemy rulers should be held accountable, but rather for violations of customs and laws of war, for which they could be held liable for the failure to stop those breaches. This could also apply to the Emperor of Austria.

Baron Sonnino agrees that due to the dangerous situation in Austria the Emperor should be allowed a few days in Switzerland.

M Clemenceau asks whether the Swiss government will really refuse to accept the Emperor without a guarantee of non-extradition. Mr Balfour says he does not believe that any Allied Power will attempt to put the Emperor on trial.

The decision is made to send the telegram asking the Swiss government to provide sanctuary to the Emperor if the non-extradition guarantee is made.

2. General Duval is called to read the conditions to be imposed on Germany concerning military aeronautics. The complete text follows:

Air Terms of Peace - Conditions To Be Imposed on the German Government in Regard to Military and Maritime Aeronautics

Article I.

The effectives of the German Air Service in material and personnel shall be reduced to the following figures:

(1) Material.

(a) Aeroplanes. The military forces of Germany having to be limited to the necessary minimum to allow her to maintain order in the interior, must not comprise any military aviation.

(Mr Balfour points out that the most effective method of maintaining order is with aeroplanes. They had proved quite useful in putting down the Sparatcist revolt. General Duval says he agrees, but has no information regarding their use in that context. Mr Balfour says he will let the matter drop.)

(b) Hydroplanes. Germany can for a period not longer than 1st October, 1919, maintain a total of 100 hydroplanes or water gliders for the purpose of seeking out submarine mines, with the necessary equipment, but without armaments, munitions or bombs.

(c) Motors. In addition to the motors mounted on hydroplanes, and water gliders mentioned above, one motor may be allowed for each hydroplane or water glider.

(d) Dirigibles.No dirigibles shall be kept.

(Mr Lansing says he thinks allowing no dirigibles at all is too harsh, as some dirigibles are used for commercial purposes. General Duval points out that Article IX and the title of the proposal itself refer specifically to military aircraft only. Commercial uses are not affected at all. Mr Lansing says he is ready to accept the clause as written.)

(2) Personnel.

(a) Land Aviation. Land aviation being suppressed, no personnel is allowed under this heading.

(b) Naval aviation. Until the 1st October, Germany may maintain a total number of 1000 all ranks which will comprise all the personnel flying and non-flying of all formations and establishments.

(c) The whole personnel, excepting a total of 1,000 men mentioned in Paragraph I (2) (b) figuring at present on the control lists of the German land and sea forces will be demobilised or sent to other arms or services within one month (but the effectives provided for in the Military and Naval Statute must not be exceeded).
The objections having been cleared, Article I is approved.

Article II.

No aviation ground and no shed for dirigibles must be maintained or established:

(1) to the East of the Rhine, at a distance of less than 150 Kilometres from that river.

(2) to the West of the Eastern German frontier at a distance of less than 150 Kilometres from that frontier.

(3) to the North of the Southern German frontier at a distance of less than 150 Kilometres from the frontier of Italy or of Czechoslovakia.

All grounds now existing which do not satisfy these conditions are to be immediately placed out of use. The sheds are to be dismantled and the earth is to be ploughed up. This is to be carried out within one month.

(Mr Lansing asks whether this also refers to military aircraft only, or if civil aircraft are included. General Duval says that the question of Civil Aircraft is to be left until later, and refers to Article IX. Mr Lansing asks why Article II had been inserted before resolving the distinction between Civil and Military aircraft. Mr Balfour says this question is one worth considering. Future revolutionaries might convert civil aircraft for military uses, while the Police will find themselves restricted by the Terms of Peace from doing the same. Article IX evades the question by referring the decision to a body which has not yet even been appointed. Mr House explains that the Air Delegates had only been asked for recommendations on disarmament, and had not been asked to consider military matters.

Mr Balfour suggests that an Aerial Commission be immediately appointed to address this problem. General Foch objects that the whole point was to disarm Germany completely. Why should exceptions be made? Mr Lansing agrees, but points out that as long as commercial aircraft can be converted for military purposes there is no way to stop Germany from building machines just for that purpose. He considers it more important to simply remove the guns and bombs from all aircraft than to try to force them to build aeroplanes that cannot be converted.

After a great deal of argument M Clemenceau attempts to state the cases for both sides and then suggests that Article IX be amended to make a distinction between civil and military aircraft. Article II is then approved, with the above change in wording.)

(M Clemenceau suggests the last sentence be amended to add the words "from date of signature of present Convention". This is agreed to.)

Article III.

Germany will allow to all Allied aircraft free passage through the air, free transit and right to land on her territory until complete evacuation of German territory by the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers.

(General Duval points out that this clause only exists so the British can establish postal lines through Germany to Bohemia and Poland. Mr Balfour says that this cannot be finalized until the Peace Treaty is in force and everyone knows how long the Allies will need to fly over and land in Germany. This article is then provisionally passed.)

Article IV.

The manufacture of parts of aeroplanes, hydroplanes, water gliders, dirigibles and motors shall be forbidden in the whole of German territory until the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace.

(Mr Balfour says this means that until the Peace Treaty is signed the German motor industry will come to a standstill. General Duval suggests a change of wording to read "...and aeroplane motors". Mr Balfour asks whether inspectors could tell the difference between an aeroplane motor and a heavy lorry motor. General Duval explains how to tell the difference, and Mr Balfour withdraws his objection.

There is then a lengthy argument about whether the article should wait for a Peace Treaty or approved immediately. Finally after all this Article IV is accepted without amendment.)

Article V.

The material now existing in the German land and sea forces or in process of manufacture, in excess of the figures given under Article I shall be handed over to the Allies. In that material must be comprised in particular:

Complete aeroplanes and hydroplanes, as well as those in process of manufacture, repair, or of being put together;

Dirigible balloons able to take the air in process of manufacture, repair or being put together;

Machinery for the manufacture of hydrogen;

Dirigible sheds and every kind of shelter for balloons or dirigibles. Pending their delivery dirigible balloons are to be maintained blown out with hydrogen at Germany’s expense and the apparatus for the manufacture of the hydrogen, as well as shelters for dirigibles may, at the discretion of the Allied and Associated Powers, be left to Germany until the moment when the dirigibles are handed over.

Motors.

Cells.

Armament (guns, machine guns, light machine guns, bomb throwers, torpedo throwers, synchronisation apparatus, aiming apparatus).

Munitions (cartridges, shells, bombs, loaded and unloaded, stocks of explosives or material for their manufacture).

Instruments for use on aeroplanes.

Wireless apparatus; photographic or cinematograph apparatus.

Detached parts connected with any of the preceding categories.

(Article V is approved without amendment.)

Article VI.

Any movement of material mentioned in Article V shall be forbidden without special authorisation by the Allied and Associated Powers.

(Article VI is approved without amendment.)

Article VII.

The terms of the various Articles of the present Convention shall be carried out under the control of a Special Commission delegated for that purpose by the Allied and Associated Powers.

This Commission shall work at the seat of the Central German Government, but shall be able to send a sub-Commission or delegates to any other part of German territory.

This Commission will have every power to settle directly and without appeal any disputes which may arise in regard to the execution of the present Convention.

The German Government will immediately hand over to it:

(1) A numerical list of the personnel belonging to all the German Air Services and of the existing material as well as of that in process of manufacture or on order.

(2) A complete list, with their position, of all establishments working for aviation, and of all landing grounds and sheds.

The German Government will immediately place at the disposal of this Commission all documents relating to the German Air Service.

The German Government will give to all the delegates of this Commission every facility to carry out their mission, and in particular:

To effect over the whole extent of German territory a census of the material mentioned under Article V;

To inspect, whenever called upon, aeroplane, balloon and motor manufactories, and arms, munitions and explosive factories, aerodromes, sheds, landing grounds, parks and depots.

To take any photographs and sketches.

The German Government will immediately hand over to this Commission all the information and documents set forth in Articles V and VII, and all the material mentioned in these Articles shall be handed over as rapidly as possible, and within a time limit of three months.

(Mr Lansing asks why there is a paragraph requiring the German government to give permission for the Allies to take photographs and sketches. General Duval says it was placed there by the American Delegates and that he personally would like to see it struck out. General Patrick agrees to this and the sentence is removed.)

Article VIII.

The Commission instituted under Article VII will work until the conditions of this convention have been carried out by Germany within the prescribed period; if for any reason anyone of these provisions be not carried out within the allotted period the delegates of that Commission will immediately bring these facts to the knowledge of their respective Governments who will give them new instructions.

(Article VIII is accepted without amendment.)

Article IX.

The rules relative to the organization of a commercial air service in Germany after the signature of the definite Treaty of Peace, and to its being granted international circulation shall be determined by the said Treaty of Peace.

(Mr Lansing agrees with the Article, but feels it does not belong in a document meant for the military disarming of Germany. He feels the whole question of Commercial Aviation should be a separate document, and not related to the Peace Treaty at all. M Clemenceau says that Mr Balfour has created just such a document, which might satisfy Mr Lansing. This document is presented and approved.

As to the question of whether Article IX should remain as part of the Disarmament rules, it is decided to hand it over to the appropriate Commission, which will be given 48 hours to make a decision per its retaining, and to suggest amendments as necessary. At that time a final decision will be made.)

3. Mr Balfour raises a separate question regarding the disposal of the aircraft and equipment to be handed over. Mr Lansing says that he is worried that to the eyes of the world it will look more like taking Spoils of War rather than Disarmament. To this end he proposes that all aircraft and equipment which can be used for commercial purposes be retained by Germany, and anything not usable in that regard be destroyed.

M Clemenceau says he does not think the question can be answered quickly, and should be postponed to a later date. Baron Sonnino suggests this be discussed at the same time as the discussions of the disposal of ships and submarines.

(This is agreed to and the discussion postponed.

4. Baron Sonnino brings up what he considers an urgent matter, this being that the Czechoslovakian government has refused to pay any part of the Austro-Hungarian debt. If this is not acted upon immediately the Austrian and Hungarian governments might do the same.

M Pichon points out that all the Delegations have received the same communication. Further, while the Czechoslovakian government has refused to pay interest on the debts owed by enemy countries, they have agreed to pay interest owed to individual bond holders in Allied countries. On February 25th the French Foreign Office had sent a telegram to the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that an inability to pay interest due on March 1st will not influence the Peace Conference in any way.

(It was agreed to refer the question of the payment of the coupons of the Austrian debt due on March 1st to the Allied Financial Committee for consideration and report.)

5. Mr Clemenceau says the Territorial Coordination Committee will not have their report on the western borders of Poland ready until Saturday, March 15th. It is decided to postpone the next Peace Conference meeting until that date.

Jimbuna

03-13-19, 08:44 AM

13th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Armistice negotiations renewed at Brussels.

Sir William Robertson appointed Commander-in-Chief, Rhine.

Sir Douglas Haig to command Forces in Great Britain.

President Wilson arrives back in France.

General Pershing, commander of American expeditionary force, addressing U.S. occupation troops in Trier, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/8fA4AAv.jpg

Vladimir Lenin chairing meeting at the People House in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg) March 13, 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/tJqJbqx.jpg

[March 13th, 1919] "Nearly Plucked" (Demands made from Germany at the Paris Peace Conference).
https://i.imgur.com/ZGnxznQ.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-13-19, 11:14 AM

Thursday, March 13, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

03-14-19, 07:25 AM

14th March 1919

R34 airship of the Royal Air Force makes its first flight at Glasgow.
https://i.imgur.com/l7AsqKZ.png

New Zealand soldiers returning home onboard the S.S. Athenic passing through the Panama Canal.
https://i.imgur.com/yIGUlZV.png

Sailor Steve

03-14-19, 10:25 AM

Friday, March 14, 1919

The Peace Conference takes another day off.

Jimbuna

03-15-19, 06:14 AM

15th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Bolshevik reverses reported in the Urals, Estonia and Kurland.

Fighting at Nikholaiev, near Odessa.

Egyptian protests erupt against British occupation of the country. In the next few days, 800 Egyptian and 60 British and other European soldiers and civilians will be killed in the violence. Demonstrations in Cairo.
https://i.imgur.com/2Q8q4uB.png

African American soldiers of the 367th Infantry stand in the freezing rain to return their colors to the Union League Club after returning from Europe.
https://i.imgur.com/A6Cm72c.png

Ship Losses:

City of Gulfport (United States) The five-masted barquentine was destroyed by fire in the River Plate at Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Sailor Steve

03-15-19, 04:19 PM

Saturday, March 15, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 42

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. The meeting opens with a Proposal by leading American Representative Robert Lansing. Marshal Foch is to obtain permission for any member of the Polish Commission to visit any territory east of the Vistula River at any time. The purpose is to prevent German troops departing the area from selling arms to the Bolsheviks. The Resolution is passed without comment.

2. M Clemenceau says that before the Aviation Commission can be assembled there must be Representatives from the Smaller Powers. M Pichon recommends that the Representatives come from Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Romania, and Serbia. He says that the Nations to provide Representatives have been pre-selected to prevent another incident like the one involving the nominations for the Economic and Financial Commissions.

Mr Balfour suggests that Portugal be added to the list as the Azores are important as an air station. Mr Lansing suggests Cuba also be added, as without Cuba the Allies would have had no sugar. These two nations are added to the list and the Resolution is passed.

3. M Clemenceau says he has received a message from President Wilson asking that the discussions on Military, Naval and Aerial Terms of Peace be postponed until Monday, March 17th. It is agreed upon and the discussions postponed.

4. M Clemenceau says the one remaining item on the agenda is the report from the Polish Commission. As some of the members are not yet prepared this discussion is also postponed, and the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-16-19, 10:10 AM

16th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Germany accepts food terms (300,000 tons cereals and 700,000 tons fats per month).

Women and children in British-occupied Cologne, Germany waiting to get milk rations. Milk is only allowed for children under three and for the sick.
https://i.imgur.com/oOhn7JG.jpg

A French warship participating in the Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks ice-bound at Archangelsk, northern Russia.
https://i.imgur.com/35NoFes.jpg

The American Legion, a U.S. war veterans’ organization, holds its first meeting in Paris, attended by members of the American Expeditionary Force.
https://i.imgur.com/QIeEWnF.jpg

Ship Losses:

Nordanvind (Sweden) The cargo ship struck a mine and sank in the North Sea. The crew was saved.

Sailor Steve

03-17-19, 06:43 AM

Sunday, March 16, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

03-17-19, 07:56 AM

17th March 1919

Aftermath of War

French and Allies evacuating Odessa; Bolsheviks advancing.

Red Cross volunteers handing out cigarettes and chocolates to returning American soldiers.
https://i.imgur.com/e8X8IKZ.jpg

[March 17, 1919] Giant plane will carry 1000 passengers via diagonal thrust, 800ft long 200ft wide (250m by 60m) - 747 is about 225 ft (68.5m) long with a wingspan of 212 ft (64 m)
https://i.imgur.com/rErmxpE.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-17-19, 02:20 PM

Monday, March 17, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 43

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

President Wilson rejoins the Peace Conference as the finalized Naval, Military and Air Conditions of Peace is presented. The document contains 56 Articles governing every aspect of the limitations to be placed on Germany. This is the (very) condensed version.

Section I - Military Clauses

Chapter 1 - Effectives and Cadres of the German Army

Article 1. Within two months of the signing of this document Germany must demobilize to the extent prescribed.

Article 2. The German Army must not comprise more than seven divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry.
Total men allowed: 100,000, including officers.
Total officers allowed: 4,000.

Article 3. Divisions and Headquarters Staffs to be organized according to attached Table 1 (I have not included the tables).

Article 4. Divisions must not be grouped under more than two Army Corp Headquarters staffs.
German General Staff to be dissolved and not reassembled in any form.
German Ministries of War may not exceed 300 men.

Article 5. Army Administrative Services consisting of civilians may not exceed 10% of the numbers laid out in the 1913 budget.

Article 6. Reserved for future use.

Chapter 2 - Armament, Munitions and Material

Article 7. Two months following the signing of this document Germany must not possess a greater amount of armaments than laid down in Table 2.

Article 8. Two months following the signing of this document stocks of munitions must not exceed the amount laid down in Table 3.

Article 9. Two months following the signing of this document stocks of ammunition for these guns must not exceed 1,500 rounds each for guns 10.5cm and under, and 500 rounds for larger guns.

Article 10. Factories manufacturing arms and ammunition and all arsenals will be specified by the Allied Governments. All others will be closed within three months of the signing of this document.

Article 11. Within two months of the signing of this document all arms, munitions and war material in excess of the numbers specified will be surrendered to the Allies for disposal.

Article 12. Import to and export from Germany of any kind of armament is strictly forbidden.

Article 13. Use and manufacture of any poison gas or liquid is strictly forbidden in Germany.

Chapter 3 - Recruiting and Military Training

Article 14. Compulsory Military Service is abolished in Germany. All enlistment is to be strictly voluntary.

Article 15. Period of service for all enlisted personnel must be 12 consecutive years. No one may leave the service before that time except for medical reasons.

Article 16. Officers currently serving who choose to remain must do so until at least age 45. Newly recruited officers must remain in service for a minimum of 25 years.

Article 17. Two months after the signing of this document there must only exist in Germany the number of military schools which is absolutely indispensable for the recruitment of the officers of the units allowed.

Article 18. Schools and Universities may not occupy themselves with military matters.

Article 19. Any kind of military mobilization is expressly forbidden.

Chapter 4 - Fortifications

Article 20. Within three months of the signing of this document all fortifications west of a line drawn 50 miles east of the Rhine must be dismantled. All other fortifications may be maintained in their present state.

Section II - Naval Clauses

Article 21. Two months from the signing of this document the German Navy must number no more than:

6 Battleships of the 'Deutschland' type.

6 Light Cruisers.

12 Destroyers.

12 Torpedo Boats.

No submarines whatsoever.

Article 22. Until all minesweeping operations are completed Germany will be allowed to retain in commission a number of minesweeping vessels to be designated by the Allies.

Article 23. Two months from the signing of this document the German Navy will contain no more than 15,000 men including officers, no more that 1,500 of which may be officers.

Article 24. As of the signing of this document all German warships not in German ports will cease to belong to Germany. Vessels now in Allied ports are considered to be surrendered. All vessels in neutral ports will be surrendered as soon as possible. All such vessels will be destroyed or broken up.

Article 25. Within two months of the signing of this document the ships listed below will be sunk (there follows a list of battleships, light cruisers, destroyers and torpedo boats). This will be done under the control of the Allied governments.

Article 26. Germany must immediately break up all warships currently under construction.

Article 27. German auxiliary cruisers and Fleet auxiliaries (a list is attached) will be disarmed and treated as merchant ships.

Article 28. One month from the signing of this document all German submarines will be handed over to the Allied governments. Within three months all submarines not able to travel under their own power will be broken up by the Germans, under Allied supervision.

Article 29. Articles, machinery and materials left over from the breakup of these ships may be used for industrial or commercial purposes only, and may not be sold to any other country.

Article 30. Germany may not build or buy any warships other than to replace ones allowed to remain in commission by this document.

Article 31. Germany is forbidden from building or buying any submarine of any type.

Article 32. German warships allowed to remain in commission will only have arms and armaments as specified by the Allied governments.

Article 33. Specifies the areas to be swept for mines by Germany.

Article 34. Enlisted sailors must serve for a minimum of 12 years. Naval officers must serve for a minimum of 25 years. Current officers who are not demobilized must remain in service until age 45 except in cases of ill health.

Additional Articles

Article 35. The fortifications, military establishments, and harbours of the Islands of Heligoland and Dune shall be destroyed under the supervision of the Allied Governments, by German labor and at the expense of Germany, within a period to be determined by the Allied Governments (a list follows detailing which harbours are to be included).

Article 36. In order to ensure free passage into the Baltic to all nations, Germany shall not erect any fortifications in the Baltic Sea area. All existing forts are to be destroyed.

Article 37. All fortified works and fortifications, other than those mentioned in Articles 35 and 36, now established within fifty kilometres of the German coast or on German islands off that coast shall be considered as of a defensive nature and may remain in their existing condition. No new fortifications shall be constructed within these limits.

Article 38. Kiel Canal (reserved).

Article 39. Wireless Telegraphy may not be used for any Military or Naval purposes. Germany may build no new W/T stations until the signing of the Peace Treaty.

Article 40. Submarine Cables (reserved).

Section III - Air Clauses

Article 41. The armed forces of Germany may not contain any military or naval air forces.

Germany may retain through October 1st 1919 no more than 100 seaplanes or flying boats, for the sole purpose of searching for submarine mines.

No dirigibles may be kept.

Article 42. Within one month of the signing of this document the German air forces will be completely demobilized. Germany may retain 1,000 men, including officers, for the purpose of aiding demobilization.

Article 43. No grounds or sheds for dirigibles may be maintained.

Article 44. Germany will allow all Allied aircraft free passage over German airspace and the right to land anywhere in Germany until all Allied troops have been evacuated from Germany.

Article 45. Germany may not build or buy any aircraft of any kind until the Peace Treaty is signed.

Article 46. Upon the signing of this document Germany will hand over to the Allies all military and naval aircraft of any type, including dirigibles (there follows a very detailed list of everything pertaining to military aeronautics).

Section IV - General Articles

Article 47. Within three months of the signing of this document German laws must be modified to conform to the stipulations contained herein.

Article 48. The Armistice of November 11, 1918, remains in force except where they are inconsistent with the stipulations contained in this document.

Section V - Inter-Allied Commissions of Control

Article 49. These clauses will be executed by Commissions appointed by the Allied governments.

Article 50. These Commissions will be charged with the oversight of the destruction of specified arms and armaments.

Article 51. These Commissions may establish their organizations at the seat of the German government. They may proceed to any point withing Germany in pursuit of their duties.

Article 52. The German government must give every aid to these Commissions. A German liaison will be attached to each Commission to aid communications. All labor and material for the work of destruction must be provided at Germany's expense.

Article 53. The cost of these Commissions will be borne by Germany.

Article 54. The Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control will represent the Inter-Allied High Command in dealing with the German Government in all matters concerning the execution of the military clauses. It will be in overall charge of the destruction of specified armaments, and the recipient of armaments that are handed over to the Allies.

Article 55. The Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control will represent the Admiralties of the Allied Governments and the United States in dealing with the German Government in all matters concerning the execution of the Naval Clauses. It will be in charge of the breaking-up of German warships under construction and will receive the ships that are handed over.

Article 56. The Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control will represent the Inter-Allied High Command in dealing with the German Government in all matters concerning the execution of the Air Clauses. It will be charged with making an inventory of all aviation-related materials in Germany.

1. The first task of the Peace Conference meeting is devoted to going over this document and discussing dozens of revisions, mostly simple changes of wording, after which the document is approved.

2. The Polish Crisis is revisited. A lengthy discussion is held on the Ukrainian attacks on Poland. The chief subjects are getting the Ukrainian government to agree to an armistice and the ongoing problem of getting Polish troops from France to Poland. A tentative agreement is finally reached:

1) To call upon the Allied Maritime Transport Council to submit a scheme showing what should be the contribution in shipping of each of the Allied and Associated Governments for the transport of General Haller’s troops from France to Danzig.

2) To enjoin the Ukrainian Government through the intermediary of the Warsaw Commission to accept an armistice. The armistice conditions should, generally speaking, take the present situation into account and more particularly in regard to the present possession of the oilfields.

3) To authorize Marshal Foch to study the possibility of the transport of Polish troops to Poland from France and Odessa.

After this the meeting adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-18-19, 12:28 PM

18th March 1919

Aftermath of War

3 British officers and 5 other ranks murdered in train at Deirut, Upper Egypt.

Widespread protests and riots continue in Egypt against British rule. A train wrecked by protestors.
https://i.imgur.com/YojAiex.png

8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party is held in Moscow. Delegates at the Congress, with Stalin, Lenin, and Mikhail Kalinin in the center (11 of the other pictured will later be executed, 3 commit suicide).
https://i.imgur.com/VTwFuxG.jpg

Ship Losses:

Bonovento (Denmark) The barque caught fire in the Indian Ocean south of Ceylon (approximately 4°N 82°E) and was abandoned. Her crew were rescued by Martinique ( Denmark).

Sailor Steve

03-18-19, 09:01 PM

Tuesday, March 18, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Peace Conference takes another day off as certain Committees hear testimony from different parties concerning the Polish problem.

Jimbuna

03-19-19, 10:38 AM

19th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Germany's Navy to be limited to 36 ships (Order by Peace Conference).

Irish War of Independence: IRA volunteers raided Collinstown Airfield, now Dublin Airport. They captured 75 rifles and 4,000 rounds of ammunition.

Canadian Highland Light Infantry getting ready for the morning.
https://i.imgur.com/T6L5hTK.jpg

Ship Losses:

Conservator (United Kingdom) The steam yacht foundered off Cardigan, Wales, United Kingdom. Her ten crew were rescued by Elizabeth Austin (RNLI).

Sailor Steve

03-19-19, 01:13 PM

Wednesday, March 19, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 44

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. After some discussion it is decided that the question of maritime transport for Polish troops will be put off until Friday the 21st.

2. M Jules Gambon says that his Committee has prepared two documents. First is a telegram to be sent to the President of the Allied Commission at Warsaw, and the second is a declaration by the Allied and Associated Powers addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian troops in Eastern Galicia.

The previous day the Committee had heard from Dr Lord, the American delegate on the Warsaw Commission. It was Dr Lord's opinion that an Armistice between the Poles and Ukrainians could not be negotiated by that Commission, and that the Commission at best could negotiate a cease-fire. An Armistice would have to be dealt with by the Peace Conference itself. It is decided that Dr Lord should be heard by the Supreme Council and Marshal Foch should attend that discussion.

Dr Lord begins by stating his opinion that Military Force will not work in this situation, and that an Armistice must be negotiated by Diplomatic Means. Dr Lord proposes that:

A) The Conference send an urgent invitation to the Polish and Ukrainian leadership to agree to an immediate cease-fire.

B) The cease-fire should leave the city of Lemberg and the Lemberg-Przemysl Railway Line in the hands of the Poles.

C) If both parties agree to the cease-fire they should be invited to send representatives to Paris for Armistice discussions to be conducted by a Commission created for that purpose.

D) The Armistice agreed to by this means should be submitted to the Peace Conference for approval.

1) Since the Polish Commission has failed to bring about a truce it is recommended that the Peace Conference itself should use all the moral authority at its disposal to coerce the parties involved to reach an agreement.

2) It is recommended that this suspension of hostilities be effected through a truce based substantially on the existing military status quo but under conditions which would insure the security in Polish hands of the city of Lemberg and of the railway connecting Lemberg with Przemysl.

3) It is recommended that in case both belligerent parties agree to an immediate truce, they should be invited to send representatives to Paris to discuss with an Inter-Allied Commission appointed for this purpose the terms of an armistice which should last until the final settlement by the Conference of the territorial questions pending in Eastern Galicia.

4) It is recommended that the armistice as finally fixed by the Inter-Allied Commission after due consultation with the Polish and Ukrainian Representatives should be submitted to the Conference, and, if approved by it, should then be communicated to the belligerent parties as a mediatory arrangement proposed by the Conference.

A discussion of these points follows, with the Leaders asking questions and Dr Lord answering. One method of coercement suggested is that both parties be informed that if either one refuses the cease-fire then that party's claims will not be heard by the Council. It is also decided that the message be communicated by telegram to the leadership of the respective nations, to their representatives in Paris, and from Marshal Foch to their military leaders. It is considered vital that every possible means of communication be used to keep either side from claiming they had not received the message.

Marshal Foch says that if the Ukrainians should neglect the decisions of the Conference as they had those of the Inter-Allied Commission, the Conference might be discredited. He is not sure on what terms the Allies are with the Ukrainians. Are they friends or enemies?

Mr Balfour says that he would like Marshal Foch to explain how the Ukrainians, whose country was represented as over-run by Bolsheviks, could find troops to invade Poland which was being over-run by no-one.

Marshal Foch said that he had no explanation to offer of this phenomenon unless it be assumed that the Ukrainians were in agreement with the Bolsheviks.

After much more discussion of specifics the Council Members agree to send the telegrams.

3. M Gambon says he has been informed that the Germans wish to discuss the landing of Polish troops at Danzig. General Weygand replies that Marshal Foch has already given the order that such discussions should be refused and that the Germans should be referred to the Inter-Allied Commission in Poland.

After a short recess the meeting resumes.

4. M Gambon initiates a discussion of Polish borders, pointing out that none of Poland's borders are natural, i.e. bounded by rivers or mountains. A part of this discussion involves the giving of Danzig to Poland so they can have a seaport. Another possibility is Elbing, but the Committee has decided to leave that city as part of Eastern Prussia. While Danzig's population is mostly German the surrounding areas are all Polish. Königsberg, on the other hand, has some Poles living there, but in language, outlook, and even religion they are more German than Polish.

A discussion follows on the problem that Poland contains large German populations in several regions, and there is no division possible that will not leave many Germans living under Polish rule. To a lesser extent the opposite is also true. Eventually it is decided that the situation is so complex that it needs to be referred back to the Committee for Poland for further examination.

The meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-20-19, 07:13 AM

20th March 1919

The Royal Air Force’s R33, the largest airship in the world, at Shelby, England.
https://i.imgur.com/6JPALDL.jpg

A serial killer in New Orleans threatens to kill again but promises to spare anyone who is at a place playing jazz. Every dance hall in the city reaches capacity and house parties employ amateur jazz bands. No murders are committed tonight.
https://i.imgur.com/9ESUmsG.jpg

37th, Engineers upon arrival from France.
https://i.imgur.com/aASuIou.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-20-19, 09:17 AM

Thursday, March 20, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Prime Minister's Flat, 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, 15:00

The Representatives of the Council of Four (Britain, France, Italy and the United States) have a private meeting. The purpose is to resolve questions still open concerning zones of influence between Britain and France in helping Arabic nations sort out home governments and separate themselves from the Turks as specified in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916. This discussion takes quite some time and is mostly spent arguing over where the zones of influence begin and end.

There is a second brief discussion concerning the Polish problem and how we can expect the Germans to react to the proposals made thus far.

Jimbuna

03-21-19, 07:31 AM

21st March 1919

Aftermath of War

Soviet Government in Hungary; Count M. Karolyi resigns.

General Allenby appointed Special High Commissioner of Egypt.

Navigation of the Danube thrown open.

The Hungarian Soviet Republic is established, with de facto power in the hands of Communist revolutionary politician Béla Kun.
https://i.imgur.com/bknN7RG.jpg

King and Queen of Belgium with General Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, in Chaumont, France.
https://i.imgur.com/sjxvd7x.jpg

Royal Army Medical Corps personnel handing over wounded prisoners to German authorities, 21 March 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/2A94dEW.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-21-19, 02:23 PM

Friday, March 21, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 45

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

1. M Clemenceau opens the meeting and calls Marshal Foch to make a statement concerning the transporting of General Haller's army to Poland.

Marshal Foch says that the question of the transportation of General Haller’s army to Poland by rail has been studied, and the conclusion had been reached that it could be carried out as soon as the Conference gave the necessary authority, five or six days only being required in order to get the rolling stock together. By the land route one or two trains could be despatched daily; but conversations in regard to details were still taking place between the general staffs of the Allied Powers concerned.

The transport of the troops by sea, via Dantzig, had also received consideration, and a conclusion had been reached in regard to the tonnage which would be required.

The carriage by rail would only give very feeble results; consequently, it should be supplemented by the sea route, provided an agreement could be reached in regard to the disembarkation of the troops at the Port of Danzig, and their transportation thence over the railway lines, under proper guarantees.

After questioning by Mr Lloyd George Marshal Foch says that transportation of the army by rail could be started immediately, but would be very slow, and discussions should continue regarding transportation by sea.

Marshal Foch says he believes that both methods should be used, and asks whether that proposal will be approved by the Conference. Mr Lloyd George says no. Land transportation is too long and complicated and the Conference has only approved transportation by sea. President Wilson and M Clemenceau both say that they agree with that assessment.

Marshal Foch says that the sea route alone remained. A transportation plan had been worked out and could be brought into operation quickly. Only two questions remain, the possibility of landing at Danzig and the transportation by rail from Dantzig to Thorn.

The rest of the meeting is occupied by a very long discussion of the problem of the German Delegation at Spa refusing to deal with the Peace Conference Commission there until the supplies of food to Germany are guaranteed. It is finally decided that Marshal Foch will hand-deliver a letter demanding that the Germans allow General Haller's Polish army to land at Danzig and give a precise accounting of their answer.

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 18:00

A special meeting is held to discuss concerns brought up by Mr Lloyd George that the conversations held on Tuesday the 18th concerning Poland have been printed in full in a Paris newspaper. His main concern is not that the "private" meeting has been made public so much as that he himself has been misquoted and misrepresented to the point where what was written has almost nothing to do with what he said at that meeting. He gives a somewhat lengthy speech detailing the article and an earlier incident of this nature that had been brought up by President Wilson.

M Clemenceau reminds Mr Lloyd George of the difficulties involved in censoring the Press. France does have laws in place but he is reluctant to enforce them too stringently. He cannot guarantee that similar incidents will not happen again in the future.

Mr Lloyd George says that his complaint is not against the press, as it is their job to report the news. His complaint is rather that some official sitting in the room at this very moment is leaking sensitive information to said press.

President Wilson asks if an inquiry could not be established to discover who had given out information about Poland. M Clemenceau agrees, and promises to do what he can.

Mr Balfour points out that this problem is not just limited to the Peace Conference itself, but is also taking place in the Committees and Councils. President Wilson says that his own sources can confirm Mr Balfour's statement.

M Clemenceau asks if a notice should be given to all members of the Peace Conference, encouraging strict secrecy. Mr Lansing notes that that the whole of the military and naval terms had been published in the press. Baron Sonnino states his agreement that a notice should be circulated to all members. Mr Lloyd George says that whoever is giving out this information should be discovered and barred entry to the Council Chamber.

In the end it is agreed:

1) That a strict and severe enquiry should be instituted by the French Authorities in order to discover, if possible, the name of the person who had given information to the Press in regard to the Conversation held at the Quai d’Orsay about Poland.

2) That a circular should be issued by the Secretariat General to members of the Peace Conference impressing on them the necessity for strict reticence in regard to the proceedings of the Conference.

The meeting is then adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-22-19, 06:33 AM

22nd March 1919

Aftermath of War

March of Guards' Division through London.

Britain: General Bulfin Commander-in-Chief in Egypt.

Canadian troops participating in a 75-yard race in Brussels.
https://i.imgur.com/mMXcV42.jpg

Bhupinder Singh, ruler of Patiala in British India, with his troops in Egypt:.
https://i.imgur.com/gasMdHC.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-22-19, 12:48 PM

Saturday, March 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 46

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 11:00

1. M Jules Gambon addresses the Council on the subject of the border between eastern Poland and East Prussia. This involves a note from the Committee on Polish Affairs to the Supreme Council, which says that guaranteeing Poland secure access to the sea will involve the annexation of two East Prussian areas with predominately German populations, and which have been part of East Prussia for several centuries. The conclusion of the Committe is that the need of Poland to have this access outweighs the needs of the 75,000 Germans living in the area.

After much discussion it is concluded that the original report from the Polish Committee is still the best policy, and it is decided to follow the recommendations in the note in question.

2. M Clemenceau brings up the breakdown of negotiations over the question of landing Polish troops at Danzig. The first question is whether the landings there would be in keeping with the wording of the November 1918 Armistice. If so then every attempt must be made to convince the Germans to abide by the terms of the Armistice.

The second question concerns a suggestion from the Germans as to whether it might be better to land the Polish troops at Königsberg or Libau. Mr Lloyd George suggests that it might be best to land the troops at all three ports.

President Wilson brings up the point that M Noulens, tasked with negotiating with the Germans on this subject, had asked for free passage for Polish troops and not for Allied troops. If this is true the request is not in agreement with the terms of the Armistice. Polish troops could be considered Allied troops if they had enlisted in the American or French armies, but if not the Allies might be seen as being in the wrong on this subject. This point must be made clear before discussing possible alternate landing ports.

Baron Sonnino points out that landing at Königsberg or Libau might not entail crossing German territory, but it would mean crossing Bolshevik territory. President Wilson replies that landing at Königsberg will almost certainly mean crossing German territory. It is vital to know the exact terms used by M Noulens when addressing the Germans. Mr Wilson also points out that the Germans are well within their rights to ask that the talks be held at Spa rather than Posen.

Mr Balfour reminds the council that it was the Germans who suggested using Königsberg or Libau as landing points. This makes it easier to negotiate landings at Königsberg, Libau is in Courland, a territory claimed by the Lithuanians, and the Lithuanians and Poles are not on good terms. President Wilson says that the same problem applies to Memel, another possible landing point.

M Clemenceau proposes that Marshal Foch prepare a report on the possibility of landing at Königsberg, to be presented at a private meeting of the heads of governments on Monday, March 24th, at 1500 hours. This is agreed to.

3. It is decided that the next subjects will be underwater cables and Teschen, to be addressed on Monday, March 24th, at 1600 hours, and the meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-23-19, 10:11 AM

23rd March 1919

President Wilson visits the former battlefields of the war at Soissons, France.
https://i.imgur.com/SsAnsWD.jpg

Benito Mussolini in Milan launches the “Fasci Italiani di Combattimento” (Italian Fasci of Combat) movement (the predecessor to the National Fascist Party).
https://i.imgur.com/AQhIk0M.jpg

A wounded French veteran making brushes.
https://i.imgur.com/AjKt4Mc.png

"How to use Boche helmets." (Petit Journal)
https://i.imgur.com/pqn9NQy.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-23-19, 11:22 AM

Sunday, March 23, 1919

The Peace Conference has the day off.

Jimbuna

03-24-19, 08:18 AM

24th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Romanians defeat Bolsheviks on he Dniester River.

Charles, the last Emperor of Austria and the last King of Hungary, leaves Austria in exile, but still claims sovereignty over Austria and Hungary.
https://i.imgur.com/9vqbY4Z.jpg

Red Flag riots – A crowd of 8,000 ex-servicemen clashed with police in Brisbane. Police officers used bayonets to drive back the mob, injuring 100 servicemen.

Igor Sikorsky flees Europe for the United States.

Ship Losses:

Cecil Fearn (United Kingdom) The schooner was driven ashore at Figuera, Cape Verde Islands, Portugal and was wrecked.

Sailor Steve

03-24-19, 03:50 PM

Monday, March 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 47

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 16:00

1. In a meeting between M Clemenceau, President Wilson, Mr Lloyd George, S Orlando, and Marshal Foch with M Mantoux as Interpreter, the following Conclusions were reached on the subject of the transport of General Haller’s Army to Dantzig:

1) The negotiations shall be taken up at Spa, under Clause 34 of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918.2) Marshal Foch shall demand that under Clause 16 of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918, the Germans shall permit the free passage of General Haller’s Army as part of the Allied Army, through Dantzig to Poland, for the purpose of maintaining order in that country. They must also undertake to give every facility for the temporary accommodation of the troops passing through the port. Any refusal to accede to this demand will be interpreted as a breach of the Armistice by Germany.

2) In the event of a refusal by the Germans to accede to this demand, Marshal Foch shall confer with the Supreme War Council as to the action to be taken.

3) This decision shall be notified by the Secretary-General to the Warsaw Commission.

2. M. Fromageot is called to give a summary of the report of the Committee on Submarine Cables. Disposal of Enemy-Owned Submarine Cables:

1) Is it right under the rules or principles of International law to treat as capture or prize submarine telegraph cables of an enemy cut or taken possession of by naval operations?

2) Is it right under the rules or principles of International law for a Government whose naval forces have cut or taken possession of a submarine telegraph cable of an enemy to retain such cable by way of reparation?

3) In the event that the cut or captured cable of an enemy is landed on the territory of another nation, what right and authority does such nation possess under contracts or permits granted to the enemy to cancel the same or to control the use of the cable?

The Committee submits the following replies:

On the First and Second Questions:

1) The Committee is unanimous in thinking that military necessity is a justification for the cutting of enemy cables.

2) On the question as to whether the enemy cables can or cannot be the subject of capture or prize:

The British Empire, France and Japan think that the capture and confiscation of enemy cables are legally justified by the general principle of the right of capture of enemy property at sea.

The United States and of Italy consider that in the present state of international law this opinion is not well founded, the property in enemy cables cannot be assimilated to property subject to capture at sea.

3) In these circumstances the Committee is unanimous in considering that in the absence of a special rule, recognising the right of confiscation of enemy submarine cables, the treaty of peace must decide the disposal of these cables.

On the Third Question:

A) The Committee is unanimous in considering that the answer depends upon the terms of the contracts entered into between the owner of the cable and the third Power on whose territory such cable is landed, and that, in all cases, these contracts are, as regards the belligerents who have cut or seized the cable, a res inter alios acta (It is between the owner of the cable and the nation on whose territory it is landed).

British View
Mr Balfour says the matter should be discussed by the full Conference. Two questions are involved:

1) What is necessary for the Peace Treaty and what can be put off until after the Treaty is in effect.

2) Does Germany have any right to complain? Mr Balfour says the answer is "No", and that the victor has the right to appropriate cables just as much as ships captured at sea.

French View

Admiral de Bon agrees with the British view, and further states that underwater cables can be used as instruments of war and are therefore subject to capture and confiscation just as any other weapon.

American View

Mr Lansing says that cutting enemy cables is a reasonable act of war, but cutting cables does not give the right of possession. He feels that the nation claiming possession could be accused of creating a monopoly. He suggests that the cables in question might be referred to the Prize Courts.

President Wilson disagrees with Admiral Bon's view that possession can be based on a cable's use as an instrument of war. They can also be used as an instrument of commerce and as such must be regarded for their peaceful uses. Four of the cables in question have one end-point in Germany, and are Germany's connection to the commercial world. Should they be taken from the nation that paid for them just because of potential war use? Mr Wilson urges the Conference to move slowly and carefully when considering decisions that might set a precedent for generations to come.

Mr Balfour brings up the problem that some of the cables had not only been cut but had been attached to new cables or otherwise diverted, making it impossible to restore them to Germany as they had been before the war.

M Clemenceau says he liked Mr Lansings idea of referring the matter to the Prize courts, but he now understands that both British and French Prize Courts would be compelled to rule that the question was outside their jurisdiction since there were no precedents to follow.

Japanese View:
Baron Makino says that the two cables seized by Japan had been paid for by the German government and were not private enterprises. Japan feels that since they had been used for war purposes they could be so used again. Japan is therefore opposed to the cables being returned to Germany.

Italian View:
S Orlando says there are two questions involved, that of law and that of fact. The laws applying to ships do not apply to cables. On the one hand the law is clear in stating that it is illegal to appropriate private property, even enemy private property. On the other hand it is impossible to return the cables to Germany as they were before the war because they have been cut up and diverted. The best to be hoped for is to pay Germany for the damage done. An attempt could be made to restore the cables to their original condition, but it might be better for all involved if the Allies simply admitted they were wrong and pay a reparation.

M Tardieu proposes that all German government cables be retained by the Allies, and all private cables be put on a list of reparations to be paid to Germany.

The final conclusion is that the matter be referred to a Drafting Committee and discussions recommenced when the report from that Committee is received.

3. A discussion begins on the report of the Teschen Commission for reaching a peace between the Czechs and the Poles on the mining districts in contention. The Commission has been acting in an advisory capacity and neither side has been paying any attention. The first demand of the Peace Conference will be that both sides acknowledge the Commission's primacy in dictating the affairs of the region. Until that has happened nothing else can be done.

Jimbuna

03-25-19, 12:53 PM

25th March 1919

Aftermath of War

General Allenby arrives in Egypt.

Women ambulance drivers of the American Red Cross transport wounded veterans in a parade in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/Mvg2DVU.jpg

Belgian children look at a poster warning them of explosives that remain buried from the war.
https://i.imgur.com/DXtA1zG.jpg

The New Zealand Division of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force is disbanded and the men return home. Troopship Willochra, still in dazzle camouflage, carrying New Zealand troops home through the Panama Canal.
https://i.imgur.com/Q9bnga6.png

Men of the 27th Division marching in a victory parade at Madison Square, New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/iPFANtd.jpg

Surrendered Austro-Hungarian submarines exhibited in Venice.
https://i.imgur.com/0jAhOrr.png

Sailor Steve

03-25-19, 07:13 PM

Tuesday, March 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Peace Conference did not meet today, possibly because they are waiting for reports from the various Committees and Commissions before they can discuss the latest topics.

Jimbuna

03-26-19, 11:41 AM

26th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Allied Missions leave Budapest.

British occupation troops in the German Rhineland pose inside a model boat for a postcard to send home.
https://i.imgur.com/AqGSbHw.jpg

1st Canadian Infantry Brigade leaving Huy, Belgium to return home.
https://i.imgur.com/NfVQnKz.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-26-19, 11:55 AM

Wednesday, March 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Peace Conference did not meet again today.

Jimbuna

03-27-19, 08:54 AM

27th March 1919

American troops surfacing roads near Savenay, France.
https://i.imgur.com/vUeih9g.jpg

Ship Losses:

Vincio (Spain) The cargo ship ran aground at Bayonne, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France and was a total loss.

Sailor Steve

03-27-19, 01:36 PM

Thursday, March 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Day 48

M Pichon's room, Foreign Office Building, 11:30

(A meeting was held at 11:00 at President Wilson's house on the Place des Etats-Unis between Mr Wilson, M Clemenceau, Mr Lloyd George and S Orlando. I could not find any information on that meeting other than that they arranged this meeting on short notice. This meeting is between Mr Balfour and Lord Robert Cecil for Britain, Mr Lansing and Mr Hoover for The United States, M Pichon and M Seydoux for France, and Baron Sonnino for Italy)

1. M Pichon opens with the political importance of supplying food to Bavaria from other directions than the north. Swiss President M Calonder has said that he would be open to allowing supplies for Bavaria to come through Switzerland.

M Seydoux says that supplies could also be taken through Strassburg. Lord Cecil points out the difficulties of taking supplies through Switzerland. Mr Lansing says that the real question is one of policy. Do we want to separate Bavaria from the rest of Germany?

Mr Hoover says that the Allies have contracts with Germany, and the German government is attempting a fair distribution of food to all of Germany, including Bavaria. If Bavaria is supplied separately they will have to pay separately, and likely doesn't have the means for such payments.

Mr Balfour asks how the required payments should be made. Mr Hoover says that Bavaria has some supplies to offer in exchange. Baron Sonnino asks if the food for Bavaria would be in addition to that set aside for Germany in general. If it was part of the same lot then Germany's approval would be required first.

M Seydoux says that it will be cheaper to send the supplies via the Rhine River than by rail. Mr Lansing says that this brings us back to the question of Policy. Baron Sonnino says it will not be a question of Policy if the German government agrees.

Lord Robert Cecil sums up the situation as he sees it. Arrangements had been made with Germany, including payments. Payment was agreed to be handled by the Central German Government. Any food sent to any part of Germany would have to be with the consent of the government representing the whole people. To send goods to one part of Germany would be to go against what was agreed to. If there was spare food that could be sent to Bavaria then it might be a valid proposition, but then the political questions would arise.

M Pichon suggests the question be handed over to the Supreme Economic Council. Mr Lansing says not until the Policy question is decided.

Mr Hoover says the arrangement with the Germans involves two methods:
1) A direct arrangement with Berlin.
2) A relaxation of the blockade, allowing German merchants to purchase food from abroad. Any food so purchased will be deducted from the total amount, so the total ration will not change.

Mr Balfour asks how Bavaria can by food from Switzerland if Switzerland has no extra food to spare. Mr Hoover says that the Swiss do have some temporary stocks which could be used and replaced later. There is plenty of food in the world. The problem is that of transportation.

M Seydoux says that allowing the Bavarians to buy food from the Swiss would change nothing, as it will still be deducted from the total amount allowed.

The discussion goes around in this circle several times, always coming back to the main problem being that of transport. When the question is asked why we want to separate Bavaria from the rest of Germany, M Pichon says that the goal there is to prevent the spread of Bolshevism in Bavaria. Mr Lansing says that in that case it would be best to let the German government control the food problem, as it is certainly not Bolshevist. He questions the wisdom of interfering with the internal affairs of any country.

Mr Balfour again says he believes this should best be handled by the Supreme Economic Council. Mr Hoover says the Council's first question will be "What was the Policy?" Lord Robert Cecil and Baron Sonnino both agree that if the present body decides this issue it will cause confusion, and it should go to the Supreme Economic Council.

It is finally decided to send the matter to the Supreme Economic Council.

2 (for some reason this is listed in the notes as '3'). Lord Robert Cecil raises the question of the blockade of Austria and Estonia. It is decided to postpone this question until the following day.

The meeting is adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-28-19, 07:47 AM

28th March 1919

A meeting of the German National Assembly in Weimar. Note the women delegates as well a man wearing a pickelhaube.
https://i.imgur.com/nN1I72Y.jpg

“Mutt and Jeff,” the tallest and shortest members of the African American 505th Engineers returning home on the SS Roma. The taller soldier is Jesse Hixon and the shorter soldier is Thomas C. Crispell.
https://i.imgur.com/dKT6X8f.png

Ship Losses:

Conservator (United Kingdom) The cargo ship ran aground on the Black Rocks in the River Teifi and was wrecked.

Sailor Steve

03-28-19, 07:45 PM

Friday, March 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon's room, Foreign Office Building, 11:00

The same delegates as yesterday's meeting, plus Baron Makino of Japan.

1. Lord Robert Cecil says that in a meeting on March 12 the Supreme Economic Council had resolved that all Economic and Trade restrictions on Austria and Hungary should be abolished, and the Blockade be lifted. He now believes that in light of recent events in Hungary that part of the Resolution should be refered back to the Supreme Council, but that the portion relating to Austria should be adopted.

Baron Sonnino says that Italy has no objection to establishing full free trade, provided Hungary is not included. He does wish to note the ban on all import, export and transport of goods between Italy and Yugoslavia. Mr Balfour says that this is a delicate situation, and that it has no direct bearing on the blockade of Austria. Lord Robert Cecil says that Italy had agreed to the ending of all blockade in the Adriatic Sea area, and that it is a very serious matter that Yugoslavia should answer this with a blockade of Italy.

It is concluded that Baron Sonnino is right to draw attenction to this matter, and the best course for now is the Supreme Council ask Yugoslavia to explain their current action.

(It is then agreed that all blockade against Austria should be lifted.)

2. Lord Robert Cecil reads the Supreme Economic Council report on the re-opening of trade with Estonia.

Mr Lansing asks why the proposal does not also extend to Latvia and Lithuania. Lord Cecil says there are political objections to this. The governments of those two nations are still sketchy, and the delegates think it is too soon to enter into commercial relations with them. Mr McCormick says the delegates had been lead to believe there are military reasons for not considering them, but that it might be possible to make some arrangement. Mr Balfour notes that all the main ports of entry into the two nations are controlled either by the Germans or the Bolsheviks. He believes the Resolution of the Supreme Economic Council should be adopted, with a not that the same principle should be extended to the other Baltic states as soon as the military situation is favorable.

Mr McCormick says the situation in Libau and Riga is no different than that in Danzig. Mr Balfour believes they are very different. In Danzig there is law and order, while Libau and Riga are both centers of military operations.

M Pichon says he believes that order in Danzig might soon cease. There is no official information at this time, but there seems to be a revolution there of Germans against the Poles.

(It is agreed that the resolution of the Supreme Economic Council regarding the resumption of trade with Estonia is adopted, and recommended that the same resolution be applied to Latvia and Lithuania as soon as the military situation there is favorable.)

3. Lord Robert Cecil then proposes that the planned removal of all trade restrictions from Poland on April 1st be subject to the same principle, i.e. the establishment of proper control at Danzig.

Mr Lansing says that the trouble at Danzig seems to be of the nature of local riot, as happens any time a large body of people are transferred to a new allegiance against their wishes. Mr McCormick points out that the transfer of some 4,500 tons of food at Danzig had been carried out without trouble.

(It is agreed that all trade restrictions agains Poland will be lifted on April 1st, provided proper control is set up before that date.)

4. Mr McCormick initiates a discussion of the question of re-opening the Rhine River for navigation. A Swiss engineer is beign sent up the river in a boat to investigate the channel from Bâle and Strassburg. M Seydoux says that this is the responsibility of the Inter-Allied Military Commission and they will have to be consulted before any action can be taken. Lord Robert Cecil says that all such matters are sent directly to Marshal Foch, and that he will probably have no objections to this plan.

(It is resolved that the Rhine River will be re-opened to navigation, providing there are no objections from the Military Authorities.)

5. M Pichon re-opens the question of French claims regarding Morocco. There is much discussion but no real objections due to the fact that France plans to maintain an "Open Door" policy allowing all nations free access to Morocco.

(It is decided that a Commission will be created to examine all of France's claims and report back to the Supreme Council.)

6. M Tardieu presents the report by the Commission on Danish Affairs involving adjustments to Danish territory. The main problem is that the whole of Denmark is divided into communes. Two Danish communes might be separated by a German commune, with no common interest between the two zones. A good example is Central Schleswig. There are many Danish communes there, but the population as a whole is German. Denmark wants voting by commune, which will certainly give the appearance of the area being mostly Danish, when in fact it is mostly German. In Flensburg the population is also mostly German, but there are a large number of Danes controlling the economy. If the area is named as Danish there is a good chance that the German majority will switch their allegiance and call themselves Danes.

(It is decided that this matter needs further discussion and should involve the Supreme Council. The meeting is adjourned until Tuesday, April 1st.)

Jimbuna

03-29-19, 06:28 AM

29th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Adalia (Asia Minor) occupied by Italians.

Two Bristol Fighters demonstrating a dogfight over the skies of British-occupied Cologne, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/Epkh5eM.jpg

Holland: Ex-Kaiser Wilhelm II says he would rather kill himself than submit to a trial by the Allies.
https://i.imgur.com/IcnuvnE.jpg

Europe: March 29, 1919 The graves of two Ohio members of the Rainbow Division. They were buried where they fell, and the graves are marked with the gun that felled them as they were avenged by their comrades. They were in Co. G, 168th Infantry.
https://i.imgur.com/BtmZy6E.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-29-19, 07:47 PM

Saturday, March 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Clemenceau's Office, French Ministry of War, 14 Rue Dominique, 15:00

1. After some discussion between the leaders of Britain, France, Italy, and the United States concerning the transport of General Haller's army through Danzig, the following conclusions are reached:

1) Marshal Foch will invite the Germans to send a plenipotentiary to meet him at Spa on April 3rd, and shall notify them that he will give them all the explanations and guarantees referred to in the telegram sent earlier by General Nudant. (This telegram relayed the German answer that they had agreed to allow Allied troops through Danzig, and not Polish troops. The are prepared, however, to allow General Haller's troops through Stettin, Königsberg, Memel, or Libau.)

2) Marshal Foch will explain that the Allied governments believe that it is right to explain that the troops will consist of Allied soldiers who fought on the Western Front, specially selected for their Polish Nationality; that they are not intended for the occupation of Danzig; will only require temporary accomidations while passing through the port; and finally that this decision has no connection with the disposition of Danzig in the Peace Treaty.

3) Marshal Foch will be authorized to use Stettin and other ports if he deems it necessary.

4) Any refusal of this decision on the part of the Germans will be considered a breach of the Armistice.

2. Signor Orlando presents a message handed by the new Hungarian government to Prince Borghese, the Italian Minister in Belgrade. The new government is Socialist in nature, but expresses their desire to cooperate with all nations in the formation of a nation that can live in peace with all others. They will welcome a delegation to discuss terms of Peace and guarantee the safety of that delegation.

It is decided that President Wilson should send a trustworthy American to assess the situation and make a report. It is suggested that this Person work in tandem with Prince Borghese.

3. Mr Lloyd George reads the memorandum on War Reparations to be paid by the Germans. After an objection by President Wilson over the wording it is decided to postpone discussion of this subject to a later meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled and the current one adjourned.

Jimbuna

03-30-19, 07:20 AM

30th March 1919

Aftermath of War

Britain: Summer time begins (till 28 September).

Lenin offers alliance to Germany with Hungary against Entente and Poland.

Press Bureau closes.

German crowds in Berlin protest the expulsion of Germans from various countries. Protesters are carrying placards identifying where they were expelled from.
https://i.imgur.com/3RpIosN.jpg

The 1919 Stanley Cup Finals between the Montreal Canadiens and Seattle Metropolitans end without a champion due to the outbreak of the Spanish Flu among the players. (Montreal Canadiens player Joe Hall dies on April 4th)
https://i.imgur.com/pSio9Tw.jpg

Welcome home parade for America troops in Buffalo, New York.
https://i.imgur.com/IX1dK19.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-30-19, 07:57 AM

Sunday, March 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings within the Peace Conference today.

Jimbuna

03-31-19, 06:51 AM

31st March 1919

Aftermath of War

Bolsheviks attack Archangel front; repulsed.

General Maynard repress Bolshevist revolt at Murmansk.

Tens of thousands of miners in the Ruhr of Germany agreed to unionize and go on strike.

Soldiers waiting on the bank of the Rhine in Köln for the steamer which is to take them to Rotterdam from where they are to go to England for demobilisation.
https://i.imgur.com/LLBDI1Y.jpg

The headquarters of the Japanese Governor-General of Taiwan is completed in Taipei (today, it houses the Office of the President of the Republic of China)
https://i.imgur.com/av204lM.jpg

Russian aviation designer Igor Sikorsky (founder of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation) flees from war-torn Russia to the United States.
https://i.imgur.com/Ru97vck.jpg

Sailor Steve

03-31-19, 05:30 PM

Monday, March 31, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings within the Peace Conference today.

Jimbuna

04-01-19, 12:07 PM

1st April 1919

American occupation troops in Germany visiting Cochem and its castle (large parts of Cochem’s old town is destroyed in WWII)
https://i.imgur.com/mdJbvAO.jpg

Germans march in Berlin to protest talks of separating Danzig from Germany and giving Posen to Poland.
https://i.imgur.com/7u8lyhE.png

Éamon de Valera is elected President of Dáil Éireann, the leader of the revolutionary Irish Republic. Ireland is currently fighting for independence from Britain.
https://i.imgur.com/t050aQg.jpg

Japanese men protest in front of the Diet (Parliament) of Japan to obtain universal male suffrage (all men above the age of 25 receive the vote in 1925, women in 1945)
https://i.imgur.com/eEAHpY8.jpg

French submarine Fulton launched.
https://i.imgur.com/JjKB4z1.jpg

A Sergeant of the 2nd Battalion, Highland Light Infantry in his full kit. Cologne, 1 April 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/cNIFg4L.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-01-19, 01:55 PM

Tuesday, April 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon's hotel suite, Quai d’Orsay, 15:00

The Council of Foreign Ministers meets. All nations are represented by Secondaries - none of the Primary Leaders are present, with the exception of Baron Sonnino for Italy and Baron Makino for Japan.

1. M Pichon says that he was to discuss arrangements for meeting the German delegations, but that is now deferred as M Clemenceau wishes to discuss this question with the Council of Four.

2. Proposed Plenary Conference to Consider Report of the Commission on Labour. Mr Lansing says he believes the Heads of Government should decide whether a Plenary Meeting is to be held.

Mr Barnes says the purpose is not to discuss the report, but to discuss which body should hear the report. He believes the report should be heard by the body that set up the Commission in the first place, and that body is the Peace Conference.

Mr Balfour asks whether Mr Barnes proposes a debate in the Plenary Session over controversial subjects. Mr Barnes replies that the procedure should be similar to that adopted when discussing the League of Nations. M Pichon says that he feels the matters involved should be discussed not in Plenary Sessions, but by the Commission itself.

Baron Makino says that due to the labor problems currently ongoing in Japan, the Japanese Delegates would wish to be able to bring up matters relative to their nation as the meetings progressed, and not be required to wait until a later time to discuss these questions. Mr Barnes says that this request strengthens the argument that the discussions on Labor take place in Plenary Sessions. The Commission on Labour, if asked, would reply that they could do nothing to make changes after the draft was composed without getting permission from the Peace Conference to reassemble. Therefore discussions of Labour questions should take place before the draft proposals were submitted, and that would mean discussing them in Plenary Sessions.

Baron Makino says that this might set a dangerous precedent. Mr Barnes had said that the Labour Commission could not examine amendments after the report had been submitted, but it was a bad idea for the discussions to take place in the Conference itself, as this would cause unnecessary delays. His feeling is that when a Delegation proposed amendments the Commission should examine them and submit supplementary reports.

Mr Lansing agrees with Baron Makino in the desire to avoid setting a precedent allowing procedures that serve to waste large amounts of time for nothing. He also points out that the previous day's The Times had published the last report in its entirety, again showing the need for greater security in these meetings.

Mr Barnes says that the Commission has no amendments or reservations to deal with. Mr Lansing says that this may be so, but any subsequent amendments should be appended to the report.

The discussion then turns to the question of publicity, with Baron Makino saying that some publicity is desirable, but how much and of what type.

(It is finally agreed that the Commission should be allowed to publish the report itself, and in the case of Labour to make sure that workers everywhere receive the news, released to all newspapers at the same time.)

(At this time Mr Barnes and his colleagues withdraw from the meeting, saying their specific charge from the Commission on Labour was to ask for Plenary Session meetings.)

3. A report from the Commission on Czechoslovakia is heard. Mr Lansing suggests that at this time the discussion be limited to the question of Czechoslovakia's border with Germany. Other borders can be considered at a later time. Baron Sonnino agrees. M Cambon brings up the problems of borders based upon the location of ethnic and national populations. Mr Balfour says that the Czech-German border cannot be established until the German-Polish border has been set.

M Cambon discusses the location of part of the border near Glatz, and proposes a modification to the current border there. Mr Balfour asks if this modification will involve moving the German poplulation there to Bohemia. M Cambon replies that the population so moved would be small.

Mr Lansing objects to the whole idea of setting borders based on strategic principles. M Cambon replies that the purpose is not strategic interests but national defense. Mr Lansing asks whether there is any difference. M Cambon says he had himself heard President Wilson say that new States should be set up under conditions that will enable them to survive. It is for this reason that the question has arisen of changing the border around Glatz. Mr Lansing says that he does not wish to discuss Glatz, but to point out that setting frontier lines with a view to their military strength and in contemplation of war was directly contrary to the whole spirit of the League of Nations. M Cambon says that he is not there to discuss general principles, but to settle the border around Glatz.

M Cambon the makes a speech about how and where borders are set when there are no natural borders. Mr Lansing points out that the Commission wants to set one sector on the Czech side of the border. This sector contains 90,000 Germans and no Czechs.

(After some more discussion it is decided to defer this question until the Czechoslovakian Commission and the Polish Commission can be brought to an agreement.)

Jimbuna

04-02-19, 06:53 AM

2nd April 1919

Aftermath of War

Britain: Admirals Jellicoe and Beatty promoted Admirals of the Fleet.

General Smuts' Mission to Budapest a failure (2-6 April).

Ernest Hemingway, age 19, recuperating after his severe injury sustained on the Italian front last July.
https://i.imgur.com/rWrS3a2.png

First Lieutenant George W. Puryear in Seattle. Puryear was a member of the Victory Loan Flying Circus that toured the Western states in April and May 1919. The flying circus performed a daily air show with several types of airplanes. Puryear normally flew a German Fokker D.VII.
https://i.imgur.com/4RN2Rsn.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-02-19, 01:01 PM

Wednesday, April 2, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Peace Conference holds no meetings today.

Jimbuna

04-03-19, 07:12 AM

3rd April 1919

UK Government agrees to begin release of imprisoned conscientious objectors.

French Marshal Ferdinand Foch in Spa, Belgium to meet with Matthias Erzberger, the German politician responsible for matters relating to the armistice (Erzberger is assassinated in 1921 for signing the armistice)
https://i.imgur.com/OjZtVrN.jpg

King Albert of Belgium in a plane as he prepares to make a flight from Brussels to Paris in 2 hours.
https://i.imgur.com/Z7DfKis.png

American soldiers distribute clothing and shoes to a village in France.
https://i.imgur.com/anLeK9G.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-03-19, 12:44 PM

Thursday, April 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Peace Conference holds no meetings today.

Jimbuna

04-04-19, 06:35 AM

4th April 1919

Aftermath of War

British nervousness re: positions in Archangel and Murman regions.

Soviet Republic in Bavaria.

African American soldier reads a book while resting on a truck at Saint-Nazaire, France.
https://i.imgur.com/VSeOEPR.jpg

American troops in Brest, France receive assignments on which ship will take them home to the U.S.
https://i.imgur.com/rhXCbHp.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-04-19, 12:14 PM

Friday, April 4, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

For the third day in a row the Peace Conference does not meet.

Jimbuna

04-05-19, 05:53 AM

5th April 1919

Aftermath of War

General Smuts' Mission to Budapest a failure (2-6 April).

Bolsheviks again attack Archangel front and are repulsed.

Germany sends artillery guns made 50 years ago to the Allies at Colonge under the Armistice agreement. The guns are not accepted and are sent back to be replaced by modern artillery.
https://i.imgur.com/k0WbsS5.jpg

British troops participating in the intervention against the Bolsheviks march in front of General Headquarters in Murmansk, Russia.
https://i.imgur.com/cXk5lqE.jpg

An airplane conducts an emergency landing and collides with a locomotive near Toronto, Canada.
https://i.imgur.com/J7FuvHN.png

Private of the Rifle Brigade with his full kit. Cologne, 5 April 1919.
https://i.imgur.com/ui7C5tq.jpg

Sailors passing in review, celebrating first anniversary of America's entry into the war. St. Nazaire, France.
https://i.imgur.com/pAu7N9P.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-05-19, 08:09 PM

Saturday, April 5, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting between the four main leaders. President Wilson is absent, so Colonel House is sitting in, Mr Lloyd George, M Clemenceau and S Orlando.

1. Plenary Meeting for Report of Labour Commission is scheduled for Friday, 11th April, 1919, at 15:00.

2. Several financial experts are heard on the subject of Reparations. The discussion centers around a memorandum which has been agreed to by the British and American Representatives, but not the French. The French believe that if Germany cannot pay off her Reparations debt in 30 years, the time should be extended to 40 years. The British and Americans agree that Germany should pay what she can in 30 years, and after that a discussion can be had on what to do next.

Mr Lloyd George argues that the amount Germany can be expected to pay cannot be established until her economy is settled, and that will take at the very least until 1921. Colonel House asks what is the point of having a Commission at all? Mr Lloyd George replies that determining how much Germany can afford to pay is not an easy question. Germany no longer has possession of Alsace, Lorraine or Silesia, which reduces her income greatly. Colonel House recommends that the clause be re-written, leaving out any reference to a time limit.

(It is agreed that Colonel House will write the new draft, which will then be considered by the Peace Conference)

16:00

The Meeting is Reconvened.

1. Discussion of the subject of Reparations is continued. When the question of Reparations for Belgium arises, Mr Lloyd George points out that Britain and France paid "every penny" of Belgium's war costs, right down to ministerial salaries.

There is a large disagreement over different drafts prepared by the British, French and American Delegations. M Loucheur explains that "What Germany owes, she owes", and that the Commission is not allowed to change the amount involved, only the date by which it must be paid.

A short "official" recess is taken, during which the Members give their views informally. After the reconvening an argument arises over whether Germany's Reparations should include the cost of the occupying Allied army.

(After much more discussion it is agreed that M Loucheur should prepare a text which should be considered by the experts before the next meeting on Monday, which was arranged to take place at President Wilson’s house in the Place des Etats-Unis at 11:00)

Jimbuna

04-06-19, 06:18 AM

6th April 1919

Field marshal Haig, Commander of the British Expeditionary Force, being welcomed on his return by officials of Dover.
https://i.imgur.com/Hr4Xxyv.png

Forty delegates from the Philippines, a U.S. colony, arrive in Washington, D.C. to request self-government for the islands.
https://i.imgur.com/DOwwVuu.jpg

Mahatma Gandhi calls for and successfully organizes a hartal (mass strike and protest) against the British Rowlatt Act, which allows the indefinite detention and incarceration without trial of Indians.
https://i.imgur.com/xQzxfgB.png

Ship Losses:

Vulkan (United Kingdom) The salvage tug sank in the North Sea off Denmark (54°54′N 6°18′E) whilst under tow.

Sailor Steve

04-06-19, 04:15 PM

Sunday, April 6, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

It's a Sunday and the Peace Conference takes the day off.

Jimbuna

04-07-19, 08:58 AM

7th April 1919

Aftermath of War

British Grand Fleet goes out of being.

Zaghlul Pasha, etc., released; more troubles in Egypt.

Troopship Agamemnon, formerly the German liner Kaiser Wilhelm II (the ship was seized by the U.S. in 1917 when it declared war on Germany), carrying American troops back to Boston, Massachusetts.
https://i.imgur.com/Gjb0q4n.jpg

Russian Red Army captures the city of Odessa after French and Greek intervention forces evacuate the city.
https://i.imgur.com/GyCs1ps.jpg

Communists and anarchists establish the Bavarian Soviet Republic, with Ernst Toller as President (Toller only serves for 6 days)
https://i.imgur.com/3KDII0U.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-07-19, 03:01 PM

Monday, April 7, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Prime Minister’s Flat, 23 Rue Nitot, 15:00.

Meeting of the Supreme Council. Colonel House sitting in for President Wilson.

1. It is agreed that the Council of Foreign Ministers should be requested to examine the following questions:

1) Preparation of an Article in the Treaty of Peace terminating the state of War.

2) Preparation of Articles in the Treaty of Peace in regard to the restriction of opium traffic.

3) The question of arms traffic.

4) A minor amendment of the military terms proposed by the British Delegation.

5) The question of Morocco as soon as reported on by the Moroccan Commission.

6) The preparation of Articles in the Treaty of Peace in regard to the recognition of the British Protectorate of Egypt and the renunciation of territorial privileges and the recognition of the transfer to His Majesty’s Government of the Sultan’s rights under the Suez Canal Convention.2

7) Preparation of Articles in the Treaty of Peace with Germany by which Germany undertakes to be bound down by the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.

8) Preparation of Articles in the Treaty of Peace whereby Germany binds herself to recognize a new regime replacing the Treaty of 1839 as to Belgium.

9) Preparation of Articles in the Treaty of Peace providing for the acceptance by the enemy of all Allied prize court decisions and orders.

10) Preparation of Articles in the Treaty of Peace providing for the recognition in advance by Germany of any arrangements made by the Allied and Associated Governments with reference to previous Russian territory, including special arrangements with new States.

11) Waiver of German claims in the Antarctic region.

2. Mr Lloyd George distributed a paraphrase of a telegram from General Smuts to Mr Balfour.

(It was agreed that Mr Lloyd George should inform General Smuts that his telegram has been considered by the Supreme Council, and that it has been agreed that he should visit the French and Romanian Headquarters, and ascertain the whole situation in all aspects before returning.

3. Mr Lloyd George communicates the gist of a message he has received from the British Military Agents at Berlin who reported a great increase in Spartacism.

M Clemenceau said that his information corresponded to this.

4. Marshal Foch makes a short statement of the results of his negotiations at Spa in regard to the transport of General Haller’s Army to Poland. He hands round the three following documents:

1) A Report on the negotiations of April 3rd and 4th at Spa.

2) An Appendix to the above.

3) A protocol with Annexes.

Mr. Lloyd George congratulates Marshal Foch on the remarkable skill and ability he had shown in the conduct of these negotiations. Colonel House strongly supported this expression of opinion, which was generally agreed to.

5. General Weygand asks that the Governments which had troops in the area of occupation on the Western bank of the Rhine should provide the Allied Officers to accompany trains carrying General Haller’s troops across Germany. General Wilson says that the number of British Officers required is 83. There should be no difficulty in supplying these. Colonel House says he must consult the American Military Authorities.

(Subject to Colonel House’s reservation, General Weygand’s proposal is agreed to.)

6. General Weygand says that the whole plan of transportation will require eight days to get into working order. It would therefore commence on the 15th, and would continue until June 15th. He asked if the Polish Government had been officially informed. M. Clemenceau says he had seen M. Paderewski today, and he had knowledge of the position.

(It is agreed that Marshal Foch should pay an official visit to M. Paderewski, and give him an official notification on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers.)

7. General Weygand says that the American, British, and French Generals are in agreement that the German Government ought to be allowed to send back Russian prisoners to Russia, provided that they are not sent against their will. M. Clemenceau says that he has 120,000 Russian prisoners in France.

(It is agreed that the German Government should be permitted to return Russian prisoners, provided it is not against their will.)

Marshal Foch, General Weygand, and General Wilson withdraw, and financial experts are introduced.

16:00

1. The Supreme Council discusses the latest draft of the Clauses on Reparations. This mostly involves adjusting the wording of the different items. Assisting them are several financial experts. The adjustment of the Clauses (and omission of some) takes up the rest of the evening.

Jimbuna

04-08-19, 11:41 AM

8th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Odessa evacuated by Allies (announced).

Bolsheviks enter the Crimea.

Frank Winfield Woolworth, founder of the five-and-dime store Woolworth’s (one of the largest retail chains for much of the 20th century), has passed away.
https://i.imgur.com/8DYn3oK.png

German civilians, under the watch of British occupation forces, remove the fuses of German shells as per the disarmament terms of the Armistice.
https://i.imgur.com/Cw1mWi4.jpg

Members of the British Army Service Corps pose next to a German brewery they were billeted near Cologne, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/RgDpBYZ.jpg

French Renault FT-17 being sent to the U.S. to promote the 1919 Victory Loan campaign.
https://i.imgur.com/BQ8NbCf.png

Sailor Steve

04-08-19, 12:20 PM

Tuesday, April 8, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Mr. Lloyd George’s Residence, 23 Rue Nitot, 11:00

The Council of Four meets: Col House for America (still sitting in for President Wilson), M Clemenceau for France, Mr Lloyd George for Britain, S Orlando for Italy.

1. Discussion centers around a telegram received from General Smuts yesterday, the gist of which is that Hungary wishes to remain at peace with the Western Powers and still abides by the terms of the Armistice of the previous November 11th.

Signor Orlando has also received a telegram from the Swiss government informing the Italian government that the Austrians will declare a Soviet on May 14th, and in their opinion the best way to stop this would be for the Allied Powers to occupy Vienna.

2. Mr. Lloyd George produces a list prepared by Sir Maurice Hankey under his instructions of the subjects awaiting consideration by the Supreme Council. He suggested that it is desirable if possible to bring the Germans soon to Versailles. For this it had not seemed to him necessary that the whole of the boundaries of the whole of the new states, for example, Poland and Czechoslovakia, should be fixed, so long as the boundaries of the enemy states were clearly fixed.

Colonel House suggests that the enemy states should be invited now to come to Versailles in a few weeks. He does not wish to deprive the Peace Conference of sufficient time to complete this work, but he thinks that ample notice should be given to the enemy, and that this might be given now.

M Clemenceau says it would not alter the situation to get the Germans here now. There is revolution all through Central Europe. Food is being sent to Germany, but so far it has made no difference. It must not be hoped that because you induces the Germans here now, you will get people who will still represent Germany later on.

Mr Lloyd George agrees. He reads a telegram he has received from the Secretary of State for War to the effect that all his military advisers reported that the situation in Germany is fast approaching a catastrophe for lack of food and raw material. Today comes the news that Hungary has declared a Soviet. It will be necessary when the Germans come to Versailles to ask whom they represent; for example, do they represent Bavaria?

Colonel House asks what ought to be done if the Germans refuse to sign.

Mr Lloyd George said that this was a matter in its military aspects for Marshal Foch, who should be asked to consider it with General Wilson, General Diaz and General Bliss, and in its naval aspects for Admiral Wemyss, who should consider it with the Allied Admirals in Paris.

(This proposal is agreed to and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to draft letters to Marshal Foch and Admiral Wemyss respectively.)

3. It is agreed that the Economic Commission should be asked to send in its report at once.

4. Mr Lloyd George says that the report prepared by M Tardieu, Dr Haskins and Mr Headlam-Morley on the Saar Valley is to the effect that no really workable scheme could be drawn up on the basis that they had been given. He thinks therefore that it will be necessary to adopt some other scheme. He then reads extracts from three alternative schemes which had been submitted to him at an earlier stage by Mr Headlam-Morley. The scheme which attracted him most was scheme C, which would create a new state in the Saar Valley, somewhat larger than had hitherto been proposed, in customs union with France and for which France would have a mandate from the League of Nations. He hands copies of these schemes to M Clemenceau (who undertakes to consult M Tardieu about it) and Col House. He promised to send a copy to S Orlando.

(At this point the Meeting is adjourned).

Jimbuna

04-09-19, 07:43 AM

9th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Voluntary British relief force being despatched to Archangel.

Rushdi Pasha returns as Egyptian Prime Minister.

Royal Navy donates six J-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy to guard the Pacific. The submarine HMAS J5 leaving Portsmouth for Australia.
https://i.imgur.com/GDmVv9M.png

A Belgian refugee family living in a former British military hut near the battlefield of the Ypres-Menin road. Note the dead trees in the background.
https://i.imgur.com/LPs77rB.jpg

The North Russia Intervention, 1918-1920. A 6 inch naval gun of the 339th Infantry Regiment, American 85th Division mounted on railway carriage (Verst 455). Volodga Front, 9 April 1919. Note a group of British troops with a sledge loaded with supplies on the right.
https://i.imgur.com/8fsPF2j.jpg

Ship Losses:

Hastier (Belgium) The coaster, on her maiden voyage, departed Brixham, Devon, United Kingdom for Barcelona, Spain. A damaged lifeboat discovered on 21 June by Courier ( United Kingdom) and landed at Guernsey Channel Islands.

Sailor Steve

04-09-19, 01:06 PM

Wednesday, April 9, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Supreme Economic Council meets at the Ministry of Commerce to discuss more than 100 different points of finance. These range from the great (Lifting of Blockades) to the small (Exports from Neutral countries into Germany of vegetables and fish). Decisions are made ending all censorship of messages sent by underwater cables and the dispositions of Commissions set up under the Armistice. Since the Armistice is nothing more than a cease-fire and the Peace Treaty has not yet been concluded the Allies and Germans are still technically at war.

So many different items are discussed at this meeting that, while it is possible to list them all, it would take several pages here to do so.

At the end of the Memoranda it is noted that all decisions taken by this Council are of an economic nature only and have no effect on the actual Peace Negotiations.

An interesting side-note to this Council: One of the British members is legendary economist John Maynard Keynes.

Jimbuna

04-10-19, 06:55 AM

10th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Rioting at Amritsar; 3 Europeans killed.

Bolsheviks retire on Ural front.

A view of Constantinople taken from the Sultan Ahmet Square (former Hippodrome). Constantinople is currently occupied by the Allied powers.
https://i.imgur.com/GN95ODX.jpg

A family welcomes the return of an American soldier who served in the 37th Division.
https://i.imgur.com/RiIyq9P.jpg

The British Army of the Rhine, Cologne, Germany. Men of the Queen's Regiment affixing direction sign to the London Division's Men's Club. Other signs show the way to Military Governor's Headquarters, Commandant, Cologne and Town Major.
https://i.imgur.com/ZsZ3PUd.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-10-19, 05:25 PM

Thursday, April 10, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

A meeting of the Council of Four has been called to discuss a new Commission on Reparations. Discussed are questions involving the participation of the United States on the new Commission, whether the Commission's decisions must be unanimous, and the subject of issuing bonds to Germany.

1. President Wilson says that whether the United States would participate would depend on whether they thought the decisions made by the Commission are sound. If they are, the U.S. will participate. If not, then no.

2. Most of the delegates believe a majority is all that is required to pass decisions for the New Commission. President Wilson insists upon absolute unanimity. The discussion goes on.

3. The question of issuing bonds to Germany brings up a very long and heated debate, which loops around to the Majority vs Unanimity question again. After much wrangling it is finally decided that the problem will not be solved today and is put off for a later meeting.

Jimbuna

04-11-19, 07:38 AM

11th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Bavarian Soviet Republic overthrown.

Sir Douglas Haig's final despatch of 21 March 1919 (11 November-31 December 1918) published.

Romanians withdraw temporarily from Hungarian territory.

In Lens, France, a married couple living in the cellar of their former home, which is in complete ruins.
https://i.imgur.com/YhjRK6P.jpg

The Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea is established in Shanghai to contest Japanese colonial rule over Korea. Some of the leaders of the movement.
https://i.imgur.com/UTltx2y.jpg

Emiliano Zapata, one of the leading figures of the Mexican Revolution, is assassinated by pro-government troops.
https://i.imgur.com/98xlPaS.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-11-19, 10:01 AM

Friday, April 11, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

Jimbuna

04-12-19, 05:15 AM

12th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Rioting at Kasur (India).

Sir William Marshall's final despatch on Mesopotamia published (covers 1 October-31 December 1918).

Bolsheviks occupy Yalta (Crimea).

At the Paris Peace Conference, the “Racial Equality Proposal” put forward by Japan is not accepted due to strong opposition from Australia and the United States. The proposal was supported by delegates from France, China, Italy, Brazil, Greece, Serbia, and Czechoslovakia.
https://i.imgur.com/tSPYqtT.jpg

French serial killer Henri Désiré Landru is arrested (He is eventually found guilty of 11 murders and executed by guillotine in 1922)
https://i.imgur.com/i577AtU.jpg

Ship Losses:

Carolus (Sweden) The cargo ship, enroute from Halmstad to West Hartlepool, struck a mine from the World War I minefield at Herthas flak and sank with the loss of two crew.

Sailor Steve

04-12-19, 11:32 AM

Saturday, April 12, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Again there are no major meetings.

Jimbuna

04-13-19, 06:45 AM

13th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Britain: Over two million men demobilised by this date.

Bavarian Soviet Government gains upper hand again.

At Jallianwala Bagh garden in Armitsar, India, British Indian Army troops under Colonel Reginald Dyer (pictured) fire on a crowd of peaceful Indian protesters, resulting in around 379 deaths, possibly higher. The massacre further fuels opposition against British rule in India.
https://i.imgur.com/CW2911V.jpg

The Communist Party of Germany seizes control over the Bavarian Soviet Republic and installs Eugen Leviné as its head.
https://i.imgur.com/sPw8PQd.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-13-19, 10:04 AM

Sunday, April 13, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Being a Sunday, the Peace Conference once again takes the day off.

Jimbuna

04-14-19, 07:33 AM

14th April 1919

Aftermath of War

Versailles: Germany's war reparations are provisionally set at £5,400 million.

Rioting in the Punjab for five days.

Siberians under General Kolchak advancing west.

Scottish soldiers guard a checkpoint on the Dusseldorf road leading to the British-occupation zone in Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/PvGJelo.jpg

Anti-Bolshevik Russian soldiers landing at Feodosiya, Crimea.
https://i.imgur.com/DHQRQmQ.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-14-19, 10:38 AM

Monday, April 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no major meetings today.

Jimbuna

04-15-19, 04:29 AM

15th April 1919

German submarine U-118 while being towed to France to be broken up for scrap runs aground off the coast of Hastings, attracting curious onlookers.
https://i.imgur.com/U9n6jiT.jpg

Members of the Women’s Royal Air Force (WRAF) marching at Maresquel, France.
https://i.imgur.com/83b7hgo.jpg

The United States Navy selected the collier USS "Jupiter" to be converted into the navy's first aircraft carrier.
https://i.imgur.com/sdHvqLh.jpg

Ship Losses:

U-118 (United Kingdom) The Type UE II submarine was driven ashore at Hastings, Sussex, United Kingdom. She was scrapped in situ between October and December 1919.

Sailor Steve

04-15-19, 12:39 PM

Tuesday, April 15, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. M Pichon opens with the question of the Allied Armies of Occupation in the Rhenish Districts. General Weygand is called upon to clarify the situation. An Inter-Allied Sub-Commission at Spa has concluded that the total cost will be approximately six million francs per month, which means that the present accumulated cost is about three milliard (billion) francs. There follows a discussion of the nature of the reparations and what steps have been taken so far to secure the payments.

Mr Lansing says that the United States is not ready to enter into these discussions as General Pershing had requested information from Marshal Foch on March 8th and this request was still unanswered. General Weygand replies that he is not sure what questions are still open, as the question of the cost of Armies of Occupation were part of the original Armistice. He feels it is better to keep the Maintenance Costs separate from other Reparations. Mr Lansing thanks General Weygand for his explanation, as it brings out the point that this is more of a Political and Economic question than a Military one. He recommends that it should be addressed by the Supreme Economic Council and not to the Supreme War Council.

General Weygand says that the German government has requested an estimate of what they owe several times now, and are still awaiting a reply.

(It is decided that the question is ready to be submitted to the Council of Four.

2. M Pichon brings up a draft proposal by the British to make Germany's signing of the Opium Convention of 1912 a part of the Peace Treaty. Mr Lansing points out that several of the Allied Powers had also not signed the Opium Convention, and if Germany's signing is made part of the Peace Treaty then those Allied nation ought also to be required to sign. He further suggests that the act of signing the Peace Treaty should automatically mean agreement to the Opium Convention, thereby bypassing the need for separate signings.

Sir Robert Borden says that the British draft is preferable as it brings all the Powers into agreement immediately whereas the American draft requires that they must wait for the conclusion of the Peace Treaty. Mr Lansing agrees and suggests that the two proposals be combined.

Baron Makino says that Japan is in agreement with this and had been a part of the original Convention, but the Japanese Diet meets in the spring and only for three months. This means that the three months suggested for full agreement may not be possible for Japan. M Pichon says that Japan has a representative on the Drafting Committee, who should be able to answer directly to the Japanese Diet. Baron Makino says that with that fact in mind he is satisfied with the plan as posed.

(It is decided that the American and British drafts should be given to the Drafting Committee for revision and combination.)

3. M Pichon brings up a British proposal to amend the draft requiring German acceptance of the Belgian Treaty of 1839 and recognizing Belgium's sovereignty as an independent Power. The proposal is to combine British and American proposals on the subject.

(It is agreed that these should be submitted to the Drafting Committee for revision and combination.

4. Mr Lansing brings up the question of the renunciation by Germany of Territorial Privileges in Egypt. The British have presented a draft proposal regarding two items:

A) The German government agrees to give up all involvement in the Egyptian public debt as of the Decree by the Khedive in 1904.

B) The German government agrees to cede all rights over the Suez Canal to Britain, according to the agreement of 1888.

Mr Lansing objects to these items on the grounds that he believes a blanket clause requiring that Germany give up all territorial rights outside the European nation of Germany itself. This would remove the necessity of examining each and every claim individually.

M Pichon disagrees, since each claim to territorial rights involves some nation or another actually making a claim which must be resolved. This will require that Germany state to which nation she is ceding that particular claim.

Mr Lansing says that if this plan is followed it cannot possibly be ready in time for the Peace Treaty. He feels Germany should cede all claims to the Five Great Powers, giving those Powers the authority to determine the fate of each claim as it comes up.

M Pichon points out that a Commission has already been appointed for the subject of Morocco and Egypt, and the Council of Four has accepted that Commission's proposals. If Mr Lansing's plan is put into force it will effectively reject all the work of that Commission.

Mr Lansing says that the question of Germany's territorial claims should be decided "en bloc", and that Morocco should not be given special treatment. He then asks if France and Britain are prepared to discuss German territorial claims in China. M Pichon replies that China is an actual territorial question, whereas Egypt and Morocco are merely questions of status. Mr Lansing says that the question of Shantung was also merely a matter of status. Similarly, the question of Consuls not only in China but also in Siam would come under the same head.

Baron Makino brings up the point that the Chinese territories are leased, not owned, and that Germany is not the only nation to have leased territories in China. A treaty exists between Japan and China regarding those territories, and they could not be covered in a general clause dealing with German claims in other parts of the world.

Mr Lansing points out that China has asked that the territories in question be restored to her. Baron Makino says that the Treaty between Japan and China deals with that exact subject, and it agrees that territory leased by Germany there should be restored to China. Mr Lansing asks whether the Chinese territories are being held in trust by Japan, and whether Japan would object to the Five Great Powers acting as trustees.

M Pichon interrupts, saying the discussion is getting far away from the question at hand. He returns to the question of a blanket clause covering all German territorial claims. Mr Lansing says the clause should be referred to the Drafting Committee. M Pichon says that this still does not cover the question of Egypt and Morocco. Baron Sonnino suggests that the Drafting Committee might create a draft that covers those two questions as well.

M de Peretti (President of the Morocco Commission) says that it would be quite impossible to draw up an Article that would cover all these questions. Should the Committee stipulate for a clean sweep of all Germany’s rights and privileges throughout the world, the Allied and Associated Governments would run the risk of perpetrating a grave injustice. Germany can only be asked to renounce certain definite rights and privileges and these would in each case have to be specified, otherwise endless trouble would hereafter arise.

Mr Lansing restates his view that a clause should be drawn up whereby Germany will make a general renunciation of all her rights, privileges and claims throughout the world; Commissions would then be appointed to consider each case individually.

M de Peretti agrees that this could be a good course, but points out the dangers involved if Commission to consider each case are not appointed immediately. This could lead to Germany being deprived of rights she should in reality be allowed to retain.

Sir Robert Borden says that the draft clauses contain a number of provisions which it would be impossible to include in a general clause. For instance, should an attempt be made to put everything included in the draft articles relating to Morocco in a general clause, it would become extremely lengthy and unwieldy. He inquired whether the Committee would be prepared to accept the draft articles relating to Morocco, subject to the proviso that all matters which could be included in a general clause would be omitted from the special articles relating to Morocco.

Baron Sonnino says that it is impossible for him to accept the part of the British draft saying that Germany hands over all rights to the Suez Canal to Britain. This would hand over all rights of the Sultan of Turkey, which is far more than just the surrendering of German rights. He feels this requires the approval of all the Powers.

Mr Lansing agrees that Egypt requires special treatment. He suggests that the question wait until the Drafting Committee has prepared a proposal.

M Pichon points out that Commissions have already made reports on some of these subjects, and asks whether Mr Lansing proposes to ignore the work of these Commissions.

Mr Lansing says that he feels a general renunciation proposal should be drafted and then each question be addressed separately within that framework. He fears that unless this procedure is followed the Great Powers will undoubtedly be accused of catering to their own interests at the expense of others.

M Pichon says he believes that only questions directly relating to Germany and the other Signers should be addressed. Other questions could then be postponed to a later date. He also feels that questions like Egypt and Morocco, which are ready to be settled now, should not be postponed.

Sir Robert Borden presses for the acceptance of the draft article relating to the British Protectorate of Egypt. Due to the objections of the American and Italian representatives, he would agree to the Drafting Committee being instructed to draft a general article as suggested by Mr. Lansing. He foresees great difficulties in introducing in such a general article all the conditions contained in the draft relating to Egypt. Should the Drafting Committee not be able to draw up a satisfactory general article he will renew his pressure for the acceptance of the British draft article relating to Egypt. Failing that the whole question will have to be referred for decision to the Council of Four.

Baron Makino says that if Mr. Lansing’s proposal is adopted it will be necessary to make a reservation in the case of Kiauchau since that formed the subject of a special treaty and could not therefore be included in a general clause. Baron Sonnino again points out that Japan has a representative on the Drafting Committee who can address these questions as the arise.

M Pichon recommends that the clause on Morocco be referred to the Drafting Committee, but only for inclusion into the General Clause. Other proposals can be included as separate clauses at a later date.

(This is agreed to.)

(It is decided to instruct the Drafting Committee to draft a general clause whereby Germany will renounce all her claims, rights and privileges outside the territory of Germany in Europe as defined in the Peace Treaty. The Drafting Committee will at the same time be instructed to submit additional clauses to include such special rights and privileges of Germany as would not be covered by the general clause.)

6. A discussion is held on the subject of amending one of the Military Articles to better cover the production of poison gasses.

7. A discussion is held on the subject of requiring Germany to accept decisions of the Prize Courts.

8. M Pichon proposes a draft be created to separately deal with Germany's holdings in Antarctica.

(This is agreed to.)

Jimbuna

04-16-19, 08:49 AM

16th April 1919

Canadian troops leave Southampton, England to return home on the S.S. Olympic (sister ship to the RMS Titanic and HMHS Britannic).
https://i.imgur.com/WD5GF64.jpg

Save the Children Fund is established in London by Eglantyne Jebb (pictured) and her sister Dorothy Buxton to alleviate the starvation of children in Germany and former Austria-Hungary, which are still under Allied blockade.
https://i.imgur.com/Bnwj9uR.jpg

Following a general strike in Limerick, Ireland in protest against British military rule, labour leaders of the city declare itself a soviet and free of British control. Members of the Limerick Soviet.
https://i.imgur.com/KxM3zhL.jpg

Ship Losses:

Lusitania (Portugal) The schooner caught fire off Cemaes Head, Cardiganshire. Her crew was rescued by Elizabeth Austin (Royal National Lifeboat Institution).

Sailor Steve

04-16-19, 02:23 PM

Wednesday, April 16, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 16:00

Combined Meeting

1. M Clemenceau announces that the Meeting has been called in order to bring together the Council of Four (Leaders) and the Council of Five (Foreign Ministers). It is proposed that the work done separately should be examined in common. His first request, therefore, is that the Council of Five should report what they have accomplished and what still remains to be done. He asks Baron Sonnino if he would make a statement on this subject.

Baron Sonnino says that on the previous day they had discussed some eleven items, the bulk of which had been remitted to the Drafting Committee, which is to meet today at 17:00 hours. The Council of Foreign Ministers is to meet again on Thursday the 17th to deliberate on the drafts submitted by the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee are charged with the task of coordinating proposals made by Great Britain and by the United States. In other words, to reconcile the two drafts suggested.

M. Clemenceau asks on what subjects the discussion had taken place.

Baron Sonnino says that the subjects dealt with were:
Opium.
Belgium.
The Suez Canal and Egypt.
An Article requiring from Germany a general renunciation of rights outside Europe, which ware to be surrendered to the trusteeship of the Five Powers.
Reference was made to the Drafting Committee with the object of insuring that the whole ground was being covered.

Baron Sonnino says that another question discussed had been the upkeep of the Army of Occupation in Germany. On this subject, General Weygand had made certain explanations revealing a difference of opinion in calculating the expenses involved in maintaining these forces. Two theses had been put forward and these had been referred to the Council of Four.

Mr Lansing says that he had been under the impression that this had been referred to the Economic Council. M Dutasta replies that the reference had been to the Council of Four. Mr Balfour says that if this is so then the matter should be dealt with.

2. Baron Sonnino says that two methods of calculating the cost had been mentioned:
1) The actual expenses of food, housing etc.
2) More general expenses.
Not having taken part in the discussion he is unable to be more specific.

President Wilson says that presumably the latter category includes expenses of army administration as separate from the cost of the actual maintenance in the occupied districts.

Mr Lansing comments that on the March 8th General Pershing had addressed a written inquiry to Marshal Foch. No answer has been returned. The United States of America are, therefore, somewhat embarrassed in giving an opinion on this subject.

M Clemenceau says that when the documents relating to the subject were before the Meeting, it would be possible to form an opinion or to remit them to some Committee.

Baron Sonnino says that General Weygand is in a position to state the case fully. President Wilson notes that if General Weygand were called, he could only re-state the question and not offer a solution. He would suggest that the Military Advisers at Versailles be asked to define what was understood by “cost of military occupation.” Baron Sonnino remarks that there are differences of opinion among military authorities. President Wilson says that it is desirable to have these differences of opinion laid before the Council.

Mr Balfour draws attention to the divergent views held by the various delegates at Spa. President Wilson asks that a digest of these various views should be prepared and laid before the Council. Mr Balfour agrees that what is required is a brief narrative fitted for civilian understanding. The Council of Four will then be able to reach a decision.

Baron Sonnino says that the whole discussion had been raised by a question put by the German General von Hammerstein asking for a definition of what was the cost of maintaining a man and a horse in occupied territory.

President Wilson suggests that the correspondence that had taken place at Spa should be referred to the Military Advisers at Versailles in order that a digest should be prepared of the various opinions. Baron Sonnino says that he does not disagree, but he thinks it right to warn the Council that military opinion is divided as to what should be reckoned in the account.

(It is then decided to remit to the Military Advisers of the Supreme War Council at Versailles the drafting of the various points of view regarding the estimation of the cost of upkeep of the Forces of Occupation in Germany).

Baron Sonnino observes that the cost of upkeep of the Armies of Occupation previous to the signature of Peace is distinct from that of a continuance of occupation after Peace. President Wilson says that should any occupation subsequent to the signature of Peace be provided for, the same definition and the same interpretation could be adhered to as in the case of occupation previous to Peace.

3. Mr. Balfour draws attention to Item 6 on the Agenda for the Meeting of Foreign Ministers on the previous day, referring to the Secret Processes for the Manufacture of Gas. There were two amendments before the Meeting. One had been adopted, and the other had been referred to the Council of Four. He suggested that the matter be explained by someone who had been present at the Meeting on the previous day.

Mr Lansing says that the difficulty was in regard to exacting from the Germans the disclosure of their secret processes for the manufacture of ingredients for the inhuman conduct of war. As the Allies in another provision had prohibited the manufacture of such things, he regards the suggested amendment as unnecessary. Further he believed that the disclosure of these secrets would add nothing to the military power of the Allies, who already possessed the secret of making even more dangerous gases than Germany. On the other hand, the revelation of these secrets would be of great economic advantage to Allied industries in that the dye making processes would be revealed at the same time. He believes that this motive very likely is connected with the proposal.

Mr Balfour says that the Military Authorities attached great importance to this question. Their opinions are based on military considerations, and they are in no manner concerned with any ambition to obtain industrial secrets. In their memorandum on the subject they took care to state that the dye process was quite divorced from the purpose they had in view. What they required was a purely military piece of knowledge. He does not claim to understand or to estimate the value of this knowledge but he was convinced that the Military Experts attached great importance to it.

Mr Lansing says that the American Military Experts does not attach any value to it.

Baron Sonnino pointed out that the British proposal demands the surrender of all chemical processes out of which gases had been or could be made, and for the production of all substances from which gases or other destructive agencies could be produced. This definition is so wide that it is bound to cover the revelation of the secrets of dye making.

President Wilson says that he believes this is not the object of the framers of the proposal.

Mr Balfour points out that an effective gas mask cannot be made without knowledge of the gas which it was to contend with.

President Wilson says that whatever weight might be given to the military opinion on this matter it is certain that many people other than military experts are interested in the revelation of these secrets. There was a further difficulty. However much the Allies might demand the revelation of secrets, they will never be certain that they possess them all.

Baron Sonnino agrees that the Germans might reveal their second best secrets, but will probably succeed in keeping their best ones.

President Wilson says that they will certainly not reveal their new ones.

4. M Clemenceau raises the question of the Kiel Canal. A document has been submitted to the Council of Four as being a unanimous report of a Commission on this subject. On examination, the report has proved to be an old report, previously dismissed. It had come up again unamended. He had telephoned to the Secretary of the Naval Committee, who had replied that he knew nothing of it.

President Wilson explains that there is unanimity on this subject in the Waterways Commission, which had referred the report back to the Council.

M Clemenceau observes that the question has a military side, on which naval authorities should be called upon to state their views.

President Wilson suggests that the naval authorities might sit in combined session with the Waterways Commission.

(It is decided to refer the question of the Kiel Canal to a Joint Session of Naval Experts, and of the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways & Railways.)

5. Baron Sonnino says that two drafts have been proposed on the subject of the validity of Prize Court Decisions. The British draft proposes a clause to be inserted in the treaty stipulating that the validity of Allied Prize Court decisions should not be challenged by the enemy. The American draft proposes, in addition, that the Allies should have the power to invalidate similar decisions taken by German Prize Courts. Both these drafts have been remitted to the Drafting Committee to be fused into one clause. The American draft also contains an additional paragraph, on which he understands the American Delegates did not insist.

Mr Lansing remarks that the United States did not insist on the form, but wished the substance to be preserved. The reason for this was that Prize Courts in America had ceased to function at the armistice. Nevertheless, the United States wished to maintain certain seizures made subsequently, and therefore without Prize Court decisions.

7. M Clemenceau says that a resolution has been adopted regarding responsibilities, and it has been considered right that Belgium should undertake the prosecution. This had been agreed, he thought, with the consent of M Hymans. He had heard since that the President of the Belgian Council had come to Paris, and was prepared to refuse his consent to this proposal. As representative of a monarchical State he holds the view that Belgium cannot take the lead in prosecuting a monarch.

President Wilson says that he does not think this obstacle insurmountable. The essential point is that the Kaiser is to be tried for a high misdemeanor, which might not legally amount to a crime, namely for violating the neutrality of Belgium. If Belgium refused to be prosecutrix she will not refuse to be witness. He further pointed out that in the draft adopted, Belgium had not been specifically set down as prosecutrix.

M Clemenceau said that if that was so, he did not wish to press the point any further.

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Jimbuna

04-17-19, 07:23 AM

17th April 1919

An American guardhouse in occupied Neuwied, Germany with German children looking at a Victory Liberty Loan poster.
https://i.imgur.com/ZOBa5Q1.jpg

Steamship Belfast misses a bascule bridge in Massachusetts and crashes.
https://i.imgur.com/fr9iGNT.jpg

Ship Losses:

USS Freehold (United States Navy) The minesweeping tug was sunk in New York Harbor while assisting with the docking of RMS Saxonia ( United Kingdom) with the loss of a crew member. She was later raised, repaired and returned to service.

Sailor Steve

04-17-19, 12:51 PM

Thursday, April 17, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. M Pichon hands out copies of the Article from the Drafting Committee demanding that Germany sign the Opium Convention of 1912. M Fromageot says that the Committee was unable to agree to the American proposal that all Allied and Associated Nations also be required to sign the Convention. He explains that the Committee feels that this has no place in a Peace Treaty between the Allies and Germany, and that it should be handled separately among the Allied Powers.

Mr Lansing points out that the Opium Convention was signed more than seven years ago, and has failed to obtain ratification. He feels that this is the perfect time to put the Convention into effect, and that this would be the best method.

Sir Robert Borden agrees with Mr Lansing in principle, but points out that the Drafting Committee feels that a separate agreement among the Allied Nations is the better course.

M Pichon suggests that the adoption of the Opium Convention should be made a condition of admission to the League of Nations. A clause to this effect could be added to the Treaty.

Mr Lansing objects that this would cause yet another postponement, saying He fails to see that any matter which is for the good of the world is unfitting for a Treaty of Peace.

M Fromageot explains the view taken by the Drafting Committee. An undertaking as between the Allies only appears unsuitable in a document regulating the relations of the Allies and Germany. The Convention, moreover, as between the Allied and Associated Powers was one which could not even remotely affect German interests.

Mr Lansing disagrees, saying he thinks that it is quite right to insert reciprocal agreements in a Treaty of Peace, as well as obligations imposed on the enemy.

Baron Sonnino agrees with Mr Lansing. If the Allied and Associated Powers mean to force Germany to undertake this engagement, there seems no good reason why they should not undertake it among themselves. History contains many examples of reciprocal arrangements included in Treaties.

Sir Robert Borden agrees. He thinks each Power could engage to introduce legislation with the object of ratifying the Convention.

M Pichon suggested that the Drafting Committee be asked to draw up another clause embodying the views of Mr Lansing, Baron Sonnino and Sir Robert Borden.

Mr Lansing said that the advantage of such a clause would be that all Nations signing the Treaty which had not signed the Convention would thereby be compelled to adhere to the latter.

Baron Makino said that he must make the same reservation as he had made previously regarding the time within which ratification was undertaken, as the Japanese legislature meets only in the Spring. It would, therefore, be impossible for Japan to undertake to ratify the Convention within three months. He wished the Drafting Committee to take this into consideration.

Mr Lansing agrees with Baron Makino that nothing should be done to embarrass legislation in the various Allied countries. There should be a reasonable time limit assigned for ratification. He suggests that in this case the term be one year.

(This is agreed to and it is decided that the Drafting Committee should add a paragraph containing the views expressed in this discussion.)

2. A draft Article is introduced which says that the Belgian Treaty of 1839 no longer applies, and that any of the Allied Nations are free to enter into their own Treaties with Belgium.

(This is adopted without discussion.)

3. A Draft Article is presented regarded German General Renunciation of all territorial claims.

Baron Makino asks whether particular questions were reserved.

M Pichon replies that there are reserved questions.

M Fromageot says that the Drafting Committee thought that the general formula proposed would fulfill the desires of the Council. It covered all the rights of Germany in or over Allied and Associated countries, as well as special rights in Colonies and any such countries as Siam, Liberia and Shan Tung. As regards Liberia, Germany would have to sign certain special clauses relating to finance and economic rights. There might be further rights of a special character which were introduced by the last paragraph in the draft article. The paragraph had been put in these terms as the Committee itself did not know exactly what provisions it would have to cover. It had appeared to the Committee, however, that there were many possible contingencies for which a general heading must be found.

Mr Lansing says he is prepared to agree to the proposed article, but suggests that the last paragraph be reserved until it appeared clear that special clauses would be required.

M Pichon points out that certain special clauses would be required in respect to Egypt and Morocco.

Baron Makino says that he must insist on the reservations made by the Japanese Delegation in respect to Shan Tung and Kiau Chau. He has on a previous occasion drawn attention to the fact that Japan claimed all the rights acquired by Germany from China.

Mr Lansing asks whether these rights are claimed by Japan from China or from Germany.

Baron Makino replies that they were claimed from Germany.

Mr Lansing says that in the event of special treatment being required for Shan Tung, he would ask the Japanese Delegation to propose a special clause. Once a precise text was before the meeting, it would be possible to debate on the reservation made.

Baron Makino says that towards the end of January he had presented the Japanese claims in a general statement. He had then declared that the claims would subsequently be introduced into the treaty. He proposes to bring forward a few articles embodying these claims. All he means by recalling his reservations is to give notice that he proposed to put forward these articles.

Mr Lansing suggests that these draft articles be submitted together with the agenda for the next meeting of the Council, in order that time for their consideration before the meeting might be gained. He suggests that a similar course might be followed with regard to Egypt and Morocco.

Baron Makino says that the Japanese statement had been made before the Council of Ten, and that it had been understood that the draft articles for the Treaty of Peace should also be submitted to that Council. In consequence, he thought that it would be right that the Council of Ten and not the present Council should take this matter into consideration.

Mr. Lansing asks whether there is to be another meeting of the Council of Ten.

M Pichon says that the meetings of this Council had become rare and that he had no notice of any future meeting. The procedure proposed, therefore, might delay a decision for a considerable time.

Baron Makino said that he was engaged in certain talks which he thought might lead to an early settlement of the question.

Mr Lansing suggests that the General Renunciation clause be accepted, with the proviso that any Power wishing to put forward special cases should do so as early as possible.

Baron Makino agrees, with the reservation previously stated.

(The General Renunciation Article is then adopted.)

4. Sir Robert Borden asks whether the case of Morocco comes under the general clause.

Baron Sonnino observes that at the previous Meeting it had been pointed out that the transference from the Sultan of Turkey to the British Government of the former’s powers respecting free navigation of the Suez Canal was irrelevant to a Treaty of Peace with Germany. No such objection had been raised to the insertion of a provision relating to the capitulations and to the recognition of a British Protectorate. He now sees in the draft an additional article providing for the transference of all German goods to the Egyptian and Moroccan Governments, respectively, and for the sale by auction in favor of these Governments of private property belonging to German subjects. This was an entirely new provision, and had not appeared in the draft concerning Egypt which had previously been submitted to the Council.

M Fromageot said that the Drafting Committee had not taken upon itself to introduce a new clause. This clause had been adopted in regard to Morocco, and the Committee had taken the view that the same provisions should be made to apply in the case of Egypt. Moreover, the clause was introduced by a proviso that it was subject to any adverse ruling by the Commission on Reparations or by the Economic and Financial Commissions. In so far as the clause affected Morocco he pointed out that the Italian Representative on the Committee had given his consent.

Baron Sonnino said that in his opinion the provision was contrary to all international law.

Mr. Lansing says that it amounts to confiscation of private property and that he objects to this clause.

Sir Robert Borden says that whatever is adopted in regard to Egypt must be subject to the general principle approved by the Economic Commission. He believed that they had taken the view that enemy private property in Allied countries could be liquidated and the proceeds applied to the claims of Allied subjects. The German Government will have to indemnify the victims. Any surplus that might remain after satisfying individual claims would be set off against the general claim against Germany or accounted in the bill for reparation. If this were the general principle there would be no objection to the special article framed regarding Egypt and Morocco.

M Pichon suggests that the article in question be reserved until the Council knows what general principles have been adopted by the Commissions on Reparation and Finance.

Mr Lansing suggests that the article be referred to the Economic and Financial Commissions in order that they should not overlook the point.

Sir Robert Borden says that the general principles adopted by these Commissions would be examined by the Council of Four and then remitted to the Drafting Committee which would then harmonize all the special clauses.

Mr Lansing asks whether Morocco had been at war with Germany.

M Pichon said that as Moroccan troops had fought against Germany it was clear that Morocco had been at war.

Baron Sonnino says that he is not quite sure what decision had been taken by the Economic Commission. He believes that the decision was that each Power might liquidate enemy property within its territory to recoup the losses of its subjects. In other words, liberty was given to each Power to do this if it thought fit in extreme cases. In the article under consideration more than this was stipulated. The Allied and Associated Powers said that in Morocco this was to be done. In consequence, they committed themselves a great deal further than the Commission had recommended. In his view the proceeding suggested was a barbarous one, and he was unwilling to take the responsibility of decreeing in Egypt or Morocco what he would not allow in his own country.

Sir Robert Borden said he quite agreed that nothing should be done in Egypt that was not done in other countries.

Mr Lansing asks whether the stipulation proposed concerns Tangier and the rights possessed by Germans there.

S de Peretti replies in the affirmative. He says that the Moroccan Commission had been unanimous on this point. The private property of Germans there would be dealt with in the same way as German private property in European countries. If the proceeds were assigned to the Governments ordering the sale, the proceeds of the sale of such property in Morocco would accrue to the Shereef Government. If, on the other hand, a general pool were constituted, among the Allies, the proceeds would be included in that pool. The utilization of the proceeds therefore depended on the decision of the Economic and Financial Commissions. He understood that the same procedure would be followed in the United States.

Mr Lansing says that the United States would only hold such property as security and would, if it were unnecessary to hold it, return it to the owners. This procedure had been followed in respect to the Boxers. He objects to the mention of any special category and is of the opinion that the whole subject should be covered by a general clause. Everything concerning the liquidation of private property in Egypt or Morocco should be deleted. The general principles should be determined by the Economic and Financial Commissions.

Sir Robert Borden suggests that the decision of the Council should be that the clauses relating to liquidation of German private property in Egypt and Morocco should be reserved, pending the formulation of a general clause. All the stipulations of the Article should therefore be eliminated.

M de Peretti says that the last paragraph of the article regarding mining rights should be accepted, as there is a Tribunal of Arbitration at work on the subject, the labors of which should not be interrupted.

(It is then decided that the draft articles in question should be sent back to the Drafting Committee for revision in view of the preceding discussion. Article 4 is provisionally eliminated in as far as it related to the liquidation of private property until the general principle on this subject had been formulated.)

M Fromageot points out that the recognition clause which is to be enforced on Germany regarding the Protectorate of Egypt did not ipso facto imply the recognition of that Protectorate by other signatories of the Treaty. A separate convention, therefore, would be necessary to bring about such recognition.

5. Draft Articles Relating to Prize Court Decisions:

M Pichon says that the Drafting Committee is not ready with the draft on this subject.

M Fromageot says that the Committee is faced by difficulties not of form but of substance. The various delegations are not in agreement. Some are of the opinion that past and future decrees of Allied and Associated Prize Courts should be accepted by Germany. Some think that only past decisions should be taken into consideration. It is hardly possible to make a draft until the delegations come to an agreement. Furthermore, some delegations wished to retain seizures made without reference to Prize Courts as security. Other delegations do not agree with this point of view. Some delegations are of the opinion that German Prize Court Decrees should be challenged and made subject to revision by the Five Powers, whatever the nationality of the persons party to the case. This view is not accepted by all. The Committee therefore feels that it would be useless to propose a draft until an agreement has been reached.

Mr Lansing says that the American Delegation wants a clause recognizing the validity of seizures of German ships and cargoes which had not been subjected to Prize Court orders. It would be impossible to obtain orders from Prize Courts relating to such seizures, as, after the cessation of war, American Prize Courts automatically ceased to function. On the other hand, the Government of the United States does not wish such seizures to be invalidated by decrees of German Courts.

Sir Robert Borden says he does not feel he has the authority to accept the American proposal without the consent of the Government of the United Kingdom, as it appears to involve the suppression of Prize Courts immediately after the cessation of war. Referring to the last paragraph of the American proposal Sir Robert Borden observes that the liquidation of those properties would apparently be covered by the general clauses to be framed by the Economic and Financial Commissions.

M Pichon said that he thinks no decision could be taken by the Council on this subject, and suggested that reference be made to a Commission composed of one Naval expert and one jurist from each of the Five Powers. Their report could be subsequently considered by the Council.

Mr Lansing says that he is himself prepared to decide the question immediately. He is willing, however, to postpone the decision until each representative had consulted his own experts.

Baron Sonnino says that Prize questions are so complex that he would prefer that they be referred to a Commission. Mr. Lansing is himself no doubt an expert, and might perhaps consent to be Chairman of the Commission.

M Pichon notes that if each representative consults his own experts, they would at their next meeting face one another with divergent views. It would be far better for the experts to arrive at an agreement before the discussion was resumed at the Council.

Sir Robert Borden says his main concern is that the American proposal, as he understands it, tends to abolish the action of Prize Courts, on the termination of war, in other countries as in the United States.

Sir Robert Borden also points out that it must be decided whether German Prize Court decisions are to be attacked under German law or under International law. There is no objection to subjecting German Prize Court decisions to revision, but the revision should be efficacious if undertaken at all.

M Fromageot observes that should the Conference decide to impugn German Prize Court decisions, it must of necessity appeal to international law. German Prize Courts consistently neglected what they termed the “so-called” international law. They only administered their own domestic regulations. In Allied Prize Courts, if any alternative to international law is followed, in any particular instance, that alternative must be one favorable to the owner of the captured property; failing this, a neutral might appeal to international law from any decree of the Court. It follows, therefore, that any revision of Prize Court orders must be made in accordance with International Law. Should the Conference so decide, the decision would be welcomed by many neutrals whose ships and cargoes had been seized by the Germans and whose subjects had in many cases lost their lives without compensation, as the German Courts had declared the action of the Germans to be justified.

Sir Robert Borden observes that international law was not a code, but is rather a series of agreements between civilized nations. The revision of certain isolated acts of German authority would not be sufficient to enforce on Germany the respect of civilized usages. It would be necessary to go further and declare that Germany must be bound by certain obligations, and a special clause to that effect would have to be inserted in the Treaty.

Mr Lansing says that his proposal covers every form of misconduct on the High Seas. In America, International Law was recognized as a code and applied as such. In principle all are agreed that Germany must be compelled to admit the validity of Prize Court decisions already given in Allied and Associated countries. The question of future decisions remains. Germany might be compelled, if the third paragraph of the American proposal were accepted, to recognize future judgments also. He has already explained the importance of this to America. As to the examination of the German Prize Court procedure it would give an opportunity for probing the crimes committed by Germany at sea.

Sir Robert Borden suggests that the Drafting Committee should make another attempt to draft an Article. He still thinks that the second paragraph of the American proposal was not quite adequate and he suggests that before dealing with the third paragraph the Drafting Committee should inquire how matters stand in the Economic and Financial Commissions.

Mr Lansing observed that if the British view are adopted the third paragraph of the American proposal must also be adopted, otherwise British Prize Courts will continue condemning prizes and obtaining the proceeds, while the United States could not. To such an unequal bargain he could not agree. There was one other possible solution, namely that the United States Congress should pass legislation to extend Prize Court jurisdiction after the cessation of War. This would have to be done before the insertion of the Article in the Treaty. He did not like to ask the Congress to do this as it is against American tradition.

Sir Robert Borden says that he was not authorized at present to accept this.

Mr Lansing then suggests that the Drafting Committee be instructed to make a draft preserving the substance of the third paragraph of the American proposal The result might then be examined.

Sir Robert Borden agrees subject to the reservation he had previously made.

(It is decided that the Drafting Committee should prepare a draft taking into consideration the above discussion.)

6. Article: "From the coming into force of the present treaty the state of war into which Germany successively involved the five Allied and Associated Powers and the other belligerent signatory Powers will come to an end.

From that moment and subject to the provisions of this treaty, official relations between these Powers and Germany will recommence."

Baron Sonnino asks why a distinction was made between the “five Allied and Associated Powers” and the “other belligerent signatory Powers”.

M Fromageot says that as the situations of these Powers varies in several respects it is necessary to adopt this somewhat cumbersome formula in every instance in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Mr Lansing says that he has an alternative formula to propose, which says that upon the signing of a Peace Treaty between Germany and any Three of the Allied and Associated powers the State of War will cease between those Powers. Other Nations may then sign separate treaties with Germany.

The point of this is to avoid wasting time waiting for all the Powers involved to agree to the Peace Treaty before any action can be taken.

M Pichon says that he cannot agree to the proposal that three powers alone could pledge the remainder, France is bound by the Pact of London not to conclude a separate peace apart from the other signatories.

Mr Lansing says he wishes to see the operation of peace begin before all the belligerents had furnished ratifications, as this process might take a year or more.

M Pichon suggested that peace might come into operation when the Five great Powers had ratified the Treaty.

Mr Lansing says that this is a matter that should be referred to the Council of Four together with the arguments put forward in the discussion.

Mr Lansing says that the real problem was being avoided. It is said that Peace will begin on the coming into force of the Treaty. How and when the Treaty should come into force has not been determined. The Council of Four has asked the Council of Five to determine when the war would end, and the answer apparently was when the treaty came into force.

At this stage M Pichon is called away from the Meeting.

After a short interval the discussion is resumed.

Mr Lansing says that two proposals were before the meeting, one brief and the other somewhat lengthy. He suggests that the Drafting Committee should attempt to reconcile the two. It is important in any case to assert the responsibility of Germany for the outbreak of the war.

Baron Sonnino says that it was desirable to avoid giving the Germans a pretext for telling the Allies they did not know what they wished them to agree to. Care must be taken in framing the draft to avoid this.

(It is decided to refer the various proposals to the Drafting Committee, in order that an Article be framed in accordance with the tenor of the above discussion.)

7. A Draft Article is presented which binds Germany to accept Peace Treaties between the Allied Powers and Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.

It is pointed out by Baron Sonnino that the wording of this Article is somewhat ambiguous.

(Subject to rectification by the Drafting Committee, and to M. Pichon’s acceptance, this Article is accepted.)

8. A Draft Article is presented requiring Germany to accept Treaties between the Allied Powers and Russia, as well as whatever new States my grow out of former Russian lands.

Baron Sonnino says that an expression of opinion is contained in this article regarding Russia, which it might be better not to express.

M Fromageot said that the Drafting Committee had not intended to pre-judge anything concerning Russia. He did not think the form of words employed prejudiced any ultimate decisions.

Baron Sonnino points out certain discrepancies between the French and the English versions of the Article. The French version appears to be the more adequate.

(It is agreed that the English version should be made to harmonize with the French, and, subject to agreement by M Pichon, the Article, as in the French version, is accepted.)

Mr. Lansing proposed that an additional paragraph be added to this article, decreeing the overturning of the treaties made in 1917 and 1918 at Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest.

M. Sonnino points out that this has been already attained in the terms of the Armistice.

Mr Lansing remarked that the Armistice will be itself abolished by the Treaty.

Sir Robert Borden says that the Economic Council has framed a clause covering this very question, and refers them to the appropriate Clause.

He asks what effect the abolition of these Treaties would have on the relations of Germany and Russia. Could the abrogation of a Treaty between two parties at the instance of third parties bring about a state of war between the first two, even without their consent?

(It is agreed that the recommendation of the Economic Council should be harmonized with the Article proposed by the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee is asked to undertake this.)

9. Baron Sonnino says that it might be desirable in the Treaty to insert a clause requiring Germany’s assent to any regulations the Allied and Associated Powers might make with regard to Arms Trafficking. It has been agreed that Germany is to forfeit all her colonies. She might therefore be disposed to make mischief in the colonies belonging to the Allied and Associated Powers, and with this object to engage in illicit traffic in arms.

Mr Lansing observes that the Military Clauses already contain a prohibition of the manufacture and export of arms.

Baron Sonnino points out that this clause doe not affect the trade in arms manufactured in other countries than Germany and their transference by German agency from any such country to Allied colonial possessions. It was therefore desirable to frame a clause protecting the Allied and Associated Powers from this form of mischief.

(It is agreed that the Drafting Committee should undertake to frame a clause to the above effect.)

10. It was decided that the report of the Drafting Committee on these various subjects should be considered on the following Saturday, at 3 p.m.

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

Jimbuna

04-18-19, 05:56 AM

18th April 1919

U.S. General William G. Haan tours the former battlefield of Romagne, France.
https://i.imgur.com/JrbBfGl.png

Design plans for a “small battleship” for the U.S. Navy (the design is never pursued).
https://i.imgur.com/GujIiSX.jpg

Ship Losses:

Rosedale (Canada) The cargo ship collided with Luella ( United States) in the Bristol Channel and sank. Her crew were rescued by Luella.

Sailor Steve

04-18-19, 10:04 AM

Friday, April 18, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no major meetings today.

Jimbuna

04-19-19, 07:28 AM

19th April 1919

King George V congratulates New Zealand players at an inter-services rugby championship final in London.
https://i.imgur.com/2JjrjIb.jpg

U.S. Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels addresses men of the 2nd Division occupying Vallendar, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/gPs9WZn.jpg

Leslie Irvin (1895-1966) of US makes first premeditated free-fall parachute jump. Using a newly developed “Parachute Type-A,” it stored the parachute in a pack worn on the back, a ripcord for manually deploying the parachute, and a pilot chute that draws the parachute from the pack.
https://i.imgur.com/65Pkr4x.jpg

French sailors digging around the bow of the cruiser Gueydon to free it from ice, Archangel, Russia.
https://i.imgur.com/H9Qyq1l.jpg

Ship Losses:

Tyne (United Kingdom) The cargo ship collided with the brigantine Fleur de Mer ( France) in Langland Bay, Glamorgan and cut her in two. Her five crew survived. Tyne then ran aground at Rotherslade, Glamorgan and broke her back. Her 50 crew were rescued. Tyne was on a voyage from London, United Kingdom to Swansea, Glamorgan, United Kingdom
Wild Rose (United Kingdom) The cargo ship collided with Afon Lledi ( United Kingdom) off the coast of Cornwall, United Kingdom and sank with the loss of four of her crew.

Sailor Steve

04-19-19, 09:46 PM

Saturday, April 19, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four

1. Signor Orlando presents the question of Italian claims from the point of view of Resolutions taken by the Supreme Council on other questions. He notes that the United States of America is the one Power present that had not taken any part in the Treaty concluded with Italy by France and Great Britain. Consequently he proposes for the moment to deal with the subject on the hypothesis that no engagements existed. Italy had formulated three definite and distinct claims. He believes these to be in conformity with the general principles which had been adopted by the Supreme Council in dealing with the Peace Treaty. Consequently, he proposes to make a comparison between the principles underlying Italian claims and the general principles on which the Treaty of Peace was being based.

2. Italy’s first claim relates to her desire for union with the territories on the Italian side of the natural frontiers of Italy. Italy shares with Spain and Scandinavia the distinction of having boundaries more clearly defined by nature than almost any other country on the continent. More than almost any other country Italy possesses a geographical unity being bounded by the sea and the mighty chain of mountains which encircle her northern limits.

3. The second point relates to Fiume. Italy considers that the question of Fiume depends on general frontiers fixed for her. The historic frontier line of Italy passes along the watershed of the mountains and comes down to the sea on the Gulf of Quarnero and would embrace Fiume. For Fiume Italy appealed to the principle of self determination of the people. He refers to a historical fact that is insufficiently remembered, that Fiume itself had, before the conclusion of the Armistice, expressed a desire for incorporation in Italy. On the 18th October, 1918, the deputies of Fiume had in the Hungarian Chamber stated that as the Austro-Hungarian Empire was in a state of dissolution, Fiume being a free city demanded union with Italy. Hence Italy was in the presence of a question that had not been raised in the first instance by Italians, and there was a general demand that the declaration by Fiume should be supported.

4. Italy’s third claim relates to Dalmatia and the Islands off the coast - and he would mention here that the case of the Islands applies also to Istria with which must be considered the large Islands of Cherso and Lussin which were largely Italian in character.

5. President Wilson recalls that it had been agreed that he should confer with S Orlando and through him with his colleagues and he would now state the substance of what he had said. His Italian friends would bear witness that through-out the conversations he had insisted on the same point of view. It had been his privilege as the spokesman of the Associated Powers to initiate the negotiations for peace. The bases of the Peace with Germany had then been clearly laid down. It was not reasonable to have one basis of Peace with Germany and another set of principles for the Peace with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. He must assume that the principles in each case would be the same. The whole question resolves itself into this: We are trying to make peace on an entirely new basis and to establish a new order of international relations. At every point the question has to be asked whether the lines of the settlement would square with the new order. No greater question has ever been asked in any negotiations. No body of statesmen has ever before undertaken to make such a settlement. There is a certain claim of argument which must be brushed aside, namely, the economic and strategic argument. Within certain limits he agrees that natural boundaries such as exist in the cases of Spain or Scandinavia (which M. Orlando had referred to) must be taken into consideration. The whole course of life in these regions was determined by such natural boundaries. The slope of the mountains not only throws the rivers in a certain direction but tended to throw the life of the people in the same direction. These, however, are not strategic nor economic arguments. On these grounds he feels no difficulty in assenting to that part of the Italian claims included in M. Orlando’s first point. Nature had swung a great boundary round the north of Italy. It included Trieste and most of the Istrian Peninsula on which Pola lies. He has no great difficulty there in meeting the Italian views.

Outside of these, however, further to the South all the arguments seem to him to lead the other way. A different watershed was reached. Different racial units were encountered. There are natural associations between the peoples and this brought him to the question of Fiume.

6. From the first it had seemed to him plain that on the side of the Alps on which Fiume lay there is not only a difficult but an entirely new problem. Hitherto Fiume had been linked up with the policy or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That Empire had been governed by men who were in spirit very similar to the former rulers of Germany and who had been more or less under their domination. In fact they had become their instruments. If the Austro-Hungarian Empire had not gone to pieces the question could not have been difficult to deal with. Now, however, it had disappeared. Hence part of the wisdom of the present situation seems to build up new States linked in their interest for the future with the new order. These States must indeed become partners in the new order and not be regarded as States under suspicion but as linked in the new international relationship. S Orlando would remember that at the time that we were trying to detach the Yugoslavs from Austria we spoke of them as friends. We cannot not now speak of them as enemies. By separating from Austria-Hungary they had become connected with the new and disconnected from the old policy and order. M. Orlando had argued the case of Fiume as though it were purely an Italian and Yugoslav interest. Fiume is undoubtedly important to Yugoslavia whatever the proportion of the Yugoslavian trade to the whole might be. But above all its importance is that of an international port serving Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. In the past Hungary has had the principal interest in Fiume. Hence, it had been the policy of Hungary to encourage the Italian element and to use it to check the Slav population round about Fiume. He conjectures that Hungary had encouraged the idea of the autonomy of Fiume as a check to the surrounding Slovak population. This does not lead to the natural conclusion that Fiume should be joined to Italy.

7. In regard to Dalmatia, the argument most dwelt upon, the argument which Baron Sonnino had most forcibly expressed to him when he first arrived was mainly strategic, that is to say the necessity, from the point of view of naval defense, of giving Italy control of part of the eastern shores. In this case also the new order must either be accepted or not. Under the new order of international relations we united influence with policy to protect territory and to give independence of life. He could not imagine that a Yugoslav navy, under the regime of the League of Nations, could ever be a menace to Italy. The only possible risk was an alliance between Yugoslavia and some other state and its only possible motive would be to attack Italy.

In his view one of the essentials of the new order is that the control of the Great Powers should be withdrawn from the Balkans. In the past this had furnished the seeds of war. Germany had sought to plant out sovereigns in the Balkans to be used, as occasion required, for her own purposes. Most of the intrigues against the peace of the world in the Balkans had arisen from this cause. There had been no real independence in the Balkans for these states had been under constant pressure from the Great Powers, and especially from Berlin. Consequently, he was opposed to the lodging of any great Power in the Balkans. Our rule must be not to interfere in the internal affairs of these states and one of his primary objects was to withdraw the hand of the Great Powers from the Balkans. He regards this as of capital importance. Hence the strategic argument must be rejected. Military men with their strategic, military, economic arguments had been responsible for the Treaty of 1815. Similarly, military men have been responsible for Alsace-Lorraine. It was military men who had led Europe to one blunder after another. It would be quite detrimental to the peace of the world if Italy insisted on a lodging on the east coast of the Adriatic. We were now engaged in setting up an international association and Italy would have a part of the leadership therein. If this did not suffice, then two orders would exist - the old and the new. In the right hand would be the new order and in the left hand the old order. We could not drive two horses at once. The people of the United States of America would repudiate it. They were disgusted with the old order. Not only the American people but the people of the whole world were tired of the old system and they would not put up with Governments that supported it. We sometimes speak in those conversations as though we were masters of Europe. We are not so in reality. If the new order of ideas was not correctly interpreted a most tragic disservice would be done to the world. Hence, he urges his Italian colleagues to remember that they were in the hands of true friends. He would not be serving their interests if he consents to their claims to Fiume and Dalmatia. He is prepared to leave it to history to judge whether he or they were serving Italian interests best. He had been brought up in America, 3,000 miles away, and had passed most of his life there. There had been a time when he had not cared a snap of the fingers what happened in Europe. Now, however, it was his privilege to assist Europe to create a new order. If he should succeed, he could bring all the resources of his people to assist in the task. The claim for Fiume was a recent one put forward only within the last few months. As far as self-determination was concerned, Fiume was only an island of Italian population. If such a principle were adopted generally, we should get spots all over the map. In the case of Bohemia and the Polish frontiers, there was a preservation of historical frontiers; but this was not so in the case of Fiume. There was no analogy here that attached Fiume to Italy.

He cannot conclude his remarks without stating the profound solemnity with which he approached the question. He fully recognizes its gravity for the Italians. He tried to approach the subject in the most friendly spirit. His conclusion was that of one who wished to serve Italian interests and not of one who wished to oppose them.

8. Baron Sonnino reverts to President Wilson’s remarks on the strategic reasons that he, himself, had given to the President for the incorporation of Dalmatia with Italy. The President had said that he could not admit the claim of strategic advantage in establishing the new order. He must point out that Italy has never asked for any strategic advantage from an offensive point of view. All that they had demanded was the necessary and indispensable conditions of defense. He had never even thought of obtaining any possible advantage for offence in the Balkans. All he wishes to avoid is the continuance of the tragic history of Italy as open to attack from across the Adriatic. Without this the east coast of Italy is helpless. The League of Nations could not intervene in time. Any fleet established behind the island could defy the fleets of the League of Nations when they arrived, just as in the late war the Austrians defied the fleets of the Entente, which were two or three times their size. The Allied fleets would have destroyed the Austrian fleet, if they could have reached them, but they were unable to. The present situation provided a temptation to war, or at least, to the menace of war. It was perhaps a temptation even to Italy to profit by any favorable situation that might arise to get rid of the danger. The League of Nations might be compared to any civilized community which possesses a police force, but in every town people have to shut their door at nights. Italy could not do without this.

Referring to President Wilson’s remarks on the Balkans, Baron Sonnino says that Italy has no desire to mix herself there. Dalmatia, and especially its Northern part, was entirely outside the Balkans. All its economic and commercial relations were on the Italian side of the Adriatic. This was why, in spite of every effort by the Austrians to prevent it, the Italian interest had survived and was still maintained in Zara, Sebenico and Spalato. Until 1859 or 1860 the Italian element in Austria had been numerous enough for Austria to have an interest not to smash it. After the loss of Lombardy, however, and later on in 1866, after the loss of Venetia, all the parliamentary interests in Austria had been Slavic.

He fully recognizes the importance of the League of Nations and the general sentiment that was maturing towards a better state of things, but the League of Nations is a new institution and has many difficulties to face. He would like to know how tomorrow the League of Nations is going to adjust the Russian situation for example? How could it be relied on until it was fully established? In the present state of affairs it would be a crime for Italy to give this up, and it could not be done. Italy was asked to assume great responsibilities in guaranteeing the position of others, and received nothing herself.

President Wilson points out that Italy herself received these guarantees.

Baron Sonnino says they are not sufficient. On the other side of the Adriatic they were close to the Balkan races who are excitable peoples, much given to intrigue and falsification of documents, etc.

Moreover, the League of Nations had no forces under its direct control.

President Wilson says Baron Sonnino is speaking of a time when the Balkan states were being used by the Great Powers for their own purposes.

Baron Sonnino says he mistrusts the Balkan peoples most. Who would say that economic relations would not again link up the Balkans with Central Europe? He was very sorry, and deeply pained with the attitude he had to take. If Italian claims were not satisfied he, who had always sought completely to do his duty, would feel that he had done something contrary to the interests of his people.

9. M Clemenceau says that, in listening to President Wilson’s speech, he felt we were embarking on a most hazardous enterprise, but with a very noble purpose. We were seeking to detach Europe and the whole world from the old order which had led in the past to conflicts and finally to the recent War which had been the greatest and most horrible of all. It is not possible to change the whole policy of the world at one stroke. This applies to France just as much as to Italy. He would be ready to make concessions to his Allies. They were a people which has merited well of humanity and of civilization and he felt it right to recall it in this tragic hour. To the powerful arguments given by President Wilson he would add one other. Great Britain and France were bound in advance. The Treaty with Italy had not been signed by him, but it bore the signature of France. In that Treaty Dalmatia had been given to Italy, and this was a fact he could not forget. In the same Treaty, however, Fiume was allotted to Croatia. Italy had at that time no pretensions to Fiume. They had granted it as a gift to the Croats. M Barzilai had told him that since that time Austria had disappeared, which altered the situation. This is true, but, nevertheless, Italy had signed a document allotting Fiume to Croatia. He was astonished that Italy, while claiming Dalmatia under the Treaty, also claimed Fiume, which had been given to the Croats. Signatures counted no longer. It was impossible for Italy to claim one clause of the Treaty and to cancel another clause. It would be deplorable if his Italian friends on such a pretext should break away from their Allies.

He believes they are making a great mistake. It would serve neither their own use nor the cause of civilization. We French, as he has often said, have had to deplore the treatment given to the Italians in the Adriatic. But these moments are past. Now it will be necessary to traverse another critical period. He hoped his Italian friends were not counting too much on the first enthusiasm which would greet this action. Later on the cold and inevitable results would appear when Italy was alienated from her friends. He could not speak of such a matter without the gravest emotion. He could not think of one of the nations who helped to win this War separating from their Allies. We should suffer much, but Italy would suffer even more from such action. (S Orlando interjects “without doubt”). If the Italian plenipotentiaries should leave, he hopes that after consulting their people the forces of reason would bring them back. He hopes they will make one last effort to come to an agreement. His heart is always with Italy with its great and noble history and its immense services to civilization. Nevertheless, he must listen to the voice of duty. We cannot abandon the principles we had worked for for the good of civilization. It is impossible for France to adhere to one clause of the Treaty and to denounce another.

S Orlando recalls that the at the beginning of his statement he had declared that, since he was discussing the demands of Italy in the presence of a Power which was not bound by the Treaty, he would examine them on the hypothesis that the Treaty did not exist. If he were only asking his Allies to carry out their engagements, he would not ask for Fiume. In regard to what M. Clemenceau had said, he must express profound anguish in his heart at the suggestion that he was animated by any consideration of popularity or enthusiasm among the people of Italy at the course he was taking. He fully understands the tragic solemnity of the moment. Italy has to choose between two methods of death according as they limited their demands solely to the Treaty or separated themselves from their friends and became isolated from the world. If he had to choose he would prefer death with honor. He recalled that when Henry III had been assassinated the Duke of Guise looked at the body of his friend and said he had not believed he was so tall. He anticipates that Italy would prove so great a corpse that he only hopes there would not arise a poison which would threaten the whole world.

10. Mr Lloyd George says that as the representative of a Power which had signed the Treaty of London, he must express his views. He had not much to add to what M Clemenceau had said, but in the present grave situation he must express the British point of view, since Great Britain had also been a signatory of the Treaty. His personal position is much the same as M Clemenceau’s, since he had not been a signatory to the Treaty. He realizes the strength of President Wilson’s arguments, but he thinks he is entitled to say that if we feel scruples about the Italian claims they should have been expressed before Italy had lost half a million gallant lives. He does not think we are entitled to express these doubts after Italy had taken part in the war. He wished to say that Great Britain stood by the Treaty, but that she stood by the whole of the Treaty. The map which he had in his hand attached to the Treaty showed Fiume in Croatia. This was known to Serbia. We cannot break one part of the Treaty while standing by the other. On merits he does not understand how the principle of self-determination could be applied. If it was applied at all, it must be applied to the whole area. There must be a plebiscite from Trieste to Spalato. This, however, is not the proposal, which was merely to take the views of the inhabitants of Fiume. It was only proposed to apply it to the ancient town of Fiume itself. If the suburb across the river - a narrow river as he was informed - were included, his information is that the majority would be Yugoslavian. (Baron Sonnino interjects that the majority would still be Italian). If S Orlando’s argument in regard to the strategic position of Trieste and its danger from the guns in the hills were applied to Fiume, the Yugoslav majority would be overwhelming. The population of the valley was some 100,000 people, of whom only 25,000 were Italians. He could not see that any principle could be established for giving Fiume to Italy. If Fiume were included in Istria, exactly the same would apply. The Italian claim is only valid if applied to a little ancient town where an Italian population had grown to a majority of some 8,000. To give Fiume to Italy would break faith with the Serbs, would break the Treaty on which Italy entered the war, and would break every principle on which the Treaty of Peace was being based. He admits that the Italian losses had been very heavy, and even appalling. But the French losses had also been very heavy. M Clemenceau could no doubt evoke a great demonstration by announcing that the French frontier was to rest on the Rhine. Moreover, this was a strategic frontier, and would fulfill long-standing ambitions of France. There are very powerful elements in France which favor this solution, and M Clemenceau had to face these. They would urge that France had lost 1,500,000 dead in support of the justice of the claim. As regards the strategic arguments, British towns had also been bombarded. Like the Italians, the British Fleet had not been able to catch the enemy. The Germans, however, had not been able to transport troops across the North Sea. Neither could the Austrians transport them across the Adriatic. In France, however, with the exception of the Rhine, which was merely a military obstacle, there was land all the way between their boundaries and Germany. If our principles were to be extended we should have to re-cast the whole of the principles on which the Treaty of Peace was based and to begin with France. (President Wilson interjects that France had foregone the principle). How can we apply a different principle to Italy to what we had applied to France and Poland?

M Clemenceau had spoken of Italy going out of the Conference. This was a very grave decision which he had not been made aware of. What was the reason for it? It was that a population of 25,000 people in a single town had an Italian majority; it was a case where the majority was doubtful if the suburbs were taken into consideration, and where, if the surrounding country were taken into consideration, the population was overwhelmingly against Italy. He asked his Italian friends to consider the position they would create by such action. What would their population do? What would our position be? We think Italy is in the wrong and is making an indefensible claim. If war and bloodshed should result, what would the position be? Surely, there must be some sanity among statesmen! To break an Alliance over a matter of this kind was inconceivable. If Italy should do so, however, the responsibility would not be ours. We stood by our Treaty and the responsibility would rest with those who broke the Treaty.

Baron Sonnino points out that President Wilson did not accept the Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George says he is speaking for Great Britain only. He recalled that some time ago he had told S Orlando that the British Cabinet had decided that they would stand by the Pact.

S Orlando again recalls that at the outset of the meeting he had stated that he would discuss the question as though the Treaty did not exist. If what Mr Lloyd George said meant that the Conference would take its decision on the basis of the Treaty of London, leaving Fiume to be settled as the Conference might think fit, then a new situation would be created, and he would be prepared to discuss it with his colleagues on the Italian Delegation and return to give his reply.

President Wilson says that this solution would place a burden on him that was quite unfair. He did not know and did not feel at liberty to ask whether France and Great Britain considered the Treaty as consistent with the principles on which the Peace Treaty was being based. He was at liberty to say, however, that he himself did not. To discuss the matter on the basis of the Pact of London would be to adopt as a basis a secret treaty. Yet he would be bound to say to the world that we were establishing a new order in which secret treaties were precluded. He could not see his way to make peace with Germany on one principle and with Austria-Hungary on another. The Pact of London is inconsistent with the general principles of the settlement. He knows perfectly well that the Pact of London had been entered into in quite different circumstances, and he did not wish to criticize what had been done. But to suggest that the decision should be taken on the basis of the Treaty of London would draw the United States of America into an impossible situation.

Baron Sonnino says he only asks the Supreme Council to accept the merits of the Pact of London.

President Wilson says he is willing to state, and might have to state, to the world the grounds of his objections. He could not draw the United States into principles contrary to those which now animated them and which had brought them into the War.

Baron Sonnino draws attention to President Wilson’s statement of the 23rd May 1918, in which he had admitted the principle of security for Italy.

President Wilson says he does not admit that Dalmatia is essential to the security of Italy. Great Britain is in exactly the same position as Italy. He cannot allow the argument, and he had said so frankly at his first interview with Baron Sonnino. It was inconceivable to him that Italy should draw apart from her friends, and he begs that the Italian plenipotentiaries will not decide the question in a hurry. He asks them to take every element into consideration and not tear the country apart from the sacred associations of the present Conference and of the past. He appeals to them with confidence to reconsider the question, and not to think of action which would be one of the most tragic results of the War.

Mr Lloyd George asks that the Italians would remember one factor. If they are not present on Friday when the German delegates arrive, the Allies would have no right to put forward a claim for compensation for Italy. This was a matter that they ought to take into consideration.

S Orlando says that this is a matter that can be corrected at the last moment if Italy doe not separate herself.

President Wilson makes a final appeal to Italy to take time to consider.

S Orlando undertakes to do so, but says that he is most anxious to have the question settled before he returned to Italy.

(The Meeting is adjourned until Sunday, April 20, 1919, at 10 a.m.)

Sailor Steve

04-19-19, 09:49 PM

Saturday, April 19, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE (Continued)

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

M Pichon says that he has a letter from Baron Sonnino stating that due to a pressing engagement elsewhere he is unable to attend this meeting. Italy will be represented by Signor de Martino.

1. The first item on today's agenda is the question of German citizens joining foreign armies in order to serve as instructors. It is proposed that the following clause be added to the Military Peace terms.

“No German male subject shall be permitted to become enrolled in the Army of any Foreign Power or to be attached to such army for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof.”

Mr Balfour doubts whether it would be worthwhile to add a special clause to the Peace Treaty dealing with this subject.

Mr Lansing agrees in principle, but questions the possibility of enforcing this. He feels the responsibility should be on the employer rather than the employee. He notes that German officers so employed would cease to be under German jurisdiction, and that it makes more sense that the Allied and Associated Governments should enter into an agreement not to employ German officers.

M Pichon thinks the matter should be left to the League of Nations.

M Tardieu notes that this is already done with the exportation of other war materials, so why not have the same restrictions on human war materials?

Mr Balfour agrees with Mr Lansing, and points out that normal war materials can only be exported with the consent of the government, but human beings can always buy a ticket to take them to another country and offer their services as instructors.

M Tardieu thinks that though the Government could not prevent a subject from proceeding to a foreign country, it might nevertheless be possible to frame a law preventing or prohibiting a subject under definite penalties from taking service in a foreign army.

Mr Lansing says he sympathizes with the proposal to attempt to prevent German military training from being dispersed throughout the world. The question, however, was how best to accomplish this purpose. In the first place, Germany should be made to agree to send no military missions to foreign countries, and to take no official recognition of military instructors sent abroad. Second, as a supplement to the above, all the signatories; of the Peace Treaty must agree not to employ German military instructors. Third, this prohibition should extend to the employment of Germans naturalized after the signing of the peace treaty, otherwise there would be no security, as it would easily be possible for Germans to change their allegiance for the purpose of taking military service abroad.

Mr Balfour thinks that similar provisions should be inserted in their respective treaties prohibiting all other enemy countries, namely Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria, from employing German instructors.

Mr Lansing adds that they should also get the Governments to agree not to send military students to Germany for military training.

(It is agreed that Mr. Lansing should draft a clause for presentation to the Foreign Ministers at their next meeting, embodying the ideas set forth in the preceding discussion.)

2. M Pichon brings up the question of the establishment of a German Commission in or near Paris, to facilitate the conducting of the current economic negotiations and the present status of the Commissions set up under the Armistice With Germany and their relations to the Supreme Economic Council. He proposes that these two subjects be postponed to the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers, to give him time to consult the French technical advisers, and to receive replies from the French representatives on the Economic Council.

Mr Balfour says that he wishes in this connection to invite the attention of the Conference to the very real inconvenience which was now being caused by divided control in both the occupied and unoccupied parts of Germany. In these territories there are a number of purely civil questions to be settled, which require coordination between the various organizations, both in the occupied and unoccupied areas. He feels very strongly that nothing should be done to interfere with the military control those areas, or with the full freedom of action of Marshal Foch. But since the questions of food, finance, and commerce were far more important than the narrow military standpoint, something should be done to improve the organisation which at the present moment was acting very slowly and in a very unsatisfactory manner. Consequently, though he does not press for the question to be discussed and settled at once, especially in view of M Pichon’s request that the matter should be postponed to the next meeting, he wishes, nevertheless, to point out that the question, in his opinion, brook no delay and should be settled as quickly as possible.

S de Martino says that the Italian Delegation are also studying the question and they would not be in a position to discuss it that afternoon. He supports M Pichon’s proposal that the question should be adjourned to the next meeting.

(It is agreed to postpone the question of the establishment of a German Commission at or near Paris to facilitate the conduct of current economic negotiations, and the question of the present status of the Commission set up under the Armistice with Germany and their relations to the Supreme Economic Council to the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers.)

4. M Pichon reads a proposal from The Netherlands that a Conference be set up in Paris to discuss the revision of the Dutch-Belgian Treaties of 1839, and asks whether the Foreign Ministers accept this proposal.

Mr Balfour says that this proposal would not be a part of the Peace Treaty between the Allied Nations and Germany, and the Foreign Ministers are already overworked with the Peace Treaty. He therefore is not prepared to meet with representatives from Holland and Belgium.

M Pichon asks whether a mission of plenipotentiaries could not be appointed to deal with the question.

Mr Balfour says that the Dutch Government wishes to discuss the question with the Foreign Ministers themselves. They are anxious not to be put under a Commission.

M Tardieu notes that the Belgian Government is also anxious to discuss the question at an early date with the Foreign Ministers.

Baron Makino said this is the first time he has heard of this matter, and would like to reserve his judgement for the present. This does not mean that any difference of opinion exists, but he would like to have an opportunity of examining the question.

(It is agreed that a Conference should be held in Paris as early as possible, for the purpose of considering the question of the revision of the 1839 treaties, consisting of the five Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Allied and Associated Great Powers and of the representatives of Holland and Belgium.

It is proposed that this meeting be held during the week commencing April 28th 1919.

It is understood that the Japanese representative will participate in the Conference unless a notification to the contrary is communicated to the Secretariat General within the next 3 days.)

5. M Pichon presents a memorandum, dated April 11th:

“The Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council has received the most urgent appeals from the Governments of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and from the representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments in these countries.

The Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council finds it impossible to reply to these appeals until answers to the following questions have been obtained:

1) Do the Allied and Associated Governments intend to support the maintenance of independent Governments in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia?

2) If so, would this decision be in any way affected should an agreement be entered into between any one or all of these States and the Bolshevists Government, whereby their integrity and their territorial independence would be guaranteed?

3) Are the Allied and Associated Governments agreed that one or more of the Associated Powers should, once this responsibility has been accepted, help these Governments by every means in their power (e. g. financial, moral, and material assistance) other than the despatch of Allied troops?

4) Are any of the Associated Powers prepared to make to any one or all of these Governments a loan or to open credits in their favour?

5) Is the Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council correct in assuming that the effective occupation of Latvia and Lithuania by the German troops must continue until the next harvest?

6) Are the Allied and Associated Governments agreed that the Russian white troops in Estonia must be assisted, both morally and materially, by the supply of food and by giving them other assistance, both—

a) in order to maintain the independence of Esthonia, or

b) in order to carry out a possible attack against the actual Russian Government?

7) What is the line of demarcation that the Allied and Associated Governments intend to lay down between Poland and Lithuania in connection with the distribution of food supplies?”

Mr McCormick says that the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers has authorized the relaxation of the blockade in the case of Latvia, provided the military authorities approved. The military authorities have approved, and the Blockade Committee has taken steps to obtain the necessary guarantees. But during the last two or three days news has been received to the effect that the Germans have taken over the Government of Latvia, and at the meeting of the Blockade Committee held on that day, it was decided: first, to continue the individual licensing of imports, because it is thought that these could be supervised by the representatives of the Admiralty; second, to stop all shipments from Germany, except coal, which is needed for transportation purposes in connection with the maintenance of the German front against the Bolshevists.

M Seydoux points out that the London Blockade Council, who have been instructed with the duty of obtaining the necessary guarantees from the Letts, has so far been unable to do so. Consequently, the blockade still continues unaltered. Furthermore, according to latest information, the Germans have taken control of Libau, which is the only available port of access. Under these circumstances, he thinks the British and French ships in the Baltic would automatically stop all trade.

M Pichon explains to the Committee that the Germans now control Libau; they have overthrown the Lettish Government, but it is not clear whether this has been done by the Germans themselves or at their instigation. In his opinion, it would be very difficult to arrive at a decision in regard to the question presented to the meeting.

Mr McCormick understands that there would be no difficulty in insuring that shipments of food should reach the proper authorities. He can therefore see no reason why relief measures should not continue.

M Seydoux agrees. He thinks that since food goes to the Germans it can also go to the Letts. That, however, is only one side of the question. There is also the question of ordinary trade, which he considers should not be permitted.

Mr Lansing says that he cannot understand how this question has come to be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers. In his opinion, it falls altogether outside their province.

Mr Balfour asks whether the Meeting does not think that the whole question can be summed up in the following two proposals:

1) Food should continue to be sent to the Baltic provinces in question, provided the local allied authorities are agreed that it would reach the right people, and

2) Coal should continue to go through on the understanding that it should only be used for the purpose of supplying the front now set up against the Bolshevists.

Mr Hoover explains that German troops and authorities in Latvia have seized the Government and disarmed the Army, and had set up a Government of their own, probably controlled by the German Landowners. This Government is in entire opposition to the wishes of the Lettish people. The question is whether the Allies will continue to feed the Letts or not. On the one hand, there was no desire to starve the people of Latvia; on the other hand, there is equally no wish to support the German Government.

Mr McCormick thinks that if the Allies are feeding the Germans in Germany, there was no good reason why they should not continue to feed the Letts.

Mr Balfour believes that the Germans are doing two things: First, fighting the Bolshevists, a measure the Allies thoroughly approve of, and, second, oppressing the Letts, a measure which the Allies disapprove of.

M Pichon thinks that the Germans have carried out a regular “coup d’état” against the Letts, and by sending food into the country the Allies would indirectly be supporting the German usurpation.

Mr. Lansing enquired as to the reliability of the information received. He had seen various reports, but had not been impressed by their apparent validity.

Mr. Hoover said that the Lettish Commander-in-Chief and some of the Government officials had come to the American Food Mission and had asked for protection. At the present moment, the American representatives in Latvia were defying the Germans.

M. Pichon points out that there are English warships on the spot, and asks whether correct information could not be obtained from that source.

Mr Balfour replies that the information received from that source agrees with all other reports received from those regions.

M Pichon expresses the view that if all sources of information concur, the Ministers would be entitled to accept the information as correct.

Mr Lansing says that if he remembers the circumstances correctly, they had been told that the withdrawal of the Germans from Latvia would result in the whole country being over-run by the Bolshevists. He thought the feeding of the Letts should be continued, and, by the Treaty of Peace the Germans should be required to evacuate Latvia.

Mr Balfour thinks there might be some objection to that procedure. Under the Armistice the Allied and Associated Governments are fully empowered to order the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces by the German troops. The reason why this has not been done is that the Allied and Associated Governments have no troops with which to replace the Germans. The Allied and Associated Governments are therefore in the “humiliating” position of having to employ Germans to suppress the Bolshevists while the Germans have stopped the Letts from raising armies of their own. Obviously had Allied troops been available it would have been easy to order the withdrawal of Germans, leaving the former troops to assist the local levies in re-constituting the countries in question.

S de Martino believes that food supplies should continue to be sent to these provinces, all necessary precautions being taken to ensure that none of this food should reach the Bolshevists. He must warn the meeting, however, that the Italian Government will be unable to take any share in furnishing supplies for this purpose.

M Pichon pointed out that the Letts are wholly anti-Bolshevists, and at the same time the Germans were fighting the Bolshevists. He saw no reason, therefore, why food relief should be stopped.

Mr Balfour explains that the difficulty lies in the fact that though both the Germans and the Letts were anti-Bolshevist, the Baltic Barons were also anti-Letts.

Colonel Kisch explains that according to latest information the Germans have arrested all members of the Lettish Government; they have also disarmed the Lettish troops and seized all arms and munitions. A further report states that the food stores landed at Libau have been looted, but it is not clear by whom this was done. It is, however, thought that the German Army of Occupation was behind the whole trouble that had now arisen in that country.

Mr Lansing said that the situation is as follows: for a time the Germans and Letts had co-operated against the Bolshevists. Now, either at the instigation of the Germans or as an independent movement, a rising had occurred, and as a result the Letts might be driven to become Bolshevists, which would constitute a very dangerous situation. In his opinion, under these circumstances, all that the Allied and Associated Governments can do is to insist on the withdrawal of the German troops and on the restoration of the Lettish Government. But if that is done the Allied and Associated Governments would then have to rely upon the ability of the Letts to resist the Bolshevists.

Mr Hoover called attention to the fact that the Lettish Government has been dispossessing the Baltic Barons of their property as fast as possible, and not without violence.

Mr Balfour proposes that food should continue to be sent, instructions being issued to the Allied authorities on the spot not to land it unless reasonable security existed that it would not find its way into the hands of either the Bolshevists or of the Baltic Barons.

Mr Hoover says that Mr Balfour’s proposal raises another difficulty due to the difference of opinion existing between the local British and American authorities. The former think that no further food supplies should be landed; while the latter thinks that local machinery could be set up to insure its distribution to the proper people. In his opinion, both the British, who are furnishing a considerable portion of the food supplies, and the Americans, should continue to send relief as long as there is reasonable assurance that the food so sent will reach the people and not the Bolshevists.

Mr Balfour reminds the Conference that on Thursday last, April 17th, the Council of Four had decided to dispatch an Inter-Allied Commission to the Baltic States. The particular question under reference can obviously not be referred to that Commission since it would not reach those regions for some time to come.

(It is agreed:

1) to continue to send food supplies into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, provided the local Allied authorities are satisfied that these supplies will reach the right people, and

2) to continue to allow coal from Germany to go through, provided it is only used for supplying the front now set up against the Bolshevists.

It is further agreed that instructions should be issued to the representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments on the spot that the food should not be landed unless reasonable security exists that it will reach the people and not the Bolshevists.)

6. M Pichon read a draft article regarding the disposal of property of enemy religious missions in Allied territory:

“The Allied and Associated Governments agree that in all territories belonging to them, or of which the government is entrusted to them in accordance with this Treaty, the property which the German Missions or Missionary Societies possess, including that of Trading Societies whose profits were devoted to the support of the Missions, shall continue to be devoted to missionary purposes. In order to assure the due execution of this undertaking, the Allied and Associated Governments will retain full control and disposition of such property, and full control as to the persons by whom the Missions shall be conducted and as to the application of the property for missionary purposes.

Germany, taking note of the above undertaking, agrees to accept all arrangements made or to be made by the Allied or Associated Governments concerned for carrying on the work of the said Missions or Trading Societies, and waives all claims on their behalf.”

Mr. Balfour explains that a very large German missionary organisation exists in Western Africa which, while carrying out admirable educational work, has also undertaken important industrial work. The profits of the commercial part of the undertaking has annually been handed over for missionary purposes. It is felt that the commercial asset should not be merged in the general assets taken over from the Germans in conquered territories; but that the profits should be kept in order to carry on the missionary work in those territories.

Mr Lansing agrees with Mr Balfour, but he thinks it should be made clear in the text that the proposed article relates to religious missionary enterprises and not to diplomatic or other missions.

Baron Makino asks whether the draft article is intended to apply to all German foreign religious enterprises. He calls attention to the fact that it would be necessary for someone to decide whether the work of such missions was really benevolent or not.

Mr Balfour thinks that the draft article is intended to apply to all German foreign missions. In addition to those in West Africa to which his previous remarks had particularly referred, he understands there are others in India and China. He thinks the idea would be for the property so taken over to be kept in trust with a view to continuing the same religious work.

Mr Lansing calls attention to the fact the second paragraph of the English text reads “the Allied and Associated Governments will retain full control” whereas the French text said “the Five Allied and Associated Governments will retain full control.”

Mr Scott points out that in the French text the expression “the five Allied and Associated Governments” alone was used.

M Fromageot explains that the Drafting Committee has to employ definite formulas to cover definite cases. Thus by “the five Allied and Associated Governments” would be meant France, Great Britain, Italy, United States and Japan; while the words “Allied and Associated Governments” would be used to mean all the nations who had participated in the war on the side of the Allies.

Mr Lansing suggests that the proposal of the British Delegation be accepted in principle, but that the draft article be referred back to the Drafting Committee to be re-drafted in the light of the discussion just held. He thinks the text should be made perfectly clear, even though some difficulty might be experienced in doing so. As at present drafted it is not clear whether the control rested with all of the five Allied and Associated Governments as a whole, or whether it would rest in each case only with the one Government particularly concerned.

M Fromageot replied that it is his understanding that the control would rest with the Power specially concerned in each case.

S de Martino suggests that the following words should be added at the end of the first paragraph, namely: “in conformity with the principles of the local laws now in force in the respective territories”. He is anxious that no difficulty should arise through interference with local laws in the country where the mission was operating.

Mr Balfour agreed that the idea that S de Martino has in mind is right; but he thinks it should be left to the Drafting Committee to give effect to the proposal.

Baron Makino expresses the view that in re-drafting the clause the object of the missions should be made quite clear.

(It is agreed to refer the text of the draft article submitted by the British Delegation to the Drafting Committee for the preparation of a revised text embodying the ideas set forth in the course of the above discussion.)

7. M Pichon read the following new proposed draft article relating to the Opium Traffic, submitted by the Drafting Committee for insertion in the Treaty of Peace:

“Those of the High Contracting Parties who have not yet signed, or have signed but not yet ratified the Opium Convention signed at The Hague on January 23rd, 1912, agree to bring the said Convention into force, and for this purpose to enact the necessary legislation without delay and in any case within a period of twelve months from the coming into force of the present treaty.

Furthermore they agree that ratification of this treaty should in the case of the Powers which have not yet ratified the Opium Convention be deemed in all respects equivalent to the ratification of that Convention and to the signature of the special protocol which was opened at The Hague in accordance with the resolutions adopted by The Third Opium Conference in 1914 for bringing the said Convention into force; and for this purpose the Government of the French Republic is requested to communicate to the Government of the Netherlands a certified copy of the protocol of the deposit of ratifications of this treaty and to invite the Government of the Netherlands in accordance with the provisions of the article to accept and deposit the said certified copy as if it were a deposit of ratifications of the Opium Convention and a signature of the additional protocol of 1914.”

(It is agreed to accept the above draft regarding the Opium Traffic for insertion in the Treaty of Peace.)

(The Meeting is adjourned to Monday afternoon, 21st April, 1919, at 15:00 hours.)

Jimbuna

04-20-19, 06:37 AM

20th April 1919

A tank demonstration in Rome, Italy.
https://i.imgur.com/5HRh0wh.png

General Pershing decorates the colors of the 88th Division at Gondrecourt, France.
https://i.imgur.com/cATPaBC.jpg

British Officers’ Club at the General HQ in Montreuil, France during lunch.
https://i.imgur.com/Qkfq4xY.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-21-19, 12:39 AM

Sunday, April 20, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, 10:00

Meeting of the Council of Four

1. S Orlando reads the following declaration:

“I must maintain all the declarations which I have made so far as the question of Fiume is concerned. In reducing the matter to its minimum terms I must observe to President Wilson that, from the point of view of his noble intention of maintaining peace in the world, he is too eminent a politician not to realize that an essential condition for arriving at this object is that of avoiding between peoples the sentiment of reaction against injustice, which will form, without doubt, the most fatal germ of future wars. But I affirm here that if Fiume is not granted to Italy there will be among the Italian people a reaction of protest and of hatred so violent that it will give rise to the explosion of violent contrasts within a period that is more or less close. I think, then, that the fact that Fiume may not be given to Italy would be extremely fatal just as much to the interests of Italy as to the peace of the world. Nevertheless, since the British and French Allies have declared yesterday that they do not recognize the right of Italy to break the Alliance in the event of her being accorded only what the Treaty of Alliance guarantees her, I am so convinced of my responsibility towards the peace of the world in the event of a rupture of the Alliance to consider it necessary to safeguard myself against every possible accusation in this respect. I declare in consequence formally that, in the event of the Peace Conference guaranteeing to Italy all the rights which the Treaty of London has assured to her, I shall not be obliged to break the Alliance, and I would abstain from every act or deed which could have this signification.”

After a pause, President Wilson says it is incredible to him that the representatives of Italy should take up this position. At the center of the War there stood three Powers - France, Great Britain, and Italy - which undoubtedly had borne the brunt of the War, especially the two first engaged. Undoubtedly, however, the whole world perceived that the War had been largely undertaken to save these Powers from the intentions of the Central Powers. These Powers, however, had not brought the war to an end. Other Powers had come in which had nothing to do with the Alliance, and were not bound by the Pact of London. These Powers had rendered indispensable assistance; for example, the material and financial assistance of the United States of America had been essential to the successful conclusion of the War. (M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George interrupt to express agreement in this). As soon as the United States of America entered the War they declared their principles. These were acclaimed particularly by those peoples to whom they gave a new assurance of peace, namely, the smaller Powers. They were also greeted with acclamation by the peoples of the Great Powers. When I wrote these principles I knew that I was not writing merely my own conscience, but the point of view of the people of the United States of America. These principles were found to be identical with the sentiments of all the great peoples of the Allied and Associated Powers. Otherwise, these principles would have no effect. The world did not ask for the opinions of individuals. What it did ask was that individuals should formulate principles which called to consciousness what every man was feeling. The opinions expressed first by Mr Lloyd George, and a few days afterwards by myself, had accomplished this. On these principles the United States of America and some other Powers had entered the War. This world conference must, in formulating the peace, express the conclusions of the whole world and not those of a small group, even though he hastens to add the most influential group who had entered earlier into a Treaty. The object of our principles is not to exclude any legitimate natural aspiration. In this connection President Wilson reads the following extracts from his Fourteen Points:

“XI. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan States to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan States should be entered into.”

“IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.”

This, he says, was what we had been attempting to do. If we did not do what S Orlando had so eloquently referred to and carry out our principles, but were to base ourselves on the Treaty which Italy invoked, we should be raising antagonisms which would never be stamped out until what we were now doing was rectified. Hence, the result of S Orlando’s proposal, namely, that other Powers than those bound by it should adhere to the Treaty of London, and if Italy insists on the carrying out of this Treaty she would stand in the way of peace. The United States of America are not bound, and besides they regard it as unsuited to the circumstances of the day. If the Austro-Hungarian Empire had survived, his attitude would have been entirely different. For then Italy would have been entitled to every outpost of security. Those dangerous circumstances, however, do not now exist, and though the signatories of the Pact of London did not consider themselves relieved of their undertaking, other Powers need not regard the Pact as binding. He asks his Italian brethren whether they are determined to take action which would result in reducing the chance of peace with Germany, of increasing the risk of the resumption of the War, and of alienating people who had been enthusiastically friendly to Italy. Would they refuse to enter the new circumstances of the world because they could not renew the old circumstances? Without the Pact of London Italy would receive her natural boundaries; the redemption of the Italian population; a restoration of her old glory, and the completion of her integrity. A dream would be realized which, at the beginning of the War, would have seemed too good to be true. The dream had come true by the gallantry of the Italian armies and the force of the world. It is incredible to him, even though he had actually heard it, that Italy should take up this attitude. It was the supreme completing tragedy of the War that Italy should turn her back on her best friends and take up a position of isolation. He deplores it as one whose heart is torn. But as representative of the people of the United States of America he cannot violate the principles they had instructed him to carry out in this settlement.

S Orlando says that he ought to declare to President Wilson that if he spoke of the Pact of London it had only been at the last moment and in spite of himself. He had only done so in order to reply to remarks made by Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau. They had said that he would take too great a responsibility in breaking an Alliance towards a people who say that they are ready to honor their signature and to fulfill their obligations. He had made all possible efforts to demonstrate that the rights of Italy rest within the bounds of reason and remain in the field of argument. No one more than he would regret to rely on the text of a Treaty instead of applying reason. Italy has not been, and is not, intransigent. No way to conciliation had yet been offered to her. In regard to the Fourteen Points, he asked the President to recognize that those relating to Austria-Hungary were obsolete because Austria-Hungary had ceased to exist. Yesterday President Wilson had recognized this himself. The President had interpreted the Fourteen Points as if Serbia had a right to Fiume. As a matter of fact, however, Serbia’s extreme ambitions in regard to a sea port had extended to St. Jean de Medua, Alessio, and they had never even dreamed of Ragusa. Now they are assured of far more. He asks President Wilson to bear two things in mind, first, that although those parts of the Fourteen Points applying to Austria-Hungary ceased to be valid after the fall of Austria-Hungary, those relating to Italy remain; and second, that he had made a definite reservation at the beginning of the Peace Conference with the United States of America, through Colonel House, in regard to their application to the Austro-Hungarian Treaty. Consequently, he is not bound by them in the Austro-Hungarian Treaty. President Wilson had said with emotion that the War had been waged for justice and right. Italy also considered that she had fought for justice. There, Italy was on the same ground as President Wilson. He deeply objects to President Wilson’s suggestion to the contrary, for Italy also had made war in good faith, and he himself could say that he could sign no peace contrary to justice and right. He had said this not to criticize President Wilson, but to explain his own point of view. President Wilson had concluded that his heart was torn by the separation of Italy. He expresses his deep thanks for this, and he declares that his heart is still more torn. He feels exactly the same sentiment of friendship, loyal and mutual affection and esteem, not only between the two peoples, but between the two men. But he also experiences sentiments of anguish when he thinks of his own country. As he had said on the previous day, if he must face death, it must be for a just cause.

President Wilson says that M. Orlando might rest assured that he himself has no misconception as to the Italian motives. It is merely a fundamental difference of policy between them. He fully realizes that Italy is not bound by the Fourteen Points in making peace with Austria. He is not inclined to insist on any particular principle in the Fourteen Points, but his position is that he cannot make peace with Germany on one set and with Austria on another set of principles. Throughout their consultations the drawing of frontiers has been based on ethnic lines as a principle.

Mr Lloyd George regrets that the Supreme Council finds itself confronted with the most difficult situation that had faced it since the beginning of the Conference. The question is a very troublesome one, and he could not see a way out. We were first confronted with the possibility that Italy was feeling she could not continue her association with her Allies in making peace, because of this troublesome Austrian question. Another alternative was that the United States of America could not assent to a Treaty based on principles involving a grave departure from those for which she had entered the War. Either way it was a very serious matter. Personally, he does not feel free to discuss the question of merits, because he must respect his bond. It has been honored by Italy in blood, treasure, and sacrifice. He would tarnish his country’s honor if he receded from it, though no one more than he recognizes the President’s powerful plea. He realizes that it was a very serious matter for Italy to antagonize two of the most powerful races in Europe, the Germans in the Tyrol, and the Slavs in Austria. He, however, is not entitled to discuss that. He wishes to put to President Wilson the reason why Italy found it difficult to recede from the Treaty. He had been profoundly impressed by S Orlando’s reasoning, but he had also been greatly moved by what Baron Sonnino had said. Baron Sonnino had been in the War from the very outset, and had taken upon himself a very heavy responsibility in rejecting Austria’s terms. What could he say to the people of Italy? If he returned to Italy without the Treaty, he would almost have to leave the country. After incurring heavy losses and large debts he had only got little more than what he could have had without risking a single life. His suggestion is that the representatives of the Powers signatories to the Treaty of London should meet separately to consider President Wilson’s grave decision. If, however, Italy cannot modify her attitude, he is bound to take his stand by his bond. Anything he could say would be by way of suggestion and appeal only. He asked if President Wilson agreed to this course?

President Wilson assents. He says he feels it to be his duty to mention any counsel of accommodation that had been made to him. He, therefore, asks the question as to whether, supposing Fiume were conceded to the Serbo-Croats, as provided in the Pact of London, and if the lines of the Pact and all within it were, for the time being, handed over to the five Great Powers as trustees to determine its disposition, would the Italian representatives then say they could not consent - always on the assumption of no guarantee of ultimate cession to Italy of what lay within the line. There is one point on which he had said that he would make an exception to Italy, that was in the case of the island of Lissa. He recognizes, however, that this was only a very small part of the Pact of London. He would not be frank if he held out to the Italian representatives any hope of the assent of the United States of America to the ultimate cession of the islands and other territory involved in the Pact of London to Italy. The proposal he had made, however, would relieve the present difficulty and give the Great Powers further time to consider the matter. As the suggestion had been made to him he would like to know if it had any weight at all with the Italian representatives.

Mr Lloyd George says he would like time to think the matter over, and he suggests that the signatories of the Treaty should meet on the following day.

Baron Sonnino agrees. He thanks Mr Lloyd George for his exposition of the Italian point of view. His own responsibility towards his conscience makes it necessary - the responsibility of those present towards their own consciences make it necessary that everything possible should be done to try to see a way out. Perhaps he himself was too agitated and pre-occupied to see the whole of the picture. He and S Orlando consent to meet and examine every point of view and to try to find a way out. It is his duty to do all he could to find a settlement. It has been said that it involves death, moral death to him. He does not care a pin about that. He only thinks of his country. It would be said that he had ruined his country, and nothing could trouble a man more than that.

Mr Lloyd George says that it was really an essential element in the case. Italy has rejected one (the Austrian) offer and accepted another and is now threatened with not having that made good.

President Wilson says that he fully realizes that Italy has no imperialistic motives and gives her entire credit for that. He also fully appreciates the tragic personal position in which Baron Sonnino was placed. He honors him for his steadfastness, which merely verifies the steadfastness he had shown throughout the War. If Italy can see a way out consistent with permanent peace, he would like to assist if it were only for personal reasons. He hopes that Baron Sonnino would never think he had ruined his country. He would really have given it a more glorious record and no one could say that he had ruined it.

Baron Sonnino thanks President Wilson for what he had said. The word “imperialistic” had been used. Italy, however, has never had any intention to damage others. She only sought security at home. She asks for no positions from which she could menace her neighbors. In other matters referred to in the London Convention in regard to Greece, Italy had made it clear that she would not take an overbearing position. She merely wishes to keep out of dangers. She wants to keep out of Balkanism, for example. She wants full freedom to her own commerce, culture, and influence, but not to be drawn into the confluence of Balkan States. She wanted a safe basis for keeping out of these questions. If Italy were to do what President Wilson wanted, she would inevitably be drawn in. Her reasoning might be wrong about this island or that island, but the whole political basis of the Pact of London was Italy’s desire to keep out of the danger of being attacked or of the temptation to attack herself in order to forestall a danger. For centuries of her history Italy had been overrun by barbarians - Germans, Austrians, Spaniards, &c. (Mr. Lloyd George interjects that Italy had herself overrun Britain). The reason was that Italy had fair lands. Now she desires to keep in her own corner of Europe outside it all and President Wilson wants to stop her.

President Wilson says that if he thought this would be the result he would help.

Baron Sonnino continues that even Fiume, which is outside the Pact of London was not asked for as a means of aggression. Other considerations prevailed here. There had been a movement by Fiume itself that had brought it up. The War undoubtedly had had the effect of over-exciting the feeling of nationality. This was not Italy’s fault. Perhaps America had fostered it by putting the principles so clearly. In the discussions about the Pact of London M Sazonoff1 had insisted on the names of places being put in, and Italy had conceded without discussion a number of big islands and the port of Segna, in order to give Yugoslavia means of defense. He cannot see that anything that Italy had done contravened the principles. It is very easy to make principles, but enormous differences arise in their application. It is their application that creates differences between people who were agreed on the principles themselves. Even in the settlement of the German Treaty concessions of principle had repeatedly to be made.

2. M. Clemenceau reads a telegram he had received from the German Foreign Office in reply to the invitation to the Germans to come to Versailles on April 25. The gist of this reply was that Germany would send, on the 25th April, Minister Von Haniel, Councillor Von Keller, and Councillor Ernst Smitt. These delegates would be provided with the necessary powers to receive the text of the proposed Preliminaries of Peace which they would bring back to the German Government. A list is then given of the functionaries and servants who would accompany them.

Mr Lloyd George says we cannot deal with messengers. He is altogether opposed to it. He then invites his colleagues to read a dispatch he has just received from Berlin which threw some light on this question.

After Professor Mantoux has read the document in French, Mr Lloyd George says that it has a most important bearing on the German reply. The suggestion to send more messengers to Versailles was a foolish one, because if not intended as insolent, it is purely futile. If circumstances were such as the British agent suggested in the Paper that had just been read, it might be desirable to force the Germans to choose a Government that could represent them.

President Wilson agrees in Mr Lloyd George’s suggestion that we cannot receive mere messengers and must insist on plenipotentiaries.

At M Clemenceau’s request he drafts a reply to be sent to the German Government somewhat on the following lines:

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot receive envoys merely authorized to receive the terms of peace. They must require that the German Government shall send plenipotentiaries fully authorized to deal with the whole question of peace as are the plenipotentiaries of the Allied and Associated Powers.

(The discussion is then adjourned).

Appendix to the Meeting

1. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Ebert-Scheidemann Government cannot long continue in its present form.

Reasons:

a) Great numbers of the rank and file of the Government supporters are going over to the left and joining either the “Independents” or (though to a less extent) the “communists”. Both Government and National Versammlung have lost the confidence of the country. The working classes believe that the failure to carry out a socialistic program is due, not to the inherent difficulties of the problem, but to the presence in the government of bourgeois elements whose sole object is obstruction.

b) The strikes and disturbances throughout the country are no longer merely food riots or “unemployed” riots but have taken on a definitely political, i. e. anti-Scheidemann, character (Scheidemann is of course merely regarded as the personification of bourgeois-socialist Government in league with capitalism).

c) The idea of the “Rate” or Soviet system has spread to such an extent and taken such a hold on the popular imagination that it has become impossible to leave it out of consideration. Scheidemann’s attitude on this question is one of the chief causes of his unpopularity.

d) The food that is being sent and such raw materials as there might be a possibility of sending, are not sufficient in quantity, so to change the outward circumstances of the working man’s life as to make him forget his dissatisfaction at the incompetence of the Government, whom he makes responsible for all his troubles.

2. Unless the government is modified or remodeled in some way either

a) it will be overthrown before peace is signed - by a general strike or Spartacist coup de main. In this case the Entente is faced with a Germany without any constituted government that can sign the Peace Treaty; or

b) on learning the terms on which the Allies consent to make peace, Scheidemann and Brockdorff-Rantzau2 will do their best to make a virtue of necessity and leave the stage with the “grand geste” of outraged dignity. It is becoming daily more evident that this government does not intend to sign the peace they will be offered. And the National Versammlung is already practicing the gestures of sympathy with which it will accompany the exit of its cabinet.
3. If then the Government is overthrown before peace or retires in a body on refusing to sign, there only exist two alternatives for the succession

(i) a military dictatorship backed by the Right wing—such a regime could not sign peace on behalf of the country even if it wanted to. It is questionable whether the troops would support it in any large numbers. The result will be civil war and complete anarchy, with sooner or later the necessity of military intervention by the Entente.

(ii) A soviet government probably leading to a Spartacist (or Bolshevik) dictatorship? The result in this case would equally be anarchy and the probable necessity of Entente intervention and occupation.

4. There is one possibility of avoiding either of these extreme results.

Negotiations are being carried on with great energy between the right wing of the “Independents”, the majority socialists and the military men who stand behind Noske and constitute his force. The objects are as follows:—

1) to remodel the cabinet (retaining Ebert as Reichspräsident) on a purely Socialistic basis including “majority” and “independents”.

2) to secure for such a government the support of the troops even supposing Noske himself were removed. It is stated that Captain von Papst, the moving spirit of the present military organisation, is in favour of the plan and would support the government if reconstituted on these lines.

3) to persuade the “Independents” to abandon that part of their program which involves the disbanding of the troops. The majority of their leaders have, it is said, now realized the necessity for this.

4. to form a second chamber of the Kate or councils which should have the right of initiative and of veto in legislation. It is argued that the Räte system has developed into a genuine political ideal among the proletariat and unless a far-reaching concession of this kind is made to them there will be no possibility of avoiding the worst evil of a Soviet dictatorship.

5. The two strong arguments in favour of such a reconstitution of the government are as follows:

1) It would start with the confidence of the country. The proletarians will feel that “their men” are at the helm and the bourgeois and capitalists have nothing to say. If “their men” cannot do all the workmen expect, they will realize it cannot be done.

2) They will be inclined to sign the peace treaty and the second (or Rate) chamber will be likely to bring pressure to bear on the National Versammlung to do so too. If a deadlock ensues, there must be a referendum to the country.

The present government (at any rate Scheidemann and Rantzau) quite evidently do not intend to sign the peace treaty. A purely socialist government on these lines would be much more likely to do so.

6. If the Entente does not desire to see the whole country thrown into anarchy there remain only these two possibilities:—

1) A military occupation of all Germany by Entente troops. If this were done at once it would not be necessary to send more than 10 or 12 divisions - provided the action were accompanied by skillful propaganda. If it is done only when anarchy has spread further, it will need several armies.

2) A purely socialist Government, regarded as a remodeling of the present government and supported by the Entente in respect of still further supplies of food, concessions as to the independent purchase of food by Germany from Neutrals and the importation of the most necessary raw materials such as cotton, wool, iron-ores etc.

With regard to raw materials, the entente is in a position to control the supply so that only such amounts are imported as a [are] necessary for Germany’s internal needs, so as to avoid any conceivable danger of dumping.

7. Should the Entente Governments decide that such a modification of the present Government is desirable, it is suggested that a hint might be given to Ebert in the form of a confidential note through, say, the Swiss Minister to the effect that “The Associated Governments are inclined to form the opinion, on the basis of information received, that the government in its present form does not enjoy the confidence or represent the feelings of the people, that under the circumstances they feel that its signature to the peace treaty does not afford a sufficient guarantee for its execution, and that though the Associated Governments are far from having any desire to interfere in Germany’s political affairs, they feel they are entitled to the assurance that the position of the government with which they are to negotiate is perfectly clear.”

8. A reconstitution of the Government on the above lines would certainly clear the political atmosphere, and would make it possible that peace be signed. It could not however stand more than a month, unless its position were strengthened by an immediate announcement from the Entente that the necessities of the industrial situation were realized and raw materials in considerable quantities were introduced.

Jimbuna

04-21-19, 07:13 AM

21st April 1919

Polish Army entering the city of Wilno (Vilnius, Lithuania) after taking the city from the Russian Red Army.
https://i.imgur.com/EuO1yGe.png

Jules Védrines, French aviator known for being the first pilot to fly faster than 100 mph, is killed in an aviation accident.
https://i.imgur.com/NKVW2g1.jpg

British soldiers and German children enjoying a carousel ride at Easter fair in occupied Cologne, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/URfTjcL.jpg

New York: The 332nd Infantry marches up Fifth Avenue on their way to Central Park, where they will receive medals from the Italian Attache for fighting in Italy against the Austrians.
https://i.imgur.com/PhkimsN.jpg

Ship Losses:

AG-21 (Imperial Russian Navy White Movement) The AG-class submarine was scuttled at Sevastopol by the British.

Sailor Steve

04-21-19, 10:16 PM

Monday, April 21, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. M Pichon says that the first item on the agenda paper concerned the enrollment of German subjects in foreign armies. The following article has been drafted by Mr Lansing for insertion in the Treaty of Peace:

“Germany hereby agrees from and after the signature of the present treaty not to accredit to any foreign country or [Page 597]to send or to allow any military mission to leave its territory for any foreign country, and Germany further agrees to take appropriate measures to prevent German nationals from leaving its territory to become enrolled in the army of any foreign power or to be attached to such army for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof, or otherwise for the purpose of giving military, naval, or aeronautic instruction in any foreign country.

The Allied and Associated Powers agree, on their part, from and after the signature of the present treaty not to enroll in their armies, or to attach to their armies or naval or air forces, any German national, for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof, or otherwise to employ any such German national as military, naval or aeronautic instructor; and the Allied and Associated Powers further agree not to enroll or employ as aforesaid, any former German national.”

M Pichon, continuing, says that he understands that the draft article will apply only and solely to military instructors, and on that understanding he would be prepared to accept it. He will, however, be glad to have an assurance on that point.

Mr Lansing replies that M Pichon has correctly interpreted the intention of the article. It is merely intended that Germans should not be employed as instructors in any armies. He himself, would however, be quite prepared, with M Pichon’s approval, to prohibit the enrollment of any German nationals in foreign armies; and, to give effect to this suggestion, he will propose that the concluding portion of the first paragraph of the draft article be altered to read somewhat as follows:

“… and Germany further agrees to take appropriate measures to prevent German nationals from leaving its territory to become enrolled in the army of any foreign Power or for the purpose of instruction in the military training of such army to be attached thereto, or otherwise for the purpose of giving military, naval, or aeronautic instruction in any foreign country.”

Should this proposal be accepted, he will ask that the whole text should be referred back to the Drafting Committee to be redrafted in such a manner as to prohibit the employment of any German nationals in any army.

M Pichon says that, in his opinion, if the Article is redrafted as suggested by Mr Lansing, it would prevent the enrollment of German nationals in the French Foreign Legion. He would point out that according to the existing regulations no inquiries were made as to the nationality of men wishing to join the Foreign Legion; but he agrees that the men so enrolled cannot be defined as instructors.

Mr Lansing expresses the view that the procedure followed by France in regard to their recruitment for the Foreign Legion would, if retained, leave a very wide door for the enrollment of Germans in large numbers by other countries. The American Army, for instance, contained large numbers of Germans; but the United States’ Government are anxious to get rid of them.

M Pichon says that, if Mr Lansing’s proposal were adopted, he could only accept the clause under reserve, for the following reasons. Firstly, recruitment for the French Foreign Legion, constituted a military question, which the President of the Council as War Minister would alone be competent to decide. Secondly, the employment of any German nationals in foreign armies constituted a political question, which he thought would have to be submitted to the Council of Four for final decision. Subject to those reservations, he was prepared to accept the draft clause.

Mr Lansing suggests that a new paragraph should be drafted, whereby the Germans would further agree not to admit into Germany persons of foreign nationality either for instruction at a military school or for the purpose of receiving military instruction of any kind.

S de Martino inquires what is the correct interpretation to be given to the last four words of the draft article, namely: “any former German national”, particularly in regard to the word “former”. If those words are intended to mean that Germans who had acquired the nationality of a new country would be excluded from enrollment in the army of the country of their allegiance, he thinks very important questions of national law would thereby be involved, and very serious difficulties would arise.

Mr Lansing agreed with S de Martino, and suggests that the words quoted might be modified to read as follows: “Any person of German origin naturalized after the signature of the Treaty of Peace.”

Lord Robert Cecil asks why so much importance is attached by Mr Lansing to the second paragraph of the draft article. He asks why the Allied and Associated Powers should not be left a free hand in the matter.

M Pichon agrees. Furthermore, he wishes to point out that the clause would be in entire contradiction with the existing laws of France, which allow the enrollment of volunteers after naturalization. In his opinion, the second paragraph as it stands at present cannot be accepted as long as the present laws exist in France.

Mr Lansing points out that unless some regulation to that effect were included in the draft article, certain nations not represented at that Meeting, whose armies had always been organised by German instructors, would continue to employ such instructors, merely naturalizing them for the purpose.

M Pichon agrees. On the other hand, he thinks it would be impossible to adopt a text which would be in direct contradiction with the existing laws of the country.

Lord Hardinge inquired whether the difficulty would not be met by omitting the last two lines of the draft article, namely, the words: “and the Allied and Associated Powers further agree not to enroll or employ as aforesaid, any former German national.”

(This is agreed to.)

(It is agreed to accept the following draft article, which will be referred to the Council of Four for final decision in view of the reservation made by M Pichon.

“Germany hereby agrees from and after the signature of the present treaty not to accredit to any foreign country or to send or to allow any military mission to leave its territory for any foreign country, and Germany further agrees to take appropriate measures to prevent German nationals from leaving its territory to become enrolled in the army of any foreign power or to be attached to such army for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof, or otherwise for the purpose of giving military, naval or aeronautic instruction in any foreign country.

The Allied and Associated Powers agree, on their part, from and after the signature of the present treaty not to enroll in their armies, or to attach to their armies or naval or air forces, any German national, for the purpose of assisting in the military training thereof, or otherwise to employ any such German national as military, naval or aeronautic instructor.”)

2 M Pichon says that the next question on the Agenda Paper relates to the creation of a German Commission at or near Paris to facilitate the conduct of economic negotiations. The following memorandum dated April 15th 1919, submitted by the Supreme Economic Council had been circulated to the delegates of the Five Great Powers:

“With a view to facilitating, giving unity to, and expediting the current negotiations in Germany of the Associated and Allied Powers, in connection with the provision of foodstuffs to Germany, the Supreme Economic Council strongly recommends that the German Government shall be requested to send immediately to a place to be designated in the very near neighborhood of Paris technical experts on food, shipping, finance, raw materials, trade, and communications.

These delegates should be entrusted by their Government with full power to decide on all questions arising out of the provision of foodstuffs to Germany and on immediate economic relations with Germany.

They should be provided with proper and sufficient means of communication with their Government and with all necessary facilities to enable business to be transacted conveniently and rapidly.”

(It is agreed to accept the proposal to establish a German Commission at or near Paris to facilitate the conduct of economic negotiations, as above proposed.)

3. M Pichon said that a memorandum has been submitted by the Supreme Economic Council dealing with such questions as are not economic in their nature, and fall therefore outside the scope of the Supreme Economic Council. The proposals contained in the memorandum had received the approval of the French authorities. Briefly those proposals could be summed up as follows:

“1) That an Inter-Allied Commission, consisting of four Commissioners, one from each Ally concerned with the administration of the occupied territories, should, together with an Italian liaison officer, be set up with full authority to co-ordinate the administration of the four Army Commands on all economic, industrial and food questions, in accordance with the policy laid down from time to time by the Supreme Economic Council.

2) That orders should be issued under the authority of the Supreme War Council to the Army Commands in the various areas, that directions given by the Commission shall be uniformly executed throughout the whole area.”

Mr Lansing inquires for what period of time the proposed Inter-Allied Commission will be expected to function.

M Pichon explains that the Supreme Economic Council had only been created for the period of the armistice. Consequently, as soon as the Peace Treaty came to be signed, the armistice will end, and the Supreme Economic Council would cease to function, unless steps were taken to prolong its existence. The same procedure would obviously apply to the new proposed Inter-Allied Commission.

Lord Robert Cecil agrees.

Mr Lansing said that on that understanding he is quite willing to accept the proposals contained in the memorandum submitted by the Supreme Economic Council for the Council of Ten.

(It is agreed to accept the proposals contained in the Memorandum submitted by the Supreme Economic Council.)

(The Meeting then adjourns to Tuesday afternoon April 22nd at 15.00.)

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. Mr Lloyd George tells President Wilson the suggestion he made at the end of the meeting in the morning*, namely that, in order to give Italy the strategical requirements for her defense, which is the principal case on which the claim for Dalmatia is based, she should be allowed to have the islands off the coast, but not the mainland. Mr Philip Kerr, he said, had met a Yugoslav, who had told him that if the Italians hold Fiume the Yugoslavs will fight them. If they hold Dalmatia there will be sniping. But that he had not expressed any strong views about the islands.

President Wilson says that he himself had talked about the island of Cherso with M Trumbitch, who had pointed out that, owing to its position across the Gulf of Fiume, the Italians, if they held it, would make trouble up and down the Gulf.

Mr Lloyd George suggested that, if the Italians held Cherso, there ought to be a stipulation that the channel between that island and Istria should not be regarded as territorial waters. There should be some clause providing for free access through the channel except in time of war.

President Wilson says even then there should be free access if the Yugoslavs are neutral.

Mr Lloyd George says M Clemenceau, to whom he had spoken, is convinced that the Italians would not accept his proposal. He suggests, therefore, that perhaps Baron Sonnino could be induced to agree by some offer in Asia Minor.

At Mr Lloyd George’s request, M Clemenceau produces a map giving a new scheme for the distribution of mandates in Turkey, whereby Italy would secure a mandate over a considerable part of Anatolia touching territory mandated to Greece in the region of Smyrna, and the territory mandated with Constantinople, and Armenia.

President Wilson says the real trouble is that the Greeks and everyone else appear to dread the Italians as neighbors. The Patriarch of Constantinople had called on him the other day and had expressed strong objections to having the Italians as neighbors. He feels great care will have to be exercised in this matter for inasmuch as we are endeavoring to secure the peace of the world we cannot enter into any arrangement that will not make for peace.

Mr Lloyd George suggests there should be an Italian sphere of influence such as the British had in various parts of the world.

President Wilson says that the British Empire, through a long experience, has learned all sorts of lessons and gained all sorts of ideas in administration of this kind, and does not interfere unduly. The Italians, however, have no such experience. The Italians also have no ethnological claim to this territory, such as the Greeks have. In the case of the Greeks, we only desire to make them comfortable masters in their own home. The Italians have not inherited any traditions of colonial administration.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the Italians should merely have a sphere of influence and it should be made clear that their authority is limited to commercial and railway development, and that they are not to interfere with the people more than necessary.

President Wilson points out the trouble is that the Turks could not govern anyone.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Turks do not interfere much in railways; they are a quiet docile people except towards Armenians and those whom they do not like.

M Clemenceau agrees with this.

President Wilson points out that he does not like, as it were, paying the Italians for something they have no right to.

Mr Lloyd George points out that there is some strength in the Italian case that they had come into the war on the basis of a certain agreement and that Baron Sonnino’s position would be extremely difficult if it were not fulfilled.

M Clemenceau points out the inaccuracy of statements that had been made to the effect that the Italians could have obtained almost as much from Austria without fighting as they were going to obtain in the Treaty as at present contemplated. He had consulted the Green Book on the subject and found that in fact they had been offered very little.

President Wilson suggests that perhaps the Italians might take the line their position being what it was they must go home and report to their Parliament and ask for instructions.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that it is better politically for them to present Parliament with an accomplished fact. Supposing he were to go and ask the British Parliament for instructions about indemnities, the position would not be very satisfactory. It is better to give Parliament a lead in matters like this.

President Wilson suggests that the Italians will not be in the position of having to say to their Parliament: We have surrendered. On the contrary, they could say: We refused to surrender, but we now want your advice.

There is some further discussion at this point on the subject of the Italian Parliamentary position and generally as to the attitude to be taken towards the Italians in the existing position. It is eventually agreed that Sir Maurice Hankey should be sent to deliver a verbal message to S Orlando and Baron Sonnino, reminding them of Mr Lloyd George’s proposal made at the end of the morning meeting, which they had now had some time to consider, and asking if they would consider it worth while to meet their colleagues and discuss the question on this basis.

Sir Maurice Hankey reports that he had seen S Orlando, Baron Sonnino and Count Aldrovandi. He had delivered his message in the very words that President Wilson had used. After recalling Mr Lloyd George’s proposal made at the morning meeting, which they had had some hours to consider, he had asked whether they would consider it worth while to discuss the question of the Italian claims on the basis of the cession of a series of strategic islands off the coast. S Orlando had asked him if he could give the proposal in writing, but he had replied that he had only authority to deliver a verbal message. The proposal had not commended itself to S Orlando and Baron Sonnino, who had absolutely rejected it as a basis for discussion. They had said that, of course, they were always prepared to discuss anything with their colleagues if asked to do so, but they would be in the wrong if they encouraged any hopes that this could be a basis for a solution. S Orlando had elaborated his objections to the proposal a little. He had explained that even from the point of view of defense in its narrower strategic aspects the proposal did not commend itself. He had, however, always regarded defense in the wider aspect of the defense of the Italian populations in the towns on the east of the Adriatic. He mentioned in this connection especially Fiume, but also referred to Zara and Sebenico. Questioned as to the precise terms of Mr Lloyd George’s suggestion, Sir Maurice Hankey says he had been given to understand that it did not include islands such as Pago, which were almost part of the mainland, but would doubtless include the other islands allotted to Italy in the Treaty of London. Sir Maurice Hankey mentions that S Orlando had said that the question had rather retrograded within the last two days, owing to the proposal for the establishment of a free port and city at Fiume similar to that to be established at Danzig having been dropped.

On the conclusion of Sir Maurice Hankey’s statement there is some discussion as to the desirability of President Wilson publishing a statement on the subject which he had prepared.

M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George urge that he should not do so. Their grounds for this are that the statement rather assumed that Italy had closed the door to an agreement and will be regarded as a final act. It will make it difficult for Italy to recede from her position.

President Wilson points out that his statement as drafted does not close the door to negotiations, but in deference to his colleagues he agrees not to publish immediately.

2. President Wilson reports a conversation he had that morning with Baron Makino and Count Chinda. He had made the suggestion that Mr. Lansing had already made at the Council of Foreign Ministers, namely, that all claims in the Pacific should be ceded to the Allied and Associated Powers as trustees leaving them to make fair and just dispositions. He had, at the same time, reminded the Japanese Delegates that it had been understood that Japan was to have a mandate for the islands in the north Pacific although he had made a reserve in the case of the island of Yap, which he himself considered should be international. He had suggested that, similarly, in the case of Kiauchau, where there was a definite Treaty relating to Kiau-Chau and Shantung, Japan should place the question in the hands of the 5 Powers. He had asked whether there could not be some modification of the Treaty with the consent of both parties. The Powers have no right to force Japan but they have the right to try and persuade her to make some agreement with China on the subject. The Japanese had been very stiff about it. They had said that they would return Kiauchau to China, the only reservation being the retention of a residential section and a free port for China. In regard to the railway, they surrendered all control except the joint interest with China in the railway and certain concessions. He had pointed out that China had no capital and had asked whether in that event China could take advantage of this position. They had replied that she could and quoted another instance where they had for 10 years shared some concern of the kind with China, which was run on the same lines. They were absolutely set on obliging China to carry out the bond. They insisted that Germany should resign the whole of her interests in Kiauchau to the Japanese and that the Powers should trust Japan to carry out her bargain with China.

Mr Lloyd George asks why Japan should have a different treatment in regard to Kiauchau to what other Powers had in respect to German colonies.

President Wilson says the reason is because in the Treaty it had been made clear that the transfer was to precede the return of the territory to China.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that it ought to be ceded by the League of Nations.

President Wilson says that the Japanese are too proud to accept this solution. He had then repeated to the Japanese the proposal he had already made to his colleagues that the spheres of influence in China should be abrogated. They had replied that they were ready to do this. They had defined spheres of influence to include the right of putting in troops and extraterritoriality. He thinks it would be a great thing if we could get rid of the right of Japan to maintain troops in Kiauchau.

Mr Lloyd George says that he thinks it is very important that in the Treaty with Germany all the Powers should be put on the same footing. Japan should not have a special position.

President Wilson then read the notes which had been exchanged between China and Japan. The first note from Japan to China had been sent before the entry of China into the war and had been to the effect that when, after the war, the leased territory had been left to the free disposal of Japan the latter would restore it to China under conditions which included a free port in Kiauchau Bay: a concession for Japan; the disposal of property is to be effected by mutual arrangement between the two countries. China’s answer had merely been to take note and President Wilson did not think the Government had accepted. Another declaration had been made by Japan on September 24th, 1918. Japan then proposed to adjust the questions in Shantung on the following lines:

1) All Japanese troops, except those at Chinan Fu the terminus of the line, to be withdrawn to Tsingtau.

2) The Chinese Government to be allowed to organise a police force for the railway.

3) The railway to pay for this police.

4) The Japanese to be represented at the headquarters of the police, at the various stations, and at the training establishments for the police.

5) Part of the staff of the railway to be Japanese.

6) The railway to become a Chino-Japanese enterprise.

7)
The Japanese civil administration to be abolished.

The Chinese reply had been that she was “pleased to agree in the above mentioned articles.” Thus it was not a Treaty but an exchange of notes.

Mr Lloyd George says that he can see no ground for differentiating in the case of Japan. This territory should be placed on exactly the same footing as all other German territory.

President Wilson says that to be perfectly fair to the Japanese he thinks they will interpret this as a challenge of their good faith. He had put it to the Japanese representatives that the peace of the Far East depended more on Chino-Japanese relations than on anything else. China is full of riches. It is clearly to the advantage of Japan to take the most generous position towards China and to show herself as a friend. The interest of the world in China was the “open door”. The Japanese had assented and expressed benevolent intentions.

Mr Lloyd George points out that it is the triumph of the Great Powers in the west that enabled Japan to make this arrangement. He feels strongly that Japan should be in the same position as other States. Otherwise other nations could insist on the same right.

(It is arranged that the next meeting should take place on the following morning at 11:00. M Clemenceau says that he hopes by that time he will have a reply from the Germans. It is agreed that this is a question which will properly be discussed with the Japanese. As, however, M Clemenceau has certain questions relating to the Western Front to raise, Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to invite the Japanese for 11:30. He is also authorized to telephone to Count Aldrovandi to let him know of the Meeting that has been arranged.)

*The Minutes of this morning's Meeting are not in the Records

Jimbuna

04-22-19, 01:29 PM

22nd April 1919

Armed workers’ militia march in Munich. Bavaria is currently controlled by the Communist Party of Germany and fighting against the anti-Communist Freikorps.
https://i.imgur.com/9Feo8X3.jpg

Carrier pigeon Cher Ami who carried messages on the Verdun front on trips that averaged 30 km in 24 minutes. She lost her leg carrying messages from the “Lost Battalion” of the US 77th Division.
https://i.imgur.com/42H1L4V.jpg

American soldiers march past the “Victory pyramid” made up of captured German helmets in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/ADtFOBH.jpg

San Francisco hosts one of the most joyous parties ever seen on Market Street as thousands of soldiers returned from World War I. The 91st Division, nicknamed the Wild West Division, had been in France for more than a year, fighting in the Ypres-Lys and Meuse-Argonne offensives.
https://i.imgur.com/MpQQ71u.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 06:00 AM

Tuesday, April 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four

1. It is agreed that:

Alsace-Lorraine Draft Articles prepared by the French Government in regard to Alsace-Alsace-Lorraine should be examined in the firs instance by a Committee composed as follows:

Dr. Haskins, for the United States of America.
Mr. Headlam-Morley, for the British Empire.
M. Tardieu, for France.

2. President Wilson informs his colleagues that M Orlando has sent word that he is unable to be present.

3. M Clemenceau hands Mr Lloyd George a copy of a letter he had written to the Emir Feisal. The Emir Feisal Commission had replied that he was satisfied and that he expected soon to be back in Paris. M Clemenceau undertakes to give Mr Lloyd George a copy of the Emir Feisal’s letter. He asks what is to be done about the Commission.

Mr Lloyd George says that he thinks the Commission should soon start. It is settled so far as he was concerned.

4. M Clemenceau hands round copies of the German official reply to the last communication in regard to their coming to Versailles. He says that he cannot undertake to guarantee to the Germans entire free intercourse.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that they must have communication with their Government at Weimar.

M Clemenceau agrees.

President Wilson says that was all they asked for.

M Clemenceau says that he will have to take precautions that they should not have free movement at Versailles as there would be a serious danger of their being mobbed. He is responsible for their safety. At M Clemenceau’s request President Wilson drafts the following note on which the reply should be based:

“The Allied and Associated Powers will, of course, grant to the German Delegates full freedom of movement for the execution of their mission and unrestricted telegraphic communication with their Government.”

(This is agreed to.)

5. M Clemenceau hands round a draft representing the agreement reached as regards the demilitarization of the west bank of the Rhine.

President Wilson says he has already communicated it to Sir Maurice Hankey.

Mr Lloyd George agrees that it is comprehensive enough.

The draft is approved and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to send it to the Secretary-General for the Drafting Committee.

6. M Clemenceau hands round the “Articles concerning Guarantees of Execution of the Treaty of Treaty”, which has already been agreed to by President Wilson on April 20th.

Mr Lloyd George comments on the length of the period contemplated for occupation, namely, 15 years, which seems considerable. He supposes that the British Government is not asked to keep troops there so long.

M Clemenceau says all he asks is a battalion with the flag.

Mr Lloyd George says he must insist on the difficulty which the British Government would have in maintaining any larger number of troops. The people of England insisted on the disappearance of compulsory service immediately the war was over. He had had considerable difficulties at home since the election owing to the extension of compulsory service for 12 months.

M Clemenceau draws attention to the words “by International forces” in Article I, which apparently had not been included in the copy he had left with President Wilson. He said he could not go to his people and say that there were no forces of the Allied and Associated Powers. He only asks for a flag to be shown.

Mr Lloyd George asks if 15 years was the maximum. He hoped it was not conditioned by the extension of the Treaty. Indemnities, for example, could not be paid within 15 years. He hopes he understood correctly that there would not be any question of retaining forces after that,

M Clemenceau says that is not the intention.

The document is agreed to and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for the Drafting Committee.

7. M Clemenceau hands round a document entitled “Treaty between France and the United States”, which had been approved by him and President Wilson on April 20th.

President Wilson explains to Mr Lloyd George that he had made a point that it was not wise in this matter to have a tripartite agreement but a Treaty between the United States of America and France and another Treaty between Great Britain and France.

Mr Lloyd George said he thinks that would do for Great Britain and instructs Sir Maurice Hankey to show it to Mr Balfour.

Subject to Mr Balfour’s agreement, this is accepted.

(Mr Balfour agreed to it after the Meeting.)

8. M Clemenceau hands round an Article concerning the independence of German-Austria.

This is accepted and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for the Drafting Committee.

9. M Clemenceau reminds President Wilson that he had undertaken to complete the Articles in regard to Danzig in accordance with certain alterations that had been agreed.

President Wilson then produces the document and proposed that it should be sent direct to the Drafting Committee.

Mr Lloyd George agrees and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward the document to the Secretary-General for the Drafting Committee.

10. President Wilson asks Mr Lloyd George if the British Government were sending additional troops to Archangel. He had had a communication from General Bliss which seemed to indicate that the local British Command instead of contemplating withdrawal intended to take steps to link up the Russian forces in the north with those in Siberia, which would involve an advance to Kotlas and Viatka. General Bliss’s communication had also suggested that 12,000 British reinforcements were being sent.

Mr Lloyd George says he thinks there must be some misunderstanding. Great importance is attached to secrecy in regard to the withdrawal from north Russia and possibly this is some local bluff to convey the impression that no withdrawal was intended. He does not think that the reinforcements contemplated were nearly so large. He will undertake to inquire into the matter.

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 07:00 AM

Tuesday, April 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 11:30

Meeting of the Council of Four

President Wilson explains that M Orlando had written to say that he was unable to be present.

1. Baron Makino reads the following statement:

"In January last I had the privilege to present and explain before the Supreme Council Japan’s claims which we deemed as just and fair in the light of the circumstances which led Japan to take part in the war and of the actual situations created or found in the regions to which the claims related. I wish to take advantage of the opportunity now offered me to explain more fully that part of our claims which relates to the leased territory of Kiao-chow and Germany’s rights in respect of Shantung province. As will be remembered the Japanese Government sent an ultimatum to Germany on the 15th of August 1914, inviting her to unconditionally hand over the territory to Japan which she intended to restore to China. Germany failed to give answer within the specified time limit and this obliged Japan to have recourse to military and naval forces. In all those steps we acted in consultation and co-operation with England.

The German stronghold at Kiaochow was captured on the 7th of November, 1914, and has, together with the Shantung Railway, remained to this day under Japanese occupation.

Looking to the eventual termination of the war, Japan approached China in January, 1915, with a view to reaching beforehand an agreement as to the basis of the restitution to China of the leased territory of Kiaochow and of disposing other German rights in relation to Shantung, so that Germany might find no pretext to refuse acquiescence in Japan’s demands at the final peace conference and that she might not find it possible to recover her influence in China, thereby becoming again a grave menace to the peace of the Far East.

As a result of the negotiations that ensued, a treaty respecting the Province of Shantung, accompanied by an exchange of notes, was signed on the 25th of May, 1915. In that treaty China engaged to recognize all matters that might be agreed upon between the Japanese Government and the German Government respecting the disposition of all the rights, interests and concessions, which Germany possessed vis-a-vis China in relation to the Province of Shantung.

By the exchange of notes, Japan declared to China her willingness, in case she acquired the rights of free disposal of the leased territory of Kiaochow, to restore it to China on the following conditions:

1) Opening of the whole of Kiaochow as commercial port;

2) Establishment of a Japanese settlement in the locality to be designated by the Japanese Government;

3) Establishment, if desired by the Powers, of an international settlement;

4) Arrangement to be made, before the return of the said territory is effected, between the Japanese and Chinese Governments, with respect to the disposal of German public establishments and properties and with regard to the other conditions and procedures.

These terms explain themselves, but a few words on some of the points may be found useful. The Japanese settlement, or concession, whose establishment is provided for under condition 2, refers to only a part of urban District to be set apart from the settling of Japanese as well as other nationalities, including Chinese, under a special system and jurisdiction that are found in many of the principal open ports or marts of China.

In reference to the words “the other conditions and procedures”, found in condition 4, I may state that they refer to those minor working conditions and procedures to be determined and observed in effecting the restitution of the Leased Territory to China.

Early in the year 1917, Japan began, in conjunction with her Allied Powers, to direct her efforts in inducing China to sever relations with, and if possible to declare war against Germany. China severed her diplomatic relations with Germany on the 14th of March, 1917, and finally on the 14th of August of the same year, she declared war against the latter; that was more than two years after the signing of the aforementioned treaty between Japan and China had taken place.

Later, on the 24th of September, 1918, more than one year after the declaration of war by China and more than three years after the conclusion of the agreement of the 25th of May, 1915, the Chinese Minister at Tokyo exchanged with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan a series of notes, the translations of which have already been presented to the Supreme Council. The notes provide, among other things, for the withdrawal of the Japanese Civil Administration, the management of the Tsingtao-Chinan Railway as a joint Sino-Japanese undertaking upon determination of its ownership, and the guarding and policing of the Railway. The Chinese Minister also solicited the aid of the Japanese Government in the matter of arranging for loans for building two railway lines connecting with the Tsingtao-Chinan Railway and practically coinciding with the lines projected by Germany. To this, the Japanese government consented. The preliminary contract covering these loans was made between the Chinese Government and the Japanese bankers, and the Chinese government actually received from the bankers an advance of twenty million yen according to the terms of this contract.

From the aforementioned facts which I have attempted to lay out as clearly as possible, it will be seen:

First, that Japan has undertaken to restore Kiaochow to China on conditions, none of which can be regarded in any sense as unjust or unfair, considering the part Japan took in dislodging Germany from Shantung.

Secondly, that the declaration of war by China against Germany could have no relation whatever to the validity of the treaty and the appended agreement which was concluded between Japan and China more than two years prior to the declaration of war, nor could it alter or affect in any wise the situation in connection with which the aforesaid treaty and agreement were made.

Thirdly, that the arrangements of September 1918, which were made more than one year after China’s declaration of war, could not have been entered into without presupposing the existence and validity of the treaty of May 1915. Some of the provisions of the former dealt with the subject-matters or furthered the aims, set forth in the latter. In fact, the arrangements of 1918 were intended to be, and are, a supplement and sequel to the treaty of 1915. It is to be noted that China has actually received the advance of twenty million yen according to the terms of the above arrangements.

To those summaries and deductions, I may add that as between Japan and China there is a well-defined course laid out, for effecting the restitution. Any other course, could be against the definite arrangement which has been agreed to between the two governments concerned. What Japan now seeks is to obtain from Germany the rights of free disposal of the leased territory and Germany’s rights, privileges and concessions in relation to Shantung for carrying out the provisions of the treaty of 1915 as well as of the arrangements of 1918.

It is claimed that the declaration of war abrogates ipso facto treaties of lease of territory. Such a claim can not be regarded as warranted by the established rules of International Law. From the very nature of the Lease Convention, which provides for the exercise by Germany of rights of Sovereignty within the territory the lease of Kiaochow may be regarded as a cession pure and simple with the exception of the time limit of 99 years. And it is commonly accepted principle that a declaration of war does not abrogate a treaty of cession or other territorial arrangements.

I feel firmly convinced that full justice will be done to the claims of Japan based upon her sacrifices and achievement and upon the fact of actual occupation, involving the sense of national honor.

I now beg to submit to you a draft containing the clauses to be embodied in the Preliminary Peace Treaty with Germany."

Baron Makino then hands around a draft of the clauses which the Japanese Delegation wished to have included in the Peace Treaty with Germany. He said it has been based on similar clauses inserted in other treaties.

President Wilson asks whether the following cables, mentioned in Article I were referred to in the original concession by China of Kiauchau to Germany, viz:

Tsingtao-Shanghai and Tsingtao-Chefoo.

Baron Makino replies they were German concession, though not in the original concession. He says they are Government cables.

President Wilson asked if they are submarine all the way to Shantung.

Baron Makino says they were the same line - a continuation of the same line.

President Wilson says that he has already taken the liberty of describing as well as he could to M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George what happened in his conversation with Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda. Their minds, therefore, are in the midst of the subject. He had laid what was in his own mind before all present. He does not know what was the impression formed by Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau.

Mr Lloyd George says that so far as Great Britain is concerned they are in the same position towards Japan as towards Italy. They have a definite engagement with Japan, as recorded in the Note of the British Ambassador at Tokyo, dated 16th February, 1917. Hence, so far as Great Britain is concerned, there is a definite engagement. The only doubt he feels is as to whether the ultimate destination of Kiauchau is a matter for inclusion in the Treaty with Germany.

In the case of the other German possessions in the Far East the Japanese Government has undertaken to support the British claims South of the Equator, and the British Government has undertaken to support the Japanese claims in the islands North of the Equator. So far as Great Britain is concerned, it is not proposed to press for the immediate allocation of the mandates for these islands, but only for their surrender by Germany to the Allied and Associated Powers. The allocation is left for settlement afterwards.

When the time comes, we should have to press the claims of Australia and New Zealand to the islands South of the Equator.

Baron Makino says that Japan has expressed her willingness to support the British claims.

Mr Lloyd George points out that if the Japanese claims for the surrender of Kiauchau by Germany are put in the Treaty, Australia might demand the same treatment as regards the islands South of the Equator, and South Africa might make the same claim as regards German South-West Africa. There is hardly time to settle all these details before the treaty with Germany.

Viscount Chinda said that he does not know if Mr Lloyd George had in mind that the leased territory of Kiauchau should be put on the same basis of the mandatory system as the South Pacific Islands. In that case the Japanese Delegation thinks that Kiauchau ought to be on a definite basis. The mandatory system rested on the basis that those islands are in a state of civilization which necessitates their being taken care of by other people. This does not apply to the case of Kiauchau.

Mr Lloyd George says that is true.

Viscount Chinda, continuing, asks if it is merely proposed to postpone this question: to put it in abeyance? The Japanese Delegation are under an express order for the case that the question was not settled. The Japanese Government has a duty to perform to China in this matter, and they cannot carry out their obligation to China unless Kiauchau is handed over to them. The Japanese Delegates are under an express instruction from their Government that unless they were placed in a position to carry out Japan’s obligation to China, they are not allowed to sign the Treaty. Consequently, they have no power to agree to a postponement of this question.

Baron Makino says that if the Treaty is ignored, it would be a very serious matter for Japan.

Viscount Chinda says it seems to them to be a very simple question in its nature. No long deliberations were involved. They cannot persuade themselves that the question is one that ought to be postponed.

President Wilson asks if it would be possible for the Japanese Government more particularly to define the arrangements she would expect to maintain with China in the Shantung Province. In the paper he had been given, the statements were sufficiently explicit as regards the town of Kiauchau and the bay of Kiauchau, but not so explicit in regard to the railway and the administration.

Viscount Chinda says that the notes explain that the administration of the railway would be a joint undertaking.

President Wilson says it is not very explicit. Some further definition is required of the term “joint administration”. The document is explicit about the establishment of a police force by China towards the cost of which the railway would make a contribution. He understood that at each station, by which he supposed was meant railway station, as well as at the training school, there would be Japanese. The document did not explain the position to be taken by these Japanese.

Viscount Chinda says he thinks they were only intended to be instructors. He pointed out that there were many foreign instructors in the Chinese administrations.

Mr Lloyd George says there are, in the Customs, for example.

President Wilson says this is part of a series of things which had been imposed on China.

Mr Lloyd George says they had asked for the Customs officials.

President Wilson says they had done so after a certain experience. He is fairly clear about the railway concession. He asks if there were not included in the lease to Germany certain concessions about exploitations.

Viscount Chinda suggests mines.

Baron Makino says the mines were amalgamated into the railway.

Viscount Chinda says there were three mines.

Baron Makino says that the mines had not paid, and had therefore been amalgamated in the railway, mainly for the use of the railway. The coal was not of very good quality. Germany had given up their concessions. One of the mines is not of much value.

President Wilson asks if there are any great iron deposits.

Mr Lloyd George suggests they had not been made much use of.

President Wilson agrees, not up to the present.

Mr. Lloyd George says he fears that if this arrangement is included in the Treaty, the question of mandatories would have to be settled. This might create difficulties and delays. Other interested parties might complain if this were not done when the Treaty handed over Kiauchau to Japan.

President Wilson says that Viscount Chinda’s answer to this had been that the islands were in such state of development as to require someone to look after them, whereas Kiauchau is the case of a concession in a self-governing country. He asked Viscount Chinda if the railway was a joint enterprise with China.

Viscount Chinda replies in the affirmative.

Baron Makino says that Japan has already worked joint undertakings very well with China. In the case of the Sino-Japanese Timber Company, for example, where Japan and China had the same number on the Directorate and where the dividends were paid in equal proportions. There were several similar concerns, the directorates always consisting of equal numbers of both nationals.

President Wilson asks if there are any restrictions on these railways. His interest was to keep open the door with China.

Baron Makino says there is nothing in the agreement with China against the open door.

President Wilson points out that, as has happened in many instances, he is the only one present whose judgment was entirely independent. His colleagues are both bound by Treaties, although perhaps he might be entitled to question whether Great Britain and Japan had been justified in handing round the islands in the Pacific. This, however, was a private opinion.

Mr Lloyd George points out that there were only the German islands.

President Wilson points out that in the circumstances he is the only independent party present. He would like to repeat the point of view which he had urged on the Japanese Delegation a few days before. He is so firmly convinced that the Peace of the Far East centers upon China and Japan that he is more interested from this point of view than any other. He does not wish to see complex engagements that fetter free determination. He is anxious that Japan should show to the world as well as to China that she wants to give the same independence to China as other nations possessed; that she does not want China to be held in manacles. What would prejudice the peace in the Far East was any relationship that was not trustful. It is already evident that there was not that relationship of mutual trust that is necessary if peace was to be ensured in the Far East. What he fears is that Japan, by standing merely on her treaty rights, would create the impression that she was thinking more of her rights than of her duties to China. The world would never have peace based on treaty rights only unless there were also recognized to be reciprocal duties between States. Perhaps he is going a little too fast in existing circumstances but he wishes to emphasize the importance in the future that States should think primarily of their duties towards each other. The central idea of the League of Nations is that States must support each other even when their interests are not involved. When the League of Nations is formed then there will be established a body of partners covenanted to stand up for each other’s rights. The position in which he would like to see Japan, already the most advanced nation in the Far East with the leadership in enterprise and policy, is that of the leader in the Far East standing out for these new ideas. There can be no finer nor more politic role for her. That was what he has to say as the friend of Japan. When he had seen the Japanese Delegates two days ago he had said that he was not proposing that Kiauchau should be detached from the treaty engagements but that it should be ceded to the Powers as trustees with the understanding that all they were going to do was to ask how the treaties were to be carried out and to offer advice as to how this could best be done by mutual agreement. The validity of treaties cannot be called in question if they are modified by agreements between both sides. What he is after is to attain a more detailed definition as to how Japan is going to help China as well as to afford an opportunity for investment in railways etc. He had hoped that by pooling their interest the several nations that had gained foothold in China (a foothold that is to the detriment of China’s position in the world) might forego the special position they had acquired and that China might be put on the same footing as other nations, as sooner or later she must certainly be. He believes this to be to the interest of everyone concerned. There is a lot of combustible material in China and if flames were put to it the fire could not be quenched for China had a population of four hundred million people. It is symptoms of that which fill him with anxiety. Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda know how deep-seated is the feeling of reverence of China towards Shantung which was the most sacred Chinese Province and he dreads starting a flame there because this reverence is based upon the very best motives and owing to the traditions of Confucius and the foundations of intellectual development. He does not wish to interfere with treaties. As Mr Lloyd George had remarked earlier, the war had been partly undertaken in order to establish the sanctity of treaties. Although he yields to no-one in this sentiment there are cases he feels where treaties ought not to have been entered into.

Baron Makino, referring to President Wilson’s remarks in regard to the larger ideas of international relationship, says that the best opinion of Japan is at that point of view. For China, the best opinion in Japan wants equal opportunities or the “open door”. He has convinced himself of this and is very glad of it, for he feels it would be to the advantage of both countries. He recalls, however, that international affairs in China have not always been conducted on very just lines.

(Mr Lloyd George interjects that this was undoubtedly the case.)

He does not want to go into past history or to inquire where the responsibility lies, but this has been the source of the present situation. Once the unjust methods had been begun other nations followed. The best opinion, however, in Japan based itself on fairness and justice. Before he left Japan he had had a conversation with one of their older statesmen, who had remarked to him that Japan would have to enter into a good many joint undertakings with China and must content herself to share equally, half in half, in them. This had been one of the most influential men in Japan and he himself shared his views.

President Wilson says that he is satisfied on that point and he hopes Baron Makino will not interpret him to have expressed any doubts. He wants that principle, however, to be shown in a concrete way to China.

Baron Makino then refers to the President’s remarks on Shantung. There, Japan had only entered into an agreement, whereas Germany had assumed almost complete sovereignty. All Germany’s concessions over and above the agreement between Japan and China will now fall through. There remains only the concession mentioned in the Treaty which had already been discussed. Reverting to the larger views expressed by President Wilson he says that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan, in a speech made at the opening of the session (in January he thinks), had sketched the line of policy which was proposed towards China. He had said that the Japanese Government was ready to help and contribute towards anything just that was proposed in China. As regards more concrete matters by which he meant such matters as extraterritoriality, maintenance of foreign troops, spheres of influence and the Boxer Indemnity - the four principal points which China had most at heart - on these matters he gathered from the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Japanese Government is ready to discuss them with the Great Powers. These are concrete matters which can be worked out with the Great Powers. If this can be done it would do much to allay the feelings of injustice and bad tradition that still are lurking in China. Japan would be glad to discuss these questions. Extra territoriality was a matter which would take some time. Japan had accomplished it and China could follow her footsteps. In the matter of prisons, for example, considerable progress has already been made in China. As soon as the Powers felt that they could trust Chinese Courts there need be no delay in rectifying matters.

President Wilson asks what is the idea of Japan as to extra territoriality in the settlement contemplated at Kiaochow.

Baron Makino says that as matters stand extraterritoriality is considered as an established principle all through China. If, however, the principle changed, Kiaochow would form no exception.

President Wilson says that he feels that he realizes the situation in a fuller light than ever before. He asks whether the Japanese representatives would prefer to draw the Chinese representatives into conference in which they would take part or would they prefer that their colleagues should see them separately, as China was a full member of the Peace Conference final judgment could not be passed without seeing them.

Baron Makino says that he does not in the least object to China being heard but he does not want to enter into discussion with them. It is difficult to discuss with people who have preconceived ideas. To remove these needs time and it is difficult to dispel them in one or two conversations. He greatly regrets that they should exist.

Viscount Chinda represents that Japan has the right to be present when the Chinese Delegates attend although her Delegates do not wish to be drawn into discussion.

After some further discussion it is agreed that:

Japan will not exercise her right to be present and that the best plan would be for the discussion with the Chinese representatives to take place in their absence.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the opportunity of the presence of the Japanese delegates should be taken to refer to some of the general questions relating to the Treaty with Germany in which Japan was interested. Up to now the Supreme Council has concerned itself almost entirely with questions of European interest, such as the boundaries of Germany and related questions, the Saar Valley and Danzig. Other more general questions, such as the League of Nations and Labour had been discussed outside in Commissions. Japan had been consulted about the question of breaches of the laws of war. The great outstanding question was compensation and indemnity.

Baron Makino says that Japan is interested in this question. She had lost ships and would have a considerable claim. She has representatives on the Reparation Commission.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Reparation Commission has found great difficulty in reaching agreement; these questions were now being discussed by a special Committee.

President Wilson suggests that the Japanese Delegation should place themselves in communication with Mr. Norman Davis, who is the American representative on a Committee which also included Loucheur, Lord Sumner and M. Crespi.

Baron Makino undertakes to do this.

A few further explanations are given of the progress made in the Treaty of Peace.

Baron Makino says that before the end of the Meeting, he wishes to say one word about the form of restitution of Kiau Chow to Japan. The Japanese Government attaches supreme importance to the form which had been submitted that morning. Today, fresh instructions from Government have been received and he cannot lay too much stress on the matter.

(The Japanese representatives then withdraw.)

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 07:01 AM

Tuesday, April 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (minus Signor Orlando who is unable to attend) with Representatives from China. Signor Orlando cannot be present.

1. President Wilson opens the meeting, saying that the Chinese Plenipotentiaries know the interest he feels in the Kiauchau-Shantung settlement. On the previous day he had a Conference with the Japanese representatives, and this morning they had come to confer. Since he had last seen Mr Koo, he had carefully read the documents, from which he gathered the following was the chain of events.

Before China entered into the war, there had been an exchange of Notes. He thought in 1915 (Mr Koo says it was May 25th). In that exchange of Notes, the Japanese Government had said that when the German rights in Kiauchau were transferred after the war to Japan, Japan would return them to China. The Chinese Government had taken note of this. Subsequently, there had been a further exchange of notes, and he believed, also a treaty although he had only seen Notes, in which the Japanese Government laid down certain conditions. The Chinese Government had accepted these conditions. Great Britain and France (Mr Lloyd George says that this had occurred between the two exchanges of Notes between China and Japan) had entered into a similar but not identical agreement with Japan to the effect that they would support the claims of the Japanese Government on the Continent and in the islands North of the Equator. In the case of the British Government it had been on the understanding that Japan supported her claim to German islands South of the Equator. Hence, Great Britain and France were in much the same position in the matter.

Mr Lloyd George explains that at that time the submarine campaign had become very formidable. Most of the British torpedo-boat-destroyers were in the North Sea, and there was a shortage of those craft in the Mediterranean. Japanese help was urgently required, and Japan had asked for this arrangement to be made. We had been very hard pressed, and had agreed.

President Wilson then reads extracts from the exchange of Notes printed on page 62 of the official Claim of China for direct restitution to herself of the leased territory of Kiauchau, etc., circulated by the Chinese Delegation:

“When, after the termination of the present war, the leased territory of Kiauchau Bay is completely left to the free disposal of Japan, the Japanese Government will restore the said leased territory to China under the following conditions.”

He then reads the following reply of the Chinese Foreign Minister, in which, after rehearsing the whole of the Japanese Note, he had said “In reply, I beg to state that I have taken note of this declaration”. He then reads an extract from page 82, namely, exchange of Notes dated September 24, 1918:

“The Japanese Government, mindful of the amiable relations between our two countries and out of a spirit of friendly co-operation, propose to adjust all the questions relating to Shantung in accordance with the following articles.

1) Japanese troops along the Kiauchow-Chinan railway, except a contingent of them to be stationed at Chinanfu, shall be withdrawn to Tsingtau.

2) The Chinese Government may organize a Police Force to undertake the policing of the Kiauchow-Chinan railway.

3) The Kiauchow-Chinan Railway is to provide a reasonable amount to defray the expense for the maintenance of the above mentioned Police Force.

4) Japanese are to be employed at the Headquarters of the above-mentioned Police Force, at the principal railway stations, and at the Police Training School.

5) Chinese citizens shall be employed by the Kiauchow-Chinan Railway Administration as part of its Staff.

6) The Kiauchau-Chinan Railway, after its ownership is definitely determined, is to be made a Chino-Japanese joint enterprise.

7) The Civil Administration established by Japan and existing now is to be abolished.

The Japanese Government desires to be advised of the attitude of your Government regarding the above-mentioned proposal.”

To this the Chinese Minister replied:

“In reply I have the honor to state that the Chinese Government are pleased to agree to the above articles proposed by the Japanese Government.”

The Chinese Delegation would see, President Wilson continues, the embarrassing position which had been reached. Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau are bound to support the claims of Japan. Alongside of them the Chinese had their exchange of notes with Japan. He reminds Mr Koo that when urging his case before the Council of Ten at the Quai d’Orsay, he had maintained that the war cancelled the agreement with the German Government.1 It did not, however, cancel the agreement between China and the Japanese Government, which had been made before the war. What he had himself urged upon the Japanese was that, as in the case of the Pacific Islands, the leased territory of Kiauchau should be settled by putting it into the hands of the Five Powers as Trustees. He did not suggest that Treaties should be broken, but that it might be possible, in Conference, to bring about an agreement by modifying the Treaty. He also proposes to them that all Governments should renounce the special rights they had acquired in China, so as to put China in a position free from the special limitations which had been imposed upon her. The Japanese are not willing to have Kiauchau handed over to the Five Powers, and the British and French Governments were embarrassed by their Treaties. When he pressed the Japanese for explanations of the meaning of their agreement, they had replied that the exploitation of two coal-mines and one iron-mine had not proved a successful venture, and were now bound up with the railway. They stated, however, that they would withdraw the civil administration; that they would maintain troops only on the termini of the railway; and that if a general agreement was reached, they would withdraw their extraterritoriality. They urged that they wanted a community of interest with the Chinese in the railway, and the only reserve they made was for a residential district in Kiauchau.

Mr Koo says that the Treaties of 1915 and the subsequent exchange of Notes were the outcome of the 21 demands which Japan had made on China and were all part and parcel of one transaction. He hoped he had made this clear before the Council of Ten. He felt that the Treaties and Notes which had been exchanged after Japan had delivered an ultimatum stood outside of the regular procedure and course of Treaties. They dealt with matters arising out of the war.

Mr Lloyd George asks what ultimatum he referred to.

President Wilson asks if Mr Lloyd George had never heard of the twenty-one points.

Mr Lloyd George says he had not.

Mr Koo says that in January 1915 after the capture of Kiau Chau that port had been opened up to trade; China then asked Japan to withdraw her troops from the interior of the province. The Japanese took occasion to treat this note as though it were an unfriendly act and shortly after sprung on China twenty-one demands divided into five groups - for example, that China should accept Japanese advisers; that they should give up railway concessions in which Western Powers were concerned, and he would draw Mr. Lloyd George’s attention to the fact that Great Britain was concerned. China was put in an extremely embarrassing position. She resisted and resisted and only gave up when she was absolutely compelled to. On May 7th the Japanese sent China an ultimatum in regard to the majority of demands giving China only 48 hours within which to accept; otherwise Japan would consider herself free to take such steps as she thought fit to enforce them. This caused absolute consternation to the Chinese Government which eventually had to submit to force majeure.

Mr Lloyd George asks if they had not appealed to the United States of America.

President Wilson says they had and the United States had intervened in regard to the infringement of sovereignty and political independence. The whole transaction, however, had been kept extremely secret and the United States only learned of it in a roundabout way.

Mr Koo says that secrecy had been imposed upon China by Japan under severe penalties. It had been said that Japan had informed the Allied Governments and the United States Government that there had been only 11 Demands; but actually 21 Demands had been made on China. The Chinese Government felt that the Treaties and Notes exchanged as a result of these demands followed by an ultimatum were on a different footing from the ordinary. China had always endeavored to carry out to the letter all engagements made in good faith. These, however, had been made against China’s free will, and the same applied to the notes exchanged in the previous year. For the last four years since they had captured Kiauchau, Japanese troops had penetrated far into the Province of Shantung, where there was a population of 36,000,000 people. This had been very uncomfortable for the general population, and the results had been disturbance and trouble. The Chinese Government had protested, and asked Japan to withdraw her troops who were stationed 250 miles up the railway, but they had refused and had established civil administration bureau in the interior of Shantung and extended their control even over the Chinese people by levying taxes on Chinese people and asserting judicial power over them. The feelings of the Chinese people against the extension of Japanese control were so strong that the Chinese Government felt constrained to take some immediate step to induce Japan to withdraw her troops and remove the civil administration bureau, the object being to relieve the tense situation until the question could be finally settled at the Peace Conference.

Mr Lloyd George says that it looked that by the Treaty with China; the Japanese Government would get more than the Germans had had. He asked Mr Koo which he would prefer - the Treaty with Japan, or the transference to Japan of the German rights?

Mr Koo says that the situation is so difficult that he feels he must speak very frankly. The Japanese position was so close to China; especially in Manchuria, where they occupied a railway which was connected with Peking; that merely to transfer German rights would create a very serious situation. With the Japanese on the Manchurian railway, and the Shantung railway, Peking would be - as it were - in a pincers.

President Wilson points out that the Japanese claimed that the administration of the Shantung railway would be a joint one, and they proposed to withdraw the Japanese administration.

Mr Lloyd George says that Mr Koo had not quite answered his point. Supposing the Great Powers had to decide (and this really is his position since he is bound by a Treaty) between Japan inheriting Germany’s rights in Shantung or exercising the rights under the treaty with Japan, which would China prefer? He points out that Great Britain is only bound by the rights which Japan inherited from Germany.

President Wilson says that if Japan inherited the German rights, it would involve her retaining the leased territory. He thought Mr Lloyd George’s point was that possibly Japan was claiming greater rights than Germany had exercised. As the British and French Governments had to support the Japanese claim to what Germany had had, they wanted to know whether China would be better off according as Japan could exercise the rights that Germany had or those that she obtained by her Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George agrees that this was the point, and says the real question is whether the Treaty with Japan was better for China than Germany’s rights.

(At this point there is an interval to permit the Chinese plenipotentiaries to confer.)

Mr Koo says that he has now consulted his colleague. He can make no choice, because both alternatives are unacceptable; he will merely compare them. The Treaty and Notes with Japan provide for restoration of the Leased Territory to China on certain conditions, but such restoration would be only nominal. Between the two, he thought that the German rights were more limited than the rights claimed by Japan under her Treaty and Notes with China. Even mere succession to the German rights, however, would create a grave situation for China’s future. In claiming direct restitution of German rights, he was not asking for any compensation or remuneration for China as a result of her entry into the war, but only for what was necessary for peace in the Far East. The experience of the last three years made it so clear what the Chinese position would be if Japan was allowed either to succeed to the German rights in Shantung or to retain the rights she claimed under her treaty with China. It is an uncomfortable position both to the Chinese people and the Government. He is not in the least exaggerating, but only saying what is necessary to explain the situation.

President Wilson says that M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George would bear witness that he had put the Chinese case as well as he could to the Japanese Delegation in the morning. He had emphasized the great need of trust and friendship between Japan and China, which he regards as essential to peace in the Far East. He had urged that China should be free and unfettered to carry out her development. What he asked now was only a means of getting out of a position that was extremely difficult. In this Conference the United States of America was the only power that was entirely unbound. Great Britain, France, China and Japan are all bound by Treaties. They are bound to keep these Treaties because the war had largely been fought for the purpose of showing that Treaties could not be violated.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that in the exchange of notes of September 1918, China might have stood out.

Mr Koo says that the exchange of notes in 1918 was the result of the Shantung Treaty, made in consequence of the 21 demands. It was part of the same transaction.

President Wilson says that the exchange of notes had grown out of the previous agreement. He looked for the Shantung Treaty.

Mr. Koo says that it was on page 59 of China’s Claim for Direct Restitution of Kiaochow, etc.

President Wilson reads the following extracts from the treaty and said that China had then had to accept and had had no other choice:

“Article 1: The Chinese Government agrees to give full assent to all matters upon which the Japanese Government may hereafter agree with the German Government relating to the disposition of all rights, interests and concessions which Germany, by virtue of treaties or otherwise, possesses in relation to the Province of Shantung.

Article 2: The Chinese Government agrees that as regards the railway to be built by China herself from Chefoo or Lungkow to connect with the Kiaochow-Chinanfu railway, if Germany abandons the privilege of financing the Chefoo-Wehsien line China will approach Japanese capitalists to negotiate for a loan.”

Mr Lloyd George says he would like to have the two positions examined by British, French and American experts, and to learn their views as to which course would be best for China.

M Clemenceau says he had no objection.

Mr Lloyd George says that it is also only fair that China should be given more time to consider this question. This seems to be the only alternative there is to acquiescing in the Treaties between China and Japan. Great Britain and France, however, were not bound by this latter Treaty, but only by their own arrangements with Japan.

President Wilson then reads the following extracts from the 21 Demands on page 52 and 53 of the Chinese Document.

"Group IV

The Chinese Government engages not to cede or lease to a third Power any harbor or bay or island along the coast of China.

Group V

Article 1: The Chinese Central Government shall employ influential Japanese as advisers in political, financial, and military affairs.

Article 3: Inasmuch as the Japanese Government and the Chinese Government have had many cases of dispute between Japanese and Chinese police which caused no little misunderstanding, it is for this reason necessary that the police departments of important places (in China) shall be jointly administered by Japanese and Chinese or that the police department of these places shall employ numerous Japanese, so that they may at the same time help to plan for the improvement of the Chinese Police Service.

Article 4: China shall purchase from Japan a fixed amount of munitions of war (say 50% or more of what is needed by the Chinese Government) or that there shall be established in China a Sino-Japanese jointly worked arsenal. Japanese technical experts are to be employed and Japanese material to be purchased.”

President Wilson recalls that there were other demands designed to exclude other Powers from the commercial and industrial development; (Mr Koo says, on page 52).

President Wilson reads Article I of the Group III as follows:

“The Two Contracting Parties mutually agree that when the opportune moment arrives the Hanyehping Company shall be made a joint concern of the two nations and they further agree that without the previous consent of Japan, China shall not by her act dispose of the rights and property of whatever nature of the said Company nor cause the said Company to dispose freely of the same.”

Mr Koo points out that the Hanyehping Company was the largest coal and iron mining Company of China, situated in the Yangtze Valley. He requests the reading of Article 2 which, he says, was even more serious.

President Wilson reads the following:

“Article 2: The Chinese Government agrees that all mines in the neighborhood of these owned by the Hanyehping Company shall not be permitted, without the consent of the said Company, to be worked by other persons outside the said Company; and further agrees that if it is desired to carry out any undertaking which, it is apprehended, may directly or indirectly affect the interests’ of the said Company, the consent of the said Company shall first be obtained.”

Mr Lloyd George asks whether China had agreed to this Article.

Mr Koo said that the Chinese Government had had to accept most of the 21 Demands with slight modifications. That was why China is seeking some redress.

President Wilson asks if the following point of view would make any appeal to the Chinese Plenipotentiaries? Hereafter whatever arrangements are made both Japan and China would be members of the League of Nations, which would guarantee their territorial integrity and political independence. That is to say, that these matters would become the concern of the League and China would receive a kind of protection that she had never had before and other nations would have a right which they had never had before to intervene. Before it had been, comparatively speaking, none of our business to interfere in these matters. The Covenant, however, laid down that whatever affected the peace of the world is a matter of concern to the League of Nations and to call attention to such was not an hostile but a friendly act. He, himself, is prepared to advocate at the Council of the League and at the Body of Delegates that the special positions occupied by the various nations in China should be abandoned. Japan declared that she was ready to support this. There would be a forum for advocating these matters. The interests of China could not then be overlooked. He is stating this as an element of security for China in the future if the powers were unable to give her what she wanted now, and he asked the Chinese Delegates to think the matter over. While there is doubt as to the Treaty and Notes between China and Japan, there is no doubt whatsoever as to the agreements entered into by France and Great Britain. Hence, even if the agreements between them and Japan were abandoned, these two Governments are bound to support Japan in getting whatever rights in Shan Tung Germany had had. Hence, the question which the Chinese Plenipotentiaries had to consider was, would they prefer to retain the rights which Japan had secured in their treaty with her or would they prefer that Japan should inherit the German rights in Shan Tung.

Mr Koo says that he could not lay too much emphasis on the fact that the Chinese people were now at the parting of the ways. The policy of the Chinese Government was co-operation with Europe and the United States as well as with Japan. If, however, they did not get justice, China might be driven into the arms of Japan. There was a small section in China which believes in Asia for the Asiatics and wanted the closest co-operation with Japan. The position of the Government, however, is that they believed in the justice of the West and that their future lay there. If they failed to get justice there, the consequential re-action might be very great. Further, he wished to suggest that the validity of the arrangements was questionable owing to the following facts: (1) They arose out of the war: (2) China had subsequently come into the war herself: (3) New principles had now been adopted by all the nations as the basis of the peace and the agreements with Japan appeared to be in conflict with them. Consequently, in thanking the Supreme Council for hearing the views of the Chinese Delegation, he wishes to state the great importance of attaining a peace which could be relied on to endure for 50 years instead of a peace so unjust that it would only sow the seeds of early discord.

President Wilson says that these were serious considerations, but he would not like Mr Koo even personally to entertain the idea that there was injustice in an arrangement that was based on treaties which Japan had entered into. The sacredness of treaties had been one of the motives of the war. It had been necessary to show that treaties were not mere scraps of paper. If treaties were inconsistent with the principles on which the peace was being formed, nevertheless we could not undo past obligations. If that principle were accepted, we should have to go back and France would have the treaty of 1815 and there would be no end to it. He would not like to feel that because we were embarrassed by a treaty we were disregardful of justice. Moreover, the unjust treatment of China in the past has not by any means been confined to Japan. He hopes that the quandary in which the Powers are would be stated to the Chinese people. He hoped that it would be shown to them that the undoing of the trouble depended on China uniting in reality with other nations, including the Western Nations. He feels absolute confidence that the opinion of the world had the greatest sympathy for the realm of China. The heart of the world goes out to her 400 millions of people. Much depends on the state of mind of these 400 million people. Any statesmen who ignores their fortunes are playing a dangerous game. But it would not do to identify justice with unfortunate engagements that had been entered into.

Mr Koo says he believes prevention to be better than cure. He thought that it would be better to undo unfortunate engagements now, if they endangered the permanence of the future peace.

Mr Lloyd George says the object of the war was not that. The war had been fought as much for the East as for the West. China also had been protected by the victory that had been won. If Germany had won the war and had desired Shan Tung or Peking, she could have had them. The very doctrine of the mailed fist had been propounded in relation to China. The engagements that had been entered into with Japan had been contracted at a time when the support of that country was urgently needed. He will not say that the war could not have been won without this support. But he can say that Kiau Chau could not have been captured without Japanese support. It was a solemn treaty and Great Britain could not turn round to Japan now and say “All right, thank you very much. When we wanted your help, you gave it, but now we think that the treaty was a bad one and should not be carried out.” Within the treaties he would go to the utmost limits to protect the position of China. On the League of Nations he would always be prepared to stand up for China against oppression, if there was oppression. China is a nation with a very great past and, he believes, with a still greater future. It would, however, be of no service to her to regard treaties as Von Bethmann Hollweg had regarded them, as mere scraps of paper to be turned down when they were not wanted.

M Clemenceau says that Mr. Koo can take every word that Mr. Lloyd George had said as his also.

President Wilson asks whether assuming for the sake of argument that the engagements were unfortunate nevertheless they had been entered into for the salvation of China, because they had been entered into for the salvation of the world, of which China was a part. In fact, it would be said that the very engagements were instruments for the salvation of China.

Mr Koo says they had been designed apparently to meet a situation in Europe and not in the Far East.

Mr Lloyd George points out that if Germany had won the war in Europe, she would have won it in the Far East also. The world would have been at her feet.

M Clemenceau agrees.

President Wilson points out that the German project was not only domination from Hamburg to Baghdad but also the control of the East. Germany knew China to be rich. Her objects were mostly material. The Kaiser had been the great exponent of what was called the “Yellow Peril”. He had wanted to get France and Great Britain out of the way and afterwards to get everything else he could. One result of the war undoubtedly had been to save the Far East in particular, since that was an unexploited part of the world.

Mr Lloyd George says that he wishes to consider the question further before arriving at a decision.

President Wilson asks the Chinese Delegates also to give further consideration to the question and hopes that it could be taken up soon again.

(The Chinese Representatives then withdraw.)

Jimbuna

04-23-19, 12:08 PM

23rd April 1919

Third Army Air Service of the U.S. Army holds an aviation show at Coblenz (Koblenz), occupied-Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/fbm0ILn.png

Captured German 60-pounder guns displayed at Mainz, currently occupied by French troops.
https://i.imgur.com/PGwXoxZ.jpg

Devastation remains in many parts of the former battlefield in France. The boy pictured was injured in Armentieres when he was playing with unexploded ammunition.
https://i.imgur.com/KQJL4QS.jpg

The U.S.S. Mobile's arrival in New York, April 23, 1919 with soldiers, most from the 130th Field Artillery (a Kansas unit of the 35th Division), returning from World War I.
https://i.imgur.com/tWR4xNX.jpg

Demobilised British men handing in their rifles before boarding the Rhine steamer at Cologne, which took them to Rotterdam, on their way home to England, on April 23, 1919 (Daily Mail)
https://i.imgur.com/4fnh5wz.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 03:06 PM

Wednesday, April 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

The Council has before it a printed Memorandum on the various documents prepared by the Committees in connection with Reparation.

1. Mr Lloyd George doubts the expediency of only having one representative for each nation on the Commission. He thinks the number should be two as it might be desirable to Members on have two types of men, for example, a financial and judicial expert.

Mr Davis points out that substitute members are provided for.

Mr Lamont says the point has been carefully considered and provided for by means of coadjutor delegates. It had been considered that if there are two delegates for each of the five nations the Commission would become unwieldy and it would hamper progress. In any case delegates would require experts and sub-commissions would have to be appointed.

President Wilson points out that it was the difference between the Quai d’Orsay Council of Ten and the recent conversations of the Council of Four. Mr Lloyd George agrees this is a very substantial difference.

M Clemenceau suggests that the coadjutor delegates practically provide what Mr Lloyd George asked for.

Mr Lloyd George says he would not press the matter.

2. Attention is next drawn to a clause prepared by the American Delegation providing for the right of withdrawal upon six months notice by any nation on the Commission.

President Wilson explains that, in his opinion, no nation ought to withdraw from a Commission but his legal advisers have informed him that no Treaty can be withdrawn from, or even renounced, unless there was a provision to that effect. He thought that public opinion in the United States would demand that there should be such a clause, although he hoped it would never be necessary to use it.

Mr Lloyd George asks for the substitution of 12 months notice instead of 6.

President Wilson agrees to accept this substitution.

(It is agreed that the clause providing for the right of withdrawal should be adopted with the substitution of 12 months notice instead of 6.)

3. Mr Davis says that the American Delegation considers that the secrecy provision should be withdrawn. The feeling is that to set up a secret clause in a public Treaty would make a bad public impression. If the delegates on the Commission are honest, they will not give out information; if they are dishonest, they will do so whether the clause is there or not.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the object of the clause is not to exclude Governments from making announcements but to prevent the officials on the Commission from doing so. He points out that it is vital in matters of finance that information which might affect the money markets should not be allowed to leak out.

President Wilson says that their objections are not to the actual secrecy but they wish to protect the Peace Conference against the attacks of those who declare that everything should be public. He agrees with Mr Davis that if discreet people are put on the Commission they will not give information away.

Mr Lamont suggests that every Government will give its own instructions to its own Delegates.

(It was agreed that Article 8 should be deleted.)

4. Arrangements for Determining the Amount and Conditions of Bonds, etc. Mr Davis says that the French and Italian Representatives are in agreement with the American Proposal.

Lord Sumner says that the Italians agree with the British Delegates; the United States and French Delegates are opposed to the British and Italian Delegates.

Mr Lloyd George explains that the British experts apprehend that if one Power is in a position to veto an issue of Bonds, it might be able to use this power to extort special terms. They might refuse to agree to an issue of Bonds, unless some special conditions were agreed to.

M Loucheur says that he agrees with the United States proposal.

Mr Lloyd George says that as he is alone in this matter, he will not press the objection.

(The American proposal for Clause is adopted.)

5. Determination of the Rate of Interest.
M Loucheur says that a point affecting the rate of interest has been overlooked from Article 20. He then reads the following extract from an Article prepared on the subject:

“La Commission déterminera périodiquement, à la majorité, le taux de l’intérêt (au maximum 5 p. 100) dont sera débitée l’Allemagne sur sa dette, telle que l’aura fixée la Commission, et aussi les dates à partir desquelles l’intérêt sera débité sur les montants respectifs de a dite dette.”2

This, M Loucheur says, is an American proposal. He says that originally a different text had been proposed based on the principle that a rate of 5% should be fixed leaving the Commission the right to fix a lower rate. Mr Norman Davis had objected to this. M. Loucheur’s recollection was that Mr. Lloyd George had supported Mr. Norman Davis on the ground that he considered it better from a political point of view to determine the rate of interest on the lines now proposed. The original proposal would appear to make concessions to the Germans and would create a bad impression from a political point of view.

Mr Lloyd George says that if the Germans are given a lower rate than 5% when the Allied and Associated Governments had to pay 5% themselves, public opinion would ask why the Germans should be allowed to pay less. On the other hand, if the general rate of interest should fall, he thought that Germany should have the benefit thereof and that the Commission should have the right to fix a lower rate of interest. So long as we pay 5%, the Germans should pay 5%. The Commission should not have the power to give the Germans any preferential rate of interest. He thought that it was more a question of form than of substance. Do not the American delegates agree that if we paid 5% the Germans should do the same?

President Wilson says that they all do. The only question is as to who should have power to lower the rate.

Mr Lloyd George proposed to leave this to the Commission. He would rather regulate the payment of interest altogether than the rate.

M Clemenceau and M Loucheur say that they agree.

(On Mr Lloyd George’s proposal, the drafting of a revised paragraph is left to the Expert Committee.)

6. Interest on Pensions. M Loucheur reads the following clause, which is a continuance of the clause quoted in the preceding section and which it is proposed should be added to Article 10:

“L’intérêt sera débité:

1) sur le montant des dommages matériels (pour la fraction correspondant à la valeur d’avant guerre), à partir du 11 novembre 1918;
2) pour les pensions, à partir du jour où elles sont payées par chaque pays intéressé.”

Mr Lloyd George considers a proposal as regards interest on material damage to be a mistake. If repairs are made in kind, it will mean interest is being paid on things rebuilt and it would be very difficult to assess the value. He does not, however, press the point. He does object strongly, however, to the arrangement for pensions under Clause (2). He explains that he only wants equal treatment for damage of all kinds. He cannot acknowledge that damage to houses was more important than damage to human life. The latter is irreparable. No fair interest on this could be paid unless the value of the pensions was capitalized. The same thing should be done whether it refers to a house or to a man. Supposing by May 1st, 1921, the Commission had established that the Bill for Housing was five thousand million pounds and for pensions three thousand million pounds. Both ought to be in the same category. He then calls attention to Annex I, Article I, Clause (e) and suggests that a clause based on the following words should be substituted for M Loucheur’s proposal:

“The amount due to the Allied and Associated Governments to be calculated for all of them as being capitalized cost of such payments on the basis of the scales in force in France at the date of the signature of this Treaty”.

This, he points out, will provide that Germany should not be responsible to go on paying for 60 years. The sum would be capitalized as arranged by the Commission.

M Loucheur says that French delegates will agree.

(Mr Lloyd George’s proposal is accepted.)

7. M Loucheur points out that the original date for the calculation of pensions, namely, November, 1918, does not take into account the fact that pensions have been paid by the various Governments long before that date. He suggested that some provision should be made for this.

Mr Lloyd George pointed out that this would be covered if the words “at the date of the signature of this Treaty” were added in the above clause after the words “capitalized cost”.

(The addition of these words is approved.)

8. Participation of Germany in the Proceedings of the Commission - Appendix: Annex 2, Article 13 Mr Lloyd George says he does not like the proposal that the Germans should not have power to challenge any proposal of the Commission. He agrees that they should not be able to prolong the discussion for years. Nevertheless, they ought to be able to make representations on any subject.

(At this moment Mr Lloyd George withdraws to keep another appointment.)

Lord Sumner says that Mr. Lloyd George’s proposal is to leave out the following words: “in the discussion of the general rules as to the measure of damages only”.

President Wilson pointed out that this clause contravenes the original bases laid down in Clause 3 of the Reparation Provisions. He proposes to cut the whole clause out.

(After some discussion, it is agreed that the Clause should read as follows:

“The Commission shall examine into the claims and give to the German Government a just opportunity to be heard but not to take part in any decision of the Commission whatever”.)

9. President Wilson draws attention to the article the American Delegation proposed to substitute.

Basis for Estimating Germany’s Capacity To pay.—Appendix: Annex 2, Article 15 (b) Lord Sumner says that the fact is that at present the burden of taxation is heavier in Allied countries than in Germany. Yet Germany might plead her poverty, and say she could not pay. It was common ground that the actual taxation was a related matter that must be taken into account.

(President Wilson agrees.)

What the British Delegation submitted, and thought it was not too much to ask, was that the Commission should not have the right to relieve Germany until Germany had made an attempt to raise her taxation to the amount borne by the most heavily taxed of the Allied Powers represented on the Commission. They recognized that additional taxation would not necessarily bring in money which could be used to pay outside Germany. They recognized also that such taxation might even depreciate Germany’s capacity to pay. That was the reason why they said that if the taxation was too high the Commission should be permitted to accept the plea of poverty. The British Delegation felt that it was not right that the Commission should be able to remit, unless German taxation was proportionately as high as that of the most heavily taxed Allied country. He agrees it is certainly necessary to trust the Commission, but the whole of these arrangements would be subjected to very close criticism, and it would be difficult to convince public opinion if it thought that Germany could be relieved of taxation on the ground of its poverty, whilst we ourselves were more heavily taxed and had equally heavy engagements to meet. If the Commission exercises great wisdom, he agreex that the difficulty would be avoided.

President Wilson says that under the American scheme the Commission would not be able to admit the plea of poverty unless Germany had taxed herself to an extent at least equal to the taxation of other Powers. He agrees that the Commission must be given some standards of taxation by which to judge of Germany’s ability to pay. It might be, however, that an additional burden would not give a greater yield of power to pay. He feels, however, that it is making a mistake to try to foresee situations too far in advance. If this were done, only second-rate men would be induced to serve on the Commission. He wishes to get the biggest men possible, since the financial arrangements of the world would depend on its operations. Hence, he would deprecate definite and rigid instructions, and his French colleagues agree with him. He thought that the standard of justice was as distinctly laid down in one draft as in the other.

M Loucheur says he agreed with the American draft.

Mr Lloyd George (who has meanwhile returned) says he would withdraw his objections.

(The American proposal with the French additions is adopted.)

10. Issue of Certificates by the Commission Regarding Bonds Held for the Benefit of Different Government. Appendix: Annex 2, Article 16 Mr Lloyd George accepts the French proposal.

11. Sanctions. Appendix: Annex 2, Article 18 President Wilson points out that the United States representatives have accepted the principle of Sanctions, but are not prepared to approve the form of words proposed in the draft. He then reads a simpler and shorter formula.

M Klotz said that he would accept, with the addition of the words “or financial” after “economic”. The following substitute for the second and third sub-paragraphs of this Article is adopted:

“The measures which the Allied and Associated Governments shall have the right to take, and which Germany hereby agrees not to consider as acts of war may include economic or financial prohibition and reprisals, and in general such other measures as the respective Government may determine to be necessary in the premise”.

(Just as the Meeting is breaking up, it is agreed in addition to omit the last paragraph of Article 18.)

12. Form of Payment. Appendix: Annex 2, Article 19 Mr Lloyd George thinks that this Article is too stiff. It would give the Commission power practically to take any property or material to which it took a fancy.

President Wilson agrees with Mr Lloyd George. He is seeing this clause for the first time. What he wants is to avoid even the appearance of a Brest-Litovsk forced Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that his objections would be surmounted by omitting in line 3 “demanded or”. He has no objection to the Commission accepting payment in the forms proposed, but they should not have power to demand it.

President Wilson agrees.

(It is agreed to omit in line 3 the words “demanded or”, and in addition, to omit the second sub-paragraph of Article 19.)

13. Merchant Shipping. Appendix: Annex 3 German Ships in American Ports President Wilson draws attention to amendments proposed by the United States Delegation.

President Wilson says that the claim for the German ships seized in United States ports was almost the only reparation claim put forward by the United States of America. Other powers, with their full acquiescence, were to be reimbursed for pensions. In the course of the war, the United States of America had taken over the German ships in their ports and had secured their title to them by law. The ships had been so damaged that millions of dollars had had to be spent on their repairs and new methods that had to be devised. Throughout, these ships had been used for the indispensable transport of the American armies to France. It would not be tolerable to public opinion in the United States if their title to these ships was not recognized. This had nothing to do with the payment of owners which the United States contemplated, but only to their title. It would be intolerable if anyone questioned the title which had been legally established under full process of their rights as a belligerent.

Mr Lloyd George says that if he goes into the whole case, he would show there were serious grounds which made it impossible for the British Government to accept. If he accepts it would not be merely a matter affecting the United States of America. This is an easy matter which he would not contest. It would, however, affect neutrals and other belligerents. Neutrals would benefit by this to the extent of 794,000 tons of shipping. Brazil to the extent of 216,000 tons. This means a loss not only of cash but of ships which were even more important. Brazil lost 25,000 tons and had seized 216,000 tons in her ports and would consequently profit enormously by the transaction. France lost 950,000 tons and would only be able to keep 45,000 tons; that is to say, France would only get less than 1/20th of her loss. The United States lost 389,000 tons and would get 628,000 tons. The British Empire lost 7,740,000 tons and would only get 400,000 tons. During the war Great Britain after allowing for shipbuilding had lost a balance of 4,500,000 tons. There is a great difference between the value of ships to Great Britain and the United States. It is like the value of ships to a fisherman compared with ships to a swell yachtsman. Great Britain lives on ships and it is a very serious matter to her. There is first the case of the neutrals who would walk off with 800,000 tons. In reply to President Wilson’s suggestion that this could be avoided he thought it would be difficult. The German ships in American ports had been driven to take refuge there by the action of the Navies of France and Great Britain. They only escaped capture because they took refuge in United States ports. He could not help thinking that the whole of shipping should be put in “hotchpot”. The United States would then certainly get all that she had lost.

President Wilson says they had lost not only ships but thousands of lives. In other countries such lives were being provided for by reparation arrangements, but that America was making no such claim and it would be intolerable to public opinion if it were not agreed that the United States should retain these ships.

Mr Lloyd George says he would be glad to enter into an arrangement but objected to the participation of Brazil, who had no claim for walking off with so many ships. Brazil’s whole trade was protected by our Fleet.

President Wilson says this argument does not apply to the United States, who had made an invaluable contribution to the war. The United States does not mean to take over the ships without payment.

Mr Lloyd George says he does not object to some arrangement whereby the United States would retain all of the enemy ships which they had taken over, but that he did object to the proposed American clauses being put into the Peace Treaty which would permit other countries whose rights were not the same as those of the United States, to retain the enemy ships taken over by them.

Mr Lloyd George proposes, therefore, that Annex III should stand as at present for insertion without alteration in the Peace Treaty, but that an agreement be made by the Allied Governments with the United States, providing for the retention by the United States of enemy ships now in its possession, against payment.

President Wilson states this would be acceptable to him provided a satisfactory agreement in accordance with the American amendment is drawn and executed by the Allies with the United States prior to the execution of the Treaty.

(The following alterations are made during the interval when the Conference had broken up into groups. The Secretary is unable to follow the precise reasons for the decision.)

14. Payment in Kind. Appendix 1, Annex 4. After some discussion it is agreed to omit para 2(c) and (d) and the last para of 6.

15. Legislation by Germany. Main Clauses Para. 10

(It is agreed to omit the following words at the end of para. 10:”and to the decisions and orders of the above named Commission from time to time.” The para. therefore reads as follows: ”Germany undertakes to pass any legislation and to issue any orders and decrees that may be necessary to give complete effect to these clauses”.)

16. Mr Lloyd George asks what would be the position of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

President Wilson considers that these would not be entitled to claim reparation since they had been part of enemy countries.

Mr Lloyd George asked what would be the position of Romania and Serbia, which had annexed very large territories in Transylvania and Yugoslavia respectively. These countries would not only escape the debts of the Austrian Empire to which they had formerly belonged, but would also escape the burdens imposed on the Allies. He thought the best plan was that proposed by S Orlando, that there should be a sort of ledger account in relation to these territories. On one side of the account would be the liability that the annexed territories would have had for a share of the Austrian debt and indemnity and on the other side of the account would be their share in the claim of Romania and Serbia respectively for indemnity. This would be set off one against the other and they would be credited with the balance.

Mr Norman Davis asks what would happen if the balance was a debit instead of a credit.

Mr Lloyd George says in that case there would be no claim.

17. (The above arrangement is agreed to.) M Klotz asks what would be the position of the subjects of Allied and Associated countries established in a country like Poland whose property had been destroyed. They would not claim compensation from Poland; ought it not to be provided that they should claim against Germany?

Mr Lloyd George points out that they are provided for by Annex I, Article I (a).

It is also pointed out that they are provided for by Article 3, where the words used were “wherever situated”.

18. Consultation With the Smaller Powers: After a somewhat prolonged discussion, the following arrangements are agreed to for consultation with the Powers with special interest on the subject of the reparation clauses. The Expert Committee, which had been advising the Supreme Council, should divide itself into groups and each group should see a group of nations of the Powers with special interests. M. Loucheur undertook to organize this arrangement. Those States which have observations to make should subsequently have the right of consulting the Supreme Council.

19. The Return of Animals Taken From Invaded Territories

M Loucheur proposed the following addition to Article 7 of the reparation clauses:

“Si une moitié au moins des animaux pris par l’ennemi dans les territoires envahis ne peut être identifiée et restituée, le reste, jusqu’à concurrence de la moitié du nombre enlevé, sera livré par l’Allemagne à titre de restitution.”

(After considerable discussion, it is agreed that M Loucheur’s proposed addition to Article 7 should not be inserted in the Treaty of Peace; his proposal should, however, form the subject of a separate agreement between the Allies, a draft text of the agreement to be prepared and submitted by M Loucheur.)

20. Categories of Damage: M Klotz proposes the addition of the following new category of damage:

“Dépenses engagées par l’Etat, ou pour son compte et avec son autorisation, pour ravitailler, transporter ou secourir la population civile des territoires occupés et la population civile réfugiée ou évacuée.”5

Mr Lloyd George says that if new categories are put in, the British Government would have a number of new categories which it would wish to introduce.

(It is agreed that the addition proposed by M Klotz related to a question of the interpretation to be given to the categories already accepted and should be referred without delay for consideration to the Commission on Reparations.)

21. Valuation: M Klotz makes a proposal for putting a valuation clause in the Treaty in regard to property for which reparation was to be given. This is necessary owing to the change of value between 1914 and the present time.

(It is agreed that the Expert Committee should meet to prepare a text.)

The Conclusions, as revised by the Expert Drafting Committee, will be forwarded later.

[Appendix I to IC–176A]
Reparation

1. The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of herself and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of the enemy States.

2. The Allied and Associated Governments recognize that the financial resources of Germany are not adequate after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other treaty clauses to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage. The Allied and Associated Governments, however, require, and the German Government undertakes that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied or Associated Powers and to their property by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air.

3. The amount of such damage (as set forth under the specific categories attached hereto) for which compensation is to be made by Germany shall be determined by an Inter-Allied Commission, to be constituted in the form and with the powers set forth hereunder and in the Annexes hereto. This Commission shall examine into the claims and give to the German Government a just opportunity to be heard. The findings of the Commission as to the amount of damage defined as above shall be concluded and notified to Germany on or before the 1st May, 1921, as representing the extent of their obligations. The Commission shall concurrently draw up a schedule of payments prescribing the time and manner for securing and discharging the entire obligation within a period of thirty years from the 1st May, 1921. In the event, however, that within the period mentioned, Germany shall have failed to discharge her obligation, then any balance remaining unpaid may, within the discretion of the Commission, be postponed for settlement in subsequent years: or may be handled otherwise in such manner as the Allied and Associated Governments, acting through the Commission, shall determine.

4. The Inter-Allied Commission shall thereafter, from time to time, consider the resources and capacity of Germany and, after giving her representatives a just opportunity to be heard, shall have discretion to extend the date, and to modify the form of payments, such as are to be provided for in Clause 3: but not to cancel any part, except with the specific authority of the several Governments represented upon the Commission.

5. In order to enable the Allied and Associated Powers to proceed at once to the restoration of their industrial and economic life, pending the full determination of their claim, Germany shall pay in such installments and in such manner (whether in gold, commodities, ships, securities or otherwise) as the Inter-Allied Commission may fix, before the 1st May, 1921, the equivalent of 20,000,000,000 gold marks and pending payment of this sum she shall deposit bonds as security in the manner prescribed in Clause XV (c) (1) of Annex 2 attached hereto. Out of this sum the expenses of the army of occupation subsequent to the armistice shall first be met, provided that such supplies of food and raw materials as may be judged by the Allied and Associated Governments to be essential to enable Germany to meet her obligations for reparation may also, with the approval of the Allied and Associated Governments, be paid for out of the above sum, and the balance shall be reckoned towards liquidation of the above claims for reparation. She shall further deposit bonds as prescribed in Clause XV (c) of Annex 2 attached Thereto.

Ships shall be handed over by Germany to the Commission at the time and in the manner stated in Annex III and in all respects in compliance therewith.

6. The successive installments including the above sum paid over by the enemy States in satisfaction of the above claims will be divided by the Allied and Associated Governments in proportions which have been determined upon by them in advance, on a basis of general equity, and of the rights of each.

7. In addition to the payments mentioned above Germany shall effect restitution in cash of cash taken away, seized or sequestrated, and also restitution in kind of animals, objects of every nature and securities taken away, seized or sequestrated, in the cases in which it proves possible to identify them in enemy territory.

8. The German Government undertakes to make forthwith the restitution contemplated by Article 7 and to make the payments contemplated by Articles 3, 4 and 5.

9. The German Government recognizes the Commission provided for by Article 3 as the same may be constituted by the Allied and Associated Governments in accordance with Schedule II attached hereto, and agrees irrevocably to the possession and exercise by such Commission of the power and authority given it by Articles 3, 4 and 5. The German Government will supply to the Commission all the information which the Commission may require relative to the financial situation and operations and to the property, productive capacity and stocks and current production of raw materials and manufactured articles of the German Government, its States, Municipalities and other governmental subdivisions and of its nationals and corporations, and accords to the members of the Commission and its authorized agents the same rights and immunities as are enjoyed in Germany by duly accredited diplomatic agents of friendly Powers. The German Government further agrees to provide for the compensation and expenses of the Commission and of such staff as it may employ.

10. Germany undertakes to pass any legislation and to issue any orders and decrees that may be necessary to give complete effect to these clauses and to the decisions and orders of the above-named Commission from time to time.

11. These shall be reckoned as a credit to the German Government in respect of the payments due from it under the above clauses, the following items arising out of other Articles of this Treaty and its Annexes:

i) Any final balance in favour of Germany under Article of Part IV of the Economic Terms.

ii) Any sums due to Germany in respect of property or material delivered under the Armistice Terms or its extensions.

iii) Any sums due to Germany in respect of transfers under Article XIII of the Financial Terms.

iv) Any sums due to Germany in respect of transfers under Articles 19, 37 and 51 of the Ports, Waterways and Railways Terms.

Two more Appendices and six Annexes were attached to the original document. To include them would have taken several times the space and they are all detail lists of what is to be paid for what Items. I would not normally included the one I did but it gives the actual summary of what Germany was expected to pay by the Allies.
-Steve

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 07:29 PM

Wednesday, April 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. Mr Lloyd George produces a communication he has received from S Orlando giving the latest Italian proposal.

He feels this offers no basis for negotiation. He suggests it might be desirable to ask the Italian delegates whether they intend to meet the Germans when they come to Versailles.

M Clemenceau thinks it iss a good idea.

President Wilson suggests that when we come to deal with Austria, if the Italians are standing out of the Conference the boundaries should be settled as fairly as though Italy were in. Italy should be treated on absolutely fair lines and shown that their interests were taken care of.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that if Italy was not present in the negotiations with Germany it would be difficult for the Allied and Associated Powers to put forward claims on their behalf for reparation, for example.

President Wilson refers to a report which he has received from a Mr Pupin, a scientist of Yugoslav nationality, who was working in Columbia University. The memorandum is by no means of a menacing character, but it does convey the impression that the result of a peace unsatisfactory to the Yugoslavs would be to drive them into the hands of the Bolshevists. They would unite with the rest of the Slav peoples. One interesting point in M. Pupin’s memorandum was a reference to an Italian Socialist meeting which had been held at Rome at which Italian claims, as recognized by the Socialists, had been outlined. No mention was made of Dalmatia, Fiume, Gorizia, or of Carinthia.

After some further discussion on this subject, which is taken up after other subjects have been discussed, President Wilson says that it is his intention to publish his memorandum on the Italian question this evening.

Mr Lloyd George reads a memorandum which Mr Balfour had prepared at his request and which presented the point of view of France and Great Britain. In the course of the reading of Mr. Balfour’s memorandum the following corrections are suggested:

1) An alteration in certain phrases which convey the impression that Fiume was not mentioned in the Treaty of London. It is pointed out that Fiume was mentioned in a note to Article 5.

2) Fiume, it is pointed out, is not on the Dalmatian but on the Croatian coast.

3) The addition, after a sentence in which it is mentioned that Fiume is one town and not two, of the following words “and that is Slav.”

4) That it would be better to omit a passage on the last page referring to the forthcoming withdrawal of Italy from the Conference. It was pointed out that although Italy had withdrawn from these conversations they had not formally withdrawn from the Preliminary Peace Conference. It was suggested it would be better to prepare the memorandum to deter Italy from doing so rather than to suggest that it was a probable contingency.

Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau agree on the following:

1) That the letter should be revised on the above lines.

2) That a copy should be sent to M Clemenceau for him to have translated and examined.

No decision was taken as to when the letter should be forwarded to the Italian representatives.

There is some discussion as to the difficult position which would arise if Italy persists in her present attitude. It was pointed out that if Italy should insist on holding on to Fiume, this would be itself a breach of the Treaty which definitely allotted Fiume to Croatia. If, on the other hand, Italy should abandon her position in Fiume, the situation would be very difficult, because then France and Great Britain would be bound by their Treaty to sign a Treaty with Austria which President Wilson did not feel himself in a position to sign, since Italy could insist on the portion of Dalmatia comprised in the Treaty being transferred to her sovereignty. It is generally agreed that anything which caused a difference between Great Britain and France on the one hand, and the United States of America on the other, would be most deplorable, since the future peace of the world depends so much on these three nations standing together. The danger of uniting the whole of the Slavs in a possible Bolshevist regime was also commented on.

Attention is also drawn to the fact that Italy had, on the 26th April 1915, adhered to the Pact of London of the 5th September 1914, thereby engaging herself mutually with Great Britain, France, and Russia, not to conclude a separate peace in the course of the War, and that when there was a question of discussing the terms of peace none of the Allied Powers should propose conditions of peace without previous agreement with each of the other Allies.

2. Mr Lloyd George says that he has just seen Captain Gibson, an officer who had returned from Berlin and who had given us consistently very valuable information. Captain Gibson said that the best of the German Delegates was named Melchior, who desired peace. Melchior was very much in with the industrialists, who desired peace. Rantzau, whom he did not think very much of, was, he believed, opposed to peace.

M Clemenceau doubted if the present German Government could make peace.

3. Mr Lloyd George says that Captain Gibson had explained that the most important factor inducing the Germans to sign peace was their desire to restart their national life. This brings him to the question of a scheme for restarting Europe. No trade is at present moving anywhere in Europe. In Belgium there are many unemployed, and the same is true of other countries and particularly of Germany. Mr Keynes had prepared a scheme, the broad outline of which was that the first thousand million pounds which Germany had to pay should be taken and guaranteed by all the Powers. Cash should be raised on it in order to enable all countries, including Germany, to get raw material and re-start their industries. Unless something of the kind was done, Melchior would not be able to make peace.

President Wilson says he has given Captain Gibson’s paper to Mr Hoover, who has some 40 agents travelling about in Europe in connection with relief work. Mr Hoover had said that the paper was extraordinarily correct, but he thought nothing could be done unless the people could get food and start their industrial life. At present, they were in a hopeless position. The ordinary life could not grow on the present soil and Bolshevism was the only system it could. Hence, he thought that the blockade ought to be raised.

Mr Lloyd George points out that there was the same paralysis in countries that had no blockade.

M Clemenceau thinks it would be a great mistake to raise it.

President Wilson points out that it could be reimposed.

M Clemenceau said that the moment was bad for raising the blockade. The Germans are about to arrive for the purpose of signing peace and we must not appear to be weakening.

4. M Clemenceau reads information which shows that the German Delegation contemplates bringing journalists to Versailles. He asks whether the French ought to allow them to come to Versailles. His own view is strongly opposed, and he would like authority not to admit them. His information is more and more in the direction that Rantzau is coming to cause a breakdown in the negotiations.

Mr Lloyd George points out that Melchior is not coming with this object.

5. President Wilson considers that, in view of Melchior’s presence, the attitude of the Germans will depend largely upon the economic terms. If the Germans find that chains are to be imposed on them, they will not sign, but if a fair basis is offered, they would. He has talked to the United States experts on the subject and the attitude they took was that the Allied and Associated Powers should only require that there should be no discrimination by Germany against any particular belligerent. That is to say, all should have the most favored nation terms.

6. M Clemenceau reads a telegram from the Chief of the Military Mission at Warsaw to Marshal Foch, reporting that by midnight of the 20th, 12 trains had passed through Warsaw conveying a portion of General Haller’s Army. He reported a number of incidents where the Germans had molested the trains and broken open wagons and taken foodstuffs, such as biscuits, preserved meat and sacks of oats and clothing. These incidents had mainly taken place at Glogau.

Mr Lloyd George says he was surprised that the troops had got through with so little trouble. He thought the attention of Marshal Foch ought to be called to the matter and that he should be directed to make representations.

President Wilson agrees.

(It is agreed that M Clemenceau should instruct Marshal Foch to call the attention of the Germans to the molestation of trains conveying General Haller’s Army to Poland and should insist on their carrying out their engagements.)

7. President Wilson says he has received an appeal from Persia, who had sent a Delegation to the Peace Conference, and complained that not only had she not been admitted or heard at the Peace Conference but that no reply had even been made to communications addressed to the Bureau of the Conference.

Mr Lloyd George says that he was informed by Sir Maurice Hankey that Mr Balfour was opposed to the admission of Persia to the Conference, though he does not know the reasons. He asks that the matter might be postponed until he had consulted Mr Balfour.

8. President Wilson says the time has come for holding a Plenary Conference. Lord Robert Cecil had written to him about the desirability of discussing the League of Nations Covenant there. He proposes that the Covenant should be laid before the Plenary Conference without any further speech making, although he would make a statement to the effect that the last revision which had been made to consider such criticisms as had been offered only clarified certain points. After this, anyone who wanted to discuss the question could do so. There would probably be only a few speeches. There were also several other reports which had been called for by the Plenary Conference which should be laid before them.

Mr Lloyd George agrees that there must be a meeting.

M Clemenceau also agrees.

(After some further discussion, it is decided:

1) That a plenary meeting of the Preliminary Peace Conference should be held on Monday, April 28th, when the following reports should be considered:
The League of Nations Covenant
The Labour Clauses
Responsibility and Breaches of the laws of War.

2) That the clauses being drafted by the Drafting Committee to give effect to the conclusion of the Supreme Council on the subject of the Responsibility and Breaches of the laws of war should be circulated for the meeting.

3) That a second plenary meeting of the Conference should be held on the day preceding the night on which the Germans were due to arrive at Versailles. The object of this meeting would be to communicate the contents of the Peace Treaty.)

9. The question of publicity is discussed several times during this meeting.

M Clemenceau strongly urges that the Treaty should be published when it is communicated to the Germans. It would not be fair to our own people to let the Germans see the Treaty and to conceal it from them. His own position would be an impossible one if the Treaty were not published. It is absolutely certain that the Germans will publish it, particularly if they wish to make mischief for us and it would make a very bad impression in the countries of the Allied and Associated Powers if the public first learnt of the terms of the Treaty of Peace from the German wireless.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the Germans might not want to publish the Treaty and that negotiations would be easier for all concerned without publicity.

Both Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson lay the utmost stress on the preparation of a good summary for publication.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the reception of the Peace Treaty would depend largely on the first impression made.

M Clemenceau said he is preparing a summary for communicating to the Preliminary Meeting and he thought this might also serve for the Press. He will undertake to communicate it to and discuss it with his colleagues.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that a notice ought to be issued to the Press of the Allied and Associated Powers to the effect that the moment for publication would be after the communication of the Treaty to the Germans and that premature publicity might have very serious effects.

(M Clemenceau undertakes to draft a preface notice on the subject.)

Appendix I Italian Proposals

I The line of the Alps (Brenner) to the sea, East of Volosca.

II Fiume under the sovereignty of Italy.

Italy will establish in the port of Fiume free zones in accordance with the terms of articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Peace clauses drawn up by the Commission of Ports, Waterways, and Railways and will extend to Fiume those facilitations which may be arranged for later on in a general convention with reference to free ports.

III Italy will have all the islands mentioned in the Pact of London except Pago.

IV Zara and Sebenico will be placed under the League of Nations with Italy as Mandatory Power.

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 07:31 PM

Wednesday, April 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. M Pichon asks Mr Henry White to read the draft Article which he understands has been prepared by the American delegation.

Mr White reads the following draft which has been prepared by Mr Lansing, in accordance with the general principle agreed to by all Powers:

“Germany hereby agrees not to make any pecuniary claim of any kind directly or indirectly against any of the Allied and Associated belligerent Powers, or against any of the Powers which have severed diplomatic relations with her, based on events which occurred at any time before the coming into force of the present treaty. All such claims, whether by Governments, states, municipalities, corporations, or private individuals, are hereby declared to be barred, and finally extinguished.”

M Pichon inquires whether any delegates have any comments to make on this draft.

Mr Balfour says that the draft appears to him to be unobjectionable, but he would inquire whether it has been before the Drafting Committee; if not, it would seem reasonable that it should be referred to it after the meeting has considered it in principle.

Mr White concurs that if the Council approves the tenor of the proposed Article, the draft should be referred to the Drafting Committee.

(The proposed Article is approved in principle, and the American draft was referred to the Drafting Committee for adaptation and insertion among the clauses of the Preliminary Treaty of Peace.)

2. The following draft is before the meeting:

1)“The aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall be accorded full liberty of passage and landing over and in the territory and territorial waters of Germany, and shall while exercising any rights of passage or landing in Germany enjoy full national treatment particularly in case of distress by land or sea.

2) The aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall, while in transit to any other State, enjoy the right of flying over the territory and territorial waters of Germany without landing.

3) All aerodromes in Germany open to national public traffic shall be open for the aircraft of Allied and Associated States, and in any such aerodrome such aircraft shall be treated on a footing of equality with German aircraft as regard charges of every description, including charges for landing and accommodation. In addition to the aerodromes mentioned above Germany undertakes to provide and construct aerodromes in such other places as may, within one year from the date of the signature of the Treaty of Peace, be designated for this purpose by the Allied and Associated States and the provisions as to charges mentioned above shall apply in the case of any such aerodromes.

4) All certificates of nationality, certificates of airworthiness, certificates of competency and licences, issued or rendered valid by any of the Allied or Associated States shall be recognized by Germany as valid and as equivalent to corresponding certificates and licences issued to German aircraft.

5) As regards internal commercial air traffic the aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall enjoy throughout Germany treatment accorded to aircraft of the most favored nation.

6) Germany undertakes to adopt measures to ensure that every German aircraft flying above its territory shall comply with the Rules as to Lights and Signals, Rules of the Air and Rules for Air Traffic on and in the vicinity of aerodromes contained in the Convention relating to International Air Navigation made between the Allied and Associated States.

7) The obligations imposed by these clauses shall continue until such time as Germany (is admitted either to the League of Nations or,) by consent of the Allied and Associated States, is permitted to adhere to the Convention relating to International Air Navigation made by the latter States.
Note: Similar clauses can be adapted for application to other enemy powers.”

M Pichon says that he understands this draft was agreed to by the French and British Delegations.

Mr Balfour says that he has examined the draft together with his experts, and the only article which appears to him questionable is Article 3. The second clause of this Article stipulates that the Germans should construct aerodromes wherever it might appear convenient to the Allied and Associated Powers to have aerodromes established. This, he thinks, is an irritating clause, and one from which the Allies would derive little benefit. He raises no objection to the first clause in the third Article, but the second clause appears to him unreasonable, and he would prefer to suppress it.

Mr White expresses agreement with Mr Balfour.

S de Martino said he was informed that the object of this provision is to give power to demand the creation of aerodromes in Germany, which might be required for the establishment of big International air routes. It is quite possible that the Germans might exhibit systematic ill-will towards international arrangements of this kind. Without some such clause as the one under discussion the Allies would have no power to enforce compliance from them.

Mr Balfour admits that there is much force in the argument put forward by S de Martino. He points out, however, that for traffic from east to west, there already exists in Germany a sufficient number of aerodromes. The use of these aerodromes by the Allied and Associated Powers is insured by the first part of Article 3. The second part of Article 3 stipulates that the Allied and Associated Powers must signify their wishes within one year of the date of the signature of the Treaty of Peace. He questions whether this interval is sufficient to give the means of fulfilling S de Martino’s purpose.

S de Martino says that he does not wish to insist, in as much as he feels that the obvious advantage of facilitating international traffic would ultimately be sufficient to prevail over any remaining ill-will from the Germans. It would alone in time, induce them to build the desired aerodromes.

Baron Makino agrees to the suppression of the second clause of Article 3.

M Pichon then declares this clause suppressed and the remainder of the Article accepted.

Captain McNamee says that he has a comment to make on Article 7. This Article provides for the admission of Germany to the Convention relating to International Air Navigation, either as a consequence of admission to the League of Nations, or by consent of the Allied and Associated States. He points out that this was inconsistent with the Convention, itself, which contains no provision for the adhesion of Germany. Article 40 of that Convention provides that powers which had not taken part in the present war should be admitted to adhere, but there was no provision for Powers other than the signatories which had taken part in the war.

Mr Balfour suggests that the matter be referred to the Drafting Committee with the object of reconciling the two texts.

Captain Roper says that there is really no contradiction as the Commission dealing with the Convention on Aerial Navigation had never intended to exclude Germany forever from the Convention. He thinks the period after which Germany might be admitted is a matter for the Supreme Council to decide. The present text of the Convention is not final, and is being considered by the Drafting Committee of the Commission. A change could easily be made in order to produce harmony between the Convention itself and the clauses to be inserted in the Treaty.

Captain McNamee expresses the opinion that there should be a time limit expressed; otherwise there was an appearance of tampering indefinitely with the sovereignty of Germany.

M Pichon says that if this were regarded as a derogation to German sovereignty, Germany would have to complain of many other such. The same might be alleged with regard to her admission to the League of Nations, which could only be by the consent of the original members.

Mr Balfour observed that the clause contained two alternatives; one, that Germany should become a party to the Convention as soon as admitted to the League of Nations; secondly, that she might become a party to the Convention when the Allied and Associated Powers consented. He is personally willing only to state the first alternative, should the American Delegates prefer it.

Captain McNamee said that he prefers the second alternative.

M Pichon says in that case, it would be preferable to maintain both.

Mr White says that he would prefer to reserve consent of the American Delegation to this Article until he had had time to consult Mr Lansing, who is an authority on International Law.

Captain Roper observes that the preservation of both alternatives in the Article is advantageous to Germany, as she might be admitted to the Convention before becoming party to the League of Nations. Commercial reasons might make it desirable to allow this.

(The draft articles for insertion in the Peace Treaty as stated above, with the omission of the second sentence in Article 3, and subject to the agreement of Mr Lansing, are adopted.

It was further decided to ask the Drafting Committee of the Commission framing the Convention on International Air Navigation to adapt the Convention to the above Articles.)

3. The Meeting has before it a French proposal for the text of Appendix “A”.

Articles for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace Regarding the Disposal of the German Colonies

Mr Balfour says that he has one general observation to make. The French Delegation proposes an elaborate code applicable only to German Colonies. He asks whether it would not be simpler to apply to such territory stipulations already made for European territory to be ceded by Germany. He is not aware of any reason which necessitated a different system in Togoland, for instance, from the system imposed in territory to be ceded to Poland, or to any other country in Europe.

M Pichon says perhaps the Drafting Committee might be able to judge whether there are colonial cases which are not covered by the principles laid down for European territory. It is desirable to see that all cases are covered, and he therefore suggests that the proposals be referred to the Drafting Committee.

M Simon said that there was little analogy between the way Germany was asked to part from European territory, and that in which she was compelled to cede territory in Africa or in the Pacific. He gave as an example the demand made on Germany that all European Germans in the Colonies should be repatriated within a certain time.

M Pichon says that this makes it clear that a comparative study is necessary.

Mr Balfour observes that he did not deny the existence of differing cases. The differences, he thinks however, were rather between the conditions of the various Colonies than between Colonial territory as such and European territory. He suggests, with reference to the former, that it might be better to leave the Mandatory Power freedom to deal with German subjects and property in the territory entrusted to them.

M Pichon says that, even so, mention of the matter must be made in the Peace Preliminaries. Otherwise the Powers to whom control of Colonial territories is entrusted would be without legal status as regards Germany to take any action concerning German subjects. Some general principles should, therefore, be inserted in the Treaty.

Mr Balfour then suggests that as the matter is one of policy it might be as well, before referring it to the Drafting Committee, to have it dealt with by a Commission composed of one expert from each of the five nations.

Mr White expresses the opinion that many of the questions involved have already been dealt with by the Economic and Financial Commissions. The remainder, he thought, should be left to the League of Nations.

M Simon said that the task of the Commission suggested by Mr. Balfour would be to adapt to Colonial territory the principles already adopted by the Economic and Financial Commissions.

Mr Balfour asks whether it would be possible to refer the question to the Economic Commission.

It is pointed out that this Commission had terminated its work.

Baron Makino says that he noticed after reading the proposed Articles that some were of general application while others appeared to concern French interests alone. There are other special interests to be considered. He therefore thinks that there should be a body whose task it would be to see that no special cases are missed. He is afraid that the conclusions reached by the Economic Commission might not cover all the special cases relating to the Colonies. The intervals could be filled by the Commission proposed by Mr Balfour. He therefore supports Mr Balfour’s proposal.

S de Martino also expresses his agreement.

M Pichon says that the task of the Commission would be to take into consideration the decisions of the Economic and Financial Commissions affecting the subject under discussion, to examine to what extent they cover the cases of Colonial territory and, if necessary, to suggest supplementary clauses for insertion in the Preliminary Peace Treaty.

(It is then decided that a Commission, with the terms of reference expressed by M. Pichon, be set up immediately, and that it be asked to report to the Council as early as possible. The following Members were then nominated:

4. M. Pichon proposes the following draft:

“Germany undertakes to recognize and approve special provisions agreed upon or to be agreed upon by the Allied and Associated Powers with all other Powers, relating to traffic in arms and spirits, as well as other substances considered in the general Convention of Berlin of February 26th, 1881 and of Brussels of July 2nd, 1890.”

(This Article is adopted for insertion in the Preliminary Treaty of Peace.)

5. M Pichon said that as M Cambon is detained in a Meeting of the Central Committee he would ask Mr Laroche to explain the question.

Report on Czecho-Polish Frontiers:

a) Mr Laroche says that there are three questions for examination, that of Teschen, that of Spisz and Orava and that of Ratibor. The line of demarcation between Czechoslovakia and Poland in the East had first been fixed so as to follow the crest of the Carpathians. There are a few Polish villages south of that line, but it had been held preferable to follow the crest as offering a natural frontier, which, moreover, had the advantage of being identical with the administrative frontier between Galicia and the Hungarian province south of it. This solution preserves established administrative habits.

At the request of the Polish delegates who appealed to ethnic considerations, the matter was studied afresh by the Commission on Polish affairs and the Commission on Czechoslovak affairs jointly.

This re-examination confirmed the conclusions previously reached regarding the region of Orava. The frontier following the watershed appeared incontestably the best.

As regards the region of Spisz, the Special Commission made some modifications; the frontier in this region did not follow the crest of the mountains. A frontier geographically more satisfactory was adopted which yielded some dozen villages to the Poles. The possession of Orava, on the other hand, would have given the Poles a footing in the upper valleys of Czechoslovakia.

Mr Balfour says that he has no criticisms to make. The question has been studied in a most careful manner, not by a committee which might have been suspected of partiality, but by two committees jointly, both extremely well informed of the questions in hand. This mixed commission had reached an almost unanimous conclusion and he did not feel competent to question what had been decided.

(The Report of the Joint Czechoslovak and Polish Commissions dated April 6th, 1919 relating to the regions of Spisz and Orava is adopted.)

b) Region of Teschen: M Laroche says that this region has been the subject of bitter contest between the Poles and the Czechoslovaks. The larger part of the region is Polish but it also contained a considerable number of Czechs. The object of the controversy was firstly, the mining district of Karwin, secondly, the railway line running east and west from Krakow to Ratibor and the line Oderberg–Teschen–Jablunkau, requisite to establish communications in the Czecho-Slovak State with the Slovak regions south of the Carpathian.

The Duchy of Teschen is part of regions attached to Austria and the view had been frequently put forward in the Commission that the Duchy should be attached to Galicia, also formerly part of Austria. In reality the district had been chiefly connected with Hungary, whereas Poland would mainly be constituted out of territory taken from Russia and Silesia.

The ethnological question had been taken into account. One district had been assigned to Poland and the three districts of Friedek, Freistadt and Teschen were assigned to the Czechoslovak State. The question is really a larger question - that of reconciling the Czechs and the Poles. On the Czech side the economic argument has been used showing the absolute necessity of coal and coke for the new State. On the Polish side ethnological reasons have been given first place and economic reasons had also been alleged; but Poland is able to find coal elsewhere. As to the railway lines 4 delegations voted in favor of the partition described; the Italian Delegation offered a line more favorable to the Poles.

At an earlier stage a solution had been unanimously accepted which left the eastern portion to the Poles, keeping for the Czechs the railway line Oderberg-Jablunkau, giving to the Poles the town of Oderberg and the line Krakow-Ratibor. This solution was impracticable.

At the request of a delegation from Teschen the creation of an independent State was considered but the proposal was rejected. It would have set up in the center of Europe at a very point where national struggles are so acute, a frail state unable to survive.

It then became necessary to consider the attribution of this region as a whole to one State or its partition. Partition was unanimously agreed on, even by the Italian Delegation, though the latter proposed a slightly different line of demarcation.

This long summary indicates the care with which the Commission had dealt with this delicate matter. Though there was not unanimity, delegates had adopted a line slightly at variance from the first; because, seeing that an ideal line was not to be found, they thought it best to disturb as little as possible the administrative habits of the populations concerned. The division proposed left Bielitz to the Poles and gave to the Czechoslovaks 3 districts, one of which was undoubtedly Czech - that of Friedek and the other Freistadt and Teschen, mainly Polish. The Czechs further obtained the mining district of Karwin and the line connecting Moravia and Slovakia. The Commission was in the following dilemma; it must either reject the ethnological principle or sacrifice the economic future of the country. The Teschen Commission had proposed a line ethnologically more accurate but it was thought undesirable to cut in two the mining district of Karwin which represents an economic unit chiefly in relation with Czechoslovak districts. Many of the delegates reluctantly abandoned the ethnological principle, but nevertheless did so in the hope that in a few years the passions of the moment would be appeased and that economic interests would preserve their importance. The Italian Delegation nevertheless had held fast to a slightly different line. The majority was unwilling to neglect ethnological considerations entirely and concluded that the feelings of the populations might more easily be appeased if they were not too directly in contact with Czechoslovak administration. In consideration of the mixture of races, tempered no doubt by community of interest, it appeared desirable to arrange for local autonomy in as large measure as possible for this region, by common agreement between the Czechoslovaks and the Poles. Finally, though the economic reasons were more vital to the Czechs than to the Poles, the latter had not been sacrificed in this respect and the Commission had suggested that an economic agreement be made at once in favor of the Poles in order that friction should in future be avoided.

M Martino says that he proposes to explain briefly the slightly different point of view of the Italian Delegation, especially as the American Delegates at the beginning had appeared to share that point of view themselves. The Italian Delegation is of the opinion that the solution just explained to the Meeting does not take sufficiently into account the Ethnological conditions, and that it damaged Polish economic interests. No doubt economic unity deserved consideration, but as regards communications this consideration should not be too narrowly adhered to, seeing that there are quite separate mines in the district. Many Polish industries in these areas depend on local coal; these industries should not be sacrificed. It is true that Poland has coal elsewhere but this coal was far distant. The solution adopted by the majority gives no coal to Poland. The Italian proposal would give Poland three to four million tons out of a yearly output of eleven million tons. From the ethnological point of view the majority solution handed over to Czechoslovakia a Polish population of 167,000 souls. This is a great danger and various persons lately returned from these regions asserted that this would produce a very perilous future for the country. The Italian Delegation considers therefore that the line it proposed safeguarded national sentiment to a greater degree, as it only attributed 50,000 Poles to the Czecho-Slovak state. It also divides the mining resources more equitably, in the proportion of one quarter to Poland and three quarters to Czechoslovakia. Finally, out of the four railway lines, the frontier only cuts the line Oderberg-Teschen. To preserve Czechoslovak interests all that is required is to put down a connecting line, no longer than 15 kilometres, which would make the whole line independent. While this work is in hand the line might be worked under the control of the Allies. Further, this shortening of the line would be very favorable to the Czechoslovaks as goods sent from Prague to Jablunkau would be saved the detour to the North via Teschen. It would seem therefore that the connecting line was sure to be built at some date. Lastly, the agitation among the mining population of Karwin must be taken into account. There were among this population more than 20,000 Poles absolutely determined to be attached to Poland. The Italian Delegation does not think that the proposal for wide local autonomy would satisfy the ethnological and economic desiderata of the Poles. The Italian Delegation therefore requests the Council to consider their proposal, which like the proposal of the majority, only seeks the best means of reconciling two future states which ought to preserve friendly relations.

Mr White says that Mr Lansing who is unfortunately unwell, had asked him to make a statement on his behalf. He greatly regrets that Mr Lansing has been unable to attend as he had studied the question very carefully. Mr Lansing does not consider that the decision on the subject of Teschen is very urgent, as it does not affect the frontiers of Germany with which the Conference was at present concerned. Mr Lansing thinks that it would be far better that representatives of the two states, namely, M Paderewski and M Benes, should discuss this problem in order that, failing complete agreement, they should at least reduce the divergences of view to the finest possible point. Should there remain any difficulties, an umpire could then be appointed. Mr Lansing further proposes that the Drafting Committee should slightly modify the article by which Germany undertakes to recognize new states, among others, the Czechoslovak Republic, in such a way as to require from Germany recognition of this state “within the frontiers subsequently to be laid down for it by the Allied and Associated Powers.” Mr. Lansing’s impression was that there had already been conversations between M Paderewski and M Benes and that little remained to bring about an agreement between them. Both these statesmen are Allied statesmen and it is in the interests of all that they should come to a mutual agreement if possible, without having any solution imposed upon them by the Conference.

Mr Balfour says that the statement just made by Mr White is very important. He was not aware that M Paderewski and M Benes were on the point of reaching an agreement; such a solution is undoubtedly the best as it would avoid any dictated agreement. For this reason, even if the chances are very small, he would prefer to adjourn the discussion, seeing that an immediate solution was not indispensable for the framing of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. He therefore supports Mr White’s proposal.

M Pichon agrees that this appears to be the best solution and asks whether the Commission has any objection.

M Cambon says that he sees none. He would point out, however, that the matter must form part of the Treaty with Austria. The solution therefore should not be too long delayed.

Mr White says he would see M Paderewski this evening and would, if so desired, beg him to hasten the solution as much as possible.

M Cambon says that, as Mr Lansing had been informed of these conversations, he thought it would be as well if he begged the Polish and Czechoslovak Ministers to reach not only a speedy agreement, but one likely to avoid any sense of soreness in future for either party. It must be remembered that Czechoslovakia is a state with a curious outline; this state would have to reorganize its means of communication radically. The connecting line proposed by S Martino might appear trifling in itself, but is not unimportant in connection with many other works of this kind that would have to be undertaken.

S Martino says that he very willingly supports Mr White’s proposal and is glad to learn that there was good hope of a solution. He had been quite unaware of any such conversations, but he has hopes that an agreement would be reached, as on November 5th last the two governments had already signed a compact, both concerning territorial questions and the possession of the mines.

Mr White says that he will inform Mr Lansing of the opinions just expressed. Mr Lansing had not been present at the conversations mentioned but had only been informed that they had taken place.

M Cambon said that as the Council proposed to allow conversations to continue between M Paderewski and M Benes, he could only express the wish that they would reach a satisfactory conclusion. He would point out, however, that the agreement of the 5th November had never been executed and for this reason the Commission had prepared a Note, in view of the decision to be taken by the Council, with the object of requesting the Governments at Prague and Warsaw to see that any decision reached should be executed. He suggests that this point should be made clear by Mr Lansing.

Mr White says he will inform Mr. Lansing.

(It is decided to postpone for the moment any solution of the Teschen question in the hope that M Paderewski and M Benes would reach an agreement).

c) Region of Ratibor: M Cambon says that this question is intimately connected with the question of Teschen. He thought that the Council might wait for the solution of the latter question.

Mr Balfour pointed out that it is urgent to settle the Ratibor point as it concerns the frontiers of Germany.

M Laroche says that the Commission has unanimously adopted a line which was submitted to Council. The object of this line was to attach to Moravia certain islands of Moravian population while respecting the Leobschutz-Ratibor line of communication which remains in Polish territory.

(The line of demarcation proposed by the Commissions on Polish and on Czechoslovak affairs in their report of April 6th is accepted.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

Annexure “A”
Clauses Relating to the German Colonies, To Be Inserted in the Preliminaries of Peace

I The German subjects of European origin may not own property, reside, trade, or practice a profession in the former German colonies except by special authorization to that effect granted by the local authority.

II Goods of former German colonies shall, upon entering Germany, enjoy without reciprocity the treatment accorded to goods of the mandatory country.

III All personal and real property of the German State in former German colonies, pass in full right, without any compensation, to the Mandatory Power.

IV All personal and real properties, belonging to Germans of European origin in the former German colonies, shall become the property of the Government of the Mandatory Power, and the price of these real properties, as fixed by experts, shall be applied in deduction of the sums which Germany will have to pay in as reparation for damages caused by the war. The German Government shall indemnify the German owners.

V The German Government shall repatriate, at its own expense, within a period of three months from the date of the signing of the Preliminaries of Peace, those of its European nationals who still actually reside in the German colonies. It shall repatriate, on the same terms, those of its subjects who are from the mother country and who have taken refuge in the Spanish colonies of the Gulf of Guinea. Natives of the German colonies, now in refuge in these Spanish possessions, shall be left free by the German authorities, upon the signing of the Preliminaries of Peace, to return to their country of origin.

VI Conventions concluded for the construction or exploitation of public works in the German colonies, as also the sub-concessions or contracts resulting therefrom, whether for the advantage or at the cost of German nationals are cancelled outright.

The compensations to be paid under this head to German nationals, after having been determined by the local courts, shall remain a charge upon the German Government. The total of the amounts thus expended by the German State shall be allowed in deduction of the sums which Germany will have to pay out for reparation of damages caused by the war.

VII The German Government undertakes to pay, in accordance with the estimate to be presented by the French Government, reparation for damages suffered by French nationals in the former colony of the Cameroons or in adjoining regions by reason of the acts of the German civil and military authorities and of German private individuals before or during the period of hostilities.

VIII The conventions which determined the ownership of territories situated formerly in the German zones of the continent of Africa, having now given place to the provisions of the present treaty, the German Government recognizes that claims which might be presented in reliance upon the terms of those earlier instruments, are hereafter without purpose. Surety-bonds, guarantees of accounts, advances, etc., which would have been realized, by virtue of these instruments, in favor of the German Government, are transferred to the French Government.

IX Germany renounces in favor of the five Allied and Associated Powers all rights and titles in her overseas possessions.

Sailor Steve

04-23-19, 07:34 PM

Wednesday, April 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

The Council has before it a printed Memorandum on the various documents prepared by the Committees in connection with Reparation.

1. Mr Lloyd George doubts the expediency of only having one representative for each nation on the Commission. He thinks the number should be two as it might be desirable to Members on have two types of men, for example, a financial and judicial expert.

Mr Davis points out that substitute members are provided for.

Mr Lamont says the point has been carefully considered and provided for by means of coadjutor delegates. It had been considered that if there are two delegates for each of the five nations the Commission would become unwieldy and it would hamper progress. In any case delegates would require experts and sub-commissions would have to be appointed.

President Wilson points out that it was the difference between the Quai d’Orsay Council of Ten and the recent conversations of the Council of Four. Mr Lloyd George agrees this is a very substantial difference.

M Clemenceau suggests that the coadjutor delegates practically provide what Mr Lloyd George asked for.

Mr Lloyd George says he would not press the matter.

2. Attention is next drawn to a clause prepared by the American Delegation providing for the right of withdrawal upon six months notice by any nation on the Commission.

President Wilson explains that, in his opinion, no nation ought to withdraw from a Commission but his legal advisers have informed him that no Treaty can be withdrawn from, or even renounced, unless there was a provision to that effect. He thought that public opinion in the United States would demand that there should be such a clause, although he hoped it would never be necessary to use it.

Mr Lloyd George asks for the substitution of 12 months notice instead of 6.

President Wilson agrees to accept this substitution.

(It is agreed that the clause providing for the right of withdrawal should be adopted with the substitution of 12 months notice instead of 6.)

3. Mr Davis says that the American Delegation considers that the secrecy provision should be withdrawn. The feeling is that to set up a secret clause in a public Treaty would make a bad public impression. If the delegates on the Commission are honest, they will not give out information; if they are dishonest, they will do so whether the clause is there or not.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the object of the clause is not to exclude Governments from making announcements but to prevent the officials on the Commission from doing so. He points out that it is vital in matters of finance that information which might affect the money markets should not be allowed to leak out.

President Wilson says that their objections are not to the actual secrecy but they wish to protect the Peace Conference against the attacks of those who declare that everything should be public. He agrees with Mr Davis that if discreet people are put on the Commission they will not give information away.

Mr Lamont suggests that every Government will give its own instructions to its own Delegates.

(It was agreed that Article 8 should be deleted.)

4. Arrangements for Determining the Amount and Conditions of Bonds, etc. Mr Davis says that the French and Italian Representatives are in agreement with the American Proposal.

Lord Sumner says that the Italians agree with the British Delegates; the United States and French Delegates are opposed to the British and Italian Delegates.

Mr Lloyd George explains that the British experts apprehend that if one Power is in a position to veto an issue of Bonds, it might be able to use this power to extort special terms. They might refuse to agree to an issue of Bonds, unless some special conditions were agreed to.

M Loucheur says that he agrees with the United States proposal.

Mr Lloyd George says that as he is alone in this matter, he will not press the objection.

(The American proposal for Clause is adopted.)

5. Determination of the Rate of Interest.
M Loucheur says that a point affecting the rate of interest has been overlooked from Article 20. He then reads the following extract from an Article prepared on the subject:

“La Commission déterminera périodiquement, à la majorité, le taux de l’intérêt (au maximum 5 p. 100) dont sera débitée l’Allemagne sur sa dette, telle que l’aura fixée la Commission, et aussi les dates à partir desquelles l’intérêt sera débité sur les montants respectifs de a dite dette.”2

This, M Loucheur says, is an American proposal. He says that originally a different text had been proposed based on the principle that a rate of 5% should be fixed leaving the Commission the right to fix a lower rate. Mr Norman Davis had objected to this. M. Loucheur’s recollection was that Mr. Lloyd George had supported Mr. Norman Davis on the ground that he considered it better from a political point of view to determine the rate of interest on the lines now proposed. The original proposal would appear to make concessions to the Germans and would create a bad impression from a political point of view.

Mr Lloyd George says that if the Germans are given a lower rate than 5% when the Allied and Associated Governments had to pay 5% themselves, public opinion would ask why the Germans should be allowed to pay less. On the other hand, if the general rate of interest should fall, he thought that Germany should have the benefit thereof and that the Commission should have the right to fix a lower rate of interest. So long as we pay 5%, the Germans should pay 5%. The Commission should not have the power to give the Germans any preferential rate of interest. He thought that it was more a question of form than of substance. Do not the American delegates agree that if we paid 5% the Germans should do the same?

President Wilson says that they all do. The only question is as to who should have power to lower the rate.

Mr Lloyd George proposed to leave this to the Commission. He would rather regulate the payment of interest altogether than the rate.

M Clemenceau and M Loucheur say that they agree.

(On Mr Lloyd George’s proposal, the drafting of a revised paragraph is left to the Expert Committee.)

6. Interest on Pensions. M Loucheur reads the following clause, which is a continuance of the clause quoted in the preceding section and which it is proposed should be added to Article 10:

“L’intérêt sera débité:

1) sur le montant des dommages matériels (pour la fraction correspondant à la valeur d’avant guerre), à partir du 11 novembre 1918;
2) pour les pensions, à partir du jour où elles sont payées par chaque pays intéressé.”

Mr Lloyd George considers a proposal as regards interest on material damage to be a mistake. If repairs are made in kind, it will mean interest is being paid on things rebuilt and it would be very difficult to assess the value. He does not, however, press the point. He does object strongly, however, to the arrangement for pensions under Clause (2). He explains that he only wants equal treatment for damage of all kinds. He cannot acknowledge that damage to houses was more important than damage to human life. The latter is irreparable. No fair interest on this could be paid unless the value of the pensions was capitalized. The same thing should be done whether it refers to a house or to a man. Supposing by May 1st, 1921, the Commission had established that the Bill for Housing was five thousand million pounds and for pensions three thousand million pounds. Both ought to be in the same category. He then calls attention to Annex I, Article I, Clause (e) and suggests that a clause based on the following words should be substituted for M Loucheur’s proposal:

“The amount due to the Allied and Associated Governments to be calculated for all of them as being capitalized cost of such payments on the basis of the scales in force in France at the date of the signature of this Treaty”.

This, he points out, will provide that Germany should not be responsible to go on paying for 60 years. The sum would be capitalized as arranged by the Commission.

M Loucheur says that French delegates will agree.

(Mr Lloyd George’s proposal is accepted.)

7. M Loucheur points out that the original date for the calculation of pensions, namely, November, 1918, does not take into account the fact that pensions have been paid by the various Governments long before that date. He suggested that some provision should be made for this.

Mr Lloyd George pointed out that this would be covered if the words “at the date of the signature of this Treaty” were added in the above clause after the words “capitalized cost”.

(The addition of these words is approved.)

8. Participation of Germany in the Proceedings of the Commission - Appendix: Annex 2, Article 13 Mr Lloyd George says he does not like the proposal that the Germans should not have power to challenge any proposal of the Commission. He agrees that they should not be able to prolong the discussion for years. Nevertheless, they ought to be able to make representations on any subject.

(At this moment Mr Lloyd George withdraws to keep another appointment.)

Lord Sumner says that Mr. Lloyd George’s proposal is to leave out the following words: “in the discussion of the general rules as to the measure of damages only”.

President Wilson pointed out that this clause contravenes the original bases laid down in Clause 3 of the Reparation Provisions. He proposes to cut the whole clause out.

(After some discussion, it is agreed that the Clause should read as follows:

“The Commission shall examine into the claims and give to the German Government a just opportunity to be heard but not to take part in any decision of the Commission whatever”.)

9. President Wilson draws attention to the article the American Delegation proposed to substitute.

Basis for Estimating Germany’s Capacity To pay.—Appendix: Annex 2, Article 15 (b) Lord Sumner says that the fact is that at present the burden of taxation is heavier in Allied countries than in Germany. Yet Germany might plead her poverty, and say she could not pay. It was common ground that the actual taxation was a related matter that must be taken into account.

(President Wilson agrees.)

What the British Delegation submitted, and thought it was not too much to ask, was that the Commission should not have the right to relieve Germany until Germany had made an attempt to raise her taxation to the amount borne by the most heavily taxed of the Allied Powers represented on the Commission. They recognized that additional taxation would not necessarily bring in money which could be used to pay outside Germany. They recognized also that such taxation might even depreciate Germany’s capacity to pay. That was the reason why they said that if the taxation was too high the Commission should be permitted to accept the plea of poverty. The British Delegation felt that it was not right that the Commission should be able to remit, unless German taxation was proportionately as high as that of the most heavily taxed Allied country. He agrees it is certainly necessary to trust the Commission, but the whole of these arrangements would be subjected to very close criticism, and it would be difficult to convince public opinion if it thought that Germany could be relieved of taxation on the ground of its poverty, whilst we ourselves were more heavily taxed and had equally heavy engagements to meet. If the Commission exercises great wisdom, he agreex that the difficulty would be avoided.

President Wilson says that under the American scheme the Commission would not be able to admit the plea of poverty unless Germany had taxed herself to an extent at least equal to the taxation of other Powers. He agrees that the Commission must be given some standards of taxation by which to judge of Germany’s ability to pay. It might be, however, that an additional burden would not give a greater yield of power to pay. He feels, however, that it is making a mistake to try to foresee situations too far in advance. If this were done, only second-rate men would be induced to serve on the Commission. He wishes to get the biggest men possible, since the financial arrangements of the world would depend on its operations. Hence, he would deprecate definite and rigid instructions, and his French colleagues agree with him. He thought that the standard of justice was as distinctly laid down in one draft as in the other.

M Loucheur says he agreed with the American draft.

Mr Lloyd George (who has meanwhile returned) says he would withdraw his objections.

(The American proposal with the French additions is adopted.)

10. Issue of Certificates by the Commission Regarding Bonds Held for the Benefit of Different Government. Appendix: Annex 2, Article 16 Mr Lloyd George accepts the French proposal.

11. Sanctions. Appendix: Annex 2, Article 18 President Wilson points out that the United States representatives have accepted the principle of Sanctions, but are not prepared to approve the form of words proposed in the draft. He then reads a simpler and shorter formula.

M Klotz said that he would accept, with the addition of the words “or financial” after “economic”. The following substitute for the second and third sub-paragraphs of this Article is adopted:

“The measures which the Allied and Associated Governments shall have the right to take, and which Germany hereby agrees not to consider as acts of war may include economic or financial prohibition and reprisals, and in general such other measures as the respective Government may determine to be necessary in the premise”.

(Just as the Meeting is breaking up, it is agreed in addition to omit the last paragraph of Article 18.)

12. Form of Payment. Appendix: Annex 2, Article 19 Mr Lloyd George thinks that this Article is too stiff. It would give the Commission power practically to take any property or material to which it took a fancy.

President Wilson agrees with Mr Lloyd George. He is seeing this clause for the first time. What he wants is to avoid even the appearance of a Brest-Litovsk forced Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that his objections would be surmounted by omitting in line 3 “demanded or”. He has no objection to the Commission accepting payment in the forms proposed, but they should not have power to demand it.

President Wilson agrees.

(It is agreed to omit in line 3 the words “demanded or”, and in addition, to omit the second sub-paragraph of Article 19.)

13. Merchant Shipping. Appendix: Annex 3 German Ships in American Ports President Wilson draws attention to amendments proposed by the United States Delegation.

President Wilson says that the claim for the German ships seized in United States ports was almost the only reparation claim put forward by the United States of America. Other powers, with their full acquiescence, were to be reimbursed for pensions. In the course of the war, the United States of America had taken over the German ships in their ports and had secured their title to them by law. The ships had been so damaged that millions of dollars had had to be spent on their repairs and new methods that had to be devised. Throughout, these ships had been used for the indispensable transport of the American armies to France. It would not be tolerable to public opinion in the United States if their title to these ships was not recognized. This had nothing to do with the payment of owners which the United States contemplated, but only to their title. It would be intolerable if anyone questioned the title which had been legally established under full process of their rights as a belligerent.

Mr Lloyd George says that if he goes into the whole case, he would show there were serious grounds which made it impossible for the British Government to accept. If he accepts it would not be merely a matter affecting the United States of America. This is an easy matter which he would not contest. It would, however, affect neutrals and other belligerents. Neutrals would benefit by this to the extent of 794,000 tons of shipping. Brazil to the extent of 216,000 tons. This means a loss not only of cash but of ships which were even more important. Brazil lost 25,000 tons and had seized 216,000 tons in her ports and would consequently profit enormously by the transaction. France lost 950,000 tons and would only be able to keep 45,000 tons; that is to say, France would only get less than 1/20th of her loss. The United States lost 389,000 tons and would get 628,000 tons. The British Empire lost 7,740,000 tons and would only get 400,000 tons. During the war Great Britain after allowing for shipbuilding had lost a balance of 4,500,000 tons. There is a great difference between the value of ships to Great Britain and the United States. It is like the value of ships to a fisherman compared with ships to a swell yachtsman. Great Britain lives on ships and it is a very serious matter to her. There is first the case of the neutrals who would walk off with 800,000 tons. In reply to President Wilson’s suggestion that this could be avoided he thought it would be difficult. The German ships in American ports had been driven to take refuge there by the action of the Navies of France and Great Britain. They only escaped capture because they took refuge in United States ports. He could not help thinking that the whole of shipping should be put in “hotchpot”. The United States would then certainly get all that she had lost.

President Wilson says they had lost not only ships but thousands of lives. In other countries such lives were being provided for by reparation arrangements, but that America was making no such claim and it would be intolerable to public opinion if it were not agreed that the United States should retain these ships.

Mr Lloyd George says he would be glad to enter into an arrangement but objected to the participation of Brazil, who had no claim for walking off with so many ships. Brazil’s whole trade was protected by our Fleet.

President Wilson says this argument does not apply to the United States, who had made an invaluable contribution to the war. The United States does not mean to take over the ships without payment.

Mr Lloyd George says he does not object to some arrangement whereby the United States would retain all of the enemy ships which they had taken over, but that he did object to the proposed American clauses being put into the Peace Treaty which would permit other countries whose rights were not the same as those of the United States, to retain the enemy ships taken over by them.

Mr Lloyd George proposes, therefore, that Annex III should stand as at present for insertion without alteration in the Peace Treaty, but that an agreement be made by the Allied Governments with the United States, providing for the retention by the United States of enemy ships now in its possession, against payment.

President Wilson states this would be acceptable to him provided a satisfactory agreement in accordance with the American amendment is drawn and executed by the Allies with the United States prior to the execution of the Treaty.

(The following alterations are made during the interval when the Conference had broken up into groups. The Secretary is unable to follow the precise reasons for the decision.)

14. Payment in Kind. Appendix 1, Annex 4. After some discussion it is agreed to omit para 2(c) and (d) and the last para of 6.

15. Legislation by Germany. Main Clauses Para. 10

(It is agreed to omit the following words at the end of para. 10:”and to the decisions and orders of the above named Commission from time to time.” The para. therefore reads as follows: ”Germany undertakes to pass any legislation and to issue any orders and decrees that may be necessary to give complete effect to these clauses”.)

16. Mr Lloyd George asks what would be the position of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

President Wilson considers that these would not be entitled to claim reparation since they had been part of enemy countries.

Mr Lloyd George asked what would be the position of Romania and Serbia, which had annexed very large territories in Transylvania and Yugoslavia respectively. These countries would not only escape the debts of the Austrian Empire to which they had formerly belonged, but would also escape the burdens imposed on the Allies. He thought the best plan was that proposed by S Orlando, that there should be a sort of ledger account in relation to these territories. On one side of the account would be the liability that the annexed territories would have had for a share of the Austrian debt and indemnity and on the other side of the account would be their share in the claim of Romania and Serbia respectively for indemnity. This would be set off one against the other and they would be credited with the balance.

Mr Norman Davis asks what would happen if the balance was a debit instead of a credit.

Mr Lloyd George says in that case there would be no claim.

17. (The above arrangement is agreed to.) M Klotz asks what would be the position of the subjects of Allied and Associated countries established in a country like Poland whose property had been destroyed. They would not claim compensation from Poland; ought it not to be provided that they should claim against Germany?

Mr Lloyd George points out that they are provided for by Annex I, Article I (a).

It is also pointed out that they are provided for by Article 3, where the words used were “wherever situated”.

18. Consultation With the Smaller Powers: After a somewhat prolonged discussion, the following arrangements are agreed to for consultation with the Powers with special interest on the subject of the reparation clauses. The Expert Committee, which had been advising the Supreme Council, should divide itself into groups and each group should see a group of nations of the Powers with special interests. M. Loucheur undertook to organize this arrangement. Those States which have observations to make should subsequently have the right of consulting the Supreme Council.

19. The Return of Animals Taken From Invaded Territories

M Loucheur proposed the following addition to Article 7 of the reparation clauses:

“Si une moitié au moins des animaux pris par l’ennemi dans les territoires envahis ne peut être identifiée et restituée, le reste, jusqu’à concurrence de la moitié du nombre enlevé, sera livré par l’Allemagne à titre de restitution.”

(After considerable discussion, it is agreed that M Loucheur’s proposed addition to Article 7 should not be inserted in the Treaty of Peace; his proposal should, however, form the subject of a separate agreement between the Allies, a draft text of the agreement to be prepared and submitted by M Loucheur.)

20. Categories of Damage: M Klotz proposes the addition of the following new category of damage:

“Dépenses engagées par l’Etat, ou pour son compte et avec son autorisation, pour ravitailler, transporter ou secourir la population civile des territoires occupés et la population civile réfugiée ou évacuée.”5

Mr Lloyd George says that if new categories are put in, the British Government would have a number of new categories which it would wish to introduce.

(It is agreed that the addition proposed by M Klotz related to a question of the interpretation to be given to the categories already accepted and should be referred without delay for consideration to the Commission on Reparations.)

21. Valuation: M Klotz makes a proposal for putting a valuation clause in the Treaty in regard to property for which reparation was to be given. This is necessary owing to the change of value between 1914 and the present time.

(It is agreed that the Expert Committee should meet to prepare a text.)

The Conclusions, as revised by the Expert Drafting Committee, will be forwarded later.

[Appendix I to IC–176A]
Reparation

1. The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of herself and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of the enemy States.

2. The Allied and Associated Governments recognize that the financial resources of Germany are not adequate after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other treaty clauses to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage. The Allied and Associated Governments, however, require, and the German Government undertakes that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied or Associated Powers and to their property by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air.

3. The amount of such damage (as set forth under the specific categories attached hereto) for which compensation is to be made by Germany shall be determined by an Inter-Allied Commission, to be constituted in the form and with the powers set forth hereunder and in the Annexes hereto. This Commission shall examine into the claims and give to the German Government a just opportunity to be heard. The findings of the Commission as to the amount of damage defined as above shall be concluded and notified to Germany on or before the 1st May, 1921, as representing the extent of their obligations. The Commission shall concurrently draw up a schedule of payments prescribing the time and manner for securing and discharging the entire obligation within a period of thirty years from the 1st May, 1921. In the event, however, that within the period mentioned, Germany shall have failed to discharge her obligation, then any balance remaining unpaid may, within the discretion of the Commission, be postponed for settlement in subsequent years: or may be handled otherwise in such manner as the Allied and Associated Governments, acting through the Commission, shall determine.

4. The Inter-Allied Commission shall thereafter, from time to time, consider the resources and capacity of Germany and, after giving her representatives a just opportunity to be heard, shall have discretion to extend the date, and to modify the form of payments, such as are to be provided for in Clause 3: but not to cancel any part, except with the specific authority of the several Governments represented upon the Commission.

5. In order to enable the Allied and Associated Powers to proceed at once to the restoration of their industrial and economic life, pending the full determination of their claim, Germany shall pay in such installments and in such manner (whether in gold, commodities, ships, securities or otherwise) as the Inter-Allied Commission may fix, before the 1st May, 1921, the equivalent of 20,000,000,000 gold marks and pending payment of this sum she shall deposit bonds as security in the manner prescribed in Clause XV (c) (1) of Annex 2 attached hereto. Out of this sum the expenses of the army of occupation subsequent to the armistice shall first be met, provided that such supplies of food and raw materials as may be judged by the Allied and Associated Governments to be essential to enable Germany to meet her obligations for reparation may also, with the approval of the Allied and Associated Governments, be paid for out of the above sum, and the balance shall be reckoned towards liquidation of the above claims for reparation. She shall further deposit bonds as prescribed in Clause XV (c) of Annex 2 attached Thereto.

Ships shall be handed over by Germany to the Commission at the time and in the manner stated in Annex III and in all respects in compliance therewith.

6. The successive installments including the above sum paid over by the enemy States in satisfaction of the above claims will be divided by the Allied and Associated Governments in proportions which have been determined upon by them in advance, on a basis of general equity, and of the rights of each.

7. In addition to the payments mentioned above Germany shall effect restitution in cash of cash taken away, seized or sequestrated, and also restitution in kind of animals, objects of every nature and securities taken away, seized or sequestrated, in the cases in which it proves possible to identify them in enemy territory.

8. The German Government undertakes to make forthwith the restitution contemplated by Article 7 and to make the payments contemplated by Articles 3, 4 and 5.

9. The German Government recognizes the Commission provided for by Article 3 as the same may be constituted by the Allied and Associated Governments in accordance with Schedule II attached hereto, and agrees irrevocably to the possession and exercise by such Commission of the power and authority given it by Articles 3, 4 and 5. The German Government will supply to the Commission all the information which the Commission may require relative to the financial situation and operations and to the property, productive capacity and stocks and current production of raw materials and manufactured articles of the German Government, its States, Municipalities and other governmental subdivisions and of its nationals and corporations, and accords to the members of the Commission and its authorized agents the same rights and immunities as are enjoyed in Germany by duly accredited diplomatic agents of friendly Powers. The German Government further agrees to provide for the compensation and expenses of the Commission and of such staff as it may employ.

10. Germany undertakes to pass any legislation and to issue any orders and decrees that may be necessary to give complete effect to these clauses and to the decisions and orders of the above-named Commission from time to time.

11. These shall be reckoned as a credit to the German Government in respect of the payments due from it under the above clauses, the following items arising out of other Articles of this Treaty and its Annexes:

i) Any final balance in favour of Germany under Article of Part IV of the Economic Terms.

ii) Any sums due to Germany in respect of property or material delivered under the Armistice Terms or its extensions.

iii) Any sums due to Germany in respect of transfers under Article XIII of the Financial Terms.

iv) Any sums due to Germany in respect of transfers under Articles 19, 37 and 51 of the Ports, Waterways and Railways Terms.

Two more Appendices and six Annexes were attached to the original document. To include them would have taken several times the space and they are all detail lists of what is to be paid for what Items. I would not normally included the one I did but it gives the actual summary of what Germany was expected to pay by the Allies.
-Steve

Jimbuna

04-24-19, 07:36 AM

24th April 1919

A British military policeman and a German policeman outside the Cathedral in occupied Cologne. The notice board behind them lists procedures if a civil disturbance breaks out.
https://i.imgur.com/CYR20tz.jpg

A despatch rider of the Army Signals, Royal Engineers, in mackintosh riding kit by his motorcycle. Near Cologne.
https://i.imgur.com/R57LdBq.jpg

The German submarine, U 53, at New York, April 24, 1919. U-53 is noted for sinking USS Jacob Jones (DD 61) on December 6, 1917. She surrendered on December 1, 1918 and was broken up at Swansea in 1922.
https://i.imgur.com/siPTDK8.jpg

Zhan Tianyou, engineer known as the “Father of China’s Railroad” for constructing the first railroad in China without foreign assistance, has passed away.
https://i.imgur.com/FXiTdKo.jpg

Ship Losses:

LV-51 (United States Lighthouse Service) The lightship was rammed and sunk while relieving Comfield Point Station.
Solid (Sweden) The cargo ship, en route from Montrose to Karlstad, struck a mine at a position northeast of Skagen Lighthouse, and sank quickly. The crew was saved.

Sailor Steve

04-24-19, 12:07 PM

Thursday, April 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. Mr. Lloyd George reports a conversation that he had with S Orlando that morning, in which he pointed out the whole of the difficulties in which S Orlando is placed. S Orlando had said that he was contemplating a reply to President Wilson’s manifesto. Publication of President Wilson’s manifesto had been held up and it would only be published together with S Orlando’s reply. This reply S Orlando had promised would be couched in moderate language and would not close the door to further negotiations. Mr Lloyd George had specially pressed that it should not commit the Italians in regard to Fiume. S Orlando had agreed on this point. S Orlando had said that he was willing to leave Baron Sonnino in Paris. Mr Lloyd George’s impression, however, was that S Orlando would like to stay. He had intimated that it would help him if a communique could be issued in the Press to the effect that at the request of M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George, as representing the countries signatory to the Treaty of London, he had agreed to defer his departure.

President Wilson points out that this would place him in an invidious position. The issue is fundamental to him as to whether the United States can take part in any part of the Treaty of London referring to districts south of Istria. The impression has already been conveyed in the Press that the Signatories of the Treaty of London are divided from the United States of America. It has not been possible for him to let the Italian people get their version of what had occurred from a poisoned Press; consequently, he had been bound to issue his manifesto. It was a friendly message to set out the case to the Italian people. If only some time were gained, he thinks that the Italian people would realize their position and that the present ferment would settle down. Hence, he would be glad if S Orlando could remain in Paris at least a week.

Mr Lloyd George asks M Clemenceau whether he is satisfied with Mr Balfour’s draft letter to S Orlando.

M Clemenceau says that with a few verbal alterations he is satisfied. He says he will bring these in the afternoon.

President Wilson says he has not seen the latest version of the draft.

Mr Lloyd George promises him a copy.

After some further discussion, the following conclusions are reached:

1) Mr. Lloyd George should ask S Orlando if he would issue the following communique:

"At the request of President Wilson, Monsieur Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George, Signor Orlando has agreed to defer his departure to Italy with a view to seeing whether it is not still possible to accommodate the difficulties which have arisen about Fiume and the Dalmatian coast."

2) Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau should arrange for the final draft of the letter to S Orlando and sign it jointly.

3) Mr Lloyd George should send President Wilson a copy of the proposed letter to S Orlando.

Mr Philip Kerr is sent by Mr. Lloyd George with the draft communique to S Orlando but the latter does not consider publication desirable. At the very end of the meeting, at the moment of adjournment, Count Aldrovandi arrives with a message from S Orlando to the effect that he and his colleagues had come to the conclusion that the best plan would be for them to meet the Supreme Council that afternoon at President Wilson’s house.

(This is agreed to.)

2. M Clemenceau says that since the discussion of previous day the Germans have announced officially that seven journalists will accompany their Delegation. He asks what attitude he is to take.

President Wilson points out that although he does not much care to have the journalists present, nevertheless, they will be confined by the same restrictions as the Plenipotentiaries.

M Clemenceau said that he cannot have them free to move about in Paris.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that, so long as they are restricted in the same manner as the Plenipotentiaries, the German papers are entitled to receive such information as they can obtain from them.

(It was agreed that journalists should be allowed to accompany the German Delegation but should be confined by the same restrictions as the Delegation itself.)

3. Mr Lloyd George again reverts to the question of publicity on which he says he felt very strongly, so strongly, indeed, that he would almost have to make a protest. Since the previous discussion he has seen Captain Gibson, an Officer just returned from Berlin, who had expressed the view that if the terms are published it might be impossible for the Germans to sign, as publication will strengthen the hands of the extremists. He himself feels that it would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Allied and Associated Powers to give way on points that really were not of very great importance. There is a long discussion on this subject, which follows much the same lines of the discussion on the previous day.

M Clemenceau’s point of view is that publication is quite unavoidable. If the Allied and Associated Powers do not publish the Germans will. He has had to grant them free telegraphic and telephonic facilities; the German Delegation will be accompanied by 40 telegraphists; and it is certain that within three days the whole Peace Treaty will be published by the enemy. The Allied peoples ought not to learn the contents of the Peace Treaty first from enemy sources. Public opinion will, in a few days, compel publication of the Peace Treaty. In any case there will be leakages.

Mr Lloyd George’s view is that leakages are not of very material consequence. In Great Britain the public does not attach much importance to leakages. Once everything is announced officially they know it to be true and it will be extremely difficult to recede from any position taken up.

President Wilson’s point of view is that although publication is undesirable it is, he believes, also unavoidable. He quotes some information that he had received from an Officer in the United States 3rd Army, who had had a talk with Brockdorff Rantzau. The latter expressed surprise at receiving an invitation to Versailles and assumed that it meant that Germany would be asked to sign practically an imposed Peace. He had considered the terms, as published, to amount to slavery for Germany and had referred particularly to the Saar Valley and Silesia. He said that he should never consent to a Peace giving up these districts, even temporarily, and that the German Ministry could not agree to such terms. He had believed that the German people would support them in not signing such terms. When asked as to how Germany could continue to exist without outside relief, in the event of her not signing, he had given no reply, though he had thrown out the suggestion that they might turn towards Russia. The American Officer had gathered that there would be no strong protest against the provisions as regards Alsace-Lorraine and Indemnity, although some difficulty would be made over Danzig. The serious points of the Treaty, however, would be the Saar Valley and Silesia. Brockdorff Rantzau had appeared very depressed. The same informant had stated that the idea of a plebiscite was being discussed a good deal in Germany and might be carried out. The independent socialists would accept it.

President Wilson interprets this telegram to mean that Brockdorff Rantzau typifies the extreme point of view. In the background he believes there is a more submissive body of opinion. His informant had suggested that the German people ought to know that a certain amount of discussion would be permitted. He himself is inclined to agree in the proposal that the discussion should take place in writing. As regards publicity, he inclines towards Mr Balfour’s view that a summary rather than the actual text should be published in the first instance. The preparation of the summary was a matter of the very first importance.

M Clemenceau says he will consult M Tardieu in regard to this. He asks how long the summary should be.

Mr Lloyd George thinks it should be as short as possible.

4. President Wilson reads a report from the Ports and Waterways Commission, which had been asked to consider the question of the Kiel Canal. The only controversial point is Article 7, in regard to which two versions had been submitted, one by the United States of America, British, Italian and Japanese Delegations, and one by the French.

M Clemenceau says he is particularly anxious that Admiral de Bon should be heard on the subject of the fortification of the Canal.

President Wilson says that his feeling on this matter is that if Germany had no fortifications, she might be unable to carry out her obligation to keep the canal open if she ever becomes involved in war with any power. The provision for no fortification is not consistent with the provision for keeping the Canal open.

(It is agreed that Admiral Hope, Admiral Benson, and Admiral de Bon should be seen that afternoon.)

Note: This is subsequently cancelled in consequence of the receipt of a communication from S Orlando.

5. Mr. Lloyd George reads a memorandum which was presented to him by Mr. Headlam-Morley on the subject of the Saar Valley.

(After a short discussion, it is agreed that the United States, British, and French experts should be authorized to visit the Saar Valley, in order to advise on the question.)

6. Sir Maurice Hankey states that the report of the Economic Commission has been circulated. He learned by telephone from Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith that some of the principal delegates on the Commission, namely M Clémentel, M Crespi, Mr. Baruch, and himself, had met on the previous evening, and after a very long discussion, had agreed to four out of the five outstanding points.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to summon the Economic experts for 16:30 hours.)

Note: This is subsequently cancelled, owing to the receipt of a communication from S Orlando.

Jimbuna

04-25-19, 09:09 AM

25th April 1919

ANZAC troops marching in London, passing Australia House, for ANZAC Day.
https://i.imgur.com/cnb37rV.png

First Anzac Day parade on Queen Street in Brisbane.
https://i.imgur.com/sF28Iiz.jpg

Air Commodore Alfred Cecil Critchley who served in the British Royal Air Force with Sir Henry Worth Thornton president of Canadian National Railways. The men are arriving in New York City on the ship Aquitania.
https://i.imgur.com/vnYOuvj.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-25-19, 01:48 PM

Friday, April 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. M Loucheur says that he, Lord Cunliffe and Mr Lamont, in accordance with the decision taken the previous day, had interviewed the representatives of Belgium, Serbia, Portugal and Brazil, and had explained to them the reparation clauses. The results of the interview had been set forth in a memorandum which M Loucheur had prepared, but might be summarized as follows:

Belgium demands the costs of the war, provisions as regards certain works of art and certain new categories of damage.

Serbia demands to be represented on the Commission and had made some small demand in regard to categories.

Brazil claims the same treatment as the United States of America in regard to captured enemy ships.

Portugal claims the costs of the war and reparation for shipping.

All ask to be heard by the Supreme Council.

M Loucheur suggests that, as Belgium was the most important, her representatives should be heard separately.

President Wilson thinks this is quite right.

Mr Lloyd George says he has received a letter from Lord Sumner describing the interview which he and some of his colleagues had had with the representatives of Romania, Greece and Japan. Romania has said nothing, but has given the impression of being not very contented. Greece has been satisfied. The Japanese representative has been enigmatic and they have not been able to judge of his attitude.

No complaints nor demands have been made. This is a matter that will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Council. In regard to the ships, he has always felt that Brazil would take this attitude.

President Wilson remarks that the difference between the case of Brazil and that of the United States is very great.

2. The Supreme Council has before them the articles prepared by the Economic Commission.

Economic Commission: Articles To Be Inserted in the Treaty of Peace With Germany.

President Wilson says that the differences between the experts are now very few and he proposes that they should only discuss those articles to which his colleagues wished to draw attention.

a) President Wilson says that one of the points in which the United States of America are especially interested is raised in Part I, Chapter D, Article 1. Although it is a matter of policy, it does not directly affect the United States of America. The point he wishes to raise refers to the limitation to be imposed on the duration of these clauses. What the United States are particularly interested in is a uniform provision as to the length of time for which these articles are to be applicable. They desire an automatic application of a term of 5 years, at the end of which the articles should cease to be operative except under some action by the League of Nations. The alternative proposal is that they should remain operative until they are terminated by some affirmative action by the League of Nations. The United States’ view is that they ought to terminate automatically unless renewed.

Sir Robert Borden says that the discussion at the British Empire Delegation centered on this point. The general view had been that the articles should be terminated unless renewed by the League of Nations.

President Wilson says this is precisely his view.

Mr Lloyd George asks how the matter stands in the report.

M. Baruch says that the articles would continue until terminated by the League of Nations.

M Clémentel says that there are two classes of articles to be considered. The first class deals with customs and the second class deals with the treatment of nationals of Allied and Associated Powers in ex-enemy countries, etc. and shipping. In regard to customs, it has been generally accepted that the provisions should terminate automatically at the end of 5 years, unless renewed by a decision of the League of Nations, which, he remarked, was rather difficult and uncertain, because a unanimous decision is necessary and any one party is at liberty to refuse assent. He asks that it should be remembered what Germany had done not only during the war but before the war. Countries like France, for example, had suffered very much from Germany’s action before the war, in her attempts to capture the iron trade; to obtain control of such articles as bauxite in order to get the aluminum trade under control; and in regard to dyestuffs, where she had checked competition. To this must be added what had happened during the war, when prodigious damage had been inflicted by Germany, both of a material and personal character. When this was borne in mind, the difficulty would be realized for peoples who had so suffered to forget within so short a term as 5 years. If the provisions came to an end at the end of 5 years, those countries would be obliged to receive the Germans in the same position as before the war. If they refused, they would, of course, be exposed to reciprocal treatment by Germany. It has been suggested that the invaded countries should receive separate treatment, and that the provisions should continue automatically unless stopped.

President Wilson says that M. Clémentel’s argument proved too much. If the League of Nations could not extend the period because it would not be able to reach a unanimous decision, it would equally be unable for the same reason to terminate the operation of the provisions. He, himself, thinks that it is a mistake to suppose that the League of Nations would not be able to reach unanimity.

M. Clémentel says that it is realized that the system cannot be permanent. What is proposed is a maximum period within which the provisions should operate. The first proposal is for 20 years. Now, however, this has been reduced to 10 years. Five years is, in his opinion, too short a period. The result of fixing only 5 years would be that France would have to shut the Germans out, in which case they would receive reciprocal treatment in Germany.

M Clemenceau says that he would accept the demand for 10 years as a maximum for countries that had been ravaged.

Mr Baruch says that the United States Delegates on the Commission think five years is too long. He hopes, therefore, that five years would be accepted as the maximum unless the League of Nations decides to prolong it. His personal view is that five years is too long.

M Clemenceau says that it should be taken into account that the different nations had not been affected during the War in the same manner. In France damage had been done which would be perceptible for more than a century. Nations which had taken part in the War and had not been exposed to the same terrible suffering as France naturally had not the same mentality as a country which could not be completely repaired for more than a century. In his view, five years might be adopted for all countries but a special provision should be made for countries like France which were in a different position.

Sir Robert Borden suggests that the five years which has already been fixed should be adopted as a minimum and ten years should be taken as the maximum period. The League of Nations should have power to appoint a Commission which should, by majority, fix a period for which in particular cases an extension should be granted, such extension not to go beyond a maximum of ten years from the original date.

M Clemenceau says France would accept that proposal.

Mr Lloyd George also agrees in the proposal.

President Wilson says that one aspect is constantly in his mind in regard to the whole of the Treaty with Germany. When the German plenipotentiaries come to Versailles they will be representatives of a very unstable Government. Consequently, they will have to scrutinize every item, not merely to say that it was equitable, but also as to whether it could be agreed to without their being unseated. If the present Government is unseated, a weaker Government will take its place. Hence the question has to be studied like a problem of dynamics concerning the action of forces in a body in unstable equilibrium. Any special restrictions on their nationals which they cannot meet by corresponding restrictions will place them in difficulties. The Treaty will hit them very hard since it will deprive them of their Mercantile Marine; will affect their international machinery for commerce; will deprive them of their property in other countries; will open their country by compulsion to enterprising citizens of other countries without enabling their enterprising citizens to try and recover their position in foreign countries. He does not think that the fact has been sufficiently faced that Germany cannot pay in gold unless she has a balance of trade in her favour. This means that Germany must establish a greater foreign commerce than she had before the war if she is to be able to pay. Before the war the balance of trade in Germany’s favour had never equaled the amounts which she will now have to pay. If too great a handicap is imposed on Germany’s resources we will not be able to get what Germany owes for reparation. Moreover, if the business world realizes that this is the case the securities on which the payment of reparation will depend will have no value. If this reasoning is sound it provides a formidable argument. He only looks towards reaching a peace and in doing so putting Germany in the position to build up a commerce which will enable her to pay what she ought to pay in order to make good the robbery and destruction she had perpetrated. But if the robber was to be in such a position that he cannot pay the penalties will be inoperative. These penalties ought to be operative and real. We ought to see that Germany can put herself in a position where she can be punished. At the present time we are sending food to Germany but she will not be able to pay for that for more than about two months.

M Clémentel says he thinks there is some misunderstanding. There is perfect agreement as far as customs clauses are concerned, namely, that they should terminate at the end of five years or that at the end of four years the League of Nations should consider whether there is to be any extension. As regards persons it is not desirable from Germany’s point of view that it should be automatically terminated too soon, as if it were, Germans in countries like France would be exposed to violence. He will be quite satisfied if Sir Robert Borden’s proposal is adopted. The countries concerned will then have a right to state before the Commission set up by the League of Nations whether public opinion would enable them to terminate the provisions at the end of five years or would render it desirable to extend the term of their operation. Nothing will be gained by Germany by unduly shortening the period. In accepting Sir Robert Borden’s proposal France is making a considerable concession when it is remembered that 20 years had been the period originally proposed.

President Wilson says he does not much like Sir Robert Borden’s proposal and he thinks it is a mistake. He thought it would be quite safe to decide that the provisions should terminate in five years unless continued by the League of Nations. He would point out that the term used should either be ‘Council of the League’ or ‘Body of Delegates’.

Mr Lloyd George says that this is the case.

President Wilson says that he wants in every possible case to yield to the desire of his French colleagues. He realizes to the full the position of the French Government and people and the suffering which France had undergone. Although it is a serious matter for the treaty as a whole, therefore, he would accept Sir Robert Borden’s suggestion but he urges that the clauses should be very precisely drawn.

Sir Robert Borden says he will be glad to cooperate with the Drafting Committee.

(Sir Robert Borden’s proposal is accepted, namely that the period during which the provisions should apply should be fixed at five years unless extended by the League of Nations. The maximum period to which the extension could be made should be ten years from the original date. The League of Nations should by majority vote set up a Commission which by majority vote should decide the length of any extension within the total period of ten years.)

The Drafting Committee of the Commission should formulate the necessary amendments to be forwarded to the Drafting Committee of the Peace Conference.

3. President Wilson asks Dr Taussig to explain points which arose on the clauses in Article 4.

Dr Taussig illustrates the point raised by Article in the following manner:

Supposing a German subject possesses property in Italy, the Article provides that such property could be utilized towards the payment of amounts due to subjects of the Allied or Associated Powers in regard to property which they had in German territory. The question is whether, in the event of there being a surplus on the German property, it could be used to make good debts owed to Allied and Associated subjects in Austria or other enemy territory. The Italian Delegation had taken the view that it could be so used, but the United States Delegation had reserved their adhesion.

Mr Lloyd George says he agrees with the Italian view. The principle of joint liability by enemy powers had been accepted in regard to reparation, and he thought it would be difficult to avoid applying the principle here also.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith points out that compensation to the enemy subjects in such case is provided for, but will have to be paid by the enemy Government concerned.

President Wilson says he does not much like the Article, but he will not press his objections.

(The Article was accepted.)

(Conclusion: Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward the Report of the Economic Commission to the Secretary General for Conclusion communication to the Drafting Committee of the Preliminary Peace Conference as soon as the expert Drafting Committee has completed the necessary alterations in the Articles.)
__________________

Sailor Steve

04-25-19, 02:44 PM

Friday, April 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 17:30

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. The Supreme Council has before it the draft of articles concerning the Kiel Canal for insertion in the Preliminary Treaty of Peace with Germany.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the French and Italian delegates have put forward a proposal for the destruction of the fortifications of the Kiel Canal. Pie (this seems to be a person not on the Delegate's List whose first name and position I can't find - Steve) understands that the subject of fortifications was dealt with in the Naval Terms, which only permitted Germany to retain works of a defensive nature. The result of the application of this principle was that no works of defense will be allowed at the Kiel end of the Canal, because these would have an offensive character since they would threaten the entrances to the Baltic.

Admiral Benson says that the object in prohibiting these defensive works at the Kiel end is not connected with the Kiel Canal at all, but is to prevent interference with the natural waterway into the Baltic.

Mr Lloyd George points out that against the proposal to destroy the defensive measures at the Elbe end of the Canal is the argument that in 15 minutes the Canal could be rendered unnavigable by dropping mines in it.

Admiral de Bon says the reason for which the French and Italian Admirals have proposed the destruction of the defenses at the Elbe end of the Canal is because, if the navigation of the Kiel Canal is to be free at all, it must be absolutely free. As regards the argument that the Canal could be rendered unnavigable by laying mines, he points out that by doing so the Germans would deprive themselves of the use of the Canal. Nothing could suit us better than that. The Kiel Canal doubles the efficiency of the German Fleet, and if they deprive themselves of it, nothing could be better. From a commercial point of view, the traffic through the Kiel Canal might become very important. It is capable of carrying 11,000,000 tons a year, and might become as important a waterway as the Belts. As regards the argument which has been used in informal conversation while the Council was assembling, that fortifications could be rapidly improvised, this is equally true as regards the Belts. Fortifications could be improvised here also. Hence, there was no argument in regard to the Belts that could not be equally applied to the Elbe.

Mr Lloyd George says that in the Naval Terms it had been decided that Germany should be in a position to defend her ports against the enemy. We could not deprive the Kiel Canal of its fortifications without leaving the Elbe unfortified.

Admiral Benson raises the question of the removal of the fortifications at the Kiel end. He is inclined to question whether we are not going too far. This will leave a large part of the Baltic coast totally undefended. The British representative had suggested that Germany might be allowed some fortification at the Kiel end of the Canal. The general principles to which we are working is that natural waterways should not be fortified. There should be free communication through them both in Peace and in War. It has been decided to remove the defenses at the Kiel end because the range of modern guns placed to command the approaches to the Belts happened to take in the Kiel Canal and Baltic Coast of Germany.

Mr Lloyd George say he hopes the French Delegation would not press for the inclusion of this Article.

President Wilson says that as a matter of fact the provisions it is proposed to impose for the Kiel Canal are practically identical with the United States arrangements for the Panama Canal, which had been arranged between the United States of America and Great Britain. These provisions were based on the principle of the Canal being available for use on the same terms by ships of all countries, except in time of war. The Panama Canal, however, was very vulnerable to attack, and provision had had to be made for its defense. Consequently, it has been very heavily fortified.

M Clemenceau points out that the Suez Canal has no fortifications, and these are prohibited.

Admiral Hope points out that we cannot use the Canal if we are at war with Germany.

Admiral Benson says that nothing could suit the enemy better than to get ships into the Canal in the event of war, and then to block them in there.

M Clemenceau said that Admiral De Bon’s point is that such arrangements ought to be made that if we could not use the Kiel Canal in time of war, neither should Germany be able to.

President Wilson points out that the Kiel Canal is entirely within German territory and sovereignty. This is not true of the Suez Canal, which is not in the body of any single country.

Admiral Benson says that his feeling is very strong that it is a mistake to touch the Kiel Canal at all. It establishes a precedent of a very dubious character. If it is regarded as a purely punitive measure, then he would have nothing to iy. But to go into a country and make special provision for a Canal is very similar to going in and taking its railways. The Kiel Canal had been a German national enterprise, and is no concern of the outside world.

Admiral Hope points out that we have Bismarck’s declaration that the Kiel Canal had been built solely for strategic purposes. It is for this reason that Admiral de Bon goes so far as to say it ought to be destroyed. In these provisions, however, Germany had been treated more leniently.

President Wilson says the Canal has some commercial importance.

Admiral Hope says that this is not great. The greatest distance saved between the nearest Dutch port and the nearest Baltic port is only 200 miles as compared with the route through the Belts.

Admiral de Bon points out a certain inconsistency between our attitude with regard to the Kiel Canal and the other provisions that had been made for internationalizing the course of the Elbe and many other waterways. If these waterways are to be internationalized, why not the Kiel Canal also? Surely it ought to be on the same basis!

(It is decided to omit Article 8.)

Mr Lloyd George asks whether it is worth while setting up an International Commission to control a purely German Canal. This Canal has no very great value from a commercial point of view. Most ships would still prefer to use the Belts, and only a few ships trafficking between Dutch and Baltic ports are likely to use the Canal. The reason for this is that there are no dues in the Belts, and there must be dues in the Canal. He asks if it is worth while to hurt German pride and add to our own difficulties for so small a matter.

M Clemenceau agrees that it was not, and withdraws the French draft of Article 7.

(The British, American, Japanese and Italian proposal for Article 7 is adopted.)

2. Admiral Hope says that the first question raised is as to whether surface ships enumerated in the Article are to be sunk.

President Wilson asks whether after these surface ships are handed over, Germany will retain any surface ships.

Admiral Hope replies that they will

Admiral Benson considers that too much is at stake to settle this Article in a hurry. He points out that the ships now lying in the British Port of Scapa Flow had not been surrendered but were merely interned.

Admiral Hope points out that by Article 24, the ships interned in compliance with the Armistice were to be definitely surrendered. This Article has already been accepted.

Admiral Benson presses that the disposal of the surface ships should be definitely dealt with in the Peace Terms. What, he asks, would happen if it had not been decided before the Peace Terms were signed, what should be done with these ships now in German ports. are the British or French Navies prepared to take them into British and French ports, and look after them? To decide this question now would ease the situation as far as Germany was concerned. To leave it unsettled was to risk misunderstandings.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that no prolonged discussion on this should be embarked on, as there are still many questions to be settled before the Germans arrive at Versailles. A discussion on this point might last a day or two. In the meanwhile, he proposes that the terms should simply state that the ships are to be surrendered to the Allied and Associated Powers. He is desirous of reaching some arrangement; for example, it might be agreed to sink some of the German ships.

President Wilson suggests that a promise might be given to Germany that a decision would be reached on the subject before the Treaty of Peace was actually signed. The question could be discussed while the Peace Treaty was being examined by the Germans.

Admiral Benson asks what will happen if a decision has not been reached.

President Wilson says his proposal is to say definitely that a decision would be reached, and then it would have to be reached.

Admiral Benson points out that any decision, except to sink the ships, means an increase of armaments.

Mr Lloyd George says he can give Admiral Benson his proposal for stopping the increase of armaments, and even bring about a decrease, but he doubts if the Admiral would accept it. The British Government does not want these ships and are ready to discuss even the decrease of Navies, provided all would agree. This, however, is a very big question.

President Wilson says he understands the French have made a reservation in regard to this Article. He asks for the reason.

Admiral de Bon says the reason is, first, that by sinking the ships, valuable property will be destroyed, and there will be an increase in the general losses of the war. French public opinion will be strongly against this. A more especial reason is, however, that if the ships are divided among the Allied and Associated Powers, it will make a considerable addition, perhaps not of great fighting value, but nevertheless, a useful addition to the peace strength of the French Navy. During five years, owing to the immense efforts of French industries in supplying the armies, it has not been possible to complete any capital ships. These ships would be very useful to show the French flag and spread the national influence in the world. France’s naval strength is greatly reduced, especially as compared with other nations. For no aggressive desires of any kind, France does not want to lose this opportunity for repairing her losses.

Mr Lloyd George says that Admiral De Bon is also well aware that the French taxpayer will not be content to pay for more ships. He fully agrees that the French position in this matter ought to be considered. His idea is that France should have some of these ships, and sink a corresponding number of old ships, or if unwilling to sink them, she might break them up, which Admiral Hope told him would be a business proposition.

President Wilson proposes that if the German Peace delegates should raise the question, a promise should be given them that the question will be settled for the signing of the Peace Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau agree in this.

(Article 25 as finally revised is as follows:

Within a period of two months from the coming into force of the present stipulations, the German surface warships enumerated below will be surrendered to Allied and Associated Governments.

These warships will have been disarmed as provided in Article 23 of the Armistice dated the 11th November, 1918. Nevertheless they must have all their guns on board.

Battleships

Helgoland
Nassau
Oldenburg
Ostfriesland
Posen
Rhineland
Thüringen
Westfalen

Light Cruisers

Augsburg
Danzig
Kolberg
Lübeck
München
Stettin
Strassburg
Stuttgart

And in addition forty-two modern destroyers and fifty modern torpedo boats, as chosen by the five Allied and Associated Governments.)

3. Admiral Hope says that the reserved portion of this Article relates to the question of whether surrendered submarines are to be destroyed and broken up.

Mr Lloyd George asks what objection there is.

Admiral de Bon says it is the same objection as before, namely, the destruction of material.

Mr Lloyd George demurs to the idea that any nation should add to its submarines.

President Wilson says that he himself is opposed to submarines altogether, and hopes the time will come when they will be contrary to International Law. In his view, they should be regarded as outlaws.

Mr Lloyd George points out that many of the submarines that have been handed over by the Germans had been broken up altogether. A decision to this effect had been taken earlier.

M Clemenceau says that this has been agreed to, but when he discovered it he had intervened.

President Wilson points out that M Clemenceau’s objection was to the destruction of material. If the submarines were broken up, the material would not be wasted.

M Clemenceau asks Admiral De Bon what his policy towards submarines is.

Admiral de Bon says that his policy is to keep the German submarines, of which France had received some 50. France had very few of her own.

Mr Lloyd George says that he does not think that Navies ought to be strengthened by submarines.

M Clemenceau says that if ever France has another war with Germany they might be useful, although he hoped long before that they would be obsolete.

Mr Lloyd George says he would like to destroy all the German submarines.

M Clemenceau says that France has very few, whereas Great Britain has very many.

Admiral de Bon says the question has never been discussed by experts.

(It is agreed:

1) That the words in the second clause of Article 28 “there to be destroyed or broken up” should be struck out.

2) That the Admirals of the Allied and Associated Powers should further consider the question of the disposal of the German submarines.)

4. Admiral Hope suggests that the following words in Article 32, which had been reserved, “such arms, munitions, and war material will be destroyed or rendered useless” should be omitted as a corresponding article had been inserted in the Military clauses.

(This is agreed to.)

5. Admiral Hope pointed out that the question of Heligoland has already been dealt with.

6. Article 38 - Kiel Canal This question was dealt with earlier in the meeting.

7. Article 40. Submarine Cables: President Wilson says that this is not a matter for the Naval Terms.

Appendix
Draft Articles Concerning the Kiel Canal for Insertion in the Preliminary Treaty of Peace With Germany

Article I

The Kiel Canal and its approaches shall be maintained free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations at peace with Germany on terms of entire equality.

Article II

The nationals, property and vessels of all States shall, in respect of charges, facilities, and in all other respects, be treated on a footing of perfect equality in the use of the Canal, no distinction being made to the detriment of nationals, property and vessels of any state, between the latter and the nationals, property and vessels of Germany or of the most favored nation.

No impediment shall be placed on the movement of persons or vessels other than those arising out of the police customs sanitary, emigration or immigration regulations, and those relating to the import or export of prohibited goods.

Such regulations must be reasonable and uniform, and must not unnecessarily impede traffic.

Article III

Only such charges may be levied on vessels using the canal or its approaches as are intended to cover in an equitable manner the cost of maintaining in a navigable condition, or of improving, the canal or its approaches, or to meet expenditures incurred in the interests of navigation. The schedule of such charges shall be calculated on the basis of such expenses and shall be posted up in the ports. These charges shall be levied in such a manner as to render any detailed examination of cargoes unnecessary, except in the case of suspected fraud or contravention.

Article IV

Goods in transit may be placed under seal or in the custody of customs agents; the loading and unloading of goods, and the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, shall only take place in the ports specified by Germany.

Article V

No charges of any kind other than those provided for in the present regulations shall be levied along the course or at the approaches of the Kiel Canal.

Article VI

Germany shall be bound to take suitable measures to remove any obstacle or danger to navigation and to ensure the maintenance of good conditions of navigation. Germany shall not undertake any works of a nature to impede navigation on the canal or its approaches.

Article VII

(English, American, Japanese and Italian Proposal) (French Proposal)
In the event of violation of any of these conditions, or of disputes as to the interpretation of the present Convention, any interested State can appeal to the jurisdiction instituted for the purpose by the League of Nations and can demand the formation of an International Commission.

In order to avoid reference of small questions to the League of Nations, Germany will establish a local authority at Kiel qualified to deal with disputes in the first instance and to give satisfaction so far as possible to complaints which may be presented through the Consular representatives of the interested Powers.

The Kiel Canal and its approaches shall be under the control of an International Commission which shall include:

2 representatives of Germany.
1 representative of Great Britain.
1 representative of France.
1 representative of Poland.
1 representative of Denmark.

This International Commission shall meet within three months from the signature of the Preliminary Peace Treaty and shall proceed immediately to prepare a project for the revision of the existing regulations. This project shall be drawn up in conformity with the General Convention on International Navigable Waterways, should such Convention have been previously concluded; in the absence of such Convention, the project for revision shall be in conformity with the provisions of the preceding articles.

Article 8

French and Italian Proposal

The following shall be demolished or suppressed under the direction of the Allied and Associated Powers and within the period fixed by such Powers:—

All fortified works situated within 50 km of either bank of the Canal or of the mouth of the Elbe, and all means of obstruction the object or effect of which might be to interfere with the liberty and the entire security of navigation.

Germany shall be prohibited from erecting any new fortifications, from installing any battery within the zones specified above and from placing any obstruction in the approaches or in the Canal.

Sailor Steve

04-25-19, 05:58 PM

Friday, April 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 18:30

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. M Clemenceau hands to Mr Lloyd George a new set of articles concerning the guarantees for the execution of the Peace Treaty with Germany. President Wilson, he says, has agreed to these.

Mr Lloyd George says he considers Clause 2 (c) to be a very dangerous one, although he realizes M. Clemenceau’s difficulties. He undertakes to examine the question.

2. Sir Maurice Hankey says that Mr Hurst, the British Representative on the Drafting Committee, has told him that the Drafting Committee is now waiting for more material on which to work. Mr Hurst has represented to him that a decision in regard to the language of the Peace Treaty is urgently required. In reply to President Wilson, he says that the Italian representative has throughout pressed strongly that Italian, as well as French and English, should be the official languages in the Peace Treaty. On the previous day, however, S Orlando had stated that he could not say definitely whether Italy would be present at Versailles to meet the Germans. Moreover, Mr Hurst informs him that the Italian representative has withdrawn from the Drafting Committee and there was no one on that Committee who can put the clauses into Italian. In view of the uncertainty as to whether the Italians will be at Versailles at all; in view of the withdrawal of the Italian representative from the Drafting Committee; and in view of the very short time available for printing and setting up the Peace Treaty, he says the Drafting Committee urgently requires a decision.

(It is agreed that the Peace Treaty should be printed in the French and English languages, which should be the official languages of the Treaty.)

3. The Supreme Council has before them the following documents:

A letter from the Marquis Saionji to M Clemenceau, asking him to press on the settlement of this question.

A Report by the Expert Committee appointed by the Supreme Council.

A Statement by the Chinese Delegation.

President Wilson says that this question is almost as difficult as the Italian question. After calling attention to the reports mentioned above, he asks if the British and French were bound to transfer Kiauchau and Shantung to Japan.

Mr Lloyd George says that sooner or later they are.

M Clemenceau agrees.

President Wilson says that, on a previous occasion, Mr Lloyd George had said that he was in a position to insist in common that the islands south of the Equator, Kiauchau and Shantung should be transferred in trust to the Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr Lloyd George says he has discussed the question with Mr Balfour, who has made a useful suggestion. His suggestion was that we are bound to transfer the German rights in Shantung and Kiauchau to Japan, but we should like to talk over the terms on which Japan would hand them back to China. That proposal would meet the Japanese sentiments of pride, which compel them to insist on the transfer of Kiauchau and Shantung to them and not to the Allied and Associated Powers. There is something to be said for Japan in this respect, since the Far East is the only sphere in which Japan is greatly concerned. She is not much concerned in the Western settlement. Then there is a suggestion which has been made by the Chinese and excepting for their first proposal, Mr Balfour thinks the Japanese might accept it and he thinks there is something to be said for starting on that basis.

President Wilson points out that the treaty between China and Japan gives to Japan more and not less than Germany had had. In fact, Japan will practically hand back nothing to China. In the meantime, if his information is correct, Japan has gained possession of the foreshore of Kiauchau bay.

Mr Lloyd George said that we ought to discuss with Japan the conditions in which she would cede the territory to China. Undoubtedly, we should get the conditions which were best for China. He feels that he must point out that, if it had not been for Japanese intervention, the Germans would still have been in Shantung. The Chinese did nothing to help get rid of them. We must not forget that Japan rendered considerable assistance in the war.

Sir Maurice Hankey, at Mr Lloyd George’s request, explains the naval assistance that Japan had given. By capturing Kiauchau, she had deprived Germany of her naval base in the Far East and her ships had had to leave the Pacific and had eventually been brought to action and sunk off the Falkland Islands. Japan, after helping to clear the seas and to escort the troops from Australia and New Zealand, had continued to police the Far East, thus setting free cruisers for operations elsewhere and particularly in the North Sea. She had also sent 12 or more destroyers to the Mediterranean.

Mr Lloyd George points out that, but for the assistance of Japan, it would have been difficult to transport the Australian and New Zealand troops.

President Wilson doubts if the Germans would have remained in possession of Kiauchau even if Japan had not captured it. The representatives of Japan have said they are willing to discuss with the other Powers the renunciation of the unusual rights which the Powers possessed in China. This would be a great relief to China, although these rights possess no practical importance to the Powers. If Japan will agree to discuss with us the terms on which these rights could be ceded to China, then we can agree as an inducement to liberal terms to allow Kiauchau and Shantung to be ceded direct to Japan.

Mr Lloyd George says that the British Government cannot agree to Japan having a special position in Shantung as well as a general position in the Yangtse Kiang. The Japanese, however, want special powers for exploitation in the territories they occupy.

President Wilson says his object is to take the chains off China.

Mr Lloyd George says that the difficulty is that we cannot allow other nations to cooperate in the Yangtse Kiang, although we should like to, since we have not sufficient capital ourselves for development. The reason we cannot do so is because we should have to allow the Japanese in.

President Wilson says that he understands this and that the Japanese are apt to make special arrangements, which exclude other people.

Mr Lloyd George says that when the British build railways they hand them over to China. The Japanese, however, are apt to keep the railways and exploit them.

President Wilson points out that the larger part of Japanese territory is barren and consequently they required room for their population. They have found some space in Korea and Manchuria but they are now seeking more in China.

Mr Lloyd George suggests the best plan to be for someone to sound the Japanese before they see the Supreme Council.

President Wilson suggests that they should be told that the Allied and Associated Powers cannot consent to the return of Kiauchau and Shantung to the Japanese on the terms on which they have agreed with China. He suggests that Mr Lloyd George and Mr Balfour see Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda.

(Mr Lloyd George undertakes that Mr Balfour should see the Japanese Representatives, and instructs Sir Maurice Hankey to inform Mr. Balfour accordingly.)

4. Mr Lloyd George informs President Wilson that he has now ascertained the numbers of British troops sent to Archangel, which reached a total of 5,000.

5. There is some discussion on the question as to whether the Syrian Commission should start.

(The following decisions are reached:

1) The French Government should immediately nominate their representatives.

2) The Commission should start as soon as possible.

3) No announcement should be made until the Germans have come to Versailles.

Appendix I: Articles Concerning the Guarantees of Execution of the Treaty
Paris, April 24, 1919

1) As a guarantee of the execution by Germany of the present treaty, German territories west of the Rhine, including the bridgeheads, are to be occupied by allied and associated forces during fifteen years.

2) If the conditions of the treaty are executed by Germany, occupation to be successively reduced according to following schedule:

a) to be evacuated after 5 years: the bridgehead of Cöln and the territories north of a line running along the Roer, then along the railroad: Jülich, Düren, Euskirchen, Rheinbach, then the road Rheinbach to Sinzig, and reaching the Rhine at the confluence with the Ahr river (the roads, railroads and localities above mentioned included in the occupied territory.)

b) to be evacuated after 10 years: the bridgehead of Coblentz and the territories north of line to be drawn from the intersection between the frontiers of Belgium, Germany and Holland, running about 4 kilometres south of Aix-la-Chapelle, then to and following the crest of Forst Gemund, then east of the railroad of the Urft Valley, then along Blankenheim, Valdorf, Dreis, Ulmen to and following the Mosel from Bremm to Nehren, then passing along Kappel, Simmern, then following the ridge of the heights between Simmern and the Rhine and reaches the river at Bacharach (all localities, valleys, roads and railroads above mentioned included in the occupied territory.)

c) to be evacuated after fifteen years the bridgehead of Mainz, the bridgehead of Kehl and the remainder of German territories still occupied. If at that time the guarantees against unprovoked aggression by Germany are not considered satisfactory by the present allied and associated Governments, Germany consents to accept such similar guarantees as they may require.

3) In case, either during or after this fifteen years delay, the Inter-Allied Commission of Reparations recognize that Germany refuse to execute the whole or part of the conditions agreed upon by her according to the present treaty, the reoccupation by Allied and Associated forces of part or the whole of the areas defined by article 2 will take place immediately.

4) If, before fifteen years, Germany meets all the engagements taken by her according to the terms of the present treaty, the withdrawal of the Allied and Associated troops would immediately follow.

Appendix II
Paris, April 25, 1919.

Marquis Saionji to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)

Mr President: The Chiefs of Government of the Great Powers having already heard the Delegates of China on the subject of the question of the Province of Shantung, I wish to express in the name of the Japanese Delegation, the desire to see as soon as possible a further meeting to expedite the definitive settlement of this question.

Considering the peculiar importance of this question for Japan, I would be grateful, Mr President, if you would keep us, so far as possible, informed of all steps in its furtherance.

Accept,
Saionji

Appendix III
Report of Committee on Shantung and Kiachow

Chinese Statement

In regard to the Kiaoehow-Shantung settlement, the Chinese Delegates have carefully considered the question which the Council of Four put to them at its meeting of April 22nd,2 namely, Which China would prefer - the treaty with Japan, or the transfer to Japan of the German rights? If they find neither alternative acceptable, it is only because they see difficulties in both. To hold China to the treaty and notes of 1915 would be to give countenance to serious encroachments on Chinese sovereignty committed without provocation and consummated only after the delivery of an ultimatum on China; while to substitute Japan for Germany in Shantung would be to create a graver situation because of Japan’s propinquity to China, and because of her domination of Manchuria, which lies closely to the north of Shantung.

As regards the notes of 1918, they grew out of treaty and notes of 1915. They were made by China out of a desire to relieve the tense situation in Shantung Province. The presence of the Japanese troops along the railway and the establishment of Japanese civil administration offices in the interior of Shantung evoked such opposition from the people thereof that the Chinese Government were obliged to take some step to induce Japan to withdraw her troops and remove her civil administration establishments, pending a settlement of the whole question by the Peace Conference.

The Chinese Delegates regret that there exist certain secret agreements between France and Japan, and between Great Britain and Japan, pledging to support Japan’s claims to the German rights in Shantung. China was not consulted when they were made; nor was she informed of their contents when she was invited to join the War. But she, on her part, has been a loyal co-belligerent on the side of the Allies. Is it just that her rights and her future welfare should be thus sacrificed to the policy of aggrandizement of Japan?

The Chinese Delegates desire to point out that since the said agreements were made, France, Great Britain and Japan as well as China and other Allied and Associated Powers have all accepted, as the basis of the peace now being made, certain principles with which the said agreements appear to be in conflict. As it is an established principle that a subsequent act supersedes a previous one in case of their incompatibility, the agreements in question would appear to be no longer applicable to the claims of Japan.

The Chinese Delegates are in full accord with the desire of the Council to uphold, as a principle, the sanctity of accepted obligations, but they question themselves whether there is not a higher obligation resting on the Council now to remove serious obstacles to the maintenance of a durable peace in the Far East as elsewhere. The Council now has the solution of the Kiaochow-Shantung question in its hands; if it makes a settlement compatible with justice, it means peace in the Far East at least for half a century; and if it declines to make a just settlement merely because of the existence of certain obligations either imposed on China by threat of force or contracted by France and Great Britain in circumstances since entirely changed, it may be sowing seeds of a grave discord in the years soon to come.

Besides, China is now at the parting of the ways. She has come to the West to ask for justice. If she should fail to get it, her people would, perhaps, attribute the failure not so much to Japan’s insistence on her own claims as to the attitude of the West, which declined to lend a helping hand to China merely because some of its leading Powers had privately pledged to support Japan.

Appreciative, however, of the sympathetic interest of the Council of Four in this question and desirous to aid it in every way possible in its earnest effort to find a solution at once compatible with China’s welfare and conducive to peace in the Far East, the Chinese Delegates beg leave to submit the following four propositions as a settlement thereof:

I. Germany renounces to the Five Allied and Associated Powers her holdings, rights and privileges in Shantung for restoration to China.

II. Japan, being in possession of the said holdings, rights and privileges, engages to effect the said restoration to China within one year after the signature of the treaty of peace with Germany.

III. China agrees to make a pecuniary compensation to Japan for the military expenses incurred in the capture of Tsingtao, the amount of the said compensation to be determined by the Council of Four.

IV. China agrees to open the whole of Kiaochow Bay as a commercial port, and to provide a special quarter, if desired, for the residence of the citizens and subjects of the treaty powers.

Hotel Lutetia, Paris , April 23, 1919.

Jimbuna

04-26-19, 07:37 AM

26th April 1919

British troops near Cologne burn off German cordite as part of Germany’s disarmament process.
https://i.imgur.com/ORkhi76.jpg

Men of the 77th Division of the “Lost Battalion” fame come back home to New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/HA9qGNk.jpg

Napoleon Cybulski, discoverer of adrenaline, dies.
https://i.imgur.com/298HwQT.png

Sailor Steve

04-26-19, 11:39 AM

Saturday, April 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

The Council meets to discuss the latest report from the Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways. Items discussed are:

1. Should the Commission continue its work or should it start changing its goal to preparing a preliminary report for the League of Nations?

(It is agreed that the Commission should prepare a report on the question of a general treaty applicable to all countries.)

2. The Transfer to France of Germany’s Riparian Right to One Half of the Rhine Water.

(After much discussion it is agreed that Germany should have the right to compensation either in money or power. The drafting of this decision is left to the experts on the Commission.)

3. Time Limit for the Operation of the Clauses.

(It is agreed that the question as to whether the shipping Articles in the Economic Report should be transferred to the Articles dealing with Ports and Waterways, or whether the relevant Ports and Waterways Articles should be transferred to the Economic Articles, is referred to the Drafting Committee.)

4. Mr Lloyd George draws attention to Article 39, which reads as follows:

“Subject to the preceding provisions, no works shall be carried out in the bed or on either bank of the Rhine without the previous approval of the Central Commission or of its agents.”

He asks if this does not only apply to the Rhine between France and Germany. Surely it would not apply to Holland.

M Claveille says that this will suffice for France but the Belgian representatives want to construct a canal to connect the Rhine and the Meuse. For them it is important to prevent Germany from doing anything at the Rhine end of the canal which would affect the navigation of the approaches. Consequently, it is necessary that the Commission should have power to control the German works.

President Wilson says that the present Treaty will only bind its signatories.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith says this is the case unless Holland adheres to the Treaty, which is important, as Holland was a party to the Mannheim Convention. Holland, however, has said with no uncertain voice that she will not come in if this Clause stands.

President Wilson asks if Belgium will adhere if this clause is amended.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith says that Belgium is protected by the Mannheim Convention, Article 30. This has been explained to the Belgian Representatives, and he thinks that they now understand the matter and are satisfied.

General Mance says he thinks the Belgians are satisfied with an explicit assurance which he had given them at the last meeting, that they are covered by Article 30 of the Mannheim Convention.

M Claveille said that if Belgium is satisfied, he will have nothing to say, but, in his view, the Mannheim Convention does not cover the point. It only provides for the prevention of artificial obstacles to navigation, such as bridges, mills, barrages, etc., but it does nothing to compel the Germans to keep the river dredged. The Belgians are afraid of this, and this could best be prevented by giving the International Commission the powers proposed in this Article.

President Wilson asks whether, as a matter of right, we are not obliged to confine the Treaty to the portions of the river over which the Allies would have jurisdiction.

M Claveille draws attention to Article 34 of the Treaty, which, subject to certain reservations, continues the Treaty of Mannheim. This provision also reserves the right of Holland to agree or not to agree.

Mr Lloyd George says that he thinks Article 39 is a very stiff claim to put forward. He understands France wanting to protect herself, but why should she say that Germany could not construct works in a portion of the river running through the middle of German territory, without the approval of an International Commission. It seems to him an intolerable claim which in no way protects France, and only interferes with Germany.

President Wilson suggests the difficulty will be met if the Article is confined to works that would interfere with navigation.

M Claveille agrees.

M Clemenceau agrees.

Mr Lloyd George says he supposes that the phrase would be: No works “that will cause material impediment to navigation.”

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith asks whether the Article is now confined to the part of the river between France and Germany.

Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson reply that it is.

M Claveille says there is no French objection, but he thinks Belgium will object.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the question should be decided, and Belgium should be left to raise the question if necessary.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith says he thinks the Belgians might be got to agree.

(It is agreed that Article 39 should be confined to the portion of the Rhine where it forms the boundary of France and Germany.)

5. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith draws attention to Article 47 which has been inserted with the object of providing facilities for railway communication with inland States like Czechoslovakia. Among other provisions it is laid down that Germany should forward trains with a speed at least equal to that of their best trains on the same lines. This would mean that if Germany were to put on some very fast trains between two business centers, she would have to run the traffic on the lines referred to in this Article as fast as these special rapid trains. As the distances might be very long this is obviously undesirable and impossible. He suggested that the phrase: “long distance trains” should be inserted.

(The above proposal is accepted.)

6. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith points out that the first paragraph of this Article gives the right to any Allied State for the next 25 years to require Germany or Austria to construct lines for through communication. The State making the demand has to defray the cost. The demands might be unjust, but no tribunal is contemplated. When the line is completed, there is no power after five years to make Germany or Austria work it. At the end of five years it might become a useless, derelict line. Either the first paragraph should be struck out, or some provision should be made under the League of Nations for supervision.

M Claveille said this provision does not interest France, but has been put in for the benefit of the Czechoslovaks and Yugoslavs. The fact, however, that these small states will have to pay the cost of the lines limits it to such as would have practical use. These countries will not face the expense unless there is some important object to be gained. If, however, there is a desire to have each case tested by the League of Nations, he has no objection.

(It is agreed that the construction of lines under this clause should be subject to the authority of the Council of the League of Nations.)

7. President Wilson says that although the Italians are not represented, attention ought to be given to their reservation to Article 45.

Sir Maurice Hankey says that the Italian technical representatives had been invited to attend.

General Mance said that this Article has only been agreed to by the British and United States Delegates on the understanding that it comes within a time limit. S de Martino had agreed to this. At a subsequent meeting a subordinate Italian official had reserved this clause for further instructions.

Mr. Lloyd George asks if they want to strike it out.

President Wilson says they do not.

General Mance says that the Italian objection is that they want it to be a permanent provision.

President Wilson says this is impossible, and suggests that it should be agreed that the clause should be a temporary provision.

(President Wilson’s proposal is accepted.)

8. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith draws attention to a new typewritten Article; relating to an eventual Rhine-Danube Canal. In the report, provision is made for an International Commission in regard to the Rhine, and another for the Danube. Many States are represented on both. In 25 years’ time the question of connecting the Rhine and the Danube might become important, and it is proposed to provide for the establishment of a connection. The Clause provides that if all the Allied and Associated Powers on either the Rhine Commission or the Danube Commission consider within 25 years’ time that a canal ought to be built, the German Government or its successors will not be able to oppose its construction. The tribunal provision for allocating the cost is not, in his view, very satisfactory, and he thinks that the League of Nations would be more satisfactory. The tribunal proposal is to be composed of the Rhine Commission, enlarged by the addition of a representative of each of the Allied and Associated Powers represented on the Danube Commission but not represented on the Central Commission for the Rhine. He would prefer an arbitration tribunal nominated by the League of Nations.

President Wilson agrees that this would be better.

M Claveille says he will accept.

(It was agreed that an Arbitration Commission set up by the League of Nations should be substituted for the Commission proposed in draft Article 33 A.)

9. Mr White draws attention to the recommendation contained on page 4 of the report for the establishment of a provisional régime in regard to the Danube, and, more particularly, to the following passage:

“The Commission, moreover, is unanimous in its desire that this provisional régime be replaced, with the shortest possible delay, by a definite statute governing the river, and proposes - at the same time without expressing this wish in the form of a peace clause binding the Allied or Associated Powers - that a Conference composed of representatives in equal number of each of the following States - United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Romania, Serbia, and the Czechoslovak Republic - should meet within three months after the ratification of the Preliminary Peace Treaty for the purpose of drawing up a definite statute governing the Danube.”

He asks if this proposal was accepted.

Mr Lloyd George says that the British Delegation agrees.

(The proposal quoted above is accepted.)

10. Sir Robert Borden says that the British Empire Delegation favors a suggestion that provision should be made for the application of the general convention to all territories the sovereignty of which would be transferred from the Enemy States as a condition of such transfer.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith suggested that the best plan would be to refer this to the Commission when it re-assembled.

Mr Sifton says that the Commission as now formed will not agree to a clause applicable to the enemy being applied to territory which was being separated from the enemy.

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith says that there was little doubt that the Smaller States will not agree to the proposal. Poland does not disguise her intention to adopt a policy of separate discriminatory bargains with other States in regard to commercial matters. It will be a great advantage if she can be persuaded to agree to equal treatment with all nations.

Mr Lloyd George says that Poland will be making a great mistake if she starts her new career with the policy Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith anticipates.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to notify the Secretary-General of the above decisions for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

Sailor Steve

04-26-19, 05:06 PM

Saturday, April 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 12:15

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. Reparation, Dye Stuffs and Chemicals, Drugs, Coal and Coal Derivatives:

(The Articles having been agreed by the British and United States Experts and Commandant Aron having assured M Clemenceau that M Loucheur had accepted them, the Articles in Appendix I are approved and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward them to the Secretary General for a Drafting Committee.)

Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith and Commandant Aron then withdraw.

2. Italy:

Attention is drawn to reports of the movements of Italian troops towards Fiume apparently from Austria and of Italian naval movements towards Fiume.

3. Romania and Hungary:

President Wilson suggests that Romania should be asked to cease their aggressive action towards Hungary. Romania has had considerable assistance from the Allies and is pressing her advantage of numbers and equipment. Her action is distinctly aggressive and might constitute a danger to the Peace. He recalls General Smuts’ suggestion that the Austrians should be invited to come to Paris. He suggests that an invitation might be sent giving a date a short time in advance to quiet things in Austria. This might arrest the danger to the Hungarian ferment extending to Austria. If Austria were put on a footing of respect this danger might be checked. This suggestion, President Wilson says, comes from Mr Hoover who has very good sources of information through his Relief Agencies. Mr Hoover is afraid of a collapse in Austria. He asks if General Franchet D’Esperey commands the armies in that region.

M Clemenceau says that General Graziani is now in command there.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that S Bratiano might be invited to attend and asked to stop the Romanian aggressive movement.

President Wilson suggests that in view of the pressure of time it might be better to send him a joint letter.

M Clemenceau thinks it would be best to hear S Bratiano for ten minutes after which a letter might be sent.

President Wilson suggests that the Austrians might be invited for May 15th.

Mr Lloyd George says there was not a great deal to be settled now with the Austrian Treaty.

President Wilson says it is particularly confined to questions of boundaries, which are in process of settlement and the proportion of Austria’s debt to be borne by the States formerly constituting the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Mr Lloyd George says that he is not sure if the proportions could not be fixed. His view is that general principles should be stated first, and then a Commission should be set up to work out details. The calculation is a very difficult one involving not only the population but also the wealth of the country.

President Wilson agrees that the best plan would be to get a Commission set up.

This question is then dropped without any actual decision being taken.

4. A Communication of the Preliminary of Peace to the German Delegates:

The Council has before them a document prepared by the Secretary General assisted by the United States, British and Japanese Secretaries.

5. Examination of Credentials:

The first proposal for an examination of credentials by an Examining Commission presided over by M. Jules Cambon is approved.

The proposal that the President of the Conference should determine the date and hour of the examination as soon as the German Delegates arrived is also agreed to.

6. Recognition of Yugoslavs:

It is pointed out that the question of the recognition of the Yugoslavs is raised by the suggestion that the Germans might ask for an examination of the Allies credentials.

President Wilson says that the United States has already recognized Yugoslavia.

Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau say that Great Britain and France have not.

(It is agreed that a provisional decision should be taken for the British and French Governments to recognize the Yugoslavian Government before the Germans arrive at Versailles but that action should be suspended pending S Orlando’s return. Unless some reason is shown to the contrary however, the Yugoslavs will be recognized before the arrival of the Germans.)

7. It is agreed that the Germans should submit their observations on the Treaty of Peace in French and English.

8. Written Procedure:

The Germans communicate Their observations in writing

1) It is agreed that the maximum time limit for the Germans to make their observations on the Peace Treaty should be fifteen days.

2) That they should be required to make their observations on particular subjects within such shorter period as might be determined.

3) That M Clemenceau should instruct the Secretary General to place himself in communication with the groups which had considered the different subjects and invite their suggestions as to how long a time should be permitted to the Germans for the consideration of each of the subjects mentioned in his list.

It is pointed out that the League of Nations is not included in the Secretary General’s list.

9. Powers To Present The Secretary General’s proposal that the President should hand Powers To over Treaty to the German Delegation in the presence of the Plenipotentiaries of the Five Great Powers and of the Belgian Delegation only is not approved.

It is agreed:

1) That the full number of the Plenipotentiaries of all Belligerents should be present when the Treaty was handed over.

The question of the inclusion of the Polish and Czechoslovak Delegation as belligerents is discussed but not decided.

10. Danzig:

Mr Headlam-Morley states that in a conversation on Thursday the 24th with Mr Paderewski he had explained to him the proposed arrangement for Danzig. Mr Paderewski said Danzig had obviously been seriously disturbed, but had recognized that the matter had been decided in principle. He had asked, however, that two points should be provided for to which he attached the greatest importance:

1) That there should be secured to Poland not only the use and service of the docks, etc., but the actual ownership, especially of those situated at the mouth of the Vistula and outside the walls of the city.

2) He suggested that the Polish control over Danzig would be secured by the disarmament of Germany, and that in order to help the general principle of disarmament it would not be desirable that Poland should make any display of military force in Danzig. While acquiescing in this idea he still wanted the power of protection against unorganized attacks by German “free-booters”.

Mr Headlam-Morley had then said he would try and secure something giving to Poland the right if required for the protection of Danzig against external attack.

Mr Headlam-Morley says he had not been able to ascertain who were the present owners of the docks.

President Wilson does not consider that either of these requests by M Paderewski can be acceded to.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that Mr Paderewski would be satisfied with power of development of the Port of Danzig.

(This proposal is agreed to, and Mr Headlam-Morley is instructed to draft the final clauses on this assumption.

It is also agreed that the protection of Danzig against external attack will be vested in the League of Nations.)

Sailor Steve

04-26-19, 05:14 PM

Saturday, April 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

The Drafting Committee of the Preliminary Peace Conference, consisting of Mr Brown Scott, Mr House Hurst, and M Fromageot are present.

1. The Form of the Treaty of Peace:

The question is raised as to whether the Treaty of Peace with Germany should be “agreed” or “imposed”.

(After a short discussion it is decided that it should be an “agreed” peace and should be prepared in this form.)

The question is raised as to whether the preamble of the Peace Treaty should state the principles on which peace was being made.

Mr Brown Scott says it is extremely difficult when attempted in detail, and it is also pointed out that the Covenant of the League of Nations contained a preamble stating principles.

(It is decided not to state the principles on which peace is being made in the preamble.)

(The project for the Treaty of Peace attached in the Appendix is approved, subject to the addition of a reference to the effect that Germany had declared war on France.)

2. President Wilson suggests that it would make the Naval, Military, and Air terms more acceptable to the enemy if they are presented as preparing the way for a general limitation of armaments for all nations.

M Clemenceau said he would like to see the formula before he agreed.

(The following formula is accepted:

"With the object of rendering possible the preparation of the general limitation of armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes to observe strictly the Naval, Military, and Aerial Clauses laid down below.)

3. M Clemenceau says that the Germans are due to arrive on next Date of Wednesday evening, April 30, and that the first meeting would be held on May 1st at Versailles.

Sailor Steve

04-26-19, 06:54 PM

Saturday, April 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. M Pichon, having declared the Meeting open, says that the first item on the Agenda paper relates to the right of aerial transit over enemy territory after the conclusion of Peace. The question had come under discussion at the last meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, and the draft articles for insertion in the Peace Treaty with the omission of the second sentence in Article 3 had been adopted, subject to the agreement of Mr Lansing.

A very long argument follows, ending with the following conclusions:

(The following draft articles for insertion in the Peace Treaty are adopted:

1) “The aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall be accorded full liberty of passage and landing over and in the territory and territorial waters of Germany, and shall while exercising any rights of passage or landing in Germany enjoy full national treatment particularly in case of distress by land or sea.

2) The aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall, while in transit to any other State, enjoy the right of flying over the territory and territorial waters of Germany without landing, subject to such regulations as Germany may establish which will De applicable to the aircraft of both Germany and the Allied and Associated Governments.

3) All aerodromes in Germany open to national public traffic shall be open for the aircraft of the Allied and Associated States, and in any such aerodrome such aircraft shall be treated on a footing of equality with German aircraft as regards charges of every description, including charges for landing and accommodation.

4) The rights of passages, transit and landing provided for in Clauses 1, 2 and 3, are subject to the observance by the aircraft of the Allied and Associated States of such necessary Regulations as Germany may enforce in the interests of her own Municipal legislation, but such regulations shall be applied without obstruction to German Aircraft and to the aircraft of the Allied and Associated States.

5) All certificates of nationality, certificates of air worthiness, certificates of competency and licenses, issued or rendered valid by any of the Allied or Associated States shall be recognized by Germany as valid and as equivalent to corresponding certificates and licenses issued to German aircraft.

6) As regards internal commercial air traffic the aircraft of the Allied and Associated States shall enjoy throughout Germany treatment accorded to aircraft of the most favored nation.

7) Rules as to Lights & Signals Germany undertakes to adopt measures to ensure that every German aircraft flying above its territory shall comply with the Rules of the Air and Rules for Air Traffic on and in the vicinity of aerodromes contained in the Convention relating to International Air Navigation made between the Allied and Associated States.

8) The obligations imposed by these clauses shall continue until 1st of January, 1923, unless prior to that time Germany is admitted to the League of Nations or, by consent of the Allied and Associated States, is permitted to adhere to the Convention relating to International Air Navigation made by the latter States.”

It is also agreed that the Drafting Committee of the Commission framing the convention on International Air Navigation should be instructed to redraft Article 40 of the Convention so as to permit Germany and other enemy countries to adhere under certain conditions to the air convention, should they so desire.)

2. M Pichon called on M Cambon to explain his proposals relating to the amalgamation of the Warsaw Commission with the Commission on Polish Affairs.

(After another very long discussion it was agreed to authorize the Commission on Polish Affairs to proceed with the study of the frontier to be assigned to Poland in Eastern Galicia and to submit a full report.)

4. M Cambon says that the Commission on Polish Affairs has now reached the study of the future frontiers between Poland and Russia. All possible information has been collected, but so far no representative of Russia has been heard. There exists in Paris at the present moment a Russian Political Conference under the presidency of Prince Lvoff, which represents all Anti-Bolshevik parties in Russia. This conference has asked to be heard, and he was authorized by his Commission to inquire whether this could be done. In this connection he wishes to invite attention to the fact that during the last few days an incident had occurred which has a direct bearing on the question he now puts to the Council. The Commission on Polish Affairs having advised the Supreme Council that it would be advisable in continuance of its work to hear the Warsaw representatives and that it was not its intention to call them together unless otherwise instructed by the Supreme Council; the Council of Foreign Ministers had decided at their meeting on April 15th to instruct the Commission on Polish Affairs to continue its study of the territorial questions relative to Poland. The Commission on Polish Affairs decided under these conditions that the Sub-Committee specially charged with the preliminary study of the Eastern Frontier of Poland would call before it the Eurasian representatives delegated by the Lithuanian Assembly, namely, Dr Voldemar and Mr. Ytchas. These gentlemen had appeared on the 23rd April in compliance with a summons addressed to them. They had immediately read a letter addressed to the President of the Peace Conference which had been circulated. After having taken cognizance of this document the Sub-Committee had unanimously agreed that the hearing of Dr Voldemar and Mr Ytchas should be postponed and they accordingly withdrew immediately. The Commission on Polish Affairs, therefore, now requests the Supreme Council to instruct them as to the action to be taken in regard to the Lithuanian representatives and as to the answer to be given them. The Commission on Polish Affairs also considers it its duty to call the attention of the Supreme Council to the fact that the work relative to the Eastern Boundaries of Poland would be greatly facilitated by hearing the competent Russian representatives. But the Commission did not consider itself authorized to take a decision on its own account in regard to this matter and begged the Supreme Council to inform it as soon as possible if it might convoke the members of the Russian Political Conference now convened in Paris.

Mr Lansing asks what is going to be done about the Lithuanians.

M Cambon thinks that the Commission can only wait until the attitude of the Lithuanians has somewhat changed. The Commission on Polish Affairs had been appointed to consider Polish interests. The Commission is naturally anxious to hear the views of all people surrounding Poland, but the Lithuanians have stated that they are not prepared to give information to the Commission on Polish Affairs, as they wish a special Commission to be appointed to deal only with Lithuanian affairs. He thinks under these circumstances, it would be unwise for the Allied and Associated Governments to give way to their pretensions.

M Pichon says that on the 23rd April, 1919, a letter had been addressed by the Lithuanian Delegation to the President, M Clemenceau, the concluding paragraph of which read as follows:

“In spite of the difficulties above-mentioned the Delegation has decided to send the Members summoned by the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference with instructions to give to the Commission on Polish Affairs all information relating to the frontiers between Lithuania and Poland”.

M Cambon says that under these circumstances the Commission on Polish Affairs should now proceed to hear the Lithuanians.

Mr Lansing thinks that instructions should be issued to the Commission on Polish Affairs to call in, and obtain the evidence of, any individual Russians that might be able to give information on the subjects under consideration; but the Commission should not give a hearing to any Russian Delegation or Commission, as such.

(It is agreed that the Commission on Polish Affairs should hear the Lithuanian Delegates and also individual Russians who might be able to give information on the question relating to the Eastern Frontiers of Poland.)

5. M Cambon says that the following report dated April 10th, 1919, has been submitted to the Conference by the Conference [sic] by the Commission on Polish Affairs:

“As a result of recent successes gained over the Bolsheviks, the Polish troops on the one hand, and the Lithuanian troops on the other, are at the present moment, at a short distance from one another. The animosity existing between the Lithuanians and the Poles and the occupation by the latter of a part of the Province of Grodno, which the Lithuanians claimed gave cause to fear that an armed conflict between the two parties might take place. The Commission on Polish Affairs considered that it would be advisable to take steps immediately to relieve a situation which threatened to provoke a serious incident similar to those which had taken place between the Poles and Lithuanians [Ukrainians] in the region of Lemberg. With a view to avoiding such an occurrence, the Commission on Polish Affairs had the honor to recommend to the Supreme Council of the Conference that Marshal Foch be instructed to study means to prevent a conflict between the Lithuanians and Poles, either by bringing about a direct agreement between the Polish and Lithuanian military leaders, or by establishing a line of demarcation which both parties should agree not to cross, or by any other arrangement likely to prevent the outbreak of hostilities between the Poles and Lithuanians and if possible to assure their union against their common adversaries, the Bolsheviks.”

Mr Lansing says he has a decided objection to offer to this question being dealt with as a purely military matter, since, in his opinion, at the present moment, it is far more a political question. An Inter-Allied Military Commission is at present on its way to Warsaw, and its work should now be permitted to proceed without hindrance. In his opinion, the Lithuanian Delegation here in Paris, as well as the Polish Delegates, could be informed that whatever decision might be reached at the present moment would in no way affect the final issue.

(After much more discussion it is agreed that the Council of Foreign Ministers should notify the Polish and Lithuanian representatives in Paris that whatever arrangements might be reached at the present moment in order to avoid hostilities in the regions of Vilna and Grodno, would in no way affect the final decision.

It was also agreed that the Allied and Associated Governments should notify their respective representatives in Warsaw, to use their good offices with a view to an agreement being reached between the Poles and the Lithuanians in the regions of Vilna and Grodno in order to avoid hostilities.)

6. M de Peretti says that the Committee appointed to draft clauses to be inserted in the Peace Treaty, dealing with the question of the disposal of German Colonies, had received instructions to take up all such special cases regarding German Colonies not already covered by other Commissions. As a result the following clauses had been drafted for insertion in the Peace Treaty.

Article I. Germany renounces in favour of the five Allied and Associated Powers all rights and titles appertaining to her in regard to her oversea possessions.

Article II. All movable and immovable property in such territories belonging to the German Empire or to any German State shall pass to the Government exercising authority over these territories, in the same manner and upon the same terms as such property passes in the case of territory ceded to an Allied or Associated Power. The decision of the local Courts in any dispute as to the nature of such property shall be final.

Article III. The provisions of Section … Part I (Commercial Relations) and Part IV (Property, Rights and Interests, Article B, paragraphs (b), (c) and (i)) shall apply in the case of these territories whatever be the form of Government adopted for them.

Article IV. The Government exercising authority over such territories may make such provisions as it thinks fit with reference to the repatriation from them of German nationals and to the conditions upon which German subjects of European origin shall, or shall not, be allowed to reside, hold property, trade or exercise a profession in them.

Article V. The provisions of article 13 of Annex A of the Report of the Financial Commission shall apply in the case of all agreements concluded with German nationals for the construction or exploitation of public works in the German oversea possessions, as well as any sub-concessions, or contracts resulting therefrom which may have been made to or with such nationals.

Article VI. Germany hereby undertakes to pay, in accordance with the estimate to be presented by the French Government and approved by the Permanent Reparation Commission, reparation for damage suffered by French nationals in the Cameroons or the frontier zone, by reason of the acts of the German civil and military authorities and of German private individuals during the period from 1 January, 1900, to the 1st August, 1914.

Article VII. Germany renounces all rights under the Conventions of the 4th November, 1911, and the 28th September, 1912. She undertakes to pay to the French Government, in accordance with the estimate to be presented by that Government and approved by the Permanent Reparation Commission, all the deposits, credits, advances, etc., which may have been effected by virtue of these Acts in favour of Germany.

Article VIII. Germany undertakes to accept and observe the provisions made or to be made by the Allied and Associated Powers, or certain of them, with any other Power with regard to the trade in Arms and Spirits as well as the matters dealt with in the General Act of Berlin of 26th February, 1885, and the General Act of Brussels of 2nd July, 1890.

Article IX. The inhabitants of the former German oversea possessions shall be entitled to the diplomatic protection of the Governments exercising authority over those territories.

M de Peretti continuing says that these articles will not apply to the province of Shantung, which would be dealt with separately. The Japanese representative on his Committee had asked whether the nations acquiring former German territory would have to take over part of the German National Debt. The Committee had agreed that this question did not fall within its province: but it had been decided to bring the question to the notice of the Supreme Council.

Baron Makino said he accepted the clauses relating to the German colonies, subject to the reservation made by the Japanese representative.

(It is agreed that the above clauses relating to the German colonies be adopted for insertion in the Treaty of Peace.)

7. M Pichon says that the Supreme War Council has referred to the Supreme Economic Council the following item for consideration and report:

“Whether, having regard to the terms of the Brussels Agreement, it is economically possible to send food independently to Bavaria, apart altogether from the political expediency of doing so.”

To that inquiry the following reply dated 8th April, 1919 had been received from the Supreme Economic Council:

“Without expressing opinion on the political aspects of this question, the Supreme Economic Council is of opinion that the course proposed would not be from the point of view of food and finance desirable, nor, so far as they can see, possible. But, if any definite proposal for carrying it out is placed before them, they will be ready to give it their consideration.”

M Pichon, continuing, says that he thinks the Meeting should merely take note of the answer submitted by the Supreme Economic Council.

(This is agreed to.)

8. M Georges Cahen read the report of the Commission on Prisoners of War

(This is an exceedingly long report, comprising several pages)

Mr Lansing congratulates the Commission on the success of its work, and the clear statement made by it. He must confess, however, that he is at a loss to understand why there should be any hesitation in saying that the prisoners would be repatriated as soon as possible after the ratification of peace. In his opinion, anyone retained for forced labor after the signature of peace would be a slave, and such action would constitute a reproach to the nation who enforced any such regulation. If their own Government liked to say that their own people should do work which would be credited as reparation, that would be quite a different thing. But a foreign Government cannot take prisoners and convert them into slaves. Such action would be abhorrent to his own country, and he is sure it would be so also to the French, British, and Japanese nations. Therefore, he recommends that a definite statement should be inserted in Clause 1 to the effect that upon the establishment of peace, prisoners would be returned as soon as possible.

M Pichon says that in principle he fully agreed with Mr. Lansing, and he is sure France has no intention of retaining prisoners of war after peace had been signed. But it seems to him that this is a question which must be referred to the Council of Four for decision. He undertakes, in doing so, to transmit to the President of the Council the views expressed by Mr Lansing.

Lord Hardinge says that he shared Mr Lansing’s views.

M Pichon adds that on the understanding that the question would be submitted to the Council of Four, he also is agreed with Mr Lansing’s way of thinking.

Mr. Lansing raises another objection over Clause 6, which suggests that some prisoners of war should be held as hostages until the Germans hand over certain officers wanted for War Crimes.

M Pichon said that unless such an Article is adopted, the Allied and Associated Governments will be deprived of the means of obtaining the surrender of guilty persons such as the officers who had participated in the murder of Captain Fryatt.

Mr Lansing asks whether if these criminals are not delivered, it is intended to keep the innocent hostages forever.

M Cahen explains that two reasons have influenced the Commission in accepting the clause under discussion. In the first place, it will be noticed that officers alone had been referred to, because the atrocities as a whole had only been committed by a certain military caste, who had worked hand in glove. For this reason, it has been clearly stated that officers alone should be selected by the Allied and Associated Governments for detention as hostages. Consequently, the persons so selected would be those who had approved of the commission of such atrocities. In other words, the persons so selected would indirectly be responsible for the crimes committed. In the second place, the insertion of a clause as suggested would constitute the only method of preventing the clauses of the Treaty relating to the surrender of persons alleged to be guilty of offences against laws and customs of war from becoming inoperative.

Mr Lansing says that he appreciates the reason for this Article, and the argument, but he is strongly opposed to it. Why not for the same reason retain hostages to ensure the fulfillment of every Article of the Treaty? If there is doubt as to Germany’s good faith in accepting one Article, her good faith in accepting any or all Articles might equally be doubted. He cannot consent to this Article. He understands that a Commission is working or is about to begin work on a study of the means of obtaining guarantees for the fulfillment of all the conditions of the Treaty of Peace, and he thinks this question should also be referred to that Committee, to whom it really belongs. But he would most strongly urge the rejection of any proposal to retain hostages after the signature of Peace, as such a proposal would be contrary to the principles of civilized war and the laws of humanity.

Lord Hardinge says that pending the substitution of a clause by some other Commission, which would insure the same results as were obtained by the Article under discussion, he cannot agree to the omission of the Article from the Treaty of Peace.

Mr Lansing says that under the circumstances the only course will be to submit the two questions relating to slavery and to hostages to the Council of Four.

(This is agreed to.)

Mr Lansing, continuing, proposes that the second paragraph of Article 1 should be made to read somewhat as follows:

“On the part of each of the Allied and Associated Powers a Sub-Commission composed exclusively of representatives of the respective Power and of delegates of the German Government shall regulate the details of execution for the return of prisoners”.

(This is agreed to.)

(It is agreed to adopt the following Articles, with the proviso that Article 1, relating to the repatriation of German prisoners, and Article 6, relating to the detention of hostages, should be referred to the Council of Four for decision:

“1) The repatriation of German prisoners of war and interned civilians shall, in the conditions fixed by Article — of the Present Treaty, be carried out by a Commission composed of representatives of the Allied and Associated Governments on the one part and of the German Government on the other part.

On the part of each of the Allied and Associated Powers a Sub-Commission, composed exclusively of representatives of the respective Power and of delegates of the German Government, shall regulate details of execution for the return of prisoners.

2) From the time of their delivery into the hands of the German Authorities, the prisoners of war and interned civilians are to be returned without delay to their house by the said Authorities.

Those among them whose pre-war domicile was in territory occupied by the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers are likewise to be sent to their homes, subject to the consent and control of the Military Authorities of the Armies of Occupation of the Allied and Associated Governments.

3) The whole cost of repatriation from the outset shall be borne by the German Government who shall also provide such land or sea transport, including working personnel, as may be considered necessary by the Commission referred to in paragraph (1).

4) Prisoners of war and interned civilians awaiting disposal or undergoing sentence for offences against discipline shall be repatriated without regard to the completion of their sentence or of the proceedings pending against them.

The foregoing paragraph shall not apply to prisoners of war and interned civilians punished for offences committed subsequent to May 1st, 1919.

During the period pending their repatriation all prisoners of war and interned civilians shall remain subject to the existing regulations, more especially as regards work and discipline.

5) Prisoners of war and interned civilians who are awaiting disposal or undergoing sentence for offences other than those against discipline may be detained.

6) Until the German Government has taken all the measures required by Clause — of the present Treaty (providing for the surrender of prisoners alleged to be guilty of offences against the laws and customs of war or the laws of humanity), the Allied and Associated Governments reserve to themselves the right to detain in custody such prisoners of war of the rank of officer as they may in their discretion select.

7) a. The German Government undertakes to receive on its territory all individuals liable to repatriation without discrimination.

b. Prisoners of war, or other German nationals, who do not desire to be repatriated, may be excluded from repatriation, but the Allied and Associated Governments reserve to themselves the right either to repatriate them, or to send them to a neutral country, or to allow them to reside in their territories.

The German Government undertakes to take no special proceedings against such individuals or their families, and to exercise no repressive or vexatious measures of any kind whatsoever on this account.

8) The Allied and Associated Governments reserve the right to make the repatriation of German subjects or adherents in their hands conditional on the immediate notification and release by the German Government of any prisoners of war, subjects or adherents of the Allied and Associated Governments, who may still be in Germany.

9) The German Government undertakes:

(i) to give every facility to Commissions of Enquiry into the cases of the missing: to furnish them with all necessary means of transport: to allow them access to all such places as camps, prisons, hospitals, etc., and to place at their disposal all documents, whether public or private, which would facilitate their enquiries.

(ii) to impose penalties upon any German officials or private persons who shall have concealed the presence of any Allied or Associated subjects or adherents, or neglected to reveal the presence of any such after it had come to their knowledge.

10) The German Government undertakes to restore without delay, from the time that the present Treaty comes into force all articles, cash, securities and documents which have belonged to Allied or Associated subjects and adherents and which have been taken possession of by the German Authorities.

11) The graves of prisoners and interned civilians, subjects or adherents of the respective belligerents, who have died in captivity shall be properly maintained as provided for by Clause — of the present Treaty.

The Allied and Associated Governments on the one hand and the German Government on the other hand, mutually undertake furthermore:

(i) to furnish a complete list of the dead, together with all information useful for identification.

(ii) to furnish all information as to the number and location of graves of all those who have been buried without identification.”

(The Meeting then adjourns)

Sailor Steve

04-26-19, 07:22 PM

Saturday, April 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 15:15

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

The Council has before them the French and English Texts of the Financial Clauses as revised by a special Committee appointed to consider the Report of the Financial Commission.

1. President Wilson says that he has one alteration to propose at the end of Clause 2 of the English Text (Clause 1 (a) of the French Text). This Clause provides that certain payments to be made by Germany to the Allied & Associated Governments in the occupied territories themselves shall be paid by the German Government in Marks. These payments include sums due to the Allies for the up-keep of the Armies of Occupation, and the practice is for Marshal Foch to agree a rate from time to time at which these Mark payments shall be calculated. The text would consequently be clearer if it were made plain that Germany will pay at the current or agreed rate of exchange.

M Klotz is at first doubtful as to the precise significance of this addition, but Mr Davis explains that the words were only intended to mean that until there is an actual current rate for Marks the agreed rate as established from time to time under the present system will govern the payments made by Germany in the occupied territories.

(It was agreed that Clause 2. (Clause 1. (a) in the French Text) should be amended by the insertion of the words “at the current or agreed rate of Exchange” at the end of the penultimate sentence.)

2. President Wilson proposes that the definition of payments which the Allied & Associated Governments might judge to be essential to enable Germany to meet her obligations in respect of reparation, should be made somewhat less rigid. As defined in the text these payments must be either for supplies of food or for raw material, but there might be other payments which it would be of advantage to allow Germany to make in advance of reparation.

M Klotz thinks that all necessary payments are covered by the definition as it stood in the text, and asks what other payments it might be desired to include in the priority.

Mr Davis says that in certain circumstances it might be desirable to allow Germany to pay a debt due to a neutral country, and he thought that in any event it would be a mistake to close the door against any possible extension by limiting the Allied and Associated Governments to the strict terms of the proposed text.

(It was agreed that the last sentence of Clause 4. (Clause 2. in the French Text) should read as follows:

“The payment of such supplies of food and raw materials for Germany, and such other payments as may be judged by the Allied & Associated powers to be essential to enable Germany to meet her obligations in respect of reparation will have priority to the extent and upon the conditions which have been or may be determined by the Allied & Associated Governments.”)

3. M Klotz says that it is only just and reasonable that in cases where the Germans had stolen locomotives or rolling stock, for ex-crediting to ample, from France, they should be required to make good those losses to France, not only where the identical locomotive could be discovered, but also by the restitution of similar material.

Mr Lloyd George says that he is quite prepared to accept this principle, but that if it is accepted it must be applied all round. If a German railway wagon is to be handed over to France in substitution for a stolen wagon, apart from the general reparation pool, then the same principle must apply to a ship, and the Germans must make good to the United Kingdom in a similar manner the losses suffered as a result of the Submarine warfare.

M Klotz maintains that there is no comparison between the two cases because ships have been sunk, whereas the identical locomotives could presumably be discovered in Germany in course of time.

Mr Lloyd George replies that this was not at all necessarily the case, and that even if this were so the French Government would be entitled to obtain them under the Reparation clauses.

President Wilson agrees that the case is covered by the Reparation clauses of the Treaty, and that since it is not too late to identify the stolen material, there is no necessity for providing that similar material shall be restored without payment.

(It was agreed that the Clause should be allowed to stand as drafted in the text.)

4. M Klotz says that in Clause 9 (Clause 6 (a) in the French Text) there is a British and a French proposal as between which no agreement had been reached.

The French proposal is to apply a uniform system to all territory changing hands. In the first place the State that takes possession or assumes a Mandate over territory should also take the responsibility control for such portion of the debt of the German Empire as can properly be attached to that territory: at the same time the Mandatory State, or the State to whom the territory is ceded should take over all German State properties within the territory. It would be difficult, in the first place, to make Germany pay coupons on the joint debt of several German Colonies, or be responsible for the administration of the local debts attached to the territories not in her control; and, in the second place, it was necessary that if the Mandatory States took over a portion of the debt they should also take over the State property without payment, since otherwise they would be paying twice over, once for the property, and again for the debt to which the property was attached.

Mr Lloyd George said that he would have the greatest difficulty in defending the principle that the Allies should assume liability for the debts attaching to the German Colonies; for example, General Smuts would naturally and rightly object to paying the debt of S. W. Africa which is largely a war debt for expenditure incurred by Germany for military purposes and directed against the Allies. At the same time he would be prepared to make a concession by admitting liability for the purely commercial portion of the debt. It is perhaps right that we should pay for railways that were not strategic railways, and for buildings and undertakings which were the result of German enterprise which would benefit the Mandatory Power. He proposed, therefore that a valuation of such property should be made and that liability should be acknowledged for the present value of this property. This is the only fair measure of the actual advantage acquired by the State under whose control the territory would be.

President Wilson thinks that it might be extremely difficult to know whether the money borrowed by the Germans on the assets of a Colony had been spent within the Colony or for its advantage.

M Klotz said that he is prepared to leave the whole question to the Reparation Commission.

President Wilson replies that the Reparation Commission might determine the items but that it was necessary now to lay down the general principle which should be applied in all these cases.

M Klotz says that Alsace-Lorraine is altogether in a special position. The Germans had taken over everything in 1871 without payment except the Railways.

M Clemenceau says that for the Railways he would be prepared to return the money which had been received from Germany, but that France had a right to have everything else restored to her which the Germans had forcibly taken in 1871.

Mr Lloyd George says that since 1871 the Germans, by their enterprise, had greatly added to the value of Alsace-Lorraine, and that it is therefore not entirely a question of restoring what had been wrongfully taken. Similarly in Africa the Germans might have built a railway for opening up a new part of the country. In such a case he thinks it right that some sort of compensation should be made, but that he would sharply distinguish between military value and commercial value.

Mr Keynes proposes the following clause:—

“Cedee and Mandatory Powers shall pay the present economic, commercial and administrative value of Government property in territory taken over by them, except that in the case of Alsace-Lorraine property taken over by Germany in 1871 and not paid for shall be returned to France without payment of any kind.”

M Clemenceau says that he cannot accept this text.

(The Representatives of the French Government then withdraw to prepare an alternative proposal.)

As eventually drafted this proposal makes an exception in the case of Alsace-Lorraine on the ground that the principles applying elsewhere do not there hold good in view of the past history of the country.

Mr Lloyd George says that the important thing is that there should be no exceptions, but that a principle should be found which covered all cases alike. In spite of the serious objections which could reasonably be made from the point of view of the British Dominions, he proposes that, after valuation, some payment should be made to Germany for commercial improvements. If this concession could not be accepted and applied all round he would prefer that there should be no payment at all, and that what property there is should be taken as a contribution to the costs of the war. It is impossible to suppose that Mandatories should be required to pay when no payment at all was made for ceded territories.

President Wilson thinks that the case of the Colonies is somewhat different from that of Alsace-Lorraine, seeing that the Colonies had not been wrongfully taken away. The whole world has felt for 48 years that Alsace-Lorraine had been wrongfully torn from France. German S. W. Africa, New Guinea, and even the ceded parts of Posen were not in the same position.

Mr Lloyd George says that he does not press for payment in Alsace-Lorraine, but he does press for the acceptance of a general principle. The British interpretation of the Armistice terms is that a claim might rightfully be made for injury to civilians in respect of the injury done by the Submarine warfare to the business of civilians. In that case he had agreed not to press the British claim but to fall in with the general principles proposed. It is very harsh that in this case, where the general principle happens not to suit another country, an exception should be made in their favor, even though the British Government had agreed not to lodge the whole claim to which they were entitled.

President Wilson states that he had been assuming that the case of Alsace-Lorraine was an accepted exception in the thought of the world. The difficulty on the other side was the inequity of taking over property without paying for it.

Mr Lloyd George says that Alsace-Lorraine is an exception as regards territory, but not as regards expenditure. He could not defend such discrimination. He could not go to the Dominions and press upon them the acceptance of a German debt when their expenditure had been so gigantic in relation to their population. Australia has a population of 4½ million and three hundred million pounds of war debt. She had lost as many dead in the war as the United States, and was now to be required to pay for New Guinea, even though she could not obtain the whole of her just claims against Germany. The only thing that the British Colonies could hope to get was a pension on the French scale when they were paying twice as much from their own resources, and now it was proposed to discriminate against the British Dominions and in favour of Alsace-Lorraine.

Mr Keynes suggests that in respect of Mandatories, the British text should be accepted, and that the new French text should be accepted for ceded territories.

President Wilson says that the Mandatory States would be acting in the capacity of Trustees, and that he thought it was therefore reasonable that they should not pay for the territories taken over; at the same time Alsace-Lorraine is in a special position, and France should not be required to pay for what had been taken from her.

(It is agreed that except in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, Government property in all ceded territories should be paid for, but that Mandatory States, being Trustees, should take over the property without payment.)

5. President Wilson states that he thinks it will be difficult to accept the principle of Clause 13. (Clause 11. in the French text) under which any alienation of property or securities in violation of the financial conditions of the Armistice becomes null and void. It would in any event be quite impracticable to track down the securities which had been alienated.

M Klotz says that he is quite prepared to abandon the chase after securities in Turkey, for the sake of which the clause had been inserted.

(It was agreed to delete Clause 13. (Clause 11. in the French Text))

6. Priority of Allied Nationals Holding German Public Loans:

President Wilson thinks that this Clause also should be omitted.

M Klotz said that it has certain importance for public.

(It is agreed that the Clause should be deleted but that this will not prejudice eventual consideration on their merits of the particular cases mentioned by M. Klotz.)

Jimbuna

04-27-19, 09:22 AM

27th April 1919

General Herbert Plumer, the British Commander-in-Chief of British Army of the Rhine in his office in occupied Cologne, Germany.
https://i.imgur.com/gWpIlj2.jpg

Men of the U.S. 31st Infantry participating in the Siberian Intervention against the Bolsheviks near Vladivostok.
https://i.imgur.com/hv9HSeg.jpg

Ship Losses:

USS Courtney (United States Navy) The patrol vessel sank in the Bay of Biscay off Brest, Finistère, France.
USS Otis W. Douglas (United States Navy) The minesweeper sank in the Bay of Biscay off Brest.

Sailor Steve

04-27-19, 10:07 AM

Sunday, April 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings this day.

Jimbuna

04-28-19, 07:27 AM

28th April 1919

British tanks given to be used by the Estonian Army, which is currently fighting Communist Russia.
https://i.imgur.com/hAeSiFl.jpg

Egyptians protest in the streets of Alexandria against British rule. Clashes between Egyptians and British troops have resulted in hundreds of deaths the past few weeks.
https://i.imgur.com/2PEOAJv.png

Ship Losses:

USS Gypsum Queen (United States Navy) The naval tug struck a rock and sank in the Bay of Biscay off Brest, Finistère, France with the loss of 15 of her crew.
USS James (United States Navy) The naval trawler sank in the Bay of Biscay off Brest. Her crew were rescued by USS Marietta ( United States Navy).

Sailor Steve

04-28-19, 02:45 PM

Monday, April 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. Mr Lloyd George says that Sir Robert Borden has drawn his attention to the additional protocol to Article 7 of the Report of the Commission on International Labour Legislation, in which it was stated that “no High Contracting Party together with its Dominions and Colonies whether self-governing or not, shall be entitled to nominate more than one member”. Sir Robert Borden had pointed out that the effect of this was to exclude any Dominions from representation on the Council, notwithstanding that within the British Empire, at any rate, the Labour conditions of the Dominions are entirely different from those of the Mother Country. Sir Robert Borden had thought that the amendments he had moved at the last Plenary meeting surmounted this difficulty, but the Drafting Committee said that this was not the case, and consequently, Sir Robert Borden wishes to move another amendment.

President Wilson says that his difficulty was that Mr Gompers has gone home to the United States. He thinks that probably there had been a tussle on the point on the Commission, and he doe not feel justified in assenting without expert advice.

After some discussion, it is agreed:

(That Sir Robert Borden should be supported in moving an amendment on this matter, provided he could first obtain the assent to it of Mr Robinson for the United States of America, Mr Barnes for the British Empire, and M Colliard for France.)

2. Sir Maurice Hankey said he was informed by Mr Hurst, the British Member of the Drafting Committee, that there are a certain number of outstanding questions relating to China for which no provision had been made.

The following resolution is adopted.

“It is agreed that a Special Committee, composed of Mr E. T. Williams for the United States of America, Mr Ronald Macleay for the British Empire, and M Jean Gout for France, shall meet to prepare draft articles as the basis of instructions for the Drafting Committee of the Preliminary Peace Conference in regard to any outstanding questions affecting China outside of Shantung and Kiauchau.

The Committee has authority to consult and secure the agreement of China and any other interested party”.

(Sir Maurice Hankey forwards the above resolution to the Members of the Committee with a letter notifying them to take immediate action.)

3. Sir Maurice Hankey says that he has been informed by Mr Hurst, the British Member of the Drafting Committee, that no instructions had been issued to the Drafting Committee about Luxembourg, although there are important questions relating to the abrogation of the Customs Union and the Railway Federation with Germany.

The following resolution is agreed to:—

“It is agreed that a special Committee composed of Dr Mezes for the United States of America, Sir Eyre Crowe for the British Empire, and M Tardieu for France, and a Belgian representative, shall meet to prepare draft articles as an instruction to the Drafting Committee of the Preliminary Peace Conference, in regard to the position of the Customs and Railways of Luxembourg, and any other outstanding questions of the same order in regard to Luxembourg.”

(Sir Maurice Hankey sends letters to the Members of the Committee and to M Hymans, informing them of this decision, and asking them to take immediate action.)

4. Sir Maurice Hankey draws attention to questions relating to Prisoners of War, which has been presented by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

M Clemenceau said he was not prepared to discuss this matter today.

(The question of Prisoners of War is postponed until the following morning.)

5. Sir Maurice Hankey draws attention to a Clause providing for the prevention of the employment of German military, naval, or air instructors in foreign services, which had been passed by the Council of Foreign Ministers, subject to a reservation by M Pichon.

M Clemenceau says that the French objection in regard to this clause was that it would prevent France from recruiting Germans for the Foreign Legion, and was contrary to French law.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the position of the French Foreign Legion was quite unique, and no other nation had anything corresponding.

(After a short discussion, the following decisions are taken:

1) That the Article should be approved in principle and amended by the Drafting Committee as required to carry out the following proposal by M Clemenceau:

“Toutefois la présente disposition ne porte aucune atteinte an droit de la France de recruter la Légion Etrangère conformément aux lois et règlements militaires frangais en vigueur”.

2) That the clause should be applicable to the naval and air, as well as to military services.

3) That Sir Maurice Hankey should notify the Secretary General accordingly for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

6. Mr. Lloyd George draws attention to a discussion which had taken place at the Council of Foreign Ministers on a proposal to introduce in the military terms of peace an additional article designed to compel the German Government to disclose the means employed for the manufacture of poison gases. It had been decided that if the British Government wished to press the inclusion of this article, the question should be raised at the Council of Four. The British military authorities, who are confirmed in their view by scientific experts, considers that there was a real danger that Germany might discover some new gas, and, without any considerable armaments, might employ this as a means for attacking the Allied and Associated Powers, thus frustrating the provisions made for disarmament. He then read the following proposal for an article to be incorporated in the military terms:

“The German Government will disclose to the Allied Governments the nature and mode of manufacture of all explosives, toxic substances or other like chemical preparations used both in the war or prepared by them for the purpose of being so used, including the mode of manufacture of the synthetic and nitric acids used in the making of such explosives. As a part of such disclosure the Allied Governments shall have the right to inspect all plant used for the manufacture, and shall receive from the German Government full particulars of the processes of manufacture in such plant.”

President Wilson says that the objection to this proposal is that the Germans cannot reveal this information without also revealing trade secrets. He was advised by his experts that nearly every chemical used for the war was related to commercial chemistry, and it was impossible to ascertain one secret without ascertaining others. Moreover, he does not think the proposed clause would prove efficacious. His own university experience enables him to judge how jealously discoverers conceal their secrets, and he does not think that the German chemists would allow their true secrets to be discovered. What he wants to avoid is an article which could be used in a round about way for irritating investigation of all possible secrets. Such matters do not come within the purview of the military terms.

Mr Lloyd George says that it is a matter of great military importance, and that the Allies had suffered very severely owing to the advantage the Germans had had in chemical knowledge. He was advised by Lord Moulton that the Germans are three years ahead of the Allies in these matters.

(After some discussion it is agreed that the following article should be inserted in the military terms:

“The German Government will disclose to the Allied Governments the nature and mode of manufacture of all explosives, toxic substances or other like chemical preparations used by them in the war or prepared by them for the purpose of being so used.”)

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

7. The Supreme Council has before them the revised memorandum prepared by the Secretary-General on the subject of the communication of the preliminaries of peace to of Peace to the German delegates.

In regard to paragraph 1, President Wilson asks who are the examining commission referred to.

M Clemenceau said they were the same Commission that has been examining the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers.

M Clemenceau says he did not know what to advise as to the recognition of the Yugoslavs.

Mr Lloyd George asks what the Yugoslavs have to do with the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

President Wilson pointed out that Serbia is at war with Germany, and Serbia has made herself inseparable from the Yugoslavs.

Sir Maurice Hankey reports that Mr Balfour on that very morning had told him that in present circumstances he thought the recognition of the Yugoslavs would produce a deplorable effect on the Italians.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Allied and Associated Powers are still at war with the Yugoslavs. He asks whether the Germans are likely to demand to see the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers. He pointed out that they did not ask for Marshal Foch’s credentials when the armistice was signed.

M Clemenceau pointed out that everyone knows Marshal Foch, but they are sure to ask for the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers. If it were not for the Italian situation, he would gladly vouch for the Yugoslavs, but he does not want to do anything to irritate the Italians.

President Wilson says if the Yugoslavs were not recognized, the Germans will at once question the validity of their credentials, and say that they are not a legally constituted party to the Treaty. They will say that somebody who was nobody was trying to sign the Treaty. Serbia has, he believed, in some legal form or other, merged herself with the Yugoslavs; the Montenegrins have not.

M Clemenceau suggests that M. Vesnitch, the Serbian Ambassador, might be invited to confer with them on the matter.

President Wilson suggests that in order to save the time of the Supreme Council, the Foreign Ministers might see M. Vesnitch.

(It is agreed that the Foreign Ministers of the United States of America, Great Britain, France and Japan, should confer with M Vesnitch on the subject.)

Date of First Meeting with the Germans.

(It is agreed that the first meeting with the German Delegation should be on Thursday, May 1st)

Powers to be present when the Treaty is handed to the Germans.

(It is agreed on President Wilson’s suggestion to add Brazil to the list of effective belligerents who will be present when the Treaty iss handed over to the German Delegates.)

In regard to Poland and Czechoslovakia

President Wilson points out that the Czechs have been technically opposed to the Allied and Associated Powers in the war. The Poles had been divided.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that on the whole it is desirable that the Czechs and Poles should be present, as they had fought for the Allied and Associated Powers.

(It is agreed that the Czechs and Poles should be added to the list, and that the complete list should be as follows:

Belgium
Brazil
Czechoslovakia
Greece
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia

as well as plenipotentiaries of the five great powers.)

(It is agreed that the period of 48 hours should be deleted from this paragraph which should run as follows:

“After having examined the observations presented within the
afore-mentioned periods, the Supreme Council will send their answer in writing to the German Delegation, and determine the period in which the final global answer must be given by this Delegation.”)

(It is agreed that the Germans should be given a total period of 15 days within which to give their decision in writing in regard to the Treaty of Peace, but that they should be informed they are entitled to send their reply on particular headings in the Treaty of Peace earlier, or to ask any question in regard to them. Sir Maurice Hankey is to communicate the above decisions to the Secretary-General.)

9. M Clemenceau reads the demands that have been made by Serbia, Belgium, Portugal and Brazil, at the meeting which their representatives had had with M. Loucheur on the subject of Reparation.

10 President Wilson says that it is difficult to see any practical argument in support of Serbia’s claim to be represented on the Commission, but there was likely to be a considerable public sentiment in the world in favour of it.

Mr Lloyd George says that the position is somewhat anomalous. Serbia has no real interest in the indemnity since she is acquiring a country which is entirely free from war debt. Belgium’s claim is of quite a different order; moreover the question arose as to whether Romania could be kept out if Serbia was admitted.

President Wilson says that if a distinction is drawn between Romania and Serbia it will have to be by an arbitrary decision.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Commission will have to decide very important questions, and these questions will have to be decided by a majority. The question arises therefore as to whether it is desirable to introduce additional Powers. He thinks the Experts of the Allied and Associated Powers ought to be consulted before a decision was taken.

(It is agreed:

1) That Sir Maurice Hankey should ask the Experts of the Allied and Associated Powers to consult together as to the advisability of Serbia being represented on the proposed Commission.

2) That Belgian representatives should be heard by the Council of Four.
The question is raised as to the attitude to be adopted with the Belgian Plenipotentiaries on the subject of Reparation.)

President Wilson says they should be told that it is impossible to admit claims on a different basis to those granted to other countries. He thinks, however, it might be agreed in principle for some system of credit to enable Belgium to start her national life again.

Mr. Lloyd George agrees in this view.

President Wilson asks what is to be done about Brazil’s claim in respect of shipping.

Mr Lloyd George considers that this claim ought not be allowed. If it is, Brazil would positively make a net gain of over 200,000 tons of shipping although she had only made a very small contribution to the war.

President Wilson asks if Brazil should come into the common pool in regard to shipping.

Mr. Lloyd George replied that she should and that the same applied to Portugal.

(It is agreed that M Loucheur should be asked to reply to the Brazilians and to the Portuguese that it is not feasible to meet their claims in regard to shipping and that they would share in the common pool in this respect.)

11. President Wilson reads a series of Resolutions which, with the approval of his colleagues, he proposes to move at the Plenary Meeting to be held that afternoon.

(This is agreed to.)

President Wilson then gives an outline of the remarks he proposes to make in the afternoon.

12. With reference to the decision taken on April 16th that an Inter-Allied Commission should be sent to the Baltic to study conditions in Livonia, Estonia, Finland, etc., President Wilson says that as each Government has its own observers in the Baltic provinces, it has been suggested to him that the Commission should sit in Paris instead of proceeding to the Baltic.

Mr Lloyd George says he was informed by Sir Maurice Hankey that similar advice had been given by the British experts.

(It is agreed that the Baltic Commission should be nominated at once and should meet in Paris and not proceed to the Baltic.)

13. President Wilson reads a letter he has received from Mr Hoover pleading for the recognition of the Finnish Government. This letter gives very powerful reasons in support of the proposal, pointing out that Finland at the present time has ships which cannot sail the seas because they have no flag to sail under; that they have need of credit but no banker will give it to a Government that is unrecognized; that they are subjected to severe censorship and have no means of issuing recognizable passports. (The remainder of the Letter is not heard as the Secretary is called out of the room.)

Mr Lloyd George points out that the attitude of the Finnish Government up to very recently has been very dubious. One of the reasons for the Murmansk expedition had been to prevent the Finns with the help of the Germans from getting possession of the Murman coast. Until the collapse of Germany Finland had, on the whole, been hostile. After that he had for a time been very doubtful whether Finland would be Bolshevist or Anti-Bolshevist. Now she had put on white gloves and is demanding recognition.

President Wilson admits that it should be agreed to recognize Finland as this is the equitable course.

Mr Lloyd George says that personally he had no objection, but he would wish to consult the Foreign Secretary.

M Clemenceau said he will have to consult M Pichon.

14. Mr Lloyd George hands around a memorandum which Mr Balfour has prepared as a result of his conversation with the Japanese undertaken at the request of the Supreme Council on Friday last.

President Wilson says that this is not sufficiently explicit but shows a decided approach in the Japanese attitude.

Mr Lloyd George says that Baron Makino has, on behalf of the Japanese Delegation, accepted Mr Balfour’s memorandum.

President Wilson asks what the effect would be of saying to the Japanese:

“We transfer to you the German rights but we do not confirm any arrangement you made with the Chinese earlier in the war and we do this provided that you give a definite assurance that you will not exercise your provisional rights for employing military forces in Shantung”.

There is nothing on which the public opinion of the United States of America is firmer than on this question that China should not be oppressed by Japan. Public opinion expects him to take the same line for Japan as he had taken for Italy. There is certainly some difference between the two cases inasmuch as there was a definite undertaking by China to transfer territory to Japan.

(After an interval during which other subjects are discussed, Mr Balfour is introduced and the discussion is continued.)

Mr Balfour says that by the instructions of the Supreme Council he saw Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda on Saturday. The Supreme Council had his memorandum in their hands. Baron Makino had come again to see him on Sunday evening. With great delicacy but perfect clearness he had indicated that Japan wanted a decision on the Japanese claims as a whole. He had pointed out that Japan was asked to agree to the League of Nations although she could not obtain recognition of her claims for equality of treatment. He did not want to make trouble, but public opinion in Japan was very much concerned on this question. If Japan was to receive one check in Shantung and another check as regards the League of Nations the position would be very serious. Consequently, it was very important to obtain a decision on the question of Shantung before the Plenary Meeting to be held the same afternoon on the subject of the League of Nations. He understands that if Japan receives what she claimed in regard to Shantung, her representatives at the Plenary Meeting will content themselves with a survey of the inequality of races and move some abstract resolution which will probably be rejected. Japan will then merely make a protest. If, however, she regards herself as ill-treated over Shantung, he is unable to say what line the Japanese delegates might take.

President Wilson asks if they would go to the length of refusing to adhere to the League of Nations. His difficulty is that he could not possibly abandon China. He had told the United States’ delegation that his line was this:

“If Japan will return Kiauchow and Shantung to China and relinquish all sovereign rights and will reduce her claims to mere economic concessions foregoing all military rights, I would regard it as returning these possessions to China on better terms than Germany had held them.”

Mr Balfour says that there is no doubt whatsoever that Japan is returning these territories to China on incomparably better terms than Germany had held them.

President Wilson say his experts does not agree.

Mr Balfour says that the United States’ experts had not heard the Japanese case. The same had applied to his expert, Mr Macleay, who had signed the expert Report furnished at the request of the Supreme Council. After hearing the Japanese representatives and cross-examining them for an hour he had been entirely satisfied.

Mr Balfour continues that the Japanese Government now in power was not the same Government as had made the Treaty of 1915 with China. He honestly believes that this Government intends adopting a more liberal policy and was influenced by what the Japanese representatives had learned in Paris. He says that Baron Makino had arrived on Sunday evening just after he had dictated his memorandum. His shorthand-writer had read it out to Baron Makino who had accepted it.

Mr Lloyd George says it shows a very considerable improvement in the position.

President Wilson draws attention to the fact that Japan retained the right to keep troops in Shantung whereas Germany had had no such rights, even temporarily.

Mr Balfour says that the Japanese representatives had made it clear that this right would only be exercised temporarily during the period of transfer from Japan to China.

President Wilson says that if the Japanese would concede all military rights and make their agreement a purely economic one, he would agree to what they desired. He referred to a subject he had mentioned at previous meetings, namely, that when the League of Nations was set up he would make a proposal for the cession by all the Powers concerned, including Japan, of their rights of extraterritoriality.

M. Balfour thinks that Japan would be willing to limit herself to purely economic claims. He suggests that he should be authorized to write a letter to Baron Makino.

(After a short discussion as to the line to be taken in the letter, it is agreed that Mr Balfour should do as he had proposed and he accordingly sends a letter to the Japanese.

It is also agreed that the Japanese representatives should be asked to meet the Supreme Council on the following day at 11:00.)

15. M Clemenceau draws attention to the military engagements to be imposed upon Germany, which had been approved at a meeting held on April 22nd. The last paragraph of this he points out is as follows:

“As long as the present Treaty remains in force the pledge by Germany to respond to any inquiry that the Council of the League of Nations may deem necessary.”

He points out that according to Article 5 of the League of Nations Covenant decisions, except as provided in the Covenant, would require the agreement of all the members of the League represented at the meeting. It might, however, he points out, be difficult to obtain a unanimous decision, and he suggests that in these matters the Council of the League ought to be able to decide by majority.

President Wilson reminds his colleagues that a decision was taken within the last few days with regard to the Council of the League of Nations, and decided certain economic question by majority vote not by unanimity. Mr Miller, his legal adviser on the League of Nations Covenant, had pointed out that this was not consistent with the Covenant, and had proposed to insert in Article 5, line 1, after the word “Covenant” the following words “or accept as otherwise provided in this Treaty”. If this was decided upon action ought to be taken in the matter in the afternoon.

M Clemenceau considers it very necessary in this case.

President Wilson says that it might be supposed that there will be unreasonable persons on the Council.

Mr Lloyd George points out that sooner or later Germany or Austria might enter the League of Nations and be represented on the Council, and in this case it would be impossible to get a unanimous vote on this subject.

(The following alterations are agreed to

1) In the League of Nations Covenant, Article 5, the first clause should run as follows:

“Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or in the terms of this Treaty decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or the Council shall require the agreement of all the members of the League represented at the meeting.

2) In the document titled military engagements imposed upon Germany, Clause 3 should be as follows:

“As long as the present Treaty remains in force, a pledge to be taken by Germany to respond to any inquiry that will be deemed necessary by the Council of the League of Nations, which, in this matter, will act by a majority vote.”

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

Sailor Steve

04-28-19, 06:34 PM

Monday, April 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Preliminary Peace Conference, Protocol No. 5, Plenary Session
M Georges Clemenceau presiding

Present are Representatives from:

The United States of America.

The British Empire:
Great Britain:
The Dominions and India
Canada
Australia
South Africa

Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
China
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Ecuador
France
Greece
Guatemala
The Hedjaz
Honduras
Liberia
Nicaragua
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Siam
Uruguay

The Minutes of the Session of April 11th, 1919 (Protocol No. 4) are passed around.

Discussion of the Report of the Commission on the League of Nations The Agenda Paper provides for the discussion of the Report of the Commission on the League of Nations.

The President of the United States opens the meeting with the following speech:

“Mr. President, when the text of the Covenant of the League of Nations was last laid before you, I had the honor of reading the Covenant in extenso. I will not detain you today to re-read the Covenant as it has been now altered, but will merely take the liberty of explaining to you some of the alterations that have been made."

Mr Wilson then explains all the changes made since the version they now hold was passed.

When this is done, Baron Makino of Japan proposes a new Amendment guaranteeing the rights of all nations to equality in the League. With his description of all the events leading to this Amendment his speech is also quite long.

M Hymans makes a speech expressing his disappointment that Belgium was not chosen as the Seat of the League of Nations, but also his gratitude that Belgium will have a seat on the Council.

Señor Juan Antonio Buero of Uruguay praises the Draft Covenant for the League of Nations and the principles which guide the world in this direction.

M Léon Bourgeois of France proposes Amendments to two of the Articles in the Draft Covenant which were rejected at an earlier Meeting in the hope that the revised Articles will be accepted.

M Klotz of France proposes a Draft for a Financial Section for the League.

Señor Burgos of Panama adds his Nations approval for the Draft.

Dr Bonilla of Honduras proposes an Amendment to explain the reference to The Monroe Doctrine in Article XXI of the Draft.

M Pichon of France proposes adding the Republic of Monaco to the List of Nations which remained neutral during the war who are now invited to join the League of Nations.

(After an exchange of views between Mr Pichon and the President, it is decided to refer the proposal to the Council of the League of Nations.)

Dr Affonso Costa of Portugal makes the following observations on the Proposal by President Wilson of The United States to select four Members of the League to serve on the Executive Council. His objection is that Article 4 specifically states that only the League may choose which of its members will sit on the Council, and that the Peace Conference has no right to select members for a future Council when it is not even certain yet what nations will be League Members.

M Clemenceau tells Dr Costa that his reservation is duly noted.

(At this point the proposal by President Wilson for the adoption of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Amendments proposed in the course of the session is voted upon and carried unanimously.)

This part of the Agenda is for Sir Robert Borden of Canada to present his Amendment for Clauses on the Condition of Labor. Mr Barns of Great Britain explains the grounds for alterations in the clauses to be inserted in the Peace Treaty.

Sir Robert Borden presents his Draft for Amendments to the nine Resolutions.

M Vandervelde of Belgium expresses his approval of the proposed Amendment.

(M Clemenceau calls for a vote on the Amendment. The alterations are unanimously adopted.)

Note: I have listed here each Delegate to speak and the on which he spoke. In the Meeting each speech was between two and five minutes long, which yet again if posted without editing would make this post several times as long as it is.
-Steve

Jimbuna

04-29-19, 11:16 AM

29th April 1919

Three people inside the barrels of the 14-inch guns of the USS Idaho.
https://i.imgur.com/jcnjwI9.jpg

A Belgian farmer, who lost his horses and cattle during the war, pulls a harrow across his field by himself.
https://i.imgur.com/fSlCMw2.jpg

German children around an abandoned anti-aircraft gun protecting Cologne.
https://i.imgur.com/1upe7AS.jpg

American soldiers of the 165th Infantry marching on 5th Avenue through the Victory Arch in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/yK15VPv.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-29-19, 01:49 PM

Tuesday, April 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1, President Wilson has invited the Japanese representatives to an hour’s conversation before the Meeting. At the moment at which M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George join them, the President has said that he understands that the Japanese are willing to cede back to China the lease and rights in the leased territory, retaining their rights only in the leased district of Kiauchow, and outside of that only economic rights. They are willing, he understands, to forego their right to place troops along the railway and compel the Chinese to accept police instructors. That right had exceeded Germany’s rights outside the leased territory, and went beyond economic rights. He understands that it is contemplated that there should be a joint Chino-Japanese control of the railway, which will be controlled by a corporation. The latter he proposes should have some control in the police also. But to give this right of police control to the Government would convey the same impression to the world as the German control of the Turkish army.

Viscount Chinda says that Japan’s claims regarding police do not in his opinion exceed the rights actually exercised by Germany. The railway was really German-owned property. As German property the railway and its German personnel had the right to extra-territoriality, and this included the rights of policing, as it was the case with the foreign settlements in China.

Mr Balfour says he had thought that Viscount Chinda had on Saturday told him that the railway ran on Chinese territory and outside of German jurisdiction.

Viscount Chinda says that the territory was Chinese, but the railway had in fact been German-owned, and consequently the railway and its personnel enjoyed extra-territoriality.

President Wilson asks why, because the railway was German-owned, it should enjoy extra-territorial rights? If, for example, the United States of America conceded the property in a railway in its own country to Germany, it would not have the right of extraterritoriality.

Viscount Chinda says that it was because in China foreigners have the right of extra-territoriality. As a matter of fact the Germans had employed Chinese as police, but had had an official of great importance not merely as instructor but as an adviser, and the whole police force had in fact been in his hands, consequently Japan, in asking for instructors, claimed less rights than Germany had exercised.

President Wilson says he does not mind Japan asking for these rights, but what he objects to is their imposing them. He is not arguing as to what rights Germany actually obtained by one act or another, but he was only concerned in what Germany’s rights had been to which Japan succeeded.

Mr Balfour asked if he was not right in saying that on Saturday Viscount Chinda had made the point that Japan became the heir of the German rights - that as Germany had owned the majority of the shares in the railway, Japan would inherit the same. That, however, surely did not give Japan the right of extra-territoriality. The remainder of the shares, he understood, were owned by the Chinese. It was certainly news to him that a commercial property of this kind covered extra-territorial rights, including control of police.

Baron Makino said he does not think it was contended that the majority of shares gave the right to extra-territoriality.

President Wilson asks if it was contended that the fact that the Government was the owner gave this right.

Baron Makino says that it is a fact that Germany actually established the state of things which had been criticized.

Viscount Chinda says that territorial sovereignty belongs to China. Extra-territoriality applies not to the territory but to the people.

President Wilson says he cannot admit this. He does not understand the first part of the settlement, namely, that referring to the control of life. He did not admit by inference that extra-territoriality applied to the personnel administering the railway. He is not contesting the facts of the situation that Germany had brought about, but he does contest what Germany had had the right to bring about if China had opposed it.

Viscount Chinda says that Germany had in fact enjoyed these rights. The police, however, had no right to interfere with the regions outside the railway.

Mr Lloyd George says that in the United Kingdom the policing of railways and docks was very often in the hands of the Company concerned. The Company would arrange with the Home Office to hand over to it a section of the police, but it would remain under the control of the Directors of the Company. It seems to him that some use might be made of this analogy. Control through the Directors would not be derogatory to the sovereignty of China any more than control of the London & North Western Railway police was derogatory to the sovereignty of Great Britain.

President Wilson points out the difference that the London & North Western Railway is not owned by a foreign Government. The police arrangements in the United States of America are somewhat similar, and State or City Commissioners often gave the control of railways to the Companies who paid the wages and were permitted to deal direct with these police. In law, however, the police were the employees of the municipalities, counties, etc. of the Central Government. What he contends is that if the majority of the shares is held by the Japanese which would give a Japanese majority on the Board of Directors, they could in fact control the persons by whom the police were chosen. Why, he asks, should we compel a foreign Government to control what a majority of Directors could control in an administrative manner? If the Japanese Government insist on Government control, and on Japanese instructors, they will offend the sovereignty of China, and get no more in fact than they could obtain through a majority of Japanese Directors. He remarks that there is no stipulation in the German lease concerning the right of police.

Viscount Chinda says that the matter might not be founded on an express understanding between Germany and China. It might be inferred from the fact of the ownership of the railway by Germany. The Japanese claim in this respect was a matter of precaution to obtain the necessary rights in China for safeguarding the railway. Practically it might work out all right if Mr. Lloyd George’s proposal were adopted.

President Wilson objects to the form of this claim, which he regards as an unwise one. It would give the impression of offending Chinese sovereignty. He himself was trying to get away from anything that would do this.

Viscount Chinda pointed out that China had accepted the arrangements voluntarily. In that case there would be no infringement of China’s rights.

President Wilson said that the Chinese maintained that it was not voluntary.

Viscount Chinda said it was necessary to draw a distinction between the so called twenty-one points, and the September agreement of last year.

President Wilson says that circumstances and the temper of the parties has altered by 1918, but nevertheless the 1918 agreement has grown out of the 1915 agreement. One had been the supplement of the other.

Viscount Chinda says that the 1918 agreement, was far from having been made under pressure. It had in fact been initiated by the Chinese Government. There had been no question of pressure.

Baron Makino says that the question of police instructors is related to the policy adopted in regard to these instructors. If the instructors were entered on a political basis and took part in the administrative part of their police duties, this would be going too far. The term instructors is rather a vague one. It might be abused as the Germans had done. In their case it had been a matter of a policy of vindication. If such intrusion was carried out it was a misuse. But if the arrangement was voluntarily entered into it would be regarded simply as a police arrangement.

President Wilson says it is extremely difficult for him in the face of public opinion in the United States of America to assent to any part of the arrangement.

He is seeking a way to make it possible for him to agree, and it is not a simple matter. Public opinion in the United States does not agree to the transfer of the concession. He is bound to tell the Japanese representatives that. He is trying to see all views and to find a way out. In these circumstances it greatly increases his difficulty if there is even an appearance of unusual control insisted on, particularly if the transfer of rights to Japan was greater than those exercised by Germany. He could not possibly justify in the United States his assent to a transfer on such terms. Public opinion would say it did not believe in the transfer of the claims at all and that he had actually given Japan more than Germany had had. He must say frankly that he could not do this. He asked the Japanese representatives to cooperate with him in finding a way out. He wanted to support the dignity of Japan, but he thought that Japan gained nothing by insisting on these leased rights being vested in the Government.

Mr Balfour refers to his conversations with the Japanese representatives on the previous Saturday and Sunday. In view of these he is rather surprised at the tone of the present conversation. He understands and had stated in his memorandum that the intention of Japan was fully to restore Chinese sovereignty within the leased territory, and only to retain rights which were economic in their character. He had shown this memorandum to Baron Makino, who had expressed himself satisfied with it. Hence he is surprised this morning to find the question being discussed as to whether Japan did intend to exercise some rights of sovereignty. He had thought that that was not in dispute. He had thought that there was only a question of temporary and transitional arrangements, which did indeed transgress sovereignty, but only for a short time.

Baron Makino says he thought that the question of police instructors had been mentioned in their conversation. The conditions of the transfer arranged in 1918 had surely been discussed.

Mr Balfour says he does not deny this, but the broad issue is as to whether Chinese sovereignty was to be restored in its entirety. If this is to be done Japan would be within her rights in regard to her position in connection with the railway and the concession to negotiate was reasonable. Her position would be analogous with that of other powers which had concessions in China, although no doubt the whole system deserved to be reconsidered and was in need of revision. These concessions, however, would then only be of an economic character. He thought it was agreed that Japan should retain economic rights, and the only outstanding question related to the transitional period. Hence he had felt a good deal of surprise at the line of conversation this morning.

Baron Makino says he is sorry if there had been any misunderstanding. All this, however, was part of the arrangement of 1918.

President Wilson says that if Baron Makino relies on the agreement with China in regard to the police, he must also remind him that this agreement also provides for the maintenance of a military force by Japan in China. Japan does not insist upon that. Why should she insist upon the police?

Baron Makino says that in the conversation that he and Viscount Chinda had had with Mr Balfour, they had felt considerable surprise at the interpretation that Mr Balfour placed on the proposed concentration of troops at Chinan and Tsingtau, which he had apparently regarded as indefinite. The reason for his surprise was that the idea had never entered into his head, nor he believed into the heads of the Japanese military experts. The troops hitherto had been lined out along the railway at a number of points, and this concentration had been regarded as a mere step towards the final withdrawal of the troops. That being their standpoint he had been surprised when Mr Balfour had assumed that it was intended to be for an indefinite period. In regard to the police, the question was of a somewhat different nature to the disposition of the troops. He was not entering into the wisdom of the arrangement, but according to his interpretation one of the stipulations was for the employment of instructors.

President Wilson says that no limit was imposed in regard to troops there.

Baron Makino agrees that on re-reading the article he had found that it might be construed in that sense. This had surprised him and he believes it to be merely a matter of wrong drafting. He admits the phrase had been ambiguous, but the correct interpretation was the one he had given.

President Wilson says that one of the worst features in the whole of these transactions had been the unfortunate 21 demands and this had included a demand for police instructors, although, of course, on a much wider basis. This had caused the greatest irritation, as it was an invasion of Chinese political and administrative independence. It is impossible to divorce transactions of this kind from the public impression they make. The present arrangement is, in public estimation, tied up with the impression made by the 21 demands. He admits that the police point in itself is a minor one, but in its implications, both in China and the United States, it is very unfortunate.

Viscount Chinda pointed out the difference that in the case of the 21 demands the idea had been to employ Japanese officers in entire regions. Here, however, it was only proposed to confine the police to the railway itself.

Mr Lloyd George says that this is a very important point. As the representative of one of the countries bound to support the transfer he was nevertheless very anxious that Japan should reach an agreement with the United States which was not signatory. Was it not possible, he asked, to reach an agreement on the basis of the practice in the United States of America and Great Britain, to which he had already referred? He can quite see that the Japanese do not wish to leave the railway entirely to Chinese administration. They wish to ensure the security of their property and they do not have their direct or indirect control. The same applies in the United Kingdom where, as elsewhere, some police administrations are better than others. He asks if this could not be done as President Wilson had proposed earlier in the discussion by putting the police under the directors? His suggestion would be to insert a clause in the agreement putting the police in the hands of the railway company, and providing that China would also do what was necessary to establish that police force. This would even give the right to the directors to employ Japanese instructors and no doubt instruction was a very important element. By these means, Japan would obtain all she wanted. She would substantially obtain the administration of the police of the railway, but the Chinese status would not be damaged.

Viscount Chinda says that the practical result of this arrangement might perhaps be adequate and satisfactory. The difficulty, however, is that it would involve a revision of the treaty or else a statement which would be regarded in Japan as of the same effect.

Mr. Lloyd George asks why Japan should not merely give an interpretation of the treaty in this sense.

Viscount Chinda asks if this would be a mere transitory measure.

Mr Lloyd George says it would be as a permanent measure, namely, that the arrangement was to be interpreted by Japan as one that would be worked through the directors. He quots Article 2 of the exchange of notes of September 24th, 1918:

“The Chinese Government may organize a police force to undertake the policing of the Kiauchau-Chinan Railway.”

He asked if it could not be stated that the police force would be chosen by the directors.

Viscount Chinda says that as a practical arrangement this would perhaps do very well, as long as it did not alter the agreement or involve a public statement tantamount to a reversal of the agreement.

President Wilson says that he and the Government of the United States could not admit that the agreements were consistent with the terms of the German concession. What he was asked to do is contrary to the great volume of opinion in his own country, namely, to extend the German rights.

Viscount Chinda says he cannot agree to this interpretation. That is the difference between them. The Japanese contend that the policing of the railway had nothing to do with the sovereignty.

President Wilson says he has examined it on the basis of the text of the transfer to Germany and the notes exchanged between China and Japan. These notes certainly contained more than the German concession.

Viscount Chinda said that the German concession carried with it the right of policing.

President Wilson says he is willing to admit the policing being in the hands of a number of directors, the majority of which might be Japanese and he was willing to admit administrative control by them, but he is not willing to admit the right of the Japanese Government to exercise supervision over the police force.

Mr Lloyd George reads the note of September 24th, 1918, and says he cannot find those rights. It does not say that the Japanese would have supervision of the police force. It merely says that they are to be employed at the headquarters of the police, on the principal railway stations and at the police training school. It does not even mention instructors.

Viscount Chinda says that the right of having instructors employed is the Japanese interpretation of the clause.

Mr Lloyd George says that there is nothing in these clauses which could bear the interpretation of putting the Japanese in the position of repudiating the treaty. It merely says that Japanese are to be employed. He again suggests that there will be no departure from the terms of the treaty if the Japanese say that the Japanese chosen would be selected by the directors of the railway. He has no doubt that in fact the directors will have to apply to the Japanese Government. There will not be many suitable people in China and the Japanese Government would be the only source from which they could be obtained.

President Wilson says that the point is that in the treaty with Germany, we should impose the transfer of the German rights to Japan. His interpretation of the Chino-Japanese agreement is that in handing it back to China Japan will, in fact, extend her rights beyond those exercised by the Germans. The Japanese demand that these rights should be transferred with this extension.

Mr Lloyd George says that the only extension is in respect of police. He asks if the instructors of the police had not, in fact, been Germans?

Viscount Chinda says that they had been termed advisers, but had undertaken the whole of the management. He considered that Japan was asking for less than this.

President Wilson says that Germany had not had any such right, although she had exercised it.

Mr Lloyd George asks Viscount Chinda to consider his proposition for leaving it to the directors to control the police.

(There is a considerable adjournment, during which Viscount Chinda confers with his colleagues.)

After some further discussion, Mr Balfour made certain proposals, which, in the course of the discussion are slightly amended, and eventually reach the following form:

1) The declared policy of Japan is to hand back to China in full sovereignty the Shantung Peninsula and to retain only the economic privileges possessed by Germany.

2) The intention of the clauses relating to the police on the railway is merely to give the owners of the railway security for traffic and will be used for no other purpose.

3) Such Japanese instructors as may be required to assist in policing the railway may be selected by the company.
President Wilson made the following proposal:—

“Surrender to China of all rights of sovereignty and retention with regard to the railway and the mines only of the economic rights of a concessionaire, retaining, however, the privilege of establishing a non-exclusive settlement area at Tsingtau.”

Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda undertake carefully to consider the above two formulae and to let the Supreme Council know as soon as possible whether they can accept them or not. If they are unable to accept them or to make any public announcement in regard to them, they undertake to continue the discussion on the following day.

2. A report from Mr. Headlam-Morley and Dr. Haskins concerning the Saar Valley is approved.

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

3. Mr Lloyd George mentions a speech by the Burgomaster of Cologne which has been brought to his attention intimating the possibility of the establishment of a separate Republic for the Rhenish Provinces and Westphalia. He undertakes to communicate a copy to his colleagues.

4. Sir Maurice Hankey says that the British Admiralty has sent a telegram, asking that the Treaty of Peace should provide for the surrendered German ships to be handed over at such Allied ports as might be designated. The reason for this is that otherwise the Allies would have to go and fetch the ships.

President Wilson says he believed the ships were already dismantled.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that the ships will be able to steam.

(It is agreed that the first clause of Article 25 should read as follows:—

“Within a period of two months from the coming into force of the Present Treaty, the German surface warships enumerated below will be surrendered to the Allied and Associated Governments at such Allied ports as those Governments may direct.”

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate this decision to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

5. M Clemenceau says that he has been advised by M Jules Cambon that the German plenipotentiaries for Saxony and Bavaria and other States of the German Empire ought to possess credentials not only from the German Central Government but also from their State Governments. The opinion of the Representatives French legal consultants is that we cannot proceed otherwise.

Mr Lloyd George points out that otherwise the Treaty might be signed by the representatives of the Central Government and yet be repudiated by the State Governments.

President Wilson feels some doubt as to the necessity of this.

M Clemenceau suggests the question should be remitted to an expert Committee to advise.

(It is agreed that the question should be examined by a Committee composed of Mr Lansing for the United States of America, Lord Hardinge for the British Empire, and M Jules Cambon for France.)

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 12:43 AM

Tuesday, April 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

M MMG Cahen is present for this discussion.

1. The Supreme Council has before them a Note by Sir Maurice Hankey setting forth questions referred by the War Council of Foreign Ministers.

2. M Cahen says that what the French members of the Commission had had in mind was that, in case the Germans were asked, as part of the Clauses on Reparation, to supply labor for the purpose of restoring the devastated regions, a combined system of railway trains should be worked out. The same trains that brought the workmen might return with prisoners. The French representatives had felt it necessary to postpone the decision, in order that the two questions might be considered together.

M Clemenceau says that the prisoners of war ought to be returned immediately after the conclusion of Peace. Why should we mix up the question of trains with the question of prisoners?

M Cahen said that the only reason is that the two questions are intimately connected.

M Clemenceau says that to keep the prisoners would amount to slavery. The question of the supply of labor was another question that might be arranged at Versailles.

M Cahen asks if it is not proposed to enforce the supply of labor on the Germans.

M Clemenceau replied that it is not. It will be arranged.

President Wilson says he entirely agrees with M Clemenceau. Forced labor would be unprecedented, unless one went back thousands of years.

Mr Lloyd George also agrees with M Clemenceau.

(It is agreed That the new Article referred to in Article 1 on the subject of Prisoners of War should provide for the repatriation of Prisoners of War as soon as possible after the signature of the Treaty of Peace, and should be carried out with the utmost rapidity.)

3. President Wilson says that the proposal in Article 6 is practically to take hostages for the surrender of persons believed to have been guilty of breaches of the laws of war. It would be necessary to go back some hundreds of years to find a precedent for this also.

Mr Lloyd George says it is not as though we were dealing with the former German Government. He doubts whether it would be any use to take hostages in dealing with the present Government.

President Wilson asks what it is proposed to do with the hostages. In the end you would have to return them, and they would constitute no effective threat.

M Clemenceau says that all these should be kept against whom there was a presumption of personal guilt.

President Wilson says that this is provided for. (Article 5.)

M Cahen says that this had been a British proposal. The argument in favor of it is that we had evidence of crimes against the laws of war by persons in Germany. If our sanctions prove insufficient, there will be great popular discontent. We have many officer prisoners of the military caste, which is collectively guilty. We propose that some of these officers should be kept if the accused persons were not delivered to justice. Mr Lansing says that there must be no hostages. This is not in our minds. It is merely proposed to give Germany an inducement to hand over the accused persons. If this proposal is rejected offenders against discipline who otherwise would be released as an act of grace, might be kept.

Mr Lloyd George says that he does not agree in this.

M Clemenceau and President Wilson are of the same view.

(It was agreed that Article 6 should be entirely suppressed.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate this decision to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

4. M Clemenceau says that the question of the recognition of the Yugoslavs has been cleared up. It has been ascertained that the mere acknowledgment of their credentials was equivalent to recognition, and would give occasion to no special declaration by the Allied and Associated Governments.

5. The attached Articles, prepared by Dr Mezes, Sir Eyre Crowe, Baron de Gaiffier and M Tardieu, in regard to Luxembourg, were approved, subject to the agreement of Belgium.

(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward the Articles to the Secretary-General, for communication to the Drafting Committee of the Preliminary Peace Conference.)

6. Sir Maurice Hankey, at the conclusion of the meeting, consults President Wilson as to his recollection of the decision taken in regard to Heligoland on April 15th, when no Secretary had been present. The Drafting Committee, he pointed out, had received conflicting accounts.

President Wilson supports Mr Balfour’s recollection of the decision, namely that the naval harbor and the fortifications are to be destroyed, and that the island is not to be re-fortified.

Sir Maurice Hankey undertakes to report this to the Drafting Committee.

(The meeting then adjourns upstairs to the meeting with the Belgian representatives on Reparation.)

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 01:45 AM

Tuesday, April 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 16:30

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance) with Representatives of Belgium

The Council has before it the claim of Belgium to receive absolute priority in regard to Reparation and to be repaid the whole costs of the war.

1. M Hymans said that he will begin by reading two letters which had been addressed on April 24th to M Clemenceau and which summarize the Belgian claim.

The first of these letters refers to previous correspondence on the 18th and 22nd February and asks for the insertion in Annex 11 of clauses which will allow Belgium to obtain from Germany the repayment
1) of her war expenses,

2) of the expenses required for feeding her population,

3) of the expenses required for the maintenance of Government services abroad. These expenses have been covered by loans which Belgium has contracted in England, France and the United States.

Belgium further requests that a clause should be inserted in the Peace Treaty to oblige Germany to take back at the price of 1.25 Francs all the Marks introduced into the occupied region at a compulsory fixed rate.

The second letter, referring to clause 6 of the Reparation Draft, proposes that in the allotment of the first installment of Indemnity paid by Germany, Belgium should receive at least 2½ milliards of francs, and that this amount should not be made available for the repayment of credits which have been opened to Belgium on the understanding that they will be repaid out of the first sums received from Germany by way of Indemnity, It is further proposed that the Belgian share of further installments to be received from Germany should be determined in such a manner that the whole amount due to Belgium should be discharged by Germany within a period of 10 years.

M Hymans said that all these claims were based upon the special position of Belgium which, unlike any other country, was forced into the war through the violation of a Treaty. Belgium relies upon a declaration of Sainte Adresse of the 14th February, 1916 in which the French British and Russian Governments declared that they would not lay down their arms until Belgium had been largely indemnified for the damages which she had suffered; and she relied also upon point 2 of President Wilson’s 14 points.

M Hymans says that if he were to speak quite frankly he must admit that the Belgian Government had come to the conclusion that they could not accept the responsibility of taking home to Belgium a Treaty which provided for no preference in regard to Indemnity. Immediate help was necessary to restore the industrial life of the country.

In regard to the redemption of German currency forcibly introduced into Belgium at the price of 1.25 Francs, M Hymans reads a note detailing the purposes to which these sums will be applied if they are obtained. They are required for

1) the payment of about 3 milliards of francs constituting the principal and interest of the German war tax imposed upon Belgium and represented by short dated inter-provincial bonds which the Belgian banks have been forced to accept;

2) the repayment of one million francs of debt contracted by the municipalities to meet the necessities of the civil population during the occupation;

3) the repayment of 2,200,000,000 Francs of Treasury bonds created for the restoration of the currency and the redemption of Marks.

M Hymans says that the payment of these sums by Germany is not only intimately bound up with the restoration of Belgium, but is also indispensable to the credit of the economic restoration of Germany.

The Belgian Government has come to the conclusion that if the requests presented in these letters are not agreed to and if no definite assurance is given as to the percentage reserved to Belgium out of the Indemnity, they will feel it their duty to refer the matter to their Parliament.

2. Mr Lloyd George replies that M Hymans has raised two very different questions: one of them easy and the other extremely difficult. As regards the claim of Belgium to be allotted a substantial share out of the first installment to be received from Germany, he is in entire agreement and thinks that the amount asked for is moderate and reasonable. He agrees that it might be necessary for the Allies to give some kind of guarantee for the first one thousand million pounds to be paid by Germany if this installment is to be available in time to be of use to anybody. But as regards the second point raised by M Hymans, Mr Lloyd George asks whether he is to understand that Belgium presses for the repayment of the costs of the war by Germany to all the Allies equally or is asking for a discriminatory clause under which the whole war costs of Belgium should be recovered out of the Indemnity in spite of the fact that no other Ally is putting in such a claim or will have any chance of obtaining the full costs of the war even if the claim is put in.

M Hymans replied that he is asking for a discrimination in favor of Belgium.

Mr Lloyd George says that he cannot see how any case can be made for such a discrimination. All statesmen have their Parliamentary difficulties, and he had himself returned to London in order to explain to the British Parliament that Germany could not pay the whole costs of the war to all the Allies. He is sure that M Hymans would not want to get rid of his own Parliamentary difficulties at the expense of other countries. He is emphatically of the opinion that Belgium should have, so to speak, the first cut out of the German sausage, and that the priority of Belgium’s claim should be recognized, but he cannot admit the payment of Belgian war costs - even though there might be some advantage to the United Kingdom if such costs were met by Germany, seeing that the money spent by Belgium on the war had been advanced to her by England, France and the United States. He must oppose the Belgian claim on principle, and he believes that the public in France and in England would not be able to understand the proposed discrimination in favour of Belgium. Moreover Serbia is in the same position: Romania also had been overrun and had only a corner of her country free from the occupation of the enemy. If the categories are to be reopened they must be reopened all round; for example, France has made a concession in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine on the express condition that if such preference are given to Belgium the whole question would have to be reopened.

3. M Van den Heuvel says that the term “costs of the war” requires definition. All the Allies are receiving some costs of the war seeing that they were to be reimbursed on account of pensions. The costs of the war for Belgium fall into three different categories. First the Military expenses in strict sense, which amounted to three milliards: second, incidental expenses, including the cost of removing the Government to Le Havre, and the administrative expenses of the Government while in France; third, the expenses of feeding the population. Only about half a million Belgians left the country. It was the duty of Germany to feed the remaining seven millions who stayed in Belgium, but Germany did not fulfill this duty and the cost to Belgium amounted to 2¾ milliards. Belgium had consequently been compelled to borrow in all 5,493 million francs from her Allies and she now claims to be repaid the whole costs of the war on account of her altogether exceptional position. There is no comparison between the position of Belgium and the position of Serbia, but quite apart from the differences which arose out of the causes and the beginning of the war, Belgium is also in a special position in that the Allies had bound themselves by specific obligations over and over again. The declaration of Sainte Adresse had already been referred to and he would quote further a passage from Mr. Lloyd George’s speech on the 5th January, 1918 in which it was said that the first condition necessary to Great Britain if she were to be prepared to lay down her arms was that Belgium should be, so far as possible, guaranteed complete restoration.

Mr Lloyd George points out that here, as elsewhere, the indemnification promised to Belgium was expressly stated to be within the limits of what proved to be possible: in other words within the limits of Germany’s capacity to pay. He asked what the Belgian Representative on the Reparation Commission had estimated that Germany could pay.

M Loucheur said that the Belgian Representative had fully agreed on this subject with his colleagues on the Commission.

4. M Van der Velde says that he wishes to draw attention to the exceptional gravity of a refusal of the Belgian demands which are strictly moderate and have been reduced to the minimum necessary if the Government of the country is to survive. The King of the Belgians had stated that there are at this moment 800,000 unemployed in the country. These unemployed draw from 7 to 14 francs a head a week at a cost of from 30 to 40 million francs a month to the Belgian Government. There has been an increase in the cost of living amounting to 300 per cent; yet in spite of all these difficulties the country is quiet and the working classes are maintaining order. Two things and two things only make it possible to maintain this order, namely first the good organization of the labor party and second the fact that the Government is committed to obtain for the Belgian people a full measure of Reparation and Indemnity. The working classes are quiet because they rely upon the Government to insure that Belgium will be completely restored. If satisfaction is not given to this expectation the very existence of the Belgian Government will become impossible.

M Van der Velde says that he cannot be suspected of not belonging to the party of moderation. He represents the working classes but he demands the fulfillment of the solemn promises which had been given to Belgium by her Allies. He protests against the comparison of the position of Belgium with that of Serbia or Romania. The Allies rendered a great service to Serbia when they came into the war, whereas Belgium, by defending her neutrality, had rendered a great service to the Allies. Belgium came into the war unconditionally, but Romania came in only on stipulated terms and on condition that she should obtain a reward which was now assured to her. The other Allies were all receiving territorial compensation and it would be an intolerable conclusion if Belgium were deprived of her just claims as the result of her magnanimity in trusting only to the essential justice of her cause.

M Van der Velde says that in 1917, just after the Russian revolution, he was speaking to the most extreme revolutionaries who objected to the payment of an Indemnity of any sort, but even they made an exception to their rule in favour of Belgium. Even the German Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, admitted that Germany must make compensation for the wrong which had been done to Belgium. How then could the Allies now refuse, seeing that the Belgian claims were not so much for a privileged position as for the very existence of their country. Mr Lloyd George had said the other day that he felt a thrill of pride at the distinction which had been drawn by M Van der Velde himself between the English and the Russian methods. If Belgium is to continue to apply and develop the English method of social reconstruction it is essential that the expectation of her working classes should not be disappointed.

5. After some informal discussion M Hymans says that it had been proposed to him that the claim of Belgium to receive 2½ milliards francs out of the first installment of the Indemnity should be recognized and that the expenses of feeding the civilian population should be included under the heading of “dommages de guerre,” but at the same time he has not been able to obtain any definite undertaking as to the percentage of the total payments from Germany which would be allotted to Belgium, nor as to the duration within which the whole amount due to Belgium would be paid. This is an arrangement which the Belgian Delegates cannot accept on behalf of their Government; the matter would therefore have to be referred to the Belgian Government who would probably feel that they must lay the question before their Parliament.

6. President Wilson asks what M. Hymans precisely means by this procedure. The Allies are on the eve of attempting to arrive at a settlement with the Germans and a refusal of the Belgian Government to accept the terms of the Reparation agreement might involve their not being represented at the Peace negotiations. This would be an extremely grave and serious situation and it is to be hoped that the Belgian Representatives will reconsider their decision. They are requesting what had been unanimously decided at the Council to be impossible for any Government. They are well aware that on all hands there is a cordial desire to meet to the utmost every obligation which had been entered into towards Belgium, but the Armistice had been based upon certain statements which he had been authorized to make to the German Government and one of those statements interpreted the liability of Germany as being limited to the damage caused to the civilian population and to their property. Having once defined Reparation as falling within these limits the Allies were bound by their decision and could not depart from it in favour of any particular Government. All the categories included in the Reparation claim to be presented to the Germans fall within the limits of that definition and if any departure from the accepted principles were now made it would mean that the Allies had misled those who they were now bringing to the Peace table.

7. M Hymans replies that the Government cannot accept the responsibility of telling the Belgian people that they were now to receive nothing or next to nothing and that the matter must therefore be referred to the Belgian Parliament. What will then happen it is not possible to say, but seeing that Belgium is a small country it might be necessary for them to bow to the forces of necessity.

8. M Clemenceau protests against the statement of M Hymans that the Belgian people would, under the proposed arrangement, receive next to nothing. They would in fact receive precisely the same treatment as the rest of the Allies.

9. M Clemenceau says that his thoughts are not only of the necessities of the moment, but that here, as always, he is thinking of the necessities of the future. Peace has not merely to be signed, it has to be lived. It must be made of such a kind that it will mold the social life of the future. Considerations of sentiment might be left aside since they count for little in political life, and it is necessary to approach all these problems in a spirit of conciliation and not to insist too strictly on a full measure of concessions or to propose as an alternative a definite breach between those who were charged with arriving at a solution that will guide the tendencies of the future. He himself might often have broken off negotiations if he had insisted on what he conceived to be his rights. Everyone has had to give way on points which appeared to be vital, and everyone must be prepared to take painful decisions and to bear the bitter reproaches of his own supporters. Parliaments are all alike: each of them wants everything for themselves. Newspapers clamor for the impossible and the best thing was to pay no attention to them whatever. It would be a fatal mistake if the Belgian Delegates forced an issue on a question of principle on which all sides are only too anxious to come to an arrangement. It would have been preferable if the Belgian point of view had been expressed not in the form of a protest but in the form of an appeal. Belgium would not have found that she was met by men who were indifferent to her claims, for there was a need of solidarity which bound the Allies one to another. It would be well if the Belgian Delegates were to consider rather what position their country must take up among the great peoples of tomorrow.

10. M Hymans interrupts M. Clemenceau at this point and says that he is prepared to be reasonable and that all he claims was five milliards of francs and a good percentage of Reparation.

11. M Clemenceau says that he would have liked to have finished what he had to say, but that since the Belgian case was put forward in a spirit of recrimination and complaint he prefers to add nothing to what he had said already.

12. Mr Lloyd George asks whether this means that the Belgians propose to negotiate a separate Peace.

M Hymans says it meant that before signing the Treaty the Belgian Government intends to get into contact with its Parliament which is now sitting.

Mr Lloyd George asks whether the Belgians will be present on Thursday at the first meeting with the Germans.

M Hymans replied that he cannot say for certain that they will.

13. Mr Lloyd George says that if Belgian Representatives are not there the Allies will have no right to put forward any claim on behalf of Belgium. It will merely mean that Belgium will be left to make her own terms, seeing that she repudiated the claim which the Allies put forward on her account.

14. M Clemenceau says that there is a necessity for an immediate decision seeing that within two days the credentials of all parties will be examined. It will therefore be necessary to know within 24 hours what are the powers of the Belgian Delegates in the representation of their Government.

15. M Hymans says that the Belgian Government is not responsible for the fact that these questions had arisen at the last moment. They had written immediately to M Clemenceau on receipt of the letter from M Loucheur notifying them of the decisions which had been arrived at with regard to Reparation.

16. M Clemenceau says that M Hymans need not assume that every remark which was made was intended to be a personal reproach directed against himself. Whoever is responsible for the urgency of the situation the fact remains that the Council must be informed within the next 24 hours of the position which Belgium took up in the matter.

17. After further informal discussion the original proposal by which the expenses of ravitaillement for the civilian population were to have been included among “dommages de guerre” is withdrawn, and it is decided that the Belgian Delegates will recommend an alternative arrangement by which the Peace Treaty would include provision for the reimbursement by Germany to the Allied Governments of all sums which Belgium had been obliged to borrow from the Allied Powers as a consequence of the violation of the Treaty of 1839.

Jimbuna

04-30-19, 12:37 PM

30th April 1919

Battleship USS Tennessee (BB-43) is launched (the ship survives the Pearl Harbor attack relatively undamaged and participates in several WWII battles in the Pacific).
https://i.imgur.com/jNWjS6m.jpg

Australian Cycling Corps, who served as dispatch riders, recon, and patrols, is disbanded with the end of the war.
https://i.imgur.com/b9BQLta.jpg

Three Deputy Assistant Provost Marshals (Mounted Military Police) awaiting their lunch. Schlebusch (possibly Leverkusen).
https://i.imgur.com/4DkEWPF.jpg

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 09:24 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. President Wilson says that Mr Lansing had drawn his attention to Article 46 of the Military Terms which provided that “the Armistice of November 11th, 1918 and the subsequent Conventions thereto remain in force so far as they are not inconsistent with the above stipulations”. He doubts the expediency of this.

Mr Lloyd George agrees.

(President Wilson undertakes to send word to General Bliss and ask him to give a statement as to the precise signification of this Article.)

2. Finland (It is agreed that Mr. Hoover’s letter on the subject of the recognition of Finland should be sent for examination and report by the Council of Foreign Ministers.)

3. M Clemenceau says that M Jules Cambon is sending word to Herr Brockdorff Kantzau, asking him to meet him on Thursday afternoon at the Hotel Trianon, with the credentials of the German Plenipotentiaries.

Mr Lloyd George urges that the meeting should be held in the morning and not in the afternoon, and that M Jules Cambon should be accompanied by other Members of the Credentials Committee.

M Clemenceau suggests that M. Cambon should be telephoned for.

(The discussion of this subject is adjourned, pending the arrival of M Jules Cambon.)

4. M Clemenceau says that Article 41 of the Treaty of Peace has been reserved.

Sir Maurice Hankey reads the Article, which relates to the establishment by Germany of landing places and dirigible sheds, prohibiting their establishment within 150 kilometres of any frontier.

Mr Lloyd George says he had protested against this clause and considers 50 kilometres sufficient.

President Wilson suggests that the whole Article is ridiculous.

(It is agreed that Article 41 should be struck out of the Air Terms.)

M Clemenceau says he was informed that Article 51 was reserved. This Article states that “the upkeep and cost of the Commissions of Control and the expenses involved by their work shall be borne by Germany”.

(It is agreed that this Article should be retained.)

5. The Council has before them a letter from the Japanese Delegation, asking:

1) That Japan should be represented on the Commission for Reparations, since Reparations is a question of general interest, and

2) To see inserted in Article 16 of the Financial Clauses a particular disposition concerning Japan, which has 4,000 German prisoners while Germany has only a few civil Japanese prisoners.

The discussion of this letter at once gives rise to a discussion on the letter addressed by M Loucheur to President Wilson on the question of the application by Serbia for a seat on the Reparations Commission.

6. After some discussion, the following proposal submitted by M Loucheur, Mr Norman Davis, M Baruch, Mr Lamont, and Mr Keynes, is approved:

“Belgium shall sit, as originally proposed, as one of the five members of the Commission for all general discussions and for all other questions except those relating to damage by sea, for which Japan shall take her place, and those relating to Austria-Hungary, for which Serbia shall take Belgium’s place. The Commission will thus always be limited in number to five, and the Japanese and Serbian representatives on the occasions on which they are entitled to sit will have the same power of voting as the delegates of the other four Powers.”

7. The discussions on M Loucheur’s letter lead to a discussion on the attitude to be taken if the Italian Delegation does not return to meet the Germans.

Mr Lloyd George asks if the Allied and Associated Powers are to put in a claim on Italy’s behalf.

President Wilson replies that we cannot do so.

M Clemenceau asks whether it would not be advisable to let M Orlando know that the Germans have arrived, and that the Allied and Associated Powers would meet them in a day or two.

Mr Lloyd George advocates taking no action. They had been offered a definite proposal.

President Wilson says that as far as he is concerned, Italy can have any district in Austria, provided she can secure it by a majority of votes in the plebiscite. This of course would only apply to a clearly defined district, and not to a small spot on the map. If the Italians allege that a particular island was Italian in character, they could have a plebiscite.

Mr Lloyd George points out that their claim to the islands is based on security.

President Wilson says that argument is not a valid one. If Italy insists on her claims to Dalmatia under the Treaty of London, it would upset the whole peace of the world and especially of the Slavonic world.

M Clemenceau says there was news this morning that an Italian dreadnought had been sent to Smyrna.

Sir Maurice Hankey reminds the Council that M Clemenceau at the last meeting with Ms Orlando and Sonnino had asked a direct question, whether the Italians would be present to meet the Germans at Versailles, and M Orlando had replied that this depended on what happened at Rome.

(There is then some short discussion as to the inferences to be drawn from Ms Orlando’s and Sonnino’s speeches, and as to the awkward situation which would arise if the Italians return and insist on France and Great Britain carrying out the Treaty of London, which President Wilson is unable to support.)

Mr Lloyd George reminds his colleagues that he had asked M Orlando if they would be justified in putting forward claims on Italy’s behalf, if Italy was not present at Versailles to meet the Germans. M Orlando had recognized that this was impossible.

President Wilson recalls a conversation he had had with M Orlando in which the latter had shown quite clearly that he realized that if the Italian Delegates did not return, they could not sign the Treaty with Germany; they would be outside the League of Nations; and he had said some words which indicated that he considered they would be, in a sense, outcasts.

President Wilson had then points out that they were quarreling with their best friends and M Orlando had replied in some phrase to the effect that Italy would rather die with honor than compromise.

(No action is decided on as to making any communication.)

8. Attention is then drawn to the last paragraph of M Loucheur’s letter in which is raised the question of the joint and several liability of the enemy States.

President Wilson asks if that had been decided.

Mr Lloyd George says he thought it had been, subject to a book-keeping arrangement proposed by M Orlando.

Sir Maurice Hankey says that this had been discussed before he was introduced as Secretary. The only intimation on the subject that he had had was that which M Orlando had undertaken, that the Italian financial expert (M Crespi) should discuss the question with the experts of the other Allied and Associated Powers. He had heard from Lord Sumner that a preliminary discussion had taken place, but after that the Italian Delegates had left, and he thought no more had been done.

Mr Lloyd George considers that the question was very important. Romania and Serbia are absorbing great slices of former Austrian territory which was entirely free from war debt, and it would seem desirable that this asset should be balanced against other liabilities.

President Wilson says that the question is too complicated for an off-hand decision. He sees Mr. Lloyd George’s point, but it would work both ways. Germany would have to take her share of the Austrian, Bulgarian and Turkish liabilities, and to that extent, the direct indemnity obtained from Germany would be lessened.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the matter should be settled at once.

President Wilson suggests that a decision should be taken that Germany should be jointly liable with her Allies.

Mr Lloyd George agrees in this, but suggests that in addition the following questions should be referred to expert examination:

1) To work out the Austrian bill of reparations on the same principle as had been adopted in the ease of Germany.

2) To work out the proportion of the Austrian War debt to be borne by Yugoslavia, Transylvania and other parts of the former Austrian Empire transferred to other nationalities.

M Clemenceau say that he would first like to consult his experts, but will inform them of his views on the following morning.

9. The Council next took up the question raised in paragraph (a) of M Loucheur’s letter.

Mr Lloyd George says he is prepared to accept the principle that the proportions in which the successive installments paid over by Germany in satisfaction of the claims against her should be divided by the Allied and Associated Governments should be determined by the Permanent Commission set up under the Reparations Articles, in proportion to the claims allowed by the Commission. It is true that these will not be known before May 21st, 1919, but he is prepared to accept this principle.

President Wilson says that this seems obviously fair.

M. Clemenceau agrees.

10. The Council has before them the draft Articles relating to China. These have been prepared by a Committee composed of:

China: Articles To Be inserted in the Preliminary Peace Treaty
Mr. E. T. Williams for the United States of America.
Mr. Ronald Macleay for the British Empire.
M. Jean Gout for France.

(The Articles are agreed to, subject to a reservation by Mr Lloyd George in Article VI, as he wished to inquire as to why the German renunciation is in one case in favor of the British concessions, and in the other in favour of the French and Chinese Governments jointly. Note: After inquiry, Mr Lloyd George accepts the Articles.)

11. President Wilson says that he was informed that the Allied and Associated journalists are very anxious to see the Treaty of Peace handed to the Germans. He understands that under present arrangements they are only to be permitted to view the approach of the Germans from behind a hedge. He s informed that there is a room separated from the Conference room by a glass screen, and that a number of journalists can be accommodated in this room, and view the proceedings.

(M. Jules Cambon enters during this discussion. This room is entered by a side door so that the Conference would in no way be inconvenienced.)

M Clemenceau says that this description was correct. He thinks that the journalists might be admitted to this room for this particular meeting.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that it is very undignified and improper to admit the journalists and to treat the meeting almost as though it were a menagerie. He does not mind so much the presence of two or three. But it has to be borne in mind that the Germans are in a very delicate and disagreeable position and might have just cause to complain at descriptions being given of the precise manner in which they received the Treaty. He has no bowels of compassion for the Germans, but he thinks that the admission of journalists on such an occasion would be unprecedented.

M Clemenceau suggests that at any rate, they might be admitted to be present at the end of the corridor in order to witness the arrival and departure of the Delegates.

President Wilson says he does not agree in this decision as he considers on principle that the journalists should be present, but he does not press his objection.

(It is agreed that the journalists should be permitted to witness the arrival of the Delegates from the end of the corridor in the Trianon Hotel.)

12. It was agreed:

1) That the credentials of the German Delegates should be examined on the following morning at 11:00.

2) That M Jules Cambon should be accompanied by the Members of the Committee appointed at the Peace Conference for the examination of credentials.

3) That the Committee for the examination of credentials should report the result of their interview to M Clemenceau, President Wilson, and Mr Lloyd George the same afternoon at President Wilson’s house at 16:00.

13. Publication of Peace Terms

Mr. Lloyd George asks how this matter stood.

President Wilson says he understands it had been decided provisionally to publish a summary when it was handed to the Germans, although that depended on the nature of the summary.

Mr Lloyd George suggests it would be desirable to ascertain from the Germans how they regard the matter. He suggested that M. Cambon should be asked to ascertain this on the morrow.

M Clemenceau undertakes to consult M Cambon on the point.

14. Guarantees of Execution of the Treaty of Peace

The Secretary and Interpreter are asked to withdraw from the room during this discussion. After their return, M Clemenceau hands to Sir Maurice Hankey the following sentence to be added to Article 2 (c) of the clauses approved on April 22nd:

“If, at that time, the guarantees against an unprovoked aggression from Germany are not considered sufficient by the Allied and Associated Governments, the evacuation of the occupation troops may be delayed to the extent deemed necessary by the obtaining said guarantees.”

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 09:52 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance) with the Delegates from Japan

I. In reply to questions by President Wilson, the Japanese Delegates declare that:

“The policy of Japan is to hand back the Shantung Peninsula in full sovereignty to China retaining only the economic privileges granted to Germany and the right to establish a settlement under the usual conditions at Tsingtao.

The owners of the Railway will use special Police only to ensure security for traffic. They will be used for no other purpose.

The Police Force will be composed of Chinese, and such Japanese instructors as the Directors of the Railway may select will be appointed by the Chinese Government.”

(At this point there is a more or less prolonged conversation between President Wilson and the Japanese Delegates which at a certain point develops into a general discussion. It is only possible to record the salient features of the general discussion.)

Viscount Chinda makes it clear that in the last resort, if China fails to carry out the agreements - if for example, she will not assist in the formation of the Police Force or the employment of Japanese Instructors, the Japanese Government reservs the right to fall back on the Agreements of 1918.

President Wilson points out that by that time Japan and China will be operating under the system of the League of Nations and Japan will be represented on the Council of the League. In such an event, he asks why should not the Japanese voluntarily apply for the mediation of the Council of the League of Nations.

Viscount Chinda says that even if the case was sent to the League of Nations, nevertheless Japan must reserve her right in the last analysis to base her rights on her special Agreements with China. If the Chinese Government acts loyally, such a case would not arise, but if the Chinese Government refuses to do so, the only course left to Japan would be to invoke the agreement.

President Wilson says that what he wants to urge was this; he does not want a situation to arise which would prove embarrassing. As the Japanese representatives know, the United States Government has been much distressed by the twenty-one demands. These negotiations were based on the Notes of May 1915, and this exchange of Notes had its root in the negotiations connected with the twenty-one demands. In the view of his Government, the less the present transactions are related to this incident, the better. He would like, as a friend of Japan, to see no reference to the Notes of the last few years. If an occasion such as Viscount Chinda has postulated should arise, he hopes that the Japanese Government would not bring it before the Council of the League of Nations with a threat of war, but merely for friendly council, so that the Council of the League might make the necessary representations to China.

Baron Makino says that this is possible eventuality but that so far as Japan is concerned, if the Chinese people co-operate with goodwill, he thinks no such eventuality would arise. So far as Japan is concerned, she looks to the engagement with China, but hopes that no difficulty would arise.

Viscount Chinda said that the difficulty is that President Wilson on his side does not admit the validity of these Agreements but Japan does. He only mentions the fact so as not to be morally bound not to invoke these Agreements. In the meanwhile he hopes that there would be no occasion for the refusal of the Chinese to carry out the Agreements.

President Wilson says that frankly he must insist that nothing he said should be construed as any admission of the recognition of the Notes exchanged between Japan and China.

Viscount Chinda says he had mentioned the point in order to remove any moral engagement on behalf of Japan not to invoke the Agreements in question.

President Wilson says that the Japanese representatives propose to make public the policy declared at the outset of this discussion by means of an interview. He supposes he is at liberty to use the part of the declaration that most concerned him as he understood it.

Baron Makino says that the Japanese representatives attach the greatest importance to no impression being given that this decision was forced. They wish it to be clear that this is a voluntary expression of the Japanese Delegates’ interpretation of the policy of their Government in regard to the restitution of the Province of Shantung. He hopes that this will be made quite clear.

President Wilson says that the following point had occurred to him. He had not appreciated from the map which had been shown him whether the Forts which Germany had built were taken over in the area of the settlement.

Viscount Chinda draws a sketch to illustrate the exact position and shows that the settlement would be part of the Town of Tsingtao and would not include the fortifications.

In reply to President Wilson, Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda give an assurance that the Japanese troops will be withdrawn as soon as practicable.

Sir Maurice Hankey asks what he is to send to the Drafting Committee.

Viscount Chinda produces a revised draft of the clause to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace which includes the alterations agreed to on the previous day. He gives the following explanation as to the reasons of the various alterations that have been made:

“The instructions of the Japanese Government state expressly that the surrender of the German public property should be unconditional and without compensation. Compliance with the above instruction makes it absolutely necessary to modify the Articles I and II of our claims by adding at their ends the phrase: ‘free of all charges and encumbrances’, in order to exempt them from the general application of Article IX Financial Clauses.

As regards our claim upon the Tsingtao-Tsinan Railway, the Japanese Government regards the railway as German public property, but contention may possibly be advanced claiming it to be private property. In case the contention should be well established, the Japanese Government would be willing to pay for the same. In the meantime, the question is left open. This explains why the addition of the same phrase as above is not proposed in respect to the second paragraph, Article I of our claim.”

(The Articles in the Appendix relative to Shantung Province are approved. Sir Maurice Hankey is directed to forward them to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

II. Mr Lloyd George hands to the Japanese Representatives the following proposal which had been made by an Expert Committee, to which the question had been referred:

“Belgium shall sit, as originally proposed, as one of the five members of the Commission for all general discussions and for all other questions except those relating to damage by sea, for which Japan snail take her place, and those relating to Austria-Hungary, for which Serbia shall take Belgium’s place. This Commission will thus always be limited in number to five, and the Japanese and Serbian representatives, on the occasions on which they are entitled to sit, will have the same power of voting as the delegates of the other four Powers.”

Baron Makino says that the arrangement should be altered to provide that the Japanese should be represented on the Commission (wherever their interests are concerned). There are a certain number of Japanese interned in Germany.

Mr Lloyd George says that this is not a matter for the Reparation Commission.

Viscount Chinda points out that the necessity for such provision arose in connection with Article 13 in the Financial Clauses.

(After some discussion, it is agreed that Japan should be represented on the Permanent Reparation Commission whenever questions relating to damage by sea were under consideration (as already provided) and in addition whenever Japanese interests under Article 13 of the Financial Clauses are under consideration.)

III. Viscount Chinda draws attention to Article 16 of the Financial Clauses which is as follows:

“The High Contracting Parties waive reciprocally all claims on account of the expenses of all kinds incurred by them in connection with enemy prisoners of war.”

He points out that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 German prisoners in Japan. These have not been used for any sort of work as had been possible in European countries, but have been maintained at the expense of Japan under the provisions of the Hague Convention. It has been entirely a one-sided expense. In view of the fact that in the case of most other countries, the numbers of prisoners had been fairly well balanced, Japan stands in a unique position and is therefore entitled to an exceptional treatment in this respect.

Mr Lloyd George says that this is not the case in regard to civilian persons interned. The British have had four or five Germans to maintain for one British maintained in Germany.

Viscount Chinda said that German prisoners in Japan are military. They constitute the garrison of Kiaochow and had been in Japanese hands ever since the early stage of the war.

Mr Lloyd George points out that Japan has inherited the German rights in Kiaochow which might be set off against the cost of maintaining these Germans.

Baron Makino says that that had not been taken into the calculation.

Mr Lloyd George pointed out that every time one country or another brings up some new point difficulties arise. The sums mount up and up and Germany will not be able to pay for the Reparation. Hence it was decided hitherto to stick rigidly to the principles. Japan will, of course, receive a share of reparation for pensions.

Baron Makino says that Japan has lost less than 2,000 lives and would not receive much on this account.

Mr Lloyd George says it is very awkward to put in a special claim for one country, as then all other countries would wish to put in their claims.

Baron Makino says that if great difficulties will be created, Japan will not press her demand.

Mr Lloyd George, President Wilson and M Clemenceau thank Baron Makino for this declaration.

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 11:25 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 15:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. An American proposal for the Policy of the Allied and Associated Powers in the Baltic States

A discussion arises between Mr Balfour, who wishes for the British government to examine it in detail and Mr Lansing, who says the document is still internal for the Americans and in no way complete.

(It is agreed that the question be postponed to a later meeting and that the subject should be brought on the Agenda at the instance of the American Delegation. Mr Balfour observes that, as the situation is critical, it would be desirable that a decision should be taken as early as possible.)

2. M Pichon reads the a memorandum concerning the Delegates from Sweden and Norway regarding the evacuation of the province of Flensborg. There follows a lengthy discussion concerning whether Military forces should be used or the Naval Forces can accomplish this without aid.

(It is then decided that the naval advisers of France, Great Britain and the United States of America should meet to devise means of carrying out the policy outlined in the memorandum. They should, if necessary, confer with the military advisers of the same Powers, with the object of supplementing naval by military effort on land. The memorandum quoted above is adopted.)

3. M Pichon says that a Treaty had been signed between the Government of the French Republic and the Prince of Monaco, copies of which have been circulated to the various Delegations. At the time this had been signed, there was a fear that the German branch of the dukes of Urach might urge their claim to the succession. The Treaty had then been made by common accord between the Government of the French Republic and the Prince of Monaco, ensuring that his successor should be his grand-daughter. It would be necessary to guarantee this Treaty by an article recording the fact that the High Contracting Parties had cognizance of the agreement.

Mr Lansing inquires whether the High Contracting Parties were asked to recognize the validity of the Treaty.

M Pichon replies that they were only asked to recognize that they had taken cognizance of the Treaty.

Mr Lansing said that he could see no reason why the Allies should not go further and recognize the Treaty.

(It is then decided unanimously that an article to the following effect should be included in the Supplementary Clauses of the Treaty of Peace:

“The High Contracting Parties recognize the Treaty signed by the Government of the French Republic on July 17th, 1918, with His Serene Highness, the Prince of Monaco, defining the relations between France and the Principality.”)

4. Question of German Submarine Cables

Mr Lansing says that Article 38 of the Military, Naval and Air Clauses had been, he understood, drafted on the resolution proposed by Mr. Balfour after a long discussion on March 24th. The record of the meeting is that, “in order to meet the general view, Mr Balfour proposes the following resolution:

“The Treaty of Peace should not debar Germany from repairing at her own expense the submarine cables cut by Allied and Associated Powers during the war, nor from replacing at her own expense any parts which had been cut out from such cables, or which, without having been cut, are now in use by any of those Powers.”

(After an extremely long discussion it is decided to refer this question to the Council of the Heads of States.)

5. Mr Lansing says that there is a question connected with that of submarine cables which he would like on a future occasion to discuss. The question was whether in the interests of cable communication it would not be desirable that the Island of Yap be internationalized, and administered by an international commission in control of the cable lines.

(It is decided to defer the question until after the signing of the Peace Treaty, at which point it can be discussed among all the Allies.

6. Mr Lansing observes that some of the Reparation Clauses in the Treaty are clauses with a continuing effect which might last for 30 years. It had been proposed that the interpretation of these clauses whenever difficulties arose should be left to a Reparation Commission, representing the Five Powers. It had further been proposed that the interpretation must be unanimous. It is probable that the representatives on such a Commission will not be jurists. He thinks it would be far better to appoint a single judge, whose finding should be final on all points of interpretation. He would, himself, suggest that this function of arbiter be exercised by the Lord Chief Justice of England.

Mr Balfour says that he has had no notice of this proposal and asks whether Mr. Lansing had circulated any memorandum on the subject.

M Pichon says that he was also taken unawares by this proposal. He would like time to consider it and asked Mr Lansing to set forth his reasons on paper.

Mr Balfour asks whether this provision will have to be inserted in the Treaty.

Mr Lansing says that the Germans will have to agree to it. He agrees, however, to circulate a memorandum on the subject.

7. Baron Makino asks whether the text of the Treaty will be made public when it was handed to the Germans. Peace is to be established when the Treaty is ratified, and it is the general hope that this will be achieved in one or two months after the signature. He points out that it will take a long time to telegraph the whole Treaty in cipher to Japan. It will take less time should the Treaty be made public and should it be possible to telegraph it in plain language.

Mr Balfour thought that it would be possible to telegraph the Treaty in plain language the day it is communicated in a plenary session to the Powers with special interests.

Baron Makino further asks that the French Government should facilitate the telegraphing of the Treaty to Japan.

M Pichon undertakes to do this.

Mr Lansing says that the Treaty will be telegraphed to the State Department in Washington and that he will arrange that it be communicated to the Japanese Ambassador who will be able to forward it thence to Japan. He would ask, however, that the Treaty be not made public until communicated to the Germans.

(This is agreed to.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 11:56 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. Mr Lloyd George says that he had learned that at the Meeting of Foreign Ministers Mr Lansing had made a very powerful statement in which he had said that the German Constitution provided that the Central Government had full powers to make peace and war.

M Clemenceau says that had not been the case in 1871.

President Wilson says it was a long time since he had studied Constitutional history, but he felt fairly sure that the Constitution of the German Empire had been drawn up since 1871, and that in it had been included the powers of making peace and war.

M Clemenceau says that great care ought to be exercised lest we should make a peace, and find a few minutes after that the German States had not accepted it.

2. Mr Lloyd George proposes that during the following week while the German Delegates are studying the peace treaty, the Supreme Council should study the question and get with a general idea of the line they were going to take in regard to the re-arrangement of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He proposes that in the following week the Delegates of Austria and Hungary should be invited to Paris. There follows much discussion over the questions of when and where the Meeting should take place, and who should be responsible for inviting the Austrian Representatives to the Meeting.

(It is agreed that M Clemenceau, as President of the Preliminary Peace Conference, should invite the representatives of the Austrian and Hungarian Governments to come to Chantilly on May 12th.)

(3) There is a short discussion in regard to the position in North Russia, in the course of which Mr Lloyd George suggested that he and his colleagues should see Mr. Tchaikowski, the head of the Archangel Government, who is very hopeful that the Russians at Archangel might, by their own efforts, establish contact with General Kolchak. His information in regard to the Bolsheviks does not correspond with that in the possession of the French Government. He undertakes to distribute a memorandum prepared by the British Intelligence Department in regard to the situation in Russia. He suggests that a similar document should be prepared by the French and the United States Military Departments.

President Wilson said he thinks little good will be served by seeing Mr Tchaikowski. His views have been received by telegram. The United States only has one regiment at Archangel, and United States public opinion would not tolerate sending any more troops.

Mr Lloyd George says that the British Government has called for volunteers, and had received more offers than they could accept. The lists had had to be closed because they were full.

President Wilson thinks perhaps experts might hear Mr. Tchaikowski’s views.

(It is agreed that as the basis for discussion the United States, British and French Military Departments should prepare memoranda for circulation.)

4. Sir Maurice Hankey says that in consultation with Mr. Dutasta he had prepared a scheme for dealing with questions raised by the Germans in connection with the Treaty of Peace.

(This scheme is approved.)

5. Sir Maurice Hankey recalls the decision that had been taken in the morning that the proportions in which the successive installments paid over by Germany in satisfaction of claims against her should be divided by the Allied and Associated Powers. This should be determined by the Reparation Commission set up in the Reparation Articles, in proportion to the claims allowed by the Commission.

He asks for instructions as to what action should be taken to give effect to this decision. It is not a matter which would affect any clause in the Treaty of Peace, and as these Minutes were not circulated, he feels some doubt as to the best method of placing it on record so that it should not be overlooked. He had contemplated writing a letter to M Loucheur, Mr Norman Davis and Mr Keynes, so that the experts of France, the United States of America, and Great Britain, might be apprised of the decision.

Mr Lloyd George says that the matter is one of so great importance that he thinks it should take the form of a letter or a formal minute signed by M Clemenceau, President Wilson and himself.

(This is agreed to and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to draft the letter.)

6. It was decided provisionally and subject to possible revision in the event of good reason being shown to the contrary that Article 46 of the Military terms of Peace should be suppressed.

Note: Article 46 is as follows:—

“The Armistice of November 11th 1918 and the Convention subsequent thereto, remain in force so far as they are not inconsistent with tie above stipulations.”

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to communicate this decision to the Secretary General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

(7) Sir Maurice Hankey points out that Article 45 is reserved.

President Wilson asks how the Allied and Associated Powers could change the German laws.

Mr Lloyd George points out that if the German Military Service Law is not abolished, military recruits will automatically be called up for service.

(It was agreed that the form of the Article should be altered so as to provide that the German Government should undertake within a period not exceeding three months from the ratification of the Treaty to modify their law.)

8. Mr Lloyd George reads a telegram from the British Admiralty urging that an alteration should be made in Article 32 of the Naval Clauses, specially providing for the surrender of Floating Docks, and calling attention to the sale of a large Floating Dock now at Hamburg to an Engineering and Slipway Company at Rotterdam which is not prevented by the Armistice terms.

(It was agreed that no alteration should be made in the Treaty in this respect.)

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 11:57 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 16:30

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

The Council has before it Articles prepared by the experts present, with others, on the subject of Alsace-Lorraine.

M Tardieu says that the only points in dispute are Articles 12, 24 and 30.

Article 12:

After M. Tardieu explains the object of Article 12, Mr Lloyd George withdraws the reservation which had been made by the Representatives.

(Article 12 is accepted.)

Article 24:

M Tardieu, in explanation of Article 24, says that the balance of the property in Alsace-Lorraine under the general economic clauses of the Peace Treaty ought to be used for satisfying the economic claims of the pre-war period. This balance, according to the general rule, should be part of the general fund for reparation.

The French Government asks for a special privilege in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, because of the economic situation of the German private properties which was the result of the systematic germanization of Alsace-Lorraine. They ask that the balance of the property should be attributed to Alsace-Lorraine itself.

Mr Lloyd George says that this was not the proposal. It was that the balance should be handed over to the French claim for reparation.

Mr Klotz does not admit this.

Mr Lloyd George says he is afraid he must contest this clause very strongly. Its effect is to give priority to special claims in Alsace-Lorraine, which, though of low category, are in reality general claims. He only asks for the application of the usual rule that the surplus should go into the general pool. The balance should go into the pool and be distributed according to the principles of distribution adopted. Under the present proposal the Alsace-Lorraine claims, though of low category, would have priority over our reparation. M Tardieu had spoken of germanization. This is true to the extent that German skill and brains had greatly increased the wealth of these provinces. Nevertheless, the balance ought to go into the general pool. He was informed that one effect of this clause would be that pensions would be given to German officials in front of pensions to Allied soldiers.

M Clemenceau withdraws the proposal.

(It is agreed that Article 24 should be suppressed.)

Article 30:

M Tardieu says that Article 30 refers to reparation to Alsatians and Lorrainians. France asks that they should be treated in the same way as other French citizens under Annex I of the Reparation Clauses. The first article of the Reparation clauses declare Germany to be responsible for losses. Article 2 provided for reparation for the civilian population. It is impossible to say that Alsatians and Lorrainians are not French citizens and part of the French population. He feels he was entitled to put forward claims for them on the same ground as for other French citizens. Otherwise, France would have two classes of citizens. It was a matter of sentiment for France, and he asked that these people should be put on the same footing as other French citizens.

Mr Lloyd George says that the principle has already been considered and decided in respect to Poland and Czechoslovakia.

There had been considerable devastation in Poland, but Poland had nominally been at war against us, even though it had been against the will of the Polish people. Poles had actually taken part in the devastation of France. Similarly, soldiers from Alsace-Lorraine had taken part in the devastation of France. It had been decided against the Polish claim. If, however, it were now granted to Alsace-Lorraine, it must be granted to the Czechs, Poles and Yugo-Slavs.

The French Government stands to lose a good deal by this.

The second point is that the destruction in Alsace-Lorraine had been mainly wrought by the French armies when redeeming these provinces. He doubted if much destruction had been done by the German Armies. In these circumstances, he felt the claim was not one that could be justified.

M Tardieu says that the material devastation in Alsace-Lorraine was insignificant. What they wanted was pensions for widows, orphans and mutilated.

Mr Lloyd George says that these were due to French bombardments and British bombing. It is rather difficult in these circumstances to allow any claim.

President Wilson points out that many of them would be widows and orphans of German soldiers. He says his advisers take the same view as Mr Lloyd George. He can see the sentimental importance of the matter for France, but to agree would be to upset the general principles of reparation.

The French Representatives withdraw the proposal.

(It is decided that Article 30 should be suppressed.)

Article VII:

President Wilson says he was informed that the missing Article VII affected Belgium and the redemption of marks. Its object was to provide for the redemption of German marks.

Mr Lloyd George says he understands it had been only discussed on the possible assumption that the Belgian claim in regard to the redemption of marks was accepted. That claim had been refused.

Mr Tardieu says that the Article had only been adopted on that assumption.

Dr Young (United States) says the Germans only acknowledge by this clause their mark debt. By it they would have to agree to redeem the marks at some future time under a convention to be concluded between France and Germany.

President Wilson says that if this Article is passed, it ought to be applied to Belgium also.

Dr Falk (Britain) points out that the Belgians can sell marks on the market. This clause provides little more than this for France. France is entitled either to sell marks on the market, or to make an arrangement with Germany.

President Wilson says that this Article would make the public impression that it authorized the French Government to secure a redemption of the marks at a better rate than the market rate. The same advantage would have to be provided for Belgium.

Dr Falk suggests that it would be better to suppress the Article altogether.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Article does not really amount to anything. It would give the impression to the Germans of some advantage being given to France, and make difficulties in their signing the Treaty of Peace without corresponding advantage.

M Klotz says that the Article merely contained a statement of fact. It would be an advantage to Germany that France should not keep marks in hand, otherwise they were in a position to destroy the exchange. It merely provided for a Convention between the German and French Governments. In the course of the armistice discussion, the Germans had told M de Lasteyrie that they were afraid to let so many marks remain in French possession, and they had offered to buy them back at the rate of 70 centimes. The Belgians would not agree, in which they made a mistake, and the plan had fallen through.

President Wilson points out that France could enter into a Convention with Germany on this subject at any time, there is no need to authorize it in the Treaty of Peace. What is the object of inserting a clause that really adds nothing to France’s power, but gives the impression of something disadvantageous to the Germans?

Mr Lloyd George agrees and points out that it would also cause difficulties with the Belgians.

(It is agreed that Article VII should be dropped except the last paragraph.)

Note: This is all in relation to a section of the Peace Treaty that will give the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, taken by Germany in 1871, back to France.
-Steve

Sailor Steve

04-30-19, 11:58 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 17:30

Meeting of the Council of Four (Italy not in attendance)

1. M Klotz points out that the first part of the reparation clauses say that Germany acknowledges liability to pay. The question arises as to whether in drafting this should be stated as “Germany” or “Germany and the enemy States.” The most important instance is that if joint liability is admitted, Italy might be in a position to claim the total of the damage inflicted on her against Germany. If this is accepted without qualification, it will reduce what France and Great Britain can obtain for reparation. One plan would be to state that joint liability should be pro rata with the military effort. For example, in applying the case of Germany’s liability to Italy, it might be said that Germany had sent divisions corresponding to, say, one-tenth of the total number of divisions used, thus Germany would only be responsible for one-tenth of the damage inflicted. Without some such qualification the acceptance of the principle is very dangerous.

Mr Lloyd George says that this point has always puzzled him. All he wants to do is the fair thing. As a matter of fact the German forces had not been anything like one-tenth of the total on the Italian front. He believed only five German divisions had been employed out of a total of about sixty, and these for only a very short time. Moreover, Italy had never declared war on Germany for thirteen months after she entered the war with Austria, consequently, when claiming pensions, she would be claiming them for the time when Germany was at peace with Italy. There would be no justice in this.

President Wilson points out that there will be other complications. He remembers that in conversations with the Italian representatives they always claimed that they identified more German divisions on their front than other nations did. He remembers they claimed there had been six divisions.

Mr Lloyd George says that in Serbia Germany had taken a leading part. Under M Klotz’s principle, Serbia could make out a substantial claim for reparation. The same applies to Romania, but it would not apply to Italy, except in the case of the battle of Caporetto.

President Wilson points out that Italy will have a good claim in the case of submarines against Germany.

Mr Lloyd George agrees, and suggests that the basis should be the relation of the military and naval effort. The Italians cannot complain at this.

M Klotz proposed the following draft:

“War damages resulting from hostilities on any one of the fronts shall be compensated by Germany and her allies pro rata with the military and naval force supplied by each of them on that front. The proportions win be determined by the Reparations Commission.”

(This is accepted.)

Jimbuna

05-01-19, 07:30 AM

1st May 1919

In Munich, the anti-Communist Freikorps breaks through Communist defenses and capture the city after heavy street fighting. Anti-communist troops leading Red Guard prisoners.
https://i.imgur.com/6fu9JoM.jpg

Lenin making a May Day speech in Red Square, Moscow.
https://i.imgur.com/LADj4rG.jpg

Ship Losses:

Ilim (Soviet Navy Red Movement_ The gunboat was rammed and sunk on the Kama River by Pronzitelnyy ( Soviet Navy). Raised on 12 June, repaired and returned to service.

Sailor Steve

05-01-19, 08:32 PM

Thursday, May 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. It is agreed that:

Mr. Balfour should communicate the decision taken on this subject of Kiauchau and Shantung to the Chinese Delegation.

(An immediate message is sent to Mr Balfour, communicating this decision.)

2. Mr Lloyd George brings to note certain criticisms that had been made by the British Solicitor-General and Attorney-General against the articles on this subject, drafted by the Drafting Committee on the basis of the instructions given to them. In regard to Article 1, attention has been drawn to the words “not for an offence against criminal law but”. It has been pointed out that the draft as it stands might possibly be construed as an admission on the part of the Allied and Associated Powers that the German Emperor had not committed any offences against criminal law. He proposes the omission of these words.

President Wilson agrees.

(It was agreed that The first clause, Article 1, should read as follows:

“The Allied and Associated Powers publicly arraign William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties.”)

In regard to Article 2, Mr Lloyd George says that criticisms have been made against this Article on the ground that it might be construed to enable the German Government to secure immunity to persons who are accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war by trying them in a German Court and passing a nominal sentence.

(It is agreed that the Drafting Committee should be instructed to devise some means of avoiding this interpretation and the following draft of the first clause of Article 2 is suggested:

“The German Government engages that the persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war shall be brought before military tribunals by the Allied and Associated Powers and if found guilty sentenced to the punishment laid down by military law.”)

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

3. M Clemenceau asks if there is any news from the Belgians.

President Wilson says he has received none.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Belgian financial experts had asked to see Mr Keynes, but he did not know on what subject.

President Wilson said that Mr. McCormick had told him that the Belgian Delegation wished M Cartier, who was the Belgian Minister at Washington, to see President Wilson, in order to place before him certain aspects of the question with which he was not familiar. He, himself, had refused to see them, as he did not think it was right to conduct, as it were, a separate negotiation. Mr McCormick had also had conveyed the impression that the Belgians were alleging that the French and British Governments had in some special way granted them the value of the German marks in Belgium. He emphasized that this was only a general impression and not an exact statement.

4. M Clemenceau reports that the Credentials Committee will see the German Delegates at 15:00. The German Delegates have asked for the credentials of the Allied Delegates and Associated Powers. There has been some delay in regard to those of the Czecho-Slovaks and Poland.

5. M Pichon said that there will certainly be an incident when the Germans ask for the Italian Credentials and M Jules Cambon is unable to produce them. It should be made clear, in his opinion, to the world and to the Italians that Italy is responsible for this state of affairs. Recalling the Pact of London, to which Italy adhered, whereby France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia had agreed not to make a separate peace, M Pichon says that we must show clearly that it was Italy who had separated. He proposes, therefore, that the incident should be notified by telegram to Italy through the President of the Conference and that Italy should be allowed to hear of it only through the Press. The message should not contain any invitation to the Italians to return. The responsibility for this should be left to the Italians themselves. The message should merely show that the absence of the Italian Credentials is their fault and not ours. In reply to President Wilson he says he contemplates that the message should consist merely of a simple relation of the incident. For example, that credentials had been exchanged with the German Delegates; that Germany had asked for the Italian credentials. And that M Jules Cambon had replied that we had not got them. If the Germans do not ask for the Italian credentials, then no incident will arise.

Mr Lloyd George doubts if the Germans will ask for the Italian credentials.

M Clemenceau says that in their case he would certainly ask for them. M Jules Cambon will certainly make no answer today about the Italian credentials, beyond merely stating that he had not got them. The Germans might raise this when they meet the representatives of-the Allied and Associated Powers. But M Jules Cambon will simply say he had no power to discuss.

Mr Lloyd George asks what attitude should be taken if the Germans pressed the question when they met our plenipotentiaries.

M Clemenceau said that we should simply reply that we are ready to make peace and leave on Italy the responsibility for breaking the Treaty.

President Wilson pointed out that Italy had broken the Treaty or was contemplating breaking the Treaty in a most peculiar way. They said they would not agree to sign the Treaty with Germany because the Treaty with Austria was not settled, which was an irrelevant matter.

Mr Lloyd George points out that they represented that the League of Nations was their difficulty in the circumstances.

M Clemenceau says the Italians had promised to him, in front of his colleagues, to telegraph from Rome if they were coming back. They had not done so.

President Wilson says he thinks it inadvisable to send any message, even of the most formal character. By implication, it would constitute an invitation to the Italians to return. His interpretation of the news from Rome is that in reality they are anxious to come back and he thinks if they are left alone they might come back in 10 days’ time.

In the course of the discussion, Mr. Lloyd George read the following message from M. Poincaré to Italy:

“Italy and France, closely united in the war, remain united in peace. Nothing shall separate them. A cooling of their friendship would be a catastrophe for Latin civilization and for humanity. France, faithful to her engagements, to her sympathies and to her traditions, will keep her hands joined with the hands of Italy.”

There Is some discussion on this subject, in the course of which it Is pointed out that this message might be construed as a declaration on behalf of the French Government. Under ordinary circumstances the message is perfectly beyond criticism, but at the present juncture it is susceptible of misinterpretation.

M Pichon says he attaches no importance to it.

Mr Lloyd George points out that to some extent it might be taken as confirming the impression conveyed in the Italian newspapers to the effect that French public opinion is rather rallying to the side of Italy.

(After some further discussion, it is agreed that no message in regard to what might occur at Versailles on the subject of the Italian credentials should be sent to Italy.)

6. After a short discussion, it was agreed that:

(The question of submarine cables should be discussed with the Foreign Ministers at the Quai d’Orsay at 16:00.

7. M Pichon asks for a reconsideration of the decision taken on the previous day to invite the representatives of Austria and of Hungary to Paris on the 12th May. He observes that, at Vienna, there is in Austria a Government with which the Allied and Associated Powers can negotiate. In regard to Hungary, however, the news is to the effect that the Government is tottering and that the country is not behind it. This makes it desirable to wait some days before sending an invitation. This will also have the advantage of giving a few more days to see what happens on the side of Italy and it must be remembered that the great question in the Austrian settlement was the frontier of Italy. Hence, it will be better not to act too soon. If something is to be done immediately, it will be a good plan to bring the Hungarians to Paris by the middle of May. The Treaty could be ready for them, but it is not desirable to have the Austrians and Hungarians before we are ready.

President Wilson says that the principal reason for inviting the Austrians is to steady the Government at Vienna by showing to Austrian public opinion that we are ready to deal with it. According to his information, no delay in this matter is possible. The case of Hungary is different, and, as Mr Lloyd George had said, perhaps stronger. Even there, we might help to prevent constant changes of Government. Our expectation of [omission] was less strong. He hopes, however that the invitation will not be delayed and he, himself, would like to have it sent in 6 hours.

M Clemenceau agrees and says he will discuss the details with M Pichon later.

Mr Lloyd George agrees with President Wilson.

(M Pichon withdraws.)

8. President Wilson says it has been brought to his attention that the Jews are somewhat inhospitably regarded in Poland. In Romania also they depend only on statutory rights. While we cannot deal with Romania, we can deal with their position in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Certain safeguards have been suggested to him.

(He then reads the following two clauses, one of which he had drafted himself, while the other had been prepared by a United States legal draftsman:

1) The State of . . . . . . . . . . covenants and agrees that it will accord to all racial or national minorities within its jurisdiction exactly the same treatment and security, alike in law and in fact, that is accorded the racial or national majority of its people.

2) The State of . . . . . . . . . . . covenants and agrees that it will not prohibit or interfere with the free exercise of any creed, religion or belief whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals, and that no person within its jurisdiction shall be molested in life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness by reason of his adherence to any such creed, religion or belief.”)

Mr Lloyd George says he was going to propose that some similar provisions should be introduced in the Mandates.

President Wilson then reads a draft of clauses for the Treaty of Peace which had been prepared by Dr Miller concerning the protection of minorities in Poland, He says that the draftsman had consulted the representatives of smaller nations and of the Jews in preparing this draft.

Mr Lloyd George says that this really forms part of a bigger subject. He himself has received a note on the subject from Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith which opened up some wider aspects of the conditions which should be accepted by the new nations. He asks why some such provision should not be laid down as a condition for admission to the League of Nations.

President Wilson says these States are already admitted to the League.

Mr Lloyd George says that M Paderewski had made to him a very able defense of the attitude of Poland towards the Jews, and had pointed out that the Jews had themselves to blame to a considerable extent.

President Wilson says that the reason the Jews had caused trouble was because in those countries they were not really welcome citizens. They do not care for any country where they were badly treated. In the United States of America, Great Britain or France, those questions do not arise. They are only disloyal in countries where they are not treated properly.

Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau say that the Jews are very good citizens in their countries.

Mr Lloyd George says that in Poland he understands the Jews are really more efficient men of business than the Poles.

M Clemenceau said that in Poland a Pole who wants to carry out any transaction - for example, to buy a horse - will send for a Jew.

President Wilson points out that in England the Jews had been bad citizens before they were properly treated.

Mr Lloyd George remarks that Cromwell was the first person to recognize the importance of treating the Jews properly.

President Wilson proposes that a body of experts should be got together to draw up clauses, if not for the present Treaty, at any rate for subsequent Treaties.

Mr Lloyd George thinks the matter should be put in hand at once.

President Wilson suggests that his documents should be sent to this Committee as a basis for their inquiry. His draft about the protection of religious minorities will probably be sufficient.

M Clemenceau agrees.

Mr Lloyd George says that there are other more mundane matters referred to in Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith’s memorandum. He points out that the new States ought to assume the same obligations as other States in regard to matters adhering to general Conventions such as the Postal & Telegraph Convention; Industrial, Property and Copyright Conventions; and International Transit Conventions. He suggests that Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith’s memorandum should also be sent to the Committee.

President Wilson agrees.

President Wilson suggests that the Committee should examine how these questions are to be fitted into the Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George says the difficulty was that the new States had already been recognized, but they had not been created.

President Wilson asks what is the act of creating a new State?

Mr Lloyd George says that the Treaty will be the act of creation, since, until the Treaties were signed, they will be part of Germany or Austria.

(It was agreed that a Committee composed as follows:—

Dr Miller for the United States of America;
Mr Headlam-Morley for the British Empire;
A French Representative to be nominated by M. Clemenceau;
should meet immediately to consider the International obligations to be accepted by Poland and other new States created by the Treaties of Peace, including the protection of racial and religious minorities and other matters raised in the following documents:

a) The two drafts produced by President Wilson and quoted above;

b) The clauses forwarded by Dr. Miller;

c) Memorandum by Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith;

all of which should be regarded as an indication to the Committee of the subjects they were to consider.)

9. Mr Lloyd George points out that no arrangements have been made to regulate the post-bellum occupation of German territory. It is important that provision should be made for the relations between the Army and the civil authorities, etc. He is informed that General Weygand is discussing this with General Thwaites and General Bliss, but, in the meantime, some provision has to be made in the Treaty of Peace. He suggests the following clause:

“All matters regarding occupation not provided for by the present Treaty shall be regulated by a subsequent Convention or Conventions which shall have the same force and effect as if embodied in the present Treaty.”

(This is agreed as a basis for the preparation of an Article by the Drafting Committee.)

10. Mr. Lloyd George urges that the conditions of the Mandates should be fixed. He asks if they ought not to be inserted in the Treaty with Germany.

M Clemenceau says this is unnecessary.

President Wilson agrees.

Mr Lloyd George says that at any rate there ought to be a clear understanding on the matter. The British Dominions lay great stress on this.

President Wilson says that there is a tacit agreement as to the assignment of the Mandates.

Mr Lloyd George says it is rather the conditions of the Mandates he is referring to.

President Wilson says that the Supreme Council is too much pressed to take up that matter.

11. M Clemenceau says he does not think that the Treaty of Peace will be ready before Monday. He suggests that the plenary Conference at which he would read the summary to the States with special interests should be held on Sunday.

President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George both demur to a Sunday meeting.

M Clemenceau says it will have to be held on Saturday.

12. Enemy ships in United States ports There was a short discussion on the subject of enemy ships in United States ports, which is postponed for further consideration.

13. There is a short discussion in regard to the opinions expressed by the American, British and Italian Delegations on the Supreme Economic Council in favour of relaxation of the blockade.

President Wilson says that if the blockade is not removed until the Peace has been ratified, Germany would go to pieces.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the real difficulty in revictualling Germany is not so much the blockade as the fact that Germany has no financial resources wherewith to pay for food or raw material, hence it is necessary to provide some means for supplying credit. He has put forward a scheme which he understands is not acceptable to the United States experts. He does not attach any special importance to any particular scheme, but he feels sure it is necessary to have some scheme, and the subject ought to be discussed. All his information tends to show that Germany’s signature to Peace will depend mainly on her prospects of getting food and raw materials.

President Wilson suggests that it will not be necessary to propound any particular scheme. It will be sufficient to say that effective cooperation will be given.

Mr Lloyd George says he does not think this will suffice. The Germans will say that promises of the kind are held out to them in the Armistice discussions, but that nothing had resulted. It is necessary to propound a definite scheme which would be acceptable to the Germans.

(The Subject is adjourned.)

14. The formal Minute in Appendix I [III] is signed in triplicate by M Clemenceau, President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George as giving effect to the decision taken on the previous day as to the proportions in which the receipts paid by Germany for reparation were to be divided between the Allied and Associated Governments.

One copy is kept by President Wilson, one by M Clemenceau and one by Mr Lloyd George.

Sailor Steve

05-01-19, 10:14 PM

Thursday, May 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 16:00

M Clemenceau calls on M Pichon to explain how the suggestion of submarine cables now stands.

M Pichon says that on the 24th March, 1919, the following Resolution proposed by Mr Balfour had been passed by the Council of Ten, namely:

“The Treaty of Peace should not debar Germany from repairing at her own expense submarine cables cut by the Allied and Associated Powers during the war, nor from replacing at her expense any parts which had been cut out from such cables or which, without having been cut, are now in use by any of those Powers”.

It had been agreed that this text should be referred to the Drafting Committee for the submission of a draft clause for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace. The Drafting Committee had prepared a text which, however, was only accepted by the American representative subject to the approval of his Government. At a meeting of the Foreign Ministers held at the Quai d’Orsay on the 30th April, 1919, the text in question had again come under discussion. Mr Lansing had been unable to accept the draft text proposed by the Drafting Committee and had proposed certain amendments, which both Mr Balfour and Admiral de Bon had been unable to accept. Consequently, it was decided to refer the whole question to the Heads of Government for final decision.

President Wilson inquires whether Mr Balfour holds the view that the Article, as drafted by the Drafting Committee, carries out the intentions of the Resolution passed on the 24th March, 1919.

Mr Balfour, in reply, says he would like to give his version of what had occurred. On the 24th March, 1919, at the Conference of the Ten, which Mr Lloyd George had not attended. A prolonged discussion of the cable question had taken place. A Resolution had been unanimously accepted, which was to be referred to the Drafting Committee for insertion in the Articles of the Peace Treaty. Both Mr Lansing and he had adhered to that Resolution, which was to govern the action of the Drafting Committee. The question had now arisen as to the correct interpretation to be given to the original Resolution. Mr Lansing would no doubt explain his point of view. He, himself, interpreted the clause to mean that all acts taken by the Allies in connection with enemy submarine cables during the war should stand, and that Germany should have no claim to compensation. Thus, for instance, should a cable line have been cut and diverted, the new system so established should stand. On the other hand, Germany would have a perfect right to reconstruct her former cable system as it stood before the war. To illustrate his argument, he would ask the Council to imagine a German cable line going from A to C through B. During the war the cable was cut at B and connected up with a new line from B, to D, so that the line went from A to B to D.

Under these conditions, Mr Lansing held that the piece A–B should now be restored to Germany, whereas the British, French and Japanese representatives contended that as A–B was an essential part of the new line A–B–D, it could not be restored to Germany, though she should have a right to join up the piece B–C with a new line to be laid by her from B to A.

Mr. Lloyd George inquires whether the Germans would have the right to the use in common of the line A–B.

Mr Balfour explains that it would not be practical for two separate systems to use the same cable line. Consequently, the part A–B would have to be owned by the country that had laid down the line B–D. In his opinion, unless the British interpretation is accepted, the Allies and not the Germans will have to spend an enormous sum of money in making their new cable lines effective. He fully agrees that the number of cables should not be diminished and that the more cables there are, the better it will be; but he thinks that it is Germany who should be required to make the expenditure to reconstruct her lost cables. Great Britain has already spent over £400,000 on the changes necessary for adapting the lines taken over from Germany to the new cable systems.

President Wilson says that when he took part in the discussion, it had been with an unfortunate ignorance of technical details. He had not known that the main trunk line could not be used by two parties. He had supposed that the Germans could, at their own expense, connect up their end and operate through the common trunk line. As the trunk line lay at the bottom of the sea, in what might be called no-man’s-land, it was not subject to capture, but was subject to use. He realized that there was no International law on this question. He had assented to the resolution, therefore, under an erroneous impression, which was entirely his own fault. He would take an example. There had been a cable line from Emden by the Azores to New York. The European end had been diverted to Brest, and the American End to Halifax. This had caused great inconvenience to the United States, and he had supposed that a new branch line to New York could be attached to the main trunk line without disturbing the communication with Halifax and similarly that a new German end could be installed without disturbing the line to Brest. But, under the interpretation now given to the resolution, Germany would not have the use of the main trunk line and only the abandoned short ends of the original cable lines would be restored to her, and she would have to replace the main lengths of the line extending to a length of some 3,000 miles. In addition, Germany would have to obtain the right to land in the Azores. This was not what he had assented to, but the error was due to his ignorance. He thought that in a war in which many nations had participated and expended their share of blood and treasure, these indispensable instruments of international communication should not pass into the hands of only three of the parties in the war. He has no desire to re-establish the German cable system, but he had a very decided interest in ensuring the means of obtaining quick cable communication. Wireless, as now developed, has not the same value as cables, since anyone can pick up wireless messages. On the other hand, cables possess a certain degree of privacy, depending on the good faith of the employees. Again the cable lines across the Pacific passed through the Island of Yap, which thus became a general distributing center for the lines of communication of the North Pacific. Yap should not, therefore, fall into the hands of one Power.

In his opinion, the case has assumed a new aspect, since he has heard the interpretation now given to the resolution. It is proposed that the German cables are to be turned over entirely to those who had cut them during the war, even though one particular line, Pernambuco to Monrovia, actually terminates at both ends in neutral countries. If any method could be devised to put the cable systems under International control he would be quite satisfied; but it seems to him a very serious matter that all Powers should not have a common interest in them. He thinks a satisfactory solution will be reached, if the enemy cables can be turned over to the Allied and Associated Governments as trustees, and managed under the terms of an International Convention. He asks to correct a slight mistake made in his statement. He found there had actually been two cables from London to New York. One of these lines had been diverted so as to operate between Brest and New York, thus constituting a Franco-American line. The second line had been connected to run from Land’s End to Halifax.

Mr Balfour says that he wishes to repeat the statement made by him at a previous meeting, when discussing the same question, to the effect that he was entirely against monopolies. But the existing cable systems could not be described as monopolies in the bad sense of the word. The Cable Companies in question though registered in Great Britain are actually owned by a majority of American shareholders, which rather disposes of the idea that any undue monopoly exists.

President Wilson points out that in accordance with the laws of the United States of America a majority of directors would have to belong to the country in which the Company was registered.

Mr. Lloyd George does not think that the same law applies to Great Britain in the case of international companies. He understands that, although these cable companies are owned by British companies, they are actually operated by American companies.

Mr Lansing thinks that the whole question is merely one of investments. The control of the cable lines is wholly in the hands of the British.

Admiral de Bon says that two definite questions call for decision by the Council, namely: Firstly, the use to which the captured German cables should be put, and secondly, the regulations which the Allies, and especially the United States of America, wish to apply to the use of cables crossing the high seas.

(He then makes a very long speech detailing the situation of each cable involved.)

Sir Robert Borden says that he has not been able to study the cable situation under discussion very carefully; but Canada is deeply interested in the cables crossing the Atlantic. Though many of the cable lines land at Halifax, the Canadian Government had no control over that line; the control being American.

Mr Lansing, intervening, points out that only the control was American, the property itself being vested in the United Kingdom.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that the Americans, at all events, control the rates to be charged for cables.

Mr Lansing doubts the correctness of that statement. The Western Union Cable Company of America merely controls the working of the cables; but the cables themselves were owned by British Companies.

Sir Robert Borden, continuing, says that he is certain of one thing, namely, that the Canadians do not control these cable lines. The Canadian Government has been requested by the British Government to allow the cable line in question to land at Halifax. The permission asked for had been granted and he would now strongly object to its removal. In his opinion, the whole question of cable control requires careful consideration by the Governments concerned.

President Wilson points out that he does not wish Sir Robert Borden to imagine that anyone holds the idea of diverting the cable from Halifax.

Mr Lloyd George holds that if the line in question is handed back to Germany, it would as a natural consequence be diverted to New York.

President Wilson expresses the view that the meeting has to decide only the two following definite questions, namely:

(i) Are submarine cables proper objects of appropriation and can they be aretained without reckoning them in the total bill of reparations?

(ii) Can any means be devised to place the cable lines under international control?

He thinks if these principles can be accepted, a satisfactory agreement will easily be reached.

Sir Robert Borden invites attention to the fact that six or seven years ago the Canadian Government had endeavored to exercise some control over the rates charged for cables. The Government eventually only succeeded in obtaining a reduction by threatening to lay cables of their own.

Mr Lloyd George maintains that whatever President Wilson’s intention might be in connection with the cable line in question, the effect will obviously be to divert the cable from Halifax. The right to take cables is just as strong as the right to capture ships. He agrees that cables had not heretofore formed the subject of capture; but there has never been a war of the same kind before, and serious risks and heavy expenditure had had to be incurred in order to obtain possession of these cables. He, himself, will be quite prepared to consider the question of the payment of some sort of compensation to Germany for the surrender of the cables, but this is a new proposition and will require careful examination. A direct line of communication to Canada having now been established, the people of Canada who have suffered much in money and life during the war will feel deeply deserted if the suggestion is accepted to return these lines to Germany. In conclusion, he wishes to support very cordially what Admiral de Bon had said, namely, that after peace had been established the Governments should meet together and endeavor to arrive at some agreement on the question of the international control of cable lines. The only point, however, now to be decided is whether these particular cables should be restored to Germany or not. He holds the view that if such a step is now taken very bitter feeling will be raised.

President Wilson points out that there is a side of the question to which Mr Lloyd George had not referred. If it were merely a question of returning the cables to Germany or not, the solution would be comparatively easy, as this could only be answered in the negative. But the Council is asked to decide whether these cables should remain exclusively in the hands of those who had taken them over, though all parties had taken part in the war. Should a decision to that effect be taken, that might prejudge any ulterior arrangements, whereas, in his opinion, the Treaty of Peace ought to leave the question open.

Mr. Lloyd George inquires whether President Wilson could make some definite proposal.

President Wilson suggests that the Peace Terms should require the cables in question to be transferred to the Allied and Associated Powers as Trustees; who would be authorized to determine the future working of the cables in the interests of the Powers concerned.

Mr. Lloyd George inquired whether the Trustees would have the power of diverting the cables to other places.

President Wilson expresses the view that the Trustees would only be empowered to do this as a result of a unanimous decision, on the grounds that such a diversion would be in the interest of the whole of the Powers concerned.

Sir Robert Borden explains that the Canadian Government had intended to make the cable in question State property to be linked up with the land telegraphic system, which already belonged to the Government. In this way, it was thought measures could be taken to reduce rates.

President Wilson thinks that the question raised by Sir Robert Borden is not in contradiction with his own proposals, and should be considered when the question of drafting the international convention relating to cables was undertaken.

Mr Lloyd George points out that President Wilson’s proposal will apply to all cables, and consequently will also affect the French and Japanese Governments.

Baron Makino says he wishes to state Japan’s position in the matter. At the last meeting on this subject, Mr Balfour had proposed a resolution which had been accepted after long discussion. He had not then had time to catch the real purport of the resolution. Accordingly, he had wished to obtain some explanation, but he was told that after the text came back from the Drafting Committee, he would have an opportunity of discussing the question further. At the present moment, he is prepared to accept the policy contained in the resolution proposed by Mr Balfour on 24th March last.

In regard to the appropriation of the cables in question, he would invite attention to the policy that had been pursued, vis-à-vis, Germany, as expressed in the Peace Treaty. It will be found that a certain number of questions have been settled not strictly in accordance with the recognized usages of international law. For instance, in regard to the taking over of private property. Again, Article 13 of the Financial Clauses authorizes the taking over of undertakings of public utility. That is to say, the Allied and Associated Governments have, in his opinion, gone very far in taking over German rights and much further than had ever been done heretofore. In his opinion, the same procedure could therefore well be followed in regard to cables. The Cable Company taken over by the Japanese Government has a capital of 15 million marks at its disposal and in addition received from the German Government an annual subsidy of 1½ million marks. These facts clearly prove that the undertaking had not been a commercial one; but part and parcel of the German political system. For this reason, taking into consideration also the general policy introduced elsewhere in the Treaty to which he had just alluded, it is not unreasonable that this cable should be taken over by Japan. That clearly is the Japanese point of view, and after very careful consideration he has been led to the conclusion that the best policy would be to adopt Mr Balfour’s original resolution.

Next, in regard to the International Convention relating to the future management of cables, his personal opinion is that such an arrangement would be desirable. Such a Convention could be drawn up on the same lines as the International Postal Convention, subject to International agreement. But for the moment he is only willing to accept the proposals contained in Mr Balfour’s resolution adopted on March 24th last.

Mr Lloyd George says that President Wilson had put forward a new proposal. So far, he has only been able to have a short consultation with Mr Balfour, who agreed with him that their experts should be consulted before reaching a definite conclusion. He would therefore ask the Council to adjourn the further discussion of the question, in order to give time for proper consideration of the new proposal. He feels very hopeful that an agreement will be reached; but he would like to consult his experts. In his opinion, it would be a mistake to discuss the proposal until it had received further consideration.

President Wilson explains that he has put forward his proposal for two reasons. Firstly, because he thought it was right and, secondly, because he thought it afforded a solution in the general interest, which will have the effect of creating a solidarity among the Allied Powers.

Mr Lloyd George agrees provided financial solidarity alone is not intended.

Sir Robert Borden is particularly anxious to avoid private companies acquiring too large a monopoly. For instance, he is anxious to approach the American Government with a view to reducing cable rates and ship rates.

President Wilson expresses his complete agreement with Sir Robert Borden’s purpose. The common trusteeship he had proposed was intended to bring about these very objects. He thought that one reason why the German cable referred to by Baron Makino had not paid was because it constituted merely an independent piece, which did not enter into the general system. With the permission of the Council, he would formulate a definite draft resolution for discussion at the next meeting of the Council.

Mr Lansing thinks that the draft resolution might very well be drawn up on the lines of the Article dealing with the surrender of German Colonies.

(It was agreed that President Wilson should formulate a draft resolution for discussion at the next meeting of the Council of Ten to the effect that all German Cables seized during the war should be transferred to the Allied and Associated Powers as trustees, who would determine the future working of the cables in the interests of the Powers concerned).

The meeting then adjourned.

Sailor Steve

05-01-19, 10:32 PM

Thursday, May 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 17:45

1. M Jules Cambon gives an account of his interview with the German Delegates. Having been charged with the verification of their credentials, and having invited them to meet him at Versailles, he received a telegram stating that the German representatives would be presided over by Herr Lanisberg, the German Minister of Justice, and would include Herr Simons, the Commissary-General for Judicial Questions, and Director of the Department of Justice, Foreign Office, the Advocate Counsel, Counselor of Legation Gauss, who would be at the Trianon Palace to bring the German credentials and would ask to receive in exchange the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers. He had then sent a message to suggest that Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau as Head of the German Commission, should accompany the delegates. He had addressed a few words to the German delegates, and had asked for their credentials, which had been handed over. They had then asked for the Allied and Associated credentials and he had handed them over. He had told them that if they had any observations to make on the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers, they would meet again. After that they separated. He had received the impression that Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau and his colleagues were profoundly moved and that their attitude towards the Allied and Associated Powers was what it should be. Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau, who knows and speaks French fluently, as well as his officials, had said what they had to say in German, and had brought an interpreter. He felt it his duty to submit to the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers that it was within the right of those Governments to decide whether the Germans should be permitted to speak German or should have to speak French or English.

M Clemenceau says you cannot forbid them speaking in their own language. He said that in the negotiations of 1871, Bismarck had spoken French when he was pleased, and German when he was not.

Mr Balfour points out the inconvenience of having the interpreter for speech into two languages.

President Wilson says that the exchange of views would be in writing and that there would be very little speech-making.

Mr Lloyd George asks if M Cambon had ascertained anything as to the German views of publicity of the Peace Treaty.

M Cambon says the question had not been raised. In reply to Mr Lansing, he says that the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers were in the hands of the Germans for determination and vice versa.

In reply to M Clemenceau, he says he had not fixed the date of the next meeting. Knowing the Germans as he did, he felt sure it would take them some time to examine all the credentials of the Allied and Associated Powers. The same applied to his own Commission, which he proposed should meet the following afternoon. He asked for 48 hours for examination of the German credentials, and would not be prepared to make any report before Saturday.

President Wilson says it has just been learned that the Drafting Committee will probably require until Tuesday, as the date for handing the Treaty to the Germans. He suggests, therefore, that M Jules Cambon’s Committee should make a careful scrutiny of the German credentials.

(This M Cambon undertakes to do.)

(Mr White, M Cambon, Lord Hardinge and Mr Kimura withdraw.)

2. Mr Lloyd George raises the question of whether some communication should not be made to the Italians. He suggests that a message should be sent to the Ambassador to the effect that for drafting reasons the handing over of the Treaty has been put off until Tuesday.

Mr Balfour suggests the communication should be made to the Marquis Imperiali. When the Italian Delegation left, Baron Sonnino had written him a civil note to say that the Marquis Imperiali was left in charge.

President Wilson thinks that the Marquis Imperiali is the person to address with any communication or approach we might have to make. This, however, in his view, should not be a communication from the Conference, but merely a communication from M Pichon to the Italian Ambassador in Paris.

M Clemenceau asks what exactly M Pichon should say.

President Wilson suggests he should say that as a mere matter of opinion, the Drafting Committee does not expect to be ready with the Treaty until Tuesday.

Mr Lloyd George suggests he should add that we expect to meet the Germans on Tuesday.

(It was agreed that:

(1) M Pichon should inform the Italian Ambassador in Paris that the Drafting Committee does not expect to have the Treaty ready for the Germans until Tuesday, and that the Allied and Associated Powers expect to meet the Germans on Tuesday.

(2) That this should merely be a message from M Pichon to the Italian Ambassador and not a formal message from the Conference to the Italian Government.)

3. M Pichon says he has some information to the effect that there is a certain movement against the Italian Government, from the Socialist side on the part of M Lussati and from the opposite side on the part of M Tittoni.

(At this point M Pichon and Mr Lansing withdraw.)

4. President Wilson communicates a number of reports he has received about the attitude towards the Peace Treaty of the various members of the German Government including Herren Brockdorff-Rantzau, Ebert, Scheidemann, Bernsdorff, and others.

5. President Wilson reads a letter he has from General Bliss describing the conversation with Marshal Foch on the subject of the elimination of Article 46 from the Military Terms.

(This is the Article keeping the Armistice in force so far as not inconsistent with the Treaty.)

The tenor of Marshal Foch’s replies has rather been that he does not know enough of the stipulations of the Peace Treaty to judge of the matter.

President Wilson recalls the previous provisional decision to eliminate this Article and proposes that it should now be regarded as settled.

M. Clemenceau says he has no objection.

Mr Lloyd George agrees, unless his experts should raise any objection.

M Clemenceau said he has been seeking the formula for his communication to the Austrian and Hungarian Delegates.

The following is a rough translation of the Note as agreed to:

“The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers has decided to invite the Hungarian Delegates furnished with full powers, to come to St. Germain on the 15th May in the evening, in order to examine the conditions of Austrian Peace. The Hungarian Government is therefore invited to communicate forthwith the number and quality of the Delegates they propose to send to St. Germain, as well as the number and quality of the persons who will accompany them. The Mission will have to remain strictly confined to its role, and should include only persons qualified for their special tasks.”

Note: The reason for inviting the Austrians and Hungarians on different dates is that the two Governments are not friendly.

(It is agreed:

1) That M Clemenceau should, on behalf of the Preliminary Peace Conference, dispatch a Note on the above lines to the Austrian and Hungarian Governments.

2) That M. Pichon should be authorized to notify this to the Italian Ambassador at the same time as the information referred to in Minute 2 above.)

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to ask the Secretary-General to speed up various Commissions dealing with subjects affecting Peace with Austria, and to inform them that their reports should all be complete not later than May 12th.

(M Dutasta entered the room.)

M Dutasta reads a communication from the Belgian Delegation, asking for:

1) The text of the Articles in the Treaty of Peace, which they would have to submit to the King of the Belgians.

2) A wording of the Articles in regard to the surrender of the German Colonies.

3) That the summary of the Peace Treaty might be communicated in advance to the Belgian Delegation, in order that it might be published in Brussels at the same time as in Paris.

(It is agreed to discuss this question on the following morning.)

Jimbuna

05-02-19, 05:58 AM

2nd May 1919

Anti-communist Freikorps patrol the streets of Munich after recapturing the city from the Communists.
https://i.imgur.com/tSgtvZu.jpg

Troops of the Russian Red Army celebrating May Day in the streets of occupied Riga, Latvia. Latvia is currently fighting for its War of Independence against Soviet Russia.
https://i.imgur.com/2CtJWrf.jpg

New York, New York: The mightiest war spectacle ever staged in New York was held this day on Fifth Avenue. Cannons, tanks and thousands of field pieces were drawn through the streets amid the cheers of thousands. Here is a big gun mounted on a tank, which has never been exhibited in NY.
https://i.imgur.com/H4m0zaL.jpg

Sailor Steve

05-02-19, 03:05 PM

Friday, May 2, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. President Wilson says that the representatives of Azerbaijan are anxious to come to Paris. They have had a deputation at Constantinople for a long time, waiting for permission to come to Paris. He understands that the French Government has not given the necessary authorization. The Georgians and other representatives of the Caucasus republics are all in Paris, and there seems to be no reason for this exception.

M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George undertake to look into the matter.

2. M Clemenceau urges that the letter signed by Mr Lloyd George and himself, and handed to S Orlando on April 24th, should be published. He suggests that it should be published with a preamble somewhat as follows:

“In order that there may be no misunderstanding about the attitude of Great Britain and France in regard to Fiume, M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George have authorized the publication of the following letter to M. Orlando in regard to these matters:"

Mr Lloyd George says he has received a letter from the Marquis Imperiali, which he proceeds to read. The gist of it is that S Orlando thinks it better that the memorandum presented by M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George should not be published, as it would not help public opinion in Italy in its attitude towards Great Britain and France. S Orlando had been begged by a very able French diplomatist in Rome not to read the memorandum. He felt sure that this was right, as it had made a very painful impression on the Parliamentary Commission to whom he had read it. The Marquis Imperiali urged, in these circumstances, that the memorandum should not be published.

President Wilson thinks that it should be published.

M Clemenceau says that the Drafting Committee does not know whether to insert Italy or not.

Mr Lloyd George says he understands that the Drafting Committee has been instructed on this subject.

Sir Maurice Hankey said that he has not been authorized to make any formal communication to the Drafting Committee on the subject. Under Mr Lloyd George’s instructions, however he had asked Mr Hurst, the British member of the Drafting Committee, to try and arrange throughout the Treaty to avoid mentioning either the word “Italy”, or the words “The five Allied and Associated Powers”. At an interview he had had with the Drafting Committee yesterday, however, he had gathered that they had not been able to do this.

He has one other item of information he ought to mention, namely, that it has come to his knowledge that one of the Commissions, either the Economic Commission or the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, has sent a telegram warning the Italian representative that Austrian questions would be considered on Monday.

(The view is generally expressed that this ought not to have been done in the present situation with Italy, without authority.)

M Clemenceau says that M Pichon had carried out his instructions the previous evening to see the Italian Ambassador, and had told him that the Germans were to be met next Tuesday, and that the Austrians and Hungarians were being asked to Paris. M Bonin did not like it at all.

Reverting to Sir Maurice Hankey’s information about the communication by a Commission to Italy, he said that M Klotz had reported the receipt of a letter from S Crespi, dated April 30th (which M Clemenceau proceeds to read), in which he had made a number of criticisms about the reparation decisions, and had made unqualified reservations in the name of the Italian Government. Is this sort of thing to continue? M. Clemenceau asks.

Mr Lloyd George asks how S Crespi had received word of those decisions. He wonders whether he had yet learnt of the decision that in reckoning claims for reparation against Germany, account should be taken of the proportion of the German effort on the particular front.

M Clemenceau asked what was to be done regarding M Crespi’s letter.

President Wilson says it would be sufficient if M Klotz’s secretary were to acknowledge receipt. He would not do more than this.

Mr Lloyd George says he will ask him the straight question as to whether he was a member of the Conference or not. He will say he wished to know because other decisions affecting Italy are being taken.

Sir Maurice Hankey mentions that whenever he had known that reparation, economic, or ports, railways and waterways, or financial questions were to be considered he had sent a telephonic communication to S Crespi, just as he had done to the other experts. S Crespi had usually replied that he was unable to be present. This did not apply, however, to the meeting at which the decision referred to by Mr Lloyd George had been taken, because that had not been a meeting specially organised for the subject. The experts had been present in connection with another question, namely, that of Alsace-Lorraine, and advantage had been taken of their presence to settle this question.

Mr Lloyd George say it is necessary to be very careful over this matter; if a break - and by break he does not mean hostilities - occurs with Italy it would be a very serious matter. In these moments small matters and the methods in which things were done were apt to tell. We must avoid even the appearance of incivility. He would give an air of over-courtesy. He thinks that M Klotz is entitled to write and say that other amendments are being made to the reparation clauses which affected Italy, and that he thinks he ought to afford an opportunity to M Crespi to be present.

President Wilson fully agrees as to the importance of courtesy. He thinks, however, under all the circumstances, the only proper course is for M Klotz’s secretary to send a courteous acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter. At the present time M Klotz’s relations with the Italian representative were undefined. It would be as irregular for M Klotz to make an official communication as undoubtedly it had been for M. Crespi to do so.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that nevertheless M Klotz is entitled to ask if S Crespi is a member or not.

President Wilson says he would not answer.

M Clemenceau says he would at once telegraph the Italian Government.

Mr Lloyd George says he has not been feeling comfortable about the decision on the subject of joint and several responsibility which has been taken in the absence of Italy, though it is to the detriment of Italian interests. He thinks undoubtedly that both France and Great Britain would make a good deal out of this decision at Italian expense; France twice as much as Great Britain, and the decision had been taken the moment the Italians left.

President Wilson says we ought not to be too soft-hearted about the Italians, who had withdrawn from the negotiations with Germany because they could not get what they wanted about the negotiations with Austria, which were a separate matter.

Mr Lloyd George thinks the decision look rather like sharp practice.

President Wilson suggests that a letter should be drafted for M Klotz to send.

(Mr. Philip Kerr is then invited into the room, and is given an outline of the question, and asked to draft a reply. Mr. Kerr retires.)

Mr Lloyd George thinks that before a decision is taken as to the publication of his and M Clemenceau’s memorandum to S Orlando, it should be carefully studied.

(Sir Maurice Hankey hands him the memorandum, which he proceeds to read.)

M Clemenceau says he thinks we cannot abstain from publishing the letter.

President Wilson reminds him that the original understanding was that some document was to be published by Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau on the morning following the publication of his own statement. The impression had been created that the United States of America stands alone in their attitude and M Poincare’s declaration had rather heightened the impression that Great Britain and France are not with him. In these circumstances he feels that the memorandum ought to be published.

Mr Lloyd George says the effect must be very carefully considered. If the Italians do not want to come back, they will be glad of some excuse which would throw the blame on to their Allies.

President Wilson fee;s sure they want to come back.

Mr Lloyd George says that might be the case, but you do not want to put them in a position of saying President Wilson drove them away from the Conference, and M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George prevented them from coming back.

President Wilson says it is not fair to the world to abstain from publishing. The idea has been put about that Italy was expecting some arrangement to be offered them about Fiume, such as some form of independence under the League of Nations. The world needs some assurance that the Allied and Associated Powers collectively intend to do the right thing.

Mr Lloyd George says that the first thing is to patch up an arrangement with Italy if it can be patched up honorably. He would like Italy to be represented at the Council if this can be arranged without any sacrifice of principle.
(President Wilson agrees.)

The second point is that if they do not come back the responsibility must not be with the Allied and Associated Powers. He is afraid that publication will prejudice the position. He is not sure that publication will not make it impossible for the Italians to return. It is well known that a letter had been written, and he and his colleagues, with whom he had discussed it, took the view that the longer the declaration was withheld, the greater would be the effect. British public opinion is not with the Italians in this matter, but it really has no great interest in it. It wants it patched up. It was not indifferent to principle, but it really does not know the question or understand it.

President Wilson says that public opinion in the United States is intensely interested. It cannot understand why the United States is apparently left in isolation. United States public opinion is much more important than Italian. If the United States again becomes isolated it will break up the whole scheme on which the Peace Conference is working. He himself has less contact than Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau with Italian opinion, but his experts, with whom he had discussed the matter assured him that the only way was to show Italy that she was in an impossible position. Once Italy realizes that, a result is much more likely. If Italy is kept in a state of hope as regards Flume, she will go on scheming and putting her views in the Press, and will get no further. M Clemenceau’s and Mr Lloyd George’s memorandum is unanswerable. It would show clearly to Italian public opinion that Italy was in an impossible situation and must get out of it if she wants to be in the great world movement. In the meanwhile, if nothing is done, work will have to be continued on the same difficult basis, that is to say, one of constant embarrassment in taking decisions adverse to Italy in the absence of its representatives, and not knowing whether Italy is in or out of the Peace Conference.

Mr Lloyd George says he would put some considerations on the other side. He thinks President Wilson is wrong in assuming that the United States is regarded as standing alone. His opinion is that Italian public opinion regards Great Britain as more hostile than she really is. They really think that the British representatives have acted against them. This is undoubtedly a good deal due to the attitude of The Times, which is still regarded as an official or semi-official organ in Italy. Only the previous evening a British soldier had told him that British officers were insulted in the streets in Italian cities, and the feeling was running strong against us. It is assumed that Great Britain stand with the United States of America. He thinks that the contrary opinion has been disseminated in the United States mainly by Mr Hearst’s papers, which are always trying to make trouble between Great Britain and the United States. It is assumed that Great Britain was pro-Yugoslav, but as a matter of fact British opinion knows and cares very little about the Yugoslavs. If he thought that public opinion would bring matters to a head and force Italy to take a decision, he would agree to it. But he fears it might only prolong the crisis by making it difficult for Italy to come in. Sooner or later, Italy must come in, and must do so voluntarily. Publication might cause a ministerial crisis in Italy, and bring back S Giolitti and S Tittoni, which would not be at all desirable. Moreover, to publish in the face of the Marquis Imperiali’s letter, which is based on information from S Orlando, would, he thinks, be a very serious matter.

President Wilson said he thinks he is the best judge of opinion in the United States of America, and the impression there he has no doubt from daily communications is that the United States are getting no support.

Mr Lloyd George suggests the publication of some semi-official communiqué that is obviously inspired.

President Wilson thinks that we should prolong the present situation longer by the present method of leaving matters alone than by a drop in the test tube which was to produce precipitation.

(Mr Lloyd George interjected that he is afraid it might produce an explosion.)

He believes that the only way to get the Italians back will be to make a declaration. We have now sent to the Austrians, and we should show them that if they do not come back they will be out of it altogether. He understands that they have sent a ship to Fiume and that they are increasing the number of troops in Fiume. He has learned this very morning from Mr Lloyd George that they have sent a battleship, two cruisers and a destroyer to Smyrna. This confirms what S Orlando had told the United States ambassador in Rome, that they will not go into the League of Nations unless they get what they want. At Brest there is one of the latest United States battleships waiting to take him home, but this could be sent to Smyrna or Fiume.

M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George say they would send it to Fiume.

President Wilson says that of course the danger is if a force is sent, some incident might happen. The Italians seem to be sending forces to several places.

Mr Lloyd George says that he has sent Lieut. Harmsworth to Mr Venizelos with a telegram that he had received from the Central Committee of unredeemed Hellenes at Athens, to the effect that recent events, especially in the Smyrna district, indicate that the Turks, stimulated by some outside power (this, no doubt, is Italy) are continuing their policy of oppression and massacre; and the telegram concludes by asking for forces to be sent. Mr Venizelos had replied that the Italians were undoubtedly stirring up the Turks, and no doubt there was an understanding between them. This strengthens the view that an Inter-Allied force should be sent to Smyrna.

President Wilson says that the Italians would probably say they are sending battleships to Smyrna to protect their compatriots in Turkey.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the three nations should all send forces. Great Britain has a battleship in the Black Sea.

M Clemenceau said that France has battleships in the Black Sea also.

President Wilson says he will see Admiral Benson about it at once.

M Clemenceau said that this is the application of the principle of the League of Nations. What, he asks, are we going to do about the Italians at Versailles?

Mr Lloyd George says that the Germans know the position.

M Clemenceau says his information is that the Germans do not take much interest in the Italian position.

President Wilson says that this confirms the information he read yesterday.

Mr Lloyd George says that the peace of the world really depends upon the United States of America, France and Great Britain hanging together.

M Clemenceau says that the Italian policy is clearly to lead the Allied and Associated Powers to the point where they cannot make peace in common because Great Britain and France are bound by the Treaty of London which President Wilson could not recognize. We ought to let them know beforehand that by not coming to Versailles they have broken the Pact of London to which they had adhered, and by which it was agreed not to make peace separately. We should show that if they broke the Pact of London we are not bound.

President Wilson points out that it depends upon how the promise not to make a separate peace is interpreted. The Italians had been a party to the Armistice, they had been a party to the preliminary peace, a party (as Mr Lloyd George pointed out) to the basis of the peace, and a party to the discussions on the peace. On the very eve of the negotiations with the Germans, they had withdrawn on a matter that had nothing to do with those negotiations.

M Clemenceau says that we should let them know that if they withdraw they are breaking the Pact of London, and we are not bound by the Treaty. We must let them know that if Italy breaks it, she must take the consequences.

President Wilson says it must be made clear that it is Italy and not France and Great Britain that are breaking the Treaty.

M Clemenceau says the day is coming when this must be made known.

President Wilson doubts if it is necessary to let it be known before next Tuesday when the Germans come.

M Clemenceau thinks it should be made known before.

President Wilson thinks it will be sufficient to say that we have signed the Treaty of Peace whereby Italy not signing had broken the Pact of London.

M Clemenceau recalls that when the decision had been taken to invite the Germans to Versailles, President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George had agreed, but S Orlando had written to him making all reservations. He has that correspondence. The communication has not been sent to the Germans with S Orlando’s consent.

President Wilson says that except as regards certain matters of detail, the main elements of the Treaty with the Germans has been urged with the co-operation of the Italians. They now refuse to sign this Treaty unless another Treaty was settled first.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the Italians ought to be informed if the Drafting Committee is instructed to leave Italy out of the Treaty.

President Wilson says that if some communication is sent every day to Italy in this sort of way, she will only be encouraged in her attitude. Surely M Klotz’s reply to S Crespi was enough.

At this point Sir Maurice Hankey, under instruction, reads extracts from the previous Minutes showing that Mr Lloyd George had asked S Orlando whether, in the event of Italy’s absence from the meeting with the Germans, the Allied and Associated Powers were entitled to put forward demands on Italy’s behalf, and that M Orlando had made it clear that they were not.

Mr Lloyd George says he had told the Marquis Imperiali that if Italy abstained from being present it would be an end to the Pact of London. Unfortunately there is no note of this conversation.

President Wilson recalls that Mr Lloyd George had told him.

(It was agreed that the question should be studied by M Clemenceau and his advisers, and by Mr Lloyd George and Mr Balfour, and that a form of communication to Italy should be prepared for consideration.

(The draft of a letter from M Klotz to S Crespi prepared by Mr Philip Kerr is read and approved. M Clemenceau takes the letter to communicate to M Klotz.)

2[bis]. There is a short discussion on the question of German ships in American ports, in which reference is made to a scheme that had been drawn up between British and United States Experts.

3. Mr Lloyd George reads the following telephone message from Mr. Keynes:

“Mr. Keynes said that there had been a meeting with the Belgians at which were present M. Loucheur, an American representative and [Page 415]himself. The Belgians had made a number of new demands, the following being the most important:—

1) To waive all claims for repayment of loans to Belgium on the ground that we were going to get them out of Germany.

2) Out of the first £100,000,000 sterling that we were going to get as priority, we should make no claim for repayment of certain reconstruction loans which we and the French had made to Belgium since the Armistice on condition that they were repaid out of the first money received by Belgium from Germany.

3) The Belgians wanted to get after the first £100,000,000, 15 per cent, of any monies paid over by Germany until their total reparation demand was satisfied.
In the end, the Americans, M Loucheur and Mr Keynes had agreed to recommend to their respective authorities one concession, namely, that in regard to number (2).”

President Wilson says that M Lamont had given him rather a more hopeful message to the effect that an understanding might be reached.

4. A Note from the Secretary General of the Conference, dated May 1st, 1919 is read and the following decisions are taken:

1) To hand over to the Germans the credentials of the Delegations of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay.

2) To place the aforesaid four Powers among the Powers to which the Treaties are to be communicated before being delivered to the Germans.

5. Mr Lloyd George hands to M Clemenceau a memorandum by General Sir Henry Wilson, criticizing the scheme of gradual withdrawal at intervals of five years from the German provinces west of the Rhine. General Wilson had considered that the scheme was worked out on a wrong basis, and the first withdrawal should be from the south and not from the north.

(The Meeting then adjourned until 16:00 at the Quai d’Orsay.)

Sailor Steve

05-02-19, 11:48 PM

Friday, May 2, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Quai d’Orsay, Paris 16:00

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. M Clemenceau says that he has nominated M Berthelot of the French Foreign Office as the French member of Committee for the Acceptance of New States, which it was decided on the previous day to set up on this subject.

2. Military Naval & Air Terms of Peace. Article 46 The previous decision that Article 46 should be suppressed.

(It is agreed that the Articles should be redrafted so as to indicate the actual Articles of the Armistice of November 1918, and of the Convention subsequent thereto, which were to remain in force.

The following is approved as the basis of an Article to be prepared by the Drafting Committee:

“The following portions of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918:

Article VI; the first two and the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Article VII;

Article IX; Clauses I, II and V of Annex 2; and the Protocol dated 4th April 1919, to the terms of the Armistice of Nov. 11th, 1918 remain in force so far as they are not inconsistent with the above stipulations.”

(M Loucheur is present during the following discussions.)

3. A revised version of Annex IV, para. 6, to the Reparation clauses is approved.

4. M Loucheur reads the claims made by Belgium for reparation.

M Loucheur urges the acceptance of the claim for the Belgians that after the first hundred million pounds, they should receive 15% of any monies paid by Germany until their total reparation demand was satisfied.

President Wilson says that in the case of Belgium we are dealing as it were with a sick person. The sum involved is not large, and it is hardly worth contesting.

Mr Lloyd George says he cannot agree. Belgium must come in on the same terms as everyone else. Great Britain has a debt of some 8 or 9 thousand million pounds. Belgium was a very near neighbor and the greatest competitor of Scotland, which has an enormous debt. He cannot accept any specially favorable system for the Belgians.

M Loucheur urges that it be taken into consideration that the Belgian claim for the redemption of the mark has been refused. Belgium would lose 3 milliard of marks by this.

Mr Lloyd George says that after the armistice Belgium had taken 4½ millions of marks and she expected to make a profit on them.

M Loucheur says that 7 millions of marks had been gathered in Belgium, and Belgium would lose about half their value.

Mr Lloyd George says they had not been forced on Germany.

M Clemenceau says not since the Armistice.

M Loucheur says that this is a veritable loss to Belgium.

Note: The Secretary has not been furnished with any document indicating the nature of the Belgian claims, which are highly technical and he is unable to follow exactly the other points.

It is understood that some proposal be accepted in principle that the Belgians should not be compelled to repay immediately an advance of 2½ billion francs that had been made to her by the Allied and Associated Powers.

5. Article IV, dealing with the ports of Strasburg and Kehl, is approved for incorporation in the Articles of the Treaty of Peace dealing with Alsace-Lorraine.

(M Loucheur withdrew.)

6. M Clemenceau says that he has received a letter from M Hymans asking for an alteration in the text of the Peace Treaty Articles concerning the German Colonies. The alteration he proposes is that the rights of Germany instead of being transferred to the five great Allied and Associated Powers, should be transferred to the United States of America, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Portugal. M Hymans has drawn his attention in the letter to the fact that Belgium had taken an important part in the military operations in Africa, notably, in German East Africa, and that Belgium had conquered there the territories which she occupies and administers.

Sir Maurice Hankey reports that the Secretary-General of the Belgian Delegation has approached him on the same subject.

Mr Lloyd George thinks it a most impudent claim. At a time when the British Empire had millions of soldiers fighting for Belgium, a few black troops had been sent into German East Africa.

President Wilson points out that the present draft of the Articles has not shut Belgium out. The German colonies would be held by the Allied and Associated Powers as Trustees until the distribution of mandates.

Mr Lloyd George says that this question is one to be considered in allotting the mandates.

President Wilson suggests that a reply should be sent in the sense that the Belgian interests will be in the hands of the Council of the League of Nations, on which Belgium would be represented.

M Clemenceau undertakes to answer in this sense.

(M Fromageot, who is shortly followed by the other members of the Drafting Committee, enters.)

7. There is a considerable discussion as to the action to be taken pm Italy and the in drafting the Peace Treaty in view of the uncertainty as to whether the withdrawal of the Italians from the Peace Conference is permanent or temporary.

(It was agreed:

(1) That the preamble to the Peace Treaty should contain a definition of the “principal powers” in which should be included the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Japan, and Italy only if Italy is represented in all other parts of the Treaty Except the preamble, these Powers will not be mentioned by name, but only collectively as the “principal powers.” Almost the only part of the Treaty where the name of Italy would appear would be in the preamble, and if the Italian delegates should return, the alteration required would be a small one.

(2) In cases where boundaries commissions are set up by the Treaty of Peace, provision should be made for four instead of five members.)

8. The question of the date by which the Treaty of Peace with Germany would be ready was discussed with the Drafting Committee, and it was decided:—

(i) That the Drafting Committee should aim at handing over the Treaty of Peace to the printer by the evening of Sunday, May 4th.

(ii) That the Drafting Committee should be authorized to reject all corrections except those sent from the Supreme Council.

(The Drafting Committee withdraws.)

9. Later in the afternoon a letter is received from the Drafting Committee asking whether mention of Italy should be removed in the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as elsewhere in the Treaty.

It is pointed out that there was already one non-signatory State, namely, Spain, provided for in the Council of the League, so that Italy could be left out without difficulty.

(After some discussion it is decided that Article IV of the Covenant of the League of Nations should be redrafted, instead of appearing as at present, namely:

“The Council shall consist of representatives of the United States of America, of the British Empire, of France, of Italy, and of Japan, etc.”

It should take the following form:

“The Council shall consist of representatives of the principal powers, together with, etc.”)

President Wilson undertakes to discuss this matter with Lord Robert Cecil and others, with a view to the introduction of the necessary amendments at the next Plenary Meeting of the Preliminary Peace Conference.

(The latter decision is communicated to the Drafting Committee verbally by Sir Maurice Hankey. At the same time the drafting Committee informs him that in the Covenant of the League of Nations they propose to remove Italy from the list of signatory to the list of non-signatory powers.)

10. Mr Lloyd George draws attention to the fact that if Italy does not sign the Treaty with Germany, she will not be a member of the League of Nations, and will not be represented on the Council of the League. The result will be that there will be eight instead of nine members, and that the smaller Powers would have as many members as the Great Powers. The Chairman might be a member of one of the smaller Powers, and might have the casting vote in cases where a decision was by a majority. He points out that this might have great inconvenience in some questions, particularly those of Mandates.

President Wilson points out that the question of the allocation of Mandates will not be dealt with by the League of Nations, but will be settled by the Great Powers.

11. An Article submitted by M Clemenceau in regard to Russia is agreed to for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace.

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

12. After some discussion an Article based on a draft submitted by M Clemenceau regarding Austria, is approved for incorporation in the Treaty of Peace.

13. President Wilson says that he has arranged for an American battleship of the latest type to proceed from Brest to Smyrna.

Mr Lloyd George says that he has also ordered a ship there. Mr Venizelos had wanted to do the same, he was advised to wait until the ships of the Allied and Associated Powers had arrived there.

M Clemenceau says that France already has a battleship at Smyrna.

Mr Lloyd George asks if any announcement should be made that these naval movements were taking place in consequence of the massacres of Greeks by Turks.

M Clemenceau deprecates any announcement, and the proposal is dropped.

(The experts on the subject of Cables are then introduced, and the subsequent discussion is reported as a separate Meeting.)

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 12:42 AM

Friday, May 2, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon's Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 17:00

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. M Clemenceau says that the Japanese Representatives have not yet been able to reach the Meeting. He thinks, however, that a preliminary discussion might be held in regard to the draft resolution, which has been prepared by President Wilson, and which reads as follows:

“It is agreed:

(1) That an article shall be inserted in the Treaty of Peace whereby Germany shall on her own behalf and on the behalf of German nationals renounce in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers jointly all rights, titles and privileges of whatsoever nature possessed by her or her nationals in the submarine cables or portion thereof mentioned below:

(There follows a long description of 13 undersea cables, with the termination points at each end, routes of the cables and split-off rerouted cables.)

(2) That the Five Allied and Associated Powers shall jointly hold these cables together with any rights or privileges pertaining thereto for common agreement as to the best system of administration and control; and

(3) That the Five Allied and Associated Powers shall call as soon as possible an International Congress to consider and report on all international aspects of telegraph, cable and radio communication, with a view to providing the entire world with adequate communication facilities on a fair, equitable basis.”

Mr Lloyd George thinks it would be unwise to take any decision on this question in the absence of the Japanese Representatives.

President Wilson expresses the view that a preliminary discussion could be held in regard to the Atlantic cables.

(At this stage Mr Yamakawa, Mr Saburi, and Vice-Admiral Take****a enter the Council Chamber.)

Mr Balfour says that since the last meeting he has been able to make careful inquiries in regard to the actual position of the Atlantic cables. This aspect of the case, he thinks, is very important as being relevant to the final decision, and it will throw light on what had actually happened. He feels bound to confess that he had only on that day been able to discover the actual position of affairs and, he thinks, Mr Lansing’s previous information must have been equally imperfect, since he (Mr Lansing) had told the Council at a previous meeting that Great Britain had control of too many cable lines. Now, the fact of the case is that Great Britain has control of no cable lines, with the exception of the one recently captured from Germany. This statement had greatly surprised him and it had led him to make further inquiries in order to obtain an explanation. It appears that there exist 13 cable lines between the United Kingdom and America. Seven of these lines were actually owned by American companies, and the remaining 6 though owned by British companies were leased to American companies for a period which still has some 90 years to run. The explanation for this surprising state of affairs is, however, a very simple one. It shows how monopolies, to which the Heads of Government objected, worked. The fact is that a cable running, say between Land’s End and New York, would be of no use unless the company owning the cable was able at New York to make satisfactory arrangements for the further transmission of messages along the internal telegraph lines. In Great Britain, the State owns all land telegraph lines, but in America these are apparently owned by two private companies, who so arranged their rates as to “freeze out” British owned cables. In consequence British companies have been driven to say to the American companies: “As we cannot work our cable lines under these conditions, we will lease them to you”. The result is that all cables running between Great Britain and America were either owned or leased by American companies. The British do not grumble at the service, which is efficient and good, though the rates were somewhat high; but the fact remains that the whole control was American.

President Wilson thinks the inference contained in the last part of Mr Balfour’s statement should be completed. In his opinion it is just as necessary to obtain land connections at the British end of the cable lines as it is at the American end.

Mr Balfour explained that the difference lies in the fact that in Great Britain the land telegraph lines are State-owned and the policy of the British Government has been to encourage the laying down of cables, and with this object in view, very favorable terms had been given to the cable companies; so much so that the American Companies actually contemplated increasing the number of their cable lines. However that might be, the last thing he wishes to do is to make a complaint about American companies. But he does wish to point out that one of the morals of the existing state of affairs is that it is no use to obtain the control of cable lines crossing the Ocean unless international agreements can, at the same time, be made in regard to the rates charged over land lines. Thus, if the Great Powers decide to take over, as suggested in President Wilson’s resolution, the Trans-Atlantic cables, and if they quarrel with the great American Companies owning the land lines, they will be just as helpless as the British cable companies have been and will be “frozen out”. Consequently, the American Government will have to consider whether it will not have to modify its system, so as to obtain some control over its land lines. So much in regard to the question of the control of cables in time of peace. On the other hand, in time of war it will never be possible to take away the control which every nation naturally possesses over the landing places situated in her own country. No nation will agree to give up her sovereignty over such landing places. Thus, for instance, Great Britain will never agree to hand over Land’s End. Consequently, in time of war, every nation will use its powers to prevent messages hurtful to its own national interests being transmitted from the landing stages. He fully admits that his statement is based on the system which has existed in the past, and he agrees that other conditions might prevail in the future, owing to altered international relations. It will, however, be an illusion to suppose, firstly, that any international arrangement in regard to cables will necessarily yield satisfactory results unless the land telegraph lines are also controlled and secondly, that effective control can only be exercised over cables which land in a country which is at war.

Furthermore, he thinks it will not be wise to try to limit the power of nations to lay cables between the different parts of their own Dominions, if they so wish. Thus, for instance, he thinks the United States of America should have perfect liberty to lay cables, for instance, between America and the Philippines and America and Panama, and he holds that a cable which begins and ends on American soil should be wholly controlled by America. He doubts the propriety of preventing any such arrangement. On the other hand, it should be realized that as a result Great Britain will thereby be placed in a position to apply Empire preferential cable rates. He thinks that this introduces a question which cannot, however, be decided before the International Congress referred to in paragraph 3 of President Wilson’s draft resolution, has been appointed.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that the strongest argument against the kind of international control proposed by President Wilson in the event of war, is that it might become impossible any longer to cut enemy cables. Thus, for instance, had the Atlantic cable lines been controlled in 1914 by America, France, Great Britain and Germany, it would not have been possible to cut the cables, as had been done.

Mr Balfour agrees, but maintains that each nation could have stopped messages from passing through their territory. In his opinion this question chiefly affects the Great Sea Powers, for it is particularly advantageous to them to be able to cut cables in the event of war.

President Wilson inquired whether the Council is not arguing a question which is not yet in debate. In his draft resolution he had merely attempted to make arrangements so that the cables in question could be placed under the best system of administration and control. As Baron Makino had stated at yesterday’s meeting, the Allied and Associated Governments had taken certain liberties with international law in the Peace Treaty, and in his opinion a new decision in international law is being made in regard to taking possession of cable lengths which lay in No Man’s Land, at the bottom of the sea, in order to connect the ends to form new cable systems. He agrees that no clear ruling on this point exists in international law; and such action can only be justified by analogies such as the seizure of private property. The point he wishes to make, however, is this, namely, that it is not proposed to assign to one or two of a number of partners in the war, the indispensable means of international communication, though the other belligerents are also vitally interested. He thinks, therefore, that all partners of the war should have a voice in the system of administration and control to be adopted in future. The five Allied and Associated Powers who would hold these cables as trustees in accordance with his draft resolution, are the very Powers upon whom the whole system of peace and international understanding will henceforth rest. Consequently power should be conferred upon this group of Great Powers to decide the whole question, and he feels confident they will be in a position to do so equitably. He fully agrees that it will be impossible to interfere with sovereign rights.

In regard to the question of rates and monopolies, he agrees that at the present moment the proposals contained in his draft resolutions will merely be applied to a small number of cables; but he thinks means might eventually be devised to break down the existing high rates. It will be admitted that no international understanding can be effective unless international means of exercising pressure are at the same time accorded and, in this connection, it might be found useful for the Great Powers to lay additional cables in order to make new and better communications, and so obtain the means of controlling rates and of preventing the creation of monopolies. But these results cannot be reached by conversations which will be held after the property in question had been definitely assigned to particular Powers.

Mr Lloyd George says that he cannot altogether accept President Wilson’s conclusion. At the present moment the Atlantic cables are almost wholly in the hands of American monopolies, which had been very skillfully engineered. These American companies prefer London for their operations, as it suits them better for practical reasons. The greater part of their business is in London, which is a great cable distributing center; and, in addition, the British Post Office has been extremely liberal in its arrangements for the transmission of messages over British land lines. The fact remains, however, that the existing 13 cable lines are all controlled by Americans. During the war the British had captured a German cable and connected it with Canada, and the line now constitutes the only Canadian State-owned line. The Canadian Government has recently contemplated laying a second cable in order to bring pressure to bear with a view of reducing the rates charged by the monopolist companies. President Wilson, however, now proposes that the cable line in question should be placed under international control. If America desires to break down American monopolies, he thinks the only way will be for additional cable lines to be laid. To lay a cable across the Atlantic cost between £700,000 and £800,000. Consequently, whoever wants to break monopolies will have to pay that sum. On the other hand, he fails to see why Canada should be deprived of something which had been captured during the war just as legitimately as the capture of a ship; the latter representing communications over the seas, the former, communications under the seas.

To sum up, he fails to see the point of dispossessing Canada in order to set up a kind of international control over something which she regards as essential to her business success, and which had cost her over £200,000 to organize.

President Wilson thinks that Mr Lloyd George has, in his statement, made various assumptions which are not necessarily justified. In the first place, it is not correct to say that America wants to deprive Canada of the cable in question. Secondly, he did not propose to establish a permanent international control over the particular cable in question. His proposal had merely contemplated the setting up of some authority, which would possess the right to inquire as to how all existing systems could best be administered and controlled. In other words, should the cable in question be assigned to Canada by the Treaty of Peace; the United States of America would thereafter have no right to ask what it was intended to do with the cable, for the obvious reply would be that the cable belonged to Canada, and America could not interfere in its management. But since, at the present moment, the Allied and Associated Governments, are partners of war, he considers it to be part of his privilege to inquire what is to be done with the cable in question. He merely asks, therefore, that an initial inquiry should be made as to what is to be done with the cables mentioned in his draft resolution.

Mr Lloyd George says that he does not for a moment challenge President Wilson’s right to examine what is to be done with any piece of property that had been seized from the enemy during the war. On the other hand, he thinks it would be wiser to accept the proposal made by Admiral de Bon at yesterday’s meeting, namely, that Germany should be informed that the cables which during the period of the war had been cut and utilized by the Allied and Associated Governments, will not be restored to her, and that they will remain the property of the Allied and Associated Governments. At the same time, an International body could be appointed to consider and report on the whole question of ocean cables.

President Wilson thinks that the only difference between the two plans is that in accordance with his own proposals the cables would during the intermediate period be vested in trustees. With this exception, his proposal does not differ in principle from Admiral de Bon’s.

Mr Balfour proposes the following amendments to President Wilson’s draft resolution:

“(a) Para. 1.

The word ‘jointly’ to be omitted.

(b) Para. 2.

To be amended to read as follows: ‘These cables shall continue to be worked as at present without prejudice to any decision as to their future status which may be reached by the five Allied and Associated Powers mentioned in the next paragraph.’”

President Wilson says he will accept the amendments proposed by Mr Balfour.

Mr Balfour, continuing, says that Sir Robert Borden had suggested the following addition to the end of the new paragraph 2, namely:

“And without prejudice to any vested right that may be claimed by reason of cutting, possession, expenditure and utilization.”

President Wilson thinks that the latter addition is quite unnecessary. He suggests that the whole of the resolution be re-drafted to embody Mr Balfour’s amendments and taken the first thing at the meeting to be held on the following day.

Viscount Chinda wishes to call attention to one important point in the draft resolution. He thinks the submarine cable lines Chefoo-Tsingtao-Shanghai; Tsingtao-Chefoo; and Tsingtao-Shanghai should be omitted from the first paragraph of the resolution, since it has already been agreed by the Council of Four that these cables ware to be renounced by Germany in favour of Japan.

(This is agreed to.)

Mr Rogers invites attention to the fact that Mr Balfour’s amended paragraph 2 merely relates to cables at present being worked. He thinks the wording should be amended so as to include cables and parts of cables not at present in use.

(This is agreed to.)

(It is agreed that the following draft resolution, as amended, should be considered at a Meeting to be held on Saturday, May 3rd, at 11:00:

—1—

“Germany renounces, on her own behalf and on behalf of her nationals, in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, Sall rights, titles or privileges of whatever nature in the submarine cables set out below, or in any portions thereof:

(The 13 cables are listed.)

—2—

Such of the above-mentioned cables as are now in use, shall continue to be worked in the conditions at present existing; but such working shall not prejudice the right of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to decide the future status of these cables in such way as they may think fit.

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers may make such arrangements as they may think fit for bringing into operation any of the said cables which are not at present in use.

—3—

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers shall as soon as possible arrange for the convoking of an International Congress to consider all international aspects of communication by land telegraphs, cables or wireless telegraphy, and to make recommendations to the Powers concerned with a view to providing the entire world with adequate facilities of this nature on a fair and equitable basis.”

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

Jimbuna

05-03-19, 06:53 AM

3rd May 1919

Polish children in Kowel (Kovel, Ukraine) wave flags to welcome the arrival of the Red Cross.
https://i.imgur.com/tyxvGA8.jpg

View of a captured German U-Boat.
https://i.imgur.com/r7inLCu.jpg

Anti-communist Freikorps march in Munich after recapturing the city from Communists. The short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic is dissolved.
https://i.imgur.com/ie5lpr2.jpg

Afghan troops under Amānullāh Khān invade British India to secure full political independence for Afghanistan, starting the Third Anglo-Afghan War.
https://i.imgur.com/OJlBJI4.jpg

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 12:47 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 10:00

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. M Klotz is introduced by M Clemenceau and reads the letter which is to be sent to S Crespi, in reply to the latter’s letter referred to in the Minutes of the previous day. This reply is identical with the draft approved on the previous day, except for an introduction in the following sense:

“I already had the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your letter etc.”

(M Klotz’ letter is approved and M Klotz withdraws.)

2. Mr Lloyd George suggests that the Foreign Ministers should be introduced for the discussion on the subject of Italy.

M Clemenceau says he was willing.

President Wilson said it is not a matter of foreign affairs but rather for the Conference. There is no technical reason why the Foreign Ministers should be present.

Mr Lloyd George says that the decision to be taken is so important that he would like to have the presence of Mr Balfour, who has come over under the impression that the question of submarine cables is to be discussed at 10:00 o’clock.

(This is agreed to.)

(Mr Balfour enters, and M Pichon is telephoned for.)

President Wilson reads a dispatch from the American Ambassador in Rome, who, he says, is sympathetic to the Italians but thoroughly understands his own point of view. The gist of it is that May Day has been quiet in Rome; that excitement has largely subsided; that the Italian Government has realized the dangerous position; that the troops as well as the gendarmes have been removed from the American Embassy; that there is a real desire for a settlement, but that the only possible settlement is a concession by the Allied and Associated Powers in regard to Fiume; if this can be agreed, everything else can be arranged; but that nothing will content Italy which left out Fiume.

He points out that the Italian Government has only themselves to blame for this result, as they have worked up public opinion.

Mr Lloyd George says that Mr Erskine, the British Chargé des Affaires, has telegraphed that he had seen Baron Sonnino; that the latter had said he was doing his best to quiet excitement; but had ended by saying that the next move ought to be from Paris.

President Wilson says that these telegrams show that the things that Baron Sonnino had contended were not popular items. What the public wanted was the items Signor Orlando had contended for, namely, those outside the Pact of London. Mr Baker, who is in charge of the press arrangements for the United States Delegation says that his Italian colleague has not latterly come to see him, but yesterday he saw him and he had asked when the Italians were going to be invited back to Paris. His reply had been: “Who invited you to go?"

M Clemenceau is handed a dispatch from M Barrère, the French Ambassador in Rome, which has just arrived. M Barrère says that he was telegraphing at midnight and has just received a letter from Baron Sonnino, commenting more particularly on the fact that the Delegates of Austria and Hungary had been asked to Paris without consultation with the Italians. This compelled him to give to some observations he had forwarded the character of formal protest.

(At this moment a message is received by Mr Lloyd George from the Marquis Imperiali, who telephoned to the effect that he had received a cipher despatch from Rome and will postpone his visit to Mr Lloyd George until it has been deciphered.)

President Wilson says that Baron Sonnino did not state the whole of the facts. The Italians had been informed of what was intended before they left for Rome.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the decision to invite the Austrians and Hungarians had been taken after the Italian Delegation had left. How, he asked, could the Italians have been consulted?

M Clemenceau says that they had been informed immediately the decision was taken.

President Wilson asks if the telegram drafted by Mr Balfour to which Mr Lloyd George had alluded in conversation before the meeting, might be read.

Mr Lloyd George reads the first draft, which has been prepared by Mr Malkin, a legal expert, and does not pretend to give more than a rough outline of the legal position in which Italy will be if she does not sign the Treaty of Peace with Germany. The gist of this is if Italy breaks the Pact of London, the Allies are no longer bound by the Treaty of London.

Mr Balfour said that his own draft is based on the idea that there will be great disaster to the world if Italy does not come back to meet the Germans. The breach between Italy and her Allies will become wider. There will be one Power outside the grouping of Great Powers and it might be impossible for that Power to come back. His idea is to give Italy a bridge, or at least the means of coming back.

Mr Lloyd George points out the difference between the effect the document will produce if signed simply by the British Government as a friendly warning and its dispatch as a formal warning from France, Great Britain and the United States of America. He then reads Mr Balfour’s draft.

President Wilson says that the first document is not adequate since it does not recite Italy’s participation in all these transactions. For example (a) the Armistice; (b) the basis on which the Peace negotiations were undertaken and (c) Italy’s share in drawing up the Peace Treaty itself, and (d) finally, Italy’s withdrawal.

M Clemenceau then produces a document that he had prepared which, at his request, President Wilson reads.

(During the reading of this document M Pichon entered.)

President Wilson points out that each step of this kind tends to emphasize the isolation of the United States of America.

M Clemenceau says the document had been prepared by M. Tardieu under his instructions entirely from the point of view of the signatories of the Treaty of London.

President Wilson points out that in effect this document does indicate that if Italy comes back on the basis of the Treaty of London, some agreement might be reached. The world knows, however, that the United States cannot be a party to an agreement based on the Treaty of London and he will have to say so. This document amounts to a virtual promise to stand with Italy and the isolation of the United States will become more serious than ever. He wishes to add that he is saying this in the most friendly spirit.

Mr Lloyd George says he had put precisely the same difficulty to his colleagues and had pointed out that we are in danger of a quarrel either with the United States or with Italy. The former would be far the more serious of the two. Putting the matter at its lowest, Germany will not sign the Peace in the former event so that this is a very serious possibility. This makes him almost more afraid of the return of the Italian Delegates than if they stayed away.

Mr Balfour says that this is his view.

Mr Lloyd George says that Mr. Bonar Law, who has been in contact with elements in England that are perhaps less imbued with the principles on which the Peace is being based, is inclined to take a somewhat different view. He asks Mr Balfour what the feeling is in England according to his information.

Mr Balfour says he had shown Sir Rennell Rodd the memorandum handed by Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau to S Orlando. His view had been: “Are you really going to quarrel with Italy over a thing like that?” Sir Rennell Rodd had, however, rather changed his view after their conversation.

Mr Lloyd George says he does not wish to put S Orlando in the position of being able to cast the responsibility on his Allies for their remaining away. Unless France and Great Britain say clearly: “We stand by the Treaty of London” M Orlando could say: “You threw me over.”

President Wilson thinks that the same object could be secured in a different way although he is not prepared there and then to say exactly how. As he told M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George on the previous day, the whole trend of the Press is to show that France and Great Britain were not acting with the United States and that he had not the support of the Heads of these States. This is why he wanted the memorandum to S Orlando to be published so as to show clearly that their views are similar to his own. This would show United States’ opinion that he is not standing in isolation in this matter. It had been stated in Rome that President Wilson’s declaration had been inspired by M Clemenceau. He was informed that the French Embassy had issued an official denial to this. One Italian newspaper had said that M Clemenceau had neither inspired or knew of his declaration.

M Clemenceau asked M Pichon if this is correct.

M Pichon says he has no information.

President Wilson says that it had only been in one newspaper. Whichever way, however, his statement was taken, it was news to him that his colleagues did not know, or that he had sent out his statement arbitrarily. He wants to warn his colleagues that if they are not careful an impression will be given that there is a serious rift between France and Great Britain on the one hand and the United States on the other. The effect of this will be that Americn opinion would say: “We will get out of this.”

Mr Lloyd George says it is necessary to speak very frankly in the intimacy of these conversations. It must not be forgotten that there is a growing feeling that Europe is being bullied by the United States of America. In London this feeling is very strong and that matter has to be handled with the greatest care. Any such rift will be the saddest possible ending to the present Conference. It will put an end to the League of Nations. He understands that the London Press has behaved extremely well and has not gone as far as British public opinion. The position is one of real danger and wants to be handled with the greatest care, otherwise we might have the worst catastrophe since 1914.

President Wilson says he does not speak with authority in regard to British public opinion. Nevertheless, he is sure of the fact that the so-called bullying is recognized by the common man as based on the principles which inspired the Peace. In his view, it is indispensable clearly to show Italy that in all essentials Great Britain, France and the United States were united, otherwise the Italians would continue to be troublesome.

Mr Lloyd George says that in fact they are not completely united. In regard to Fiume they are united. M Clemenceau and he, however, are not in the same position as President Wilson, owing to the fact that they are bound by the Treaty of London.

President Wilson points out that Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau have both signed the memorandum to S Orlando. This shows that they are united with him in judgment even though not in position.

Mr Lloyd George says that it is no use being united in judgment when a decision is wanted. France and Great Britain are bound by the Treaty of London. If Italy insists he is bound to stand by the Treaty. He cannot possibly help that. This is the bottom fact of the whole situation.

President Wilson thinks that this is a position which cannot be got out of. Moreover, it is an indefensible position. The Treaty has been entered into when only a little group of nations was at war. Since then half the World had joined in. There can be no right in coercing other Parties to this Treaty which are just as much bound by conscience as Great Britain and France are by the Treaty. It is neither good morals nor good statesmanship.

Mr Lloyd George says that Great Britain had been brought into the war largely in protest against the breach of a Treaty. She cannot contemplate herself breaking a Treaty at the end of the war when the other partner of the Treaty has lost half a million lives in giving effect to it. This has been worrying him for several days past.

President Wilson says this makes it the more important to find some way out. The stage ought to be so set as not to encourage the Italians to come back. M Clemenceau’s document is more than an invitation for them to return. It is a challenge. He would prefer the first document that had been read with a recital of the facts added. A clear narration should be given of the facts and a very important statement in S Orlando’s letter to M Clemenceau dated April 23rd in which he stated that:

“The terms of Peace with Germany may henceforth be considered a settlement in their essential elements” should be referred to. Then the case will be clear that if Italy were to break off the responsibility would be theirs.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Italians will then formulate a long reply, and a controversy will be commenced. He agrees to every word that President Wilson has said but he is really afraid that they might come back.

Mr Balfour says that as he understands the matter the policy that we wish to pursue is the same policy as the United States of America wishes to pursue, and vice-versa. Our difficulty arises from the fact that we are bound by a formal treaty, which, however, it was true, had been concluded in entirely different circumstances from those now applying. The difficulty is how to get a real agreement in conformity with our treaties. The only way seems to be to get the Italians to admit that they had broken the treaty which they really had done.

President Wilson says that Italy had broken both treaties, because her demands were more than the Treaty of London gave her. He has never for a moment given the smallest indication that he agreed to the Treaty of London.

Mr Lloyd George says he cannot altogether accept any suggestion that President Wilson’s statement voices the British view. He thinks that Italy has a real case connected with her security in demanding the Islands in the Adriatic. President Wilson had agreed that the ethnic principle was not the only one that could be adopted by admitting that Italy should have great part of the Tyrol. He himself would apply the same principle to the Islands, in default of which, Italy’s east coast would be seriously menaced.

President Wilson agrees that against Austria-Hungary this is the case.

Mr Lloyd George says the same applies if Austria-Hungary has allies. If we were to say “you have broken the treaty”, there would be an end of the matter. In M Clemenceau’s document we say “you will have broken if you do not come back”. If there must be a break, a break with Italy will be bad enough, but not a disaster; a break with the United States would be a disaster.

President Wilson asks why the Treaty of London should be mentioned in the Note. Mr Lloyd George had been almost brutally frank with S Orlando on this point. He wished that the memorandum to S Orlando might be published. (M Clemenceau interjects that this is his view.) All that is now necessary is to show that Italy is breaking the Pact. The first document read, however, does not prove the case sufficiently.

Mr Balfour explains that the first document is only a very hasty draft in which his legal adviser had jotted down his view on the legal point.

Mr Lloyd George adverts to a matter of drafting in M Clemenceau’s document. It calls attention to the fact that the Treaty of London assigns Fiume to the Croats. In his view, it is imperative to point out that this means Serbia - another Ally. He asks if the Serbs had known of this Treaty.

Mr Balfour thinks not.

President Wilson says that this had been argued and set before the Italians sufficiently.

Mr Lloyd George says it is not quite sufficient to say that Fiume had been given to the Croats. There was no feeling for the Croats in the United Kingdom, but there is very strong feeling for the Serbs.

M Pichon says that the Treaty of London had not been communicated to the Croats. At one of the conversations at the Quai d’Orsay, M. Vesnitch had said that he did not know the Treaty of London, and took no cognizance of it.

M Clemenceau says he would prefer to publish the memorandum signed by Mr Lloyd George and himself first. If any other document were published first, the public would not understand the situation, which could not be made clear without the memorandum. There are certain objections, but by this means alone could the position be fully explained. He and Mr Lloyd George have all along approved of the general lines of President Wilson’s statement, and it must be made clear that they had not differed from it. On the eve of very serious events, it must be shown that Great Britain and France have always stood with the United States of America, otherwise if some other document were published first, it would be said that they had wavered. It is true that S Orlando does not want the memorandum published, but this is a case of a choice between two evils and the least disadvantageous is to publish the memorandum.

Mr I Lloyd George says he must make it clear that President Wilson had not put the view of the British Government in his statement, and that was why he had wanted a separate document to be sent to S Orlando. Without it, S Orlando would not know what the British attitude was.

President Wilson says that memorandum showed clearly what the British and French view was as matters stood. He said that he had to keep his private secretary in the United States reassured that there was no difference between him and Great Britain on this point.

Mr Balfour confirms this by stating that he has received a telegram from Lord Reading who was about to make a speech in New York, and who had indicated that there is this idea of a separation between the American view and the British and French view. He had telegraphed back that there is not the smallest difference in policy between them.

President Wilson says that his private secretary, Mr. Tumulty, has an almost uncanny appreciation of public opinion in the United States. He himself had had to keep Mr. Tumulty reassured that there was no difference between himself and his British and French colleagues. If this opinion continues to gain ground American public opinion will be asking what he is going to do.

Mr Lloyd George asks what action is contemplated if Italy does not come back. “What would be done if Italy remained in Fiume: Would she be left there? It would be no use sending her letters, in which we should merely have to say that the Austrian Peace had been settled on certain principles and that Fiume was to be a free port. Should we have to say to her, you must clear out?"

M Clemenceau says not at present.

Mr Lloyd George says he is not shrinking from the results of our policy. The League of Nations, however, will be finished, if the first Power that defies it does so with impunity. Moreover, if Italy is left in Fiume there will be fighting between her and the Yugoslavs. are we to allow the Italian armies to march to Belgrade? He only says these things to show that we are really determining a great policy at the present time.

President Wilson suggests that Mr Lloyd George has been arguing that if the memorandum ire published, it would prevent the Italians coming back.

Mr Lloyd George says he is, because the indications at the present time are that if the Italians came back, they will ask for impossible terms. He himself hopes that Italy might still be willing to accept the compromise that he had proposed, namely, that Fiume should remain an absolutely free port; that they should evacuate Dalmatia, perhaps with some provision for free cities; and that they would take the Islands. M Clemenceau doubts if this is possible.

(The Meeting then adjourns to the room upstairs for the Meeting on Cables.)

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 02:52 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 11:30

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. The following draft resolution was before the Meeting:

Submarine Cables

Draft Resolution

1. Germany renounces, on her own behalf and on behalf of her nationals, in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, all rights, titles or privileges of whatever nature in the submarine cables set out below, or in any portions thereof:—

Emden–Vigo: from the Straits of Dover to off Vigo.

Emden–Brest: from off Cherbourg to Brest.

Emden–Teneriffe: from off Dunkerque to off Teneriffe.

Emden–Azores (1): from the Straits of Dover to Fayal.

Emden–Azores (2): from the Straits of Dover to Fayal.

Azores–New York (1): from Fayal to New York.

Azores–New York (2): from Fayal to the longitude of Halifax.

Teneriffe–Monrovia: from off Teneriffe to off Monrovia.

Monrovia–Lome:

from about lat. 2 deg. 30′ N. long. 7 deg. 40′ W. of Greenwich.
To about lat. 2 deg. 20′ N. long. 5.30′ deg. W. of Greenwich.
and from about lat. 3 deg. 48′ N. long. 0.00. to Lome.

Lome—Duala: from Lome to Duala.

Monrovia–Pernambuco: from off Monrovia to off Pernambuco.

Constantinople–Constanza: from Constantinople to Constanza.

Yap–Shanghai, Yap–Guam, and Yap–Menado (Celebes):

from Yap Island to Shanghai,

from Yap Island to Guam Island,

and from Yap Island to Menado.

2. Such of the above-mentioned cables as are now in use, shall continue to be worked in the conditions at present existing; but such working shall not prejudice the right of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to decide the future status of these cables in such way as they may think fit.

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers may make such arrangements as they may think fit for bringing into operation any of the said cables which are not at present in use.

3. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers shall as soon as possible arrange for the convoking of an International Congress to consider all international aspects of communication by land telegraphs, cables or wireless telegraphy, and to make recommendations to the Powers concerned with a view to providing the entire world with adequate facilities of this nature on a fair and equitable basis.

(After some discussion it is decided to accept the first paragraph for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace, and to add to it a second paragraph in the following terms:

“The value of the above mentioned cables or portions thereof, in so far as they are privately owned, calculated on the basis of the original cost, less a suitable allowance for depreciation, shall be credited to Germany in the reparation account.”

It is further decided that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the draft should form the subject of a separate protocol between the principal Allied and Associated powers. The following modification to the second of these paragraphs is agreed upon. Instead of the expression “powers concerned” the expression “principal Allied and Associated Powers” is substituted. The last clause of this paragraph therefore reads:

“and to make recommendations to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers with a view to providing the entire world with adequate facilities of this nature on a fair and equitable basis.”)

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 08:01 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris 12:10

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. The Preliminary Report of the Committee on New States is presented for consideration.

President Wilson proposes that for “the commerce of the Allied and Associated Powers” in the last line of Annex A, the words “the commerce of other nations” should be substituted.

(This is agreed to, and it is decided that this clause should be inserted in the Treaty in substitution of the existing Article 7 of the Chapter relating to Poland.)

The Articles contained in Annex B are then considered.

On the proposal of President Wilson, it is decided that Articles 1 and 2 should be sent to the Drafting Committee with instructions that they should be inserted in the Treaty with Germany, unless the points contained therein were already adequately covered by other articles.

With regard to Article 3, Mr. Headlam-Morley explains that while accepting in principle the substance of the provisions contained in this Article, he had felt great apprehension as to the acceptance of the provisions as they stood, without a detailed consideration and without consultation with the legal authorities. It had been impossible in the very limited time at the disposal of the Committee either to consider proposals in detail or to consult the legal advisers.

Mr Lloyd George confirms this view.

Dr Miller points out that unless Article 3 or some provision of a similar character is inserted in the Treaty, there will be nothing in the Treaty binding Poland to accept provisions safeguarding the rights of individuals in the matter of citizenship.

To meet this objection President Wilson proposes that in the Article contained in Annex A, the inclusion of which in the Treaty has already been agreed to, the word “inhabitants” should be substituted for “communities” in Line 4.

(This is accepted. The Article in Annex A is amended then sent to the Drafting Committee.)

The Committee on New States is instructed to draft for embodiment in the separate Treaty with Poland clauses giving effect to the general principles of Article 3.

(It is decided that the decisions taken with regard to Poland should apply equally to Czechoslovakia, and that the necessary instructions should be sent to the Drafting Committee to this effect.)

Mr Headlam-Morley then raises the question of the proposed Article regarding railway facilities. Some uncertainty appears to have arisen as to whether this Article should be included or not.

(It is decided that the Article should be included.)

Mr Headlam-Morley then proposes that Articles should be inserted in the Treaty containing provisions (a) to prevent the Germans building fortifications which might threaten the free navigation of the Vistula, (b) to prevent the Germans requisitioning in or otherwise injuring territory ceded by them to Poland during the interval which would elapse before the cession actually took place.

(This is approved and instructions are sent to the Drafting Committee accordingly.)

The following contains the documents under discussion.

[Appendix]
The Committee on New States

Report to the Council of Three

In the unavoidable absence of M Berthelot (French Representative), Dr Miller (American Representative) and Mr Headlam-Morley (British Representative) met on Friday, May 2nd and considered the instructions contained in Sir Maurice Hankey’s letter of May 1st.

It was unanimously agreed that the matters raised by Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith concerning the economic and other obligations which it might be necessary to impose on New States, were of so extensive and complicated a nature that it was quite impossible to consider them in time to incorporate them in the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

It was therefore agreed that there must be separate Treaties negotiated between the Five Allied and Associated Powers on the one hand and the new States - for instance, Poland - on the other, in which these and other matters which might arise would be dealt with. A suitable form for those Treaties could be devised without much difficulty for though in most cases the new States have been recognised, in no case has the territory over which the Government has control been specified, and there are many matters consequential on recognition such as the establishment of consular relations, which will have to be dealt with.

Having agreed to this, the Committee then considered the question of the protection of Minorities. It was again agreed that the question, in particular so far as it affects the Jews in Poland, is so contentious and so difficult that it is impossible to come to precise conclusions about it in the short time available before the text of the Treaty with Germany is closed. It was agreed, therefore, that all the detailed clauses dealing with this matter should be placed in the separate Treaties referred to.

It was also agreed, however, that there must be inserted in the Treaty with Germany some general clause referring to the other Treaty, and that this should be made of a binding nature. The text of the clause proposed is annexed (Annex A).

It was agreed that it would be essential at some stage, either in the Treaty with Germany or in the separate Treaty to be negotiated with Poland, to insert clauses defining Polish citizenship and political and religious equality. This is necessary, as the experience of Romania has shown, for the protection of the Jews and other minorities, and the importance of this has been very strongly pressed upon us by the Jewish representatives whom we have seen; it will be equally important for other minorities. Clauses have been drafted providing for this in such a form that they can be inserted in the Treaty with Germany (See Annex B).

It was agreed that it must be left to the decision of the Council of Three whether those clauses should be inserted in the Treaty with Germany or in the separate Treaty, while all were agreed that if there had been sufficient time it would have been preferable to insert them in the Treaty with Germany, the British Representative feels himself bound to point out that it has been impossible for him to consult the British Legal Advisers.

The American Representative is of the opinion that the insertion in the Treaty of Peace of some clause binding Poland in respect of the citizenship and rights of those millions of her population which are not German is essential.

The British Representative is inclined to think that the Article given in Annex A gives sufficient scope to enable the clauses in Annex B to be inserted in the separate Treaties.

Both are agreed that if there is time to get the consideration which is necessary from the French and British legal advisers, and if it is possible in the time to get these clauses through the Drafting Committee, they may well be inserted in the Treaty with Germany.

As to procedure, the most convenient arrangement would be that the special Treaty with Poland at any rate, should be prepared as quickly as possible and should be ready for signature at the same time as the general Treaty with Germany. There are advantages in this that Poland would be bound, not as against Germany, but as against her Allies but at the same time the Germans would have cognisance of the separate Treaty which is, as will be seen, specifically referred to in the main Treaty.

In accordance with their instructions, the Committee started with their consideration of the Polish question. It is recognised that the same problems, though in a slightly different form, arise in the case of Czecho-Slovakia, and they are agreed that apart from any detailed modifications of form which may appear necessary, these clauses which have been drafted especially for the case of Poland, should be applied also to Czecho-Slovakia.

They have unfortunately, however, not been able to procure a single copy of the chapter of the Treaty dealing with Czecho-Slovakia in its final form, or to discuss the matter with those immediately responsible for dealing with Czecho-Slovakia, and are therefore not in a position to advise as to whether any alteration in the form or details may be required.

Annex A
Recognition of Poland (and Czecho-Slovakia)

Article

(Substitute for Article 7 of Chapter relating to Poland)

Poland accepts and agrees to embody in a Treaty with the Five Allied and Associated Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by the Five Allied and Associated Powers to protect the interests of inhabitants in Poland who differ from the majority of the population in race, language or religion.

Poland further accepts and agrees to embody in a Treaty with the Five Allied and Associated Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by the Five Allied and Associated Powers to protect freedom of transit and equitable treatment of the commerce of other Nations.

Annex B
Recognition of Poland (and Czecho Slovakia)

Chapter …

Article 1

Without prejudice to the effect of any previous recognition of Poland, Germany as well as the Allied and Associated Powers recognises Poland as a sovereign and independent State.

Article 2

The boundaries of Poland not mentioned or determined by the provisions of this Treaty will be subsequently fixed by the Five Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 3

Poland undertakes the following obligations to each of the other Allied and Associated Powers, and recognises them to be obligations of international concern of which the League of Nations has jurisdiction:

1. Without any requirement of qualifying or other proceedings, Poland admits and declares to be Polish citizens:
(a) all persons habitually resident in territories recognised to be Polish by this or any subsequent Treaty, except those who are citizens or subjects of one of the Allied or Associated Powers or of a Power which was neutral throughout the late war; and
(b) all persons hereafter born in Poland not nationals of another State.
The foregoing provisions shall not limit or affect any provision of Articles 4 and 5 of Chapter …

2. Poland agrees that all citizens of Poland shall enjoy equal civil and political rights without distinction as to birth, race, nationality, language or religion.

3. Poland assumes and will perform the following obligations:
(a) To protect the life and liberty of all inhabitants of Poland;
(b) To assure to all inhabitants of Poland the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion, or belief, whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals;
(c) To allow all inhabitants of Poland the free use of any language, particularly in business transactions, in schools and other educational instruction, in the press, and at public meetings and assemblies; and,
(d) To make no discrimination against any inhabitant of Poland on account of birth, race, nationality, language, or religion.

4. Poland agrees that the foregoing obligations are hereby embodied in her fundamental law as a bill of rights, with which no law, regulation, or official action shall conflict or interfere, and as against which no law, regulation, or official action shall have validity or effect.

Article 4

Poland accepts and agrees to embody in a treaty with the Five Allied and Associated Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by the Five Allied and Associated Powers to protect the interests of communities in Poland which differ from the majority of the population in race, language, or religion.

Poland further accepts and agrees to embody in a Treaty with the Five Allied and Associated Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by the Five Allied and Associated Powers to protect the freedom of transit and equitable treatment of the commerce of the Allied and Associated Powers.

4. railway facilities

Germany and Poland undertake within one year of the conclusion of this Treaty to enter into a Convention of which the terms in case of difference shall be settled by the Council of the League of Nations, with the object of securing, on the one hand to Germany, full and adequate railroad facilities for communication between the rest of Germany and East Prussia over the intervening Polish territory, on the other hand to Poland, full and adequate railroad facilities for communication between Poland and the City of Danzig over any German territory that may, on the right bank of the Vistula, intervene between Poland and the City of Danzig.

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 09:04 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three

The Council has before it the question of the Indemnity to be paid by Germany to Belgium.

1. Mr Lamont says that since the Belgian question was last discussed at the Council various proposals had been made to the Representatives of the Belgian Government, but that negotiations could not now proceed further until the Allied Delegates had received instructions as to the precise limits within which they might make concessions. The first point was that of the priority of the Belgian claim to the first £100 millions to be received from Germany. This had been already agreed.

Mr Davis says that the question might arise as to whether the Belgian priority applies only to the first cash receipts from Germany or whether it includes, for example, any cessions which Germany might make in the way of ships etc.

(It is agreed that the claim of Belgium to receive the first £100 millions is recognized, but applies only to the first cash receipts.)

2. Mr Lamont says that the Belgian Government has raised the question of whether they are released from the lien which the Allied Governments now have on the first payments to be received by Belgium from Germany in respect of Reparation.

(It is agreed that no concession can be made to Belgium in this respect.)

3. Mr Lamont says that the Belgian Representatives had attempted to maintain that if the proposal to substitute German for Belgian obligations in respect of loans made to Belgium by the Allies were accepted, it would be applicable to all loans made before the signature of the Peace Treaty and not merely to loans made before the Armistice.

(It is agreed that the arrangement would in any event apply only to pre-armistice loans.)

4. Mr Lamont says that the Belgian Government does not press for the inclusion in the Treaty of a clause binding Germany to reimburse the Allies for loans made by them to Belgium, but that they are content to leave the question to a side agreement.

M Loucheur says that what they really want is to be entirely relieved of all responsibility in regard to these loans.

Mr Lamont says that the Belgian Delegates have apparently been under the impression that France and England, at any rate, are under an obligation not to look for the repayment of these loans at all.

Mr Lloyd George protests that this has never been the understanding although we had in fact agreed not to demand interest on these advances until the date of the signature of the Armistice.

Mr Balfour thinks that the very fact that we had asked for obligations was a sufficient proof that the Belgian suggestion was quite unfounded.

M Loucheur agreed that M Hymans knows very well that Belgium is under an obligation to repay.

5. President Wilson says that he understands the proposition to be that the Allied Governments should accept German for a Belgian obligation for all pre-armistice loans.

Mr Keynes says that it would in practice be extremely difficult to fit in this proposal with the remainder of the Treaty unless a priority is given to the Allied claim to reimbursement on behalf of Belgium. The next receipts after the first £100 millions should be specifically assigned to the repayment of the loans.

Mr Davis objects that this will mean that Belgium would get nothing for some years except the first £100 millions.

Mr Keynes thinks that it would not take years for Germany to pay £350 millions altogether.

Mr Davis says that an alternative method is for the Allied Governments to include their claim for this amount among the categories of damage.

President Wilson says that he thinks Congress would have no difficulty in accepting the principle. The loans made by the United States to Belgium before the Armistice were for Relief and therefore Congress would understand that they were not making any precedent for the remission of a debt, but were voting the money as part of the Relief to Belgium.

Mr Lloyd George says that the major portion of the British loans to Belgium before the United States came into the war were also for Relief. He was prepared to accept the principle of German liability for these loans.

Mr Balfour says that in his opinion Belgium is a rich country considering her population. He thinks therefore that when the country is once more in working order she ought to be able to pay her debt. The trouble is that for the time being she cannot get to work and therefore he thinks it necessary that she should be given money wherewith to start.

Mr Lloyd George says that he also thinks that Belgium is in an extremely favorable position. She will be able to start without any war debt at all, with all her damage repaired, and with a prior claim to whatever might be received from Germany. In fact the whole priority of Belgium is absolutely indefensible. He thinks it important to make sure that the claims of the Allies are not postponed until the last so that the £250 millions due to them might not be paid only at the very end.

Mr Keynes says that this is one of the reasons why it is extremely desirable that a priority for the repayment of the Allied loans should be admitted, that is to say, that Belgium should receive the whole of the £350 millions paid by Germany, of which £100 millions would be for her own purposes and £250 millions would be used to meet her debts to the Allies.

President Wilson suggests that in negotiation it might be possible to induce the Belgians to accept this priority and that if they refuse to accept it the Allies should then fall back upon the alternative proposal to include the amount among the categories of Reparation.

6. Mr. Lloyd George says that he would propose another possible solution, namely that for this £250 millions there should be an altogether separate bond issue.

Mr Lamont says that this would fit in very well with Germany’s special undertakings as regards Belgium.

Mr Keynes says that here again the important question would be how this issue will rank in relation to the other issues.

President Wilson says that he cannot actually bind the United States to accept the proposal, but that he is prepared to lay it before Congress on his own recommendation.

M Loucheur says that if Great Britain is disposed to accept these bonds in payment of her debt, thus leaving Belgium wholly free, the French Government would also be prepared to fall in with the arrangement.

Mr Lloyd George says that he thinks this is a better suggestion than that the Allied loans should be repaid out of the Belgian percentage of the other issues. There would be three issues - the first of one the second of two, and the third a contingent issue of two thousand millions. Supposing that the Belgian percentage is ten per cent., this would mean that 300 millions out of the first 3000 millions would go to Belgium. It is difficult to suggest that out of this first 300 millions 250 millions should be taken for the repayment of Allied debt, leaving only 50 millions to Belgium herself for Reparation.

Lord Cunliffe agrees with the proposal of Mr Lloyd George for a special issue of bonds.

Mr Lloyd George said that after all this is an additional category of the Allied claims against Germany and that the fact might as well be recognized in this manner.

(It is agreed that there should be a separate issue of bonds to the value of the advances made by the Allies to Belgium and that this special issue should be devoted to the repayment of these loans by Germany to the Allied and Associated Governments.)

7. Mr Lamont says that a further point arises on account of the persistent claim of Belgium to receive a percentage of subsequent Reparation payments.

President Wilson says that he understands Belgium to claim a priority payment or 15 per cent.

Mr Lloyd George said that in no circumstances can he agree to any such claim.

M Loucheur said that he does not think that the Belgians will press the point in negotiation.

(It is agreed that the Belgian claim to be allotted a percentage of subsequent Reparation payments should be given an unqualified refusal.)

8. Mr Keynes says that there is an inconsistency between the territorial and financial chapters of the Treaty in regard to the payments to be made to Germany for territory ceded under the Treaty. The only exception to the rule that ceded territory should be paid for is in the case of Alsace-Lorraine and for this specific exception a particular reason was given in the relative clause of the Treaty as drafted. No similar reason can be given in the case of Belgium, and he suggests that the territorial clauses should be brought into conformity with the financial clauses on this subject.

Sir Maurice Hankey says that it was agreed not to be desirable from the political point of view to require payment from Belgium.

Mr Lloyd George says that he does not wish to quarrel on a point which appears to be of no very great importance and that he is therefore in favour of allowing exceptional treatment to Belgium in this case.

(It is agreed that Clause 9 of the Financial Chapter should be amended so as to make it consistent with the territorial provisions of the Treaty.)

9. Mr Lamont says that Poland put in a claim for Reparation amounting to nine billion dollars.

Mr Lloyd George says that this claim payment is quite inadmissible and that on the previous day a claim on the part of Alsace-Lorraine had been refused for the express reason that if it were granted there would be no logical reason for excluding Poland from making a similar claim.

Mr Davis says that the difficulty is that Poland is an Allied and Associated Government and is therefore included under the Preamble of the Reparation Chapter.

(It is agreed that the Reparation Clauses should be so amended as to include only such damage as had been done to any country while a belligerent Ally.)

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 09:36 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. M Clemenceau raises the question of whether the invitation sent to the Austrian and Hungarian Governments to come to St. Germain should not be made public.

Mr Lloyd George says he is in favour of publication, but he thinks it should be discussed as part of the whole question of the situation with Italy.

2. Sir Maurice Hankey reported that he had had a letter from Mr Hurst, the British Member of the Drafting Committee, in regard to the Article approved on the previous afternoon on the subject of the denunciation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In this letter Mr Hurst pointed out that the clause approved on the previous day had been less far-reaching than the clauses already included in the Financial and Economic Sections of the Peace Treaty. In view of these circumstances and in order to avoid any obvious divergence between the Economic Article, the Financial Article, and the new Political Article, certain changes had been made.

(The new draft submitted by the Drafting Committee was approved.)

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

3. Sir Maurice Hankey reports that he has received a letter from General Thwaites, the head of the British Military Section, enclosing a copy of the English draft of Repaid to the Clauses in regard to the Baltic States, to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace under Guarantees. The French translation as approved by Marshal Foch is also attached.

(These Articles are approved as a basis for an Article in the Treaty of Peace.)

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward them to the Secretary-General for communication to the Drafting Committee with the least possible delay.)

4. Mr Lloyd George describes an interview he had had with the Marquis Imperiali, who had communicated to him the gist of a telegram he had received from Rome. The Marquis had refused to communicate a copy and Mr Lloyd George had to rely entirely on his memory. No-one else had been present at the conversation, which the Marquis Imperiali had said was a private one, although he had said that he must communicate his impression of it to Rome. The first part of the telegram, so far as Mr Lloyd George could remember was that S Orlando had said that there was very little object in returning to Paris. There was no basis for an agreement in regard to Fiume. Moreover, he understood that Great Britain and France were not agreed with the United States. In the second part, S Orlando had said, “you say you stand by the Treaty of London. How much better off are we? President Wilson will not accept it. What guarantees do our Allies propose to enforce the Treaty?” Mr Lloyd George had then replied to the Marquis Imperiali, “what guarantees do you want? Do you expect us to declare war on the United States?” The Marquis Imperiali had replied “Oh, no.” Mr Lloyd George had asked him what he would suggest, and he could not suggest anything. The Marquis Imperiali had then made a suggestion which Mr. Lloyd George characterized as an impudent one, that the Allies were not keeping the Pact of London, because they were making a separate peace with Germany, without Italy. Mr Lloyd George had told him that Italy was already on the point of breaking the Pact, that we would be within our legal rights, and that we were advised by our legal advisers that this was the case, in considering that Italy would break it by not being present to meet the Germans. If Italy was not present on Tuesday then the Allies would no longer be bound by the Pact. The Marquis had replied that this was a very serious situation. Mr Lloyd George’s rejoinder was that it was no more serious than he himself had in that very room warned the Marquis Imperiali that it would be. He had warned S Orlando in exactly the same sense. He had also reminded him that S Orlando had acted against the advice of Baron Sonnino. The Marquis Imperiali had then said, “Won’t you make us some offer?” Mr. Lloyd George had replied, “To whom shall we make it? Can you receive an offer?” The Marquis Imperiali replied that he could transmit one. Mr Lloyd George then said that it was impossible to deal with people who were hundreds of miles away, and had no responsible person with authority to act for them. If the Italian representatives did not come back, there was no official person with whom negotiations could take place. The Marquis Imperiali then said that the Italian representatives ought to know this. He was afraid that if they came back to Paris, and found that no agreement could be reached, the situation would be graver than ever. Mr Lloyd George asked, “Why would it be more grave than it is now?” He had warned them a week ago. The Italians were in possession of Fiume contrary to the Treaty of London. He had asked what the position of the Italians would be, and what the general position would be if the Peace about to be secured with Austria gave Fiume to the Croats. The Marquis Imperiali had been somewhat perturbed at this and had said, “I suppose you could put the Germans off for a day or two if the Italian Delegation were returning?” Mr Lloyd George then told him that the Italian Government would be under an entire delusion if they thought that they could get Fiume. The Allied and Associated Powers were absolutely united on that point. They were united quite apart from the question of principle, because the Treaty of London gave Fiume to the Croats. A compromise that had been suggested was that it might be arranged that Fiume should become a free port, instead of being given to the Croats, on condition that the Italians gave up to the Serbs-Croats the Dalmatian Coast. The Marquis Imperiali had asked Mr Lloyd George if he would put this in writing, and Mr Lloyd George had declined.

(In the course of the discussion below, it will be found that Mr Lloyd George supplements his statement from time to time, as the course of the discussion bring fresh points to his mind.)

M Clemenceau said he had had a conversation with the Italian Ambassador, Count Bonin, which had been almost identical with Mr Lloyd George’s, but he had had one opportunity which Mr Lloyd George did not have. Count Bonin had asked him what his point of view was. He had replied that he certainly would give it, and he had given him a piece of his mind. He had told him that Italy had entered the war with a bargain. This bargain had not been kept yet. Italy had postponed for more than a year going to war with Germany. The bargain had been that Italy was to get the Tyrol, Trieste, and Pola, and that Fiume would go to the Croats. Now Italy asks him to keep his word about their part of the Treaty, and to break it in regard to Fiume. This is a point the Italians do not seem to realize. He had told him that he could see what was the game they were playing, but they could not get a quarrel between the Allies and President Wilson about Fiume. Italy had broken the Treaty, and he had the written opinion of a jurisconsult to that effect, which could be produced if it were wished. Count Bonin had said “Why do you not make a proposal?” M. Clemenceau had replied “we cannot, we have signed the Treaty.” Instead of asking to talk, the Italians wanted their Allies to break the Treaty. Count Bonin had then said “You are not in agreement with President Wilson.” M Clemenceau had replied “I can discuss this with President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George, but I will not discuss it with you.” Then Count Bonin had dropped this topic. Finally, Count Bonin had said “If we make a suggestion, would you help?” M Clemenceau replied “Certainly, if it is a feasible suggestion, but I cannot commit myself in advance.” Then Count Bonin said that S Orlando could not come back and conduct the negotiations, because he could not afford to fail. He added “I suppose we must hurry up”. M Clemenceau replied, “Yes, you had better be as quick as you can”. Then Count Bonin said “Then you will help us”. M. Clemenceau replied “Certainly, if your proposal is a feasible one”. Count Bonin then referred to Fiume, and M Clemenceau had replied that he had better not refer to that in any proposal, and that was the end of the conversation, as far as he could remember it.

Mr Lloyd George recalled that the Marquis Imperiali had put forward a proposal that had appeared in the newspaper “Temps”, but he had answered that he could not look at that.

M Clemenceau expressed the view that in 24 hours suggestions would come from Italy.

President Wilson then says that Count Cellere, the Italian Ambassador in Washington, who had accompanied him to Europe, just as Lord Beading had done, and who was a man with whom he was personally friendly, has asked for an interview. He has not had time to grant it to him yet, but he has no doubt he will have to do so in the course of the day. He has no doubt that the interview will be on exactly the same lines as those of his colleagues, and he does not anticipate that it will add anything of value.

Mr Lloyd George recalls that he had impressed on the Marquis Imperiali that the Allied and Associated Powers had every intention of concluding a peace with Germany and Austria. The Marquis then asked whether they were going to do so without consultation with Italy, to which he replied that there was no-one to consult with in Paris. Italy, however, had been told the result of every decision immediately affecting her. Their intention was to press on with making these Treaties of Peace, and they could not delay simply because Italy would not settle on the subject of Fiume. He had impressed strongly on him that peace would be made.

President Wilson believes that the present line that was being adopted was the best. No proposal should be made to Italy. The only question which has to be decided is as to what sort of notice should be given to Italy of our intentions. He suggests that the two conversations that have been described this afternoon might be sufficient. M Clemenceau’s conversation was more official perhaps than Mr Lloyd George’s, since it had been carried out between the President of the Conference and the Italian Ambassador in Paris. Count Bonin’s visit had been an official one, whereas the Marquis Imperiali had described his as a private one. Surely M Clemenceau’s statement gives sufficient notice to the Italian Government.

Mr Balfour pointed out that even if the Marquis Imperiali’s visit was a private one, Mr Lloyd George had not said that his remarks were private.

Mr Lloyd George reverts to the fact that he had refused to give anything in writing, but the Marquis Imperiali had said he would report the conversation to his Government. On the whole he thinks it can hardly be regarded as being so official as M Clemenceau’s conversation.

President Wilson points out that in any case, the two statements are practically identical.

Mr Lloyd George says they are identical except in the respect that the Marquis Imperiali had never said a word about President Wilson. He himself, had had to say that he could not undertake that President Wilson was now prepared to agree to what he (Mr Lloyd George) had thought he might be willing to agree to last week. The Marquis Imperiali had reminded him of the question of giving mandates to Italy for certain towns on the Dalmatian Coast and he had replied that this was the only point on which, perhaps, he had exceeded his authority from the Council.

President Wilson says the great point is as to whether the Italians have now received sufficient notice of the breach of the Pact of London.

Mr Balfour suggests that the Prime Minister would be entitled, if he thought fit, to write a letter to the Marquis Imperiali, somewhat in the following sense:

"My dear Ambassador,

One point was raised at our conversation today which is of immediate importance, and on which there should be no misunderstanding. I write this line not to supersede or alter anything I said, but merely to state that the Allied and Associated Powers intend to meet the Germans next Tuesday, and we are advised that in all the circumstances, the absence of Italy will constitute a breach of the Pact of London."

President Wilson suggests that such a letter would come better from M Clemenceau, as President of the Conference.

M Clemenceau thinks it would be better to prepare a document explaining the whole case.

President Wilson asks if it would not be sufficient to confirm in writing what M Clemenceau had already said at his interview with the Italian Ambassador.

Mr Lloyd George thinks a document putting an end to the Alliance would be a very serious one, and cannot be treated in too formal a manner. He is inclined to take M Clemenceau’s document to be read at the morning meeting.

President Wilson says that this document has been too full of “ifs”. It should contain no “ifs”. The following phrase occurred to him as a suitable one: “Absence from signing the Treaty will constitute a breach.”

M Clemenceau says the effect of this will be to bring the Italians back.

Mr Lloyd George said that he had made the Marquis Imperiali realize that the Allied and Associated Governments will not give way on the subject of Fiume.

President Wilson says that there is no need to mention Fiume. If you do, it will be an indication that there are other things on which you are prepared to discuss.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Italians will not trouble themselves much about anything except Fiume.

President Wilson says he does not believe a settlement can be reached without giving them Fiume.

Mr Lloyd George says that from many points of view he would rather they did not come back.

M Clemenceau recalls that Count Bonin had said that the only thing Italy could not accept was for Fiume to be Croat.

President Wilson points out that if the Italians insist that Fiume should not be Croat, the British and French Governments will not be bound by the rest of the Pact. They cannot free themselves from that part of the Treaty which gave Fiume to the Croats.

Mr Lloyd George says they could only do so as a compromise. He himself had told the Marquis Imperiali that he could only consent to Fiume not being Croat on the condition that the Italians would give up Dalmatia to the Yugoslavs.

President Wilson says that if one item of the Treaty is departed from, the whole Treaty is upset.

Mr Lloyd George point out however, that the Croats did not sign the Treaty of London.

President Wilson says that, nevertheless, the British and French Governments will not be morally bound if that part of the Treaty is not carried out.

Mr Balfour recall that it was Russia who had made so strong a defense in the interests of the Slavs, when the Treaty of London had been concluded. This defense only broke down in the absence of Sir Edward (now Lord) Grey, when Mr Asquith had been in charge of the Foreign Office, and had felt that in view of the general situation he must get Italy into the war and he had then forced the hands of the Czar.

Mr Lloyd George says that this is not the whole story. About that time the Allies had been trying to induce the Serbians to give up to Bulgaria a portion of Serbia which they believed ought to belong to Bulgaria, their object being to bring Bulgaria into the war. They had told the Serbians that they would get the whole of Yugoslavia in the end, and Fiume had been inserted in the Treaty in order that Serbia might eventually receive it, since this was part of the inducement to try and get them to make the concession to Bulgaria.

(After some discussion on the subject of the attitude of the Germans (in the recent meetings on the subject of credentials) the Italian question is again resumed.)

President Wilson asks if Mr Balfour had expanded the note prepared by his legal adviser.

Mr Lloyd George says that he thinks M Clemenceau’s document would be a better basis for a statement.

President Wilson considers it too long and argumentative.

M Clemenceau says that he would like to make a suggestion. In his opinion the Drafting Committee will not be ready with the Treaty by Tuesday. He does not believe it can be ready to hand to the Germans before Thursday. He thinks, therefore, that the best plan would be to leave the Italians alone for 24 hours, during which time they could consider the statements that he and Mr Lloyd George had made to Count Bonin and the Marquis Imperiali.

Mr Lloyd George agrees. Their statements, he says, had been very blunt ones.

M Clemenceau says that M Klotz had handed the reply to personally to S Crespi, who had been very annoyed with the letter. He, himself, would try and reconsider the Memorandum he had submitted. In his view, any statement sent to the Italians should contain one part which was from Mr Lloyd George and himself, and one part from the Three. In the meanwhile he suggests that he should be allowed to let Count Bonin know that a decision will be taken on Monday.

President Wilson begs him not to do this. It will be a challenge to the Italians to return.

Mr Lloyd George doubts this in view of his statement that it is useless for the Italians to return unless they were ready to give up Fiume. Mr Lloyd George says there is a good deal to be said for Mr Balfour’s plan of his writing a letter to the Marquis Imperiali confirming what he had said about the intention of the Allied and Associated Powers to meet the Germans next week. Two new factors have entered into the situation; one is that S Orlando had said that it is no use coming back if the Allies will not enforce the Pact, and the second is his own statement that it is no use their coming unless they are prepared to give up Fiume.

President Wilson refers to the Marquis Imperiali’s question about guarantees and warranties. Supposing the Italians come back and say: “We will give up Fiume but we insist on the Treaty of London”. The British and French Governments have said that they must give it them. Their guarantee is their word.

Mr Lloyd George recalls that he had also told the Marquis Imperiali that the Italian troops must leave Fiume before they would even discuss the question of Fiume.

President Wilson says that if they agree to that and came back, they could say: “We have your promise about the Treaty of London”; this was a moral guarantee. In that case it would make it impossible for the United States to sign the Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George says that then we could not have peace with Austria.

President Wilson says that the Allies could sign the Peace. The Italians had their guarantee that Great Britain and France would fulfill their engagements regardless of what it involved. What better guarantee could they have? The Marquis Imperiali could have replied on the subject of guarantees: “We have your word”.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Marquis has not answered on this point.

President Wilson says that a telegram from the United States Ambassador at Rome had been read to him on the telephone. The gist of it was that, some person of the first authority, not named, had asked if a compromise could not be reached on the following lines:

1. Fiume to be made independent.

2. Susak, while free from Italian sovereignty, not to be under Slavonian sovereignty.

(At this point President Wilson produces a map of Fiume, showing how very difficult it is to distinguish the suburb of Susak from Fiume itself.)

(It is agreed:

1. That no immediate statement should be sent to Italy warning them that their failure to sign the German Treaty would constitute a breach of the Pact of London.

2. That M Clemenceau, Mr Lloyd George, and Mr Balfour should prepare fresh drafts of statements to be considered at the next meeting.)

5. M Mantoux said that M Clemenceau has asked him to arrange for the preparation of a reply regarding the decision of the previous day in regard to the Belgian request that the German colonies should be ceded, not to the Principal Powers, but to a named list of Powers, including Belgium and Portugal. In view of the later discussion about mandatories, he wishes to know the precise nature of the reply to be sent. Are the mandates to be granted by the Allied and Associated Powers, or by the League of Nations.

President Wilson points out that the exact position is that, if the allocation of mandates is postponed until the League of Nations is in operation, the decision would rest with the League. It had been agreed, however, that the mandates should be assigned by the Allied and Associated Powers in the meanwhile.

Mr Lloyd George says that to inform M Hymans of this would be an incitement to him to obstruction. Lord Robert Cecil, with whom he had discussed the question in the morning, had begged him to get the question of the mandatories, and the nature of the mandates, settled.

President Wilson asks why, after deciding the mandatories, should the mandates also be immediately decided? The general lines of the mandates are provided for in the Covenant of the League of Nations, which contemplates various grades from virtual independence with advice, down to virtual dependence. It adds certain provisions about liquor traffic, arms traffic, etc.

Mr Lloyd George says he is being strongly pressed to insert a new condition, somewhat similar to that that had been discussed in regard to Poland dealing with the question of religious equality. The Missionary Societies are afraid that otherwise certain churches would exclude other churches.

President Wilson says that he wants to decide the question of mandatories, and that he is willing to decide the question of mandates.

Mr Balfour says his view is that the mandates should be worked out first.

Mr Lloyd George point out that this is the opposite view of his own view.

President Wilson points out that the mandatories are the only controversial part of the question.

Sir Maurice Hankey says that he believed that mandates have been discussed a good deal between the experts of the various countries.

Mr Lloyd George says that the real difficulties would arise in giving mandates to possessions in Turkey.

President Wilson agrees, and thinks Palestine will be especially difficult, owing to the Zionist question, on which the British and the United States, and he thinks also the French, Governments are to some extent committed. There is, however, he points out, plenty of time, since the League of Nations will not be in operation until the Peace Treaty with Germany has been ratified, and that will take a long time.

6. M Clemenceau says that he has received very serious complaints of the action of the British in Syria. He undertakes, at Mr Lloyd George’s request, to send him a paper on the subject.

7. Sir Maurice Hankey says that Mr Balfour has received a request which he had passed on to him (Sir Maurice Hankey) from the Chinese Delegation, for a copy of the Clauses to be introduced in the Treaty of Peace in regard to China, as well as for the proceedings of this Council in regard to them. He presumes that the proceedings, being of a very intimate, personal, and confidential character, will not be communicated. There is no precedent for communicating these proceedings to persons who had not been present. He asks for instructions, however, as to the Articles.

M Clemenceau says that he sees no objection to their receiving the Clauses.

President Wilson says that if they receive the Clauses they should certainly receive a copy of the statement which the Japanese intend to make.

8. Sir Maurice Hankey reads extracts from a letter he has received from the Chinese Delegation, enclosing a letter which had been addressed to the Chairman of the Financial Commission, drawing attention to the omission from the Clauses proposed by that Commission of a Chinese proposal to the following effect:

“In cases where one of the High Contracting Parties has a silver standard of currency, payments of debts shall be made in the currency stipulated in the contract, and at the rate of exchange on the date of settlement.”

Sir Maurice Hankey, after reading further extracts from the letter, states that Mr Keynes, who was acting for Mr. Montagu (who had resigned from the post of Chairman of the Financial Commission) had replied in the sense that the exception could not be made in the case of one country.

President Wilson says he would be very glad if something could be done to meet China in this respect, as China is not coming very well out of the Peace Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that China was not really so badly treated.

9. President Wilson shows Mr Lloyd George a draft of an agreement in regard to the disposal of German ships captured in American ports.

In reply to Sir Maurice Hankey he says that this does not affect the Treaty of Peace.

Mr Lloyd George says that he will be prepared to assent, if President Wilson will make an alteration in the Treaty so as to remove a reference to Congress. His objection to this Clause was that the British Parliament might protest against mention being made of the United States Congress and not of the British Imperial Parliament.

President Wilson says he would get over the difficulty by annexing a note to the Clauses on the subject.

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

Villa Majestic, Paris, 3 May, 1919.

Appendix I to IC–181A
[Draft Article With Respect to Russia]

Germany acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the independence of all the territories which were part of the former Russian Empire.

In accordance with the provisions of Article … of Part IX and Article … of Part X Germany accepts definitely the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, and of all treaties, conventions and agreements entered into by her with the Maximalist Government in Russia.

The Allied and Associated Powers formally reserve the right of Russia to obtain from Germany restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present Treaty.

Appendix II to IC–181A
Alternative “C”

Draft Clause

As a guarantee for the execution of Article by which the German Government undertakes to annul the provisions of the Brest-Litovsk [Page 462]Treaty, and in order to ensure the restoration of peace and good government in the Baltic Provinces and Lithuania, all German troops at present in the said territories shall return to within the frontiers of Germany as soon as the Allies shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal situation of these territories. These troops shall abstain from all requisitions and seizures and from any other coercive measures, with a view to obtaining supplies intended for Germany, and shall in no way interfere with such measures for national defence as may be adopted by the Provisional Governments of Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

No other German troops shall, pending the evacuation or after the evacuation is complete, be admitted to the said territories.

Sailor Steve

05-03-19, 09:38 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 16:00

Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers

1. M Pichon says that the first item on the agenda paper has reference to an amendment of article I of the clauses in the Treaty of Peace relative to German Colonies, proposed by the French Delegation. He call on M de Peretti to explain the case.

M de Peretti says that Article I of the clauses in the Treaty of Peace relative to German Colonies reads as follows:

“Germany renounces in favour of the Five Allied and Associated Powers all rights and titles appertaining to her in regard to her oversea possessions”.

The Belgian Government, after duly considering the article in question, fears that it might be deduced therefrom that only the Five Allied and Associated Powers will hereafter be entitled to be appointed mandatories in the former German overseas possessions. The Belgian Government is obviously not correct in this assumption since the Peace Treaty does not attempt to settle the question of the appointment of mandatories. Nothing, therefore, will prevent Belgium from putting forward in due course her claims to obtain a mandate. Nevertheless, in order to remove all possible cause of complaint and to quiet Belgian public opinion, it has been proposed by the French Delegation that the article in question should be amended to read as follows:

“Germany renounces all rights and titles appertaining to her in regard to her overseas possessions”.

The amendment proposed would in no way alter the substance of the article, and at the same time it would prevent the impression that it had been intended in any way to prejudge the question of the appointment of mandatories.

Mr Lansing inquires in whom the title of these German Colonies will rest.

M Pichon says that the new text proposed in no way prejudges the case. He wishes to point out that in omitting the words “Five Allied and Associated Powers” an additional inconvenience will be avoided, since it was not known whether Italy intends to participate in the negotiations with Germany, or not. Consequently, it would be better to suppress any reference to the Five Powers. Belgium maintains that she had, at the request of the Allied Governments, taken a very active part in the military operations in Africa, and she now occupies and administers valuable territories in East Africa. Consequently, were anything done to give the Belgian people the impression that in the allocation of mandates their claims would be excluded, would be interpreted by them as an unfriendly act, and would place the Government in an awkward position.

Lord Hardinge expresses the view that Mr Lansing’s objection to the amendment proposed by the French Delegation could be met by omitting the word “Five” from the original text.

Mr Lansing suggests that in place of the word “Five” the word “Principal” should be introduced. In addition, a letter should be transmitted by the “Principal” Allied and Associated Powers to the Belgian Government clearly stating that this article is in no way prejudicial to her claims eventually to become a mandatory power in Africa. The difference between the amendment suggested by himself and that proposed by Lord Hardinge lies in this, namely, that many of the small nations, possessing no interests whatever in these territories will be included in the term “Allied and Associated Powers” and, in his opinion, it would be a calamity for such Powers to vote and discuss as to who were to be appointed mandatories. To sum up, he thinks the principal Powers should hold the titles, as trustees for the future, until the determination of the mandatories.

Viscount Chinda accepts Mr Lansing’s proposal on the understanding that the territories in question will be kept in trust by the Allied and Associated Powers only until the mandatory Powers were designated.

(It is agreed that the first article of the clauses in the Treaty of Peace, relative to German Colonies, should be amended to read as follows:

“Germany renounces in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and titles appertaining to her in regard to her over-sea possessions”.

It is further agreed that the following letter dated Paris, the 3rd. May, 1919, should be sent to Mr Hymans, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, under the signature of M Clemenceau, as President of the Peace Conference:

“Mr. Minister: The Supreme Council of the Allies had adopted for insertion in the Treaty of Peace the following clause:

‘Germany renounces, in favor of the five Allied and Associated Powers, all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions.’

The Belgian Government, having observed that such a clause would seem to exclude all claims of Belgium for acquiring a mandate over a part of the German colonies, when she nevertheless cooperated with the Allied forces, I have the honor of informing you that the Supreme Council, taking into account this observation, has decided to replace in this clause the words ‘in favor of the five Allied and Associated Powers’ with the words ‘in favor of the principal Allied and Associated Powers.’

It is well understood that this decision does not do anything to prejudice the assignment of the mandates for the German colonial territories.

Accept [etc.]

Signed Clemenceau”)

2. M Pichon says that the second question on the Agenda paper relates to the recognition of the independence of Finland. The question had been referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers by the heads of Governments. A full statement of the case would be found in a letter addressed by Mr Herbert Hoover to President Wilson.

M Laroche explains that the French Government had long ago recognized the independence of Finland. For a time the Finnish Government had been hostile to the Allied and Associated Powers and negotiations had in consequence been broken off. But, since the appointment of Gen Mannerheim’s Government, friendly relations had again become established. A Finnish Diplomatic Chargé d’Affaires had been accredited to the French Government in Paris. A Finnish Chargé d’Affaires had also been sent to London, but Great Britain had not as yet recognized the independence of Finland. The French Government had frequently expressed the wish that the independence of Finland should be recognized by all the Allied and Associated Powers. It, therefore, cordially supports the proposal now made by the American Delegation.

Mr Lansing says that he does not favour a joint recognition of the independence of Finland.

M Pichon replies that a general recognition is not intended as France had already recognized the independence of Finland.

Mr Lansing sayz that the Government of the United States of America will recognize the independence of Finland and the Government that now exists as the de facto Government.

Lord Hardinge says that the British Government is also quite ready to recognize the independence of Finland. It is felt that it would be very desirable to support Gen Mannerheim’s Government, as it constitutes the best guarantee against the outbreak of Bolshevism. Furthermore, the Finnish Government had recently given proofs of its goodwill in expelling German agents from Finland, and also in consenting to take part at a Conference with representatives of the Red Finnish Legion of Northern Russia. It is quite evident, therefore, that the present Finnish Government is anxious to meet the wishes of the Allied and Associated Powers in every way it can. Nevertheless, two questions of considerable importance remained to be settled. The first question concerns the frontiers of Finland in Petchenga, Eastern Kola and the Aaland Islands. No decision need be taken on this question immediately; but it is very desirable that a stipulation should be made that the Finnish Government should agree to accept the decision of the Peace Conference in regard to the frontiers of Finland. The second question relates to the grant by the Finnish Government of an amnesty to the Red Finns, who had served with the Allied Forces in Northern Russia. A formal stipulation on this question cannot be introduced in the document, recognizing the independence of Finland; but the Allied representatives at Helsingfors should inform the Finnish Government that, in recognizing the independence of Finland their Governments feel confident that the Finnish Government will act in a liberal and generous spirit towards the Red Finns, and that it would do its best to carry out the wishes of the Allies in that respect. With the above provisos, Great Britain is very desirous to recognize the independence of Finland.

Baron Makino informs the Council that he has received no instructions from his Government in regard to the recognition of the Finnish Government. He cannot, therefore, give an official adhesion to the proposal before the Council; but, as a matter of fact, his personal opinion was that it is very desirable that the independence of Finland should be recognized, and he will endeavor to get a definite answer from his Government as soon as possible. In regard to the frontier question, he entirely concurs with the remarks made by Lord Hardinge, namely, that Finland should agree to accept the decisions of the Peace Conference. He wishes, however, to add another remark. His information goes to show that Gen Youdenitch is trying to organize a volunteer force for the purpose of attacking the Bolshevik Armies around Petrograd; but the Finnish Government is putting obstacles in the way. It was agreed that the most convenient direction from which General Youdenitch could descend on Petrograd was from Finland, and if the Finnish Government were induced to give him a free hand, it would greatly facilitate his operations and so force the Bolshevists to retire. He understands that Gen Youdenitch is acting in consultation with Admiral Kolchak and the other anti-Bolshevik parties in Russia. If his facts are correct, he thinks this question might also be brought to the notice of the Finnish Government.

M Pichon explains that the situation of France, vis-à-vis the other Allied and Associated Governments, is exceptional since she had already recognized the independence of Finland. She cannot, therefore, now attempt any new stipulations to the original terms of recognition. Nevertheless, he will be prepared in due course to give instructions to the French official representative at Helsingfors, when appointed, to act on the lines laid down by Lord Hardinge and Baron Makino. He wishes to invite the attention of the Council, however, to the fact that for the present France is only represented in Finland by an unofficial Chargé d’Affaires for the reason that France had awaited the recognition of Finland by the other Great Powers before making an official appointment.

Lord Hardinge says that he must dissociate himself entirely from the proposal made by Baron Makino. The British Government holds the opinion that any military action by General Youdenitch against Petrograd from Finland will constitute a grave danger to Finland, besides being very speculative in its results. In his opinion, if any action were to be taken against Petrograd, it should form part of a combined action in accordance with the agreed policy of the Great Powers. It should not constitute merely an isolated action of an independent leader, like General Youdenitch.

Baron Makino admits that he is not sufficiently informed in regard to the real facts of the case. He has been told that General Youdenitch was acting in co-operation with Admiral Kolchak and the other recognized anti-Bolshevik elements. Consequently, General Youdenitch’s operation could not be described as an isolated action. He does not, however, wish to insist on this point. He has merely intended to throw out an observation for consideration. In conclusion, he would inquire whether the Finnish Government does not have territorial ambitions in the Murmansk District and in the region of Petrograd.

Lord Hardinge thinks that the Ministers are wandering away from the question at issue, and beginning a discussion of Russian policy, which is not within their present mandate. In his opinion, the question of a Finnish attack on Petrograd has nothing to do with the recognition of the independence of Finland.

Mr Lansing says that he has listened to the discussion with great interest and, as far as the question of making conditions was concerned, he thinks that Baron Makino’s suggestion is as justifiable as Lord Hardinge’s; but he does not favour either. In his opinion, a nation is entitled to the recognition of her independence, and her government is equally entitled to recognition as a de jure or de facto Government as a matter of right, and it is not justifiable to put conditions on such a recognition simply to serve some political purpose. He is ready, therefore, to recognize the independence of Finland and its de facto Government without conditions. Naturally after recognition and after the appointment of official representatives he will be quite ready to join the other Great Powers in making representations to the Finnish Government to urge it to accept the conditions mentioned by Lord Hardinge.

M Pichon says that the French Government will be prepared to act in the manner suggested by Mr Lansing.

Lord Hardinge says that he also will be ready to follow the same course, on the understanding that France and the United States of America will make representations to Finland in regard to the question of her frontiers and in regard to the granting of an Amnesty to the Red Finns as soon as official diplomatic agents have been appointed.

Mr. Lansing says it is understood, therefore, that each nation wills act separately.

Lord Hardinge agrees. He wishes to make it quite clear, however, that the recommendation of the British Government to the Finnish Government will only include the two conditions suggested by himself. It will not apply to the proposal relative to General Youdenitch’s operations against Petrograd.

(It was agreed:

(1) That the Governments of the United States of America and Great Britain would forthwith severally recognise the independence of Finland and the de facto Government.

(2) That after the recognition of the independence of Finland and after the appointment of official diplomatic representatives, the Governments of America, Great Britain and France would issue instructions to their representatives to urge the Finnish Government to accept the decisions of the Peace Conference in regard to the frontiers of Finland. Furthermore, the Finnish Government would be urged to treat the Red Finns, who had fought with the Allies, in a liberal and generous spirit by the grant of an Amnesty.

(3) That Baron Makino would forthwith communicate the above decisions to his Government with a view to its taking similar action.)

3. M Pichon says that the next question on the Agenda paper (i. e. the proposed modification of the frontier between Czechoslovakia and Hungary) had arisen from a report submitted by General Smuts, as a result of a conversation the General had had with President Mazaryk. He, (M Pichon), proposes that the question should in the first place be referred to the Inter-Allied Commission dealing with Czechoslovakian affairs, for report.

Mr. Lansing concurs.

Lord Hardinge says that the British Delegation has prepared the following resolution, which he will submit for approval:—

“It is resolved:

That in view of the explanations furnished to General Smuts by the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, the general question of the southern frontier of Slovakia shall be referred for further examination to the Sub-Committee of the Czechoslovak Commission. This Committee shall proceed from the assumption that the island of the Grosse Schütt shall be excluded from Czechoslovak territory provided that in return a small enclave opposite Presbourg is ceded to the new Republic, and they shall consider whether the exclusion of this Magyar population renders it possible to modify in favour of Czechoslovakia the frontier proposed in the Eipol valley.

The Sub-Committee shall report at the earliest possible minute.”

Mr Lansing says he will agree to the first sentence of the draft resolution, but he will oppose the remainder of the text.

M Pichon expresses his agreement with Mr Lansing’s point of view. In his opinion, the Council should not prejudge a case until it has received careful examination. He fears there had been some misunderstanding as to what President Mazaryk had said, and that the whole question requires to be cleared up.

M Laroche states that Mr Benes had formally stated that after obtaining cognizance of General Smuts’ report of his interview with President Mazaryk, he had referred the matter to the President who had replied that General Smuts had seriously misunderstood what he had said. President Mazaryk in his interview with General Smuts had merely stated that certain parties in Bohemia held the view that the Island of Grosse Schütt might be exchanged for a small enclave opposite Presbourg. President Mazaryk himself, however, did not support that proposal. He maintained that the Island of Grosse Schütt was indispensable in order to ensure free navigation of the Danube. Furthermore the President had received a deputation composed of the inhabitants of the Island of Grosse-Schütt, imploring that the Island in question should be attached to Czechoslovakia for the reason that the whole of the products of the Island, including corn, were sent to Bohemia and not to Hungary. Under those conditions the Czechoslovak delegation asked that the decision reached by the Commission on Czechoslovak affairs should be maintained.

M Pichon holds that the Inter-Allied Commission on Czechoslovakia can alone throw light on this question. Furthermore, in his opinion, the question should not be referred to the sub-commission of the Czechoslovak Commissions, but to the Commission itself.

Mr Lansing expresses his complete agreement with M. Pichon’s views. He inquires whether Mr Benes has submitted a written statement, giving President Mazaryk’s explanation.

Mr Laroche replies that he has had a personal interview with Dr Benes, who had expressed his readiness to give evidence before the Commission. Dr Benes will no doubt also be quite prepared to give a written statement if required.

Mr Lansing thinks that the Council cannot do more for the present than to refer General Smuts’ proposal to the Commission on Czechoslovak affairs for investigation and report.

Lord Hardinge says that in view of what the Council has just heard, specially in regard to the misunderstanding which had occurred, the British Delegation will withdraw its resolution. It agrees that the whole question should be referred to the Czechoslovak Commission for report.

(It is agreed to refer General Smuts’ proposal to the Commission on Czechoslovak Affairs for investigation and report.)

4. M Pichon says that the next item on the Agenda paper relates to the Allied policy in the Baltic. He understands Mr Lansing wishes to reserve this question.

Mr Lansing says that he has made a reservation on this subject because General Bliss, who has given it special study and who is to be present at its discussion, is indisposed and cannot attend the meeting. He would very much prefer to have the discussion postponed until the next meeting, which he hopes General Bliss can attend. He wishes, however, to state for the information of the Council that the proposal, submitted by certain of the American experts, a copy of which had been distributed and attached to the Agenda, does not have the approval of the American Delegation and should not be regarded as embodying the views of the latter Delegation.

(It is agreed to postpone the discussion relating to Allied policy in the Baltic to the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers to be held on Monday next, the 5th May, 1919.)

(The Meeting then adjourns to Monday, May 5th, 1919.)

Jimbuna

05-04-19, 06:50 AM

4th May 1919

Salvage operations taking place with the USS Sixola, a cargo ship headed for France that caught fire and sank in Hoboken, New Jersey.
https://i.imgur.com/kn7fnRn.jpg

Belgian military dogs, used to pull artillery during the war, participating in a Victory Loan parade in Cincinnati, Ohio.
https://i.imgur.com/NAdma67.png

Milan Rastislav Štefánik, astronomer, 1st Minister of War of Czechoslovakia, and one of the leading figures of the Czechoslovakian independence movement, dies in a plane crash.
https://i.imgur.com/8KTPL1Q.jpg

Chinese students demonstrate in Tiananmen Square in Beijing to protest the Versailles Treaty that would give Shandong to Japan. The “May Fourth Movement” morphs into a wider movement of anti-imperialism, nationalism, and reform of culture and politics.
https://i.imgur.com/lf4i4D2.jpg

Ship Losses:

HMS Tryphon (Royal Navy) The destroyer ran aground in the Mediterranean. She was declared a constructive total loss.

Sailor Steve

05-04-19, 05:11 PM

Sunday, May 4, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

Jimbuna

05-05-19, 07:01 AM

5th May 1919

Paris Peace Conference: Italy announces that Orlando and Baron Sonnino, the Italian foreign minister, are returning to the peace conference. They arrive in Paris on May 7. During the following weeks, however, renewed efforts to reach a compromise over Fiume will fail.

U.S. Army tank participates in a victory loan parade in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/BRz0Mqk.jpg

Russian Communist Party flag captured by Polish troops in the ongoing Polish-Soviet War.
https://i.imgur.com/kNOhV6s.jpg

Margaret Woodrow Wilson (1886-1944)m daughter of President Woodrow Wilson.
https://i.imgur.com/AxPs0vf.jpg

Lord Robert Cecil, one of the British delegates to the Peace Conference. Paris.
https://i.imgur.com/nm1uPVu.jpg

Ship Losses:

HMS Cupar (Royal Navy) The Aberdare-class minesweeper struck a mine and sank off the River Tyne.
SMS Leipzig (Imperial German Navy) The hulked sail corvette capsized in Wilhelmshaven. She was raised in 1921 and scrapped.

Sailor Steve

05-05-19, 08:58 PM

Saturday, May 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. Sir Maurice Hankey reads the following communication, which had been received from the Drafting Committee:

“On account of the important part which the Covenant of the League of Nations plays in the draft Treaty of Peace, the Drafting Committee forwards the annexed proof indicating the changes which have been made in the text since Friday, May 3rd. The alteration in Article 22 was made under instructions given personally to M Fromageot by M Clemenceau, the President of the Conference.

“See Article 4, p. 11—Italy is omitted.
“ “ 22, p. 17.
“Annex I, p. 19.—Italy being omitted.
“ “ p. 20.—where Italy is included.”

M Clemenceau says that it is very important to France that some words should be put in to enable her to utilize native troops for the defense of French territory just as she had done in this war. He was not responsible for the actual wording employed.

President Wilson draws attention to the previous discussion which had taken place on this subject at the Council of Ten on January 30th, when it had been agreed that precisely similar wording in the resolutions on the subject of mandates, namely, “for other than police purposes and the defense of territory,” would cover France’s needs. He asks Sir Maurice Hankey to bring the matter to Lord Robert Cecil’s attention and ask him what alteration, if any, there should be in the League of Nations Covenant.

(At this point Colonel Henri is introduced.)

2. Colonel Henri, the officer in charge of the arrangements for the security of and communication with the Germans at Versailles, says that on the previous evening the Germans had sent him a message to the effect that they had been kept waiting so long that they proposed return to Berlin. This morning a subordinate official had reported to him that 14 persons would be leaving this evening. Colonel Henri had asked for their names, but the subordinate said he did not know them. Colonel Henri had insisted that he could not make the arrangements for motor cars, etc., unless he knew who the persons were, and a reply had been promised by mid-day. He was to see Baron Lersner in the afternoon.

M Clemenceau suggests that Colonel Henri should be authorized to inform the Germans of the date on which the Treaty will be handed over. This raises the question of the date. He is informed by M Dutasta that the American Representative on the Drafting Committee thinks a meeting is possible on Wednesday afternoon, but the British and French Representatives considered Thursday to be the earliest possible date.

M Clemenceau, continuing, says that he has just received news that S Orlando is coming back, and this will involve altering the first two pages of the Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George says it would be better not to alter the Treaty in print but to alter it in writing if they came back, which would show the Germans that we had intended to go on without the Italians.

President Wilson proposes that the Germans should be informed that the Treaty will be handed to them on Wednesday morning.

Mr Lloyd George prefers Wednesday afternoon.

M Clemenceau gives Colonel Henri instructions to inform the Germans as follows:

1) The delay in printing the Peace Treaty was due to the time taken in examining the full powers.

2) The Treaty is now being printed.

3) The Meeting with the Germans will be at 15:00 on Wednesday next, May 7th.

(Colonel Henri withdraws.)

(It is decided that no alteration should be made in the first two pages of the Treaty of Peace owing to the fact that the Italians had announced their intention of returning.)

3. It was decided to hold a Plenary Meeting on the following day, Tuesday, May 6th, at 15:00

(M Pichon enters.)

4. M Pichon says he has had a verbal note from S Bonin, conveying a message from Baron Sonnino. The gist of this is that, having received a vote of complete confidence from the Italian Parliament, and not desiring to complicate the situation at this very serious moment by any positive or negative act which might be interpreted as putting back the peace, and confident in the assurance by their Allies of their desire to obtain a peace satisfactory to all and in the general interest, the President of the Council and Baron Sonnino had decided to leave for Paris, arriving on Wednesday morning, with the hope of being present when the Treaty of Peace was handed to the Germans.

Sir Maurice Hankey again asks definitely whether the Drafting Committee is to alter the printing of the first two pages in view of the return of the Italians.

Mr Lloyd George replies that they should not do so. Any alteration should be made in writing at the last moment.

President Wilson agrees.

(Mr Lloyd George retired to interview the Marquis Imperiali, but returns very shortly after to say that the Marquis merely had the same message for him as M Pichon had already received from S Bonin.)

President Wilson draws attention to the following information, which relates to the Italian question:

1) Additional Italian troops have been sent to Sebenico.

2) There has been serious oppression by the Italians in the Dodecanese and in a village in Rhodes named Alanova, a bishop has actually been killed in the church where he was officiating, while a woman had also been killed by the Italians.

This information had been conveyed to him by a Greek named Russes.

Mr Lloyd George says he has received the same information.

(At this point General Sir Henry Wilson enters with maps.)

Mr Lloyd George says he has invited General Wilson to come here because he feels that the Italian movements in the East are, when considered in the aggregate, highly suspicious, and he thinks his colleagues ought to be made acquainted with them.

General Wilson explains on a map the general military position in the East as regards the Italians. At the present time, there are about 30,000 Italians in Bulgaria. General Franchet d’Esperey is responsible for making those dispositions. There were two French divisions in this region, but they were troops who had come from Odessa, very tired and not the best French troops. In Hungary there were four Romanian divisions, two weak French divisions, and, on the other side opposing the Romanians, two Hungarian divisions.

Mr Lloyd George says that in Asia Minor the Italians have occupied the harbor of Marmaris, nominally as a coaling station. They had a battalion at Konia, which had been sent there by agreement. They had landed troops at Adalia without consulting the Allied and Associated Powers and other movements were reported.

General Wilson says there are unconfirmed reports of landings at various places on the coast of Asia Minor, including Alaya.

Mr Lloyd George recalls that the Italian expedition to Tripoli had been uncommonly well concealed. He is suspicious of a similar expedition now to Asia Minor. According to his information, the Italians are arming the Bulgarians and stirring them up to attack both the Greeks and the Serbians, but especially the latter. They were the only nation not demobilizing.

M Clemenceau says this was a fact.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that the situation in the East is not being very well handled by the Allies. The Bulgarians are a most formidable people and were not being disarmed.

M Clemenceau disputes this. He says he has dispatches in regard to the breech blocks of the Bulgarian guns which proved this.

Mr Lloyd George says that the breech blocks are being taken to Sofia, where there were no Allied troops except Italians.

M Clemenceau says he had ordered them back.

Mr Lloyd George said that the Italians are the only considerable force in this region. He wishes General Henrys was in charge, as he thinks that for this particular work he is more suited than General Franchet d’Esperey.

M Clemenceau asks where General Henrys is.

General Wilson says he is on his way back from Warsaw.

Mr Lloyd George says that the British have a division and a half in the Caucasus. He would like to have examined the effect of bringing them back from the Caucasus.

President Wilson recalls the report of the Military Representatives on the distribution of forces in Turkey.

Mr Lloyd George thinks the question ought to be reconsidered. Any day it might be found that the Italians had captured Anatolia and it would be difficult to get them out of there once they had occupied it. The mandates for Turkey could not be settled now, owing to the decision to send out a Commission. He thinks, therefore, that we should fall back on his original proposal of a redistribution of the forces of occupation. The United States troops ought to go to Constantinople and to provide troops for Armenia. The British would come out of the Caucasus and the French might put a garrison in Syria, while the Greeks should be allowed to occupy Smyrna, since their compatriots are actually being massacred at the present time and there is no one to help them.

M Clemenceau says the Italians have seven battleships at Smyrna.

Mr Lloyd George says he would like to settle the forces of occupation in Turkey before the Italians return to Paris: this afternoon, if possible.

President Wilson says he cannot do it so hastily.

Mr Lloyd George says if they discuss it with the Italians, they will anticipate them.

President Wilson says he does not know where he is to find the American troops. Marshal Foch will be nervous if he withdraws United States’ troops from the occupied zone in Germany.

General Wilson says that one United States’ division will be required for Constantinople and the Straits to replace one British division and the few French battalions that were there. He cannot estimate the number required for Armenia, as this will depend on how far into the country they have to penetrate. At the present moment, the British are under an agreement to let the Italians go to the Caucasus.

Mr Lloyd George says that all he had said was that he would like the British to come out of the Caucasus and the Italians had said they would like to go in, as there is oil there.

President Wilson says he did not approve of the Italians going to the Caucasus.

M Clemenceau says he has made no agreement on the subject.

Mr Lloyd George recalls the report of the Military Representatives, which, however, he is reminded by Sir Maurice Hankey, had never been formally approved. He understands that, in any event, the British are coming out.

President Wilson asked why any troops should replace the British.

General Wilson says that unless some civilized Power was in occupation, there will be the most terrible massacres.

Mr Lloyd George agrees and points out that we could not persuade Denekin from entering Georgia.

General Wilson says he is most anxious to get the British troops out.

President Wilson says that the British troops are the only ones accustomed to this kind of business, although the French had some experience. United States’ officers would be quite unaccustomed to it.

Mr Lloyd George says that the United States’ troops would be wanted in Armenia and would not meet with difficulties, although it is not the same in the Caucasus. In reply to President Wilson, he says he fears the effect of the Italians going to the Caucasus will be very serious. He is convinced that the forces of occupation should be settled at once and then the Commission could go out.

President Wilson says this is too important a matter to be settled in a hurry. He must confer with his military advisers first.

General Wilson says that the British problem was very simple, as it merely involves taking the troops out of the Caucasus.

Mr Lloyd George says it has been proposed to put these troops in the region of Constantinople for the present, in order to have them ready to counter any move by the Italians.

M Clemenceau says that he, himself, intended to take action today as regards Bulgaria.

President Wilson says he is not at all sure as to what military troops he can dispose of.

Mr Lloyd George says that there is a general idea that the British are imperialistic in their desires, but as a matter of fact they were not willing to take any more responsibility.

President Wilson says it does not seem a question of assuming more responsibility but a question of their withdrawing their existing responsibilities.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Caucasus is very rich, but it would be a big job to look after it and the British Empire could not assume those additional responsibilities.

President Wilson fears that to let the Italians into the Caucasus will prove to be very serious and threaten the peace of the world.

Mr Lloyd George says that to take the 1½ British divisions from the Caucasus and put them in Constantinople will safeguard the position against the Italians. Otherwise, the Allied and Associated Powers might find their hands forced. The situation ought to be tackled at once to avert this possibility.

(It is agreed:

1) That General Wilson should at once see General Bliss (to whom President Wilson sent a message by telephone) and should post General Bliss with the whole situation, in order that General Bliss may confer with President Wilson in the afternoon.

2) That the Naval Authorities should be invited to co-operate, when the naval elements enter into the problem.)

(General Wilson withdraws.)

5. In reply to a telephone message from M Pichon, it is agreed that the fact that the Italian Delegation is returning to Paris should be published.

6. Mr. Lloyd George says that a few days ago an old friend of his, formerly a Welsh member of Parliament, had called on him in Paris and said he was just leaving for Rome. He had told Mr Lloyd George that he was convinced that the Italians are anxious for an excuse to come back, and had asked if there was anything he could do. Mr Lloyd George had explained the general situation to him, without, of course, giving him any authority to act. Last night he had received a telegram from his friend in Rome, the gist of which was that he had seen S Orlando, who had said he was willing to stand by the Pact of London but had intimated that when Italy had got Dalmatia and the Islands, she would go to Croatia and make a bargain for the exchange of Fiume.

President Wilson points out that all this fits in with the naval and military movements that the Italians are making.

Mr Lloyd George says that the Italians had already broken the Treaty by occupying Fiume.

M Clemenceau pointed out, however, that the Italians have not occupied it alone: Allied troops are also in Fiume.

President Wilson recalls that the Armistice had given the right to the Allies to advance troops for the maintenance of order, and the Italians had used this excuse to push forward troops to Fiume, in which they had been joined by their Allies. This prevents us from saying that the Italians are outside their rights.

Mr Lloyd George says that he would like to tell the Italians they must withdraw. If they should plead the Armistice as an excuse for staying, we must say: “Then let the Serbians go in; they are Allies.”

President Wilson points out that the Italians are sending troops to Sebenico. They are not entitled to do that under the Armistice.

Mr Lloyd George says we ought to insist on adherence to the Armistice. They are playing the Pact of London against Great Britain and France, and it is Great Britain and France that must meet them. Our line should be to say: “You must clear out of Fiume and leave it to the Croatians, in accordance with the Pact.” They cannot afford to do that.

President Wilson says he has just received a message from Mr Lansing to the same effect as M Pichon’s and the Marquis Imperiali’s messages, namely, that the Italians will be back on Wednesday morning. The message also stated that they are coming in the hope that they can take part in the meeting with the Germans. This means that they are in the hope that the Allied and Associated Governments will make this possible for them.

Mr Lloyd George says this cannot be done on Wednesday morning.

7. M Clemenceau says that the Germans had assumed that the Allied and Associated Powers are going to make a communication of the terms published and had asked that as theirs could not be ready they might be allowed to use the one issued by the Allied and Associated Powers, M Cambon had given him this information.

Mr Lloyd George says he has received a message from General Smuts, who considers that the Germans will obtain a considerable diplomatic advantage if the treaty is published. In such a gigantic document there will have to be a good many alterations, and the Germans will claim these to be a diplomatic victory for them. He points out that in many parts of the Treaty he himself had had to trust to experts who were not really looking at the Treaty as a whole. He anticipated, when he read the Treaty as a whole, that he might find a good many unexpected clauses, some inconsistent with others, just as had happened to him sometimes in introducing a complicated Bill into Parliament.

M Clemenceau does not think it possible to keep publication back, but he would only publish a summary.

President Wilson agrees that the text ought not to be published.

Mr Lloyd George points out that M Tardieu’s summary is so long that it would occupy three whole sheets of the Times.

President Wilson says that Mr Baker, who was in general charge of the United States Press arrangement, had prepared a summary.

Mr Lloyd George said that Mr Baker’s summary had been prepared in co-operation with Mr Mair, who had done a large part of it, but even Mr. Mair’s summary would occupy two sheets of the Times.

(It is agreed that M Tardieu, Mr Baker and Mr Mair should be invited the following morning to meet the Council of Three.)

8. M Clemenceau asks how the question of Responsibilities stands.

President Wilson says he understands that it has been held up at a recent Plenary, owing to some objection by the British Dominions.

Mr Lloyd George said it is too late now to bring it before the Plenary. He understands that General Botha thinks that the names of the Germans whom it is proposed to try should be given. He had pointed out that the British had made the same demand in South Africa. General Botha had agreed to all their other demands, but would not give way on that, and had insisted that he should be given the names. General Botha had then asked Lord Kitchener whether, in his place, he would give up men to be tried without knowing their names, and Lord Kitchener had replied that as a soldier, he would not. Consequently, the negotiations had been broken off, and the war had gone on for 17 months. In the end, only three names had been given for trial.

President Wilson says he has always felt that this was the weak spot in the Treaty of Peace.

Mr Lloyd George points out that this depends on the mentality of the Germans.

9. A memorandum by the Secretary-General is considered with the result that it is agreed to proceed to Versailles that afternoon, and meet the Secretary-General there.)

10. Mr Lloyd George points out that the cost of the Army of Occupation is to have precedence over indemnities and reparation. The present Armies of Occupation were costing £300,000,000 a year. At present no limit has been placed on the size of the total army to be maintained. Unless some limitation is arranged, there will be nothing left for indemnity.

M Clemenceau says that this does not affect the Treaty of Peace, but is a matter that should be arranged between the Allied and Associated Governments.

President Wilson says that in a previous conversation it had been arranged that the British and United States forces would be very small - only sufficient to show the flag.

(It is agreed that a Committee composed of General Bliss, for the United States of America, General Sir Henry Wilson for the British Empire, and a French Officer to be designated by M Clemenceau, should meet to consider the size of the Army of Occupation of the Rhine Provinces, after conclusion of the Treaty of Peace.)

11. Mr Lloyd George points out a difficulty which has arisen about the organisation of the League of Nations. The United States of America cannot devote any money to the League until the Treaty is ratified. It is absolutely necessary, however, to get the organization of the League ready, as certain duties would fall on it very soon after the signature of the Treaty of Peace. It is not considered desirable to proceed at once to Geneva, where sufficient buildings are not available. He asks authority, therefore, on behalf of Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary-General, to establish himself temporarily in London, where he will build up the organisation of the League.

President Wilson says he has no objection.

M Clemenceau says he has no objection.

(It is agreed that the Secretary-General of the League of Nations should be authorized to establish the temporary and provisional organisation of the League of Nations in London.)

12. The Council has before it a memorandum from the Secretary-General, entitled “Free Circulation for the German Delegation”.

M Clemenceau considers that the couriers allowed to the German Delegation are quite sufficient.

President Wilson thinks that the Allied and Associated Powers should be as liberal in these matters as possible.

Mr Lloyd George points out that there is nothing for the Germans to spy on at the present time.

M Clemenceau agrees to adopt a liberal attitude.

(It is agreed that the German Delegates at Versailles should be permitted to send to Germany and vice versa, in addition to the ordinary couriers bearing the official mail, other persons, including journalists, in such proportion as they may deem necessary.)

13. M Clemenceau says he has received a protest from the Marquis Saionji against decisions having been taken in regard in regard to affairs in China and Siam without consultation with the Japanese. No complaint was made against the substance of the Articles in the Treaty of Peace that had been agreed on, but as Japan has special interests in the Far East, he considers that the Japanese Plenipotentiaries should have been present at the discussion.

President Wilson points out that as he has no objection to the substance, the matter is not very material. No-one present can recall any decision in regard to Siam, and the clauses in regard to China had been prepared by experts, but had not been discussed at any meeting.

14. Mr Lloyd George says he is very anxious to settle the question of the mandates before the Treaty of Peace.

President Wilson says that it can hardly be settled in 48 hours. In regard to Turkey in particular, it is impossible for him to give a decision at present as to whether the United States could take a mandate.

Mr Lloyd George says that as far as Great Britain was concerned he would make no objection to a settlement of the Turkish mandates, though he realizes President Wilson’s difficulty. What he is pressing for at present is the German Colonies.

M Clemenceau said he is ready at any time to discuss the matter.

President Wilson says that to all intents and purposes it has been agreed that the mandate for German South-West Africa should be given to South Africa, for New Guinea and the adjacent islands to Australia, for Samoa to New Zealand.

Mr Lloyd George says that there are still the remaining African Colonies.

M Clemenceau says there is perfect agreement on these too.

Mr Lloyd George urges early consideration of this question, as he is most anxious to be able to announce the mandates to the Press at the time when the Peace Treaty was issued.

President Wilson says he was very anxious to avoid the appearance of a division of the spoils being simultaneous with the Peace.

Jimbuna

05-06-19, 08:47 AM

6th May 1919

Four surrendered German submarines at New York’s US Navy Yard.
https://i.imgur.com/HnvMMTr.jpg

American troops of the 77th Division show off captured German war pigeons at a victory parade in New York City.
https://i.imgur.com/Z09HcWr.jpg

L. Frank Baum, American author known for writing the Wizard of Oz series, has passed away.
https://i.imgur.com/x1S6HQP.jpg

Sailor Steve

05-06-19, 09:26 PM

Tuesday, May 6, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three

Arrangements for Meeting at Versailles

1. Sir Maurice Hankey says he has received a communication from the Secretary-General stating that for the indispensable material arrangements, such as protocol drafting, placing of the Delegations, assignment of cards and seats, arrangements with representatives of the Press, etc. one Secretary per Great Power and two Secretaries for the Secretary-General will be insufficient. Mr Dutasta has therefore asked that the numbers might be raised to two Secretaries each for the United States of America, United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Japan, with one Secretary for each of the other Delegations, and three members of the Secretary-General’s Secretariat.

(The above proposal is agreed to.)

2. M Clemenceau pressed very strongly that the guarantee by the British Empire and the United States of America, which it has been agreed should be given to France, should be furnished immediately, as it is important to him to be able to make an announcement on the subject.

M Tardieu said that after discussion with Mr Frazier, he suggested that the undertaking should be announced simultaneously with the signing of the Treaty of Peace to the Press, but should not form part of the Treaty. He then reads the attached form.

President Wilson says he does not like this form, which confuses the question. It is provided in the Treaty that Germany should not maintain permanent facilities for mobilization west of the Rhine. If that is put in, as M Tardieu contemplates, it will look as though, if Germany should do so, the United States will have at once to send troops. This is not what is intended. Troops are only to be sent in the event of an act of aggression. He then reads Mr Balfour’s draft, which has been handed to him by Mr Lloyd George, and which states the matter perfectly clearly. In Mr Balfour’s draft, however, he detects an error in paragraph 2, where the word “any” should be substituted for “either”. He himself would be quite prepared to sign a similar document, the paragraph in regard to Dominions of course being omitted.

M Clemenceau says he would be satisfied with this.

Mr Lloyd George says he would be prepared to sign. He says that he had already informed the Imperial War Cabinet of the decision.

M Tardieu says he could alter his draft to meet President Wilson’s criticisms.

President Wilson says he considered Mr Balfour’s draft sufficient. M Tardieu’s draft gives the impression of a triple agreement, which the United States, of course, would object to. The agreement was triple in effect, but not in form.

M Clemenceau then raises the question of the form which the announcement should take.

M Tardieu proposes a draft in some such words as the following:

“So far as the question of the French frontier on the Rhine is concerned, the United States Government and the British Government are in agreement to submit to their respective legislatures the text of the Treaty according to the terms of which the Republic of the United States of America and Great Britain will immediately bring their assistance in case of an unprovoked German aggression.”

President Wilson points out that the mention of the approval of the League of Nations had been omitted.

M Tardieu proposes to introduce the words “with the approval of the League of Nations” after the words “respective legislatures”.

Mr Lloyd George says that the mention of the League of Nations will assist him in getting it through Parliament.

President Wilson then proposes the following alternative draft:

“In addition to the securities afforded in the Treaty of Peace, the President of the United States of America has pledged himself to propose to the Senate of the United States, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain has pledged himself to propose to the Parliament of Great Britain an engagement subject to the approval of the Council of the League of Nations to come immediately to the assistance of France in case of unprovoked attack by Germany.”

(It is agreed

1) That the announcement should be made in the words proposed by President Wilson.

2) That President Wilson on behalf of the United States of America and Mr Lloyd George and Mr Balfour on behalf of Great Britain, should respectively send letters to M Clemenceau, based on Mr Balfour’s draft.

(At this point the Drafting Committee was introduced.)

3. Mr Hurst says that the Drafting Committee has found itself in a difficulty. On Friday, May 2nd, the text of an article had been approved by the Supreme Council in regard to the renunciation by Germany of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, and other matters relating to Russia. This had been forwarded to the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee, however, had found that this article was less far-reaching than articles already included in the Financial and Economic Sections of the Peace Treaty, and had accordingly submitted a revised draft which was approved by the Supreme Council and duly transmitted to the Drafting Committee to supersede the original draft. Today, however, the Drafting Committee has been told that the original clause was to be reinserted.

In reply to Mr Lloyd George he says he thinks the new instructions have been given to M Fromageot by M Pichon.

M Clemenceau said that if the revised draft had been approved by the Supreme Council it ought to stand.

(It is agreed that the revised draft approved on May 3rd should stand and the Drafting Committee was given verbal instructions to carry this out.)

4. Mr Hurst says that on May 2nd, the Supreme Council had approved the following Article for incorporation in Austria the Treaty of Peace, which had been duly notified to the Drafting Committee.

“Germany acknowledges and will fully respect the independence of Austria within the frontiers established by the present Treaty as inalienable except by consent of the League of Nations”.

The difficulty in which the Drafting Committee finds themselves is that the frontiers of Austria have not been fixed. It is true that the frontiers between Germany and that part of the old Austrian Empire which is now comprised in the new Czechoslovak State had been fixed, but nothing had been said either about the frontiers between Germany and the new Austria, or about the other frontiers of Austria.

Mr Lloyd George proposes that the 1914 frontier between Austria and Germany should be adhered to.

President Wilson points out that this only provides for the boundary between Germany and Austria, whereas the Article quoted above refers to “the frontiers established by the present Treaty,” and contemplates the whole of the boundaries of Austria.

Mr Hurst says that the Drafting Committee has proposed an amendment to the effect that Germany should recognize Austria within frontiers which might be approved by the Allied and Associated Powers.

(The Drafting Committee’s proposal is agreed to, and the Drafting Committee is given verbal instructions to amend the Treaty accordingly.)

5. Mr Lloyd George says he has an appeal to make in regard to Canada. Sir Robert Borden has pointed out that Canada is, by the existing wording, ruled out of the League of Nations Council.

President Wilson points out that it is not the League of Nations Council but the Labour Convention to which he understands Sir Robert Borden refers.

Mr Lloyd George say that Sir Robert Borden’s point is not so much that he wants Canada at present to be represented on the Council, but he wants the regulation so altered that Canada can be included in the Council. He had pointed out that South American Republics such as Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. could be represented, and he maintained that the United States influence in those countries was greater than the influence of the United Kingdom in Canada.

President Wilson demurs to this, but says he does not want that point to be made in order to convince him of the justice of Sir Robert Borden’s contention. This Convention, however, had been drawn up by a Commission which has now dispersed, and passed by the Plenary Conference, and it is difficult to change it.

Mr Lloyd George says that Sir Robert Borden had actually moved and passed a resolution through the Plenary Conference, which he believes to be adequate, but the Drafting Committee did not consider it adequate. Sir Robert Borden had said that if the Drafting Committee’s view was upheld, he would have to raise the question at the Plenary Session in the afternoon, and Mr Lloyd George wants to avoid this if possible.

President Wilson asks if anyone has the exact terms of the resolution moved at the Plenary.

Mr Hurst says the substance of it had been that the Drafting Committee was instructed to bring the Labour Convention into line with the League of Nations Covenant.

Mr Lloyd George asks if M Clemenceau would agree to put Canada in the same position in regard to the Labour Convention as it was in regard to the League of Nations Covenant.

M Clemenceau agrees.

President Wilson says that this is his understanding of the situation. He was so anxious not to hold up the printing of the Peace Treaty that he thinks alterations of this kind might be put into an errata.

Mr Hurst asks that the form in which the correction should be made might be left to the Drafting Committee.

(It is agreed that the necessary alterations should be inserted in the Labour Convention, to place the Dominion(s) in the same position as regards representation on the governing body of the Labour Convention as they are already in as regards representation on the Council of the League of Nations.

2) That the form in which this should be incorporated in the Treaty of Peace should be left to the Drafting Committee.)

(The Drafting Committee are given verbal instructions to carry out this decision.)

(M Loucheur is introduced at this point together with Lord Cunliffe.)

6. M Loucheur hands in a document proposing a drafting alteration in the text of Article 232 of the Treaty of Peace.

Article 232 of the Treaty (The object of this alteration, as explained by M Loucheur, is understood to be to prevent the Germans from giving too narrow an interpretation of this Article. Annex 1 to the Reparation Clauses includes among the categories of damage for which compensation may be claimed pensions to naval and military victims of the war, whereas the actual text of this Article, although referring to Annex 1, indicates that it is only damage done to the civilian population that shall be compensated. This was the reason for inserting the words “and generally for all damage in accordance with the definition contained in Annex 1.”)

M Clemenceau insists very strongly that this alteration, which is merely a drafting one, is essential to him, as his colleagues pressed very strongly for it.

Mr Lloyd George says the question is really a legal one, and he greatly regrets the absence of Lord Sumner. After consulting Lord Cunliffe and Mr Hurst, he says that so far as he was concerned, he would accept the change.

President Wilson, after consulting Mr Brown Scott, also accepts it.

(It was agreed that the alteration proposed by M. Loucheur, should be approved, and the Drafting Committee was given verbal instructions to amend the Treaty of Peace accordingly.)

7. M Loucheur raised a question, which he said had up to now been overlooked in regard to Reparation. It was provided by the terms of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918, and the Conventions renewing it, for certain restitutions, including the surrender of ships, to take place regularly during the Armistice. Unless some provision is made for a continuation of these restitutions, they will come to a stop on the signature of Peace, and will not be renewed until the Treaty is ratified. He says that Mr Lamont and Mr McCormick were in agreement with him on the subject He urges therefore, that some clause should be inserted to provide for this defect.

(This is agreed to.)

8. Poland and Reparation Mr Lloyd George says that on the previous evening M Paderewski had pointed out to him that under the Reparation Clauses, the old Government buildings and forests of Poland, which had during the war been seized by Germany, and had now reverted to Poland, will have to be paid for by the Poles.

Mr Hurst, in reply to a question by Mr Lloyd George, says that under the Reparation Clauses all State property will have to be valued and accounted for to the Reparation pool by Poland.

President Wilson says that the Reparation Committee has powers to remit in such cases as these.

Mr Hurst says it would involve a diminution in Poland’s share in the pool.

(On President Wilson’s suggestion, it is agreed that the Reparation experts should prepare a clause to provide for this difficulty, which should be forwarded to the Drafting Committee for insertion in the Treaty of Peace.)

9. M Loucheur said that S Crespi had communicated with him to say that the decision as regards the participation of Italy in reparation is contrary to Article 11 of the Treaty of London, namely, “Italy will receive a part corresponding to her efforts and her sacrifices in the eventual war indemnity.” S Crespi has asked that this provision might be withheld.

Mr Lloyd George says it is too late.

President Wilson agrees. He says it will involve a most elaborate alteration.

Mr Lloyd George says it creates an awkward situation, but he points out that Italy had not declared war against Germany for more than 12 months after she signed the Treaty of London.

President Wilson points out that reparation is provided for, but no war indemnity.

Mr Lloyd George thinks that this narrow interpretation of indemnity will hardly be fair to Italy. Italy’s real weak point is that she had not declared war against Germany until nearly two years after the beginning of the war. Her efforts against Germany had been by no means great.

President Wilson points out that the formula on April 30th related to the attacks on Italy by Germany, and not Italy’s operations against Germany.

Mr Brown Scott suggested that the matter might be settled in the Treaty with Austria.

President Wilson says that this means that Italy will receive nothing. It is a very complicated business to make a change now.

M Loucheur reads a draft Article which he proposes should be substituted for the present Article.

(The Secretary is unable to obtain this.)

Mr Lloyd George says that the effect of M Loucheur’s proposal will be a protest on behalf of Serbia and Romania.

M Loucheur then suggests that the original text should be restored.

(This was agreed to.)

(At this point, the Drafting Committee and M Loucheur withdraw, M Tardieu having withdrawn during the discussion.)

M Dutasta, Secretary-General of the Conference, is introduced.

10. President Wilson asks M Dutasta which Governments have been invited to attend the Plenary in the afternoon.

M Dutasta says the whole of the Plenary Conference had been invited.

In a reply to a further question from President Wilson, he says that in addition to the great powers, the following States would be represented to meet the Germans:

Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, and Czechoslovakia.

President Wilson points out that many other States, including some of the Central and South American States had declared war on Germany and would have to sign the Treaty.

Mr Lloyd George says this is because of the League of Nations. Some neutrals, however, are to join the League of Nations, and these will not be present to meet the Germans.

President Wilson says he hopes at any rate the Chinese will be included.

Mr Lloyd George and M Clemenceau agreed.

Sir Maurice Hankey says he was informed that Siam had sent aviators to the theater of war.

Mr Lloyd George says in these circumstances it would be difficult to leave Siam out.

(It is agreed that China and Siam should be added to the list of States represented when the Treaty of Peace was handed to the Germans.)

11. M Dutasta hands in a Memorandum in regard to the neutral zone of Savoy, of the Free zones of Savoy, and of the Gex district, as well as an Article proposed by the French Government for incorporation in the Treaty of Peace. He says that the text of this Article has been agreed between the French and Swiss Governments.

President Wilson says he knew nothing about the matter.

Mr Lloyd George says that he knew nothing of it either. He proposes that the Foreign Ministers should be invited to meet at once, with full powers to decide the question.

(It is agreed that the Council of Foreign Ministers should be summoned at once by the Secretary-General, and should meet with full powers to decide the questions raised in the documents presented by the Secretary-General.)

12. Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to notify S Orlando that a meeting of the Supreme Council will be held on the following day at President Wilson’s house in the Place des Etats-Unis, at 11:00.

13. Mr Lloyd George draws attention to an article in the 'Matin', which was generally well informed about Italian affairs. This indicates that Italy will now claim the sovereignty of Fiume under the League of Nations.

President Wilson asks how long it will take the Italians to realize that they cannot get Fiume under any circumstances. The only advantage in letting the Italians have Fiume would be that it would break the Treaty of London, which he was disturbed to find allotted the Dodecanese to Italy.

M Clemenceau said he has bad news of Italian military movements.

Mr Lloyd George asks what the result of President Wilson’s inquiries in regard to the proposed Military redisposition of forces in Turkey has been.

President Wilson says he regrets to have to say that his legal advisers informed him that he has no authority to send troops to Turkey. One result of the United States policy of isolation has been that laws had been placed on the Statute Book restricting the movements of troops outside of the United States. Under existing laws it would not even be possible for him to agree to send troops to Turkey, nor could he send them unless at war with Turkey. He had tried his best to find some way out but could not. The most he can do at present, and though that is not much it might do to steady the Italians, is to express his willingness to propose to Congress legislation on the subject when he submitted the Treaty of Peace. Such legislation would practically form part of the scheme of mandates.

Mr Lloyd George points out that in the meanwhile Italy might establish herself in Anatolia.

President Wilson says that in that case Italy would be compelled to get out again. The United States was the only country where Italy could get credits for essential purposes.

Mr Lloyd George says that no discussion had taken place in regard to the mandates for Anatolia.

President Wilson says that a certain authoritative Turk had expressed the view that the whole of Turkey ought to be under a single mandate. He himself thinks that this is more than he could induce the United States to undertake. The Turks are hated in the United States, and the only ground on which a mandate would be accepted in Turkey would be to protect subject races against the Turks. He is assured that to put in a disturbing authority in Anatolia would inevitably cause trouble with the Greeks on one side and the Romanians on the other. There will be constant friction between them. Moreover, when the Italian people see what additions are involved to their budgets they will not like the arrangements. He cannot understand the position of the Italian Government in this matter. He compares it to the popular clamor against the destruction of warships, the fact not being understood how heavy was the cost of their upkeep.

14. Sir Maurice Hankey stated that he has received a letter from M Berthelot stating that the Committee set up on May 1st established that the problem applied equally to certain countries such as Romania and Greece which would receive territorial increases very much in the same conditions as new States like Poland, Czechoslovakia and the kingdom of the Serbo-Croats and Slovenes. The question was especially important by reason of guarantees to be formulated for the Jews of Romania and the Muslims of Thrace and Albania. The Committee therefore asks for an extension of its terms of reference to include Romania and Greece.

(This is approved and Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to notify M Berthelot accordingly.)

15. President Wilson draws attention to the position the Italians have assumed in Albania.

Mr Lloyd George says that a Protectorate has been announced without informing any of their Allies.

President Wilson says that Albania ought to be independent.

Mr Lloyd George doubts if sufficient unity can be ensured.

16. Mr Lloyd George say he thinks some attempt ought to be made to proceed further in regard to Turkey. Otherwise the Italians will establish themselves there. M Clemenceau on the previous day had told them that Italy has seven battleships at Smyrna. This means that they intend to land troops. It is said that Italy is making trouble between the Greeks and Turks, and having done so they will land troops with the ostensible object of keeping the peace.

President Wilson remarks that they will have to be informed that if they do not evacuate they will get no money.

Mr Lloyd George says that America has had a good deal of experience of bankrupt countries in central America, and Europe has had a good deal of experience of the same kind in the Balkans and Turkey. The one thing these countries can always do is to make war.

President Wilson suggests that they did it by living on the country.

17. Mr Lloyd George says he thinks it ought to be decided that Mr Venizelos should be allowed to land two or three Divisions at Smyrna to protect his fellow-countrymen in Turkey.

President Wilson points out that the report of the Greek Commission is now unanimously in favour of giving this area to Greece.

M Clemenceau said he is ready to allow Mr Venizelos to send troops.

President Wilson says that undoubtedly he is ready.

M Clemenceau recalls the agreement of St. Jean de Maurienne.

Mr Lloyd George says that the agreement of St. Jean de Maurienne had been conditional on Italy playing an adequate part in the war against Turkey, and had also been subject to the agreement of Russia. He asks for a decision that Mr Venizelos might be authorized to send troops on board ship to Smyrna to be kept there ready for landing in case of necessity.

President Wilson asks why they should not be landed at once? The men do not keep in good condition on board ship.

Mr Lloyd George says he has no objection.

18. Sir Maurice Hankey reads a letter he has received from Mr Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, in his capacity of Chairman of the Third Sub-Commission of the Commission on Reparation, enclosing a report presented by the Third Sub-Commission. The last paragraph of this report read as follows:

“Under all the circumstances the Sub-Commission thinks that no useful purpose can be served by proceeding to make recommendations unless the Supreme War Council expresses a wish that it should do so.”

Sir Maurice Hankey is authorized in replying to this letter to thank Mr Hughes for his letter and report, and to state that as this aspect of reparation has been dealt with as part of the general discussions of the Supreme Council, it will not be necessary for the Sub-Commission to make further recommendations at present.

19. At the conclusion of the meeting a message is received from the Marquis Imperiali stating that the Italian Delegation cannot arrive from Rome on the following day before 12:00 even if the train is punctual; as the Italian delegation would wish to establish contact with the Allied and Associated Governments before meeting the Germans, he asks for a postponement of this meeting for twenty-four hours.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Italian credentials have not yet been presented. He suggests that M Pichon ought to ask S Bonin whether he wished the Italian credentials to be presented.

President Wilson says it will be impossible to change the date of the meeting. The Italians are entirely responsible themselves for the delay in their return, and must take the consequences. He agrees with Mr Lloyd George that S Bonin should be asked if he wishes the Italian credentials to be presented. Italy had left the Conference without any justification and no postponement was possible.

M Clemenceau agrees, and points out that the Italians could have returned earlier.

Mr Lloyd George agrees.

(It is agreed that M Pichon should be asked to consult S Bonin as to whether he wishes the Italian credentials to be presented to the Germans.)

Just as the Meeting is dispersing the question is raised in the ante-room by Mr Baker and Mr Mair, who were waiting there, as to the date on which the summary of the Treaty of Peace should be made public.

Sir Maurice Hankey consults M Clemenceau, who is already in his motor car, and President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George, who were in the ante-room, with the result that it is agreed that the summary of the Treaty of Peace should be published in the morning newspapers of Thursday, May 8th; that arrangements should be made to secure publicity simultaneously in all the countries concerned; and that no publicity should take place before that date.

(The question of publicity by wireless telegraphy is left to be decided when the Council of Three meet in the afternoon at the Plenary Conference.)

Sailor Steve

05-06-19, 10:56 PM

Tuesday, May 6, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Preliminary Peace Conference, Protocol No. 6, Plenary Session of May 6, 1919

Nations Represented:

United States of America
Great Britain
Canada
Australia
South Africa
New Zealand
India
France
Italy
Japan
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
China
Cuba
Ecuador
Greece
Guatemala
The Hedjaz
Honduras
Liberia
Nicaragua
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Siam
Czechoslovak
Uruguay

As the question of responsibility for the war had not been brought up for discussion at the previous Session, although placed on the Agenda paper, The President (M Clemenceau) inquires whether any of the Delegates desire to offer observations in that connection.

Dr. Bonilla (Honduras) draws the attention of the Conference to the wish expressed by the Honduran Delegation in regard to the question of responsibility for the war, the text of which had been deposited with the Secretariat-General.

As no other Delegate asks leave to speak, the President states that the Agenda paper calls for the discussion of the Conditions of Peace with Germany, and requests Mr Tardieu (France) to make an explanatory statement of those conditions to the Conference.

Mr Tardieu says:

"Gentlemen, the text of the Preliminaries of Peace with Germany comprises 15 Parts; I will give their titles in advance, in order to throw light on the rest of my statement:

1st Part: League of Nations.
2nd Part: Frontiers of Germany.
3rd Part: European political clauses.
4th Part: Political clauses outside Germany and outside Europe.
5th Part: Military, naval, and aerial clauses.
6th Part: Prisoners of war.
7th Part: Responsibility and enforcement of penalties.
8th Part: Reparation.
9th Part: Financial clauses.
10th Part: Economic clauses.
11th Part: Clauses regarding aerial navigation.
12th Part: Ports, railways, and waterways.
13th Part: Labor legislation.
14th Part: Guarantees.
15th Part: Miscellaneous clauses."

(What follows is a draft copy of the Peace Treaty. It is exceedingly long, listing the allocation of conditions for each country in touch with Germany. I intend to try to post the entire Treaty when it is presented to the Germans, but that will require setting aside a full day for the task.
-Steve)

After M. Tardieu has finished speaking, the President declares that, although his statement is only a mere communication, any Delegates who wish to offer observations in regard thereto will have an opportunity of doing so.

Dr Affonso Costa (Portugal) makes an impassioned speech detailing Germany's depredations against Portugal, stating that all they ask for is that Germany pay her debts to Portugal for ships and items of commerce destroyed. He states that the War has left his country in ruins. Neutral nations are being treated with preference while nations who shed their life's blood are being ignored. He goes on in this vein for some time.

Mr. Lou Tseng-Tsiang (China), speaking on behalf of the Chinese Delegation, makes a protest against the settlement of the Shantung question in the following terms:

“The Chinese Delegation is constrained to express the deep disappointment which it feels at the settlement proposed by the Council of Prime Ministers for the settlement of the questions of Kiao-chow and Shantung. For that settlement seems to have been taken as the sole basis for the clauses in the draft Treaty of Peace with Germany just read to us which are concerned with the disposal of German rights in that Chinese province. The Delegation is convinced that its disappointment will be felt just as keenly by the Chinese nation as a whole. The proposed settlement seems to have been adopted without sufficient account having been held of the considerations in regard to Right, Justice, and the national security of China which the Chinese Delegation has continuously urged on the occasions on which it was heard, firstly by the Council of Prime Ministers and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, and later on by the Council of Prime Ministers. The Chinese Delegation communicated to the latter Council a formal protest against the proposed settlement in the hope of securing its revision, and in the event of such a revision not appearing possible, it regards it as its duty to make here and now reservations in regard to the above-mentioned clauses.

“I beg the President to be so good as to cause my statement to be recorded in the Minutes of the proceedings.”

S Crespi (Italy) expresses certain reservations made by the Italian Delegation in the following terms:

“In view of the possibility that during the temporary absence of the Italian Delegation certain of the clauses already adopted with the assent of that Delegation may have been modified, I am obliged, for all necessary purposes, to make such reservations as may be warranted by the circumstances.”

Marshal Foch (France) makes a very long speech expressing his disappointment over how he believes the control of Germany's border regions should have been handled. Most of his objection is devoted to his belief that the occupation of the Rhineland should be more thorough and should last longer. He goes into great detail on this subject.

(As no one else asks leave to speak, the Session is adjourned at 17:05)

Sailor Steve

05-06-19, 11:17 PM

Tuesday, May 6, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris 17:30

Meeting of the Council of Three

1. It is agreed that all belligerent Allied and Associated States should be present when the Treaty of Peace is handed to the Germans.

2. Mr Hurst, on behalf of the Drafting Committee, reports that an important article has by mistake been left out of the final Draft of the Treaty. On the previous evening he recalled that the Drafting Committee had received a document purporting to come from M Clemenceau in substitution for the articles that they had drafted on this subject. He had taken this fresh draft to Sir Maurice Hankey, who had also been approached on the subject by M Tardieu, and Sir Maurice Hankey had obtained a consent to it of Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson at a very late hour. A new text had then been incorporated in the final Draft of the Treaty, but on examination it was found that the following important article had been omitted:

“In case Germany violates in any way whatever the provisions of Articles 42 and 43, she shall be regarded as committing an hostile act against the Powers’ signatory to the present Treaty and as intended ta disturb the peace of the world.”

President Wilson points out that this draft differs slightly from the original draft which he had prepared. He hands the original draft to Mr. Hurst.

(It is agreed that Mr Hurst should inform the Drafting Committee that this article is to be reinstated with the wording changed so as to correspond more closely to the original draft.)

3. With reference to the decision taken in the morning that the summary of the Peace Treaty should be published on Thursday morning in the Press of all countries, it is further decided that no radio telegraphic summary should be sent out before mid-night on Wednesday, May 7th.

(M Tardieu undertakes to communicate this decision to the Secretary General.)

4. Mr Lloyd George says the only difficulty arose about Togoland and the Cameroons in regard to which he was not personally well informed.

M Clemenceau, with the consent of his colleagues, send for M Simon, the French Minister of the Colonies.

Mr Lloyd George says in regard to Togoland, he understands the British had captured one half, and the French the other half. The French want the capital named Lome. In regard to the Cameroons, the British and French had each helped to capture it. He does not know what arrangement has been reached but he understood that Lord Milner has made some arrangement.

In regard to the Pacific, he says he understands that the Mandates will be allotted as follows:

Australia should receive a Mandate of New Guinea, and the islands in the Bismarck Archipelago to the east of New Guinea.

New Zealand should receive the Mandate for Samoa.

The Japanese could receive a Mandate for certain islands north of the Equator.

President Wilson agrees in all the above.

Mr Lloyd George says having regard to the island of Nauru, some difficulty has arisen as the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, all have certain interests. He suggests the best plan would be to give the Mandate to the British Empire which would arrange exactly how it would be dealt with.

President Wilson says that if a Mandate is once assigned it cannot be handed over to one of the Dominions.

Mr Lloyd George says that the island was very valuable owing to phosphate deposits, and the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand are all interested in these.

President Wilson said that the policy of the open door would have to be applied. He draws attention to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided for “equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League”.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that it is essential that the Mandatory should have the right to apply a tariff as this was the only method by which they could raise revenue.

President Wilson points out that the United States possesses islands in the Samoan group.

In assigning the German Islands to New Zealand, difficulties would arise if a tariff were applied.

(At this point M Simon enters.)

M Clemenceau asks M Simon to state what arrangements have been made as regards Togoland.

M Simon said none have been written. The position is that the British occupy one part and the French another. He himself has been authorized by the French Government to discuss the matter with Lord Milner, and they have searched for a basis of agreement. It will probably suit both parties if the French part is joined on to Dahomey and the British part to Ashanti. The only railway is occupied by the British. He had asked Lord Milner to make a division which would be suitable to both countries and in regard to the Tribes. Lord Milner had then left for England, and the negotiations had been broken off at a time when, in his opinion, an understanding had nearly been reached.

In regard to the Cameroons there is complete agreement. The Cameroons he states are divided by a mountain range, and he explains on a map how one part could be conveniently joined to Nigeria and the other part to French territory. He had agreed this with Lord Milner, and they had arranged their scheme to suit the Tribes.

Mr Lloyd George makes the following proposal that France should become the mandatory for the Cameroons, subject to an arrangement between France and Great Britain for a readjustment between the Cameroons and Nigeria, this agreement being submitted to the approval of the League of Nations.

In regard to Togoland he understands that mandates are difficult. The country is cut into small bits, and it will be found that half of a tribe is under a mandate, and the other is not. He suggests that the principle of mandates should not apply in this case.

President Wilson thinks it is difficult to avoid mandates under the Treaty Clauses.

Mr Lloyd George states that the Treaty Clauses will merely hand over Togoland with the other former colonies to the Allied and Associated Powers, which would have a free hand to arrange for their disposal.

President Wilson agrees that the arrangement must be accommodated to the circumstances.

Mr Lloyd George proposes that M Simon should before 11:00 on the following day prepare a scheme on the following lines:

Great Britain and France to make a joint recommendation to the League of Nations in regard to the division of Togoland. France to have a mandate for the Cameroons, subject to a joint recommendation which the British and French Governments would make to the League of Nations for a rearrangement of the boundary between Nigeria and the Cameroons.

(The above is agreed to.)

(M Simon withdraws, but shortly afterwards returns and asks that the portion of the Cameroons which the Germans had forced France to give up in 1911 should not be subject to a mandate.)

President Wilson suggests that this should be included in the joint recommendation.

(This is agreed to.)

5. President Wilson asks if any answer has been received to the Treaty with invitation to Austria and Hungary to send representatives to Paris.

M Clemenceau says the Hungarian Government has fallen, and no answer has been received. A message has been sent by the French Representatives in Vienna stating that an answer had been sent, but it had not yet been received.

6. At the end of the Plenary Meeting, which preceded this meeting, Mr Lloyd George on behalf of Great Britain and President Wilson on behalf of the United States of America handed to M Clemenceau an undertaking to come to the assistance of France in the event of aggression by Germany.

Jimbuna

05-07-19, 05:26 AM

7th May 1919

German delegates receive the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty at Trianon Palace. German government calls the unfair conditions a "violation of honour"
https://i.imgur.com/6nIkryJ.png

The British Army of the Rhine have a special brew of beer for which a German brewery is supplied with malt. Men from various regiments, sent to collect their weekly rations, tasting the beer.
https://i.imgur.com/lkiqfNB.jpg

The parade to end all parades was held in Pittsburgh, where their soldiers returned victorious from the bloody fields of France. Members of the Old Eighteenth Infantry Regiment and the Fifteenth Engineers marched down Fifth Avenue in the downtown district.
https://i.imgur.com/YX7tCMP.jpg

Captured German Submarine U-117 off Charleston, South Carolina.
https://i.imgur.com/lH6f0Zs.jpg

Born this day, María Eva Duarte, who became Eva Perón when she married Juan Perón who later became the President of Argentina. She was the First Lady of Argentina from 1946 until her death in 1952. She was also known as Evita.
https://i.imgur.com/HhCXntA.jpg

Sailor Steve

05-07-19, 07:14 PM

Wednesday, May 7, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

Meeting of the Council of Three (With Italy in attendance)

1. M Dutasta is introduced, and is given authority to issue one copy of the Treaty of Peace to each Delegation with a notice that it is strictly confidential.

2. M Dutasta is instructed with reference to paragraphs that had appeared in the Press, that no photographs are to be taken of the meeting with the Germans. Sketches, however, will be allowed.

3. Sir Maurice Hankey brings to notice a letter from General Botha, the Chairman of the Polish-Ukrainian Armistice Commission, asking for authority for the Secretary General to despatch the following telegram under the auspices of the Commission:

“Secretary of State

Stanislau-Tarnopol.

Since the Ukraino-Polish negotiations have been commenced under auspices of the Peace Conference at Paris, warn High Command of our army to beware of every provocation of the enemy instructing the whole army to retain composure and dignity at any price during the negotiations.”

Secretary of State
Dr. Paneyko.”

The letter also asks that general authority should be given to the Polish-Ukrainian Armistice Commission to authorize the dispatch by the Secretariat-General of such telegrams as the Commission should from time to time consider necessary in connection with its duties.

President Wilson is in favour of the necessary authority being given.

M Clemenceau does not altogether like having telegrams sent before he has seen them, but says that he will agree with the President of the United States of America.

(At this point S Orlando and Count Aldrovandi enter.)

(It is agreed

1) That the Secretary-General should have authority to send the above telegram on behalf of the Polish Ukrainian Armistice Commission.

2) That the Polish-Ukrainian Armistice Commission should be given general authority to authorize the dispatch by the Secretariat-General of such telegrams as the Commission should from time to time consider necessary in connection with its duties.)

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to notify the Secretary-General accordingly.)

4. Mr Lloyd George says the situation in Russia is developing in a very remarkable manner, and will have to be dealt with soon. There has been a curious collapse of the Bolsheviks, and the British Cabinet are pressing for a decision. It seemed that Kolchak has made such progress that he might soon be in a position to join hands with the forces based on Archangel. On the other hand, it is possible that he might march direct on Moscow. This was Mr Paderewski’s view. Hence, in a short time, the Allied and Associated Powers might be faced with a Kolchak Government in Moscow. According to information furnished by Mr Tchaikowski and Mr Paderewski, Kolchak is simply a soldier and nothing more. Denekin is said to be pro-German or at any rate in the hands of a pro-German Chief of Staff. All this points to the desirability of imposing some conditions on Kolchak and Denekin before further supplies were furnished. Kolchak’s political program is vague and indefinite, containing such items as “there must be land reform”.

Mr Paderewski is afraid of a very powerful military Russia developing under Kolchak.

M Clemenceau points out that Mr Paderewski, like all Poles, is anti-Russian.

President Wilson suggests that we should demand a program of reforms and insist that our continued support depends on its being adopted.

Mr Lloyd George says that he and General Wilson have both formed a very high opinion of Mr Tchaikowski. He thinks that his colleagues ought to see him. He was sent to Siberia by the Czarist Government owing to his liberal views, and is urging that the Allies should prevent Russia from becoming Imperial again. He himself fears that more than he does Bolshevism.

M Clemenceau is afraid of both.

President Wilson says Bolshevism must collapse, whereas an Imperial Russia might remain. There is nothing in the Treaty with Germany to prevent the Germans from forming a powerful industrial and commercial union with Russia. He asks what the assistance given to Russia consists of.

Mr Lloyd George says arms and supplies.

President Wilson asks if they have been able to build up stocks. Mr Lloyd George thinks not. Kolchak’s success is probably due to the fact that the Bolshevists have no coal or oil.

(M Simon, the French Minister of the Colonies, enters.)

5. M Simon says that the document he has been asked to prepare requires a very careful text, and is not yet ready.

Mr Lloyd George says he has telephoned to Lord Milner about the Colonies, and hopes to receive an answer that afternoon. In the meanwhile, he will ask M Simon to consult with an official of the Colonial Office for whom he had sent in regard to an agreement which he handed to him.

6. President Wilson says he has received a letter from a gentleman who signed himself President of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs for Montenegro, claiming a place at the Conference in the afternoon on the ground that Montenegro had been an effective belligerent. He did not raise the question of his being present this afternoon, but he thought a decision ought to be taken in regard to Montenegro before the Austrian settlement was concluded.

(This is agreed to.)

7. President Wilson says that he understands that the Persians are much depressed at not being consulted in regard to the Peace Settlement. They said that their interests were not being considered.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Turkish problem has not yet been discussed in any detail. When it is discussed he wishes the Council to hear what the representatives of India have to say, particularly in regard to Constantinople and the future of Islam. He thought that Persia ought then to be heard.

8. M Clemenceau reports that the Austrian Government has accepted the invitation to send a delegation. He then reads a dispatch from the French representative in Vienna, somewhat in the following terms:

“The Press Bulletin of Berne has announced that the Austrian Delegation will be called to Paris only in the second half of the month. The Minister of Foreign Affairs asks if this is correct. I replied that the Austrian Delegation must be ready to leave on Saturday evening. Will you let me know whether the date of arrival on the 12th is maintained. A difficulty has arisen as regards the selection of delegates. The Christian Socialists were a powerful political party and insist that the views of the Allied and Associated Powers should be met and that the Head of the Delegation should not be Dr. Klein, who is an out and out supporter of union with Germany. Hence, the exact composition of the Delegation cannot yet be indicated, although it will not exceed the numbers already indicated.”

He then reads another telegram from the Head of the French Mission in Vienna, according to which the Head of the British Mission had asked to see him to ask if the arrival of the Austrian Delegates at Paris could not be postponed, and he had replied that his own instructions came from the President of the Conference, and he had no authority to discuss the matter.

Mr Lloyd George said he knows nothing of this, and gives instructions for inquiries to be made.

9. Mr Lloyd George said he does not see why the Austrians should be mixed up in the settlement with the Yugoslavs and other parts of the old Austrian Empire. He suggests that Austria should be told that the general settlement is our affair, and that as far as she is concerned it is only proposed to draw her frontiers. No difficulty will arise about the frontiers between Austria and Italy. All the difficulties concerned Croatia and Italy.

President Wilson says he would like time to think this proposal over.

S Orlando, in reply to Mr Lloyd George, says that peace with Austria-Hungary cannot be made, because there was now no Austro-Hungarian State in the sense that there had been before the war. Austria-Hungary, having disappeared, cannot become a High Contracting Party. What will take place, he says, is a general settlement of the boundaries of the new States and Austria is one of these states. Hence it is necessary to determine the frontiers with other states at the same time.

Mr Lloyd George agrees, but could not see that Austria has anything to do with the boundaries of other States than those contiguous to her.

President Wilson says that as S Orlando had indicated, the boundaries of all the states of Austria-Hungary must be made simultaneously, and a general settlement reached. The Czechs had fought for the Allied and Associated Powers, and the Yugoslavs had remained at war with them practically to the end. He thought the boundaries of the whole of the states must be settled together.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that a beginning has to be made somewhere. Why, he asks, should Austria starve because peace had not been made with Croatia. Bolshevism and difficulties of that kind would increase in Austria the longer the delay. There is no difficulty, he understands, between the boundary of Hungary and Croatia.

President Wilson says the Peace Settlement cannot be made so easily, namely, by merely cutting up the countries into bits.

S Orlando suggests that the various negotiations should be carried out simultaneously.

President Wilson agrees, and suggests that every step should be taken as completely as possible in order that it might not transpire afterwards that there are no guarantees of the execution of the Treaty.

(The Meeting is then adjourned to the Offices of the Supreme War Council, after the Meeting with the Germans.)