[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, July 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 15:30

Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers.


1. M Clemenceau stated that he wished the question to be adjourned until the following day. The Greeks are engaged in discussions with the Italian Delegation and, in addition to this, M Tardieu is required in the Chamber of Deputies. The question was therefore adjourned.


2. Mr Balfour asks whether this question could be discussed without a settlement of the frontier question.

M Berthelot admitted that the clauses dealing with Ports, Waterways and Railways are dependent on the settlement of the Cavalla frontier line.

Mr Balfour asks whether it would not be possible to accept all the Articles with the exception of Article 24 which is dependent on the frontier settlement.

(It is agreed that the draft clauses for insertion in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria dealing with the question of Ports, Waterways and Railways should be accepted with the exception of Article 24.)


3. M Fromageot states that the Commission on New States had submitted draft clauses on the subject of the rights of minorities for insertion in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria. The Articles had been drawn up on the basis of those which were to be inserted in the Austrian Treaty, with the exception of those dealing with the guarantees of the League of Nations. These latter were based upon similar provisions in the Polish and other treaties. In addition, the Committee had added Articles Nos 3 and 4 which were not in the Austrian Treaty. These lay down obligations on Bulgaria to grant rights of Bulgarian citizenship to persons living continuously in Bulgaria, despite the fact that they came of foreign parents. The Drafting Committee thinks that, though Articles 3 and 4 ought to be inserted in Peace Treaties with New States, whose legislation was as yet unknown, or in the Peace Treaties with old States, which did not give sufficient guarantees on the subject, they are none the less superfluous in the case of Bulgaria, since the legislation of that country on the point in question was in conformity with that of the most advanced European States. It had therefore been thought that the two articles should be omitted from the text, which were otherwise analogous to that prepared by the Committee on New States. In addition to this, the latter Committee had left out a clause, by virtue of which the Bulgarians would be obliged to raise no obstacle against Bulgarian subjects, at present living in territories granted to other countries, opting as to their citizenship. The text prepared by the Drafting Committee differed from the one drawn up by the Committee on New States, in that Articles 3 and 4 had been omitted, and an article dealing with the right of option inserted. Political clauses in Peace Treaty With Bulgaria.

Mr Balfour states, that as Bulgaria is an old State, and as its legislation was satisfactory on the point in question, there was no use in compelling it to modify its statute book.

M Scialoja states that it has been reported to him that the Committee had not taken up its work, owing to the fact that it was not sure that it was competent to deal with the question. It should also be noted, that the disposal of Thrace affected a portion of the work of this Committee.

Mr Hudson states that the Committee had been of opinion that articles 3 and 4 were necessary in Romania’s case in order that the Jews might be protected. In the 1878 Treaty the same rights had not been granted to the Jewish population as had been given to other citizens.

The question is, whether the article should be enforced in Bulgaria’s case.

Mr Balfour remarks, that since the clauses had been adopted for such countries as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania, he sees no reason against their being put into the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

M Fromageot says, that in the Peace Treaty with Austria, although clauses had been inserted to protect minorities, no provision had been made for special nationalities, since the legislation of the country seemed a sufficient guarantee. The clauses are therefore only applicable to countries whose legislation is unsatisfactory and to others whose future legislation could not be foreseen. Bulgaria had dealt with the question of nationality in a satisfactory manner in the past. Was it necessary, therefore, to insert the clause? The Council had to decide whether, in spite of her previous legislation, Bulgaria was to be classified definitely in one of the two categories.

Mr Balfour says that the discussion might be indefinitely prolonged. Romania is an old State, and had the obligations contained in the disputed articles imposed on her. He does not mind whether they are put into the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria; but, if a vote were called for, he would prefer that Bulgaria should be treated like Romania and not like Austria.

(It is therefore decided that the political clauses dealing with the protection of minorities, as drafted by the Committee on New States, should be accepted.

It is further decided, that a clause granting the right of option to Bulgarian citizens living in territories that had changed their sovereignties, should be inserted in the Peace Treaty.)

The Drafting Committee is directed to draw up the clause, and to insert it in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.


4. M Berthelot states that Marshal Foch had submitted a letter dated 28th July to the President of the Peace Conference on the subject of the attitude of General Von der Goltz, in particular and of the Germans in general in the Baltic Provinces. The Marshal had enclosed in his letter a copy of the correspondence exchanged on the subject with the German Government, together with a letter from the British Delegation covering a report from General Gough. In submitting his report Marshal Foch was asking for precise instructions from the Council whether the proposals of the British General, which were supported by Marshal Foch, were acceptable.

It is decided to inform Marshal Foch that General Gough’s conclusions as submitted in Marshal Foch’s letter of the 28th July are acceptable.

Marshal Foch is directed to take all measures necessary for putting the proposals in question into effect.


(At this point the Naval experts enter the room.)

5. M Berthelot, at the request of the President and on behalf of Secretariat, reads out extracts from the texts of I. C. “A” 176–E.3 and C. F. 91. He draws attention to the fact that the texts of Sir Maurice Hankey and M Mantoux are virtually in agreement.

Mr Balfour says that from quotations made in previous Minutes it is evident that M Clemenceau has accurately remembered the discussion of 25th June. It nevertheless seems that, previous to the Scapa Flow incident, the Council of Four had been uncertain as to the ultimate action to be taken with German vessels. The French evidently had desired that they should be distributed. The Italians and Japanese did not appear to have been of the same opinion. The Scapa Flow incident had then occurred. He did not think that it was anybody’s fault, but the incident was none the less regrettable. Without attaching blame to the Admiralty it was none the less a fact that the German fleet had been sunk in British waters by its own crews. Mr Lloyd George had evidently spoken with great feeling, and had renounced in favour of France the British share in any compensation obtainable, at the discussions that had followed the incident. On the extracts now before the Council M Clemenceau bases his views which are (1) that no destruction of enemy vessels should take place, (2) that England renounces all claims to vessels which would have fallen to her share but for the Scapa Flow incident. He is entirely in agreement with the second point and thought that England’s renunciation must be admitted. Two important points, however, remained undecided:

1) How are enemy ships to be disposed of?

2) If division among the Allies be decided upon in what proportion shall it be made?
He does not think that Mr Lloyd George’s remarks could be regarded as a statement of a considered policy for the reason that when he made it he defined only the French position and made no mention of Italy, Japan or America.

Even admitting Britain’s claim to be lost, the questions he had put forward remained for decision.

S Scialoja states that Italy had not been represented at the Conference on the 24th June. It ts probable for that reason that Mr. Lloyd George’s remarks did not mentioned Italy. On the 25th June, the matter had been discussed and referred to the Council of Admirals. Italy’s position to-day was the same as that of France.

M Clemenceau asked in what sense the Admirals had reported.

M Berthelot replies that all the Admirals had differed, since each one upheld the standpoint which he believes to be that of his own country. He adds that the statements attributed to President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George were capable of being interpreted in the sense that the principle of distribution had then been admitted. In support of this, he quoted the phrase in which compensation to small Navies had been allowed for, and he also drew attention to the fact that President Wilson spoke in several places of the division of the enemy fleet.

M Clemenceau states that as the entire matter appears not to be understood fully by his colleagues, he wishes to make a statement as to the exact discussions which had taken place in the Council of Four, and in informal conversations preceding the meetings. Mr Lloyd George had said to him, on one occasion, that if all countries could be of one opinion, the sinking of the German fleet in the open sea, in the presence of the Allied Navies, would be a magnificent spectacle. He had dissented from this, knowing that the French people would desire to have a certain portion of the enemy fleet.

A similar question had arisen as to the disposal of the enemy submarines, Mr Lloyd George advocating that they should be sunk as their use had been illegal. President Wilson had in a way assented to this view. He, M Clemenceau, had refused to agree and maintained that the submarines as well as the surface vessels should be divided, unless all existing submarines were destroyed. It was his conclusion from the discussions that a tacit understanding had been reached between Mr Lloyd George, President Wilson and himself to the effect that the enemy vessels should be divided, and not destroyed. The Scapa Flow incident had then occurred and Mr Lloyd George had been particularly upset over it owing to the fact that he had advocated the sinking of the fleet, and its destruction by the Germans had occurred in a British port. The incident would never have aroused such feeling had any form of destruction been previously decided upon. The very fact that this distribution had been admitted had made the act of voluntary destruction by the Germans more keenly felt. In conclusion, he could only repeat that it had been decided, that the enemy vessels should be divided, and that each ally should take what action it liked with the share allotted to it. He was surprised to hear the Italian claim put forward for the first time. He admitted it, however, but insisted that, if it were maintained, a pool of all enemy vessels should be made and a distribution effected among the Allies. He still requires a report on the Scapa Flow incident.

Mr Balfour states that he had asked for a report from the Admiralty, which had replied, that it had not received any previous request to forward it.

Captain Fuller reads a telegram confirming Mr Balfour’s statement.

M Clemenceau states that the discussion could be proceeded with after the report had been placed before the Council. He points out, however, that the question of the disposal of the remainder of the enemy fleet must be settled.

Mr Balfour asks what was the American point of view on this subject.

Mr White answers that he had not been acquainted by President Wilson with the discussions which had been referred to, but he always believed the United States advocated the sinking or destruction of the warships. He added that it was impossible for him to agree to any decision until he had consulted President Wilson by telegram.

M Berthelot then points out that the minutes of April 25th indicated that President Wilson’s views on the disposal of the submarines, and the surface vessels, differed.

M Clemenceau states that he would agree to submit to President Wilson any proposal which might be put forward, but that he would never agree to the sinking or destruction of the warships.

Mr Balfour then states that the quotations from previous minutes of the Council are not sufficient authority for him to act upon; and that he proposes to send a telegram to Mr Lloyd George asking for further instructions.

Mr White and Mr Polk say that they would send a telegram in the same terms to President Wilson.

Mr Matsui says that he would ask Baron Makino to give him a statement of his impressions of the conversations that had been quoted.

(It is agreed that the discussion should be adjourned until the British and American Representatives should have communicated with their Governments.)


6. M Clemenceau states that Mr White has proposed the following Resolution:

“In view of the fact, that the Supreme Council has granted an additional delay of one week to the Austrians for submitting their answer to the Conditions of Peace handed to them on July 20th, it is suggested that the Secretary-General be requested to instruct the various committees dealing with Hungarian matters to take up and finish their reports for the Hungarian Treaty.”

(The draft Resolution is agreed to.)


7. M Berthelot stated that the Delegation of the Yugoslav State had sent a letter dated 28th July to the President of the Peace Conference asking to be heard on the subject of the Financial and Reparation clauses in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

M Clemenceau says it seems difficult to refuse the request.

S Scialoja draws the attention of the Council to the fact that the situation had changed since the letter had been sent. The Serbians had been given audience by the Committee, and had submitted a memorandum. This latter had been examined, and two requests out of the three had been acceded. The requests had been:

1) That they should be given cattle to compensate their losses in livestock;

2) That they should have the right to recover movable property carried into Bulgaria;

3) That they should take part in the deliberations of the Inter-Allied Reparation and Finance Committees in Bulgaria. The first two proposals had been granted but the third had been disallowed, since it would have created a precedent. Had it been granted, it would have been difficult to refuse similar requests made by other States, and endless disputes would have arisen.

It is decided that a report of the Economic Commission be awaited regarding the requests of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the subject of livestock, movable property and representation on the Inter-Allied Committees on Reparation and Finance.

The decision to refuse the request for audience of the above mentioned Delegation is maintained, and the Secretary-General is instructed to notify them to that effect.

(The Meeting then adjourns.)