[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, November 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 10:30

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


1. Marshal Foch informs the Council that he has received a telegram from General Niessel, dated November 23rd. According to this telegram the Germans are carrying out their evacuation by the Chavli-Tauroggen railroad. The Lithuanians, in spite of instructions received from General Niessel, had crossed that line at several points and attacked the Germans. In order to parry this attack General Niessel had dispatched Allied and German officers and hoped to succeed in checking the Lithuanians. In spite of this, the German Government has ordered troops to cross the frontier in order to protect the railroad, although they had been told not to send any additional troops to that district. One train had already passed through. General Niessel desires the Council to make strong representations to the German Government. He proposes to send a telegram to General Niessel telling him that he has full power to take whatever measures seem to him fitting and that any action on the part of the Council seems calculated only to retard a satisfactory solution.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks if any news has been received from General Niessel regarding an armistice between the Germans and the Letts. He had received a somewhat obscure telegram from the Admiralty, evidently to the effect that there is such an armistice.

General Weygand says he does not think so. The last news received from General Niessel was that he had meant to go to Riga, but felt that his presence was necessary further south, especially as the Letts seemed able to hold their own against the Germans.

(It is decided to approve the terms of the draft telegram prepared by Marshal Foch to be sent to General Niessel.)


2. On the subject of Allowances to Personnel of Administrative, Government, and Plebiscite Commissions, Mr White refers to the resolution adopted by the Council at its previous meeting and announces that he accepts the proposals of the report in question.


3. M Berthelot informs the Council that the Romanian answer has not yet actually arrived. General Coanda, who is bringing this answer is on his way to Paris. According to the Romanian calculation the time within which their answer was to be delivered only expired at noon of that day. Although, according to the idea of the Council that time had expired on Sunday, it seemed expedient to wait until General Coanda arrived, an event which would take place at any moment. In the meantime, a strong speech from the Romanian throne had indicated that under no conditions is Romania willing to permit a rupture between herself and the Allied and Associated Powers. Mr Antonescu has confirmed this information.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that a real difficulty exists. He has heard from the British Representative at Bucharest that the Council’s note had not been presented by the 22nd of November. The Council in discussing the draft note had changed several words and decided that the Romanians were to have eight days from the presentation of the note. If then it had not been presented on the 22nd November the time could not be considered to have expired.

M Berthelot informs the Council that he has received a telegram from the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest dated November 21st to the effect that the latter had received the first and last parts of the Council’s note to the Romanian Government. An important part is still lacking and is being awaited before the note was presented. Mr Misu, however, already knows the substance of the note through General Coanda. The French Chargé d’Affaires has made urgent representations to the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs as to the gravity of the situation, which permitted of no delay, and had told him that the Romanian Government must declare itself ready to sign the Minorities Treaty unreservedly in consideration always of the assurance given by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in their note of the 12th October that they would examine certain modifications as to form. Mr Misu had replied to the French Chargé d’Affaires that he would prepare a reply of that tenor and would do his utmost to obtain a favorable consideration of the matter from the King and Council of Ministers.

Sir Eyre Crowe reminds the Council that the Romanians had been told that they could not sign the Bulgarian Treaty until they had signed the Austrian Treaty.

As they cannot sign the Austrian Treaty within the two ensuing days he does not see how they could sign the Bulgarian Treaty on November 27th.

M Berthelot suggests that a protocol can be signed, as had been the case at the time of signing the Austrian Treaty, giving the Romanians additional time within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty. That time might be fixed at a week.

S de Martino agrees that the Council should take no further action towards Romania until the Romanian reply had been received.

M Berthelot points out that all indications are that the Romanians are certainly going to sign. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government is prepared to sign the Treaty with Austria as well as the Minorities Treaty and the financial arrangements. The Drafting Committee has prepared a draft agreement of adhesion to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government which will be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain. With respect to the Romanians the situation is different. The Minorities Treaty concerning Romania has not yet been signed by anybody. Some modifications as to form would be made in this Minorities Treaty in order to meet certain views of the Romanians. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers therefore cannot sign this Treaty until the final terms thereof have been settled after consultation with the Romanian Representatives.

Sir Eyre Crowe feels that the Romanians must give an unequivocal agreement to sign the Minorities Treaty, taking into consideration the fact that certain modifications in their favor might be made therein.

M Cambon suggests that after the receipt of the Romanian reply the Romanian Delegation be given a week from Nov. 27 within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty, and that within that week the Minorities Treaty should be put into final form after conference with the Romanian representatives; that said Treaty, as well as the Treaty of Saint Germain and the agreements related thereto, be signed by Romania within that week.

M Berthelot reads the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government.

(It is decided:

(1) That in connection with the signing of the Treaty with Bulgaria on November 27th a protocol be prepared allowing the interested Powers to sign said Treaty with Bulgaria within one week from November 27th:

(2) That within one week from November 27th Romania should sign the Treaty with Austria, the Minorities Treaty, and the financial arrangements.

(3) To accept the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation;

(4) That the agreement of adhesion when signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain.


4. The Council has before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the Minorities Treaty.

M Kammerer comments upon the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation and states that, on the whole, this note is satisfactory. He points out that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation had presented its interpretation of the clauses relative to freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce, which were involved in Article 51 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, and had stated that in the absence of a contrary reply from the Council it would consider that its interpretation was correct. He thinks that the Serbian interpretation is, in fact, correct and he therefore proposes that no reply be sent to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. The question can therefore be considered settled.

(It is decided that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are in full agreement with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation as to the interpretation of the Minorities Treaty, and that said Treaty be at once presented to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation for signature.


5. The Council has before it the Bulgarian reply regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria, dated November 23rd.

M Kammerer comments upon this note from the Bulgarian Delegation and states that it is entirely satisfactory. The Bulgarian Delegation has asked for explanations with respect to two points. The Committee on New States agreed with the Bulgarian interpretation of these points. A satisfactory answer consisting of a few lines could be sent to the Bulgarian Delegation. A more serious question was the form of the Treaty. The United States representative had raised some question as to his Government’s being able to sign, and the Japanese delegate had thereupon stated that in such an event, his Government might likewise be unable to sign. The Drafting Committee considers that the Treaty between Bulgaria and Greece relative to reciprocal immigration is in no way dependent upon the signature of the Bulgarian Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. In fact Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Bulgarian Treaty itself, makes that point clear. In order to meet the difficulty the Drafting Committee proposes the following solution: The Supreme Council should reach a decision which will be inserted in the preamble of the Greco-Bulgarian Treaty; for technical reasons it is preferable that this decision be dated Thursday, November 27th. The wording of the proposed decision is as follows:

“In view of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers deem it fitting that the reciprocal and voluntary immigration of ethnical, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece and Bulgaria should be settled by a convention concluded between these two Powers in the terms decided upon on this date.”

The foregoing solution represents the unanimous opinion of the Committee on New States, with the exception that the Italian representative makes the reservation that S de Martino would have to give a final opinion on this point.

S de Martino says that he has already expressed his opinion that for reasons of general interest it is advisable that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign this Treaty. The decisions already taken by the Council relative to affairs in the Balkans seem to him to have created many opportunities for trouble in the future. As a general thing he feels that those Powers who are directly interested in maintaining peace in the Balkans should participate more actively in Balkan affairs. However, as it was of great importance that the present question be settled without further delay, he is willing to withdraw his reservation on that occasion.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Secretary General of the Conference reply to the Bulgarian Delegation that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are in agreement with the Bulgarian interpretation of the Treaty regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria;

(2) To adopt the following resolution, to be dated as of November 27th, 1919, and to be inserted in the preamble of the Treaty between Greece and Bulgaria regarding reciprocal immigration:

“In view of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers deem it fitting that the reciprocal and voluntary immigration of ethnical, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece and Bulgaria should be settled by a convention concluded between these two Powers in the terms decided upon on this date.”)


6. The Council has before it a draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.

M Cambon reads the draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.

(It is decided to adopt the draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.)


7. M Cambon reads the resolution adopted by the Council at its preceding meeting (H. D. 99, Minute 5). The resolution had provided that the Council reserves to itself the final approval thereof until a further examination.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he accepts the text as read.

Mr White proposes that paragraph 3 of the resolution be modified to read as follows:

“that, prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preliminary studies by a special technical committee shall be made at This committee shall be composed of representatives of both Poland and Danzig with the addition of the Allied representative at Danzig. These technical studies, which may serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for under paragraph 2, shall be forwarded to Paris by this committee not later than one month after the coming into force of the Treaty.”

Sir Eyre Crowe asks what the object is in the change suggested by Mr White. He wishes to know if the word technical is intended to exclude anyone.

Mr White replies that it is not.

M Cambon said that he likewise is unable to understand the proposed change.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks if this excludes the preparation of a draft Treaty.

Mr White says that the object of the proposed change is merely to make it clear that only preliminary studies should take place at Danzig.

Mr Dulles calls attention to the fact that preliminary discussions have already taken place at Warsaw. If the resolution provides that preliminary discussions should take place at Danzig it might imply the removal of the discussions from Warsaw to Danzig. The Poles and the inhabitants of Danzig both recognize that technical studies must take place at Danzig. He also calls attention to the fact that in the change proposed by Mr White a time limit of one month after the coming into force of the Treaty is specified.

Sir Eyre Crowe observes that it has been proposed to hold these preliminary discussions at Warsaw. That proposition had been rejected and a request had been made on the previous day that these discussions be transferred to Paris. He had then proposed that the preliminary discussions be held at Danzig. He further adds that the change proposed by the American Delegation contemplates that the Committee engaged in preliminary studies should report direct to the Supreme Council. He feels that this procedure was not correct and that as a matter of form it is the Allied Representative at Danzig who should address the Supreme Council. He also feels that one month might prove to be too short a time within which to submit the report in question.

Mr Dulles remarks that discussions had already begun. Therefore by the time the Treaty comes into force a further delay of one month might well prove sufficient. He quite agrees that the Representative of the Allies could and should address himself directly to the Supreme Council but he thinks that the Committee charged with the preliminary studies should also be able to do so.

M Cambon suggests that paragraph 3 be modified to read as follows:

“that prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preparatory studies of a technical nature and preliminary discussions, to which the Allied Representative in the free city of Danzig should be a party, take place at Danzig. Within a maximum delay of two months after the coming into force of the Treaty the said Representative should send to Paris, together with a report, the proposals which would have been prepared at Danzig and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in the preceding paragraph.”

Mr White agrees to that modification if it is satisfactory to the Poles.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that under the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Germany that is a matter for the decision of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers only.

M Cambon says that the Poles are interested in making preliminary studies and in participating in discussions, but they are not entitled to decide finally the question involved.

Mr White wonders what the result will be if the Poles should refuse to accept the plan proposed.

M Cambon inquires whether Mr White really expects such a refusal on their part. He points out that the Poles had asked to have the negotiations transferred to Paris, and their request had been granted. All that is necessary was to tell the Poles that it has been decided to grant their request.

M Berthelot observes that certain questions necessarily have to be studied on the spot. He thinks, however, that the Council can reach a decision on that day and if necessary communicate it to the Poles. If the Poles have any observations to present, the Council can, he thinks, decide on the following day whether or not to take them into account.

Mr White says that Danzig had been taken away from Germany and made a free city not so much for the good of the inhabitants of Danzig as for the benefit of the population of Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks Mr White what action he thinks should be taken in case the Poles do not accept the plan proposed. Is it his intention that the Council should yield to the Poles?

Mr White thinks that the matter can then be discussed again.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that there is no point in that as the Council alone is charged with the duty of deciding.

S de Martino points out that in all probability the Poles will willingly accept this plan.

Mr White feels that he can only accept the resolution proposed after hearing the view of the Poles.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that means not coming to a decision.

(After some further discussion, it is decided:

(1) To accept textually the first two paragraphs of the resolution taken at the preceding meeting of the Council (H. D. 99, Minute 5, November 24th, 1919);

(2) That the third paragraph of said resolution be modified to read as follows:

“that prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preparatory studies of a technical nature and preliminary discussions, to which the Allied Representative in the free city of Danzig should be a party, take place at Danzig. Within a maximum delay of two months after the coming into force of the Treaty the said Representative should send to Paris, together with a report, the proposals which would have been prepared at Danzig and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in the preceding paragraph.”

(3) That the entire resolution be communicated on that day to the Polish Delegation, and that if said Delegation has any observations to present the Council will examine them at an early meeting.


8. The Council has before it a letter dated November 15th from General Tcherbatcheff regarding Russian war material and supplies left in Romania.

M Berthelot points out that General Tcherbatcheff’s note alludes to a joint letter of the Ministers Plenipotentiary of France, England, the United States and Italy, dated March 3rd, 1918. As the text of that joint letter is not available he has telegraphed to the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest to obtain the same. He thinks it would be well to await the receipt of that joint letter and to examine the same before taking any action on General Tcherbatcheff’s note.

(This is agreed to)

(The meeting then adjourns)