[Sailor Steve]

Thursday, October 16, 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. Mr Polk says that a telegram has just been received from the Inter-Allied Military Mission at Budapest dated the 14th October. He desires that the telegram should be placed before the Council and be considered before the question of Sir George Clerk’s mission was discussed.

M Mantoux then reads the text of the telegram.

Mr Polk says that he wishes to call attention to the fact that the telegram expresses the opinion of the four Generals at Budapest. He thinks that the question of the reply should be considered at once. The telegram is addressed, not to the American delegation, but to the Supreme Council. If the telegram requires an answer, as he thinks it does, the question is to decide as to the nature of the answer.

M Pichon agrees that the telegram cannot be left unanswered. It is important that the demand of the Inter-Allied Military Mission should be fulfilled. He considers that the Generals should be given entire satisfaction.

Mr Polk says that at the same time that the telegram has been received his attention had been called to a press dispatch from Budapest, which states that it is rumored in both Austria and Hungary that the members of the Inter-Allied Military Mission are on the point of resigning, because they feel that they have not received adequate support from the Supreme Council.

M Pichon says he does not see how this demand can be made. In any event, it is important to beware of rumors. In point of fact, the Supreme Council has replied to the previous telegrams of the Inter-Allied Military Mission and has taken the views of the Mission into full consideration. Up to the present time the Inter-Allied Military Mission has never transmitted to the Council a telegram so precise in its statements and so far reaching in its consequences. He considers it essential to accede to the wishes of the Inter-Allied Military Mission, namely, that the Romanian Government should be asked to evacuate Hungary forthwith. He wishes to point out, however, the grave situation which will be almost certain to result in Hungary following the retirement of the Romanian army of occupation. The question of arming a police force of sufficient size to enforce order is not mentioned in the telegram, and the Military Mission has made no suggestions in regard to this matter. He asks whether the Military Mission has made any proposals relative to the organizing of a police force before the evacuation should take place.

Mr Polk pointed out that the Military Mission has already asked for 10,000 rifles for the purpose of organizing a police force.

M Pichon says that he had not been present at the last meeting of the Council where the subject had been discussed. He understands, however, that Sir George Clerk has already proposed the immediate evacuation of Hungary by the Romanian forces.

M de Saint Quentin says that Sir George Clerk has proposed the evacuation of Hungary by the Romanians, but that he had also insisted upon the necessity of the establishment of a Government which can maintain order and be recognized by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr Polk says that he does not understand that the report advocates that the Romanians should remain in Hungary until a stable Government is established.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that the Allied and Associated Governments have already addressed the Romanian Government on the subject of the evacuation of Hungary.

Mr Polk says that he thinks that the Council has already insisted that the Romanian military authorities form the police of Hungary and then withdraw. It is most important that the Romanians should not await the establishment of a suitable Government.

M Pichon asks who should give orders to the police.

Mr Polk says that the Inter-Allied Military Mission has already reported that the Government of Herr Friedrich are prepared to organize a police force.

M Pichon points out that the Council has already considered the draft of a telegram to H Friedrich telling him that he should withdraw and permit someone else to form a government.

Mr Polk says that he thinks it is important not to mix the two questions. So far as he is concerned, he is not in a position to accept a form of action which will enable the Roumanian forces to remain until a satisfactory Government had been established.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that the Allied and Associated Governments had already told the Romanian Government that they must withdraw their military forces from Hungary.

(He then reads an extract from the Note to the Romanian Government, in which a definite demand upon the Romanians to withdraw their military forces from Hungary is made.)

He says that he considers that it is most important to inform the Inter-Allied Military Mission at Budapest that this demand has been made of the Romanian Government.

M Pichon says that it is of equal importance to see that the Romanian Government carries out the measures in question.

Mr Polk says that he hopes that the matter could be cleared up. He wishes to ask whether the rifles are to be delivered to the Hungarian police at the present time, and whether the Romanian forces are to withdraw at the present time, whatever the Government in Hungary might be.

M Pichon replies in the affirmative.

S Scialoja asks whether the Inter-Allied Military Mission has been informed of the telegram sent to Bucharest.

M Pichon replies that they have not been informed, but that they ought to be informed immediately.

Mr Polk said that he understands that a decision has been taken at the meeting of the Council on the 11th October to inform the Inter-Allied Military Mission of the Note to the Romanian Government.

M Pichon says that the resolution has not been drafted in this sense, but that the decision should be communicated to the Inter-Allied Military Mission, as it would be the best reply to their telegram.

Mr Polk said that he wishes to express the hope that the Supreme Council would not forget that possibly six weeks ago, certainly four, the Romanian military authorities had been told to deliver the necessary rifles to the police. The Council are aware that the Romanians had never done this. Mr Misu had informed him that the Hungarians had plenty of rifles from Field Marshal Mackensen’s supply. In point of fact this was not the case. The Romanians are unwilling to carry out the wishes of the Supreme Council.

M Pichon says that Marshal Foch has been informed on the 10th October by Colonel Dimitrescu that the Romanian High Command had some time before placed at the disposal of Colonel Yates for the Hungarian gendarmerie 10,000 rifles and 40 machine guns. 1,000 rifles have already been delivered and the rest are guarded by Romanian troops until such time as they should be delivered. Colonel Dimitrescu adds that Colonel Yates, the United States Military Attaché at Bucharest, had been charged by the Inter-Allied Military Mission with the creation of a Hungarian gendarmerie. The Romanian troops have begun their withdrawal from Hungary.

Mr Polk said that in his opinion it was delightfully typical of the Romanians that of 10,000 rifles, 9,000 had not been delivered.

Sir George Clerk says that on the 20th September M. Diamandi and General Mardarescu had promised to turn over the rifles and machine guns for the use of the Hungarian gendarmerie. As far as he is aware they have not delivered a single rifle or machine gun.

Mr Polk says that they had delivered 1,000 rifles which might be useful for parade purposes, but which could not shoot.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that substantially there was no additional information in the telegram now before the Supreme Council. The point is that the Supreme Council has not communicated to the Generals the Note to the Romanian Government; that the Generals therefore are unaware when they sent this telegram of the steps that the Supreme Council had already taken. He has no desire to doubt the evidence of the Inter-Allied Mission, but the evidence is largely collected from Hungarian sources. For this reason he does not consider that their report is altogether satisfactory since the Romanians might have some explanation to make. In their telegram the Inter-Allied Military Mission mentioned the names of several towns as lying in territory which is to be ceded to Romania under the terms of the Treaty of Peace. As a matter of fact some of the towns in question would remain in Hungarian territory. He does not think that the report should be accepted as gospel.

Sir George Clerk says that he wishes to add that on the night before he left for Bucharest Mr Misu had come to see him. He had pointed out to Mr Misu how impossible the conduct of the Romanian authorities had been, as for example, in the case of the Museum at Budapest. Mr Misu then turned to Mr Vaida and asked him for the official explanation. Mr Vaida had then produced a telegram from his Government stating that the Romanian Government only wished to recover archives belonging to them which had been carried off to Budapest. He does not vouch for the truth of this explanation, which has not been investigated: it simply went to show that such incidents might have satisfactory explanations.

Mr Polk says that the explanation which the Romanians had made to the Inter-Allied Military Mission was that the material in question was Transylvanian property, and they wished to take it as they expected to acquire Transylvania. He wished to emphasize the point, however, that as the four Powers had sent four representatives to Budapest, there is no reason why the Romanians should not make their explanations to them. He feels that the Council should either accept the statements of the Generals or else recall them. Personally he had great faith in General Bandholtz. The fact that the Romanian Officials made their explanations outside of Budapest was decidedly unjust to the Inter-Allied Military Mission and placed them in an impossible position.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he agrees. He says further that the Council should insist that the explanation of the Romanian authorities should be made to the Inter-Allied Military Mission. The point which he had wished to raise was this: a note had been dispatched to the Romanian Government and the Council had not yet heard their side. He wishes to emphasize the necessity of waiting until a reply from the Romanian Government had been received, as he does not believe that conditions are any worse than the Council already knows them to be.

M Pichon says that the Council agrees as to the necessity of informing the Inter-Allied Military Mission of the note to the Romanian Government.

(It is decided to communicate to the Inter-Allied Military Mission at Budapest the text of the note from the Principal Allied and Associated Governments to the Romanian Government approved by the Supreme Council on the 11th October.


2. M Pichon says that Mr Polk has not considered it advisable to transmit a telegram to H Friedrich but to send a representative of the Council to Budapest. The instructions to be given to Sir George Clerk are contained in the draft telegram to H Friedrich which had been previously discussed by the Council.

Mr Polk says that he wishes to suggest two changes in the text. In the first paragraph it is stated that the Allies have waited in the hope that the Government of H Friedrich, recognizing its inability to meet the conditions required by the principal Allied and Associated Powers, would either include representatives of all parties in Hungary or withdraw from office. He thinks that instead of speaking of “all parties” it would be better to substitute the words, “the several parties”. In the second paragraph he wishes to suggest that the words “in the view of the Allied and Associated Powers” be omitted.

M Pichon says that it has been agreed to inform the Inter-Allied Military Mission in regard to Sir George Clerk’s departure for Budapest. He thinks that Sir George Clerk should be charged to inform the Generals as to the discussion which had taken place in the Council on that day and to inform them that the Council are resolved to do all that is necessary to make the Romanian Government follow the line of action which had been decided upon.

(At this point Sir George Clerk leaves the meeting.)

Mr Polk says that he wishes to raise a question which he had hesitated to mention in Sir George Clerk’s presence. He understands that as Sir George Clerk is proceeding to Budapest as a representative of the principal Allied and Associated Powers the necessary expenses in connection with his mission, amounting to whatever sum Sir George Clerk in his discretion might consider necessary and proper, would be paid by the Allied and Associated Powers.

M Pichon says that he thinks that the British Government should pay the necessary expenses and that the amount in question should then be divided between the Powers interested.

Mr Polk said that Sir George Clerk is going to Budapest as the representative of the Supreme Council and it would be unfortunate if the impression should obtain in Romania or Hungary that the Council are dissatisfied with the Inter-Allied Military Mission. He thinks that a formal statement should be made to the four Generals which should contain the reasons why Sir George Clerk is going to Budapest.

M Pichon says that the Council has already decided to notify the four Generals at Budapest of Sir George Clerk’s mission.

Mr Polk points out that Sir George Clerk’s mission will be known to the press.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that Sir George Clerk is being sent to Budapest because it has been thought inadvisable by sending a telegram to give the appearance of mixing in the internal affairs of Hungary.

M Pichon said that he does not approve of giving any statement to the press. In any mention of Sir George Clerk’s mission, he will only be referred to as being charged with a special mission to Budapest on behalf of the Supreme Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks that Sir George Clerk’s date of departure might be fixed for the following Saturday.

(It was decided:

(1) That Sir George Clerk should proceed to Budapest as the special representative of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers;

(2) That Sir George Clerk should be directed to communicate with the several Hungarian political parties and that in his mission he should be guided by the spirit of the views of the Allied and Associated Powers as expressed in the draft telegram to H Friedrich, with the following alterations in the text: for the words “all parties” (Line 12) the words “the several parties” should be substituted, and in lines 17 and 18 “in the view of the Allied and Associated Powers” should be omitted;

(3) That Sir George Clerk should inform the four Generals at Budapest of the Discussion which had taken place in the Supreme Council on that day and that the Council are resolved to do all that was necessary to make the Romanian Government follow the line of action required of them;

(4) That such funds as Sir George Clerk might, in his discretion, consider necessary and proper for the expenses of the mission should be paid by the British Government and subsequently shared by the Principal Allied and Associated Governments;

(5) That the Inter-Allied Military Mission at Budapest should be notified by telegraph of Sir George Clerk’s mission;

(6) That the only statement which should be made with regard to Sir George Clerk’s mission is that he has been dispatched to fulfill a special mission at Budapest on behalf of the Supreme Council.)


3. The Council has before it a Note of the 10th October from M Politis to M Clemenceau.

M de Saint Quentin reads and comments upon the note in question.

M Pichon says that he thinks it is a difficult matter for the Council to give instructions from Paris. If witnesses had given testimony under a promise of secrecy, he did not see how the Council could absolve the commission from the promises which they might have made.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that the Council had made an engagement to Mr Venizelos.

S Scialoja says that when the Council had given the undertaking to Mr Venizelos they were not aware that the Commission had promised certain witnesses that their testimony would be held as secret.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he has just received a telegram from the British High Commissioner at Constantinople on the subject. The telegram confirms the fact that the Commission had decided to take certain evidence in private for the purpose of obtaining reliable information and avoiding reprisals. A definite promise had been made to certain witnesses. On the other hand, the Council had given an undertaking to the Greek Government.

M Pichon says that the Council are not to blame for what had occurred. He thinks the only possible compromise is to inform the Greek Delegation that the testimony taken after the instructions of the Supreme Council had been received would be placed at the disposal of the Greek Government. The Supreme Council are not in a position to give an undertaking as to previous promises made by the Commission of Inquiry.

Sir Eyre Crowe agrees that this compromise would seem the best means of solving the difficulty.

Mr Polk asks as to the nature of the promise made by the Supreme Council.

M de Saint Quentin said that the undertaking in question was contained in a resolution of the Supreme Council.

(It is decided: that, owing to pledges of secrecy given by the Commission of Inquiry at Smyrna to certain witnesses, the Commission be not obliged to communicate to the representative of the Greek Government, in its entirety, the evidence given by these witnesses before the receipt of the terms of the resolution of the 30th September.


4. The Council has before it a Note from the British Delegation of the 15th October.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the question is not one great importance. The Austrian Delegation had asked that the Austrian Prisoners of war held in Great Britain should be repatriated. There were only 36 officers and 135 others in Great Britain and the British Government saw no reason for refusing the request of the Austrian Delegation. It would probably be possible to repatriate the prisons in question with German prisoners. There was also a small number of Hungarian prisoners in Great Britain and the British Military Authorities were anxious that these should be repatriated at the present time. Repatriation of Austrian and Hungarian Prisoners in Great Britain and Japan

Mr Matsui asks whether the Council has any objections to the Japanese Government repatriating the small number of Austrian and Hungarian prisoners in their hands.

(It is decided that there is no objection to the immediate repatriation of the Austrian and Hungarian prisoners of war in Great Britain and Japan.)


5. Sir Eyre Crowe says that the Council has just addressed a stiff note to the Romanian Government which asked them, in effect, whether or not they are prepared to accept the guidance of the Supreme Council. He desires to call attention to the fact that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government had not signed the Treaty of Peace with Austria or the Minorities Treaty. At the present time there is a ministerial crisis at Belgrade. He had hoped that the moderate element would come into power, but at the moment it looks as if the intransigent element are about to come into power. If the matter were brought to a head at the present time the effect would be to strengthen the hands of the elements in Yugoslavia who are most anxious to cooperate with the Allied and Associated Powers. He suggests that at an early date a communication be addressed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government inquiring whether or not they are prepared to sign the Treaties.

M Pichon says that he agrees with the opinion of Sir Eyre Crowe and thinks that action should be taken at once.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he has prepared a rough draft of a note to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government. He does not mean that the draft should be accepted as final but he simply wishes to refer it to his colleagues for their consideration as a possible basis of discussion.


6. Mr Polk says that at the meeting of the Council of the 11th October Marshal Foch had raised the question of two Commissions to deal with subjects relating to Russian prisoners of war Germany. With reference to the resolution in the Minutes of the meeting in question he desires to make it quite clear that the United States cannot be committed to incur any expense. No American representative on the Commissions in question, or on any other Commission, can commit his Government to a financial obligation. The matter would first have to be brought before the Council and receive his approval.

The Council takes note of Mr Polk’s remarks with reference to Resolution No 4, to the effect that the American representative on the Commissions dealing with questions relating to Russian prisoners of war, and American representatives on all Commissions, cannot bind their Government to financial obligations unless the subjects in question had been brought before the Supreme Council and received Mr Polk’s approval.

(The meeting then adjourns.)