100 Years Ago Today

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, October 20, 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. M Pichon desires to refer to the minutes of the meeting of the Council of October 16th and reads the following, question of Mr. Polk.

“Mr. Polk said that he hoped that the matter could be cleared up. He wished to ask whether the rifles were to be delivered to the Hungarian police at the present time and whether the Romanian forces were to withdraw at the present time, whatever the Government in Hungary might be.

Pichon replied in the affirmative.”

He states that he wishes to make his position clear in this respect. He means that he agreed that the rifles in question are to be delivered to the Hungarian gendarmerie at the present time, but with reference to the withdrawal of the Romanians he feels that this matter should wait upon the receipt of a reply to the Council’s note to the Romanian Government and upon the report to be made by Sir George Clerk. He feels that this is the sense of the whole discussion.

Mr Polk says that he understands that the Council and the Allied Generals had already directed the Romanians to withdraw and that, therefore, there is no reason to have their withdrawal wait upon the receipt of a reply to the Council’s note to the Romanian Government, or upon a report from Sir George Clerk.

M Pichon says that he only wants to make his own opinion clear.

Mr Polk desires to ascertain the Council’s opinion. The Allied Generals have directed the Romanians to withdraw and they had been supported in this action by the Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe observes that a demand for withdrawal is contained in the note sent to the Romanian Government and that the Council are awaiting an answer thereto.

M Pichon replies that this is so, but thinks that it is important to receive the reply of the Romanian Government in order to know what it would be most practical to do.

Mr Polk points out that the Romanians have been directed to withdraw prior to the sending of the note. He reads from the minutes of the meeting the question asked by him, above referred to, and explains that what he means was that it was the duty of the Romanians to withdraw at once without waiting for any conference with Sir George Clerk.


2. The Council has before it a draft communication of the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government relative to the signature of Peace with Austria.

Mr Polk states that he wishes to read the draft note to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government in order satisfy himself as to questions of form only, and the he will communicate his conclusions thereupon to Sir Eyre Crowe later in the day. Communication to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government Relative to the Signature of Peace With Austria

It is decided to approve the draft communication from the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government relative to the signature of peace with Austria subject to the reservation that Mr Polk will examine this draft further with reference to questions of form and would communicate his conclusions to Sir Eyre Crowe.


3. Sir Eyre Crowe says that it has been reported to him that as a result of the situation at Kiga the Allied Naval Armistice Commission has decided temporarily to stop the movement of all German ships in the Baltic. Formerly it was necessary to obtain the Commission’s permission for German ships to navigate but the Commission now proposes to suspend the granting of all such permissions. He wishes to know if the Supreme Council agrees to this action.

M Pichon says that the Council will take note of it.

Mr Polk inquires whether this will apply to all German ships in the Baltic regardless of where they might be.

Sir Eyre Crowe replies that this is the case, the reason being that if ships are allowed to go out of the harbors where they now were there is no telling what their destination might be.

Mr Polk feels that if the Armistice Commission have taken such action it is quite all right.

Sir Eyre Crowe adds that a British ship had been fired on by the Germans and twice hit.

(The council notes with approval the action of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission.)


4. The Council has before it a report from the Supreme War Council relative to supplies to be furnished the Polish Army.

General Belin states that the Council had agreed on all the points embraced in this report, with the reservation by the American Representative to the effect that his Government could at the present moment not participate in any way in furnishing supplies to Poland.

S Tittoni observes that a Polish Committee for the purchase of war material had been in contact with his Government and he hopes that the participation by Italy in the furnishing of supplies recommended under the terms of the War Council’s report would not interrupt the activities of this Polish Purchasing Committee in Italy.

General Belin observes that the same situation exists in France. General Le Rond calls attention to the deficiency which would exist even if the recommendations contained in the report of the Supreme War Council were fully carried out. Marshal Foch had made it clear that 600,000 sets of warm clothing were urgently necessary for the Polish Army. The Marshal had shown that it was a political as well as a military necessity to furnish this clothing immediately to the Polish Army but it now appeared that only 200,000 sets of warm clothing could possibly be sent to the Polish Army; likewise, it is evident that no Power can supply sufficient rolling stock to Poland in accordance with the recommendations of the report. Anything that any Power might be able to do over and above the contribution allotted to it by this report would be of the greatest possible benefit. The gravest problem necessarily is that of clothing; if the Polish Army does not receive partially adequate clothing before the setting in of a rigorous winter it was extremely liable to become imbued with the dangerous revolutionary doctrines by which they were surrounded.

Mr Polk desires to ask the officers present if they think that an army of the present size is a necessity to Poland.

General Le Rond agrees with Mr Polk’s underlying idea that the Polish army should be reduced to such a size as would be consistent with military necessity, but a question of fact was presented in that the Polish Government was obliged to clothe even those men who were now under arms and who might later be demobilized.

S Tittoni feels that a reduction in the size of the Polish army is inevitable. He recalls that when Mr Paderewski was last heard before the Council he had made it very clear that it would be impossible for Poland to continue to pay an army of that size. The Council feels that no Power or Powers can undertake the financial burden necessary for the maintenance of the Polish army, and the examination of the question had been postponed. His immediate concern, however, is not Bolshevism, for he feels that this is rapidly tending to become less dangerous.

General Le Rond thinks that it is somewhat premature to dismiss the question of the danger of Bolshevism thus lightly.

S Tittoni reiterates that the size of the Polish army must be reduced as there is no way of paying it.

Mr Polk calls attention to the fact that according to a prior report on this question 100,000 new men were being called to the colors in November and 75,000 additional men would be called up in January and March.

General Le Rond inquires whether the number of men demobilized is also shown in this report. It is a fact that the Poles have released a considerable number of the older classes.

M Pichon points out that in a recent debate in the Polish Diet the Minister of War had promised that a substantial number of men would shortly be demobilized: this, however, is dependent upon the situation in Russia, and according to latest advice, the end of the Soviet regime can hardly be predicted as likely to occur prior to the month of March. It will be highly imprudent therefore to cease taking serious precautions. Certainly every effort must be made to clothe the Polish army at once.

Mr Polk says there is no doubt of that.

General Belin points out that the report of the Supreme War Council has taken account of the fact that an additional effort relative to the supply of the Polish army might have to be made; it was for this reason that the report had specified that the general basis of its recommendations was a momentary one.

Sir Eyre Crowe desires to point out that if the British are to be asked to make a further effort with respect to supplying the Polish army it should be remembered what had already been done by them; for instance, the British practically alone had undertaken the complete supply of the forces in southern Russia.

(It is decided to accept the report submitted by the Supreme War Council relative to aid to be given to the Polish army and to transmit this report to Marshal Foch for execution.)


5. The Council has before it a draft proclamation of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission.

M Tirarp explained that this proclamation would be published on the day the Treaty entered into force. He points out that in the first and second paragraphs of this proclamation mention was made only of the Allied Powers; if the United States should decide to designate a representative on this Commission the words “and Associated” could be added to the words “the Allied Powers” at the last moment.

Mr Polk said that the point could not be answered on that day. He would immediately transmit the draft of this document to his Government for its approval.

(It is decided to adopt the draft proclamation of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission, with the reservations that Mr. Polk would submit this document to his Government for approval, and that in case the United States Government should communicate a decision to designate a representative on the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission, the words “and Associated” should be added in the first and second paragraphs to the words “The Allied Powers”.)


6. The Council has before it a draft form of letter to be signed by the President of the United States calling the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, a draft letter from the President of the Conference to the Spanish Ambassador at Paris, and a draft letter from the President of the Conference to the chief delegate of the United States of America, the British Empire, Japan, Belgium, Brazil and Greece.

M Fromageot reads and comments on these three draft letters and points out that it is most important to have the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations take place at the very hour when the Treaty comes into effect and in the same place. Taking up the question of the Sarre territory, as an example, he shows that there is no obligation under the Treaty to appoint a Sarre Commission within any given time, but that if this is not done this district would be without any Government whatsoever, inasmuch as all German authority ceases the moment the Treaty comes into force.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarks that the same thing applied to Danzig.

M Fromageot says that this is not quite so in form, although substantially it is so.

Mr Polk states that he has already cabled the draft of the convocation of the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to Washington.

Sir Eyre Crowe agrees to the necessity of having the first meeting take place at the moment the Treaty comes into effect, but he is not so convinced of the necessity of having the first meeting in Paris. The essential machinery actually existed and is in London.

S Tittoni states that he has just received from the Secretary General at London the agenda for the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. There are two alternative agenda possible: if the United States were not represented at the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations this meeting should take place in Paris and could only concern itself with the nomination of members of the Commission of Delimitation of the Sarre Territory; whereas, if the United States should be represented at this meeting it should take place in London and the agenda would then comprise numerous questions which would necessitate protracted action.

M Pichon points out that the agenda received by S Tittoni can only be a draft. The question of the place where the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations should take place can only be decided here by the Supreme Council because Sir Eric Drummond cannot act officially as General Secretary of the League of Nations before the Treaty came into force. Up to the present time all official meetings with reference to the organization of the League of Nations have taken place in Paris. M Clemenceau and Colonel House had agreed that the first meeting should be in Paris.

Sir Eyre Crowe states that he is not aware of any such agreement.

M Fromageot points out that it would be most unfortunate to have nothing but the question of the Sarre Delimitation Commission on the agenda of the first meeting.

M Pichon says that President Wilson has agreed to call the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Paris.

Mr Polk says that he is not objecting, but that he had never known that there was such an agreement. He thought, in fact, that it was better to have the first meeting here in Paris, but that he was quite unaware that there had been an agreement to that effect. He could recall nothing further than that at a meeting between MM. Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Tittoni and the Japanese Ambassador the matter had been discussed. He had never seen the letter in question from Colonel House to M Clemenceau, except insofar as he had seen press reports thereof, and he did not think that President Wilson was committed by this letter.

M Pichon remarks that if Mr Polk has already cabled to Washington, there is nothing to do but to await a reply.

(It is decided:

(1) To adopt the draft form of letter, to be signed by President Wilson, convoking the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations;


(2) To adjourn the consideration of the question of an unofficial meeting of the Council of the League of Nations.


7. Mr. Polk summarizes a letter from the Commanding General of the American Forces in Germany recommending that the cost of transportation to and maintenance in the United States of German subjects convicted of serious offences, entailing a sentence of confinement of five years or more, against members of the American Forces or against the property or authority of the American Forces in Germany, be deemed a proper charge against the German Government as an item in the cost of maintenance of troops of occupation. Cost of Transportation to and Maintenance in the United States of German Subjects Convicted of Serious Offences Against Members of the American Forces or Against the Property or Authority of American Forces in Germany

(It is decided to refer this question to the Drafting Committee.)


8. The Council has before it a report from the Drafting Committee relative to the enforcement of unfulfilled armistice clauses after the entrance into force of the Treaty and to affirmative means of action available to the Allied and Associated Powers.

M Fromageot reads and comments upon this report.

Mr Polk asks whether a pacific blockade could be imposed by any other body than the League of Nations.

M Fromageot says that the Covenant does provide means of pressure but his Committee is considering the question independently of the provisions with respect to the League of Nations and rather from the point of view of action to be taken by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr Polk queries whether economic pressure could not be exerted by the Separation Commission? What he chiefly desires to ascertain is what is the quickest means of bringing pressure to bear on Germany?

M Fromageot said that apart from a blockade there could be effective interdiction of commerce as well as financial measures. Furthermore there are additional means of bringing pressure to bear, for instance, it might be provided that German goods and German freights should be subjected to a severe surtax which could go towards the payment of Germany’s debt for reparations. He adds that if certain Powers have objections to a pacific blockade these objections could only be valid in so far as they emanate from Powers that had ratified the Treaty. Powers who had not ratified could declare a blockade and could take measures amounting to interdiction of commerce while requesting that the Powers which had ratified the Treaty should coordinate with them.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarks that Mr Polk’s question is not as to what measures might be taken but as to who might take them.

M Fromageot replies that the principal Allied and Associated Powers can do so. He adds that an additional means of exerting pressure is the occupation of German territory, for which there are clear precedents, for instance, the occupation of the Duchy of Schleswig and of Mitylene. Finally there remains the possibility of retaining prisoners until the Germans should fulfill all of their obligations arising out of the armistice.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that there are a good many practical questions remaining to be settled. Certainly the various Commissions charged with the supervision of the execution of the terms of the armistice should report on the terms of the Armistice which still remained unfulfilled and submit these reports to the Council. He says that he knows offhand several unfulfilled clauses, for instance, the naval clauses.

M Berthelot suggests that each Committee charged with the supervision of execution of the Armistice clauses should be asked to report within four days on any unfulfilled clauses coming within their jurisdiction.

(It is decided:

(1) That Marshal Foch and the competent Commissions (The Allied Armistice Commission at Cologne, the Allied Naval Armistice Commission at London, the Financial Commission) should report to the Council within four days all clauses of the Armistice still remaining unfulfilled;

(2) That Sir Eyre Crowe should take the necessary measures to secure this report from the Allied Naval Armistice Commission.


9. The Council has before it a letter from General Nollet to President Clemenceau, dated Berlin, October 9th, 1919.

Colonel Roye states the substance of this letter to the council.

M Pichon asks if there are any objections to the recommendations contained in this letter.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Council already has certain officers fulfilling certain functions, and that according to these functions their allowances had been regulated. Now another principle was being introduced; that of payment according to military rank.

Colonel Rote states that General Nollet recommended these allowances because he intends to use these two Generals on special missions.

M Pichon thinks that it was not a question of rank, as Sir Eyre Crowe had indicated. These two officers are to be given these allowances not because they are Generals but because they are heads of delegations.

Mr Polk says that the whole theory of allowances is being brought up in this question and that the Council is not really competent now to decide this question. It should be referred to Versailles.

S Tittoni asked if there are any other officers in this situation.

M Pichon says that there probably are not.

S Tittoni thinks that in that case no precedent will be created.

Mr Polk points out that anything done now will surely constitute a precedent with respect to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria.

M Pichon thinks that under the circumstances the best thing to do is to refer the matter back to General Nollet asking him for further information and recommendations, having in mind all the consequences that might result from the granting of allowances in these particular cases.

(It is decided to refer the question of monthly allowances to be assigned to General Officers, members of Inter-Allied Commissions of Control in Germany, who were Chairmen of neither Commissions nor Sub-Commissions to General Nollet for further information and recommendations.)


10. The Council has before it a note of protest from the Greek Delegation against the decision taken by the British Command to transport to Constantinople Turkish heavy artillery and munitions left in the Greek zone of occupation in Asia Minor.

M Berthelot, in commenting on the Greek protest, points out that the Greeks have no right to the matériel in question; they have only obtained the same by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Council which allowed them to occupy the Smyrna district to maintain order there. On the other hand, as the Turks are being disarmed, they should not have this matériel either. It belongs to the reparation fund. He thinks it might be best to approve the decision of the British Command, with the understanding that this matériel should be received and held in the name of the Allied Powers.

(It is decided to approve the decision of the British Command to transport to Constantinople Turkish heavy artillery and munitions left in the Greek zone of occupation in Asia Minor, on the understanding that this materiel be received and held in the name of the Allied Powers.)


11. The Council has before it a note from the French Delegation on the repatriation of troops from Siberia.

Mr Polk asks if it is settled as to who should pay the expenses of repatriation.

S Tittoni observes that this is a different question; the only thing now to be decided is the order in which the troops were to be repatriated.

Mr Polk thinks he has no objection as to the order in which the troops were to be repatriated, but he did not wish the question to be decided on that day. He recalls that he had heard that local conditions in Siberia made it inadvisable, for instance, to repatriate all the Czechoslovak troops first.

M Berthelot wishes to add, for the information of the Council, that it is understood that the French will bear the expenses of repatriation arising in Siberia, and that the British would bear the expense of sea transportation; afterwards a division of expenses would be made. He adds that after considerable discussion Dr Benes promised him that the Czechoslovak Government will pay at least half of the expenses of the repatriation of the Czechoslovak troops, and, if possible, will do even better. There remains still unsettled the question of whether the United States will pay a part of the expenses.

Mr Polk says that the difficulty now is that his Government is prepared to pay a lump sum, but there is a question whether France and England can contribute.

(It is decided to adjourn the discussion and decision of this question.)

(The meeting then adjourns)

[Jimbuna]

21st October 1919

Two men of the Australian Flying Corps attempt to make the first aerial trip from Britain to Australia on a Sopwith Wallaby (the attempt fails when they crash land in Bali on 17 April 1920)

[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, October 21, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

22nd October 1919

John Cyril Porte, a British pioneer in developing flying boats, dies at the age of 35 due to tuberculosis.

[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, October 22, 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. Sir Eyre Crowe says that he wishes to bring to the attention of the Council a telegram which has just been received, according to which a German aeroplane had made a forced landing in the neighborhood of Kovno. This aeroplane carried German civilian pilots and three passengers, one of whom was Russian and the other two Turkish; this aeroplane was travelling from Berlin to Moscow and was being held until further orders.


2. Sir Eyre Crowe wishes to bring to the notice of the Council the fact that the British Government, called upon by a number of Delegates, is making every effort to secure berths for Delegates who wanted to proceed to Washington in connection with the Labor Congress, but is not absolutely sure of securing same. He would make every effort for this purpose; perhaps the Council can give direct orders to the Allied Maritime Transport Executive.

Mr Polk says that he feels the same way, and has already cabled to Washington asking whether it would be possible to take care of these Delegates on transports which are sailing from Brest within the next few days; he doubts, however, whether this can be done, considering that every available berth has been taken. An answer is expected the following day.

M Pichon says that it would be wise to settle the question at the meeting of the Council to be held on the following day, and meanwhile to instruct the Allied Maritime Transport Executive in the way suggested by Sir Eyre Crowe.

Mr Polk fears that the Allied Maritime Transport Executive will reply that all available tonnage which it controls had been allotted to commerce.


3. S Tittoni wished to announce that Italy has appointed Count Bonin-Langare, Italian Ambassador in Paris, as its Delegate on the permanent Committee charged with the execution of the Treaty, and Professor Pagliano as second Delegate.

M Pichon says that France will be represented on the Committee by himself, and by M Berthelot as second Delegate.


4. The Council had before it a note from the Finance Commission dated October 15th, 1919, relative to a telegram from the French High Commissioner at Constantinople dated September 23rd, 1919, and a draft telegram to be sent by the Government of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople.

M Cheysson reads and comments upon the note from the Finance Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he has consulted the Legal Advisers of the British Delegation on the subject, and that the latter felt that two points had to be distinguished, liquidation and control. With regard to liquidation, the Legal Advisers approve of the proposals of the Finance Commission. With regard to control, they have remarked that two questions were to be considered, not only the Treaty with Germany about also the Armistice conditions with Turkey; the Armistice conditions prohibited the Turks from allowing Germans to resume their position in Turkey. He thinks the question had better be referred back to the Drafting Committee which would be able to furnish a report in short time.

S Tittoni thinks that the question should certainly be submitted to the Legal Advisers. The question was important: were the Armistice conditions with Turkey, or rather, as he thought, the provisions in the Treaty of Peace with Germany to govern the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey.

(It is decided to refer to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the note of October 15th, 1919 from the Finance Commission, relative to the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey, as well as the draft telegram to the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople prepared by this Commission.


5. The Council has before it a note from the Greek Delegation to the Peace Conference dated October 15th, 1919.

S Tittoni says that the Economic Commission is competent to examine this note. The Draft Treaty with Hungary contains, in Section 4, Part 10, clauses which are pertinent to the above case in the protest of the Greek Delegation.

(It is decided to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report the protest of the Greek Delegation relative to the sequestration of property belonging to the Greek Orthodox Community of Budapest.


6. The Council has before it a telegram from the High Commissioner of the French Republic in the Near East, transmitting a telegram from the Grand Vizier to the Chargé d’Affaires of Turkey, at Vienna.

(After a short discussion it is decided to authorize the repatriation of the Turkish Embassy Staff at Vienna in accordance with the request made by the Grand Vizier to the French High Commissioner, also to authorize the transmission to the Turkish Chargé d’Affaires at Vienna of the telegram prepared by the Turkish Government.)


7. The Council has before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, dated Paris, October 7th, 1919, requesting that authority be given by the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to exploit the coal mines situated in the basin of Pecs (Petchoui) for a period of five years beginning with the coming into force of the Treaty.

Commandant Aron said that M Loucheur wishes to have this question postponed.

S Tittoni does not think that a postponement is necessary: the Reparation Commission had examined this question and was unanimous in proposing that the Serbian request be rejected.

Commandant Aron then said that the Reparation Commission had decided that the question was not one which came within its province.

Mr Polk wishes to ask whether this application had been referred to the Coal Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe replies that he does not know. He considered the question a local one because the competent local Commission had already refused to accede to the Serbian request that the mine district of Pecs should be included within the frontiers of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. On account of this refusal, the Serbs had formulated their new demand.

S Tittoni says that if the mines of Pecs are taken away from Hungary, that country will have no coal at all. The Coal Commission is not competent, and in his opinion, it was only the Economic Commission which was qualified to deal with this question.

M Pichon remarks that M Loucheur wishes to be heard by this Commission.

(It is decided to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation dated October 7th, 1919, requesting for the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government the exclusive right of exploitation of the coal mines situated in the Petchoui (Pecs) Basin for a period of five years after the entrance into force of the Treaty of Peace.)


8. The Council has before it a revised draft of a note addressed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government dated October 20th, 1919, which has been prepared by the American delegation.

Mr Polk says that he had asked for certain modifications of form in the draft which the Council had examined at last Monday’s meeting; the text which he has prepared had been distributed to the various Delegations.

M Berthelot says that the Serbian delegation has refused to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria on account of the Minorities Treaty: This had not been done without hesitation on its part. The only reason that the Serbs gave for not signing immediately was that they are without a cabinet at the time. Now, however, after a long crisis, a cabinet had been formed. Mr. Trumbić had left Belgrade and he and Mr. Patehitch had instructions to sign. Under these circumstances it was a question whether the proposed step was a necessary one. In a conversation which he had had with Mr. Vesnitch, the latter had insisted upon his demand that if the Minorities Treaty be modified to give satisfaction to the Greeks or Romanians, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government should also benefit by these modifications.

Mr Polk says he has received a telegram from the United States Minister at Belgrade announcing the departure of Mr Trumbić who had received instructions to sign the Treaty: under these conditions it was perhaps not necessary to send a note.

M Pichon is of the same opinion.

S Tittoni inquires whether the Serbs mean to sign the Treaty only after it had been modified.

M Berthelot states that no modifications had been made to the Treaty since the Council had last heard Mr Vesnitch, at which meeting S Tittoni was present.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that the situation is not the same for the Treaty with Serbia as regards Minorities as for Treaties with Greece and Romania. The Principal Allied Powers had already signed the Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government.

M Berthelot says that the question had already been brought up in connection with Poland: Poland has asked that if on any important point a more favorable situation was granted to the Romanians, concerning the Jewish question for instance, the same advantages should be granted to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that it was important that no promise should be given.

M Berthelot says there is no question of giving a promise, for should it be given, such a promise would not amount to very much. The modifications requested by the Romanians, as a matter of fact, either concerned the very essence of the Treaty, and therefore could not be accepted, or questions such as the Jewish question did not concern the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government. Under these conditions the Serbs would have difficulty in availing themselves of the Treaty with Romania in order to ask for a more favorable regime. Should it be necessary to introduce certain modifications in the Serbian Treaty, the fact that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have already signed will not be an obstacle thereto.

M Pichon said that for the moment it was only a question of finding out whether we could tell the Serbs that if the other Treaties concerning Minorities were modified, they should benefit by the same modifications. As far as he was concerned he thought it advisable to ask the Serbs to sign purely and simply. Mr Trumbic had left Belgrade with instructions to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria, therefore, it would be better to await his arrival.

Sir Eyre Crowe is of the same opinion.

(It is decided to adjourn until a further meeting of the Council the sending of a note inviting the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to sign the Treaty with Austria and the Minorities Treaty.


9. The Council has before it a note from the German Delegation dated Paris, October 17th, 1919.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that a certain latitude has always been given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces in the Baltic, and the Council had always avoided giving a decision on the measures taken by him. We are bound to recognize the decisions by virtue of which the German shipping in the Baltic had been stopped. Perhaps these decisions have been executed too strictly; in fact, he is informed that their execution sometimes entails unnecessary inconvenience not only for the Germans but also for Neutrals, and for this reason sailings of German ships which are carrying food-stuffs from Denmark to the plebiscite zone of Schleswig had been held up. It was therefore necessary to direct the Naval Commanders to act with great discretion and to carry out their measures in such a way as not to affect without good cause navigation in the Baltic; we should instruct the Admirals to interfere as little as possible with traffic between neutral ports, and even, in certain cases, to authorize traffic between German ports.

S Tittoni remarks that it was the intention of the Council to prevent in an effective way commerce with ports of Bolshevik Russia: Its object is not to interfere with traffic in the Baltic.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it is not only a question of the blockade of Russia; he also had in mind the situation brought about by the action of the Germans in Courland. The Naval experts should be requested to prepare the draft of an answer to the German note.

Mr Polk asks that the draft of this answer be submitted to the Council.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Allied Naval Armistice Commission should be asked to execute the measures prescribed by it with regard to the situation in the Baltic Provinces in such a way as to take into account the legitimate interests of neutral commerce and certain urgent needs with respect to supplies for German ports;

(2) That the Naval Experts should present to the Council as soon as possible a draft answer to the German note of October 17th, 1919.


10. The Council had before it a note from the Romanian Delegation dated October 18th, 1919, requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the recovery of material, which were functioning in Germany in the interests of France and Belgium in execution of the Armistice Clauses.

M Berthelot says that it is difficult to accept the Romanian demand. As a matter of fact the right which the Romanian Delegation is demanding had been recognized by the Armistice in favor of France and Belgium alone; on the other hand, the Romanians had not hesitated to go ahead and recover alone material in Hungary. It is therefore difficult to grant them this favor. He therefore proposes that this note should be referred back to the Reparation Commission with a request that it should examine and advise in what measure it is possible to grant it.

S Tittoni does not think that this was a question of application of the Treaty. The Armistice only stipulated a recovery of material taken away by German troops in favor of France and Belgium. Once the Treaty comes into force, the situation will be different, and recovery of this kind will be made in favor of all the Allies. He thinks, however, that the Reparation Commission is best qualified to examine the Romanian request.

(It was decided to refer to the Committee on the Organization of the Reparation Commission for examination and report the note of the Roumanian Delegation dated October 19th, 1919, requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the recovery of stolen material which are operating in Germany under the clauses of the Armistice.


11. M Pichon says that Mr. Henry Simon asked whether the Council would adjourn the examination of this question.

Mr Polk says that he has only received instructions to submit the document in question to the Council but that he had not been asked to press with any special force its conclusions: the opinion of the Council was only asked for.

(The examination of this question is therefore adjourned.)

(The meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

23rd October 1919

Anti-Bolshevik Cossack soldiers fighting in the South Russia front.

[Sailor Steve]

Thursday, October 23, 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. The Council has before it a communication from the President of the German Peace Delegation, dated Paris, October 22, 1919, addressed to Mr. Polk.

Mr Polk calls the attention of the Council to the second paragraph of the communication from the President of the German Peace Delegation, which states that,

“The Austrian Government will probably likewise appoint delegates who will travel together with the Germans, and whose number and names will likewise be communicated at a very early date.”

He thinks that it is most surprising that the German Peace Delegation should undertake to answer with respect to the attendance of Austrian Delegates to the International Labor Congress. He states that a liaison officer of the American Delegation has been instructed to call Baron von Lersner’s attention to this matter and that Baron Rochoff would likewise be asked by what authority the German Delegation assumed to speak for the Austrian Government in this matter. These inquiries would be made orally and he would communicate the result thereof.

M Pichon says that the Council approves of the action of the United States Delegation; it cannot be admitted that the German Peace Delegation should assume this authority.


2. The Council has before it a report of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty with Germany, dated October 21, 1919.

General Le Rond reads and comments upon this report. He points out that the British maintain their exception with respect to members of Plebiscite Commissions being paid by their respective Governments.

Sir Eyre Crowe replies that, pursuant to a resolution of the Council adopted October 15, 1919, he has referred the question of payment of members of Commissions of Delimitation by their respective Governments to his Government, which had replied that it accepted the principle that “ordinary army pay” of these members should be defrayed by their respective Governments.

General Le Rond observes that these words are the English equivalent of the “solde” mentioned in the Committee’s report.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he is not sure of the exact definition of “ordinary army pay”, inasmuch as officers in the British Army are entitled, over and above such pay, to ordinary and special allowances. He would refer the question to his Government for an exact definition, but he feels confident that his Government will admit the same principle relative to the payment of members of Plebiscite Commissions. He wishes, however, to now raise a somewhat more important question: strictly speaking, the cases of Danzig and Memel are not exactly similar: the Treaty had not provided specifically for troops of occupation in these two districts, and therefore there is no provision that the: payment of such troops as might be used as troops of occupation should be a charge on local revenues. The Council, however, had decided that troops of occupation might be used in these two districts; it is therefore necessary to decide in principle as to the method of payment of such troops, should they be used as troops of occupation. He thinks that on the principle laid down in the Treaty with respect to other troops of occupation the payment of such troops should be a charge upon local revenues.

M Pichon sees no objection to this.

Mr Polk suggests that, although no formal occupation of Danzig has been decided upon, it had, nevertheless, been designated as a base. Should not the payment of these base troops, therefore, be deemed part of the expenses of the occupation of Upper Silesia?

General Le Rond adds that, in accordance with this suggestion, the payment of these troops should rather be deemed part of the expenses of the occupation of Allenstein and Marienwerder, inasmuch as Danzig is to serve as a base for these two districts.

Sir Eyre Crowe observes that the base troops, however, might be used as troops of occupation of the city of Danzig upon the demand of the High Commissioner, in which case Danzig should bear the expense of the maintenance of such troops.

General Le Rond desires to point out to the Council the situation which his Committee has considered. In determining whether or not troops of occupation should at once be sent to Danzig, it had thought that inasmuch as the present situation in Danzig was a provisional one there was no basis in right, at the present time, for sending troops of occupation to Danzig. The troops which would be sent there could at present only be used as base troops, but could not be used as troops of occupation before the appointment of the High Commissioner; thereafter they could only be so used upon the demand of the High Commissioner.

(It was decided:

(1) To approve the recommendations of the report of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty with Germany relative to the organization of Plebiscite Commissions in Silesia, Allenstein and Marienwerder, with the reservation that Sir Eyre Crowe should request the agreement of the British Government to the opinion, expressed by the other Delegations, that the members of such Commissions should be paid by their respective Governments;

(2) That the principle that the payment of troops of occupation should be a charge upon the local revenues of the territories occupied should apply to such troops as might be used as troops of occupation in Danzig and Memel.)


3. The Council has before it a report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty with Germany on the Commissions to be named during the first weeks following the entry into force of the Treaty.

The report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty is read, and in the course of its reading the following remarks are made:

Mr Polk reminds the Council that the United States cannot be represented on any Commissions prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the Senate.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarks that although he has a complete list of British appointments to the Commissions in question, he thinks it inadvisable to present these piecemeal during the reading of this report and suggests that each Delegation present to the Secretary-General of the Conference its nominations for the Commissions mentioned in the Committee’s report. This suggestion is approved.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that with respect to the Delimitation Commission for Danzig, the Treaty provided that three Nations should be represented on this Commission, but it had not yet been decided which three nations were to be so represented.

General Le Rond pointed out that the Council had already approved the recommendations of a prior report of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty that the members of the Delimitation Commission for Danzig should be drawn from the German-Polish Delimitation Commission and that the presidency of these two Commissions should be held by the same person, in this case General Dupont. Therefore, only two members of this Commission still remained to be named.

M Pichon thinks it would be well that one of these members should be British.

Sir Eyre Crowe agrees.

M Pichon adds that since the United States cannot be represented the choice lay between Italy and Japan.

General Le Rond thinks it is more suitable for Italy to be represented, since Japan had fewer representatives on the German-Polish Delimitation Commission.

S Scialoja said that although Italy did not ask to be represented it did not object to being represented.

General Le Rond points out that the Treaty provided that German-Polish Delimitation Commission should be constituted 15 days after the entry into force of the Treaty, but that the Supreme Council on July 16th had decided that this Commission should be on the spot and enter into operation on the day of the entry into force of the Treaty. The same was true of the Danzig Delimitation Commission by virtue of the Supreme Council’s decision of October 15.

M Berthelot observes that this brings up again the whole question of what was the proper day for putting the Treaty into force: he remarks that it has also been decided that the troops of occupation are to be on the spot on the day in question.

General Weygand points out that there are three questions to be considered; first, the Delimitation Commissions, second, the Plebiscite Commissions, third, the troops of occupation. Does the Council fully intend to have the troops ready to be at their appointed destinations on the day the Treaty comes into force?

M Pichon said that this is the Council’s opinion and he wishes to know what date the troops will be ready to start.

General Weygand replies that the French troops could entrain on November 5th, and he thinks the British troops are now ready. The question of the number of battalions to be furnished by Italy is still unsettled: the three battalions that Italy had agreed to furnish for service in Upper Silesia were now ready to start, but the question of whether Italy would furnish the remaining four battalions designated as her share in the report of the Special Commission, is still undetermined. He has been informed by General Bliss that, although American troops cannot be used as troops of occupation prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate, troops are now on their way to Coblenz and would be held there until such time as this ratification might take place. They would then at once be ordered to proceed to zones of occupation. He points out that the question of transportation still remains to be solved. This question is most serious with respect to troops destined to occupy Upper Silesia. It is extremely difficult to ask the Germans for more transportation than they had been asked for upon the occasion of the passage of General Haller’s troops. Having in mind the transport of supplies, as well as of troops, at the rate of six trains per day the movement will require fifteen days.

M Berthelot calculates that on this basis the 11th of November might be a suitable date for putting the Treaty into operation.

General Weygand says that this date was satisfactory as far as the troops are concerned but it should be remembered that very little time was left in which to take various other necessary measures. The various Commissions have to arrive at their destinations prior to the entry into force of the Treaty and likewise the Germans should be informed of that date as far ahead as possible in order that they might take all necessary measures of evacuation.

Mr Polk asks, for information, whether the troops of occupation were to be at their appointed destination on the day of ratification or within fifteen days thereafter.

General Weygand replied that the troops were to be in place within fifteen days after ratification but that in order to effect this result it would be necessary for the troops of occupation to begin to arrive in their respective zones on the day the Treaty came into force: clearly these zones could not be occupied prior to the ratification of the Treaty.

M. Pichon asked again if the Council desired to decide on the 11th November as the day of putting the Treaty, into operation.

General Weygand repeated that this would be satisfactory from a military point of view, except that the question of the contingent to be furnished by the Italians must be settled before a definite decision could be arrived at. He wishes to add that the Italian Military Representative has always maintained a reservation on this point.

M Pichon says that the distribution of forces decided upon by the Supreme Council must be followed out, and he desired to insist most pressingly upon Italy furnishing the full contingent demanded of her by the Special Commission’s report, especially since, prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate, the four American battalions destined for Upper Silesia will not be sent there.

Sir Eyre Crowe inquires if the absence of American troops of occupation prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate will not adversely affect the distribution of troops of occupation provided for by the report of the Special Commission.

M Pichon says that the eventual use of United States troops is to be considered, and adds that he does not wish an attitude to be adopted which would appear to exclude United States troops from eventually participating in occupation.

Mr Polk remarks that everything depends upon the ratification of the Treaty by the United States Senate. He wishes to repeat that United States troops are en route and would be held at Coblenz ready to be sent to zones of occupation.

M Pichon asks Marshal Foch whether, in the present absence of United States troops destined eventually for participation in the occupation of Upper Silesia, he had enough troops to maintain order there.

Marshal Foch says that he must first know if he was going to have at his disposal the remaining fourteen battalions, all ready to move on November 5th.

S Scialoja says he will try to obtain a satisfactory reply from his Government immediately.

General Le Rond points out that the Plebiscite Commissions, for instance in Silesia, being essentially Government Commissions, they should arrive at their destination in plenty of time to confer with the outgoing German officials, so as to be able on the day of the entry into force of the Treaty to take up the Government of these districts without any hitch.

Sir Eyre Crowe observes that as soon as the date of the entry into force of the Treaty is definitely determined upon, someone should be designated to settle all such matters with the German Government.

M Pichon said that Marshal Foch is the best person to do this.

S Scialoja objects that plebiscite Commissions are not of a military nature.

M Berthelot replies that they are closely concerned with military affairs. Until the Armistice comes to an end Marshal Foch is the properly qualified person to treat with the German Government on all such matters.

Mr Polk asks with reference to the Committee’s report respecting “Persons to be delivered by Germany”, when the demand for such individuals would be made.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that, for many reasons which had already been discussed, the day of the entrance into force of the Treaty would be the appropriate date for making such a demand.

M Berthelot, in pointing out the provision in the Committee’s report with reference to the Government of Memel, says that in view of the small size of the Memel district there is no objection to the British Commander exercising both civil and military functions.

M Pichon suggests that the whole question could be settled by agreeing to take all necessary measures for putting the Treaty into force on November 11th, 1919. Mr Dutasta had informed him that he was going to see Baron von Lersner on that night, and he wished to inquire whether M. Dutasta should tell Baron von Lersner that the Treaty would be put into force on November 11th.

Mr Polk observes that if Baron von Lersner is told this he would undoubtedly publish it immediately.

Marshal Foch says that it would be better to simply inform Baron von Lersner that his Government will be notified of the date of entrance into force of the Treaty in sufficient time for it to take all measures necessary to be taken by it prior to that date.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Delegations of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should immediately submit to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference the list of the representatives they desired to name upon the Commissions which, under the terms of the Treaty with Germany, must begin to operate during the first weeks following the entry into force of said Treaty;

(2) That the 11th day of November, 1919, should provisionally be considered the date of the entry into force of the Treaty with Germany;

(3) That everything should be done to insure the completion prior to that date of all measures constituting conditions precedent to the proper and effective entry into force of said Treaty, and to effectually dispose of all reservations hindering or preventing such entry into force;

(4) That the German Peace Delegation should not yet be informed of the tentative date of the entry into force of the Treaty, but that in reply to this Delegation’s inquiry as to such date it should be informed that the German Government would be informed of the date of the entry into force of the Treaty in ample time to enable it to take all measures necessary to be taken by it prior to such date.)


4. The Council has before it a report of the Drafting Committee on the cost of transportation to and maintenance in foreign countries of German subjects convicted of serious offenses against members of the forces of occupation or against the property or authority of forces of occupation in Germany.

Mr Polk states that he is entirely satisfied with the report of the Drafting Committee. He wished to add that he had already recommended to the military authorities that the procedure in question should only be followed in very serious cases and he hoped there would be very few more of these.

(It was decided to adopt the report of the Drafting Committee on cost of transportation to and maintenance in foreign countries of German subjects convicted of serious offenses against members of the forces of occupation or against the property or authority of forces of occupation in Germany.


5. The Council had before it a note from the Bulgarian Delegation dated Neuilly-sur-Seine, October 12th, 1919, and another note from the Bulgarian Delegation dated Neuilly-sur-Seine, October 21st, 1919.

M Berthelot reads the two notes of protest. He points out that a fait accompli now exists and that the question raised by the Bulgarian Delegation has become purely academic. He adds that the occupation of the district in question by the Greek troops had taken place without any disturbance, and he thinks that as the Bulgarians will deliver their answer to the Peace terms on the following day there is nothing further to be done until this answer has been received.

Mr Polk submits a draft of the following questions to be addressed to General Franchet D’Esperey and requested that General D’Esperey should be asked to report immediately by telegraph on the following points:

(a) Whether the Bulgarians are actually evacuating Thrace.

(b) What troops are proceeding to the evacuated territory.

(c) Whether other Allied troops than Greek were taking part in the preliminary occupation.

(d) Whether satisfactory precautions are being taken to prevent a possible Greek occupation of territory outside of their zone of occupation.
General Weygand replied that Marshal Foch is in possession of the information requested and that he will reply to all these questions.

Mr Polk states that if all the information was here he would merely ask Marshal Foch to give him the answers to these questions.

(It is decided:

(1) That there is no necessity at the present time of replying to the Bulgarian protest against the evacuation of Thrace;

(2) That Marshal Foch should supply the Council with all pertinent information relative to the conditions of the evacuation of Thrace and its occupation by Allied troops.


6. M Berthelot refers to the decision of the Supreme Council, October 18th, 1919 “that the Inter-Allied Commissions sent into the zones of occupation should choose their own Presidents, without it being necessary for them to be of the nationality as the Commanding Officers in the corresponding zones of occupation.” He states that M Clemenceau thinks it better for the Council to designate the Presidents of these Commissions after the lists of appointees to these various Commissions had been transmitted to the Secretary General of the Conference by the various Delegations.

M. Pichon says that when the lists are submitted to the Secretary General, this question can be taken up again.

(The meeting then adjourns)

[Jimbuna]

24th October 1919

An emaciated Russian prisoner held at Nikolsk, Russia.


The Capitol Theater, the world’s largest movie theater with 4000 seats, opens in New York City.


Ship Losses:

R01 (Royal Navy) The Schastlivy-class destroyer foundered off in a storm off Mudros.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, October 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

25th October 1919

Armenian soldiers escorting deserters in Yerevan, Armenia. Armenia is currently fighting Azerbaijan.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, October 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.


...

[Jimbuna]

26th October 1919

Akashi Motojiro, former general of the Imperial Japanese Army and governor-general of Taiwan, has passed away.


Improvised Red Cross hospital made out of boxcars in Siberia for treating refugees and anti-Bolshevik forces.

[Sailor Steve]

Sunday, October 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

27th October 1919

Former Canadian soldier James M. Smith blames murdering his wife on the blood lust he developed while fighting in the trenches of WWI. He went to his wife's house at 3534 Hudson St, Seattle shot her, his mother-in-law and turned the gun on himself. Mother-in-law and Smith survived.

Magazines are distributed to American soldiers in Siberia who are part of the Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks.


Luxembourg holds its first elections since German occupation with women also voting for the first time. Marguerite Thomas-Clement is elected as the country’s first female parliamentarian.

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, October 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.