100 Years Ago Today

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, October 13, 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.


...

[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, October 14, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

15th October 1919

Russian Civil War: General Pyotr Wrangel in Tsaritsyn, 15 October 1919


A Curtis NC-4, which completed the first transatlantic aerial voyage earlier this year, arrives in Washington D.C.


Prince Of Wales: The Duke of Windsor, (1894 - 1972), then Edward, Prince of Wales, wearing an Indian headdress, attends an Indian display at Banff during his royal tour. He succeeded his father as King Edward VIII in January 1936 but abdicated in December of the same year.

[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, October 15, 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]

16th October 1919

Adolf Hitler gives his first political speech for the German Workers’ Party in Munich. His skills as an orator quickly makes him the leading spokesman for the small far-right party.

[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.)

[Jimbuna]

17th October 1919

Tokyo: The Japanese government says it will spend around £30 million on aviation development.

HMS Dragon (D46) hit by shore battery while participating in action against Germans in Riga.


Former Austro-Hungarian cruiser SMS Kaiser Franz Joseph I sinks in the Bay of Kotor due to strong gales. The ship was in French control as reparations.


Ship Losses:

SMS Kaiser Franz Joseph I (Austro-Hungarian Navy) Awarded to France as a war reparation in the aftermath of World War I and overloaded with dismantled machinery, the protected cruiser foundered in a gale in Cattaro Bay off Kumbor on the coast of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes during her delivery voyage.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, October 17, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

18th October 1919

Aftermath of War

Austrian Government ratifies Peace Treaty.

Lord Allenby appointed High Commissioner in Egypt.

Baron Feofil Egorovich Meyendorf, former Russian general who fought in the Russo-Turkish War and the Russo-Japanese War, has passed away.


Ship Losses:

HMS H41 (Royal Navy) The H-class submarine sank after a collision with HMS Vulcan ( Royal Navy) in the North Sea off Blyth, Northumberland.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, October 18, 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 report presented by the Special Commission charged with determining the Composition of Inter-Allied Forces of Occupation.

General Weygand reads and comments upon the report. He calls the attention of the Council to the reservations formulated by the Italian Military Representative and by the British Delegation. The Italian Military Representative feels that he ought to affirm again that his Government ha only authorized the participation of three battalions destined for Upper Silesia. In the table prepared by the Commission the provision had been made for the employment of seven Italian battalions. He feels that he should add that in former Conferences the Italian Military Delegate has always expressed the same opinion on this point.

S Tittoni points out that in fact he has always stated that his Government can only send three battalions.

M Clemenceau observes that this decision means imposing a heavy burden on the French. He takes the liberty of insisting that S Tittoni should reconsider the matter. It seems to him that Italy, not being threatened on any frontier, could do at least something more. If she should persist in her refusal she would put the French in a most unfair situation.

S Tittoni reserves the right to reconsider the question.

General Weygand adds that the British Delegation has made two reservations: it had first been decided that Memel should be occupied by a British battalion and an American battalion; according to the revised table which the Council had before it the American battalion is to be sent to Upper Silesia to reinforce the United States forces there and was replaced at Memel by a French battalion. The British Delegate accepts this change on condition that the command should be held by a British officer.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that this request was based on the same reasons which the British had always advanced. It is purely a question of organization and administration.

M Clemenceau says that France has no objection to the command at Memel being held by a British Officer.

General Weygand explains that the British Delegation also asks that all British troops forming part of the forces of occupation at Danzig, Marienwerder, Allenstein and Memel, should be treated as a single unit from an administrative point of view, although they were placed under different commands.

M Clemenceau says that he cannot see anything unreasonable in this request.

General Weygand states that no formal reservation has been made with respect to the American troops: but according to his conversations with General Bliss it seems to him that one point still remains to be settled, namely, would the American Government authorize to the use of its troops before the ratification of the Treaty by the Senate?

Mr Polk observes that a cable has been sent on this subject and a reply is expected. All he can say for the moment is that the troops are on the way and are first to be sent to Coblenz. He wishes to draw the Council’s attention to another point. The Commission expresses the desire that in each zone of occupation the Presidency of the Inter-Allied Commission and the command of the troops of occupation should be invested in individuals of the same nationality. Would it not be preferable with respect to the Interallied Commission that the Presidency would not be permanent but should rather be held in rotation by each nation represented.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that this is scarcely practicable.

General Weygand observes that some Commissions, such as the one in Upper Silesia, would have a rather long life - perhaps from eight to twenty months - while others would only exist for from three to six months. Under these conditions he does not think a system of alternation is feasible.

M Clemenceau says that as far as he is concerned he attaches so much importance to good feeling between Allies that he is quite willing to accede to Mr Polk’s suggestion.

Mr Polk says that he in no way insists upon this, he is merely making a suggestion.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that each Inter-Allied Forces Commission might be left free to elect its own President.

General Weygand points out that this question is distinct from that of the command of the military forces, which would be determined before the departure of the troops in conformity with the Commission’s recommendations. He wishes finally to call the Council’s attention to a desire expressed by the Commission: It wishes the departure of the Inter-Allied Forces Commissions and of the forces of occupation to be determined in such a way, and the date of the coming into force of the Treaty to be settled in such a fashion, that the Commissions and forces of occupation would arrive at their appointed destinations at the moment of the coming into force of the Treaty. The Commission also wishes the German Government to be advised beforehand of the date determined for the entry into force of the Treaty and its coincidence with the arrival of the Commissions and troops of occupation so that the German Government might take the necessary measures.

M Clemenceau agrees.

General Weygand states that the Allied General Staffs should therefore agree on the date when the troops could arrive at their appointed destinations That would be a date upon which, as far as military questions were concerned, the Treaty could come into force. He would inform the Council of this date.

(It is decided:

(1) To accept the recommendations of the special Commission relative to the composition of Interallied forces of occupation, with the reservation that the definite approval of the Italian Government should be obtained;

(2) That the command of the various forces of occupation should be exercised according to the recommendations of the Commission, and that, at Memel, a British officer should be in command;

(3) That although the British troops forming part of the forces of occupation at Danzig, Marienwerder, Allenstein and Memel will be placed under different commands, they should, from an administrative point of view, be treated as a single unit;

(4) That the departure of the Commissions and of the forces of occupation should be regulated in such a way, and that the date of the entrance into force of the Treaty should be fixed in such a manner, that both the Commissions and the forces of occupation should arrive at their appointed destinations at the moment of the entrance into force of the treaty of Peace;

(5) That Marshal Foch, after agreeing with the Allied General Staffs, should inform the Supreme Council of the date from which they consider it possible for the Treaty to enter into force;

(6) That the German Government should be notified in advance of the date fixed for the entry into force of the Treaty and of its coincidence with the arrival of the Commissions and the forces of occupation, so that it might take all necessary measures within the proper time, and, especially to fix the date of evacuation of the districts in question by its own forces;

(7) That the Inter-Allied Forces Commissions sent into the zones of occupation should choose their own presidents, without it being necessary for them to be of the same nationality as the Commanding Officers in the corresponding zones of occupation.)


2. (The examination of this draft note is adjourned to the following session.)


3. M Berthelot says that a telegram has just been received from the Inter-Allied Mission at Budapest, stating that the Mission ha learned by a private telegram of the sending of Sir George Clerk to Budapest. The Mission asks that it receive official confirmation thereof and that Sir George Clerk’s Mission might be defined. He submits a draft telegram which would officially notify the Generals of Sir George Clerk’s arrival and would define the Mission with which he was entrusted.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that in order to make the matter even more definite there should be added at the end of the first paragraph a sentence specifying that Sir George Clerk represents the Supreme Council in all political questions.

S Tittoni says that he has no objection to this draft on the condition that it is well understood that the Generals are in no way superseded; it should be clear that Sir George Clerk has a special mission and the Generals should retain jurisdiction over all military questions.

M Berthelot proposes that the following sentence should be added at the end of the first paragraph, “He will represent the Supreme Council in all political questions, the Generals retaining jurisdiction over military questions.”

(It is decided:

(1) To approve the draft telegram to be sent to the Allied Generals at Budapest;

(2) To add to the end of the first paragraph of this draft telegram the following sentence;

“He will represent the Supreme Council in all political questions, the Military Mission retaining jurisdiction over military questions.”


4. The Council has before it a note from the drafting Committee dated October 16th, 1919.

M Fromageot reads and comments on the note of the Drafting Committee. With respect to page 3, Section C in this report:

Mr Polk raises the following questions: he asks if the question of restoration to Italy of rolling stock belonging to Italian Railroads is not within the jurisdiction of the Reparation Commission.

M Fromageot says this is not a question of reparations for war damages: it concerns in fact rolling stock which was on Austro-Hungarian territory at the outbreak of war and had been seized there.

Mr Polk, as a matter of information, asks if any disposition of this nature was provided for in the Treaty with respect to Austrian or Hungarian rolling stock which at the outbreak of war might have been on Italian territory.

M Fromageot states that there was not.

(It is decided that in conformity with the recommendations of the Drafting Committee to insert in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary the following articles:

“Article A. - Hungary renounces, in all that concerns her, in favor of Italy, all rights and titles to which she might lay claim over territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy recognized as forming part of Italy according to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Peace concluded September 10th, 1919 between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria.

Article B. - No payment is due on the part of Italy by reason of her taking possession of the Palazzo Venezia at Rome.

Article C. - Hungary will restore to Italy, within three months, all the rolling stock belonging to Italian railroads which, prior to the outbreak of war, has been transported into Austria and are at present in Hungary.

Article D. - In derogation of Article 269, Part X, (Economic Clauses), persons having their customary residence in the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy now transferred to Italy pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, and who, during the war, were without the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or had been imprisoned, interned or evacuated, will benefit fully by the provisions of Articles 252 and 253, Part X, (Economic Clauses).

Article E.— Judgments rendered in civil and commercial causes since August 4th, 1914, by courts of territories transferred to Italy, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, between inhabitants of the said territories and nationals of the former kingdom of Hungary, will only become executory after an exequatur rendered by the new corresponding court of the territories in question.
All judgments rendered since August 4th, 1914, by the judicial authorities of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy against Italian nationals or against those who shall acquire Italian nationality, pursuant to the Treaty of Peace with Austria, for political crimes or misdemeanors, will be deemed null and void.”


5. The Council has before it a note of the Drafting Committee dated October 17th, 1919.

M Fromageot reads and comments on the note of the Drafting Committee. With respect to the eventual convocation of the Council of the League of Nations the following questions are raised:

Mr Polk asks if all the Powers which, when they should have ratified the Treaty of Peace, will be represented in the Council of the League of Nations, would have to be represented at the first meeting of the Council? President Wilson had made it known that he was prepared to call a meeting of the Council for the three Powers which had ratified the Treaty, and he wishes to know if the other powers had now to designate their representatives.

M Fromageot explain that they do not have to, but that they could do so. This obligation would only arise for those Powers after they had ratified the Treaty. Nothing in the Treaty made the coming into force or the ratification thereof a condition precedent to these designations.

Mr Polk wishes to know if this applies, for instance to Spain.

M Fromageot answered that Spain can designate its representative; that it is known, moreover, that she was ready to do so.

Sir Eyre Crowe wishes to know if the Treaty specifies any quorum necessary to validate the meetings of the League of Nations. Would the absence of one of the members invalidate the Council’s decision?

Mr Polk says that he does not think so.

M Tardieu says that there is no such provision in the Treaty.

Mr Polk asked if the Drafting Committee could prepare for Monday’s meeting a draft form of convocation to be sent out by President Wilson to call the meeting of the Council.

M Fromageot resumes his commentaries on the note of the Drafting Committee.

M Tardieu explains that the second part of the Drafting Committee’s note has to some extent duplicated the work of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty. This latter Committee, pursuant to the instructions it had received from the Supreme Council, had drawn up a list of the Commissions to be formed, and had indicated what Powers had designated their representatives on these Commissions and what Powers had not yet done so.

M Clemenceau states that this latter report should be distributed and examined prior to the meeting of Thursday, October 23rd: at this time each Power should designate the Commissioners which it had not yet named.

(It is decided that the Drafting Committee should submit to the Supreme Council at its next meeting:

(1) The draft of a letter by which President Wilson should convoke the Council of the League of Nations for the day of the entry into force of the Treaty;

(2) The draft of a letter from the Supreme Council to each of the Powers represented in the Council of the League of Nations inviting them to designate forthwith their representatives on this Council, as France and Italy is already done.


6. The Council has before it two draft protocols prepared by the Drafting Committee concerning, first, the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty of Peace signed between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, of the Protocols signed on the same day by the said Powers, and of the arrangement of the same date between the United States, Belgium, the British Empire, France and Germany relative to the occupation of the Rhineland secondly, the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty signed June 28th, 1919, between the principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland.

M Fromageot points out that it is necessary to make a separate procès-verbal for each group of ratifications. It had likewise seemed important to the Committee that the hour of the signature should appear on the Procès-Verbaux. Indeed, that is an important point for the agents who would then be on the spot and who should be informed in advance or, at least, by telegram, of the hour the Treaty would come into force. In these protocols Germany for the last time signed in the last place: once this act had been accomplished she would sign in her alphabetical order. He draws the Council’s attention to the great importance of having Czechoslovakia ratify the Treaty of Versailles before it should come into force. Czechoslovakia would be the only non-ratifying country having a common frontier with Germany. A situation might thus arise which might create difficulties with respect to the operation of the Delimitation Commission provided for by Article 83 of the Treaty.

(It is decided to approve the draft procès-verbaux of Deposits of Ratifications prepared by the Drafting Committee with respect, first, to the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, as well as of the Protocol signed on the same day by the said Powers, and of the Arrangement of the same date between the United States, Belgium, the British Empire, France and Germany, concerning the Rhineland; secondly, to the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty with Poland.


7. The Council has before it a note from the French Delegation and a note of the Drafting Committee dated October 16th, 1919.

M Fromageot reads and commented upon the note of the Drafting Committee. He explains that the question raised by Herr Von Lersner only concerns the Delimitation and Plebiscite Commissions, but it is insidious, because the same argument might apply to far more important Commissions such as the Reparation Commission. If Germany might maintain that the Reparation Commission could only operate if a given power were represented thereon, a very dangerous situation would arise. Consequently the Drafting Committee recommends that all Commissions should be considered regularly constituted as soon as the Powers which had ratified the Treaty - and which consequently would then be obliged to be represented on these Commissions and the Powers which had agreed to send representatives before having ratified, should be represented. The latter Powers would be in a situation analogous to that of the Powers which were not parties to the Treaty but which, nevertheless, were by the Treaty accorded the right of designating representatives on different Commissions, such, for instance, as Holland and the Scandinavian States.

Mr Polk says that he has no objection to make to this solution but he wonders if the Germans could raise any.

M Fromageot replies that they will have no valid ground for contesting the vote of a member of a Commission designated by a Power which has not yet ratified the Treaty; when once the Treaty had come into force, the Commissions are composed of the representatives of the Powers specified in the Treaty. The Treaty nowhere provides that the representatives on the Commissions should be the representatives of Powers which had ratified.

S Tittoni inquires if ratification and the right of being represented on Commissions should be considered in law as two distinct matters? He wishes to know if the right of representation exists even in the absence of ratification, or was the foregoing only a provisional solution?

M Fromageot replies that the Drafting Committee considers the right of representation to be in law independent of ratification: The right of representation exists irrespective of ratification, whereas, on the other hand, the duty of being represented arises from ratification. But there is a second delicate point: What will happen if the Powers which have not ratified do not designate representatives? It seems to the Drafting Committee that even in this case the decisions of the Commissions would be valid; if, in that event, the votes should be equal, the vote of the President of the Commission would be controlling as provided for in article 437 of the Treaty.

M Clemenceau thinks that the question has not been raised and wonders if the Germans would seek to raise trouble on this point.

S Tittoni thinks that if M Fromageot’s argument are legally sound, the reply to his question was implied to be contained therein: with regard to the Powers which had ratified, and which thereby came under the obligation of naming representatives on the Commissions, there is no doubt that they must send representatives in order to validate the decisions of these Commissions; on the other hand, if the Powers which merely have the option of naming representatives do not make use thereof, that fact would in no wise affect the validity of the decisions of the Commissions, and the latter could operate legally.

M Clemenceau inquires whether Germany should be informed of the foregoing point of view before she had raised any question with respect thereto.

M Fromageot sees no necessity of replying and thinks that there is nothing to be gained by divulging these arguments.

S Tittoni expresses the desire that M Fromageot should give the Council a confidential report containing the legal development of this argument.

M Clemenceau thinks that this would be a purely academic document, but he has no objection to M Fromageot giving it to S Tittoni.

M Fromageot inquires whether his Committee should reply on the first point to H Von Lersner.

M Clemenceau says that it should send a note to M Dutasta.

M Dutasta remarks that H Von Lersner makes no secret of the fact that public opinion in Germany will be greatly disturbed if America is not represented on the different Commissions until the Senate had ratified the Treaty.

Mr Polk doubts whether, under M Fromageot’s plan, America will be represented.

M Clemenceau states that he recalls distinctly that President Wilson, after some hesitation, had agreed that the United States would be represented on the Reparation Commission.

Mr Polk points out that this is only unofficial. Prior to ratification the United States is not authorized to be officially represented; he very much doubts whether, in view of the political situation, the United States will insist as a matter of right on having official representation on these Commissions prior to ratification. If Mr Wilson spoke of American representation on the Reparation Commission he only meant representation after ratification.

M Clemenceau agrees.

(It is decided:

(1) To approve the principles contained in the note of the Drafting Committee relative to the question put by Baron von Lersner;

(2) That the Drafting Committee should send to the Secretary General of the Conference a note refuting the argument presented by Baron von Lersner in the course of his interview with M Dutasta.)


8. M Tardieu reads the text of a resolution adopted by the Council on October 15th. The reply to the first two paragraphs of this resolution is contained in M Fromageot’s report; there remains the last question: what is the value of the means of action placed at the disposal of the Allied and Associated Powers by the Treaty of Peace compared with those available by virtue of the Armistice?

Under the Armistice the available means were:

Measures To Be Taken Immediately Upon the Coming Into Force of the Treaty

(1) The occupation of the left bank of the Rhine and the bridgeheads;

(2) The right of occupying that portion of the neutral zone from north of Cologne to the Dutch frontier;

(3) The occupation of the bridgehead at Kehl (measures to that effect had been taken);

(4) Resumption of hostilities after forty-eight hours notice;

(5) The maintenance of the blockade;

(6) The retention of prisoners of war.

The coming into force of the Treaty will deprive us of the possibility of resuming hostilities; it deprives us of the weapon of blockade insofar as general measures were concerned, since the American Government does not seem disposed to admit the principle of a pacific blockade; finally, we lost the right of occupying the neutral zone to the north of Cologne. With the Treaty in force, if Germany commits hostile acts, the Covenant of the League of Nations will come into play. If, on the other hand, Germany limits itself to acts of passive resistance, Articles 12 to 18 of the Covenant will come into operation and the Council of the League of Nations would take such measures as it deems fit. Finally, the occupation of the bridgeheads gives us another means of action. The Treaty of Peace likewise allows us, which was not true of the Armistice, to disarm Germany and to stop the manufactures and the recruiting which she is carrying on at the present moment. He adds that whatever judgment might be passed on the reply of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty, its value was only relative, for the period of decision is necessarily a very short one.

Sir Eyre Crowe wishes to know what the attitude will be with respect to the clauses of the Armistice which had not been fulfilled. Can their fulfillment be exacted?

M Tardieu replies that the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty had not considered this question. He, personally, is of the opinion that if the Treaty should be put into force without previously demanding the fulfillment of these clauses there will be no ground for such a demand after the Treaty’s coming into force. If it were desired that certain clauses should be fulfilled by Germany a demand to that effect should be made before the Treaty came into force.

M Clemenceau inquires what causes Sir Eyre Crowe had in mind.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that he is thinking of the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces.

M Tardieu says that if the fulfillment of the Armistice clauses which have not been carried out is desired, the only efficacious means of action should be used, namely, an advance into Germany.

Sir Eyre Crowe observes that this would be rather difficult after the Treaty has been ratified.

M Clemenceau asked the Drafting Committee to submit at the next meeting of the Council a report on this question, having especially in mind the situation in the Baltic Provinces.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Drafting Committee should present to the Supreme Council at its next meeting a report as to whether, after the coming into force of the Treaty, the Allied and Associated Powers would have the right to demand the fulfillment of Clauses of the Armistice which have not been executed, in particular, the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces;

(2) That the Drafting Committee should point out in its report the affirmative means of action of which the Allied and Associated Governments might avail themselves in order to insure the fulfillment of these clauses after the coming into force of the Treaty.)


9. M Tardieu said that at its meeting of July 28th the Council had approved a recommendation of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty and had decided to create a Committee to coordinate questions relative to the interpretation and the execution of the clauses of the Treaty with Germany. Up to present moment the British Empire and Japan had alone designated their representatives on this Committee. It would be well for the United States, France and Italy to designate their representatives on this Committee.

S Tittoni proposes that the Powers should have the right to designate an alternate delegate in case their principal delegate should not be able to sit.

(It is decided:

(1) That the United States, France and Italy should as soon as possible designate their representatives on the Committee for the coordination of questions concerning the interpretation and execution of the clauses of the Treaty with Germany;

(2) That the Principal Allied and Associated Powers might designate alternate delegates who, if necessary, should replace their delegates on this Committee.)


10. Sir Eyre Crowe points out that the allowance for members of the Commissions of Control and of Delimitation had been fixed, but that nothing had been decided for the members of the Plebiscite Commissions. He suggested that the question should be referred to a special Committee. Allowances for Members of the Plebiscite Commissions

(It is decided that a subcommittee of the Committee on the execution of the Treaty should determine the allowances to be granted to the personnel of the Plebiscite Commissions, after having consulted representatives of these Commissions.)



11. Marshal Foch states that the reply of the German Government to the last Note of the Allied and Associated Powers relative to the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces had just reached him, and that it would be sent that day to the various delegations. The German Government accepts the sending of an Allied General Officer as had been proposed in the Note of the Allied and Associated Powers. In view of the great importance of hastening in every way the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces, he recommended that the Council should at once designate this General Officer, and he proposed the name of General Mangin.

(It is decided that General Mangin should be charged by the Allied and Associated Powers with the duty,

(1) Of ascertaining from the German Government the measures taken by it with a view to regulating the conditions of evacuation, and of proposing to that Government the measures which he himself should deem proper;

(2) Of exercising on the spot an effective control over the execution of these measures.)

(The meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

19th October 1919

[October 19th, 1919] "Ferdinand Foch, Marshal of France" (New York Tribune)


Ship Losses:

Constanza (Sweden) The cargo ship, en route from Bougie to Gothenburg, Sweden, sank after striking a mine in Kattegat. Two crew members were killed.

[Sailor Steve]

Sunday, October 19, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

20th October 1919

Albert I of Belgium: The King and the Queen during their visit to Isleta pueblo in New Mexico, with the Governor of New Mexico and Anton Docher.


Refugee children from Petrograd (St. Petersburg) in Siberia to escape the Russian Civil War.


Ship Losses:

Gavril (Soviet Navy) Russian Civil War: British campaign in the Baltic: The Gavril-class destroyer was sunk by mines in Koporsky Bay in the Gulf of Finland.
Hollandia (Sweden) The combined cargo and passenger ship, en route from Gothenburg to Antwerp, sank after striking a mine in the North Sea. Only four crew survived. The master and seventeen crew, and two passengers, perished.
Konstantin (Soviet Navy) Russian Civil War: British campaign in the Baltic: The Gavril-class destroyer was sunk by mines in Koporsky Bay in the Gulf of Finland.
Svoboda (Soviet Navy) Russian Civil War: British campaign in the Baltic: The Gavril-class destroyer was sunk by mines in Koporsky Bay in the Gulf of Finland.

[sublynx]

Quite a picture about those children. One can't help but wonder how their lives turned out to be after the taking of that picture

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by sublynx

Quite a picture about those children. One can't help but wonder how their lives turned out to be after the taking of that picture

True that and I think I'd rather be in the dark tbh.