100 Years Ago Today

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, August 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 17:00

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


1. M Clemenceau asks Mr Hoover to make his statement on the affairs of Silesia.

Mr Hoover says that he and Mr Loucheur have interviewed the German delegates at Versailles, and have made an informal suggestion to them. He has told them that if the present situation develops, it will lead the German Government into a very difficult position. In two months time, however, by the provisions of the Treaty, Silesia was to be occupied by Allied troops for the purpose of the plebiscite. He suggested to them that the German Government should, in its own interests, advance the date of the Allied occupation, and invite the Allies to send troops earlier. The German Representatives had received the suggestion favorably, and had stated that a reply from Berlin would be received on the following day. It is, however, to be noted that the German Delegates in question belonged to the Reparation Commission, and had no diplomatic attributions. Their attitude on the point at issue was, therefore, not very important. He has further told them, that a Sub-Commission, to inquire into the means of increasing the coal output, was shortly to be sent to the Silesian, Teschen, & Dombrova coalfields. If the Germans should prove willing to co-operate with this Sub-Committee, the Allies would doubtless be willing to appoint a German member to it. He thinks that his suggestion in this respect might be a fair bait to the German Government.

Col Goodyear’s dispatch is then read.

In conclusion, he thinks that the further information received from General Dupont should be placed before the Council.

M Pichon then circulated a telegram from the French Representative in Berlin.

Mr Balfour, commenting upon the telegram, says that he thinks the number of Commissions now acting in Germany is very great, and asks which Commission is referred to.

Mr Polk asks the same question.

M Loucheur replies that the Allied Military Representatives at Berlin must have delegated some of their members with orders to proceed to Silesia, and he thinks that the body so formed would be the Commission referred to in the telegram. He suggests that the Allied Representatives at Berlin ought to be informed of the measures which the Council proposed to carry into effect, and that they might know that the Coal Commission was being sent out on Monday. He further suggests that the delegated Commission from the Allied Representatives in Berlin should act in collaboration with the Coal Commission which was shortly to be sent out. In the meantime he strongly recommends that Col Goodyear should continue to act as a local arbitrator in the interests of the Council.

Mr Hoover remarks that he feels the Council should know the composition of the Commission which was being sent out by the Allied Representatives in Berlin; and, if an American officer were to be included on this Commission, Col Goodyear should be designated as the American representative by the Council.

Mr Balfour remarks that according to the information at present available there are two Commissions at present acting in Germany,

(i) The Inter-Allied Commission which was coming to an end on the following day; and;

(ii) the sub-ordinate body delegated from No. (i) to act in Silesia. Col Goodyear ought certainly to be a member of this latter Commission, but the Council did not at the moment know of whom it is composed.

Mr Polk suggests that it might be a group of generals who are endeavoring to arrange matters between the Germans and the Poles.

General Weygand explains that, at the present moment, there was a Committee negotiating between the Germans and the Poles. General Malcolm, General Dupont, and General Bencivenga are assisting this body. The negotiations between the two countries had continued until the events in Silesia had produced such a state of tension, that they could not be proceeded with. General Dupont had wanted, in the first place, to send out a local Committee to Silesia, but the proposal had been opposed by the Poles. The German Government had received the suggestion favorably, and it is probably for this reason that a Delegated Committee had now been sent.

S Tittoni remarks that his information does not quite agree with that supplied by General Weygand. He had been told, that, after the rupture of negotiations, a committee had been sent out locally at the request of the Poles. He also thought that the original committee in Berlin had been negotiating on behalf of prisoners of war.

General Weygand replies that the Council has sent out a committee to deal with the question of Russian prisoners, and that it is this same committee, which had assumed the conduct of present negotiations, owing to the fact that the various members of the committee had collaborated on many other questions in the past.

M Clemenceau then reads out the decision H. D. 23, 4, and remarked that the Americans had not nominated a member to the Committee created under the resolution, as they are waiting for the ratification of the Peace Treaty.

M Loucheur says he thinks that the Inter-Allied Committee at Berlin must be informed of the present measures taken by the Council. They should be told that a coal committee was leaving on Monday. Col Goodyear ought, at the same time, to be asked to continue the action that he initiated; while on the other hand, the new Coal Commission should be kept fully informed of what Col Goodyear had done; and be told that he was at present staying at Mahrisch Ostrau, and that they should collaborate as closely as possible with him.

Mr Polk says that Mr Hoover has suggested that Col Goodyear should be attached to the Delegated Committee sent out to Silesia from Berlin. A telegram should therefore be sent, instructing the Committee

(a) to proceed at once to Silesia and

(b) to establish relations with Col Goodyear. At the same time, it is not possible for Col Goodyear to be an active member of the Delegated Committee prior to the ratification of the Peace Treaty. He would, therefore work as the representative of Mr Hoover in matters connected with food and coal and would be in touch with the Generals of the Delegated Committee.

Mr Balfour asks what would be the relation between the Delegated Committee and the Coal Commission, both of which were being sent at the same time to the same place.

M Loucheur replied that the Coal Committee was a purely technical body, and could be placed under the orders of the Delegated Committee.

Mr Hoover says that the functions of the Coal Committee would be confined to questions of production and distribution. He does not believe that it could concern itself with questions of politics, and he felt that the work of this body should not be subordinated to a military committee.

M Clemenceau suggested that M Loucheur and Mr Hoover should draw up draft instructions to the Allied Representatives at Berlin, and should submit the text to the Council.

Mr Hoover then suggests that General Weygand should assist them.

M Pichon said that he had received a visit from Mr Grabsky of the Polish Delegation. He had informed him that he would transmit a copy of the instructions sent by the Allied Generals, to the Polish authorities. He would tell them that he fully agreed with the instructions sent, and would ask that the local Polish authorities should collaborate with the Commissions sent out by the Council.

Mr Balfour remarks that a decision has been arrived at on the previous day to attach a German, a Czech, and a Pole to the Coal Committee.

Mr Loucheur then reads the draft instructions to be sent to Berlin.

It is decided:

1) That Colonel Goodyear should be instructed to continue the negotiations that he had initiated in Upper Silesia, pending the arrival of the Coal Committee, and the Committee delegated by the Inter-Allied representatives at Berlin. He is further to place himself in touch with these Bodies on their arrival and to act in close collaboration with them.

2) That the draft telegram to General Dupont should be accepted and dispatched through Marshal Foch.


2. Mr Balfour asks, in connection with the previous resolution, whether the troops, which might have to be dispatched to Upper Silesia at very short notice, were now ready.

General Weygand says that it has only been decided that the troops for Upper Silesia should be formed out of four equal Allied contingents. On the same day that the decision had been taken, Marshal Foch had been requested to study the method of victualling and the distribution of the troops in Silesia, in collaboration with the military Representatives at Versailles. The Military Representatives has referred the matter to their respective Governments, and has not yet replied. He does not think that the discussions between Marshal Foch and the Military Representatives will be particularly fruitful, since the supposed difficulty of victualling did not exist. Far more complicated problems of the same kind have been solved in the past. There remains, however, the question of the total strength of effectives. On the proposal of the Military Representatives one Division had been considered sufficient. This figure had been arrived at before the appearance of the existing difficulties. When one Division had been decided upon, the military problem consisted only in maintaining order in a tranquil country. At the present moment, the country, which contained Four Million inhabitants, 360,000 of whom were laborers, was in a state of ferment and insurrection. The fact that these insurgents had disarmed troops should not be lost sight of; for it shows they are capable of military action. In his opinion, two Divisions are required under present circumstances. His opinion had been formed without local knowledge, and it would be advisable to ask General Dupont, who is proceeding to Silesia, to report on the matter. In the meantime, however, independently of anything that General Dupont might ultimately say, two Divisions ought to be put into a state of military preparedness.

S Tittoni said that he had no objection to a simple military occupation of Silesian territory; but that if fighting occurred, parliamentary difficulties might arise in the Allied countries, and the idea that we are carrying out repressive measures might gain ground. The revolution in Silesia has an essentially Polish character. is it not therefore desirable to obtain a declaration from the Polish Government, telling the local Polish population to receive our troops in a friendly spirit, and assist them as much as possible?

Mr Balfour says that the despatch of troops is part of a policy decided upon. All that can be done therefore, was to have the troops in a state of readiness.

S Tittoni replies that he does not question Mr Balfour’s statement but thinks that a proclamation from the Polish Government would be of great help. He had interpreted General Weygand’s statement in the sense that severe repressions might occur.

M Clemenceau replied that he does not think the question arises, since the Poles will obviously welcome our assistance against the Germans.

Mr Polk states that he doubts whether authority exists under the American constitution for the United States to send troops into Silesia for the purpose of quelling a revolution in that country, since the Treaty with Germany provided only for troops of occupation during the Plebiscite. If the matters under discussion deal simply with preliminary arrangements for the eventual despatch of troops, he is prepared to agree, but he cannot commit himself to the dispatch of forces for the purpose of quelling the revolution.

General Weygand says that when one Division has been decided upon for the Army of Occupation, during the Plebiscite in Upper Silesia, it had further been decided, that the Force in question should be drawn from the Army of Occupation on the Rhine. At that time it had been decided to maintain a Force of 150,000 men on the Rhine. Subsequently, however, this figure has been reduced to 114,000 men. Marshal Foch thinks that the troops necessary for Upper Silesia should be formed from the 36,000 men who became available owing to the reduction in the original figure. As an example, France has six Divisions, i. e. 85,000 men, formed for the Army of Occupation in Germany, and one extra Contingent for Silesia. Marshal Foch would like the British Government to get ready, in addition to the mixed brigade detailed for the Rhine, a supplementary contingent which could be drawn upon for Silesia. He also wishes that the American Government would provide a force available for Silesia in addition to the 6,800 men which was its share in the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.

Mr Balfour says that Field-Marshal Wilson had arrived in Paris and he would like General Weygand to consult with him on the present question.

Mr Polk remarks that General Weygand might also confer with General Pershing.

It is decided:

1) That Marshal Foch should be requested to make all arrangements necessary for putting two Divisions, which might ultimately be dispatched to Upper Silesia on the orders of the Council, in a state of readiness.

2) That General Weygand should consult with Field Marshal Wilson and General Pershing with regard to the furnishing of British and American troops for Upper Silesia from sources other than the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.


(At this point M Serruys, Mr Headlam-Morley, the experts of the Economic Commission, and the Editing Committee entered the room.)

3. The question before the Council is whether the supply of coal to Austria from Poland and Czechoslovakia should be guaranteed by a special clause in the Peace Treaty. The opinion of the Italian Delegation had been that it should. The other solution was, that the guarantee should be obtained by clauses in the Peace Treaties with Small States.

S Tittoni said that he agrees to the guarantee being given in the Treaty with Czechoslovakia; but the Treaty with Poland had already been signed.

M Serruys says that an additional clause might be inserted in the Polish Treaty, but remarks that Italy would obviously obtain more coal from Czechoslovakia than from Poland.

1) S Tittoni suggests that the question could be referred to the Coal Committee, which could consult with Economic Commission as to the best method of securing the necessary guarantees; and could advise the Council as to which Treaty it had better be included in. He does not insist on any alteration in the Peace Treaty with Austria.

(It is agreed that the questions of obtaining the necessary guarantees for a coal supply by Czechoslovakia, and Poland, to Austria, to the new States created from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, and to the territories of that Empire ceded to the Allies, should be referred to the Coal Committee and to the Economic Commission jointly. The above Commissions should report to the Council, on the Peace Treaties, in which the clauses ensuring the above guarantees, should be inserted.)

(2) M Serruys says that the Economic Commission has replied to the Austrian Note with regard to the Nationality Clauses in the Peace Treaty only on the economic aspect of the economic problem. There is another juristic side to it. It is very necessary that the Editing Committee should co-ordinate and unify the replies to the Austrian Note on the subject of nationalities, under the two aspects that they presented.

S Tittoni said that he did not see the use of discussing an essentially political and juristic question from an economic point of view. The economic side of the question was obviously the less important. In his opinion the Economic Commission, the Committee on Political Clauses, and the Drafting Committee, ought to confer together, and present a single report.

M Serruys says that the Economic Commission has been unanimous in their decision, and he does not see the use under the circumstances, of inviting other bodies to confer with it. It would be enough to communicate the Report of the Economic Commission to them.

S Tittoni replies that the Economic Commission has evidently been able to discuss only one side of the question. If the Commission in question had been able to say that it had examined every side of the problem, he would have no reluctance in accepting their conclusion.

M Serruys replies, that the general structure and intentions, of the Peace Treaty with Austria had decided the manner in which the problem is to be solved. He draws attention to the fact that the Economic Commission had been obliged to deal with questions not purely economic, such as the consular establishments, the repeal of the Delbruck Law, etc. The division between the functions of the Economic Commission, and those of the Political Committee, had been somewhat artificial; and, for this reason, it is necessary to co-ordinate the notes of each.

Mr Balfour says that he does not see any reason for continuing the discussion. Both the Economic Commission and other bodies were in agreement. It was therefore obvious that they could confer together and sign a complete report to the Council.

(It is decided that the Austrian Counter Proposals on the subject of Articles 225 and 226 (Nationality Clauses) in the peace treaty with Austria, which Counter Proposals also affected Articles 57, 65, and 69 of the aforesaid peace treaty, should be referred to the Economic Commission and the Drafting Committee for examination and report.)

3) The Solidarity Between the Old Austro-Hungarian Empire and the New Austrian Republic:

The Council is called upon to consider the Austrian contention, that there is a complete break of historical continuity, between the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and the new Austrian Republic.

M Serruys in drawing the attention of the Council to the above point, said that almost every clause in the existing Peace Treaty with Austria was dependent upon the standpoint previously adopted by the Council. The Economic Commission, however, cannot assume a final decision, without a definite ruling from the Council on the point in question.

Mr Balfour says that it is obvious that the previous decision of the Council of Four must be upheld. The new Austrian Republic is in an absolutely different position from the other States, which has arisen out of the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The former is an enemy State, and the latter were now friendly and allied Powers. On the other hand, it is in the interests of the Allied and Associated Powers that the financial and economic clauses of the Peace Treaty with Austria should be framed in such a way that ruin and bankruptcy should not be forced upon the Austrian Republic. The result of this would be that the Government at Vienna would think that their only hope of salvation lay in joining the German Empire. If any changes were to be made in the Peace Treaty, he thinks they ought to be carried out with the above object.

M Clemenceau asks whether it is decided that the Austrian contention contained in Letter No. 707 was rejected.

Mr Balfour replies in the affirmative but adds that he thinks some of the objections raised by the Austrian Delegation are valid. For this reason, he reserves to himself the right to propose modifications in the Financial and Economic Clauses when they come up for final discussion.

S Tittoni says that he wishes to make a reservation. Mr Balfour’s proposal, if accepted, will result in a lessening of the total guarantees to be obtained from Austria. If Mr Balfour proposes a more equitable distribution of guarantees among the States of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, he agrees; but he insisted that the total amount of Reparation due to the Allies should not, on that account, be diminished. For this reason, if Mr Balfour proposes to lessen the reparation payable by Austria, he will maintain that a corresponding increase should be placed upon the obligations of the other States of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire.

(After some further discussion, it is agreed that the question of the Financial and Economic guarantees should be adjourned until the consideration by the Council of the final reply to the Austrian Note.)


4. Economic Clauses in the Peace Treaty With Austria:

(After some further discussion, it is agreed that the modifications introduced into the Economic Clauses of the Peace Treaty with Austria should be communicated by the Economic Commission to the States concerned, who should report, in writing, through their Delegations, any observations that they had to offer to the Supreme Council by Monday, August 25th.)


5. Distribution of Funds Accumulated in Social Insurance Schemes Among States Deriving Territory From the Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy:

M Serruys said that in order to ensure a satisfactory solution of the problem, it has been suggested by the Italian Delegation that the matter should be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the League of Nations, if disagreement arose.

S Tittoni said, that, as the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for arbitration in such cases as these, he could not see why special bodies should be called into existence for settling disputes of this nature. If they are called upon to adjudicate in questions arising out of insurance funds, other bodies would be called into existence for other problems, and, in referring the matter to the League of Nations, he considered that the Italian Delegation was doing no more than calling upon that organization to carry out some of its recognized functions.

(It is decided that the following point should be laid before the Drafting Committee for report:

Since numerous points in the Peace Treaty have to be settled by Conventions between the States concerned, what procedure was to be followed, and what form of arbitration adopted, if one of the States opposed the decisions?

Is the procedure laid down in Article 13 of the Covenant of the League of Nations adequate and sufficient?)

The question before the Council is the retention or rejection of Article 12 in Section 5 of the Peace Treaty with Austria.

Mr Balfour says that he has been advised by his expert, that the clause in question had first been proposed by the Belgian Delegation. After some discussion it had been so amended as to become almost inoperative. The British Delegation and the Five Principal Powers thought that it ought to be suppressed. The Belgian Delegation, however, desired its retention, even in its present form.

(After some further discussion it is decided that Article 12 of Section 5 of the Peace Treaty with Austria dealing with the suppression of Insurance Contracts between an Austrian Insurance Company and its nationals, “under conditions which shall protect its nationals from any prejudice”, should be suppressed.)


(At this point Mr Serruys, Mr Headlam-Morley and the other experts left the room.)

(At this stage Capt Roper entered the room.)

4. Captain Roper reports on the answer to the request of the Supreme Council (see H. D. 25–146) on the subject of the sale and alienation of aeronautical material by the German Government. The Committee on Aerial Clauses had attempted, without arriving at a unanimous agreement, to find a legal argument, whereby the German Government could be forbidden to alienate its aeronautical material. It has, however, been discovered that in the Brussels Convention, the Germans had agreed not to sell their war material, while the aforesaid Convention remained in force. One member of the Committee had thought that the Brussels Convention terminated with the raising of the blockade, and that this had removed the obligations remaining on the German Government. The majority of the Committee, however, thought that the raising of the blockade, being an advantage to the German people, could not destroy the obligations which they had accepted, in order to obtain the advantages which accrued to them under the Brussels Convention. The legal point at issue is whether the Supreme Economic Council had been right in stating that the prohibition on the sale of aeronautical material would remain in force until the end of the armistice, that is to say, until the complete ratification of the Peace Treaty. Another question arises, which is whether the Supreme Economic Council is entitled to decide on such a point. The Supreme Council is the only judge of the matter. An obvious obligation is imposed by the Peace Treaty with Germany, since if the German Government alienated its material before the ratification of the Treaty, they would not be able to make the deliveries called for under that document. This point had been unanimously admitted by the Committee on Aerial Clauses. This might be regarded as a form of moral obligation which the Germans had acknowledged, as far as war material was concerned, in their letter to General Nudant, dated August 6th, 1919.

General Weygand said that General Yudenitch is at present asking for permission to purchase from Germany Russian war material previously captured by the former power. Czechoslovakia is making a similar request to be allowed to purchase war material from Bavaria. He thinks that the two questions should be considered jointly.

Captain Roper suggests that the principle of Allied ownership of war material in the hands of Germany should first be upheld. Thereafter the Allies might grant special authorizations for the sale of such material.

M Clemenceau agrees with this proposal, and suggests that, in accordance with the above principle, sales to General Yudenitch and the Czechoslovaks might be authorized at once.

S Tittoni says, that as General Yudenitch’s request for financial and material assistance could not be granted, it was incumbent upon the Council to accede to his wishes in this respect.

Mr Polk suggests that the entire question might be referred to the proposed advance Delegations of the Commissions of Control, which are about to proceed into Germany.

Admiral Knapp says that he had been a member of the Committee on Aerial Clauses, but had entertained certain doubts as to the legal position. His opinion had been that the Brussels Convention had not been binding on Germany after the Convention had lapsed. Morally he had not felt any doubt in the matter. If the majority point of view were to prevail, Germany would be restrained from consummating any future sales to neutrals, and would therefore be obliged to turn over to the Allies any sums which she had realized in the past.

Mr Balfour says that as everybody was agreed as to the existence of a moral obligation upon the German Government, he thinks it would be best to make a specific demand on Germany, leaving it to her to bring forward such legal objections as might be made. He wished that the draft telegram to be sent to the German Government should be placed before the Council on the following day.

(It is agreed that the Allied and Associated Powers should inform Germany that they maintain the principle that Germany should not alienate its war material, more particularly material of an aeronautical description. At the same time, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, by virtue of their rights of property over this material, should reserve to themselves the right to grant special licenses in certain cases.

It is further decided that, in execution of the above resolution, a special authorization should be granted to Germany for the sale of material asked for by General Yudenitch, and by the Czechoslovak Government. A draft telegram on the above lines, to be sent to General Nudant, should be prepared by General Weygand and submitted for approval at the next meeting of the Council.)


5. The Council takes note of the telegram from the French Minister at Belgrade.

S Tittoni said that he thinks explanations Intentions should be asked for from Bucharest,

Mr Balfour said that whilst agreeing with S Tittoni, he thinks it essential that the Government at Bucharest should be informed that the frontiers laid down by the Supreme Council in the Banat and elsewhere, were final.

(It is decided that M Pichon should send a telegram to the French Minister at Bucharest in the name of the Supreme Council, asking for further information on the intentions of the Roumanian Government with regard to the Banat. He should also inform the Romanian Government that the frontiers laid down by the Council in the Banat and elsewhere, are final.)


6. M Clemenceau asks Mr Hoover to make a statement with regard to the situation in Hungary.

Mr Hoover says that he has little to add to his statement on the previous day. He does not think that it would require much pressure to dispossess the Archduke of the Throne that he had seized.

Mr Balfour proposes that a telegram which he had drafted should be dispatched.

After some discussion it is agreed that the telegram drafted by Mr Balfour should be published immediately, and sent to the Mission of Allied Generals at Budapest.

Mr Hoover then reads a further telegram from Mr Gregory at Budapest.

M Clemenceau says that the telegram in question makes it all the more necessary to send off Mr Balfour’s dispatch.


7. The Council takes note of the letter from Marshal Foch on the subject of the use of the Port of Danzig and the Kiel Canal.

General Weygand says that the use of the Port of Danzig is connected with the Polish question, which was now very acute. Although Marshal Foch was in agreement with the German proposals, he does not think that the discussion could be continued at the present time. The question is therefore adjourned.


8. The Committee takes note of Marshal Foch’s proposals with regard to the immediate dispatch of certain members of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control into Germany.

Mr Polk states that he agrees with Marshal Foch’s conclusions but that he is unable to send any American Delegates until the ratification of the Treaty of Peace. He agreed, however, that General Bliss should be kept informed of the action taken by the advanced Delegations.

It is decided that Marshal Foch’s proposals with regard to the immediate despatch into Germany of Delegations representing the Commissions of Control, should be accepted; and that the representation of the United States on the aforesaid Delegations should be held in abeyance for the present.

General Weygand is instructed to draft a letter for communication to the German Government informing them of the above proposals.


9. General Weygand reports and comments on the documents contained in Appendix K. He said that the Inter-Allied Transport Committee is independent of the Supreme Economic Council, and was composed of military representatives of each of the Allied Powers. The body in question had urged that the British and American armies using French rolling-stock should pay different rates. The difference in question should be regulated by the use made of French and Belgian rolling-stock, or of German railway material, delivered under the armistice. The latter had cost nothing.

Mr Balfour says that he would like to consult General Mance.

General Weygand, continuing, says that Marshal Foch, when he had dealt with the question, had only divided up the German material surrendered, in such a way that transport should be facilitated. Railway carriages had been given to France and Belgium. Locomotives had been divided up between France and Belgium, and had been assigned to the British and American armies in France. Everybody had agreed to the principle on division. The British and Americans had now surrendered the German engines allotted to them, which had fallen into the hand of France and Belgium for the time only. But when the Peace Conference finally decided the manner in which the railway material was to be divided, every country would pay for its share. There would therefore be no ultimate difference in the nature of the rolling-stock employed, since it would belong to the country in which it was used. For this reason, he could not see that the principle of different rates of payment could be upheld.

Mr Balfour asks whether the Inter-Allied Transport Committee had been aware of General Weygand’s standpoint when it had drawn up its report.

General Weygand says that he does not know.

The question is then adjourned.


10. (It is decided that the proposal of the Committee supervising the execution of the clauses of the Peace Treaty with Germany should be adopted.)

(The meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

23rd August 1919

Archduke Joseph August of Austria, a Habsburg, resigns as regent of Hungary due to Allied opposition.


Newly constructed drydocks at the U.S. Naval Base of Pearl Harbour.


Two steamrollers pulled the German Tank Mephisto (travelling on its own caterpillar treads) from the wharf to the Queensland Museum, a journey of less than 2 miles taking 11 hours.


Ship Losses:

Constance (United States) The 78-gross register ton fishing vessel was wrecked without loss of life on the south-central coast of the Territory of Alaska 25 nautical miles (46 km; 29 mi) east of Cape Suckling (59°59′30″N 143°30′00″W). The schooner Northland ( United States) rescued her crew of 15 from the beach.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, August 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


(Field Marshal Sir H Wilson, Mr J F Dulles, and General Sackville-West, together with M Loucheur and General Weygand, were present.)

1. The Council takes note of a draft telegram which it is proposed to send to the Romanian Government at Bucharest in the name of the Council.

M Loucheur says that the telegram in question was drafted by the Organizing Committee of the Reparations Commission.

(It is decided that the telegram for communication to the Romanian Government at Bucharest, on the subject of the requisition of war material by the Romanian Army in Hungary, should be accepted and dispatched.)

Mr Polk informs the Council, that when the Romanians first showed an inclination to collect in Hungary whatever they think due to them for reparation, he had asked the Government at Washington to stop the delivery of contracts undertaken between the United States and Romania. The Romanians had expressed indignation at this measure, but he thinks it necessary to cut off all supplies to that country. He asks whether it has any other source of supply.

M Clemenceau says that he does not know of any.

General Weygand said that the Council has previously decided to supply war material to Romania, some of which has not yet been delivered.

M Clemenceau says that the supplies not yet sent ought to be stopped.

Mr Balfour says that similar measures can be taken from London.

General Weygand asks whether supplies for which payment has been made should also be stopped.

M Clemenceau says that they should.

S Tittoni said that the Council of Four had decided on a previous occasion to reduce the armaments of new states. This decision has never been put into effect. The Military Representatives at Versailles ought to have suggested concrete proposals, but had not done so.

General Sackville-West says that a preliminary report had been given and a request made for further information on certain points; when this has been received, a final report could be sent.

M Loucheur says that he had been the Chairman of the Committee dealing with the question, and he and his colleagues had wished to know what material had been sent to the small States, but the Military Representatives at Versailles want to know the total armament under the control of each separate State. This is information that cannot be obtained, since the countries concerned will not supply the necessary data. The amount of material delivered by Great Britain, Italy, and other Powers, had been communicated to Versailles, who could now make a report.

S Tittoni, insisting on his previous point, stated that, despite the wish of the Council that armaments should be limited, so as to avoid future wars, no real effort is being made to impose this decision on the small States. It would appear that every nation was making further warlike preparations, which fact made the early solution of the question important.

M Clemenceau says that when the question had been discussed, he had made considerable reservations. He had not seen how such restrictions could be imposed upon victorious States by their own Allies.

S Tittoni remarks that some of the victorious countries appear to be making ready for war.

(It is decided that all delivery of war material to Romania by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be stopped immediately, and that the prohibition should remain in force until further orders. The aforesaid prohibition is to extend to war material to be delivered under contract, and to war materials for which payment had been made.)


2. The Council takes note of a telegram from Colonel Goodyear on the subject of the situation in Silesia.

M Loucheur say that he and Mr Hoover are going to meet the German Representatives at Versailles, who hope that a reply from the German Government would be on hand during the course of the afternoon.

Mr. Balfour said that it would be unwise to send the telegram, drafted by the Organizing Committee of the Reparations Commission until we knew whether the German Government would consent to the despatch of troops to Silesia, before the date specified in the Peace Treaty.

M Loucheur replies that the German Government’s consent is only necessary for the despatch of troops, and not for the Coal Committee.

(M Loucheur and Mr J F Dulles then withdraw.)


3. Mr Balfour says that he desires to make an appeal to his colleagues of the Council. Under the provisions of the Peace Treaty, German Prisoners ought to be returned to their own country on ratification. If the Parliaments of Italy, France and of other Allied countries had been able to ratify the Treaty, the prisoners would have been returned by now. He does not wish his colleagues to think that this remark implied any criticism whatsoever upon the parliamentary procedure in Allied countries. He does, however, draw the attention of the Council to the fact that the result of the delay was extremely burdensome. He had been informed by Field Marshal Wilson that there are 220,000 prisoners in English hands, and that the cost of keeping them was £90,000 a day, that is, £1,000,000 in 11 days. There was no military advantage to be gained from the retention of these prisoners. On the contrary, they detained British troops which were needed elsewhere. He hoped, therefore, that the Council might give a “bienveillant” consideration to the point that he laid before them.

Mr Polk says that the same question arises for the United States. The Americans had 40,000 prisoners guarded by 10,000 men. The demobilization of the specially-raised American Armies was proceedings, and by the 30th September, the dissolution of the American War Forces should be complete. He had asked his legal advisors whether the prisoners in question might be transferred to another Power, and the answer had been, that, under the provisions of existing Treaties, such a transfer would not be legal. General Pershing had stated that the question was urgent. The total cost of paying the troops guarding the prisoners and of maintaining the prisoners themselves came to about 2,000,000 dollars a month.

Field Marshal Wilson then says that the total number of troops necessary for the custody of German prisoners was 60,000.

M Clemenceau says that he approaches the question from a different standpoint, in that he has 350,000 German prisoners employed in useful work on the devastated regions. He would therefore have preferred that the German prisoners should be transferred to him, so long as they remained under the control of the Government of the captor. He knew nothing of the legal aspect of the question of transfer, but wondered whether some form of contract could not be drawn up. Speaking frankly, he intended to return the German prisoners as late as he possibly could, but he had no intention of doing anything contrary to the provisions of the Peace Treaty. While seeing the force of the British point of view, it did not seem to him possible to return the prisoners before the date stipulated under the Treaty. If, however, it is possible to do so, he wants to retain the German prisoners in France to the last moment. The French Government had opened a discussion with the Austrian and Polish Governments, with a view to obtaining labor for the devastated regions, and he has reasons for hoping that negotiations will be successful. The German prisoners do not work well, and they are under custody of young soldiers of 19 and 20 years of age, who could not exercise much control over them. On the other hand, he would rather have German prisoners than nobody. He asked on what date the Peace Treaty would be ratified in Allied countries.

Mr Balfour replies that he thinks Great Britain would ratify on the 10th September.

M Clemenceau said France would ratify about the 15th September.

S Tittoni gives the same date.

Mr Polk says that America might ratify later, possibly on about the 1st October.

Mr Balfour remarked that it is not necessary for the other Allied Powers to wait for America. The ratification by the British Colonies would be early in September. The Treaty would come fully into force when Great Britain, France and Italy had ratified it.

M Clemenceau says that in accordance with the dates just given, the Treaty would come into force in three weeks’ time. He suggests that Field Marshal Wilson should consult with General Weygand. It will, of course, be understood that Great Britain should retain all her rights over the prisoners taken by her Armies. He suggested that some kind of transfer might be found possible.

Mr Balfour asks what are the provisions of military law on the point in question.

M Clemenceau replies that he does not know: he only wanted the two Generals to confer and report.

Field Marshal Wilson says that the question seems rather to be one for lawyers.

Mr Polk asks that General Pershing should also discuss the matter with Field Marshal Wilson and General Weygand.

M Clemenceau said that Generals should bear in mind that prisoners could not be sent back at once. Such a measure would put France in a most difficult position, since it was evident that she had been devastated, and required work, whilst Great Britain and America had no such special needs.

M. Berthelot remarked that a precedent for the transfer of prisoners of war exists in the case of Belgium, which country had allocated seven or eight thousand men to France.

S Tittoni adds that after Serbia had been invaded, and the Austrian prisoners taken by that country delivered to Italy, Italy had made a loan of them to France.

(It is decided that Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, General Pershing and General Weygand and General Cavallero should examine conjointly by what means German prisoners in American and British hands, and at present in France, could be transferred to the French Government. The rights of the British and American Governments over the aforesaid prisoners should remain without alteration. A report on the above question should be submitted to the Council.)


4. Mr Balfour says that Allied troops had been promised for plebiscite areas in Danzig, Memel, Upper Silesia, Schleswig, and Klagenfurt. He does not wish in any way to raise the question of the number of troops that each of the Eastern Europe Allies is to supply. He wishes to take the opportunity of repeating that Great Britain would carry out all engagements that she had entered into. He is only going to raise the question of how the troops should be distributed. He has been told that mixed forces raise difficulties of command and supply. The great harmony which existed between the Allied troops did not overcome the difficulties to which he had drawn attention. Troops were accustomed to be commanded by their own officers. They did not like passing under the orders of foreign Generals. They are, moreover, accustomed to have their own food, and be treated in their own hospitals. In a mixed division, every kind of supply had to come from four separate sources. He would therefore like to see each body of troops in a given locality, homogeneous. It is not quite possible, for the numbers of troops necessary for different localities varied. He wishes, therefore, that the military experts could advise the Council how far some such measure could be put into effect. Inter-Allied Troops for Plebiscite Areas in Eastern Europe

M Clemenceau says that he regards Mr Balfour’s argument as conclusive. There is, however, another, political, side to the question. He does not desire that any military occupation of Poland should take place without the French being represented. The relations between France and Poland were intimate, and he thinks it most important that the French Army should go to that country. He considers Mr Balfour’s remarks so forcible, however, that he thinks his proposals might be considered at once with regard to Silesia.

General Weygand says that on the previous day, the Council had taken a decision for the despatch of two divisions. He had already been in consultation with General Pershing and Field Marshal Wilson on the subject. The discussion had been based on the understanding that each country should supply one-quarter of the total force.

S Tittoni suggests that each contingent might be placed under its own command.

M Clemenceau remarks that the French troops in Asia had been placed under the orders of a British General without the slightest discord arising. He thinks, therefore, that General Weygand should continue to examine the question.

Mr Balfour said that he thought that France should not only be represented in any military occupation of Poland, but that she should be largely represented.

General Weygand, remarking on Mr Balfour’s last statement, says that the decision communicated to him had been that each Allied contingent should be equal.

S Tittoni said that he had only agreed to equal contributions for one division. He made a reservation on the same principle being applied to the composition of two divisions.

Mr Polk asks if he is right in understanding that the Committee of General Officers would report back their recommendations to the Council for final action.

(It is decided that Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, General Pershing and General Weygand should recommend a distribution among the Allies of the contingents to be furnished for the various plebiscite zones, such as to make each contingent a homogeneous national unit as far as consistent with the political necessity of having all the Allies represented in each region.)


5. General Weygand reads the draft of a telegram to be transmitted to the German Government on the sale of aeronautical war material.

Mr Polk says that he is ready to accept the draft telegram, subject to his military advisers raising no objection. If any points were raised, he would let General Weygand know in the afternoon so that the transmission should not be delayed.

(It is decided that the draft telegram for transmission to the German Government on the subject of the sale of aeronautical war material should be accepted, subject to notification by Mr Polk that he has no objection.)

(At this point General Weygand & General Sackville-West leave the room.)


6. The Council takes note of the report of the Blockade Committee on the subject of the measures to be taken in order to prevent trade with Bolshevik Russia.

Mr Polk says that certain points raised by his experts make it necessary for him to withhold his assent from the note for the present. In order to save time, however, he suggests that the ‘ note should be referred back to the Blockade Committee, and he would see that the American representative would lay before his colleagues such objections as might be raised, from an American point of view.

(It is decided that the draft note of the Blockade Committee should be referred back to that body for a further consideration of the American standpoint.)


7. The Council takes note of a draft declaration prepared by the British Delegation on the subject of the blockade of Hungary.

(It is decided that the special declaration for signature by the Austrian Delegation should be accepted.)



(At this point, M Haas, Mr Tyman, Mr. Headlam-Morley, and M. Adatci enter the room.)


8. M Haas states that the immediate application of the reciprocity clauses, as requested by Austria, had been refused in the case of the Germans, on the ground that it is not wished that the latter should profit by the devastation committed by its Armies. The Committee on Ports, Waterways and Railways thinks another reason existed for postponing the application of these articles. The reason is that the economic position of the New States, previously under the government of Vienna, should be supported in the years immediately following the war. The Committee on Ports, Waterways and Railways also considered, that it could not alter clauses involving material changes in the principles of the Peace Treaty.

Mr Balfour says that the Council is surely of the opinion that some kind of economic unity between the States of the late Austro-Hungarian Empire should be encouraged. If this cannot be effected, the States in question will be powerless and will become subject to German economic penetration on a more extended scale than had existed before the war. Each State formed out of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy could be given a fair power of bargaining. If the Peace Treaty is presented in its present form, the Austrian Republic will not be in a position to bargain with its neighbors. We have a right to impose this disadvantage upon her, but it was not in our interest. But he certainly considers that it was to the advantage of the Allied Powers, that Austria should not be in a position to bargain with them. He would like to know the views of his colleagues on the subject.

S Tittoni says that the Council might well consider whether immediate reciprocity could not be extended to Austria and the New States of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He thinks that the second argument brought forward by the Committee on Ports, Waterways and Railways, as to the necessity of stabilizing the economic conditions of the States of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, was a weak one. He does not see how the previous system of centralized government could affect transport problems in the New States. He adds that the transport system, which had previously been centralized at Vienna and Budapest, had worked very well.

Mr Polk says he thinks that they might be placing a severe handicap on the Austrian Republic by postponing the application of the reciprocity clauses. The Czechoslovak State would find it to their interest to have the restrictions, placed on Austria, removed. Bohemia had been so connected with Austria in the past, that an interference in the commercial exchange between the two States would obviously be a disadvantage to Czechoslovakia.

Mr Haas says that the Committee on Ports and Waterways has made no specific proposal; but has drawn the attention of the Council to the problem. Its opinion coincides with that of Mr Balfour. If the Council thinks that the States concerned are to be regarded as possessing equal rights, reciprocity should be applied immediately. If they are not in that position, it should be withheld for a time.

Mr Balfour says that he was in favour of granting immediate reciprocity between Austria and the New States formed out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

S Tittoni said that he would only agree on the understanding that the reciprocity under discussion should exist between Austria and the New States formed by the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He further insists that the reciprocity should apply only to the clauses dealing with Ports, Waterways and Railways.

(It is agreed that the articles dealing with Ports, Waterways and Railways, (Part XII) of the Peace Treaty with Austria should be amended so as to allow of the immediate application of the reciprocity clauses between Austria and the States formed from the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy by virtue of acquisitions of part of her territory.)


9. (It is decided that the alterations proposed in the Articles of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria dealing with Ports, Railways and Waterways, should be accepted.)

(At this point, Mr Haas, Mr Tyman, Mr Headlam-Morley and Mr. Adatci leave the room.)


10. Mr Polk asks that the consideration of the proposed draft should be postponed to the next meeting. Reply by the Communication Section of the Supreme Economic Council to the Romanian Note Relative to Regulation of Traffic on the Danube

(This is agreed to.)


11. Draft Treaties Between the Allied & Associated Powers and Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, on the Subject of the Cost of Liberation of the Territories in the Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.


12. Agreement Between the Allied & Associated Powers Relative to the Contribution Payable by Italy for the Liberation of Territories Belonging to the Former Austro-Hungarian Empire.

(It is agreed that the consideration of the above draft agreements should be postponed.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

24th August 1919

Anti-Bolshevik forces, with support from the British Navy, successfully retake Odessa from the Red Army. British troops with a recaptured French Ft-17 tank, which had been captured by the Bolsheviks at Odessa earlier this year.


Overcrowded train in Romania filled with refugees and wounded soldiers.

[Sailor Steve]

Sunday, August 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Being a Sunday there are are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

25th August 1919

Friedrich Ebert, first President of Germany, reviewing troops in Munich. The city was recently retaken from Communist forces.


Ralph Madsen, a Texas cowboy and the tallest man in the U.S. at 7 feet and 6 inches, shakes hands with Senator Morris Sheppard.


Ship Losses:

Malroe (United States) While out of service and hauled out on the bank of the Snake River near Nome, Territory of Alaska, about 0.5 mile (0.8 km) from the river′s mouth, the 12-gross register ton schooner was destroyed by fire.

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, August 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. After an exchange of views between M Clemenceau and S Tittoni, regarding the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fiume Incidents,

Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Incidents at Fiume It is agreed to accept the conclusions of the Commission’s Report. The French and Italian Governments undertook to give effect to these recommendations.


2. M Clemenceau says that he has heard from General Graziani, who had been the last of the Generals to reach Budapest, that his colleagues had already decided that the Chairmanship of the Meetings should be held by each in turn. He had accepted provisionally, but asked for orders, as he was the senior officer. M Clemenceau thinks that for purposes of continuity it is better to have one Chairman. He will not insist, however.

S Tittoni thinks that it is best to let the Generals settle this question among themselves.

Mr Balfour says that, although alternating chairmanship was a bad system, it is, perhaps, the best way of avoiding friction.

Mr Polk says that in General Bandholtz’ view, rotation is necessary.

(It is agreed that M Clemenceau should inform General Graziani that the Council sees no objection to the maintenance of the system of rotation in the chairmanship of the Inter-Allied Military Mission at Budapest.)

3. Mr Polk says that he is informed by General Bandholtz that General Graziani had sent a report to the effect that, in the opinion of the Allied Generals, it was necessary to break off relations with the Romanian. He begged to communicate the following telegram to the Council:

“Budapest - August 24, 1919.
Received 13:20 August 25.

Admission. Paris.

“The following instances of Romanian requisitions and seizures are given for your information. August 17, all the typewriters of the Underwood Agency about 20 were seized. August 18 - 30 car-loads of wool, the property of the Hungarian Wool Trust, were shipped out of Budapest. August 18—the Hungarian Minister Hygiene reported the seizure of all their supplies by Roumanian officials. August 21—there was seized car-loads of coal which belong to the Municipal Water Plant of Budapest. August 21 - there were seized 110 race horses at the Alge Farm. These were the property of private individuals. August 22 - all the machinery of the Hungarian State shops was dismantled, resulting in six thousand men being out of work. August 22—a demand was made on the Minister of Agriculture for topographical charts, instruments, etc, stating that if they were not delivered, same would be taken by force of arms. August 22—the Minister of Foreign Affairs reported that the Romanians [Page 837]had requisitioned all of the valuable breeding animals on the three Hungarian State stud farms. On August 23—50 per cent of all the material of the Ganz Danubius Company, Limited, a large building concern, was taken, throwing out of employment over 4,300 persons. August 22 - there was being loaded the remaining half of these supplies of the Ministry of Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones, the other half having been previously taken about August 10. On August 22 mechanics were being sent around to remove 4,000 telephones from private houses.

“All of the foregoing occurred subsequent to the promise of the Romanians that they would comply with instructions of the Inter-Allied Mission. Many delicate instruments were thrown into boxes and other receptacles in such a careless manner that they could never be of use to anybody. Many other similar instances occurred during the period indicated. As near as can be now estimated, the Romanians have seized about 60% of all Hungarian locomotives in good condition, 95% of all passenger equipment and about 5,000 freight cars.

Bandholtz.”

Mr Polk adds that he has received another communication from General Bandholtz. He says that in his view the time of the Mission had been wasted, and that nothing was to be gained by any further intercourse with the Romanian authorities. The latter maintained their policy of procrastination and had repeatedly broken their promises. The Romanians, in his opinion, were making the Council appear ridiculous.

Mr Balfour says that he has received a telegram to the effect that the Romanian plenipotentiaries had brought the Generals in Budapest a note from their Government, stating that they were ready to act in friendly agreement and in accord with the instructions sent by the Council on the 5th August, but not without certain modifications. The security of Romania and her economic needs were considerations which must modify the instructions. The Romanian Government means to move all war material into Romania on the ground that there would be no force able to compel Hungary to give it up when the Romanian Army was withdrawn. In addition, Romania would have to requisition all that her Army required, and 30% besides for her own population. She must also take away the rolling stock, as Germany had only left her sixty engines out of twelve hundred. They also declared that they had a right to take any goods recognised as previously belonging to the Romanian Government; these goods not counting as a portion of the spoil to be divided among the Allies.

M Diamandy, questioned as to his attitude, should the Commission refuse to discuss these conditions, had replied that he would be forced to refer to Mr Bratiano. Every means of procuring delay is being employed, and in the meantime the despoiling of Hungary continued.

S Tittoni says that one thing he cannot understand was why the Mission did not make a corporate report to the Conference.

M Pichon says that one such report has just been received.

M Loucheur points out that what is practically an ultimatum has been sent to the Romanian Government on the previous Saturday. He suggests that an answer be awaited before any further decision was taken.

Mr Polk says that for the last fortnight the Council has been sending telegrams to Romania. No attention has been paid to those telegrams. It is intolerable that the Council should be flouted in this way by the Romanians.

S Tittoni says that what the Council requires is an answer from Bucharest. It cannot be satisfied with answers given by Romanian Generals. Should the Romanian Government delay its reply, the Allied representatives in Bucharest should demand an explanation.

Mr Balfour asks whether the Council can take any steps short of belligerency to signify their displeasure, should the Romanian Government unduly delay its reply.

Mr Polk says that at a previous meeting, it had been decided to stop the sending of all supplies to Romania. He notices in the minutes that the decision is limited to “war supplies”.

Mr Balfour says that in referring to the British Government, he had mentioned all supplies.

M Clemenceau says that he had done likewise, and that the export of all supplies from France has already been stopped.

(It is agreed, with reference to H.D. 37, Minute I,2 that the export of all supplies to Romania should be stopped from the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, until further orders. It is further decided to send the Romanian Government, through the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest, a reminder that a reply to telegrams was expected.


4. M Clemenceau said that he has received information that the British and American Armies on the Rhine are selling horses and cars to the Germans.

Mr. Balfour says that he had at once spoken about this matter to Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, who had tried to telephone to Cologne for news. The occupation telephone, however, is not working. As soon as he obtains news, the Council will be informed.

Mr Polk says he has no information whatever but that he undertakes to obtain it.

(It is agreed that the British and American Delegations should give the Council any information available regarding the alleged sales to the Germans by the Armies of Occupation.)


5. Notification to the Ottoman Government by United States High Commissioner Regarding American Massacres M Clemenceau draws attention to a report stating that Admiral Bristol, the American High Commissioner in Constantinople, has presented a threatening memorandum to the Grand Notification to the Vizier, without previous consultation of the Allied High Commissioners. He does not think that President Wilson will approve of this policy. He draws special attention to the twelfth of the Fourteen Points:

“The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured, an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees”.

All the Allies had adhered to this and the policy cannot now be changed. Least of all could one High Commissioner dictate terms to Turkey, with whom his State had not been at war, without consultation with the Associated Powers. As to saving the Armenians, he did not know what could be done. There were no American troops. British troops were employed elsewhere. The French are not allowed by the British to play any part in Asia Minor. The Italians, it is true, had gone to Asia Minor in spite of the British, but they declined to replace the British in the Caucasus. As to the Turks, they are themselves powerless, as they cannot control their own troops. He does not see from what quarter the Armenians could expect any assistance.

S Tittoni said that this was one of the inevitable consequences of delaying Peace with Turkey.

M Clemenceau says that even when Peace has been made, it is not likely that the Armenians would be better off.

Mr Balfour says that this situation was really the consequence of a lack of troops. He understands that the United States are raising a volunteer army. If so, perhaps some of these troops could be employed in Armenia.

Mr Polk says that recruiting for the volunteer army was beginning.

Mr Balfour asked M Clemenceau whether, but for British opposition, he would send French troops to prevent the massacres in Armenia.

M Clemenceau says that he will consider the matter.

Mr Balfour says that he takes note of this declaration.

M Clemenceau said that he makes no undertaking. The French had very few troops in Cilicia, but he would inquire whether they could do anything to save the Armenians. What he had meant to convey was that nothing could be expected from the Americans, who were hampered by their constitution, from the British, who were leaving the Caucasus, from the Italians, who will not go there, or from the French who were not allowed a free hand. The Turks, not being masters in their own house, were equally impotent. The Armenians were therefore no-one’s responsibility.

Mr Balfour asks M Clemenceau whether he thinks it worth while to ask the French Military Authorities whether they can do anything.

M Clemenceau said he had not come to the Meeting with this idea. As he was pushed, however, he would consent to be pushed. He will make inquiries. Possibly the French Army might be able to do something.

Mr Balfour says that he thinks it would be well worth while to find out.

(It was agreed that the French Government should inquire into the possibility of sending military protection to the Armenians.

It is also agreed that no pressure should be brought on the Sultan by any of the Allied and Associated Powers, acting alone.)


6. M Cambon explained the procedure followed by his Committee. He proposes to begin by explaining the covering letter.

M Clemenceau suggests that as the covering letter was a result of the various answers on particular questions, it had better be reserved for the end.

(a) Frontiers M Cambon said that the first question to be discussed is that of frontiers.

On the subject of frontiers, the Austrian objections had been rejected. The only dissentients were the British and American Delegates, who desired to give Gmünd to Austria.

Mr. Headlam-Morley says that the question was a simple one. The principle of the historic frontier had been adopted for Czechoslovakia. By it, the inclusion of a considerable number of Germans in the new State was justified. It was undesirable to deviate from this principle in order to add still more Germans to Czechoslovakia. The attribution of Gmünd to Czechoslovakia constituted a derogation from the principle of the historic frontier, and still further aggravated the ethnological anomaly. It is justified on grounds of railway communication. He had consulted General Mance, who told him that, on purely technical grounds, it was better to leave Gmünd in Austria. If this is so, there was no sufficient reason for taking Gmünd out of its natural surroundings. He understands that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways had never been consulted.

M Tardieu says that the question has been studied carefully before, both in Commissions, and in Council. The Czechoslovak Delegation had also been heard on the subject. A change now would amount to a third alteration in the decisions of the Council. It was true that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways had not been consulted, but territorial committees had never consulted that body as such. Each representative consulted his own experts. The case had therefore been judged and re-judged, and the opinion now brought forward by Mr Headlam-Morley is merely that of an individual expert.

Mr Balfour says he recognizes that it was a pity to re-open questions which have been settled. Nevertheless, the argument on the merits in this case is very strong. The rule of following the historic frontier was being broken to hand over a purely German population to Czechoslovakia. There are already too many Germans in Czechoslovakia, even if the historic line were followed. The two or three million Germans already included would certainly be a great perplexity to a new State. Nevertheless, the whole history of Bohemia afforded some justification for preserving the country as a unit. The district of Gmünd had never been Bohemian. The only ground for putting Gmünd within Czechoslovakia was economic. He is told that Gmünd was the first big railway junction out of Vienna. The population was incontestably German, and the British railway expert thought that the junction was better in Austria than in Czecho-Slovakia, on purely technical grounds. M Tardieu had said nothing on the merits except that the Council had twice decided to give Gmünd to the Czechs. If the Council was never to revise its decisions, its task would doubtless be rendered easier. It did not follow, however, that its results would be better.

M Tardieu says that he had not only referred to the decision of the Council; he had pointed out that there had been an agreement with the Czechoslovak Delegation itself. The attribution of the junction of Gmünd to Czechoslovakia had been part of a general arrangement which extended to Pressburg and other places. If this arrangement were changed at the last moment, the Czechoslovak Delegation would have reason to complain of bad faith. All the previous decisions had been unanimous. It is therefore a political reason, and, in addition, two essential Bohemian railway lines converged at this point.

Mr Polk says that Mr Lansing and the American experts had felt at the beginning that Gmünd should be Austrian. Nevertheless, in order to obtain agreement, they had yielded to the majority opinion. They still think, however, that the rule established in favour of the historic frontier should not be broken. For this reason he supports the British view.

S Tittoni said that there appeared to be good arguments on both sides. He is ready to accept either solution.

Mr Matsui says that the Japanese adhere to the former decision of the Council, and wished to maintain it.

(After a long discussion, Mr Balfour and Mr Polk, seeing that Gmünd had been attributed to Czechoslovakia as part of a compromise, the other parts of which were not called in question, withdraw the objection raised by the British and the American Delegates.

The answer prepared to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of the frontier between Austria and Czechoslovakia is accepted.)

M Cambon points out that there is a difference of opinion on the subject of Styria. The American, British, Italian and Japanese Delegations think that the Austrian demand for a plebiscite in the region of Marburg should be accepted. The French Delegation is not of this opinion. It is recognised that Marburg is German, but the surrounding districts were undoubtedly Slovene.

S Tittoni said that as the neighboring region was to have a plebiscite, it was easy to extend it to Marburg.

M Clemenceau says he thinks it would be difficult to refuse the plebiscite.

M Tardieu says he had no prejudice against plebiscites, but in this case he thinks it is unnecessary. Marburg is certainly German, but in a region peopled by Slovenes. The result of a plebiscite was a foregone conclusion, Marburg would vote German and the country round it would vote Slovene. What could then be done? Was the town to be sacrificed to the country or the country to the town? No frontier line could be obtained as a result of the plebiscite. In Carinthia, on the other hand, a frontier might be obtained. There would therefore be quite needless trouble without any useful result.

(After considerable further discussion, it is decided to accept the Austrian demands and to extend the plebiscite zone in such a manner as to include in it the district of Marburg and Radkersburg.)

M Cambon observes that the British and Italian Delegations held a minority view on the subject of the plebiscite zones in Carinthia, They proposed four instead of two plebiscite zones.

(After some discussion, the British and Italian reservations are withdrawn and the reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of Carinthia is accepted.

The reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of the frontier between Austria and Hungary and on the frontier between Austria and Italy is likewise accepted.)

(b) The reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of nationality questions is accepted.

(c) The question involving is adjourned.

(d) Military Naval and Air Clauses The British Delegation withdraws its objections, and the reply prepared to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of the Military, Naval and Air Clauses is accepted.

(e) The reply drafted to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of prisoners of war is accepted.

(f) M Cambon pointed out that there are two draft replies on this subject, one prepared by the Commission and the other suggested by the British and Japanese Delegation.

Mr Headlam-Morley observes that on the substance, he is in agreement with the majority. He wishes to defend the Treaty but he thinks that the draft he proposes defends it more accurately. There is a very technical legal point involved.

(It is decided to refer both drafts to the Drafting Committee for coordination.)

(g) The draft reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of reparations is accepted.

(h) After long discussion, the proposed reply to the Austrian Delegation on the financial clauses is accepted, with the exception of the alternative proposal of the American, British and Japanese Delegation regarding Article 199 which is adjourned until the following day.


7. The Agreement Between the Allies Regarding the Contribution of Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czecho-Slovakia to the Cost of Liberation of the Territories of the Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is accepted.


8. The agreement annexed in Appendix H is accepted.


9. Declaration by Austria That All Action Tending To Overthrow of the Austrian State as Constituted by the Treaty Would Be Prohibited M Tardieu proposes that a Committee be charged with the examination of a proposal which had been drafted in the following terms:

“Austria undertakes not to tolerate on her territory any act whether of propaganda or of any other sort by Austrian subjects or by foreign subjects with a purpose subversive of Austria as an independent State. Acts of this character should be regarded as directed against the security of the State and treated as such. The Austrian Government should interpret on its part this enactment as an undertaking not to compromise or allow to be compromised, directly or indirectly, the independence of the State, particularly in the legislative sphere, by preparatory measures, and in the sphere of public or private instruction by propaganda. No law or regulation or official action of any sort shall conflict with these stipulations. In case there should be any divergence of interpretation between the Austrian Government and one, or several, of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the discrepancy will be referred either to the Council of the League of Nations or, when instituted, brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. These Bodies will also pass decrees regarding measures desirable to ensure the carrying into effect of their findings and to prevent the recurrence of similar difficulties.”

S Tittoni said that this is a very serious proposal. It attempts to regulate the internal Constitution of Austria for all time, not on a special point, but through the whole of its extent.

Mr Balfour says that he hoped the Council will be very careful before putting into the Treaty, or into a letter having the force of a Treaty, any form of words which would compel the Allied and Associated Powers to impose domestic legislation on Austria, and to maintain police authority over private, as well as public, speech. He thought the proposal was really very repugnant to all that constituted an independent state. He believed, moreover, that if agreed to, it would remain ineffective. The only way to prevent Austria from gravitating towards Germany was to make terms such that she would be content to live apart. Any attempt to prevent an Austrian from saying that he wished to join Germany would, he thought, cover both the Council and the League of Nations with ridicule.

M Tardieu says that he is impressed by Mr Balfour’s criticisms regarding the methods suggested. He thinks that perhaps the first sentence alone would suffice. The suggestion is a corollary to what had been put into the German Treaty.

Mr Balfour says that he thinks that the omission of the bulk of the document would be an improvement. He observes that the corollary to the provisions of the German Treaty would be to forbid the Austrian Government to do certain things. This might be done without incurring the objections he had previously stated.

M Tardieu says that the Austrians are already saying that they had no hope of living apart unless the League of Nations takes special care of them. The Council is trying to give the Austrians conditions which might make it possible for them to live independently. What he now suggested is a counterpart to those favors. He believes that Dr Renner would readily agree, seeing that Herr Bauer had resigned because he could not convert the Government to the contrary view. It would be enough, he thought, if the mere principle were agreed to.

Mr Polk asks whether M Tardieu suggests that this should be said in the Treaty.

M Tardieu says he thinks it would be sufficient if agreed to in the covering letter sent with the replies.

Mr Polk thinks this is preferable.

Mr Balfour says that he thinks this proposal had better be put into a new form, and suggested that M Tardieu should propose one.

M Tardieu says that he would do so; what he suggested was to say in the covering letter that the Allies were confident that the Austrian Government means to do what the Allies hope will be done, and he believes that the Austrian Delegation would give a satisfactory answer.

(It is decided that a sentence to the effect desired should be introduced in the covering letter, and considered on the following day.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

26th August 1919

At a Life Guards Sports Day in Hyde Park, a cavalryman shoots a dummy while on horseback.


Serbian children at a playground in Belgrade built by German prisoners of war.


The first regularly scheduled airline service begins between London and Paris by the British Aircraft Transport & Travel Ltd (which British Airways traces its roots)


HMT Olympic returns to Belfast, Northern Ireland to be converted from a coal burning ship to an oil burning ship. During the conversion a dent with a crack was discovered below her waterline which was later concluded to have been caused by a torpedo that had failed to detonate.

[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, August 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 11:00

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


1. M Pichon circulates a telegram from General Dupont.

Mr Balfour says that he did not understand the delay referred to in the telegram. It states that General Dupont could not act in the absence of precise instructions. In stating that he could have taken action had instructions been given to him earlier and with more precision, he was criticizing the procedure of the Council in a manner which did not appear justifiable.

Mr Polk said that as the instructions given to the three Generals delegated by the Inter-Allied Commission at Berlin had been drawn up after M Loucheur and Mr Hoover had been heard by the Council, he proposes that this new telegram should be referred to them for comment.

S Tittoni asked whether the Coal Committee had started.

M Loucheur replies that the Coal Committee had started last night, and that the French representative, at present in Warsaw, would meet them at Ostrau. This fact, however, did not alter the question at issue. The German Delegation had agreed that the Committee of three Generals should be sent. It had also stated that the German Government would not ask for Allied troops, for the occupation of Upper Silesia, for reasons connected with their internal politics. As the news before the Council was at present contradictory and confused, he thought that the previous decision should be maintained, which was, that the Generals should proceed to Silesia and join Colonel Goodyear; after this had been done, they were to forward a report. The Coal Committee, on the other hand, could only deal with the technical problems, connected with the distribution and production of coal: the Silesian problem did not come within its functions. He would consult with Mr Hoover on the subject of the telegram before the Council.

Mr Balfour asks whether General Dupont opposed the Allied policy.

M Loucheur says that he did not, and re-reads the telegram in confirmation of his statement. Von Lersner had said that the German Government agreed to the despatch of the Generals. This is a statement of fact, whereas General Dupont’s telegram was only a statement of personal opinion. The German representatives at Versailles might be made to confirm Von Lersner’s previous statement.

Mr Balfour says that he understands that General Dupont is opposed to the measures proposed by the Council.

M Loucheur replies that General Dupont does not oppose the Council’s decision, but only stated that it would cause more excitement than tranquillity.

Mr Balfour says that such a statement implied a very severe criticism of the Council’s policy.

M Loucheur replies that a decision had been arrived at to the effect that Generals should be sent, and this decision had been communicated to the Polish Government with a request to make it publicly known. If this decision were reversed, the Government at Warsaw must be immediately informed. Colonel Goodyear had varied his opinion. It appeared to be eminently necessary, that the Council should obtain clear and reliable information upon the situation, which is, at present, confused.

S Tittoni remarks that in his opinion there were two points calling for the Council’s attention. First, the actual intentions of the German Government should be ascertained. Secondly, as General Dupont stated that the presence of the Generals would cause excitement, this point should also be considered.

(It is agreed that the previous decision of the Council, with regard to the despatch of the Allied Generals to Silesia should be up-held, and that M Loucheur and Mr Hoover should consult together upon the latest telegram from General Dupont and report on any measures that it called for.)


2. Mr Polk says that he wished to call attention to the Resolution of the previous day (See H. D. 38, Minute 12) with regard to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on the incidents at Fiume. He wished to know whether the report dents at Fiume in question had been adopted in principle or in detail. He had understood that only the principles of the report had been accepted by the Council, and that the Council had not agreed, or committed itself, to carry out the details of execution recommended by the Commission, such as the sending of American troops to Fiume. He is unable to agree to the sending of these troops at once, without consulting his Military Advisers, and therefore limited his action in the matter to accepting the report in principle. Report With Regard to the Incidents at Fiume

Mr Balfour says that he agrees with Mr. Polk. The report raises two questions. The first dealt with the despatch of troops. According to the Resolution, responsibility for this rested entirely with the French and with the Italians, to the exclusion of Great Britain and the United States. The second question was raised by the wording of Resolution No. 11 in the report, which concerned the general economic policy of the Allies. The sentiments expressed in this Resolution were admirable, since everybody wished to assist the Italians. He thinks, however, that they were misplaced in a report of this kind.

S Tittoni said that before the report had been discussed in the Council, he had had a private exchange of views with M Clemenceau, and they had agreed to accept, and to take action, on the conclusions of the report affecting their countries. With regard to Resolution 11 of the report, he understood that it had been inserted by the American delegate on the Commission of Inquiry. He took the opportunity of thanking him for the sentiments expressed.

M Pichon in support of S Tittoni’s remarks, read the resolution of the previous meeting. He noticed, however, that the report of the Commission of Inquiry on incidents at Fiume had involved the despatch of Allied troops, and he had been of the opinion that everybody present had assented.

Mr Balfour said that the previous resolution of the Council had been examined by his experts, and that by its wording excluded the despatch of British troops. His objection, therefore, was that, whilst executive action was called for in Fiume, Great Britain and the United States appeared to be excluded from participation in it.

M Pichon says that he could not regard Great Britain and the United States as being excluded from participation in the executive measures at Fiume. He failed to see how the previous resolution could be interpreted as a separate agreement between France and Italy, since both these countries had merely accepted a report drawn up by the four Inter-Allied Generals.

Mr Polk said that he differed from Mr Balfour’s conclusions. France and Italy had special obligations between themselves in the matter; by recognizing them, they did not disregard the obligations of other Powers, such as Great Britain and the United States.

S Tittoni agree with Mr Polk.

Mr Polk says that the resolution does not imply the existence of a special agreement between France and Italy. Though assenting in principle, he cannot accept the details of the report without further consultation with his Government.

Mr Balfour says that it would be sufficient to alter the resolution to read:

“It is agreed to accept in principle, the conclusions of the Commission’s report.

The French and Italian Governments undertake to give effect to these recommendations, in so far as they are specially concerned.”

His second point had been that it was not proper for a Commission of this description to include, in its resolutions, a general recommendation with regard to economic assistance for Italy. The incidents at Fiume were quite independent of such considerations, and the Generals ought not to have raised the question, however natural their desire to assist Italy might be. As long as his protests on the subject were recorded, he would be satisfied.

S Tittoni remarked that the resolution to which Mr Balfour had objected had not been brought forward by the Italian representative on the Commission.

Mr Polk says that he accepts the report in principle as a recommendation to be made to the United States’ Government.

(It is agreed that the Resolution to Minute 1 of H. D. 38 should be amended so as to read:

“It is agreed to accept, in principle, the conclusions of the Commission’s Report. The French and Italian Governments undertook to give effect to these recommendations in so far as they were specially concerned.”)


3. At the request of Mr Polk, Captain Portier, on behalf of the Joint Secretariat, reads out Resolutions passed at the previous meeting of the Council.

The resolution with regard to Gmünd is confirmed.

The Resolution with regard to Marburg and Radkersburg is amended so that Radkersburg should be deleted.

The Resolution with regard to Carinthia is accepted and confirmed.

(b) Mr Headlam-Morley says that it is important that all answers to the Austrian note should go back to the Editing Committee for final revision and coordination. With regard to nationalities, the question is extremely complicated. The Drafting Committee has completely revised the Nationality Clauses in the Peace Treaty. The new draft of the Treaty, as amended by them, had not yet been submitted to the Council, but, by virtue of the fact, that, on the previous day, the Council had accepted the principles laid down by the Committee on Political Clauses, the Editing Committee were committed ipso facto to the existing draft of the Nationality clauses, as drawn up by the Drafting Committee. The Editing Committee were, however, compelled to introduce a few minor amendments into the replies to the Austrian notes.

S Tittoni remarked that the Editing Committee should only be free to introduce modifications of form, and not of substance, into the replies to the Austrian note.

(It is agreed that the Resolution taken on the previous day with regard to the Nationality Clauses in the Austrian Treaty, should be accepted, but that the words “subject to such modifications of form as the Editing Committee might introduce, in order to bring them into agreement with the clauses drawn up by the Drafting Committee” should be added.)

The resolution passed on the previous day is accepted and confirmed.

(c) M Loucheur said that Part IV of the Austrian Treaty had been accepted on the previous day, but that he feared there had been a misunderstanding on the point. The Italian Delegation had thought that it applied only to Austrian property in Morocco and Egypt. He thought, however, that it applied to all Austrian property wherever situated.

M Cambon says that the title showed that the Austrian Peace Treaty referred only to Austrian property outside of Europe.

Mr Headlam-Morley says that he had withdrawn his reservation quoted in Appendix “F” to H. D. 38.4 He had, at the same time, pointed out to the Editing Committee that no provision existed in the Treaty, with regard to the Diplomatic buildings in Europe belonging to the Austrian Empire. He did not know what would happen to all these embassies after the final dismemberment of Austro-Hungary, and feared they might be the cause of a great deal of most improper wrangling. Giving an example, he asked whether the Austro-Hungarian Embassy in Paris belonged to the present Austrian State. He thinks that diplomatic buildings should be held as sacred, and hoped that no exception would be made in the present Treaty to this generally accepted rule. For this reason he had desired that a special Convention should be drawn up between Austria and the new States formed out of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, to settle the point with order and decency.

M Loucheur said that he could not accept Mr Headlam-Morley’s statement, since there was a most formal stipulation in the Peace Treaty with Austria with regard to the disposal of public buildings belonging to the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. He gave as an example the Palazzo Venezia at Rome, for which special provision had been made, showing clearly that the sacred character attributed to diplomatic buildings by Mr Headlam-Morley had not been acknowledged. It was the intention of the French Government, to sell the diplomatic buildings of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire situated in French territory.

Mr Headlam-Morley says that he wishes to protest most emphatically against the example of the Palazzo Venezia being quoted in this connection. The building in question had been decided to be a Venetian Palace. It had never been thought that, by making special provision with regard to it, the clause which did so would alter the accepted character of diplomatic buildings.

M Pichon says that the title to Part IV of the Peace Treaty “outside Europe” made it unnecessary to proceed with the consideration of Mr Headlam-Morley’s reservation, and added that he wished to limit the discussion to a consideration of Part IV of the Austrian Peace Treaty, and to exclude such general questions as Mr Headlam-Morley wished to raise.

Mr Balfour asked why Austrian property outside and inside Europe was to be treated in different ways. He did not know why the similar clauses in the Peace Treaty with Germany could not be followed.

M Loucheur said that the analogy of the German Peace Treaty was irrelevant. The old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy had been dismembered into separate states, each one of which might ask for the embassies of the old Kingdom. Mr Headlam-Morley had asked that the States affected should make a Convention between themselves. The question then arose, who actually were the States affected. Some of the diplomatic buildings might be regarded as belonging to the Throne of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. As such they could be liquidated, and the proceeds given to the Reparations Commission. He admitted, however, that special Conventions were necessary, but he does not see what would happen if the States concerned could not agree. As a particular example of the difficulties that might be raised, the old Austro-Hungarian Embassy at Constantinople was no longer suitable to the needs, either of Austria or of Hungary or of Czechoslovakia. It is evident that, in such a case as this, the Embassy in question ought to be sold and the proceeds placed at the disposal of the Reparations Commission. The old Austro-Hungarian Embassy in Paris belonged to the late Monarch, and the Treaty provided for the sale of property of this class. The Austro-Hungarian diplomatic property in Japan had already been sold. It would possibly be better to leave the States concerned to effect the sale of diplomatic buildings, and, if discord arose to allow the Reparations Commission to adjudicate.

Mr Balfour says that he could not offer any opinion. But he failed to understand why Austrian property inside and outside Europe was dealt with under two separate sections. He did not see any distinction, either in law or in fact, between these two classes of property.

M Loucheur said that he agreed with Mr Balfour and would ask M Gout for information on the point. He proposed that the Clauses in Section IV, dealing with Austro-Hungarian property in Morocco and Egypt, should be left untouched. With regard to the diplomatic properties of the old Empire in Europe, by the fact of the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, they fell under the disposal of the Reparations Commission, which would sell them at the best prices obtainable.

(It is decided that the reply to the Austrian Delegation with regard to Part IV of the Peace Treaty (Austrian property outside Europe) should be accepted.)

(d) M Cambon said that he had received a comment from the American Delegation with regard to Article 154 in the Peace Treaty with Austria, on the subject of the enrollment of Austrians in foreign armies. (Appendix “B”.)

Mr. Polk said that he did not see how the restrictions imposed upon Austria by virtue of Article 154 could possibly be effected, since the Austrian Government had no power to carry them out. He was willing, however, to withdraw the American proposal, but wished to call the attention of the Council to the fact that restrictions of this kind could not, as a rule, be enforced.

S Tittoni said that, by an elementary principle of jurisprudence, men lost their nationality by enlisting in the armies of a foreign State. Obviously, therefore, the Austrian Government would have no legislative power over Austrian citizens who enrolled themselves in foreign armies. How, therefore, could Article 154 be put into effect?

M Pichon says that the Article had been drawn up on the basis of a similar provision in the German Peace Treaty.

(After some further discussion, the American proposal is withdrawn. The resolution passed on the previous day with regard to the Military, Naval and Air Clauses in the Peace Treaty with Austria was accepted and upheld.)

(e) Prisoners of War

(f) Penalties

(g) Reparations (The resolutions passed at the meeting on the previous day with regard to Prisoners of War, Penalties and Reparations were accepted and upheld.)

(h) Financial Clauses The Resolution passed at the meeting on the previous day on the subject of Financial Clauses was accepted and upheld.

(i) M Pichon says that the Council was called upon to consider the draft reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of Part X (Economic Clauses) of the Peace Treaty with Austria. (See Appendix “F”, H. D. 38.6)

M Clementel said that Austria had been compelled by the Peace Treaty to extend all customs privileges, granted to the neighboring States to the Allies. The Austrian Government had protested against this, and had said that they would be in the position of the Palace at Versailles deprived of its domains. They had asked to be able to grant special preferential treatment, in which the other Allies would not be included, to Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The Economic Commission had discussed this proposal, and had thought at first, that the special preferential treatment in question ought to be extended, not only to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but to all new States formed out of the old Monarchy. M Crespi, had in his turn, protested against this, and had said that such a provision would compel his own country to lay down special inner customs barriers. It had then been proposed to the Commission that the preferential treatment should be extended to all States which had acquired territory from any part of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This proposal would have included in a sort of “Zollverein” countries extending from Poland to Italy, and would have established a customs union from Danzig to Sicily. It had occasioned a further protest from Czechoslovakia, the Delegates of which country had stated that they could not possibly compete on terms of equality with such a State as Italy, which, by the last proposal, would be included in the Customs Union. After some further discussion the Commission had agreed that the preferential rights should be limited to Austria, to Hungary, and to Czechoslovakia; but this proposal affected the Romanians and the Yugoslavs adversely. After very lengthy discussions inside the Commission, with all the States concerned, the last proposal that he had detailed, had been accepted. If it were reversed, it would be necessary for the Economic Commission to take note of the new decision, and to discuss its consequences, which might be very onerous to the new States. The British counter-proposals seemed to him quite inexplicable in view of the fact that Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith had agreed with him, and had helped him to draft the final proposals. Large differences between the Peace Treaty with Austria and that with Germany had been introduced. In the first place, the Customs Union between Austria, Czecho-Slovakia and Hungary, had been accepted, the result of which would be that the thirty million inhabitants of these countries could transact their business with one another without restrictions. The second great difference was, that Germany would only be in a position to ask for equal treatment in the matter of customs from the Allies after five years, whilst Austria could obtain it in three years.

Mr Balfour says that the original proposal had been, that all the customs privileges of the States composing the old Austro-Hungarian Kingdom should be extended to the new States formed out of it; but, as these privileges would be based on the old limits of the States concerned, these latter would have been compelled to set up a political frontier, and another frontier for the purposes of customs. On the other hand, by including in the Customs Union, all countries enriched by acquisition of Austro-Hungarian territory, privileges greater than any ever possessed by the old Austro-Hungarian Empire Kingdom would be granted to them. These two proposals therefore, outlined the question now before the Conference.

M Clementel said that Mr. Baruch and Mr. Taussig had agreed with the findings of the Economic Commission. If the agreement arrived at were reversed, a vast customs union, extending from Danzig to Sicily would be established. It was absolutely impossible to ask countries to set up customs barriers inside their own frontiers.

Mr Balfour says that the Council must choose between limiting the privileges of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and extending them. He would have liked to have seen those privileges maintained as they had existed previously, but he recognized that this was no longer possible. The alternatives before the Council were (1) consenting to a vast extension of Customs Unions between States, or (2) curtailing the former privileges of the dismembered Monarchy. He felt that the compromise arrived at ought to be adhered to. The proposal of establishing an entirely new customs system over half Europe alarmed him.

Mr Polk asks what Austria’s position after three years would be in the matter of customs.

M Clementel replies that, unless the League of Nations thought that certain countries had not been sufficiently indemnified, reciprocity with all countries might be granted to Austria.

(It is decided that the draft reply of the Economic Commission on the subject of the clauses dealing with Customs regulations, duties and restrictions, in the Peace Treaty with Austria, should be accepted.)

Mr Balfour says that the Joint Secretariat in drawing up the Minutes of the previous day’s proceedings, had acquitted themselves most creditably of an extremely difficult task.

Mr Polk said that the average correctness of the work of the Joint Secretariat had been exceedingly high throughout.

(j) M Tardieu says that the resolution with regard to the Plebiscite in Marburg (See H. D. 38, Minute 6 (a) 210) had caused complete disagreement in the Central Territorial Commission. Two of the delegates had adopted the Plebiscite line of demarcation proposed by S Tittoni. The others had disputed it, and had said that it was an artificial line which would give special advantages to the Austrians, and, if adopted, would effect what had been avoided in the Klagenfurt area. The Council must therefore decide whether they wished to uphold the new demarcation line, but he suggests the Central Territorial Commission should be heard on the subject.

S Tittoni said that he regretted that the Central Territorial Commission had disagreed on the subject of the resolution under discussion. He had originally proposed the line of the River Drave. He had subsequently been shown a map, marked with a blue line and presented by the British Delegate. He had accepted the new line with the remainder of the Council, and his adherence to it had not been due to any personal opinion of his own.

M Tardieu says that the Central Territorial Commission is opposed to taking the Plebiscite, inside the area defined by the blue line on the map, to which S Tittoni had referred, because, as he had said before, it would give the Austrians an artificial majority.

S Tittoni said that he does not oppose a hearing being given to the Central Territorial Commission, but he pointed out that the decision of the previous day had been arrived at after due deliberation. The question involved was one of procedure.

M Tardieu says that the replies to the Austrian Delegation had not been properly coordinated, and confusion had resulted. Since the Plebiscite had been decided on, the area in which it was to be taken must necessarily be laid down. The Central Territorial Commission disagreed on the manner in which the line defined by the resolution of the previous day was to be established.

S Tittoni repeats that he does not wish to refuse a hearing to the Commission, but thought that the resolution taken on the day previous still held good.

(It is decided that the Central Territorial Commission should be heard at the Council on August 27th, 1919, on the question of the Plebiscite in the Marburg area in Styria.)


4. M Pichon draws the Council’s attention to a clause in the new Constitution of the German Reich; the articles in question dealt with the future relations between Austria and Germany in a manner which violated the provisions of the Peace Treaty. Violation on the Peace Treaty With Germany in the Constitution of the New German State

M Berthelot reads the Articles referred to. They showed that the German Government was making provision for the final inclusion of Austria in the new German Reich. This was in flagrant violation of Article 80 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, whereby that country formally recognized the independence of Austria. In addition to this, the articles of the new Constitution gave Austrian citizens the right of immediate representation in the German Reich, although only in an advisory capacity. The matter was rendered more difficult by the fact that the German Parliament was not at present in session, so that the urgent necessity of having this provision in the German Constitution altered, would be subject to delay. The German Constitution had been adopted in a final manner on August 11th. Previous to that date, a provisional vote had been taken, referring indirectly to the point now under discussion.

Mr Balfour says that the problem now before the Council showed the extreme inconvenience of having no diplomatic agent at Berlin. Such a representative would have called attention to the article in question long before. The military representatives of the Allies at Berlin, were, of course, not concerned with such points.

M Pichon says that he thinks action is urgently necessary and that the Drafting Committee ought to draw up a formal protest as rapidly as possible.

Mr Polk asks whether the articles in the new German Constitution could be communicated to each separate Delegation for examination and study. He agreed that the matter was extremely serious and that it demands immediate action.

M Tardieu says that, in his opinion, the news now before the Council makes it more necessary than ever to uphold the proposal that he had made on the previous day.

Mr Polk remarks that no great result could be expected from the inclusion of M Tardieu’s proposal in the Austrian Treaty, in view of the fact that Germany had not respected a similar obligation.

(It is decided that the question raised by Article 61 of the new German Constitution voted on the 11th August 1919, in the German National Assembly, on the subject of Austria should be discussed at the next meeting of the Council on the 27th August, together with such consequences as the aforesaid article in the German Constitution might have upon the Peace Treaty with Austria.)


5. Mr Polk states that he had no objection to the draft letter, prepared by the Communications Section Romanian of the Supreme Economic Council, to be sent from Relative to President of the Peace Conference to Mr Bratiano.

(The meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

27th August 1919

Louis Botha, Boer War general and first Prime Minister of South Africa, dies in office due to complications resulting from the Spanish Flu.


The children of Millfield road in York wearing Fancy dress for the street party held in celebration of peace following the end of the War a year earlier.

[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, August 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 11:00

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


1. M Clemenceau says that the second proposal of the British Delegation aimed at including in the Treaty no clause imposing on Austrian Nationals any disadvantage in the settlement of private debts, contracts, etc., in a word, in the whole sphere of properties, rights and interests. The Economic Commission had first of all worked on the principle that the stipulations in the Austrian Treaty were to be similar to those of the German Treaty. This principle was subsequently modified very thoroughly. The Commission in Article 261 had provided for the liquidation of Austrian properties under the control of the Reparations Commission in the case of States, heirs of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, not participating in reparations. A special Committee composed of Colonel Peel, M Loucheur, S Crespi and Mr Norman Davis, had, on the instructions of the Council, changed these dispositions. The result is that Austrian properties would not be liquidated; in consequence, the Economic Commission, in the draft reply prepared for the Austrian Delegation, had laid down as far as possible, that equality and reciprocity should prevail in the settlement of properties, rights and interests between Austrian Nationals and the previous subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The British proposal, however, went much further, and suggested that Austria should have the benefit of all agreements which might hereafter be made between the various States inheriting from the Austrian Empire. So complete an assimilation appeared to him unjustified for the following reasons:

(a) Austria had taken certain measures contrary to the interests of the territories now transferred, and it is necessary to annul these measures.

(b) The States receiving portions of former Austro-Hungarian territory and the transferred territories themselves had always protested most vigorously against any such assimilation, even in the limited form suggested by the Economic Commission.

(c) Without going so far as complete assimilation, the Economic Commission had given Austria all guarantees required by justice for the liquidation of the past state of things for which she was responsible.
It is merely a question of re-drafting to make it clear that the proposal of the Editing Committee meant:

1) That Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, did not apply to transferred territories.

2) That Section 8 applies only to them.
The principle of complete assimilation of Austria to the new States or to the inheriting States was a non-economic matter. It was a political question which could only be decided by the Supreme Council. He thinks, moreover, that it would require the assent of the States concerned. The Economic Commission could only discuss this matter with them if instructed to do so by the Council.

Mr Balfour asks whether the proposals referred to applied only in the Economic sphere.

M Clementel replies in the affirmative.

Mr Balfour said that on the previous day it has been decided that economic advantages should be limited to Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

M Clementel says that the proposal before the meeting goes further. It amounted to this—that any agreement of an economic nature concluded between any of the new States and any other, must ipso facto apply to Austria. This would produce an exceptionally privileged situation for Austria. The new States, moreover, had already protested against even the amount of assimilation hitherto accorded to Austria. The Economic Commission could go no further than it had gone. The question in its present stage was a political question which must be determined by the Council. He thinks that the proposal of the British Delegation is not economically sound, and he cannot, without calling a new meeting of the Economic Commission, accept it on their behalf.

Mr Headlam-Morley says that it appears to him to be a wrong interpretation of the British proposals that Austria must be held to be party to any Convention between the new States. He had meant to refer only to the negotiations conducted by the Committee on political clauses. These negotiations apply to specific problems. The present situation made it necessary to liquidate certain questions by special pacts. It is for the purpose of these pacts that he pleaded that Austria should be placed on an equal footing with the other States. He thinks that M Laroche, who is Chairman of the Committee, will be able to state the position to the satisfaction of the Council.

M Clementel said that from the economic point of view, he is convinced that the Economic Commission has done all that is possible, short of establishing complete assimilation. For instance, in the Treaty with Germany, all pre-war contracts were annulled unless some special public interest demands the contrary. In the Treaty with Austria, all pre-war contracts were maintained unless some special public interest demanded the contrary. In any case, he thought the change proposed by Mr Headlam-Morley could not be made without consulting the small States.

M Laroche says that the question had not the scope attributed to it by M Clementel. It had been agreed on the previous day in the Committee on Political Clauses, not to demand the insertion of any special clause in the Treaty with Austria itself. The Committee would propose to the Council that Austria and Hungary should be asked to adhere to certain Conventions to be negotiated between the New States. There were for instance Conventions necessary to regulate [Page 944]the payment of civilian, Military and clerical pensions. These matters could be dealt with outside the Treaty of Peace with Austria.

Mr Balfour asks whether M Clementel maintained any objection to this, and whether he thinks it would require reconsultation of the new states.

M Clementel thinks this proposal would raise no difficulty.

M Laroche said that the new States would inevitably have to be consulted, as they have to be parties to the Conventions suggested.

M Clementel said the only thing to which he objects is any assertion of complete assimilation between Austria and the other new States.

Mr. Balfour said that he understood the policy of the Council is to give all that could be given to Austria without any ostentatious declaration, likely to offend Czechoslovakia.

(It is decided that it is unnecessary to insert any new Article in the Treaty of Peace with Austria. It would be clearly explained in the answer to the Austrian Delegation that Sections, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Economic Clauses did not apply to the relations between Austrian subjects and the former subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. On the other hand it should be clearly explained that Section 8 of the Economic Clauses only referred to the relations between persons of these two categories.

It was further decided that Austria would be required in the Treaty of Peace to adhere to special Conventions with the new States, now being prepared by the Committee on Political Clauses.)


2. M Loucheur said that the Austrian Delegation asked that a special clause be inserted in the Treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, requiring these States to supply Austria with the same amount of coal that Austria received from the areas ceded to those States before the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Czechoslovakia and Poland were unwilling to acquiesce, because they wished to be able to control the export of coal in such a manner as to exercise pressure on Austria and obtain from her equivalent advantages. For instance, Czechoslovakia would require magnesia from Austria. He therefore proposed a series of articles providing for an exchange of raw material between Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria, and as an interim measure for the control of these exchanges by the Separations Commission.

Mr Balfour asked whether the proposals stipulated for absolute quantities. If they did, difficulties might ensue. The quantities should, he thinks, be proportional and not absolute, otherwise a State might be bound by the Treaty to furnish the greater part of its production, irrespective of home needs, to its neighbors.

M Loucheur explains that this difficulty had been foreseen, and was carefully guarded against in the clauses he proposed.

Mr. Balfour said that he was satisfied with this explanation.

(It is decided that the clauses proposed by M Loucheur (Appendix A) should be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Austria.)


3. S Tittoni says that the Treaty provides that certain railways between Austria and Italy should be built by the latter. Projects for these railways had been previously completed by the Austrians. He asked that they be required in the Treaty to supply both plans and estimates to the Italian Government.

(It is agreed that an article to this effect should be drafted by S Tittoni for insertion in the Treaty.)

S Tittoni offers to the draft contained in Appendix B.


4. M Loucheur says that, in consultation with Mr Hoover, he has prepared a telegram to be addressed to General Dupont in accordance with the decision taken on the previous day.

M Loucheur reads the telegram annexed in Appendix C.

(This draft is accepted).


5. Mr Polk asked whether the telegram sent on the previous Saturday could be given to the Press. He adds that the smaller Powers had been making inquiries. Publication of Telegram in Answer to Romanian Government, Dispatched 23rd August, 1919

(It is decided that the telegram accepted for despatch to the Romanian Government on Saturday, 23rd August, 1919, should be published in the Press.)


6. Mr Polk says that the situation is just about as Mr Balfour had stated at a previous meeting. M. Clemenceau had suggested that the German prisoners of war in the hands of the American and British Armies should be turned over in some manner to the French Authorities. At the meeting of the Special Committee of General Officers, both Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson and General Pershing had felt that they are not authorized to turn over their prisoners to the French Authorities. They do not consider themselves qualified to decide the legal and political questions involved. The British Government was anxious to return these prisoners to Germany, and their Secretary of State for War had urged it very strongly. The situation was the same for the Americans. If the repatriation of these prisoners were begun now, three to four months would be necessary to complete it. It was the desire of the American Government to act in this matter in full agreement with the French Government. If repatriation could be begun immediately, he thought it would be most desirable to do so, as these prisoners were a great expense and were accomplishing nothing. Because of the time it would take to complete it, the repatriation would not embarrass the French Government in their desire to retain the prisoners in their hands until after the ratification of the Treaty. He thought that even if the repatriation were started now by the British and American Authorities, it could not be completed before the French would have made all arrangements necessary for the labor they desired.

Mr Balfour says that he would like to corroborate the last part of Mr Polk’s statement. On the previous occasion when he had spoken on this matter, he had not realized how slow the process of repatriation would be. It is now August 27th. The Treaty, he thought, would be ratified by three Powers by about the 15th of September. In other words, in less than three weeks. On the 15th September, therefore, repatriation would have to begin in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. Retention of the prisoners during these three weeks would cost the American and British Governments £150,000 a day. The number that could be repatriated was only 2,000 a day overland, and no more could be sent home until shipping could be provided to assist in the process. In the three weeks, therefore, no very considerable diminution of the prisoners held in France would take place. Meanwhile, it is difficult to ask the British and American taxpayers to continue spending so much on practically useless prisoners. He hopes, therefore, that the French Government would accede to the very modest request he had to make. He believed that no detriment would be caused to France thereby.

M Clemenceau says that he makes no comment on the internal political reasons which actuated his colleagues. On the question of legal right, he is prepared to bring forward the action of the Belgians, who had handed over prisoners to France. He was bound, however, to acquiesce in what he was asked to do by his British and American colleagues. He confesses that he does it with regret, because the retention of the prisoners represented the only hold the Allies now possessed over Germany. The insertion of the Article in the German Constitution regarding Austria showed how necessary it is to preserve some means of pressure on Germany. There has been an agreement between himself, Mr Lloyd George and President Wilson to use the prisoners as a means of inducing Germany to hand over persons guilty of breaches of the laws of war. If the British and American Governments had made up their minds, he would ask that a Repatriation Committee should be formed, representing all the Powers, in order that there should be no appearance of dissension on this point. The German Delegation would be told that for reasons of their own, the Allies proposed to begin repatriating prisoners without waiting for the ratification of the Treaty. He would ask Mr Balfour to explain this in suitable words.

Mr Balfour says that he agreed it is desirable to keep a hold over Germany. He would point out that the proposal he had made did not diminish this hold in any appreciable degree. As to the proposal just made by M Clemenceau, he entirely agrees that it is very desirable that all the Powers should appear to be acting in harmony. Unless there were any practical objection, he would welcome the proposal.

Mr Polk says that he also assents to it.

M Clemenceau says that the hold over Germany would ultimately be represented by the prisoners held by the French Army.

Mr Matsui observes that a Commission to deal with prisoners is provided for in the Treaty. He questioned whether it is desirable to set up a new Commission. It might be preferable to set the Commission provided for in the Treaty to work at once.

M Clemenceau reads Article 215. He points out that a German member is provided for.

Mr Balfour asked whether it is absolutely necessary to have a German representative on the Commission.

M Clemenceau said he thinks perhaps not, as the Treaty is not yet ratified.

Mr Matsui says that a Commission on Prisoners of War already exists. It has, he understands, prepared a provisional scheme for repatriation. Could this Commission be empowered to proceed with the repatriation suggested? Japan, he adds, had some prisoners. She had been feeding them for a long time, and was anxious to repatriate them. Repatriation from Japan would be a long process. Japan, therefore, would gladly associate herself with any measures taken to that end.

(It is decided:

(a) That an Inter-Allied Commission of one military and one civil member from each of the five Powers be set up at once to begin repatriation of German prisoners, starting with prisoners held by the British and American Armies.

(b) That Mr. Balfour should draft a letter to the German Delegation, explaining the reasons for anticipating the Treaty in this matter, and making it clear that this was a gratuitous act of humanity, and that the execution of the project would depend on the good behavior of Germany.

(c) That the nominations should be made at the following meeting.)


7. M Tardieu reads and explains the Report of the Commission on Romanian and Yugoslav Affairs Regarding the Plebiscite in Styria.

S Tittoni says that the Council has decided to divide the Klagenfurt area for plebiscite purposes. He could not see why it should decline to do likewise in Styria. Moreover, the Council had already decided on a plebiscite in this area. Why should this decision be reversed? The land in question was not Italian, and he had no direct interest in its fate. It was of the utmost importance, however, that the Austrians should sign the Treaty. The Austrian Cabinet depended on a majority, in which there were 28 Styrian Deputies. Should these Deputies receive no satisfaction, they might not support the Government in signing the Treaty. This would produce a most perilous situation. He does not know whether M Clemenceau is ready to occupy Austria with French troops, but he must declare that Italy would find it extremely difficult to do so.

M. Tardieu said that in analogous cases, the Council had not decided in favour of a plebiscite. There is no strong motive for holding one in Styria. There were in the area, 75,000 Slovenes against 18,000 Germans.

S Tittoni says that in that case the result need not be feared. In order to upset the decision taken 24 hours earlier, very strong reasons should be alleged. He knew of no such reasons.

Mr Balfour says that he understands the previous resolution to have been to the effect that a plebiscite should be held in the district of Marburg. The limits of this district had not been settled. The question has been referred to the experts in order that they should examine it and make a report.

S Tittoni said that the Minutes of the meeting state that the Austrian demand was accepted, although he had himself proposed the line of the Drave as the limit of the plebiscite area.

Mr Polk said that his understanding as that the line proposed by the Austrian Delegation had been more or less accepted. He had not understood that so large an addition as was proposed by the British and French Members of the Commission was to be made. The question was whether the delimitation of the area was to be influenced by the Austrians or by the J
Yugoslav requests. If the area were made large, the result was a foregone conclusion in favour of the Yugo-Slavs. In that case, he thinks it would be preferable to attribute the territory to the Yugoslavs outright.

M Tardieu said that the Commission was not in a position to make a unanimous report. It could only place the divergent views of the Delegates before the Council. The line proposed by the Austrians is clearly to the detriment of the Yugoslavs. The latter had had good reason to suppose that the country was theirs. If the settlement was now to be altered entirely at the instance of the Austrians, they would reasonably think themselves aggrieved. Four unanimous decisions had been taken. In any case, the Slovenes were treated very hardly by the Treaty. The last decision of the Council would make their case worse. Marburg was the economic and intellectual center of Southern Styria. It had even been admitted to be so by the previous Austrian administration. In his view, the Yugoslav position should be maintained as he regarded it as entirely right.

Mr Balfour asks M Tardieu whether his Committee had e
inquired whether the area under consideration was economically connected with Marburg, as S Tittoni denied this.

S Tittoni gives certain figures about the traffic from Marburg. On the Marburg-Villach line there were 32,373 departures and 32,349 arrivals. On the Marburg-Gratz line there were 30,742 departures and 49,230 arrivals. On the Marburg-Laibach line there were 26,834 departures and 34,462 arrivals. On the Marburg-Agram line there were 1,975 departures and 2,299 arrivals. From those figures it clearly appeared that the traffic of Marburg was towards the north. The southern area was, moreover, divided from it by a mountain range.

M Tardieu says these figures are well known to the Committee. They were the result of the deliberate economic policy of the Austrian administration. The natural market of Marburg was to the south. In spite of all their efforts, the Austrians had had to abandon the idea of administering Southern Styria, except from Marburg. The Italians had good reason to know what the methods of the Austrians were, as they had experienced them at Trieste.

S Tittoni said that the comparison was not quite correct. The Italian population had never been sufficiently represented in the Austrian Parliament to obtain any concessions in its favour. The Slovenes, on the other hand, like the Poles, had been strong enough to produce a balance of parties. They had, therefore, received some consideration.

M Tardieu says that he did not wish to question the decision made on the previous day, but he thought it was paying the Austrians an undue compliment to accept their line exactly as they proposed it. The Yugoslavs had asked for consultation of the population throughout. This had been refused and the Conference was now asked to impose on them a plebiscite in an area in which they did not expect it, and in a form which would annoy them without reason.

S Tittoni said that he was willing to extend the plebiscite area to the limits of the judicial district of Marburg, in order to meet the views of the French and British Delegates.

M Tardieu says that he thought this would produce very little effect on the position.

M Pichon observed that the Yugoslavs had been in occupation of the area for the last nine months. They could not be evicted without certain trouble.

Mr Polk asked whether this occupation was under the authority of the Conference, or whether the Yugoslavs had just taken possession on their own initiative.

M Pichon said that no formal authorization had been given, but that no protest had been made.

Mr Balfour then suggested that in order to reach some decision, the whole notion of a plebiscite should be dropped.

M Clemenceau says that he agrees.

S Tittoni said that he would prefer to hold a plebiscite in the extended area.

Mr Polk says that he would rather abandon the plebiscite altogether than adopt a compromise which, he thinks, would satisfy neither party.

S Tittoni said his main desire was that the Treaty should be signed, because should the Austrians refuse to sign it, he did not know what the Conference could do.

(After some further discussion, the American, British, French and Japanese Delegations agreed to abandon entirely the idea of a plebiscite in Styria, and to stand by the territorial settlement made in the Treaty handed to the Austrian Delegation.

S Tittoni reserved his agreement and said that he would communicate his conclusion to the Secretary-General in the course of the afternoon.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

28th August 1919

Anti-Bolshevik soldiers pose on a train entering Poltava in Southern Russia.


The King-Crane Commission submits its report on the Middle East to the Allied Powers, concluding the former territories of the Ottoman Empire are not ready for independence. It also opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Members of the commission.


Miss Kitty Dalton turns down the proposals of over 200 members of the military. The Newspaper, Rock Island Argus, publishes her address, 154 East, 122nd street. New York City, if anyone else wants to try.

[Sailor Steve]

Thursday, August 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 11:00

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


1. Mr. Polk suggests that before proceeding to the order of the day, the resolutions of the previous meeting might be read, and further suggested that this might be made the rule for the future.

M Clemenceau said that such a procedure would waste the Council’s time.

Mr Balfour agrees with M Clemenceau.

(After some further discussion, it is agreed, that copies of all resolutions passed by the Council should be laid on the table of each Delegate, on the day following the meeting at which the aforesaid resolutions had been taken; and that, if no objections were raised by the Delegates, the text of the resolutions as submitted, should be considered to have been accepted.)


2. Mr Balfour circulates the following draft declaration with regard to the repatriation of German prisoners:

“In order to diminish as rapidly as possible the sufferings caused by the war, the Allied and Associated Powers have determined to anticipate the date of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, so far as the repatriation of German prisoners is concerned. The process of repatriation will begin immediately, and it will be conducted under the auspices of an Inter-Allied Committee to which will be added a German representative as soon as the Treaty comes into force.

The Allied and Associated Powers desire to make it quite clear that the continuance of this benevolent policy, from which German soldiers will so greatly benefit, must depend on the fulfillment by the German Government and People of all their obligations.”

(The draft declaration prepared by Mr Balfour is accepted for transmission and publication.)

The following nominations were then made for the Prisoners of War Committee provided for by the resolution taken on August 27th:

British Empire:
Mr Vansittart.
General Bolfield

America, United States of:
Mr Dresel
Brig.-Gen W D Connor

France:
M Alphand
Colonel Jouvin

Italy:
Colonel Toni

Japan:
Mr Shigemitsu.
Colonel Nagai.


3. Mr Polk says that Article 61 of the German Constitution should be referred to the Drafting Committee, who should advise the Council as to the measures which might be taken, since any subsequent action by the Council ought to be taken on the advice of competent lawyers.

It is decided that Article 61 of the German Constitution should be sent to the Drafting Committee, who should examine the extent to which the aforesaid Article violated the terms of the Peace Treaty with Germany, and should advise the Council as to the measures which ought to be taken.)


4. (Owing to the illness of S Tittoni, this question is adjourned to the following day.)


5. M Laroche reads an Article for insertion in Part 3 of the Peace Treaty with Austria, on the subject of Special Conventions to be drawn up between Austria and the New States formed out of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

(It is agreed that a new clause on the subject of Special Conventions for Austria and the States formed out of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, on the subject of the rights, privileges and goods of private persons in the aforesaid States, should be accepted.)


6. M Cambon reads and commented upon the British and American reservations with regard to the reply to the Austrian Delegation, on the subject of Part 12 of the Peace Treaty with Austria.

M Tyrman says that the British reservations had been made before Article 322 of the Peace Treaty with Austria had been altered. By a previous decision of ways the Council, it had been laid down, that immediate reciprocity should be granted in the matter of Ports, Waterways and Railways, to Austria, and other states formed out of the old Monarchy. By virtue of this decision, the British reservation fell to the ground.

Mr Headlam-Morley agrees with M Tyrman, and said that the reservation of the British Delegation had been satisfied.

M Cambon explains the reservations of the British, Japanese and Italian Delegations on the subject of Article 310 of the Austrian Peace Treaty.

M Tyrman says that the reservation formulated by the British, Japanese and Italian Delegations might be met by altering the expression “cession” of Ports, Waterways and Railways to the “transfer” of Ports, Waterways and Railways throughout. In addition to this, in Part 3 of Article 310 the word “proportion” should be altered to “distribution”, and the expression “handed over” should be altered to “be effected”.

(It is decided that Article 310 of the Peace Treaty with Austria should be amended, so as to read:

Article 310

Subject to any special provisions concerning the transfer of ports, waterways and railways situated in the territories transferred under the present Treaty, and to the financial conditions relating to the concessionnaires and the pensioning of the personnel, the transfer of railways will take place under the following conditions:

(1) The works and installations of all the railroads shall be handed over complete and in good condition.

(2) When a railway system, possessing its own rolling-stock, is handed over in its entirety by Austria to one of the Allied and Associated Powers, such stock shall be handed over complete, in accordance with the last inventory before November 3, 1918, and in a normal state of upkeep.

(3) As regards lines without any special rolling-stock, Commissions of experts designated by the Allied and Associated Powers, on which Austria shall be represented, shall fix the distribution of the stock existing on the system to which these lines belong to be effected. Those Commissions shall have regard to the amount of the material registered on these lines in the last inventory before November 3, 1918, the length of track (sidings included), and the nature and amount of the traffic. These Commissions shall also specify the locomotives, carriages and wagons to be handed over in each case; they shall decide upon the conditions of their acceptance, and shall make the provisional arrangements necessary to ensure their repair in Austrian workshops.

(4) Stocks of stores, fittings and plant shall be handed over under the same conditions as the rolling-stock.

The provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall be applied to the lines of former Russian Poland converted by Austria to the Austrian gauge, such lines being regarded as detached from the Austrian system.
M Cambon then explains the American reservation with regard to Part XII of the reply to the Austrian Delegation.

Mr Polk explains that the American proposal does not deal exclusively with the portion of the reply to the Austrians dealing with Ports, Railways and Waterways, but that it was concerned with the interpretative passages which had been introduced throughout the reply. Such passages referred to the Financial Clauses (Part IX), Reparation Clauses (Part VIII), the Waterways, and Railways Clauses (Part XII), and the Report of the Minorities Commission. By virtue of these passages, the Drafting Committee were really giving interpretations to the text of the Peace Treaty, and the fact might be of advantage either to Austria, or to the Allies. Such interpretations are official, and will, as such, become part of the agreement with Austria. If they did, they would have to be submitted to the United States Senate, together with the Treaty itself. If they were ratified by the Senate, the United States would be bound. He did not think that the United States should be bound by interpretative passages, unless it were understood that other Powers were bound also. It was therefore necessary either
(a) To have it clearly understood that all Powers should be bound by such interpretative passages, or;

(b) To insert a clause in the reply to the Austrian Delegation, telling them that the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers was not to be taken as in any sense modifying the text of the Treaty.

Mr Balfour says that he does not think that the Peace Treaty should be drafted in such a manner as to require any interpretation at all.

M Cambon says that the interpretative passages referred only to the text of the reply, and not to the Peace Treaty itself.

(It is decided after some further discussion that:

(1) The reply to the Austrian Delegation should be referred, as a whole, to the Drafting Committee, to co-ordinate it with the terms of the Peace Treaty.

(2) A clause should be inserted in the reply to the Austrian Delegation to the effect that the aforesaid reply was not to be taken as in any sense modifying the text of the Treaty.


7. S Scialoja draws the attention of the Council to a resolution passed by the Labour Committee at its meeting of the 4th June, 1919.

Reply to the Austrian Note on the Subject of the Labour Clauses in the Treaty of Peace With Austria.—Part XIII (After some further discussion,

It is decided that the resolution passed by the Labour Committee should be referred to the Editing Committee for consideration and report, to the Council on August 29th.)

S Scialoja says that a further problem on the subject of the labor clauses in the Peace Treaty with Austria, arose, the question being the admission of Austrian labor representatives to the International Congress of Labor.

S di Palma said that the admission of Germany into the International Congress of Labor had only been allowed for after the first Congress at Washington. S Tittoni desires to place on record, that it is his wish that Austrian representatives should be admitted to the Washington Congress after the ratification of the Treaty. But workmen of various nations were saying that they would not convene a meeting unless all ex-enemy states of the Allied and Associated Powers were represented.

M Pichon confirmed the last part of S di Palma’s statement. He says, however, that if the admission of Austrian workmen to the International Congress of Labour were allowed, this would, ipso facto, involve the admission of German workmen on the same terms. The International Congress of Labor had originally decided against the admission of German workmen to the First Session at Washington. It had now changed its mind, and was demanding that German representatives should actually be admitted, after the order of business of the Session had been drawn up. This had been done in order to prevent Germany from having any say in the matters to be discussed.

Mr Balfour asks whether any previous decision had been taken by the Council.

M Pichon says that the Council of Four had taken a decision conformable to the resolution first passed on the subject by the Labor Committee.

M Clemenceau says that the question ought to be referred to the Labor Committee, who should study the question of the joint admission of German and Austrian labor representatives to the International Congress of Labor.

(It is decided to submit at once to the Labor Committee the proposal of the Italian Delegation, regarding the admission of Austrian Labor Representatives to the Labor Congress to be held at Washington in the following autumn.

The Labor Committee should examine the question, keeping in mind the consequences that might result on the situation of Germany, in this Congress, as already defined. The Committee should make proposals regarding the admission of both countries to the Congress.)


8. M Cambon reads the covering letter to the reply to the Austrian Delegation. He draws attention to the fact that the note had been drawn up on the basis of the reports of several separate Committees.

The main object in the reply had been to settle finally the responsibility of the Austrian Government with regard to the war.

M Clemenceau says that M Cambon’s statement with regard to the character of the covering note was quite evident.

Mr Balfour says that the draft reply read by M Cambon was a most able document. He thinks, however, that the procedure followed in the case of the Peace Treaty with Germany might be adopted in the present instance. Mr. Philip Kerr had drafted the covering letter accompanying the reply to the German counter-proposals, and his letter had been very favorably commented upon by the press in all the Allied countries. He suggests that Mr Kerr should also draft the covering letter to the replies to the Austrian counter-proposals, and submit his draft to the Council on the following day.

M Tardieu said that the Reparations Commission, together with M Loucheur, had, on the previous day, drawn up a note, on the subject of reparations by Austria. He thought that the note in question ought to be embodied in the covering letter to the reply to the Austrian counter-proposals.

(It was decided:

1) That the note drafted by M Loucheur and the Reparations Commission should be embodied in the covering letter accompanying the answer to the Austrian counter-proposals;

2) That the draft of the covering letter prepared by the Editing Committee, together with the above note of the Reparations Commission, should be referred to Mr. Philip Kerr for re-draft, and that the new text, as prepared by him, should he submitted at the next Meeting of the Council.)

M Cambon then draws attention to the fact that it might be considered necessary to make some allusion in the covering note to the independence of the Austrian State, since Article 61 of the German Constitution appeared to question it.

M Clemenceau says that the whole question will be considered on the following day.

(The Meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

29th August 1919

Russian Civil War: The Red Army captures Pskov from White forces.

French General Gouroud review British troops occupying Cologne, Germany.


Refugee children in Omsk, Siberia who fled the fighting of the ongoing Russian Civil War.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, August 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 11:00

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


1. M Tardieu says that on the previous day he had received from S Tittoni a new proposal. There was no further question of a Plebiscite except in a small, area near Radkersburg. M Clemenceau asks why S Tittoni wished to hold a Plebiscite there.

S Tittoni replied that his main object was to get an Austrian signature to the Treaty. What he proposed was a considerable reduction to the Austrian demands, but the area was entirely German, and though the district of Marburg would remain Yugoslav, he thinks it is desirable to give the Austrians satisfaction somewhere. One of the reasons for holding a plebiscite in this area was that the Chief of the Christian Social Party which supported the State had been returned for Radkersburg.

M Tardieu said that without expressing any opinion on the reason alleged by S Tittoni, he thinks the area of Radkersburg ought to be attached to Prekumarie. Should the Plebiscite go in favour of Austria, the resulting frontier would be a bad one.

M Clemenceau asks General Le Rond to state what, from a geographical point of view, would be the result.

General Le Rond says that it had been recognised long ago that the population in this area was mainly German, and in making a frontier, it was not possible to take any account of every little variation in the character of the population. This was all the less necessary as a considerable number of Slovene villages had been left within Austria. If the Plebiscite suggested by S Tittoni turned out in favour of the Austrians, the frontier in this area would be geographically unsound, cutting valleys in a capricious manner and leaving Radkersburg almost on the boundary line. Should the vote be in favor of the Yugoslavs, which was unlikely, the frontier would be the same as that proposed by the Commission. In the area in question, there were about 10,000 Austrians. The number of Slovenes left outside Yugoslavia could be counted in hundreds of thousands. If the question of the Austrians in this area were raised, the question of the Slovenes left outside Yugoslavia would also have to be raised.

Mr Balfour ask whether the Austrians would still demand a Plebiscite in this region if a Plebiscite in the Slovene area left to them were required.

Mr Polk observes that the Slovenes left outside Yugoslavia would remain in Hungary and not in Austria. Austria would therefore raise no objection.

S Tittoni said that if the line of the Drave had been accepted, it would have yielded a more logical frontier than any other line. He points out further that the area in question is included in an administrative boundary. The geographical objections therefore, do not appear strong, as the frontier adopted by the Commission was not itself a good geographical line.

General Le Rond said that the line proposed by the Commission followed the crest of the Hills.

S Tittoni said that for so small a matter, he does not wish to risk a refusal of the Austrian signature.

M Clemenceau says that he thinks there is no great need to fear the refusal of signature.

Mr Balfour then suggests that the River Mur be taken as the frontier line and that no Plebiscite should be held at all. Radkersburg would then remain Austrian.

“It was then decided that no Plebiscite should be held in Styria, and that the River Mur should be accepted as the frontier between Austria and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in this area.

“Radkersburg would be attributed to Austria, and Marburg to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.”


2. M Cambon said that the proposal referred to the Editing Committee by the Council on the previous day had been examined. In the opinion of the Editing Committee, the Council had refused to recognize the principle involved, in the Treaty with Germany. The Committee therefore regards it a mistake to record in the Treaty with Austria anything so diametrically different from the treatment accorded to Germany. For his part, he would suggest, should the Council adopt the proposal, that it be communicated to Austria in the form of a special additional document. The British Delegate on the Editing Committee regarded the question as one of general interest concerning all countries, including neutral countries. He thinks, therefore, that it should be referred to the League of Nations.

S Tittoni said that he favored the suggestion made by M Cambon that the agreement be made additional to the Treaty.

M Clemenceau says that he would prefer that nothing should be said in the Treaty.

Mr Polk suggested that the proposal be referred to the International Labour Congress in Washington.

(It is then decided that no mention be made in the Treaty with Austria of the rights and privileges of Allied workpeople admitted to enemy territories and vice versa, but that the resolution passed by the Labor Committee on June 4th, 1919, should be referred to the International Labour Congress in Washington.)


3. M Clemenceau said that the Council had previously decided that German Labour Delegates should be admitted to the next meeting of the International Labour Congress, after that to be held in Washington. The same principle should presumably apply to the Austrians. The labor organisations in various Allied and Neutral countries, notably in France, were, however, asking that the German labor delegates be admitted at once. His proposal was that the question of their admission or non-admission be left to the discretion of the Congress itself.

Mr Balfour says that he understands the proposal to be that the International Labor Congress should meet according to the constitution at present laid down for it, and that it should then decide whether or not German and Austrian delegates should be heard.

M Clemenceau says that was his intention.

S Tittoni said that the Italian government declared it would not send representatives to Washington and would not recognize the International Labor Congress or its decisions unless the German delegates were admitted. No International Labour legislation could be enforced in Italy against the will of Italian labor. He believes the same conditions exist in France.

M Clemenceau says that he is not intimidated by threats. The French Labour Party had spoken to him very much in the same manner, but he thinks his proposal was sufficient to meet the situation.

Mr Balfour says that M Clemenceau’s proposal appears to him to be very reasonable, though it is a modification of a previous decision. As he has no expert on labor matters whom he could consult, he would like to postpone giving his assent until he had had time to obtain the views of the British Minister specially concerned with this subject. In referring the matter to him, he would express his personal agreement with M Clemenceau’s views.

Mr Polk says that he was in a similar situation to Mr Balfour and would take up the matter with his Government.

S Tittoni said that there is one practical difficulty in M Clemenceau’s scheme. Should the Congress decide to give a hearing to the Germans and Austrians, they would require a month to get to Washington.

M Clemenceau says that he had been assured that the Germans and Austrians would go to Washington in expectation of a favorable decision, should the Council adopt the proposal he had made.

(It is decided to postpone the decision on the question of the admission of German and Austrian Labor Delegates to the International Labor Congress at Washington, until Mr Balfour and Mr Polk had consulted their respective Governments.)


4. M Clemenceau says that he has received a disquieting telegram from Colonel Haskell, the Allied High Commissioner in Armenia. (The telegram is then read.) He added that he had ordered a note to be circulated to his colleagues to the effect that he was ready to send 12,000 men to Cilicia. This force would be able to occupy the points mentioned by Colonel Haskell. It would be necessary to utilize the Baghdad railway as a means of supplying this force. (The note is then read.)

Mr Polk asks whether the army referred to by Colonel Haskell was not one that was accessible from the Black Sea.

M Berthelot said that it is also accessible from Cilicia, as the roads were good and suitable for motor lorries. It would be possible, he considered, to send supplies into Armenia from Mersina and Alexandretta. An agreement for the use of the railway would, however, be necessary.

Mr Balfour asked whether this had been studied by the French General Staff.

M Clemenceau says that the note is a result of a study by the Staff.

(It is decided to postpone the consideration of the Note till the following day.)

(It is decided to postpone the consideration of the new English draft covering letter until the following day, and in to connection with it, to discuss the question whether or not Austria was a New State.)


6. M Berthelot said that Article 61 of the new German Constitution was to the following effect: Article No. 61 of the New German Constitution.

“Each land has at least one vote in the Reichsrat. In the case of the greater lands, one vote is assigned to a million inhabitants. An excess which is at least equal to the population of the smallest land is reckoned as a complete million, No land can be represented by more than two-fifths of the total votes.

German Austria, after its junction with the German Reich, receives the right of participation in the Reichsrat with the number of votes corresponding to its population. Till then, the representatives of German Austria have a consultative Voice.

The number of votes is fixed anew by the Reichsrat after each general census.”

Article 61 appears to be out of harmony with Article 80 of the Treaty of Peace. The American Delegation, however, question whether Article 178 of the new German Constitution did not dispel the apparent contradiction. Article 178 is to the effect that no provision in the Constitution could be held to modify the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles. The question had been submitted to the legal advisers, who thought that Article 178 rendered Article 61, in so far as it conflicted with the stipulations of the Treaty, null and void. This appeared to furnish an additional reason for asking the German Government to cancel Article 61. The Council should therefore decide whether, and in what form, the protest should be made to the German Government. It should also decide whether M Tardieu’s proposal should be carried out, namely, to insert a counter-part of Article 80 in the Treaty with Austria.

Mr Balfour says that he understands the question raised by Article 61 of the new German Constitution had been referred to the Drafting Committee, and that agreement had not yet been reached within the Committee. He thought, therefore, that it would be better to await its recommendations. He thought that the first of the problems alluded to by M Berthelot was the more important. He does not think it matters much whether anything is inserted in the Treaty with Austria.

(It is decided to postpone the question raised by Article 61 of the new German Constitution to the following day, in order to obtain the views of the Drafting Committee.)


7. S Tittoni said that he understands the Drafting Committee wanted confirmation of the decision taken by the Council on August 27th regarding the plans for the Col de Reschen and Pas de Predil Railway.

M Fromageot (who enters the room at this moment with the members of the Drafting Committee), says the only question in doubt is whether the draft contained in Appendix “B” to H. D. 407 had been accepted by the Council.

(It is decided to accept the draft contained in Appendix “B” to H. D. 40.)


8. M Berthelot explained that the people of Vorarlberg had expressed a desire to join the Swiss Federation. The Austrian Delegation as might have been expected, had protested. The Swiss Federal Council, meanwhile, had not adopted any resolution in favour of union with Vorarlberg. The Federal Council hesitated because the inclusion of this district would upset the present balance of power between the German and French cantons. The Conference, therefore, had before it only an appeal from the Vorarlberg. It could take no decision until it had before it a proposal from the Swiss Government.

Mr Balfour says he quite agrees that this is a matter that cannot be settled without the Swiss. The only question left to the Council was to know whether the door should be left open for the Swiss to invite Vorarlberg to join them. He thought it might be better to leave the whole question alone.

M Berthelot says that the following was the proposal of the Central Territorial Committee for insertion in the Treaty.

“23 aout, 1919.

En présence des manifestations des habitants du Vorarlberg en faveur d’un rattachement de leur territoire à la Suisse, la République d’Autriche, au cas où la Suisse elle-même, déclarerait formellement qu’elle accepte un tel rattachement, s’engage à reconnaître la décision du Conseil de la Société des Nations devant qui le cas devrait être porté.”

(“August 23, 1919.

In view of the manifestations of the inhabitants of Vorarlberg in favor of the union of their territory to Switzerland, the Republic of Austria, in case Switzerland should formally declare that she accepts such a union, undertakes to recognize the decision of the Council of the League of Nations to which the case should be presented.”)

Mr Balfour asks whether the petition received from the Vorarlberg represented the majority of the population.

M Laroche said that two unofficial plebiscites had been held, and they yielded the result of 4 to 1 in favour of union with Switzerland. The second had been even more decisive than the first.

S Tittoni said that he would suggest reference to a regular plebiscite.

M Clemenceau said that he would prefer to take no action. The matter had not been brought officially to the cognizance of the Conference. There was in Switzerland a balance of power between the German and French elements. The Swiss Government was satisfactory from an international point of view. It might cease to be so if its German population were increased.

M Laroche observes that it was for this reason that the Committee recommended that a formal declaration by Switzerland should be obtained.

M Clemenceau observed that so far Switzerland had asked for nothing.

Mr Balfour says that he is also in favour of not adding to the German majority in Switzerland.

M Pichon observes that the problem is complicated by a financial question. Switzerland would only accept Vorarlberg if the area were relieved of its share of the Austrian debt. The hope of escape from this burden was one of the determining motives in the result of the plebiscites.

M Tardieu said that there was also a political reason against inserting anything in the Treaty regarding Vorarlberg. The Conference is attempting to meet the Austrians as far as possible. The Austrian Delegation would be greatly offended at any Article tending to deprive it of Vorarlberg. The Conference had received expressions of opinion from Dutch Limburg in favour of union with Belgium. No notice had been taken. He thinks the question should be left for the League of Nations to consider at a later date.

(It is decided that no action need be taken on the subject of the union of Vorarlberg with Switzerland.)


9. M Clemenceau says that the conclusions of the report had been accepted by the Council (H. D. 39, Para. 2). He observes that he has taken action and fulfilled his part of the undertaking. He had given orders that the French troops in Fiume should be replaced by others. As to the suppression of the French base, this cannot be undertaken immediately, as the base must be maintained while there were French troops. In the meantime, however, there had been a recrudescence of unpleasant incidents. He thinks it is necessary that General Grazioli should be recalled forthwith, and that Italy should take as prompt action as he had taken himself, otherwise further bloodshed would occur, as threatening posters were appearing in Fiume, directed against both the French and the British.

S Tittoni undertook to act and to fulfill all the undertakings of the Italian Government.

M Clemenceau said that he took note of this declaration.


10. M Seydoux explained that the Note prepared by the Eastern Blockade Committee for the Council, and considered by the latter on the 23rd August (H. D. 37. Minute 6) had been reconsidered in order to meet the views of the American Delegation. Certain modifications had been made, but the Blockade Committee thought it absolutely necessary to maintain a sentence to the effect that any action taken by a warship of an Allied or Associated Power should be understood to be taken in the name of all the Allied and Associated Powers. Without such a stipulation, it would be impossible for the ships in the Baltic to take any action at all.

Mr Polk observes that there appeared to be no amendment in that case of the previous provisional decision. What is proposed is equivalent to a blockade.

M Seydoux says that it is not blockade, because merchant shipping could not be captured, but could only be turned back.

Mr Polk said he regretted that he could not agree. The phrase M Seydoux attached such importance to represented a blockade. The American Government had always held very strong views on this subject. He thinks, however, that some compromise might be possible. According to M Seydoux, a neutral ship, attempting to trade with Bolshevik Russia, could not be captured, but could be turned back. Should the neutral ship refuse to turn back and should its papers be in order, Allied ships would not be entitled to take any action at all. What he suggested was,

“that vessels of the Allied and Associated Powers should, in the name of those Powers as a whole, be authorized to prevent any vessel not provided with legal clearance for a Bolshevist Russian port, or any vessels whose papers are falsified, from proceeding to a Bolshevist destination.”

Mr Balfour asks what the United States Government would do if an American trader asked for clearance papers for a cargo to Petrograd.

Mr Polk says that the United States Government would refuse clearance.

Mr Balfour says the British Government would do the same.

Mr Polk points out that stopping a neutral ship at sea if it carries regular papers, is nothing less than blockade.

Mr Balfour says that the United States Government makes a distinction between fighting Russia and being at war with Russia.

Mr Polk observed that the British Government makes the same distinction.

Mr Balfour says that according to International lawyers, it is impossible to be at war with any Government unless that Government were recognised. He did not, himself, attach much value to the opinion of international lawyers.

M Seydoux said that it is known that several Swedish ships are ready to sail with cargoes for Petrograd. If the American proposal is adopted, the Allied Navies would not be able to intercept them.

Mr Polk asks how the Navies could stop them at present.

M Seydoux said that hitherto no such shipments had gone to Petrograd. He suggests that the British Admiralty Notice No. 1298 of the 18th July, warning shipping against entering the zone in which operations were taking place, should be re-affirmed in the “Journal Officiel” of the various Allied Governments.

Mr Polk says that he would try and find some formula to which the American Government could consent.

(The question is then adjourned.)


11. Mr Polk asks whether Treaties with the new States are to be between the New State on the one hand, and all the Allied and Associated Powers on the other, or between the New State on the one hand, and the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers on the other.

(It is decided that the Treaties with the New States should be between the New State on the one hand, and the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers on the other.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)