100 Years Ago Today

[Jimbuna]

29th September 1919

Women driving ammunition on horse-drawn carts for anti-Bolshevik Russian forces.


Ship Losses:

ML-18 (Royal Navy) The motor launch presumably was lost in the North Sea while on passage to the United Kingdom from Norway.
ML-62 (Royal Navy) The motor launch presumably was lost in the North Sea while on passage to the United Kingdom from Norway.
ML-191 (Royal Navy) The motor launch presumably was lost in the North Sea while on passage to the United Kingdom from Norway.
Ossifrage (Canada) The barge struck a shoal and foundered in Northumberland Strait while being towed from Wallace, Nova Scotia, Canada, to Souris, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, September 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. The Council has before it the subject of German Ships Sold During the War to Dutch Navigation Companies.

(The discussion on the British memorandum on this subject is postponed to enable Sir Eyre Crowe to receive instructions from his Government. Mr Polk also wishes to consult his Government before the matter is brought before the Council.)


2. Captain Roper says that Article 202 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany specifies that war material should be delivered to the Allied and Associated Powers after the Treaty comes into force. In order that this article might be carried out after the Treaty comes into force, it is important that this war material should not be alienated in any way or exported from Germany. The Allied and Associated Governments have addressed two notes to the German Government on the subject. The German Government has replied by a letter dated September 8th, sent through the Armistice Commission, declining to agree to the obligations placed upon the article by the Allied and Associated Governments. As information is constantly received to show new breaches by Germany, Marshal Foch proposes to the Supreme Council that a resolution be taken that all air material in Germany should be considered as war material and should be stored as war material until such time as the Inter-Allied Air Control Commission has decided as to its nature.

Captain Roper then reads and comments upon a letter from Marshal Foch of September 25th.

Mr Polk asks whether the question is one of the Armistice.

Captain Roper replies that it deals with Article 202 of the Treaty of Peace.

Mr Polk asks whether what is now said is not broader than the statements of the resolution of August 6th. The words used were, “destroyed and used.” He questions whether the use of the word “used” is not beyond the powers of the Council.

Captain Roper says that if the Germans used the material in question they would take occasion to destroy it, if they could, on the ground of accidents, or they would be able to use the material for other purposes. If they are given a free hand they will undoubtedly transform the material. There have been examples of repeated infractions by the Germans, and in order to avoid these it was essential that the material should be stocked.

Mr Polk asks whether the Commission of Control would have the power to decide as to what material is civil and what military.

Captain Roper replies that the Commission will have this power.

S Scialoja says that it is important that the position of the Council should be founded on firm ground. It is not possible to apply the Treaty before it is ratified. He suggests that a Provisional Commission of Control might permit the Germans to use aircraft which are not military. He thinks that the Council are asking for more than under the Treaty they are entitled to ask.

Mr Polk asks whether the Commission has arrived in Germany.

Captain Roper replies that the advance party has arrived. The Germans are anxious to postpone the discussion of the subject until the Treaty comes into force. Under these circumstances the procedure proposed by S Scialoja would not be applicable. In its resolution of August 6th the Supreme Council had declared its right of property over this material; they therefore had legal rights. During the last month the Germans had several times violated their engagements and Marshal Foch had declared that, unless the Supreme Council takes firm and determined action, he is not in a position to obtain any results.

S Scialoja asks whether it is proposed to stock all the aircraft in question.

Captain Roper replies that the Technical Experts who had discussed the subject in the Commission on Aerial Clauses had unanimously declared that there are no civil aircraft in Germany, if by that aeroplanes constructed since the Armistice and upon new plans are meant. Today the Germans had requested permission to use seven hundred aeroplanes for the Postal Air Service and this request is undoubtedly made to conceal their real purpose in endeavoring to keep back from the Allies a large number of aeroplanes.

Mr Polk asks whether S Scialoja was satisfied as to the legal right.

S Scialoja replies that he will withdraw the reservation he had previously made.

Mr Polk asks Captain Roper if he referred to aeroplanes built since the Armistice.

Captain Roper says that he referred to aeroplanes built before the Armistice.

Mr Polk asks whether the Commission will have the power to discriminate between aeroplanes built before or since the Armistice. He also asks whether General Weygand had any objection to the German Postal Air Service.

Captain Roper replies that he has no such objection after the Treaty becomes effective, but he wishes to point out that at present it is only a maneuver on the part of the Germans to avoid fulfilling their obligations under the terms of the Treaty. In the opinion of the Technical Experts, there is no defense for the scale upon which the German Postal Air Service is being planned.

Mr Polk says that there is no legal obstacle of prohibiting the Germans building and exporting aeroplanes which had been built since the time of the Armistice upon new plans.

Captain Roper says that in the first place it would be necessary for the Commission to examine these plans and that pending the ratification of the Treaty the material in question should be stocked.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the Supreme Council had decided on August 6th that the price of all material sold from the supplies which, according to the terms of the Treaty of Peace, are to be delivered to the Allied and Associated Powers, should be refunded to the Allied and Associated Powers. He thinks that it is time to apply this resolution.

Capt Roper explains that in a telegram of Aug 23rd sent to the German Authorities by Marshal Foch through the medium of General Nudant there is no mention of refunding this sum because the telegram contained a special authorization for the delivery of certain material to General Yudenitch and to the Czechoslovak Government. Marshal Foch had been desirous of assuring the delivery of this material in view of the fact that he had no other means at the moment and it seemed at the time advisable to make no mention of the amount of the sum collected. He thinks that the moment has now arrived and that Germany should be required to refund the money.

(It is decided:

(1) That all air material now in Germany should be considered as war material and as such could neither be exported, sold, loaned, utilized or destroyed, but should be stocked until such time as the Inter-Allied Air Commission of Control should have taken a decision to determine its nature;

(2) That the German Government should pay to the Allied and Associated Governments the amount of the sales already made.)

(It is also decided that Marshal Foch should be charged with communicating this decision to the German Government.)


3. The Council has before it a report from the Supreme War Council of September 5th regarding the principles which should govern the distribution of the aeronautical material to be given up by Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria or Turkey in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Peace.

M Pichon asks whether the Council are unanimous.

General Belin says that the American Military Representative had objected to the exclusion, with the exception of Belgium, of the smaller Powers. He says that in a report of May 21st to the Supreme Council the Military Representatives had given a list of the articles of war material which each of the Allied Powers should be entitled to possess. In this list there is no mention of air material. In view of the fact that air material had not been included, the Military Representatives did not consider that a distribution should be made among the smaller states.

M Pichon asks Mr Polk whether he insists upon this reservation.

Mr Polk replies that he does not.

Mr Matsui says that it is stated in the report that dirigibles which are in a fit state to fly are to be allotted as far as possible to those Allied countries which on account of their situation are in a position to remove them without dismantling them. In order to avoid any misunderstanding which might arise, he desires that the Conference take note that in accordance with the view of the Japanese Delegation, this statement should not modify the principle of distribution which had been announced elsewhere. The exchange of dirigibles, mentioned in the statement above, should only be made in cases where it was impossible to transport the dirigibles without dismantling them and where the dirigibles could be exchanged against other dirigibles, which if they are not in a fit state to fly, nevertheless possess the mechanism which would render them equal in value. The Japanese representative on the Commission had informed the President of the Commission of the desire he had just expressed.

M Pichon asks whether there are any other objections.

Mr Polk calls attention to the fact that the American Military Representative had stated that he is not prepared to recommend that the United States be included as a recipient of any air material which was the property of a country with which she had not been at war.

General Belin says that there will be, of course, no objection to accepting this reservation.

(It is decided to accept the report of the Supreme War Council of the 5th of September regarding the principles which should govern the distribution of the aeronautical material given up or to be given up by Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria or Turkey in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Peace.


4. General Belin reads and comments upon a report from the American, British and French Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council at Versailles of the 12th September regarding the eventual restitution to the Allies of the rolling stock removed beyond the armistice frontier in violation of the Treaty of Villa Giusti.

(He then proceeds to read a note by the Italian military representative setting forth the Italian view.)

He wishes to reply briefly to the point which the Italian Military Representative had raised.

With reference to the first point, he wishes to remark that the observations of the Italian Representative had been made after the signature of the Treaty had taken place. The Armistice was binding, but the signature of the Treaty of peace will bring about a new set of conditions. It appears advisable to leave to a commission the right of deciding as to the distribution to be made of the rolling stock in question. It is necessary that measures taken for carrying out the terms of the Armistice should not conflict with the carrying out of the terms of the Treaty of Peace. In the Treaty of Peace there are clauses which call for the cession of railway lines with a fixed amount of railway material. It will be regrettable to remove the material by virtue of the terms of the Armistice, when it would be necessary to return it a short time later in view of the Treaty of Peace.

With reference to the second point, he thinks that it is chiefly a question of form.

With regard to the third point, the Italian Delegate says that the term “Allies” applies to those who are entitled to be so described at the date of the signature of the Armistice. He replies that he has followed the terms of the resolution of the Supreme Council. It is the prerogative of the Commission to make the distribution among the Allies. There was no doubt that Yugoslavia will not be entitled to a share, but Serbia was an Ally at the time of the Armistice and will be entitled to participate in the distribution in question. It is not for the Council at Versailles to give more details as to the distribution.

With regard to the fourth point, he says that there is no inconvenience in principle, but he desires to maintain the reserve without prejudice to the clauses of the Treaty of Peace. He questions whether it is advisable to hand over material to Italy which will later be attributed to another Power.

General Cavallero said that he cannot agree with the view of his American, British and French colleagues. He thinks that the question is a purely military one. The questions in regard to the Armistice are quite separate from questions in regard to the Treaty of Peace. He does not think that the repatriation of rolling stock has anything to do with the Treaty of Peace. It is still an Armistice question. It is the duty of the military representatives to study the question as an Armistice question, and it is for the Supreme Council to take into consideration the political aspect. With regard to the first two points in his note he has nothing to add.

With reference to the third point, as he considers that the question is of a purely military nature and as that the Armistice concerns only the Powers who are Allied at the moment, he thinks that it is necessary to apply the Armistice clauses in regard to rolling stock in the manner in which they had originally been conceived.

With reference to the fourth point, he wishes to say that as the terms of the Armistice had given Italy the right to receive, in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers, all the material belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, he can see no reason why an exception should be made in the case of rolling stock.

General Cavallero replies that the Italian army had been designated to receive all the Austro-Hungarian war material in the name of the Allied Powers and the United States of America.

M Pichon says that the position of General Diaz in this matter is exactly the same as that of Marshal Foch. General Diaz acts in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks if there had not been a further Armistice with Hungary.

General Belin said that there had been an armistice concluded by General Franchet d’Esperey, but that it had not been recognized by Italy.

S Scialoja says that there are two questions to be considered. One is a question of form and the other of substance. He does not see how, particularly as the Treaty has not been ratified, it is possible to leave the firm ground of the Armistice for the Treaty; for the Treaty had not entered into force. The position of General Diaz, with reference to the Armistice of Villa Giusti, was the same as that of Marshal Foch, with reference to the Armistice with Germany. He thinks that it might be possible, instead of constituting a Commission in the place of General Diaz, to establish certain rules of execution. He agrees that there is rolling stock now in the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and that it would be complicated and unnecessary to return it to Italy to be again returned to Serbia, but this should not disturb the juridical basis. It would be possible to give the railway material to General Diaz, who can charge someone on the spot to receive it in his name.

General Belin says that it had not been the purpose of the Military Representatives to propose that someone be substituted to act for in the place of General Diaz. What they had desired was that the question, which is very complicated, should be studied by a Commission. Mr Hoover had suggested that the Inter-Allied experts, who were on the spot, could examine the question and communicate in due course the result of their study to the Supreme Council. It would then be the duty of the Supreme Council to express their opinion, but it was necessary first for the question to be thoroughly studied. He considers that the Commission should be given authority to examine the question and to propose to the Supreme Council a new partition. All that he asks is a study of the question. In his opinion there are no persons better qualified to do this than the Inter-Allied Technical Commission. He thinks that if this plan were adopted at the present time, it would avoid trouble in the future.

S Scialoja proposes that the Commission communicate its findings to General Diaz. He thinks that General Diaz would probably agree. He does not think that it is possible for the Supreme Council to apply the terms of a Treaty which was not yet in existence; for, at the moment, only the armistice was in existence. If the proposals are acceptable to General Diaz, he will find the means of carrying them out.

M Pichon proposes that the Italian Delegation be requested to take up the matter with General Diaz. He adds that he considers it important that if General Diaz accepted, the Powers act in conformity.

Mr Polk asks whether the question is not also raised by the terms of the Armistice with Hungary.

General Cavallero said that in the present case, it is only a question of rolling stock within the lines of the Armistice of Villa Giusti.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that General Cavallero, who is the direct representative of General Diaz, had said that General Diaz would be unwilling to accept.

S Scialoja says that General Diaz would not be willing to accept the substitution of a Commission in place of himself, for it is he who is responsible for the application of the Armistice.

Mr Polk says there is no question of substituting any authority for that of General Diaz. So far as he understands it, it is purely a question of investigation and report. At the time that the report was received the Council could take a decision as to what States were entitled to receive the railway material in question. He does not see how that question could be left to General Diaz alone, or in fact to any military representative alone.

S Scialoja said that in this case General Diaz is not acting as an Italian General, but as the representative of the Allied and Associated Powers. His position is similar to that of Marshal Foch.

Mr Polk says that he has no doubt that cases must have arisen where Marshal Foch was not in a position to take action until information which the Supreme Council desired had been obtained and a decision taken by the Council.

S Scialoja says that if the Commission were brought into communication with General Diaz he would have no objection.

Mr Polk said that the information is for the Supreme Council. If the report shows that the Armistice has been violated it would be the duty of the Supreme Council to take a decision and for General Diaz to see that it was carried out. The Powers could not authorize any military representative to act until the necessary information had been obtained by the Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it is necessary to decide whether the Inter-Allied Commission of experts should be taken from the Transportation Section of the Supreme Economic Council or the Reparations Commission.

General Belin says that he agrees that it will be necessary to make such a choice. Mr Hoover had written to M Clemenceau on September 3rd and had proposed that the subject be entrusted to the Transportation Section of the Supreme Economic Council.

Mr Polk points out that Mr Hoover has left Paris, and that there is no longer an American Representative on the Supreme Economic Council. He suggests, therefore, that the matter should be left to the Reparations Commission.

(It is decided:

(1) That the rolling stock, which had in violation of the Armistice been removed beyond the Armistice line of the 3rd November, 1918, should be delivered to the Allies and the United States of America;

(2) That the Reparations Commission should investigate on the spot all matters relating to the breaches of the Armistice above referred to and propose as quickly as possible to the Supreme Council such measures as might be necessary to insure in this respect the execution of the clauses of the Armistice on the understanding that these measures should not in any way prevent an execution at a later date of the clauses of the Treaty of Peace.)


5. The Council has before it a report from the Inter-Allied Naval Advisers of the 13th September in regard to submarine engines and motors surrendered by Germany in place of certain submarines which were broken up in German yards or sunk on passage to England.

M Pichon asks whether the Naval Representatives are unanimous in their opinion.

Mr Polk says that they are unanimous, but that the United States Representative wishes to add a clause worded as follows: “An appraisal and inventory of this material shall be made by a Naval Committee from the five principal Allied and Associated Powers.”

(It is decided to accept the report of the Naval Advisers of the 13th September on this subject of submarine engines and motors surrendered by Germany in place of certain submarines which were broken up in German yards or sunk on passage to England, and to add the following clause, “An appraisal and inventory of this material shall be made by a Naval Committee from the five principal Allied and Associated Powers.”)


6. M Fromageot reads and comments upon a memorandum with reference to the draft note previously prepared in regard to the blockade of Soviet Russia. He proposes to add in the third paragraph the words “in conformity with the measures contemplated by Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.”

Mr Polk says that before the United States Government will be in a position to take action it will be necessary for internal action to be taken in the United States.

M Fromageot says that Article 16 of the League of Nations Covenant was framed to meet a situation like that which existed at present. It provides for the rupture of commercial and economic relations. In cases where the League of Nations does not wish to resort to war the Covenant of the League of Nations foresaw the use of economic pressure when war was not to be employed. He feels that the difficulties in regard to the question of blockade will be removed in this way.

Mr Polk says that M Fromageot’s suggestion raises difficulties in his mind. The League of Nations does not yet exist, and the machinery for which the Covenant of the League provided, could not become effective until the League of Nations is actually in force. He does not see how the United States can adopt the policy proposed at the present time as the United States had never agreed to a pacific blockade. The Council are endeavoring to meet the situation by the establishment of a pacific blockade. In his opinion it is a declaration of war which is really needed.

M Pichon said that the Council find themselves in the same position as at the time of the last discussion. They will have no commercial relations with Soviet Russia themselves and they do nothing to ask the neutral countries to adopt the same policy.

Mr Polk says that he thinks that the best plan would be to wait until after the winter, and see how the situation was by that time.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it is necessary to give some instructions to the Allied Naval Officers in the Baltic Sea. He asks what action these officers can take with ships which they were stopping.

The report of the Drafting Committee does not cover the question of instructions. The Naval Officers are acting upon their own authority. He recalls that it had been previously proposed to make a collective request to the neutral Governments. He wished to ask his United States Colleague whether he would have any objection to such a note being sent. He thinks that a step would be taken if a collective representation were made to the Swedish Government. He has a suggestion to make, but at the moment he has no authority for committing his Government. He wishes to ask whether the British and French Governments are willing to authorize their Naval Commanders to turn ships back. If, for example, a Swedish ship were stopped, the Naval Commander would be in a position to state that the subject had been formally communicated to the Swedish Government by the Allied and Associated Governments, who were awaiting a favorable reply.

Mr Polk says that he is willing to accept the draft if the last paragraph were omitted. He had suggested a substitute for the paragraph.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he cannot answer for the decision of the British Admiralty, but he would refer the subject to them.

M Pichon suggests that the Drafting Committee be directed to prepare a note to the Neutral Governments.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that the Council are already in possession of a draft of such a note.

M Pichon says that the note could be transmitted with the omission of the proposed paragraph respecting the League of Nations, and the last paragraph.

M Seydoux reads to the Council two communications received from the French Legation at Stockholm. After reading these communications, M Seydoux says that he thinks that they contained matters of great interest. It is evident that the Swedish Government not only considers that a blockade exists, but that they had notified their own nationals that navigation is prohibited in the Gulf of Finland.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that these communications tended all the more to show that the reply of the Swedish Government to the note of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers would be favorable.

M Pichon says that, pending a decision, the British and French warships in the Baltic should turn back ships bound for Soviet Russia.

M Seydoux says that it would be possible, either by adding a paragraph to the note or by making a verbal communication to the neutral Governments, to say that British and French war vessels will continue to act in respect to ships entering the Gulf of Finland as they had been acting up to the present.

(It is decided:

(1) That the attached note should be transmitted to the neutral Governments in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers;

(2) That the neutral Governments should, at the same time, be notified verbally that the British and French warships in the Gulf of Finland would continue to turn back ships bound for seaports in Soviet Russia.)


7. M Fromageot reads and comments upon a memorandum of the 29th of September prepared by the Drafting Committee. He adds that the formation of a Commission to delimit the frontiers between Austria and Hungary is all the more necessary because Article 27 specifies that the new frontier between Austria and Hungary should be fixed upon the spot. It was also necessary to arrange for changes of nationality of persons residing in territory transferred from Hungary to Austria.

S Scialoja says that he agrees with what M Fromageot had said. He wishes to point out, however, that there still remains a large number of articles in the Treaty of Peace with Austria which had not as yet found counterparts in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary. He reserves the right to present drafts of the articles in question.

(It is decided:

(1) To request the Drafting Committee, in view of the delimitation of the frontier between Austria and Hungary, to insert in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, clauses providing for the constitution of a Commission to delimit the frontier between Austria and Hungary;

(2) To request the Drafting Committee to insert in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary articles relative to the nationality of the inhabitants of Hungarian territory ceded to Austria.)


8. Mr Polk reads a telegram dated September 24th from General Bandholtz, American Representative on the Inter-Allied Military Commission at Budapest, in regard to Romanian seizures. He says that the information contained in this telegram showed only too clearly that the Romanians were not willing to obey the wishes of the Allied Powers. The Romanian Representative told one thing to one Allied Representative and another thing to another. They are apparently entirely unwilling to obey the orders of the Allied Generals who represent the Council.

M Pichon says that it was most important to await Sir George Clerk’s arrival before taking any action in regard to Romania.

Mr Polk says that, while waiting, statements made by the Romanians themselves should not be entitled to much consideration.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the Romanian Government is trying to stir up trouble between the Allies. There is a serious situation between Romania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

M Pichon says that according to information which he had recently received from Belgrade the situation between Romania and Serbia was better and might improve.

(The meeting then adjourns.)

[Jimbuna]

30th September 1919

The anti-Bolshevik West Russian Volunteer Army marching near Jelgava, Latvia.


American Red Cross nurses serving in war-torn Serbia.


Ship Losses:

August Helmerich (Germany) The cargo ship was on a voyage from Kotka, Finland. to Hamburg, Germany, when she sank in the Baltic Sea after a collision with the ocean liner Normandie ( France) off Dalarö, Sweden, on the east coast of Öland.

[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, September 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. The Council has before it a report of the Supreme War Council dated April 22nd, 1919, on the subject of cost of maintenance of the troops of occupation in Rhenish territory.

M Loucheur explained that the question under discussion was the cost of the armies of occupation from the signing of the Armistice until the ratification of the Peace Treaty. He then reads and comments upon the report of April 22nd, summarizing the present status of the matter.

An Allied Sub-commission which had met at Spa had undertaken to define the phrase “expenses of maintenance of the troops of occupation” (“dépenses d’entretien des troupes d’occupation”). This body had decided upon the following definition for this phrase:

“During the present Armistice, which includes war occupation, by expenditures for the upkeep of the troops of occupation of the Ehenish territories, are meant all the expenditures imposed upon the Allied Governments for the daily life of the occupying troops as well as all those brought about by the obligation of maintaining constantly the fixed effective of these troops and to keep them in such a state as to allow them at any time to resist an aggression or to resume hostilities immediately.”

Upon the basis of this definition, the expenses of maintenance had been determined upon at the following rates per man per day:

For the French Army, Fes 16.60
For the Belgian Army, Fes 16.13
For the British Army, Fes 17.06
For the American Army, Fes. 31.14 (The dollar figured at Fes 5.70).

During the course of the discussions the Belgian and later, the British delegates had agreed upon the adoption of an average uniform figure for all the occupying armies, and which would be the cost of maintenance of one man per day for the French Army. The American delegate had inclined to adopt this solution, but General Pershing subsequently rigorously opposed the same. The Conferences at Spa, therefore, had resulted in a disagreement.

The question thereafter came before the Reparations Commission, but the same differences of opinion arose in this body. In his capacity as president of the Committee for the Organization of the Reparations Commission, he now wishes to bring the matter before the Council for decision.

The opinion of the French delegation is based on the following arguments: In the first place, when the Council created the Commission for the Left Bank of the Rhine, in which the United States is represented by General Bliss and Mr J W Davis, the British Empire by Lord Robert-Cecil and Field-Marshal Wilson, France by Marshal Foch and M Loucheur, the question of the cost of maintenance of the armies of occupation had arisen. At various times during the discussion the Commission had thought that it would be well to adopt the French price as an average figure. Marshal Foch had even suggested that it would be well to adopt a lower figure for the cost of maintenance of the armies of occupation after the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and only include within the phrase “expenses of maintenance to be borne by Germany”, the cost of food and billeting. It had been upon this basis that the calculations had been made to reach the sum of 240,000,000 marks gold yearly, as the maximum cost of maintenance of the armies of occupation after the ratification of the Peace Treaty. This figure had been agreed upon in a proclamation which had been signed on June 16th, 1919 by President Wilson, M Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd-George. Mr. Lloyd-George had even expressed the opinion that it would be well to reduce the cost of this maintenance to the minimum.

These arguments appear to him to be sound, and he adds that wherever the question of reaching an average figure had arisen in the Peace Treaty, the French figure had been adopted, as, for example, in the matter of pensions and allowances. He therefore strongly urges that the French rate be adopted in this instance, and that it be taken as a basis for calculating the cost of maintaining the armies, not only before the ratification of the Treaty (total maintenance), but also after such ratification (partial maintenance).

Mr Polk asks whether the figures agreed upon by President Wilson apply to the cost of upkeep of the armies after the ratification of the Treaty.

M Loucheur answers that this is the case, and he adds that it applies more especially from the moment at which Germany carried out the military obligations incumbent upon her by the Treaty.

Mr Polk says that he has always believed that the question at issue is the same during the entire period of occupation; namely, that each occupying country should be paid its expenses of occupation by Germany. The cost of maintenance of the American Army during the armistice had amounted to a certain figure, and this Germany was called upon to repay. M Loucheur’s suggestion appears to him to place a new interpretation upon the matter, as he had always believed up to the present time that the total cost of maintenance was under discussion, and not merely the cost of food and billets.

M Loucheur says that a slight misunderstanding is apparent. The French proposition has been that it is necessary to make a distinction between the maintenance prior to the ratification of the Treaty and that subsequent thereto. The difficulty of the situation lay in another direction. The fact exists that the American soldier cost his Government Fes 31.14, while the French soldier cost only Fes 16.60. What he asks is that, in order to make a calculation as to what Germany should pay each occupying Power, the same figure should be taken as a basis for each of the Allied Armies. He remarks further that when the same question had arisen regarding the pensions called for as part of the reparations, it had been agreed that the calculation should be made on the basis of the French rate.

Mr Polk says that the matter resolves itself into ascertaining how much the American Armies cost the United States. The question is not one between the United States and its Allies, but rather between the United States and Germany. The situation will not be helped by the fact that the French and Belgian Governments are reimbursed in full for their expenses, while the United States was but partially repaid. The result would be that the American Treasury Department would be obliged to pay the difference, with the consequent danger that further burdens might be placed upon the American taxpayer. The moment the latter discovered that they would be obliged to pay a portion of the expenses of maintaining an army of occupation, they would demand the recall of this force.

M Loucheur says that the matter is one which interests all the Allies in general, for it was Germany who was called upon to pay. The more money which Germany is obliged to use in paying for the armies of occupation, the less she would have for the reparations claims.

Mr Polk answers that he believes the United States will consent to accept reimbursement for the time being upon the basis of the average figure determined upon (French Rate). The difference between the sum thus reimbursed and the actual cost of maintenance might be included in the sums due the United States by way of reparations.

M. Loucheur called attention to the fact that, as the Treaty imposes an absolute priority for the sums representing the costs of maintaining the armies of occupation, the difficulty will not be done away with.

Mr Polk replies that he will be willing to waive the priority for that portion of the expenses of maintenance which would be included in the reparations figure. The all important point is that the American Treasury Department should not have to defray any of the expenses of the armies of occupation.

M Loucheur says that in view of the propositions which Mr Polk had put forward, he would like to study the matter somewhat more fully. His only wish in that question had been not to prejudice the reparations account.

M Pichon draws the attention of the Council to the fact that, at the time the rate of allowance for the officers of the Commission of Control had been determined upon, it had been expressly stated that Germany would be called upon to pay the same, but not the salaries of the officers.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the British delegate on the sub-commission at Spa had stated that he would accept the compromise figure if the same were accepted by all the Governments involved, but that no definite decision had been given in the matter. He thinks that in view of the attitude of the United States, the British Government will stand by its first proposal, as it is not favorably disposed to sustaining a burden for the maintenance of its armies of occupation. The question at issue is very complicated and raises many technical points. He wishes to know to what competent body the Council thinks of referring the matter.

M Loucheur says that there is a body already in existence; namely, the Sub-commission for the Cost of the Armies of Occupation, which is attached to the Committee on the Organization of the Reparations Commission.

(It is decided that the question of the cost of the armies of occupation should be referred to the special sub-commission of the Committee on the Organization of the Reparations Commission for further examination and report.)


2. General Weygand reads and comments upon a memorandum from the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies, dated September 24th.

The Lithuanians had asked for permission to receive 50,000 liters of fuel oil which Germany was in a position to turn over to them. From a military point of view, Marshal Foch had raised no objections to this request, but a political question is involved therein; namely, that of trading with the enemy, and this was beyond the Marshal’s jurisdiction. Should the delivery be sanctioned, it is necessary that adequate steps should be taken to insure the fact that the Germans themselves should not be benefited by this fuel oil.

Mr Polk asks whether any guarantee actually exists that a military organization under German control would not profit by the delivery.

M Clemenceau suggests that the matter can await the ratification of the Peace Treaty, at which time the Allies would be in a position to supervise the delivery.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the British Military Authorities agree with General Weygand, but that there are two difficulties in the situation. In the first place, the Council would be deciding to authorize a delivery of fuel oil at the same moment that it had resolved upon the exercise of economic pressure on Germany; and in the second place, no information is at hand as to whether an actual guarantee could be had that the oil would not benefit Germans in the Baltic Provinces. He proposes that Allied Representatives in these provinces should be asked whether, if the Council is to authorize the delivery, they could guarantee that it would not benefit the Germans.

(It is decided to request the Marshal, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies to ascertain from the Allied Military Authorities in the Baltic States whether the latter are able to guarantee that such oil as the Allied and Associated Governments might authorize to be delivered to the Lithuanians, should not fall into the hands of German organizations.)


3. The Council has before it a memorandum of the Supreme Economic Council dated September 29th, 1919.

M Clementel says that the Supreme Economic Council has created a Supply Committee whose function was to insure that the Allies should not become competitors in the world markets for the purchase of articles of prime necessity. At the time when the Germans and Austrians are to be allowed to make purchases on their own account the Supreme Economic Council believed that it would be advantageous to prevent the former enemies from competing with the Allies in the markets, and thus contributing to a rise in the prices of indispensable articles. For this reason the Supreme Economic Council believes that the Committee of Supply should be consulted regarding the German requests. The problem had already arisen in matters of finance and shipping, at which time it was decided that the competent Commissions should be responsible to the Supreme Economic Council with regard to the requests of the Allies, and to the Reparations Commission relative to the applications made by the Germans, because it is to the latter Commission that the German requests will be made. The United States of America is not represented at the present time on the Supreme Economic Council, a most regrettable fact, but they are represented on the Committee for the Organization of the Reparations Commission. They might, therefore, be represented on the Supply Committee on behalf of the Reparations Commission. The other Allies might be represented both from the point of view of the Reparations Commission and of the Supreme Economic Council. In this manner one single Commission, on which all the Allies were represented, would be competent to deal with the situation.

Mr Polk says that he regrets his inability to accept at the present time the proposal put forward by M Clementel. He had talked with Mr Hoover prior to the departure of the latter and they had both been of the opinion that the United States should not be represented on the Supreme Economic Council. On the other hand, they should be represented for all questions of reparations. The matters within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Economic Council, such as division of foodstuffs and coal, were questions which were of vital importance to Europe but not of interest to the United States. Consequently, the latter had no need of representation in this body. It is only on the Reparations Commission that the American Representatives could advantageously function. Therefore, in view of Mr Hoover’s opinion, and also that of the American Treasury Department, he is unable to agree with M Clementel at the present time.

M Clementel replies that it is not a question of asking the United States to take part in the work of the Supreme Economic Council, however greatly this might be desired. The matter is simply to know whether the buyers of the Supreme Economic Council were to ignore the German and Austrian purchasers, and whether or not these two groups were to become competitors.

Mr Polk says that he had realized that the question would come up for discussion in the Council and had therefore telegraphed his Government for instructions in advance. These had not yet been received, and until they should be he is unable to take any decision in the matter. He therefore requests that the discussion be adjourned, but says that in the interval Mr Dresel and Colonel Logan might discuss the matter with M Clementel.

(The discussion of the proposal of the Supreme Economic Council regarding the procedure to be followed for the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials to Germany and Austria is adjourned.)


4. The Council has before it a note of the Supreme Economic Council dated September 20th, 1919.

(At the request of Mr Polk the detailed examination of this note is adjourned until such time as the proposal of the Supreme Economic Council for the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials to Germany and Austria should be considered.)


5. The Council has before it a note of the Supreme Economic Council requesting the appointment by the United States of America of an arbitrator for the distribution of shipping on the Danube.

Mr Clementel says that article 300 of the Peace Treaty with Austria provides for the appointment by the United States of America of one or several arbitrators, whose duties will be to distribute among the interested parties the tugs and other vessels forming part of the commercial fleet of the Danube River. In a telegram from Budapest, Admiral Troubridge urgently requests that the American Arbitrator provided for in the Treaty should begin his work as quickly as possible. The Supreme Economic Council therefore asked that the United States hasten the appointment of its arbitrators.

Mr Polk says that the Austrian Treaty has not yet been ratified by any Government. He will take the responsibility of naming an arbitrator but he does not believe that such an appointment will result to any good effect in view of the fact that Austria itself had not yet ratified the Treaty. Sir Eyre Crowe had called his attention to the fact that a similar article exists in the German Treaty and that, following the ratification of this document by Germany, a special arrangement has been made and an arbitrator nominated. The same procedure might be followed in this instance with regard to Austria without waiting for the ratification by the American Senate. Colonel Logan can take up the question with Mr Clementel.

(It is decided that Colonel Logan should confer with Mr Clementel with regard to the nomination of the American Arbitrators provided for by article 300 of the Austrian Peace Treaty (Distribution and Control of shipping on the Danube).


6. The Council has before it two letters from Mr Venizelos dated August 22nd and September 28th respectively.

Mr Berthelot read and comments upon the letter of September 28th.

Mr Polk remarks that the question was raised, while Mr Balfour was sitting in the Council, as to the exact powers of the Greek Officer who had been authorized to follow the labors of the Commission of Inquiry at Smyrna.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that a resolution in this matter had been taken by the Council on August 14th should be explained to the High Commissioner at Constantinople in the sense that the Greek Representative should not be present at the meetings of the Commission of Inquiry at Smyrna. All necessary data should be communicated to him, however, and similar facilities should be given to a Turkish Representative, if subsequently appointed.”

M Berthelot answered that Mr. Venizelos maintained that the Allied Commissioners had kept Colonel Mazarakis completely in ignorance of their labors and have not even furnished him with the minutes of their meetings.

Mr Clemenceau says that this appears excessive. A telegram should be sent at once to Constantinople instructing that the minutes should be communicated to the Greek Representative and, should the latter have any complaints to make thereon, he should present the same to the Commission. The attention of the representatives should also again be drawn to the former resolutions of the Council in the matter.

(It is decided:

(1) That the minutes of the meetings of the Commission on Inquiry at Smyrna, including the testimony of witnesses, should be communicated to the Greek Representative attached to this Commission;

(2) That said Representative should be asked and permitted to notify the Commission of any criticisms which he desired to formulate regarding the matters in question.)


7. The Council has before it a memorandum from the British Delegation dated August 11th, 1919.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the events at Smyrna had indisputably called forth a certain number of complaints against the Greek and Turkish Governments. The Commission of Inquiry which had been appointed might form a sub-commission on the ground to deal with these protests. It might be, however, that such a proposal was now too late as a telegram had been received from the British High Commissioner at Constantinople, dated September 8th, stating that the Greeks had already formed such a Commission. In view of this fact he asked that the Council permit him to telegraph Constantinople for further information and to await the receipt of this before formally presenting his proposal. British Proposal for the Investigation of Complaints Arising Through the Incidents at Smyrna

(The study of the British proposal is adjourned until such time as Sir Eyre Crowe should receive additional information.)


8. Mr. Polk says that it will be as well to adjourn this matter pending the receipt of an answer from the Swedish Government on the subject of the Blockade of Soviet Russia.

(The question is adjourned.)


9. The Council has before it a report of the Baltic Commission dated August 25th, 1919.

M Kammerer reads from and comments upon the report in question and said that the Commission has not made any proposal to the Council. They ask merely whether, despite the absence of a responsible Russian Government and regardless of the fact that Petchenga was situated in Russian territory, they might be allowed to study the means of giving satisfaction to the desires of Finland.

M Clemenceau answers that he was prepared to authorize the Commission to make such a study, but that neither he nor any of his colleagues at the present time recognize their right to dispose of Russian territory.

M Kammerer remarks that in 1862 a discussion had taken place between the Governments of Finland and of Imperial Russia for the cession of the port of Petchenga to Finland. An agreement had been reached but had not been executed and its validity was even open to doubt.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Council might later have to discuss the question with the Finns and it would be well to have a solution ready at that time.

(It is decided that the Baltic Commission should be authorized to make a study of the ways and means by which the claims of Finland for a modification of its frontiers in Karelia and the district of Petchenga might receive satisfaction.)

(The meeting then adjourns)

[Jimbuna]

1st October 1919

Princess Charlotte of Prussia, the eldest daughter of German Kaiser Frederick III, has passed away.


Armenian soldiers bringing in a bunch of prisoners, these men were deserters from the Armenian army--Erivan, Armenia.


Ship Losses:

Homer (United States) The 34-gross register ton motor vessel was destroyed in Security Bay (56°53′N 134°21′W) in Southeast Alaska by a fire that started in her engine room. All three crew members transferred to the motor vessel Milleville ( United States), which was lying alongside when the fire broke out, and survived.

[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, October 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

2nd October 1919

President Wilson suffers a debilitating stroke that incapacitates him for the rest of his life. His wife Edith Wilson (pictured) and physician Cary T. Grayson hide his condition from the public.


Woodrow Wilson suffers a stroke which leaves him bedridden and paralyzed. His wife, Edith Wilson, secretly attends to his duties while he is ill.


Ship Losses:

Dobrovolets (Russian Navy White Movement) Russian Civil War: Battle of Pechek: The gunboat ran aground during the battle on the Dnieper River. She was then shelled and machine gunned by Geroyskiy ( Soviet Navy) causing her crew to abandon ship. The ship was captured, and refloated a few hours later. Repaired and put in service as Gubitelnyy ( Soviet Navy).

[Sailor Steve]

Thursday, October 2, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. The Council has before it a letter from the Legation of the Netherlands dated August 9th, together with a note from the Ports, Waterways and Railways Commission, dated August 20th.

M. Tirman, in explanation of the matter in question, says that Article 354 of the German Peace Treaty upheld the Convention of Mannheim of 1868, with certain modifications. The first of these deals with the composition of a Commission charged with supervising the control of the traffic on the Rhine, and the second with technical matters regarding the navigation. Following the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871 the Convention of Mannheim had remained in force but the French representative on the Commission had been replaced by a delegate from Alsace-Lorraine. It is clear that in order to modify the Convention at the present time Holland should consent thereto, as it is a signatory power. The question before the Council is to determine in what manner the Government of the Netherlands should be invited to participate in the negotiations for a further modification of the Convention of Mannheim. He feels that the Council itself is the proper body to address the invitation in question.

Mr Polk says that he is not familiar with the details of the question but that he believes it to be one which interests France and the British Empire especially. He therefore suggests that it would be well to convoke a Commission composed of representatives of these two countries to consider the question.

M Tirman replies that it is a question of execution of a clause of the German Peace Treaty and that the Council itself, which is the proper body to supervise such execution, should issue the invitation to the Dutch Government.

Mr Polk asks what procedure M Tirman suggests in the matter.

M Tirman says that the President of the Council might address a formal invitation to the Government of the Netherlands.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarks that there are two phases of the matter. In the first place, it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the Dutch Government to a further modification of the Mannheim Convention. In the second place, the question might arise of the eventual participation of the Netherlands in the General Convention provided for by Article 338 of the German Peace Treaty, regarding the rivers which were to be internationalized.

M Tirman agrees that two questions are involved. In the first place there is a necessity of executing a clause of the German Peace Treaty at once. On the other hand, Article 354 gives a temporary character to the organization set up in the Peace Treaty. A general Convention is provided for for the international rivers, and the Treaty further stipulated that if the general Convention should not agree with the Convention for the Rhine the latter should be modified. It is known that the Netherlands are desirous of taking part in the General Convention, and it appears that the Treaty gives them all the guarantees in this matter which they might wish.

At all events, the Treaty provides that the General Convention should not become absolute until it has been approved by the League of Nations. Holland had already asked to be admitted to the League of Nations. Furthermore, the Treaty provides that if a General Convention is not agreed upon, the Central Commission of the Ehine (in which The Netherlands are represented) will be charged with drawing up a definite convention for that river. In any case, the Dutch Government will receive satisfaction.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks to what Conference the Dutch Government is to be invited, whether it was to be one between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, or a meeting of the delegates of the Governments composing the Central Rhine Commission. If the invitation was to a Conference of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers the United States of America would be represented therein, while Switzerland, a state vitally interested in the question, would not. On the second hypothesis, the United States will not be represented while Switzerland will be.

M Tirman said that he believed the conference should be between representatives of all the Powers who were to be members of the Central Rhine Commission, but that the meeting should take place under the auspices of the Council in order not to exclude the Great Powers which are not represented on the former body. The conference should take place in two phases. The Dutch Government should first be invited to agree to the modification of the Convention of Mannheim, of which it is a part. One of the modifications would be the admission of Switzerland, which was not at the present time a party to the Convention. Thereafter the Swiss Government should be invited to participate in the remainder of the negotiations.

(It is decided:

(1) That the President of the Peace Conference should invite The Netherlands Government to take part in the negotiations provided for by Article 354 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, relative to the modification of the Convention of Mannheim of 1868;

(2) That the negotiations in question should take place under the auspices of the Supreme Council, between the interested Allied Powers (who are represented on the Central Rhine Commission, in accordance with Article 355 of the German Peace Treaty), and The Netherlands Government;

(3) That the Swiss Government should later be invited to take part in the negotiations.


2. The Council has before it a note from Marshal Foch dated September 29th, 1919.

General Weygand in explanation of the note in question said that the Polish Authorities had addressed a request for supplies to Marshal Foch in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Forces. This request appeared to Marshal Foch in all respects worthy of satisfaction, for according to the statements of General Henrys and other officers of the Inter-Allied Staff who had been in Poland the Polish Army was in great need of the supplies asked for. With the exception of General Haller’s troops, the army was insufficiently equipped. For example, in one regiment there were only two overcoats per company. A continuation of this state of affairs, in view of the approaching winter, would lead to an exceedingly critical situation from the point of view of the morale of the Polish Army and might cause a retreat of this force from the line of the Beresina. Marshal Foch, believing that it was to the interest of the Allies to maintain the Polish Army intact, wished to support the request which had been formulated. In the letter to the Council he had included only such requests as he believed to be of prime importance and which should be granted at once if the situation were to be saved. Note From Marshal Foch Supporting a Request for Military Supplies From the Polish Government

M Clemenceau asks how it was planned to transport this material to Poland, assuming that it was available.

General Weygand says that the Allied Headquarters has already studied this problem. The transportation question was indeed a difficult one. The Port of Danzig was only available for the supply of food for the civilian population. Germany, of course, would not be prepared to permit supplies for the Polish Army to cross its frontiers. It had, therefore, been necessary to search out other routes. At the present time one regular train was running daily to Poland via Italy, which might be made use of. In addition the Italian Government was prepared to permit four trains per week to pass by way of the Brenner. Furthermore by using the route through Switzerland, Austria and Czechoslovakia it is possible to obtain two trains per day. For the latter transport, however, Austria and Czechoslovakia has asked that France should guarantee the expenses and furnish the coal. It is impossible for France to do this alone and it would consequently be necessary to add this charge, in addition to the expenses for the supply of material, to the account of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. The total transport under this scheme would be twenty-five trains per week or about one hundred monthly. He had figured that the 600,000 uniforms requested would take approximately ninety-five trains or, in other words, that the shipment of these could be completed in somewhat less than a month’s time.

S Scialoja asked whether the four trains proceeding by the Brenner route would interfere with the shipments of material which were now being made to Poland under contract between that country and Italy. Should the arrangements as outlined by General Weygand be put into effect he would like to have it understood that they should not prejudice the shipments which Italy was now making.

General Weygand says that there would be no difficulty in continuing the shipments referred to by S Scialoja, and that the four trains which he had mentioned would be in addition to those shipments. It is first necessary that Marshal Foch’s Staff should agree with the Headquarters of the other Allied Armies as to what material could be shipped to Poland. Unquestionably this material would not all be concentrated at one point. He was anxious to obtain the authorization of the Council to consult the other Allied Headquarters in this matter.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he has not yet been able to take this question up with his Government. He believed that the best method of procedure would be to instruct the Council of Military Experts at Versailles to study the question. This body had already formulated a general scheme for the supply of material to troops fighting the Bolshevists, and it was therefore probable that they could quickly arrive at a solution in the matter. In the meantime he would consult his Government.

General Weygand says that he fears much time will be lost by referring the matter to Military Experts at Versailles.

M Clemenceau says that the difficulty might be overcome by instructing the Versailles Council to act without delay.

Mr Polk says that the question from his point of view was largely a financial one. He agrees in the main with General Weygand’s remarks.

M Clemenceau said that during such time as Mr Polk and Sir Eyre Crowe are discussing the matter with their Governments the Military Experts at Versailles could be studying the practical means of executing the matter. The Polish Army was of great importance to the Allies as it constituted one of the best means of coercing Germany. It is very necessary to maintain this army in the field owing to the fact that Great Britain, the United States and France had so largely demobilized their troops.

General Weygand says that the Council at Versailles should be instructed to turn over the matter to Marshal Foch’s Headquarters for execution. He would collaborate with General Belin throughout the examination of the question.

(It is decided to refer the request for material received from the Polish Ministry of War and approved by Marshal Foch, to the Allied Military Experts at Versailles and to instruct the latter to make an examination of the question with the least possible delay and report thereon to the Council.)

(It was further decided that the carrying out of the recommendations of the Allied Military Experts, if and when approved by the Supreme Council, should be entrusted to the Headquarters of Marshal Foch.


3. Sir Eyre Crowe says that as it had already been decided that the Commission for the repatriation of German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners of war from Siberia should function in Paris and not in Siberia, the only question before the Council was that of nominations for this Commission.
(After a short discussion it is decided that the Commission for the repatriation of German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners of war from Siberia should be composed as follows:

America, United States of: Colonel James A. Logan.
British Empire: Lt.-Colonel Black.
France: Lt.-Commander Fabre.
Italy: (Not yet designated.)
Japan: Major Katsuki.)

(It is further decided that the said Commission should function in Paris.)


4. The Council has before it a note from General Weygand relative to the repatriation of Czechoslovak, Polish, Yugoslav and Romanian troops in Siberia.

M Clemenceau says that the note in question suggests a modification of the second paragraph of the resolution passed by the Council on September 27th in this matter.

(“It is also decided: that the repatriation of the Czechoslovak troops in Siberia should be effected before that of the German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners in Siberia.”)

As there re a considerable number of the troops of other Allied Nations in Siberia in addition to the Czechoslovak forces, it is proposed to substitute the following paragraph for that quoted above:

“It is also decided that the repatriation of the Czechoslovak, Polish, Yugoslav and Romanian troops in Siberia should be effected before that of the German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners.”

He was of the opinion that this procedure should be adopted.

Mr Polk says that he has just received word from Washington that the German Government had been negotiating for the repatriation of its prisoners of war from Siberia, and had arranged with a Japanese steamship company for the chartering of six vessels for this purpose.

M Berthelot suggests that Mr Matsui ascertain the truth of this information, and if the facts were exact, the six vessels in question should be turned over for the use of the Allied Governments.

Mr Matsui says that he has no information on the subject but that the repatriation of German prisoners in the hands of the Japanese was going on, and the negotiations referred to by Mr Polk might conceivably be for this matter.

(It is decided to modify the second paragraph of the resolution taken by the Council on September 27th, so that the same should read as follows:

“It is also decided: that the repatriation of the Czechoslovak, Polish, Yugoslav and Romanian troops in Siberia should be effected before that of the German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners.”)


5. The Council has before it a proposal submitted by the British Delegation, dated September 30th, 1919, asking that the Russian Battleship Volya be transferred to General Denekin.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that this matter had been brought up before the Council on account of the fact that the Russian Battleship involved had been turned over to the Allied and Associated Powers under Article 29 of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918. The consent of the Council to its transfer to General Denekin was therefore necessary.

M Clemenceau says that he personally has no objection to this transfer taking place.

Mr Polk says that he personally has no objection to formulate, but that he will consult the American Naval experts and notify the Secretary-General of his decision in the matter later in the day.

(Mr Polk later states that the American Delegation has no objection to the procedure proposed.)

(It is decided that the Russian Battleship Volya, handed over to the Allied and Associated Powers under Article 29 of the Armistice of November 11th, 1918, should be transferred by the British Admiralty to General Denekin.)


6. The Council has before it a note from the Secretary-General of the International Labor Commission, relative to applications made by Finland, Norway and The Netherlands for admission to the Labor Congress at Washington.

Mr Polk says that the matters raised by the note in question should be left to the Labor Congress for decision.

M Clemenceau agrees with Mr Polk and asks merely that the United States Government should permit the representatives of the countries in question to go to the United States, by issuing them the necessary passports.

Mr Polk says that he would have the same letter addressed to the representatives of Finland, Norway and The Netherlands as had been sent to the German and Austrian Labor Delegates.

(It is decided that the questions raised by the note of the Secretary-General of the International Labor Commission relative to the admission of delegates from Finland, Norway and The Netherlands to the forthcoming Labor Congress at Washington, should be left to the decision of that Congress.)

(It was further decided that the American Delegation should notify the Secretary-General of the International Labor Commission that no obstacles would be placed in the way of Finnish, Norwegian or Dutch delegates desirous of proceeding to Washington in anticipation of a decision in their favor by the Congress.)


7. Sir Eyre Crowe says that there are two possible ways by which the Neutral Governments might be informed of the decision of the Council regarding the Blockade of Soviet Russia. First, a joint notification might be made in each of the neutral capitals by the diplomatic representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Secondly, a note might be sent by M Clemenceau, as President of the Peace Conference, to the Diplomatic Representatives of the Neutral countries in Paris.

Mr Polk says that the second solution proposed by Sir Eyre Crowe seems to him to be the more practical one.

(After a short discussion, it is decided that M Clemenceau, as President of the Peace Conference, should address a note to the Diplomatic Representatives of the Neutral Powers at Paris informing them of the decision of the Council regarding economic pressure to be exercised upon Soviet Russia.)


8. The Council has before it a note from the Austrian Delegation dated September 17th, regarding the disturbances that had occurred in the Comitats of Western Hungary.

M Berthelot said that the Austrian Government asked that Allied Officers be sent to Western Hungary to protect the population from the disturbances which were occurring there at the present time. They further ask that an Inter-Allied Commission might be sent to Oldenburg to prevent a repetition of the acts of violence which had occurred there, and to supervise the conduct of the Hungarian troops at the time of the evacuation of the territory in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it was a question of enforcing certain terms of the Austrian Treaty.

M Berthelot suggests that officers might be detached for this duty from the Allied Military Missions at Vienna.

S Scialoja said that there are still Hungarian troops in this territory because the new boundary between Austria and Hungary had not yet been officially notified to the Hungarian Government.

M Pichon admits that this is the case, and stated that the reason therefor is that no recognized Government had as yet been set up in Hungary.

Mr Polk suggested that the Allied Generals in Budapest should be informed officially as to the frontier between Austria and Hungary and should be instructed to convey this information to the Hungarian authorities.

(It is decided:

(1) That an Inter-Allied Military Commission, composed of officers to be drawn from the Allied Military Representatives at Vienna or Budapest, should be sent to the Comitats of Western Hungary to assist in the maintenance of order in the territories granted to Austria by the Treaty of Saint Germain;

(2) That this Mission should be under the orders of the Allied General Officers at Budapest;

(3) That the Allied Generals at Budapest should be officially informed of the frontier between Austria and Hungary, as defined in the Peace Treaty of Saint Germain.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

[Jimbuna]

3rd October 1919

Belgian officers receiving British military decorations at Place Poelaert, Brussels.


Edward, Prince of Wales, visiting a baseball game in Calgary, Canada.


Ship Losses:

Frank O'Connor (United States) The bulk carrier caught fire and sank in Lake Michigan.
Sesnon #15 (United States) With a crew of six and a cargo of 25 tons of general merchandise aboard, the 40-ton scow was wrecked without loss of life in Golovnin Bay on the coast of the Territory of Alaska during a gale.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, October 3, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

4th October 1919

U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Sr. releases a report denying pogroms against Polish Jews took place in postwar Poland, but notes “isolated excesses” resulted in about 300 Jewish deaths.


Ship Losses:

Mackensen (Imperial German Navy) The Mackensen-class Vorpostenboot was sunk by mines on the Dogger Bank.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, October 4, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

5th October 1919

Wen Qimei, mother of Mao Zedong, has passed away.


Margaret Foster (March 4, 1895 –November 5, 1970) was an American chemist. She was the first female chemist to work for the United States Geological Survey, and was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project. She is pictured in her USGS laboratory.


Ship Losses:

Milton (United States) The cargo ship caught fire and sank near Lisboain.
Nadezhda (Russian Navy White Movement) Russian Civil War: The gunboat was sunk off Lagan Island by mines.

[Sailor Steve]

Sunday, October 5, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

6th October 1919

Ivan Kalmykov, Ataman of the Ussuri Cossacks and Anti-Bolshevik General, with a troop train in Siberia.


Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci undergoing repairs in drydock. The ship sunk in 1916 due to a magazine explosion.