100 Years Ago Today

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, June 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, 16:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


(Mr Paderewski and Mr Hurst are present during this discussion.)

1. Mr Paderewski says he has come to ask the Council to make certain modifications in the Convention to be signed between Poland and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers under Article 93 of the Treaty of Peace. The various points to which he alludes were dealt with fully in a letter, dated 26th June, 1919, he had sent to M Clemenceau, and to which he makes frequent reference.


2. The first point raised by Mr Paderewski is contained in the following extract from his letter to M Clemenceau:

“I have the honor to declare, in the name of the Treatment of Polish Delegation to the Peace Conference, that we are ready to sign the proposed Convention in execution of Article 93 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, while asking you, M le Président, in the name of justice, to stipulate that the numerous Polish population destined to remain under German domination shall enjoy the same rights and privileges so far as concerns language and culture as those accorded to Germans who become, by reason of the Treaty, citizens of the Polish Republic.”

There is considerable discussion on this point, which is only briefly summarized below.

President Wilson points out that the claim is a just one, but it is impossible now to put it in the Treaty with Germany. There are no means by which the Peace Conference can compel the Germans to observe any stipulation of this kind. The Poles, however, might enter into negotiation with the Germans with a view to some arrangement between them.

Baron Sonnino says that the obligation by Poland to Germans resident in Poland contained in the Convention might be subordinated to reciprocity by Germany.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the best plan would be for Poland to make an appeal to the League of Nations on the subject. He feels sure that the Council of the League will sustain them. He thinks this would be a much better plan than by making any stipulation on the subject. If is were a bargain by which the Germans were compelled to treat the Poles in their territory in the same manner as the Poles were bound to treat Germans in their territory, there would continually be disputes as to whether Germany had extended these privileges, and it would be an encouragement to extremists to refuse just treatment on the ground that the other party had not done the same. It is, however, to the interests of Poland to treat Germans in their territory as well as possible and to make them contented. Troublesome times might come and it would then be a great advantage that the German population should have no cause for discontent. Further, the Poles’ appeal to the League of Nations would be much stronger if they had treated the Germans well.

Mr Paderewski shares Mr Lloyd George’s point of view in principle, but points out that the question arises as to when the authority of the League of Nations would extend over Germany.

President Wilson points out that this depends upon when Germany is admitted to the League of Nations and the conditions for this had been laid down in the reply to the German counter-propositions. He considers that Mr Lloyd George’s plan is the best one. He points out that Germany is eager to qualify for admission to the League of Nations, since she is handicapped as against other nations until she has qualified. He suggests that the League might be asked to insist on corresponding treatment to the Poles in German territory as a condition for Germany’s entering into the League of Nations. He regrets that provision for just treatment of Poles in Germany had not been made in the German Treaty and that it would be necessary to postpone the matter for the present, but, in the circumstances, he thinks this is the best plan.

M Clemenceau agrees that the best plan is for Poland to apply to the League of Nations. In reply to an observation by Mr Paderewski that the League of Nations might not always consist of persons actuated by the same motives as the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, he points out that, in effect, the Council of the League of Nations could consist of the same persons as the present Council.


3. A second alteration in the Treaty, proposed by Mr Paderewski, is contained in the following extract from his letter of June 26th to M. Clemenceau:

“At the same time, we beg you, M le Président, to be so good as to modify the text of Article 9 by editing the second paragraph as follows:

‘In the towns and districts where a considerable proportion of Polish subjects of Jewish faith reside, there shall be assured to this minority an equitable part in the division of the sums which shall be raised from public funds, municipal or otherwise, for the object of education, religion or charity. These sums shall be employed for the establishment, under the control of the Polish State, of primary schools, in which the needs of the Jewish faith shall be duly respected and in which the popular Jewish language (Yiddish) should be considered as an auxiliary language.’”

This modification, Mr Paderewski explains, has been asked for by the Polish Jews.

Mr Lloyd George pointed out that this proposal goes far beyond what was contemplated under the present draft of the Treaty.

President Wilson agrees and points out that the intention of the present Treaty is that Yiddish should only be used as a medium of instruction and was not to be taught as a separate language.

Mr Paderewski says that, as this had been put forward by an influential Jewish body, he had felt it his duty to present it to the Council.


4. Mr Paderewski further raises objection to the provision in the Convention with Poland for the Internationalization of the River Vistula and its tributaries. He fears that this will enable the Germans to obtain advantages. Germany already has advantages in the control of many of the markets affecting Poland. He is ready to conclude any arrangement with the Allied and Associated Powers, but Poland has to remember that Germany does not consider herself bound by treaties. It is being openly declared in German newspapers that Germany will not be morally bound by the Treaty of Peace. The internationalization of the Vistula is not provided for in the Treaty with Germany. It had been proposed in Commissions and Sub-Commissions, but the proposal had been withdrawn, and thus the Vistula had been recognised as a national Polish river. This is why the Polish Delegation proposed the suppression of Article 6. In reply to questions as to how far the Vistula ran through territory other than Polish, he says that the river itself runs entirely through Polish territory. Its tributary, the Bug, ran part of its course through Ruthenian territory.

President Wilson points out that by this article Poland is merely bound to accept for her rivers, the same international regime as Germany had accepted for German rivers. Poland is only asked to come into the same international scheme as is contemplated in other parts of Europe.

Mr Paderewski says he feels that this clause gives privileges to the Germans.


5. In the course of the above discussions, the question is raised as to the equipment of the Polish military forces.

Mr Lloyd George says that in a short conversation he had with Mr Paderewski on entering, he had asked him about the condition of the Polish army. He was disturbed to find that this bore out the accounts that he had lately received from General Sir Henry Wilson, namely that part of the Polish forces are quite inadequately armed. The Allied and Associated Powers have plenty of material, and he cannot imagine how Poland had been allowed to be short.

President Wilson thinks it is due to the difficulty in getting supplies through.

Mr Paderewski regrets that this is not really the reason. He had been told to appeal to the Supreme Council. When he had appealed some time ago not one had been willing to help except the Italian Government who had sent several trains of ammunition through Austria. Except for General Haller’s army, however, he has received nothing from the United States of America, France or Great Britain.

Mr Lloyd George says that Great Britain had been asked to supply Admiral Kolchak, General Denekin and the Archangel Government, and they had done so. He asks if they have refused any specific appeal from Poland.

Mr Paderewski says that the appeal had not been made individually to Great Britain but was made to the Council without any result.

President Wilson says that his own recollection is that nothing has been sent, because it was impossible to get any material through.

Mr Lloyd George says there should be no difficulty about getting it through now. The whole of General Haller’s army had been transported and Danzig is also available.

Mr Paderewski says that the passage of food through Danzig is being stopped. Many of the soldiers in Poland had not even cartridge belts. He had applied to the United States Army and to Mr. Lansing personally and in writing but could not get any belts, though the surplus of these was actually being burnt in some places. The equipment of General Haller’s army was absolutely first-class, but Poland had some 700,000 men who needed everything. They had no factories themselves, and had an entire lack of raw material.

(It is agreed that the Military Representatives at Versailles should be informed that the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are anxious to complete the equipment of the Polish Army. The Military Representatives should be directed to make immediate inquiry as to the deficiencies of the Polish Army in equipment and supplies, and to advise as to how and from what sources these could best be made good. The Military Representatives should be authorized to consult the Polish Military Authorities on the subject.)


6. M Mantoux reads the following note from M. Fromageot:

(Translation)

"The Treaty with Germany must be ratified by Poland in order that it may benefit from it. On the other hand the application of this Treaty so far as concerns Poland is not subordinated to the ratification by Poland of this special Treaty with the Powers for the guarantee of minorities.

It might happen from this that Poland, while refusing to ratify this special Treaty, might become the beneficiary of the Treaty with Germany, a Treaty of which Article 93 however, provides for the protection of minorities in Poland in the form of an engagement with this country.

M Fromageot has notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs of this question, and Mr Hurst has equally notified Mr Balfour."

Mr Paderewski says there is no doubt that the Polish Diet would ratify the Treaty.

(It is agreed that no action is called for on this note.)

(Mr Paderewski and Mr Hurst withdraw.)


7. The Council has before them forms of Mandates which have been prepared by Lord Milner and circulated by Mr Lloyd George.

President Wilson says that there is some criticisms to make against Lord Milner’s proposals. In his view they hardly provide adequate protection for the native population; they do not provide sufficiently for the open door; and the Class “C” Mandates do not make provision for missionary activities. He thinks that if the Council devote themselves to this question now, they will find themselves in the position of drafting the Mandates themselves, and he does not feel they are suitably constituted for that purpose. He thinks the best plan would be to appoint a special Committee for the purpose.

Mr Lloyd George does not agree that Lord Milner’s draft does not go sufficiently far as regards the open door. He thinks that in some respects his Forms go beyond what was originally contemplated. He agrees, however, in remitting the matter to a special Committee. He thinks that perhaps the Committee might transfer its activities to London as this would be more convenient for Lord Milner. Colonel House is about to proceed to London, and as he is informed by Baron Makino, Viscount Chinda, the Japanese Ambassador in London would be the Japanese member of the Committee.

President Wilson suggests that the best plan would be to set up the Commission at once and ask them to hold a special preliminary meeting to arrange their own procedure. He thinks it would be a good plan to draw up the Mandates and publish them in order to invite criticism before adopting them. He is prepared, however, to leave this also to the Commission.

Mr Lloyd George says that a closely connected question is that of the Belgian claims to a part of German East Africa. Lord Milner has agreed a scheme with the representatives of the Belgian Government which the British Government is ready to accept. He feels bound to mention, however, that the Council of the Aborigines Society had lately come to Paris and had raised objections to the allocation of this territory to Belgium. He understands the difficulty is that Belgium desires these territories mainly for the purpose of raising labor rather than for what they contain.

President Wilson says that he believes Belgium has reformed her Colonial administration but the difficulty is that the world does not feel sure that this is the case. He thinks the best plan would be to ask the special Committee to hear the Aborigines Society.

Sir Maurice Hankey, alluding to a proposal that M Clemenceau had made that the question should be discussed on the afternoon of the following day at Versailles after the signature of the Treaty of Peace, says that not only the Belgian representatives would have to be heard, but in addition, the Portuguese representatives who had asked to be heard when questions relating to German East Africa were under consideration.

President Wilson suggests that the Special Committee might hear the Portuguese representatives in addition.

Sir Maurice Hankey points out that this would considerably extend the reference to the special Commission.

President Wilson says that the Aborigines ought to be heard in connection with the Mandates.

Mr Lloyd George says he supposes the question of German East Africa would have to be put off until the Aborigines Society had been heard.

(It is agreed that a special Commission should be immediately set up composed as follows:

Colonel House for the United States of America.
Lord Milner for the British Empire.
M Simon for France.
S Crespi for Italy.
Viscount Chinda for Japan.

for the following purpose:

1) To consider the drafting of Mandates.

2) To hear the views of the Aborigines Society in regard to the Belgian claims in German East Africa.

3) To hear the Portuguese claims in regard to German East Africa.)

(Mr Philip Kerr is summoned into the room and given instructions to invite Lord Milner immediately to summon a preliminary meeting of the Commission.)


8. Mr. Lloyd George suggests that a telegram ought to be sent to Admiral Kolchak asking him whether he is willing to agree in the scheme for the co-operation of the Czechoslovak forces with the right wing of his army.

(It is agreed that a telegram in this sense ought to be sent, and Mr Lloyd George undertakes to submit a draft to the Council at the Meeting on the following morning.)


9. President Wilson suggests that after he himself and Mr Lloyd George have left, the main work of the Conference should revert to the Council of Ten at the Quai d’Orsay. He says that Mr Lansing’s presence is required for a time in the United States, and that Mr Polk would temporarily take his place.

Mr Lloyd George agrees in the new procedure.

(It is agreed that on the departure of President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George the Council of Ten should be re-established at the Quai d’Orsay as the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers in the Peace Conference.)


10. Mr Lloyd George says he understands that the upshot of recent conversations is that the Turkish question must be postponed until it is known whether the United States of America could accept a mandate.

(It was agreed:

1) That the further consideration of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey should be suspended until such time as the Government of the United States of America could state whether they were able to accept a mandate for a portion of the territory of the former Turkish Empire.

2) That the Turkish Delegation should be thanked for the statements they have made to the Peace Conference, and that a suggestion should be conveyed to them that they might now return to their own country.

The view is generally expressed that Mr Balfour should be invited to draft the letter to the Turks.)


(M Tardieu is introduced.)

11. The Council has before them the attached report on the proposals of the French Government in regard to the allocation of certain former German passenger ships to relieve the difficulties of France in regard to passenger tonnage, especially so far as her Colonial lines are concerned.

Mr Lloyd George comments that if France and Italy are in a difficult position as regards tonnage, so is Great Britain. He says he cannot accept the report because no representative of the Ministry of Shipping had been available to take part in it. He could neither give an assent or a dissent on a shipping question unless the proper expert was available. He had telegraphed on the previous day to the Minister of Shipping, and he hoped that an expert would be available immediately.

(It is agreed that the report should be considered as soon as a representative of the British Ministry of Shipping was available.)

(M Tardieu withdraws.)


(M Dutasta entered.)

12. M Dutasta hands a letter from the German Delegation on the subject of the signing of the special Convention in regard to the Rhine to M Mantoux, who translates it into English. In this letter the German Delegation protests against having to sign the Rhine Convention simultaneously with the Treaty of Peace, on the ground that Article 232 provides only for a subsequent convention. They intimate, however, that they would not press their objection if conversations could take place later on the subject.

(On M Clemenceau’s suggestion, it is agreed to reply in the sense that the Rhine Convention must be signed on the same day as the Treaty of Peace with Germany, but that the Allied and Associated Powers would not object to subsequent meetings to discuss details.

Captain Portier drafts a reply, which is read and approved. M Clemenceau undertakes to dispatch it immediately.)


13. M Dutasta also hands a Note from the German Delegation to M Mantoux, which he translates into English, containing the German consent to the addition of a special Protocol to the Treaty of Peace with Germany, as proposed some days before.

(M Dutasta withdraws.)


14. The Council has under consideration the question of the size of the Army of Occupation of the Provinces west of the Rhine. In this connection they have before them the report of the special Commission appointed to consider this question as well as to draw up a Convention regarding the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine.

(It is agreed to refer the question to the Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council at Versailles.)


15. (It is agreed that the Secretary-General should be authorized to communicate the decision concerning the frontier between Romania and Yugoslavia in the Banat to the representatives in Paris of the countries concerned.)


16. The following telegram is approved and initialed by the representatives of the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers:

“The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers has decided to authorize the Polish Government to utilize any of its military forces, including General Haller’s army, in Eastern Galicia.”

(It is explained that this decision is consequential to the decision that the Polish Government be authorized to occupy with its military forces Eastern Galicia up to the River Zbruck, and had been recommended by the Council of Foreign Ministers on June 25th.)

(Captain Portier undertakes to communicate the initialed telegram to the Secretary-General for despatch.)


(M Claveille and General Mance are introduced.)

17. General Mance explains that the Sudbahn was the railway from Vienna to Trieste with a branch to Fiume and a branch to Innsbruck, which gtoes through to Irent. By the Treaty of Peace it is divided into five parts. The bondholders are largely French. The Governments of Austria, Yugoslavia, Italy and Hungary each have the right under the Treaty of Peace with Austria to expropriate the portion running through its territory. Various proposals have been made for meeting the difficult situation created. The simplest is that of the Czechoslovak Government, which, moreover, is disinterested. Their proposal is that there should be an agreement between the four Governments in regard to the status of the railway, including the rights of expropriation and the financial arrangements. Failing agreement between the four Governments, arbitration should be arranged by the Council of the League of Nations.

(At Baron Sonnino’s request, the subject is postponed until the following day, when Italian, as well as British and French experts might be present.)

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, June 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, 16:30

Meeting of the Council of Three


(Note: During the 16:00 meeting, President Wilson, Mr Lloyd George, Mr Hurst, M Clemenceau, M Pichon, Sir Maurice Hankey and M Portier adjourn to an adjoining room, where a short meeting, recorded below, is held. The full meeting was then resumed.)

1. Mr Lloyd George says that Mr Hurst has prepared a text of a Convention to give effect to the agreement in regard to the guarantee to be given by Great Britain to France. The draft is based on an American draft, but one important alteration has been made. The American draft makes the agreement subject to approval by the League of Nations in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations. It has been pointed out, however, that in this case one member of the Council could interfere with the validity of the agreement. Consequently, in the British draft, it is made subject to the agreement of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

President Wilson accepts the new draft and asks Mr Hurst to arrange with Mr Brown-Scott to make a corresponding alteration in the American draft.

Mr Lloyd George says that M Clemenceau must realize that he is not in a position to bind the self-governing Dominions, which have their own Parliaments, and this was provided for in the Draft Convention.

M Clemenceau said that he quite understands this.

(Mr Hurst is instructed to prepare a final draft.)

[Jimbuna]

28th June 1919

Aftermath of War

President Wilson signs Treaty by which U.S.A. will assist France in case of unprovoked German attack.

Peace Treaty signed and published.

Anti-Bolshevik General Anton Denikin at Kharkiv after capturing the city in preparation for a planned offensive against Moscow.


British artillery officers training anti-Communist Russian troops at Novocherkassk:.


The Black Star Line is founded, name was a play on White Star Line. It was a shipping line incorporated by Marcus Garvey, the organizer of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). The shipping company had all-black crews and a black captains.


Ship Losses:

Duchess of Richmond (United Kingdom) The paddle steamer struck a mine and sank in the Mediterranean Sea.
Slutskyi (Soviet Navy) The hydrographic vessel was shelled and sunk by White artillery off Unitsa in Lake Onega.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Mr Lloyd George's Residence, 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, 10:30

Meeting of the Council of Three


1. President Wilson reads a draft of instructions to the United States Delegation which he has prepared.

M Clemenceau says he does not think that the Allies ought to insist on the evacuation of Fiume. They have no right to demand this. What they have a right to complain of is the assumption that the Italians are masters there and could issue orders in the name of the King of Italy.

Mr Lloyd George says that Italy has no more right to issue proclamations at Fiume in the name of the King of Italy than France has in the name of the President of the Republic, or Great Britain in the name of King George.

President Wilson says the difficulty is to make the Italians recognize this. All the evidence we have is that the Italians have issued orders and proclamations for the action of their troops in the name of the King of Italy.

Mr Lloyd George says he understands that it had been arranged informally on the previous day that President Wilson on the one part and Great Britain and France on the other part were to present S Tittoni on his arrival with written memoranda explaining the attitude of their respective Governments. He thinks this would make it easier for Mr Lansing and Mr Balfour who, though plenipotentiaries, are not Heads of States, in dealing with Italy.

President Wilson says he had thought the best plan would be to give written instructions to his colleagues who could then inform the Italian Delegation that they had instructions in this sense.

Mr Lloyd George thinks their position will be stronger still if they are left a document which they were to hand to the Italian Delegation.

President Wilson thinks it possible that S Tittoni might use the document in the press to the disadvantage of the Allied and Associated Powers.

Sir Maurice Hankey, at Mr Lloyd George’s request, reads aloud a draft statement to S Tittoni on behalf of the British and French Governments, prepared by Mr Balfour. The draft is not quite complete.

Mr Lloyd George thinks the draft is admirable, but points out that the operative words are lacking. He would like to conclude the memorandum by stating that it is no use having a discussion with the Italian Delegation while their troops remain in Asia Minor, and that before any discussion of Italian claims takes place, we must insist on their moving out.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to ask Mr Balfour to draft the last paragraph in the sense of Mr Lloyd George’s remarks, combined with the first paragraph of President Wilson’s instructions to his colleagues.)

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, 11:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


1. The following Treaties are signed to provide for assistance to France in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany.

1) For assistance by the United States, signed by M Clemenceau, M Pichon, President Wilson and Mr Lansing.

2) For assistance by Great Britain, signed by M Clemenceau, M Pichon, Mr Lloyd George and Mr Balfour.


2. The representatives of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers initial the Reparation Clauses for the Austrian Treaty.


3. The representatives of the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers initial the Financial Clauses for the Austrian Treaty.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to forward both the Reparation and Financial Clauses to the Secretary-General for communication to the Drafting Committee.)


4. Owing to the receipt of information that the Crown Prince has not escaped, it is agreed that the dispatch to the Dutch Government in regard to the security of the German ex-Kaiser should be communicated to the Dutch Government but not published.


5. The Council has before them a letter addressed by Mr Hoover to President Wilson, suggesting the appointment of a single temporary Resident Commissioner to Armenia, who should have the full authority of the United States of America, Great Britain, France and Italy, in all their relations to the de-facto Armenian Government, as the joint representative of these Governments in Armenia.

(This proposal is accepted.)


6. The Council has before them a draft letter prepared by Mr Balfour inviting the Turkish Delegation to return to Paris.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the first paragraph of the letter should make it clearer that the Turkish Delegation had come here on their own initiative and had not been invited by the Powers.

(Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to ask Mr Balfour to modify the letter accordingly.)


7. Sir Maurice Hankey reports that he had not been quite clear as to the precise terms of reference to the Commission on Mandates, which it had been decided to set up on the previous day.

(It is agreed that the terms of reference should be as follows:

1) To consider the drafting of model mandates.

2) To hear statements of the Belgian and Portuguese claims in regard to German East Africa.

3) To hear statements by the Aborigines Societies in regard to German East Africa.

4) To make a report on the Belgian and Portuguese claims in German East Africa.)

(Note: At this point there is a long discussion on the question of the Sud-Bahn railway, in which M Claveille, General Mance, S Crespi and Captain Young take part. This is recorded as a separate meeting.)


(Mr Hoover, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr Wise, M Clementel and S Crespi are introduced.)

8. Lord Robert Cecil says he had asked to see the Council because he was afraid of a hiatus occurring between the disappearance of the Supreme Economic Council and the setting up of new machinery for economic consultation under the League of Nations. As the Council were aware, the Supreme Economic Council provides all the necessary means of consultation at present. He feels it is hardly necessary to notify to the Council of the very serious position that exists in regard to the economic state of Europe in matters of relief, transportation, supplies, etc. It is not too much to say that we are on the verge of disaster in the majority of the countries in Europe. At any moment there might be the greatest necessity for the Governments to consult on the subject. It would be most serious if there were a gap in the means of consultation. If only the ordinary diplomatic channels were available for consultation, it would be impossible to get anything done. The decision required might be a question of days or almost of hours. He is anxious, therefore, to remove any possibility of such a gap. He hopes that it will be one of the first tasks of the Council of the League of Nations to provide for machinery for economic consultation. At one time the French representatives had put forward a scheme, but this had happened at the very end of the proceedings of the Commission and it had not been thought possible to adopt it. President Wilson, he thinks, would not be disposed to under-rate the importance of the economic side of international relationships. These are the reasons for formulating the following proposal.

“That in some form international consultation in economic matters should be continued until the Council of the League of Nations has had an opportunity of considering the present acute position of the International economic situation, and that it should be remitted to the Supreme Economic Council to establish the necessary machinery for the purpose.”

Lord Robert Cecil says he is prepared to substitute the word “propose” for “establish”.

M Clemenceau, after reading the French text, accepts.

President Wilson says he understands that he is the only obstacle to the acceptance of this resolution. All agree that the Economic Council will continue to function till Peace is ratified, which, he fears, might be some six weeks or two months hence. Consequently, there is ample time in which to consider other methods. What he wishes to guard against is any appearance that the Powers who had been Allies and Associates in the war were banding themselves together in an economic union directed against the Central Powers. Any appearance of an exclusive economic bloc must be avoided. Any means of consultation set up must not be open to this suggestion. He agrees, however, that some means of consultation is desirable and even necessary. As regards his own powers, he has to point out that his authority to sanction such consultation ends with the ratification of peace. After that, he will have no authority, and he is not entitled to delegate authority. Hence, it will be necessary for him to consult with his advisers as to whether any machinery can be devised within the Statutes of the United States of America, and if this is impossible, he might have to get a new Statute. He has no objection to the economic Council considering plans of consultation not having that appearance, but the wording must be very careful, and he must be very careful about his own attitude.

Lord Robert Cecil says that the Trades Union Congress at Southport had voted a demand for the Supreme Economic Council to continue as the only means of assisting Germany to tide over her economic difficulties. Credit, currency and many other matters must be dealt with as a whole for a year or two. Economic questions are very much interlaced. They cannot be considered for one country alone, hence consultation is essential.

President Wilson says he is fully agreed in this.

(After some further discussion the following resolution is adopted:

“That in some form, international consultation in economic matters should be continued until the Council of the League of Nations has had an opportunity of considering the present acute position of the International economic situation and that the Supreme Economic Council should be requested to suggest for the consideration of the several governments the methods of consultation which would be most serviceable for this purpose.”)


9. The Council has before them the draft telegram to Admiral Kolchak in connection with the proposal for the use of the Czechoslovak forces in Siberia to cooperate with the right wing of Admiral Kolchak’s Army.

(It is agreed that subject to the approval of the Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council at Versailles, who, with the addition of representatives of Japan and Czechoslovakia, are considering this subject, the telegram should be dispatched on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers by M Clemenceau as President of the Peace Conference, to Admiral Kolchak.)

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

President Wilson’s House, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, 12:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


(This meeting takes place in the middle of the 11:00 Meeting, and involves M Claveille, General Mance, S Crespi and Captain Young in a discussion concerning the Sud-Bahn Railway.)

President Wilson asks S Crespi to be good enough to explain the situation.

S Crespi says that an agreement has almost been reached and all feel that it is very necessary to reach one. The only objection is that questions of private financial interests between Companies and States should not find a place in a Treaty of Peace. This principle has been asserted by the Supreme Council which had declared that no clause in the Treaty should mention any private interest. The Italian Delegation has a new proposal to make on this question, of which the following was the text:

“With the object of ensuring regular utilization of the railroads of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy owned by private companies, which, as a result of the stipulations of the Treaty, will be situated in the territory of several States, the administrative and technical reorganization of the said lines shall be regulated in each instance by an agreement between the owning Company and the States territorially concerned. Any differences on which agreement is not reached, including questions relating to the interpretation of contracts concerning the expropriation of lines, shall be submitted to an arbitrator designated by the Council of the League of Nations.”

S Crespi thinks that this proposal covers all the difficulties, as it refers to technical questions as well as those regarding the interpretation of the contract between the various Companies to an arbitrator appointed by the League of Nations.

M Claveille says that he has certain observations to make. He wishes to have a hearing, because if the proposals just made are accepted, the result will be that only States territorially concerned would have a share in the ultimate agreement. It is only just that France should not be detrimentally affected. The capital invested in these Companies is largely French. More than three-quarters of the bond-holders are French, and they represent a capital of more than a milliard and a half. He makes no mention of the shares which are mostly held by Austro-Hungarians. When this railroad system was partitioned it was inconceivable, seeing that the capital invested in it belonged to France, that France should have no share in the discussion. He thought a remedy to this could easily be found by a slight alteration in the proposal just made, namely, by substituting for the words “states territorially concerned” a list of the States, including France.

President Wilson says that the text used the word “contracts”. He presumes that this means contracts between the companies and the heirs of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

General Mance observes that each Company would have to make new contracts with the new States.

President Wilson says that if the rights are not transferred automatically by the Treaty, the inclusion of new parties will from the legal aspect be wrong.

S Crespi said that he cannot accept the addition proposed by M Claveille. There are bond-holders in Italy also. Their interests are quite well represented by the directors of the Company, whose business it is to look after the interests of its creditors. It would be contrary to all commercial laws to allow shareholders to intervene in the administration of a Company.

M Claveille says that the Board of Directors is Austro-Hungarian and a center of Germanization. It represents worthless paper, the only paper of any value being French. The bondholders therefore in equity have a right to intervene, and it is intended to put them aside at the very moment when the railway system is to be partitioned. He thinks this proposal unacceptable.

M Clemenceau says that France is simply being denied what she has a right to. A milliard and a half is being taken from her pocket.

Mr Lloyd George says that the British interest is relatively small as compared with the interest of France. He quite understands the reasons brought forward by the French representatives, but on the other hand he had been impressed by S Crespi’s argument. It is a serious matter to have France and Great Britain represented in matters regarding Austrian, Czechoslovak, Italian or Yugoslav railways, simply because these countries had invested capital in these concerns. It is alleged that the Board of Directors is Austro-Hungarian and more or less controlled by Germany, but this must surely have been the case at the time when French and British shareholders invested their capital. S Crespi had shown the danger of introducing into this matter any State whose intervention could put a stop to everything. He says this after a prolonged conversation with his experts. He repeats that it is a very serious thing that France and Great Britain should intervene in matters regarding the administration of railroads in foreign countries merely because their subjects had invested money in them. He thinks S Crespi has gone a long way in accepting arbitration by the Council of the League of Nations for technical matters as well as for the expropriation of the lines.

M Claveille says that it is not merely a question of purchase. The railroad is nearly 2,000 kilometres long, and France, by reason of the capital invested, owns three-quarters. This railroad is to be partitioned among four Powers, each of which would be in a position to make a separate contract. This might result in the destruction of the work accomplished by France. Could the country which had paid the bill be excluded from the debate? This appears to him inadmissible. France does not ask to settle the question alone, but only to take a share in the discussion.

M Clemenceau says that it amounts to taking money from French pockets. He regards this as scandalous. This will be very deeply felt by public opinion in France, and such an action cannot be represented as in the interests of justice.

S Crespi says that there is a misunderstanding. The arbitration of the League of Nations is accepted for the solution of the whole matter.

M Clemenceau says this was no doubt so, but it was also true that if the four contracting States agree, there will be no arbitration, and the game will be lost to France. After the war waged by France, and the losses sustained by her in it, such a situation is quite unendurable, and he refuses with the utmost energy to accept the proposal. He regrets having to take such a decision, but the uncompromising spirit shown forces him to do so.

President Wilson says that such a question cannot remain an open one, as it is part of the Treaty with Austria, which cannot indefinitely wait for settlement.

Mr Lloyd George says that General Mance had explained the French point of view to him, and he thoroughly understands it. He would observe that under the previous regime the Austro-Hungarian State had the right to expropriate the Company at any moment. He would ask therefore what change had been brought about by the new situation.

M Claveille says that the proposal is unacceptable, both in form and in substance. It would amount to this - that the four States could come to an agreement, though they own but a very small share of the invested capital. It is indeed extremely likely that they would reach an agreement. Arbitration would then not be resorted to, and French interests would be eliminated without even a hearing. The question of expropriation is not as simple as it seems. The railroad stretches over four States, and affords access for Czechoslovakia to the Adriatic. France had taken a considerable share in this. According to the Treaty, the four States are free to purchase or not to purchase the line. They will be in a position to share it and to partition the material constituting it. It cannot be permitted that French savings, which had invested a milliard and a half, should have no voice in the final settlement. France has already lost 10 milliards in Russia. She has suffered more than any other country in the war, and now she is to be robbed of a milliard and a half. If this is done there will be an overwhelming torrent of indignation in public opinion.

President Wilson asks whether it is not obvious that the four States would have every interest in developing the lines, as they are essential to their economic life.

M Claveille says that he does not expect them to destroy the line, but he thinks they will appropriate it at a low rate.

Mr Lloyd George says he cannot see any difference between the new situation and that which existed before the war. If Austria-Hungary still existed, she would be able to expropriate, and France could not make any resistance. It seemed to him that expropriation is less likely at the present time since it requires the previous agreement of the four States.

M Claveille says that there is yet a further point that has not been mentioned. The Company until 1875 had owned lines in Italy. At that period the Italian lines had been expropriated. Since then Italy had paid an annual indemnity of 29,000,000 francs. According to the Treaty, he gathers that this sum is to be paid in future by the Austrians. In regard to Austria, France takes her place, with all the other Allies, among the creditors, and it is well-known how little would be received under this head. Hitherto, payment had been made by the Italian Government in Paris. This shows to what extent French interests are concerned in these lines.

S Crespi says that the Italian Government has always paid in Rome.

M Claveille says he is ready to demonstrate the contrary.

S Crespi says that in the Convention it was stated that payment should be made in gold in Rome. If no gold were available, payment should be made in Paris or London, preferably in Paris.

M Clemenceau says that France will be ready to accept payment in Rome, but not to be referred to Austria, which would pay nothing.

Mr Lloyd George says that this discussion might reopen the whole question. It appears to him impossible to delay the Treaty of Peace with Austria merely because of shareholders. If this were to come about, it would be necessary to make it quite clear that it was for reasons of this sort that France had opposed the settlement of the question. This is his view.

M Clemenceau says that he holds a different view. Moreover, he is quite ready to reveal all the details of the question to public opinion.

(The discussion is adjourned, and no solution is reached.)

[Sailor Steve]

PEACE CONGRESS (VERSAILLES), PROTOCOL NO. 2, Plenary Session of June 28, 1919, 15:00.


Signature of the Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany

The Plenipotentiaries of the Powers hereinafter enumerated met in the Galerie des Glaces at the Château de Versailles, in order to sign the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany. Their seals have been previously affixed to this instrument.

The Session is opened at 15 o’clock (3 p.m.) under the presidency of Mr Georges Clemenceau, President.

Present

For the United States of America:
The President of the United States.
Honorable Robert Lansing.
Honorable Henry White.
Honorable Edward M House.
General Tasker H Bliss.

For the British Empire:

Great Britain:
The Rt Hon David Lloyd George.
The Rt Hon A J Balfour.
The Rt Hon A Bonar Law.
The Rt Hon. The Viscount Milner, G C B, G C M G, Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The Rt Hon G N Barnes.

Canada:
The Hon C J Doherty, Minister of Justice.
The Hon Arthur L Sifton.

Australia:
The Rt Hon W M Hughes.
The Rt Hon Sir Joseph Cook.

South Africa:
General the Rt Hon Louis Botha.
Lieut-General the Rt Hon J C Smuts.

New Zealand:
The Rt Hon W F Massey.

India:
The Rt Hon E S Montagu, M P, Secretary of State for India.
Major-General His Highness Sir Ganga Singh, Bahadur, Maharaja of Bikaner.

For France:
M Georges Clemenceau.
M Pichon.
M L L Klotz.
M A Tardieu.
M Jules Cambon.

For Italy:
Baron S Sonnino, Deputy.
The Marquis G Imperiali, Senator, Ambassador of His Majesty the King of Italy at London.
S S Crespi, Deputy.

For Japan:
Marquis Saionji.
Baron Makino.
Viscount Chinda.
Mr K Matsui.
Mr H Ijuin.

For Belgium:
M Hymans.
M van den Heuvel.
M Vandervelde.

For Bolivia:
Sr Isniaël Montes, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Bolivia at Paris.

For Brazil:
Sh Pandia Calogeras.
Sh Rodrigo Octavio L de Menezes, Professor of International Law at Rio de Janeiro.

For Cuba:
Sr Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante.

For Ecuador:
Sr Dorn y de Alsua, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Ecuador at Paris.

For Greece:
Mr Eleftherios Veniselos.
Mr Nicolas Politis.

For Guatemala:
Sr Joaquín Mendéz.

For Haiti:
M Tertullien Guilbaud.

For the Hedjaz:
Mr Rustem Haïdar.
Mr Abdul Hadi Aouni.

For Honduras:
Dr. Policarpo Bonilla.

For Liberia:
Hon C D B King.

For Nicaragua:
Sr Salvador Chamorro.

For Panama:
Sr Antonio Burgos.

For Peru:
Sr Carlos G Candamo, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Peru at Paris.

For Poland:
Mr Roman Dmowski.
Mr Ignace Paderewski.

For Portugal:
Dr Affonso Costa.
Sh Augusto Soares.

For Romania:
Mr Jean J C Bratiano.
General Constantin Coanda, Corps Commander, A D C to the King, formerly President of the Council of Ministers.

For the Serb-Croat-Slovene State:
Mr N P Pachitch.
Mr Ante Trumbitch.
Mr Milenko R Vesnitch.

For Siam:
Prince Charoon.
Prince Traidos Prabandhu.

For the Czechoslovak Republic:
Mr Charles Kramar.
Mr Edouard Benes.

For Uruguay:
Sr Jean Antonio Buero, Minister for Foreign Affairs, formerly Minister of Industry.

For Germany:
Herr Hermann Müller, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Empire.
Dr Bell, Minister of the Empire.

The President, speaking in French, explains the purpose of the meeting in the following terms:

“Agreement has been reached in regard to the conditions of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and the German Empire.

The text has been drawn up; the President of the Conference has certified in writing to the identity of the text to be signed with that of the two hundred copies which were handed to the German Delegates.

The signatures are about to be appended; they will signify an irrevocable undertaking to observe and carry out, loyally, faithfully, and integrally, all the conditions which have been laid down.

I have therefore the honor to request the German Plenipotentiaries to be good enough to come and place their signatures on the Treaty which lies before me.”

The foregoing speech is translated into English and German.

The Plenipotentiaries of Germany, and after them the Plenipotentiaries of the Allied and Associated Powers, enumerated above; successively sign the Treaty of Peace, and the Protocol indicating precisely the conditions in which certain provisions of that Treaty are to be carried out.

The Plenipotentiaries of the United States of America, of Belgium, of the British Empire, and of France, of the one part, and of Germany of the other part, sign the Agreement with regard to the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine.

The Plenipotentiaries of the United States of America, of the British Empire, of France, of Italy, and of Japan, of the one part, and of Poland, of the other part, sign a Treaty in regard to Poland.

The President records the fact that these signatures have been appended in the following terms:—

“The signatures have all been given.

The signature of the conditions of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and the German Empire is an accomplished fact.”

The Agenda being disposed of, the Session is adjourned at 15.50 o’clock (3.50 p.m.)

The President,
G Clemenceau.
The Secretary General,
P Dutasta.

The Secretaries,
J C Grew,
Paul Gauthier,
M P A Hankey,
G de Martino,
Ashida.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Foyer of the Senate Chamber of the Chateau at Versailles, Paris, 17:00

Meeting of the Council of Five


1. M Mantoux, at M Clemenceau’s request, reads the English translation of a letter from Herr Bethmann-Hollweg insisting that any responsibility on the part of the German Government for the events that precipitated the War in August 1914 was his and not the Kaiser’s, since he had been Imperial Chancellor of the German Empire. From this he deduced that the Allied and Associated Powers ought to call him and not the Kaiser to account.

M Clemenceau suggests that the reply should be that when the Tribunal is constituted his letter will be put before it.

Mr Lloyd George points out that the Tribunal has nothing to do except try the Kaiser and cannot be made responsible for this matter.

M Clemenceau asks if Bethmann-Hollweg is on the list of persons to be tried.

President Wilson says that there are two categories. The Kaiser is in one category alone to be tried, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties. Those in the second category are to be tried for acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Bethmann-Hollweg does not fall into either category.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the answer should be that he cannot be accepted as responsible for the Kaiser who, by the German Constitution, is alone responsible.

President Wilson says that Bethmann-Hollweg is acting on the theory that the German Constitution is similar to that of Great Britain or France, under either of which the Minister is responsible. The Chancellor of the German Empire, however, is under the direct control of the Kaiser.

Baron Sonnino says that the text of the letter will require careful study before a reply is sent.

President Wilson says that the reply should express the recognition of the Allied and Associated Powers of the spirit in which the offer was made, but should state that Bethmann-Hollweg’s interpretation of the German Constitution cannot be accepted.

Baron Makino expresses the view that by constitutional law the Minister would be the responsible party.

(It is agreed that the Commission on Responsibilities, of which Mr Lansing is Chairman, should be asked to draft a reply to Bethmann-Hollweg’s letter, but that a general indication should be given to the Commission of the Council’s view as to the nature of the reply formed without an opportunity for close examination of the facts, namely, that the Allied and Associated Powers recognize the spirit in which the offer was made but cannot accept Bethmann-Hollweg’s interpretation of the German Constitution.)


2. President Wilson says that immediately before the Meeting of the Peace Conference for the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, Mr Hoover had sent him word that two of his relief agents for the distribution of food, had been arrested by the Germans in Libau.

(It is agreed that Marshal Foch should be asked, through the Armistice Commission, to make an immediate demand for the release of these agents, laying special emphasis on the fact that this incident had occurred before an apology had been offered for the recent arrest by the Germans of British Naval Officers in the Baltic Provinces, if the Council are correct in assuming that no such apology has been made to the demand approved by them on June 4th.


3. Sir Maurice Hankey says he has been asked by various officials to supply copies of the Notes of the Meetings of the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and he asks for instructions.

M Clemenceau said that in his view they ought not to be communicated to anyone and that there should be a general agreement to this effect.

Baron Sonnino points out that the question will arise immediately in connection with the Italian Delegation as to whether those records should be handed by one Government to their successors in Office. In his view this is indispensable. He cannot vouch for it that S Orlando had not already given them to S Tittoni. It would be very difficult for the new Government to conduct the business if it did not know what had been decided by its predecessors in the Council.

President Wilson expresses a strong view that these documents ought to be treated as purely private conversations. He recalls that it was on his initiative that the meetings of this small group had been held. He had invited his colleagues to meet him for the purpose of private conversations at his own house. For a long time no notes had been kept at all. Later, however, it had been realized that this was not a very convenient procedure and Secretaries had been admitted. If, however, he had thought that these Notes were to be passed on to Government Departments, he would have insisted on adhering to the system under which no secretaries were present. All the decisions had been communicated to the officials who had to carry them out, but he had the strongest objections to the communication of the accounts given in the Notes of the private conversations. All present had spoken their minds with great freedom. Contradictions could, no doubt, be found in the Notes to what had been said at different times and under different circumstances. It is even conceivable that political opponents who came into possession of these documents might misuse them. He does not think that properly speaking the Council could be described as an official body. The only official body is the Conference of Peace. The present group had rightly, as he thought, taken upon itself to formulate the decisions for the Peace Conference, but their conversations ought not to be regarded as official. He sees no objection to the communication of the notes to individuals in the personal confidence of members of the Council, for example, he had instructed Sir Maurice Hankey to communicate a complete set of the documents to Mr Lansing, who is a minister appointed by himself and in his entire confidence.

M Clemenceau says that if he had to resign Office, he would find it a great embarrassment not to hand over these documents to his successor in Office. He does not think that they can be regarded as private property.

Baron Sonnino says that perhaps these need not be regarded as official reports since they had not been carefully checked and corrected. Nevertheless, they contain important statements which, in some cases, are not recorded as conclusions. He quotes one case for example, where S Orlando had made an important statement of which the Council had taken formal note, and this, he believed, was merely recorded in the procès-verbal. It might be very important for S Orlando’s successor in office to have a copy of this.

M Clemenceau recalls a similar case where he had insisted on the importance of interpreting certain provisions in the resolutions regarding mandates, so as to enable France to use African soldiers for the defense of her territory, and Mr Lloyd George had suggested that it would be sufficient to mention it in the procès-verbal.

President Wilson says that certainly such statements should be regarded as official, but nevertheless he thinks the actual conversations which led up to the conclusions reached should be regarded as private.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that the precedents ought to be looked up. For example, he would like to know whether the procès-verbaux of all conversations which took place in the Treaty of Berlin had been published.

President Wilson says that probably at the Congress of Berlin there had been recorded formal Conferences and informal conversations which were not recorded.

Mr Lloyd George says that he had never had time to look at the notes at all.

M Clemenceau says that he also had never had time. He recalls, however, that Sir Maurice Hankey had several times been called upon to refer to what had occurred at the Council, for example, an important statement by Marshal Foch had been referred to at a recent meeting.

President Wilson says that when such references had been made, he had been much struck with the accuracy of the record. He thinks that every action taken and every conclusion reached should be recorded as official and should be available in the appropriate offices, but not the conversations.

Baron Sonnino says that they certainly should not be publishable or even presentable to Parliament, but he thinks that the successors of the Government in office, if challenged, must be in a position to know what had happened.

President Wilson lays emphasis on the difference between handing on to a successor or to a set of Government officials, and to a confidential and trusted colleague.

Baron Sonnino thinks it would be very hard on a new Government not to have these documents.

President Wilson says he realizes that the United States works under a different Parliamentary system. There, no one has the right to claim documents of this kind. One adverse comment that might be made is that no Secretary had been present representing the United States of America. His reply would be that he had had complete confidence in the Secretaries who had been present, but the criticism might be made, The net result seemed to be that each Government must take the course traditional in its own country with the clear and distinct understanding that no one should, under any circumstances, make the procès-verbal public.

Mr Lloyd George says that if an attack were made on the political heads, he might feel bound, in particular cases, to refer to these notes. He gives fair warning that he might have to do this unless someone protests now.

M Clemenceau says it would not be possible to refuse extracts from the procès-verbal to prove particular facts.


4. The re-draft by Mr Balfour of a letter to the Turkish Delegation is approved.

The letter is handed to Capt. Portier to prepare a French copy for M Clemenceau’s signature.


5. The Council has before them a memorandum by M Larnaude on the suggestion that steps should be taken to make the execution of Clauses 214 to 224 Prisoner and (Repatriation of Prisoners) and Clauses 227 to 230 (Penalties) in the Treaty of Peace with Germany interdependent.

Mr Lloyd George suggests that each case ought to be considered on its merits. He would like to consider the particular case proposed by Sir Ernest Pollock, namely, supposing Germany, without adequate reason, fails to deliver up the culprits, is the return of German prisoners to be slowed down?

Baron Sonnino says that the suggestion is all right in a general way, but the question is how far the principle should be applied in particular cases.

Mr Lloyd George says that M Larnaude’s proposal deals with a substantial failure on the part of the Germans to carry out the Treaty, which is tantamount to a refusal to accept it. When the names of the persons to be surrendered is communicated to Germany, the Allies ought to be in a position to say that they will not complete the surrender of prisoners until Germany hands them over.

Baron Sonnino says he does not like linking one case with another in the manner proposed by M Larnaude.

M Clemenceau says he is afraid that all the prisoners will have been handed over before the Germans are bound to fulfill their part of the Treaty.

President Wesson says that it is physically impossible to do this. He hopes that before all the German prisoners have been surrendered, some indication would be given as to whether the Germans are carrying out the Treaty.


6. M Clemenceau says that Herr von Haniel had asked M Dutasta whether some Conferences should not now take place with the Germans in regard to the execution of the Treaty of Peace. He sees no objection to this, and if his colleagues will permit, he proposes to ask M Dutasta to make some arrangement with the Germans.

Mr Lloyd George points out that it had been agreed to set up a Committee in regard to the execution of the Treaty and he thought that they might be the medium for these conversations.

(Both M Clemenceau’s and Mr Lloyd George’s proposals are agreed to.)


7. Sir Maurice Hankey says that he has encountered difficulty in giving effect to the decision taken at the meeting in the morning, to appoint a single temporary resident Commissioner to Armenia. It appears to him that the matter requires a good deal of administrative action.

(It is agreed that the Council of Ten should be asked to concert the necessary administrative steps to give effect to this decision.)


8. (It is agreed that the Joint Note by the Admirals of the Allied and Associated Powers, dated 27th June, 1919, on the subject of the disposal of German and Austro-Hungarian warships, should be referred to the Council of Ten.)


9. The Council takes note of the letter from General Bliss, reporting that he has no information to confirm the statement of Bela Kun in regard to the alleged resumption of hostilities by the Romanians.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, June 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

Foyer of the Senate Chamber of the Chateau at Versailles, Paris, 18:00

Meeting of the Council of Three


President Wilson reads aloud a re-draft of the proposed statement to the Italian Government, prepared by Mr Balfour.

(Note: During the Meeting Baron Makino and Baron Sonnino arrive, but Mr Lloyd George leaves the room to explain to them that the subject under consideration is Declarations by France and Great Britain on the one hand, and by the United States of America, on the other hand, to the new Italian Delegation, and they withdraw.)

The above statement is approved, subject to some small amendments the most important of which is the omission of a reference to the Dodecanese, which, it is considered, might be interpreted as a repudiation of the Treaty of London.

Sir Maurice Hankey is instructed to obtain the signature of Mr Lloyd George before his departure, and subsequently that of M Clemenceau, who undertakes to communicate it to the Italians.

President Wilson says he is forwarding a separate statement, which he intends to contain a reference to the Dodecanese, as he is not bound by the Treaty of London.

[Jimbuna]

29th June 1919

The Treaty of Versailles is signed between Germany and the Allied Powers.


Men stand up on desks and chairs to catch a glimpse of the signing of the Versailles Treaty.


Town Hall of Auckland, New Zealand lit up to celebrate the signing of the Versailles Treaty.


Some criticize the treaty for being too harsh towards Germany, while French Marshal Ferdinand Foch believes it is too lenient. He states, “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” (WWII starts 20 years and 65 days later).


Harry and Bess Truman marry in Independence, Missouri after his return from the war in Europe.

[Sailor Steve]

With the Treaty signed, the purpose of the Council of Three/Four/Five is ended. There are no meetings until July 1st when the new interim Council is put in place to govern until the League of Nations can take over. American President Wilson and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George make plans to return to their own countries in order to convince Congress and Parliament to ratify the Treaty, while French President Georges Clemenceau helps set up the new Council.

[Jimbuna]

30th June 1919

British tanks passing through the streets of Cologne, occupied-Germany.


John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh, British physicist who won the 1904 Nobel Prize in Physics, has passed away.

[Jimbuna]

1st July 1919

President Wilson leaves France to return to the U.S. after the signing of the Versailles Peace Treaty.


U.S. Navy dirigible C-8 (pictured is the sister ship C-7) explodes while landing at Camp Holabird, Maryland, injuring several dozen spectators.


Bars in New York City become crowded as prohibition of alcohol will come into effect in the city at midnight.

[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, July 1, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 16:00

First Meeting of the new Council of Five

United States:
Hon R Lansing

Mr L Harrison (Secretary)

British Empire:
The Rt Hon A J Balfour, M P

Mr H Norman (Secretary)

France:
M Clemenceau
M Pichon
M Loucheur

M Dutasta
M Berthelot
M de Bearn
Capt de St Quentin (Secretaries)

Italy:
S Tittoni

S di Martino (Secretary)

Japan:
H E Baron Makino
H E Viscount Chinda

Joint Secretariat
United States Lieut Burden
British Empire Capt Abraham
France Capt. A. Portier
Japan M. Saburi
Italy Lieut Zanchi

Interpreter Prof P J Mantoux


1. M Clemenceau says that he thinks the first business the Council should deal with is to nominate a Committee to watch the execution of the clauses of the Treaty with Germany when ratified.

Mr Balfour says that he intends to nominate Sir Eyre Crowe.

M Clemenceau says that his nominee is M Tardieu. The Committee is to have no executive power but should superintend the work of all Commissions dealing with the details of the provisions of the Treaty. The Committee will report to the Council from time to time what progress was being made and what further action might be needed.

Mr Lansing says that he will have to consider what nomination to make.

S Tittoni said that he can give the name of the Italian member on the following day.

Baron Makino nominated Mr Otchiai.

(It is agreed that the nominations should be made at the Meeting on the following day.)


2. M Clemenceau said he would ask M Loucheur to explain the functions of a Committee to deal with the Reparation clauses of the Treaty and to explain the necessity for its labors to begin at once, seeing that the Germans have already made certain inquiries regarding the execution of the provisions concerning the occupied districts.

M Loucheur says the proposal is to nominate a Committee with one member and one assistant from each of the following five nations: France, Great Britain, United States, Italy and Belgium.

S Tittoni asks whether the Committee will deal with devastated districts of all fronts including the Italian.

M Loucheur replies in the affirmative, but adds that it is not intended to form the Committee at once in its final shape. Each Government will be able to consider the question at leisure, especially as there will be a big staff and a very large organisation. What he proposes for the time being is a Committee to prepare the ground. It is to this Committee that he suggests that each of the Powers mentioned should nominate one delegate and one assistant. During the intermediate period between the nomination of this Committee and the formation of the ultimate organisation, he thinks that this body should be authorized to converse with the Germans with the object of shaping a plan for procedure in the future. Subcommittees to deal with Finance, Rebuilding, etc. can be set up at a later time.

Mr Balfour says that he understands that this Committee will have a double function:

(1) To organize the future Reparation Commission provided for in the Treaty.

(2) To deal with the Germans and the problems raised by them in the meantime. He further asks why Serbia was excluded.

M Loucheur says that it is intended that Serbia should take the place of Belgium whenever the question of Serbian devastated territory arises. Japan will take the place of Belgium in matters regarding the Far East and damage at sea. The preliminary organisation, however, should, he suggests, be done by nominees of the five Powers first mentioned. There will, therefore, be four permanent members in the final Commission and one changeable member. He would ask that the nominations should be made within 24 hours, and that the Committee should meet on the afternoon of the 3rd. July, 1919.

(It is agreed that the nominations should be made at the Meeting on the following day.)


3. Mr Lansing says that he has not brought a second American Delegate with him under the impression that this was to be a Council of Five.

M Clemenceau says that it is indeed to be a Council of Five, but he had asked M Pichon to come as he would himself have to leave the Meeting.

Mr Lansing says that his experience is that in a Council of Ten, in practice one delegate speaks. The other does not, but by sitting in the Council he becomes acquainted with the whole course of the work, and is therefore prepared at any moment to take charge, should his colleague for any reason be unable to attend.

M Clemenceau says that he has no objection to raise if it is desired that two delegates from each nation be present.

Mr Balfour says that the mere presence of a large number makes a physical difference. He thinks conversation is simpler and more informal at a gathering of five. Even a silent Delegate interposed between each of the spokesmen cramps the conversation. There had been many objections no doubt to the procedure in the Council of Four, but there had been this great advantage.

M Clemenceau asks whether Mr Lansing insists on his point of view. He himself shares Mrs Balfour’s.

Mr Lansing says he will not insist, but he feels the advantage of having a second delegate present. The day’s proceedings can be talked over with the second delegate with much advantage to both. He points out that there must always be others present in the room. He is strongly in favour of having enough secretaries present to make a full and agreed record of what took place.

S Tittoni says that he sees good reasons for both points of view, but he is prepared to agree to a Council of Five if his colleagues desire it.

Mr Balfour suggests that a start be made with a Council of Five, subject to alteration if necessary.

(This is agreed to.)


4. Mr Lansing asks whether the decisions reached by the Council are final.

M Clemenceau replies in the affirmative.


5. Mr Lansing says that a number of Notes have been received from the Austrian Delegation. None of them have yet been replied to. He would suggest that Commissions be appointed to deal with each section of the Treaty affected by any of the Austrian Notes. He has prepared a draft resolution on this subject.

M Clemenceau says that what Mr Lansing desires is being done.

Mr Lansing says that he does not allude to Committees employed on completing the unfinished portions of the Austrian Treaty. What he proposes are Committees to deal with the Austrian counter proposals to the portions of the Treaty which have been presented.

Mr Balfour said he understands that the same Committees which had prepared the answers to the German Notes are preparing answers to the Austrian Notes.

M Dutasta explains that there is a Section dealing with the Geographical questions, another dealing with the points relating to the League of Nations, another with the points raised concerning private property, in accordance with a decision taken by the Council of Four.

Mr Lansing observes that the American Delegation knows nothing of this. The American Experts on Austrian affairs are not the same as the Experts on German affairs.

M Dutasta says that the Secretariat-General had informed the Secretaries of the various Delegations asking each to nominate suitable delegates. Nominations had already been made for the Committee on Geographical questions, and the Committee was to meet on the following day.

(It is agreed that M Dutasta should make a full report on the situation on the following day.)

M Clemenceau says that the following subjects had been suggested:

Agenda for Future Meetings Frontiers in the following areas:

1) The Banat.

2) Bukovina.

3) Bessarabia.

M Dutasta says that the frontiers in the Banat had been fixed and the decision had been communicated to the Yugoslavs and to the Romanians. The frontiers in Bukovina had also been settled but not yet communicated.

It is decided that the communication should be made.

S Tittoni inquires whether the frontiers had been only recommended by Commissions or whether they had been fixed by decisions of the Council?

M Clemenceau says that they had been fixed by the Council.

M Clemenceau asks whether anything has been done regarding Bessarabia.

M Dutasta replies that as this subject concerns Russia, no decision has been made but the matter had been studied by the Romanian Commission.

Mr Balfour thinks that it is unnecessary to reach a decision concerning Bessarabia as no Treaty of Peace had to be made either with Russia or with Romania. He thinks that there are many questions of importance of which no doubt the Bessarabian question is one, but he thinks the Council should first deal with whatever is required to bring about peace with the enemy States.

S Tittoni thinks that the Council should make an effort to eliminate elements of disturbance and that the area in question is very disturbed.

M Clemenceau says that he agreed with S Tittoni. Mr Balfour’s proposals follow the logical order, but facts are louder than logic. He thinks the Council should attempt to suppress disorder as much as possible. He suggests that M Tardieu should be heard on the following day for half an hour on Bessarabia. No decision need be taken now.

Mr Balfour says that if that half hour is not required for other purposes, he will be delighted to hear M Tardieu.

Mr Lansing asks who will represent the Russians.

M Pichon suggests that Mr Maklakof might be heard.

S Tittoni said that if a Russian is to be heard, a Romanian should also be heard.

Mr Lansing suggests that if this is done, they should be heard separately.

This is agreed to, and it is decided that M Tardieu be asked to make a report on the following day regarding Bessarabia and that Mr Maklakof on behalf of Russia, and a Romanian delegate be heard separately on the same subject.


6. Mr Balfour observes that there can be no peace with Bulgaria without determining Bulgarian frontiers. He suggests that this subject be examined by a Committee. No Committee, however, can deal with the frontier between Bulgaria and Turkey since the whole Turkish question is still unsolved and was to be solved as a whole hereafter. He suggests that the Committee be instructed to consider provisionally the Enos Midia line as the extreme frontier of Bulgaria on that side.

It is agreed that on the following day nominations should be made for the special Commission regarding Bulgaria.

The Agenda for the following day is therefore:

1) Nominations for Committee to supervise the execution of the Treaty with Germany.

2) Nomination of organizing Committee for Separation.

3) Nominations for Committee on Bulgarian affairs.

4) Report of M Dutasta regarding procedure in dealing with Austrian Note.

5) Hearing of M Tardieu, Mr Maklakof and a Romanian Delegate regarding Bessarabia.

Mr Lansing says that he would like to add two short proposals to the Agenda. He has prepared two draft resolutions.

It is agreed that these draft resolutions should be considered and that the next meeting should take place at 15:30 on the following day.

[Jimbuna]

2nd July 1919

A film of the famed “Lost Battalion,” which became surrounded during the Argonne Offensive, is released, starring many of the actual soldiers of the battle as themselves.


British airship R34 leaves Britain to attempt the first trans-Atlantic crossing by dirigible.