SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-19, 02:02 PM   #4126
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Saturday, September 21, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-19, 06:56 AM   #4127
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

22nd September 1919

President Wilson suffers breakdown.

American Red Cross dentist providing care for a Serbian soldier.


German prisoners of war and their dog wait for a train to take them home at Mons, Belgium.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-19, 08:41 PM   #4128
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Monday, September 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. M Tardieu reads the joint proposal of the British and American representatives upon the Central Territorial Committee, who had asked their French and Italian colleagues to agree to the line of demarcation of the zones of Western Thrace, which could be occupied by the Greek Army and by the other Allied Military Forces.

He proposes to alter the last paragraph in the following manner:

“The zones of occupation thus fixed do not prejudice in any degree attribution of territory either to Greece or to the International State.”

This proposition is accepted.

(It is decided to accept the text.)


2. M Cambon says that the Commissions for Polish and Czechoslovak affairs had submitted for the approval of the Council a plan for the organization of the plebiscite in the Districts of Teschen, Spisz and Orava. The Commissions are unanimous in proposing the addition to Article 4, first paragraph, of the following:

“and in any event within a maximum period of three months after modification of the present decision as foreseen by Article 9.”

He reads a letter which he has received from Dr Benes asking that the arrangements for the plebiscite include special provisions concerning the right of option of the populations in the territory where the plebiscite is to be held. The Commission in agreement with the Drafting Committee thought that the question raised by Dr Benes ought not to be dealt with in the draft which was submitted for the approval of the Council. It is for the Allied and Associated Powers to enter into such agreements with Poland and Czechoslovakia, after the plebiscite has taken place, as appears to them necessary, and to take such steps as they considered advisable as regards the right of option of the population. The Commission desired to call attention to the urgent need of sending an Inter-Allied Commission, and for Inter-Allied occupation of the country where the plebiscite was to take place.

Sir E Crowe says that he has no objection to the report of the Commission, but he desires to state that the British Military authorities disapprove of occupation by small forces from several of the Allied States. They believe that it would be far more advantageous if the powers divide the zones of occupation, and each Power is charged with the occupation of a particular zone. The question has been discussed by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and by General Weygand. The French Military Representative thinks that the resolution already taken by the Supreme Council prevents a discussion of the problem as a whole. Under these circumstances he suggests that the Council reconsider its former decision and authorize the Military Representatives at Versailles to discuss the matter. It would be necessary to give the Military Authorities full latitude.

General Le Bond says that at the meeting of August 25 between General Weygand, representing Marshal Foch, Field Marshal Sir H. Wilson and General Bliss the subject of the organization of the Inter-Allied Armies of Occupation had been discussed. The occupation of the Klagenfurt Basin and of Thrace had been foreseen, but not the occupation of Teschen. Under these conditions they had estimated that five Divisions would be sufficient. The Army of Occupation could be Inter-Allied. The contingents of each of the Powers would be autonomous and the Supreme Command designated by the Supreme Council. General Weygand, acting for Marshal Foch, had maintained that the Allies had a collective responsibility. The occupation would be an Inter-Allied occupation everywhere. He had considered the political view. For reasons of a practical nature the British Representative on the other hand believes that the occupation of a fixed zone should be confided to a single power. England would occupy the Balkan territory, France, Upper Silesia, Italy, the Klagenfurt Basin and America, Dédéagatch. He wishes to add that, in view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Council, the occupation of Klagenfurt and of Dédéagatch no longer entered into the question. On the other hand, General Bliss, who was present at the Conference, had made no communication exposing the American point of view.

Sir E Crowe says that the British Military Authorities feel so strongly that they hesitate to send troops to any part of the world until this principle has been settled.

Mr Polk asks whether there was any provision in the Treaty on the subject of occupation.

Sir E Crowe replies that there is no such clause, insofar as Inter-Allied occupation is concerned.

Mr Polk asks whether the question has been considered by the Military Authorities at Versailles.

Sir E Crowe says that he believes that the question has not been considered. The Military Authorities were not in a position to examine the question in view of the previous decision of the Council.

Mr Polk says that the question could be referred to the Military Representatives again as an open question for report on the advantages of the two systems.

M Berthelot says that the Treaty with Germany provides for occupation by Inter-Allied Military Forces. There is an obvious necessity. It is evident, from what had taken place in Romania and Hungary, that a single power, which had been in fact only the mouthpiece of the decisions of the Council, could be given by public opinion the entire responsibility. It is the Conference which takes the responsibility and it is therefore absolutely necessary that the responsibility should be divided in the same manner as the authority.

Mr Polk says that he realized that the question had a political importance, but in certain cases, and the case of Teschen is one, there is no political difficulty to be feared. It was absurd from a practical point of view to send a mixed contingent from three different Powers. This entailed a special organization for provisioning each contingent and created a complicated situation. He asked whether it would not be possible for a single Power to represent in the District of Teschen. Danzig would be occupied by a naval Power, but on the other hand, the occupation in Silesia would be Inter-Allied.

M Berthelot says that he lays great weight on the moral side of the question and that to decide that the occupation of a certain territory should be entrusted to the troops of a single power was equivalent to creating a sphere of influence to the advantage of that Power. The equilibrium between the Powers would be far better maintained by a joint occupation. He thinks
that a formula can be found by which the great majority of the troops can be furnished by a single Power, and that the other Powers would be represented in the Inter-Allied forces by officers.

Mr Polk says a result of this nature could be reached. The Inter-Allied representation will be assured by delegates of the Powers in the Commissions for which the Treaty provided. These Commissions would each have an escort furnished by their countries; the main part of the forces of occupation will remain furnished by a single power.

General Le Bond says that there is no particular difficulty in the case of Teschen. It should be remembered that the District of Teschen is adjacent to Upper Silesia, which was to be occupied by two divisions. The troops sent to Teschen could easily be rationed from Upper Silesia.

Mr Polk says that he believes that Mr Balfour had never admitted the principle of the Inter-Allied occupation of Upper Silesia.

M Berthelot says that Mr Balfour had raised the question, but he had never formally pronounced himself against Inter-Allied occupation. He (M Berthelot) wishes to again emphasize the importance of not creating a sphere of influence or zones of action in which one Power is particularly interested.

Sir E Crowe says that he agrees on this point, but he wishes to add that the zones of occupation were under the authority of Inter-Allied Commissions. It is these Commissions which were responsible; the troops placed at their disposal are only police forces. The principle of joint responsibility is clearly safeguarded.

M Berthelot says that so far as Upper Silesia is concerned the treaty calls for Inter-Allied occupation. If this occupation is confided to the troops of a single Power, there was a danger that the Germans would have cause for complaint. In addition, the Supreme Council has taken a definite resolution on this subject on 8th August. It had specified at that time that Marshal Foch, in agreement with the Allied General Staffs should weigh, on the one hand, the advantage to be gained by representation by all the Allies in all the forces of occupation, and, on the other, the disadvantages which might result both from eventual differences between soldiers of Allied contingents as well as from difficulties in connection with the provisioning of each force. Marshal Foch is to present a report on the subject to the Supreme Council.

Mr Polk asks whether the report has been sent.

M Berthelot replies that it has been sent and distributed.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the date of the report is a matter of importance. He asks whether the force, whose organization had been discussed at that time, had not been intended, not for the mere occupation of Upper Silesia, but for the purpose of driving out the Germans.

M Berthelot says that it is a question of the Peace Treaty.

General Le Bond said that it was agreed that the total strength should be two divisions (four brigades), and that each of the Powers is to furnish a brigade. Each brigade will be assigned to a special sector. The practical difficulties which might arise would therefore be less difficult to deal with. In addition, the Allied and Associated Powers would be complying with the terms of the Treaty and the principle of joint responsibility would be safeguarded.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the Treaty with Germany provides for the occupation of Upper Silesia by troops of the Allied and Associated Powers, but that this does not necessarily mean by troops of all the Allied and Associated Powers. The troops of a single Power could in fact act as the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers.

M Berthelot says that to admit this would be to put the text of the treaty on the rack.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he does not agree, nor does he see why it would not be necessary to send Japanese troops as well.

General Le Bond says that Japan is not represented on the Commission for the occupation of Upper Silesia.

M Pichon said that the appendix to Article 88 of the Treaty of Peace provides that Japan should not be represented on this Commission. It might be possible to refer the question again to the military representatives at Versailles pointing out to them that they should take note both of the text of the Treaty, which cannot be changed, and of the views of the British delegation.

M Berthelot says that in the meeting of the Supreme Council of August 8th, Mr Balfour had not opposed the system of Inter-Allied occupation. He had merely pointed out the difficulties of provisioning an Inter-Allied force and proposed that the General Staffs study a system of compensation by which England, for example, could furnish a larger portion of the Inter-Allied contingent along the coast, and a smaller one in Upper Silesia. The total strength of the force furnished by each of the Allies would remain the same. It was only the redistribution in the zones of occupation which would change. He wished to repeat that it was most important not to put the material and political questions on the same footing and that the difficulties ought not be exaggerated. The political question was of extreme importance. It is necessary that the responsibility should be supported equally by all and that no spheres of influence, where one nation would benefit more than another, should be created. There were possibly districts, where the difficulties, as well as the possible advantages, were greater than in others, and it was not possible to admit the principle that a single nation should be in occupation there. As far as the material question was concerned, he thinks that it can be solved without much difficulty. As an example, where difficulties and responsibility had fallen upon a single Power he wishes to cite the example of Bulgaria. The French had acted as a police force of the Allies and they were the only ones who had incurred expense and burdens. England had expressed the intention of coming to the assistance of France, but France had received nothing beyond the offer of forty Hindu soldiers. He understands that so far as the United States is concerned, there were serious moral and material difficulties, but he believes strongly that it is advisable for the Great Powers to be together in the same zones.

M Cambon says that it was important to remember that in the eyes of the people the International Commissions did not count and that it was the military command, and that only which in their eyes was responsible. He wishes to recall to Sir Eyre Crowe’s mind, without any intention to criticize, an incident in history. In a certain century a distinguished prisoner had been placed under the surveillance of an Inter-Allied Commission, in which even France was represented, but it was England which was charged with the custody of the prisoner and it was England which bore the weight of the responsibility.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the two cases were not quite the same, for here the Council was dealing with a part of Germany. He understands in regard to the question before the Council that the military representatives at Versailles were limited by a decision of the Supreme Council. If the question were again referred to Versailles, no result would be reached unless the former resolution of the Council were modified. It was necessary to authorize the military representatives to study the matter as an open question and to ask them to make a report.

M Berthelot agreed, but said that the question of principle will first have to be regulated. The military representatives at Versailles were not in position to decide. It was for the Supreme Council to give instructions when a decision had been made as to whether or not the occupation was to be Inter-Allied, the contingents from the various powers being proportioned according to some system to be devised.

M Pichon says that the Versailles Council had never studied this question. The subject had been examined in a special conference between General Weygand, representing Marshal Foch, Field-Marshal H. Wilson and General Bliss. He suggested that no decision be taken until Sir Eyre Crowe had had an opportunity of consulting his Government and receiving new instructions.

It is decided:

(1) To accept the joint report of the Polish and Czecho-Slovak Commissions in regard to the plebiscite in the Duchy of Teschen, and in the districts of Spis and Orava;

(2) To add at the end of the first paragraph of article 4, respecting the plebiscite at Teschen, the following:
“(within the shortest possible time …) and, in any event, within a maximum period of three months after notification of the present decision as foreseen by Article 9”;

(3) That the members of the Inter-Allied Commission charged with organizing the plebiscite should not be chosen from among the members of the Inter-Allied Commission now at Teschen;

(4) That members of the Inter-Allied Commission be nominated as soon as possible, with the reservation that the American representatives would only participate unofficially until the Treaty was ratified by the United States Senate.


3. Colonel Rowe reads and comments upon the procès verbal of the meeting held on August 28th by the Inter-Allied Commission charged with fixing the rate of commutation to be allowed the officers serving on the Commission of Control at Berlin. Allowance for Inter-Allied Commission of Control Germany

S Scialoja said that he accepted the proposals of the Commission in regard to the amount of pay, but he wishes to see the principle established that officers of the same rank belonging to different armies should draw the same pay while serving on this mission, and not receive during this time the pay provided by the regulations of the army to which they belong.

Mr Polk says that the United States has no officers in this Commission and had therefore not taken a part in the discussion, but he desires to place himself on record as saying that he did not agree with the principle that Germany should pay the difference between the different rates of pay of officers of the same rank.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the question of principle was very important and that the Italian proposal raised great difficulties. In fixing the rates of pay it will be necessary to consider the customs and manner of living in different countries.

S Scialoja said that this is true, but that in this case it is a question only of officers who were called upon to live in the same country.

M Pichon said that he would find it difficult to accept the Italian proposal. There was another point which should be made definite. The rates of pay had been fixed in marks. He asked what would happen if the rate of the mark rose.

General Rote replies that the Commission had agreed that if the rate of the mark changed, the scale of pay would be revised.

M Pichon says that in view of this and because it was not a question of the gold mark, a fixed rate for the mark should be established.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that it was not a question of the rate, but of prices prevailing in Germany. It was these prices which should fix the amount of the rates of pay in question.

It was decided:

(1) That the proposals of the Inter-Allied Commission charged with fixing the rate of commutation to be allowed to the personnel serving on the Commissions of Control should be accepted, and

(2) That the scale of pay should be altered every three months according to the economic conditions of the cost of living in Berlin.


4. S Scialoja said that it had been announced that French troops would evacuate Koritza at the end of the month of September. There would be serious inconveniences, unless this city were occupied after the departure of the French troops. Evacuation of Koritza by French Troops

M Pichon said that the evacuation had been decided upon, but that no date had been fixed, and that for this reason it was not necessary for the Council to discuss the question.


5. M Berthelot says that Dr Benes is most anxious that the question of the repatriation of Czech troops in Siberia should be finally settled. He is leaving on that day. The question is an important one for if the things existing was allowed to continue Bolshevik propaganda would make headway among these troops. Public opinion in Czechoslovakia attached great importance to the repatriation of the troops in question. There are a number of difficulties, but if the repatriation could be begun it would have a very good effect. The Czechs were endeavoring to obtain the necessary tonnage from Japan, but they are in doubt as to whether they will be able to succeed. On the other hand, they did not have the means of making payment at Vladivostok to cover the cost of transportation of these troops. They had asked the British government to advance the amount necessary, just as France had advanced the cost of the maintenance of these troops in Siberia. It was for Great Britain and the United States to regulate the question of tonnage. Dr Benes does not ask for a definite reply. It will be sufficient if he could be told that the subject was being favorably considered by the two Governments. Repatriation of Czechoslovak Troops From Siberia

Mr Polk says that he is not able to give a definite reply on that day. He had suggested to Washington that the American Government undertake a third of the expenses of repatriation, the two thirds being paid by Great Britain and France. In regard to ships, there were the German ships which had been used for the repatriation of American troops. The use to which these ships could now be put would have to be decided by the Supreme Economic Council, or by the Maritime Transport Council at London. He feels that the United States has a great responsibility, and he would do everything on his part to secure a solution of the matter which would satisfy the Czechs.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the British Government will advance the money necessary for the cost of repatriation by sea. The British Government had accepted the principle and there were only questions of detail to be settled.

M Berthelot suggests that in view of the political importance of the question, Sir Eyre Crowe should point out to his Government the importance of bringing the matter to the attention of the Maritime Transport Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the question is somewhat delicate. The French and British Governments have not come to an agreement as to the use to which the ships which had become available should be put.

M Berthelot said that in view of the importance of the political interests at stake, he did not doubt but that the French Government would make every effort to reach a solution which would make it possible to give the Czechs satisfaction.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the British Government share this view.

Mr Polk says that he would not cease to emphasize the political importance of the question.


6. M Pichon said that the declaration by the Allied Associated Governments had required of the German Government in regard to Article 61 of the German Constitution would be signed that afternoon at Versailles, at four o’clock. German Reply in regard to Article 61 of the German Constitution

(The meeting then adjourned.)
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-19, 01:31 PM   #4129
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

23rd September 1919

A piano class for wounded soldiers in London.


Steelworkers throughout the U.S. go on strike, shutting down half of the U.S. steel industry. Steelworkers listening to a labor organizer.


Mounted police attack a striking steelworker in Homestead, Pennsylvania.


Ship Losses:

Belogor (Soviet Navy) Russian Civil War: Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War: The minesweeper was mined and sunk in the Dvina River.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-19, 09:54 PM   #4130
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Tuesday, September 23, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. Mr Polk says that he wishes to draw the attention of the Council to a matter of extreme importance before the order of the day should be taken up.

At the time of the Armistice the German Government had been in possession of fourteen oil tank ships which had not been disposed of under the terms of the armistice. At a conference in Brussels in March, 1919, the Germans had asked to be allowed to retain these ships on account of the pressing need for oil existing in their country. It had been agreed that they should be allowed to keep them. Simultaneously the Supreme Council had agreed that Germany should be allowed to receive shipments of oil and for that purpose to retain the fourteen ships. Later, when the question of the reparations to be made for the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow had arisen, the question of the fourteen ships had again been raised. At this time also the Germans were allowed to retain them. These ships had been prepared for use and were to be sent to the United States for transport of oil, the delivery of which had been contracted for and partly paid. On August 15th Admiral Charlton, President of the Inter-Allied Naval Armistice Commission, had directed that these ships be delivered to the Firth of Forth to be placed under the jurisdiction of the Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council. Some time about September first the American representative on the Inter-Allied Naval Armistice Commission had protested against this delivery, and the question had been raised at a meeting of the Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council. The American representative had urged that the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers was alone competent to deal with this question, but his protests had not been heeded. At the meeting of the Supreme Economic Council held at Brussels on September 20th the question of the disposition of these ships had been raised. He had sent a telegram to the Council, asking them to delay action on the matter, but this wire had not been received and presumably had been lost in transmission.

The Supreme Economic Council, on which the United States was not represented, had upheld the decision of the Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council and had ordered the ships to be delivered to the Firth of Forth. The American Government believed that this constituted a breach of the agreement made with Germany and, furthermore, that neither the Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council nor the Supreme Economic Council had jurisdiction in the matter. The Supreme Council alone was the body competent to decide on the disposition of the ships and he urged that instructions be given that the order of the Supreme Economic Council be held in abeyance pending the decision on the question by the Supreme Council.

M Berthelot said that he had been present on the previous evening at a meeting which had taken place at M Clemenceau’s room, at which M Berenger, who was one of the representatives of the French Government at the meeting in Brussels on September 20th, had made a report on the matters discussed at this meeting. In the light of M Berenger’s statements it was clear that he was not aware of the points which had been raised by Mr Polk. He had gathered the impression from the conversation that there was disagreement between the British and French Governments on the subject of the disposition of the tank ships, but he wished to add that he was not cognizant of the matter which Mr. Polk had presented to the Council.

Mr Polk says that it was necessary to stop delivery of these ships being made from Hamburg until the Council had arrived at a decision in the matter.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he was not familiar with all the aspects of the question, and that he would have to consult his government.

Mr Polk says that an order of the Supreme Economic Council had actually been given in the matter and that it would be necessary to suspend the execution of this order until a decision had been reached.

Mr Berthelot says that he believes the action would be taken in London, and it was therefore necessary to advise the authorities in that place.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the matter seemed to him slightly involved. There had been so many bodies which had dealt with this question that it was not exactly clear to which body the order should be sent.

Mr Polk says that to make sure the order should be sent to every body which had dealt with the question.

M Pichon said that he was in favor of having the order for the delivery of the ships held in suspense until the matter had been decided upon by the Supreme Council. He points out, however, that the holding up of this order does not affect the question of the final distribution of the ships.

Mr Polk says that this is also his understanding of the matter. The United States had not been represented on the Supreme Economic Council. The Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council had felt that it had no authority to order the delivery of the ships and had consequently referred the matter to the Supreme Economic Council, despite the protest made by the United States. The Economic Council had taken jurisdiction of the matter and had given the orders for the delivery of the ships to the Firth of Forth. It is to this body that the resolution of the Council should be sent without delay.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he will notify the authorities in London in any case.

(It is decided that the fourteen oil tank ships, which Germany had been allowed to retain at the time of the armistice, should not be delivered to the Allies until such time as the Supreme Council has agreed upon their ultimate disposition.)

(It is further decided that the Supreme Economic Council, which had given the orders for the delivery of the ships in question, should be instructed to take immediately the necessary steps to cancel these orders.)


2. Sir Eyre Crowe said that in paragraph three of the resolution, taken by the Supreme Council on the previous day, thinks that a slight error had occurred. This paragraph, which reads as follows:

“That the members of the Inter-Allied Commission, charged with organizing the plebiscite, should not be chosen from among the members of the Inter-Allied Commission now at Teschen.”

had appeared in the report submitted by the joint Czechoslovak-Polish Commission as a mere expression of opinion of that body.

He does not understand that the Commission had taken a definite resolution on this point and he did not wish to criticize it as a decision. He is not in a position to agree that it should be carried out, but would be obliged to refer to his government. It was possible that sufficient personnel might not be found to send a different British representation for the Plebiscite Commission than that of the Inter-Allied Commission now at Teschen. He thinks it will be well for each government to have free hand in the matter of this resolution.

Mr Laroche says that at the meeting of the Joint Czechoslovak and Polish Commission on September 10th Colonel Kisch, the British representative had suggested that the Inter-Allied Commission actually at Teschen should be reinforced with additional members for the purpose of supervising the plebiscite.

He (Mr Laroche) had answered that the Commission now at Teschen should be completely withdrawn and a new Commission sent there for the purpose of the plebiscite. His reasons in so urging were that the commission at present in Teschen had been there for such a long time, and had been so mixed up in local quarrels and difficulties that it was possible it would not have sufficient prestige to carry into effect its orders regarding the plebiscite. Colonel Kisch had agreed with this opinion. This agreement had enabled Mr Cambon to state that even though no decision had been taken by the Commission on the point, this body was strongly in favor of the paragraph referred to by Sir Eyre Crowe.

Mr Cambon says that he is all the more determined to maintain his recommendation of the previous day for the reason that two letters had been received in the interval; one was from Mr Paderewski and the other from Dr Benes. Dr Benes had said that the Czechoslovak Government cannot agree to the continuation in power of the present Commission at Teschen, because of the numerous complaints which had been received against that body, as well as the complaints which it had made against the local authorities. It is highly desirable that a new Commission should be installed for the purpose of the plebiscite. Mr Paderewski, in a letter written to M Clemenceau, had spoken of the warlike atmosphere which existed throughout Upper Silesia and which necessitated a military intervention. He earnestly requests the immediate organization of a commission to carry out the plebiscite in that region, and further states that such a body should send an appreciable number of officers ahead as an advance detachment. In this instance both the Czechoslovaks and Poles were in accord, and the Council should conform to their desires and send a new Commission there immediately.

M Pichon says he understands that Sir Eyre Crowe will recommend this proposition to his government.

Mr Polk says that, in order to spare the feelings of the present members of the Commission in Teschen, it would be as well that the matter should appear in the form of a recommendation of the Czechoslovak–Polish Commission, rather than a resolution of the Council.

(It is decided that the third paragraph of the resolution taken by the Council on the previous day be amended to read as follows:

“That it was preferable that the members of the Inter-Allied Commission charged with organizing the plebiscite should not be chosen from among the members of the Inter-Allied Commission now at Teschen.”)


3. M Pichon says that the Council had neglected at its last session to decide upon the entertainment allowances to be granted to the head of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control and to the heads of the Sub-commissions thereof.

Colonel Roye says that General Nollet proposes to grant an entertainment allowance of 5,000 marks per month to each of the general officers acting as presidents of the Sub-commissions. This would insure to these officers a financial situation slightly inferior to that enjoyed by General Dupont, who had been Chief of the French Military Mission in Berlin during the armistice. General Nollet had not made any proposal in regard his own remuneration.

M Pichon suggests that General Nollet should receive the same allowances as General Dupont had been granted.

Colonel Roye points out that this will not be feasible, as General Nollet would have four hundred officers under his orders as compared with twenty-five who had been under the command of General Dupont. He proposes 10,000 marks a month for General Nollet.

M Pichon suggests that these figures might be accepted, subject to a revision to be made every three months.

Mr Polk directs the attention of the Council to the fact that the United States is not voting in this matter, as it had no representation on the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control.

(It is decided:

(1) That the following monthly entertainment allowances be made to the President of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Germany and to the Presidents of the Subcommissions thereof, respectively:
For the President of the Commission, 10,000 marks
For the Presidents of the Subcommissions, 5,000 marks

(2) That these allowances, as well as those of the remainder of the personnel of the Commissions, should be revised every three months, according to the economic conditions of the cost of living in Germany.)

M Pichon says that each delegation has received copies of the telegrams sent by Sir George Clerk and that it might be well to await the return of the latter to Paris before discussing the information contained in his telegrams.


4. The Council had before it telegrams from Sir George Clerk, dated Sept. 16th and 19th.

M Berthelot says that he has been instructed by M Clemenceau to inform the Council that he, M Clemenceau, considered S Bratiano’s answer, as expressed in Sir George Clerk’s telegrams, as conciliatory. This opinion is further strengthened by the fact that the Romanian Government has made several proposals seeking to conciliate their position with the demands made by the Council. Colonel Antonesco has arrived in Paris to settle the military questions with the Council. In addition, S Bratiano has stated that he is prepared to release the material for the reconstruction of the bridge across the Save River, which he had held up pending the return by the Serbians of the material which they had removed from the Banat. Furthermore, in order to avoid being charged with stirring up Bolshevism in Hungary, and for the purpose of assisting the Hungarians to form a police force, the Romanian Government was prepared, on withdrawing its forces from Hungary, to leave one division in Budapest under the command of the senior Allied General in that city. This measure will be for the purpose of maintaining order until the Hungarians are in a situation to guarantee it. Lastly, S Bratiano is prepared to furnish a list of the requisitions made by the Romanians in Hungary and agreed that these should be thrown into the general pool for the purpose of the reparations to all the Allies.

In view of the conciliatory nature of these proposals, M Clemenceau believes that the delivery of arms and munitions to the Romanian Government, agreed upon with the French in 1917, which had been temporarily held up, should be resumed. He has accordingly given orders that these shipments be resumed.

Mr Polk says that he is somewhat surprised that M Clemenceau has taken this responsibility alone, as the decision to stop all shipments of material to Romania had been taken by the Five Powers constituting the Council.

M Berthelot says that he has not understood that the Council has reached a decision on this matter. He believes that M Clemenceau has simply made an offer to suspend the French shipments, which were being made in execution of a contract entered into in 1917, and that this offer has been accepted by the Council. In addition, S Bratiano has given the impression that France alone had suspended its shipments, for the British Government is actually negotiating with the Romanians for the delivery of naval material and the transport of Roumanian material from Archangel. Italy is also in the process of establishing an economic agreement with Romania.

Mr Polk says that on August 25 the Council had taken a formal resolution to suspend shipments of material of all kind to the Romanian Government.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that Sir George Clerk had telegraphed to the effect that the shipments of British war material to Romania had been stopped by virtue of the resolution of the Council referred to by Mr Polk. The former had recommended, however, that, if the answer of the Romanian Government was considered satisfactory by the Council the embargo on the shipments should be raised.

Mr Berthelot admits that there had been a resolution which had slipped his memory for the time being, and that this placed a different aspect on the situation.

M Pichon suggested that the Council would do well to await the arrival of Sir George Clerk.

Mr Polk agrees with M Pichon, but draws attention again to the fact that the French Government had issued orders to recommence its shipments. He says that this places him in an embarrassing position as he had stopped all American shipments immediately after the resolution referred to had been passed. It was extremely necessary for all the Allies to act together in this matter. S Bratiano and his representatives had promised much, but up to the present had done nothing. In the communication made to Sir George Clerk on the subject of requisitions, the Romanians had distinctly reserved everything which they had taken during the fighting. This reservation might be extended to include everything which they had removed from Budapest. They also said that they would retain all material which had formerly belonged to them. The Allied Generals in Budapest were in an undignified position, and he cannot agree with his colleagues that the Romanian answer is conciliatory.

Sir Eyre Crowe says it would be well to adjourn the matter pending the return of Sir George Clerk. He has received information by telegram to the effect that the Romanians had made exorbitant requisitions in Hungary and that the actual situation in Budapest was very different from that which the Romanians themselves described.

M Berthelot says that it will not be difficult to suspend the order given by the French Government to continue the shipments to Romania.

Mr Polk says it will be better that this should be done.

(It is decided that the resolution of the Council of August 25 be upheld, and that no shipments of material to Romania should be authorized at the present time.

It is further decided to adjourn the discussion of the question of Romania until the arrival of Sir George Clerk from Bucharest.)


(At this point Mr Paderewski enters the room.)

5. Mr Paderewski says that the Polish Government has studied the question of Eastern Galicia, on which the Council had deliberated. In this matter it has been guided not only reasons of State, but also by the sincere desire to ascertain in what measure the provisions of the Polish Commission had carried out the wishes of the Supreme Council. He has consulted the Parliamentary Commissions of the Polish National Assembly, and numerous delegates from the people of all parts of the country, and also the Ruthenians, and he is sorry to inform the Council that the results have not been satisfactory. Galicia is one of the regions which has been greatly devastated, and more civilians had been killed therein than in any other country. Since the armistice a civil war had deluged Poland with blood and the Ukrainians, led by the Germans, had carried havoc into the country. At the moment when the Allies were silencing the German guns on the Western Front, the Germans had been in process of devastating Poland and Galicia.

Moved by the sufferings of these people the Peace Conference has endeavored to establish order, security, and justice in Galicia, and had therefore wished to grant autonomy to that country. He points out, however, that Poland itself had already granted autonomy to Galicia, by virtue of the Polish Diet. As this is the case, and the province in question has been completely restored to order Poland is at a loss to understand the decision taken by the Peace Conference.

It is not easy for him to translate the feelings of a multitude of people, but intense pain has been caused to Poland by the rigor of the Council’s decision to cut out of its body politic a province which had been a part of Poland since the 14th Century. He realizes that his country is too weak to enforce its historic rights. Poland once extended from the Baltic to the Danube, from the Elbe to the Dnieper, but it was not the wish of that country to claim Moravia and Slovakia from its good neighbors the Czechoslovaks.

Poland’s rights to Galicia are not based upon past history, but upon the present and future. It is not a correct statement that only the urban population in Eastern Galicia is Polish and that the rural population was Ruthene. The population of the rural districts is largely Polish and in certain regions the proportion was as high as 50 per cent. At the time of the Austrian domination, 85 per cent of the direct taxes in Eastern Galicia have been paid by Poles. Poland, while not basing its claims on the past, is obliged to insist upon the present, as its national existence is at stake.

The city of Danzig, and the railway line leading from Warsaw there, an essential outlet for the Polish State has been denied to Poland on the question of nationality because the population was largely German. On the other hand in Upper Silesia, on the request of the Germans a defeated enemy power, a plebiscite had been granted - in a region which is essentially Polish, as admitted by the Germans themselves. And now Poland is faced with the loss of Lemberg, the population of which was 85 per cent Polish, for the temporary regime proposed for Galicia meant a certain loss of that country.

This temporary regime proposed by the Council brings joy to the hearts of the Germans. Instead of law and order existing in the country, its results will be continual conflicts of all kinds. A permanent electoral campaign will be carried on. German Agents, the very men who had killed Polish women and children, will constitute the members of the Galician Diet. The temporary regime furthermore, from an economic point of view, will prevent the exploitation of Polish resources in Galicia, especially in the oil districts where much Allied capital had been invested. It will be Poland’s duty to furnish the help necessary for the reconstruction of the country. If at the end of the temporary period provided for Galicia be snatched from Poland, from what source will Poland draw its reimbursement?

He further points out that neither Admiral Kolchak, as representing Russia, nor General Petlioura, as representing the Ukraine, dispute Poland’s just claims to Eastern Galicia. He has only heard of the proposed Treaty by rumors as he had not seen the proposed text of the document. He believes, however, that it comprised three clauses which are extremely prejudicial to Polish Interests.

These are: First, the entrusting of the agrarian reform to the Galician diet; Second, the fact that Galicia was not to be represented in the Polish diet; and lastly that the inhabitants of Galicia were not to be submitted to the compulsory military service of Poland.

On the first point he says that the Polish Government alone should be entrusted with the agrarian reforms in Galicia, as otherwise the Galician diet, inspired by German influence, would only look to the despoiling of their Polish neighbors.

On the second point he feels that it is impossible that two million Poles living in Eastern Galicia should not have a voice in the Diet at Warsaw.

As regards military service it would not be just to accord the Galicians all the rights and privileges of the Polish government without subjecting them to its obligations.

The general scheme of the Treaty seems to him to be to detach Galicia from Poland at the earliest possible moment. The temporary regime provided for meant the loss of Lemberg and all Eastern Galicia, a loss which Poland could not endure and survive. Poland would never forgive its delegates to the Conference should it lose Eastern Galicia. It is obliged to defend this territory as it would defend its own body. Galicia had given poets, heroes and statesmen to Poland. He entreats the Council not to impose on Poland the temporary regime for Eastern Galicia provided by the Treaty. He asks that the treaty be not upheld, if the Council desired to see a firm allied state in Central Europe.

In conclusion he asks that Galicia be granted to Poland and promises that the latter would govern it in the interests of humanity and justice, and that no complaints except from the German interests would be heard.


6. Mr. Polk suggested that the Council was not making much progress with the agenda at each of its meetings. He therefore suggested that the meetings should take place earlier in the day, or twice a day, or that Committees may be made use of to a greater extent. In addition, he proposed that where unanimity had been reached upon a question in the discussions of any Commission, this matter be placed at the head of the agenda each day and the reading of the report of the Commission be omitted.

M Pichon says that he and M Clemenceau will be unable to attend meetings of the Council in the afternoon as they were both engaged at the French Chamber.

After some further discussion, it was decided:

(1) That the meetings of the Council should take place at 10:30 o’clock each morning.

(2) That matters upon which unanimous decisions have been reached at the Commission hearings should be placed at the head of the agenda for each day and the reading of the Commission’s report thereon be omitted.

(The meeting then adjourns.)
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-19, 10:14 AM   #4131
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

24th September 1919

U.S. sailors inside the torpedo room of the captured German submarine UB-88


British advisers demonstrating the use of British field guns to anti-Bolshevik Russian troops at Kostiantynivka.


Ship Losses:

Posylnyy (Soviet Navy) Russian Civil War: Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War: The minesweeper was mined and sunk in the Dvina River.
Vdachayy (Soviet Navy) Russian Civil War: Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War: The minesweeper was mined and sunk in the Dvina River.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-19, 10:21 AM   #4132
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Wednesday, September 24, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-19, 09:26 AM   #4133
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

25th September 1919

German prisoners of war doing work for the Red Cross in Thessalonica, Greece.


Germans internees at Hoboken loading for repatriation.


An anti-Bolshevik child soldier in Murmansk, Russia.


President Woodrow Wilson gives his final address in support of the League of Nations, known as the Pueblo Speech, delivered in Pueblo, Colorado. The exhausted Wilson then suffered either a mild stroke or a nervous breakdown, and his train went immediately back to Washington.


Ship Losses:

Marie (United States) The 43-gross register ton, 63-foot (19.2 m) fishing vessel was destroyed by fire at Sister Island (54°52′15″N 131°17′15″W) in Southeast Alaska. Her entire crew of six survived.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-19, 12:53 AM   #4134
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Thursday, September 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


Thursday, September 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


Thursday, September 25, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. M Tardieu says that M Pichon will be unable to be present on account of the session of the Chamber and had therefore asks him to make his excuses for him to the members of plenary Labor the Council and to act in his place.

The Secretariat of the American Delegation has transmitted to the Secretary-General of the Conference a note containing a telegram addressed by Mr Gompers to M Arthur Fontaine. He wishes to ask whether Mr Polk is in position to say for what reason this meeting had been called and whether the members of the Council had any objections to the meeting of the Commission.

Mr Polk says that he has no information as to the reasons of the meeting.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it is unfortunate that the Council was without information as to the reasons for the meeting.

M Tardieu said that it will be possible to call the Commission together and to await further information as to the subjects to be discussed at the meeting.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he is ready to telegraph to Mr Barnes, but he has a further question to ask, and that is where the Commission is to meet. It will be difficult to take a decision on this point without knowing the reasons for the meeting.

Mr Polk says that he had received a telegram from Washington dated September 23rd, according to which Mr Gompers has stated that the Plenary Labor Commission would meet in Paris between September 25th and October 5th and that it was hoped that no decision to recommend postponing the Conference will be taken until further information in the premises was telegraphed. It will probably be possible to find a method to enable the United States to participate in the Conference, whether the Treaty was ratified in time by the Senate or not.

M Tardieu proposes that the Council summon a Representative of the Ministry of Labor and that the discussion of the question be postponed until his arrival.

(M Lazard then enters the room.)

M Lazard says that he is not fully acquainted with the object of the meeting and that M Fontaine, who will be in a position to inform the Council better than he, is at the moment in Rome. He is able to say, however, that the telegram from Mr Gompers did not come entirely as a surprise. In the unofficial meeting held by several of the members of the Commission on September 7th, a number of members of the Commission expressed a desire to hold a further meeting, but nothing was said which would indicate what the subject of discussion would be. The telegram came unexpectedly and as a surprise, because the situation was the same now as it was a fortnight ago.

Mr Polk says that he thinks the best plan will be for him to telegraph Mr Gompers in order to ascertain the nature of the subjects which will be discussed at the meeting.

M Tardieu agrees, but adds that he wishes to point out that the French Government is entirely disposed to call the Commission together.

M Lazard says that Mr Gompers asks that the meeting take place before the 29th. At present that appears impossible and it would seem better to meet early in October.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that that was his opinion, especially as the place of meeting had not been fixed.

M Tardieu says that the Council will wait for further information. He understands that Mr Polk will telegraph to Washington, and that Sir Eyre Crowe will communicate with Mr Barnes.


2. Mr Polk says that at the last meeting it had been decided that the Supreme Economic Council should be asked to take immediately the necessary steps to guarantee the delivery to the Allies of fourteen German oil tank ships.3 According to information which he had received no orders on the subject had been given in London.

M Tardieu says that he was informed that the Supreme Economic Council had been acquainted with the decision of the Council, but he is without information as to whether the order had been carried out or not.

Mr Polk says that it is necessary for the Supreme Economic Council to immediately carry out the measures which were asked of them, as in the meantime the ships would be delivered.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he telegraphed to London to arrange that an expert be sent to him to furnish information on the subject.

Mr Polk says that in any event Admiral Charlton should be directed to keep the ships where they were until further orders were received.

M Tardieu said that the situation appeared to be as follows: The Supreme Economic Council, which was in possession of the resolution of the Supreme Council, thought that there was something to be said in connection with the matter. The French Government held the same view. In 48 hours the Conference would be in possession of the Supreme Economic Council’s proposals.

Mr Polk says that in awaiting this decision it was most urgent that the ships should not be moved.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he had telegraphed to London in regard to the matter.

M Laroche says that only the Armistice Commission is in position to stop the delivery.

Mr Polk says that he considers it essential that the Supreme Council should act, for up to the moment it appeared to him that the only steps taken in the matter had been through the kindness of Sir Eyre Crowe.

M Tardieu says that if a resolution is taken in a sense of what Mr Polk asked, the Council will be doing exactly what had been done on the preceding day.

(M Tardieu then reads the resolution taken on September 23rd, HD 59.)

Mr Polk says that in any case it will be necessary for the Supreme Council to take steps which had been asked of it. If they have not done this, it is necessary to know the reasons. The Armistice Commission should be asked to suspend all action.

M Tardieu says that that had been decided at the previous meeting. He would ascertain in the afternoon just what the Supreme Economic Council had done and whether they had executed the order of the Conference and in what manner.


3. M Tardieu says that the question before the Council is the report of the Spitzberg Commission and a draft Treaty which had been revised by the Drafting Committee. The members of the Commission are unanimous, and, in view of the resolution taken by the Council at the last meeting, he does not believe that it will be necessary to open a discussion of the question.

S Scialoja says that it would not be necessary to read or to discuss the report, but that it will be necessary to take a vote.

M Laroche says that the conclusions of the report are as follows:

(1) The Commission submitted to the Council the text of a draft Treaty, which had been modified in form by the Drafting Committee in such a manner as to make the French and English texts agree;

(2) The Commission proposes that, as regards the signature of the Treaty, the Treaty be communicated, first to the Norwegian Government, which will state whether it agrees. The other contracting parties would then be invited to state within a space of six weeks time whether they were prepared to sign.

(It is decided to accept:

(1) The report addressed to the Supreme Council by the Spitzberg Commission, and

(2) To approve the draft Treaty as prepared by this Commission and revised by the Drafting Committee.)


4. M Tardieu reads an extract of a letter from Lord Milner to M Dutasta dated August 14th, 1919. The Special Commission on Mandates at its meeting in London on August 5th had unanimously proposed that the Portuguese claims to the triangle of Kionga should be recognized.

(This proposal is adopted.)

(It is decided to accept the proposal made by the Special Commission on Mandates at its meeting of August 5th, and to recognize Portugal as the original and legitimate proprietor of this part of the former German Colony of East Africa, situated south of the Kovuma and known as the “Kionga Triangle.”


5. M Tardieu reads a letter of September 14th, 1919, addressed by S Tittoni to the President of the Conference asking that the Military Representatives at Versailles should be directed to study the question of organization of a military, naval and air control for Austria.

(The proposal is adopted.)

(It is decided that the permanent Military representatives at Versailles should be directed to prepare, together with the Naval and Air representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers, a detailed proposal, in view of the constitution of Inter-Allied Commissions of Military, Naval and Air Control, which should be charged to see to the execution by Austria of the Military, Naval and Air Clauses of the Treaty of Peace.


6. Sir Eyre Crowe says that he has received a telegram from Sir George Clerk who proposes returning to Paris unless the Supreme Council directs him to remain. He has telegraphed to Sir George Clerk that the Supreme Council will undoubtedly desire to discuss the matter. Upon receiving this telegram Sir George Clerk decided to remain. He finally telegraphed him to come to Budapest and from there to Paris. He thought that this telegram had not reached him.

M Tardieu says that he is grateful for this information, but he cannot see that anyone is to blame for the delay.

Mr Polk says that the Relief Administration has a telegraph line to Budapest and that he will be glad to place this wire at Sir Eyre Crowe’s disposal for any telegrams which he might desire to send to Sir George Clerk.


7. Sir Eyre Crowe says that Mr Lloyd George is more than ever convinced that firm action should be taken to force the Germans to evacuate the Baltic Provinces. Mr Lloyd George wishes, but he would not press the point, that Polish troops should be utilized. He is now charged by the British Government to make a new proposal. The Allies have pledged themselves in previous conversations with the Germans to facilitate the importation into Germany of foodstuffs of which Germany was in great need, and they had authorized the Germans to communicate to the Supreme Economic Council a list of articles which they particularly needed. He proposes that the Supreme Economic Council should be asked to stop the shipment of food-stuffs and other necessities to Germany and that the German Government be notified accordingly. Mr Lloyd George thinks that this will have a very good effect. He thinks also that the American Government is prepared to stop all financial transactions with Germany. If these measures are insufficient it will be necessary to take whatever further steps seemed advisable. Mr Lloyd George has always advocated the utilization of the Polish Army and he now proposes that the head of the British Naval Mission in France place himself at the disposal of Marshal Foch to study with him the question of what military and naval measures might be advantageous at a future date. He has prepared the draft of a note, the first three paragraphs repeating the words of the note prepared by General Weygand, which has already been discussed. It will be necessary to change the end of the third paragraph in such a way as to take into account the remarks which Mr Polk had made at the last meeting. The end of the note will be drafted in the manner which he had pointed out. If the American Delegation consents, it will be possible to insert a supplementary paragraph respecting the suppression of financial transactions.

M Tardieu says that if he understands the British proposal correctly, it calls for immediate action, first, the refusal of the German demands for the furnishing of food for Germany; second, the refusal of credits. If these measures are insufficient the British Government are willing to consider the question of military action. He agreed with this proposal, but wished to make two remarks, one as to form, and the other as to substance. In regard to form, the British Delegation proposes that the Allies reserve the right to take further steps. This is the fourth time that the question has been raised, and, in view of this fact it seems to him that the least which can be done, if the Allied and Associated Governments wished to make a real threat, is to take actual steps. He proposed, therefore, that the note should say that, if the Allied and Associated Governments do not receive satisfaction they will take other steps.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he would accept this modification.

M Tardieu remembers that Mr Polk had said that it might be advisable to stop the repatriation of German prisoners of war. He asked whether Sir Eyre Crowe has referred this matter to the British Government, and whether he had received any instructions.

Sir Eyre Crowe replies that he has received no instructions from his Government on this point.

Mr Polk says that he is convinced that something ought to be done. He prefers action to a threat. In a conversation which had recently taken place at Versailles between Colonel Logan and Baron von Lersner, Colonel Logan had not failed to call attention to the bad impression which the attitude of the German Government had made upon the American Government. Colonel Logan had pointed out that it was most important that Germany should take action, and had let him understand that if the action is delayed America will take definite steps. Baron von Lersner had replied that it is a political question and that the Army which was in the hands of the reactionaries would not obey the Government which was powerless. Colonel Logan then said that this explanation is not satisfactory and that if the German Government had no power it had better withdraw. It is necessary that that Government should take immediate measures to prove its good faith. He adds that Colonel Logan had not spoken in the name of the Council, but the Germans had learned unofficially the view of the United States.

M Tardieu asks whether the Council are in agreement as to the first three paragraphs.

Mr Polk says that there remained the question of the alteration of the last phrase and that he would propose a draft.

M Tardieu said that he thought that it would not serve a useful purpose to fix a delay and to say at the soonest possible moment for from the present moment the Allied and Associated Governments proposed to take action.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he would ask his Government whether it will be possible to make any statement in the note regarding the holding-up of the repatriation of the German prisoners of war, but he wishes to ask if the repatriation of the prisoners of war were stopped it would necessarily apply to all the Allied Powers and whether it would not be possible to speak of a total or partial holding-up of the repatriation. He does not think that the British Government are prepared, so far as they are concerned, to stop the repatriation completely for the work of repatriation was in operation and it is difficult to stop it.

M. Tardieu says that this will nevertheless be a most efficacious method of action.

S Scialoja said that he agrees that this method could be most usefully employed.

M Tardieu says that for the sake of their own peace it is most necessary for the German Government that the repatriation be continued. If the repatriation is stopped pressure will be brought upon the German Government by the German people themselves. It is, therefore, highly important that an expression of this threat be made in the note.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that if the proposal is accepted he thinks it would be advisable that the decision of the Council be made known to the public through the press. He wishes to ask, however, what Powers have consented to the proposed repatriation of the German prisoners of war in their custody.

Mr Matsui says that Japan is in a difficult situation. The repatriation had begun. He asks whether the prisoners’ transports should be held up en route, for instance at Singapore. That would be difficult. He thought that it would be preferable to adopt the formula: “total or partial suspension of repatriation.”

M Tardieu says that the American, British and Japanese Governments have consented to the repatriation, but that the German Government has received a communication in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers. He wishes to recall the terms of the note which had been addressed to the German Delegation and which had been prepared by Mr Balfour.

(M Tardieu then reads the text of the declaration of the Allied and Associated Powers relative to the repatriation of prisoners of war.)

He says that it will be possible to insert in the reply the following phrase: “at the same time the Allied and Associated Powers, with reference to Paragraph of their declaration of August 28th last, points out that the benevolent measures respecting the anticipated repatriation of German prisoners of war is to take place either for all the prisoners or for part of them.”

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he wishes to make it quite clear that if the British Government does not interrupt the repatriation of prisoners of war they are not acting counter to the resolution of the Council.

M Tardieu says that he wishes to point out that if the British Government continues to repatriate the prisoners, the threat of the Council would be in vain, and, in that event, he thinks it would be better to make no threat. It will be necessary to ascertain from Sir Crowe and Mr Polk whether Great Britain and America are prepared to interrupt the repatriation of prisoners.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he wishes to point out that the interruption of the repatriation would be far more prejudicial to Great Britain than to Germany.

M Tardieu asks whether Mr Polk is in a position to furnish a paragraph in regard to the refusal of credits.

Mr Polk says that he will take up the matter on that day.

M Tardieu says that in any event it will be possible to refer the draft reply to the Drafting Committee in order that the Committee could agree upon a reply which would include Mr Polk’s draft paragraph and the proposal of the British Delegation.

Mr Polk says that he wishes to point out that it will not be possible for him to receive a reply by the following day.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Drafting Committee should prepare a note to the German Delegation concerning the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces by Germany;

(2) That the Drafting Committee should take as a basis for its work the note prepared by General Weygand and modified by the British Delegation (Appendix F) with the changes in text approved by the Council;

(3) That the text prepared by Mr Polk should be noted; and,

(4) That in case the American and British Governments agree to an interruption of the repatriation of prisoners of war, an additional paragraph should be prepared to notify the total or partial interruption of the repatriation of German prisoners of war.)


8. M Tardieu says that the Council has received new proposals from the Blockade Commission.

Mr Polk reads and comments upon the annex to this Proposal.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that his experts do not consider the American proposal sufficient. They think that the following text should be adopted.

“On account of the military operations which are taking place in the Gulf of Finland, mariners are warned against the dangers to themselves of going there.

“With a view to avoid accidents, for which they cannot be responsible, the Commanders of the Allied and Associated Forces in the Baltic, will direct all merchant ships, which are found proceeding up the Gulf of Finland, to stop and turn back.”


The British experts thinks that this proposal would resolve a number of difficulties. There would be no blockade. There would be no capturing of ships. Vessels would be instructed to turn back. They would be informed that there was danger ahead. If they still persisted they would be made to turn back.

Mr Polk asks what would happen if the ships refused to obey the orders given them.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that they will not refuse.

Mr Matsui said that he thinks that it is quite probable that they will refuse.

Commandant Levavasseur says that the British proposal is a make-shift. If a ship wishes to pass there was no method of stopping it. He desires to point out that from the day when peace was signed with Germany no warship had any longer the right to stop a merchant ship. If a merchant ship wishes to pass in spite of the injunctions of the Allied warships there is nothing that can be done. The former proposals make it possible to avoid these dangers. He asks what will happen if a cruiser should meet a German convoy escorted by destroyers which insisted upon passing. He thinks that this is a question which ought to be carefully studied.

M Tardieu said that it is most important to avoid taking decisions which cannot be applied. The British proposal undoubtedly presents serious inconveniences. He thinks that so far as the American proposal is concerned it will be inconvenient to permit the Commander of each warship to judge as to the action which he chose to exercise. In both cases there was no impression of an operation well conceived and likely to be pressed to a successful conclusion.

Commandant Levavasseur said that in the proposals formerly presented the Commanders of ships of war were vested with the authority of all the Powers.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that that would also apply to the British proposal. It will be communicated by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the neutral Governments.

M Tardieu agrees, but says that in the British proposal it is the means of execution which are inadequate.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he could not agree, for the British proposal gives vessels of war the right of turning back merchant ships.

S Scialoja said that the proposal will not foreshadow any possible action in the event that merchant ships refused to obey the order.

Commandant Levavasseur says that he thinks that in preparing the proposal for which he acted as spokesman, provision was made for the right of turning back ships.

M Tardieu says that in fact there was a blockade without the right of capturing cargoes.

Mr Polk says that he thinks that there is danger of creating a new kind of blockade which would not be recognized in International Law. In view of the fact that the Allied and Associated Governments are not at war with Soviet Russia, they will be creating a dangerous precedent. The United States will not give clearance to vessels desiring to leave American ports for Russia. The danger lay in the case of leaving Scandinavia or Germany.

M Tardieu asks Mrs Polk whether the reserve contained in the American proposal is sufficient to satisfy him.

Mr Polk replies that it is. He adds that if a neutral ship is stopped in its course, for example a Danish ship, the Allied and Associated Governments expose themselves to the payment of damages.

Commandant Levavasseur says that the note of the Allied and Associated Governments would be addressed to the neutral Governments. If these Governments accept the contents no difficulty will arise.

M Tardieu says that the agreement of these Governments will serve as the basis for this new form of blockade.

Mr Polk asked what the situation would be if the neutral Governments does not accept. The notification would not bind them or protect the Allies against claims for damages.

Commandant Levavasseur says that in one case as in the other the situation will be the same. It is a question of a blockade which is not a blockade.

Mr Polk says that he will be equally frank and that if they want a blockade, the best means would be to declare war against Russia.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it should be remembered that the warships are carrying on hostile operations in the Baltic against the Bolsheviks according to the orders of the Allies. It is necessary to give them means of fulfilling their mission.

M Tardieu agrees.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. A few ships will be stopped, they would learn that they could not pass and soon no ships would appear.

Mr Polk says that the United States hesitates to create precedents. In the present war they had had difficulties with the precedents of the American Civil War.

M Tardieu says that he wishes to call Mr Polk’s attention to the observation of Sir Eyre Crowe with which he entirely agrees. The Allied fleets in the Baltic are in fact playing the role of war vessels on war service. That being the case, he cannot see how it is less serious to stop merchant ships than to bombard Cronstadt. A difficult question of form ought not to be sufficient to prevent a solution of the question. In view of these facts, he agrees with Sir Eyre Crowe, that even if the Allied and Associated Powers run the risk of having to pay damages, they should be willing to take the risk in view of the present situation. There are many examples in history of pacific blockades, for example the case of Greece and of China. The pacific blockade has a recognized place in International Law.

Mr Polk says that it is not a question of a pacific blockade.

M Tardieu says that he does not agree. The blockade in question was a means of coercion.

S Scialoja said that in order to conform to the regulations of International Law, it would be necessary to communicate the state of blockade to the Soviet Government, but in view of the fact that that Government is not recognized, he does not see that strictly speaking it is a question of blockade. He thinks that it is rather a question of International police and that the precedents in this sense should be examined.

M Tardieu says that the Council agrees as to the practical utility of the measures proposed. But Mr Polk objects to the precedents which would be created. He suggests that the legal advisors be asked to study the precedents and find a formula to which all can agree. So far as the execution of the blockade is concerned the proposals of the Naval representatives will be adopted. He does not wish to delay the solution of a question which had already been too much delayed, but what he proposes appears necessary.

M Cambon says that he wishes to recall precedents which exist. Great Britain and France had often used the pacific blockade as a means of coercion. The examples of Greece and of China had recently been mentioned. The difficulty in the present case is that there is no Government in Russia to which a notification of the blockade can be communicated.

M Laroche says that the very fact of there being no Government will justify a measure of International police.

M Tardieu says that he wishes to sum up the situation as he sees it. It will be possible to impose a pacific blockade if a Government exists to which a notification of the blockade could be made. No such Government exists. It is therefore necessary to trust to the ingenuity of the legal advisors to find a means of justifying a measure of International police.

Mr Polk agrees that the question should be referred to the Drafting Committee.

(It is decided:

(1) To request the Drafting Committee to immediately examine the arguments in International Law upon which the blockade of Soviet Russia could be based; and,

(2) To call to the attention of the Drafting Committee the fact that the absence of a Government in Soviet Russia recognised by the Powers prevented the Powers from notifying that Government in the regular way of a state of blockade.


9. M Cambon reads and comments upon the proposal of the Commission on Polish Affairs which it is hoped will be consistent with the opinion formerly expressed by the Supreme Council on the subject of agrarian legislation in Eastern Galicia.

Mr Polk says he has no objection to make to this text.

M Tardieu recalls the declarations which Mr Paderewski had made before the Supreme Council. Mr Paderewski had stated that he could not admit that the agrarian question was not one for the National Assembly at Warsaw to decide.

M Cambon says that he wishes to add that in a private conversation, M Paderewski had told him that he was in favor of the League of Nations scheme. M Paderewski had insisted that the attribution of Eastern Galicia be made in a definite way. If he (M Cambon) might express a personal view, he wishes to add that the Council are going beyond their rights in entrusting the fate of an entirely agricultural district to a population the majority of which is not Polish.

Mr Polk says that Mr Paderewski had opposed, above everything else, the provisional character of the statute. He (Mr Polk) thinks that it would be possible to satisfy Mr Paderewski in suppressing the provisional character and in altering certain points of the proposal. With this end in view he had prepared a memorandum. He feels that in establishing a provisional regime the Council are allowing the existence of a region in the Central Europe which will become a dangerous center of discord.

M Cambon says that he shares this view, but that he thinks there is still another reason for giving Galicia more complete autonomy. Poland will be much more disposed to accept a more complete autonomy for Galicia if she knows that there is a question of definite organization. The question cannot be solved on that day and it will be necessary to send the American memorandum to the Commission, but on this point it will be necessary for the Council to express an opinion by which the Commission could be guided. They should give their view as to whether East Galicia should be definitely attributed to Poland. He wishes to point out that the American memorandum deals with this subject.

S Scialoja says that in effect Eastern Galacia will be placed under a Polish mandate.

M Tardieu said that this would not be altogether the case for this mandate would not have a temporary character.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he cannot agree to the Council’s suppressing the temporary character of the statute. He recalls the fact that the British Government had originally opposed the union of Eastern Galicia with Poland. He had accepted a compromise because a plebiscite had been promised. Now the idea of the plebiscite had been given up. He cannot, without instructions, accept this solution in view of the fact that it completely alters the principles which had been previously raised.

Mr Polk proposed that the American memorandum be simply referred to the Commission.

M Tardieu says that he wishes to hold to what he had previously said, purely as his own opinion.

S Scialoja says that it conforms to the proposal previously made by Baron Sonnino.

(It is decided to refer to the Committee on Polish Affairs the memorandum presented by the American Delegation.)


10. General Le Bond reads and commented upon Report No. 6 of the Commission on Polish Affairs (on the eastern frontiers of Poland).

Mr Polk says he approves the proposals of the Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he also approves of these proposals, but he wishes to ask in what form the Council intends to communicate the decisions which they had taken to the Polish Government. He thinks that the question of form is most important.

M Laroche says that it would be sufficient to inform the Polish Government that the territories lying west of the line traced by the Commission will be definitely attributed to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks whether it will not be necessary to include a Treaty.

M Laroche says that in any case it is not a question of a Treaty defining the eastern frontiers of Poland but a Treaty according certain territories to Poland.

Mr Polk says that it will be possible to give Poland her choice between two solutions:

(a) The acceptance of the minimum line proposed in the Committee’s reports, with the assurance that this line would not prejudice any future negotiations regarding this frontier after the reestablishment of Russia or the obtaining of satisfactory information regarding the desires of the people to the east of this frontier; or,

(b) Leaving the determination of this eastern frontier entirely open until such time as Russia and Poland consider it possible to make a definite settlement.
M Laroche proposes that the Drafting Committee be requested to find a formula, taking the Report of the Commission as a basis.

(It is decided:

(1) To accept the conclusions of Report No. 6 of the Committee on Polish Affairs; and,

(2) To request the Drafting Committee to study, in taking the report as a basis, the means by which these decisions should be communicated to the Polish Government.)

(The meeting then adjourns.)
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo

Last edited by Sailor Steve; 10-05-19 at 02:47 PM.
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-19, 07:51 AM   #4135
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

26th September 1919

Charles Lang Freer, American industrialist and patron who donated his extensive collections on East Asian art to the Smithsonian (Freer Gallery of Art), has passed away.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-19, 02:02 PM   #4136
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Friday, September 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


1. M Tardieu reads the following memorandum of the Secretariat-General with regard to the action taken on the resolution of the Supreme Council of September 23rd:

“The resolution of the Supreme Council dated September 23rd in regard to the German oil steamers was transmitted on the 23rd to the Supreme Economic Council by the Secretariat-General.

The Supreme Economic Council forwarded the resolution on the morning of September 24th to its permanent Committee in London.

The latter body immediately brought the matter to the attention of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission which functions likewise in London. This body gave the necessary orders at once to suspend the departure of the ships in question.”

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he has received a telegram from Lord Curzon dated September 25th He points out that the important portion of this telegram was that the Allied Maritime Transport Executive believes that the question of the disposition of the ships was one for the Supreme Council. The A M T E had recommended that the tank steamers be allocated to Allied management along with other vessels to which claim had been put forward under the terms of the Armistice. The first voyage, however, would be for the transport of oil to Germany. He adds that in the event that the steamers had already left for the Firth of Forth they would be diverted and allowed to proceed to the United States for their cargo of oil.

Mr Polk says that he is happy to hear of the measures which have been taken.

M Tardieu says that he will at once communicate Lord Curzon’s telegram to the French members of the Supreme Economic Council.


2. The Council has before it the proposed Treaty with New States prepared by the Commission on Political Clauses, together with the report of that Commission accompanying the Treaty.

M Laroche in commenting upon the Treaty and the report, says that the Commission is unanimous in the text of the clauses of the Treaty. It has not been unanimous on the question of what Powers should be parties to, and signatories of, the Treaty. The majority of the Commission had thought that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the document, but the United States had formulated an objection to its participation in the signature. The United States Delegation feels that the matters embraced in the proposed Treaty are not broad questions resulting from the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and therefore of direct concern to all the Allied and Associated Powers, but are rather questions of local interest concerning only the new States and the States possessing ceded territory. If the Treaty comes into force it would impose a specific legal obligation only on the directly interested Powers. The United States feels therefore that it is neither desirable nor advisable that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be signatories to the Treaty, although representatives of these Powers, in participating in the framing of the proposed articles, might be able to assist in facilitating the negotiations among the Powers directly interested.

As opposed to this point of view, the majority of the Commission feels that it will be necessary for all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to sign, for otherwise the Treaty would be deprived of its authority in the eyes of the New States. Although the Commission feels that the interests of the New States have been carefully safeguarded by the Treaty and that the clauses are for the common good of all, the latter might distrust a Treaty which does not carry the signatures of all the Allied and Associated Powers. Should the United States refuse to sign, the important point arises as to what steps the other Principal Allied and Associated Powers should take. It is possible for the Four Principal Allied and Associated Powers to sign, even though the United States does not do so. The second method of procedure would be to make a united presentation of the Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the New States and jointly recommend that the same be signed by them.

Mr Polk says that this is a matter which Secretary Lansing had had before him prior to his departure for the United States. Mr Lansing had felt that the Treaty was one between friendly Powers and involved no enemy states. He had taken the position that it was not necessary for the American signature to appear, as he felt that it was difficult to justify the interests which United States might have in signing.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that, following out the reasons advanced by M Laroche, he believes that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the Treaty. The British Empire has no immediate interests in the matter but he believes that it should be a signatory power. He thinks that, even in the absence of a United States signature, all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign. A joint action of this kind would give the smaller States the impression that all the large Powers were interested in the matter, because the Treaty forms a portion of the liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. He is willing, however, to be guided by the wishes of the majority of his colleagues.

S Scialoja says that he believes a refusal of the United States to sign the Treaty is a pure matter of internal interest. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers have taken part in Treaties in which they had no direct interest, as for example, in the case of Spitzbergen. He points out that the United States has been represented on the Commission on Political Clauses, has taken an active part in the framing of the Treaty, and presumably had therefore felt that matters of general interest were being settled. He is unable to urge Mr Polk to sign the Treaty against the wishes of his Government. He would like to ask Mr Polk, however, whether he would agree to a joint presentation of the Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the small States urging the latter to sign the same. In this way the Treaty would be given moral force.

Mr Polk says that he has no objection to this method of procedure.

Mr Matsui says that the Japanese Empire has no particular interest involved, but as the Treaty concerned the general liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign. In view of the United States’ objection, and by taking advantage of the period of twenty days proposed between the presentation of the Treaty and the signature, he would obtain the instructions of his Government in the matter. He would recommend that the Japanese Empire be a signatory party. Should S Scialoja’s proposition be accepted, however, he would have no difficulty in joining on behalf of Japan in the common presentation by the five Principal Powers.

M Laroche says that he gathers from the discussion that the Council agrees to approve the text of the Treaty and that the Treaty itself should be presented to the new States by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers jointly with a recommendation that it be signed by the former. Furthermore a period of twenty days is to be accorded the New States between the time of presentation and the signature of the Treaty. He adds that it is extremely necessary to decide upon a fixed period in order to prevent the matter being drawn out and any of the New States taking advantage of this to avoid signing.

M Tardieu says that as it is better for all the great Powers to take the same attitude on the question, he proposes that M Laroche’s solution of the matter be adopted.

(It is decided:

(1) That the text of the proposed Treaty with the New States (Clauses Relating to Reciprocal Relations in Transferred Territories) prepared by the Commission on Political Clauses should be accepted.

(2) That the proposed Treaty should be presented to the Delegations of the interested states by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers jointly. The latter should impress upon the Delegations of the New States the necessity for the signature of the Treaty in question, and should request them to obtain the consent of their Governments as soon as possible, but in any case within a period of twenty days, at the expiration of which the Treaty should be signed in Paris by the plenipotentiaries of the interested States.)


(At this point M Tardieu leaves the room and M Cambon takes the chair.)

3. Repatriation of Czecho-Slovak Troops in Siberia


4. Distribution of Allied Troops in the Plebiscite Areas.


5. Report of the Commission on Baltic Affairs on the Occupation of Memel

(The above questions are all adjourned.)


6. The Council had=s before it a note from Marshal Foch, dated August 21st, 1919.

Mr Polk says that there is no objection to the proposals contained in this note from the point of view of the United States.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the British representatives agrees with Marshal Foch’s proposals.

S Scialoja said he has no objections to formulate.

Mr Matsui says that he is not entirely familiar with the question.

General Weygand comments and explained briefly the note in question.

Mr Matsui says that he has no objections to present.

(It is agreed that:

The Conference of Military Experts of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers provided tor by Article 163 of the Peace Treaty to determine the reduction of effectives to be imposed on Germany for each period of 3 months following the coming into force of the Treaty, should be composed of the presidents and of the most important members of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control constituted in conformity with articles 203–210, and chosen in such a way that all the Allied and Associated Powers be represented in the said Conferences.

The President of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control should be charged with deciding the composition of this Conference and the dates of its sessions in agreement with the precedents of the Naval and Aerial Commissions.)


7. Communication to German Government Relative to the Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces:

(This question is adjourned.)


8. The Council has before it a note from the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses, asking that the German Government be requested to notify the Allied and Associated Powers of the Government property in German territory to be ceded to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he is prepared to accept the proposals contained in the note.

Mr Polk says that he is likewise prepared to accept the same, but wishes to reserve his final decision until he has consulted the United States expert in the matter. (Mr Polk later notified the Secretariat-General that he has no objections to formulate.)

(It is decided to accept the proposals in the note of the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses.

It is further decided to request the German Government to furnish the Allied and Associated Powers all information relative to all Government property, which is required to be turned over to Poland within the territory to be ceded to the latter, under the terms of the Treaty with Germany.)


9. The Council had before it two notes of The German Delegation dated respectively August 1st and August 5th, together with a proposed reply thereto submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty.

Mr Polk says that he has a slight change to propose in the text of the reply. In the 3rd paragraph (English text) the expression, “with the sole reservation that the League of Nations might later order the return to Germany of the whole or part of these territories,” appears. He believes that the use of the word “might” in this connection is not strictly in accordance with Article 34 of the Peace Treaty and the covering letter sent to the German Delegation on June 16th, 1919. As the text now stands the proposed reply stated in substance that the League of Nations might disregard the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of Eupen and Malmedy, whereas the covering letter referred to had said that, in the cases of the territories which it was proposed to transfer from Germany to Denmark and Belgium, this transfer would only take place as the result of a decision of the inhabitants themselves taken under conditions which would insure complete freedom of vote.

He proposes that the word “might” should be changed to read “will”.

M Laroche says that Article 34 of the Treaty with Germany does not impose a fixed obligation upon the League of Nations to return the territory in question to Germany, should the majority of the population express its wish in that direction. He thinks that a moral obligation is imposed upon the League of Nations but not an absolute one. The text of the reply as it stands seems to him to clearly express the obligation created by the article in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he agreed with M Laroche’s interpretation of the matter.

M Laroche adds that the change proposed by Mr Polk might result in adding something to the Treaty which is not included therein.

(After some further discussion on the matter Mr Polk withdraws his proposal for the change in question, and it is decided that the reply to the German notes on Malmedy and Eupen, as submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty, be accepted.)


10. The Council had before it a letter from the British Delegation dated August 26th.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the matter in question is of small importance but that he wishes to obtain the decision of the Council before taking any action thereon. It had been originally agreed that the final text Germany German Treaty should alone be made public, and that the preliminary conditions of peace as handed to the Germans should be kept secret. However, the different notes which had been exchanged between the German Delegation and the Allies had appeared in the newspapers of several countries. Some of the passages in these notes are rendered unintelligible by the fact that they refer to clauses which had been proposed for the Treaty and later modified or withdrawn. These clauses had not been made public coincidentally with the notes. The British Government wishes to publish the clauses referred to in the notes as Annexes to the latter, but before so doing is anxious to obtain the approval of the Supreme Council.

M Cambon asks whether it is desired to publish all the clauses which had been omitted from the final Treaty or only those to which reference had been made in the notes in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that only those referred to in the notes are contemplated.

Mr Polk asks whether the Treaty as originally presented to the German Delegation had not been published in the Allied countries, as it had been made public in Germany.

Sir Eyre Crowe answers that it has not been possible to publish it in the British Empire because by so doing the Houses of Parliament would have been entitled to have the Treaty before them and to discuss the same even before it was known whether or not Germany would accept it. The mere fact that the preliminary Treaty had appeared in Germany does render its presentation to the British Parliament necessary.

M Cambon asks that the decisions might be adjourned until he has had an opportunity to consult M Clemenceau.

S Scialoja points out that this is a mere question of form in view of the fact that publication had actually been made in many countries.

M Cambon says that there is a difference between official and unofficial publication.

(It is decided to adjourn the decision of this question until the following day.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-19, 09:07 AM   #4137
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

27th September 1919

Aftermath of War

British troops withdrawn from Archangel.

Russian Civil War: North Russia intervention – last British troops leave Archangel, leaving fighting to the Russians. (From 'Braemar Castle' off Solombala, leaving Archangel.)


British and Australian battlecruiser squadron composed of the HMAS Australia, HMS New Zealand, and HMS Indomitable.


Remains of an armored train destroyed in the Russian Civil War at Murmansk.


Romanian Prime Minister Ion I.C. Brătianu resigns as the Allied Powers refused to recognize Romanian claims on disputed territory with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.


General James Harbord, General George Moseley, unidentified U.S. Army officer, and Lieutenant Harootiun Khachadoorian being welcomed entering the courtyard at Etchmiadzin in Armenia.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-19, 09:43 PM   #4138
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Saturday, September 27, 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 note from the French Delegation of September 24th.

M Loucheur says that he wishes to make a brief summary of what had taken place. The Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council had taken decisions in regard to the distribution of the German Oil Tank Ships which had, in accordance with the Brussels decision, been left temporarily to Germany. At a meeting which had taken place in London, it had been decided upon request of the American Delegate that the question should be referred for a definite decision to the Supreme Economic Council. The Council had met at Brussels on the 20th September. Unfortunately an incident had occurred which was the cause of the present discussion. A telegram sent to Brussels by the American Delegation had arrived in a mutilated condition. It was necessary to ask for a repetition which had arrived too late. When the Supreme Economic Council confirmed the resolution of the A M T E it believed that it was acting in full accord with the views of the American Delegation. He wishes to call the attention of the Council to the following points:

(1) The German Oil Tank Ships had been left to Germany only temporarily and the Inter-Allied Council at London was alone competent to decide as to their allocation. It was not a matter for the Committee on the Organization of the Reparations Commission. It was a question of a distribution made by virtue of the Armistice. The American Delegation held that it had been decided to leave these ships to Germany to assure the transport of oil. There was a disagreement on this point. The Ships had not been left indefinitely to Germany and the proof of this lay in the fact that, far from protesting against giving up the ships, the German Government had given orders for their delivery.

(2) That the Standard Oil Company claimed that the ships belonged to it because the Company owned all the stock of the German Company which owned the ships in question. He wishes to say with reference to this point that that is a question which could not be dealt with at the moment and was a matter for the Reparations Commission.

Mr Polk says that he agrees that the question should not be discussed at present.

M Loucheur says that his next point is:

(3) That the ships ought not to lie idle. There is a shortage of tonnage from which all the world, including Germany, suffers. There is no doubt but that Germany needs oil and it is necessary to furnish it. The Standard Oil Company is prepared to furnish credit to Germany for oil and asked that the ships in question be placed at its disposal for the purpose of effecting the delivery. He wishes to suggest, as his own opinion, the following:

The German ships in question will be turned over to the Powers in accordance with the decision of the A M T E They should immediately undertake a voyage to transport oil furnished by the Standard Oil Company to Germany with the understanding that the Standard Oil Company should open a credit of sufficient length of time to make it unnecessary to ask Germany at an early date to use part of its gold supply to pay for the oil.

Mr Polk says that he would like to ask whether the decision taken in London provided for a definite or only temporary allocation of these ships.

M Loucheur replies that it is only a question of temporary allocation.

Mr Henry Berenger said that the distribution had been made in the following manner and that with the exception of the American Delegate there had been a unanimous opinion. The percentage of losses during the war had been taken into consideration and on this basis France had received 50 percent of the tonnage (30,000 tons dead weight and 23,000 tons gross weight), Italy 10,000 tons and Belgium 12,000 tons. It had been decided that Great Britain should receive three-quarters of the remainder, and America one-quarter. The reasons for this decision were as follows. Of the 47 German Oil Tank Ships existing at the outbreak of the war, 17 had taken refuge in American ports; 5 had been destroyed; 14 were discovered at Hamburg and 7 had not been found. The Shipping Board had opened an investigation to ascertain where these ships were. They were the ships which were to be divided between Great Britain and the United States and their value was considerable. The distribution had been made in accordance with the terms of the Armistice and were effective until the moment when, after the Treaty of Peace became effective, the Separations Commission should take definite steps as to the final division of the ships in question. Of the 14 ships found at Hamburg, only 11 were available. Of these 7 belonged to the Deutsch-Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft, two to the Deutsche Erdoel Gesellschaft, and two to Messrs. Albrecht.

Mr Polk asks whether the 11 ships would be used for a voyage to Germany.

M Loucheur replies that they would, and that, if the question of making a second voyage should arise, it would be necessary for the Supreme Council to re-examine the question.

Mr Henry Berenger says that M. Loucheur’s proposal is in conformity with the resolution taken by the A M T E He wishes to make certain points clear, and to ask whether it was the Standard Oil Company alone which should furnish Germany with the oil which was needed. There are other American Companies. He asks whether a contract exists and whether part of the price had already been paid. Mr Polk had said so a few days before and the New York Herald had published his statement. He also wishes to ask whether the Standard Oil Company is prepared to make a long term credit. The representatives of that company, who had called upon him on the preceding day, had made no definite statement on that subject.

M Loucheur said that he wishes to point out that Germany cannot dispose of her funds without the authorization of the Financial Commission. It is proposed to notify Germany that she should make contracts with whatever American company she wishes to and it was the duty of the Financial Commission to examine the conditions of payment. It is there that the question of a long term credit would be passed upon.

Mr Polk says that he is certain that no money had passed but he would ask for complete information and would be glad to furnish such information to the Council. He wishes to ask under what conditions the ships would be navigated and by what crews they would be manned.

M Loucheur replies that the ships would fly the flag of the nation to which they had been allocated temporarily and also the Inter-Allied flag.

Mr Henry Berenger says that, so far as the officers and crews of these ships are concerned, it had been decided, and Germany had made no objections, that they should be manned by officers and crews of the Allied nations in question.

Mr Polk says that, if he understands correctly, there is no question of the ships being allocated to the United States. The suggestion had been made that the United States guarantee their return. He was willing, if the Naval Armistice Commission desired it, to give an assurance on this subject. It is understood that the Standard Oil Company cannot keep these ships which they claim as their property.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he considers it important that the Armistice Commission should be notified without delay and that a telegram should be transmitted to them on that day.

(It is decided:

(1) That the provisional exemption of tankers granted at Brussels on the 14th March, 1919, should be cancelled. This cancellation should be without prejudice to any previous action taken by the A N A C;

(2) That the vessels should be delivered for temporary management to the Allied and Associated Governments according to the decision decided on by the A M T E on the 17th September, 1919, under the usual armistice terms which should in no way prejudice the final decision to be made by the Reparations Commission provided for by the Treaty of Versailles;

(3) That, should the German Government so desire, the said ships should be employed under the above terms for one voyage for the conveyance of oil to Germany; should a second voyage be asked for by the German Government, the matter would be again referred to the Supreme Council;

(4) That in consequence the said vessels should be sent forthwith to the Firth of Forth in compliance with the instructions of the A N A C.

The Council also takes note of Mr Polk’s declaration to the effect that he is prepared

(1) To give assurance that no payment had as yet been made by Germany for the delivery of the oil in question and

(2) To furnish to the Naval Armistice Commission, if they should desire it, an assurance that the vessels in question would not be retained by the United States.)


2. The Council has before it a note from the French Delegation of the 26th of September.

(M Laroche reads and explains the note presented by the French Delegation. The proposals contained in this note were adopted.)

(It was decided:

(1) That the German ships authorized by the Permanent Allied Naval Armistice Commission to proceed in Turkish waters and in the Black Sea cannot make any movements other than those for which provision would be made in the laissez-passer:

(2) That upon approaching Turkish waters and in the Black Sea each of these ships should carry at least one representative of the Allied and Associated Powers;

(3) That they should in addition fly the Inter-Allied, blue, white and blue, flag;

It is also decided:

That this resolution should be communicated for action to the Permanent Allied Armistice Commission at London.


3. Mr Polk brings to the attention of the Council the résumé of certain conversations which had taken place at Versailles between an American Representative and Baron von Lersner. He wishes to add that Baron von Lersner desires to emphasize the point that the Allied and Associated Governments should make a distinction between the German Government and the German people. They should make the threat to the German people in such a form as to make them understand the harm which their Government was doing in supporting the military party. Baron von Lersner said that the movement in the Baltic Provinces was clearly reactionary in character. He (Mr Polk) desires to make it clear that the American Delegation does not agree with what Baron von Lersner had said. He (Mr Polk) feels strongly that it is entirely possible for the German Government to stop rationing the army of General von der Goltz by closing the East Prussian frontier.

M Berthelot says that there are serious grounds for doubting the good faith of the German Government in this matter.

M Pichon says that on that very morning the newspapers had published a telegram from Berlin which contained a report from the German Conservative Press in regard to an exchange of letters between the British General Burt and General von der Goltz. General von der Goltz had used most insolent language to General Burt. He had threatened to break all relations with him and to expel British subjects from the territories under German occupation. He expressed the hope that the German Government would reply to the “injurious pretensions” which the Entente Mission thought themselves able to address to a German General in a foreign country, in a befitting manner.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that this letter only strengthens the opinion of his Government that it is necessary to take action as quickly as possible.

M Fromageot reads the draft note to the German Delegation prepared by the Drafting Committee in accordance with the resolution taken by the Council on the 25th of September. He says that in the first paragraph on the 2nd page the Drafting Committee had substituted the words, “all troops” for the words, “these troops”, which appeared in the draft previously prepared by the British Delegation. The Committee had desired in this manner to refer to all German troops, no matter under what authority they were. They desired also to omit the last sentence of the third paragraph on the 2nd page, which actually dealt with a matter of interior arrangement. It was hardly necessary to notify the Germans of the instructions given to the Supreme Economic Council.

Mr Polk says that America is not represented on the Supreme Economic Council and for this reason he wishes to ask if the German demands in question were pending before the Committee on the Organization of the Reparations Commission.

M Fromageot said that if there was any question the words “Supreme Economic Council” could be removed wherever they appeared.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it had been decided to act immediately. The use of the future tense as in the words, “they will be forced”, tend to weaken the weight of the action.

M Fromageot says that the Committee had had a scruple upon the subject. They remembered that the Allied and Associated Powers had promised Germany in July that the blockade would be raised after Germany had ratified the Treaty. The Committee had wished to use an expression which would show that they were not unmindful of the former engagement which had been taken and that they took recourse to these measures only because Germany had failed to live up to her obligations. It would be simpler to say, “they will take into consideration”, at the end of the paragraph; they would suppress the words “Supreme Economic Council” wherever they occur.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the Council had just decided to furnish oil if the supply of foodstuffs under discussion was to be stopped. It should be understood that the Supreme Council were in a position, if they considered it advisable, to cancel the decision which they had just taken.

M Pichon says that the Council are in agreement on this point, but that he does not consider it advisable to notify the Armistice Commission of this reservation.

M Fromageot says that in case the Council decides to hold up the repatriation of the German prisoners of war, the Committee has prepared a formula which could be inserted before the last paragraph on page two and which states that the repatriation of German prisoners of war would be stopped from that day.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he thinks this formula is too definite. In spite of his repeated telegrams, he had so far not received instructions from his Government. When the subject had been previously discussed, the Council had spoken of a total or partial suspension of repatriation.

M Pichon says that he thinks it would be better to make no mention of prisoners of war.

M Berthelot says that it is an efficacious means of pressure, even though it is somewhat objectionable.

Mr Polk says that he thinks it would be advisable to make some intimation on the subject through the Press.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that at the meeting at which Mr Lloyd George had been present, it had been decided to send the ultimatum through the intermediary of Marshal Foch. Later they had thought of addressing the German Delegation. Now they had returned to the formula of the ultimatum. He thought it would produce a stronger effect if it was communicated to the German Government through the intermediary of Marshal Foch. From a technical point of view, he wishes to say that all questions concerning the Armistice had been taken up with the German Government through the intermediary of Marshal Foch and in this particular case the question is one relating to the terms of the Armistice.

M Fromageot says that the note of September 3rd had been addressed to Marshal Foch.

Mr Polk says that he has no objections to this procedure.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he suggests the advisability of making the note public.

M Pichon says that the Press can be informed of the note on that day, and the terms could be published on the following Monday.

(It is decided:

(1) To accept the draft note to the German Government respecting the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces prepared by the Drafting Committee with the modifications in text approved by the Council.

(2) To transmit this note to the German Government through the intermediary of the Marshal, Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies;

(3) To notify the press of the transmission of this note and to make public the text on the 29th of September.

It is also decided that the Council, in conformity with the spirit of this note, should reserve the right to stop, if they should consider it advisable, the cargoes of oil, the delivery of which to Germany had been authorized by the Council.)


4. M Fromageot reads and explains a note of the 18th of September addressed by the Drafting Committee to the Supreme Council on the subject of the Air Convention which had been adopted by the Supreme Council at its meeting of September 10th.

(The Proposals of the Committee are adopted except in regard to Article 18 respecting which the following discussion takes place:

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the Article raises very delicate questions. If the Article is entirely suppressed the result might be that aircraft might, upon landing in a foreign country, be prevented from flying for an indefinite period, on the ground that some breach of patent had taken place. He wishes to have it stated definitely that in a case of this kind the aircraft would not be detained.)

M Fromageot says that the same question had arisen in the Automobile Convention and at that time it was considered advisable to omit the Article. In point of fact there is no danger that aircraft would be detained for months. It would be sufficient to avoid detention to deposit a bond. It is possible to maintain the article under discussion, but there is no doubt that certain of the Powers will make reservations.

Captain Roper says that the French Delegation had made a reservation in respect of this Article for the purpose of protecting industrial property. They cannot agree that a foreigner knowingly committing a breach of patent should land in France and leave without being disturbed. The detention of the aircraft in question appeared to be the only method of dealing with the situation, but in view of the fact that the Legal Advisers of the Conference are of the opinion that industrial property would be equally well protected if after their detention the deposit of a bond is called for, the French Delegation will withdraw their reservation against Article 18 upon condition that the last sentence, concerning suits to be brought in the country of origin against the aircraft, be eliminated.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he is willing to accept the suppression of such a statement. He suggests that the Article be referred to the Drafting Committee which should endeavor to modify it, so that the right of detention or seizure should be limited by the right to set the aircraft free upon the deposit of a bond.

M Pichon says that he would agree to this.

Mr Matsui says that he is obliged to make a reservation. His Government is not yet in possession of the text of the Convention. A period of six months had been allowed in which each Power might say whether or not it agrees.

Mr Polk says that the United States had also made a reservation and understands that they will be given a period of six months in which to communicate their reply.

(It was decided:

(1) That the Drafting Committee should be called upon to modify the text of Article 18 of the Convention Relative to Air Navigation in such a manner as to make it possible for aircraft to avoid detention for violation of patent by depositing a security.

(2) To accept, with reference to Articles 15, 22, 24, 34, and 36 the proposals of the Drafting Committee.


5. M Berthelot said that he was directed by M Clemenceau to say that he considers it inadvisable to publish portions of the Conditions of Peace in their original text. He is not opposed to the publication of all of the text and of the notes which had been exchanged in the premises with the German Government.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he agrees in principle, but the publication of the whole of the text might be somewhat expensive. He will refer the matter to his Government.

(The question is adjourned)


6. Sir Eyre Crowe reads and comments upon a note from the British delegation, dated September 24th, proposing that an article be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary identical with Article 310 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria. This article provides for an understanding with the parties interested to enable a state to use sources of electric and hydraulic energy, which, by reason of the formation of new frontiers, are situated in the territory of another state.

(The British proposal is accepted.)

(It was decided to request the Drafting Committee to insert an article in the Treaty of Peace with Hungary identical with Article 310 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria.)


7. The Council had before it a memorandum from Mr Hoover asking that a Committee be formed to make arrangements for and undertake the repatriation of the German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners in Siberia.

M Berthelot says that the Council will, without question, be unanimous in approving Mr Hoover’s proposal. It is a question of humanity, but he feels that it should be understood that, before repatriating the Germans and others, it will be necessary to repatriate the fifty thousand Czechoslovak troops who are at present in Siberia.

Mr Polk says he agrees with M Berthelot. There are a number of difficult questions in connection with the repatriation of these prisoners, just as there are in the case of the Czechoslovak troops, but as the question of the repatriation of the latter is being considered at the present time, it would be possible to study at the same time the questions relating to the Germans and Austrians.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he feels some doubt as to whether the nomination of a Commission will bring about practical results.

M Pichon thinks that there might be favorable results and that they will lead to a means of repatriating the Czechoslovak troops.

(It is decided that a Commission composed of one American, British, French, Italian and Japanese officer should be created to deal with the repatriation of German, Austrian and Hungarian prisoners in Siberia.

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.)


8. (The signature then took place of the decision previously taken by the Council for the organization of a plebiscite in the Duchy of Teschen and in the districts of Spisz and Orava.

The decision is signed by Mr Polk, Sir Eyre Crowe, M Pichon, S Scialoja and Mr Matsui.)

(The meeting then adjourns)
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-19, 06:27 AM   #4139
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 180,310
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

28th September 1919

Aftermath of War

Referendum taken in Luxemburg.

Majority of Luxembourg voters choose in a referendum to retain Grand Duchess Charlotte (pictured) as head of state and for an economic union with France.


Allied troops withdraw from northern Russia as anti-Bolshevik troops in the region begin to collapse. 526 British troops and 83 U.S. troops were killed in the intervention in northern Russia.
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!


GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)
Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-19, 07:37 PM   #4140
Sailor Steve
Eternal Patrol
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 50,369
Downloads: 745
Uploads: 249


Default

Sunday, September 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.”
—Rocky Russo
Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.