100 Years Ago Today

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, November 24, 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 two letters from Baron von Lersner to the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference dated November 21st and 23rd, 1919.

M Berthelot reads the first letter as well as the draft reply prepared by the French Delegation. He says it is evident that there is no sense in starting a discussion on the return of prisoners of war at a moment when that repatriation was to take place within eight days. Since the draft reply had been prepared they had received the second letter from Baron von Lersner which the Council had before it. The German attitude was all the more inexplicable since in the interview he had had with M Dutasta and M Berthelot, Baron von Lersner had asked him for the date of the first meeting of his Delegates with the Allied Commissioners; von Lersner had put a number of questions to him concerning the procedure to be followed and had expressed a desire to receive on Saturday evening the agenda of that meeting. That agenda had been sent him at the appointed hour. The attitude of Germany seemed to be determined by the delay that had occurred in the American ratification of the Treaty as well as by the Lodge motion tending to the restoration of the state of peace between the United States and Germany; Germany evidently hoped that a misunderstanding would arise between the Allies. M Berthelot feels that it would be important to acquaint Washington with this tendency. The reply they had given on the question of the handing over of guilty individuals might have also an influence on the German decision. Von Lersner had made him understand that if the Entente maintained its demands, no German could wish to hasten by a single day the ratification of a treaty which, according to him, would plunge Germany in chaos.

M Cambon asks whether the draft letter which had just been read by M Berthelot was approved by the Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks it would be advisable to add a few words concerning the departure of the German Commissioners.

M Berthelot agrees. The draft had been prepared before the second letter had been received. A post-script might be added.

Sir Eyre Crowe says it should be stated in that post-script that the departure of the German technical Delegates led one to think that the Berlin Government did not intend to ratify; also that it would be advisable to ask the German Government categorically yes or no, whether it meant to sign the protocol.

S de Martino said he thinks it would be unwise to look as if they had any doubt about the final putting into force of the Treaty.

(After further discussion, the text of the post-script is adopted.)

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that it is important that the note should be sent without delay, and further that it should be published for the sake of the moral effect it would produce on German public opinion.

M Berthelot says they could send the letter as soon as the President - who ought to sign it - returns, that is to say, this night.

Mr White thinks that it would be wise in that case to delay the publication for 24 hours.

M Cambon says the note will then be published the following evening.

(It was decided:

(1) To approve the draft reply to the President of the German Delegation, together with the post-script;

(2) That said reply be transmitted to Baron von Lersner as soon as possible;

(3) That it be published on the evening of November 25th.


2. The Council has before it a report dated November 21st, 1919, concerning the Financial Arrangements in the Plebiscite Territories and Occupied Territories of Danzig and Memel.

General Le Rond reads and comments upon the report of the Commission. He adds that with regard to the application of the Treaty, the report had the approval of the legal experts. He would discuss separately, first the question of the Plebiscite Territories, secondly the question of Danzig and Memel.

Plebiscite Territories: The report had made no proposal except so far as concerned the normal administration expenses of the territories, and the supplementary expenses resulting from Inter-Allied government. As far as the military occupation was concerned, the Delegates had been of the opinion that it should be referred to their Governments.

According to the articles of the Treaty, expenses, whether they arose from administration or military occupation, should be in fine a charge on local revenues, present as well as future, but it is already certain that the existing local revenues would be insufficient to cover those expenses; they would, therefore, have to be met by advances, and it is to these that the report refers. Those advances which would properly be a charge on local revenues would have to be reimbursed later by the States to which the Principal Allied and Associated Powers would attribute the territories after plebiscite. That point being once settled it remains to determine the sources from which those advances can be drawn. That being the question for immediate solution, and the question of military occupation expenses being reserved, the Commission asks the Council to approve its conclusions numbered 1 and 2.

Mr White says he has no observations to make on points 1 and 2, but he wishes on the question of military occupation expenses to read the following note which defines the American point of view.

General Le Rond says that the American note refers to a question of form. It is quite clear that the expenses of occupation are a charge on local revenues, but those local revenues for the time being are insufficient. They are burdening the countries where a plebiscite is to take place with expenses which were beyond their temporary power to bear. Hence the necessity of making advances. The Commission has not dealt with the means of raising those advances so far as the military occupation expenses are concerned but no fundamental doubt on the question was possible.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he agrees with the conclusions of the report and with the note that Mr White had just read.

S de Martino says that in a word it comes down to obtaining the consent of Germany in the first instance upon the question of repayment of the costs of occupation of Marienwerder and Allenstein for which nothing had been provided in the Treaty.

General Le Rond says S De Martino is speaking of the costs of occupation; he has to repeat that there is no possible doubt that the costs of occupation are a charge on the occupied territories and that the only question under discussion is a matter of deciding ways and means; how are they to obtain the necessary funds at the moment?

S de Martino says that he does not see why a distinction is made between the question of costs of occupation and that of other costs.

General Le Rond says he will reply to S De Martino by sheltering himself behind the authority of the legal experts. They had been of the opinion that the Allies did not have the legal right to make the German State, considered as a whole, pay costs which, according to the terms of the Treaty, fell upon local revenues. The Commission as a matter of fact, had not dealt with the question and had been of the opinion that it should be referred to the different Governments.

S de Martino says that considering the importance of the question, and notwithstanding that the Commission itself had left it in suspense, he believes it his duty to make a formal reservation on behalf of his Government.

Mr Matsui says the question does not arise for Japan as it did not send troops of occupation, but they agree with the Commission as far as the interpretation of the Treaty is concerned.

General Cavallero says that with regard to the costs of military occupation, it would be well to make a distinction between the question of advances which is referred to the examination of the various Governments concerned, and the question of repayment of those advances, which should be settled by an interpretation of the Treaty. In the case of Upper Silesia there is no doubt that the expenses will be borne by the local revenues in the future as well as the present. In the case of Marienwerder, on the other hand, the repayment of the costs of occupation is not provided for; possibly it was an omission, at any rate it is a point to be defined. In the case of Allenstein the occupation itself is not provided for, and still less the repayment of the costs of occupation.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks what is the intention of the Italian Delegate in declaring that the matter has to be defined. Does he mean that a new Treaty has to be concluded with Germany or simply that the Supreme Council has to take a new decision? If he means a decision of the Supreme Council he (Sir Eyre Crowe) will remark that the Council has already decided that all the costs will be a charge on the interested territories. They had already given their interpretation. What more can be done?

M Berthelot says that in his interview with Herr von Simson he had indicated that that question was precisely of the same type as those which are to be settled between the German delegates and the Allied Commissioners. Herr von Simson had accepted this. He, M Berthelot, had added that the Council had decided to have Allied troops occupy Marienwerder, and that the costs of occupation should be a charge on the local revenues. Herr von Simson had made no objection to this.

M Cambon says that this is a question of application of the Treaty, upon which it is for the Allied Commissioners and the German Delegates to come to an agreement.

General Le Rond said the solution would be arrived at quite naturally when the Allied and Associated Powers attribute the territories submitted to a plebiscite. In the Treaties which would then be concluded between the Allies and the States to whom attribution would be made, nothing prevents the stipulation that costs of every kind should be a charge upon those States in exact proportion as the territories in question would be attributed to them.

M Cambon states that the Council agrees on the conclusions numbered 1 and 2, point 3 remaining to be settled between the Governments.

S de Martino says the question of advances brings up the question of exchange, which is particularly important for the Italians. They propose that the advance to be effected for troops, no matter to what nation they belong, should be made in marks. It is not apparent why, in a country where the legal currency was the mark, allowances should be paid with another currency; all the more so inasmuch as the mark is also the legal currency in Poland. The pound sterling might serve as a basis, the rate of exchange being subject to revision on the first of each month. In that case, and to avoid considerable purchases of marks for certain countries, the Allies should agree among themselves so that the necessary amount of marks should be furnished by the Allied States who held the most.

General Le Rond says S De Martino’s remarks bring up two points: On the first point, the case is quite in accord with S De Martino. Having been forced to choose a firm basis for the calculation of the rate of the allowances, it had taken the pound; but as a matter of fact, it was the gold dollar, a fixed standard, which should be the basis of calculation. It goes without saying that the payments will be made in currency of the country, that is to say, in marks. In the second point, the question of exchange is not in the province of the Commission, but S De Martino’s remark deserves consideration.

Mr White says he will note S De Martino’s proposal.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he agrees with the proposals presented by General Le Rond. They can, for the moment only take note of S De Martino’s proposal.

General Le Rond says there remains the question of Danzig and Memel.

As for Danzig, the British Government has already declared it is ready to make the advance of necessary funds to the administrative official who will represent the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. It is clear, as for Memel, that they ought to adopt the same solution as for plebiscite territories, namely, that all the costs of administration and of occupation be a charge on the State to which Memel will be attributed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr White remarks that they have just spoken of a representative of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers at Danzig. Should not the appointment of that official be approved by the Supreme Council?

Sir Eyre Crowe says the Supreme Council has already approved the nomination.

(It was decided:

(1) To approve the conclusions of the report on the financial regime of the plebiscite territories and occupied territories of Danzig and Memel;

(2) That the costs of normal administration of said territories, as well as supplementary costs of administration resulting from the Inter-Allied government, should be ultimately placed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers upon the States to whom those territories would be attributed by Treaty.


3. The Council has before it a note of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty of Peace, dated November 15th.

General Le Rond reads and comments upon the note of the Sub-Commission. He adds that the Italian Delegation has just communicated to him a proposal tending to modify the disposition of the scales of allowances, so as to distinguish in the allowances of presidents and commissioners, what is the representation allowance, properly so-called, the total allowance remaining the same.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he has had great difficulty in persuading his Government to accept the figures proposed by the Sub-Committee; he really thinks them extravagant. He has already found the figures provided for the Delimitation Commissions too high. His Government was surprised that personnel could not be found at lower salaries. He would, however, as a compromise, and so as to hasten the entry into force of the Treaty, accept the proposed figures.

M Berthelot said that those figures seem high because it is forgotten that, while military personnel had their pay in addition, civil officials had not. They had, on the other hand, taken as basis for calculation of the allowances the amount allotted by the British Government to its High Commissioner on the Rhineland High Commission.

General Le Rond says that salaries, properly so-called, will remain for the Governments to bear, but only in the event that the latter think they should be paid. It should not be forgotten that a certain number of officials employed as members of Commissions do not have any Government salary.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he thinks it had been decided that it was only the allowances according to function that were to be a charge upon the occupied territories.

General Le Rond said that the decision had been that the local revenues should pay the allowances fixed, and that, if he might say so, they need not take salaries into account, the government appointing any particular official being free to pay him if it so desired.

M Berthelot says that the case of military officials - a special one - should be placed on one side. On the other hand, the principle might be advanced that all officials be paid exclusively by the territory, the administration of which they belonged to. Officials who came for a country’s welfare should be paid from the resources of that country. The case is similar to that of “counselors” whom certain oriental or Far Eastern powers asked western nations to send them.

General Le Rond says the rate of allowances had been fixed in uniform fashion for all officials of a similar category, no matter what their salary might be in their own country.

Mr White says he has not had time to discuss the question with his experts and must for the time being reserve his decision.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the explanation furnished by M Berthelot and by General Le Rond changed the aspect of the question: It would obviously be much easier for his Government to accept that proposal which came nearer the point of view it had always supported. It was, then, understood that the rate of payment being thus reckoned, the Council considers that officials who receive these payments should have no further claim.

S de Martino says he wishes to know why a distinction had been drawn between allowances provided in the cases of Allenstein and Marienwerder and those provided for in the case of Upper Silesia?

M Berthelot says that a decision has already been given which explains itself through the relative importance of territories to be administered and also through the duties which the officials would have to assume thereby.

S de Martino says it should be borne in mind, however, that the shorter the occupation the heavier relatively would be the expenses that members of the Commissions would have to incur.

General Le Rond says another consideration should not be neglected, however: An official who would be sent for instance, to Allenstein knew that he was only going there for a few months. In the case of Upper Silesia, on the contrary, they were quite uncertain, as the occupation might last anywhere from 8 to 20 months; therefore, to recruit the necessary personnel higher payments would have to be made.

Sir Eyre Crowe agrees with General Le Rond: It is certain that a man who leaves a position for 18 months will have greater difficulty in having it kept for him than the man who only left his position for a few months.

S de Martino asks whether the question of allowances for troops of occupation could not be settled immediately?

General Weygand says it seems to them there is no reason to adopt on that subject a different ruling from that which had been followed for the troops of occupation of the Rhine. Each Government is free to fix for its troops the allowances which it thought advisable.

General Cavallero says that the situation of troops which will occupy for instance, Upper Silesia cannot be compared to that of French troops on the Rhine. There would be very great practical difficulties. It seems impossible to the Italian Command not to fix a higher allowance for battalions which would be sent to Allenstein than to troops which occupied the armistice zone. It seemed very difficult to the Italians, for all kinds of reasons, to fix the rate of supplementary allowances to be given without previous agreement with the other General Staffs.

General Weygand replies that the French Government and the other interested Governments, with the exception of the Italian, had been of the opinion that it was for each of them to settle the rate which it thought advisable. They had not wished to fix a uniform rate. He feels no hesitation in saying that the French troops sent into Upper Silesia will receive slightly higher allowances than the troops on the Rhine.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the question had already been the subject of discussion in the Supreme Council a long time before, but had not then been settled.

General Cavallero says that uniform allowances had been agreed upon for personnel of Commissions of Control, no matter what the army of origin. If, however, in zones of occupation the allowances varied according to the army a very disagreeable situation might arise for soldiers in receipt of the lower allowances. The line officers, who will receive a much smaller amount than officers, members of a Commission, will find themselves in a painful situation. They might at least agree to fix tables roughly analogous.

General Weygand says the case of isolated officers or non-commissioned officers could not be compared to that of commissioned or non-commissioned officers living with their formations. The latter has every kind of facility which isolated officers cannot find. On the other hand officers of each nationality will live, each one in the sector allotted to his troops; there will be, therefore, no occasion for officers of the different armies to compare their respective positions. Had it not for that matter been thus all through the war?

General Cavallero says they are not at war any longer and the situation is a rather different one. He wishes to point out that officers will probably sit on Commissions, whose situation would be clearly more attractive than that of their comrades of the line although their position might not be much more important.

M Cambon thinks it would be better to leave each Government its freedom in the matter.

(It was decided to approve the report of the Sub-Committee on the Execution of the Treaty, dated November 15th, concerning the rate of monthly allowances to the personnel of Plebiscite Commissions, with the reservation that the American Delegation communicate at the next meeting whether it accepts the proposals of the report.


4. Sir Eyre Crowe says Sir George Clerk has telegraphed that he was on the point of leaving Budapest, having fulfilled his mission. Should the Council wish him to remain or have some communication to make to him, it should do so without delay.

M Berthelot says Sir George Clerk gave the Council the assurance that Mr Huszar was not Friedrich’s strawman. Sir George Clerk has succeeded fully in his mission. It seems that the Council can allow him to return. Sir Eyre Crowe might wire him that the Council is not opposed to his return and will be glad to hear his report.


5. The Council has before it a letter from the Polish Delegation dated November 17th, 1919 and a letter from the same Delegation dated November 19, 1919.

M Laroche reads and comments upon the letters. He adds that it would be advantageous to be able to follow the negotiations in Paris itself.

Sir Eyre Crowe says the question is not exactly the same for the negotiations between Poland and the German Governments and between Poland and Danzig. In the former case there is no difficulty in transferring the negotiations to Paris. In the latter, on the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the local factor plays an important part. The Treaty to be concluded will go into all sorts of detail concerning the port, docks, customs, railroads, etc. Would it be wise to transfer to Paris the seat of these negotiations when an account had to be taken of local conditions? The representative of the Allies at Danzig had a part to play in the negotiations: Is it wise to eliminate him?

M Laroche says the Polish Commission quite definitely thinks that because of local passions it would be wiser to withdraw the negotiations from the atmosphere of Danzig just as it would be to withdraw them from Warsaw. That transfer would not prevent the representative of the Allies at Danzig from intervening: his advice would be asked for. Indeed in matters of technical details it would be easy to detach to the spot a sub-commission. To take into account the objection formulated by Sir Eyre Crowe, they might decide in principle that the negotiations will take place in Paris although the details should be settled on the spot.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he of course agrees that the decision should be taken at Paris but he considers it difficult to divide the negotiations into two classes. He would rather propose that Danzig be made the seat of negotiations, it being understood that the scheme worked out at Danzig be subject to revision in Paris.

M Berthelot says the Council could adopt a formula of that kind.

M Cambon suggests that they could say - and in that way indicate that the Allied Representative at Danzig had to take part in the matter - that the preliminary investigations should take place at Danzig, that they will be carried out on the spot and that they would be transmitted to Paris for final decision by the Allied Representative who would submit the report.

Mr White asks whether originally it had not been decided that the negotiations take place in Warsaw, the question interesting Poland in the first place.

M Laroche says the Japanese Delegation was opposed to that proposal as it did not have a representative at Warsaw who could follow the negotiations.

S de Martino says his instructions give him authority to approve the transfer to Paris of all the negotiations in progress, whether in Berlin or Warsaw, between Germany and Poland. He asks whether the negotiations relative to Danzig fall within that category.

M Cambon thinks not.

Mr White asks how the Commission will be composed, and why it could not meet at Warsaw.

Sir Eyre Crowe replies that it is because Danzig is the object of the negotiations; the Commission would include representatives of the free city and Poles.

M Laroche says it is understood, then, that the scheme prepared at Danzig could be modified in Paris. All the questions would be studied anew in Paris under the auspices of the Great Powers and with the cooperation of the delegates of Danzig and of Poles.

Mr White says he agrees on the principle, but he wishes to read over the text of the resolution once it has been drafted.

(It was decided:

(1) That the negotiations between the Polish Government and the German Government take place in Paris;

(2) That the negotiations between the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig take place in Paris, with the cooperation and under the direction of representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers;

(3) That, prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preliminary discussions, at which the Allied representative in the Free City of Danzig is to be a party, should take place at Danzig. That representative should send to Paris, with a report, the proposals which will have been prepared at Danzig, and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in paragraph 2.

(The Council reserves to itself the final approval of the present resolution until a further examination.)


6. The Council had before it a draft note dated November 24th, 1919.

(After a short discussion, it is decided to adopt the draft note to the President of the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany for transmission to the German Government, once the Peace Treaty comes into force.


7. The Council has before it a note from the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission relative to the appointment of a Sub-Committee charged with the improvement of circulation of rolling stock in the ex-Austro-Hungarian Empire.

S de Martino says he accepts the draft recommendation of the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission, but wishes to make the following declaration: It is well understood that the Sub-Committee will only function until a decision has been taken on the distribution of rolling stock between the several States inheriting territory of the ex-Austro-Hungarian Empire, in accordance with Article 318 of the Treaty of Saint Germain. This is in order to avoid possible confusion of competence.

Sir Eyre Crowe says he is surprised that the question has come up again. The Council had given the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission full powers to act in the event of its sub-commission on Austrian affairs being unanimous. M Loucheur had told them that only questions of detail remain to be settled. He therefore cannot understand, and thinks the Council has grounds for being surprised that the matter was submitted to them a second time, considering the extreme gravity of the situation in Austria.

M Massigli points out that the terms of the decision adopted on November 20th are unambiguous; in the case of unanimity the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission was to have acted without referring the subject anew to the Supreme Council.

(The Council takes note of the declaration made by S De Martino on the subject of the duration of that Sub-Committee’s activities.)

(It was decided to approve the terms of the draft note of the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission concerning the appointment of a Sub-Committee on rolling stock in the Ex-Austro-Hungarian Empire, an appointment which the Council considered as decided in its resolution of November 20th.


8. The Council has before it the note of the British Delegation dated November 22nd.

(After a short discussion, it was decided to refer to the Drafting Committee for examination and immediate report the note of the British Delegation on demobilization by German authorities of a great number of soldiers in the Schleswig plebiscite area.

(The meeting then adjourns).

[Jimbuna]

25th November 1919

"We appeal to you to have your country undertake for its racial minority that which you forced Poland and Austria to undertake for their racial minorities." — National Equal Rights League to President Woodrow Wilson.

Ireland. A proclamation is issued suppressing Sinn Féin, the Irish Volunteers, the Gaelic League and kindred bodies throughout Ireland.

British Whippet tanks patrol Country Clare, Ireland. The Irish War of Independence is currently being waged.


Mexican military officer Felipe Ángeles sentenced to death.

[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, November 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. Marshal Foch informs the Council that he has received a telegram from General Niessel, dated November 23rd. According to this telegram the Germans are carrying out their evacuation by the Chavli-Tauroggen railroad. The Lithuanians, in spite of instructions received from General Niessel, had crossed that line at several points and attacked the Germans. In order to parry this attack General Niessel had dispatched Allied and German officers and hoped to succeed in checking the Lithuanians. In spite of this, the German Government has ordered troops to cross the frontier in order to protect the railroad, although they had been told not to send any additional troops to that district. One train had already passed through. General Niessel desires the Council to make strong representations to the German Government. He proposes to send a telegram to General Niessel telling him that he has full power to take whatever measures seem to him fitting and that any action on the part of the Council seems calculated only to retard a satisfactory solution.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks if any news has been received from General Niessel regarding an armistice between the Germans and the Letts. He had received a somewhat obscure telegram from the Admiralty, evidently to the effect that there is such an armistice.

General Weygand says he does not think so. The last news received from General Niessel was that he had meant to go to Riga, but felt that his presence was necessary further south, especially as the Letts seemed able to hold their own against the Germans.

(It is decided to approve the terms of the draft telegram prepared by Marshal Foch to be sent to General Niessel.)


2. On the subject of Allowances to Personnel of Administrative, Government, and Plebiscite Commissions, Mr White refers to the resolution adopted by the Council at its previous meeting and announces that he accepts the proposals of the report in question.


3. M Berthelot informs the Council that the Romanian answer has not yet actually arrived. General Coanda, who is bringing this answer is on his way to Paris. According to the Romanian calculation the time within which their answer was to be delivered only expired at noon of that day. Although, according to the idea of the Council that time had expired on Sunday, it seemed expedient to wait until General Coanda arrived, an event which would take place at any moment. In the meantime, a strong speech from the Romanian throne had indicated that under no conditions is Romania willing to permit a rupture between herself and the Allied and Associated Powers. Mr Antonescu has confirmed this information.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that a real difficulty exists. He has heard from the British Representative at Bucharest that the Council’s note had not been presented by the 22nd of November. The Council in discussing the draft note had changed several words and decided that the Romanians were to have eight days from the presentation of the note. If then it had not been presented on the 22nd November the time could not be considered to have expired.

M Berthelot informs the Council that he has received a telegram from the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest dated November 21st to the effect that the latter had received the first and last parts of the Council’s note to the Romanian Government. An important part is still lacking and is being awaited before the note was presented. Mr Misu, however, already knows the substance of the note through General Coanda. The French Chargé d’Affaires has made urgent representations to the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs as to the gravity of the situation, which permitted of no delay, and had told him that the Romanian Government must declare itself ready to sign the Minorities Treaty unreservedly in consideration always of the assurance given by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in their note of the 12th October that they would examine certain modifications as to form. Mr Misu had replied to the French Chargé d’Affaires that he would prepare a reply of that tenor and would do his utmost to obtain a favorable consideration of the matter from the King and Council of Ministers.

Sir Eyre Crowe reminds the Council that the Romanians had been told that they could not sign the Bulgarian Treaty until they had signed the Austrian Treaty.

As they cannot sign the Austrian Treaty within the two ensuing days he does not see how they could sign the Bulgarian Treaty on November 27th.

M Berthelot suggests that a protocol can be signed, as had been the case at the time of signing the Austrian Treaty, giving the Romanians additional time within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty. That time might be fixed at a week.

S de Martino agrees that the Council should take no further action towards Romania until the Romanian reply had been received.

M Berthelot points out that all indications are that the Romanians are certainly going to sign. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government is prepared to sign the Treaty with Austria as well as the Minorities Treaty and the financial arrangements. The Drafting Committee has prepared a draft agreement of adhesion to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government which will be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain. With respect to the Romanians the situation is different. The Minorities Treaty concerning Romania has not yet been signed by anybody. Some modifications as to form would be made in this Minorities Treaty in order to meet certain views of the Romanians. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers therefore cannot sign this Treaty until the final terms thereof have been settled after consultation with the Romanian Representatives.

Sir Eyre Crowe feels that the Romanians must give an unequivocal agreement to sign the Minorities Treaty, taking into consideration the fact that certain modifications in their favor might be made therein.

M Cambon suggests that after the receipt of the Romanian reply the Romanian Delegation be given a week from Nov. 27 within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty, and that within that week the Minorities Treaty should be put into final form after conference with the Romanian representatives; that said Treaty, as well as the Treaty of Saint Germain and the agreements related thereto, be signed by Romania within that week.

M Berthelot reads the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government.

(It is decided:

(1) That in connection with the signing of the Treaty with Bulgaria on November 27th a protocol be prepared allowing the interested Powers to sign said Treaty with Bulgaria within one week from November 27th:

(2) That within one week from November 27th Romania should sign the Treaty with Austria, the Minorities Treaty, and the financial arrangements.

(3) To accept the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation;

(4) That the agreement of adhesion when signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain.


4. The Council has before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the Minorities Treaty.

M Kammerer comments upon the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation and states that, on the whole, this note is satisfactory. He points out that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation had presented its interpretation of the clauses relative to freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce, which were involved in Article 51 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, and had stated that in the absence of a contrary reply from the Council it would consider that its interpretation was correct. He thinks that the Serbian interpretation is, in fact, correct and he therefore proposes that no reply be sent to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. The question can therefore be considered settled.

(It is decided that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are in full agreement with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation as to the interpretation of the Minorities Treaty, and that said Treaty be at once presented to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation for signature.


5. The Council has before it the Bulgarian reply regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria, dated November 23rd.

M Kammerer comments upon this note from the Bulgarian Delegation and states that it is entirely satisfactory. The Bulgarian Delegation has asked for explanations with respect to two points. The Committee on New States agreed with the Bulgarian interpretation of these points. A satisfactory answer consisting of a few lines could be sent to the Bulgarian Delegation. A more serious question was the form of the Treaty. The United States representative had raised some question as to his Government’s being able to sign, and the Japanese delegate had thereupon stated that in such an event, his Government might likewise be unable to sign. The Drafting Committee considers that the Treaty between Bulgaria and Greece relative to reciprocal immigration is in no way dependent upon the signature of the Bulgarian Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. In fact Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Bulgarian Treaty itself, makes that point clear. In order to meet the difficulty the Drafting Committee proposes the following solution: The Supreme Council should reach a decision which will be inserted in the preamble of the Greco-Bulgarian Treaty; for technical reasons it is preferable that this decision be dated Thursday, November 27th. The wording of the proposed decision is as follows:

“In view of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers deem it fitting that the reciprocal and voluntary immigration of ethnical, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece and Bulgaria should be settled by a convention concluded between these two Powers in the terms decided upon on this date.”

The foregoing solution represents the unanimous opinion of the Committee on New States, with the exception that the Italian representative makes the reservation that S de Martino would have to give a final opinion on this point.

S de Martino says that he has already expressed his opinion that for reasons of general interest it is advisable that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign this Treaty. The decisions already taken by the Council relative to affairs in the Balkans seem to him to have created many opportunities for trouble in the future. As a general thing he feels that those Powers who are directly interested in maintaining peace in the Balkans should participate more actively in Balkan affairs. However, as it was of great importance that the present question be settled without further delay, he is willing to withdraw his reservation on that occasion.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Secretary General of the Conference reply to the Bulgarian Delegation that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are in agreement with the Bulgarian interpretation of the Treaty regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria;

(2) To adopt the following resolution, to be dated as of November 27th, 1919, and to be inserted in the preamble of the Treaty between Greece and Bulgaria regarding reciprocal immigration:

“In view of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers deem it fitting that the reciprocal and voluntary immigration of ethnical, religious and linguistic minorities in Greece and Bulgaria should be settled by a convention concluded between these two Powers in the terms decided upon on this date.”)


6. The Council has before it a draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.

M Cambon reads the draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.

(It is decided to adopt the draft note, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be sent to the German Government relative to demobilized German soldiers in the Schleswig Plebiscite Areas.)


7. M Cambon reads the resolution adopted by the Council at its preceding meeting (H. D. 99, Minute 5). The resolution had provided that the Council reserves to itself the final approval thereof until a further examination.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he accepts the text as read.

Mr White proposes that paragraph 3 of the resolution be modified to read as follows:

“that, prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preliminary studies by a special technical committee shall be made at This committee shall be composed of representatives of both Poland and Danzig with the addition of the Allied representative at Danzig. These technical studies, which may serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for under paragraph 2, shall be forwarded to Paris by this committee not later than one month after the coming into force of the Treaty.”

Sir Eyre Crowe asks what the object is in the change suggested by Mr White. He wishes to know if the word technical is intended to exclude anyone.

Mr White replies that it is not.

M Cambon said that he likewise is unable to understand the proposed change.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks if this excludes the preparation of a draft Treaty.

Mr White says that the object of the proposed change is merely to make it clear that only preliminary studies should take place at Danzig.

Mr Dulles calls attention to the fact that preliminary discussions have already taken place at Warsaw. If the resolution provides that preliminary discussions should take place at Danzig it might imply the removal of the discussions from Warsaw to Danzig. The Poles and the inhabitants of Danzig both recognize that technical studies must take place at Danzig. He also calls attention to the fact that in the change proposed by Mr White a time limit of one month after the coming into force of the Treaty is specified.

Sir Eyre Crowe observes that it has been proposed to hold these preliminary discussions at Warsaw. That proposition had been rejected and a request had been made on the previous day that these discussions be transferred to Paris. He had then proposed that the preliminary discussions be held at Danzig. He further adds that the change proposed by the American Delegation contemplates that the Committee engaged in preliminary studies should report direct to the Supreme Council. He feels that this procedure was not correct and that as a matter of form it is the Allied Representative at Danzig who should address the Supreme Council. He also feels that one month might prove to be too short a time within which to submit the report in question.

Mr Dulles remarks that discussions had already begun. Therefore by the time the Treaty comes into force a further delay of one month might well prove sufficient. He quite agrees that the Representative of the Allies could and should address himself directly to the Supreme Council but he thinks that the Committee charged with the preliminary studies should also be able to do so.

M Cambon suggests that paragraph 3 be modified to read as follows:

“that prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preparatory studies of a technical nature and preliminary discussions, to which the Allied Representative in the free city of Danzig should be a party, take place at Danzig. Within a maximum delay of two months after the coming into force of the Treaty the said Representative should send to Paris, together with a report, the proposals which would have been prepared at Danzig and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in the preceding paragraph.”

Mr White agrees to that modification if it is satisfactory to the Poles.

Sir Eyre Crowe points out that under the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Germany that is a matter for the decision of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers only.

M Cambon says that the Poles are interested in making preliminary studies and in participating in discussions, but they are not entitled to decide finally the question involved.

Mr White wonders what the result will be if the Poles should refuse to accept the plan proposed.

M Cambon inquires whether Mr White really expects such a refusal on their part. He points out that the Poles had asked to have the negotiations transferred to Paris, and their request had been granted. All that is necessary was to tell the Poles that it has been decided to grant their request.

M Berthelot observes that certain questions necessarily have to be studied on the spot. He thinks, however, that the Council can reach a decision on that day and if necessary communicate it to the Poles. If the Poles have any observations to present, the Council can, he thinks, decide on the following day whether or not to take them into account.

Mr White says that Danzig had been taken away from Germany and made a free city not so much for the good of the inhabitants of Danzig as for the benefit of the population of Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks Mr White what action he thinks should be taken in case the Poles do not accept the plan proposed. Is it his intention that the Council should yield to the Poles?

Mr White thinks that the matter can then be discussed again.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that there is no point in that as the Council alone is charged with the duty of deciding.

S de Martino points out that in all probability the Poles will willingly accept this plan.

Mr White feels that he can only accept the resolution proposed after hearing the view of the Poles.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that means not coming to a decision.

(After some further discussion, it is decided:

(1) To accept textually the first two paragraphs of the resolution taken at the preceding meeting of the Council (H. D. 99, Minute 5, November 24th, 1919);

(2) That the third paragraph of said resolution be modified to read as follows:

“that prior to the opening of negotiations as provided for in the last paragraph, preparatory studies of a technical nature and preliminary discussions, to which the Allied Representative in the free city of Danzig should be a party, take place at Danzig. Within a maximum delay of two months after the coming into force of the Treaty the said Representative should send to Paris, together with a report, the proposals which would have been prepared at Danzig and which would serve as a basis for the negotiations provided for in the preceding paragraph.”

(3) That the entire resolution be communicated on that day to the Polish Delegation, and that if said Delegation has any observations to present the Council will examine them at an early meeting.


8. The Council has before it a letter dated November 15th from General Tcherbatcheff regarding Russian war material and supplies left in Romania.

M Berthelot points out that General Tcherbatcheff’s note alludes to a joint letter of the Ministers Plenipotentiary of France, England, the United States and Italy, dated March 3rd, 1918. As the text of that joint letter is not available he has telegraphed to the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest to obtain the same. He thinks it would be well to await the receipt of that joint letter and to examine the same before taking any action on General Tcherbatcheff’s note.

(This is agreed to)

(The meeting then adjourns)

[Jimbuna]

26th November 1919

Members of the 1st Division Artillery, Australian Imperial Force, march through Chatelineau, Belgium before heading home.


Soldiers in Poltava (Ukraine) exhume bodies of prisoners executed and buried by the Bolsheviks.


"Germanicure. Prussian military eagle: "Not too short, please"" (In defiance of the Peace Treaty Germany is maintaining 700,000 men under arms.)

[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, November 26, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

27th November 1919

Aftermath of War

Peace Treaty with Bulgaria signed at Neuilly.

The Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine is signed between the Allies and Bulgaria, making the country cede territory and pay reparations.


Felipe Ángeles, Mexican General who fought under Pancho Villa in the Mexican Civil War, is executed by the government. He deserted Villa when he became disillusioned of the war.

[Sailor Steve]

Thursday, November 27, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

28th November 1919

Aftermath of War

Yusef Wahba Pasha succeeds Mohammed Said Pasha as Premier of Egypt.

Artillerymen of the Don Cossacks fighting against the Bolsheviks.


Bolshevik prisoners of war, which includes children, held in Poland.


Greek and Serbian refugees return home from Bulgarian internment camps during World War I. They have travelled 500 miles in this cramped freight car. On the left is a British nurse working with the American Red Cross to care for the refugees.

[Sailor Steve]

Friday, November 28, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


...

[Jimbuna]

29th November 1919

King and Queen of Romania in Transylvania. Romania gained the region from Hungary last year.


Firemen use a firehose to wash the U.S. Capitol building.

[Sailor Steve]

Saturday, November 29, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

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

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


...

[Jimbuna]

30th November 1919

Anti-Bolshevik General Markov with his troops.


Hundreds of U.S. Navy ships are tied up in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to be scrapped a year after the end of the war.


This month was the coldest November in British history, with areas of Aberdeenshire experiencing -23.3C

[Sailor Steve]

Sunday, November 30, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

There are no meetings today.

[Jimbuna]

1st December 1919

Nancy Astor becomes the first female Member of Parliament to take her seat (Constance Markievicz was the first women elected to Parliament in 1918 but didn't take her seat)


Nancy Astor enters the House of Commons on a monday morning, effectively becoming the first ever elected female MP to be granted a seat in the British Parliament. She would later bring about great changes within, among other things, women’s rights.

[Sailor Steve]

Monday, December 1, 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.


...