SIR EYRE CROWE observed that that meant letting the Turks occupy this region.

M. CLEMENCEAU inquired if the Italians were far distant from the Greeks in this region.

M. DE MARTINO explained that they were not; that the Italian forces were within six hundred meters of the line of the River Meander and the parallel railroad. The Greek line was along the north bank of the river.

SIR EYRE CROWE explained that if the Greeks retired a triangle would be left between the river, the railroad and the Greek line, which included Aidin. To the south the line had been fixed by agreement between M. Venizelos and the Italian Government. He thought that it would not be advisable to withdraw the Greeks from the triangle in question and turn it over to Italian occupation.

M. DE MARTINO pointed out that he had not made any such suggestion. M. CLEMENCEAU then suggested that the Greeks could be left at Aidin, but that they should not be allowed to advance.

MR. POLK asked if General Milne himself had not said that a further advance by the Greeks would inevitably result in serious trouble.

SIR EYRE CROWE thought that General Milne had rather said that he would be willing to authorize a further advance if the Council was prepared for the fact that such an advance would mean encountering armed opposition. General Milne had favored that advance on strategic grounds.

M. CLEMENCEAU observed that as M. Venizelos felt capable of conquering Asia, the Greek troops certainly should be able to maintain their ground at Aidin. He agreed with Mr. Polk that if the Council ordered a further advance it would be in a position of creating further trouble.

MR. POLK said that he could not agree to a letter authorizing the Greeks to advance in view of the fact that the authorities on the spot had said that trouble would certainly ensue. He thought that this would be tantamount to authorizing the Greeks to advance and conquer additional territory.

SIR EYRE CROWE said that the only alternative was to let in the Turks who would then unquestionably start to massacre the Greeks.

MR. POLK asked if Sir Eyre Crowe felt convinced of this?
SIR EYRE CROWE said that he did.

MR. POLK said that his personal view was that if this line of action were followed all Asia Minor would eventually have to be occupied. M. CLEMENCEAU suggested that the Greeks be left at Aidin but that they be not authorized to advance further. (This was agreed to.) M. DE MARTINO wished to ask Sir Eyre Crowe if he could give him some information on the intentions of the British Government relative to the occupation of Aidin. According to a telegram which he had

518640-46-VOL. IX-9

received from Italian Authorities on the spot, English troops were reported to be ready to advance on Aidin. General Montague Bates, commanding the 83rd Infantry Brigade, was said to be in command of those forces. On November 4th more than 70 cars were reported to have left for Afium Karahissar in order to transport the British Troops.

SIR EYRE CROWE replied that the British arrangement had been made in contemplation of Inter-Allied occupation. As no French troops could be sent he thought that the British troops would likewise not approach Aidin.

It was decided:

to approve the draft note to M. Venizelos relative to the report of the Commission of Inquiry at Smyrna prepared by the British Delegation (see Appendix "A") after making the following modifications therein:

(1) on the second page of this draft note the sentence: "It hopes that the dangerous tension which at the present time does not seem to have ceased to make itself observed along the limits of the Greek zone of occupation", should be changed to read, "It hopes that the dangerous tension which at the present time does not seem to have ceased to make itself felt along the limits of the Greek zone of occupation";

(2) the clause: "In the meanwhile allowing the Greek troops to advance from Aidin up to the river Kochak Chai, according to General Milne's recommendation" should be eliminated.

It was further decided:

to refer to the Commission on Greek Territorial Claims the questions pertaining to the administration of Smyrna (See Appendices "B" and "C"), and that the Commission should be at liberty to take the advice of Military Experts, in particular that of General Bunoust. 2. (The Council had before it a reply from the Roumanian Government transmitted by the Chargé d'Affaires of France, dated November Reply of the 2nd, to the note of the Allied and Associated Powers Roumanian Government to the dated October 20th [12th] (See Appendix "D").) Note of October

20th [12th]

3

M. CLEMENCEAU observed that the answer was very unsatisfactory and was even of a nature to cause anxiety.

SIR EYRE CROWE agreed. He felt that the answer was practically a refusal of all the demands presented by the Supreme Council. The only point upon which the Roumanians had even partially agreed was the evacuation of Hungary, and even on that point the Roumanian Government had made a most formidable reservation with respect to the extent of the Hungarian territory to be evacuated. The Roumanian answer gave no satisfaction to the Council's demand relative to the evacuation in so far as concerned the withdrawal beyond the river

3 See telegram to the British Chargé at Bucharest, October 11, appendix B to HD-68, vol. vi, p. 583.

Theiss. On all other points the answer was evasive and defiant. The Council should carefully examine the present situation in Roumania. Its authority must be respected. M. Bratiano was merely dilly-dallying and playing for time, and the measures adopted by him had resulted in deluding the majority of his countrymen into thinking him a great patriot. He (Sir Eyre Crowe) felt that if the King and the majority of the Roumanians were made clearly to see that a persistence in their present attitude would necessarily mean a breach with the Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania's exclusion from the Alliance, then Roumania would adopt a more compliant attitude. He thought that in such an event the present Government would be forced to retire and that a Ministry would be constituted which would see the wisdom of meeting the Council's just demands and would act accordingly. He thought the above considerations should be put very plainly to Roumania and that it should be told that if its reply to the communication proposed to be sent by the Council were not satisfactory it would mean the breaking off of relations between Roumania and the Allied and Associated Powers. The Roumanians could not be driven out of Hungary by force as the Council had no force to dispose of, and it seemed to him that the only alternative was the line of action he had proposed.

MR. POLK said he welcomed any strong action.

M. CLEMENCEAU thought that the action proposed by Sir Eyre Crowe was strong enough to meet the requirements of the situation. M. DE MARTINO inquired if it would be wise to adopt in its entirety Sir Eyre Crowe's suggestion, which involved threatening Roumania. The resulting situation if the Roumanians should refuse to agree to the action proposed should be examined. If the Roumanians refused the situation would be worse than it was before.

M. CLEMENCEAU thought that the terms of the communication to be sent to Roumania were reasonably clear. They could be plainly told that they would be no longer in the Alliance.

M. BERTHELOT reminded the Council that at the time of signing the Austrian Treaty it had considered telling Roumania that Bukovina would not be attributed to it, but that in the Austrian Treaty it would be given to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. This had not been done as it had seemed too severe a measure to be judicious at that time. However, as it was now proposed to exert pressure on Roumania, it was well to examine the means of bringing this pressure to bear and a similar plan might now be considered. Roumania might be told that her claims to Transylvania would not be recognized and that the question of Bessarabia would not be discussed until it could be taken up with a reconstituted Russia. He pointed out that the Roumanian reply was

satisfactory in so far as it announced the imminent withdrawal of the Roumanian forces to the Theiss; the result had been to facilitate negotiations with the Hungarians. What he was now suggesting was primarily theoretical. The question of the advisability of taking such measures must still be decided, for when considering the question of punishing a Government it would be well not to lose sight of the fact that the population should not be wholly antagonized.

5

SIR EYRE CROWE reminded the Council that Sir George Clerk had referred in a former telegram to Roumanian atrocities in Transylvania and the Council had inquired what part of Transylvania was meant. This question had not yet been answered but he had that day received a mass of documents relative to outrages in Transylvania, an examination of which might lead to the conclusion that the inhabitants of Transylvania were not as favorable to Roumania as might have been thought.

M. CLEMENCEAU observed that two distinct questions were raised. First, was there a basis of right for taking away from Roumania the Hungarian territories in question? The second question related to the outrages committed by the Roumanians in Transylvania.

MR. POLK said that he had always felt that if Roumania refused to accede to the very reasonable demands of the Council she should not have Transylvania given to her. He thought that such action was entirely too generous.

SIR EYRE CROWE felt that the difficulty was that if Transylvania were withheld from Roumania that would involve an occupation by Allied troops, which was obviously impossible.

MR. POLK observed that if these territories were withheld from Roumania she would at least be in a position of never having been given them. Although occupation. by the Allies was out of the question, he thought that such action would at least have a great moral effect.

M. DE MARTINO thought that the point of prime importance was to rehabilitate the prestige of the Council. The action proposed by M. Berthelot was certainly rather severe. He would have to consult his Government on that point. In the meantime he thought that the Ministers at Bucarest might be instructed to take further action. M. CLEMENCEAU did not think this advisable in as much as the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers at Bucarest had already done all they could do.

SIR EYRE CROWE said that in his personal opinion a communication should be sent to Roumania in the nature of a real ultimatum. He would, however, have to consult his government before agreeing to send such a communication.

MR. POLK inquired if it were necessary to send a communication of that nature. Could not an answer be sent to Roumania pointing out that her latest communication to the Council was no answer at all, and demanding a satisfactory answer from her.

SIR EYRE CROWE felt that the time for such action had gone by and that the present was the time to act firmly and decisively.

M. CLEMENCEAU agreed.

MR. POLK also agreed.

M. CLEMENCEAU suggested that Roumania should be informed that the Allied and Associated Powers would withdraw their representatives from Roumania and that the Roumanian representatives in the various capitals, as well as her representatives at the Peace Conference, must also be withdrawn. He further suggested that M. Berthelot should draft a note, taking into account the views expressed at that meeting, this note to be submitted to the Council as soon as the Heads of Delegations had been able to consult their respective Governments. M. BERTHELOT pointed out that a diplomatic rupture was a serious matter and inquired if it was to be resorted to at once.

M. CLEMENCEAU said that his patience was utterly exhausted. He had been long suffering with the Roumanian Government and had even been reproached for that attitude. The Roumanians always tried to prolong pourparlers indefinitely, and this must be put an end to.

M. MATSUI agreed to the action proposed. He, of course, would have to consult his Government, which he thought would not raise any objections. He wished to point out that his Government had no diplomatic representation in Roumania. In the meantime, in as much as he might not be able to receive an answer from his Government until some time after the other members of the Council had heard from their respective Governments, he was willing to agree with the view which would be adopted.

M. BERTHELOT summarized the contents of the communication to be prepared by him. He would recall to Roumania all that had been done for her and in her behalf by the Allied and Associated Powers and would point out the refractory attitude consistently maintained by Roumania with respect to the just demands of the Supreme Council. M. DE MARTINO called attention to one paragraph of the Roumanian note which seemed to him to have some merit. That was the paragraph dealing with the granting of authority to the Sub-Committee of the Reparations Commission to receive complaints relative to unauthorized requisitions. Roumania had pointed out that in this respect she had been treated worse than the Jugo-Slav State had been in the matter of its requisitions in the Banat.

M. BERTHELOT explained that the situations were not at all analogous. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government had never been in opposition to the Council on this question.