Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/99

HD-99

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon's Room, Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Monday, November 24, 1919, at 10: 30 a. m.

The following were also present for items in which they were concerned :

AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF

General Bliss

Rear Admiral McCully, U. S. N.

Colonel Logan

Dr. I. Bowman

Mr. A. W. Dulles

Lieut-Commander L. B. Green, U. S. N.

BRITISH EMPIRE

General Groves

Colonel Percival

Lieut-Col. Kisch
Major McCrindle
Mr. Carr

FRANCE

Marshal Foch

General Weygand

General LeRond

M. Laroche

M. Hermite

M. de Montille

ITALY

General Cavallero
M. Vannutelli-Rey
M. Stranieri

M. Mancioli

Commandant Rugiu

JAPAN

M. Shigemitsu

1. (The Council had before it two letters from Baron von Lersner to the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference dated November 21st and 23rd, 1919, (See appendices "A" and "B").)

Negotiations
With the German
Delegates

M. BERTHELOT read the first letter as well as the draft reply prepared by the French Delegation. (See Appendix "C"). He said it was evident that there was 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 felt 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 asked whether the draft letter which had just been read by M. Berthelot was approved by the Council.

SIR EYRE CROWE thought it would be advisable to add a few words concerning the departure of the German Commissioners.

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

SIR EYRE CROWE said 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.

M. DE MARTINO said he thought 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 was adopted as shown in Appendix "D".

SIR EYRE CROWE thought that it was 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 said they could send the letter as soon as the President-who ought to sign it-returned, that was to say, that night. MR. WHITE thought that it would be wise in that case to delay the publication for 24 hours.

M. CAMBON said the note would 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 shown in Appendix "D";

(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, (See Appendices "C" and "D".)

2. (The Council had before it a report dated November 21st, 1919 (See Appendix “E”).)

ments in the

Plebiscite Territories

GENERAL LE ROND read and commented upon the Financial Arrange- report of the Commission. He added 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.

and Occupied Territories 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 was 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 was to these that the report referred. 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 remained to determine the sources from which those advances could be drawn. That being the question for immediate solution, and the question of military occupation expenses being reserved, the Commission asked the Council to approve its conclusions numbered 1 and 2.

MR. WHITE said he had no observations to make on points 1 and 2, but he wished on the question of military occupation expenses to read the following note which defined the American point of view. (See Appendix "F").

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

SIR EYRE CROWE said he agreed with the conclusions of the report and with the note that Mr. White had just read.

M. DE MARTINO said that in a word it came 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 said M. De Martino was speaking of the costs of occupation; he had to repeat that there was no possible doubt that the costs of occupation were a charge on the occupied territories and that the only question under discussion was a matter of deciding ways and means; how were they to obtain the necessary funds at the moment. M. DE MARTINO said that he did not see why a distinction was made between the question of costs of occupation and that of other costs.

GENERAL LE ROND said he would reply to M. 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.

M. DE MARTINO said that considering the importance of the question, and notwithstanding that the Commission, itself had left it in suspense, he believed it his duty to make a formal reservation on behalf of his Government.

M. MATSUI said the question did not arise for Japan as it did not send troops of occupation, but they agreed with the Commission as far as the interpretation of the Treaty was concerned.

GENERAL CAVALLERO said that with regard to the costs of military occupation, it would be well to make a distinction between the question of advances which was 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 was no doubt that the expenses would 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 was not provided for; possibly it was an omission, at any rate it was a point to be defined. In the case of Allenstein the occupation itself was not provided for, and still less the repayment of the costs of occupation.

SIR EYRE CROWE asked what was the intention of the Italian Delegate in declaring that the matter had to be defined. Did he mean that a new Treaty had to be concluded with Germany or simply that the Supreme Council had to take a new decision? If he meant a decision of the Supreme Council he (Sir Eyre Crowe) would remark that the Council had already decided that all the costs would be a charge on the interested territories. They had already given their interpretation: what more could be done?

M. BERTHELOT said that in his interview with Herr von Simson he had indicated that that question was precisely of the same type as those which were 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 said that that was a question of application of the Treaty, upon which it was 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 would 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 prevented 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 stated that the Council agreed on the conclusions numbered 1 and 2, point 3 remaining to be settled between the Governments. M. DE MARTINO said the question of advances brought up the question of exchange, which was particularly important for the Italians. They proposed that the advance to be effected for troops, no matter to what nation they belonged, should be made in marks. It was 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 was 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