Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/100 HD-100 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 Tuesday, November 25, 1919, at 10:30 a. m. The following were also present for items in which they were concerned: AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF Mr. A. W. Dulles BRITISH EMPIRE FRANCE Marshal Foch General Weygand General Le Rond M. Hermite M. Kammerer ITALY M. Vannutelli-Rey M. Stranieri JAPAN M. Shigemitsu 1. MARSHAL FоCH informed the Council that he had received a telegram from General Niessel, dated November 23rd (See Appendix Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces "A"). According to this telegram the Germans were 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 had 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 desired the Council to make strong representations to the German Government. He proposed to send a telegram to General Niessel telling him that he had full power to take whatever measures seemed to him fitting and that any action on the part of the Council seemed calculated only to retard a satisfactory solution. SIR EYRE CROWE asked if any news had 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 was such an armistice. GENERAL WEYGAND said he did 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 was decided: to approve the terms of the draft telegram prepared by Marshal Foch to be sent to General Niessel (See Appendix "B"). 2. MR. WHITE referred to the resolution adopted by the Council at its previous meeting (See H. D. 99, Minute 3),1 and announced that he accepted the proposals of the report in question. 1 3. M. BERTHELOT informed the Council that the Roumanian answer had not yet actually arrived. General Coanda, who was bringing this answer was on his way to Paris. According to the Roumanian 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 Roumanian throne had indicated that 2 Appendix A to HD-93, p. 182. under no conditions was Roumania willing to permit a rupture between herself and the Allied and Associated Powers. M. Antonescu had confirmed this information. SIR EYRE CROWE pointed out that a real difficulty existed. He had 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 Roumanians 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 informed the Council that he had 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 Roumanian Government. An important part was still lacking and was being awaited before the note was presented. M. Misu, however, already knew the substance of the note through General Coanda. The French Chargé d'Affaires had made urgent representations to the Roumanian Minister of Foreign Affairs as to the gravity of the situation, which permitted of no delay, and had told him that the Roumanian 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. M. 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 reminded the Council that the Roumanians had been told that they could not sign the Bulgarian Treaty until they had signed the Austrian Treaty.* As they could not sign the Austrian Treaty within the two ensuing days he did not see how they could sign the Bulgarian Treaty on November 27th. M. BERTHELOT suggested that a protocol could be signed, as had been the case at the time of signing the Austrian Treaty, giving the Roumanians additional time within which to sign the Bulgarian Treaty. That time might be fixed at a week. M. DE MARTINO agreed that the Council should take no further action towards Roumania until the Roumanian reply had been received. M. BERTHELOT pointed out that all indications were that the Roumanians were certainly going to sign. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government was prepared to sign the Treaty with Austria as well as the See telegram to the British Chargé, appendix B to HD-68, vol. ví, p. 583. 'See HD-78, minute 3, ibid., p. 805. Minorities Treaty and the financial arrangements. The Drafting Committee had prepared a draft agreement of adhesion to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government which would be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain. With respect to the Roumanians the situation was different. The Minorities Treaty concerning Roumania had 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 Roumanians. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers therefore could not sign this Treaty until the final terms thereof had been settled after consultation with the Roumanian Representatives. SIR EYRE CROWE felt that the Roumanians 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 Suggested that after the receipt of the Roumanian reply the Roumanian 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 Roumanian representatives; that said Treaty, as well as the Treaty of Saint Germain and the agreements related thereto, be signed by Roumania within that week. M. BERTHELOT read the draft agreement of adhesion, prepared by the Drafting Committee, to be signed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government (See Appendix "C"). It was 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 (2) that within one week from November 27th Roumania 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-CroatSlovene Delegation be communicated to all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Saint Germain. 4. (The Council had before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the Minorities Treaty (See Appendix "D").) Note From the M. KAMMERER commented upon the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation and stated that, on the whole, this note was satisfactory. He pointed out that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation had presented its interpretation of the clauses relative to freedom of 518640-46-VOL. IX- -22 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 thought that the Serbian interpretation was, in fact, correct and he therefore proposed that no reply be sent to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. The question could therefore be considered settled. It was decided: that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers were 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. (See Appendix “D”). 5. (The Council had before it the Bulgarian reply regarding reciprocal immigration between Greece and Bulgaria, dated November 23rd, (See Appendix "E").) Reply to the ing the Treaty on Reciprocal Immigration M. KAMMERER commented upon this note from the Delegation Regard- Bulgarian Delegation and stated that it was 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 considered that the Treaty between Bulgaria and Greece relative to reciprocal immigration was 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, made that point clear. In order to meet the difficulty the Drafting Committee proposed the following solution: the Supreme Council should reach a decision which would be inserted in the preamble of the Greco-Bulgarian Treaty; for technical reasons it was preferable that this decision be dated Thursday, November 27th. The wording of the proposed decision was 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 represented the unanimous opinion of the Committee on New States, with the exception that the Italian repre |