On one hand, of the answer of the German Government to the resolution of the Supreme Council under date of October 11th,11 and, on the other hand, of Marshal Foch's remarks, relative to the German Note.

The Delegates unanimously decided to submit to the Supreme Council the following recommendation.

"The Special Commission has the honor to request that the two following points be specified in the reply which will be made to the German note:

"1st.-The Allied and Associated Powers have decided to incur no more expenses for the Russian prisoners of war in Germany, except those necessary for the upkeep of their representative to the International Commission in Berlin;

"2d.-The International Commission in Berlin will be a control commission only."

"Resolution not printed; for discussion thereof, see HD-68, minute 4, vol. vii, p. 579.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/103

HD-103

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, December 1, 1919, at 10: 30 a. m.

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

AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF

General Bliss

Admiral McCully, U. S. N.

Mr. E. L. Dresel

Dr. J. B. Scott

Lieut-Commander Koehler, U. S. N.

Mr. A. W. Dulles

Captain H. Pierce

BRITISH EMPIRE

General Sackville-West

Captain Fuller, R. N.

Lieut-Colonel Black

Sir P. Loraine

Mr. E. H. Carr

Mr. H. W. Malkin

FRANCE

Marshal Foch

M. Cambon

General Weygand
General Le Rond

M. Laroche
M. Fromageot

ITALY

General Cavallero
Admiral Grassi
M. Ricci-Busatti
M. Vannutelli-Rey
M. Stranieri
Commander Fea

JAPAN

M. Shigemitsu

M. Nagaoka

1. (The Council had before it a report from Sir George Clerk to the President of the Conference, dated November 29th, 1919 (See Appendix "A").

Sir George

Clerk's Report on Hungarian Affairs

SIR GEORGE CLERK summarized the report sent by him to the Council and brought out the following additional points. In his report he had mentioned the respective positions of M. Friedrich and M. Huszar and had shown how difficult it was to obtain the collaboration in the same Government of the leaders of the National Christian Party and the National Democratic and Jew leaders. Personal differences had furthermore added complications to party questions. He wished to draw the Council's attention to the unique situation in the country occupied by Archduke Joseph. It was true that he was a Hapsburg but he had always lived in Budapest; he had formerly been Palatine of Hungary and he was considered a true Hungarian. Moreover, he had been opposed to the Hapsburgs at Vienna. Archduke Joseph had taken an important part in making M. Friedrich understand the real situation. He (Sir George Clerk) had likewise pointed out in his report how greatly his mission had been helped by the position which the Allied and Associated Generals and Admiral Troubridge had acquired at Budapest. The Generals and the Admiral enjoyed in Hungary a reputation for impartiality which gave special weight to their opinions. In case the Council considered that the Mission of the Generals had now come to an end, and if it decided to recall them, it would be well to leave there some officers who had been on that Mission. It should not be forgotten that the Generals had collected a mass of documents, relating especially to the conditions under which the Roumanian requisitions were effected and to the requisitions themselves. These documents might be of great use in the future. In any event, he thought that if the Generals left Budapest the Allied and Associated Powers should replace them by High Commissioners and that some officers who had been on duty with that Mission should be placed under them. These Commissioners should be charged with the duty, and that would give the Hungarians a high opinion of the Allies' sense of justice, of establishing the events which had happened in the regions occupied by the troops of

states bordering on Hungary. He had acquired the conviction at Budapest that the Hungarians were prepared to accede to the Council's demand that peace be signed. But there were two points to which they seemed to attach great importance, and which they would like the Council to examine before the terms of the Treaty were settled. In the first place, his attention had been called to the work accomplished by the hydrographic service of the old regime. If Hungary did not constitute a unit from the ethnographical point of view, it undoubtedly did constitute one from geographical and economic points of view. The remarkable work accomplished throughout all Hungary by the hydrographic service had been carried out on a unique plan. It was greatly to be feared that if the maintenance of this work were left to the new states receiving parts of former Hungarian territory the whole system would soon be broken down. He thought it important that a permanent regime be organized which should be charged with ensuring the upkeep and development of the work accomplished in that line by the former Government. The second question raised was as to the Presidency of the Hungarian Delegation which would be sent to conclude a Treaty of Peace. For the reasons indicated in his report the Hungarians would like the Delegation to be headed by Count Apponyi who had played a great part in the recent negotiations. Unfortunately, however, Count Apponyi had a bad reputation in western Europe, and he himself was well aware of it. Nevertheless it was true that he and Count Andrassy, were perhaps the only Hungarians possessing a true knowledge of the general European situation. If he were to accept the Presidency of the Hungarian Delegation, Apponyi would be obeying his sense of duty alone. He would be guided by no personal ambition. The economic situation of Hungary like that of Austria, was desperate, unless the Allies could see their way to giving it financial aid. The territory which remained Hungarian could furnish no indispensable raw materials and the situation was all the more serious since there was scarcely any more Hungarian rolling stock in existence. It was essential to send immediately to Hungary at least the material necessary for the reparation of locomotives and cars which still remained. Finally he did not wish to fail to point out to the Council that all Hungarian public opinion was extremely eager for the return of the Hungarian and Austrian prisoners in Siberia, as to whose fate there was great anxiety. To sum up, he brought back from Budapest the impression that the Hungarians were inspired in general with a desire to collaborate with the Allies. They were beginning to realize the error they had committed, the responsibility for which, moreover, they were now placing on Austrian policy. They hoped that the Allies would help them and

give them a chance to prove their good will, otherwise, following Austria, they would have to lean towards Germany.

MR. POLK asked Sir George Clerk if the Serbs were still occupying the Pecs mines.

SIR GEORGE CLERK answered that they were.

MR. POLK thought it important that the Council reach a decision in that matter, requesting the Serbs to retire.

SIR EYRE CROWE observed that the question had last been referred to the Commission on Roumanian and Jugo-slav Affairs.

M. CLEMENCEAU suggested that that Commission be asked to submit a report the following day.

MR. POLK asked if Sir George Clerk had thought it necessary that General Bandholtz should remain at Budapest until the arrival of the civilian Allied High Commissioners or would it suffice to keep a field officer there who might not be a General.

SIR GEORGE CLERK said he only meant that it was necessary for someone to remain; he personally would recommend retaining at Budapest a field officer and several subaltern officers of each nation, so that the latter could be sent on missions throughout the country.

SIR EYRE CROWE said that Sir George Clerk had not indicated in his report what procedure he advised for entering into negotiations with Hungary. He wished to know whether it was possible to ask the Hungarian Government to send its representatives.

SIR GEORGE CLERK replied that the Hungarians were ready and were awaiting the invitation of the Council.

M. DE MARTINO observed that they could be asked to come immediately.

M. CLEMENCEAU said that it was merely necessary to send them a letter inviting them to come on a given date to a given place. Sir George Clerk had spoken a little while before of Count Apponyi. Personally he was not one of his admirers but it seemed to him very difficult to prevent his coming. The Council had never told enemy States how their Delegations should be composed and moreover he was not sure that any right existed to tell them to send such or such a person.

SIR GEORGE CLERK observed that Count Apponyi did not wish to come if his presence would be distasteful to the Supreme Council. M. CLEMENCEAU thought that the Hungarians were entitled to do what they thought best for their cause.

M. BERTHELOT observed that Count Apponyi could be reproached with always having been a rabid Germanophile and an ardent advocate of the oppression of small nationalities; evidently these facts did not recommend him to the Council.