Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/105 HD-105 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 Wednesday, December 3, 1919, at 10: 30 a. m. The following were also present for items in which they were concerned: AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF Mr. E. L. Dresel Rear-Admiral McCully, U. S. N. Colonel J. A. Logan Lieut-Commander Koehler, U. S. N. Mr. A. W. Dulles BRITISH EMPIRE General Sackville-West General Mance Captain Fuller, R. N. Mr. Palairet Mr. A. Leeper FRANCE General LeRond Commandant LeVavasseur M. Mauclere M. Kammerer ITALY General Cavallero M. Vannutelli-Rey Commandant Fea JAPAN M. Shigemitsu 1. M. CAMBON said that in the absence of M. Clemenceau, who regretted being unable to attend the meeting before eleven o'clock, he Personnel for the German Mine proposed to commence with the discussion of the seventh point on the agenda, which related to the personnel for the German mine sweeping service. (The Council had before it a note from the naval representatives relative to the said question (See Appendix "A").) M. CAMBON observed that the Council had before it an unanimous report of the naval representatives which proposed to some extent to grant the German request relative to retaining a certain number of men for mine sweeping, who should not be included in the total strength of the German Navy laid down by Article 183 of the Treaty of Versailles. SIR EYRE CROWE saw no objection to adopting the unanimous report of the naval experts, but he wished to observe that a concession was thereby being made to the Germans since according to the terms of the Treaty of Peace the total strength of the German Navy was not to exceed fifteen thousand men. He felt that this was not a very opportune moment to let the Germans know that such a concession was being made. Consequently, he thought it might be well to adopt the report in principle but not to communicate the decision to the Germans before it was known what line of action should be taken with respect to their attitude. MR. POLK stated that he was ready to agree with the views of the majority. M. SCIALOJA agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe. With respect to communicating the decision to the Germans he thought the Council might decide that point after having discussed the question raised by the present attitude of the Germans toward the Allied and Associated Powers. SIR EYRE CROWE agreed entirely. He further thought that this point might be embodied in the Protocol1 to be signed by Germany. It was decided: (1) to approve in principle the report of the naval experts relative to the personnel for the German Mine Sweeping Service (See Appendix "A"); (2) not to communicate that decision to Germany prior to a further discussion by the Council, which at that time should likewise determine whether that point should not be incorporated in the protocol to be signed by Germany. 2. (The Council had before it a note from the British Delegation dated December 1, 1919, relative to German activities in Schleswig. (See Appendix "B").) 1 Appendix C to HD-80, vol. vi, p. 865. German Activities in Schleswig SIR EYRE CROWE observed that, as was shown by the note before the Council, reports from Copenhagen indicated that the Germans were persisting in their schemes for getting around certain of the terms of the Treaty relating to the Schleswig plebiscite; thus it was that the German Colonel commanding the German troops in Schleswig had been given employment in that city and that troops under his command had been disguised as his employees. That was a barefaced subterfuge which could not be tolerated. However, he had not suggested any decision because he felt that nothing could be done until the coming into force of the Treaty. When the Treaty came into force it would be easy to send troops to Schleswig to drive out those disguised soldiers, but for the moment it seemed difficult to make any demand upon Germany on that point. He pointed out that the British report strongly urged that a third battalion be sent to the plebiscite zone. He had confined himself to bringing this request to the Council's attention. M. CAMBON said that the Council took note of Sir Eyre Crowe's statements, as well as of the request made by Sir Charles Marling. After the Treaty came into force the Council could then decide what should be done. Plans of the Turkish Government Relative to the Reconstruction of Constantinople (This was agreed to.) 3. (Upon the request of M. Scialoja that question was adjourned.) (At this point M. Clemenceau entered the meeting.) Creation of a Were Part of the Monarchy 4. M. MAUCLERE said that the Subcommission created at Vienna by the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission charged with ensuring the food supply of Austria, had noted the extreme gravity of the economic situation in Vienna and the remaining Austrian territory. It had noticed that the difficulties of supply were largely due to the imperfect circulation of rolling stock. It had presented a report on this subject, dated November 4th, 1919, showing that a final distribution of rolling stock belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Empire had not been made as between the States containing territories which were part of that former Empire, inasmuch as each of those new States was trying to keep within its territories all the rolling stock which was there. They were hoping thereby to ameliorate their situation and at the moment of final distribution to obtain a larger share in proportion to the amount of rolling stock actually in their possession at that time. With a view to remedying that serious situation, the British Delegation had also proposed 1a that the Supreme Council invite the States containing territories which were part of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to send representatives immediately to Vienna, with a view to the formation in that capital of a Commission on which all the interested States of Central Europe would be represented, and which would be presided over by an Allied representative. The question had thus been presented in two different ways. On the one hand, the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission was considering the question through its Subcommission at Vienna; on the other hand, the Supreme Council had had the question directly presented to it by the British Delegation. Those two propositions were inspired by somewhat the same motives. The Supreme Council having then referred the examination of the question to the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission, the latter had referred it to its Subcommission especially charged with Austrian questions, and had presented to the Supreme Council a report suggesting a decision. The text of that report was as follows: "Whereas, one of the principal causes of the serious difficulties which are disturbing the economic life of the states of central Europe is the tendency which is sometimes manifested to withhold the railway cars which are on their territory, or enter it; Whereas, there is at the present time no organization with sufficient authority to insure the indispensable circulation of the rolling stock of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire; Whereas, it would be advisable to create to that effect a Commission which, moreover, would be entirely separate from the Commission of Experts which is charged with the distribution of the AustroHungarian rolling stock, under the Presidency of Sir Francis Dent; and, whereas, nevertheless, Sir Francis Dent seems to be qualified to be also the President of this new Commission; Whereas, on the other hand there is already in Vienna a subcommission of the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission, which was created in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Council,2 to study and propose the necessary measures to improve the revictualling of Austria, the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission proposes to the Supreme Council the following decision: 1st. For the above-mentioned purposes, a sub-commission shall be instituted in Vienna within the shortest time possible, charged with ensuring and regulating the circulation of rolling stock on all of the railway systems which were comprised within the frontiers of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. 2nd. This sub-commission shall be subordinated to the Vienna sub-commission of the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission. 3rd. The Governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, Poland, Roumania, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the Czecho-Slovak Republic, Austrià, and Hungary, shall be invited by the Supreme Council to appoint representatives on this sub-commission. "HD-66, minute 3, vol. vi, p. 508. The invitation to Hungary might be made through the intermediary of Sir George Clerk. 4th. This sub-commission shall be charged with: (a)-Proposing to the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission the suppression of all other Interallied organizations and commissions, whose powers are apt to duplicate those of the new commission. (b)-Organizing the control of the rolling stock at the present frontiers of the various interested States. (c)-Assuring the normal exchange and return of railway coaches and locomotives; with the right of eventually making remonstrances on this subject to all the States which may be withholding such rolling stock. (d)-Studying and recommending all provisions intended to expedite transportation between the various interested regions, especially with a view to improving the revictualling. (e)-Proposing all proper measures for the representation of the interests of Eastern Galicia." 3 The Supreme Council approved that proposal and a letter was being prepared to be sent to the various interested Governments when the Supreme Council received a new note from the British Government (See H. D. 104, Appendix "E"), which showed that a misunderstanding had arisen. The British Delegation, in fact, wished the proposed new Commission to be fully independent of the Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission. The Committee on Organization of the Reparation Commission had considered that note and had decided, with the exception of the British Delegate who maintained his point of view, that there was no reason to modify the draft decision of the Supreme Council. SIR EYRE CROWE wished to point out some of the reasons which determined the attitude of the British Delegation on that question. The question was an old one since it had been raised on September 26th [29th? 3]. The British Delegation thought that under present conditions the intervention of the Reparation Commission was in no wise justified, and its information led it to believe that the proposed procedure would not be accepted by Poland, Czecho-Slovakia or any of the new Allied States which were in no way subject to that Commission. The Reparation Commission in fact was a body which had been created to act in the interests of the Allies against the enemy Powers. It therefore, was not qualified to intervene in the relations between the Allied and Associated Powers and Allied States. Moreover there was in existence a Commission charged with the distribution of AustroHungarian rolling stock. That Commission acted on principles entirely different from a juridical point of view from those actuating the Reparation Commission. Indeed it only acted in the general |