Appendix A to HD-118 Note From the Drafting Committee Relative to the Conditions Covering the Delivery of German Ships It is evident primarily that Germany, aside from the materiel left to her, must deliver all material whether it belongs or not to the cruisers to be handed over; that is, whether it belongs to cruisers to be delivered in execution of the Treaty as [or?] those to be delivered in execution of the Protocol. The question arises as to whether, after the delivery of the materiel, Germany is justified in demanding its destruction. According to certain members of the Committee, any demands on the part of Germany would in this case be without foundation for the following reasons: 1. In the first place, it may be argued that upon complete delivery of the materiel, Article 192 becomes annulled as far as Germany is concerned, and its destruction is a measure which concerns the Principal Powers exclusively and is no affair of Germany's. On this basis, a German [demand?] would be inadmissible. 2.-Even admitting that Article 192 intended to establish Germany's right to demand destruction, it could be held that Article 185, 1-by stipulating that this or that ship is to be "delivered”, provides for the delivery of the ships and all their armament, that is, their materiel. Article 183, 2-by stipulating that these ships are to be in a state of disarmament does not impose any restriction in the obligation to deliver but only indicates in what condition the ships should be delivered, and does not imply any reduction in the armament or materiel to be delivered. If it were otherwise, it would be difficult to see why, referring to the ships now interned in neutral ports, Article 184 should provide for their delivery inclusive of material. The solution to the question should be the same in both cases. Consequently, the material referred to here does not come under the provision for destruction as provided in Article 192, and any claims made by Germany under this head would be unjustified. Certain members of the Committee, on the contrary believe that the texts of the Treaty and the Protocol (which refers to the Treaty) [and] the arguments above referred to would not be sufficiently strong to reply successfully to an objection on the part of Germany. On the other hand, concerning the five cruisers to be delivered in execution of the Protocol, the difficulty could be solved by means of an interpretative note of the said Protocol. DECEMBER 27, 1919. 'Appendix C to HD-80, vol. VIII, p. 865. For the Drafting Committee HENRI FROMAGEOT Appendix B to HD-118 PARIS, December 29, 1919. Note as to the Material Taken From German Warships 9 It appears from the exchange of opinions which took place before the Council 10 as well as from the Drafting Committee's note of December 27th, that: 1) It is possible to consider as not being part of the material referred to in Article 192 of the Treaty, which was to be broken up, the material disembarked from ships the delivery of which is prescribed by the Treaty of Peace as well as by the Protocol of November 1st.11 2) This is possible without changing the texts and without asking the Germans, in advance, whether they consent to this material not being destroyed. 3) As any written or oral request on the part of the Allies would certainly meet with a refusal, on the part of the Germans, it is better to refrain from taking any steps in this direction. These considerations would allow each of the five Great Powers to bring to their ports the material and the munitions of the ships attributed to them. In view of the fact that the preceding propositions refer only to the light cruisers and destroyers which were not to be broken up, it is proposed that the resolutions of December 18th and 20th be modified as follows: "The Interallied Naval Mission of Control will take the necessary measures to ensure that the material belonging to the light cruisers and destroyers which were not to be broken up, be delivered in full and not destroyed". COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ALLIED ARMIES General Staff 1* Section Appendix C to HD-118 GENERAL ALLIED HEADQUARTERS, From: Marshal Foch, To: Mr. Clemenceau. After the interview I had with you on Dec. 24, I received a telegram informing me that General Niessel has probably left Riga on Dec. 22, for Berlin. Consequently, I am sending to General Niessel in Berlin, a confirmation of the telegram which I sent him on the 23rd to Riga, to • Drafted by the naval experts of the French Delegation. 10 HD-113, minute 6, p. 599; HD-114, minute 3, p. 613; HD-117, minute 4, p. 672. "Appendix C to HD-80, vol. VIII, p. 865. 518640-46-VOL. IX-45 order him to limit his intervention concerning the reparations claimed from the German Government, by the Lithuanian and Lettich Governments. Moreover, I invite him to wait in Berlin, instead of in Riga, for any ulterior instructions which might eventually order him to Reval, in case the Supreme Council should deem it necessary to entrust him with negotiations with the Esthonian Government, for the settlement of the question of the Youdenitch Army. [Annex] Telegram STOCKHOLM, December 22, 1919, 2 p. m. I have just received from Riga, dated yesterday, the following tele gram: "Diplomatic No. 107. 1-General Youdenitch went back this afternoon, after having failed in his negotiations. The Government is very displeased with the Esthonians, who refuse to permit the cession to Latvia of the material of the North West Army. 2-General Niessel intends to leave tomorrow night, Monday. He has had here the best reception, and has produced (omission) a deep and favorable impression. 3-General Turner of the Interallied Mission will remain at Riga as Chief of the English Military Missions." DELAVAUD 12 Appendix D to HD-118 Note From Drafting Committee to Supreme Council Relative [to] German Diplomatic Representatives in Neutral Countries From: Drafting Committee. To: Supreme Council. GERMAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES IN NEUTRAL COUNTRIES DECEMBER 24, 1919. The Supreme Council decided, July 25, 1919,18 to invite Germany to "furnish new credentials to those of her diplomatic agents, accredited sbroad by the former Imperial Government, at present in function". 1. The Minister of France at Caracas advises that the German Minister to Venezuela is an agent accredited by the former Imperial "Louis Charles Delavaud, French Minister at Stockholm. "HD-13, minute 17, and appendices L and M, vol. ví, pp. 268, 301, and 302. Government (in whose favor he is continuing his propaganda) and he has never presented any credentials from the new German Govern ment. Regarding this point, it is evident that the German minister, representing a fallen sovereign, cannot legally be considered the German representative to Venezuela. An observation to the effect to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Venezuela would legally be justified. 2. The question has arisen as to whether German diplomatic agents, accredited by the former Imperial Government but having presented credentials from the new government, can take advantage of the seniority acquired by means of their former credentials. This point is of interest in the recognition of the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps. Hitherto, according to diplomatic rules and practices, new credentials, of the same rank, have been recognized as not modifying the seniority acquired by the priority of the first reception. The instructions of the Secretary of State of the United States of May 27, 1886 (IV, Moore's Digest, p. 734) are to this effect, and authors on the subject express the same opinion. After the Russian Revolution, new credentials were presented by the Russian Ambassador in Paris who still holds the rank acquired in seniority. The thesis that Germany of today is different from the former Russian Empire, would be dangerous, owing to the consequences that could be deducted from it. Under those conditions, the Drafting Committee is unanimously of the opinion that a protest from the Allied and Associated Powers regarding the rank, acquired by seniority, of German diplomatic agents, in neutral capitals would not be opportune. For the Drafting Committee Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/119 HD-119 Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon's Room, Quai d'Orsay, Paris, Tuesday, December 30, 1919, at 10: 30 a. m. The following were also present for items in which they were concerned : BRITISH EMPIRE Capt. Fuller, R. N. Cdt. MacNamara, R. N. Mr. Malkin. FRANCE M. Loucheur M. Cambon M. Laroche ITALY Gen. Cavallero C. Adl. Grassi M. Pilotti JAPAN M. Shigemitsu |