[Sailor Steve]

Friday, November 7, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 10:30

Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers.


1. Sir Eyre Crowe states he cannot nominate the British Representatives as the experts of the British Delegation on that subject were in London.

S de Martino wished to remark that there already was a Commission of Responsibilities.

M Escoffier says the Commission of Responsibilities has finished its work; this was a question for a special Commission charged with the preparation of the execution of Articles 228 and 229 of the Treaty with Germany.

M Pichon says that the Council agrees that the nomination of this Commission should be adjourned, but it is important that this should be settled in as short a time as possible.

M de Martino thinks an adjournment necessary as he would have to get in touch with his Government.

(It is decided:

(1) That a Commission will be nominated,
(a) To compare the lists of individuals charged with crimes to be delivered by the German Government;
(b) To decide the composition, procedure and seat of the mixed tribunals to be set up under Article 229 of the Treaty with Germany;

(2) That the Principal Allied and Associated Powers nominate as soon as possible their representatives on this Commission.)


2. The Council has before it a report of the Military Representatives at Versailles on the subject.

(After a short discussion,

It is decided to approve the report of the Military Representatives at Versailles dated November 5th, in answer to the request for instructions received from the Chairman of the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany.)


3. Sir Eyre Crowe regrets that this declaration has been delayed by numerous communications with his Government. The present proposal results from the proposition which had already been made by the American Delegation and also by the Polish Commission; in a few words, this proposition tends to eliminate anything in the nature of a temporary arrangement. The British Government is opposed to anything leading to a final union of Eastern Galicia and Poland. It has also discussed the question with Mr Paderewski and has pointed out to the latter that Poland would be acting in a sense diametrically opposed to the claims made by Poland for the district of Teschen. A large majority of the population in Eastern Galicia is not Polish. The British Government thinks that they ought not to shut the door to the real aims of Eastern Galicia which would allow its population to join other nationalities. It wishes, therefore, to adopt the following suggestion, namely: Poland will get a Mandate for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations for a determined period, such as 15 years; the League of Nations can then consider whether Eastern Galicia should be joined to Poland or make some other political arrangement. The British point of view insists that the settlement should be provisional. He personally had done his best to conciliate the views of the Council with those of the British Cabinet.

Mr Polk regrets that they are unable to reach an agreement on this subject; but he adds that he has not given up hope of finding a satisfactory solution. What impresses the American Delegation is that if a date is fixed for a Mandate, it would mean that Galicia would be in a state of ferment, and Poland remain in uncertainty over this grave question. This case is not the same as that of other countries where a Plebiscite was asked for; it would be difficult to see where Eastern Galicia would go, if not to Poland. The problem is all the more difficult for Eastern Galicia on account of fighting taking place between Ukrainia and the Bolshevists on one side and Denikin on the other side. He wishes to ask Sir Eyre Crowe the difference he makes between the position of the British Government at this time and the position that it had taken before.

Sir Eyre Crowe answers that it is no longer a question of a plebiscite, but of giving a Mandate to Poland for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations.

Mr Polk suggests that the views of the British Delegation should be referred to the Polish Commission for examination and report for Monday, November 10th.

M Pichon agrees.

(It is decided to refer to the Polish Commission for examination and report to the Supreme Council on November 10th, 1919, the proposal made by the British Delegation tending to give Poland a Mandate for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations for a determined period.


4. The Council has before it a note from the German Delegation dated October 3rd, 1919, on the organization of the plebiscite in Eupen and Malmedy, and the observations presented by the Belgian Delegation in its letter of October 14th, 1919.

Mr Polk says this matter has been brought to his attention and he understands the good faith of the Council is involved. He would suggest that this be referred to the Belgian Committee for examination.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that the Belgian Commission should prepare a draft answer to the German Note which the Council would have before it on Monday.

(It is decided:

(1) To refer back to the Commission on Belgian Affairs for examination the Note from the German Delegation dated October 3rd, on the organization of the plebiscite in Eupen and Malmedy, as well as the observations of the Belgian Delegation dated October 14th, 1919.

(2) That the Commission on Belgian Affairs should present to the Supreme Council at its meeting on November 10th, 1919, a draft reply to the German note.)


5. The Council has before it a report from the American representative on the Inter-Allied Railway Mission relative to the removal by German authorities of the material belonging to the German Government at Danzig.

Mr Polk suggests that this question be referred back to the Drafting Committee for examination and report.

(It is decided to refer back to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the note of the American representative on the Inter-Allied Railway Commission in Poland, with regard to the removal of German Government property from Danzig.


6. Mr Polk repeats what he said at a preceding meeting: The President will be very glad to call the first meeting of the Council, but the question has been raised in Washington as to his power under Article V of the Covenant to call the meeting before the Treaty had come into force: under Article V his power exists only from the date of the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty; his suggestion is that the meeting should take place on the following day, but he has no objection to the procedure adopted by the Drafting Committee and in turn adopted by the other members of the Council. The real trouble is that the letter will be issued at a time when the pact had not yet come into force.

M Pichon thinks in that case that the convocation of the first meeting might be issued on the day when the ratifications are exchanged, and then that the meeting could take place the following day.

Mr Polk makes it clear that he does not wish to insist on this, if the other members of the Council preferred the other solution.

M Berthelot pointed out that the difficulty lay in the period which would elapse between the deposit of ratifications and the first meeting of the Council.

Sir Eyre Crowe suggests that the President of the United States can now advise the Powers represented on the Council of the League of Nations that as soon as the treaty had been put into force by the deposit of ratifications, the President, acting under Article V of the Covenant, will send a telegram calling the first meeting, and it will be advisable to take all the necessary measures in provision of this convocation.

Mr Polk thinks that Sir Eyre Crowe’s suggestion is already covered by M Clemenceau’s letter. He also suggests that the State Department in Washington, on being advised of the exact hour of the deposit of ratifications, can notify the representatives at Washington of the Powers which are to be represented on the Council of the League of Nations, the first meeting of the Council; on the other hand, all the necessary measures will have been taken for the first meeting to take place.

M Fromageot says he understands the American argument, but thinks there is great analogy between this case and the convocation of the Labor Conference at Washington.

Mr Polk says that everyone in America is attacking the legality of this convocation.

M Fromageot thinks that if the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations considers only the question of nominating the Commission charged with the delimitation of the boundaries of the Sarre district, the Council of the League of Nations would then have fifteen days within which to nominate the Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe suggests there is the possibility of a ratification by the United States, in which case the first meeting might have a longer agenda: It is therefore important that the convocation of the first meeting should be considered immediately.

M Pichon proposes that the question be referred to the Drafting Committee to examine whether it was possible to take into consideration the remarks made by Mr Polk.

It is decided to refer back to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the question of procedure to be followed for the convocation of the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, taking into account remarks of a legal character made by the American Delegation.


7. M. Berthelot says that they have reasons to think that the Germans were going to answer their last Note by proposing that the conferences which were made necessary by the execution of the Treaty, should take place in Berlin on account of the great number of experts the German Government wished to send; and only the final conferences would take place in Paris.

General le Rond thinks that all the questions which cannot be considered in Paris should be taken up on the spot, and that it is not necessary to have conferences in Berlin. He also wishes to add that, as the conferences between the Allies could not begin before November 10th, it would not be possible to meet the German representatives before November 15th.


8. M Pichon states that Mr Venizelos would ask to be heard by the Council on the day that the report of the Inquiry Commission on Smyrna comes under discussion.


9. Mr Polk asks whether the question of the temporary regime of Western Thrace should not be studied by a competent Commission. He suggests that it might be referred to the Central Territorial Committee.

(This is agreed to.)

It is decided to refer back to the Central Territorial Committee for examination and report the question of the temporary regime of Western Thrace.

(The meeting then adjourns.)