Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

MR. HOUSE proposed that the discussion be adjourned until the following Thursday.

M. CLEMENCEAU agreed, but suggested that the three Commissions should meet together and co-ordinate their Reports in time for the renewal of the discussion on Thursday.

(This was agreed to.)

M. SONNINO asked whether the terms to be imposed on Austria and Hungary would also be discussed.

(It was agreed that the Note put forward by Marshal FochAppendix "A"-should be submitted to the Council on Thursday.) MARSHAL FOCH asked that the question of Germany's future frontiers should also be taken up.

(e) Delimitation of German Frontiers

M. CLEMENCEAU said that in the absence of Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson, it would not be possible to undertake the discussion of this question. 3. GENERAL BELIN begged to submit a Joint Note of the Military and Naval Advisers to the Supreme War Council on this subject, in pursuance of the reference made on the 17th Feb. (I. C. 144, Minute 5.)2

Question of Permitting the Transfer by Sea of German Troops to Eastern Prussia and Latvia

(For Joint Note see Annexure "B".)

(After some discussion the Joint Note was ac

cepted, and Marshal Foch was requested to communicate the result to the Germans.)

4. M. SONNINO proposed that the Montenegrin case should be heard. (It was agreed that a statement on behalf of Montenegro should be heard on the following Wednesday, at 3 p. m.)

Agenda for Next

Meeting.

Montenegro

(The Military, Naval and Air conditions of Peace were postponed until the following Thursday, and the question of Russia to a later date.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

PARIS, 4th March, 1919.

Annexure "A"

Note Concerning Limitation of Armaments in Austria-Hungary

The Military and Aviation members of the Committee appointed by the Supreme Allied Council to define the limitation of armaments, after examining the very detailed proposals of the Italian Delegation concerning the armaments of the late Austro-Hungarian Empire, beg the Supreme Council of the Allies to re-examine the question as a whole. They further express the view that frontiers should be laid down as speedily as possible between the various States which * See BC-34 (SWC-9), p. 27.

are to be set up in the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Once this delimitation has been made, the members of the Committee will make recommendations similar to those made for Germany for such of those States as are considered enemy States. The Naval Delegates have agreed to the text attached to this Note.

Appendix "B"

NAVAL AND MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES,
VERSAILLES, 3rd March, 1919.

Report on the Question of Permitting Transport by Sea of German Troops to East Prussia and to Latvia

(In Execution of the Decision of the Supreme War Council

[blocks in formation]

The Naval and Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council,

After taking cognizance:

A. Of the request of the German Government for:

Free passage by sea between German ports in the West and ports of the Eastern shores of the Baltic for ships carrying troops, military stores and coal, in order to continue the struggle against the Bolsheviks on the frontiers of East Prussia and in Latvia;

B. Of the opinion expressed by the Blockade Committee at their Meeting of February 24th to the effect that the Naval and Military Representatives on the Supreme War Council were alone competent to express an opinion;

Considering further:

(a) That the request of the German Government described above is contrary to Articles 12 and 13 of the Armistice Convention concluded on the 11th November 1918 with Germany;

(b) That Marshal Foch has already, on several occasions, refused to comply with a German demand for the rearming of certain Naval Units, notably on the 24th January, 1919 and on the 13th February, and that a similar refusal was made by the Naval Armistice Commission;

(c) That the authorisation for the Government of Germany to transport troops and material beyond the pre-war frontiers of Germany would lead to the sanctioning of co-operation in a common struggle against the Bolshevik of German forces on the one hand and 'See BC-34 (SWC-9), p. 27.

of Russian contingents on the other, for whose up-keep and supply the Allies will be answerable;

That from this state of things might arise claims made by the German Government and even discussions with that Government likely to impede the work of the Peace Conference;

(d) That the Germans have already attempted to re-establish commercial relations in the Baltic, contrary to all the rules of the Blockade and specially to Article 8 of the Armistice Convention of January 16th last, which provides for the delivery to the Allies of the whole German Commercial Fleet for use in re-victualling Europe;

The Naval and Military Representatives are of opinion

1. That there is no ground for granting the German request to transport troops and supplies in the Baltic from West to East.

2. That the Blockade of Germany should be maintained in full force as at present in the Baltic.

3. That in order to prevent the Germans from representing this denial as an abandonment by the Allies of the Baltic provinces to the mercy of Bolshevism, it is urgently necessary to examine the question of furnishing support to such local contingents as may be in a position to resist the Bolshevik troops.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/51

BC-44 SWC-11

Secretary's Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, March 5, 1919, at

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

1. M. CLEMENCEAU opened the Meeting with a statement that he had an application from the Belgian Delegation to be given representation in the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Nations when the subject of preliminary peace terms was being discussed. Belgium claimed to be as vitally interested in the terms formulated as any other nation represented in the Council, and he thought it would be

Admission of Belgium to Deliberations Concerning Preliminaries of Peace in the Supreme War Council

difficult to refuse her request.

MR. BALFOUR agreed that a refusal would be very difficult, but he asked the Council to consider the consequence of admitting Belgian delegates. It would set a precedent which would give rise to claims by the other small Powers, some of whom were equally interested, as for instance the Poles, the whole future of whose country depended on the terms that would be considered.

MR. LANSING suggested that the Bohemians might well claim an equal interest.

MR. HOUSE thought the difference between the Belgians and the other cases mentioned was, that the latter were newly created States while the Belgians had waged the entire war with the Allies.

MR. BALFOUR was not sure that the distinction could be sustained. Poland had been acknowledged and had representatives on an equal footing in the Plenary Conference. It might be difficult to justify any discrimination between her status and that of Belgium. The same question might then arise in regard to Serbia, Greece, Portugal, etc. He would like to have representatives of all of them present were he assured that their presence would not materially reduce the Council's ability to do business.

M. CLEMENCEAU called attention to the fact that a rule had already been adopted in the regulations for the Conference, which provided that delegates of every nation should be admitted when a subject was being discussed in which they were interested. Belgian representatives must, therefore, be admitted when such a subject as the West frontier of Germany was under discussion, while Polish representatives would have to be admitted under this rule when the Eastern frontier was being discussed.

(It was agreed that the right of the Belgian Government to be represented on the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers during the discussion of the Preliminary Peace Terms should

« AnteriorContinuar »