imposed on Germany; but if the German question were detached from the rest of the questions which called for settlement, that would be like constituting a second front, and he could never accept a proposal of that kind. Such a procedure would have most deplorable and most disastrous results in Italy, for it would be impossible to keep such decisions from the ears of the public. If the Conference persisted in its intention, he (M. Sonnino) could not prevent it: each member must vote as he thought best; but he could not approve a decision which would constitute a positive menace to his own country. He would not be opposed to priority being eventually given to the German questions, if those were the first to become ripe for solution. But he could not agree that a condition to that effect should be made in advance. LORD MILNER enquired whether it would not be more important than anything else for the Conference to devote its time to a consideration of the final naval and military terms with Germany, provided the reports of the military advisers were ready. Once an agreement was reached on that subject, one compartment of the peace work would be finally dispensed with, even though the decisions reached were not at once presented to Germany. MR. HOUSE persisted in his opinion that the Conference should go back to Mr. Balfour's original proposal as regards Germany, and then pass similar resolutions as regards Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. He thought no one could object to that procedure. MR. BALFOUR thought that a decision had been reached that the Conference would not proceed with the military terms of peace as a separate proposition, and he regretted that M. Sonnino had again referred to that proposal. M. Clemenceau objected to it, and he (Mr. Balfour) did not wish to insist. In any case, it was a relatively small matter. The question of real importance was whether the Conference should decide to press on all questions leading to peace with Germany without getting entangled with all other questions relating to Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. He felt very strongly on that point and urged his colleagues to accept the proposals contained in the fourth paragraph of his revised note. M. SONNINO enquired whether Mr. Balfour would agree to accept Mr. House's and Mr. Lansing's proposal. MR. BALFOUR said he preferred his own draft, but he would accept Mr. House's proposal merely with a view to reach a unanimous agreement. M. PICHON said he would accept Mr. House's proposal for the reason given by Mr. Balfour. M. SONNINO also expressed his willingness to accept Mr. House's proposal as an act of conciliation. He understood that four texts would be prepared, identic in form, except that a different enemy country would be mentioned in each. The note would, in each case, commence with the words: "The Conference agree that it is desirable to proceed without delay to the consideration of preliminary peace terms, etc." BARON MAKINO enquired whether the approximate future frontiers of Germany, referred to in paragraph 2 (a), included the German colonies. Amendments to MR. BALFOUR replied that it was intended to include Mr. Balfour's First the colonies. Proposal BARON MAKINO thought that, in that case, leased territories of Germany should also be included. MR. LANSING proposed that paragraph 2 (a) should be made to read "The approximate future frontiers of Germany and the renunciation of colonial territories and treaty rights outside Europe", the words "and the renunciation of colonial territories and treaty rights outside Europe" being omitted from the texts relating to Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. (This was agreed to.) MR. LANSING further proposed that the first part of paragraph 2 should be made to read as follows: "The preliminary peace terms, other than naval, military and air conditions, should cover, inter alia, the following points." (This was agreed to.) M. KLOTZ suggested that paragraph 2 (b) should be made to read: "the financial conditions to be imposed on . (This was agreed to.) MR. LANSING next proposed that paragraph 2 (c) should be made to read: "the economic conditions to be accorded to ...." (This was agreed to.) M. MATSUI enquired, with reference to paragraph 2 (a), whether that would include all rights, such as rights over the railways and mines in China acquired by Germany. MR. BALFOUR thought that the words "inter alia" would cover such questions. MR. LANSING agreed, and remarked that the words "inter alia" would also cover the question of prisoners of war, which he had intended to raise separately. (It was agreed that texts of the following draft Note, relating respectively to Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria, should be prepared and distributed that evening, for consideration at the next meeting of the Conference: "1. The Conference agree that it is desirable to proceed without delay to the consideration of preliminary peace terms with .. and to press on the necessary investigations with all possible speed. 2. The Preliminary Peace Terms, other than the naval, military and air conditions, should cover inter alia the following points: (a) the approximate future frontiers of . (for Germany only: and the renunciation of colonial territories and treaty rights outside Europe); (b) the financial conditions to be imposed on (d) responsibility for breaches of the laws of war. 3. In order that the Conference may have at its disposal with the least possible delay the results of the labours of the various Commissions which have been investigating those subjects, it is requested that the various Commissions will send in their reports to the SecretaryGeneral not later than Saturday, March 8th. This will not apply to Commissions set up after February 15th which may be unable to render their final reports at so early a date, but it is requested that in those cases interim reports may be presented dealing with all matters affecting the preliminaries of peace with. . . . . .:') 3. M. PICHON suggested that the statement of the Albanian claims should be heard on Monday, as well as a French statement relating to Morocco. Agenda for Next MR. BALFOUR said that he wished another question to be entered on the agenda for the next meeting, namely, the sending of troops to Poland. Very strong recommendations had been received on this subject from the British members of the Allied Commission in Poland. M. PICHON pointed out that this question had been referred to the Polish Commission sitting in Paris. The reports received from the Polish Commission in Poland had been transmitted to the Commission in Paris, which had been created with a view to co-ordinating the information received from Poland. MR. BALFOUR said that he understood that the Commission on Poland in Paris were ready to submit a report on the subject of the sending of troops to Poland. M. PICHON agreed that under the circumstances the Committee would be invited to bring their report on the despatch of troops to Poland on Monday, as well as any other questions ready for discussion. (It was agreed that the following questions should be placed on the Agenda Paper for the Meeting to be held on Monday afternoon, February 24th, at 3 p. m.: 1. Procedure of Conference. 2. Statement of the Albanian claims. 3. Despatch of troops to Poland. (4) On the proposal of MR. LANSING, the following resolution was accepted: Creation of a Neutral Zone in It is agreed "In view of the fact that disorders have arisen in Carinthia as result of the absence of a definite boundary between the territories of the German-Austrians and the Yugo-Slavs, That the question of the establishment of a neutral zone between the two peoples be referred to the same Military Committee charged with the investigation of establishing neutral zones in the Banat and Transylvania, (Military Representatives, Supreme War Council, Versailles)." (The Meeting then adjourned until Monday, February 24th, 1919, at 3 p. m.) PARIS, February 23rd, 1919. |