Paris Peace Conf. 185/8a: Telegram
The Commission to Negotiate Peace to the Secretary of State
5187. For the Secretary of State from Polk: Following is list of questions which, according to the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference, have not been disposed of. I will give them in the order presented with our comments after each subject:
1. Execution of treaty with Germany. Conditions governing the resumption of diplomatic relations.
A report will be made to the Conference. There is no real difference except that Italy is rather anxious to send an Ambassador.
2. Reorganization of the Superior War Council at Versailles to centralize the measures of execution concerning the military clauses of the Peace Treaty in Germany and in the different occupied territories.
I have your 3665, November 4, 3 p.m.5
3. Extradition and trial of the Kaiser.
No report has been made on that as yet. If this matter is not disposed of before Mission leaves, Ambassador could be charged with the duty of conveying the instructions of the Department.
4. Nomination of the members of the Commission entrusted with the comparison of the lists of culprits presented by the different Powers and to regulate a procedure for the mixed tribunals.
If this matter is not disposed of before December 1st the Ambassador could convey views of Department if we have any intention of mixing in this matter. Your views on this question and the question of the trial of the Kaiser would be appreciated.
5. Togo and Cameroun. Employment of native contingents for the defense of metropolitan and colonial territory.
This is a point that has to do with mandates and should go to the Council of the League of Nations, as mandates have not been completed and we believe it is not time to take any of these matters up now.
6. Signing of treaty with Austria by Serbs and Roumanians and signing of minority treaties by those powers.
We are reaching an agreement with the Serbs. The Roumanian question promises to remain open. This could be handled through the Ambassador, getting his instructions from the Department.
7. Execution of treaty with Bulgaria. Question of the attribution of Bulgarian Thrace.
This will probably be disposed of before we leave.
8. Treaty with Hungary. Question of total or partial payment of the Roumanian occupation expenses.
[Page 663]If not disposed of this should go to Reparation Committee.
(a) Furnishing of coal to Hungary by Poland and Czechs.
This should go to Reparation Committee.
(b) Exploitation of the Pecs Mines.
This is a question of getting the Serbs out of Hungarian territory. If not disposed of by December 1st it can be left to the Ambassador. It is a simple question.
9. Distribution of enemy ships.
- (1)
- Battleships.
- (a)
- German and Austro-Hungarian battleships.
- (b)
- Reparations demanded by France and Italy for the interruption in their naval constructions during the war and for the employment of their shipyards and mills in the manufacture of war materials for themselves and the Allies.
- If not disposed of before we leave, the Ambassador can convey the instructions of the Department.
- (2)
- Commercial ships.
- (a)
- General distribution of the merchant tonnage between those concerned.
- Should be referred to Reparation Committee.
- (b)
- German ships; question of tankers.
- We hope this will be settled before we leave. If not, it could be handled by Rathbone on Reparation Committee.
- (c)
- Austro-Hungarian ships. Distribution of the tonnage between Italy and the Serb State.
- If not disposed of this should be referred to Reparation Committee.
10. Cost of upkeep of armies of occupation.
This should be referred to Reparation Committee in consultation with Ambassador.
11. Question of the Adriatic. Frontiers between Italy and Serbia. Fiume, Montenegro and Albania.
All these questions are considered by the Council as inter-dependent. If not disposed of by December 1st they should, in my opinion, be handled by the Department and either through the Ambassador here or the Ambassador in London.
12. Russian and Baltic questions. Recognition of Admiral Koltchak; Finland (Petchenga and Carelia); Aland Islands; Baltic States; Eastern frontiers of Poland; Ukrainia; Bessarabia; Caucasus State; Repatriation of the Allied contingents in Siberia; Repatriation of enemy prisoners in Russia.
All these questions, with the exception of those hereinafter noted, in my opinion, and I have always taken this position in the Council, should be handled through the various foreign offices as they are not questions for discussion in the Supreme Council. This view was approved November 11th with the exception of Bessarabia and the [Page 664] repatriation of allied contingents and prisoners in Russia. As to Bessarabia the British and French showed a disposition to discuss matter and in some way to hand over this territory to Roumania. I made two objections to this plan, first, that I do not think now is the time to discuss the dismemberment of the Russian Empire and, second, that I think it would be a fatal mistake to consider giving Roumania any more territory in view of its defiant attitude. I think the European governments will agree with me on the first point, but if Roumania by any chance shows itself to be more reasonable, which I very much doubt, it may be that the question of their being given some sort of a mandate on Bessarabia will come up. I would be glad to get your views.
I would remind you that Roumania has refused to discuss the question of Dobrudja under any circumstances and the European Allies have taken the position that they cannot attempt to deprive a friendly power of territory.
13. Treaty with Turkey.
As to this there is no disposition to take up the question at this Conference on the part of the British or Italians.
14. Treaty with Belgium and the Netherlands for the revision of the Treaties of 1889 [1839].
This may be disposed of before we leave. If not it should go to the Department.
I have given you at length the subjects to be disposed of but have omitted topics which are actually in process of being settled such as the Bulgarian Treaty, Galicia, arrangements for the meeting of the League of Nations and other matters.
It is evident that the ratifications will not be delivered until after the 1st of December. It will, therefore, be necessary for the Ambassador, assuming the treaty has not actually been defeated, to be charged with the duty of attending to such details as have not been covered in connection with the ratification of the treaty and the first meeting of the League. It is true that we will not be represented, but it is necessary for us to see that nothing is done which would be prejudicial to our interests. There is no disposition, as far as I can see, on the part of any of the governments to proceed in the matter of the League without a full understanding with us.
In connection with your 3706, November 6 [8] in regard to the negotiations of the Coordinations Committee, I call your attention to the resolution creating the Committee adopted July 23rd [28th].6 The resolution reads as follows:
“The questions concerning the interpretation and execution of the treaty with Germany—with the exception of those confided either to [Page 665] the Society of Nations, Separation Commissions, Naval and Aerial and Military Control, the left Bank of the Rhine, or to other permanent organs of the same nature—should be studied and followed by a special committee whose seat will be in Paris but which can, should it be judged opportune by reason of the nature of certain questions, be transported to other capitals.”
According to this resolution you will notice that the Ambassadors’ Committee or Committee on Coordination, has practically no powers as the important committees are clearly to be independent. There is no great objection to that in my mind except in the case of the Committees of Military, Naval and Air Control and those committees should be under the Ambassador. But quite apart from the duties contemplated in the resolution of July 23 [28], there will be certain questions, as you will observe from reading the list above, which will require our having some sort of representative in the proposed ambassadorial committee for the purpose at least of conveying the views of the Government to this Committee. As you can see, it would be difficult for us to leave here arbitrarily on or about the 1st of December unless it is the intention to charge someone with the duty of tying up the loose ends in a limited number of subjects. It would not be fair to our Allies or to the questions involved. The questions are simple and the understanding would be that the Ambassador would act only on instructions from his Government. Wallace would have the assistance of Grew and Harrison and I think such arrangement would be possible. Please consider this particular point and let me have your views.
As you will see, I am assuming that we will all leave here on or about December 1st. This I have told my colleagues and they are expecting us to leave at about that time, but, as I have already pointed out, we cannot leave the pending questions I have suggested entirely in the air.
As you will notice, Wallace would have two functions: (1) A member of the Coordinating Committee to carry out the terms of the treaty, this to depend upon our ratifying the treaty; (2) to sit in the Ambassadors’ Committee for the purpose of completing such unfinished business as we are justified in leaving to them. If Wallace is not permitted to complete this work, we really should leave a Commissioner behind, but I think the best plan is to end the Peace Conference and have this Committee of Ambassadors clean up the more or less important unfinished business. Polk.
- Not printed.↩
- See HD–17, minute 1 and appendix A, vol. vii, pp. 356 and 362.↩