Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/24
CF–24
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Thursday, May 22, 1919, at 4 p.m.
Paris, May 22, 1919, 4 p.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- France
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
- Italy
| Sir Maurice Hankey K. C. B. |
} |
Secretaries. |
| Count Aldrovandi. |
| Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter. |
The following experts on the Saar Valley were also present:—
- United States of America
- British Empire
- Sir Eyre Crowe, K. C. B., K. C. M. G.
- Mr. Headlam-Morley.
- France
The Saar Valley: Replies to the Letters of the German
Delegation 1. During the assembly of the meeting on the
Reparation Clauses for the Treaty with Austria, the Council examined the
re-drafts of the letters prepared by the Committee in reply to the of
letters from the German Delegation on the subject of the Saar Valley,
dated May 13th and May 16th.1
After a short discussion the letters attached in the Appendix were
approved, a few small modifications being introduced.
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to communicate these letters to the
Secretary-General of the Peace Conference for the following action:—
- 1.
- For preparation of a fair copy for signature by the President
of the Conference and despatch.
- 2.
- For communication to the Drafting Committee, in order that the
necessary alteration might be made in the Treaty of
Peace.
- 3.
- For publication after despatch.
Villa Majestic, Paris, 22 May, 1919.
[Page 827]
Appendix to CF–24
Draft of Proposed Answer to Letter of
Count Brockdorff-Rantzau of May 13, 1919
Monsieur le President, (Mr. President)—I
beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 13th, 1919.2
The Allied and Associated Governments absolutely deny that any one of
the provisions referred to in the said letter may have as a
consequence to transfer peoples from one allegiance to another “as
though they were but mere things or pawns”. In fact for all the
territories in question the wishes of the people will be consulted.
The procedure to be followed in such consultations is settled with
due regard to local conditions.
On the other hand, as regards more particularly clause 36 of the
Annex concerning the Saar Basin, the result which would ensue from
the interpretation placed upon that clause in your letter of May 13
is emphatically not one which the Allied and Associated Governments
ever contemplated.
The said Governments, accordingly, while adhering to their point of
view, beg to remark that:
- 1.
- Such reparation as is constituted by the cession of the
mines is not merely a special reparation limited to coal,
but a part of the general reparation due by Germany for the
systematical destructions carried out by her. Article 45 of
the Peace Treaty makes the point quite clear.
- 2.
- The Allied and Associated Governments object to the
population of that basin being represented as purely German;
it is on account of the complex character of that population
that special provisions have been made. The plebiscite
arranged at the conclusion of the fifteen years’ period,
will make it possible to form an absolutely impartial
opinion, not indeed for the benefit of either France or
Germany, but from the sole consideration of the interest of
the populations, as freely decided by them.
- 3.
- It cannot in any way be contended that the Saar Basin
would be placed under French control by the change in the
Government. The “domination” that is termed as “hateful” in
your letter of May 13th is the administration of the League
of Nations.
- 4.
- The Treaty ensures to the inhabitants the continuation of
all their present guarantees and liberties: it also provides
for a number of special advantages of a fiscal or social
character in their favour.
- 5.
- No confusion exists in the Treaty between the trade
contracts to be established for the coal from the Ruhr
district (see Annex 5 of part 8.) and the cession of the
Saar mines; the two questions are essentially distinct, as
stated above under paragraph I.
- 6.
- With regard to the difficulties which you apprehend as to
Germany’s ability to effect the payment in gold contemplated
under clause 36, the Allied and Associated Governments,
desirous of avoiding all possibility of misunderstanding,
have decided to word the last paragraph of the said clause
as follows:
“If, nevertheless, Germany, after a period of one
year, shall not have effected the said payment, the
Reparation Commission shall do so in accordance with
such instructions as may be given by the League of
Nations and, if necessary, by liquidating that part
of the mines as is in question.”
In the matter of cessions of territories to Belgium, full liberty is
ensured for popular opinion to express itself within a period of six
months, in the districts of Malmedy and Eupen. The only exception
that has been made applies to that part of the territory of Prussian
Moresnet lying west of the road from Liege to Aix-la-Chapelle, the
population of which numbers less than 500 inhabitants, and in which
the woods are transferred to Belgium as part reparation for the
destruction of forests by Germany on Belgian territory.
As regards Slesvig, this question was taken up by the Peace
Conference on the request of the Danish Government and the
population of Slesvig.
Draft Answer to the Letter of Count
Brochdorff-Rantzau, Dated 17 [16]
May, 1919
I have the honour to acknowledge Your Excellency’s letter of the 17th
[16th] May,3 enclosing a memorandum from German experts
which makes a proposal for supplying France with coal otherwise than
by the transfer of the mines of the Saar.
Subject to the modified procedure indicated in my previous letter,
the settlement of the question of the Saar Basin made by the treaty
is maintained in its general lines and the Allied and Associated
Governments are unable in this respect to agree to any change.
The proposal of the German experts rightly notes that the transfer to
France of the coal mines of the Saar Basin is to be effected “as
compensation for the destruction of the coal mines in the North of
France and as part payment towards the total reparation due from
Germany for the damage resulting from the war”. It does not,
however, keep these twofold ends clearly in view in the alternative
arrangements which it proposes and which it seeks to assimilate to
the right of option on the purchase of certain quantities of German
coal, provided for in Part VII, Annex V, which is quite a distinct
matter.
Any such arrangement as proposed for the supplying of a quantity of
coal other than the quantity provided in Part VIII, Annex V,
[Page 829]
inevitably involves a
still greater degree of uncertainty than contemplated at the end of
Clause X of that Annex. No arrangement of this sort could give
France the security and the certainty which she would derive from
the full ownership and free exploitation of the mines of the Saar
Basin.
Similarly, the proposed handing over of shares in German coal mines,
situated in German territory and subject to German exploitation,
would be of doubtful value to French holders and would create a
confusion of French and German interests which cannot be at present
contemplated.
The complete and immediate transfer to France of mines adjacent to
the French frontier, with a proportionate credit upon the reparation
account due from Germany, constitutes a more prompt, secure and
businesslike settlement of the matter of compensation for the
destruction of French coal mines, while at the same time it makes
full use of these mines as a means of payment on the general account
of reparation.
The object of the measures provided for in Article 49 and in Chapter
II of the Annex to Part III, Section IV, to which the note of the
German experts refers is stated in Article 46, namely, ‘to assure
the rights and welfare of the population and to guarantee to France
complete freedom in working the mines’. These measures are quite
independent of the occupation provided in Part XIV, Section I.
As regards Clause 38 of the Annex to the Treaty, relating to the
Saar, it has already been said and it is hereby confirmed that this
Clause applies only to the special agreements which may eventually
be arrived at between France and Germany, respecting the re-purchase
of the French proprietary rights in case the League of Nations
should, after a plebiscite, decide at the end of fifteen years in
favour of the union with Germany of all or part of the territory of
the Saar Basin. Resort to the procedure contemplated under the said
Clause is therefore at present out of question.
As for the quality of the coal and the places of delivery, these are,
as already stated, questions distinct from that of the Saar, and are
settled by Part VIII of the Treaty.
Your economic propositions are therefore in the opinion of the Allied
and Associated Governments unworkable. They provide none of the
necessary guarantees mentioned in Articles 45, 46, 47.
In conclusion, the Allied and Associated Governments declare
generally that if a particular form of reparation was chosen as
regards the Saar Basin, this was done because it was felt that the
destruction of the mines in the North of France was an act of such a
nature that a definite and striking retribution must be exacted,
different from the mere supply of a specified or unspecified amount
of coal.
