LEAGUE OF

J Z w = r >

NATIOHS

C ommuni o ated to the Ifombers of the Council,

8/27236/11518

C » 235 c 1923. IX.

Geneva, April 3rd, 19 23,

CONTROL OF THE OBSERVANCE BY BULGARIA OF THE

MILITARY AND AIR CLAUSES OF THE TREATY OF NEUILLY.

Noto by

irculate for

Charge d 1 Affaires

renci >f

The Socretary-C

the consideration of the Counc

1 ) a lotter receive^

at Berne,

2) Correspondence

Ambassadors.

In conformity with Article 2 of the rules of procedure

of the Councilr and in accordance with the desire expressed Toy

the Bulgarian Government, this question has been placed on the

agenda of the 24th session of the Council.

- 1 -

I. letter from the Bulgarian Çl.jrfq d Taffairos at Berne

to _t]je_ Soc Gt'iry -ftenoral.

EEREB, March 17fch, 19 23,

arslation,

Sir,

In conformity with Article 94 of the Treaty of Peaco

of Houilly-sur-Seine} tho execution of the military, naval and.

air clauses - which was to he completed within a prescribed time, -

was entrusted to an Inter-Allied Commission of Control appointed

for that purpose by the principal Allied Powers. Bulgaria having

executed the majority of these clauses, the work of this Commission

was considered at an end, and it left Bulgaria several months ago,

leaving in its placo a liquidation organisation which has also

finished its work, since Bulgaria has now carried out all her

military, naval and air obligations under the treaty. The

Sobranje has in fact just voted the last of the laws necessary

for modifying Bulgarian legislation and permanently bringing it

into conformity with Part IV of the Treaty of 1-euilly,

Wo have come to the end of the period of provisional

control provided for in Article 94 to ensure the execution of the

military, naval and air clauses, within a prescribed time limit.

In the Eoto which the President of the Conference of

Ambassadors sent to the Bulgarian Government on December 6th 1922,

the Allied Governments recognised the desirability of the departure

of the liquidation organisation, owing to the necessity of reliev­

ing the Bulgarian finances from the burdens imposed by tho working

of this organisation..

The Allied Governments, anxious to ensure the continua­

tion of a military supervision affording guarantees that the

military, naval and. air clauses already carried out by Bulgaria

v/ill also be loyally observed in the future, havo considered, and

have proposod. to the Bulgarian Government, the establishment of a

new organ of control to take tho place of the present control

organisations,

The Bulgarian Government considers tho creation of

this now body suoerfluous, since the Treaty of Nonilly provided

in Article 104 that throughout the whole period of the validity of

the treaty the control of the loyal observance by Bulgaria of the

military, naval and air clauses should be entrusted to tho Council

of the league of Nations, on which the principal Allied Powers are

represented„

Determined to fulfil all its obligations as a Member

of tho League of Nations, the Bulgarian Government asks the Council

~ which, by the Treaty of Peace, is the organisation whoso investi­

gations Bulgaria can accept in tho period following the departure

of the liquidation organisation - to examine tho question of tho

application of Articlo 104 of the Treaty of Neuilly,

In bringing this to your notice, I am instructed by my

Government to ask you, Sir, to place this question on the agenda

of the next session of the Council.

I have the honour to "be,

Sir, etc„

(Signed) 21IK0ZF

Chargé d 1Affaires, Bulgarian Representative attached to the

Lnague of Nations„

~ 3~

Letter from the Oonferonco of .Ambassadors to the

S o c r o t ar y - G e no r al,

PAPIS , March 30th, 1923.

illation.

Sir,

On March 21st 1923 you forwarded to the Conference of

Ambassadors copy of the letter which was sent to you on March 17th

by the Representative of the Bulgarian Government attached to the

league of Nations. Ymi informed the Conference that tho question

raised in this letter had been placed upon the agenda of the next

mooting of the Council of the League of Nations, and you requested

it to forward to you all documents which might in its opinion bo

likely to aid tho Council.

In reply to this request, the Conference has decided to

place you in possession of the documents which I have the honour

to forward herewith:

1) Copy of its letter dated Decombor 6th, 1922, to the

Bulgarian Minister in Paris.

2) Copy of its letter dated March 15th, 1923, to the

Bulgarian Minister in Paris.

3) Copy of a note drafted on March 27th, 1923, by the

Allied Military Committee at Versailles, to which the Conference

forwarded your letter of March 21st.

In forwarding these documents the Conference cannot but

inform you of the surprise with which it views the step taken by

the Bulgarian representative attached to the League of Nations.

The letter of December 6th, 1922, expressly stated that the Treaty

of Neuilly had not yet boon completely carried out and that when

they proposed to substitute a Committee of Guarantee, which Bulgaria

«s 4g?

bad already aooeptod in priooipBc/in rogpaot of p\r s,*

the Treaty, for the Organ of Liquidation of the Commission of

Control, the Allied Powers1 only objeot was to assist Bulgaria

in discharging hor obligations. The Alliod Powers were prepared to

defray the expenses of the Committee of Guarantee, although under

the Treaty Bulgaria is liable for the maintenance of the Orgen of

Liquidation now operating, as for that of the Commission of Control,

of which the former is only a reducted fcrm= This metamorphosis

of the organisation of control would have afforded appreciable

relief to Bulgaria, who has on several occasions drawn attention to

the heavy expenditure laid upon her.

In maïing its proposal of December 6th to Bulgaria, the

Conference of Ambassadors pointed out clearly that, ’’should the

reply bo unfavourable or even delayed", it would be forced "toV

maintain the present Organ of Liquidation in office until the

military clausos of the Treaty of ITeuilly had boon completely ,

put into effect.11

Ever since December 6th, 1922, as shown in the letter

sent to tho Bulgarian Government by the Conference on March 15th,

Bulgaria has unfortunately not shown that eagerness to fulfil her

obligations for which the Powers had hoped.

Under these circumstances the Allied Powers are bound to

onforce in their entirety the rights which they derive from tho

Treaty. «

In so doing they are satisfied that they are serving tho

cauqe of peaco; so long as the clauses of the Treaty are not

completely put into effect,, tie presence of some organ of control

is indeed necessary to allay tho apprehensions which might bo caused

in the neighbouring countries by the dilatory manner in which dis­

armament is being carried out in Bulgaria,'

I havo the honour to bo, Sir, etc.

(Signed) POILCARE.

- 5-

À 1-J 1\F E X I.

Letter from the Conference of Ambas 3 ad ors t o

General Savoff. Bulgarian Minister in Parisa

PARIS , December 6th, 1922.

relation.

Sir,

Although the Allied Governments are resolved to ensure

the execution of the Treaty of Peaoe in its entirety as regards

all matters in which the Organ of Liquidation is Sofia has not

yet boon ablo to complete its v/orlc, and also to obtain guarantees

for the faithful observation, in future, of the military and air

clauses of the Treaty of leuilly, they nevertheless desire to re­

establish normal relations with the Bulgarian Government as soon as

possible. In these circumstances they have examined the question

ofcreating a Military and Air Committee of Guarantee, whose sphere

of operations would include Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary, and whose

expenses would bo paid by tho Principal Allied Powers.

The Allied Governments were of opinion that, if they

were assured of co-operation on the part of tho Governments con­

cerned, this method would enable them to carry out military and

air control effectively with the least possible friction and risk,

and to reduce the costs at present imposed upon the Bulgarian

budget by the work of the Organ of liquidation in Sofia*

This Committee, the organisation and work of which are

explained in the attached Annex, would,should tho Powers concerned

agree to its creation, take tho place of the present organisations

of Control»

I have the honour to call your attention to your letter

of September 25th, in which you informed me that your Government

* - 6~

accepted the principle of the supervision of aviation in Bulgaria

at the expense of the Allied Governments* The Conference hopes

that the Bulgarian Government will extend this acceptance to apply

to the military clauses of the Peace Treaty, and will raise no

objection to the creation and work of the proposed Committee of

Guarantee,

I have the honour to request you to "be good enough to

bring the foregoing observations to the notice of your Government,

pointing out to it more especially the groat importance of the

Conference of Ambassadors receiving a reply at a date as near

December 15th next as possible, so as to allow the Committee of

Guarantee to tako up its duties on January 1st, 1933, as at present

contemplated.

The Conference of Ambassadors is obliged to call the

attention of the Bulgarian Government to tho fact that, should the

reply bo unfavorable or even delayed, it would bo forced to maintain

the present Organ of liquidation in office until the military clauses

of the Treaty of Eeuilly had been completely put into offeet, ot

at least until tho Committee of Guarantee, which it is proposed to

organise, had effectively entered upon its duties.

I have the honour to bn, Sir, etc.

(Signed) P0IÎÏCÆB.

- 7-

A It 1 E I II o

Letter from the Conference of Ambassadors to the

Bulgarian Minister in Paris „

PARIS, March 15th, 1923.

Sir,

On "behalf of the Powers represented in the Conference of

Ambassadors, I have tho honour to request you to transmit the follow­

ing Note to your Government:

v,The Allied Powers are regretfully obliged to call the

attention of the Bulgarian Government to certain intrigues which

it tolerates within its territory, and which constitute serious

infringements of the Treaty of Ilouilly,,T

Recent reports received by the Conference of Ambassadors

show:

1) that the Bulgarian Government has allowed a number of

irregular military organisations (Agrarian Guard or Orange Guard,

local peasant militia, Red units established with the aid of

Russian ex-soldiers amongst the refugees in Bulgaria) to be created

within its territory;

2) that these formations have only been able to procure

arms because, on the one hand, Bulgarian citizens are still in

possession of an excessive number of such arms, and that in conse­

quence, the lav/ for the disarmament of the civil population is not

applied, and, on the other hand, because there exist in Bulgaria

secret stores nf arms; this is shown by the systematic obstruction

by the Bulgarian authorities to searches carried out by control

officers ;

3) that the Bulgarian Government has not yet put into

effect the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors dated

- 8-

October lith,1922, on modifications in the budget law, which

provided for total military expenditure in respect of a larger

numbor of effectives than is fixed in the Treaty;

4) finally, that the Bulgarian Government permits a press

campaign, tho obvious purpose of which is to create a current of

opinion in favour of a return to compulsory military servioo.

In this respect the Conference of Ambassadors has further

laid boforo it certain documents sent b;/- the Bulgarian Government

to the Council of tho League of Nations, which show that the Bul­

garian Government is aiming a t ,nothing less than a revision of the

military clauses of the Treaty of Ueuilly and. more especially,

a modification of its army recruiting system.

The Allied Powers are well aware of the difficulties

which the Bulgarian Government has encountered in regard to the

recruitment of a voluntary army7 but they are not fully assiîëd that

tho Bulgarian Government has done all that it might have done in

this direction.

Moreover, they would remind the Bulgarian Government that

on many occasions, and particularly by authorising the latter to

nake up provisionally for the shortage of army effectives by in­

creasing the strength of its gendarmerie , police and frontier

guards, they have endeavoured to afford the Government the means

to create the necessary forces for ensuring internal order and

frontier control. They would point out that, according to in­

formation supplied by the Bulgarian Government itself, the total

strength of Bu.lgarials armed forces on December 24th, 1922 was

270000 men - not far off the figure (33«,000) which is fixed by the

Treaty; the difference between these two figures would not appear

in any case to justify the Bulgarian Government in having recourse,

for the purposes of the country!a security, to irregular formations,

the existence of which is manifestly incompatible with Articles

69 and 70 of the Treaty of K euilly.

The circumstances in which these formations h ivo been

supplied with arms cannot, moreover, be tolerated by tho Allied

Powers , as the latter cannot permit Bulgaria to "k'or-p l-^-gcr

quantities ox arms than those authorised under tho Treaty,

As regards the Budget, it is not the opinion of tho

Allied Powers that the Bulgarian Government would gain any advan­

tage by estimating for military expenditure in excess of that

required for tho effectives fixed in the Treatye

As regards a return to compulsory service, tho Allied

Powers can only confirm their fixed and final resolve not to per­

mit in any manner the least infringement of the stipulations con­

tained in the Treaty on this subject..

The Allied Powers therefore formally request the Bul­

garian Government:

l) immediately to disband ail irregular formations organised

in its territory;

ii) to show greater energy in applying the law for the dis­

armament of the civil population, and finally to abandon the ob­

structive methods practised by the authorities v/ith a view to

hindering tho searches carried out by the Organ of liquidation;

3) to bring tho budget law into harmony with tho military

clauses of the Treaty, and without delay to supply the Organ of

Liquidation with all tho information for which the latter has

asked on this subject;

4) to put an end to the press campaign, which, by the dis­

semination of inaccurate information, represents a return to com­

pulsory servico as an essential condition for Bulgaria, and to

rcjoct all applications for the substitution of compulsory servico

for tho system of voluntar;7 service as fixed by the Treaty of

Heuilly.

Tho Alliod Powers, whose earnest desire is to secure peace,

would also draw the attention of the Bulgarian Government to the

sorlous risks which such infractions of the Treaty of Nouilly

might ontc.il from the point of the continuance of peace. These

repeated violations can indeed only givo rise to legitimate

anxiety amongst the States who arc Bule-ariars neighbours, and

induce them to take military measures which might provoko the

most regrettable occurrences, mad thereby give birth to danger-

•ous complications. The facts mentioned above prove that the

responsibility would rest upon the Bulgarian Goverment alone.

Convinced as they are that your Government is alive to

the present situation, the /.Hied Powers hope that It will not

fail to fulfil its obligations, aid that in the interests of the

common work of peace it will aid them loyally and whole^hearfcedl

in tho execution of the military clauses of the Treaty of Neuilly

I have the honour to bo, Sir, otc,,,

(Signed) POINCARE*

STATEMENT BY THE ALI.IEL MILITARY COMMISSION AT VERSAILLES

0? TEE QUESTION "RAISED BY THE REQUEST STJEMITTED LY THE

BulGARIAH GOYEItNHEtiT TO T1IE CCUNCI1 OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

ooncorning tho application of Artiolo 104 of the

Treaty of Ecuilly.

The Secretary General of the League of Nations has/ -5 A

c^mmunicated to the Conference of Ambassadors a letter' from

the representative of tho Bulgarian Government, concerning the

applioation of Article 104 of the Treaty of Keuilly (investiga­

tions by the League of Nations in or5.er to ascertain that tho

Treaty of Neui.Lly is "being observed) » )

Tho Bulgarian letter argaos that as the Conference of

Ambassadors has substituted an Organ of Liquidation for the Inter-

Allied Military Commission of Control in Sofia which was set up

in virtare of Article 94 of tho Treaty of It eu illy, it must havo

been of the opinion that tho Commission had completed its work»

It is suggested that, "as Bulgaria has fulfilled all

her military, naval and air obligations'} tho duties of tho Organ

of liquidation are now legally at an on:!*

The Bulgarian Government argues that tho Alliod Govern­

ments have themselves recognised that it is time for tho Organ of

1 No o 207, dated March 17th .y 19 20 e2 s Article 104 roads as follows :~

,rSo long as the present Treaty remains in force, Bulgaria undertakes to submit to any investigation which the Council of the League of Nations by a majority vote may consider necessary0n

, t . , , tf

.Lj-'-iï-i Nation to leave, since the Confère no g of Ambassadors, in its

note dated December 6th7 IS28, proposed chao this Or£-an should be

roplaccd by a military and air Committee of Guarantee, whose duty

it shall he to ascertain that the military and air clauses "which

have already ‘been c-a;?:-::od ‘o;r-; Bulgaria" shall continue to be

faithfully observed in the future. It considers that this new

organisation is superfluous, and that the time has arrived when

control, should bo placed in the hands of the League of Nations in

virtue of Article 104 of the Treaty of Keuilly? Accordingly, it

requests the Council of the league of Rations "üo examine the

question of the application of article 104,j

The document in question calls for the following comments

and corrections î

It is incorrect to state that the Commission of Control

in Bulgaria was dissolved because the Allied Powers consider ‘.its '

work at an end. The decision of the Conference of Ambassadors to

substitute for this Commission an Organ of Liquidation on a smaller

scale was purely an act of grace designed to lighten the financial

burden which the maintenance of the Commission imposed upon the

Bulgarian budget; and the duty of the now Organ was expressly

"bo carry on the work, of control until such time as tho military

clauses of the Treaty of Neuilly shall have been carried out in

full, under such conditions and in the exorcise of such powers as

are defined for Commissions of Control in Articles 94 and -90 of that

Treaty-.11

A similar sentiment of goodwill prompted the Conference

of Ambassadors, on April 1st and September 1st, 1922, to replace

tho normal Commission of Control in Hungary by Commissions on a

continously diminishing scale, and finally, in order completely to

remove tho burden imposed on the Bulgarian and Hungarian budgets, to

propose to Bulgaria and Hungary fand at the same time to Austria) in

its JTotc of December 6th last, that the present Organs of Control

should be replaced by a single military and air Committoo of Guaran fees

- 13-

to be maintained at tho oxpense of the Allied Powers and to

exercise supervision over the three c o u n t r i e s . ^

It is however incorrect to say that, by so doingr the

Allied Powers have recognised that Bulgaria haa carried out in

full all the obligations which she incurred under the military

clauses of the Treaty of Nouilly, and that hencoforth it should

bo meroly a question of ensuring tho permanence of the results

obtained.

As a matter of fact, it will bo seen from the documents

attached, that tho military clauses of tho Treaties are still far

from having been executed in their entirety by Bulgaria.

Finally, it is difficult to understand why Bulgaria,,

having aocopted the principle of an Air Cômmittoo of Supervision,

should refuse to recogniso the same principle for the supervision

of t*io military clauses, which are far from having been carried out

in full.

To sum u p ;

The military olausos of the Treaty of Neuilly have not

been carried out in their entirety.

The Commission of Control on a smaller scale is engaged

in supervising their execution.

The setting up of a singlo Committee of Guarantee £or

Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, as proposed by tho Conference of

Ambassadors, has not been aooepted.

In those circumstances tho Allied Powers aro bound to

maintain tho present organisation of control until tho military

clauses of tho Treaties have been executed in their entirety,As they

are responsible for the execution of these clauses, the supervision

of which is their particular duty, they cannot relinquish control

until they have satisfied 'themselves that these clauses have boon

carried out in full,

(l) This change would, moreover, result in setting up at onco an organisation on the smallest possible scale, which could bo utilised whon the Treaties have been carried out in full, and it

ubsoquentl# becomes tho duty of the League of Nations to see that they continue to bo observed.

■lED MILITARY COMMITES

AI VERSAILLES 0

Mar oh 27th, 192-3,

EG TE BY THE ALLIED MILITARY COî>i:ifJTEG AT VERSAILLES

OÜ THE PRINCIPAL MILITARY CLAUSES IE THE TREATY Cl*

ÏŒT/ILLT WHICH HAVE FOT BE EE CARRIED OUT IE FULL-

I - ABO LIT IOE OF CT3MTOJiOKY MILITARY SERVI OB ( Article 65 of the Treaty),

The principle of compulsory military service in Bulgaria

still remains embodied in article 71 of the Bulgarian Constitution,,

As long as this state of affairs oontirx5.es to exist it docs not

seem possible to consider that compulsory military service has been

definitely and entirely abolished in Bulgaria*

The Committee at Versailles has "brought this matter to the

notice of the Conference of Ambassadors, and has roquested the latter

to make representations to the Bulgarian Government in order that

Article 71 of the Constitution may be made to conform with the Treaty

as laid down in Article 101 of the Treaty itself.

II«ORGANISATION AED EFFECTIVES OF THE BUuGAPIAIÎ ARV (Articles 66, 67

and 70 of the Treaty»)

a) In a report dated March 1 3 3- 1923, the Council of Delegates

of tho Organ of liquidation in Sofia notified the Committee at

Versailles, when the Bulgarian draft budget was being examined, of

tho increasingly marked tendency on the part of the Bulgarian Govern­

ment to disregard the provisions of the Treaty of Neuilly,

This tendency was indicated not only by budget estimates

which were much higher than an expenditure corresponding to i,he

effectives fixed under the Treaty, but also dy the retention in

Bulgaria", legislation, and in particular in the regulations govern­

ing the application of the Law on Compulsory Labour,* of provisions

1* 3,5 ►»

which are evidence of a desire to preserve - olearly for tlo £ar-

■poses of mobilisation - the former military organisation of

Bulgaria (maintenance of divisional administrations, regimental

districts and a far greater number of recruiting offices than

the country requires)„

In its resolution of IJaroh 1, 1923, the Conference of

Ambassadors formally invited the Bulgarian Government to bring its

budget lav/ into conformity v/ith the military clauses of the Treaty I ' l l

More recently still, on March 21stv 1923, the Conference

of Ambassadors decided to call upon tho Bulgarian Government to

adapt its military legislation to the clauses of tho Treaty,

b) Irregu lar military formations» (Articles 67 and 70 of

tho Treaty) «,

On several occasions, and particularly in December, 1922

and in January, 1923, the Council of Delegates of the Organ of

Liquidation in Sofia notified tho Committee at Versailles of tho

fact that the Bulgarian Government had permitted the formation of

a number of irregular military organisations in the interior of

tho country (Agrarian Guard nr Orange Guard, local peasant militia,

Rod units established with tho aid of Russian ox-soldiers amongst

the refugees in Bulgaria)0

In a resolution of March 1st, tho Conference of Ambassadors

was constrained at the request of-the Committee at Versailles,

formally to call upon the Bulgarian Government to dissolve all

theso formations immediately.^^ The carrying out of this reso­

lution !has not yet been notified.

IIIcDIgARMAMENT OF BULGARIA. (Article 77 of the Treaty).

Tho facility with which all the irregular formations

mentioned above were provided v/ith arms clearly proves that

i>l) See letter of March 152 1922, from tho President of theConference of Ambassadors to the Bulgarian Minister in Paris, copy of which is attached.

< -16-

Bulgarian citizens are still in possession of an excessive number

of such arms - Moreover, tho systematic obstruction "by the Bulgarian

authorities of soarchos oarriod out by control officers tends to

prove tho existenco of secret stores of arms in Bulgaria,

The disarmament of Bulgaria cannot therefore be considered

to have been carried out. In its resolution of March 1, 1923, the

Conferenco of Ambassadors was constrained to call upon the Bul­

garian Government "to show greater enorgy in applying the law for

tho disarmament of the civil population and finally abandon the

system of obstruction proctised by the authorities with a viow to

( 1 )hindering tho soarchos carried out by the Organ of Liquidationa TT

IT c MAMJF AO TUBE OF WAR MATERIAL (Article 79 of the Treaty).

This matter has not yot advancod beyond the stage of

preliminary enquiry; no steps have yet been taken to establish tho

singlo Stato Factory. Tho proposals submitted by tho Bulgarian

Government on this question seem to be conceived with a view to

an organisation w M c h would produce mu oh more than is required

for the armod effectives of the country.(regular army and cate­

gories of officials allowed to carry arms under the Treaty, or in

accordance with the decisions of the Conforenco of Ambassadors)»

The question is therefore still quite an open ene.

fl) See letter of March 15, 1922, from the President of the Confetence of Ambassadors to the Bulgarian Minister in Paris, copy of which is attached.