« PreviousContinue »
concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with Powers who fought on the side of Germany, and to reco whatever dispositions may be made concerning the territ of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, of the King of Bulgaria and of the Ottoman Empire, and to recognis new States within their frontiers as there laid down.'
The same is the wording, mutatis mutandis, of A 89 and 90 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, sim provisions being inserted in the Treaties with Bulgɛ Hungary, and Turkey. In this manner the same re appears to have been obtained as would have b secured by the signature of a single comprehen. treaty, covering all the achieved purposes of the Pe Conference.
The German Treaty naturally served as a gene model for the Peace Treaties with the remaining ene belligerents. A study of Chapter VI of Vol. II of
History,' and especially of its Part VI, p. 341, ought convince any impartial reader that the Peace Trea with Germany, and the remaining Peace Treati which follow the same lines, are, with one exception, accordance with the agreed basis of peace, constituted President Wilson's Fourteen Points and subseque addresses, as modified by the Memorandum of t Allies of Nov. 5, 1918. By this they reserved to the selves complete freedom on the subject of what is ambiguously called the 'freedom of the seas,' and stat that by the President's declaration that the invad territories must be restored as well as evacuated ar freed,' they understood that compensation will be ma by Germany for all damage done to the civilian popul tion of the Allies and their property by the aggressic of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air.' Preside Wilson stated that he is in complete agreement wit the interpretation set forth in the last paragraph of th memorandum above quoted.' According to the 'Matin of June 6, after examining the German counter-proposa in detail he declared as follows: Our Treaty violate none of my principles. If I thought otherwise I shoul not hesitate to confess it and should try to retrieve thi error, but the Treaty we have drawn up is entirely i accord with my Fourteen Points.'
The exception alluded to above is Art. 80 of the German Treaty, providing that the independence of Austria shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, and Art. 88 of the Austrian Treaty equally declaring the independence of Austria to be inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League. Art. 73 of the Hungarian Treaty is similar. This undoubtedly conflicts with the principle of self-determination, and it is impossible to see how the provision can be justified.
The Austrian Treaty was reported to be ready on May 12 (while the German Treaty was still unsigned), and the Austrian Delegation arrived at St Germain on the 14th. Yet it was not till the 29th that an incomplete copy, which did not contain the Military, Reparation, and Financial clauses, was presented to the seventh plenary meeting of the Conference. On June 2, the draft was handed to the Austrian Delegation, and discussion began. The concessions already made to Germany had been introduced into it. On the 25th, the 'Big Three' discussed the measure of Reparation to be required from Austria. In response to the observations of the Austrian Delegation, changes in the Economic clauses were made on July 8, and the revised and amended treaty was delivered to the Delegation on the 20th. They made counter-proposals, to which the Allies replied on Sept. 2; and on the 4th the Austrian National Assembly, after recording a protest, authorised its signature. This formality was completed on Sept. 10.
The conclusion of the treaty with Hungary, which closely follows the lines of the Austrian Treaty, was nevertheless subjected to great delay. This was caused by a Bolshevist movement. From May to July its leader Béla Kun defied the authority of the Supreme Council. Various attempts at setting up a stable administration followed; but it was not till Dec. 1 that the Supreme Council decided to recognise the Hungarian Government. The Peace Delegation arrived in Paris on Jan. 7, 1920. As the result of their representations the Supreme Council decided on certain modifications, and the terms of the Peace Treaty were delivered to the Delegation on Jan. 15. In March a report was presented by the proper Commission on certain observations on Part XII (Ports,
Waterways, and Railways); but, as all the conces which it had been found possible to make to e Germany or Austria had already been embodied in treaty, no further alterations were agreed to. 'History' does not reveal the causes which led to signature being further postponed to June 4.
The Draft Treaty with Bulgaria was handed to Bulgarian Delegation on Sept. 19, 1919. It conta all the concessions granted to Germany and Austri far as they applied. The Bulgarian observations held not to justify any alteration of the articles readiness to sign having been expressed by the De tion on Nov. 14, signature took place on the 27th.
A Turkish Delegation was summoned to Paris stated its views to a revived Council of Ten' on Jun 1919. They provoked merely a sharp rejoinder and Delegation left Paris on the 28th. The Turkish Tr was not signed till Aug. 10, 1920. This long delay have been caused by difference of opinion among Allies with respect to the future of Constantinople.
In all the Peace Treaties the most important visions that excited opposition from the defes belligerents related to Reparation and the Territo Clauses. The latter were, generally speaking, the ef of applying the principle of 'self-determination subject peoples and races, though there were cert exceptions, the most flagrant of which was perhaps cession of South Tirol, a purely German territory, Italy. Reparation is the title of that part of the Pe Treaties which provides for the compensation of dam done to the Allied and Associated Powers and th peoples. Certain acts of damage specified in the Ha Convention IV of 1907, and the Regulations ther annexed, render the belligerent party liable to ma compensation. This covers responsibility for all su acts committed by persons forming part of its arm forces. Among them are included bombardment, by a means whatever, of undefended towns, villages, habi tions or buildings; pillaging of towns or places ev when taken by assault; destruction or seizure of t enemy's property unless such act is imperatively manded by the necessities of war; the confiscation
ivate property; the violation of family honour and ights; taking the lives of individuals or their property; nd the infliction of general penalties, pecuniary or otherwise, on the population on account of acts of ndividuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible. All appliances for the transport of persons or goods if seized must be restored, and indemnities for them regulated at the peace; all destruction or intentional damage to institutions dedicated to religious worship, charity, education, art and science is forbidden. Such damage on a huge scale in Belgium and NorthEastern France was wilfully caused by the invaders, to say nothing of other violations of international law and Conventions. Evidently the claim for compensation cannot be entirely met by money payments, and must be provided for by the delivery of other forms of property. And this is stipulated for in the various Peace Treaties, as follows:
Germany, Art. 231.-The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by Germany and her allies.
Art. 232-The Allied and Associated Governments recognise that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present Treaty, to make complete reparation of all such loss and damage.
In the Austrian and Hungarian Treaties the corresponding articles are identical with this, except that 'all' is omitted before 'loss' in both places.
The corresponding provisions of the Bulgarian Treaty
Art. 121.- Bulgaria recognises that, by joining in the ar of aggression which Germany and Austria waged against Allied and Associated Powers, she has caused to the latter ses and sacrifices of all kinds, for which she ought to make paration.
'On the other hand, the Allied and Associated Powers cognise that the resources of Bulgaria are not sufficient to enable her to make complete reparation.'
Whereas the amount of compensation to be paid by Vol. 235.-No. 466.
each of the first three Powers above named is to b by an Inter-allied commission set up for that pu Bulgaria's quota is fixed at 2,250,000,000 francs gol
In the Turkish Treaty the admission of respons and recognition of insufficiency of resources pressed in identical terms with those of the Bul Treaty, except that there is no mention of Asso Powers. But
' inasmuch as the territorial arrangements resulting fro present Treaty will leave to Turkey only a portion revenues of the former Turkish Empire, all claims a the Turkish Empire for reparation are waived by the Powers, subject only to the provisions of this Part [Fin Clauses] and of Part IX (Economic Clauses) of the p Treaty.' Such are all loss and damage suffered by ci nationals of the Allied Powers, in respect of their pers property, through the action or negligence of the Tu authorities during the war and up to the coming into of the present Treaty,' also such restitutions, repara and indemnities as may be fixed by the Financial Comm [set up by Art. 231, 4th paragraph] in respect of dar inflicted on the European Commission of the Danube d the war.'
The maps annexed to the Austrian and Hunga Treaties show what portions of the former Au Hungarian Empire have been detached in favou Italy (the area of which has yet to be settled), Cze Slovakia, the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State and Ruma These leave the Austrian and Hungarian Republics v out any sea-ports. To remedy this inconvenience
'Free access to the Adriatic Sea is accorded to Austria Hungary [by Art. 311 and Art. 294 of the respective Trea who with this object will enjoy freedom of transit over territories and in the ports severed from the former Aus Hungarian Monarchy. . . . Freedom of transit will exten postal, telegraphic and telephonic services.'
It is when we come to examine the Turkish Treat Peace that the losses of territory are found far to exc what either Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Bulgaria had to accept. These are contained in Part III Polit Clauses, Part II Frontiers of Turkey, and are delines on the maps annexed to the Treaty.