Page images
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]


1. Peace Treaties: With Germany, at Versailles, June 28, 1919; with Austria, at Saint Germain-en-Laye, Sept. 10, 1919; with Hungary, at Trianon, June 4, 1920; with Bulgaria, at Neuilly-sur-Seine, Nov. 27, 1919; with Turkey, at Sèvres, Aug. 10, 1920; and other treaties. H.M. Stationery Office.

2 A History of the Peace Conference of Paris. Edited by H. W. V. Temperley. Henry Frowde and Hodder & Stoughton, 1920.

3 Some Problems of the Peace Conference. By Charles Homer Haskins and Robert Howard Lord. Harvard University Press, 1920.

4. Peace Hand-books, Nos. 1-162. H.M. Stationery Office,


League of Nations Official Journal. No. 1. Harrison,
February 1920. With Special Supplements: No. 1.
The Aaland Islands Question (August). No. 2. Draft
Scheme for ... the Permanent Court of International
Justice (September 1920).

DURING the negotiations at Paris for peace with
Germany the press and the public in England, and
probably in other countries, constantly complained of
the delays between the Armistice of Nov. 11 and
the restoration of peace with the principal enemy
belligerent. Although the treaty with Germany was
signed on June 28, 1919, it did not come into effective
operation until Jan. 10, 1920. This interval was
necessary in order to procure the ratification of the
Vol. 235.-No. 466.


treaty by at least three of the principal Allied Associated Powers. Germany ratified it on July 1919, Italy on Oct. 7, Great Britain on Oct. 10, Fra on Oct. 12. There were, however, certain unexecu clauses of the Armistice agreement which Germany I to fulfil before the Peace Treaty could take effect; a until that result was obtained, by means of urg pressure on the German Government, the procès-ver of deposit, which custom requires, could not be sign Thus the total period consumed between the terminat of active hostilities and the resumption of peace relations with Germany was one year two months a nine days.

[ocr errors]

Although the Armistice was concluded so early Nov. 11, 1918, it was obvious that peace negotiatic could not be commenced until the arrival in Euro of President Wilson. He landed in France Dec. came to London a fortnight later, left for Paris a Rome on the last day of the month, and finally return to Paris on Jan. 7. The members of the Briti delegation began to arrive there on Jan. 4; but t Prime Minister was a week later. Mr Wilson had take a leading part in the negotiation of the preliminari of the Armistice. It was to him that the Germa Government had addressed itself on Oct. 5, 191 Correspondence between him and the German Gover ment on the one hand and the Governments of th Allies on the other followed; and it was agreed by th latter that the Armistice Convention and the Treaty c Peace should be based on his addresses and speeches an on the recent diplomatic correspondence. To understan what this basis was, Part IV of Chapter IX of Volume of the History' must be carefully studied. It show clearly that with the exception of the reservation the European allies with respect to No. 2 of the famous Fourteen Points, namely, the so-called 'Freedom of the Seas,' the President had been allowed to formulate the principles on which peace should be concluded. Europe expected him to arrive with a thoroughly worked-out scheme of negotiation. But it appears that he brought nothing of the sort with him. No doubt the separate Governments had each formed an idea of what they would demand, but nothing had been settled between


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

d and them, and it is pointed out in the History' (1. p. 237), ly 10 that such preparations as had been made by them were



y had






































necessarily of a very general character, made for the most part by subordinate departments, without the direction of the heads of States, without inter-allied consultation and co-operation, and with only a vague idea of how the schemes would be applied in practice. Their influence on the Conference must not, however, be under-estimated. Their labours had produced an enormous amount of material for the use of the men of action; and, though much of this work was wasted, much proved to be of the greatest value.'

No doubt the writer of these lines had in mind the series of Peace Hand-books produced by the Historical Section of the Foreign Office, established for the first time in 1917. Very valuable and interesting as these Hand-books are, it must have been quite impossible for the actual negotiators to become acquainted with even a small portion of their contents.

In any case, it must be evident that the plenipotentiaries of the Allied and Associated Powers had to begin their work by coming to an agreement as to the procedure to be adopted for negotiation among themselves of the provisions which would be embodied in the Peace Treaty, and that this was a difficult task, as the various countries concerned had suffered in quite different ways from the violence with which the war had been carried on by their adversaries, notably by Germany. Compare the devastation of North-Eastern France, the destruction of public buildings in Belgium, the carrying away of public and private property from these two countries, with the almost entire freedom of the British Islands from damage on land at the hands of the enemy; though, on the other hand, the destruction of a great portion of the British mercantile marine was a very serious blow to the prosperity of the country. To reconcile the French and Belgian demands for reparation with the much smaller requirements of Great Britain must have been no easy undertaking, requiring long discussion and much give and and take between the representatives of the Allies.

It may seem a very small thing, but it is probable that the want of a common language between the

principal plenipotentiaries must have been an obsta to a complete and speedy understanding. Only one them spoke both English and French. Two oth understood English only, the fourth was unacquain with anything but his own language and Fren Consequently their conversations had to be carried with the assistance of an interpreter; and any one w has ever had experience of conversing through th medium, must be aware what a difficult process it frequently involving unavoidable misunderstandings.

[ocr errors]

Some doubt has been expressed with regard to t proper designation to be applied to the negotiatio between the representatives of the Allied and Associat Powers for the purpose of agreeing on the speci demands to be presented to Germany and her allies forming the terms of peace. The Foreign Office List f 1919 gives a List of the British Delegation and Sta under the heading of Peace Congress.' It is conceivab that a Congress of all the belligerent Powers might hav been summoned to meet at Paris; and by some perso this was no doubt expected. On a previous occasion, the of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, its formal assembl had been preceded by somewhat lengthy negotiations i London, which failed to produce an agreement on all th points under discussion, which are well described by M Webster in a paper read before the Royal Historica Society in March 1913, and again in his admirabl account of Congress of Vienna published as No. 153 of th Peace Hand-books. This problem, of which the resolu tion presented difficulties that spun out its duration by several months, reminds us of the similar trouble tha was caused by the Fiume question.

Peace Congresses, beginning with that known as of Westphalia, have usually consisted of all the belligerent Powers meeting on a footing of equality, and mostly ending in the signature of a single treaty signed by all of them. This procedure was not adopted on the recent occasion, and it is obvious that it may have to be modified in accordance with the relative position of the parties when hostilities are terminated by the conclusion of an Armistice Convention. The introduction to Vol. I of the 'History' tells us that, according to the stricter interpretation, it was a Congress, and not a Conference,

« PreviousContinue »