The History Book Club discussion

Treaty of Versailles 1919 (including Covenant of the League of Nations)


http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/scan.a...

John Keegan

Primary Documents - Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919

This section of the website details the full contents of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919 by Germany and the Allied powers at the Palace of Versailles. A sizeable document, the treaty featured some 440 Articles, with the addition of numerous Annexes.

Begun in early 1919 and completed in April after several months of hard bargaining, it was presented to Germany for consideration on 7 May 1919.

The German government was given three weeks to accept the terms of the treaty (which it had not seen prior to delivery). Its initial response was a lengthy list of complaints, most of which were simply ignored. The treaty was perceived by many as too great a departure from U.S. President Wilson's Fourteen Points; and by the British as too harsh in its treatment of Germany.

Controversial even today, it is often argued that the punitive terms of the treaty supported the rise of the Nazis and the Third Reich in 1930s Germany, which in turn led to the outbreak of World War II.

The Versailles treaty deprived Germany of around 13.5% of its 1914 territory (some seven million people) and all of its overseas possessions. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, and Belgium was enlarged in the east with the addition of the formerly German border areas of Eupen and Malmedy.

Among other territorial re-arrangements, an area of East Prussia was handed over to Lithuania, and the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia.

The German army was limited to a maximum of 100,000 men, and a ban placed upon the use of heavy artillery, gas, tanks and aircraft. The German navy was similarly restricted to shipping under 10,000 tons, with a ban on submarines.

The contents of the treaty have been divided into fifteen sections, each of which deals with a particular aspect of the treaty. These can be accessed via the sidebar to the right.

Description Articles
The Covenant of the League of Nations Articles 1-30 and Annex
Political Clauses for Europe Articles 31-117 and Annexes
German Rights and Interests Outside Germany Articles 118-158 and Annexes
Military, Naval and Air Clauses Articles 159-213
Prisoners of War and Graves Articles 214-226
Penalties Articles 227-230
Reparations Articles 231-247 and Annexes
Financial Clauses Articles 248-263
Economic Clauses Articles 264-312 and Annexes
Aerial Navigation Articles 313-320
Ports, Waterways and Railways Articles 321-386
Labour Articles 387-399
Procedure Articles 400-427 and Annex
Guarantees Articles 428-433
Miscellaneous Provisions Articles 434-440 and Annex

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/v...

Primary Documents - German Delegates' Protest Against Proposed Peace Terms at the Paris Peace Conference, May 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's opening address in which he accepted the presidency of the peace conference. Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Reproduced below is the text of the German delegation's protests against what they viewed as the punitive severity of the Allies' proposed peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Leader of the German Peace Delegation Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau's Letter to Paris Peace Conference President Georges Clemenceau on the Subject of Peace Terms, May 1919

Mr. President:

I have the honour to transmit to you herewith the observations of the German delegation on the draft treaty of peace.

We came to Versailles in the expectation of receiving a peace proposal based on the agreed principles. We were firmly resolved to do everything in our power with a view of fulfilling the grave obligations which we had undertaken. We hoped for the peace of justice which had been promised to us.

We were aghast when we read in documents the demands made upon us, the victorious violence of our enemies. The more deeply we penetrate into the spirit of this treaty, the more convinced we become of the impossibility of carrying it out. The exactions of this treaty are more than the German people can bear.

With a view to the re-establishment of the Polish State we must renounce indisputably German territory - nearly the whole of the Province of West Prussia, which is preponderantly German; of Pomerania; Danzig, which is German to the core; we must let that ancient Hanse town be transformed into a free State under Polish suzerainty.

We must agree that East Prussia shall be amputated from the body of the State, condemned to a lingering death, and robbed of its northern portion, including Memel, which is purely German.

We must renounce Upper Silesia for the benefit of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, although it has been in close political connection with Germany for more than 750 years, is instinct with German life, and forms the very foundation of industrial life throughout East Germany.

Preponderantly German circles (Kreise) must be ceded to Belgium, without sufficient guarantees that the plebiscite, which is only to take place afterward, will be independent. The purely German district of the Saar must be detached from our empire, and the way must be paved for its subsequent annexation to France, although we owe her debts in coal only, not in men.

For fifteen years Rhenish territory must be occupied, and after those fifteen years the Allies have power to refuse the restoration of the country; in the interval the Allies can take every measure to sever the economic and moral links with the mother country, and finally to misrepresent the wishes of the indigenous population.

Although the exaction of the cost of the war has been expressly renounced, yet Germany, thus cut in pieces and weakened, must declare herself ready in principle to bear all the war expenses of her enemies, which would exceed many times over the total amount of German State and private assets.

Meanwhile her enemies demand, in excess of the agreed conditions, reparation for damage suffered by their civil population, and in this connection Germany must also go bail for her allies. The sum to be paid is to be fixed by our enemies unilaterally, and to admit of subsequent modification and increase. No limit is fixed, save the capacity of the German people for payment, determined not by their standard of life, but solely by their capacity to meet the demands of their enemies by their labour. The German people would thus be condemned to perpetual slave labour.

In spite of the exorbitant demands, the reconstruction of our economic life is at the same time rendered impossible. We must surrender our merchant fleet. We are to renounce all foreign securities. We are to hand over to our enemies our property in all German enterprises abroad, even in the countries of our allies.

Even after the conclusion of peace the enemy States are to have the right of confiscating all German property. No German trader in their countries will be protected from these war measures. We must completely renounce our colonies, and not even German missionaries shall have the right to follow their calling therein.

We most thus renounce the realization of all our aims in the spheres of politics, economics, and ideas.

Even in internal affairs we are to give up the right to self-determination. The international Reparation Commission receives dictatorial powers over the whole life of our people in economic and cultural matters. Its authority extends far beyond that which the empire, the German Federal Council, and the Reichstag combined ever possessed within the territory of the empire.

This commission has unlimited control over the economic life of the State, of communities, and of individuals. Further, the entire educational and sanitary system depends on it. It can keep the whole German people in mental thraldom. In order to increase the payments due, by the thrall, the commission can hamper measures for the social protection of the German worker.

In other spheres also Germany's sovereignty is abolished. Her chief waterways are subjected to international administration; she must construct in her territory such canals and such railways as her enemies wish; she must agree to treaties the contents of which are unknown to her, to be concluded by her enemies with the new States on the east, even when they concern her own functions. The German people are excluded from the League of Nations, to which is entrusted all work of common interest to the world.

Thus must a whole people sign the decree for its proscription, nay, its own death sentence.

Germany knows that she must make sacrifices in order to attain peace. Germany knows that she has, by agreement, undertaken to make these sacrifices, and will go in this matter to the utmost limits of her capacity.

Counter-proposals

1. Germany offers to proceed with her own disarmament in advance of all other peoples, in order to show that she will help to usher in the new era of the peace of justice. She gives up universal compulsory service and reduces her army to 100,000 men, except as regards temporary measures. She even renounces the warships which her enemies are still willing to leave in her hands. She stipulates, however, that she shall be admitted forthwith as a State with equal rights into the League of Nations. She stipulates that a genuine League of Nations shall come into being, embracing all peoples of goodwill, even her enemies of today. The League must be inspired by a feeling of responsibility toward mankind and have at its disposal a power to enforce its will sufficiently strong and trusty to protect the frontiers of its members.

2. In territorial questions Germany takes up her position unreservedly on the ground of the Wilson program. She renounces her sovereign right in Alsace-Lorraine, but wishes a free plebiscite to take place there. She gives up the greater part of the province of Posen, the district incontestably Polish in population, together with the capital. She is prepared to grant to Poland, under international guarantees, free and secure access to the sea by ceding free ports at Danzig, Konigsberg, and Memel, by an agreement regulating the navigation of the Vistula and by special railway conventions. Germany is prepared to insure the supply of coal for the economic needs of France, especially from the Saar region, until such time as the French mines are once more in working order. The preponderantly Danish districts of Schleswig will be given up to Denmark on the basis of a plebiscite. Germany demands that the right of self-determination shall also be respected where the interests of the Germans in Austria and Bohemia are concerned. She is ready to subject all her colonies to administration by the community of the League of Nations, if she is recognized as its mandatory.

3. Germany is prepared to make payments incumbent on her in accordance with the agreed program of peace up to a maximum sum of 100,000,000,000 gold marks, 20,000,000,000 by May 1, 1926, and the balance (80,000,000,000) in annual payments, without interest. These payments shall in principle be equal to a fixed percentage of the German Imperial and State revenues. The annual payment shall approximate to the former peace budget. For the first ten years the annual payments shall not exceed 1,000,000,000 gold marks a year. The German taxpayer shall not be less heavily burdened than the taxpayer of the most heavily burdened State among those represented on the Reparation Commission. Germany presumes in this connection that she will not have to make any territorial sacrifices beyond those mentioned above and that she will recover her freedom of economic movement at home and abroad.

4. Germany is prepared to devote her entire economic strength to the service of the reconstruction. She wishes to cooperate effectively in the reconstruction of the devastated regions of Belgium and Northern France. To make good the loss in production of the destroyed mines of Northern France, up to 20,000,000 tons of coal will be delivered annually for the first five years, and up to 80,000,000 tons for the next five years. Germany will facilitate further deliveries of coal to France, Belgium, Italy, and Luxemburg. Germany is, moreover, prepared to make considerable deliveries of benzol, coal tar, and sulphate of ammonia, as well as dyestuffs and medicines.

5. Finally, Germany offers to put her entire merchant tonnage into a pool of the world's shipping, to place at the disposal of her enemies a part of her freight space as part payment of reparation and to build for them for a series of years in German yards an amount of tonnage exceeding their demands.

6. In order to replace the river boats destroyed in Belgium and Northern France, Germany offers river craft from her own resources.

7. Germany thinks that she sees an appropriate method for the prompt fulfilment of her obligation to make reparations conceding participation in coal mines to insure deliveries of coal.

Cont'd from above:

8. Germany, in accordance with the desires of the workers of the whole world, wishes to insure to them free and equal rights. She wishes to insure to them in the Treaty of Peace the right to take their own decisive part in the settlement of social policy and social protection.

9. The German delegation again makes its demand for a neutral inquiry into the responsibility for the war and culpable acts in conduct. An impartial commission should have the right to investigate on its own responsibility the archives of all the belligerent countries and all the persons who took an important part in the war. Nothing short of confidence that the question of guilt will be examined dispassionately can leave the peoples lately at war with each other in the proper frame of mind for the formation of the League of Nations.

These are only the most important among the proposals which we have to make. As regards other great sacrifices, and also as regards the details, the delegation refers to the accompanying memorandum and the annex thereto.

The time allowed us for the preparation of this memorandum was so short that it was impossible to treat all the questions exhaustively. A fruitful and illuminating negotiation could only take place by means of oral discussion.

This treaty of peace is to be the greatest achievement of its kind in all history. There is no precedent for the conduct of such comprehensive negotiations by an exchange of written notes only.

The feeling of the peoples who have made such immense sacrifices makes them demand that their fate should be decided by an open, unreserved exchange of ideas on the principle: "Quite open covenants of peace openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly in the public view."

Germany is to put her signature to the treaty laid before her and to carry it out. Even in her need, justice for her is too sacred a thing to allow her to stoop to achieve conditions which she cannot undertake to carry out.

Treaties of peace signed by the great powers have, it is true, in the history of the last decades, again and again proclaimed the right of the stronger. But each of these treaties of peace has been a factor in originating and prolonging the world war. Whenever in this war the victor has spoken to the vanquished, at Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest, his words were but the seeds of future discord.

The lofty aims which our adversaries first set before themselves in their conduct of the war, the new era of an assured peace of justice, demand a treaty instinct with a different spirit.

Only the cooperation of all nations, a cooperation of hands and spirits, can build up a durable peace. We are under no delusions regarding the strength of the hatred and bitterness which this war has engendered, and yet the forces which are at work for a union of mankind are stronger now than ever they were before.

The historic task of the Peace Conference of Versailles is to bring about this union.

Accept, Mr. President, the expression of my distinguished consideration.

BROCKDORFF-RANTZAU

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

Primary Documents - Georges Clemenceau's Opening Address at the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Reproduced below is French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's opening address in which he accepted the presidency of the peace conference.

Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Georges Clemenceau's Opening Address as Conference President, 18 January 1919

Gentlemen, you would not understand it if, after listening to the words of the two eminent men who have just spoken, I were to keep silent.

I cannot elude the necessity of expressing my lively gratitude, my deep gratitude, both to the illustrious President Wilson and to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, as well as to Baron Sonnino, for the words which they have uttered.

In the past, in the days of my youth - long ago now, as Mr. Lloyd George has reminded me - when I travelled over America and England, I used always to hear the French blamed for that excess of politeness which led them beyond the boundaries of the truth. Listening to the American statesman and the British statesman, I asked myself whether in Paris they had not acquired our national vice of flattering urbanity.

It is necessary, gentlemen, to point out that my election is due necessarily to lofty international tradition, and to the time-honoured courtesy shown toward the country which has the honour to welcome the Peace Conference in its capital. The proofs of "friendship" - as they will allow me to call it - of President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George touched me profoundly, because in these proofs may be seen a new force for all three of us which will enable us, with the help of this entire Conference, to carry through the arduous task entrusted to us. I draw new confidence from it for the success of our efforts.

President Wilson has good authority for his remark that we have here for the first time a collection of delegates from all the civilized peoples of the earth. The greater the sanguinary catastrophe which devastated and ruined one of the richest regions of France, the more ample and more splendid should be the reparation - not merely the reparation for material acts, the ordinary reparation, if I may venture to say so, which is due to us - but the nobler and loftier reparation - we are going to try to secure, so that the peoples may at last escape from this fatal embrace, which, heaping up ruins and sorrows, terrorizes the populations and prevents them from devoting themselves freely to their work for fear of the enemies who may spring up at any moment.

It is a great and noble ambition that has come to us all. We must hope that success will crown our efforts. This can only be if we have our ideas clear-cut and well defined.

I said in the Chamber of Deputies some days ago, and I make a point of repeating the statement here, that success is possible only if we remain firmly united. We have come here as friends. We must pass through that door as brothers. That is the first reflection which I am anxious to express to you. Everything must be subordinated to the necessity for a closer and closer union between the peoples which have taken part in this great war.

The Society of Nations has its being here, it has its being in you. It is for you to make it live, and for that there is no sacrifice to which we are not ready to consent. I do not doubt that as you are all of this disposition we shall arrive at this result, but only on condition that we exercise impartial pressure on ourselves to reconcile what in appearance may be opposing interests in the higher view of a greater, happier, and better humanity.

That, gentlemen, is what I had to say to you.

I am touched beyond all expression by the proof of confidence and regard which you have been kind enough to give me. The program of the Conference, the aim marked out by President Wilson, is no longer merely peace for the territories, great and small, with which we are directly concerned; it is no longer merely a peace for the continents, it is peace for the peoples.

This program speaks for itself; there is nothing to be added to it. Let us try, gentlemen, to do our work speedily and well. I am handing to the Bureau the rules of procedure of the Conference, and these will be distributed to you all.

I come now to the order of the day. The first question is as follows: "The responsibility of the authors of the war." The second is thus expressed: "Penalties for crimes committed during the war." The third is: "International legislation in regard to labour."

The Powers whose interests are only in part involved are also invited to send in memoranda in regard to matters of all kinds - territorial, financial, or economic - which affect them particularly. These memoranda should be addressed to the general secretariat of the Conference.

This system is somewhat novel. Our desire in asking you to proceed thus is to save time. All the nations represented here are free to present their claims. You will kindly send in these memoranda as speedily as possible, as we shall then get on with the work which we shall submit for your consideration. You can deal with the third question from the standpoint of the organization of labour.

It is a very vast field. But we beg of you to begin by examining the question as to the responsibility of the authors of the war. I do not need to set forth our reasons for this. If we wish to establish justice in the world we can do so now, for we have won victory and can impose the penalties demanded by justice.

We shall insist on the imposition of penalties on the authors of the abominable crimes committed during the war. Has any one any question to ask in regard to this? If not, I would again remind you that every delegation should devote itself to the study of this first question, which has been made the subject of reports by eminent jurists, and of a report which will be sent to you entitled, "An Inquiry into the Criminal Responsibility of the Emperor William II."

The perusal of this brochure will, without doubt, facilitate your work. In Great Britain and in America studies on this point have also been published. No one having any remark to make, the program is adopted.

It only remains for me to say, gentlemen, that the order of the day for our next sitting will begin with the question of the Society of Nations. Our order of the day, gentlemen, is now brought to an end. Before closing the sitting, I should like to know whether any delegate of the Powers represented has any question to submit to the Bureau. As we must work in complete agreement, it is to be desired that members of the Conference shall submit all the observations they consider necessary.

The Bureau will welcome the expression of opinions of all kinds. and will answer all questions addressed to it.

No one has anything further to say? The sitting is closed.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - Raymond Poincare's Welcoming Address at the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Reproduced below is the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare.

Click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address; click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Raymond Poincare's Welcoming Address, 18 January 1919

Gentlemen:

France greets and welcomes you and thanks you for having unanimously chosen as the seat of your labours the city which, for over four years, the enemy has made his principal military objective and which the valour of the Allied armies has victoriously defended against unceasingly renewed offensives.

Allow me to see in your decision the homage of all the nations that you represent towards a country which, still more than any others, has endured the sufferings of war, of which entire provinces, transformed into vast battlefields, have been systematically wasted by the invader, and which has paid the heaviest tribute to death.

France has borne these enormous sacrifices without having incurred the slightest responsibility for the frightful cataclysm which has overwhelmed the universe, and at the moment when this cycle of horror is ending, all the Powers whose delegates are assembled here may acquit themselves of any share in the crime which has resulted in so unprecedented a disaster.

What gives you authority to establish a peace of justice is the fact that none of the peoples of whom you are the delegates has had any part in injustice. Humanity can place confidence in you because you are not among those who have outraged the rights of humanity.

There is no need of further information or for special inquiries into the origin of the drama which has just shaken the world. The truth, bathed in blood, has already escaped from the Imperial archives. The premeditated character of the trap is today clearly proved.

In the hope of conquering, first, the hegemony of Europe and next the mastery of the world, the Central Empires, bound together by a secret plot, found the most abominable pretexts for trying to crush Serbia and force their way to the East. At the same time they disowned the most solemn undertakings in order to crush Belgium and force their way into the heart of France.

These are the two unforgettable outrages which opened the way to aggression. The combined efforts of Great Britain, France, and Russia broke themselves against that mad arrogance.

If, after long vicissitudes, those who wished to reign by the sword have perished by the sword, they have but themselves to blame; they have been destroyed by their own blindness. What could be more significant than the shameful bargains they attempted to offer to Great Britain and France at the end of July 1914, when to Great Britain they suggested: "Allow us to attack France on land and we will not enter the Channel"; and when they instructed their Ambassador to say to France: "We will only accept a declaration of neutrality on your part if you surrender to us Briey, Toul, and Verdun"?

It is in the light of these memories, gentlemen, that all the conclusions you will have to draw from the war will take shape.

Your nations entered the war successively, but came, one and all, to the help of threatened right. Like Germany, Great Britain and France had guaranteed the independence of Belgium.

Germany sought to crush Belgium. Great Britain and France both swore to save her. Thus, from the very beginning of hostilities, came into conflict the two ideas which for fifty months were to struggle for the dominion of the world - the idea of sovereign force, which accepts neither control nor check, and the idea of justice, which depends on the sword only to prevent or repress the abuse of strength.

Faithfully supported by her Dominions and Colonies, Great Britain decided that she could not remain aloof from a struggle in which the fate of every country was involved. She has made, and her Dominions and Colonies have made with her, prodigious efforts to prevent the war from ending in the triumph of the spirit of conquest and the destruction of right.

Japan, in her turn, only decided to take up arms out of loyalty to Great Britain, her great Ally, and from the consciousness of the danger in which both Asia and Europe would have stood, for the hegemony of which the Germanic Empires had dreamt.

Italy, who from the first had refused to lend a helping hand to German ambition, rose against an age-long foe only to answer the call of oppressed populations and to destroy at the cost of her blood the artificial political combination which took no account of human liberty.

Rumania resolved to fight only to realize that national unity which was opposed by the same powers of arbitrary force. Abandoned, betrayed, and strangled, she had to submit to an abominable treaty, the revision of which you will exact.

Greece, whom the enemy for many months tried to turn from her traditions and destinies, raised an army only to escape attempts at domination, of which she felt the growing threat.

Portugal, China, and Siam abandoned neutrality only to escape the strangling pressure of the Central Powers.

Thus it was the extent of German ambitions that brought so many peoples, great and small, to form a league against the same adversary.

And what shall I say of the solemn resolution taken by the United States in the spring of 1917 under the auspices of their illustrious President, Mr. Wilson, whom I am happy to greet here in the name of grateful France, and, if you will allow me to say so, gentlemen, in the name of all the nations represented in this room?

What shall I say of the many other American Powers which either declared themselves against Germany - Brazil, Cuba, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras - or at least broke off diplomatic relations - Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay?

From north to south the New World rose with indignation when it saw the empires of Central Europe, after having let loose the war without provocation and without excuse, carry it on with fire, pillage, and massacre of inoffensive beings.

The intervention of the United States was something more, something greater, than a great political and military event: it was a supreme judgment passed at the bar of history by the lofty conscience of a free people and their Chief Magistrate on the enormous responsibilities incurred in the frightful conflict which was lacerating humanity.

It was not only to protect themselves from the audacious aims of German megalomania that the United States equipped fleets and created immense armies, but also, and above all, to defend an ideal of liberty over which they saw the huge shadow of the Imperial Eagle encroaching farther every day.

America, the daughter of Europe, crossed the ocean to wrest her mother from the humiliation of thraldom and to save civilization. The American people wished to put an end to the greatest scandal that has ever sullied the annals of mankind.

Autocratic governments, having prepared in the secrecy of the Chancelleries and the General Staff a map programme of universal domination, at the time fixed by their genius for intrigue let loose their packs and sounded the horns for the chase, ordering science at the very time when it was beginning to abolish distances, bring men closer, and make life sweeter, to leave the bright sky towards which it was soaring and to place itself submissively at the service of violence, lowering the religious idea to the extent of making God the complacent auxiliary of their passions and the accomplice of their crimes; in short, counting as naught the traditions and wills of peoples, the lives of citizens, the honour of women, and all those principles of public and private morality which we for our part have endeavoured to keep unaltered through the war and which neither nations nor individuals can repudiate or disregard with impunity.

While the conflict was gradually extending over the entire surface of the earth the clanking of chains was heard here and there, and captive nationalities from the depths of their age-long jails cried out to us for help.

Cont'd from above:

Yet more, they escaped to come to our aid. Poland came to life again and sent us troops. The Czecho-Slovaks won their right to independence in Siberia, in France, and in Italy. The Jugo-Slays, the Armenians, the Syrians and Lebanese, the Arabs, all the oppressed peoples, all the victims, long helpless or resigned, of great historic deeds of injustice, all the martyrs of the past, all the outraged consciences, all the strangled liberties revived at the clash of our arms, and turned towards us, as their natural defenders.

Thus the war gradually attained the fullness of its first significance, and became, in the fullest sense of the term, a crusade of humanity for Right; and if anything can console us in part at least, for the losses we have suffered, it is assuredly the thought that our victory is also the victory of Right.

This victory is complete, for the enemy only asked for the armistice to escape from an irretrievable military disaster. In the interest of justice and peace it now rests with you to reap from this victory its full fruits in order to carry out this immense task. You have decided to admit, at first, only the Allied or associated Powers, and, in so far as their interests are involved in the debates, the nations which remained neutral.

You have thought that the terms of peace ought to be settled among ourselves before they are communicated to those against whom we have together fought the good fight. The solidarity which has united us during the war and has enabled us to win military success ought to remain unimpaired during the negotiations for, and after the signing of, the Treaty.

It is not only governments, but free peoples, who are represented here. Through the test of danger they have learned to know and help one another. They want their intimacy of yesterday to assure the peace of tomorrow. V ainly would our enemies seek to divide us. If they have not yet renounced their customary manoeuvres, they will soon find that they are meeting today, as during the hostilities, a homogeneous block which nothing will be able to disintegrate.

Even before the armistice you placed that necessary unity under the standard of the lofty moral and political truths of which President Wilson has nobly made himself the interpreter.

And in the light of those truths you intend to accomplish your mission. You will, therefore, seek nothing but justice, "justice that has no favourites," justice in territorial problems, justice in financial problems, justice in economic problems.

But justice is not inert, it does not submit to injustice. What it demands first, when it has been violated, are restitution and reparation for the peoples and individuals who have been despoiled or maltreated. In formulating this lawful claim, it obeys neither hatred nor an instinctive or thoughtless desire for reprisals. It pursues a twofold object - to render to each his due, and not to encourage crime through leaving it unpunished.

What justice also demands, inspired by the same feeling, is the punishment of the guilty and effective guaranties against an active return of the spirit by which they were tempted; and it is logical to demand that these guaranties should be given, above all, to the nations that have been, and might again be most exposed to aggressions or threats, to those who have many times stood in danger of being submerged by the periodic tide of the same invasions.

What justice banishes is the dream of conquest and imperialism, contempt for national will, the arbitrary exchange of provinces between states as though peoples were but articles of furniture or pawns in a game.

The time is no more when diplomatists could meet to redraw with authority the map of the empires on the corner of a table. If you are to remake the map of the world it is in the name of the peoples, and on condition that you shall faithfully interpret their thoughts, and respect the right of nations, small and great, to dispose of themselves, and to reconcile it with the right, equally sacred, of ethnical and religious minorities - a formidable task, which science and history, your two advisers, will contribute to illumine and facilitate.

You will naturally strive to secure the material and moral means of subsistence for all those peoples who are constituted or reconstituted into states; for those who wish to unite themselves to their neighbours; for those who divide themselves into separate units; for those who reorganize themselves according to their regained traditions; and, lastly, for all those whose freedom you have already sanctioned or are about to sanction.

You will not call them into existence only to sentence them to death immediately. You would like your work in this, as in all other matters, to be fruitful and lasting.

While thus introducing into the world as much harmony as possible, you will, in conformity with the fourteenth of the propositions unanimously adopted by the Great Allied Powers, establish a general League of Nations, which will be a supreme guarantee against any fresh assaults upon the right of peoples.

You do not intend this International Association to be directed against anybody in future. It will not of set purpose shut out anybody, but, having been organized by the nations that have sacrificed themselves in defence of Right, it will receive from them its statutes and fundamental rules. It will lay down conditions to which its present or future adherents will submit, and, as it is to have for its essential aim to prevent, as far as. possible, the renewal of wars, it will, above all, seek to gain respect for the peace which you will have established, and will find it the less difficult to maintain in proportion as this peace will in itself imply greater realities of justice and safer guaranties of stability.

By establishing this new order of things you will meet the aspiration of humanity, which, after the frightful convulsions of these bloodstained years, ardently wishes to feel itself protected by a union of free peoples against the ever-possible revivals of primitive savagely.

An immortal glory will attach to the names of the nations and the men who have desired to co-operate in this grand work in faith and brotherhood, and who have taken pains to eliminate from the future peace causes of disturbance and instability.

This very day forty-eight years ago, on January 18, 1871, the German Empire was proclaimed by an army of invasion in the Chateau at Versailles. It was consecrated by the theft of two French provinces; it was thus vitiated from its origin and by the fault of the founders; born in injustice, it has ended in opprobrium.

You are assembled in order to repair the evil that it has done and to prevent a recurrence of it. You hold in your hands the future of the world. I leave you, gentlemen, to your grave deliberations, and I declare the Conference of Paris open.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - Woodrow Wilson's Opening Address at the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Reproduced below is the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.

Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address; click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Woodrow Wilson's Opening Address Nominating Georges Clemenceau as President of the Conference, 18 January 1919

I have the great honour to propose as definitive president of this conference the French Premier, M. Clemenceau.

I do so in conformity with usage. I should do it even if it were only a question of paying homage to the French Republic, but I do it also because I desire, and you certainly desire with me, to pay homage to the man himself.

France, as it is, would alone deserve this honour, but we are today in her capital, and it is here that this great Conference has met. France, by her sufferings and sacrifices during the war, deserves a special tribute. Moreover, Paris is her ancient and splendid capital, where more than once these great assemblages, on which the fate of the world has depended, have met.

I am happy to think that the meeting which is beginning crowns the series of these meetings. This Conference may be considered in some respects as the final crowning of the diplomatic history of the world tip to this day, for never have so many nations been represented at the same time to solve problems which in so high a degree interest the whole world.

Moreover, this meeting signifies for us the end of this terrible war, which threatened to destroy civilization and the world itself. It is a delightful sensation for us to feel that we are meeting at a moment when this terrible menace has ceased to exist.

But it is not only to France, it is to the man who is her great servant that we wish to pay homage and to do honour. We have learned, since we have had relations with him, and since he has been at the head of the French Government, to admire the power of his direction and the force and good sense of his actions.

But, more than this, those who know him, those who have worked in close connection with him, have acquired for him a real affection. Those who, like ourselves, have seen him work in these recent times know how much he is united with us, and with what ardour he is working for that which we ourselves desire.

For we all desire the same thing. We desire before all to lift from the shoulders of humanity the frightful weight which is pressing on them, so that humanity, released from this weight, may at last return joyfully to work.

Thus, gentlemen, it is not only to the Premier of the French Republic, it is to M. Clemenceau that I propose you should give the presidency of this assemblage.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - David Lloyd George's Opening Address at the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Reproduced below is British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's opening address.

Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address; click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

David Lloyd George's Opening Address Seconding Woodrow Wilson's Nomination of Georges Clemenceau as Conference President, 18 January 1919

Gentlemen, it is not only a pleasure for me, but a real privilege, to support in the name of the British Empire the motion which has been proposed by President Wilson.

I shall do it for the reasons which the President has just expressed with so much eloquence. It is homage to a man that we wish to pay before all.

When I was at school M. Clemenceau was already one of the moving forces in French politics. Already his renown had spread far. And, were it not for this memory of my childhood, I should be tempted to believe the legend which is commonly spread abroad of the eternal youth of M. Clemenceau.

In all the conferences at which we have been present the most alert, the most vigorous, in a word, the youngest man, was always M. Clemenceau. By the freshness of his mind and his indefatigable energy he displayed his youth at every moment. He is indeed "the grand young man" of France.

But nothing will give us greater pleasure than to see him take the place which we propose that he should accept. No one is better qualified for that place. We have often had discussions together. We have often been in agreement and sometimes we have disagreed, and in that case we have always been in the habit of expressing our opinions with all the force and vigour which belong to two Celts like ourselves.

I believe that in the debates of this Conference there will at first inevitably be delays, but I guarantee from my knowledge of M. Clemenceau that there will be no time wasted. That is indispensable. The world is thirsting for peace. Millions of men are waiting to return to their normal life, and they will not forgive us too long delays.

I am sure that M. Clemenceau will not allow useless delays to occur. He is one of the greatest living orators, but he knows that the finest eloquence is that which gets things done and that the worst is that which delays them. Another reason for congratulating him on occupying the place which we are about to give him is his indomitable courage, of which he has given proof in days of difficulty.

In these days his energy and presence of mind have done more than all the acts of us others to ensure victory. There is no man of whom one can say that he has contributed more to surmount those terrible difficulties which were so close to the final triumph.

He represents the admirable energy, courage and resource of his great people, and that is why I desire to add my voice to that of President Wilson and to ask for his election to the presidency of the Peace Conference.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - Sidney Sonnino's Opening Address at the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Reproduced below is Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's opening address.

Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Sidney Sonnino's Opening Address Seconding Woodrow Wilson's Nomination of Georges Clemenceau as Conference President, 18 January 1919

Gentlemen, on behalf of the Italian Delegation, I associate myself cordially with the proposal of President Wilson, supported by Mr. Lloyd George, and I ask you to give the presidency of the Peace Conference to M. Clemenceau.

I am happy to be able in these circumstances to testify to my good will and admiration for France and for the eminent statesman who is at the head of her Government.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - Sisley Huddleston's Account of the Opening of the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Reproduced below is an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address; click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's address.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Sisley Huddleston's Account of the Opening of the Paris Peace Conference, 18 January 1919

The Peace Conference formally opened on Saturday, January 18th, in the Salle de l'Horloge at the French Foreign Ministry. But for some weeks before there had been a mustering of statesmen from the four corners of the world in Paris, and the French capital, which with its comings and goings of statesmen and generals had for so long been the Capital of the War, was prepared to become the Peace Headquarters.

I think that the strongest criticism that can be made of the Allies is that they permitted two months to slip away before they even proceeded to consider the peace which the armistice promised.

There were two things to do, each of which depended on the other. One was to make a temporary treaty which would give us a working relationship with Germany. The other was, not only to make peace in the diplomatic sense, but to pacify Europe. We increased our difficulties with Germany by the long delay. We could in the first flush of victory have imposed our maximum terms almost without protest on the crushed people; and it would have had an excellent effect to modify them later on. But we muddled, because Clemenceau wanted one sort of peace, Lloyd George another, and Wilson a third.

We got in each other's way.

The fact is that the Foreign Offices could not agree. The conflict on the question of admitting Russia was particularly heated between the British and the French. The Quai d'Orsay, which is singularly blind to realities and sometimes allows itself to be manoeuvred by foreign reactionaries, declared hotly against Mr. Lloyd George's and Mr. Balfour's views that Lenin should be invited to make peace and send delegates to Paris.

This inability to come to an accord on the most elementary matters pursued the Allies; and it was no wonder that Mr. Wilson, who had been in France for nearly a month, wasting his time, protesting now and again to M. Clemenceau, grew very impatient, and urged an instant beginning.

At this time the contradiction between the point of view of the American President and that of the French Premier was flat and flagrant. A deadlock was threatened at the outset. The two men remained courteous, but there was certainly no friendly feeling between them.

"If you can persuade me that your plans are better for the peace of the world, I am willing to listen and to learn," said Mr. Wilson. "And if you can persuade me, so much the better," replied M. Clemenceau. "Only - you cannot!"

The scenery, the stage setting, was not very impressive in those rainy days of January, when Paris was drenched in constant showers. There is no season of the year when the city looks more dismal. The leafless boulevards and the wet pavements reflecting faintly at night the feeble illuminations make a picture without colour. But in the busy interiors of the buildings that were devoted to the preparations for peace there was an almost feverish activity.

The Pressmen from all parts of the world gathered in great clouds ready to swarm down upon any one who could furnish them with the smallest tit-bit of information. Motorcars dashed to and fro under the leaden skies, stopping at the door of this hotel and at the porch of that Government Department.

The last touches were put to the arrangements. The papers stacked in prodigious number were classified. Facts and figures about almost every country in Europe, and statistics about every continent of the world, were available.

In short, the supreme moment had arrived when the most immense consultation of Powers and of peoples that the world has ever seen was about to begin.

If you had occasion to come within the shadow of these buildings, whose placid front concealed such prodigious labour and such stupendous compilations, you felt the gravity of the coming events. There were assembled those upon whose wisdom or folly, upon whose vigilance or blindness, upon whose goodwill or antipathies, the whole future of the world hung.

The fate of mankind was poised by a thread. When you came into the sphere of these proceedings you could not avoid a feeling of awe at the terrible responsibilities shouldered by the statesmen, as they were yesterday shouldered by the captains of the Allies and of their associates.

The British took up their quarters in the Hotel Majestic and in the Hotel Astoria - two huge establishments which are close to the Etoile. The strictest guard was kept, lest there should be a betrayal of secrets. What secrets there were left to betray after the members of the Conference had given away all they knew - except their own quarrels, and those too, wherever it suited them to hint that Mr. So-and-so was preventing an agreement on such-and-such a subject - I really do not know.

For my part, I never learnt of anything of any importance through official channels that I had not known before either by personal contact with some member or through the newspapers. There never was such a ridiculous bogy as this fear of publicity, and I am only surprised that the Press did not laugh it to scorn.

There were not only men from the Foreign Office but men from Scotland Yard, and the emptying of the waste-paper baskets was a highly important business!

In these buildings the delegates lived and worked and played - for the social side of life was developed by the younger folk at the Hotel Majestic. If it was permissible to dance on the eve of Waterloo it was surely permissible to dance on the eve of Versailles; and the amateur theatricals and the concerts and the dinner parties and the afternoon teas in the Hall of the Hotel Majestic made peace-making a fairly pleasant job, provided you were not too busy.

Nevertheless, it is not at all fair to speak scornfully of this army of officials. They really worked after their fashion exceedingly well. They prepared reports, they put the text of documents in shape, they did the fagging for the British team.

Only - the delegates afterwards disregarded what they had done and much of their work was wasted. There was an early outcry about their numbers, but it must be remembered that it was difficult to estimate how large a staff would be required; and, besides, a number came over for only a week or two.

A tribute should be paid to the many girl assistants, who in docketing and filing were superior to the men. Responsible positions were given to women. The uniforms of the young girl messengers soon became familiar to Parisians and were celebrated in song.

Most of the decisions with regard to the methods of procedure were taken in the week preceding the Conference proper. It was arranged that the big Powers alone were to lay down the general lines and the smaller States to be called in afterwards, while the enemy Powers were to come in at the end of the deliberations to receive their sentences at Versailles.

There was a feeling in some quarters that it would have been better that everybody should have been united in a big conference to agree first on the principles to be applied, and to work out the details in smaller groups. Questions of procedure cannot be regarded as trivial. They have gone very far to make the results of the Conference what they are.

The opening day recalled an event which coloured the subsequent history of Europe. It was the anniversary of that day in 1871 when the German Empire was proclaimed by an army of invasion in the Chateau at Versailles. It was consecrated by the theft of two French provinces, and, as M. Poincare said, was thus vitiated from its origin by the fault of its founders.

Born in injustice, it ended in opprobrium. The scene in the Salon de l'Horloge at the Quai d'Orsay when the seventy delegates met for the first time was an impressive one.

The Salle is magnificent, a suitable setting for the drama which was then begun. Looking out on the swollen Seine was M. Bratianu, the Rumanian Premier, in company with M. Pashitch of Serbia. All the Balkan problems which had been hitherto insoluble seemed to be represented by these two men.

The picturesque figure of the Emir Feysal, son of the King of the Hedjaz, with his flowing turban falling on his shoulders, reminded one of the tremendous differences of opinion and of interests in the Near East. M. Dmowski and M. Kramarcz, from Poland and from Czecho-Slovakia, evoked the difficulties and the troublous times ahead of the new States.

One foresaw the Adriatic quarrel when Baron Sonnino entered. M. Venizelos incarnated Greek aspirations and M. Vandervelde carried us in imagination to suffering Belgium.

Marshal Foch, Mr. Wilson, President Poincare, Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau formed a group whose points of view it seemed hardly possible to reconcile. After all, when one looked and remembered "so many men, so many minds," it seemed hopeless to expect that they could all he satisfied.

Cont'd from above:

I think in view of the subsequent results it is as well to recall the salient passage of M. Poincare's speech.

"You will," he said, "seek nothing but justice - justice that has no favourites - justice in territorial problems, justice in financial problems, justice in economic problems."

"The time is no more when diplomatists could meet to redraw with authority the map of the Empires on the corner of a table. If you are to remake the map of the world it is in the name of the peoples and on condition that you shall faithfully interpret their thoughts and respect the right of nations, small and great, to dispose of themselves, provided that they observe the rights equally sacred of ethical and religious minorities."

"While thus introducing into the world as much harmony as possible, you will, in conformity with the fourteenth of the propositions unanimously adopted by the Great Allied Powers, establish a general League of Nations which will be a supreme guarantee against any fresh assaults upon the right of peoples."

How far has this purpose been fulfilled? He would be a bold man who would pretend that the high mission has been carried out without deflection and without conspicuous failures.

The actual representation of the Powers, big and little, was not settled without many protests, and it is now no secret that great discontent was aroused by the allocation of the number of seats to each nation.

Mr. Lloyd George soon found an opportunity for his gift of conciliation, since there was indeed much that was arbitrary in the arrangements dictated by material interests.

The first intention that Belgium should have fewer representatives than Brazil displeased many commentators. The British delegation was regarded as unfair, since Canada, Australia and India, and other parts of the Empire, helped to strengthen the British point of view.

The question of the Dominions was certainly a difficult one, for they are entirely British, and yet could not be assimilated. It was obvious that separate representation was due for their great and gallant part in the war, but the clear-sighted French observed the preponderance of the British element thus given, and asked for (and were refused) representatives from Algeria, Cochin-China and Morocco.

The Jugo-Slays, as such, were not to have a place. The Serbians, who, with their neighbours composing the new nation, were to have so much to say with regard to the Italian claims, had two representatives, and could not therefore speak for three nationalities. The differences among the Asiatic nations were even more fundamental.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - Allied Reply to German Delegates' Protest Against Proposed Peace Terms at the Paris Peace Conference, May 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's opening address in which he accepted the presidency of the peace conference. Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Reproduced below is the text of the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Georges Clemenceau's Letter of Reply to the Objections of the German Peace Delegation, May 1919

Sir:

The Allied and Associated Powers have given the most earnest consideration to the observations of the German Delegation on the conditions of peace.

The reply protests against the peace, both on the ground that it conflicts with the terms upon which the armistice of November 11, 1918, was signed, and that it is a peace of violence and not of justice.

The protest of the German Delegation shows that they utterly fail to understand the position in which Germany stands today. They seem to think that Germany has only to "make sacrifices in order to attain peace," as if this were but the end of some mere struggle for territory and power.

I

The Allied and Associated Powers therefore feel it necessary to begin their reply by a clear statement of the judgment passed upon the war by practically the whole of civilized mankind.

In the view of the Allied and Associated Powers the war which began on August 1, 1914, was the greatest crime against humanity and the freedom of peoples that any nation, calling itself civilized, has ever consciously committed.

For many years the rulers of Germany, true to the Prussian tradition, strove for a position of dominance in Europe. They were not satisfied with that growing prosperity and influence to which Germany was entitled, and which all other nations were willing to accord her, in the society of free and equal peoples. They required that they should be able to dictate and tyrannize to a subservient Europe, as they dictated and tyrannized over a subservient Germany.

In order to attain their ends they used every channel in their power through which to educate their own subjects in the doctrine that might was right in international affairs. They never ceased to expand German armaments by land and sea, and to propagate the falsehood that this was necessary because Germany's neighbours were jealous of her prosperity and power.

They sought to sow hostility and suspicion instead of friendship between nations. They developed a system of espionage and intrigue which enabled them to stir up internal rebellion and unrest and even to make secret offensive preparations within the territory of their neighbours whereby they might, when the moment came, strike them down with greater certainty and ease.

They kept Europe in a ferment by threats of violence, and when they found that their neighbours were resolved to resist their arrogant will they determined to assist their predominance in Europe by force.

As soon as their preparations were complete, they encouraged a subservient ally to declare war against Serbia at forty-eight hours' notice, knowing full well that a conflict involving the control of the Balkans could not be localized and almost certainly meant a general war. In order to make doubly sure, they refused every attempt at conciliation and conference until it was too late, and the world war was inevitable for which they had plotted, and for which alone among the nations they were fully equipped and prepared.

Germany's responsibility, however, is not confined to having planned and started the war. She is no less responsible for the savage and inhuman manner in which it was conducted.

Though Germany was herself a guarantor of Belgium, the ruler of Germany violated, after a solemn promise to respect it, the neutrality of this unoffending people. Not content with this, they deliberately carried out a series of promiscuous shootings and burnings with the sole object of terrifying the inhabitants into submission by the very frightfulness of their action.

They were the first to use poisonous gas, notwithstanding the appalling suffering it entailed. They began the bombing and long distance shelling of towns for no military object, but solely for the purpose of reducing the morale of their opponents by striking at their women and children. They commenced the submarine campaign with its piratical challenge to international law, and its destruction of great numbers of innocent passengers and sailors, in mid-ocean, far from succour, at the mercy of the winds and the waves, and the yet more ruthless submarine crews.

They drove thousands of men and women and children with brutal savagery into slavery in foreign lands. They allowed barbarities to be practiced against their prisoners of war from which the most uncivilized peoples would have recoiled.

The conduct of Germany is almost unexampled in human history. The terrible responsibility which lies at her doors can be seen in the fact that not less than seven million dead lie buried in Europe, while more than twenty million others carry upon them the evidence of wounds and sufferings, because Germany saw fit to gratify her lust for tyranny by resort to war.

The Allied and Associated Powers believe that they will be false to those who have given their all to save the freedom of the world if they consent to treat this war on any other basis than as a crime against humanity and right.

This attitude of the Allied and Associated Powers was made perfectly clear to Germany during the war by their principal statesmen. It was defined by President Wilson in his speech of April 6, 1918, and explicitly and categorically accepted by the German people as a principle governing the peace:

Let everything that we say, my fellow countrymen, everything that we henceforth plan and accomplish, ring true to this response till the majesty and might of our concerted power shall fill the thought and utterly defeat the force of those who flout and misprize what we honour and hold dear.

Cont'd.

Germany has once more said that force, and force alone, shall decide whether justice and peace shall reign in the affairs of men, whether Right as America conceives it or Dominion as she conceives it shall determine the destinies of mankind.

There is, therefore, but one response possible from us: Force, Force to the utmost, Force without stint or limit, righteous and triumphant Force which shall make Right the law of the world, and cast every selfish dominion down in the dust.

It was set forth clearly in a speech of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, of December 14, 1917:

There is no security in any land without certainty of punishment. There is no protection for life, property, or money in a state where the criminal is more powerful than the law.

The law of nations is no exception, and until it has been vindicated, the peace of the world will always be at the mercy of any nation whose professors have assiduously taught it to believe that no crime is wrong so long as it leads to the aggrandizement and enrichment of the country to which they owe allegiance.

There have been many times in the history of the world criminal states. We are dealing with one of them now. And there will always be criminal states until the reward of international crime becomes too precarious to make it profitable, and the punishment of international crime becomes too sure to make it attractive.

It was made clear also in an address of M. Clemenceau of September, 1918:

What do they (the French soldiers) want? What do we ourselves want? To fight, to fight victoriously and unceasingly, until the hour when the enemy shall understand that no compromise is possible between such crime and 'justice.' ... We only seek peace, and we wish to make it just and permanent in order that future generations may he saved from the abominations of the past.

Similarly, Signor Orlando, speaking on October 3, 1918, declared:

We shall obtain peace when our enemies recognize that humanity has the right and duty to safeguard itself against a continuation of such causes as have brought about this terrible slaughter; and that the blood of millions of men calls not for vengeance but for the realization of those high ideals for which it has been so generously shed.

Nobody thinks of employing - even by way of legitimate retaliation - methods of brutal violence or of overbearing domination or of suffocation of the freedom of any people - methods and policies which made the whole world rise against the Central Powers.

But nobody will contend that the moral order can be restored simply because he who fails in his iniquitous endeavour declares that he has renounced his aim. Questions intimately affecting the peaceful life of nations, once raised, must obtain the solution which justice requires.

Justice, therefore, is the only possible basis for the settlement of the accounts of this terrible war. Justice is what the German Delegation asks for and say that Germany had been promised.

Justice is what Germany shall have. But it must be justice for all. There must be justice for the dead and wounded and for those who have been orphaned and bereaved that Europe might be freed from Prussian despotism. There must be justice for the peoples who now stagger under war debts which exceed 130,000,000,000 that liberty might be saved. There must be justice for those millions whose homes and lands, ships and property German savagery has spoliated and destroyed.

That is why the Allied and Associated Powers have insisted as a cardinal feature of the treaty that Germany must undertake to make reparation to the very uttermost of her power; for reparation for wrongs inflicted is of the essence of justice. That is why they insist that those individuals who are most clearly responsible for German aggression and for those acts of barbarism and inhumanity which have disgraced the German conduct of the war, must be handed over to a justice which has not been meted out to them at home.

That, too, is why Germany must submit for a few years to certain special disabilities and arrangements. Germany has ruined the industries, the mines, and the machinery of neighbouring countries, not during battle, but with the deliberate and calculated purpose of enabling her industries to seize their markets before their industries could recover from the devastation thus wantonly inflicted upon them.

Germany has despoiled her neighbours of everything she could make use of or carry away. Germany has destroyed the shipping of all nations on the high seas, where there was no chance of rescue for their passengers and crews. It is only justice that restitution should be made and that these wronged peoples should be safeguarded for a time from the competition of a nation whose industries are intact and have even been fortified by machinery stolen from occupied territories.

If these things are hardships for Germany, they are hardships which Germany has brought upon herself. Somebody must suffer for the consequences of the war. Is it to be Germany, or only the peoples she has wronged?

Not to do justice to all concerned would only leave the world open to fresh calamities. If the German people themselves, or any other nation, are to be deterred from following the footsteps of Prussia, if mankind is to be lifted out of the belief that war for selfish ends is legitimate to any state, if the old era is to be left behind and nations as well as individuals are to be brought beneath the reign of law, even if there is to be early reconciliation and appeasement, it will be because those responsible for concluding the war have had the courage to see that justice is not deflected for the sake of convenient peace.

It is said that the German Revolution ought to make a difference and that the German people are not responsible for the policy of the rulers whom they have thrown from power.

The Allied and Associated Powers recognize and welcome the change. It represents a great hope for peace, and for a new European order in the future. But it cannot affect the settlement of the war itself. The German Revolution was stayed until the German armies had been defeated in the field, and all hope of profiting by the war of conquest had vanished.

Throughout the war, as before the war, the German people and their representatives supported the war, voted the credits, subscribed to the war loans, obeyed every order, however savage, of their government. They shared the responsibility for the policy of their government, for at any moment, had they willed it, they could have reversed it.

Had that policy succeeded they would have acclaimed it with the same enthusiasm with which they welcomed the outbreak of the war. They cannot now pretend, having changed their rulers after the war was lost, that it is justice that they should escape the consequences of their deeds.

Cont'd:

II

The Allied and Associated Powers therefore believe that the peace they have proposed is fundamentally a peace of justice.

They are no less certain that it is a peace of right fulfilling the terms agreed upon at the time of the armistice. There can be no doubt as to the intentions of the Allied and Associated Powers to base the settlement of Europe on the principle of freeing oppressed peoples, and redrawing national boundaries as far as possible in accordance with the will of the peoples concerned, while giving to each facilities for living an independent national and economic life.

These intentions were made clear, not only in President Wilson's address to Congress of January 8, 1918, but in "the principles of settlement enunciated in his subsequent addresses" which were the agreed basis of the peace. A memorandum on this point is attached to this letter.

Accordingly the Allied and Associated Powers have provided for the reconstitution of Poland as an independent state with "free and secure access to the sea." All "territories inhabited by indubitably Polish populations" have been accorded to Poland. All territory inhabited by German majorities, save for a few isolated towns and for colonies established on land recently forcibly expropriated and situated in the midst of indubitably Polish territory, has been left to Germany.

Wherever the will of the people is in doubt a plebiscite has been provided for. The town of Danzig is to be constituted a free city, so that the inhabitants will be autonomous and not come under Polish rule and will form no part of the Polish state. Poland will be given certain economic rights in Danzig and the city itself has been severed from Germany because in no other way was it possible to provide for that "free and secure access to the sea" which Germany has promised to concede.

The German counter-proposals entirely conflict with the agreed basis of peace. They provide that great majorities of indisputably Polish population shall be kept under German rule.

They deny secure access to the sea to a nation of over twenty million people, whose nationals are in the majority all the way to the coast, in order to maintain territorial connection between East and West Prussia, whose trade has always been mainly seaborne. They cannot, therefore, be accepted by the Allied and Associated Powers.

At the same time, in certain cases the German note has established a case for rectification, which will be made; and in view of the contention that Upper Silesia, though inhabited by a two to one majority of Poles (1,250,000 to 650,000, 1910 German census), wishes to remain a part of Germany, they are willing that the question of whether Upper Silesia should form part of Germany or of Poland should be determined by the vote of the inhabitants themselves.

In regard to the Saar basin, the regime proposed by the Allied and Associated Powers is to continue for fifteen years. This arrangement they considered necessary both to the general scheme for reparation, and in order that France may have immediate and certain compensation for the wanton destruction of her northern coal mines. The district has been transferred not to French sovereignty, but to the control of the League of Nations.

This method has the double advantage that it involves no annexation, while it gives possession of the coal field to France and maintains the economic unity of the district, so important to the interests of the inhabitants. At the end of fifteen years the mixed population, who in the meanwhile will have had control of its own local affairs under the governing supervision of the League of Nations, will have complete freedom to decide whether they wish union with Germany, union with France, or the continuance of the regime established by the treaty.

As to the territories which it is proposed to transfer from Germany to Denmark and Belgium, some of these were forcibly seized by Prussia, and in every case the transfer will only take place as the result of a decision of the inhabitants themselves, taken under conditions which will insure complete freedom to vote.

Finally, the Allied and Associated Powers are satisfied that the native inhabitants of the German colonies are strongly opposed to being again brought under Germany's sway, and the record of German rule, the traditions of the German Government and the use to which these colonies were put as bases from which to prey upon the commerce of the world, make it impossible for the Allied and Associated Powers to return them to Germany, or to entrust to her the responsibility for the training and education of their inhabitants.

For these reasons, the Allied and Associated Powers are satisfied that their territorial proposals are in accord both with the agreed basis of peace and are necessary to the future peace of Europe. They are therefore not prepared to modify them except as indicated.

III

Arising out of the territorial settlement are the proposals in regard to international control of rivers. It is clearly in accord with the agreed basis of the peace and the established public law of Europe that inland states should have secure access to the sea along navigable rivers flowing through their territory.

The Allied and Associated Powers believe that the arrangements which they propose are vital to the free life of the new inland states that are being established and that they are no derogation from the rights of the other riparian states. If viewed according to the discredited doctrine that every state is engaged in a desperate struggle for ascendancy over its neighbours, no doubt such arrangement may be an impediment to the artificial strangling of a rival.

But if it be the ideal that nations are to cooperate in the ways of commerce and peace, it is natural and right. The provisions for the presence of representatives of non-riparian states on these river commissions is security that the general interest will be considered. In the application of these principles, some modifications have however been made in the original proposals.

IV

The German Delegation appear to have seriously misinterpreted the economic and financial conditions. There is no intention on the part of the Allied and Associated Powers to strangle Germany or to prevent her from taking her proper place in international trade and commerce.

Provided that she abides by the treaty of peace and provided also that she abandons those aggressive and exclusive traditions which have been apparent no less in her business than in her political methods, the Allied and Associated Powers intend that Germany shall have fair treatment in the purchase of raw materials and the sale of goods, subject to those temporary provisions already mentioned in the interests of the nations ravaged and weakened by German action.

It is their desire that the passions engendered by the war should die as soon as possible, and that all nations should share in the prosperity which comes from the honest supply of their mutual needs. They wish that Germany shall enjoy this prosperity like the rest, though much of the fruit of it must necessarily go, for many years to come, in making reparation to her neighbours for the damage she has done.

In order to make their intention clear, a number of modifications have been made in the financial and economic clauses of the treaty. But the principles upon which the treaty is drawn must stand.

Cont'd:

V

The German Delegation have greatly misinterpreted the reparation proposals of the treaty.

These proposals confine the amount payable by Germany to what is clearly justifiable under the terms of armistice in respect of damage caused to the civilian population of the Allies by German aggression. They do not provide for that interference in the internal life of Germany by the Reparation Commission which is alleged.

They are designed to make the payment of that reparation which Germany must pay as easy and convenient to both parties as possible and they will be interpreted in that sense. The Allied and Associated Powers therefore are not prepared to modify them.

But they recognize with the German Delegation the advantage of arriving as soon as possible at the fixed and definite sum which shall be payable by Germany and accepted by the Allies. It is not possible to fix this sum today, for the extent of damage and the cost of repair have not yet been ascertained.

They are therefore willing to accord to Germany all necessary and reasonable facilities to enable her to survey the devastated and damaged regions, and to make proposals thereafter within four months of the signing of the treaty for a settlement of the claims under each of the categories of damage for which she is liable.

If, within the following two months, an agreement can be reached, the exact liability of Germany will have been ascertained. If agreement has not been reached by then, the arrangement as provided in the treaty will be executed.

VI

The Allied and Associated Powers have given careful consideration to the request of the German Delegation that Germany should at once be admitted to the League of Nations. They find themselves unable to accede to this request.

The German Revolution was postponed to the last moments of the war and there is as yet no guarantee that it represents a permanent change.

In the present temper of international feeling, it is impossible to expect the free nations of the world to sit down immediately in equal association with those by whom they have been so grievously wronged. To attempt this too soon would delay and not hasten that process of appeasement which all desire.

But the Allied and Associated Powers believe that if the German people prove by their acts that they intend to fulfil the conditions of the peace, and that they have abandoned those aggressive and estranging policies which caused the war, and now have become a people with whom it is possible to live in neighbourly good fellowship, the memories of the past years will speedily fade, and it will be possible at an early date to complete the League of Nations by the admission of Germany thereto.

It is their earnest hope that this may be the case. They believe that the prospects of the world depend upon the close and friendly cooperation of all nations in adjusting international questions and promoting the welfare and progress of mankind. But the early entry of Germany into the League must depend principally upon the action of the German people themselves.

VII

In the course of its discussion of their economic terms, and elsewhere, the German Delegation have repeated their denunciation of the blockade instituted by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Blockade is and always has been a legal and recognized method of war, and its operation has from time to time been adapted to changes in international communications.

If the Allied and Associated Powers have imposed upon Germany a blockade of exceptional severity, which throughout they have consistently sought to conform to the principles of international law, it is because of the criminal character of the war initiated by Germany and of the barbarous methods adopted by her in prosecuting it.

The Allied and Associated Powers have not attempted to make a specific answer to all the assertions made in the German note. The fact that some observations have been passed over in silence does not indicate, however, that they are either admitted or open to discussion.

VIII

In conclusion the Allied and Associated Powers must make it clear that this letter and the memorandum attached constitute their last word.

They have examined the German observations and counter-proposals with earnest attention and care. They have, in consequence, made important practical concessions, but in its principles, they stand by the treaty.

They believe that it is not only a just settlement of the great war, but that it provides the basis upon which the peoples of Europe can live together in friendship and equality. At the same time it creates the machinery for the peaceful adjustment of all international problems by discussion and consent, whereby the settlement of 1919, itself can be modified from time to time to suit new facts and new conditions as they arise.

It is frankly not based upon a general condonation of the events of 1914-1918. It would not be a peace of justice if it were. But it represents a sincere and deliberate attempt to establish "that reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed, and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind" which was the agreed basis of the peace.

As such the treaty in its present form must be accepted or rejected.

The Allied and Associated Powers therefore require a declaration from the German Delegation within five days from the date of this communication that they are prepared to sign the treaty as it stands today.

If they declare within this period that they are prepared to sign the treaty as it stands, arrangements will be made for the immediate signature of the peace at Versailles.

In default of such a declaration, this communication constitutes the notification provided for in Article II of the Convention of February 16, 1919, prolonging the armistice which was signed on November 11, 1918, and has already been prolonged by the agreement of December 13, 1918, and January 16, 1919. The said armistice will then terminate, and the Allied and Associated Powers will take such steps as they think needful to enforce their terms.

French text signed: CLEMENCEAU.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - Dutch Newspaper Editorial Against the Terms of the Paris Peace Conference, May 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's opening address in which he accepted the presidency of the peace conference. Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Reproduced below is the text of a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the severity of the proposed Allied peace terms.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a journalist's account of the signing ceremony.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

Dutch Algemeen Handelsblad Editorial on the Treaty of Versailles, June 1919

The peace conditions imposed upon Germany are so hard, so humiliating, that even those who have the smallest expectation of a "peace of justice" are bound to be deeply disappointed.

Has Germany actually deserved such a "peace"? Everybody knows how we condemned the crimes committed against humanity by Germany. Everybody knows what we thought of the invasion of Belgium, the submarine war, the Zeppelin raids.

Our opinion on the lust of power and conquest of Germany is well known. But a condemnation of wartime actions must not amount to a lasting condemnation of a people. In spite of all they have done, the German people is a great and noble nation.

The question is not whether the Germans have been led by an intellectual group to their destruction, or whether they are accomplices in the misdeeds of their leaders - the question is, whether it is to the interest of mankind, whether there is any sense in punishing a people in such a way as the Entente governments wish to chastise Germany.

The Entente evidently desires the complete annihilation of Germany. Not only will the whole commercial fleet be confiscated, but the shipbuilding yards will be obliged to work for the foreigner for some time to come.

Whole tracts of Germany will be entirely deprived of their liberty; they will be under a committee of foreign domination, without adequate representation.

The financial burden is so heavy that it is no exaggeration to say that Germany is reduced to economic bondage. The Germans will have to work hard and incessantly for foreign masters, without any chance of personal gain, or any prospect of regaining liberty or economic independence.

This "peace" offered to Germany may differ in form from the one imposed upon conquered nations by the old Romans, but certainly not in essence. This peace is a mockery of President Wilson's principles. Trusting to these, Germany accepted peace. That confidence has been betrayed in such a manner that we regard the present happenings as a deep humiliation, not only to all governments and nations concerned in this peace offer, but to all humanity.

These conditions will never give peace. All Germans must feel that they wish to shake off the heavy yoke imposed by the cajoling Entente, and we fear very much that that opportunity will soon present itself. For has not the Entente recognized in the proposed so-called "League of Nations" the evident right to conquer and possess countries for economic and imperialistic purposes? Fettered and enslaved, Germany will always remain a menace to Europe.

The voice and opinion of neutrals have carried very little weight in this war. But, however small their influence and however dangerous the rancorous caprice of the Entente powers may be to neutrals, it is our conviction and our duty to protest as forcibly as possible against these peace conditions.

We understand the bitter feelings of the Entente countries. But that does not make these peace conditions less wrong, less dangerous to world civilization, or any less an outrage against Germany and against mankind.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

Primary Documents - U.S. Press Journalist on the Versailles Signing Ceremony, 28 June 1919

With Germany's decision to seek an armistice - or face domestic as well as military collapse - arrangements were set in place to convene a peace conference in Paris; the city was unanimously selected by the Allied powers.

The conference began somewhat belatedly in mid-January with opening addresses from many of the key Allies.

Click here to read French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau's opening address in which he accepted the presidency of the peace conference. Click here to read the welcoming address given to delegates by French President Raymond Poincare; click here to read the opening address by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; click here to read British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's address; click here to read Italian Prime Minister Sidney Sonnino's address. Click here to read an account of the run up to the opening session by the official British observer Sisley Huddleston.

Reproduced below is the text of U.S. newspaper journalist Harry Hansen's account of the Versailles signing ceremony on 28 June 1919.

Click here to read the German delegation's protest against the final Allied peace terms. Click here to read the Allied response. Click here to read a Dutch newspaper editorial condemning the Allied terms.

Click here to read the text of the eventual peace treaty.

U.S. Press Journalist Harry Hansen on the Versailles Signing Ceremony, 28 June 1919

The greatest attention had been given to the staging of the culminating event in the Hall of Mirrors.

It is a long and narrow room, more like a corridor than a salon. The delegates ascended the marble staircase and passed through what at one time were the apartments of Marie Antoinette to the Salon de la Pail, the Hall of Peace, whence they entered the Hall of Mirrors.

At this end of the hall were the chairs for the invited guests. Then came tables for secretaries of certain delegations. Beyond that stood the long horseshoe table that ran along the mirrored side of the hall.

At the middle of the table, facing the high embrasured windows, was the place for M. Clemenceau, president of the conference. To his left, in the direction of the Hall of Peace, were reserved places for the delegates of Great Britain, the British dominions, and Japan.

Here the angle in the table was reached, and then carne the places reserved for Germany. There followed the seats of Uruguay, Peru, Panama, Nicaragua, Liberia, Honduras, Brazil, Haiti, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Equador.

At the right hand of the President sat the commissioners from the United States. Then came France, Italy and Belgium. Beyond the turn of the table came the places of Greece, Poland, China, Cuba, Rumania, Hedjaz, Siam, Serbia, and Czecho-Slovakia.

Behind this table were tables for secretaries, and behind them, extending toward the Hall of War, came seats for the representatives of the press of the world. Inside the horseshoe table were smaller tables for secretaries, and a small one before the chairman's place was reserved for the interpreter.

In the middle stood the table on which lay the treaty of peace and three other documents to be signed simultaneously with it; the protocol, to be signed also by all the delegates; the Rhine province agreement, to be signed by the five great powers and Germany; and the Polish treaty, to he signed by the five great powers, Poland, and Germany.

On the day before the ceremony Herr von Haniel sent word to the Peace Conference that the German delegates had received no formal assurance that the document they were to sign in the Hall of Mirrors was identical with the treaty handed them on June 19th. M. Clemenceau immediately drafted a letter assuring them formally that the document was identical in all its parts, and this was carried to the Germans by M. Dutasta, general secretary of the conference.

Singularly, the places reserved for the delegation from China were not to be occupied. This was the one rift in the lute, for the Chinese commissioners, in protest against the clauses of the treaty agreeing to the transfer of the German leaseholds to Japan, decided not to sign the treaty.

A month before the Chinese plenipotentiaries had made a formal request of the Peace Conference that the questions involved in the Shantung matter be not included in the treaty, but be postponed for future consideration. This request was denied.

On the morning of June 28th M. Lou Tseng Tsiang, president of the Chinese delegation, asked that China be permitted to sign with the explanatory note, "Under the reservation made at the plenary session of May 6, 1919, and relative to the question of Shantung (Articles 156, 157, and 158)." He pointed out that the Swedish plenipotentiary signed the act of the Congress of Vienna with a reservation.

The request was not acceded to by the conference, and when the time for signature came, the Chinese did not respond. The attitude of the Chinese delegation in this matter was consistent with its point of view that Japan should have been asked by the Peace Conference to vacate Shantung and turn all German property over to China.

There was to be only one official treaty of peace, printed on Japanese vellum, with a large margin and held together by red tape. This copy was to be placed in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, and a copy given to all the governments concerned in its signing.

In order to expedite the signing, which at the best speed possible would take nearly an hour, the seals of the commissioners, which were considered necessary, had been placed on the document before the signing. These were the personal seals of the signatories, for these men signed in person and not as officials of their governments.

For this reason it was not considered proper for President Wilson to use the seal that had been selected for him, one bearing the American eagle and the words, "The President of the United States of America." President Wilson thereupon substituted a seal from a ring given him at the time of his marriage by the State of California, which bore his name in stenographic characters. Some of the commissioners did not possess personal seals, but obtained them before they were needed.

Cont'd.

When the time came for opening the historic session, the long hall was crowded with delegates, visitors, and newspaper representatives. The commissioners had put in almost an hour passing from table to table to seek autographs of men as notable as themselves. The guests bobbed up and down in their chairs, trying to observe the great men of the conference.

A score of Gardes Municipaux circulated among the crowd for a very good reason: they were instructed to keep a watch on the pens and ink-wells in the hall, and to prevent these articles being pilfered by souvenir-hunters.

At about 2.30 o'clock M. Clemenceau entered the room and looked about him to see that all arrangements were in perfect order. He observed a group of wounded, with their medals of valour on their breasts, in the embrasure of a window, and, walking up to them, engaged them in conversation.

At 2.45 o'clock he moved up to the middle table and took the seat of the presiding officer. It was a singular fact that he sat almost immediately under the ceiling decoration that bears the legend "Le roi gouverne par lui-meme," in other words, almost on the exact spot where William I of Prussia stood when he was proclaimed German Emperor in 1871.

President Wilson entered almost immediately after M. Clemenceau and was saluted with discreet applause. The German delegation entered by way of the Hall of Peace and slipped almost unnoticed into its seats at this end of the hall. It was led by Herr Mueller, a tall man with a scrubby little moustache, wearing black, with a short black tie over his white shirt front. The Germans bowed and seated themselves.

At 3.15 o'clock M. Clemenceau rose and announced briefly that the session was opened - "La seance est ouverte." He then spoke briefly in French as follows:

An agreement has been reached upon the conditions of the treaty of peace between the allied and associated powers and the German empire.

The text has been verified; the president of the conference has certified in writing that the text about to be signed conforms to the text of the 200 copies which have been sent to Messieurs the German delegates.

The signatures about to be given constitute an irrevocable engagement to carry out loyally and faithfully in their entirety all the conditions that have been decided upon.

I therefore have the honour of asking Messieurs the German plenipotentiaries to approach to affix their signatures to the treaty before me.

M. Clemenceau ceased and sat down, and Herr Mueller rose as if to proceed to the table. He was interrupted, however, by Lieutenant Mantoux, official interpreter of the conference, who began to translate M. Clemenceau's words into German.

In his first sentence, when Lieutenant Mantoux reached the words "the German empire," or, as M. Clemenceau had said in French: "l'empire allemand," he translated it "the German republic." M. Clemenceau promptly whispered, "Say German Reich," this being the term consistently used by the Germans.

M. Dutasta then led the way for five Germans - two plenipotentiaries and three secretaries - and they passed to the table, where two of them signed their names. Mueller came first, and then Bell, virtually unknown men, performing the final act of abasement and submission for the German people - an act to which they had been condemned by the arrogance and pride of Prussian Junkers, German militarists, imperialists, and industrial barons, not one of whom was present when this great scene was enacted.

The delegation from the United States was the first to be called up after the Germans. President Wilson rose, and as he began his walk to the historic table, followed in order by Secretary Lansing, Colonel House, General Bliss, and Mr. White, other delegates stretched out their hands to congratulate him.

He came forward with a broad smile, and signed his name at the spot indicated by M. William Martin, director of the protocol. Mr. Lloyd George followed the American delegation, together with Mr. Balfour, Lord Milner, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Barnes; and when these five men had signed, the delegates from the British dominions followed, a notable array of men representing the greatest power the world has ever seen.

Then came the delegation of the French Republic, in order, Messieurs Clemenceau, Pichon, Klotz, Tardieu, and Cambon, the president of the council signing his name without seating himself.

Then came the delegations of Italy, Japan, and Belgium. At 3.50 o'clock all signatures had been completed, and the president of the conference announced:

Messieurs, all the signatures have been given. The signature of the conditions of peace between the Allied and Associated powers and the German Republic is an accomplished fact. The session is adjourned.

The official protocol verifies the fact that M. Clemenceau used the word "republic" in his final statement.

Immediately afterward the great guns began to boom from the battery near the orangerie. The delegates rose and congratulated one another. The notables streamed out of the palace to join the crowd, which had begun shouting in wild enthusiasm with the first sound of the guns.

The great fountains of the park were turned on, and the water marvels of Lenotre began to play in the mellow sunshine throughout one of the most impressive playgrounds of the world.

The Germans were the first to leave the Hall of Mirrors, passing out alone, and immediately taking their automobiles for the hotel. A short time later M. Clemenceau invited President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George to view the fountains with him.

The moment that the three men appeared before the crowd a great wave of wildly cheering humanity rushed toward them. They locked arms, and preceded by a protecting guard of soldiers and attendants attempted to gain the terrace above the fountain of Latona, in order to look over the broad expanse of the tapis vert to the vista of canals and woods beyond.

Even here the crowd pushed forward; men slapped them on the back in their exuberance, strangers shouted hoarse greetings into their ears, and it was a most fortunate and remarkable fact that they returned to the palace in safety. They then went to the salon of the old senate, where they met Baron Sonnino and later Baron Makino, and indulged in the beverage of the conference - tea.

After signing the treaty of peace the German plenipotentiaries gave the following statement to the United Press:

We have signed the treaty without any mental reservation. What we have signed we will carry out. The German people will compel those in power to hold to and conform to the clauses. But we believe that the Entente in its own interest will consider it necessary to modify some articles when it becomes aware that the execution of these articles is impossible.

We believe that the Entente will not insist upon the delivery of the Kaiser and upon that of the high officers.

The central government has not aided any attack against Poland. Germany will make every effort to prove that she is worthy of entering the League of Nations.

For the rest of that day and night Versailles and Paris, throwing aside "le calme et la dignite," gave themselves up to a delirium of joy, a revel that came as the logical reaction to five years of pent-up grief and suffering.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/p...

I picked up this book about a month ago and am looking forward to reading it.

Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World


byMargaret MacMillan(no photo)

Synopsis
Between January and July 1919, after “the war to end all wars,” men and women from around the world converged on Paris to shape the peace. Center stage, for the first time in history, was an American president, Woodrow Wilson, who with his Fourteen Points seemed to promise to so many people the fulfillment of their dreams. Stern, intransigent, impatient when it came to security concerns and wildly idealistic in his dream of a League of Nations that would resolve all future conflict peacefully, Wilson is only one of the larger-than-life characters who fill the pages of this extraordinary book. David Lloyd George, the gregarious and wily British prime minister, brought Winston Churchill and John Maynard Keynes. Lawrence of Arabia joined the Arab delegation. Ho Chi Minh, a kitchen assistant at the Ritz, submitted a petition for an independent Vietnam.
For six months, Paris was effectively the center of the world as the peacemakers carved up bankrupt empires and created new countries. This book brings to life the personalities, ideals, and prejudices of the men who shaped the settlement. They pushed Russia to the sidelines, alienated China, and dismissed the Arabs. They struggled with the problems of Kosovo, of the Kurds, and of a homeland for the Jews.
The peacemakers, so it has been said, failed dismally; above all they failed to prevent another war. Margaret MacMillan argues that they have unfairly been made the scapegoats for the mistakes of those who came later. She refutes received ideas about the path from Versailles to World War II and debunks the widely accepted notion that reparations imposed on the Germans were in large part responsible for the Second World War.
A landmark work of narrative history, Paris 1919 is the first full-scale treatment of the Peace Conference in more than twenty-five years. It offers a scintillating view of those dramatic and fateful days when much of the modern world was sketched out, when countries were created—Iraq, Yugoslavia, Israel—whose troubles haunt us still.

Nicole........this is one of the best books I have ever read, not just for its subject but as a history classic. It is absolutely engrossing and reads like fiction.
Countries and colonies were moved like chess pieces on a world map in an attempt to keep power concentrated with the major players, without regard to the citizens and ethnic groups of the defeated nations. Wilson's main concerns were the League of Nations and his Fourteen Points which skewed the negotiations. Clemenceau wanted revenge for the loss of life, property and honor. Orlando of Italy wanted ports on the Adriatic Sea, and the Welsh Wizard, David Lloyd George, wanted to keep the British Empire intact and protected.

Did this treaty contribute to the rise of the Nazi party and the Second World War? Regardless of what you believe about that issue, this book lays bare the internal (and infernal) workings of the infamous treaty. Put it on the top of your TBR stack, Nicole.

by Margaret MacMillan

Jill wrote: "Nicole........this is one of the best books I have every read, not just for its subject but as a history classic. It is absolutely engrossing and reads like fiction.
Countries and colonies were mo..."

Great! I shall move it on up!

I agree -Paris, 1919 is a tremendous book, carefully researched, well organized and clearly written.

by Margaret MacMillan (no photo)

I'm going to put this in here, as well:

The Wilsonian Moment: Self Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism

Erez Manela

Synopsis

During the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, while key decisions were debated by the victorious Allied powers, a multitude of smaller nations and colonies held their breath, waiting to see how their fates would be decided. President Woodrow Wilson, in his Fourteen Points, had called for "a free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims," giving equal weight would be given to the opinions of the colonized peoples and the colonial powers. Among those nations now paying close attention to Wilson's words and actions were the budding nationalist leaders of four disparate non-Western societies--Egypt, India, China, and Korea. That spring, Wilson's words would help ignite political upheavals in all four of these countries.

This book is the first to place the 1919 Revolution in Egypt, the Rowlatt Satyagraha in India, the May Fourth movement in China, and the March First uprising in Korea in the context of a broader "Wilsonian moment" that challenged the existing international order. Using primary source material from America, Europe, and Asia, historian Erez Manela tells the story of how emerging nationalist movements appropriated Wilsonian language and adapted it to their own local culture and politics as they launched into action on the international stage. The rapid disintegration of the Wilsonian promise left a legacy of disillusionment and facilitated the spread of revisionist ideologies and movements in these societies; future leaders of Third World liberation movements--Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Jawaharlal Nehru, among others--were profoundly shaped by their experiences at the time.

The importance of the Paris Peace Conference and Wilson's influence on international affairs far from the battlefields of Europe cannot be underestimated. Now, for the first time, we can clearly see just how the events played out at Versailles sparked a wave of nationalism that is still resonating globally today.

That looks like an interesting book, Bryan but I wonder how many would agree with the conclusions of the author that it was Wilson's "self-determinism" words that triggered revolutions and the breaking of the chains of colonialism. With so much boiling under the surface during that time, I have always felt that it was the natural order of things that the tenets and ideologies of those governments would undergo major changes which would give rise to the leaders who were waiting in the wings. But who am I to disagree with a historian!!!!!!!

Jill wrote: "But who am I to disagree with a historian!

It is an important life lesson, lol.

Seriously, possibly those leaders in the countries finally found a voice in Wilson, inspired by his words and stature. I agree, trigger may not be the best word, because it could have gone forward without him.

I wish my grandfather was still alive so I could talk to him on this subject (he died when I was little). He was one of many affected by this as he woke up one morning and found out he lived in a whole new country (Romania...my understanding, as his past is a little unclear to us, that the part he lived in was part of the original Serbia). It would have been interesting to get his take on the whole matter, how it did or didn't affect him.

It is amazing how countries appeared after WWI and then disappeared again during WWII.....and then appeared again. What a schizophrenic history the two wars caused for so many citizens of countries that were in its path....especially middle Europe and the Balkans. It is an experience of which it is hard to relate for those of us in North America.

Folks, we are happy to have all books posted; those for and against the policies of Wilson are welcome too. And nobody should have to fear that they have to defend themselves for posting any book even though it's basic premise may be in opposition to somebody else's. And no ranting is necessary.

A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today

by David Andelman (no photo)

Synopsis:

The Versailles peace conference, held between the Allied victorious powers and Germany following World War I, attempted to create a lasting peace-and parcel out the world. The great powers felt that they should inherit much of it; inhabitants of the countries to be parceled out felt otherwise. The shortsightedness of the conferees produced a world that fragmented in unexpected ways and arguably generated a century of continuous conflict. With chapters on some of those present, such as the young Ho Chi Min, on the shared goals of Emir Feisal and Chaim Weizmann, and on the abortive stab at making peace in revolutionary Russia, Andelman (executive editor, Forbes.com ) casts a bitter light on the rest of the 20th century. The author's constant theme is that the failures of the Versailles conference laid the groundwork for World War II, the iron curtain, the Vietnam War, the various Middle East conflicts, and the Balkan wars. Andelman's sprightly view of the peace process, the major and minor players, and the decades-later outcomes is an excellent read that will enhance most history collections.

Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

by Arthur Walworth (no photo)

Synopsis:

In 1919, the victorious powers of World War I, democracies all, met in Paris to construct a peace which, it was hoped, would last for generations. Woodrow Wilson was the first President to travel across the Atlantic while in office, and his reasons for such a break with tradi tion were formidable: he wished to write a charter for a new world order creating a permanent and equitable peace. While nominally a book about the U.S. role in the conference, Walworth's study un avoidably covers the conference as a whole, and does so admirably. The large cast of characters is more than ade quately fleshed out, as are explanations of Wilson's naivete, the difficulties of diplomatic negotiations within a demo cratic framework, reasons for ultimate withdrawal by the United States, and the resultant vacuum in European af fairs.

An interesting look at how the Versailles Treaty worked once it was in effect.

After the Versailles Treaty: Enforcement, Compliance, Contested Identities

by Fischer Conan (no photo)

Synopsis:

Designed to secure a lasting peace between the Allies and Germany, the Versailles Settlement soon came apart at the seams. In After The Versailles Treaty an international team of historians examines the almost insuperable challenges facing victors and vanquished alike after the ravages of WW1.

This is not another diplomatic history, instead focusing on the practicalities of treaty enforcement and compliance as western Germany came under Allied occupation and as the reparations bill was presented to the defeated and bankrupt Germans. It covers issues such as:

How did the Allied occupiers conduct themselves and how did the Germans respond? Were reparations really affordable and how did the reparations regime affect ordinary Germans? What lessons did post-WW2 policymakers learn from this earlier reparations settlement The fraught debates over disarmament as German big business struggled to adjust to the sudden disappearance of arms contracts and efforts were made on the international stage to achieve a measure of global disarmament. The price exacted by the redrawing of frontiers on Germany s eastern and western margins, as well as the (gentler) impact of the peace settlement on identity in French Flanders.

The author re-thinks the Treaty of Versailles with the hindsight of the years and how the treaty made a difference in the direction of European policies.

The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment After 75 Years

by Manfred F. Boemeke (no photo)

Synopsis:

This book on the Treaty of Versailles constitutes a new synthesis of peace conference scholarship. It illuminates events from the armistice in 1918 to the signing of the treaty in 1919, and scrutinizes the motives, actions, and constraints that informed decision making by the French, American, and English politicians who bore the principal responsibility for drafting the peace settlement. It also addresses German reactions to the draft treaty and the final agreement. A detailed examination of the proceedings from the point of view of the main protagonists forms the core of the investigation.

A little different look at the Treaty of Versailles and how it affected China.

Betrayal in Paris

by Paul French

Synopsis:

At the conclusion of 'the war to end war', the victorious powers set about redesigning the world map at the Paris Peace Conference. For China, Versailles presented an opportunity to regain territory lost to Japan at the start of the war. Yet, despite early encouragement from the world's superpowers, the country was to be severely disappointed, an outcome whose consequences can still be felt today.

Well researched and interesting look at the effect of the Versailles Treaty on the defeated countries.

The End of World War I: The Treaty of Versailles and Its Tragic Legacy

by Alan Swayze(no photo)

Synopsis:

This thoughtful book describes the course of events that followed the armistice of November 11, 1918, which stopped the fighting in World War I. Readers will learn about the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 where the leaders of Britain, France, and the United States met to agree on how to deal with Germany and other defeated countries. This meeting resulted in the creation of the League of Nations, and set out terms for the Treaty of Versailles and the redrawing of the map of Europe. Discussion boxes describe how the crippling financial penalties and political and military restrictions placed on Germany would contribute to Germanys rise in power again and a Second World War. Highlighted sections also look at the legacy of World War I in terms of advances in warfare, technology, medicine, and womens rights.

A little different approach to the Versailles Treaty and how it affected the United States.

Beyond the Huddled Masses: American Immigration and the Treaty of Versailles

by Kristofer Allerfeldt(no photo)

Synopsis:

This book takes a close look at the connection between the results of the Paris Peace Conference and the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. Kristofer Allerfeldt identifies the threads of nativism, anti-Bolshevism, self-determination and fear that ran through America's participation in the Paris Peace Conference and then manifested themselves openly through the Immigration Acts. He taps into the early twentieth century American psyche to explore the rationalization for the extreme policies of isolationism that so characterized the inter-war years in the United States.

One more author's take on the Treaty of Versailles, its weaknesses and strengths.

The Treaty of Versailles

by Louise Chipley Slavicek(no photo)

Synopsis:

In January 1919, following the defeat of the German-led Central Powers in World War I, delegates from the victorious Allied nations gathered in Paris to try to forge an enduring peace for the postwar world. The number and complexity of the issues confronting the Paris peacemakers in the wake of the deadliest and most disruptive war up to that time was daunting. The five separate treaties produced by the Peace Conference, and particularly the most famous one, the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, have been widely criticized over the years, primarily because they led to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Second World War a generation later. Nonetheless, faced with the overwhelming task of bringing order to a world shattered by four years of bitter fighting, the Paris delegates were convinced that they had fashioned a just and lasting peace. In The Treaty of Versailles, read how world leaders struggled to deal with the aftermath of the War to End All Wars.

Did you know this? Not many people do.

Central America and the Treaty of Versailles

by Michael Streeter (no photo)

Synopsis:

They were in the United States' backyard, and in some cases under her direct protection. So in many ways it was little surprise when Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama and Honduras joined the war on the Allied side in 1917 and 1918. Their involvement in the war was minimal, indeed scarcely noticeable, but it was enough. It earned these small relatively powerless nations—in Haiti's case barely a functioning state—an invitation to sit alongside the Great Powers at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and sign the Treaty of Versailles.

It is often forgotten that with the energy put into the punishment of Germany, other countries fought on her side and, equally, had to be dealt with. These countries were Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.

"Austria-Hungary had to sign two peace settlements, indicative of the fact that this state was shortly to be divided into two.

Austria signed the Treaty of Saint Germain.

Hungary signed the Treaty of Trianon.

Austria and Hungary were treated as two completely new countries after these treaties were signed. Both lost land to neighbouring countries; the new state of Czechoslovakia was effectively created out of this carve-up of land; large blocks of land went to Poland, Roumania and Yugoslavia. Part of Austria went to Italy.

Both new countries had to reduce their military capability and both states had to pay reparations for war damage. However, the figures involved were nowhere near as high as the figure imposed on Germany.

Bulgaria had to sign the Treaty of Neuilly. Bulgaria lost land to the new state of Yugoslavia, had to reduce her military capability and had to pay reparations.

Turkey – or the Turkish Empire to be precise – had to sign the Treaty of Sevres.

This was a very harsh treaty. Why was Turkey treated this way? Memories were still clear to many people on the Allied side of what had happened at Gallipoli when the ANZACS suffered appalling losses at the hands of the Turks in what was one of the the Allies greatest defeat of World War One. To an extent, there was an element of revenge on “Johnny Turk” who had had the audacity to inflict defeat on one of the major powers of the world – Great Britain.

Turkey lost most of her land in Europe. Turkey was left with but a toe-hold on what is considered Europe. The Turkish Straits was put under the control of the League of Nations at a time when it was dominated by Britain and France. The land held by Turkey in Arabia was made into a mandate – the land was ruled by the British and French until the people of the areas were ready to govern themselves. Syria and Lebanon went to France while Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine went to Britain.

Armies from Britain, France, Greece and Italy occupied what was left of Turkey – the area known as Asia Minor.

The treaty only served to anger the nationalist Turks who sought to overturn it. This they started to do in 1921."

(Source: HistoryLearningSite)

Jill wrote: "It is often forgotten that with the energy put into the punishment of Germany, other countries fought on her side and, equally, had to be dealt with. These countries were Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria ..."

I have read that the Allies dealt more harshly with Germany --in terms of financial reparations--because the Allies thought they would get more money from Germany. Thus, they treated Germany as the instigator of the war, whereas it was actually Austria that took the first step. Any comments?

Austria-Hungary did make the first move but I have read in several histories that they meant for it to only be a localized war as revenge for the Archduke's assassination....but Germany jumped in and the dominoes started to tumble. Germany was pushing Franz Joseph so some of the blame can be laid at their door but they didn't actually engage until Austria/Hungary had moved,

The idea of Germany being more able than their partner countries to pay reparations makes sense and those financial penalties were huge. I have always felt that the treaty of Versailles was a fiasco.....and the three major powers each wanted to gain something.....England wanted to keep its Empire, France wanted revenge for the damage and loss of life on their soil and Wilson wanted to get his 14 Points included at any cost. Most historians agree that the Treaty, known as the "stab-in-the-back" by many Germans, was the seed that eventually produced Nazi Germany and WWII.

Jill wrote: "Austria-Hungary did make the first move but I have read in several histories that they meant for it to only be a localized war as revenge for the Archduke's assassination....but Germany jumped in a..."

Thanks, Jill. What a tragedy it was.

I don't think many people know that WWI ended in 2010! Well, not really but read this article and be amazed at the consequences of the WWI war reparations resultant from the Versailles treaty.
_________________________________________________
Germany made its final reparations-related payment for the Great War on Oct. 3, 2010 nearly 92 years after the country's defeat by the Allies. That's not to say that Germany has been paying its dues consistently over the decades; the country defaulted on its loans many times and the current payouts have only been happening since the 1990s. What took Germany so long to pay for the war? Didn't World War I end long ago? Does this mean we're all survivors of the Great War?

Not quite. Germany's last $94 million payment issued on Sunday isn't a direct reparations settlement but rather the final sum owed on bonds that were issued between 1924 and 1930 and sold to foreign (mostly American) investors but then never paid. The story of German reparations involves several payment plans, years of inflation, broken promises, canceled debts and a man named Adolf Hitler who flat out refused to give anyone anything.

Signed at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Treaty of Versailles — the formal agreement that ended World War I — stripped Germany of its colonies overseas and the region of Alsace-Lorraine (now part of France), placed restrictions on its military and levied punitive damages for supposedly starting what was, at the time, the most destructive war the world had ever seen. "Large parts of Belgium and France were so destroyed by trench warfare that they looked desolate, like moonscapes, just huge areas of land where nothing remained," explains Stephen Schuker, professor of history at the University of Virginia and author of American "Reparations" to Germany, 1919-33. "They needed money to help rebuild the area."

But how do you put a price on war? Is it the property value of destroyed buildings? Rounds of ammunition shot? The cost in human life? It took two years for the international Reparations Commission to assess damages in relation to Germany's national wealth — after all, the payment plan needed to be affordable — and decide how much the government owed. The first reparation demands were 266 gold marks, which amounted to roughly $63 billion then (close to $768 billion today), although this was later reduced to $33 billion (about $402 billion today).

That's a lot of money. So much money, in fact, that British economist John Maynard Keynes famously stormed out of the Paris Peace Conference and penned The Economic Consequences of Peace, arguing that reparations would cripple Germany's economy. At the time, Keynes' opinion was largely supported, though many historians today believe that while burdensome, the fines could have been paid.

When it came time for Germany to make its first payment of $500 million in August 1921, it "just literally printed the paper money," says Schuker. "They gave it to the Reparations Commission saying essentially, 'O.K., here you go.'" In fact, Germany began printing money for everything. They printed so much money, knowingly devaluing their currency, that within a few years it "literally took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread," as Shucker puts it. By 1923, Germany had defaulted on its reparations so many times that France sent troops to occupy the Ruhr region in northern Germany to force them to pay. (It didn't work.)

In 1924, an American banker named Charles Dawes outlined what came to be known as the Dawes Plan — a new reparations agreement under which U.S. banks such as J.P. Morgan issued bonds to private investors on behalf of Germany, which agreed to pay them back when the money became due. Dawes won the 1925 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on this plan. But when the first batch of bonds came due in 1928, Germany again defaulted. So in June 1929, a new plan was enacted, floating more U.S.-backed bonds and reducing Germany's payments to $28 billion paid out over 59 years.

When Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933, he cancelled all reparations. "So there are all these bonds out there, held by private individuals, that instantly become worthless," says Schuker. "American citizens lost a lot of money." But as David Andelman, World Policy Journal editor and author of A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, points out, "refusing to pay doesn't make an agreement null and void. The bonds, the agreement, still existed."

In June 1953, at an international meeting that came to be known as the London Agreement, a fractured West Germany offered to slowly pay back some of the bonds on which it had defaulted back in the 1920s, but said that it wouldn't pay everything until the country was one day reunified. In 1995, no longer divided, Germany took up the task of settling all its debts. "The Germans just agreed to do the right thing, as it were," says Andelman, although he is quick to point out that the interest on the unpaid bonds is now so high that it has been adjusted downward many times. On Oct. 3, Germany paid off the last installment of interest, finally settling its World War I accounts.
(Source:http://content.time.com/time/world/ar...)

The author makes interesting comparisons between the League of Nations and the United Nations.

The League of Nations

by Ruth Henig (no photo)

Synopsis:

Ninety years ago the League of Nations convened for the first time hoping to settle disputes by diplomacy not war. Failure to prevent World War II led to its dissolution and the subsequent creation of the UN. Can the UN's fate be ascertained by reading the history of its predecessor?

The Big Four at Versailles



Left to right: David Lloyd George (UK), Orlando (Italy), Clemenceau (France), Wilson (USA)

(Source: Britannica)

An upcoming book:
Release date: February 9, 2017

A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis

by Jürgen Tampke (no photo)

Synopsis:

The Versailles Peace Treaty, the pact that ended World War I between the German empire and the Allies, has not enjoyed a high reputation among politicians, historians, and opinion-makers since its signing in June 1919. Conventional wisdom has it that, guided by motives of punishment and revenge, and based on the untenable claim that Germany had caused the war, the treaty's chief instigators, United States president Woodrow Wilson, British prime minister David Lloyd Georg,e and French prime minister Georges Clemenceau, imposed a Carthaginian peace upon the defeated enemy. Loss of vital industrial and agricultural regions and the imposition of massive reparation payments crippled the economy of the Weimar Republic. This in turn constantly destabilised the Republic's political life. Thus the gentle seeds of democracy that are said to have been sown in the aftermath of the Great War were not allowed to flourish. Instead, the fourteen years of the Republic were marked by perpetual confrontations, setbacks, and unsurmountable difficulties — all linked to the harshness of the Versailles Peace Treaty — which in the end drove the German people into the arms of Adolf Hitler, whose evil potential, of course, no one could foresee.

In this authoritative and well-written book, Jurgen Tampke argues that Germany got away with its responsibility for World War I and its behaviour during it; that the treaty was nowhere near as punitive as has been claimed; that the German hyper-inflation of the 1920s was at least partly deliberate policy to minimise the cost of paying reparations; and that WWII was a continuation of Germany's longstanding war aims (which went back beyond WWI to the late nineteenth century). Woodrow Wilson and the US’s role also play an important part in this story.

Sounds terrific, Jerome. The Treaty is such a point of controversy with students of WWI and this book looks like it agrees with some of the arguments and introduces others. Goes on my tbr.

Another:
Release date: September 1, 2017

The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History

by Michael S. Neiberg (no photo)

Synopsis:

Signed in 1919 between Germany and the Allied Powers, the Treaty of Versailles formally ended World War I. Controversial from the very beginning, the treaty still shapes the destinies of societies and states worldwide. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George said "It is all a great pity. We shall have to do the same thing all over again in twenty-five years at three times the cost," and French Marshal Ferdinand Foch declared that "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." At the time, observers read the treaty through competing lenses of peacemaking after the First World War, the future of colonialism, and the emerging threat of Bolshevism. A century after its signing, we can gain new perspectives on the treaty and its impacts by looking at how those histories evolved through the remainder of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.

The author of several award-winning books, Michael Neiberg provides a clear and authoritative account of the Treaty of Versailles, explaining the enormous challenges of trying to put the world back together after the global destruction of the First World War. He shows how the treaty affected not only Europe but also the rest of the world. In China, the Allied decision to give the Shantung Peninsula to Japan led to a wave of protests known today as the May Fourth movement, which is seen as a foundational moment in the modern history of China. Global disillusionment with the treaty led to mass transnational movements that helped to set the foundations for Cold War debates about anti-colonialism. American rejection of the treaty also served as a mirror and a prism for American fears and ambiguities about its own international role. The treaty is, therefore, much more than its role in ending the First World War.

Thanks so much, Jerome.

The Treaty of Versailles (At Issue In History)

by Jeff T. Hay (no photo)

Synopsis:

The Treaty of Versailles officially ended World War I, at the time the most devastating war in history. The expectations of those who negotiated the treaty, the responses to the treaty by those who were close observers or participants in the negotiations, and more recent assessments of the treaty are included in this fascinating anthology.