Thus was passed, by means of compromise, the most serious crisis of the Conference. In France Wilson never recovered the popularity which he then lost by his opposition to French demands. In many quarters of Great Britain and the United States, on the other hand, he was attacked by liberals for having surrendered to the forces of reaction. In the Conference, however, he had maintained his prestige, and most moderates who understood the situation felt that he had done as well as or better than could be expected. He had by no means had his way in the matter of reparations or frontiers, but he had gone far towards a vindication of his principles by avoiding a defeat under circumstances where the odds were against him. More he probably could not have obtained and no other American at that time could have secured so much. The sole alternative would have been for the American delegates to withdraw from the Conference. Such a step might have had the most disastrous consequences. It was true, or Europe believed it to be true, that the Conference represented for the moment the single rallying-point of the elements of social order on the Continent. The withdrawal of the Americans would have shattered its waning prestige, discouraged liberals in every country, and perhaps have led to its dissolution. Nearly every one in Paris was convinced that the break-up of the Conference would be the signal for widespread communistic revolt throughout central Europe. By his broad concessions President Wilson had sacrificed some of his principles, but he had held the Conference together, the supreme importance of which seemed at the time difficult to over-emphasize. Having weathered this crisis the Conference could now meet the storms that were to arise from the demands of the Italians and the Japanese.

Wilson himself was to be encouraged in the midst of those difficulties by the triumph accorded him on the 28th of April. On that day the plenary session of the Conference adopted without a word of dissent the revised Covenant of the League of Nations, including the amendment that formally recognized the validity of the Monroe Doctrine.



CHAPTER XII

THE SETTLEMENT

President Wilson's success in securing approval for the League as the basis of the Peace Treaty was his greatest triumph at Paris; and it was accentuated by the acceptance of certain of the amendments that were demanded in America, while those which the French and Japanese insisted upon were discarded or postponed. In comparison with this success, he doubtless regarded his concessions in the matter of reparations and the special Franco-British-American alliance as mere details. His task, however, was by no means completed, since Italian and Japanese claims threatened to bring on crises of almost equal danger.

From the early days of the Conference there had been interested speculation in the corridors of the Quai d'Orsay as to whether the promises made to Italy by the Entente Powers in 1915, which were incorporated in the secret Treaty of London, would be carried into effect by the final peace settlement. That treaty had been conceived in the spirit of old-time diplomacy and had assigned to Italy districts which disinterested experts declared could not be hers except upon the principle of the spoils to the strong. Much of the territories promised in the Tyrol, along the Julian Alps, and on the Adriatic coast was inhabited entirely by non-Italians, whose political and economic fortunes were bound up with states other than Italy; justice and wisdom alike seemed to dictate a refusal of Italian claims. The annexation of such districts by Italy, the experts agreed, would contravene directly the right of self-determination and might lead to serious difficulties in the future. Would the President sanction the application of treaties consummated without the knowledge of the United States and in defiance of the principles upon which he had declared that peace must be made? The application of the Treaty of London, furthermore, would be at the expense, chiefly, of the Jugoslavs, that is, a small nation. The Allies, as well as Wilson, had declared that the war had been waged and that the peace must be drafted in defense of the rights of smaller nationalities. Justice for the weak as for the strong was the basis of the new international order which Wilson was striving to inaugurate.

Had the struggle been simply over the validity of the Treaty of London, Wilson's position would have been difficult enough, for the Premiers of France and Great Britain had declared that they could do nothing else but honor the pledges given in 1915. But Italian opinion had been steadily aroused by a chauvinist press campaign to demand not merely the application of the Treaty of London but the annexation of Fiume, which the treaty assigned to the Jugoslavs. To this demand both the British and French were opposed, although they permitted Wilson to assume the burden of denying Italian claims to Fiume. As time went on, Orlando and Sonnino pressed for a decision, even threatening that unless their demands were satisfied, Italy would have nothing to do with the German treaty. Finally, on the 23d of April, the crisis came to a head. On that day the President published a statement setting forth the American position, which he felt had been entirely misrepresented by a propagandist press. Emphasizing the fact that Italian claims were inconsistent with the principles upon which all the Allies had agreed, as necessary to the future tranquillity of the world, he appealed directly to the Italian people to join with the United States in the application of those principles, even at the sacrifice of what seemed their own interest.

The appeal was based upon sound facts. Its statements were approved publicly by allied experts who knew the situation, and privately by Clemenceau and Lloyd George. It had been discussed in the Council of Four and by no means took Orlando by surprise. But it gave Orlando an opportunity for carrying out his threat of retiring from the Conference. Insisting that Wilson had appealed to the Italian people over his head and that they must choose between him and the President, he set forth at once for Rome, followed by the other Italian commissioners, although the economic experts remained at Paris. Orlando was playing a difficult game. He was hailed in Rome as the defender of the sacred rights of Italy, but in Paris he lacked partners. Both the British and French agreed with Wilson that Italy ought not to have Fiume. They secretly regretted the promises of the London Treaty, although they were prepared to keep their word, and they were by no means inclined to make further concessions in order to bring Orlando and his colleagues back. After a few days of hesitation, they decided to go on with the German treaty and to warn the Italians that, if they persisted in absenting themselves from the Conference, their withdrawal would be regarded as a breach of the Treaty of London which stipulated a common peace with the enemy. They also decided that Italy could not expect to share in German reparations if her delegates were not present to sign the German treaty. Such arguments could not fail to weigh heavily with the Italian delegates, even at the moment when the Italian press and people were giving them enthusiastic encouragement to persist in their uncompromising course. On the 5th of May Orlando left Rome to resume his place in the Peace Conference.

In the meantime the Japanese had taken advantage of the embarrassment caused by the Italian withdrawal, to put forward their special claims in the Far East. During the early days of the Conference they had played a cautious game, as we have seen, attending meetings but taking no decided stand upon European matters. They had even refused to press to the limit the amendment to the League Covenant which enunciated their favorite principle of the equality of races. But now they insisted that on one point, at least, Japanese claims must be listened to; their right of inheritance to the German lease of Kiau-Chau and economic privileges in the Shantung peninsula must receive recognition. This claim had long been approved secretly by the British and French; it had even been accepted by the Chinese at the time when Japan had forced the twenty-one demands upon her. It was disapproved, however, by the American experts in Paris, and Wilson argued strongly for more generous treatment of China. His strategic position, one must admit, was not nearly so strong as in the Fiume controversy. In the latter he was supported, at least covertly, by France and England, whose treaty with Italy explicitly denied her claim to Fiume. The Japanese threat of withdrawal from the Conference, if their claims were not satisfied, carried more real danger with it than that of the Italians; if the Japanese delegates actually departed making the second of the big five to go, the risk of a complete debacle was by no means slight. Even assuming that justice demanded as strong a stand for the Chinese as Wilson had taken for the Jugoslavs, the practical importance of the Shantung question in Europe was of much less significance. The eyes of every small nation of Europe were upon Fiume, which was regarded as the touchstone of Allied professions of justice. If the Allied leaders permitted Italy to take Fiume, the small nations would scoff at all further professions of idealism; they would take no further interest either in the Conference or its League. Whereas, on the other hand, the small nationalities of Europe knew and cared little about the justice of Chinese pleas.

Such considerations may have been in the mind of the President when he decided to yield to Japan. The decision throws interesting light upon his character; he is less the obstinate doctrinaire, more the practical politician than has sometimes been supposed. The pure idealist would have remained consistent in the crisis, refused to do an injustice in the Far East as he had refused in the settlement of the Adriatic, and would have taken the risk of breaking up the Conference and destroying all chance of the League of Nations. Instead, Wilson yielded to practical considerations of the moment. The best that he could secure was the promise of the Japanese to retire from the peninsula, a promise the fulfillment of which obviously depended upon the outcome of the struggle between liberal and conservative forces in Japan, and which accordingly remained uncertain. He was willing to do what he admitted was an injustice, in order to assure what seemed to him the larger and the more certain justice that would follow the establishment of the League of Nations.

The settlement of the Shantung problem removed the last great difficulty in completing the treaty with Germany, and on the 7th of May the German delegates appeared to receive it. Nearly eight weeks of uncertainty followed, taken up with the study of German protests, the construction of the treaty with Austria, and finally the last crisis that preceded the signature. The terms were drastic and the German Government, in the persons of Scheidemann, the Premier, and Brockdorff-Rantzau, Minister for Foreign Affairs, seemed determined that, helpless as she was, Germany should not accept them without radical modifications. Their protests touched chiefly upon the economic clauses and reparations, the solution of the Saar problem, the cession of so much German territory to Poland, and the exclusion of Germany from the League of Nations. Ample opportunity was given their delegates to formulate protests, which, although they rarely introduced new facts or arguments that had not been discussed, were carefully studied by Allied experts. Week after week passed. In certain quarters among the Allies appeared a tendency to make decided concessions in order to win the consent of the German delegates. No one wanted to carry out an invasion of the defeated country, and there was no guarantee that a military invasion would secure acquiescence. Germany's strength was in sitting still, and she might thus indefinitely postpone the peace. Was it not the wise course, one heard whispered in Paris, to sugar the bitterness of the treaty and thus win Germany's immediate signature?

Early in June, Lloyd George, evidently under pressure from his Cabinet, declared himself for a decided "softening" of the peace terms in order to secure the acceptance of the enemy. What would Wilson do? He had been anathematized at home and abroad as pro-German and desirous of saving Germany from the consequences of her misdeeds; here was his chance. Would he join with the British in tearing up this treaty, which after four months of concentrated effort had just been completed, in order to secure the soft peace that he was supposed to advocate? His attitude in this contingency showed his ability to preserve an even balance. In the meeting of the American delegation that was called to consider the British proposal, he pronounced himself as strongly in favor of any changes that would ensure more complete justice. If the British and French would consent to a definite and moderate sum of reparations (a consent which he knew was out of the question) he would gladly agree. But he would not agree to any concessions to Germany that were not based upon justice, but merely upon the desire to secure her signature. He was not in favor of any softening which would mar the justice of the settlement as drafted. "We did not come over," he said, "simply to get any sort of peace treaty signed. We came over to do justice. I believe, even, that a hard peace is a good thing for Germany herself, in order that she may know what an unjust war means. We must not forget what our soldiers fought for, even if it means that we may have to fight again." Wilson's stand for the treaty as drafted proved decisive. Certain modifications in details were made, but the hasty and unwise enthusiasm of Lloyd George for scrapping entire sections was not approved. The Conference could hardly have survived wholesale concessions to Germany: to prolong the crisis would have been a disastrous confession of incompetence. For what confidence could have been placed in statesmen who were so patently unable to make and keep their minds?

Still the German Government held firm and refused to sign. Foch inspected the Allied troops on the Rhine and Pershing renounced his trip to England, in order to be ready for the invasion that had been ordered if the time limit elapsed without signature. Only at the last moment did the courage of the Germans fail. A change of ministry brought into power men who were willing to accept the inevitable humiliation. On the 20th of June, the guns and sirens of Paris announced Germany's acceptance of the peace terms and their promise to sign, and, surprising fact, a vast crowd gathered on the Place de la Concorde to cheer Wilson; despite his loss of popularity and the antagonism which he had aroused by his opposition to national aspirations of one sort or another, he was still the man whose name stood as symbol for peace.

Eight days later in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, where forty-eight years before had been born the German Empire, the delegates of the Allied states gathered to celebrate the obsequies of that Empire. It was no peace of reconciliation, this treaty between the new German Republic and the victorious Allies. The hatred and distrust inspired by five years of war were not so soon to be liquidated. As the German delegates, awkward and rather defiant in their long black frock coats, marched to the table to affix their signatures, they were obviously, in the eyes of the Allied delegates and the hundreds of spectators, always "the enemy." The place of the Chinese at the treaty table was empty; for them it was no peace of justice that gave Shantung to the Japanese, and they would not sign. The South African delegate, General Smuts, could not sign without explaining the balance of considerations which led him to sanction an international document containing so many flaws.

It was not, indeed, the complete peace of justice which Wilson had promised and which, at times, he has since implied he believed it to be. Belgians complained that they had not been given the left bank of the Scheldt; Frenchmen were incensed because their frontier had not been protected; Italians were embittered by the refusal to approve their claims on the Adriatic; radical leaders, the world over, were frank in their expression of disappointment at the failure to inaugurate a new social order. The acquiescence in Japanese demands for Kiau-Chau was clearly dictated by expediency rather than by justice. Austria, reduced in size and bereft of material resources, was cut off from the sea and refused the possibility of joining with Germany. The nationalistic ambitions of the Rumanians, of the Jugoslavs, of the Czechoslovaks, and of the Poles were aroused to such an extent that conflicts could hardly be avoided. Hungary, deprived of the rim of subject nationalities, looked forward to the first opportunity of reclaiming her sovereignty over them. The Ruthenians complained of Polish domination. Further to the east lay the great unsettled problem of Russia.

But the most obvious flaws in the treaty are to be found in the economic clauses. It was a mistake to compel Germany to sign a blank check in the matter of reparations. Germany and the world needed to know the exact amount that was to be paid, in order that international commerce might be set upon a stable basis. The extent of control granted to the Allies over German economic life was unwise and unfair.

Complete justice certainly was not achieved by President Wilson at Paris, and it may be questioned whether all the decisions can be regarded even as expedient. The spirit of the Fourteen Points, as commonly interpreted, had not governed the minds of those who sat at the council table. The methods adopted by the Council of Ten and the Council of Four were by no means those to which the world looked forward when it hailed the ideal expressed in the phrase, "Open covenants openly arrived at." The "freedom of the seas," if it meant the disappearance of the peculiar position held by Great Britain on the seas, was never seriously debated, and Wilson himself, in an interview given to the London Times, sanctioned "Britain's peculiar position as an island empire." Adequate guarantees for the reduction of armaments were certainly not taken at Paris; all that was definitely stipulated was the disarmament of the enemy, a step by no means in consonance with the President's earlier policy which aimed at universal disarmament. An "absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims" was hardly carried out by granting the German colonies to the great powers, even as mandatories of the League of Nations.

Nevertheless the future historian will probably hold that the Peace Conference, with all its selfish interests and mistakes, carried into effect an amazingly large part of President Wilson's programme, when all the difficulties of his position are duly weighed. The territorial settlements, on the whole, translated into fact the demands laid down by the more special of Wilson's Fourteen Points. France, Belgium, and the other invaded countries were, of course, evacuated and their restoration promised; Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France and the wrong of 1871 thus righted; an independent Poland was recognized and given the assured access to the sea that Wilson had insisted upon; the subject nationalities of Austria-Hungary received not merely autonomy but independence. Even as regards the larger principles enunciated in the Fourteen Points, it may at least be argued that President Wilson secured more than he lost. Open diplomacy in the sense of conducting international negotiations in an open forum was not the method of the Peace Conference; and it may not be possible or even desirable. The article in the Covenant, however, which insists upon the public registration of all treaties before their validity is recognized, goes far towards a fulfillment of the President's pledge of open covenants, particularly if his original meaning is liberally interpreted. Similarly the Covenant makes provision for the reduction of armaments. If the treaty did not go far in assuring the "removal of economic barriers," at all events the Conference did much to provide for an international control of traffic which would ensure to all European countries, so far as possible, equal facilities for forwarding their goods.

Apart from the Fourteen Points Wilson had emphasized two other principles as necessary to a just and permanent peace. The first of these was that the enemy should be treated with a fairness equal to that accorded to the Allies; the second was the principle that peoples should have the right to choose the government by which they were to be ruled—the principle of self-determination. Neither of these principles received full recognition in the peace settlement. Yet their spirit was infused more completely throughout the settlement than would have been the case had not Wilson been at Paris, and to that extent the just and lasting qualities of the peace were enhanced. In the matter of German reparations the question of justice was not the point at issue; the damage committed by Germany surpassed in value anything that the Allies could exact from her. As to frontiers, the unbiased student will probably admit that full justice was done Germany when the aspirations of France for annexation of the Saar district and the provinces on the left bank of the Rhine were disappointed; it was the barest justice to France, on the other hand, that she should receive the coal mines of the former district and that the latter should be demilitarized. In the question of Danzig, and the Polish corridor to the sea, it was only fair to Poland that she receive the adequate outlet which was necessary to her economic life and which had been promised her, even if it meant the annexation of large German populations, many of which had been artificially brought in as colonists by the Berlin Government; and in setting up a free city of Danzig, the Conference broke with the practices of old style diplomacy and paid a tribute to the rights of peoples as against expediency. The same may be said of the decision to provide for plebiscites in East Prussia and in upper Silesia. On the other hand, the refusal to permit the incorporation of the new, lesser Austria within Germany was at once unjust and unwise—a concession to the most shortsighted of old-style diplomatic principles.

In the reorganization of the former Hapsburg territories, Wilsonian principles were always in the minds of the delegates, although in a few cases they were honored more in the breach than in the observance. Wilson himself surrendered to Italy extensive territories in the Tyrol south of the Brenner which, if he had followed his own professions, would have been left to Austria. A large Jugoslav population on the Julian Alps and in Istria was placed under Italian rule. The new Czechoslovak state includes millions of Germans and Magyars. The boundaries of Rumania were extended to include many non-Rumanian peoples. Bulgars were sacrificed to Greeks and to Serbs. In the settlement of each problem the balance always inclined a little in favor of the victors. But the injustices committed were far less extensive than might have been expected, and in most cases where populations were included under alien rule, the decision was based less on political considerations than on the practical factors of terrain, rivers, and railroads which must always be taken into consideration in the drawing of a frontier. Wherever the issue was clean-cut, as for example between the selfish nationalism of the Italians in their Adriatic demands and the claim to mere economic life of the Jugoslavs, the old rule which granted the spoils to the stronger power was vigorously protested.

Whatever the mistakes of the Conference, Wilson secured that which he regarded as the point of prime importance, the League of Nations. This, he believed, would remedy the flaws and eradicate the vices of the treaties. No settlement, however perfect at the moment, could possibly remain permanent, in view of the constantly changing conditions. What was necessary was an elasticity that would permit change as change became necessary. If the disposition of the Saar basin, for example, proved to be so unwise or unjust as to cause danger of violence, the League would take cognizance of the peril and provide a remedy. If the boundaries of eastern Germany gave undue advantage to the Poles, the League would find ways and means of rectifying the frontier peacefully. If Hungary or Czechoslovakia found themselves cut off from sea-ports, the League could hear and act upon their demands for freedom of transit or unrestricted access to fair markets. That the League was necessary for such and other purposes was recognized by many notable economic experts and statesmen besides the President. Herbert Hoover insisted upon the necessity of a League if the food problems of central Europe were to be met, and Venizelos remarked that "without a League of Nations, Europe would face the future with despair in its heart." Because he had the covenant of such an association incorporated in the German treaty, Wilson accepted all the mistakes and injustices of the treaty as minor details and could say of it, doubtless in all sincerity, "It's a good job." Conscious of victory in the matter which he had held closest to his heart, the President embarked upon the George Washington on the 29th of June, the day after the signing of the treaty, and set forth for home. All that was now needed was the ratification of the treaty by the Senate.



CHAPTER XIII

THE SENATE AND THE TREATY

Neither President Wilson nor those who had been working with him at Paris seriously feared that, after securing the point of chief importance to him at the Conference, he would fail to win support for the League of Nations and the treaty at home. They recognized, of course, that his political opponents in the Senate would not acquiesce without a struggle. The Republicans were now in the majority, and Henry Cabot Lodge, the new chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, had gone far in his efforts to undermine Wilson's policy at Paris. He had encouraged the Italians in their imperialistic designs in the Adriatic and had done his best to discredit the League of Nations. Former Progressive Senators, such as Johnson and Borah, who like Lodge made personal hostility to Wilson the chief plank in their political programme, had declared vigorously their determination to prevent the entrance of the United States into a League. The Senators as a whole were not well-informed upon foreign conditions and Wilson had done nothing to enlighten them. He had not asked their advice in the formulation of his policy, nor had he supplied them with the facts that justified the position he had taken. Naturally their attitude was not likely to be friendly, now that he returned to request their consent to the treaty, and the approach of a presidential election was bound to affect the action of all ardent partisans.

Opposition was also to be expected in the country. There was always the ancient prejudice against participation in European affairs, which had not been broken even by the events of the past two years. The people, even more than the Senate, were ignorant of foreign conditions and failed to understand the character of the obligations which the nation would assume under the treaty and the covenant of the League. There was genuine fear lest the United States should become involved in wars and squabbles in which it had no material interest, and lest it should surrender its independence of action to a council of foreign powers. This was accompanied by the belief that an irresponsible President might commit the country to an adventurous course of action which could not be controlled by Congress. The chief opposition to the treaty and covenant, however, probably resulted from the personal dislike of Wilson. This feeling, which had always been virulent along the Atlantic coast and in the industrial centers of the Middle West, had been intensified by the President's apparent disregard of Congress. More than one man of business argued that the treaty must be bad because it was Wilson's work and the covenant worst of all, since it was his pet scheme. One heard daily in the clubs and on the golf-courses of New England and the Middle Atlantic States the remark: "I know little about the treaty, but I know Wilson, and I know he must be wrong."

And yet the game was probably in the President's hands, had he known how to play it. Divided as it was on the question of personal devotion to Wilson, the country was a unit in its desire for immediate peace and normal conditions. Admitting the imperfections of the treaty, it was probably the best that could be secured in view of the conflicting interests of the thirty-one signatory powers, and at least it would bring peace at once. To cast it aside meant long delays and prolongation of the economic crisis. The covenant of the League might not be entirely satisfactory, but something must be done to prevent war in the future; and if this League proved unsatisfactory, it could be amended after trial. Even the opposing Senators did not believe that they could defeat the treaty outright. They were warned by Republican financiers, who understood international economic conditions, that the safety and prosperity of the world demanded ratification, and that the United States could not afford to assume an attitude of isolation even if it were possible. Broad-minded statesmen who were able to dissociate partisan emotion from intellectual judgment, such as ex-President Taft, agreed that the treaty should be ratified as promptly as possible. All that Senator Lodge and his associates really hoped for was to incorporate reservations which would guarantee the independence of American action and incidentally make it impossible for the President to claim all the credit for the peace.

Had the President proved capable of cooeperating with the moderate Republican Senators it would probably have been possible for him to have saved the fruits of his labor at Paris. An important group honestly believed that the language of the covenant was ambiguous in certain respects, particularly as regards the extent of sovereignty sacrificed by the national government to the League, and the diminution of congressional powers. This group was anxious to insert reservations making plain the right of Congress alone to declare war, defining more exactly the right of the United States to interpret the Monroe Doctrine, and specifying what was meant by domestic questions that should be exempt from the cognizance of the League. Had Wilson at once combined with this group and agreed to the suggested reservations, he would in all probability have been able to secure the two-thirds vote necessary to ratification. The country would have been satisfied; the Republicans might have contended that they had "Americanized" the treaty; and the reservations would probably have been accepted by the co-signatories. It would have been humiliating to go back to the Allies asking special privileges, but Europe needed American assistance too much to fail to heed these demands. After all America had gained nothing in the way of territorial advantage from the war and was asking for nothing in the way of reparations.

It was at this crucial moment that Wilson's peculiar temperamental faults asserted themselves. Sorely he needed the sane advice of Colonel House, who would doubtless have found ways of placating the opposition. But that practical statesman was in London and the President lacked the capacity to arrange the compromise that House approved.

President Wilson alone either would not or could not negotiate successfully with the middle group of Republicans. He went so far as to initiate private conferences with various Senators, a step indicating his desire to avoid the appearance of the dictatorship of which he was accused; but his attitude on reservations that altered the meaning of any portion of the treaty or covenant was unyielding, and he even insisted that merely interpretative reservations should not be embodied in the text of the ratifying resolution. The President evidently hoped that the pressure of public opinion would compel the Senate to yield to the demand for immediate peace and for guarantees against future war. His appearance of rigidity, however, played into the hands of the opponents of the treaty, who dominated the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. Senator Lodge, chairman of the committee, adopted a stand which, to the Administration at least, did not seem to be justified by anything but a desire to discredit the work of Wilson. He had, in the previous year, warmly advocated a League of Nations, but in the spring of 1919 he had given the impression that he would oppose any League for which Wilson stood sponsor. Thus he had raised objections to the preliminary draft of the covenant which Wilson brought from Paris in February; but when Wilson persuaded the Allies to incorporate some of the amendments then demanded by Republican Senators, he at once found new objections. He did not dare attack the League as a principle, in view of the uncertainty of public opinion on the issue; but he obviously rejoiced in the President's inability to unite the Democrats with the middle-ground Republicans, for whom Senator McCumber stood as spokesman.

On the 19th of August a conference was held at the White House, in which the President attempted to explain to the Foreign Relations Committee doubtful points and to give the reasons for various aspects of the settlement. A careful study of the stenographic report indicates that his answers to the questions of the Republican Senators were frank, and that he was endeavoring to remove the unfortunate effects of his former distant attitude. His manner, however, had in it something of the schoolmaster, and the conference was fruitless. Problems which had been studied for months by experts of all the Powers, and to the solution of which had been devoted long weeks of intelligent discussion, were now passed upon superficially by men whose ignorance of foreign questions was only too evident, and who barely concealed their determination to nullify everything approved by the President. Hence, when the report of the committee was finally presented on the 10th of September, the Republican majority demanded no less than thirty-eight amendments and four reservations. A quarter of the report was not concerned at all with the subject under discussion, but was devoted to an attack upon Wilson's autocratic methods and his treatment of the Senate. As was pointed out by Senator McCumber, the single Republican who dissented from the majority report, "not one word is said, not a single allusion made, concerning either the great purposes of the League of Nations or the methods by which these purposes are to be accomplished. Irony and sarcasm have been substituted for argument and positions taken by the press or individuals outside the Senate seem to command more attention than the treaty itself."

The President did not receive the popular support which he expected, and the burst of popular wrath which he believed would overwhelm senatorial opposition was not forthcoming. In truth public opinion was confused. America was not educated to understand the issues at stake. Wilson's purposes at Paris had not been well reported in the press, and he himself had failed to make plain the meaning of his policy. It was easy for opponents of the treaty to muddy discussion and to arouse emotion where reason was desirable. The wildest statements were made as to the effect of the covenant, such as that entrance into the League would at once involve the United States in war, and that Wilson was sacrificing the interests of America to the selfish desires of European states. The same men who, a year before, had complained that Wilson was opposing England and France, now insisted that he had sold the United States to those nations. They invented the catchword of "one hundred per cent Americanism," the test of which was to be opposition to the treaty. They found strange coadjutors. The German-Americans, suppressed during the war, now dared to emerge, hoping to save the Fatherland from the effects of defeat by preventing the ratification of the treaty; the politically active Irish found opportunity to fulminate against British imperialism and "tyranny" which they declared had been sanctioned by the treaty; impractical liberals, who were disappointed because Wilson had not inaugurated the social millennium, joined hands with out-and-out reactionaries. But the most discouraging aspect of the situation was that so many persons permitted their judgment to be clouded by their dislike of the President's personality. However much they might disapprove the tactics of Senator Lodge they could not but sympathize to some extent with the Senate's desire to maintain its independence, which they believed had been assailed by Wilson. Discussions which began with the merits of the League of Nations almost invariably culminated with vitriolic attacks upon the character of Woodrow Wilson.

In the hope of arousing the country to a clear demand for immediate peace based upon the Paris settlement, Wilson decided to carry out the plan formulated some weeks previous and deliver a series of speeches from the Middle West to the Pacific coast. He set forth on the 3d of September and made more than thirty speeches. He was closely followed by some of his fiercest opponents. Senators Johnson and Borah, members of the Foreign Relations Committee, who might have been expected to remain in Washington to assist in the consideration of the treaty by the Senate, followed in Wilson's wake, attempting to counteract the effect of his addresses, and incidentally distorting many of the treaty's provisions, which it is charitable to assume they did not comprehend. The impression produced by the President was varied, depending largely upon the political character of his audience. East of the Mississippi he was received with comparative coolness, but as he approached the coast enthusiasm became high, and at Seattle and Los Angeles he received notable ovations. And yet in these hours of triumph as in the previous moments of discouragement, farther east, he must have felt that the issues were not clear. The struggle was no longer one for a new international order that would ensure peace, so much as a personal conflict between Lodge and Wilson. Whether the President were applauded or anathematized, the personal note was always present.

It was evident, during the tour, that the nervous strain was telling upon Wilson. He had been worn seriously by his exertions in Paris, where he was described by a foreign plenipotentiary as the hardest worker in the Conference. The brief voyage home, which was purposely lengthened to give him better chance of recuperation, proved insufficient. Forced to resume the struggle at the moment when he thought victory was his, repudiated where he expected to find appreciation, the tour proved to be beyond his physical and nervous strength. At Pueblo, Colorado, on the 25th of September, he broke down and returned hastily to Washington. Shortly afterwards the President's condition became so serious that his physicians forbade all political conferences, insisting upon a period of complete seclusion and rest, which was destined to continue for many months.

Thus at the moment of extreme crisis in the fortunes of the treaty its chief protagonist was removed from the scene of action and the Democratic forces fighting for ratification were deprived of effective leadership. Had there been a real leader in the Senate who could carry on the fight with vigor and finesse, the treaty might even then have been saved; but Wilson's system had permitted no understudies. There was no one to lead and no one to negotiate a compromise. From his sick-room, where his natural obstinacy seemed to be intensified by his illness, the President still refused to consider any reservations except of a purely interpretative character, and the middle-ground Republicans would not vote to ratify without "mild reservations," some of which seemed to him more than interpretative.

Senatorial forces were roughly divided into four groups. There were the "bitter-enders," typified by Johnson, Borah, and Brandegee, who frankly wanted to defeat the treaty and the League outright; there were the "reservationists," most of whom, like Lodge, wanted the same but did not dare say so openly; there were the "mild reservationists," most of whom were Republicans, who sincerely desired immediate peace and asked for no important changes in the treaty; and finally there were those who desired to ratify the treaty as it stood. The last-named group, made up of Democrats, numbered from forty-one to forty-four, and obviously needed the assistance of the "mild reservationists," if they were to secure a two-thirds vote of the Senate. During October, all the amendments which the Foreign Relations Committee brought forward were defeated through the combination of the last two groups. Early in November, however, fourteen reservations were adopted, the "mild reservationists" voting with Senator Lodge, for lack of any basis of compromise with the Democrats. The effect of these reservations would, undoubtedly, have been to release the United States from many of the obligations assumed by other members, while assuring to it the benefits of the League. The most serious of the reservations was that concerned with Article X of the covenant, which stated that the United States would assume no obligations to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country, or to interfere in controversies between nations, unless in any particular case Congress should so provide. From the moment when Wilson first developed his policy of international service, cooeperative interference in order to prevent acts of aggression by a strong against a weaker power had been the chief point in his programme. It was contained in his early Pan-American policy; it ran through his speeches in the campaign of 1916; it was in the Fourteen Points. It was his specific contribution to the covenant in Paris. Article X was the one point in the covenant which Wilson would not consent to modify or, as he expressed it, see "nullified." Just because it lay nearest Wilson's heart, it was the article against which the most virulent attacks of the "die-hards" were directed.

The President denounced the reservation on Article X, as a "knife-thrust at the heart of the covenant," and its inclusion in the ratifying resolution of the Senate, spelled the defeat of ratification. On the eve of voting he wrote to Senator Hitchcock, leader of the Democratic forces in the Senate, "I assume that the Senators only desire my judgment upon the all-important question of the resolution containing the many reservations of Senator Lodge. On that I cannot hesitate, for, in my opinion, the resolution in that form does not provide for ratification but rather for nullification of the treaty. I sincerely hope that the friends and supporters of the treaty will vote against the Lodge resolution of ratification." The "mild reservationists" led by McCumber voted with the Lodge group for the resolution; but the "bitter-enders," combining with the supporters of the original treaty, outnumbered them. The vote stood thirty-nine in favor of the resolution and fifty-five against. When a motion for unconditional ratification was offered by Senator Underwood, it was defeated by a vote of fifty-three to thirty-eight.

The Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee had succeeded far beyond the hopes of their leaders in August. They had killed the treaty, but in such an indirect fashion as to confuse the public and to fix upon the President the blame for delaying the peace. It was easy to picture the obstinacy of the President as the root of all the evil which resulted from the political and economic uncertainty overhanging our European relations. So widespread was this feeling among his natural opponents, that the Republican Senators began to assume a far loftier tone, and to laugh at the tardy efforts of the Democrats to arrange a compromise. When Senator Pomerene, after consultation with Administration leaders, proposed the appointment of a "committee of conciliation," to find a basis of ratification that would secure the necessary two-thirds vote, the motion was killed by forty-eight to forty-two. Senator Lodge announced that he would support the resolution suggested by Knox, which would end the war by congressional resolution and thus compel Wilson to negotiate a separate treaty of peace with Germany.

Intelligent public opinion, however, was anxious that the quarrels of the President and the Senate should not be allowed to delay the settlement[15]. Rightly or wrongly the people felt that the struggle was largely a personal one between Lodge and Wilson, and insisted that each must yield something of their contention. On the one hand, ex-President Taft and others of the more far-seeing Republicans worked anxiously for compromise, with the assistance of such men as Hoover, who perceived the necessity of a League, but who were willing to sacrifice its efficiency to some extent, if only the United States could be brought in. On the other hand, various Democrats who were less directly under Wilson's influence wanted to meet these friends of the League half-way. During December and January unofficial conferences between the senatorial groups took place and progress towards a settlement seemed likely. The Republicans agreed to soften the language of their minor reservations, and Wilson even intimated that he would consent to a mild reservation on Article X, although as he later wrote to Hitchcock, he felt strongly that any reservation or resolution stating that the "United States assumes no obligation under such and such an article unless or except, would chill our relationship with the nations with whom we expect to be associated in this great enterprise of maintaining the world's peace." It was important "not to create the impression that we are trying to escape obligations."

[Footnote 15: A straw vote taken in 311 colleges and including 158,000 students and professors showed an inclination to favor Wilson rather than Lodge, but the greatest number approved compromise: four per cent favored a new treaty with Germany; eight per cent favored killing the Versailles treaty; only seventeen per cent approved the Lodge programme; thirty per cent approved ratification of the treaty without change; and thirty-eight per cent favored compromise.]

On the 31st of January the country was startled by the publication of a letter written by Viscount Grey, who had been appointed British Ambassador to the United States, but who had returned to England after a four months' stay, during which he had been unable to secure an interview with the sick President. In this letter he attempted to explain to the British the causes of American hesitancy to accept the League. He then went on to state that the success of the League depended upon the adherence of the United States, and while admitting the serious character of the reservations proposed by Senator Lodge, insisted that American cooeperation ought not to be refused because conditions were attached. His views were unofficial, but it seemed clear that they were approved by the British Cabinet, and they received a chorus of endorsement from the French and British press.

The publication of Grey's letter opened a path to peace to both Senate and President had they been willing to follow it. The Senate, by very slight verbal softening of the language of its reservations, the President by taking the British Ambassador at his word, might have reached an agreement. The Lodge group, however, which had shown some indications of a desire for compromise, was threatened by the "die-hards" who were determined to defeat the treaty; fearing beyond everything to break party unity, Lodge finally refused to alter the language of the strong reservation on Article X, which stated that the United States would assume no obligation to preserve the independence of other nations by military force or the use of its resources or any form of economic discrimination, unless Congress should first so provide. Inasmuch as the economic outlawry of the offending state was the means which Wilson chiefly counted upon, the reservation took all practical significance from Article X, since the delays resulting from congressional deliberation would prevent effective action. The President, possibly believing that imperialist elements abroad were not sorry to see Article X nullified, refused to accept the resolution of ratification so long as it contained this reservation. "The imperialist," he wrote, "wants no League of Nations, but if, in response to the universal cry of masses everywhere, there is to be one, he is interested to secure one suited to his own purposes, one that will permit him to continue the historic game of pawns and peoples—the juggling of provinces, the old balance of power, and the inevitable wars attendant upon these things. The reservation proposed would perpetuate the old order. Does any one really want to see the old game played again? Can any one really venture to take part in reviving the old order? The enemies of a League of Nations have by every true instinct centered their efforts against Article X, for it is undoubtedly the foundation of the whole structure. It is the bulwark, and the only bulwark of the rising democracy of the world against the forces of imperialism and reaction."

The deadlock was complete, and on March 19, 1920, when the vote on ratification was taken, the necessary two-thirds were lacking by seven votes. At the last moment a number of Democrats joined with the Republican reservationists, making fifty-seven in favor of ratification. On the other hand the bitter-end Republicans voted against it with the Democrats who stood by the President, thus throwing thirty-seven votes against ratification. It had taken the Peace Conference five months to construct the treaty with Germany in all its complexities, and secure the unanimous approval of the delegates of thirty-one states. The Senate had consumed more than eight months merely in criticizing the treaty and had finally refused to ratify it.

We are, perhaps, too close to the event to attempt any apportionment of responsibility for this failure to cap our military successes by a peace which—when all has been said—was the nearest possible approach to the ideal peace. It is clear that the blame is not entirely on one side. Historians will doubtless level the indictment of ignorance and political obliquity against the Senators who tried, either directly or indirectly, to defeat the treaty; they will find much justification for their charge, although it will be more difficult to determine the dividing line between mere incapacity to appreciate the necessities of the world, and the desire to discredit, at any cost, the work of Woodrow Wilson. On the other hand, the President cannot escape blame, although the charge will be merely that of tactical incapacity and mistaken judgment. His inability to combine with the moderate Republican Senators first gave a chance to those who wanted to defeat the treaty. His obstinate refusal to accept reservations at the end, when it was clear that the treaty could not be ratified without them, showed a regard for form, at the expense of practical benefit. Granted that the reservations altered the character of the League or the character of American participation in it, some sort of a League was essential and the sooner the United States entered the better it would be. Its success would not rest upon phrases, but upon the spirit of the nations that composed it; the building-up of a new and better international order would not be determined by this reservation or that. Wilson's claim to high rank as a statesmen would probably be more clear if he had accepted what was possible at the moment, in the hope that the League would be improved as the country and the world became better educated.



CHAPTER XIV

CONCLUSION

By the accident of history the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, which he designed to utilize for a series of social reforms, was characterized by the supreme importance of foreign affairs. Whatever the significance of the legislative enactments of his first year of office, he will be remembered as the neutrality President, the war President, and the peace President. Each phase of his administration represents a distinct aspect of his policy and called into prominence distinct aspects of his character. It is the third, however, which gives to his administration the place of importance which it will hold in history; not merely because of the stamp which he attempted to place upon the peace, but because the two earlier phases are in truth expressive of his whole-hearted devotion to the cause of peace. The tenacity with which he held to neutrality in the face of intense provocation resulted less from his appreciation of the pacific sentiments of the nation, or a desire to assure its economic prosperity, than it did from his instinctive abhorrence of war. When finally forced into war, he based his action upon the hope of securing a new international order which would make war in the future impossible or less frequent. In his mind the war was always waged in order to ensure peace.

Whatever his mistakes or successes as neutrality President or war President, therefore, it is as peace President that he will be judged by history. Inevitably future generations will study with especial attention the unfolding of his constructive peace policy, from his declaration of the Fourteen Points to the Peace Conference. In reality his policy of international service, to be rendered by the strong nations of the world in behalf of peace and of absolute justice toward the weaker nations, was developed all through the year 1916. It was then that he seized upon a League of Nations as the essential instrument. But the true significance of this policy was hardly perceived before the speech of the Fourteen Points, in January, 1918. That speech gave to Wilson his position in the world, as preeminent exponent of the new ideals of international relations.

What the President demanded was nothing new. The principle of justice, as the underlying basis of intercourse between nations, has received wide support at all epochs of history; the cause of international peace, as an ultimate ideal, has always been advocated in the abstract; the idea of a League of Nations has frequently been mooted. But it was Wilson's fate to be ruler of a great nation at the moment when the need of peace, justice, and international organization was more clearly demonstrated than ever before in the world's history. Germany's cynical disregard of Belgian independence, the horrors and waste of the war for which Germany was chiefly responsible, the diplomatic disorganization of Europe, which permitted this world disaster, desired by merely a handful of firebrands—all these tragic and pitiful facts had been burned into the mind of the age. There was a definite determination that a recurrence of such catastrophes should not be permitted. The period of the war will be regarded by future historians as one of transition from the international chaos of the nineteenth century to an organization of nations, which, however loose, should crystallize the conscience of the world, preserve its peace, and translate into international politics the standards of morality which have been set up for the individual.

In this transition President Wilson played a part of the first importance. His role was not so much that of the executive leader as of the prophet. He was not the first to catch the significance of the transition, nor did he possess the executive qualities which would enable him to break down all obstacles and translate ideals into facts. But he alone of the notable statesmen of the world was able to express adequately the ill-defined hopes of the peoples of all nations. He gave utterance to the words which the world had been waiting for, and they carried weight because of his position. Alone of the great powers the United States had no selfish designs to hide behind fair promises of a better future. As President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson might look for the confidence of Europe; there was no European Government which could arouse similar trust. So long as the war lasted, the President's success as a prophet of the ideal was assured, alike by his ability to voice inarticulate hopes and by reason of his position as chief of the most powerful and most disinterested nation of the world.

But with the end of the war he faced a new task and one which was infinitely more difficult. The flush of victory obliterated from the minds of many in the Allied countries the high ideals which they had nourished during the bitterness of the struggle. The moment had arrived when practical advantage might be taken from the defeat of the enemy, and it seemed madness to surrender such advantage for the sake of quixotic ideals. The statesmen of Europe once more viewed affairs through the colored prism of national selfishness. In America, where Wilsonian ideals had at best been imperfectly appreciated, men were wearied by international problems and longed for a return to the simple complexity of the business life which they understood. The President was confronted by a double problem. He must win from Europe acceptance of his programme, crystallized in the League of Nations; from his fellow countrymen he must secure the support necessary if the United States were to continue to play the role in world affairs which she had undertaken during the war, and which alone would make possible an effective League of Nations. To meet the difficulties of the task, President Wilson was imperfectly equipped. He lacked the dynamic qualities of a Roosevelt, which might have enabled him to carry his opponents off their feet by an overwhelming rush; he was not endowed with the tactical genius of a skillful negotiator; he was, above all, handicapped by the personal hostilities which he had aroused at home.

In Europe the President achieved at least partial success. He proved unable to marshal the forces of liberalism in such a way as to carry his complete programme to victory, and the sacrifices which he made to the spirit of selfish nationalism cost him the support and the confidence of many progressive elements, while they did not placate the hostility of the reactionaries. But he secured the League of Nations, the symbol and the instrument of the new international organization which he sought. Thereby at least a beginning was made in concrete form, which might later be developed, when the force of the post-bellum reaction had wasted itself.

At home, however, the forces of opposition proved strong enough to rob the President of what might have been a triumph. He lacked the capacity to reconcile his personal and political opponents, as well as the ability to compromise with the elements that were inclined to meet him half-way. In accordance with his basic principles he appealed from the politicians to the people. But here again he failed, whether because of personal unpopularity, or because of the poor publicity which had been given his efforts at Paris, or because of the physical breakdown which shattered his persuasive powers and finally led to his retirement from the struggle. The vindication which he sought in the presidential election of 1920 was denied him. The country was tired of a Democratic Administration and gave to the Republican candidate an overwhelming plurality. The sole comfort that Wilson could take, in the face of the election returns, was that both candidates had declared for the principle of international organization and that the most distinguished supporters of the successful Republican candidate had pledged themselves to a League of Nations.

The months that followed the President's return from Paris until the close of his administration thus form a period of personal tragedy. He had achieved a broad measure of success in Europe, where the difficulties appeared stupendous, only to have the cup dashed from his lips at the last moment in his own country. The bitterness of the experience was intensified by his physical helplessness. But we should lack perspective if we made the mistake of confusing personal tragedy with failure. His work remained uncrowned, but there was much that could never be undone. The articulate expression of the hopes of the world, which President Wilson voiced during the war, remains imperishable as a guide to this and future generations. The League of Nations, weakened by the absence of the United States but actually organized and in operation, was the President's work. Whatever the fortunes of this particular League the steps taken toward international cooeperation by its foundation can never be completely retraced.

Woodrow Wilson, however, is not to be assessed by his accomplishment. It is as prophet and not as man of action that he will be regarded by history. Like the prophets of old, like Luther or Mazzini, he lacked the capacity for carrying to practical success the ideal which he preached. But to assume that he must accordingly be adjudged a failure is to ignore the significance of the ideals to which he awakened the world. Much there was that was unattainable and intangible, but its value to mankind in the development of international relations may be inestimable.

Not on the vulgar mass Called "work" must sentence pass Things done, that took the eye and had the price.... But all, the world's coarse thumb And finger failed to plumb, So passed in making up the main account; All instincts immature, All purposes unsure, That weighed not as his work, yet swelled the man's amount.



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Thus far no adequate biography of President Wilson, covering his career through the Peace Conference, has been published. The most suggestive is Henry Jones Ford's Woodrow Wilson: The Man and His Work (1916) which stops with the close of the first term. The author, a Princeton professor, is a warm personal and political admirer of the President, but he makes a definite attempt at critical appreciation. W. E. Dodd's Woodrow Wilson and His Work (1920) is comprehensive and brings the story to the end of the Peace Conference, but it is marred by eulogistic interpretation and anti-capitalistic bias. An interesting effort to interpret the President to British readers in the form of biography has been made by H. W. Harris in President Wilson: His Problems and His Policy (1917). W. B. Hale, in The Story of a Style (1920), attempts to analyze the motives by which the President is inspired. But the best material to serve this end is to be found in the President's writings, especially Congressional Government (1885), An Old Master and Other Political Essays (1893), Constitutional Government in the United States (1908), The New Freedom (1913), International Ideals (1919). The two last-named are collections of addresses made in explanation and advocacy of his plans of domestic and international reform. The most convenient edition of the President's official writings and speeches is Albert Shaw's President Wilson's State Papers and Addresses (1918), edited with an analytical index.

For the period of neutrality a storehouse of facts is to be found in The New York Times Current History, published monthly. The American Year Book contains a succinct narrative of the events of each year, which may be supplemented by that in the Annual Register which is written from the British point of view. A brief resume of Wilson's first term is contained in F. A. Ogg's National Progress (1918). More detailed is the first volume of J. B. McMaster's The United States in the World War (1918), which is based upon the newspapers and necessarily lacks perspective, but is comprehensive and extremely useful for purposes of reference. The clearest outline of President Wilson's treatment of foreign affairs is to be found in E. E. Robinson and V. J. West's The Foreign Policy of President Wilson, 1913-1917 (1917). The narrative is brief but interpretative and is followed by numerous excerpts from the President's speeches and state papers. The tone of the narrative is extremely favorable and President Wilson is credited with consistency rather than capacity for development, but the arrangement is excellent. More comprehensive is the edition by J. B. Scott, entitled President Wilson's Foreign Policy: Messages, Addresses, Papers (1918). Johann von Bernstorff's My Three Years in America (1920) is a well-reasoned apologia by the German Ambassador, which contains information of much value; it is not impossible for the critically minded to distinguish the true from the false. The description of German criminal activities contained in Horst von der Goltz's My Adventures as a German Secret Agent (1917), should be checked up with the report of the Senate Committee of Inquiry into the German propaganda. The Real Colonel House, by A. D. Howden-Smith (1918), throws useful sidelights on Wilson and contains valuable material on the activities of Colonel House as negotiator before the entrance into the war of the United States.

The best general narrative of America's war effort is J. S. Bassett's Our War with Germany (1919); it is clear and succinct, beginning with the early effects of the war on the United States in 1914, and ending with the Peace Conference. An interesting, but irritating, account is to be found in George Creel's The War, the World and Wilson (1920), which is passionate in its defense of the President, and blurs truth with inaccuracy on almost every page. F. F. Kelly's What America Did (1919) is a brief popular account of the building of the army at home and abroad and the organization of industry: clear, inaccurate, uncritical. The most convenient summary of the organization of national resources is F. L. Paxson's "The American War Government," in The American Historical Review, October, 1920, which should be supplemented by the Handbook of Economic Agencies for the War of 1917, monograph No. 3 of the Historical Branch, War Plans Division, General Staff (1919). The former contains many references in footnotes, of which the most important are the Report of the Chief of Staff (1919) and the Report of the Provost Marshal General (1919). The published Investigation of the War Department, Hearing before the Committee on Military Affairs (1918) is invaluable The most complete information on ordnance is to be found in the report of General Benedict Crowell, America's Munitions, 1917-1918 (1919); it is an official defense and should be read critically. A graphic picture of American accomplishments is given in L. P. Ayres's The War with Germany; A Statistical Summary (1919). The best account of operations in France is still General Pershing's Report to the Secretary of War, which is printed in New York Times Current History, January and February, 1920. It may be supplemented by Shipley Thomas's The History of the A. E. F. (1920).

The American point of view on the Peace Conference is set forth authoritatively in What Really Happened at Paris (1921), a collection of lectures delivered by members of the American Peace Commission and edited by Edward M. House and Charles Seymour. Some Problems of the Peace Conference (1920), by C. H. Haskins and R. H. Lord, is an accurate and comprehensive analysis of the territorial questions settled at Paris. The British point of view and the most important documents are given in A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (1920), written chiefly by British delegates and edited by H. W. V. Temperley. The French point of view is admirably presented in Andre Tardieu's The Truth about the Treaty (1921). An excellent picture of the conflict of interests and the manner in which they were decided is to be found in C. T. Thompson's The Peace Conference Day by Day (1920). Robert Lansing's The Peace Negotiations (1921) is interesting as giving the opinions of an American Commissioner who disagreed with Mr. Wilson's methods at Paris. J. M. Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) contains an economic analysis which is more trustworthy than his brilliant, but misleading, picture of the Conference. It should not be read except in company with the authoritative and accurate The Making of the Reparation and Economic Clauses (1920), by B. M. Baruch. A clever but superficial criticism of President Wilson's peace policies is to be found in J. M. Beck's The Passing of the Freedom (1920).



INDEX

Adams, J. Q., and Monroe Doctrine, 30

Adamson Act, 90

Adriatic coast, Italy's claims on, 311; see also Fiume

Aircraft Production Board, 140

Airplanes, production for army, 134-35, 139-42

Alaska purchased from Russia, 31

Albert, King of Belgium, in Paris, 255

Albert, Dr. H. F., and the Wilhelmina, 43; and German plots, 75; loses portfolio, 76

Algeciras Conference (1906), 34

Alien Property Custodian, 179

Alsace-Lorraine returned to France, 302, 324

American Ambulance in France, 67

American Expeditionary Force, no provision at first for, 121; Pershing sent to France, 122; plans for, 124-25; centralization under Pershing, 148; training in France, 200-02; ports for, 202-03; supply depots, 203; distribution of supplies, 203-04; credit due, 225-27; defects, 226; see also Argonne, Chateau-Thierry, St. Mihiel

American Federation of Labor, delegates aid in formation of war labor policy, 182

American Protective League, 187

Ancona, torpedoed in Mediterranean, 57

Arabia, submarine sinks, 56

Archibald, J. F. J., Dumba makes use of, 77

Argentine, grain not available for Europe, 159

Argonne, foreign artillery used in, 134; plans for advance, 221; defensive importance for Germans, 222; American offensive, 222-23; see also Meuse-Argonne

Arizona offered by Germany as bribe to Mexico, 106

Armaments, Reduction of, guarantees not taken at Paris, 323; League Covenant provides, 324

Armand, Major, discusses separate peace with Austria, 231

Armenian, submarine attack, 56

Armistice (Nov. 11, 1918), 224, 228; terms, 243

Army, General Staff, 119-20, 157, 188; American Expeditionary Force, 121, 122, 124 et seq., 148, 200-04, 225-27; see also Argonne, Chateau-Thierry, St. Mihiel; original programme (1917), 121; Roosevelt's request to command volunteers, 122-23; Selective Service Act, 122, 126-27, 133; National Army, 128; training, 128-29, 130-32; cantonments 129-30 (note); supplies, 129, 132-133, 134-43, 152; democracy of, 134; transportation of troops, 195, 196-97

Australia, grain not available for Europe, 159

Austria, Italy's offensive against, 193; attempts for separate peace with, 231-32; treaty, 317, 321-22; denied right to incorporate with Germany, 322, 326; see also Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary, collapse, 224, 228; offers to negotiate on basis of Fourteen Points, 241; subject nationalities receive independence, 324; see also Austria, Hungary

Ayres, L. P., The War with Germany, cited, 142 (note)

Baker, N. D., Secretary of War, as pacifist, 85-86, 117-18; delays approving machine gun, 137; and Wilson, 153; and coal price agreement, 166-67

Baldwin Locomotive Works, suspected German plot at, 79

Balfour, A. J., Lloyd George and, 13; in Council of Ten, 270-71

Baltimore, Democratic convention (1912), 7-8

Banat of Temesvar, "The Inquiry" gathers facts concerning, 260

Bapaume, capture of, 192

Bartlett, C. L., introduces bill in House prohibiting sales to belligerents, 73

Baruch, B. M., appointment by Wilson, 15; on Council of National Defense, 155; chairman of War Industries Board, 157; at Peace Conference, 259, 276

Belgium, American sympathy for, 38, 73, 114; Wilson's answer to appeal, 40; relief, 67; effect in America of deportation of civilians, 97, 99; Germans rank United States Army with that of, 117; Hoover in, 160; complaint against treaty, 321; treaty provision regarding, 324

Belleau Woods, attack on, 214, 225

Benes, Edward, Foreign Minister of Czecho-Slovak Republic, and Council of Ten, 274

Benson, Admiral W. S., and Daniels, 144

Bernstorff, Johann von, German Ambassador in Washington, 41-42, 75, 106; dismissed, 108

Bethlehem Steel Company, suspected German plots in plant of, 79

Bethmann-Hollweg and submarine warfare, 106

"Big Four," see Council of Four

Bliss, General T. H., on Supreme Military Council, 205-206; on Peace Commission, 249

Blockade, British blockade of foodstuffs, 45; as justification of submarine warfare, 53; effect of submarine warfare upon American ports, 110

Bolshevik revolution, 193

Borah, W. E., against treaty and League of Nations, 330-331,342; speech-making tour, 339-40

Bordeaux, port allotted American Expeditionary Force, 202, 203

Bosch Magneto Company, German intrigue and, 75

Bourgeois, Leon, on committee to draft plan for League of Nations, 289

Boy-Ed, Karl, German naval attache, 75; and Mexico, 76; dismissed, 78

Brandegee, F. B., against treaty and League of Nations, 342

Bratiano, J. J. C., of Rumania, and Council of Ten, 274

Brest, destroyer base at, 199; port allotted American Expeditionary Force, 202-03; George Washington reaches, 254

Brest-Litovsk treaty, 239

Bridgeport, German manufacturing company at, 75; strikes at, 79

British Grand Fleet, American battleships join, 199

Brockdorff-Rantzau, U. K. C., graf von, German Minister for Foreign Affairs, 317

Browning machine gun, 137, 138

Brusilov attack, 193

Bryan, W. J., leader in Democratic convention (1912), 7, 8; resigns as Secretary of State, 53-54; pacifist suggestion, 59; popular with pacifists, 70

Bryn Mawr College, Wilson professor at, 3

Bucharest treaty, 239

Bulgaria, collapse, 224, 228, 241; treaty term regarding, 327

Burleson, A. S., and Wilson, 18; Postmaster-General, 154

Byng, General, at Cambrai, 193

Caine, Hall, quoted, 105

California and election of Wilson (1916), 92

Cambon, Jules, 276

Cambrai, German lines broken at, 193, 224

Canada, Americans in forces of, 67

Cantigny, engagement at, 211-212

Caporetto, Italian collapse at, 193; Foch commands French forces in Italy after, 207

Carl, Emperor of Austria, desire for separate peace, 232

Carranza, Venustiano, Wilson recognizes, 86; protests American expedition, 87

Carrizal, attack by Carranza's troops at, 87

Cecil, Lord Robert, on committee to draft plan for League of Nations, 289, 290

Chamberlain, G. E., and preparedness, 82

Chateau-Thierry, 212-13, 216, 225

Chauchat automatic rifles, 137

Chemical Warfare Service, 143

Chemin des Dames, 210, 212

Chicago, Wilson speaks at, 83

China, American policy toward, 31; accepts Japan's Shantung claim, 315; delegates refuse to sign treaty, 321

Civil War, relations with Great Britain during, 29

Clark, Champ, candidate for Presidential nomination (1912), 8; and conscription, 126

Clayton Act, 90

Clemenceau, Georges, treatment of other French delegates at Paris, 13; signs plea for American troops, 210; and question of indemnity, 281, 300, 301; opposition to Fourteen Points, 251, 252; in Council of Ten, 264-67; languages, 272; on Council of Premiers, 277; helps formulate armistice policy, 278; wounded, 278; and League of Nations, 286-87, 288, 303; ability to conduct plenary sessions, 289; change in attitude towards Wilson, 295; and Fiume, 313

Cleveland, Wilson speaks at, 83

Coal, see Fuel Administration

Coffin, H. E., chairman Aircraft Production Board, 140; on Council of National Defense, 155

Colleges, Students' Army Training Corps, 131; straw vote on treaty in, 345 (note)

Colt machine gun, 137

Commerce, British Orders in Council to control, 42-43; see also Submarine warfare, United States Shipping Board, War Trade Board

Committee on Engineering and Education, 155-56

Congress, Wilson and, 17, 21, 191; Wilson's appeal for Democratic, 18, 246-47; and arming of merchant vessels, 58-59, 60, 110-11; and note to Germany (April 19, 1916), 61; pacifically-minded, 82; preparedness, 85; Wilson's speech in Senate (Jan. 22, 1917), 103-05; announcement of severance of diplomatic relations with Germany to, 107-08; Wilson's speech (April 2, 1917), 111-13; declares war, 116; and the army, 119, 133; and conscription, 126; appropriation for airplanes, 140; Overman Act, 149, 157, 189, 190; Lever Act, 161, 167; proposes control of military affairs, 188; attacks on Wilson's war policies by Senate, 188-89; Senate and the treaty, 330 et seq.; Foreign Relations Committee meets Wilson at White House, 336-37

Conscientious objectors, 133

Conscription, see Draft

Contraband, British interpretation of, 42

Council of Foreign Ministers, 277

Council of Four, 277-80

Council of National Defense, 154 et seq.; War Industries Board, 156-59; food conservation, 159-66; fuel conservation, 166-71; Labor Committee, 181; publicity, 186; influence lessened, 187

Council of Premiers, 277

Council of Ten, experts at meetings of, 261; organization of, 262-64; Supreme Council called, 264; meetings, 264, 272-74; personnel, 264-72; and commissions, 275; becomes unwieldy, 278; Wilson leaves League committee to attend, 290

Crillon, Hotel, home of American Commission at Paris, 258

Crowe, Sir Eyre, on territorial commission, 276

Crowell, Benedict, Assistant Secretary of War, quoted, 135

Cuba, interest of United States in, 29; Pershing in, 123

Cunliffe, British financial expert, 300

Cushing attacked by German aeroplane, 49

Czechoslovakia, question of autonomy for Czechs, 232; nationalistic ambitions aroused by treaty, 322; Germans and Magyars in, 327; and the League, 328

Czernin von Chudenitz, Ottokar, count, Austrian Chancellor, 239

Daniels, Josephus, Secretary of Navy, 144

Danzig, "The Inquiry" gathers facts concerning, 260; treaty provision, 326;

Davis, Norman, financial advisor to Peace Commission, 259, 276

"Daylight saving," 169

Democratic party, Wilson and, 5, 6; convention (1912), 7-8; Wilson makes plea for Democratic Congress, 18, 246-47; foreign policy, 25-26, 35; Wilson and machine leaders, 88

Denman, William, chairman of United States Shipping Board, 175

Dent, S. H., and conscription, 126

Dernburg, Dr. Bernhard, and German propaganda, 44, 72

Dillon, E. J., on Wilson, 9-10

Disarmament, see Armaments, Reduction of

Draft, Wilson and, 122, 126; Selective Service Act, 122, 127; National Army, 128; success of, 133; General Staff prepares plans for, 148

Dulles, J. F., proposes Reparations Commission, 306 (note)

Dumba, Dr. Constantin, Austrian Ambassador at Washington, 77; recall requested, 77-78

Durazzo, navy at, 200

East, Far, American policy regarding, 31-32; see also China, Japan

Embargo, question of embargo on munitions, 43-45, 73

Emergency Fleet Corporation, 175, 176, 178

Emery, H. C., on German pessimism in June, 1918, 240

Enfield rifles, 139

Entente, American opinion favors, 38; see also Allies, names of countries

Erzberger, Matthias, leader of Reichstag revolt, 229-30

Expeditionary Force, see American Expeditionary Force

Faisal, Emir, Arabian representative at Peace Conference, 261

Falaba sunk by submarine, 49

Fayolle, General, French leader, 206; supports Foch, 208

Fiume, "The Inquiry" gathers facts concerning, 260; question of Italian claim, 261, 312-14, 315-16

Foch, General Ferdinand, Pershing compared with, 123; on gasoline conservation, 170; and American troops, 196, 227; made commander-in-chief of Allied armies, 207; Chemin des Dames, 210; launches counter-offensive (July 18, 1918), 215-216; political movements supplement victories of, 228; movement on Sedan, 241; and armistice, 244; at Peace Conference, 261; and Council of Ten, 273; inspects troops on Rhine, 320

Food Administration, 160-66

Ford, Henry, sends "Peace Ship" to Europe, 74

Fore River shipyards, 176

Foerster, Austrian counselor, 232

"Four Minute Men," 186

Fourteen Points, Wilson introduces, 233-34, 353; discussion of, 234-38; failure of, 238, 280, 322-23; Austria-Hungary offers to negotiate on basis of, 241; Germans accept as basis of negotiations, 242; accepted by Allies, 243, 244, 281; Wilson goes to Paris to defend, 250; Wilson's concessions, 287; territorial settlements carry out, 323-24

France, American Expeditionary Force, see American Expeditionary Force; French army ordered out of Mexico by United States, 29; American cause identical with that of, 37; messages to Wilson, 40; and Wilson's note (Dec. 18, 1916), 102; mission to United States, 122; French officers instruct in American schools, 131; military disappointment (1917), 192; morale low, 193; problem of frontier, 302-03, 306-07, 325-26; complaint against treaty, 321; Alsace-Lorraine returned to, 324

Franco-British-American alliance, 310

Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, assassination, 27

Freedom of the seas, one of Fourteen Points, 234; not discussed at Peace Conference, 287, 323

Freya, German line of defense, 223

Fuel Administration, 167-71, 186

Galicia, "The Inquiry" gathers facts concerning, 260

Gardner, A. P., and preparedness, 82

Garfield, H. A., Wilson and, 15; Fuel Administrator, 167, 171

Garrison, L. M., Secretary of War, resigns, 85

Gasoline savings effected by gasless Sundays, 170-71

General Medical Board, 155

General Purchasing Board, 204

General Staff, 119-20, 157, 188

George Washington, Wilson's speech on, quoted, 40-41; German boat, 179; Wilson sails on, 253, 254, 329; Wilson and experts on, 260; ordered to Brest, 304

Gerard, J. W., American Ambassador to Germany, recalled, 108

German-Americans, opposition to Wilson, 70; Wilson and, 79-80, 90, 91; and the treaty, 338

Germany, American sympathy, 37-38; Wilson answer to protest from, 40; Wilson and mediation, 41-42, 99; Great Britain blockades, 42; tries to prevent export of American munitions, 43-45; propaganda in America, 44, 65, 71-74, 186; submarine warfare, 45-46, 47, et seq., 97, 99-100, 106-07, 109-10; Wilson's reply to submarine threat, 46; sinks Lusitania, 49-50; Lusitania notes, 54-56; pledges not to sink liners without warning, 56-57; announcement regarding armed merchantmen, 57; Sussex torpedoed, 60; Wilson's note (April 16, 1916), 61-63; opinion of United States, 70, 117; secret intrigue in United States, 74-80; appeal of ninety-three professors, 72; officials dismissed from United States, 78; U-53 off American coast, 97; proposes negotiations (Dec. 12, 1916), 100-01; peace note to, 101-03; warning in Wilson's speech (Jan. 22, 1917), 104; withdraws Sussex pledge, 106; diplomatic relations broken off, 107-08; overt acts, 109-10; publication of plans regarding Mexico and Japan, 111; United States declares war on, 111-14, 116; attack (March 21, 1918), 206; drive along Lys, 209; fourth and last drive (July 15, 1918), 214; requests armistice, 224, 241; abdication of Kaiser, 229; Reichstag revolt (July, 1917), 229-30; negotiations with Russia, 232; Wilson on disposition of colonies, 284; delegates at Peace Conference, 317; protests treaty terms, 317; accepts treaty, 320; responsibility for war, 354

Gibraltar, destroyer base at, 199

Godfrey, Hollis, on Council of National Defense, 155

Goethals, General G. W., head of Emergency Fleet Corporation, 175

Goltz, von der, plots destruction of Welland Canal, 76

Gompers, Samuel, on Council of National Defense, 155; at Peace Conference, 259

Gore, T. P., introduces Senate resolution regarding armed merchant vessels, 59

Goricar, Dr. Joseph, revelations concerning German intrigue, 78-79

Gough, General, army defeated, 206

Gouraud, General, supports Foch, 208; and German drive of July, 1918, 215

Grandpre, battle around, 223

Great Britain, relations with United States, 29, 33-34, 38; American cause identical with that of, 37; Orders in Council for control of neutral commerce, 42-43; United States disputes shipping rights with, 42-43, 65-66; and Wilson's note (Dec. 18, 1916), 102; and Wilson's speech (Jan. 22, 1917), 105; mission to United States, 122; British officers instruct in American schools, 131; provides transports for troops, 179; American battleships join British Grand Fleet, 199; see also Allies, Lloyd George

Greece, demand for territory, 282; treaty term concerning, 327

Gregory, T. W., Attorney-General, 154

Grey, Viscount, British Ambassador to United States, letter concerning League, 347

Gulflight sunk by submarine, 49

Haig, Sir Douglas, quoted, 209

Hamburg-American Line, 76

Harvey, Colonel George, mentions Wilson as possible President (1906), 5

Hertling, von, German Chancellor, 238-39

Hesperian sunk by Germans, 57

Hindenburg, General Paul von, retreat on Somme front, 192; line broken, 224

Hitchcock, G. M., Wilson writes to, 344, 346

Hog Island shipyards, 176

Holland, agents of General Purchasing Board in, 204

Hoover, H. C., head of Food Administration, 160-64; personal characteristics, 160; and morale, 186; at Peace Conference, 259; and League of Nations, 328, 346

Horn, Werner, plans destruction of bridge at Vanceboro (Maine), 75

House, Colonel E. M., and Wilson, 12, 18, 49, 260, 334-335; sent to Europe, (1914-15), 47-49; personal characteristics, 47-48; war mission (1917), 194-95; and appointment of a generalissimo, 207; and separate peace with Austria, 231; sent abroad for armistice plan, 241, 242, 278; on Peace Commission, 249; at Peace Conference, 258; and "The Inquiry," 259-60; suggests territorial commissions, 275-76; and Council of Four, 278-79; and League of Nations Covenant, 290; as mediator between Wilson and Allied leaders, 304

Huerta, Victoriano, German plot to restore, 76; at Vera Cruz, 86

Hughes, C. E., Republican candidate for Presidency (1916), 91-92

Hughes, W. M., Premier of Australia, demands German colonies for Allies, 288-89

Hungary, treaty and, 322; and League, 328; see also Austria-Hungary

Hurley, E. N., chairman of Shipping Board, 176; at Peace Conference, 259

Hurst, C. J. B., legal expert, 290

Igel, von, German agent, 80

Indemnities, Allies delay raising issue, 244-45; question of German, 296-302; settlement in treaty, 304-06; flaw in treaty regarding, 322; justice of, 325

Initiative and referendum in Oregon, 15

"Inquiry, The," Colonel House establishes, 260, 276-277

Interallied Board of Supplies, 204

Irish in United States, 29; against Wilson, 59

Italy, offensive against Austria, 193; claims, 310-14; complaint against treaty, 321; annexations, 326-27

Japan, interest of United States in, 31; Roosevelt as peacemaker between Russia and, 34; question of immigration from, 35, 70; German intrigue concerning, 106; delegates in Council of Ten, 271; claims, 310, 315-317; and League Covenant, 314; threatens withdrawal from Conference, 315; demands acceded to, 321

Jefferson, Thomas, policy of non-intervention, 30

Joffre, General, J. J. C., with mission to United States, 122; battle of the Marne, 207

Johns Hopkins University, Wilson at, 3

Johnson, Hiram, Governor of California, 92; as Senator hostile to League and treaty, 330, 339-40, 342

Jugoslavs, and Wilson, 228-229; Austria counselled to grant autonomy to, 232; application of Treaty of London against, 311; nationalistic ambitions aroused by treaty, 322; placed under Italian rule, 326-27

Julian Alps, Italy's claim, 311

Kahn, Julius, and conscription, 126

Keynes, J. M., on Wilson, 24

Kiau-Chau, Japan's claim to, 315, 321

Kitchin, Claude, leader of House, and draft, 126

Klotz, French Finance Minister, and indemnities, 300

Knox, P. C., treaty resolution, 345

Kronprinzessin Cecilie, voyage of, 28

Labor, McAdoo's concessions, 174; and German propaganda, 186

Labor Department, reorganization, 181; national war labor policy, 182

La Fayette, Marquis de, emphasis of history on, 38; "La Fayette, we are here!" 123

Lammasch, Austrian liberal, 232

Lamont, T. W., and Wilson, 12; on Wilson, 12-13 (note); at Peace Conference, 259, 276

Lane, F. K., Secretary of Interior, 153