LLOYD GEORGE DISSECTS THE DISPUTANTS.

Shannon News, 3 July 1923, Page 4

LLOYD GEORGE DISSECTS THE DISPUTANTS.

MANY SCHOOLS OF .THOUGHT. REGARDING VERSAILLES TREATY. [Copyright;] (Received Sunday, 7 p.m.) LONDON, Jun 6 80.- ’ Mr. Lloyd George, in his latest article, writes:—" I recently had speoial opportunities of appreciating the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles has not been read by those who have formed very definite opinions regard*-; ing its qualities. There is no justification for failure to peruse this! greatInternational instrument. It is the most important document* of modern' times. It re-shaped, for better br for worse’, the geography of Europe.: It has resurrected dead and buried Na- * tionalities. It constitutes a deed 'of manumission for tens of millidns ofEuropeans, who have been bondsmen of other races; it affects profoundly the economics, finance, industrial and trade conditions of the world; it contains clauses upon which may depend the very existence of civilisation. “ Nevertheless, there are few men who can tell you what is in the Treaty. You might have thought that although men differed really as to its merits, there' wodld have been no' dtffl** ' culty in securing a measure of Agreement. as to its actual contents. 'Thus* it comes to pass that the real Treaty; has already disappeared. Several imaginary versions have occurred and a conflict rages around these. " In France, there are two or three schools of thought concerning, it. There is a powerful'section which has always regarded it as a treasonable pact in which, M. Clemenceau igave away solid French rights under pressure from Dr. Woodrow Wilson and myself. That* is the' M. Poincare-' Barthou ‘ Pertenax ’ school.. That is why they, while they inform the world' that they are engaged in enforcing the Treaty, are now carrying but a gigantic operation for amending 'it without consulting the other signatories. This comes out clearly in l the Rhineland High Commissioner’s; report, disclosed by the newspaper ‘Observer.’ It is obvious fromtthls document that the French Goverhdeliberately organising a plot to overthrow t'he Treaty by! setting up an'lndependent Republic Of the Rhine under France’s protection;It was a deliberate attempt to re-Write the Treaty clauses in terms of MarshalFoch’s militarist demands. At! the Peace Conference, Marshal .Foch;* be- 1 ing the soul of honor, wanted >this done only straitforwardly. What Marshal Foch would have done-, slike the gentleman he is, these conspirators would have accomplished, by*, deceit —by deceiving their Allies and by being faithless to the Treaty to which their country had appended its signature. That is one school of thoiight, which has brought Europe to its present state of perturbation. " There is a second school, which reads into the Treaty powers and provisions which it does not contain,-‘arid never contemplated. These critics maintain that M. Briand and other French Ministers, except* M. Poincjare, betrayed their trust by failing to! enforce these Imaginary stipulations. They still honestly believe M. Poincare 'is the first Minister to make a genuine attempt* to enforce French rights.

“ There is a third school in the back ground, which knows exactly whatj the Treaty means, but dare not say sb in the present state of French opinion. Perhaps its adherants think if better to bide their time. When that time arrives, let us hope it Nirill not be too late to save Europe from a welter of destruction.

“ There are also in America two or three-divergent trends of opinion,->one of which .regards the Treaty As an insidious attempt to trap America into the European cockpit, so as to pluck its feathers in order to line ;French and English bolsters. If anything could justify so insular an estimate, it would be the entirely selfish interpretation put on the Treaty by one or two Allied Governments.

“ Another American party, I understand, defends it as a great human? instrument,, second only in importance to the Declaration of Independence. There may be a third party, who think on the whole it was not a bad settlement', but these are not as vocal as the rest.

“ There are at least three schools in England. There are those who'*'denounce the Treaty as a brutal outrage upon International justice;—a device for extorting incalculable sums out of an impoverished Germany for damages artificially worked, up. Then there are at the other extreme! the “ diehards,” who think the Treaty! lets Germany off much too lightly. They are in complete agreement with i the French Chauvinists. Ther e is also a third party, which regards the Treaty as the best settlement. But take all these varigated schools togetheh or separately, and you will not find one in a thousand of their pupils could give an intelligent and comprehensive summary of the main principled of the. Treaty, Controversialists are isfied to concentrate on articles of- the Treaty obnoxious or pleasing to them, as the case may be, ignoring th%,hest. however essential they may be to a true judgment of the whole." ' i

“For instance, the Covenant of ‘ the League of Nations is sometimes lifted bodily out of the text and delivered as a separate testament for the ' faithful, so that the saints may not defile their hand with a polluted print, Which exacts justice. They have now come to believe it was never incorporated in the Treaty, and has nothing- to do with that vile and sanguinary instrument. The actual Treaty has been put out of bounds and'you wander- into its forbidden clauses on pain of being put into a guard-room by one or other of the intellectual factions who patrol the highways and byways of international politics. Take another large -and important section, completely ignored by critics, that which reconnects Central Europe on

the basis of nationality, strategy, and military - convenience; this section which- liberates , Poland, frees the Danes of Schleswig, and the Frenchmen- of Alsace-Lorraine. For these the treety is a title deed o,f freedom. “Then there is the provision creating machinery - to deal with labour problems and' raise the standard of life amongst industrial workers by means of a great international effort. No more beneficient or more fruitful provision was ever made in any treaty. Why are the sections which had emancipated the ' oppressed races, which seek to life the worker above destitution and degradation, and which would' build a breakwater against raging passions making for war, never placed to the credit of the Treaty of Versailles? I venture to put in a humble; although I fear, a belated plea; 1 for the reading of the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text, of the Treaty of Versailles. It is the only way of arriving at a just conclusion on the merits of the Treaty, holding ini its hands the destiny of Europe for many generations.”