The natural meaning and object of these words, which, the reader must remember, are introduced as an interpretation of the phrase “restoration of invaded territory,” is to assimilate submarine and cruiser aggression by sea and aeroplane and airship aggression by air to military aggression by land, which, in all the circumstances, was a reasonable extension of the phrase, provided it was duly notified beforehand. The Allies rightly apprehended that, if they accepted the phrase as it stood, “restoration of invaded territory” might be limited to damage resulting from military aggression by land. This interpretation of the reservation of the Allied Governments, namely that it assimilated offensive action by sea or air to offensive action by land, but that “restoration of invaded territory” could not possibly include pensions and separation allowances, was adopted by the American Delegation at Paris. They construed the German liability to be in respect of the “direct physical damage to property of non–military character and direct physical injury to civilians”[103] caused by such aggression; the only further liability which they admitted being under a different part of the President’s pronouncements, namely, those relating to breaches of International law, such as the breach of the Treaty of Neutrality in favor of Belgium, and the illegal treatment of prisoners of war. I doubt if any one would ever have challenged this interpretation if the British Prime Minister had not won a General Election by promises to extract from Germany more than this interpretation could justify,[104] and if the French Government also had not raised unjustifiable expectations. These promises were made recklessly. But it was not easy for their authors to admit, so soon after they had been given, that they were contrary to our engagements. The discussion opened with the delegations, other than the American, claiming that we had not committed ourselves to anything which precluded our demanding from Germany all the loss and damage, direct and indirect, which had resulted from the war. “One of the Allies,” says Mr. Baruch, “went even further, and made claim for loss and damage resulting from the fact that the Armistice was concluded so unexpectedly that the termination of hostilities involved it in financial losses.”