Some Problems of the Peace ConferenceHaskins, Charles Homer
History
Some Problems of the Peace Conference
Haskins, Charles Homer
Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions
All this changed with the armistice and the requirement of evacuation
of the Reichsland by German troops and officials. The whole of Germany
became suddenly enamored of the virtues of a plebiscite. President
Wilson’s programme was invoked, on the alleged ground that the wrong
done to France in 1871 lay simply in not calling for a popular vote,
and the German government declared itself ready to right the wrong now
by means of such a vote. The alternatives proposed for the voting were
union with Germany, union with France, and an independent state free
to form a customs union with either country. If Germany could not keep
the Reichsland itself, she might perhaps thus keep its iron and its
trade! To such proposals the French turned a deaf ear. Those who had
opposed a plebiscite before the victory were not likely to support it
now, and doubt disappeared before the reception which Strasburg gave
the French troops and the President and Premier. “This is the best of
plebiscites,” said President Poincaré in the midst of his tumultuous
welcome by the Alsatians, and there were few to deny it. The Germans
were genuinely surprised at the warmth of the popular enthusiasm, and
began to ask themselves why after fifty years they had failed to get
the sympathy of the people.
During the war the idea of a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine had been
popular with certain sections of Allied and neutral opinion, both as
a form of self-determination and as a means of settling finally and
conclusively this ancient dispute. Such a decision would be democratic,
and it would be final. Against it had been urged the grave practical
difficulties which stood in the way of any free expression of the
real opinion of the real inhabitants, particularly in view of the
emigration of about half a million since 1871, the coming in of some
hundreds of thousands from Germany, and the wholesale condemnations
and deportations during the war. A popular vote under these conditions
would have opened a wide field to bribery, intimidation, and
influence of every sort, and would have engendered great bitterness
and recrimination. A serious objection of principle was also raised
on the part of the French, who felt they would thus be recognizing
Germany’s legal right in the Reichsland. The will of the people, they
said, had been expressed by the unanimous declarations of their elected
representatives in the French Parliament in 1871 and in the German
Reichstag in 1874, yet it had been openly flouted by Germany so long
as she had any chance of retaining the Reichsland by other means.
Germany could not be permitted to ignore a principle at one moment and
to invoke it at another when it might possibly be manipulated in her
favor, a system of “heads I win, tails you lose.” Such a proceeding
was plainly unfair to France, and it also set a bad example of
international morality by leaving Germany a chance to profit by her
violation of international right in 1871. Under the guise of popular
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account