FROM MARCH 15 TO APRIL 10
PEACE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY HOUSE On April 9 the U. S. House of Representatives, by nearly a two-thirds vote—242 to 150—adopted a joint resolution declaring war with Germany at an end, and sent it to the Senate, where Republican leaders planned to force its immediate consideration.
The resolution, instead of declaring peace, declares the war at an end. It provides that if within 45 days the German Government shall not make a similar declaration and renounce all claims, rights, etc., not granted by the Treaty of Versailles, the President shall stop all commercial intercourse with Germany. Finally, it declares that “ nothing herein contained shall be construed as a waiver by United States of its rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations or advantages to which the United States has become entitled under the terms of the armistice signed November 11, 1918.”
Treaty Defeated in Senate—On March 19, by a vote of 49 for to 35 against, the Senate defeated the Lodge resolution providing for conditional ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. This vote was seven less than the necessary two-thirds. The defeat of the Lodge resolution was made certain after the inclusion on March 18, by a vote of 54 to 26, of a reservation declaring that “the United States adheres to the principle of self-determination and to the resolution of sympathy with the aspiration of the Irish people for a government of their own choice, adopted by the Senate June 6, 1919.”
Summary of Foreign Situation.—International nervousness is spreading. France’s occupation of German territory against the judgment of the United States, Great Britain and other Allied Powers is but one symptom. Throughout the world, as it becomes apparent that there is no central, cohesive, effective instrumentality to enforce the peace treaty, each nation is beginning to look out for her own interests.
Japan, being nervous about the proximity of the Bolsheviki and their doctrines to incipient radicalism in the land of Nippon, has seized Vladivostok.
Italy is tacitly behind D’Annunzios occupation of Fiume.
Poland has reached out for pieces of Russian territory.
The Near East is a tangle of British and French pretensions in Turkey and Syria.
Germany’s socialist government claims her economic ruin is sought by France, and unless it is permitted to put down the revolt in the Ruhr Valley the monarchical party will come back into power.
Marshal Koch and the French generals, putting little stock in German pleas, have influenced Premier Millerand and the French foreign office to take no chances on the allied council of diplomats, which was trying to dissuade France, but to go ahead and take German territory first and talk about it afterward.—David Lawrence, Washington Post, April 7.
FRENCH ADVANCE WHEN GERMAN TROOPS ENTER RUHR
German Troops Enter Ruhr.—Immediately upon the failure of Kapp Reactionary Rebellion and the restoration of the Bauer government, radical demonstrations occurred throughout Germany and especially in the industrial region cast of the Rhine, where a Red army of upwards of 50,000 workmen moved upon Wessel, Essen and other industrial centers. On March 19 Essen was captured by the Red army after violent fighting in which it was estimated that 300 persons were killed.
According to the terms of the Peace Treaty, and a subsequent agreement of August, 1919, only 25,000 German Government troops were permitted within the 50-kilometer neutral zone east of the Rhine. The German Government as early as March 17 requested of the Allies permission to move additional troops into the Ruhr region, and later renewed this request. On April 2, the French Government, acting independently of other Allied Powers, withheld consent unless French troops should simultaneously occupy German cities east of the Rhine. The German forces, however, entered the region and on April 5 numbered, according to German statements, 43,000; according to French estimates, 160,000. These forces succeeded in reestablishing order and coming to terms with the workmen organizations.
French Occupy Rhine Cities.—As a “coercive and precautionary measure," "to bring Germany to a due respect for the Peace Treaty,” large bodies of French troops were on April 6 ordered to cross the Rhine, and occupied Frankfort. The occupation took place quietly, though several German civilians were killed or wounded by the French in a street disturbance on April 7.
Premier Millerand Defends Action.—Prior to this action, Premier Millerand notified the Allied Powers and asked their cooperation, but stated that France was prepared to act alone if necessary. On April 7 the French Government issued a long note defending its course, in part as follows:
“On April 2 Premier Millerand confirmed to the German Charge d’Affaires the decision that the French Government could not as far as it was concerned, give such authorization unless French troops should he authorized to occupy simultaneously Frankfort, Darmstadt, Hamburg, Hanau and Dieburg.
“On April 3 Dr. Göppert admitted that Reichswehr troops superior to the effectives fixed by the decision of August 9, 1919, had penetrated the Ruhr, and asked in the name of the German Government that the formal authorization necessary to that effect he given to the German Government after the act had been accomplished.
“The same day at Berlin Under-Secretary of State von Haniel informed General Barthelemy, who replaced General Nollet, that the German Government had given entire freedom of action to Commissioner Severing concerning the use of troops concentrated for the purpose of operation in the Ruhr Valley and assumed the responsibility for their action in the neutral zone.
“The French Government immediately informed its Allies of this communication, confirmed by its own information, calling attention to the fact that the German Government was violating Article 44 of the treaty—a violation constituting a casus belli—and expressing the hope that the Allied governments would recognize the necessity of immediate action and would lend assistance to France in an effective manner for the execution of military measures which could not he avoided or deferred.
“It was not the first time the French Government had warned its Allies of that necessity. As early as March 23 the French Government brought the proposition of occupying Frankfort and other cities before the council in London, which expressed the opinion on March 25 that the moment was not timely.
“The German Government addressed itself directly to the French Government to obtain authorization to send troops to the Ruhr Valley. The French Government had no reason to authorize such infraction of the treaty, inasmuch as its own information concurred with that of its Allies in deciding that the military occupation of the Ruhr was useless and dangerous.
“Facts demonstrate that the initiative in that operation must be attributed to the German Military Party. It was Kapp’s government which took the initiative. It was the military party, which, despite the strong objections brought forward in the German Government itself against the projected intervention, affirmed the impossibility of reestablishing order without additional troops in the Ruhr.
“France was thus faced with a measure which, in the unanimous opinion of the Allies, could not he executed without previous authorization, which was not justified by the circumstances and which the German Government had taken a formal engagement toward France never to attempt without its authorization.
“The measure took an especially serious aspect owing to the fact that the Allies had been unable to obtain, despite their insistence, execution of the clauses of the treaty relative to German disarmament.
“The French Government thus acted in the general interest, as well as in the interest of France. It was necessary that it should lake, in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, a measure indispensable to its own security. There is no need to recall that it is resolved to evacuate the occupied cities as soon as the German troops have completely quit the Ruhr.”
Treaty Terms Violated.- The text of the articles in the Versailles Treaty under authority of which the French have decided to occupy four German cities, follows:
“Article 42.—Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the left hank of the Rhine or on the right hank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometers to the cast of the Rhine.
“Article 43.—In the area defined above the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military maneuvers of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden.
“Article 44.—In case Germany violates in any manner whatever the provisions of Articles 42 and 43, she shall he regarded as committing a hostile act against the powers signatory of the present treaty and as well calculated to disturb the peace of the world.”
German Protest.—Berlin, April 6.—The German Charge d’Affaires in Paris was instructed to-day to hand to the French Government a note protesting against the French occupation of Frankfort and other territory on the right bank of the Rhine.
The note, after referring to the contents of the French note of April 5, notifying Germany that the occupation had been ordered, asserts that the occupation of the towns mentioned in the French communication occurred before the note was presented to the German Government.
“We must in the name of justice, reason and humanity,” the German note continues, “make the sharpest protest against the action of the French Army. It cannot possibly have been the intention of the Treaty of Versailles to prevent Germany from restoring order as quickly as possible in the part of its territory most seriously disturbed by hands of robbers.
“The movement in the Ruhr region, if it had not been quickly opposed, would have shaken the republic to its foundations both politically and economically. The German Government would have acted inexcusably if it had waited long, in the optimistic hope that the insurgent movement in the Ruhr district would end without military intervention, and events so far have shown that it was right.
“Everywhere that the troops arrived the movement quickly collapsed, and the fears expressed in the Allies that the very entry of the troops would make the disturbances worse and lead to the destruction of most important industrial works has, up to the present, not proved justified.”
The note points out that alleged violations of the treaty must, under the terms of that instrument, be redressed by all the signatories on the Allied side, and not by a single one, acting independently.
Attitude of Allied Powers.—The action of France was not fully supported by Great Britain or Italy. The British attitude appeared in a semiofficial statement on April 8 as follows:
London, April 8.—After a long conference which the French Ambassador, Paul Cambon, had with Premier Lloyd George to-day, an authoritative statement was issued to the effect that France acted entirely on her own initiative in deciding to occupy German towns; that Great Britain, the United States, Italy and Belgium were all opposed to the plan, and that France’s action has caused a delicate situation.
The statement proceeds:
“The German Government appears to have acted precipitately, and France to have responded by adopting a plan which was only intended as a last resort method, and even then to have been the affair of the Allies and not of any one of them simply.”
Great Britain, Italy, Belgium and the United States declared that the duty of restoring order should be with Germany. All were opposed to the regular forces being called upon, except as a last resort, to undertake what are virtually police duties. It is pointed out that France feared some ulterior motive on the part of Germany, and doubtless acted in good faith, but, adds the statement, “the immediate result is that the responsibility for her action cannot he shared by the Allies as a whole, and certainly there is no intention on the part of the British Government to allow British soldiers to act as police between hostile German factions and incur all the odium of such a position, to say nothing of its risks.”
The statement concludes:
“If, and when, France’s suspicions of Germany’s ulterior motives and deliberate flaunting of the terms of the Peace Treaty become accomplished facts, the Allies would doubtless he prepared to act instantly and vigorously in concert to vindicate the position and respect for the provisions of the treaty. But for the time being it may be taken that no British soldier will participate in the occupation of German cities in the neutral zone.”
Belgium Supports France.—Brussels, April 8.—At a council of ministers held to-day under the Presidency of the King, the recent events in Germany were examined into. In order to assert the principle of solidarity of the Allies before Germany and as a token of friendship to France it was decided to inform the French Government that the Belgium Government is ready to associate itself with France and to send a detachment in connection with the measures for the occupation of the Ruhr region.— N. Y. Times, April 9.
GERMANY
Concessions to Radicals After Kapp Revolt.—The Kapp rebellion ended ignominiously on March 17, when Dr. Kapp, General von Luttwitz and other reactionary leaders surrendered to the Bauer government and fled from Berlin. The restoration of the Bauer regime was accomplished by a general strike throughout Germany. As the price of their support, the government was forced to grant many concessions to labor, including the retirement of Gustav Noske as Minister of Defence, reconstruction of the cabinet on more purely socialist lines, socialization of all industries, including nationalization of the coal and potash trusts, and confiscation* of all land not fully cultivated.
Foreign Minister Herrmann Muller, accepted the post of Chancellor and formed a new cabinet, in which Adolf Koster on April 9 took Muller’s former post in charge of foreign affairs.
GREAT BRITAIN
Irish Bill Passed Second Reading.—On March 31 the New Irish Home Rule Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 348 to 94. In the debate Premier Lloyd George stated that "De Valera is putting forth the same views that Jefferson Davis used,” and added that such a movement had led to civil war. “ We are doing nothing more than the United States claimed for themselves,” lie continued, “and will stand no less.”
The hill provides for two parliaments, one of 52 members for northern Ireland, and one of 128 members for southern Ireland, with a council of Ireland consisting of a President appointed by the Crown and 20 members from each Parliament. The Irish Parliaments have control of all legislation except foreign affairs and foreign trade, coinage, and customs. The executive is the Lord Lieutenant, appointed by the Crown, who appoints his own Provincial Ministers. Ireland will he represented in the British Parliament by 30 members from southern Ireland and 12 from northern.
DENMARK
Ministry Overthrown by General Strike.—Following the plebiscite in the second Schleswig zone, which resulted in a large majority in favor of continued allegiance to Germany, a movement was begun by Danish conservatives to secure the zone in spite of the plebiscite, or at least to accomplish its internationalization. To this end King Christian dismissed the Zalde radical ministry. The Socialists and radicals at once instituted a counter movement, the Congress of Trades Unions resolving upon a general strike to begin April 6. Crowds in the public squares shouted for a republic. On April 5 the King was forced to give in to the popular pressure, form a temporary neutral cabinet, promise election reforms, and proclaim an election for April 22. The events in Denmark, following the overthrow of the reactionary Kapp government in Germany by the same means, serve to illustrate the power of the general strike in politics to-day.
POLAND
Poland's Terms to Russia.—The Polish peace terms to Soviet Russia, as published on March 26, called upon Russia for indemnities, guarantees against propaganda, return of all art treasures, etc., taken from Poland, and surrender or self-determination of all territory up to the old boundaries of 1772. This territory, much of which is at present occupied by Polish troops, would extend the Polish boundaries to the River Dneiper, beyond those assigned Poland by the Peace Treaty.
On April 2 the Poles refused a Soviet proposal for an armistice 011 the entire battle front and a peace conference in Esthonia.
TURKEY
Allies Occupy Constantinople.—On March 16 Allied forces under General Milne of the British Army occupied Constantinople without opposition, under protection of a strong fleet in the Bosphorus. A proclamation was issued stating that it was the purpose of the Allies that the Sultan should retain Constantinople. A change of cabinet was brought about, owing to the refusal of the Grand Vizier Sali Pasha to declare the Nationalists in Asia Minor revolutionary and in insurrection.
President Wilson Advises Expulsion of Turks.—Washington, March 30.—Expulsion of the Turkish Government from Constantinople and Europe is advocated by the United States in the note made public to-day, wherein President Wilson replied to the request of the French Government for the views of the United States on the tentative decisions, reached by the Allied Powers in regard to the Turkish settlement.
One of the British arguments in favor of the retention of the Sultan in Constantinople has been that his expulsion might stir the Mohammedan world to revolt. The United States takes the position that there is no real ground for fearing a holy war, and that the arguments against permitting the Sultan to remain in Constantinople are much stronger than those for his retention.
The American note commends the decision of the Allies eventually to accord Russia representation on the international council proposed for the government of Constantinople and the straits.
It suggests, as a method of determining the future of Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria and the former Turkish islands, that Turkey place those territories in the hands of the great powers, to be disposed of as these powers determine.
A solution of the Armenian question which will give the new slate "easy and unencumbered access to the sea ” is recommended, and the hope is expressed that such access to the Black Sea will be accorded by the granting of Trebizond to Armenia. –N.Y. Times, March 31.
Feisal. Assumes Syrian Crown.—Emir Feisal, son of the King of Hedjaz, proclaimed himself in March King of Syria, thus disarranging Allied plans for the disposition of Turkish territory in the Levant, where the French planned to assume a protectorate. The Emir sent one of his generals to Paris to defend his action.
League Considers Mandate for Armenia.—Paris, April 9.—The executive council of the League of Nations met here to-day for discussion of the mandate for Armenia; the protection of minority nationalities in Turkey; the municipal elections to be held in Danzig and the repatriation of tile prisoners of war in Siberia.
JAPAN
Japanese Occupy Vladivostok—On April 5 Japanese troops carried out a surprise occupation of the port of Vladivostok, under shell lire from Japanese ships. The move resulted from efforts of the Red government in the city, by boycott and otherwise, to force Japanese evacuation.
In a notice to the U. S. State Department on April 3, Japan declared that the protection of Japanese interests demanded the temporary retention of her forces in eastern Siberia, but affirmed that the troops would be withdrawn as soon as these conditions were overcome. The last of the American troops left Vladivostok on April 1.
Japan Denies Fortifying Pacific Islands.—Washington, April 5.— Japan has not fortified any of the former German islands in the Pacific and has no intention of doing so, Ambassador Shidehara said to-day in a statement commenting on reports recently published both in this country and Europe.
Mr. Shidehara said that Japan was adhering strictly to the terms of the Peace Treaty, and that under the League of Nations covenant it not only could not fortify the islands, but could not even train the natives for military purposes beyond police work.—N. Y. Times, April 6.
LATIN AMERICA
Mexico Resumes Interest Payments.—On March 28 it was announced that Mexico would resume interest payments on its foreign debt of about $ 100,0oo,000, a third of which is held in the United States.
Bolivia Insists on Sea Outlet.—Buenos Aires, April 9.—Bolivia will continue to pursue with “irrevocable resolution” its purpose to obtain the port of Arica as an outlet for her to the Pacific, according to a new note from Bolivia to Peru, which is published here.
The note answers the latest Peruvian communication declining to recognize Bolivia’s aspirations.
Wants Arbitral Court with United States Out—The Congress of Salvador has adopted a decree proposing the creation of a Latin-American court of arbitration with the United States excluded. This proposal has been communicated to other Central and South American republics and also to the U. S. State Department.