The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1919-08-09
Is the Treaty E,npea:;iIistic:: Eranl.
Simo1ds Says. No.

In the larger sense the original
treaty stands. The terms fixed al Yer
saille5 IN the first draft Of the treaty
are the icrnls OF the tinll version Now
fae@e has been and there IS continu-
ing criticism CT this document. Iile
peace, rs written. IS described as i'm
perialist.c and rs ca2it;:listic. To
support the charge OF imperialism,
French occupation OF the Serre VAL
= cif"d. TO support the charge
that it is capitalistic, all sorts OF
:; 4. : ...,,oe, MOST OF ths..n mere
" ridiculous.
SO far IS Europe IS concerned the
n. sent treaty is certainly the least
IN 'perialisti;c in history, save only the
;rcaty which ended the Seven Weeks
War between Austria and Prussia and
he; Prussia was deliberately seeking
20 preserve Austria rs an ally, after
Excluding her from Germany. France
receives back Alsace-Lorrai1e which
was her right, but her sole further
territorial gain is a wholly limited
tenure OF the Sarrc Basin. which has
an area OF little more than seven hun
dred square miles and a population OF
approximately six hundred thousand.
She gets this, too, not in the further
auce CT territorial aspirations, but in
return for German destruction OF her
own coal districts. Her warrant Tor
q plebiscite lies IN the fact that near
ly half Of the territory was. once
french and was taken by Prussia af-
ter Napoleon fell, against the Will Of
the people.
in my judgment all of the Sarre
Basin, save perhaps Sarreiouis, Ncy's
birthplace, which has preserved a real
French senti,,- nt. Will ultimately re-
turn to Germany. do not believe any
French government would be strong
enough to hold It against the will OF
the inhabitants, 1T the end Of the al
lotted tine, for | am cvr.ain that the
French people would prefer TO see it
German again rather than TO cretae q
new AlSaceLorraine- Tiny one 10
be sure, but not less undesirable.
Eut France is entitled 10 the coal.
There could be no certainty of get
ting .llc coal on any other conditions
than ownership OF the mines and oc-
cupaticn OF the territory. To call such
ar operation imperialistic, is to eXag-
gerate deliberately. 1t is also to as
cribe 70 the French sentiment which
certainly does not exist among the
masses OF the people.
As to Danzig. u great deal Of crit
cism is TO be heard but here again
the criticism seems unwarranted.
Danzis was once 4 Polish city. 1t was
stolen by the Germans and thereafter
coloniZcd by them. that is. by the
Prussians Without the fullest op-
portunity to use DanZig. Poland would
be stranSled. To my mind the crit
icisrn of the DanZig affair lies IN the
fact that a dubious situation was ere
ated by not giving the town back TO
the Poles instead Of putting it under
the control OF the League OF Nations
and thus perpctuating German as
plrations and Polish ambitions. Both
will continue 20 desire absolute own
ership, if the League OF nations
scheme does not work. and here IS
the material out of which a. new war
can arise. BNt uHieSs f.e99-1 w
to be confirmed in her title, acquired
BIZ violence. merely because she h&o
kept the city long and brought many
OF her people TO settle in it, dellbe:-
atelv driving the Poles out, 1t seems
to me That the decision 70 deprive hef
of Danzie was just. while the decision
10 withhold il from Poland was taf
less warranteG.-Irom peace with
Germany" by Frank Il. Sjmonds, IN
the American Review OIL 1.eVis'Ws ioi
August, 1919.