New-York tribune., 1920-04-18
Paris Proved That the Continental
and the Anglo-Saxon Viewpoints
b Were Wide Apart

both ways. 1t reduced beyond the
margin Of bare safety the precau-
tions allowed to the Continental
nations, in their own opinion, and it
enormously overpassed the limits of
the peace Of understanding sought
by the Americans and supported by
the British. 1t was neither one
thing nor the other, because, in
the end, both sides despaired of
establishing their own views, and
WEAKNESS and popular unrest drove
them to agree to something.
Became a World Debate
But no sooner had the treaty
terms been reluctantly announced
to an impatient world than che de-
bate which had been hitherto con-
fined to the secret sessions Of the
conference was transferred to the
press Of the world. The result of
the transfer was unmistakable. The
press and the public opinion Of the
Continent instinctively rallied to that
view defended by Continental states
men in the conference, while with
something less Of unaninlity Amer
lean and British opinion supported
the main lines Of the argument of
Wilson and George at Paris.
For the French, for the Italians,
for the Continental nations general
ly, the peace was a weak peace,
which gave them neither security
nor adequate reparation, and did vio-
lence to national and ethnic claims
of the Poles, the Rumanians and
the Greeks and to the nationalistic
aspirations Of the Italians. In point
Of fact the Italians, the Rumanians
and the southern Slavs had already
withdrawn from the Paris Confer
ence because Of their dissatisfaction
over the manner in which their
claims had been handled.
On the other hand, British and
American criticism Of the treaty was
directed at the precise provisions
held insufficient by the Continent,
and there was a general assertion
that these provisions made exces-
sive concessions to militarisln and i'm
perialism and did substantial vio-
lence to the hope Of a peace. Of un-
derstanding and of reconciliation.
The Continent felt that the peace
conference had been crirninally neg
ligent of the rights and needs of
the nations which had fought Ger
many; British and American criti-
cism tended to agree that the peace
conference had been unduly, even
wickedly, severe upon Germany and
her recent allies.
Such a divergence of opinion
could not fail to lead to a new
crisis, represented by the demand,
principally in Britain and only
echoed in the United States by
certain journals and writers whose
whole stock in trade intellectually
is borrowed from British sources,
for revision Of the treaty in Ger
many's favor. On the Continent,
on the contrary, the French view
was clearly expressed in the de.
mand that the treaty, held INSULT
cient in any case, should be en-
forced literally.
French Against Compromise
In word, the French were dis.
satisfied with the compromises OF
the conference, but advocated cling.
ing to what had been agreed upon
while Anglo-American -dissatisfac.
ton took the shape of demand
to alter, to remake, the treaty.
We may as well dispose Of the
Italian position once for all, because
it is totally misleading on the sur
face. Italy stood for far more
extreme insistence upon the Con.
tinental view at Paris than did
France. She proposed an alliance
between France and Italy to enforce
the extreme claims of each in the
face Of Anglo-American opposition
France refusing, Italy withdrew
from the conference, continued, and
continues, to insist upon her ex,
treme claims, but, angry at French
failure to support her, loses no op.
portunity to injure France by sup
porting Americans and Britons in
their attempts to coerce the French.
Italy does not accept Anglo-Ameri-
can policies or principles; she uses
them only to punish France for re-
fusing TO stand with her upon 3
Continental platform.
Now, from the very beginning it
was clear that the Germans would
not voluntarily comply with the
terms Of the Treaty Of Versailles.
| "a