New-York tribune., 1920-11-08

these are presented, as if the COM
mander in chief were responsible for
the mistakes which Tardieu himself
Clemenceau and the government made
in their failure to conclude q satisfac-
tory peace.
Bliss Opposition Cited
Some of the other newspapers have
joined in the controversy. The In
transigeant says that the discussion
whether the armistice was concluded
too soon is one which has been raised
by small men for mean ends
Tardieu in his article STRENGTHENS
his thesis by citing the opposition of
General Bliss to the proposed armis-
tice terms and says that Foch, in a
discussion with Bliss and Lloyd George.
argued in favor Of not imposing harder
conditions. Incidentally Tardeu shoSs
that General Pershng. instead Of
speaking after Marshal Haig at Senls,
said he first wanted to hear the opin-
ion Of General Petain.
armistice terms to the military COM
manders, Foch, on October 20, sum
moned to Senlis General Petain. Mar
shall Haig, General Pcrshing and Gen
eral Gillian, the Belgian Chief of staff.
The latter's arrival, however. was de-
layed and he was not present. The
Commander in Chief read to his gen
erals documents relating to the matter
in hand and asked their opinion. Not
one proposed to refuse the armstce,
although they expressed different opn-
ions. about terms.
Haig spoke first. He thought the
armistice should be concluded and On
very moderate terms, which the Ger
mans would accept. General Pershing
next declared that, as the head Of the
American army, he wanted first to hear
the opinion OF Petain and would speak
only after him. Petain then followed
Haig's speech with one in which he
demanded such conditions as would not
permit Germany to continue the war.
He suggested that the Germans leave
everything behind except portable arms
and that the Allies occupy not only the
left bank of the Rhine. but also a
40kilometer zone on the right bank.
Pershing then. in few words, declared
he agreed with Petain Foch thanked
his guests for their communications
and the conference ended.
The next day Foch wrote his con-
clusions in a letter to Clemenceau end
enumerated the clauses which were en-
bodied in the armistice. The question
then came up for discussion before the
representatives OF the Allied govern
ments, Colonel House acting for Presl-
dent Wilson.
Tardicu says: "Some didn't think the
conditions were hard enough General
Bliss, representing America at the
council Of military delegates, would
have wished for text which was
shorter and in certain articles more
rigorous. In his opinion, two clauses
would suffice for complete disarma-
,nnnt and comnleta demobiliyation In
this way we should be certain that
Germany no longer could make war.
In this way she would be obliged in ad-
vance to submit to any peace terms"
Colonel House then asked whether on
purely military grounds Foch would
prefer the Germans accept or reject
the armistice, whereupon Foch made
his famous answer that wars were
made to obtain results and that once
these results were obtained no one had
the right to shed one single drop more
blood
"Foch thought we should without
hesitation conclude the armistice on
conditions named in his letter." Tar
dieu adds. "The commander in chief
went further. and to suggestions of
General Bliss and Lloyd George. as
we'll as TO others Of the same kind, he
firmly opposed the argument Of the
danger of making additional demands. ."
Finally Tardieu quotes Foch as say
ing: What would you do if the Ger
mans after accepting the severe and
sufficient conditions which I propose
should refuse to subscribe to new hu-
mutations which you suggest? Would
you for this risk the resumption of
hostilities and the useless sacrifice OF
many thousands of lives ?"