The New York herald., 1920-12-05
By FRANK H. SIMONDS


TN examining the progress of the first
session of the League of Nations at
= Geneva it is essential for all Americans
recognize at the outset that there is a
profound difference between the real and
the apparent issues there Joined. 1t was
the failure to recognize this fact that led
first to the deception and then to disillu-
sionment of the United States in the case of
the Paris conference. At the very least we
should not permit ourselves to be taken in
as we were two years ago.
And when ] speak of the difference be-
tween real and apparent issues 1t is perhaps
worth while to illustrate by example. At
Paris late III 1919 bitter discussion was
Joined as to the new frontiers of Greece in
Europe Should the Hellenic State have all
of Thrace only a portion? Should Bull
garia preserve facade upon the Aegean? ?
Ostensibly the issue was one of clear princi-
pies and the United States emphatically
supported the Bulgarian contention. while
Britain and France backed Greece. But
these European Powers were checked by
the interesting fact that Italy supported the
United States view. accepting Mr.. Wilson's
ideas of self-determination and economic
independence.
ItalyS Sudden Change of Front
Gave Thrace to the Greeks
One day, however, without warming italy
suddenly changed sides and with no further
delay Greece obtained the right to occupy
Thrace. America was left like Casabianca
on the burning deck" Upon investigation
The American representatives discovered
that Italy had never beon at any time op
posed to Greek possession of Thrace or In
~~yk
determination but that in a dispute between
Greece and Italy over divisions of terri
tories in Asia Minor, Italy had bluntly told
Greece that the price of Thracian gains was
Asiatic sacrifices and, after delay, Greece
had concluded to pay. Thus in fact, Amen-
can insistence upon the doctrine Of self
determination had resulted in successful
hold up Of Greece in Asia Minor
Now at Geneva. as at Paris. there was
precisely the same effort to use high moral
principles to promote quite material prac-
tical bargains. In the first place the whole
session was dominated by the break between
France and Great Britain, a break which is
expressed in a total difference of opinion
and Of selfish national interest in almost
every part of the world. For example:
France backs the Poles because she sees in
Poland a useful ally against Germany.
Britain opposes Poland because the British
have obtained economic supremacy in the
Baltic States, notably in Lithuania, and see
in Polish expansion a menace to this
supremacy.
The British back the Greeks in the near
East because Britain sees In Greece an
agent for her own plans in the old Turkish
Empire Trance backs the Turk because
the French see better chance for their
own interests IL the Turkish Empire is
restored than II Greece, British agent,
acuufree territories
But the great Franco British quarrels
arise out of conflicting policies with
respect Of Russia and of Germany. France
wants to fortify Poland and insure that
Russia will repay the old loans of the
French, amounting to several billions. Trade
with Russia is not important from the
French point of view. But Britain wants
TO trade with Russia at once for the profit
there Is In It and cares neither for French
billions nor Polish security Both national
policies are camouhaged by very lofty prin-
ciples but both policies necessarily rest upon
very well defined national interests.
AS to Germany, Britain has acquired by
the Treaty of Versailles the maximum OF
profit possible from the war and the victory
Germany has lost her colonies. her merchant
marine. her navy She is no longer a rival
or a menace, but she remains possible
market, and Britain wants that market and
the German customer. But France has not
eliminated a military rival, acquired security
nor as yet realized any material benefit from