Evening star., 1933-03-26
TREATY REVISION SPLITS
EUROPE INTO TWO CAMPS
Extensive Territorial Changes, However,
Appear Improbable in the
Near Future.

inapplicable. This is the case, they
insist, with the Paris peace treaties.
In fact however, the reviSioniSts do
not trust Article XIX. They fear that
the League system tends to perpetuate
the status quo, hence they are seeking
some new Interpretation of Article XIX,
which will render drastic territorial
changes possible.
This is the real purpose OF italian
Premier Benito MusSolinis four-power
directorate plan. France would be
isolated from its lesser allies and from
Russia, and would be led into CONVEX
sations with Germany. Italy and Great
Britain on revision. When these four
powers were finally agreed, they would
put pressure on the lesser states to
submit to the changes decided upon.
But France has, not unnaturally, re-
| fused this plan. It is willing to discuss
revision, but only at Geneva under the
League system, wherein the unanimity
rule tends to make changes almost
| impossible.
The revisionists are thus once more
obliged to reconsider how territorial
| changes can best be effected. Threats
of non Incorporation, or rearmament and
of violence have been their best weapons
hitherto. The question is whether IN
the present state of tension, wherein
| the preponderance of force Is on the
status quo side now that Russia is back
ing France and Poland, such threats
may not henceforth defeat their own
purpose.
It is possible that, if territorial revi-
sion were to be limited to few small
readiustments followed by general ac-
ceptance of all the frontiers, the status
quo powers would agree. But what the
revisionistS hitherto have been demand
| ing is not merely readjustments, but
changes on a grand scale.
Germany claims the so-called Polish
Corridor, Danzig and Upper SileSia from
Poland; Memel from Lithuania, Eupen
| and Malmedy from Belgium, colonies
| from France and Great Britain, the
| Tyrol from Italy, and the right to
annex Austria and also perhaps to hold
! a plebiscite in Alsace as well as in the
Saar Basin.
Hungary claims Pennsylvania from
Rumania the Banat from Yugoslav1a,
part of Slovakia from CZechoslovakia
and the Burgenland from Austria.
Bulgaria claims Doubroudla from Ru-
mania and Macedonia from YugoslaVla
and Greece.
Itlay claims Dalmatia from Yugo-
slavia and colonies or mandates from
France and Great Britain.
1t is obvious by this list that the
revisionists are less united than it might
appear. Some of their claims conflict.
For example, Italy opposes the union
of Germany with Austria, but has no
intention Of ever relinquishing the
Tyrol.
Germany is PERHAPS not greatly in
terested in strengthening Hungary and
| Bulgaria or in seeing Italy penetrate
| the Balkans.
Great Britain, while it would not
object to giving Germany and Italy
| certain amount of Polish or Yugoslavia
territory, would hesitate to cede to them
part of Great Britains present colonies
or mandates
1t appears therefore that, while treaty
revision in the sense of equal rights
is doubtless inevitable and Is indeed
already almost completed, treaty revi-
sion in the sense Of extensive terri
torial changes is still probably long
way off.
Copyright. 1889