FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194  
195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   >>  
itish at Paris to show the views that were being exchanged and the frank comments that were being made at the time of my interview with Mr. Bullitt. In truth I said less to him in criticism of the Treaty than I did to some others, but they have seen fit to respect the confidential nature of our conversations. It is not pertinent to the present subject to recite the events between the delivery of the Treaty to the Germans on May 7 and its signature on June 28. In spite of the dissatisfaction, which even went so far that some of the delegates of the Great Powers threatened to decline to sign the Treaty unless certain of its terms were modified, the supreme necessity of restoring peace as soon as possible overcame all obstacles. It was the appreciation of this supreme necessity which caused many Americans to urge consent to ratification when the Treaty was laid before the Senate. My own position was paradoxical. I was opposed to the Treaty, but signed it and favored its ratification. The explanation is this: Convinced after conversations with the President in July and August, 1919, that he would not consent to any effective reservations, the politic course seemed to be to endeavor to secure ratification without reservations. It appeared to be the only possible way of obtaining that for which all the world longed and which in the months succeeding the signature appeared absolutely essential to prevent the widespread disaster resulting from political and economic chaos which seemed to threaten many nations if not civilization itself. Even if the Treaty was bad in certain provisions, so long as the President remained inflexible and insistent, its ratification without change seemed a duty to humanity. At least that was my conviction in the summer and autumn of 1919, and I am not yet satisfied that it was erroneous. My views after January, 1920, are not pertinent to the subject under consideration. The consequences of the failure to ratify promptly the Treaty of Versailles are still uncertain. They may be more serious or they may be less serious than they appeared in 1919. Time alone will disclose the truth and fix the responsibility for what occurred after the Treaty of Versailles was laid before the Senate of the United States. CONCLUSION The narration of my relations to the peace negotiations as one of the American Commissioners to the Paris Conference, which has been confined within the limits laid down in t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194  
195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   >>  



Top keywords:

Treaty

 

ratification

 

appeared

 

signature

 

pertinent

 

President

 

subject

 

necessity

 

supreme

 

consent


Senate

 

Versailles

 
conversations
 

reservations

 

disaster

 
succeeding
 

change

 

humanity

 

absolutely

 
prevent

widespread

 

essential

 

insistent

 

nations

 
threaten
 

civilization

 

economic

 
inflexible
 

remained

 

provisions


political

 

resulting

 
failure
 

States

 

CONCLUSION

 

narration

 

relations

 
United
 
occurred
 

disclose


responsibility

 

negotiations

 

limits

 

confined

 

American

 

Commissioners

 

Conference

 
erroneous
 

January

 

satisfied