Page images
PDF
EPUB

Note to VIII, 245—Continued

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to his chateau at Cerçay for safety. On October 10, 1870 a regiment of German cavalry took possession of the chateau. A lieutenant came upon and stopped soldiers breaking up the boxes containing these papers. The regimental commander later forwarded the material to Bismarck at Paris. Among the papers was extensive correspondence between Napoleon III and the rulers of Bavaria, Württemburg, Hesse, and other German states who were opposed to Prussian hegemony and antagonistic to the organization of the German Empire as eventually constructed. Bismarck's frequent and successive threats to publish the correspondence, which was apparently of a nature to induce revolution. in those states, broke down their opposition to entering the empire. The papers remain unpublished.

ARTICLE 246.

Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty the King of the Hedjaz the original Koran of the Caliph Othman, which was removed from Medina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II.

Within the same period Germany will hand over to His Britannic Majesty's Government the skull of the Sultan Mkwawa which was removed from the Protectorate of German East Africa and taken to Germany.

The delivery of the articles above referred to will be effected in such place and in such conditions as may be laid down by the Governments to which they are to be restored.

Note to VIII, 246

With respect to the Koran of the Caliph Othman, the German Peace Delegation wrote the president of the peace conference on January 21, 1921 as follows:

"The supposition that this Koran was presented to the ex-Emperor of Germany is erroneous. It was, moreover, never transferred to Germany nor into German hands."

The Koran was originally made up of scattered fragments collected during the months immediately after the Prophet's death in A.D. 632. This was the standard Koran for the Caliphs Abu Bekr and Omar. Their successor, Othman ibn Affan, summoned

Note to VIII, 246-Continued

Zaid ibn Thâbit, who had been Mohammed's secretary, to establish a text which would be the sole standard. The original of this text was deposited at Medina and is referred to in the treaty.

Sultan Okwawa, or M'Kwawa, was chief of the Wahibis, German East Africa. This tribe under several sultans from 1870 to 1898 gathered to itself much native support and was continuously hostile to the Germans. M'Kwawa, the last of the warrior line, added a religious superstition to his prestige by preaching that he could not. be captured and committed suicide when capture was inevitable. The British demand for the return of his skull could not be granted, according to the German report sent to the British Government for verification. One sergeant Merkl cut off M'Kwawa's head when he killed himself to escape capture by Captain von Prinz. Merkl preserved the skull in alcohol at the nearest German fort against the time when he could claim the reward of 6,000 rupees. The affidavits of Merkl, the widow of Captain von Prinz, and other witnesses stated that negro warriors broke into the fort and stole the alcohol and the sultan's head, leaving in place of the latter the freshly severed head of some other negro. The theft became known when the substitute head, without the alcohol, came to the olfactory attention of the German garrison. The Germans found that the theft had been committed by retainers of M'Kwawa, who had buried the head in his family vault, and decided not to prosecute the case further.

ARTICLE 247.

Germany undertakes to furnish to the University of Louvain, within three months after a request made by it and transmitted through the intervention of the Reparation Commission, manuscripts, incunabula, printed books, maps and objects of collection corresponding in number and value to those destroyed in the burning by Germany of the Library of Louvain. All details regarding such replacement will be determined by the Reparation Commission.

Germany undertakes to deliver to Belgium, through the Reparation Commission, within six months of the coming into force of the present Treaty, in order to enable Belgium to reconstitute two great artistic works:

Text of May 7:

7. Germany undertakes to deliver to Belgium, through the Reparation Commission, within six months of the coming into force of

Text of May 7-Continued

the present Treaty, in order to enable Belgium to reconstitute her two great artistic works:

(1) The leaves of the triptych of the Mystic Lamb painted by the Van Eyck brothers, formerly in the Church of St. Bavon at Ghent, now in the Berlin Museum;

(2) The leaves of the triptych of the Last Supper, painted by Dierick Bouts, formerly in the Church of St. Peter at Louvain, two of which are now in the Berlin Museum and two in the Old Pinakothek at Munich.

Text of May 7:

(a) The leaves of the triptych of the Mystic Lamb painted by the Van Eyck brothers, formerly in the Church of St. Bavon at Ghent, now in the Berlin Museum.

(b) The leaves of the triptych of the Last Supper, painted by Dierick Bouts, formerly in the Church of St. Peter at Louvain, two of which are now in the Berlin Museum and two in the former Pinakothek at Munich.

Note to VIII, 247

Books and other property to the value of 2,186,084 gold marks were delivered to the University of Louvain, under conventions concluded between Belgium and Germany on January 29 and November 4, 1920.

Execution of this article was effected by several instruments between Belgium and Germany, among which were: Agreement of December 10, 1920, ratified by the Reparation Commission, February 14, 1921; convention of December 6, 1921; protocol of December 9, 1921; agreement of September 18, 1922; supplementary agreement of July 11, 1925.

By a majority vote of the Reparation Commission the triptychs were not a credit to Germany on the accounts.

The return of Belgian works of art by Germany raised no question. They had been seized by the German authorities during the occupation of the country and were readily identified. The treaty of peace with Austria (articles 191-196) also called for restitution of works of art to which a historic claim was made and which had been carried off from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, certain Italian provinces, and Poland at various times in the past by the House of Habsburg. The restitution of these objects, in case of dispute, was to be determined by a committee of three jurists, appointed by

Note to VIII, 247—Continued

the Reparation Commission. Such a question was referred to the committee, in respect of two items in which Belgium was interested.

The committee reported October 21, 1921 and found "that Belgium has not discharged the onus of proving that the Triptych of St. Ildephonse was carried off from Brussels, or retained in Vienna, in violation of the rights of the Province of Brabant or of the Low Countries as a whole or of Belgium as their successor".

The Habsburg sovereign removed the treasure of the Order of the Golden Fleece from Brussels to Vienna in 1794 before the French invasion "in exercise of the powers that belonged to him, and made a normal use of his rights". He infringed no rights of the Low Countries and the brilliant past of the order from the second half of the 15th century, "did not, and could not, give to the Low Countries at the end of the 18th century, rights which have descended to contemporary Belgium."

PART IX.

FINANCIAL CLAUSES.

Notes to Part IX, Articles 248 to 263

On May 13, 1919 the German delegation analyzed the effect of the conditions of peace on the situation of the German population. As long as Germany was an agricultural state, it could feed 40,000,000 inhabitants; as an industrial state, it could feed 67,000,000 by importing 12,000,000 tons of food a year; 15,000,000 persons gained their living through foreign trade and navigation. Now Germany would have to surrender its merchant fleet, colonies, and overseas interests. The territorial changes would involve the loss of 21 percent of the corn and potato crops, a third of its coal production (not to mention deliveries for 10 years), three quarters of all mineral production and three fifths of its zinc production. "An enormous part of German industry would therefore inevitably be condemned to destruction"; it would be increasingly necessary to import food, increasingly difficult to do so. "At the end of a very short time,"

Notes to Part IX, Articles 248 to 263—Continued

Germany would not be able to "give bread and work to numerous millions". Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Germans would be expelled from the territories of Germany's enemies and have to return home. Furthermore, the health of the German population had been broken down by the blockade, which had been continued since the armistice. "Those who will sign this treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women, and children." (Foreign Relations, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, v, 738.)

On May 22 the Allies characterized the German statement as "a very inadequate presentation of the facts of the case" and "marked in parts by great exaggeration". Thus, Germany would have to provide not for 67,000,000 but 60,000,000. It would have to transfer 4,000,000 tons of shipping, but 12,750,000 tons had been sunk, and the shortage was the result "not of the terms of peace but of the action of Germany". It was true that Germany would lose regions specially productive of wheat and potatoes, but those foods could be imported. It was true that Germany would lose much coal, but one fourth of the pre-war consumption was in territories to be transferred and production had increased in the territory left to Germany. If Germany had to export coal, this was to make good the loss of coal resulting from "the wanton acts of devastation perpetrated by the German armies".

The German note took no account of the fact that the economic disaster produced by the war was universal, and there was "no reason why Germany, which was responsible for the war, should not suffer also". The Allies declined to accept the German argument that the treaty would bring about the destruction of several millions of Germans. Great Britain imported at least half of its food supplies and most of its raw materials. Germany could also build up for itself a position of both stability and prosperity, especially as its territory had not been pillaged or devastated. But Germany must recognize its responsibility for the "enormous calamity" of the world and its duty to make it good. "Those who were responsible for the war cannot escape its just consequences." (Ibid., v, 802.)

On May 29 the German delegation returned to this theme. If the territorial, political, and economic conditions of the Allies were carried into effect, Germany would be condemned to "economic and financial annihilation", even without the payment of indemnities.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »