Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Full download Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 Leonard V. Smith file pdf all chapter on 2024
Full download Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 Leonard V. Smith file pdf all chapter on 2024
https://ebookmass.com/product/chinese-diplomacy-and-the-paris-
peace-conference-qi-hua-tang/
https://ebookmass.com/product/chinese-diplomacy-and-the-paris-
peace-conference-1st-ed-edition-qi-hua-tang/
https://ebookmass.com/product/proceedings-of-the-third-annual-
national-multi-disciplinary-conference-v-cmt-2016-dr-rohini-
kelkar/
https://ebookmass.com/product/risc-v-assembly-language-
programming-unlock-the-power-of-the-risc-v-instruction-set-maker-
innovations-series-1st-edition-smith/
RISC-V Assembly Language Programming: Unlock the Power
of the RISC-V Instruction Set (Maker Innovations
Series) 1st Edition Stephen Smith
https://ebookmass.com/product/risc-v-assembly-language-
programming-unlock-the-power-of-the-risc-v-instruction-set-maker-
innovations-series-1st-edition-stephen-smith/
https://ebookmass.com/product/risc-v-assembly-language-
programming-stephen-smith/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-evolutions-of-modernist-epic-
vaclav-paris/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-un-at-war-peace-operations-in-
a-new-era-1st-edition-john-karlsrud-auth/
https://ebookmass.com/product/catalan-independence-and-the-
crisis-of-sovereignty-oscar-garcia-agustin/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
T H E G R E AT E R WA R
1912 – 1923
General Editor
rob ert g erwa rt h
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
Sovereignty at
the Paris Peace Conference
of 1919
L E O N A R D V. S M I T H
1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Leonard V. Smith 2018
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017952709
ISBN 978–0–19–967717–7
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To my students . . .
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
Preface
I routinely tell my junior colleagues that one of the few things that gets easier with
age is accepting criticism. After more than two decades of writing about France and
the Great War, I decided to take advantage of something else that comes with
age: a declining need to prove anything. I would embark on a new kind of project,
researching peace rather than war, and international relations rather than France
and the French. Further, I would seek, at least in a gingerly way, to deepen the
dialogue with International Relations (IR) theory, in hopes of enriching international
history in ways parallel to those in which cultural theory enriched the writing
of history in the 1990s and beyond. Paradoxically, I argue here, insights from
present-day IR theory can help us better understand what debates at the Paris
Peace Conference meant at the time.
In bringing this project to completion, I have encountered some strong criticism
indeed. An early reader of the book proposal claimed that I clearly did not understand
the IR theory I sought to engage. Not all criticism lacked foundation. One reader of
a failed grant application found my expansive definition of sovereignty absurd. Another
ridiculed me for trying to “reinvent” myself as an international historian in the
first place, as though stepping outside of one’s graduate training a quarter-century
on was intrinsically a bad idea. And those were just the reports I saw. Of course,
I received a great deal of positive support and helpful criticism along the way as
well. Among other things, tenure can license persistence. I wrote a certain kind of
book, and readers will make of it what they will.
Simply put, I claim here that the Paris Peace Conference cannot be reduced
either to a realist quest for security or to a duel between realism and idealism. This
book is about recapturing some of the “then-ness” of the conference. States and the
structures in which they operate do not have timeless, fixed identities, and we
can gain something analytically by treating them accordingly. The Paris Peace
Conference sought fundamentally to change the way the international system
functioned, and did so in highly complicated and historically specific ways. Those
ways involved reimagining sovereignty, which I boil down to mean the power or
authority to decide what there was to decide in constructing the international
system. This book unfolds neither chronologically or geographically, rather
conceptually according to problems in and aspects of sovereignty. I consider
involved topics such as Upper Silesia and the League of Nations Mandates across
several chapters.
I have tried to see things whole, doubtless at the cost of seeing them clearly.
Scholars have made careers studying any one of the chapter topics here, and indeed
quite a few of the sub-topics. No one could do all the archival research necessary
for this book in a lifetime, even with all the necessary language skills. Happily, an
army of scholars working for a century has generated a sufficiently vast body of
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
viii Preface
Preface ix
x Preface
I will never be able adequately to express how they have enriched my life, and my
love for them. Many scholars are indebted to their pets; relatively few say so. Our
cats, Dot and Shnell (d.2016), provided the kind of unconditional affection unique
to domestic animals.
I think all historians should dedicate one book to their students sometime in
their careers. Teaching, particularly teaching undergraduates, just brings the life of
the mind down to earth in ways nothing else ever will. This project began in the
classroom, in a new course entitled International Relations Theory for Historians.
Teaching that course at Claremont McKenna and at Oberlin has afforded me the
chance to teach some of the finest students I have ever encountered. Their curiosity,
commitment, and need for clear explanation added to this book in countless ways.
It continues to be an honor to teach them.
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
October 2017
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
Contents
List of Illustrations xiii
List of Maps xv
Index 269
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
List of Illustrations
Frontispiece. Tōkyō Puck, Volume 13, No. 9, September 1, 1920 ii
1.1. Embroidering allied victory (minus Japan), souvenir
handkerchief, 1918. 24
1.2. Souvenir postcard of the Japanese delegation to the Paris
Peace Conference. 25
1.3. First plenary meeting of the Paris Peace Conference,
January 18, 1919. 26
2.1. The German delegation arrives in Paris (Count
Brockdorff-Rantzau center, grey raincoat). 61
3.1. Imposing certainty on the Istrian Peninsula in the Black Book.118
4.1. Assisting a voter in the Upper Silesia plebiscite, March 20, 1921. 154
5.1. The Hungarian delegation marched to (or from) signing
the Treaty of Trianon, June 4, 1920. 213
6.1. Léon Bourgeois at the first meeting of the League of
Nations Council, January 16, 1920. 223
6.2. İsmet Paşa (front, right of center) and entourage, Conference of Lausanne. 260
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
List of Maps
1. Germany after the Great War xvi
2. Successor states to the Habsburg Monarchy xvii
3. Greater Romania: ethnicity and politics xviii
4. The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) xix
5. The post-Ottoman Middle East: 1923 xx
6. Poland and the plebiscite area for Upper Silesia xxi
7. Plebiscites after the Great War xxii
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/01/18, SPi
SWEDEN
LATVIA
RK
North Baltic
MA
Sea LI T
Sea
D EN
HU
M
em
A
el
NI
Free City of Danzig
A
Schleswig
East
Prussia
Allenstein
r
do
ri
S
or
Marienwerder
ND
hC
•Berlin
LA
lis
ER
Po
GER MANY
H
T POLAND
NE
Ruhr
Rhine
BE
LG River •Weimar Upper
IUM Silesia
Rhineland
Teschen
Saar CZECHOSLOVAKIA
LUXEMBOURG
Alsace-Lorraine
Munich •
AUSTRIA
HUNGARY
FRANCE
SWITZERLAND
ITALY
Territory ceded by Germany
Retained by Germany after a plebiscite
BLACKMER MAPS
POLAND
GERMAN Y
CZ UKRAINE
EC Galicia
HO
S L O VA K I A
SWITZERLAND
AUSTRI A
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
ol
H UN G A RY
Ty r
Transylvania
ROMANIA
Fiume
Banat
•
I TALY
KI N G DO M OF
SERBS, CROATS
A N D SLOV ENES
A
dr B
ia la
ti B ULGA R I A
c Se ck
Se a
a
ALB ANIA
M
ed
it
er
Se ra Austrian Empire
a ne T URKE Y
an
Kingdom of Hungary
Bosnia-Herzegovina
BLACKMER MAPS
H
G G
B
R
Bucharest
•
Black
S Sea
T
B
Pre-war Romania
POLAND
CZE C HO SLOVA KIA
Dn UKRAINE
ies
tr R
ive
na
eș r
ur
ov i
m
a ra 1920 Border
Buk
M
• Budapest
Be
ssa
H UNGA RY Crișana
ra
Odessa
Transylvania Mold ova
bia
•
R O M A N I A
Banat
Bucharest •
bru
KI N G D O M O F Black
S ERBS, CROATS Sea
Do
A N D S LOV ENES D a n u be Ri v e r
B ULGA RI A
BLACKMER MAPS
International
GEORGIA
Zone
E
E EC Samsun •
GR • Constantinople
AZ
Possible
ER
•Chanak • Angora
.
Armenia
C il i c ia
Now the world being divided thus into people of fashion and
people of no fashion, a fierce contention arose between them;
nor would those of one party, to avoid suspicion, be seen
publicly to speak to those of the other, tho’ they often held a very
good correspondence in private ... but we who know them, must
have daily found very high persons know us in one place and
not in another, today and not tomorrow; ... and perhaps if the
gods, according to the opinions of some, made men only to
laugh at them, there is no part of our behavior which answers
the end of our creation better than this.
IV
The whole point of the foregoing, for present purposes, is this: It is
impossible for a sex or a class to have economic freedom until
everybody has it, and until economic freedom is attained for
everybody, there can be no real freedom for anybody. Without
economic freedom, efforts after political and social freedom are
nugatory and illusive, except for what educational value they may
have for those concerned with them. The women of the United
States, having now got about all that is to be had out of these efforts
—enough at any rate, to raise an uneasy suspicion that their ends
are lamentably far from final—are in a peculiarly good position to
discern the nature of real freedom, to see which way it lies, and to
feel an ardent interest in what it can do for them. My purpose, then,
is not deliberately to discourage their prosecution of any
enfranchising measures that may lie in their way to promote, and still
less to disparage the successes that they have already attained. It is
rather to invite them thoughtfully to take stock of what they have
really got by these successes, to consider whether it is all they want,
and to settle with themselves whether their collective experience on
the way up from the status of a subject sex does not point them to a
higher ideal of freedom than any they have hitherto entertained.
In the past century, women have gained a great deal in the way of
educational, social and political rights. They have gained a fair
degree of economic independence. They are no longer obliged to
“keep silence in the churches,” as they still were at the beginning of
the nineteenth century; indeed, certain sects have even admitted
them to the ministry. The women who now enjoy this comparative
freedom, and accept it more or less as a matter of course, are
indebted to a long line of women who carried on the struggle—
sometimes lonely and discouraging—against political, legal, social
and industrial discrimination, and to the men, as well, who aided and
encouraged them. Thanks to the efforts of these pioneers, the
women of today have a new tradition to maintain, a nobler tradition
than any of those which women were expected to observe in the
past: the tradition of active demand for the establishment of freedom.
They will be none the less under obligation to continue this demand
when the freedom that shall remain to be secured is of a kind not
envisaged by their predecessors. Rather, in the measure that they
proceed beyond those ends that seemed ultimate to their
predecessors, they will prove that these built well; for the best
earnest of advancement is the attainment of an ever new and wider
vision of progress.
The organized feminist movement in England and America has
concerned itself pretty exclusively with securing political rights for
women; that is to say, its conception of freedom has been based on
the eighteenth century misconception of it as a matter of suffrage.
Women have won the vote, and now they are proceeding to use their
new political power to secure the removal of those legal
discriminations which still remain in force against their sex. This is
well enough; it is important that the State should be forced to
renounce its pretension to discriminate against women in favour of
men. But even if we assume that the establishment of legal equality
between the sexes would result in complete social and economic
equality, we are obliged to face the fact that under such a régime
women would enjoy precisely that degree of freedom which men
now enjoy—that is to say, very little. I have remarked that those who
control men’s and women’s economic opportunity control men and
women. The State represents the organized interest of those who
control economic opportunity; and while the State continues to exist,
it may be forced to renounce all legal discriminations against one sex
in favour of the other without in any wise affecting its fundamental
discrimination against the propertyless, dependent class—which is
made up of both men and women—in favour of the owning and
exploiting classes. Until this fundamental discrimination is
challenged, the State may, without danger to itself, grant, in principle
at least, the claims to political and legal equality of all classes under
its power. The emancipation of negroes within the political State has
not notably improved their condition; for they are still subject to an
economic exploitation which is enhanced by race-prejudice and the
humiliating tradition of slavery. The emancipation of women within
the political State will leave them subject, like the negro, to an
exploitation enhanced by surviving prejudices against them. The
most that can be expected of the removal of discriminations
subjecting one class to another within the exploiting State, is that it
will free the subject class from dual control—control by the favoured
class and by the monopolist of economic opportunity.
Even this degree of emancipation is worth a good deal; and
therefore one is bound to regret that it has no guarantee of
permanence more secure than legal enactment. Rights that depend
on the sufferance of the State are of uncertain tenure; for they are in
constant danger of abrogation either through the failure of the State
to maintain them, through a gradual modification of the laws on
which they depend, or through a change in the form of the State.[40]
At the present moment the third of these dangers, which might have
seemed remote ten years ago, may be held to be at least equally
pressing with the other two. It is a misfortune of the woman’s
movement that it has succeeded in securing political rights for
women at the very period when political rights are worth less than
they have been at any time since the eighteenth century.
Parliamentary government is breaking down in Europe, and the
guarantees of individual rights which it supported are disappearing
with it. Republicanism in this country has not yet broken down, but
public confidence in it has never been so low, and it seems certainly
on the way to disaster. No system of government can hope long to
survive the cynical disregard of both law and principle which
government in America regularly exhibits. Under these
circumstances, no legal guarantee of rights is worth the paper it is
written on, and the women who rely upon such guarantees to protect
them against prejudice and discrimination are leaning on a broken
reed. They will do well to bear this in mind as they proceed with their
demands for equality, and to remember that however great may be
their immediate returns from the removal of their legal disabilities,
they can hardly hope for security against prejudice and
discrimination until their natural rights, not as women but as human
beings, are finally established. This is to say that if they wish to be
really free they must school themselves in “the magnificent tradition
of economic freedom, the instinct to know that without economic
freedom no other freedom is significant or lasting, and that if
economic freedom be attained, no other freedom can be withheld.”
FOOTNOTES:
[30] Still, putting the shoe on the other foot, there is no denying that
discriminative legislation based on the Larger Good might as well
serve to secure to women privileges which would lead toward female
domination, as to create disabilities which would keep them at a
disadvantage compared with men. Even the United States Supreme
Court has been known to reverse itself.
[31] Land, that is, in the technical economic sense. It does not mean
the solid part of the earth’s surface—earth as distinguished from
water. It means the sum-total of natural resources.
[32] It is hardly necessary to go into the methods by which this
control is exercised. In a country where government is elected, as in
this, privilege controls through its contribution to party-funds, through
bribery, through economic pressure, and all the other means which
its control of economic opportunity puts at its disposal.
[33] Women and slaves were discriminated against in this country;
and in the State of California today, no person incapable of
citizenship may hold land—a provision which excludes Japanese
and Chinese.
[34] A great deal is said about credit-monopoly, as if it were
something requiring a new and special kind of instrument to break
up. But what is credit? Merely a device for facilitating the exchange
of wealth, and all wealth is produced from land. The break-up of
land-monopoly would therefore at once break up credit-monopoly.
Or, putting it in another way, the one and only imperishable security
is land—all other forms of security finally run back to it. The break-up
of land-monopoly would therefore break up the monopoly of all the
secondary and derived forms of security upon which credit could be
based.
[35] There is recent precedent for this in American law. Under the
XVIII Amendment and the Volstead Act, the Federal Government
confiscated ex post facto without a penny of compensation hundreds
of millions invested in the liquor business. All this, too, was in labour-
made property, not in law-made property, which greatly strengthens
the precedent.
[36] The Constitution of one of the Soviet Republics—I think it is
Georgia—begins something after this fashion: “It is the purpose of
this Government to abolish government.”
[37] The political placeholder must not be confused with those
workers in business, industry, or the arts who are not manual
labourers, but perform valid services which are exchangeable for
wealth and justify their being accounted productive workers.
[38] This is not to be taken as a contradiction of what I have said in
Chapter I concerning the argument that women wanted to be
subjected. No class ever voluntarily accepts subjection; but when it
has been subjected by one means or another, the ignorance that its
subjection breeds may cause it to become passively acquiescent in
the injustice of its position. It is worth noting that so long as the idea
of slavery is tolerated, slaves may accept their position with a certain
fatalism, much as the vanquished force in war accepts its defeat.
[39] It is not to be understood that all male workers, individually or in
union, take this attitude; but that it does exist among them I have
already shown.
[40] This is not to be taken as contradicting the earlier statement that
women would not renounce without a struggle the rights they have
gained. The world can not move toward freedom without carrying
women along; they would not tolerate a dual movement, towards
freedom for men and slavery for themselves. But when the general
movement is away from freedom, as the movement of political
government is at present, the rights of women are endangered along
with those of men.
CHAPTER VII
SIGNS OF PROMISE