The Big Four and others of the Peace Conference

Contents

PORTRAITS OF THE BIO FOUR

Introduction 3

I. Clemenceau 10

II

For obvious reasons it is harder for me to analyze the character of President Wilson as manifested in his conduct at Paris than it is the character of any one of his colleagues in the Council of the Heads of States. It was only as I reviewed the results of the negotiations that I came to a realization of the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of harmonizing his avowed intentions with what seemed to satisfy him. As a consequence, in a character study of this sort, the facts do not always seem to justify the conclusions. Then, too, opinion is often based on deductions which depend more upon impressions than on direct evidence. I may have drawn erroneous conclusions and may therefore be wrong in my judgments; that I am willing to admit; but it is my earnest purpose to be entirely impartial and to avoid any personal bias in the discussion of a man with whom I was so long and so closely associated.

A real difficulty in portraying President Wilson f 37 1 as he was in Paris is that certain traits of his character, which had been so prominent in his public career prior to that time, seem to have been suppressed or submerged in the new environment. Whether this was intentional or involuntary I do not know; and really it makes no difference. The fact is that the President appeared changed after he landed in France. Clearly it is difficult not to be unconsciously influenced by impressions gained prior to the Paris days and not to weave those memories into an estimate of Mr. Wilson when he was engaged in the task of negotiating the terms of the treaty of peace with Germany.

It is not my purpose to discuss the wisdom of the President's attending the Peace Conference and of conducting in person the negotiations. As to that there will always be, I presume, a divergence of opinion. There are valid arguments on both sides of the question. I can only say that the day after the armistice was signed, I had a conference with the President in his study at the White House, during which I took occasion to tell him that in my judgment it would be a serious mistake for him to sit at the peace table, and I went fully into my reasons for so advising

[ 38 1 hiin. Six days later — November 18, 1918 — the President came to my residence and told me that, after considering the matter very carefully, he had determined to go to the Conference, and had given out a public announcement of his intention. My judgment as to the President's personal participation in the negotiations and his absence from the United States for so long a period is the same now as it was the day I expressed it. I leave others to decide how far it has been justified by subsequent events. At the same time I wish to show that the President's decision to exercise in person his constitutional right to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States was not the result of impulse, but was reached after thoughtful deliberation, and doubtless the manifestations of approval by the French people of his presence at Paris convinced him that he had decided wisely.

No man ever received a more demonstrative welcome than did Mr. Wilson from the moment that the George Washington entered the harbor of Brest. It was a great popular ovation. His name was on every lip; throngs of admirers applauded him as he entered the special train for Paris, and at the stations en route; and multitudes, delirious with enthusiasm, cheered him a welcome as he drove through the beflagged streets of the French capital in company with President Poincare, who met him at the Gare du Bois de Boulogne. It was a reception which might have turned the head of a man far less responsive than the President was to public applause, and have given him an exalted opinion of his own power of accomplishment and of his individual responsibility to mankind. It is fair, I think, to assume that this was the effect on the President. It was the natural one.

This convincing evidence of his personal popularity, which was vastly increased by his subsequent visits to London and Rome, doubtless confirmed him in the belief that, with the people of the three principal Allied Powers so unanimously behind him, the statesmen of those countries would hardly dare to oppose his ideas as to the terms of peace. I think that there were ample grounds for this belief.

The trouble was that the President was not prepared to seize the opportunity and to capitalize this general popular support. He came to Paris without, so far as I know, a definite outline of a treaty with Germany. He did have a draft of a covenant of a league of nations, but it was a crude and undigested plan, as is evident by a comparison of it with the document finally reported to the Conference on the Preliminaries of Peace. He, of course, had his famous Fourteen Points, and the declarations appearing in his subsequent addresses as bases of the peace, but they were little more than a series of principles and policies to guide in the drafting of actual terms. As to a complete projct, or even an outline of terms which could be laid before the delegates for consideration, he apparently had none; in fact when this lack was felt by members of the American Commission they undertook to have their legal advisers prepare a skeleton treaty, but had to abandon the work after it was well under way because the President resented the idea, asserting emphatically that he did not intend to allow lawyers to draw the treaty, a declaration that discouraged those of the profession from volunteering suggestions as to the covenant and other articles of the treaty. The President, not having done the preliminary work himself, and unwilling to have others do it, was wholly unprepared to submit anything in concrete form to the European statesmen, unless it was his imperfect plan for a league of nations. The consequence was that the general scheme of the treaty and many of the important articles were prepared and worked out by the British and French delegations. Thus the exceptional opportunity which the President had to impress his ideas on the Conference, and to lead in the negotiations, was lost, and he failed to maintain his controlling position among the statesmen who were, as it turned out, to dictate the terms of peace; while his utterances, which had been the foundation of his popularity, suffered in a measure the same fate.

If the President had adopted the customary method of negotiation through commissioners instead of pursuing the unusual and in fact untried method of personal participation, the situation would have been very different. Without the President present in Paris detailed instructions would have been prepared, which could have been modified during the negotiations only by reference to him at Washington. Instructions of that sort would of necessity have been definite. There would have been no uncertainty as to the objects sought. But with the President on the ground written instructions seemed to him, and possibly were, superfluous. He was there to decide the attitude of the United States and to give oral directions concerning the minutest detail of the negotiations as the questions arose; and since diplomatic commissioners are in any event only agents of the President and subject always to his instructions, the American commissioners at Paris possessed no right to act independently or to do other than follow the directions which they received, which in this case were given by word of mouth. As these directions were meager and indefinite, and as they did not include a general plan, the situation was unsatisfactory and embarrassing for the President's American colleagues.

I doubt if Mr. Wilson had worked out, even tentatively, the application of the principles and precepts which he had declared while the war was in progress, and which had been generally accepted at the time of the armistice as the bases of peace. The consequence was that he must have had a very vague and nebulous scheme for their introduction into the treaty, because many of his declarations required accurate definition before they could be practically applied to the problems which awaited solution by the Conference. Naturally there was an atmosphere of uncertainty and a feeling of helplessness in approaching the treaty terms which prevented the American commissioners from pressing for definite objects. The whole delegation, the President included, lost prestige and influence with the foreign delegates by this lack of a programme.

Here is shown one of the inherent weaknesses of Mr. Wilson which impaired his capacity as the head of a diplomatic commission to negotiate so intricate a settlement as the treaty with Germany. ' He was inclined to let matters drift, relying apparently on his own quickness of perception and his own sagacity to defeat or amend terms proposed by members of other delegations. From first to last there was no teamwork, no common counsel, and no concerted action. It was discouraging to witness this utter lack of system, when system was so essential. The reason was manifest. There was no directing head to the American Commission to formulate a plan, to organize the work and to issue definite instructions.

It is my belief that this fault in the conduct of the negotiations, so far as the United States is concerned, was responsible in no small degree for some of the more undesirable settlements which were incorporated in the treaty of peace. The other heads of states held long daily conferences with their fellow commissioners and principal expert advisers, at which pending questions were debated at length and opinions were freely expressed as to the attitude which should be assumed in view of the national interests involved. Not so the President. He seldom met the American commissioners as a body — in fact, only nine times prior to his first return to the United States on February 14th — and then, except in regard to the covenant, the discussions were desultory and of a general character except on two or three occasions. The President at these meetings did most of the talking, seldom asking advice. They left an impression of doubt as to just what he was seeking to obtain. They might have been, but were not, useful. During the entire period of the negotiations President Wilson summoned the i experts to meet as a body with the American Commission only once, on June 3d, when the German and Austrian treaties were completed.

The President's method of utilizing the knowledge of others was this: If he wished advice he called on the individual whom he thought especially qualified to give it — though he sometimes erred in his choice — and discussed the subject with him in a private interview, or else he asked the expert to prepare for him a confidential memorandum. The result of the interview the President did not disclose, but the commissioners sometimes obtained from the adviser an oral account of what took place or a copy of the memorandum which he had furnished. There was, therefore, no consensus of opinion by the commission, and no general discussion of a question. The President, in fact, constituted himself an exclusive repository of all information, opinions, and speculations, to which no one else had access. It was entirely a personal matter with him. It seems to me to be a fair assumption that he argued that, a|Jhe alone had the responsibility under the Constitution, it was for him to make up his mind independently as to the course which should be taken, and that it was time enough to tell the other American commissioners what that course would be after he had determined it. Unfortunately, he did not always disclose his decision even when he reached one, though on more than one occasion he seemed surprised that his colleagues were ignorant of his views, which they could have gained only by intuition or in some cases by deduction.

The aloofness of Mr. Wilson, his apparent dislike for consultations until circumstances made them unavoidable, and his manifest desire and purpose to remain isolated were not new traits in his character. They had been recognized and not infrequently commented upon long before we went to Paris, but the circumstances surrounding an international conference of such magnitude as the Peace Conference and the imperative need of close personal intercourse between associates in the conduct of the negotiations emphasized these peculiarities of the President's nature and seriously handicapped the activities of the American commissioners. '

The foregoing consideration of the President's relations to the other American commissioners explains in a large measure the reason for his failure to retain the first place in the Conference, which he undoubtedly held when he first arrived in France. He was unable to avail himself of the opportunity offered by his unique position because of this defect in his mental attitude toward cooperation. Though he frequently sought the

[47 1 advice of Colonel House, at least during the early stages of the negotiations, he remained a solitary and secluded man, preferring to bear his burdens alone.

The consequences were those which might have been expected. M. Clemenceau, and in a lesser degree Mr. Lloyd George, took the initiative on practically all subjects requiring settlement except as to those before commissions of the Conference, and even in the case of the Commission on the League of Nations, of which the President was the presiding officer, the initiative apparently passed from him to General Smuts and Lord Robert Cecil. Thus the United States was forced into the position of following instead of leading in the drafting of the terms formulated in the Council of Four, a position which was as unnecessary as it was unfortunate.

There can be little doubt that President Wilson expected to find in the principal statesmen of Europe, at least in a measure, the same philanthropic and altruistic motives which he possessed to so high a degree. In the correspondence during the war the Allies had responded to his appeals and declarations in a tone of lofty idealism similar to that which he had used. I believe that he assumed that moral right would be the controlling factor in the settlements at Paris, and that even the enemy would be treated fairly, if not generously, in order that the peace might be erected on permanent foundations. Entertaining idealistic motives and unfortunately lacking practical experience in international negotiations, the President did not appear to appreciate at the first that the aims of his foreign colleagues were essentially material or to realize that their expressions of high principle were merely an assent to a moral standard which they thought basicly right, but at present impracticable. The result was that he assented to certain arrangements before he became aware of the selfishness, if not the greed, which was so evidently a frequent impulse of many of the European delegates in formulating their demands or supporting those of others. Having once passed his word in regard to a decision, his high sense of honor or possibly an unwillingness to admit his error prevented him from withdrawing it.

Obsessed with the idea that the organization of a league of nations was the supreme object to be attained at the Paris Conference, the President devoted his time, his effort, and his influence

[ 49 1 to drafting its charter and removing or neutralizing the objections which stood in the way of its acceptance. At the first he conferred with the other American commissioners in regard to the covenant, but on finding them, except possibly Colonel House, more or less skeptical as to the practical operation of the organization which he had planned in collaboration with Lord Robert Cecil and General Smuts, and disposed to offer suggestions materially modifying the plan, he showed that he preferred only the cooperation of those who unreservedly believed in his draft. It was very apparent that he did not desire counsel and criticism, but approval and commendation of the covenant. It was unfortunate for the President and for the League that he took this attitude, as subsequent events proved.

As the leaders of the Allied Powers, with their practical ideas, came to a realization of the situation and saw that the President was willing to concede much in exchange for support of the covenant, they utilized his supreme desire to obtain by barter material advantages for their own nations. From the results of the negotiations it may be deduced that by clever representations they gained concession after concession. The apparent support of the idealism of the President by these statesmen was in my opinion chiefly for a purpose and not out of conviction. They loudly applauded the President's declarations of principle as the just bases of peace, but they never once attempted to apply them unless their own national interests were advanced. They praised the covenant as a wonderful document, as the Magna Charta of the world, as an eternal memorial to its author, and they subtly flattered the President by confiding to the League every question which could not be immediately solved, v ostensibly to show their faith in the proposed organization, but really to postpone the settlement of dangerous disputes.

M. Clemenceau, who had frankly declared in favor of the doctrine of the balance of power, was satisfied with either General Smuts's plan or that of Lord Robert Cecil, since both provided for the perpetuation of the Supreme War Council as the Council of the League and for the recognition of the primacy of the Great Powers over all international affairs for the future. Mr. Lloyd George, provided the colonial ambitions and commercial interests of the British Empire were satisfied before the guaranty of the covenant became operative, complacently gave his support to the document as a means of making more permanent British possession of the ceded territories. Signor Orlando, assured of the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the resulting delivery into the hands of Italy of the economic life of German Austria, and hopeful of being given substantial control of the Adriatic, and confident of obtaining sovereignty over the Tyrol by insisting on the fulfillment of the Pact of London, rejoiced in a guaranty which seemed to ensure, for a time at least, the widened boundaries of Italy. The Japanese were equally willing to unite in a mutual guaranty on condition that their country obtained and was protected in the possession of the German rights in Shantung and in its sovereignty over the German islands in the Pacific Ocean north of the equator, though I am convinced that Japan would never have withdrawn from the Conference or abandoned her position as one of the Five I Great Powers, whatever disposition had been I made of her claims.

While selfish interest undoubtedly impelled the principal Allied Powers to adhere to the covenant and to become members of the League of Nations, the United States was free from such influences. It had no territorial or trade ambitions to advance. The American people desired a just peace because it would remove causes for war; they desired the creation, of an international organization which would at least hinder, if it could not actually prevent, future wars.

The ideas of the President, when he left the United States in December, 1918, were undoubtedly in general accord with the thought and desire of the majority of his countrymen as to the terms of peace. I do not mean that his plan for a league of nations, which he carried with him, but which he had not then made public, was in accord with that thought and desire. It may have been or it may not have been. No one can tell as to that. But I believe that nearly all Americans hoped and expected that some sort of an association of nations would be created at Paris. As to the form and functions of the association, public opinion in the United States had not then crystallized.'

It was not until the covenant as finally reported was found to contain a mutual guaranty of territory and independence, together with other features which were claimed to be contrary to American interests and to the traditional policies of the United States, if they were not actually violative of the Constitution, that the President's interpretation of the popular will was seriously questioned. When, in addition to this opposition to the covenant, — which was seized upon with avidity by Mr. Wilson's personal and political enemies as an opportunity to discredit him at home and abroad, — the injustice of certain settlements in the treaties was manifest, the opposition to a guaranty, which might require coercive measures to enforce such settlements, increased and greatly strengthened the opponents of the covenant, and in fact had much to do with preventing the ratification of the treaty in the Senate of the United States.

If the President had inflexibly demanded that no terms should be written into the treaty which were not wholly just, he would have gone far toward accomplishing the purpose of his mission to Europe. And if he had also advocated a plan for a league of nations which was not open to the charge of establishing a supernational authority, vested to all intents in an oligarchy of the Great Powers, he would have been acclaimed the greatest statesman on earth. Unfortunately for the present generation and for the future peace of the world, he did not pursue this course, but distorted his declared purpose to silence opposition to his ambitious conception of a dominant international organization. The natural conclusion is that he convinced himself that the covenant as drafted could not be obtained if he insisted on complete justice in all the settlements. He chose the covenant and won support to it by compromise with those who demanded the material rewards of conquest.

The courtesy of President Wilson in greeting the members of the Council of Ten and in his intercourse with them during the sessions was unvarying. He never, so far as I can recall, showed anger or impatience. I know, however, that beneath this outward calm the President often seethed with indignation at the way matters progressed, but never by word, gesture, or change of countenance did he permit his displeasure or irritation to find open expression. He listened with greater attention to a speaker than did any other man present, and whenever opportunity offered he smiled or told an anecdote which some turn in the debate suggested. He was invariably considerate of the expressed opinions of others, and manifested an open mind in valuing those opinions.

While these qualities are as a general rule useful and admirable in a negotiator, there come times when firmness and frankness are necessary. The failure to insist in certain cases when the conditions of a debate required insistence lost the President an advantage which I am sure he would have otherwise had. Prone to postpone a decision to the last possible moment, he puzzled his colleagues in the Council, who could not understand how so alert a mind needed more time to form an opinion after listening to three hours of discussion. This peculiarity of the President's mental make-up was frequently commented upon by his foreign associates in terms by no means complimentary.

After a subject had been threshed out by the Council of Ten, often to the point of weariness, M. Clemenceau would often turn to the President and ask his opinion as to the action which ought to be taken. The President would reply without hesitation in precise English, though he usually evaded a decision by a general review of the points made by both sides during the argument.

This he did with clearness and conciseness, showing how carefully he had listened to the debate. While I think that the President's presentation showed in a way why he was not prepared to offer a solution to the question, it did not advance the work of the Council.

When the President ceased speaking, M. Clemenceau would ask my opinion, then that of Mr. Lloyd George, then that of Mr. Balfour, and so on down the line of members. He would then turn back to the President and ask, " Well, what shall we do? "

The President frequently answered, " Perhaps it would be well to refer the matter to a committee of experts"; or, "May I ask if any one has prepared a resolution?"

If the last question was asked, it was apt to bring a response from Mr. Lloyd George, whose secretaries had drafted a resolution while the discussion was in progress. A resolution laid before the Council after a question had been debated was as a rule adopted, at least in principle, though often modified in language. It was therefore a decided advantage to introduce a resolution. The President put aside this advantage by failing to suggest that the same course be taken by his expert advisers, who were naturally not disposed to follow the practice unless it was at his request. Apparently he felt an independent personal judgment by him was essential and that it would not be independent if he adopted the opinion of others. The consequence was that Mr. Lloyd George, who seldom hesitated to accept the views of his experts, introduced most of the resolutions other than those prepared by the French, which were generally annexed to the agenda.

Occasionally, however, M. Clemenceau, after a discussion in which the President had expressed definite views, would ask the latter to draft a resolution embodying his opinion. Mr. Wilson would at once take a pencil and without hesitation and without erasures write out in his small, plain hand a resolution couched with exceptional brevity in unambiguous terms. In a proposed measure of this sort the exactness of his thought and his command of language were clearly exhibited. Possessing this ability, far surpassing that of any other person attending the Council of Ten, it is all the more deplorable that he did not use it constantly. I do not recall that he prepared a resolution except at the suggestion of M. Cle-

[58 1 menceau or one of the British delegates. If he prepared one voluntarily, I do not remember the occasion. If he had done so frequently, it would have been he rather than the French or British who initiated action by the Council, and his influence over their decisions would have been marked, which in fact it was not except in a few instances.

Mr. Wilson during the sessions of the Council of Ten spoke in a low, pleasant voice and without rhetorical effort. As no one rose in speaking, he would lean forward, resting on the arms of his chair, and address his remarks first to one and then to another of his confreres. With fluency and with perfect diction he would present his views in sentences so well rounded that they suggested copper-plate perfection. His accuracy of language and his positiveness of assertion not infrequently reminded one of a lecturer imparting knowledge to a class, and gave the impression that he felt that what he said left nothing else to be said. He exhibited the traits of a philosopher rather than those of an advocate. He preferred to deal in generalities rather than with facts. His discourses, though essentially academic, were clear and logical.

The one thing that to my mind marred the President's diction was a sort of little chuckle or half laugh which frequently interrupted his flow of language. I never observed this mannerism prior to the first meeting of the heads of states and foreign ministers except on one or two occasions. It seemed to be an involuntary act, caused by nervousness or embarrassment. It sounded almost apologetic. Probably those who had not come in frequent contact with the President prior to the Peace Conference never noticed it. To those long acquainted with him it seemed to indicate a loss of some of the assurance and self-confidence which had always been distinguishing characteristics of his public career.

After the division of the Council of Ten into the Council of the Heads of States — the Big Pour — and the Council of Foreign Ministers during the last week in March, 1919, and approximately five weeks before the treaty with Germany was completed, I had little opportunity to see the President's work in conference. That he labored with great industry and took little time for rest and recreation everybody knows. He showed in his face the effect of these unremitting efforts. He looked fatigued and worn.

Nevertheless he persisted with his characteristic determination.

The conferences of the Big Four were usually held in the palatial residence on the Place des Etats Unis, which had been provided for the President's use by the French Government. The Four generally met in the library on the ground floor, but if they had several persons present to give them advice on some technical matter, they assembled in the large salon on the second floor. At first the four statesmen met alone. Signor Orlando did not understand English, and President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George had but an imperfect knowledge of French. M. Clemenceau was therefore the only one thoroughly familiar with both languages, and had to act as interpret ter. This was found to be unsatisfactory; so Professor Mantoux was admitted, and later for some reason Sir Maurice Hankey, the secretary of the British War Mission, and also Count Aldrovandi, of the Italian Mission, were permitted to be present. Sir Maurice prepared the decisions and the minutes of the meetings. Thus the President, with no secretary present, had to depend on the notes of Hankey if any question arose as to the proceedings.