862t.01/45: Telegram
The Commissioner at Berlin ( Dresel ) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 8—12:32 a.m.]
279. The following is summary, with quotation of most important passage, of German note of protest regarding occupation of Frankfort, etc., presented French Government, Paris, at 8:30 this morning:
Occupation of German cities took place before French note was received. If no blood has been shed the German Government is to be thanked for having given the order not to oppose the French advance. German Government must raise the sharpest protest in the name of right, reason and humanity against the procedure of the French army. German Government will not discuss with the [Page 316] French Government whether violation of text of articles 42 to 44 of peace treaty and complementary agreements has taken place. It was certainly not the intention to prevent Germany from restoring order in a part of its territory disturbed by bands of robbers and murderers. Such action would be only a police action. Germany alone [bears] the responsibility for the life and well being of her citizens and she may claim the ability to judge more clearly the situation in her own land than any foreign body. Recent events in the Ruhr have shown that her action there was for the best as everywhere where troops have come, the revolutionary movement has collapsed. Germany may clearly take the position that an intentional violation of the peace treaty has not occurred.
“Even if such a violation had occurred the military act of violence of the French Government would not be justified. When the Allied and Associated Governments, in a draft of a protocol regarding alleged violations of the treaty, desired to maintain all military and other compulsory measures even for the time after the going into effect of the peace treaty the German negotiators pointed out that such a reservation would not be compatible with a state of peace. The Allied and Associated Governments in their note of December 8th subsequently recognized that, after the going into force of the peace treaty, the consequences of any nonfulfillment of treaty obligations should be defined only according to the general provisions of the peace treaty as well as according to the customary methods of procedure recognized by international law. The present procedure of the French Government stands in the sharpest contradiction to this. The peace treaty does not provide the right of any signatory power in case of the nonfulfillment of a treaty obligation by Germany immediately to reply with a military invasion of German territory. In addition, the French Government has ignored fundamental provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations which form an integral part of the peace treaty. If the French Government actually believes that it could consider German action as real attempt to disturb the peace of the world, this should have been dealt with according to the provisions of the Covenant as a matter affecting the entire League. The solution of such a conflict between a member and a nonmember of the League should not be met in the first instance with force but rather solved by international agreement,”
French action will have most serious political and economical consequences which will remain even though the course of the operation justifies the hope that the German troops which have penetrated the neutral zone in excess of the number allowed can be withdrawn within a few days. It is impossible for any government in Germany to restore peace and order if, at every step, she is met by unjustified suspicion and new oppressive measures. End note.