M. VESNITCH said that he must begin by an apology. It had not, up to the present, been possible to supply the Conference with a full Statement of Case memorandum. There were certain difficulties due to distance, bad communications, etc., which had rendered this impossible. A memorandum giving general considerations had been supplied. Separate memoranda of a more technical order would be pre pared subsequently. In order to present the problem fully he wished first to draw the attention of the meeting to the origin of the war. This question had been dealt with publicly, but nevertheless he felt it must again be asserted before the Conference that the real cause of the war was the German tendency to expand towards Asia Minor and thereby to acquire dominion of the world. In its road this movement encountered a number of obstacles, the first of which was the YugoSlav people. Hence it was decided in Berlin and Vienna that this should be the first fortress to be taken. (b) Eastward Trend of German Policy The time-honoured German policy was well-known. Since 1848 and especially since 1878 Vienna under the direction of Berlin had sought to bring under its rule all the Serbians not yet included in the Dual Monarchy. This policy had involved the Great Powers. Since 1848, Great Britain, France and Italy had struggled to preserve the peace of Europe. One stage on this road to the East had been marked by the absorption of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Another critical moment was the Balkan War. Serbia issued from it victorious and became the centre of attraction for all the Yugo-Slav peoples. The enthusiasm shown in Bosnia, Croatia, Slavonia and the Banat was even greater than that in Serbia proper. This had been carefully noted at the Ballplatz, where it was decided that the future must be secured as early as possible. This also was incontestably the reason which had rendered futile all the efforts of the Liberal Powers of Europe to find a peaceful diplomatic issue with the nations of Central Europe. The latter were determined to overcome the obstacle and to set forward on their march Eastwards in the quickest possible time. It had been impossible to stop them-hence the Great War. The Yugo-Slav troops of the Dual Monarchy from the very first day of the war began to hamper the purposes of the Central Powers. (c) Action of Yugo-Slavs in the War When other means failed, they surrendered in large numbers on the Russian and Serbian fronts, and at a later stage, on the Italian front. They felt that this was a war of extermination for their people. Encouraged by the promises made by the Great Liberal Powers, especially by the declaration that the war was waged for the liberation of oppressed peoples, they had contributed by every means in their power to the victory of the Allies. They were now inspired by the confident hope that their expectations of the fulfilment of the promises made by the victorious Allies would not be disappointed, and they felt that their services to the common cause had earned recognition. (d) Principles for Which the Allies Fought Since the very beginning of the war the Great Liberal Powers, France, Great Britain, and with them Russia, had proclaimed that they were not fighting for individual national advantages, but for certain principles. These principles were stated publicly and solemnly and were the three great principles of (1) Nationality, (2) the right of self-determination, and (3) freedom of the small Nations. After the signature of the first Armistice, M. Clemenceau, when welcoming the delegates of all the Allied Powers, had said that from that moment there was no difference between great and small nations, as the small nations had been as great as the greatest during the war. He wished to recall this expression to make clear the difference between the principles of the Allied Powers and those of the Central Powers. Before the war there had been a conversation between Herr Von Jagow1 and M. Jules Cambon. The former had declared that there was no more room in the world for small nations. This was fully in accord with the feelings of his nation. What M. Clemenceau had expressed to the Allies was the principle which had encouraged the Nations to group themselves and to bring about the triumph of something far higher than the self-interest of individual nations. It was in accordance with this spirit that the peace of Europe and the League of Nations must be brought about. (e) Attitude Towards Secret Treaties Adhering to this spirit, the delegation he represented regarded the right of self-determination as an inviolable right. It could not recognise any treaty, public or secret doing violence to these principles, proclaimed by the Allies and latterly endorsed by the United States of America. The Delegation he represented therefore regarded as null and void any agreement disposing of the Yugo-Slav people without its consent. He felt obliged to make this declaration in the name of his Government and of his colleagues present in the room. Had he not made it, he would have betrayed his obligation to the Yugo-Slav people. It was not in the habits of this people to sing its own praises, but it must be declared that if this people had endured martyrdom to assist the Allies, it was because their leaders had assured them that these sufferings were absolutely necessary, that it was probably the last effort required of them, and that the open 'Gottlieb E. G. von Jagow, German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1913 to 1916. 'French Ambassador at Berlin from 1907 to 1913. declarations of the Great Allied Powers were a complete guarantee of the future. The leaders of the people had made themselves responsible for the execution of these promises. The Yugo-Slav people, through them, had put complete trust in the Powers whom he now begged to do nothing which might cause disappointment to the legitimate hopes aroused, and thereby sow the seeds of future deplorable conflict. (e) [sic] Question of Future Frontiers of Yugo-Slavia M. Vesnitch continuing, said that, if it was in order, he would approach the subject of the future frontiers of Yugo-Slavia. The Yugo-Slav people was in a peculiar situation. It had to delimit its territory with six or seven nations. On a former occasion explanations had been given concerning the problem to be solved with a friendly country. In tracing the boundaries separating them from enemy countries it was likely that no great difficulties would arise. But there was another friendly country with which there were problems to discuss. The Delegation would ask that it should be treated on a footing of equality with its Italian friends. He felt that in making this request he was not exceeding the limits of his rights and his duties. He hoped that the Allied and Associated Powers would consider this fair and practical and likely to ensure good understanding between two countries which were to be neighbours, and between which it was desirable that no germ of discord should arise. M. Vesnitch explained, with the help of a map, what he proposed should be the future frontiers of Yugo-Slavia. (f) Southern Frontier On the south the boundary marched with that of Greece. It was not proposed in any way to alter the boundary laid down by the Peace of Bucharest.3 (h) Northeastern Frontier On the east the frontier was to be determined with Bulgaria. The behaviour of the Bulgarians towards the Serbians, even before they entered the war, was well-known, (g) Eastern Frontier hence certain alterations of frontier were demanded. The Yugo-Slav arguments concerning the boundary to be drawn in the Banat had been heard on a previous occasion. Failing all other means of settlement, the Delegation for which he spoke was ready to allow the populations to make a free choice of allegiance. He would like to point out that all invasions of Servia throughout history had come from that quarter. The latest examples furnished in the course of the late war were enough to prove his point. There were also ethnological, geographical and economic reasons. The divisions of the country made for administrative purposes by the common enemies of Serbia and For the text of the treaty of Bucharest, signed August 10, 1913, see British and Foreign State Papers, vol. сvá, p. 658. Roumania were evidence in his favour. No less well-wishing judges could be found than the Magyars towards the Serbian people, nevertheless the division of the country made by them showed the Serbs to be in the majority. (i) Northern Frontier In the North the Delegation proposed a frontier which corresponded not only to ethnic, but to geographical realities. DR. ZOLGER, continuing, explained that the proposed boundary with the Germans and Magyars was drawn in such a way as to include all the Croats, Serbs and Slovenes along the Drave. The frontier would not accord with the results of the Austrian census. This census could not be trusted. It did not record nationality, but professed to record the spoken language of the people. Workmen serving German employers and communicating with them in German would be represented as Germans. Even German authorities admitted that this method was deliberately devised in order to favour Germanisation. The Delegation therefore proposed to neglect the Austrian census and pin its faith to certain other means of obtaining information. Among these he would cite the ecclesiastical parish registers published yearly, showing the language used in the parish for confessional purposes. The language to which it was necessary to resort to spread the Gospel must be the spoken language of the people. A hundred villages shown in the Austrian census as German were proved by the parish registers to speak Slovene. There were other documents which might be consulted such as the census of 1849-51. This census had been conducted in a less partial manner than its successor, for since 1870 the Pan-German idea had become the official doctrine of the Central Governments. (3) German Attempt to Reach the Adriatic In pursuance of this doctrine the most consistent efforts had been made to establish German contact with the Adriatic. In this process the Slovenes had fared perhaps worse than any other Yugo-Slav nation. The process had begun in the 18th Century. The danger had been realised by Napoleon, who had set up the Illyrian Province after the peace of Schoenbrunn, comprising all Slovene lands, to block the way from Vienna to the Adriatic and to guard the road to the East. The frontier suggested in Carinthia gave to Yugo-Slavia certain areas in which the Slovenes were not a majority in the population. The justification of this was the forcible germanisation practised since 1850. Dr. Zolger drew attention to a work called "The Vilayet of Carinthia"," published before the war. In this work it was shown that every means had been (k) Claims in Carinthia 'G. F. Martens, Nouveau recueil de traités d'alliance, de paix, de trêve, vol. I, p. 210. 'Apparently a reference to the book entitled Aus dem Wilajet Kärnten (Klagenfurt, 1913). adopted of destroying Slovene nationality and the Slovene language. For instance, all writers, even the Germans, admitted that Celovec (Klagenfurt), was in 1850, two-thirds Slovene. At the present time the Slovenes were in the minority. This had been brought about by the educational policy forced on the country. Children were only taught the Gothic script. Where there had been a hundred Slovene schools, there were now but three. From all branches of the public service Slovenes had been extruded. The last Slovene judge died some ten years ago. The last Slovene notary was removed during the war. Barristers were not allowed to plead before the Courts in Slovene. Only one Slovene Deputy was sent to the Reichsrat, though on the population basis there should have been three. The people were afraid of speaking their own language, and a man had been arrested for demanding a ticket at a railway station in Slovene. The war had been used to give the death blow to Slovene life in Carinthia. It was therefore fair to say that the reduction of the Slovene element was not a process of natural evolution, but the work of a deliberate and forcible policy, carried out in contempt of all morality and law. In fixing the frontier between Yugo-Slavia and German Austria, the result of this policy should not be perpetuated. Wherever it was possible to show that 50 years previously the Slovenes had been in possession, he claimed that they should have ownership restored to them. The frontier suggested would be some compensation to the Yugo-Slav people for their losses in the long struggle with Germanism. He would point out that in the course of centuries the Slovenes had lost not only part of Carinthia and Styria, but also the Eastern Tyrol and Lower Austria. Wherever it was possible to establish an ethnic claim, he thought that it should be admitted. M. TRUMBITCH said that in the name of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes he would place before the meeting briefly, the claims made on the subject of the western frontier, and he would explain the grounds on which the claims were based. (1) Western Frontier The area in question was that part of the ancient Austro-Hungarian monarchy situated on the Adriatic Sea or gravitating towards it, and inhabited by a Yugo-Slav population. As had been repeatedly proclaimed in public manifestations by official representatives of the people, the territorial claims were based on the rights of nationalities and on the principle of self-determination. It was on this basis that the new state laid claim to countries, the population of which was of Yugo-Slav nationality, desiring to enter into the community of that State. In a general way it must be observed that from the point of view of spoken language and national sentiment, the whole Adriatic Coast of the former Austria-Hungary from Monfalcone as far as Spizza was inhabited by Yugo-Slavs, in a compact and continuous |