1. The term Minderheitenpolitik, as used between 1919 and 1933, referred to an external policy concerned with Germans beyond the borders of the Reich, and not to the treatment of internal minority groups in Germany. It will be translated as “minorities diplomacy” or “minority policies.

2. See especially Fischer, Fritz, Griff nach der Weltmacht (2nd ed., Düsseldorf, 1964), pp. 861–62.Google Scholar The following interpret republican minorities diplomacy as device to promote revision of Germany's eastern borders: Broszat, Martin, 200 Jahre deutsche Polenpolitik (Munich, 1963), pp. 175–81.Google ScholarThimme, Annelise, “Gustav Stresemann: Legende und Wirklichkeit,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXI, No. 2 (1956), 327–28;Google ScholarBretton, Henry L., Stresemann and the Revision of Versailles (Stanford, Calif., 1953), pp. 126–37; andGoogle ScholarHöltje, Christian, Die Weimarer Republik und das Ostlocarno Problem 1919–1934 (Würzburg, 1958).Google Scholar

3. Marrotte, Paul A., “Germany at the League of Nations Council, 1926–1933” (unpub. diss., North Carolina, 1953),Google Scholar lacks the documentation of the German Foreign Ministry. Broszat, Martin, “Aussen-und innenpolitische Aspekte der preussisch-deutschen Minderheitenpolitik in der Ära Stresemann,” in Kluxen, Kurt et al. , Politische Ideologien und nationalstaatliche Ordnung (Munich, 1968), pp. 393–445,Google Scholar describes the ideology of Minderheitenpolitik. Fink, Carole K., “The Weimar Republic as the Defender of Minorities, 1919–1933” (unpub. diss., Yale, 1968),Google Scholar and von Riekhoff, Harald, German-Polish Relations, 1918–1933 (Baltimore, 1971),Google Scholar especially ch. 8, attempt to interpret its effects.

4. Wilson, influenced by the concern of Paris-based Jewish delegations about the fate of their compatriots in the new states of Eastern Europe, first proposed that the League Covenant contain a clause on racial and religious toleration. Great Britain, fearing complications for the Empire, resisted a universal declaration and proposed that minority protection clauses be written (as was customary) in treaties involving territorial transfers. A “Committee on New States” (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, the United States) drafted Poland's Minority Treaty, which was signed simultaneously with the Treaty of Versailles. Janowski, Oscar, The Jews and Minority Rights 1898–1919 (New York, 1931);Google ScholarTemperley, H. W. V., History of the Peace Conference of Paris, v (London, 1921);Google Scholar David Hunter Miller (U. S. delegate on the Committee on New States), My Diary at the Paris Peace Conference, XIII (New York, 1924); and Viefhaus, Erwin, Die Minderheitenfrage und die Entstehung der Minderheitenschutzverträge… (Würzburg, 1960).Google Scholar

5. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (Sept. 10, 1919), Romania (Dec. 9, 1919), Greece (Aug. 10, 1920). Provisions for minority protection were imposed on Austria (Arts. 62–69, Treaty of St. Germain), Hungary (Arts. 54–60, Treaty of Trianon), Bulgaria (Arts. 49–57, Treaty of Neuilly), and Turkey (Arts. 37–45, Treaty of Lausanne). Five states, Finland (June 27, 1921), Albania (Oct. 2, 1921), Lithuania (May 12, 1922), Latvia (July 7, 1923), and Estonia (Sept. 17, 1923), declared their adherence to the terms of the Minority Treaties as a condition of their admission to the League of Nations. Texts of the treaties and declarations in League of Nations, Protection of Linguistic, Racial and Religious Minorities (Geneva, 1927).Google Scholar These fourteen governments were referred to as “Minority States.”

6. On the origins of Art. 12, the “guarantee clause”: Macartney, C. A., National States and National Minorities (London, 1934), ch. 4.Google Scholar

7. Germany was considered still a “Great Power,” whose territorial cessions had virtually eliminated her internal minorities. Miller, Diary, XIII. The Minority States' arguments: U. S. Dept. of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, III, 395–410.Google Scholar

8. Germany, Auswärtiges Amt (hereafter A.A.), Vorschläge der Deutschen Regierung für die Errichtung eines Völkerbundes (Berlin, n. d.);Google Scholar Alma Luckau, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1941), p. 324–25; Macartney, National Minorities, pp. 225–28.

9. As the president of the Supreme Allied Council, Georges Clemenceau, explained to Polish leader Ignacy Paderewski: “These [minority] populations will be more easily reconciled to their new position if they know that from the very beginning they have assured protection and adequate guarantees against any danger of unjust treatment or oppression.” Wilson was more blunt: “We cannot agree to leave elements of disturbance unremoved which we believe will disturb the peace of the world.” Temperley, Peace Conference, V, 130–32. According to the official Polish census of 1921, 31.8% of the population belonged to minority groups. Osteuropa Handbuch-Polen, ed. Markert, Werner (Cologne, 1959), p. 37.Google Scholar

10. Eric Colban (author of the system, Minorities Director for almost eight years), “La société des nations et le problème des minorités” (MS, Aug. 26, 1924, League of Nations Library). Colban's successor, de Azcarate, Pablo, League of Nations and National Minorities (Washington, 1945).Google Scholar Critical studies: Balogh, Arthur, Der internationale Schutz der Minderheiten (Munich, 1928);Google Scholar Macartney, National Minorities, chs. 9–10; Bagley, T. H., General Principles and Problems in the International Protection of Minorities (Geneva, 1950); andGoogle ScholarClaude, Innis L., National Minorities. An International Problem (Cambridge, Mass., 1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Colban's apologia in exile: “The Minorities Problem,” The Norseman, II (09–10 1944), 309–17.Google Scholar Azcarate (League of Nations, pp. 123–30) claimed that Colban spent at least six months of each year visiting Minority States.

12. E. g., von Bölow, Bernhard, Der Versailler Völkerbund (Berlin, 1923),Google Scholar and attacks in the Internationale Presse-Korrespondenz: “Die Thesen der K. P. Tschechoslowakei zur nationalen Frage,” II (1922), 203–208;Google Scholar “Die Pläne des polnischen Imperialismus,” III (1923), 163–64; “Die Unterdrückung der nationalen Minderheiten in Polen,” IV (1924), 717; “Die Nationalfrage im Südosten Europas,” IV (1924), 323. Colban suspected that Moscow, flourishing the generous (bt sterile) minority provisions of the 1922 Soviet constitution, was stimulating minority separatism in Eastern Europe to promote the Bolshevik cause. Report by the German Minister in Bucharest, Nov. 12, 1924, Germany, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Bonn (hereafter Pol. Arch. A.A., followed by the departmental source and file number of the document), Referat Völkerbund, Minderheitsfragen, 34/2.

13. See, e.g., Union international des Associations pour la S.d.N., “Les minorités nationales” (Prague, 1922, League of Nations Library, Geneva);Google Scholar“Déclaration des droits et des devoirs des minorités,” Bulletin Interparliamentaire, III (1923), 51–52;Google Scholar Joint Foreign Committee.…, Memorandum of Suggestions for the Improvement of the Procedure of the League of Nations for Giving Effect to its Guarantee of the Minority Treaties (London, 1930, League of Nations Library, Geneva).Google Scholar

14. The Assembly received an annual report by the Secretary-General and, on the basis of Art. 3, Par. 3, of the Covenant, could “deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the world.”

15. See below, p. 341.

16. The main Assembly discussions and proposals reprinted in: League of Nations, Protection of Linguistic, Racial, or Religious Minorities… (Geneva, 1931) (hereafter PLRRM), pp. 17–19, 35–38, 239–42.Google Scholar Britain, concerned with her Irish problem and with the attitude of potential members such as Germany and the United States, resisted enlargement of the League's prerogatives. On generalization: “The League cannot assume to guarantee good government in this matter throughout the world.”On a permanent minorities commission: “A standing invitation to produce grievances.” Memoranda by Cadogan and Headlam-Morley, May 17, 1921, Feb. 7, 1922, Public Record Office, London, Foreign Office File 371 (hereafter P.R.O., London, F.O. 371), W9988/4294/98, W5070/5070/98, W1030/48/98.

17. The German League of Nations Union, which joined the World Federation of League of Nations Societies in 1921, promptly became Berlin's spokesman for minority reforms and was subsidized by the Foreign Ministry. von Bernstorff, Johann (the Union's first president), Memoirs (New York, 1936), pp. 301–303.Google Scholar Otto Junghann (second president, an indefatigable minorities advocate), Nachlass, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz. Samples of the government's minorities propaganda: “Die Deutschenhetze in posenschen Teilgebiet,” Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, June 18, 1921; also Germany, A.A., publications: Die nationalen Verhältnisse im deutsch-polnischen Grenzgebiet (Berlin, 1919);Google ScholarPolnische Kulturtaten in Oberschlesien (Berlin, n.d.);Google ScholarMinderheitenschutz in Polen Ende Juni 1921 (Berlin, 1921);Google Scholar and German Martyrdom… (Berlin, 1921),Google Scholar all in the Hoover Library, Stanford, Calif. On support to Auslandsdeutschtum: Broszat, Polenpolitik, pp. 175–78, and Fink “Defender of Minorities,” pp. 33–40 and passim.

18. E.g., Horak, Stephan, Poland and Her National Minorities (New York, 1961), pp. 94–96,Google Scholar 126–41, on the reduction of German minority population, schools, and economic influence.

19. Headlam-Morley memorandum, Feb. 7, 1922, P.R.O., London, F.O. 371, W1030/48/98.

20. Paikert, G. Charles, “Hungary's National Minority Policies, 1920–1945,” American Slavic and East European Review, XII, No. 2 (1953), 201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Budapest was neither generous with her half-million German minority nor an effective minorities advocate in the League Assembly, where she scarcely hid her irredentist aims. State Secretary Schubert, memoranda, Feb. 23 and Mar. 10, 1926, microfilmed documents of the Political Archives of the German Foreign Ministry, National Archives Microcopy T-120 (hereafter cited according to serial, reel, and frame number), 4555H/2298/E147351–52 and E147414–17.

21. Gustav Stresemann, Vermächtnis (3 vols., Berlin, 1932–1933): letter to Hofrat Bickes, Nov. 12, 1924, I, 581–82; unsigned article in the Hamburger Fremdenblatt, Sept. 1925, II, 172, 174–75; report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Reichstag, July 18, 1925, II, 150–51.

22. Stresemann memoranda, Sept. 24, 1924, and June 18, 1925. ibid., I, 586–87, II, 104. Turner, Henry, “Eine Rede Stresemanns über seine Locarnopolitik,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, XV, No. 4 (1967), 429.Google Scholar

23. Sitzungsbericht der ersten Konferenz des Kongresses der organisierten nationalen Gruppen in den Staaten Europas… (Geneva, 1925).Google Scholar On the history of the organization: Kelmes, Erwin, Der europäische Nationalitätenkongress, 1926–1938 (Cologne, 1958).Google Scholar

24. According to the Reich census of 1925, slightly more than 1½% of the population (1,235,000 persons) claimed that their mother tongue was not German was not German. This included 886,000 Poles, 120,000 Poles, 120,000 “Masurians” (Poles of Evangelical faith who spoke an East Prussian dialect), 129,000 Wends (a Slavic people, distantly related to the Czechs, in Central Prussia and Saxon Lusatia), 30,000 Czechs, 12,000 Danes, and 8,000 Lithuanians. Outside of Upper Silesia, which was governed under the special provisions of the Geneva Convention, no minority schools existed. Unsigned memorandum, “… die Rechtsverhältnisse der nationalen Minderheiten in Deutschland,” Berlin, Jan. 15, 1929, K1764/5449/K432542–49.

25. Stresemann memorandum, Jan. 13, 1925, 4555H/2298/E147473. In this much-quoted statement, he announced the “diplomatic necessity” of immediate steps to regulate the status of minorities in Germany which would reflect “the needs of the German minorities in Europe.” (“Every right which Germans abroad demand must be granted within the Reich.”) If Germany sought admission to the League with “empty hands,” she might be forced to sign a Minority Treaty. Finally, Stresemann linked a liberal domestic minorities policy, Germany's immediate revisionist aims toward the Polish Corridor and Upper Silesia, and her latent hope to unite the dispersed German settlements in Europe: “… Existing resistance… to a revision of the Friedensdiktat would be diminished if world public opinion and those of a foreign nationality who would be affected by an Anschluss were convinced that every national minority within the borders of the Reich was guaranteed and actually enjoyed the fullest cultural freedom.”

26. Fink, “Defender of Minorities,” pp. 53–63. Broszat, “Preussisch-deutschen Minderheitenpolitik,” pp. 414–45.

27. For another appraisal: Dr. C. G. Bruns (legal advisor to the Verband der deutschen Volksgruppen in Europa and frequent advisor to the Foreign Ministry), “Bemerkungen zur… Änderung des Verfahrens,” July 10, 1925, K1764/5448/K431772–74. The Berliner Tageblatt on June 30 declared the resolution “a formal act of unfriendliness.”

28. PLRRM, pp. 41–47, 100–103. The New York Times (Dec. 10, 1925) reported this as an attempt to “settle the minorities question once and for all before Germany's entry.”

29. Ambassador d'Abernon to Chamberlain, Berlin, Feb. 16, 1926, Documents on British Foreign Policy, Ser. IA, I (London, 1966), 438–39.Google Scholar

30. Stresemann, speech to the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Landsmannschaften in Gross-Berlin,” Dec. 14, 1925, Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik (hereafter Akten), Ser. B, I, Pt. 1 (Göttingen, 1966), 751–52.Google Scholar The challenge to Mussolini: Verhandlungen des Reichstages, vol. 388 (Feb. 9, 1926), 5362–65, and Vermächtnis, II, 483–501.

31. Thimme, “Gustav Stresemann,” p. 326.

32. Consul Poensgen memorandum (ganz geheim), “Deutschland im Völkerbund,” Dec. 12, 1925, Akten, Ser. B, I, 1, 64–76, esp. 74.

33. Letter to the former Crown Prince, Sept. 7, 1925, Vermächtnis, II, 554–55. On convincing the Nationalists of the League's advantages: Viscount d'Abernon, The Diary of an Ambassador, III (New York, 1931), 226–27.Google Scholar An assessment of Stresemann's general strategy: Jacobson, Jon, Locarno Diplomacy, 1925–1929 (Princeton, 1972), pp. 40–43;Google ScholarThimme, Annelise, “Stresemann and Locarno,” in European Diplomacy Between Two Wars, 1919–1939, ed. Gatzke, Hans W. (Quadrangle Paperback, Chicago, 1972), pp. 73–93; andGoogle ScholarCraig, Gordon A., From Bismarck to Adenauer: Aspects of German Statecraft (rev. ed., Harper Torchbooks paperback, New York, 1965), pp. 51–61.Google Scholar

34. Stresemann's report to the cabinet, Sept. 24, 1926, 3242/1591/D714207ff.

35. Reports by State Secretary Schubert and Herbert von Dirksen (then a minority specialist in the Eastern section of the Foreign Ministry), 4587H/2362/E182798–826; K1769/5453/K434876–83; 5462H/2768/E366833, E366862–64.

36. Unsigned memorandum, “Mitwirkung Deutschlands in Dreierkomitees,” Nov. 29, 1926, K1764/5449/K432287–92. Colban went to Berlin to orient the Wilhelmstrasse on Committee procedures. German participation was limited to seemingly remote cases in southeastern Europe.

37. von Dirksen, Herbert, Moskau, Tokio, London (Stuttgart, 1949), pp. 83–85,Google Scholar characterizes Stresemann's Geneva diplomacy.

38. Walsdorff, Martin, Westorientierung und Ostpolitik. Stresemanns Russlandpolitik in der Locarno–Ära (Bremen, 1971), pp. 92–106.Google Scholar

39. Fink, “Defender of Minorities,” pp. 90–106.

40. Convention Germano-Polonaise relative à la Haute Silésie faite à Génève le 15 mai 1922 (Geneva, 1922).Google Scholar On the diplomacy preceeding the partition: Campbell, F. Gregory, “The Struggle for Upper Silesia, 1919–1922,” Journal of Modern History, XLII (09 1970), 361–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. On Poland's insistence, this article was lifted verbatim from her minorities agreement with the Free City of Danzig (Oct. 24, 1921): unsigned memorandum, Sept. 3, 1926, 5462H/2768/E366866–69.

42. Protection des minorités en Haute Silésie. Appel du “Deutscher Volksbund” de la Silésie polonaise concernant l'admission des enfants aux écoles primaires allemandes… (Geneva, 1927, League of Nations Library).Google Scholar

43. Consul-General Grünau (Katowice) to Foreign Ministry, June 19, 1928, 5544H/2747/E385730–34.

44. Stresemann to all German Missions, Berlin, Mar. 18, 1927, 3147/1550/D658541–46.

45. Stresemann, who generally neglected to inform Berlin of his Geneva negotiations, was queried about this compromise by Reich President Hindenburg at the cabinet meeting of Mar. 15: 3147/1550/D714320ff. Critical reaction in the Reichstag: ibid., D658503–24, and by the Volksbund: Ibid., D658491.

46. World Court Reports, ed. Hudson, Manley O., II, 268–319.Google ScholarBruns, Carl G., “Das Urteil des ständigen internationalen Gerichtshofes im oberschlesien Schulstreit und das allgemeine Minderheitenrecht,” Nation und Staat, I (11 1927), 171–77.Google Scholar

47. See “Schwere Enttäuschungen der Deutschen in Ost-Oberschlesien,” Deutsche Tageszeitung, Sept. 11, 1928, and memoranda by German Consul-General Grünau (Katowice), Referenten Moltke and Dirksen: 5544H/2747/E385265–67, E385730–32; 5462H/2771/E369113–30; 4571H/2340/E169768–70.

48. Memoranda by Dr. Soehring (school expert in Abteilung VIA [Kultur] of the Foreign Ministry) on his interviews with minority leaders, Nov. 4, 23, 1927, 5063/2531/E291320–22 and E291495–508. Bruns to Ministerial-Director (Abt. VIA) Freytag, May 14, 30, 1927, K1001/4603/K261678–80, K261702. Krahmer-Möllenberg (director of the Deutsche Stiftung and OSSA, front organizations for directing financial support to Germans abroad) memorandum, June 30, 1928, K1769/5453/K435653–64. Weizsäcker (from 1927 to 1931 director of the League of Nations Section of the Foreign Ministry) memorandum, “… die Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Auswärtigen Amt und den Minoritätenvertretern,” Mar. 31, 1930, K1764/5449/K432628–30.

49. “… Le 26. Congrès universal de la Paix,” K1769/5449/K435429. “ Vollversammlung des Weltverbandes der Völkerbundligen,” K1771/5454/K435781–82. “Records of the IX Ordinary Session of the Assembly,” League of Nations, Official Journal (1928), Spec. Suppl. No. 64, pp. 37, 56–59, 82–83. The European Minorities Congress and the International Law Association supported a permanent minorities commission.

50. Reichstag President Löbe to Stresemann, Oct. 5, 1928, 3147/1551/D659665. Samples of the partisan debate over minorities: “Zentrum und Aussenpolitik,” 5544H/2746/E384748–50, and “Reichstag,” 413. Session, Mar. 28, 1928, Nachlass des Reichsaussenministers Dr. Gustav Stresemann, microfilm deposited in the U. S. National Archives (hereafter Nachlass), 7375H/3174/H167468, H167482.

51. Prussian Ministry of State, “Ordnung zur Regelung des Schulwesens für die polnische Minderheit,” and “… Grenzgebiet Schleswig,” K1764/5449/K432514–19 and 5063/2331/E291476–78. Response to the ordinance (which prohibited government officials from contesting membership in the minority and allowed the recruitment of teachers from outside the Reich): Journal de Génève, Dec. 20, 1928 (a “symptom of increasing Reich liberalism”), Foreign Ministry survey of the Polish press, 5462H/2771/E367647–52 (“…a contrived farce… misleading… designed only to help Germans abroad…”). Prussia's resistance to establishing minority schools probably had little influence on Stresemann's Geneva policies, but the December ordinance undoubtedly removed one inhibition to a minorities crusade. Braun, Otto, Von Weimar zu Hitler (New York, 1940), pp. 337–38.Google Scholar

52. Noebel (minorities specialist, Polish section of the Foreign Ministry) memorandum for Reich Minister Stresemann, Dec. 19, 1928, 5544H/2746/E384731–32.

53. Mémoires du Sénateur Raoul Dandurand 1861–1942, ed. Hamelin, Marcel (Quebec, 1967), pp. 317–24.Google Scholar The French-Canadian delegate, ignoring the political aspects of the problem, reacted to his experiences on Committees of Three where the accused government provided meagre information and petitioners were excluded.

54. League of Nations, Official Journal (1928), pp. 68–71. Despite Stresemann's denials, the French press insisted that he had been forewarned of Zaleski's intentions and that his rejoinder was not “spontaneous” German Minister Rauscher reported that Pilsudski had ordered Zaleski to speak, to answer recent anti-Polish remarks by Hindenburg in Oppeln and to assert Poland's resentment at being excluded from the Big Three conferences. Dismayed with the results, the Polish government confiscated German newspapers which reprinted the text of the Lugano duel. Rauscher to the Foreign Ministry, Warsaw, Dec. 21, 1928, 5462H/2771/E369631–38.

55. Neue Freie Presse, Dec. 18 1928. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Dec. 24, 1928. German reaction (summarized by the Foreign Ministry Press Section): 3147/1551/D659722–25. Polish and French reaction: 5462H/2771/E369644–46, 4571H/2340/E169788–91. In his papers, Stresemann kept a copy of an article by French historian Jacques Bainville (Liberté, May 3, 1928), who compared his famous “restraint” with Bismarck's: “… on ne frappe pas du poing sur la. table tant qu'on n'est pas le plus fort.” Ibid., 7383H/3175/H168973.

56. Stresemann to Undersecretary-General Dufour (Geneva,) Berlin, Jan. 17, 1929, ibid., 7383H/3175/H168973.

57. Renthe-Fink (a German junior official in the Secretariat) and Dufour to Weizsäcker, Geneva, Feb. 7, 8, 1929, K2366/5778/K669573–78, K669581–85. Stresemann's report to the Cabinet, Feb. 27: 3575H/1701/D669695.

58. Pre-March events described in Fink, “Defender of Minorities,” pp. 137–45. Samples of revived international interest in minorities: Germania, Feb. 1, 1929; Journal de Génève, Feb. 20; Manchester Guardian, Feb. 20; Temps, Feb. 21; The Times, Feb. 23, 28, Mar. 1; “Minorities,” The Economist, CVIII (Mar. 9, 1929), 487–98.

59. “Deutsches Vorgehen in der Minderheitenfrage,” Jan. 14, 1929, K2366/5778/K669418–36. All major documents on the minorities problem in 1929 were written by Otto Reinebeck, Abteilung VIA of the Foreign Ministry, who later became special assistant to Foreign Minister Julius Curtius.

60. On his difficulty in forming a Great Coalition cabinet and his troubles with his own Peoples Party just before the March session: Turner, Henry, Stresemann and the Politics of the Weimar Republic (Princeton, 1963), pp. 246–50,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and (less sympathetic) “Die Flucht des Dr. Stresemanns,” Die Tat (Mar. 3, 1929), Nachlass, 7374H/3175/H169277.

61. Report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Reichstag, Jan. 25, 1929, 3147/1551/D597891–90; to the Prussian government, Feb. 5–15, K1772/5455/K435993–95; to the cabinet, Feb. 27, 3575H/1701/D779695; interview with the Soviet ambassador, Feb. 28, 3147/1551/D660909.

Curiously enough, the very minority which had precipitated the Faustschlag, the Germans in Upper Silesia, would play an insignificant role in 1929. German-Polish talks began in January to limit the flow of petitions to the Council.

62. Minutes reprinted in PLRRM; Dandurand's remarks, pp. 83–87.

63. Stresemann's text (4587H/2365/E184811–35) was published by the Foreign Ministry: Der Schutz der Minderheiten. Rede des Reichsministers… über die Garantie des Völkerbundes für die Bestimmungen zum Schutz der Minderheiten (Berlin, 1929),Google Scholar and distributed to all missions abroad.

64. PLRRM, pp. 92–103.

65. Schubert described these negotiations to the Reichstag Foreign Affairs Committee, Mar. 19, 1929, 4555H/2298/E147689–92.

66. Stresemann announced in his press conference on Mar. 7 that the Council had proved its “seriousness” with this solution, 4587H/2365/E184873–79.

67. Ulitz was found guilty in July, but an appellate court reversed the decision nine months later. “… Der Fall Ulitz,” Apr. 23, 1930, 5551H/2606/E391728–31. Stresemann's strategy: Schubert memorandum, Mar. 8, 1929, 4587H/2365/E184887–88.

68. “Der Paladin der Minderheiten,” Deutsche Zeitung, Mar. 11, 1929; Deutsche Tageszeitung, Mar. 8, 10; Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Mar. 8–10. Slightly more sympathetic: Berliner Tageblatt, Mar. 8; Vossische Zeitung, Mar. 8; Germania, Mar. 12, 13; “Die Minderheitenfrage vor dem Völkerbundsrat,” Nation und Staat, II (04 1929), 438–43.Google Scholar

69. “Bemerkungen der Deutschen Regierung zur Frage der Garantie des Völkerbundes für die Bestimmungen zum Schutz der Minderheiten,” K2366/5778/K669816–44.

70. It suggested that: (1) petitioners be informed whether their appeals were found receivable; (2) Committees of Three inform the Council of the results of their inquiries; (3) the Secretary-General publish annual statistics of the number of petitions received, the number of Committees of Three appointed, and the number of Committee meetings. Text of the London Report, PLRRM, pp. 156–75.

71. Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Deutsche Zeitung, May 22, 1929. New York Times, May 24, 27.

72. Berlin's optimism derived from Ramsey MacDonald's article (which, as prime minister, he quickly disowned), “Die Gefahren des europäischen Minderheitenproblems. Revision der Freidensverträge?” Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, VI (06 1929), 442–43,Google Scholar which caused a temporary furor in Paris and Warsaw.

73. Protocol of the interview between Schubert and Reich Chancellor Müller, Berlin, June 1, 1929, 4555H/2298/E147748–49. Stresemann to the German delegation in Madrid, Berlin, June 5, 3147/1552/D660235.

74. The committee added the following: (1)Committees of Three, in special instances, could be enlarged to Committees of Five and might meet in intervals between Council sessions; (2)if the accused government consented, Committees were to consider publishing the results of their inquiries; (3)all Committee of Three examinations which did not end in referral of the petition to the Council were to be reported in a “letter” to be filed with the Secretary-General and distributed annually to Council members. PLRRM, pp. 136–45. Schubert's strategy: memoranda, Madrid, June 5–7, 4587H/2365/E184962–64, E184976–78, E185024–25. The critical June 8 Committee meeting: PLRRM, pp, 125–36.

75. The Stresemann-Schubert interview (Madrid, June 10) concerning the latter's blunder: 4587H/2365/E185049–52.

76. State Secretary (Reich Chancellery) Pünder to Foreign Ministry, Reich Chancellor Müller, and State Secretary Meissner, Madrid, June 11, 1929, 4587H/2365/E185115–19. Pünder to Müller, June 12, Akten der Reichskanzlei. Weimarer Republik. Das Kabinett Müller II, I (Boppard am Rhein, 1970), 732–34.Google Scholar

77. PLRRM, pp. 145–49.

78. “ Germany Demands a Minorities Ruling,”New York Times, June 11, 1929. Stresemann told the cabinet on June 21 that this action surpassed the Madrid resolutions, 3575H/1702/D780920–23. The liquidations dispute was finally settled in a bilateral pact (initiated just before Stresemann's death) in which Poland agreed to terminate liquidations in return for German agreement to compensate those who had already suffered expropriation.

79. Summary of the domestic and foreign press: K1773/5456/K437165–66, K437197–99. “Madrid,” Nation und Statt, II (06 1929), 662–65.Google Scholar

80. Stresemann's text, 4587H/2366/E185299–312. Reaction to his “platonic” remarks: “Wo bleibt Minderheitenfrage?” Germania, Sept. 17, 1929. Carl von Loesch (head of the Deutscher Schutzbund), “Vertraulicher Bericht über die Behandlung der Minderheitenfrage…,” K1773/5446/K437276–79. German Minister in Budapest Benzler to Foreign Ministry, Sept. 12, K1772/5456/K437250–51.

81. Upper Silesia: Schubert to Foreign Ministry, Sept. 25, 1929, 4587H/2366/E185437–40. Memel: unsigned memorandum, Sept. 28, 5544H/2749/E387034–39. Yugoslavia: Reinebeck, “… deutsche Minderheit in Südslavien,” Berlin, Sept. 20, Pol. Arch. A.A., Referat Völkerbund, Minderheiten-Beschwerden 35/4.

82. “Stresemanns Minderheitenpolitik,” Nation und Staat, III (10 1929), 2–6.Google Scholar

83. Curtius's minorities diplomacy described in Fink, “Defender of Minorities,” pp. 182–200. In his memoirs (Sechs Jahre Minister der Deutschen Republik [Heidelberg, 1948], pp. 146–53Google Scholar), Curtius records finding Geneva less personally congenial than had his predecessor.

84. Eyck, Erich, A History of the Weimar Republic, II (Science Editions paperback, New York, 1967), 301–302;Google Scholar Craig, Bismarck to Adenauer, pp. 63–68.

85. Anticipating a German protest, the League dispatched an observer: Santoro, Caesar, Through Poland During the Elections of 1930 (Geneva, 1931).Google Scholar

86. Consul Lütgens to Foreign Ministry, Poznań, Oct. 29, 30, Nov. 6, 1930, L683/4101/L216357–61, L216362–63, L216384–86.

87. German deputies in the Sejm fell from 21 to 5, in the Senate from 5 to 3, and in the Assembly of Upper Silesia (where ballots had been printed in Polish and the polling places “guarded” by uniformed Insurgents) from 15 to 7. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Nov. 25, 1930. New York Times, Nov. 25.

88. Rauscher to Foreign Ministry, Nov. 22, 1930, L683/4801/L216391–95. Noebel memorandum to Curtius, Bülow, et al., Dec. 1, 1930, ibid., L216396–99.

89. Curtius would have preferred to limit the German protest to Upper Silesia, where clear-cut evidence of minority discrimination existed, but the Nationalists demanded a condemnation of Poland's national election. M.d.R. Lindeiner-Wildau to Brüning, Berlin, Nov. 26, 1930, L682/4801/L216400–402; “Auswärtiger Ausschuss,” Dec. 2, 1930, Pol. Arch. A.A., Referat Völkerbund, Minderheiten-Beschwerden Deutschland-Polen, 39/6. Curtius's State Secretary, Bülow, an early critic of the League, acknowledged strong pressure from the German Right in this action, but also insisted that the Wilhelmstrasse must “fulfill Stresemann's promises.” Bülow to Rauscher, Nov. 18, 1930, 4569H/2339/E169380–83.

90. League of Nations, Official Journal (1931), pp. 165–79. Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 21–23, 1931.

91. The Völkischer Beobachter on Jan. 27 called it a Kuhhandel, but less partisan observers praised the League's solution, particularly since the debate had been accompanied by troop movements on either side of the Polish-German border. This Council meeting was a personal success for Curtius, who settled petitions from Memel and Poland and played a leading role in the disarmament, economic, and Pan-European discussions. Bülow memorandum, Berlin, Feb. 19, 1931, Pol. Arch. A.A., Referat Völkerbund, Minderheiten-Beschwerden Deutschland-Polen, 39/6.

92. Curtius to Foreign Ministry, Geneva, Sept. 20, 1931, 3147/1564/D662627–28. On Curtius's disobliging tactics: Walters, F. P., A History of the League of Nations (London, 1965), pp. 455–56.Google Scholar

93. The Council's resolution of Sept. 20 omitted Germany's demand that the Polish government sever its ties with the Insurgents. Grazynski continued to function as honorary head as well as voivode of Silesia. Moreover, the trials of the terrorists were not vigorously prosecuted. Consul Illgen to Foreign Ministry, Katowice, Apr. 18, 1931, Pol. Arch. A.A., Referat Völkerbund, Minderheiten-Beschwerden Deutschland-Polen 39/6.

94. Report of the annual meeting of the Verband der deutschen Volksgruppen in Europa, Aug. 23–26, 1931, K1001/4603/K261839–42.

95. Plieg, Ernst-Albrecht, Das Memelland 1920–1939 (Würzburg, 1962), pp. 68–71.Google Scholar League of Nations, Official Journal (1932), pp. 529–47. World Court Reports, III, 19–80.

96. Unsigned memorandum for Brüning, Jan. 20, 1932, Pol. Arch. A.A., Referat Völkerbund, Minderheiten-Beschwerden Deutschland-Polen 40/2.

97. Bülow to Secretary-General Sir Eric Drummond, Berlin, Jan. 19, 1932, ibid..

98. Welczeck referred to the secret Committee of Three report to Council members prescribed by the Madrid resolutions: “Letter from the Representatives of Persia, the United Kingdom and Italy concerning the petition of Messrs Ramm, von Gordon, and Graebe, Geneva, May 23, 1931,” in League of Nations, “ Annual Communication Concerning the Result of the Examination of Petitions by Minorities Committees” (League of Nations Library), III, 7–10. Although Poland had promised this Committee to redress the imbalance in estates to be parcelled, in the new lists 50.1% of the properties in Poznań and 72.8% of the properties in Pomorze belonged to the minority, although it constituted only 35% and 60.7% of the populations of the respective provinces. League of Nations, Official Journal (1932), pp. 1240–49, 1971.

99. Kamphövener (Director of the League of Nations Section) to Foreign Ministry, Geneva, May 21, 1932, L785/5104/L232474–78. Kamphövener to all German Missions, Berlin, June 15, ibid., L232511–31.

100. “Erstarrte Front zur Minderheitenfrage…” Nation und Staat, VI (11 1932), 70–76.Google Scholar“Begräbnis in Genf,” Der Deutschen-Spiegel, IX, No. 4 (1932), 1004–1005.Google Scholar Bülow to Hindenburg, Oct. 10, 1932, K1773/5457/K437867–69.

101. “Schärfste Kritik an der Minderheitenpolitik Polens,” Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Dec. 10 1932. “Die Agrarreformbeschwerde der Deutschen Polens vor dem Völkerbundsrat,” Der Auslanddeutsche, XVI (01 1933), 23–25.Google Scholar

102. Hasselblatt, Werner (Bruns's successor as advisor to the Verband der deutschen Volksgruppen), “Deutschlands Austritt aus dem Völkerbund und die Nationalitätenfrage,” Der Auslanddeutsche, XVI (11 1933), 530–31.Google Scholar

103. World Court Reports, III, 308–11.Google Scholar

104. Text of the pact: Documents on German Foreign Policy, Ser. C, II (Washington, D.C., 1959), 128–29.Google Scholar Although the Wilhelmstrasse anticipated such action (ibid., pp. 139–41), it affected dignified horror at Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck's renunciatory statement ot the League Assembly in September 1934 and at the failure of the signatories of Poland's Minority Treaty to take retaliatory action. K1764/5449/K432817–20; 9295H/3549/E660183.