Minorities Treaty 1918 Unworkable Miller

My Diary at the Conference of Paris, With Documents, by David Hunter Miller. 1924

The Definitive Work on the So-Called Minorities Treaty (1918), and Its Expansive Provisions for Unprecedented Separatist Rights for Jews, at Poland’s Expense

This prodigious diary consists of 21 thick volumes. They feature the implications of the just-concluded Great War (WWI), restitution from Germany, the emergence of new states (notably Poland), the national borders between states, and much more. My review is limited to Volume 13, on the rights of minorities, specifically the Jews in the newly resurrected Polish state.

JEWISH “RIGHTS OF NATIONALITY” IN POLAND REJECTED

A committee at the Conference, reporting on May 16, 1919, rejected some of the sweeping demands of Polish Jews. It describes the situation, (quote). The claims made by the Jews themselves through some of their spokesmen are very wide reaching. A demand, for instance, has been made that the Jewish body should be recognized as a definite nationality which would have separate electoral curias in the Diet and other elected bodies. It was unanimously agreed that these claims could not be accepted, for they would be setting up a State within a State, and would very seriously undermine the authority of the Polish Government. (unquote). (Vol. 13, p. 56).

WHAT DOES SABBATH PROTECTION ENTAIL? DEFYING THE POLISH NATION

Ignacy Jan Paderewski (Vol. 13, p. 177) cited the statement that “Jews will not be obliged to accomplish any acts constituting a violation of their Sabbath”. He pointed out that the sweeping protection of the Jewish Sabbath, according to the Minorities Treaty, could enable Jews to avoid military service in the Polish Army. This led to a lively debate as to whether or not the provisions of the Treaty should explicitly qualify the Jewish right to their Sabbath as a right that does not exempt Jews from military service or other essential duties to the State. (Vol. 13, p. 40, 63, 156, 192, 207).

The foregoing was no idle consideration. It is relevant even today, nearly a century later. There is a class of religious Jews in Israel, the haredim, that actively uses various religious considerations to avoid service in the Israeli Army, and to obtain other special rights. See: The War Within: Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Threat to Democracy and the Nation, and read the detailed Peczkis review.

JEWISH MINORITY RIGHTS: MULTIPLE DOUBLE STANDARDS

An annex to the May 21, 1919 Conference meeting inadvertently clarifies the double standard to which both Jews and Poland were subject. The description is as follows (quote) The other matter on which there is a difference between Poland and Czechoslovakia is the case of the Jews. The Jews in this case are a comparatively small element of the population numbering not more than 300,000. The Jews do not, as in Poland, form a separate community speaking a different language and consisting of a large proportion of the population of some of the towns, and there is comparatively little indication of any tendency on the part of the population to subject them to persecution. In this case, therefore, there does not seem to be any reason for inserting the special clauses giving the Jews control over their own schools or protecting them in the use of their Sabbath. (unquote). (Vol. 13, p. 80)

From the above quote, it is evident that the Minorities Treaty is internally inconsistent in its treatment of Jews and their rights. It implies that, 1). Jews consisting of large populations (as in Poland) are supposed to have more rights than Jews consisting of small populations (as in Czechoslovakia) do; 2). Separatism is supposed to be a protected right for Jews in some nations (e. g, Poland) but not for Jews in other nations (e. g, Czechoslovakia); 3). Somebody is appointed (by whom?) to decide what rights Jews are supposed to be entitled to in what nation.

From the above quote, it is also obvious that nations are treated unequally under the Minorities Treaty. 1). Some nations (e. g, Poland) are required to provide more rights for their minorities (e. g, Jews) than other nations (e. g, Czechoslovakia) are for theirs (e. g, Jews); 2). Some nations (e. g, Poland) are effectively “punished” for having a large population of minorities, while other nations (e. g, Czechoslovakia), with smaller minorities, are not; 3) Somebody is supposed to decide how well Jews are treated in different nations, and determine policies accordingly.

Can Poland being made into a “bad boy”, in constant need of international supervision and “wise nation” intervention [like today!], be far behind? Read: The fantastic and bogus accounts of massive pogroms in 1918-era Poland.

WHEN POLES ARE THE MINORITY, THERE IS NO SUCH CONCERN FOR THE “RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY”

There is another double standard at work. What happens when Poles are the minority? Ignacy Jan Paderewski, who was alongside Roman Dmowski, and who represented Poland at the Conference, pointed out that the Polish minority in Germany did not obtain the same protection that the Jewish minority in Poland was supposed to be entitled. (Vol. 13, pp. 178-179). However, this consideration was summarily rejected at the Conference on the basis of the fact that the Polish minority in Germany was relatively small. (Vol. 13, 192). Once again, it appears that a smaller minority was less favored than a larger minority. [Shouldn’t it, if anything, be the other way around? Isn’t a smaller minority generally more vulnerable, and deserving of more aggressive protection, than a larger minority?] The refusal to grant substantial protection to the Polish minority in Germany, especially in light of the obvious German hostility towards Poles that had intensified since at least the days of Bismarck, rendered the Minorities Treaty a sham.

IGNACY JAN PADEREWSKI: AMORPHOUS DEMANDED JEWISH RIGHTS

In a memorandum, Paderewski (Vol. 13, pp. 171-179) presented Poland’s position on the impending Minorities Treaty. He cited the long history of Polish-Jewish amity, its breach by Jews commonly siding with Poland’s enemies, and its restoration once Jews come to terms with the new Polish state. (Vol. 13, p. 172).

While fully accepting Jewish demands for religious and cultural rights, Paderewski rejected special separate-nation rights for Jews, and pointed out that the other demands of Poland’s Jews were not even internally consistent. Thus, he wrote, (quote) The regulation by the Treaty of details concerning Jewish schools and the right to use the Jewish language [Yiddish] in the Courts of Justice seems to be especially inappropriate, considering that, at the present time, the Jewish question in Poland is a question of violent dissention among the Jewish population itself. One part of the Jewish population only demands complete equality of rights for people of Jewish origin. This has been granted them. The others demand a separate religious organization, endowed by the state with political, national, social, economic, cultural and linguistic attributions, which would transform the Jews into an autonomous nation. Some Jews consider the Jewish dialect used by the majority of Jews in Poland [Yiddish], which is a corrupted German as spoken in the Middle Ages, as inadequate to modern intellectual requirements, and merely adaptable to the Germanisation of Jews when cultivated in schools. Others, on the contrary, wish to regard it as their national language, whereas a part of the Jewish population tends to revive the ancient Hebrew tongue. The actual transitional state of the Jewish question renders it difficult to determine the national and linguistic rights of the Jews in Poland. (unquote). (Vol. 13, p. 175).