Within the two countries the Polish people came to dominate, due perhaps to their greater wealth and consequent higher culture. The Lithuanians spoke a peculiar language akin to Sanskrit, hard to understand and little used in writing. The Polish language, on the other hand, was a Slavic tongue more easily understood by the surrounding nations and used more on the printed page. Little by little the educated Lithuanian was forced by circumstances to use Polish as the language of culture. The Lithuanian language was relegated to the unwritten jargon of peasants. The fact that Kosciuszko, the Polish national hero, and Miciewicz, the great Polish poet, were both born in Lithuania but yet were assimilated by Polish culture bear witness to this fact. This cultural assimilation of Lithuania by Poland was gradual and in no way disturbed the harmony of the two peoples, but, if anything, increased it. That harmony was further increased by a common religion, Roman Catholicism. So completely did their religion fill the lives of the peasants of both countries that it was common for a peasant to confuse his religion with his nationality and when asked what was his nationality to reply "Catholic." The great community of interests thus created, and fostered by four centuries of a common religion and a common political life, remained even after the final partition. As late as 1863, when a revolution broke out in Russian Poland, both peoples strove together in the common cause of their longed-for independence.

The first suggestion of discord came about 1883 when the national movement began in Lithuania by the publication of the Auszra in Tilsit. Soon other publications were added, including books and magazines published by Lithuanians in America. The object of the movement was to disseminate a knowledge of the written Lithuanian language among all hitherto illiterate Lithuanians, to increase the appreciation of Lithuanian literature, and above all to spread the knowledge of certain facts among the masses in such a way and to such an extent that they could no longer be exploited. At first the movement met with some opposition from both upper and lower classes of Lithuanians. The Poles opposed it instinctively and soon formed a selfconscious group of "Polanizers," who tried to retain the cultural domination so long conceded. The "Lithuanianizers," encouraged by Russia, as ardently tried to overthrow it. This struggle was in full sway at the outbreak of the war and has formed a rather unhappy background for all efforts of conciliation between the two peoples.

The World War worked havoc with the economic life of both Lithuania and Poland. Their territories were the scenes of many battles and the greater part of all the buildings and improvements was totally destroyed.

In July, 1920, the Bolshevik forces were able once more to occupy Vilna, and on July 12, 1920, the Lithuanian and Russian Governments concluded the Treaty of Moscow. By this treaty Russia gave over the Vilna district and parts of the former provinces of Grodno and Suwalki to Lithuania. 1113 British Foreign and State Papers, p. 1121.

Thus the territory granted to Lithuania by Russia overlapped the territory allotted to Poland by the Supreme Council on December 8, 1919 (the "Curzon Line"). Poland resented this at once, and her resentment was increased by a rumor that the Lithuanian Government had granted to Russia by certain addenda to the treaty the right to use Lithuanian territory in military operations against Poland during "military strategic necessity." 2 During August, 1920, the Polish army suddenly repulsed the Bolshevik forces, and in pursuit came upon territory occupied by the Lithuanian forces, where some fighting took place.

On September 5, 1920 the Polish Chargé d'Affaires telegraphed the League of Nations making certain complaints about Lithuanian treaty concessions to Russia, describing the existing military situation, and begging the League to use its influence to put an end to further bloodshed. On September 8, 1920, the Lithuanian Chargé d'Affaires in London wrote to the League justifying Lithuania's actions and denying any understanding with the Russians against the Poles. The note also stated that the Lithuanian Government had appealed to the British Government for consent to hold a conference in London with British participation in order to settle all Polish-Lithuanian differences, and that if this conference should not take place, the Lithuanian Government would be glad to submit the whole case for arbitration to the League. On September 8, the Polish-Lithuanian dispute was placed on the agenda of the Council meeting to be held in Paris September 16. Poland duly appointed M. Paderewski, and the Lithuanian Government duly appointed M. A. Voldemar, as their respective representatives at the Council.3

When the dispute came up for discussion at the Council meeting, M. Léon Bourgeois raised the question as to the exact capacity under which the League of Nations should attempt to intervene, and inquired whether Lithuania would accept the responsibilities of a member of the League for the purposes of the dispute as provided for in Article 17 of the Covenant. After a good deal of discussion, representatives of both governments were able to accept a resolution formulated by M. Hymans, the Belgian member ? This rumor was most probably true because later Professor Voldemar, who represented Lithuania at the meeting of the Council of the League in Paris on September 17, said: "Par une déclaration annexée au traité, la Lithuanie a en effet, autorisé les troupes Bolshévistes à utiliser son territoire. Mais comment pouvait-elle refuser aux Bolsheviks une faculté qu'elle avait dû laisser aux Polonais eux aussi, alors etabli sur son territoire et notamment à Vilna? La situation militaire à la date de la signature du traité, était d'ailleurs augoissante. Les troupes Bolshévistes étaient déjà sur territoire Lithuanien, où s'arrêteraientelles? Comment limiter l'avancement?" League of Nations Official Journal, Dec. 1920, p. 65. This is a rather remarkable admission against interest in the face of a telegram of only a few days previous denying any understanding with the Bolsheviks against the Poles. See also Documents Diplomatiques concernant les Relations Polono-Lithuanienes, Décembre 1918-Septembre 1920. Document 31, p. 42.

'League of Nations Official Journal, December, 1920, Special Supplement Différend entre la Pologne et la Lithuanie, passim.

of the Council, by which the Lithuanian Government consented to accept for this dispute the obligations of a member of the League. Both governments accepted provisionally the "Curzon Line," and in view of the fact that the zone of Grodna and Lida was still occupied by Soviet troops which the Soviet Government was willing to withdraw provided Lithuania could guarantee that the neutrality of Lithuania would be respected by Poland, and in view of the fact that direct negotiations between the two governments were actually proceeding at Kalwarya, the Council offered to appoint a commission entrusted with the duty of insuring on the spot the maintenance of the terms of the resolution. Everything seemed favorable to a speedy settlement. The League commission, consisting of Colonel Chardigny (France), Major Hersé (Spain), Major Keenan (Great Britain), Captain Yanamaki (Japan), and Colonel Vegera (Italy), was sent out about September 30, 1920, arriving October 4.4

Negotiations between the two governments began on September 30 at Suwalki, and continued through the first days of October. Even during these negotiations a certain amount of fighting continued. On October 7 the Suwalki agreement was signed by the representatives of both governments. The agreement accepted the Curzon line as a provisional line of demarcation and continued it in an easterly direction as far as Bastouny, about forty miles south of Vilna, leaving Vilna to the Lithuanians. The agreement provided for the mutual exchange of prisoners and was to remain in force "until all litigious questions between the Poles and Lithuanians shall be definitely settled." But the ink was scarcely dry on the paper when a new development took place and a new chapter commenced in this eventful history.

On the same day the agreement was signed, the Polish General Zeligowski attacked Lithuanian troops at Orany, and two days later entered Vilna and proclaimed a government called "Central Lithuania." Numerous assertions have been made by the Polish Government that General Zeligowski was a rebel having no official connection with the government; but, there is much evidence from Lithuanian sources that, if Zeligowski's actions were not officially ordered by the Warsaw Government, they were at least acquiesced in, and there is also much evidence to the effect that the Polish Ibid., pp. 64, 65, 74, 75, 95.

5 The Lithuanian-Polish Dispute, Lithuanian Delegation, Second Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva, 1921, p. 55.

• Différend entre la Pologne et la Lithuanie, ibid. Note from Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, pp. 136, 138.

"Letter and telegram from the Lithuanian Chargé at London, ibid., p. 148; letter from the Lithuanian Delegation at Paris, ibid., p. 129; statement of the Lithuanian Chargé at London, ibid., p. 131; note from the Lithuanian Government, Oct. 12, 1920, ibid., p. 133; telegram received by the Secretary General from Kovno, Oct. 13, 1920, ibid., p. 142. See also the very interesting depositions of Lieutenant Grodski, Captains Buczynski and Jovorski and Sous-Lieutenant Slovikovski in The Lithuanian Polish Dispute, Lithuanian Delegation, Second Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva, 1921.

8

Government kept Zeligowski supplied with necessary materials. An eye witness' vivid account of the events following the occupation states that Zeligowski, a native of the Vilna district, was at the head of regiments recruited entirely from the Vilna district in the struggles against the Soviets, and entered Vilna in October, 1920, in response to the people's cry for deliverance. Whatever may be said of Zeligowski's official connections, subsequent events show that he was at Vilna as the people's representative and hero, and that his initiative had been approved by the whole Polish nation.10 Nearly a year later, in the Council meeting of September, 1921, Mr. Balfour said "To this day it is very difficult even for the most impartial spectator of events to know precisely what the attitude of the Polish Government is to the ex-Polish general. Is he a rebel deserving military sentence? Is he a patriot deserving the patriot's crown? We know not. Whenever the exigencies of debate require one answer, that answer is given. When they require the other answer, the other answer is given.""

Now, what was the situation? Had Poland as a member of the League of Nations "resorted to war in disregard of its covenants" under Articles 12, 13 or 15 of the Treaty of Versailles so as to be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League and therefore to be subjected to the severance of all trade and financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenantbreaking state, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the nationals of any other state, whether a member of the League or not?

At the meeting of the Council held in Brussels on October 26, 1920, the Lithuanian representative took this position and asked the President of the Council to summon immediately a plenary meeting of the League of Nations in order that it might express an opinion with regard to the application to Poland of the penalties laid down by Article 16 of the Covenant. Also at various later periods Lithuania requested the application of the penalties of Article 16 to Poland. On the other hand, the Polish representative, M. Askenazy, took the position that Zeligowski's forces were not officially • Différend entre la Pologne et la Lithuanie, ibid., Statement of M. Voldemar at the Council meeting at Brussels, Oct. 26, 1920, p. 151; also telegram of Voldemar to the League, p. 161. Article by Mrs. Cecil Chesterton in The New Witness, Vol. 18, No. 469, p. 266. Nov. 4, 1921.

10 Différend entre la Pologne et la Lithuanie, ibid., p. 151. Statement of M. Askenazy, p. 151.

" League of Nations, Collection des Documents relatifs au Différend entre la Pologne et la Lithuanie. Archives. Documents Oct. 1920 to Apr. 1921. Document 86. Procès Verbal of the seventh meeting of the fourteenth session of the Council. (The collection of documents here cited have been assembled by the secretariat of the League in seven large volIn this collection are placed either the original documents themselves or a copy from the original document. Thus they form the chief authoritative source of information on this question. The documents placed in these volumes are numbered, and hereafter in this paper the collection will be cited simply "Archives" with the document number.)

umes.

Polish forces, that the armistice agreement of Suwalki of October 7 had thus resulted in a cessation of hostilities between Polish and Lithuanian troops, and in view of the armistice and peace preliminaries between Poland and the Soviet Government signed at Riga on October 12, 1920, the Polish-Lithuanian dispute as submitted by the Polish Government to the League on September 5 may be considered as no longer existing. This position was not at all acceptable to the Council, M. Léon Bourgeois pointing out that when two states had submitted a dispute to the League of Nations, one of the parties on its own authority could not withdraw. The Polish representative later withdrew from this position and accepted the competence of the Council. However, the Council showed no disposition to attempt to apply the penalties of Article 16 of the Covenant, but preferred to seek a more amicable settlement, and since both governments had expressed their wish that the possession of the contested territories should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the population, M. Hymans, the Belgian representative on the Council, proposed the holding of a plebiscite to be carried out under the supervision of the League of Nations. Both governments accepted the proposal, making certain observations as to the extent of territory to be covered by the plebiscite, and the Council began its preparations for a plebiscite commission and an international force to insure the proper carrying out of the plebiscite.12

The Plebiscite Commission was instructed to attempt to bring about an agreement between the two countries as to what territory should be included within the plebiscite, to prepare regulations and to supervise the taking of the popular expression of opinion. 13 Many difficulties were met. Questions arose as to whether a vote by secret ballot should be taken, or whether mass meetings should be held in the towns at which popular opinion might be expressed. The most difficult situation of all was in the city of Vilna itself where General Zeligowski and his troops were still stationed. How to disarm them so as to allow a free expression of opinion?

The commission began its work, and on November 29, 1920, succeeded in having an armistice signed by the Lithuanian and Polish Governments, the latter government guaranteeing that General Zeligowski would observe its conditions. 14 Many attempts were made by the commission to obtain some agreement between the two governments as to the territory to be included within the plebiscite, but these attempts proved futile; and on December 31, 1920, the two governments informed the Plebiscite Commission that they regarded an agreement between themselves on this question as impossible.15

In the meantime, preparations for an international force of 1500 men were

League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement, December, 1920. Différend entre la Pologne et la Lithuanie," pp. 152, 153, 169, 181, 194.

" Archives, Vol. 1-2, Documents 3, 16, and 17.

14 Archives, Vol. 1-2, Document 2; Vol. 3, Documents 86 and 97.

1 Ibid., Document 31.