144 A REVISION OF THE TREATY chap.

of invaded territory " might be limited to damageresulting from military aggression by land.

This interpretation of the reservation of the AlliedGovernments, namely, that it assimilated offensiveaction by sea or air to offensive action by land, butthat " restoration of invaded territory" could notpossibly include pensions and separation allowances,was adopted by the American Delegation at Paris.They construed the German liability to be in respectof the " direct physical damage to property of non-military character and direct physical injury tocivilians" 1 caused by such aggression; the onlyfurther liability which they admitted being under adifferent part of the President's pronouncements,namely, those relating to breaches of Internationallaw, such as the breach of the Treaty of Neutralityin favour of Belgium, and the illegal treatment ofprisoners of war.

I doubt if any one would ever have challengedthis interpretation if the British Prime Minister hadnot won a General Election by promises to extractfrom Germany more than this interpretation couldjustify, 2 and if the French Government also had notraised unjustifiable expectations. These promiseswere made recklessly. But it was not easy for their

1 Baruch, op. cit. p. 19.

2 As Mr. Baruch puts it (op. cit. p. 4): " At an election held after theArmistice and agreement as to the basic terms of peace, the English people,by an overwhelming majority, returned to power their Prime Minister onthe basis of an increase in the severity of these terms of the peace, especially thoseof reparation." (The italics are mine.)