Order Of Saint Maurice Nomination: Fill & Download for Free

The Treaty of Lausanne at Article 6, 12, 13, 14, 15 states that the boundaries of Turkey is within 3 miles from its shore and that the islands ARE GREEK except those given to Italy and then given from Italy to Greece.Of course Turkey never respects any Treaties they sign.TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNEJULY 24, 1923THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNETHE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE,of the one part,and TURKEY,of the other part; Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friendship and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples,And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States,Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA:The Right Honourable Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner at Constantinople;THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC:General Maurice Pelle, Ambassador of France, High Com missioner of the Republic in the East, Grand Officer of the National Order of the Legion of Honour;HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY:The Honourable Marquis Camillo Garroni, Senator of the Kingdom, Ambassador of Italy, High Commissioner at Constantinople, Grand Cross of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, and of the Crown of Italy;M. Giulio Cesare Montagna, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Athens, Commander of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, Grand Officer of the Crown of Italy;HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN:Mr. Kentaro Otchiai, Jusammi, First Class of the Order of the Rising Sun, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Rome;HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES:M. Eleftherios K. Veniselos, formerly President of the Council of Ministers, Grand Cross of the Order of the Saviour;M. Demetrios Caclamanos, Minister Plenipotentiary at London, Commander of the Order of the Saviour;HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ROUMANIA:M. Constantine I. Diamandy, Minister Plenipotentiary;M. Constantine Contzesco, Minister Plenipotentiary;HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE SERBS, THE CROATS AND THE SLOVENES:Dr. Miloutine Yovanovitch, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne;THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY:Ismet Pasha, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy for Adrianople; Dr. Riza Nour Bey, Minister for Health and for Public Assistance, Deputy for Sinope;Hassan Bey, formerly Minister, Deputy for Trebizond;Who, having produced their full powers, found in good and due orm, have agreed as follows:PART I.POLITICAL CLAUSES.ARTICLE I.From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals. Official relations will be resumed on both sides and, in the respective territories, diplomatic and consular representatives will receive, without prejudice to such agreements as may be concluded in the future, treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.SECTION I.I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.ARTICLE 2.From the Black Sea to the Aegean the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows: (I) With Bulgaria:From the mouth of the River Rezvaya, to the River Maritza, the point of junction of the three frontiers of Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece:the southern frontier of Bulgaria as at present demarcated;(2) With Greece:Thence to the confluence of the Arda and the Marilza:the course of the Maritza;then upstream along the Arda, up to a point on that river to be determined on the spot in the immediate neighbourhood of the village of Tchorek-Keuy:the course of the Arda;thence in a south-easterly direction up to a point on the Maritza, 1 kilom. below Bosna-Keuy:a roughly straight line leaving in Turkish territory the village of Bosna-Keuy. The village of Tchorek-Keuy shall be assigned to Greece or to Turkey according as the majority of the population shall be found to be Greek or Turkish by the Commission for which provision is made in Article 5, the population which has migrated into this village after the 11th October, 1922, not being taken into account;thence to the Aegean Sea:the course of the Maritza.ARTICLE 3.From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:(I ) With Syria:The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921(2) With Iraq:The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.ARTICLE 4.The frontiers described by the present Treaty are traced on the one-in-a-million maps attached to the present Treaty. In case of divergence between the text and the map, the text will prevail. [See Introduction.]ARTICLE 5.A Boundary Commission will be appointed to trace on the ground the frontier defined in Article 2 (2). This Commission will be composed of representatives of Greece and of Turkey, each Power appointing one representative, and a president chosen by them from the nationals of a third Power.They shall endeavour in all cases to follow as nearly as possible the descriptions given in the present Treaty, taking into account as far as possible administrative boundaries and local economic interests.The decision of the Commission will be taken by a majority and shall be binding on the parties concerned.The expenses of the Commission shall be borne in equal shares by the parties concerned.ARTICLE 6.In so far as concerns frontiers defined by a waterway as distinct from its banks, the phrases "course" or "channel" used in the descriptions of the present Treaty signify, as regards non-navigable rivers, the median line of the waterway or of its principal branch, and, as regards navigable rivers, the median line of the principal channel of navigation. It will rest with the Boundary Commission to specify whether the frontier line shall follow any changes of the course or channel which may take place, or whether it shall be definitely fixed by the position of the course or channel at the time when the present Treaty comes into force.In the absence of provisions to the contrary, in the present Treaty, islands and islets Iying within three miles of the coast are included within the frontier of the coastal State.ARTICLE 7.The various States concerned undertake to furnish to the Boundary Commission all documents necessary for its task, especially authentic copies of agreements fixing existing or old frontiers, all large scale maps in existence, geodetic data, surveys completed but unpublished, and information concerning the changes of frontier watercourses. The maps, geodetic data, and surveys, even if unpublished, which are in the possession of the Turkish authorities, must be delivered at Constantinople with the least possible delay from the coming into force of the present Treaty to the President of the Commission.The States concerned also undertake to instruct the local authorities to communicate to the Commission all documents, especially plans, cadastral and land books, and to furnish on demand all details regarding property, existing economic conditions and other necessary information.ARTICLE 8.The various States interested undertake to give every assistance to the Boundary Commission, whether directly or through local authorities, in everything that concerns transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars) necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.In particular, the Turkish Government undertakes to furnish, if required, the technical personnel necessary to assist the Boundary Commission in the accomplishment of its duties.ARTICLE 9.The various States interested undertake to safeguard the trigonometrical points, signals, posts or frontier marks erected by the Commission.ARTICLE 10.The pillars will be placed so as to be intervisible. They will be numbered, and their position and their number will be noted on a cartographic document.ARTICLE 11.The protocols defining the boundary and the maps and documents attached thereto will be made out in triplicate, of which two copies will be forwarded to the Governments of the limitrophe States, and the third to the Government of the French Republic, which will deliver authentic copies to the Powers who sign the present Treaty.ARTICLE 12.The decision taken on the 13th February, 1914, by the Conference of London, in virtue of Articles 5 of the Treaty of London of the 17th-30th May, 1913, and 15 of the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-14th November, 1913, which decision was communicated to the Greek Government on the 13th February, 1914, regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty respecting the islands placed under the sovereigntyof Italy which form the subject of Article 15.Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty.ARTICLE 13.With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:(I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.(2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.(3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.ARTICLE 14.The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos.ARTICLE 15.Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.ARTICLE I6.Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.ARTICLE 17.The renunciation by Turkey of all rights and titles over Egypt and over the Soudan will take effect as from the 5th November, 1914.ARTICLE 18.Turkey is released from all undertakings and obligations in regard to the Ottoman loans guaranteed on the Egyptian tribute, that is to say, the loans of 1855, 1891 and 1894. The annual payments made by Egypt for the service of these loans now forming part of the service of the Egyptian Public Debt, Egypt is freed from all other obligations relating to the Ottoman Public Debt.ARTICLE 19.Any questions arising from the recognition of the State of Egypt shall be settled by agreements to be negotiated subsequently in a manner to be determined later between the Powers concerned. The provisions of the present Treaty relating to territories detached from Turkey under the said Treaty will not apply to Egypt.ARTICLE 20.Turkey hereby recognises the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by the British Government on the sth November, 1914.ARTICLE 2I .Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on the 5th November, 1914, will acquire British nationality subject to the conditions laid down in the local law, and will thereupon lose their Turkish nationality. They will, however, have the right to opt for Turkish nationality within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, provided that they leave Cyprus within twelve months after having so opted.Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on the coming into force of the present Treaty who, at that date, have acquired or are in process of acquiring British nationality in consequence of a request made in accordance with the local law, will also thereupon lose their Turkish nationality.It is understood that the Government of Cyprus will be entitled to refuse British nationality to inhabitants of the island who, being Turkish nationals, had formerly acquired another nationality without the consent of the Turkish Government.ARTICLE 22.Without prejudice to the general stipulations of Article 27, Turkey hereby recognises the definite abolition of all rights and privileges whatsoever which she enjoyed in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne of the 18th October, 1912, and the instruments connected therewith.2. SPECIAL PROVISIONS.ARTICLE 23.The High Contracting Parties are agreed to recognise and declare the principle of freedom of transit and of navigation, by sea and by air, in time of peace as in time of war, in the strait of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus, as prescribed in the separate Convention signed this day, regarding the regime of the Straits. This Convention will have the same force and effect in so far as the present High Contracting Parties are concerned as if it formed part of the present Treaty.ARTICLE 24.The separate Convention signed this day respecting the regime for the frontier described in Article 2 of the present Treaty will have equal force and effect in so far as the present High Contracting Parties are concerned as if it formed part of the present Treaty.ARTICLE 25.Turkey undertakes to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and additional Conventions concluded by the other Contracting Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of Turkey, and to recognise whatever dispositions have been or may be made concerning the territories of the former German Empire, of Austria, of Hungary and of Bulgaria, and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.ARTICLE 26.Turkey hereby recognises and accepts the frontiers of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and the Czechoslovak State, as these frontiers have been or may be determined by the Treaties referred to in Article 25 or by any supplementary conventions.ARTICLE 27.No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.ARTICLE 28.Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.ARTICLE 29.Moroccans, who are French nationals ("ressortissants") and Tunisians shall enjoy in Turkey the same treatment in all respects as other French nationals ("ressortissants").Natives ("ressortissants") of Libya shall enjoy in Turkey the same treatment in all respects as other Italian nationals ("ressortissants") .The stipulations of the present Article in no way prejudge the nationality of persons of Tunisian, Libyan and Moroccan origin established in Turkey.Reciprocally, in the territories the inhabitants of which benefit by the stipulations of the first and second paragraphs of this Article, Turkish nationals shall benefit by the same treatment as in France and in Italy respectively.The treatment to which merchandise originating in or destined for the territories, the inhabitants of which benefit from the stipulations of the first paragraph of this Article, shall be subject in Turkey, and, reciprocally, the treatment to which merchandise originating in or destined for Turkey shall be subject in the said territories shall be settled by agreement between the French and Turkish Governments.SECTION II .NATIONALITY.ARTICLE 30.Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.ARTICLE 31.Persons over eighteen years of age, losing their Turkish nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30, shall be entitled within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for Turkish nationality.ARTICLE 32.Persons over eighteen years of age, habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey in accordance with the present Treaty, and differing in race from the majority of the population of such territory shall, within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, be entitled to opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt, subject to the consent of that State.ARTICLE 33.Persons who have exercised the right to opt in accordance with the provisions of Articles 31 and 32 must, within the succeeding twelve months, transfer their place of residence to the State for which they have opted.They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in the territory of the other State where they had their place of residence before exercising their right to opt.They may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export or import duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.ARTICLE 34.Subject to any agreements which it may be necessary to conclude between the Governments exercising authority in the countries detached from Turkey and the Governments of the countries where the persons concerned are resident, Turkish nationals of over eighteen years of age who are natives of a territory detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, and who on its coming into force are habitually resident abroad, may opt for the nationality of the territory of which they are natives, if they belong by race to the majority of the population of that territory, and subject to theconsent of the Government exercising authority therein. This right of option must be exercised within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty.ARTICLE 35.The Contracting Powers undertake to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of the right which the persons concerned have under the present Treaty, or under the Treaties of Peace concluded with Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Hungary, or under any Treaty concluded by the said Powers, other than Turkey, or any of them, with Russia, or between themselves, to choose any other nationality which may be open to them.ARTICLE 36.For the purposes of the provisions of this Section, the status of a married woman will be governed by that of her husband, and the status of children under eighteen years of age by that of their parents.SECTION III.PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.ARTICLE 37.Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.ARTICLE 38.The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.ARTICLE 39.Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.ARTICLE 40.Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.ARTICLE 41.As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.ARTICLE 42.The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.ARTICLE 43.Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.ARTICLE 44.Turkey agrees that, in so far as the preceding Articles of this Section affect non-Moslem nationals of Turkey, these provisions constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent to any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.Turkey agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.Turkey further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or of fact arising out of these Articles between the Turkish Government and any one of the other Signatory Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Turkish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.ARTICLE 45.The rights conferred by the provisions of the present Section on the non-Moslem minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Moslem minority in her territory.PART II.FINANCIAL CLAUSES.SECTION I.OTTOMAN PUBLIC DEBT.ARTICLE 46.The Ottoman Public Debt, as defined in the Table annexed to the present Section, shall be distributed under the conditions laid down in the present Section between Turkey, the States in favour of which territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars of 1912-13, the States to which the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 of the present Treaty and the territory referred to in the last paragraph of the present Article have been attributed, and the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty. All the above St ates shall also participate, under the conditions laid down in the present Section, in the annual charges for the service of the Ottoman Public Debt from the dates referred to in Article 53.From the dates laid down in Article 53, Turkey shall not be held in any way whatsoever responsible for the shares of the Debt for which other States are liable.For the purpose of the distribution of the Ottoman Public Debt, that portion of the territory of Thrace which was under Turkish sovereignty on the 1st August, 1914, and lies outside the boundaries of Turkey as laid down by Article 2 of the present Treaty, shall be deemed to be detached from the Ottoman Empire under the said Treaty.ARTICLE 47.The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine, on the basis laid down by Articles 50 and 51, the amounts of the annuities for the loans referred to in Part A of the Table annexed to the present Section which are payable by each of the States concerned, and shall notify to them this amount.These States shall be granted an opportunity to send to Constantinople delegates to check the calculations made for this purpose by the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt.The Council of the Debt shall exercise the functions referred to in Article 134 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria of the 27th November, 1919.Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.ARTICLE 48.The States, other than Turkey, among which the Ottoman Public Debt, as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section is attributed, shall, within three months from the date on which they are notified, in accordance with Article 47, of their respective shares in the annual charges referred to in that Article, assign to the Council of the Debt adequate security for the payment of their share. If such security is not assigned within the above-mentioned period, or in the case of any disagreement as to the adequacy of the security assigned, any of the Governments signatory to the present Treaty shall be entitled to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations.The Council of the League of Nations shall be empowered to entrust the collection of the revenues assigned as security to international financial organisations existing in the countries (other than Turkey) among which the Debt is distributed. The decisions of the Council of the League of Nations shall be final.ARTICLE 49Within one month from the date of the final determination under Article 47 of the amount of the annuities for which each of the States concerned is liable, a Commission shall meet in Paris to determine the method of carrying out the distribution of the nominal capital of the Ottoman Public Debt as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section. This distribution shall be made in accordance with the proportions adopted for the division of the annuities, and account shall be taken of the terms of the agreements governing the loans and of the provisions of this Section.The Commission referred to in the first paragraph shall consist of a representative of the Turkish Government, a representative of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt, a representative of the debt other than the Unified Debt and the Lots Turcs; each of the Governments concerned shall also be entitled to appoint a representative. All questions in regard to which the Commission may be unable to reach agreement shall be referred to the arbitrator referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 47.If Turkey shall decide to create new securities in respect of her share, the distribution of the capital of the Ottoman Public Debt shall be made in the first instance as it affects Turkey by a Committee consisting of the representative of the Turkish Government, the representative of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt and the representative of the debt other than the Unified Debt and the Lots Turcs. The new securities shall be delivered to the Commission, which shall ensure their delivery to the bondholders upon such terms as will provide for the release of Turkey from liability and the rights of the bondholders towards the other States which are liable for a share of the Ottoman Public Debt. The securities issued in respect of the share of each State in the Ottoman Public Debt shall be exempt in the territory of the High Contracting Parties from all stamp duties or other taxes which would be involved by such issue.The payment of the annuities for which each of the States concerned is liable shall not be postponed as a consequence of the provisions of the present Article in regard to the distribution of the nominal capital.ARTICLE 50.The distribution of the annual charges referred to in Article 47 and of the nominal capital of the Ottoman Public Debt mentioned in Article 49 shall be effected in the following manner:(1) The loans prior to the 17th October, 1912, and the annuities of such loans shall be distributed between the Ottoman Empire as it existed after the Balkan wars of 1912-13, the Balkan States in favour of which territory was detached from the Ottoman Empire after those wars, and the States to which the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 of the present Treaty have been attributed; account shall be taken of the territorial changes which have taken place after the coming into force of the treaties which ended those wars or subsequent treaties.(2) The residue of the loans for which the Ottoman Empire remained liable after this first distribution and the residue of the annuities of such loans, together with the loans contracted by that Empire between the 17th October, 1912, and the 1st November, 1914, and the annuities of such loans shall be distributed between Turkey, the newly created States in Asia in favour of which a territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and the State to which the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46 of the said Treaty has been attributed.The distribution of the capital shall in the case of each loan be based on the capital amount outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.ARTICLE 51 .The amount of the share in the annual charges of the Ottoman Public Debt for which each State concerned is liable in conse- quence of the distribution provided for by Article 50 shall be determined as follows:(I) As regards the distribution provided for by Article 50 (1), in the first place the share of the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 and of the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars, taken together, shall be fixed. The amount of this share shall bear the same proportion to the total sum of the annuities to be distributed in accordance with Article 50 (1) as the average total revenue of the above mentioned islands and territories, taken as a whole, bore to the average total revenue of the Ottoman Empire in the financial years 1910-1911 and 1911-1912, including the proceeds of the customs surtaxes established in 1907.The amount thus determined shall then be distributed among the States to which the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph have been attributed, and the share for which each of these States will thus be made liable shall bear the same proportion to the total amount so distributed as the average total revenue of the territory attributed to each State bore in the financial years 1910-11 and 1911-12 to the average total revenue of the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan Wars and the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15. In calculating the revenues referred to in this paragraph, customs revenues shall be excluded.(2) As regards the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty (including the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46), the amount of the share of each State concerned shall bear the same proportion to the total sum of the annuities to be distributed in accordance with Article 50 (2) as the average total revenue of the detached territory (including the proceeds of the Customs surtax established in 1907) for the financial years 1910-11 and 1911-12 bore to the average total revenue of the Ottoman Empire, excluding the territories and islands referred to in paragraph (I) of this Article.ARTICLE 52.The advances referred to in Part B of the Table annexed to the present Section shall be distributed between Turkey and the other States referred to in Article 46 under the following conditions:(I) As regards the advances referred to in the Table which existed on the 17th October, 1912, the capital amount, if any, outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, together with the interest from the dates mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 53 and the repayments made since those dates, shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 (I) and Article 51 (1).(2) As regards the amounts for which the Ottoman Empire remains liable after the first distribution and the advances referred to in the Table which were contracted by the said Empire between the 17th October, 1912, and the 1st November, 1914, the capital amount, if any, outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, together with the interest from the 1st March, 1920, and the repayments made since that date, shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 (2) and Article 51 (2).The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine the amount of the share in these advances for which each of the States concerned is liable, and notify them of such amount.The sums for which States other than Turkey are liable shall be paid by those States to the Council of the Debt and shall be paid by the Council to the creditors, or credited to the Turkish Government up to the amount paid by Turkey, by way of interest or repayment, for the account of those States.The payments referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be made by five equal annuities from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Such portion of these payments as is payable to the creditors of the Ottoman Empire shall bear interest at the rates laid down in the contracts governing the advances; the portion to be credited to the Turkish Government shall be paid without interest.ARTICLE 53.The annuities for the service of the loans of the Ottoman Public Debt (as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section) due by the States in favour of which a territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars, shall be payable as from the coming into force of the treaties by which the respective territories were transferred to those States. In the case of the islands referred to in Article 12, the annuity shall be payable as from the 1st/14th November, 1913, and, in the case of the islands referred to in Article 15, as from the 17th October, 1912.The annuities due by the States newly created in territories in Asia detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and by the State to which the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46 has been attributed, shall be payable as from the 1st March, 1920.ARTICLE 54.The Treasury Bills of 1911, 1912 and 1913 included in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section shall be repaid, with interest at the agreed rate, within ten years from the dates fixed by the contracts.ARTICLE 55.The States referred to in Article 46, including Turkey, shall pay to the Ottoman Debt Council the amount of the annuities required for the service of their share of the Ottoman Public Debt (as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section) to the extent that such annuities have remained unpaid as from the dates laid down by Article 53. This payment shall be made, without interest, by means of twenty equal annuities from the coming into force of the present Treaty.The amount of the annuities paid to the Council of the Debt by the States other than Turkey shall, to the extent that they represent payments made by Turkey for the account of those States, be credited to Turkey on account of the arrears with which she is debited.ARTICLE 56.The Council of the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt shall no longer include delegates of the German, Austrian and Hungarian bondholders.ARTICLE 57.Limits of time fixed for the presentation of coupons of or claims for interest upon the loans and advances of the Ottoman Public Debt and the Turkish Loans of 1855, 1891 and 1894 secured on the Egyptian tribute, and the limits of time fixed for the presentation of securities of these loans drawn for repayment, shall, on the territory of the High Contracting Parties, be considered as having been suspended from the 29th October, 1914, until three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty.

Disclaimer: this is going to be long. Very long. Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.“I know well the responsibilities that can be attributed to this nation, the errors she made. Some are political in nature, and History alone will be able to value them adequately. Our adversaries, for example, refuse to admit that the French Legion against Bolshevism was hindered by some Germans, because it threatened to give too much merit to France in the event of a German victory. In any case, it is no secret that in Germany there has always been a struggle, which is only normal, between those who desired a European reconciliation and a new order, and those who would ensure their country’s domination through an imperialistic war in the old style, fostering the “divide and conquer”, refusing to give assurances on the fate of occupied peoples and thus causing that growing hostility towards the occupant that later became generalized in Europe. Other errors are more easily apparent to the people and it would not be possible to discuss them [in court] with much of a chance to be listened to.”— entry for November 6th, 1944 from Robert Brasillach’s prison diary.In fact, France’s demographic* and industrial near-parity with Germany made the country’s role in Hitler’s New European Order into a very complex issue: on the one hand, it was a huge basin of potential allies, if the two countries’ interests could be made to coincide; but for the same reason, the French element could become dangerous competition in leading the “New European Order”, if allowed too much influence.(*Because of her demographic stagnation, however, the country was predicted by many both within and outside of it to become less competitive among other European industrial/demographic powerhouses, eg. Germany and the UK. Ironically, it was under Vichy that the birthrate rose starting in 1942 and reaching by 1945 the highest rate in a century)Other than the French volunteers in Russia mentioned by Brasillach, and on whom we’ll return later, French soldiers under direct orders from Vichy also fought the Allies, most famously in Syria, where in the Summer of 1941 the French Foreign Legion (one of the units traditionally supplying manpower for colonial garrisons) wrote one of the darkest chapters in its history, as (Gaullist) Legionnaires fought (Vichy) Legionnaires.Technically speaking, in 1940 the Vichy Republic was the legal heir to the Third Republic, and Marshall Pétain was constitutionally appointed PM by President Lebrun; the UK and the USA also recognized its legitimacy and de Gaulle’s call to arms from the BBC in London, while a smart and brave move, was not predictable, nor exactly the traditional way to gain legitimacy — although we tend to excuse that, in light of the catastrophic circumstance he was in. This led to the French Colonial Empire mostly remaining loyal to Vichy and fighting against both British and Free French (Gaullist) troops (not without reasonable considerations of territorial integrity, either: the Cape Colony passed from the Dutch to the British, in 1795, in similar circumstances, and remained in British hands even after Napoleon was defeated). Indeed, one of the reasons why the Free French had to adopt the Cross of Lorraine was that the Vichy government had inherited all the Third Republic’s military insigna, eg. airplane roundels and such:Vichy Air Force roundel.Free French Air Force roundel.Some of the most notable among these confrontations were:1940:In the most infamous among these incidents, at Mers-el-Kébir (French Algeria, July 3) the British Royal Navy shelled the French Navy, killing 1297 sailors, to avoid the risk of them handing their ships to the Germans, despite receiving promises to the contrary by admiral François Darlan; the latter went on to be part of Vichy government and consider waging naval warfare against the British;a retaliatory bombing raid over Gibraltar (July 18), with no material effect;a failed attack by the Gaullists, British and Australian troops on Dakar (French Senegal, September), which had little to no military consequence, but proved to be a terrible failure for de Gaulle’s standing among the Allies, right as he was trying to prove that his unorthodox stunt at the BBC of June 17, 1940 had been successful in winning over the French to their side.a minor success for the Gaullists, two months after Dakar, was achieved in the Battle of Gabon (French Equatorial Africa, November), which was easily taken over — although, again, de Gaulle failed to win over the Vichy prisoners and part of the French civilians.Strasbourg slips her moorings and makes for the pass, at Mers-el-Kebir, on 1940, July 3. On the right, Bretagne has been stricken: most of the casualties were from her crew.1941:on Christmas Eve 1941, a Free French party easily took over the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, off the coast of Canada: again, this provoked more diplomatic consequences than else, as de Gaulle’s troops had infringed upon the Monroe doctrine, and both Roosevelt and Churchill were incensed with him for not being even informed of the plan — the US and Canadian governments threatened intervention, but the pettiness of the territory in question made the whole affair be quickly forgotten.1942:The British engaged Vichy forces in Madagascar (May 5-November 6) and Réunion (November 28): the former was the first big-scale Allied combined arms operation of the war.Territorial losses of originally Vichy-held territories: red, lost by September 1940; pink, lost by November 1942; dark bright blue (metropolitan) and light bright blue (colonial), territory lost after Operation Torch in November 1942, with green (French Tunisia) occupied at that time by Axis forces and finally lost by May 1943; cyan, territory nominally under Vichy but administered by German military authorities, and dark cyan, the zone libre directly under Vichy control until occupied by Axis forces in November 1942 (with Corsica falling to the Allies by September 1943); French Somaliland and French West Indies, lost by July 1943; bright yellow (Tonkin) under de facto Japanese occupation by September 1940 and pale yellow (the rest of French Indochina) under Thai and Japanese occupation by July 1941.A little-known but bizarre and gruesome fate also befell the Vichy-led French Foreign Legion garrison in Indochina: their Japanese neighbors formally respected their nominal alliance, with individual units of the Imperial Japanese Army trying to provoke border incidents in order to force their superiors to invade (as per the precedent of the Mukden Incident in 1931). Tense negotiations as well as skirmishes happened in 1940; then, Japanese apologies and a French agreement to the stationing of 40 000 Japanese troops, who didn’t come until late July 1941, when 140 000 IJA troops entered French Indochina in preparation for the invasion of the Dutch East Indies campaign that was to come after Pearl Harbor; and finally, on March 9, 1945, the Japanese violently deposed French civilian and military authorities, decapitating a good number of prisoners from the Foreign Legion and the civilian administration mere months from the end of the war.As for Europe, unlike what other answers seem to suggest, the utter majority of the civilian population not just in France but also in the rest of Western Europe was lukewarm-to-indifferent to the political developments: especially in the case of the dramatic fall of France in the Summer of 1940, the political/ideological events were simply too complex for anybody but fanatical believers of fanatical ideologies to have an answer at hand. Despite the convenient postwar story of everybody and his dog having been staunch résistants from day 1, it took a lot of soul-searching to decide one way or the other, and most people simply weren’t interested in putting in all that effort. The word on the streets during those chaotic first months of occupation in 1940 was that the Germans were “pas si méchants” — “not as bad [as depicted by Great War literature]”, a point which was also strongly propagandized by French Communists, as Nazi Germany would become a greater enemy than the old “bourgeois dictatorship” to orthodox Stalinists worldwide only one full year later, after 3:15 AM on Sunday, June 22, 1941.This holds true for France as much as it does for Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the whole of the occupied Western Europe; whereas Poles, for example, couldn’t afford the luxury of doubt, as their daily lives were made up of dodging łapanki, summary executions, genocidally-motived arrests and murders of academics, officers, teachers, doctors, etc.Whereas in France, both the zone libre directly controlled by Petain’s and Laval’s government in the South and the Northern part under German military administration lived in relative physical tranquility, if with the anguishing question of what was to come. A group of pro-German intellectuals formed in Paris, who soon grew intolerant of what looked like Vichy’s opportunistic waiting game: other than tiptoeing on whether to invite the Communists into government or outlawing them, and other than the socially-conservative and economically-progressive Révolution nationale, Vichy avoided taking sides whenever possible, and was initially strongly opposed to the idea of military collaboration with the German Wehrmacht, whether for the (diminished) Vichy French Army or for ad hoc raised volunteer units. The German military administration, on the other hand, didn’t particularly trust Vichy, either.Left: the situation after the peace of June, 1940; Center: after Fall Anton, the German/Italian military occupation of the South in November 1942; Right: the situation after the Italian coup and then Armistice in September 1943: after D-Day and the fall of Paris, the Vichy government was forcibly removed to Sigmaringen, Bavaria, where Pétain refused to exercise his functions anymore. The coast is outlined in red in all three maps to mark the 20 km-wide zone interdite, originally kept out-of-bounds for French civilians; but the latter made it through, and the German garrison guarding the line were unofficially withdrawn in December 1941.The opposition to creating voluntary military formations to fight against the Allies was slowly rolled back and lifted due to pressure from Axis-leaning intellectuals and civilians; to German diktat; and to the developments of the war. The volunteer formations can be neatly divided into three groups, with very different goals and legal status; from smallest to biggest:The 400-strong battalion known as Phalange Africaine, which was to be the first of a never-completed Légion Impériale, was raised in November 1942 to strengthen the weak, conscript Vichy Army garrison in North Africa after the impetuous start of the Allied Operation Torch in North Africa. An explicitly Vichy-affiliated unit, with French uniforms and German helmets and equipment, it sported Vichy insignia. It fought in Axis-occupied North Africa against the Americans, the British and the Free French until the collapse of that front in May 1943;Phalange Africaine troops. Notice the flag bearing the double axe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Philippe_P%C3%A9tain,_Chief_of_State_of_Vichy_France.svg), an explicitly Vichy political symbol — for non-ideological uses, Vichy used the clean prewar tricolor.on January 30, 1943 the Service d’ordre légionnaire militia, unaffiliated with Vichy as the latter deemed it too radical, was officially put under SS command as the Milice française and tasked with sweeping up draft dodgers and countering the Maquisard guerrilla — soon becoming infamous for their methods, and feared more than even the Gestapo. Under German control but officially a Vichy organization. Before the Milice, the Special Brigades of the French police had assisted the Gestapo and the Carlingue (from 1941 to 1944) had been the French auxiliaries within the Gestapo itself;The Milice seem to have worn either dark blue or khaki field uniforms. They appear to be using British Sten submachineguns in more than one photo of the time.13 000 volunteers reported for recruiting, of which 5800 were enlisted into the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism when it was created, right after the start of Operation Barbarossa (June 22, 1941), with no formal link to the Vichy government other than the authorization to recruit French citizens for its ranks (to a large extent veterans of past wars); it was placed under the control of the Heer (Army) and wore French-style khaki uniforms while in France and German uniforms and hardware with French insignia on the field, with the explicit accord that it would only be used to fight against the Soviets. As hinted to by the numbers above, selection was very severe, and a great many veterans of wars past made it into the ranks.Men from the Légion des volontaires français contre le bolchévisme, incorporated into the German Heer, in Russia. Notice how they shoulder their rifles the French, rather than the German, way: many of these volunteers had previously served in the French Army, some in WWI, and the Germans allowing them to maintain some part of French military traditions obviously had strong political meaning.So much for the internal politicking. As for the volunteers theselves, most of those who served in France-bound units such as the Milice seem to have had their roots in the Fascistoid fringe organizations of the late 30s (most of those, in turn, had been Communists in the early 30s): no less than seven different organizations; whereas many of those Frenchmen who went on to fight in German uniforms seem to only have made up their minds after the chaotic worldwide upheavals of 1940, first among them the facts of Mers-el-Kébir. The utter political extremization of the 30s and, more importantly, the boost in credibility towards all political fringes consequent to the collapse of the establishment did the rest of the convincing.The bigger initial obstacle to the penetration of pro-Axis propaganda was a residual feeling of camaraderie and shared interests with the British: at the same time, imperial competition and historical anti-British sentiment was not so far in time as not to offer competition to the more recent anti-Germanism, or at least to leave some wiggle room after Dunkirk; and the former prejudice, mostly passed down through memories of one of the many fights for access and supremacy on the oceans in the last centuries, would fit very well the “Axis French” concept of the British selling out European interests to the newly arising American and Soviet “overlords” for the sake of maintaining some part of their “spot in the sun”. Memories of Napoleonic struggle, as well as traditional stories of Norman and Breton corsairs and pirates (those regions had a fame similar to that of Cornwall in Britain, and Saint-Malo was famous as a “capital” of sorts in this field) were family lore, and relatively close in time; and history after Dunkirk could well be interpreted as a return to an “inevitable struggle” for the seas between France and Britain.Two quotes to try to bring the immediacy of that perspective closer to our eyes.Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, WWI veteran, novelist and journalist, writing privately in July 1940 (and the early date explains a few unrealistic considerations):Groups of NationsWe must get it in our heads that, because of this war, what is in the process of undoing itself will go further that way, whereas what has recently appeared will expand further.In Europe, what is undoing itself is the isolated nation; what is being built is the group of nations.No nation, small or big, will ever be able to live on its own, after the war.A country with 40 million inhabitants is no longer up to the task made necessary by modern means; all the less will a country with 4 or 14 million inhabitants.This is not only due to there being, in the very center of Europe, a country with 80 million inhabitants, or due to the Germans having inaugurated in Europe the grouping of nations by tying Prussia to Austria, Saxony to the Rhineland.But also and especially because, in peace as well as in war, enough of a powerbase can be built in Europe only on a foundation comparable to the great empires of America and Asia.In a planet where such masses as the United States, Japan, China, Russia have coagulated, here in Europe will survive only what, to a large extent, will be able to counterbalance them in terms of military might and prestige.Granted, in Europe there are the roots of two world empires: the British empire and the French (the former much larger than the latter). But clearly, these two empires depend first and foremost on their European roots: there they must establish the core of their power relation with the rest of the world.Well, this basic power relation can be healthy only if these roots are proportionate to their trunk. Despite the immensity of their extra-European appendages, the British case and the French one are above all 45 million men on an island in Europe and 40 million men on a peninsula in Europe: numbers for which each nation, on its own, has become definitely insufficient.It is necessary for these 45 and those 40 millions to become, permanently and definitely, 80 millions; only after this integration of 80 millions, Britain and France will keep on being able to attract the hundreds of millions of individuals from their overseas territories.I said: it is necessary. I should have said: it was necessary, because by now it’s done and won’t end anymore but, on the contrary, it can only develop further.If you look at things from this perspective, you will see how Italy is in an unpleasant predicament. With her 44 millions, even if we were to posit many Balkanics and Africans joining her, she could rise to find herself between the 80 million Germans and the 80 million Anglo-French. Italy has no resources, neither within her nor around her, that would allow her to play an arbitrating role between those two groups. Moreso considering how the most likely balance of European powers is only predicted by taking Russia into account.Italy is forced to join the German group or the Western group. In the latter, she may take advantage of the liberal spirit of confederationism; in the former, she could be victim of an authoritarian spirit of hegemony.All that will be said of those nations nowadays deemed big, is all the truer for those that have become smaller in the last century or so.The smaller nations of Europe suffer cruelly the consequences of not having understood sooner, and of not having realized, the current need for the group.France and Britain were late in uniting: but the Scandinavians (or the Baltics), the Balkan peoples (or the Danubian ones) have wasted even more of their own precious time.And the three democracies closest to the Western group (Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands) haven’t yet had the courage to acknowledge their inevitable ties with the group in which they would find an irresistible guarantee. For who could challenge a mass of 100 million Westerners, a mass who, frankly, have thrown into the common crucible all of their chances?It sounds bizarre to say the least that, right after the shocking military collapse of what was considered without doubt one of the greatest, unchallenged World Powers, such an accomodative idea of world politics would emerge among the vanquished; and it can easily sound, from afar, like opportunism — until you realize that Drieu himself was already writing along these lines before Hitler had even come to power, as others also had, before the war.The fact is that the collapse of June 1940 had opened the door to an intellectual renegotiation of the fundamentals of world politics: and, from Międzymorze to (Greater) Yugoslavia, there are examples of such thinking both before and after the war. The reasoning exposed above, polished a bit by arguing for an Anti-British, Franco-German alliance, was to become the geopolitical received wisdom within Vichy. Drieu himself would add, in early 1942:Thus France has been, one way or the other, shirking her military obligations since 1939, and, after a brief period of service in the Anglo-Saxon armies, has been supplying for two or three years only meagre troops of volunteers or mercenaries to either side; but, sooner or later, she’ll have to fully engage in the German armies, in the American armies, or in the Russian ones.Notice how purely “European” armies (British, Free French) are not even considered as independent players: this was seen as the obvious state of things from within Festung Europa (“Fortress Europa”, a Nazi meme).Another quote, this time from a postwar book about the Charlemagne division’s last stand in the Battle of Berlin written by Maurice Sicard (Jacques Doriot’s right-hand man), Les Lions morts — which has terrific battle scenes but also fascinating insights on its members’ ideological worldview:In October 1940 he was nominated history teacher at the Lycée in Avignon. […] Christian had immersed himself in reading the Ruins of the ancient world, the Decomposition of Marxism, the Illusions of progress, and especially the Reflections on violence [all titles are by Georges Sorel].[…]Sorel’s ideas dug a deep furrow in the young professor’s soul. The facts seemed to prove him right. The facts, and the men too, and among the best of these, the Man of Verdun whose eyes were the color of the uniform his father had died in. Christian had faith in what was being said: in the French Renaissance, in the National Revolution and, if with greater difficulty, in European reconciliation. In 1940 he no longer believed this reconciliation possible. And here is why. Gauvin was convinced that one fact dominated from above the whole of European history: in October 1917 the Communists had unleashed the revolution in Russia. […] According to Christian, all of his contemporaries were blind. Since 1935, when he had seen with his own eyes Communist elements, disguised as jazz lovers and basketball players, destroy the students’ association he was part of, France had been seeming to him to be occupied by a veritable foreign army: the Communist party. He realized that this army had a central staff, troops and shock masses, spies, agit-prop and innumerable associated organizations. It was everywhere. […] In whatever country they operated, the sections of the Communist International were following the same orders, with the same unyielding rigor. […] In 1939, “moderate” Europe no longer existed, just like in the USSR or elsewhere there was no authentic Communism. Everywhere in the world that sort of bourgeois Communism was appearing that, having taken from the “Third estate” of old the latter’s base and petty sides, was now drawing from Communism the obligation to worship the scum and proclaim themselves equals, if not lower, to the last Kaffir. Politically speaking, the Communist activist was nothing but an agent at the service of a foreign government. […]As the German soldier was fighting from Narvik to the isle of Crete, and as Sorelian Mussolini cowardly stabbed France in the back as she was lying down, Stalin wasn’t holding back from getting ready for war. Bolshevism had thus won an advantage of twenty-two months. Believing in the forthcoming total World War, Gauvin feared that precisely this advantage would prove decisive. A reconciliation, a Franco-German collaboration? But in the name of what shared principles, on what grounds and to what ends?[…]Since a few days back, he had taken to listening to German radio with great attention, because the Dragon Fafnir [Stalin], not satisfied with pillaging, with Germany’s consent, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and Romania, was keeping on blowing fire from its nostrils; it wanted the Danube estuary, more, it demanded in exchange for its “neutrality” free access to Costantinople and the Dardanelles, just like Alexander in 1807. And in Yugoslavia it presented itself as more of a monarchist than the King himself. […]If in June 1940 he hadn’t been out of the fight [he had been made a PoW], he would have surely reached Africa to carry on, one way or another, the struggle. But after Mers-el-Kébir and Dakar, he would never set foot in England. Such an inordinate hostility by the ally made him fear the worst, if that nation remained a Great Power at the end of the conflict. He stayed in France. The humiliation of defeat was unbearable to him. However, he couldn’t bring himself to believe that the catastrophe had been caused by mere chance or by the High Command’s betrayal and that the political, economic, social institutions of the now-defunct Republic could be considered the best, as they’d disappeared. […] He would in no case believe that the same leaders who had declared a war that couldn’t be won, in which France only stood to lose […] were somehow qualified to negotiate the peace. […] a few days later, in Nice, when Doriot had called the first enlistment campaign for volunteers in the fight against Bolshevism, with the only condition that Marshall Pétain consented to the formation of the unit, Gauvin had no other wish but to go. Marching on the Great Emperor’s grenadiers’ footsteps to defend Alsace-Lorraine, the Empire and French unity! Fighting for the restitution of prisoners [around a million PoW were kept in Germany as political pawns] and to free the world from the Red nightmare![Doriot speaks]:“Yes, I have been a Communist, as some of you here may still be. I earnestly fought for a cause I believed to be right. I went to Moscow. I spoke with Stalin. I got to know his main collaborators. But the moment I started understanding, it stopped working. It hasn’t been yesterday, it hasn’t been three years since a few of us comrades have started fighting against Moscow within the Communist Party. We started in 1926. Back then we thought: Let’s wait. Maybe we are wrong. Communism is a great hope… Then comes the time when you’re no longer allowed to hesitate. […] One needs to be blind not to see the game the International has been playing since late 1933. Now the Kremlin has only one goal: we [Frenchmen] must fight Germany or Germany must fight us! And then, when Frenchmen and Germans can fight no more, Stalin will come and save the day. Here is his plan. We’ve been played in a disgusting way.”Vichy propaganda poster detailing what it termed British “betrayals” from the Middle Ages to 1942.In fact, French troops incorporated under German command (but conserving French emblems such as regimental flags and drill traditions) would prove to be among the most reliable and best-performing non-German Wehrmacht troops, on a par with the Spaniards and the Scandinavians who share with the Charlemagne the very peculiar distinction of having defended the pocket including the New Chancellery and the Führerbuker to the very last day of the Battle of Berlin.The LVF, meanwhile, was weathering the horrors of the Eastern Front, where it served with distinction and participated in the Battle of Moscow; its members, in origin not necessarily political, developed with time their own take on international political developments, in line with the roughly “pan-European” ideology that many other foreigners engaged in the Eastern Front were also elaborating: to quote one of the most famous such foreigners, Belgian Léon Degrelle, they were starting to believe that, when the war against the Soviets would be over, they’d return home to lead a social revolution of sorts, and to then lead the postwar reconstruction.After a new recruiting drive attracted 3000 volunteers, in September 1944 the LVF was disbanded and reformed as a Waffen SS brigade, later upgraded (in February 1945) to a division, known as the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French): under this name they were to fight until the end of the war, most famously in Berlin; their insignia, representing the German eagle along with the French fleur-de-lis, hinted to the shared Franco-German heritage of their namesake’s Empire, as well as to a future “amicable” collaboration between the two countries that was far from realistic, with France firmly in Free French hands and all frontlines retreating into Central Europe.Nevertheless, another — somewhat surreal — scene from Les Lions morts, as the Frenchmen enter Berlin on the night of April 26, 1945 gives a hint as to just how unpredictable the situation looked:“Gauvin Company and part of the 7th crossed the river on Möcker bridge, singing to the top of their lungs:Qu’importe que l’on nous acclame,ou nous damne le monde entierAside from the Hitlerjugend, no troops sang anymore, in Berlin. Civilians came out of their basements, despite the ongoing artillery fire, to see these soldiers who were singing in the night. The word had spread that “the French are coming”. Some came to the conclusion that, due to a reversal in alliances, the continental Allies had turned against the Russians. In the darkness reddened by fires, the uniforms were hard to make out, and for a moment some Berliners believed, at the sight of that wretched little column of volunteers, that the war had started making some sense again.”In the specific case of civilian France, however, much (but I would still be wary of saying most) of the public opinion turned against the Nazis, if relatively late. Brasillach’s diary entry from above continues like this:“The last year of occupation, in a country exasperated by Allied propaganda, by the ongoing war and by these unfortunate deportations that have been, in my estimation, Germany’s gravest error, has been the year of the harshest reprisals, and the most telling examples are the arsons of villages in Dordogne and Corrèze, the tragedies of Ascq and Oradour. I have always been horrified by the hostage policy, but I must acknowledge that, much though some officers’ actions are unforgivable (the one who had the whole manfolk of Ascq massacred is said to have been shot [incorrect: Walter Hauck was only tried in 1949]), they have taken place in a ravaged countryside, where every day German soldiers and French civilians were being murdered, at times without any particular political pretext. Innocents have paid cruelly, in an abominable way, for crimes that today people don’t like to talk about, but that were committed.Frenchmen’s and Germans’ coexistence has thus ended up in a succession of tragedies, killings by the partisans, atrocious reprisals, giving this conflict the appearance of a war of the 16th Century. This hasn’t helped the peoples to understand each other. And to this one must certainly add the scale of the anti-Jewish measures. I am an antisemite, I have learnt from history the horror of Jewish tyranny, yet it seems and it has always seemed to me inadmissible that families would so often be separated, children be taken away, deportations be organized that would have been equally illegitimate even if they hadn’t had, as their final goal, death pure and simple. This is not how the Jewish question will be solved.”If a self-described antisemite feels bad, you know it is bad, and that too must have had its resonance — although way less than one would imagine nowadays, when we are more acquantained with the story and the scale of that specific process, and certainly infinitely less than the other examples from the same argument. On the other end of the front, diehard “Axis Frenchmen” had to contend with increasing rigidity from the Germans and, when the Nazi leadership started contemplating a more “federal” New European Order (due to the greater role played by international Waffen SS, to the parallel process of Germany bleeding herself white, and to Hitler’s own doubts that he had overestimated the capabilities of Germany alone to wage war against the rest of the world — his last words damning Germany are well known), yet France was already lost to the Allies. Earlier that year and before D-Day, Drieu la Rochelle had written (Poor Europe!, published on Révolution Nationale, April 15, 1944):[…]You [Europe] haven’t yet acquired your new consciousness toward an International of nations, toward a federation of your bigger and smaller powers electing the hegemony for the unity of your Socialism. And, no doubt, you’ll acquire it too late.Europe, you who are not an Empire, are being invaded by two Empires. The Russian and the American one.These two Empires want your defeat, and you still don’t know it.More than this, you lend yourself to these Empires’ game by way of your disjoined forces. Many Europeans are partisans of the Russian Empire and many are partisans of the American Empire. They call, from the bottom of their lungs, for the deployment and the explosion of Russian might and American might over Europe.[…]Already in 1941 one of your outposts, Ireland, was being trod upon by the Americans, and you didn’t care.The British Empire used to be, in the world, a European presence (a compensation of sorts for that decentralization, that extravagance of Britain being outside of Europe). Now this Empire too is humiliatingly subordinate to the American and Russian Empires.The article as published ended a few paragraphs later, along the same lines; but the (censored) draft continued:If Britain is terribly guilty against Europe, Germany is too. By forsaking her Empire, Britain forsakes her riches, the possessions and the prestige that Europe enjoys abroad, she unleashes the twin invasion by Russia and America; on the other hand, Germany prevents the European community from coalescing around her, proving unable to outgrow her nationalism, her imperialism, unable to transform her particular revolution into a universal revolution, unable to eliminate all the backwards elements that she still harbors: she, a pure Socialist force, burns on the altar of the European fatherland.In 1940 Germany did not understand her task, she only foresaw it vaguely: she spoke the word “Europe” without feeling more than a vague, instinctive shudder.[…]From a generally French perspective, in the middle of the extremely confusing legacy of the catastrophe of 1940, of the issue of Britain’s role regarding French interests, of a complete assessment of French politics from before the war, these atrocities (as well as less critical but more common heavy-handedness) by the German military administration brought, if not a clear answer, a clear side towards which not to feel much attraction; and apocalyptic reconstructions of the Germans’ motives from beyond the fog of war, such as Vercors’ famous long novella Le Silence de la mer (published clandestinely in early 1942), were made that much more credible.It didn’t look like that in 1940, though.

Maggie Lena Walker (July 15, 1864 – December 15, 1934) was an African-American businesswoman and teacher. Walker was the first African-American woman to charter a bank and serve as its president in the United States. (The first American woman known to have served as a bank president was Louise M. Weiser, of Vermont, in 1875. The first American woman documented to have both chartered a bank and served as its president was New Hampshire's Deborah Powers in 1877. In 1903, Maggie L. Walker became both the first African American woman to charter a bank, and the first African American woman to serve as a bank president.)[2] As a leader, Walker achieved successes with the vision to make tangible improvements in the way of life for African Americans. Disabled by paralysis and a wheelchair user later in life, Walker also became an example for people with disabilities.Walker's restored and furnished home in the historic Jackson Ward neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia has been designated a National Historic Site, operated by the National Park Service.Contents1 Childhood2 Leader3 Businesswoman4 Legacy5 Family6 References7 Further reading8 External linksChildhood[edit]According to biographical material she supplied, Walker was born as Maggie Lena Draper in Richmond, Virginia, to Eccles Cuthbert and Elizabeth Draper two years and two months after the end of the American Civil War. Census information, as well as a diary passage saying that she was four years old on her mother's wedding in May 1868, with William Mitchell, set the date back to 1864 or 1865.[3]:1 Her mother was a former slave and an assistant cook in the Church Hill mansion of Elizabeth Van Lew, who had been a spy in the Confederate capital city of Richmond for the Union during the War, and was later postmaster for Richmond. Her stepfather was a butler[3]:1–2 and her biological father was an Irish-born Confederate soldier and a postwar writer for the New York Herald.[4]The Mitchell family moved to their own home on College Alley off of Broad Street nearby Miss Van Lew's home where Maggie and her brother Johnnie were raised.[3]:2 The house was near the First African Baptist Church which, like many black churches at the time, was an economic, political, and social center for the local black community.[3]:3 After the untimely death of William Mitchell, Maggie's mother supported her family by working as a laundress. Young Maggie attended the newly formed Richmond Public Schools and helped her mother by delivering the clean clothes.Leader[edit]When she was fourteen years old, young Maggie joined the local council of the Independent Order of St. Luke. This fraternal burial society, established in 1867 in Baltimore, Maryland, ministered to the sick and aged, promoted humanitarian causes and encouraged individual self-help and integrity. She served in numerous capacities of increasing responsibility for the Order, from that of a delegate to the biannual convention to the top leadership position of Right Worthy Grand Secretary in 1899,[5] a position she held until she died.Walker was inducted as an Honorary Member of the Nu Chapter of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority at the chapter's first meeting in 1926.Businesswoman[edit]After leaving her teaching position in 1886, Maggie devoted herself to the Order and rose steadily through its ranks. A pioneering insurance executive, financier and civic icon, she established the Juvenile Branch of the Order in 1895 while serving as grand deputy matron.[6] This branch encouraged education, community service, and thrift in young members.In 1902, she published a newspaper for the organization, The St. Luke Herald. Shortly after, she chartered the St. Luke Penny Savings Bank. Walker served as the bank's first president, which earned her the recognition of being the first African American woman to charter a bank in the United States.[7] The St. Luke Penny Savings Bank's leadership also included several female board members.[8] Later Walker agreed to serve as chairman of the board of directors when the bank merged with two other Richmond banks to become The Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, which grew to serve generations of Richmonders as an African-American owned institution.In 1905, Walker was featured alongside other African American leaders, such as Mary Church Terrell, T. Thomas Fortune, and George Washington Carver in a poster titled, “101 Prominent Colored People”.[9]Walker received an honorary master's degree from Virginia Union University in 1925, and was inducted into the Junior Achievement U.S. Business Hall of Fame in 2001.[10]Walker’s social change activities with the Independent Order of St. Luke demonstrated her keen consciousness of oppression and her dedication to challenge racial and gender injustice.[11]Legacy[edit]Maggie Walker High School, RichmondIn Walker's honor Richmond Public Schools built a large brick high school adjacent to Virginia Union University. Maggie L. Walker High School was one of two schools in the area for black students, during the period of racial segregation in schools; the other was Armstrong High School. After generations of students spent their high-school years there, it was totally refurbished to reopen in 2001 as the regional Maggie L. Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies.The St. Luke Building held the offices of the Independent Order of St. Luke, and the office of Maggie L. Walker. As late as 1981, Walker's office was being preserved as it was at the time of her death in 1934.[12] The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982.[13]Maggie L Walker National Historic Site, RichmondThe National Park Service operates the Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site at her former Jackson Ward home. In 1978 the house was designated a National Historic Site and was opened as a museum in 1985. The site states that it "commemorates the life of a progressive and talented African-American woman. She achieved success in the world of business and finance as the first woman in the United States to charter and serve as president of a bank, despite the many adversities. The site includes a visitor center detailing her life and the Jackson Ward community in which she lived and worked and her residence of thirty years. The house is restored to its 1930's appearance with original Walker family pieces."[14]The National Park Service summarizes Walker’s legacy with the statement, “Through her guidance of the Independent Order of St. Luke, Walker demonstrated that African American men and women could be leaders in business, politics, and education during a time when society insisted on the contrary.”[15]Walker was honored as one of the first group of Virginia Women in History in 2000.[16]On July 15, 2017, a statue of Walker, designed by Antonio Tobias Mendez was unveiled on Broad Street in Richmond.[17] The bronze, 10-foot statue shows a depiction of how she lived, with her glasses pinned to her lapel and a checkbook in hand.In 2020, Walker was one of eight women featured in "The Only One in the Room" display at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.[18]Family[edit]Walker taught grade school for three years until 1886, when, that same year, on September 14, 1886, in Richmond, she married Armstead Walker Jr. (1860–1915), a brick contractor. Armstead earned a good living, and she was able to leave teaching to take care of her family and work with the Independent Order of St. Luke, which she founded in 1903. Maggie and Armstead purchased a home in 1904. They had four children: (i) Mary Polly Walker (1885–1967), who married H. Maurice Payne; (ii) Russell Eccles Talmadge Walker (1890–1923); (iii) Armstead Mitchell Walker (1893–1894); and (iv) Melvin DeWitt Walker (1897–1935).On June 20, 1914, Maggie's son, Russell Walker, at age 25, shot and killed his father, Armstead, having mistaken him for a burglar, for whom both he and his father had been searching. Russell was arrested and charged with murder and, after five months awaiting trial, was declared innocent.The loss left Maggie to manage a large household. Her work and investments kept the family comfortably situated. When her sons married they brought their wives to 110​1⁄2 East Leigh Street, her home in Richmond's Jackson Ward district, the center of Richmond's African-American business and social life around the start of the 20th century.Russell, however, never recovered from the incident and after eight years battling depression and alcoholism, died November 23, 1923.[19]References[edit]^ Norwood, Arlisha R. (2017). "Maggie L. Walker". Retrieved July 20, 2020.^ "Early Women in Banking," Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site, National Park Service, last updated November 15, 2019^ Jump up to: a b c d Marlowe, Gertrude Woodruff (2003). A Right Worthy Grand Mission: Maggie Lena Walker and the Quest for Black Economic Empowerment. Howard University Press. ISBN 0882582119.^ ""Find A Grave" - Pvt.Eccles William Max Cuthbert". Find A Grave. Retrieved November 16, 2019.^ National Register of Historic Places (April 2018). "St Luke Building Update, page 8" (PDF). Retrieved October 29, 2020.^ E. B. Brown, Womanist Consciousness: Maggie Lena Walker and the Independent Order of Saint Luke, Signs, 14, 3 (1989), 610-633; Gertrude Woodruff Marlowe, A Right Worthy Grand Mission: Maggie Lena Walker and the Quest for Black Empowerment (Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 2003).^ Tonya, Bolden (January 3, 2017). Pathfinders : the journeys of 16 extraordinary Black souls. New York. p. 53. ISBN 9781419714559. OCLC 928751148.^ Daina Ramey Berry; Kali Nicole Gross (2020). A Black women's history of the United States. Boston. ISBN 978-0-8070-3355-5. OCLC 1096284843.^ Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site, National Park Service NPS.gov Homepage (U.S. National Park Service)^ Congressional Record--Extensions of Remarks (April 26, 2001), page E646 "https://www.congress.gov/crec/2001/04/26/CREC-2001-04-26-pt1-PgE646.pdf".^ Schiele, J. H., M. S. Jackson, & C. N. Fairfax (2005). "Maggie Lena Walker and African American Community Development". Journal of Women and Social Work. 20: 26, 35.^ Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Staff (April 1981). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: St.