186 J.-A. PEMBERTON
Drake.’ Berber observed that the arguments concerning Germany’s ina-
bility to administer colonies and its use of colonies to prey upon world
commerce had been ‘dropped’ because they could not be ‘sustained.’ He
then noted that other arguments had been advanced in their place, citing
in this regard the claim that Germany would ‘break down’ if it accepted
the responsibilities entailed by ‘this terrible white man’s burden.’^348
Berber pointed out that none of the victor states’ colonies had been
considered for redistribution, despite Wilson’s recommendation to this
effect under point five of the Fourteen Points, the very points that had
served, he added, as the terms on which Germany surrendered. Article
119 of the Treaty of Versailles, Berber declared, not only inflicted a
moral injury on Germany, but was legally invalid. Berber stated in con-
cluding his speech that the German claim was not even principally ‘a
question of honour’; it was ‘more a question of right, of legal justice.’^349
Quincy Wright, in responding to Berber’s speech, stated that he did
not entirely understand the nature of the distinction that Berber had
drawn between the abstract method and what Wright referred to as the
(^348) Ibid., 466–67. German negotiators at Peace Conference in 1919 argued that Germany
had a right to its colonies on the following grounds: German ‘had acquired them lawfully
and has developed them by means of incessant and fruitful toil....The possession of her col-
onies will be even more necessary for Germany in the future than in the past, since, if only
on account of her low rate of exchange, she must be able to acquire from her own colonies,
as far as possible, the raw materials necessary to her own economic life. Her earning capacity
having been reduced owing to the result of the war, she also requires the profits accruing
from home production. Moreover, Germany needs her colonies as a market for her indus-
tries, in order that she may be able to pay for raw materials with her own manufactures and
may have a field of activity for commerce. Germany is looking towards these resources to
meet the liabilities imposed upon her in the Peace Treaty. Finally, Germany requires colonies
in order to have territory where at least a part of her surplus population may settle, the more
so as the result of the war increases the necessity for, and reduces the possibility of, emigra-
tion. As a great civilized nation the German people have the right and the duty to co-operate
in the joint task which devolves upon civilized mankind of exploring the world scientifi-
cally and of educating the backward races. In this direction she has achieved great things
in her colonies.’ German Reply to Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles, quoted in Royal
Institute of International Affairs, Germany’s Claim to Colonies (London: Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1938), 19–20. The text of the note of rejection of the German reply to
Article 119 is reproduced in Moresco, Colonial Questions and Peace, 51.
(^349) International Studies Conference, Peaceful Change: Procedures, Population, Raw
Materials, Colonies, 479. See also Wood, Peaceful Change and the Colonial Problem, 105–7.