216 DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY Part IT
On the question of treaty revision he defined the attitude of the
Little Entente in terms that were precise and uncompromising.
While discussing this question at Geneva with Sir John Simon I was
compelled to remind Mm that frontier adjustments^ cannot be imposed
upon any state and that any one attempting anything of the sort with
Czechoslovakia would have to march an army into her territory. We
should know how to defend ourselves. It was possible to dispose of
territory at the Peace Conference. Since the moment when ownership
was confirmed in law to this or that state it is perfectly absurd to claim
any right of disposition. That is our position in principle, and we will
not depart from it for any one. We cannot understand how a combina-
tion of states can be formed to divide the territory of other states when—
if I am rightly informed—all questions as to their own territory are to be
excluded on the ground that no agreement could be reached about
them. . . .
Frontier alterations are only possible by direct agreement between the
states concerned within the framework of Article 19 of the League
Covenant.
This vehement negative declaration was followed, however, by a
positive statement of three conditions on which a {minor alteration
or adjustment of the treaty frontiers' might possibly be brought
about.
(a) There must be no external pressure, which would only call forth
counter-pressure and would lead to nothing. Agreement can only be
reached by direct negotiation between the peoples interested and with
their free consent, given in accordance with their constitutional laws.
This is true of any application of article 19 of the Covenant, since that
article assumes the agreement of the interested states.
(b) Such an agreement is only possible in an atmosphere of calm after
some years of peaceful co-operation between the peoples concerned. It
cannot follow from any sort of terror, pressure, or blackmail exercised
by one Power against another.
(c) Such an agreement is only possible if equivalent compensation is
given, so that the interests of both parties are fully respected and their
Parliaments and public opinion can give their free consent.
This limited and guarded indication of a possibility that the Little
Entente might not always remain completely intransigent in regard
to Hungary's and Bulgaria's territorial claims was a corollary to the
second of two points in which Dr. Benes summed up the Little
Entente's ideals and aims. The first of these points was that Central
and Eastern Europe must not be allowed again to become an arena
for the Great Powers' conflicts, nor the Central and East-European
successor states to become the Great Powers' pawns. The second
point was that, if the Great Powers were to be precluded from fishing
in troubled waters, the ex-victors among the Central and East-