treaty of versailles was one provision of the treaty that was imposed on germany.
list one provision of the treaty that was imposed on germany?
treaty of versailles
na
na
the validity of the treaty in view of the surrender of the german government in 1945 was questioned in the us supreme court in clark v. allen. the case was about a woman named alvina wagner, who died in california in 1942 and bequeathed her estate to her relatives who were german nationals at the time. the property was seized by the custodian of enemy property, but some of her relatives in california petitioned to the court on grounds that they were the rightful heirs, claiming that the outbreak of war nullified the stipulations in the agreement regarding the right of inheritance between nationals of the two countries contained in article 4. the supreme court, in a ruling delivered in 1947, eventually granted the petitioners part of the property, while leaving part of it to the custodian. in its final ruling, the court stated: "the outbreak of war does not necessarily suspend or abrogate treaty provisions. (- - -) we do not think that the national policy expressed in the trading with the enemy act, as amended, is incompatible with the right of inheritance granted german aliens under article iv of the treaty". however, the court demonstrated some caution by stating: "it is not for them (the courts in the us) to denounce treaties generally, en bloc. their part it is, as one provision or another is involved in some actual controversy before them, to determine whether, alone, or by force of connection with an inseparable scheme, the provision is inconsistent with the policy or safety of the nation in the emergency of war, and hence presumably intended to be limited to times of peace". it also recognized in part the powers of the custodian of enemy property to represent the interest of the heirs and thus dispose of the estate. on this issue the court stated: "for the power to vest (i.e. confiscate enemy property) is discretionary, not mandatory". eventually, the court refused to rule generally whether the treaty's validity survived the outbreak of war, and stated: "we have no reliable evidence of the intention of the high contracting parties outside the words of the present treaty. the attitude and conduct under earlier treaties, reflecting as they did numerous contingencies and conditions, leave no sure guide to the construction of the present treaty. where the relevant historical source and the instrument itself give no plain indication that it is to become inoperative in whole or in part on the outbreak of war, we are left to determine, as "techt v. hughes", supra, indicates, whether the provision under which rights are asserted is incompatible with national policy in time of war. so far as the right of inheritance of realty under article iv of the present treaty is concerned, we find no incompatibility with national policy, for reasons already given". the court also referred to the question whether the surrender of the third reich in 1945 and the partition of germany into occupation zones nullified the operation of the treaty, by stating: "we find no evidence that the political departments have considered the collapse and surrender of germany as putting an end to such provisions of the treaty as survived the outbreak of the war or the obligation of either party in respect to them. the allied control council has, indeed, assumed control of germany's foreign affairs and treaty obligations - a policy and course of conduct by the political departments wholly consistent with the maintenance and enforcement, rather than the repudiation, of pre-existing treaties".
treaty of friendship, commerce and consular relations between germany and the united states of america