Evening Post. MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 1918. AN IMPOSSIBLE PEACE BASIS

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 24, 28 January 1918, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 1918. AN IMPOSSIBLE PEACE BASIS

If anybody had any doubts as to who is winning, either in. the great war itself or in the minor war which has long been raging in Germany over ihe terms of peace, these doubts should all be dispelled by the speech of the German Chancellor. Germany is winning in the European war, and winning "hands clown," and in the domestic warfare, which has to some extent embarrassed her victorious path, the Pan-Germans are winning with equal ease. The- first suggestion of Count Hertling's appointment as the successor of the impossible Michaelis caused serious searchings of the PanGerman heart. As a reactionary in domestic politics and a strong opponent of the doctrine of Ministerial 1 responsibility as incompatible with the federal character of the Empire, he was welcome, but as a Bavarian, a Roman /Catholic, and 'a believer in a moderate peace policy, he was anathema to the Prussian fire-eaters. A straight declaration of war was therefore the answer of the PanGermans -to the appointment of Count Hertling, but -the time has surely now come for peace. Whether or not the new Chancellor -ever deserved their suspicions'and denunciations, the. time has passed. Their creed is his now, whatever may have been the differences two or three months ago. Less truculent in expression than the utterances of such accomplished exponents of Parf-German thought and manners as Tirpitz or Keventlow, the Chancellor's speech is equally impossible as the basis of peace. Like them, he will be graciously pleased to accept the surrender of the Allies, but "he has really nothing else to offer.

Froth-the standpoint of tile Allies it is really satisfactory.that Count Hertling's statement of the German war aims is at once so indefinite and so arrogant as to leave no'opening for hope at all, no loophole for the most •optimistic of doubters. Germany is prepared to dictate terms to a conquered Europe, and she is so confident of success that vshe flouts the condition which even the most abject of. British pacifists regards as the absolutely irreducible minimum. She has not repented of the crime which opened Belgium to her armies, or of the diabolical uses to which they turned their opportunities, and even with regard to \ Belgium restoration and reparation are words which she has* not learned to pronounce. Like a traveller who has fallen into the hands of brigands, the victim of her crimes is to be retained as a hostage for the enforcement of a good price. "In the speech which he delivered to the Bavarian Chamber just before his appointment to the Imperial Chancellorship, Count Hertling said:

"It is not yet time for Germany to make any declaration regarding her pawn Belgium. In all the circumstances, she must take care to obtain political and economio guarantees against the future hostility of Belgium, Dut we must proceed with moderation and with consideration for the wishes of tho Belgian people."

The three months that have since passed, and tha promotion which, they have brought f him, have not changed Count Hertling's views regarding Germany's duty, to her pawn Belgium."

The new formula is indeed not quite so precise as the old one, but the effect is identical. Germany is not to relax her hold on Belgium until the Peace Conference has settled the question. As the only settlement that the Allies can accept on this point is the unconditional evacuation of Belgium and her unconditional restoration to full and unfettered independence, political and economic, the Chancellor's statement amounts to a flat refusal to negotiate, and as such it ought. to produce two excellent effects. It should serve to convince the pacifist' minorities in the Allied countries of the utter futility of negotiations at the present stage, and to consolidate the national forces in the application of the only argument that Germany is yet able to appreciate. It should also serve to strengthen the movement in Germany in favour of democracy and peace.. The exact strength of that movement is a; matter that defies calculation. The strides which it appeared to be making during 'the greater part of last year have been checked by the great military successes vto 'which the War Party can now point in Italy and Russia, and it is to these successes that we must presumably attribute the 1 Chancellor's uncompromising speech. The man who when he took office appeared to be less to the taste of the Pan-Germans than either of his immediate predecessors had orginally been is now shouting with 1 the loudest cf them. The hunger and war-weariness and discontent of the masses are outweighed as political arguments by the victories recently achieved and the hopes of those shortly to come.

Next to the defiant tone of the speech and its continuation of the Belgian impasse, its most noteworthy feature is the systematic way in which it parcels out the various crucial questions for separate treatment by the Powers immediately concerned. Belgium, which x the Allies require to be given up before any bargaining is possible, is declared by the Chancellor to be a. subject for the Peace Conference, On the other hand, most of the other big questions are apparently outside the province of the Conference altogether. In demanding the unconditional concession of " the territorial integrity of the Central Empires," Count HertliHß nxshirleg rtio Jat-s of AlimeiS-Lor-riino from-the Ctojifevsncs. He «übes.

quently adds that this question is not open to discussion of any kind, but as to the recently captured French territory, which he describes as ''a valuable pawn in Germany's hands," he says that "'" Germany does not wish violent annexation, but the conditions of evacuation, must be arranged between France and Germany." The repudiation of "violent annexation" obviously leaves the way opeo for annexation of another kind, and it is j one of the most insolent proposals in an insolent speech that the terms of evacuation or the un-violent annexation are to be settled between France and Germany alone. If the Allies of France were treacherous enough to consent to this stipulation, she mightexpect another such settlement 1 as in 1871. In the same way,' the Russian .settlement is no concern of the Allies,- " the evacuation of RussTa concerned only Russia and the Central Empires." Poland is still mere happily placed, for no belligerent at all is to have a voice as to her fate: "The settlement of Poland must be arranged "by Germany and»Austria alone." Germany is to be free to grab both in the East and in the West, and to do so either of her own free will or after consultation only with the Power that she proposes to rob.

Yet all this incredible insolence is perhaps capped by the modest proposal for the dismemberment of the British Empire. "In welcoming President Wilson's reference to the freedom of ihe seas," the Chancellor says '' that it is of the highest importance that England should abandon Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hongkong, the Falklanda, and other naval points d'appui." Who is to be consulted with regard to this interesting little list' the. Chancellor, does not say, but ifc would plainly be quite unreasonable to'allow Britain herself to have any voice in the matter. If all these points are conceded, ■Count Hertling does not anticipate difficulties respecting open diplomacy, the "demolition of trade borders, and reduc- i tion of armaments. Germany is ready to discuss the basis of a League of Nations " when all other questions are settled." Let Germany do as.she will on the Continent of Europe, let her have/the Bri-' tish Empire and the British Navy scrapped, and she will then be prepared to coo as ■ gently as any peace dove at a Conference commissioned to discuss the formation of a League of Nations. And this is the man whom Reventlow and Tirpitz and others of the "Pan-German idiots" were lately denouncing as unsound! „. ■'