Evening Post. THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1918. THE POLICY OF PLUNDER

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 69, 21 March 1918, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1918. THE POLICY OF PLUNDER

In the face of tremendous difficulties and cruei misunderstandings, Germany proceeds triumphantly with her double task, of championing the freedom of the small nations and restoring the peace of the world. The Imperial Chancellor rejoices at the success of her efforts in the East, and justifies the terms of the peace with Russia on the ground that they were made with Russia's consent. A simpler or more conclusive plea could not have been framed. The. only thing wrong with it is that it goes rather too far. It is comprehensive enough to justify every bargain,that was ever made. The bargain which gave the German troops the right of way through Luxemburg at the beginning of the war was of course made with. Luxemburg's consent, and equally of course France was a consenting party to the treaty which deprived her of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871. But Count Hertling must have meant something less tautological by his plea than this, something more convincing than the justification which is open to every successful bandit—viz.,, that he made a. polite request for the traveller's money or his life, and that his victim freely consented to part with the former. The Chancellor's pride and satisfaction are based upon the fact that Russia's consent is no mere formality. Unbeaten in the field, undistracted by internal divisions, uncursed by a Government of visionaries and lunatics and knaves suborned by German gold who cannot conceivably represent the permanent convictions of the majority, Russia has freely consented to be sliced up,. to part with thousands of square miles of territory and millions of her subjects, simply because she prefers it that way. Never was Germany's tender and scrupulous regard for the rights of others or the free consent of her neighbours to a scientific readjustment of their frontiers been more conspicuously displayed.

But there is one- absolutely unique feature of the arrangement which the Imperial Chancellor failed to touch. By way of compensation for the generosity which has allowed Russia to part with just, as many provinces as she found it inconvenient to keep and no more, and for the trouble which the administration of all this territory will cause to its new owner, Germany has apparently reserved to herself in all other respects the full right and liberty to go on as before. Though Russia is at peace, Germany appears to be still at war. Petrograd may share the fate of Odessa at any moment. The arrival at Moscow of tho German, commander with his olive branch and his legions is a mere matter of time, and the submission of the inhabitants—or of those of them who do not prefer the pearls of the wilderness to the blessings of a German peace—is a mere matter of course. How can Russians continue to fight after their Government has made peace? How can they desire to fight when' their consent to the peace treaty has, as the German Chancellor so convincingly argues, bean absolutely unconstrained, unreserved, and unequivocal? If Germany continues to make war, it is only ,that the peace may be made more stable and more peaceful, and that, as Russia's best friends, they may make timely preparations to protect her from the danger to her integrity and her independence which is looming on the East- : em horizon, some 3000 miles beyond the Urals. A peace of so disinterested a character is a glorious triumph for the Christianity of Germany, but the Chancellor notes with regret that the Christian spirit which would permit of the extension of this trumph to her Western armies is entirely lacking. It takes two Christians to make a bargain, but the Allies are so confirmed in their pagan wickedness that Count Hertling sees that to send peace ! envoys or peace tracts in that direction would simply be to cast pearls before swine. Their hearts are so hardened that the old, un-Christian, un-German method of settling disputes by force must proceed. "It is impossible," says the Chancellor, restraining with a superhuman effort the welling tear, "to discuss the Russian and Rumanian terms with the Entente, owing to the enemy's brutal hypocrisy and untruthfulness. Though we have secured peace in the East,, the world's peace is not yet. There is not the slightest inclination on the part of the Entente Powers to abandon their war-work; rather an. intention is manifested to continue the terrible struggle until we are destroyed." It is a sad testimony indeed to the perversity of human nature outside of Germany. History presents. few more pathetic spectacles than that of this peace-loving Chancellor of a peace-loving nation which, after waging a war of self-defence for more than three years and a-half I against a world in arms, finds the bloodlust and the territorial greed of its enemies still unsated, and their cruel lips still unable to utter the blessed word "peace," except with derision and loathing. We may imagine the unhappy Chancellor exclaiming with the* Psalmist: "My soul hath long dwelt / With him that hated peace.

I am for peace; But when I speak, they are for- war." To the' careless or prejudiced observer the text might seem to fit the Chancellor's long association with the Warlords, whose figurehead and tool he has recently been proud to become. But such an interpretation ignores the fact that the Kaiser and Hindenburg and Ludendorff are all for peace now. Lloyd George, the "hyena," as he has been tastefully desoribad by German patriotism, imd Prs« Msi\% Wilson, " th« great hypesvlte ba»

yond the seas," as the leading Krupp | organ has recently called him, are now the men .who hate peace—the men who | make the Chancellor groan in spirit because when he speaks peace they are foi 1 war. .. j Ignoring for the present the tempting I opportunity presented by the Chancellor's charges of "brutal hypocrisy and untr'uthf ulness" against the statesmen of the Entente, we may point out that the statement which they have issued contemporaneously with his speech seems to be as direct and straightforward an answer as could be expected from such forsaken creatures. The Chancellor may lament that their\ war-lust is still un- | abated, but he will surely concede that j there is a ring of sincerity in the terms in which they make the shameful avowal. They denounce the "political crimes under the. name of peace which have been committed against the Russian people," the "flagrant violation of Germany's plighted word " involved in her wholesale transfer of troops to- the West during the armistice, the fourth partition with which Poland is threatened, and " the merciless passion for domination " by which Rumania also has been overwhelmed. We suggest that there is at leastj a well-assumed appearance of sincerity about this powerful denunciation, but the argument is vitiated by the overlooking of Count Hertling's fundamental point, that whatever Germany is doing to her enemies in the East is being done with their consent. Government with the consent of the governed is what the Allies stand for, and Germany's process of carving with the consent of the carved only carries the beneficent principle a step further. (The Chancellor will find here another proof of the' Entente statesmen's hypocrisy, but it may merely be a lack of logical acumen. In any case, we must forgive them much for the stirring and resolute, words in which their conclusion is expressed: " We do not,_ we cannot, acknowledge such peace treaties. We mean to continue the fight in order to finish once and for all this policy of plunder and to establish a peaceful reign of organised justice."