Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1918. VIENNA AND THE PEACE DRIVE

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 81, 5 April 1918, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1918. VIENNA AND THE PEACE DRIVE

Tire enemy's peace drive, aotuated by [gunfire arid by diplomatic word of mouthy 'has entered upon a new tactical phase, pount Czernin, to whom has been al' Jotted the opening movement, has stressed the enemy's willingness to negotiate " on the basis of the status quo regarding Alsace-Lorraine " j and it is further atfirmed, on the authority of an American ;press correspondent, that in October last AustSia-Hungary was prepared to nego'tiJate on the basis of the status quo in t'«italy. There is a very obvious reason *why, at this stage, tne Central Powers .should deslra to pose aa standing for :tHe old frontiers between- Germany and SVance, and between Austria-Hungary ahSi Haly.. These frontiers represent the 'only points in Europe at which the Allies demand territorial displacement; and it was certain, from the commencement of the war, that sooner or later the world would be asked to deliver judgment's to whether the French and the Italian claims represent restitution— as the Allies affirm—or —as the Germans allege—forcible annexation. That judgment is now formally and speoiflcally called for by Count Czernin. In his estimation, Alsace-Lorraine and the Italian Irredentism are the weakest I points in our moral front. Therefore, these are the points to be struck at— to be isolated and dissected and held up for the critical judgment of the" world at large. All eyes are to be focussed on the attempted rape—otherwise restitution—of the border provinces. In the meanwhile, concerning the Russian territories there is not one word.

Coming as a diplomatic overture between the Acts of the Hindenburg melodrama, the Czernin speech, has its appropriate place in the peace drive.. It is intended to impress—falsely, of course^ —the war-weary in all countries with the idea that between them and peace there is only so many square miles of territory on the Rhine and the Adriatic —only a terminological controversy as to whether something is to be taken or merely given back. Pacifism in the Eng-"lish-speaking countries, already apt to resent the idea of fighting the fight of foreign claimants, is expected to derive fresh kick from Count Czernin's reamrmatioii of the view that on these frontiers the Allies are standing for 'forcible annexation. Vienna has been setfegtsd fe^ Berlin to im Ihe discontent. #f j^-.wAV>wf«ry: »ft4 *t th» «s»« time

to drive a wedge between the- Englishspeaking peoples and 'their Latin Allies. To Labour, confronted with a recombing, Count Czernin puts the question: Is the issue worth it? To the critically-minded he dishes up again the historical and ethnographical issues underlying the problem of Alsace- and Lorraine, not hoping to carry conviction among his hearers, but satisfied if he can merely raise in their minds a question, and some degree of paralysing doubt.

At this stage to probe the depths of the French and Italian frontier claims were idle, because the' Czernin move is not really moral but tactical, and aims at a. localisation of discussion to which, no competent adversary could possibly submit. If Count Czernin, on behalf of the enemy, were proposing the status quo, he would at any rate be saying something. But when he speaks of negotiating "on the basis of the status quo regarding Alsace and Lorraine," he so limits the issue as to jnake his profession worthless. While h« »eeks to eliminate territorial displacement insofar as it concerns the Latin Allies, ho says nothing of Russia, Servia, etc.; nothing even of Belgium. The bad faith of such a proposition is too obvious to escape detection, and the snare is spread in vain in the sight of the bird—except, of course, such birds as will readily fall into any snare that will provide them with an excuse for the repudiation, of responsibility. Already the American papers observe that while the voice is the voice of Czemin, the hand is the hand of the despoiler who has partitioned Russia. If, as is apparent, the United States will be the ultimate arbiter of the French claims— these being clearly not realisable without the maximum of American, aid— then the Central Powers' appeal to the American jury does not seem to have achieved any- conspicuous success. The people of the United States are sufficiently enlightened to look at the position in whole as well as in part, and to see that Hindenburg and Czernin are merely different facial aspects of the same animal.