Evening Post. SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 1918. INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 36, 10 August 1918, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 1918. INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

Divorced from their context, the opening sentences of Mr. Lloyd George's reference to the question of peace in his latest review of the war might be construed as pointing in the Lansdowne direction, and it is possible that they have been made to serve that purpose in Berlin. "There were people in every country,-" said the Prime Minister, " who regarded any eSort to make peace as dishonourable and treasonable. That attitude must be steadfastly discouraged." But whatever pacifist hopes are raised by this prelude are dashed by the next sentence and flattened out by those that follow. Mr. Lloyd George " asked those who only wanted an honourable peace whether this was the moment when such a peace was possible. ■; He quoted wellknown facts to show that the military caste was still predominant in Germany. Peace was unprocurable as long as they remained so." How far the events of the last few weeks may have altered the situation we are not yet'in a position to judge. "The unparalleled outbreaks of utter discouragement and downheartedness " to which the Berliner Tageblatt testifies as having been produced in Germany by the disaster on the Marne may soon sap the power of the autocracy if an antidote is not provided by a change of fortune. But this power; which had always been supreme in Germany, had swept everything before it during the half-year preceding the arrival for the se<-ind time of the German armies on the Marno. Though the Reichstag's famous resolution of 19th July, 1917, declaring' for peace without annexations or indemnities skill-stood, the triumphs of German military power in Italy and Russia not merely silenced the demands for peace, but induced its former champions to approve of a gigantic scheme of annexation and to adjust their creed to the new position with a bewildering display of dialectical ingenuity.

In a paper on (" International Scholarship After the War" which he road at a meeting of the British Academy on 9th May, Canon Sanday referred to the Lichnowsky revelations as calculated to bring homo the truth to the leading scholars of Germany, and through them to the German people. Canon Sanday made special mention of Professor Troeltsch, Professor of Theology at Heidelberg, as one of the candid and high-minded German scholars who might help to spread thd truth among his countrymen. Yet this distinguished apostle of peace was showing almost at the' same (time that it was not from Lichnowsky but from Ludendorff that he was taking his cue, and that Germany's successes in tho East and the offensive " forced" upon her by the obstinacy of .France and Britain in the West ■ had completely al- • tered his views of right and wrong and converted' him from pacifist to PanGerman. The idea of indemnities (wrote Professor Troeltsch), insofar as they are still possible, and of securities . . ..is now a matter of course. . . . Ridiculous as it would bo to prolong the war for the sake of indemnities, it would be equally so to refuse them on principle, after the continuation enforced by our enemies. The question of Belfort and Briey is placed in a new light. The Belgian problem . . . must bo regarded in the liptht of that blind .and even. desperate will to destroy, which tramples on neutral rights in its war against us. . . . It is a question of setting up one wrong against another, necessity against necessity, and there can be no reconstruction of principles applicable only to one side.

About the same time the Vonvaerts was finding salvation in almost the same way. While Professor Troeltsch championed a course which he had previously denounced by insisting that it was only a case of " one wrong against another, necessity against necessity," the Vorwaerts delighted the Pan-Germans, with an article on "Might against Might." Germany's only means of bringing the enemy to accept peace was, according to this article, by defeating them at once. America's indignation against tho Peace Treaty with Eussia, in which " the Imperialist policy, always combated by the Socialists, triumphed over the idea of understanding," -was admitted to be just, but America 'must nevertheless bo fought and vanquished with the rest. The Vorwaerts proceeded as follows :—

Three' times the Socialists have protested against the policy of the Government: over the ultimatum to Servia, the U-boat warfare, and the Treaty of Brest-JAmk; and in each case events proved them to have been right. But, nevertheless, the Socialists will not wash their hands of the fate prepared for the German people by its rulers. If one side must be defeated, lot it be the other side. Peace, any peace, is- tho first necessity. The S.D. policy is two-fold: " Firstly,' to save the German-people from the terrible misfortune of a military defeat, and secondly, to combat the policy which may load to a pinnacle, but may also lead ovor and beyond the pinnacle into an abyss."

When the democratic and humanitarian elements of the country have thus been induced by its military success 'to throw in their lot with the power which they once opposed, tooth and nail and with a policy which they even now concede to be wrong, the idea of doing anything by negotiation ■ with the country as a whole or its present leaders is not deserving of a moment's serious consideration. It is admittedly only by force that even the Social Democrats and the least rabid of the professors can be brought to reason.

fiwneUiisjg, as mMW®®6stes*s%_

during the past month, but the process must be carried much further' before it can yield decisive results. Even a defeat that German pride could ascribe in part to economic difficulties would not suffice for the purpose. The defeat, as Mr. Lloyd George urges, must be a military defeat, or it will not free Germany from her present obsession or bring peace to the world. "Peace," says Mr. Lloyd George, " will come when we demonstrate to the enemy that power lies behind the justice which will enforce the League's decisions." A League of Nations which has thus proved at the outset that it is something better than anInternational Debating Society or another Hague Conference will be an object of respect to Germany, and whether she is' afterwards admitted to membership or not she will not be free to ignore its decisions. It is, of course, clear that to ensure this end the League must have might behind it as well as right at its back. "There will not bo justice in the world," says President Wilson, " until the Allies organise inter-, national justice," and international justice, like domestic justice, requires a police force at its back. It will be the duty of the Allies to organise such a system as soon as their armies have given the arch-criminal of history his deserts. '