THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, FEB. 5th, 1920. THE TRIAL OF WILHELM II.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 45, 5 February 1920, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, FEB. 5th, 1920. THE TRIAL OF WILHELM II.

It is ouly upon the authority of a Parisian newspaper that the cables told us yesterday that strong economic pressure is to be brought to bear upon Holland in order to induce her to surrender the ex-Emperor of Germany for trial in pursuance of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Though the journal quoted, the “Petit Parisien,” is usually well informed, it may be that in this instance it has allowed itself to be influenced by the wish that is so often, if only subconsciously, father to the" thought. Of all the peoples that have suffered from the war the French and the Belgians havp had the most intimate and poignant experience of the “frightfulness” which has been a marked feature of ‘.Germany’s military policy under Hohenzollern rule. It can thus be readily understood why it is that the French people are not only bitterly bent on bringing the chief cause of all their woes personally to book, but, with their republican instincts fully developed, are also anxious that the dahgers of a revival of autocratic rule in Germany should be fully exposed. France is, with eminently good cause, profoundly convinced that one great element of future German aggression will be removed if only the cult of the Hohenzollern can be finally destroyed. Though some may have 'suffered through them at various stages of Prussian expansion, no other nation has the record of haying twice during the memory of living man been made the victim of Hohenzollern ambitions. It would therefore be strange indeed if France did not take every step that is possible, at this favourable juncture of so dearly bought Allied victory, to break the prestige of the dynasty under which a Prussianized Germany grew into a •military Power that was able very closely to threaten civilization with virtual servitude. In a trial of the ex-Kaiser which should afford fuh opportunity for establishing his individual responsibility for the war, with all its attendant cruelties and • consequent sorrows, including the virtual, if only temporary, ruin of his own people, the French doubtless see a chance of creating in Germany itself a strong sentiment of hostility to any future suggestion of a Hohenzollern' restoration. Whether, under the circumstances in which the trial will be held, this expectation will be realised is quite another matter. National sentiment is a rather elusive quality, and it may be that the trial will only serve to establish .the ex-Kaiser in the minds, and possibly in the hearts, of many of his late subjects not as a would-be despot who has become the victim of his own inordinate desire for power, but as a martyr who has risked and sacrificed everything in a supreme though, unhappily, an unsuccessful effort to secure for a nation of - super-men their proper and pre-destined overshadowing “place in the sun.” . , As for the attitude of the British Government and the British people on the question of practically compelling the Netherlands Government to deport the ex-Kaiser, Cabinet cannot but stand strongly by their Continental Allies in resorting to all legitimate measures that it may be found possible and necessary to take. Popular feeling, on the other hand, has no doubt had time since hostilities ceased to cool off very considerably, the numberless distracting domestic problems that have arisen in the interval assisting largely to that result. In fact, although it would seem strangely anomalous, it is not altogether inconceivable that the ultra-Socialist section of the Bri tish community will arise and denounce the notion of exercising upon a neutral people any coercive measures, even if designed, with the object of bringing to justice a one-time monarchical ruler in character and, to a large extent, in power a virtual absolutist. Having regard to Great Britain’s own past history,, indeed, there seems something of inconsistency in her taking part in the use of open threats of any- kind to a neutral Power with the purpose of securing the surrender of a deposed enemy Sovereign who has become a refugee. Britain has, for so long, one might say almost for centuries, been herself so notorious above all other European nations as the asylum for compulsory and voluntary exiles of all ranks and classes that it seems little short of an incongruity for her to deny Holland’s right to afford sanctuary to the ex-Emperor of Germany in the evil days that have, however deservedly, fallen upon him. It can, of course, be said that never has there been an instance where Britain afforded shelter to one who was guilty of, or at any rate responsible for, such rank offences as has been “Wilhelm 11. of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor,” the.designation under which he is arraigned in the Peace Treaty. Nevertheless, some difficulty win probably be found in discovering any international precedent, rule, or convention that will, with anything like absolute certitude, impose upon Holland the duty of giving the deposed and accused Emperor up for trial, especially by a tribunal that is to be composed of so recent enemies. There is, of course, no suggestion here but that the trial will be conducted with scrupulous fairness. The only present purpose is to enumerate some of the arguments that may be advanced by the Netherlands Government for declining to accede to the Allies’ demand. In view of undoubted pro-German leanings during the war, and of intimate commercial and like relations with her Teutonic neighbour contemplated for the future, therp must necessarily be some suspicion that Holland, in her refusal, is not actuated by a consideration of .national honour alone. But, basing her stand on that motive, Holland may well say that it lies very ill in the mouth of Britain at least to seek to go behind it. No doubt the failure of the United States to ratify the Treaty, or to commit, herself to the League of Nations, will have greatly fortified Holland's resolution. Indeed, a recent cable stated .that had expressly disclaimed any acquiescence in the pressure proposed to be brought upon the Dutch. In view of this, and .with memories of the fuss which President Wilson himself, made during the earlier raouths of the war as to Bri-

tain's mild and quite legitimate interference with American trade to enemy countries, it would not be surprising to find the American legislature protesting strongly against anything in the nature of the “naval blockade” suggested by the French press. Taking an all-round look at the circumstances, we imagine that there will be a good deal more both spoken and written before “Wilhelm 11. of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor,” is brought to trial for “the supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties,” for which alone he is liable to be tried. Even if he were surrendered to-morrow, the trial could scarcely proceed without the concurrence of the United States, since from that country is to come one of the five judges who are to constitute the international bench.