THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1924. GERMANY'S GUILT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18814, 15 September 1924, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1924. GERMANY'S GUILT.

It appeared a few days ago that Germany's eagerness to be exonerated from responsibility for the war would be satisfied without further recourse to other nations. The-re-pudiation's insertion in the Reich's official gazette was then stated to be sufficient fulfilment of the Government's pledges to the Nationalists; no Note would be sent to other Powers, and Germany would allow the question to be dropped. It has been disquietingly revived by the authoritative announcement that she will not enter the League of Nations until the question of responsibility for the war is settled. Germany has shown acute sensitiveness in the matter of entrance to the League. The Chancellor, Dr. Marx, has publicly stated that no application for admittance will be made unless there is assurance of complete equality for Germany. A permanent. seat on the League's Council and entire freedom from any onerous conditions and probationary provisions are insisted upon by him. As he believes, according to an interviewer's report, that many leading Powers in the League refuse to accord Germany full equality, he has asserted that the time is not ripe for discussion of her entrance to the League. But the announcement now made manifests a new attitude. Germany herself will make conditions of entrance, and one of them is, by implication, a full exculpation from responsibility for the war. When the Dawes plan was accepted by the Reichstag, Dr. Marx used the occasion to issue a manifesto expressing Germany's demand to be "freed from the burden of this false charge," despite the Versailles treaty's statement that the aggression of Germany and her allies had been responsible for the loss and damage to which the Allies had been subjected. Germany's acceptance of that responsibility had been acknowledged at Versailles under pressure of overwhelming force, he averred, and no true understanding and reconciliation between the'-' peoples of the world could be accomplished so long as a member of the community of nations was' branded as a criminal against humanity. His announcement of an intention to send a Note to the Powers in these terms aroused resentment, particularly in France, and he hesitated to carry the protest further. The revocation of that announcement is fraught with menace both for German politics and Europe's hope of peace. There have been many attempts to prove Germany innocent of causing or precipitating the wai\ One of the most notable of these is made by Professor H. E. Barnes, of Smith College, in the United States. After a review of all available records, he roundly asserts that "the scapegoat theory of complete, sole and unique guilt on the part of Gei'many or any other single State can no longer be

supported." His view is that the war resulted not so much from the plans of any one Power or group of Powers, but rather from the existence in Europe of two armed camps, each suspicious of the other, impelled by fear quite as much as by motives of aggression. This view has more than plausibility. It contains a modicum of truth. The tracing of causes is admittedly a very difficult task in most spheres, and historians, who have to deal with the complexities of human motives as well as of human deeds, find it peculiarly difficult. But Professor Barnes has assailed a position that is largely of his

own construction. The gravamen of the accusation against Germany is not that she was solely responsible for the war.. It is that ahe was the deliberate aggressor in it. Many factors contributed their share. If inquiry be carried far enough, events»quite remote from the actual struggle will be found to 'have a bearing upon it. The discovery of gunpowder, for example, might then reasonably be included, or even man's inheritance of quarrelsome habits from less-enlightened ancestors. A defence of Germany might very well be made from a recondite research into all that is involved in the Biblical inquiry, "Whence come wars?" But such a research would be of little practical value. Professor Barnes, limiting himself to the political state of Europe in 1914, recognises the futility of that research; nevertheless, he goes far back into the nineteenth century for a foothold for his thesis. "''Deeper than any national guilt," he says, "is the responsibility of the wrong-headed and savage European system of nationalism, secret diplomacy and militarism, which sprang into full bloom from 1870," and he finally assesses responsibility to five Powers in the following order of guilt—Austria, Russia, France, Germany, Britain. His thesis has been carefully criticised by the professors of. history in America's leading universities, and some of them have riddled it with effective argument. Professor Seymour, of Yale.- has pointed out, anent the attempt to range the great

Powers in order of guilt, that "it is always a temptation for every American to grade in order of merit or demerit: the process is of value for track meets and necessary for undergraduate courses." Its possibility or value in history is, in his opinion, questionable. Typically of Professor Barnes' critics, he assigns leaders during the period JB7O-1914 a ma j or Snare of respon gj_ bility for the system that made the war possible; and, while prepared to exculpate Germany's civil population in great measure, fastens blame decisively upon her statesmen and military leaders. Nothing brought to light in official documents made accessible since the war shifts the guilt from the shoulders of those'war-makers. Much

has been made of the part that Austria played in the early scenes of the terrible drama, but it has also been conclusively proved that Austria's action would not have been possible without the definite assurance given her of German support. Russia's mobilising has also been accorded blame, but it has been made manifest that this was carried out in an attempt to compel Austria to negotiate, and Austria's culpable refusal to negotiate was based upon German backing. Russia's action had considerable justification in the earlier and wholly unjustified acts of the two Central Powers. An endeavour has been made to prove that America's entry to the Wtir was occasioned by Germany's conduct in the struggle rather than her precipitating of it. Whatever truth there is in this is discounted by the fact that Germany's spirit and attitude underwent no change alter war was begun. They were as cruel and ruthless in 1914 as in 1917. Professor Barnes himself gives Belgium a clean sheet; yet Germany's first onslaught was upon this admittedly innocent nation. The more this question is ventilated, the more obvious it becomes that, whatever difficulties there may be in answering it in every minute detail, responsibility for the war rests first and foremost upon Germany. The attempt to revive the issue is apt to provoke the comment that, until she is willing to desist from foolish protestations of injured innocence, Germany's place is outside the League.