THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1926. GERMANY'S WAR GUILT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19452, 7 October 1926, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1926. GERMANY'S WAR GUILT.

Ry her persistent attempts to reopen the question of responsibility for the war, Germany is hampering her own and others' attempts to establish the peace. Nothing is to be gained by provoking international discussion, at this hour of the day, on this painful topic. Much may bo lost. Very naturally, there is resentment in France at Herr Stresemann's recent allusion to the question. Had there been nothing more than an expression of regret that M. Poincare, addressing disabled soldiers at Versailles, had made reference to the causes of the war, there would still have been reason to doubt the wisdom of the German Foreign Minister in calling public attention in Germany to the French Premier's speech. M. Poincare's reference was only of a casual nature, and in the circumstances it was practically unavoidable. Herr Stresemann's speech a few days ago to the People's Party Congress, however. contained other statements provocative of French dissent, and cannot be considered apart from reiterated claims of late, by statesmen in Germany, that their country's admission to the League of Nations should be followed by exoneration from the charge of causing the war. These claims are foolish. They compel a rejoinder. It is not surprising that a leading French journal demands now a public discussion of the question before France signs the Thory agreement. It will be lamentable if dissension is occasioned, but the French attitude is reasonable. Germany's spokesmen would be well advised to leave the question alone. The war is over, but its memories are still so poignant in the country that suffered most that her readiness to let bygones be bygones has been one of the surest harbingers of a new Europe. That readiness may not characterise the whole people of France, but her leaders, one after another, have evinced it, and their example might have been followed with advantage in Germany. When a later generation reviews the question with more calmness than can be expected from this,; the case against Germany will have strong proof. She put her signature to a peace treaty in which her war guilt was plainly stated. She asked for an armistice in order that this treaty might be concluded with her, and tho Allies met her request with a favourable answer in which the war's origination was categorically attributed to the declarations if war by the Central Powers and Germany's breach of Belgium's covenanted neutrality. Germany accepted without demur this affixing of responsibility. The treaty was framed. In it was embedded, for generations following to read, an article to the same effect. "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts," this article runs, "the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.'" Her signature to that treaty, inclusive of so definite an attribution of responsibility for the war, should have foreclosed further discussion on the point. It is idle to-say that Germany signed away her good name under duress. That attempt to belittle the value of her admission of guilt fails utterly when it" is recognised as implying that tho Allies conspired to compel her signature to a lie. There is no other alternative. Between their honour and Germany's history can safely be left to decide. Historians will have the advantage of voluminous documentary proof of Germany's guilt. Much of it is supplied by German State papers. Included in these are documents taken in 1919 from the files of the Ministries of State and of War by Karl Kautsky, leader of the German Socialist Party, to whom was officially assigned the task of examining the files. These alone are enough to convince all but the incorrigibly prejudiced that on Germany, however the blame may be apportioned among the ex-Kaiser and his satellites, the responsibility must be fastened.

This remains true although a multitude of factors contributed to the war's outbreak. Some say much about the persistence of tribal hunting-pack ferocity among men. Others trace the war to the "balance of power" theory's application iri Europe during immediately preceding centuries. These excuses for Germany deal with matters too remote to be relevant: as well exculpate an incendiary because a faraway ancestor learned how to make fire or because the victim of his crime had built his house in wood. Serbia's responsibility has been affirmed on the ground that tho murder of the Austrian Archduke at Sarajevo provoked the first declaration of war. With that Germany ostensibly had nothing to do : it furnishes no explanation of her unprovoked assault on Belgium and France a few days later. There is explanation enough, clear and pre-, cise, in Germany's studious culture of a "blood and iron" philosophy, her steady perfecting of means to subdue other peoples, and her shamelessly brutal onslaught. If confirmation were needed, it would

be found in her conduct of the war, w\fch its joy at the sinking of defenceless passenger-ships, its flagrant breach of conventions covering operations, its terrorising of noncombatants, and its calculated savagery in the treatment of prisoners. These things send an echo of her Hymn of Hate ringing down the years. She has been officially forgiven, but there is nothing in this to establish her claim that she was more sinned against than sinning. What she needs is men and women gifted with honesty enough to see her guilt and courage enough to tell her the whole truth about it. Herr Stresemann, unfortunately, seems incapable of playing this part. Instead, he joins with others in fomenting a popular belief that, whoever was to blame, Germany was not, and that she is being unjustly treated. It is a foolish policy, doing him no credit and calculated to imperil the peace which he professes to serve.