THE GERMAN WAR TRIALS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18341, 3 September 1921, Page 9

THE GERMAN WAR TRIALS.

The British Government did not follow the example of that of France in withdrawing its legal mission from Leipzig on the score that the trials of tho German war criminals constituted, in tho words of M. Briand, “a parody of justice,” owing to tho farcical character of tho sentences imposed. It is true that in England as well as in France considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed with tho sentences, during the earlier stages of tho proceedings, and last month some seventy members of tho House of Commons signed a resolution of protest over tho results of the trials. But the British attitude in general has shown restraint and a desire to give tho German court such credit as might fairly be deemed its clue. No doubt the acquittal of Lieutenant-commander Neumann for torpedoing tho British hospital

ship Dover Castle, on the ground that he acted only in obedience to orders received from the German Admiralty, made a bad impression, especially when it was considered in conjunction with the lightness of the sentence imposed upon Captain Mueller, who was sent to prison for six months only, although the evidence showed that he had exhibited abominable cruelty in his treatment of British prisoners at the internment camp at Flavy-le-Martel. But as the trials proceeded the British press recognised the fact that the court at Leipzig was really making an endeavour to mete out justice according to its lights, that it had its own difficulties, and that the evidence coming before it was not always such as it could accept ns proving the charges preferred. At the time of the departure of the French representatives Dr Schmidt, president of the court at Leipzig, explained that in the conduct of the trials ho allowed himself to be guided by legal considerations only, and affirmed that ho simply wished that justice should be done. Theijo has been no reason to doubt Iho sincerity of this claim. Sir Ernest Pollock, Sojfcitor-general, has this week expressed the view in the House of Commons that the manner in which the cases have been conducted has testified to a sincere desire to get at the truth. He war. himself an eye-witness of the court’s procedure, having attended at the tml which ended in two submarine officers being sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for their complicity in the sinking of the lifeboats of the hospital ship Llandovery Castle. He admits that the sentence passed upon Captain Mueller was quite inadequate, but it may well be when the trials are concluded—the Italian cates are yet to be heard —■ that the Allied Powers will most suitably consider their verdict respecting the manner in which Germany has kept faith in this matter. The position is placed in its true perspective, however, by Sir Ernest Pollock when he observes that these trials have been without precedent since never before in the world’s history has a vanquished country been forced to try its own war criminals, and when he points out that the punishments imposed must be judged in the light of German standards. If British and German standards as to what constitutes a heinous offence against humanity had been identical, doubtless there would have been no occasion for these trials of German war criminals. Allowance for this difference of standards has to be made in any judgment that is offered upon the measure of the punishments inflicted by the German courts. Certainly, moreover, there is ample warrant for Sir Ernest Pollock’s claim that the trials at Leipzig constitute “no mean achievement” in the domain of international justice.