PEACE TALK

Otago Witness, Issue 3338, 6 March 1918, Page 17

PEACE TALK

GERMAN CHANCELLOR'S SPECH. PRESIDENT WILSON'S SPEECH REVIEWED. (By Cable). -n the Reichstag von Hertling agreed that peace was discussable on tne basis of President Wilson's principles if the Entente Powers accepted them. Chancellor von Hertling, in his Reichstag speech, said that every durable peace must be built upon justice. He agreed with President Wilson's declaration that nations and provinces ought not to be shifted from one State to another. fie rejoiced in President Wilson's statement rejecting the idea of the balance of power. Germany's advance eastward was only aimed at securing peace with Russia. Her aim was not conquest, but she merely wanted to restore order without fixing herself in Esthonia or Livonia. As to Courland and Lithuania, he had nothing to say. The people there were already successfully creating self-governing bodies. Respecting Rumania, he would state that Germany must and would mako friends with her for all time. He doubted the utility of public speeches by statesmen, but the cause of peace could be furthered by private discussions between responsible representatives of the belligerents. The question of Belgium, should be discussed in a friendly manner, in order to arrive at an understanding. Germany had repeatedly declared that she did not think of retaining Belgium, but Germany must be protected a.gainst Belgium being used as deploying ground for enemy machinations. With regard to Poland, von Hertling said the intention to arrange an agreement between Ukrainia and Poland had already had a reassuring effect in Polish circles. Germany intended only to claim the rectification of her side of the frontier, which was necessary through military reasons. The world in eager expectancy was now asking whether the way for a general peace had been opened. The Entente leaders seemed still adverse to the voice of humanity and reason, and adhered to their aims of conquest, includ-" ing Alsace and Lorraine. There was no Alsace-Lorraine question in the international sense. If it existed it was purely a German question. The- Entente claimed Austrian territory for .Italy, while Briatin was fighting for the separation of Palestine and Syria from Turkey and from the Germans the African colonies. Von Hertling referred to intrigues to incite neutral nations against Germany. There was no thought in Germany of violating Swiss neutrality. The world longed for peace, but the enemy Governments wanted to continue the war to the end. It was, however, true that other voices were heard in Britain, and he trusted that such utterances would be more frequent. Von Hertling concluded : " The world stands faced with the greatest decision for all time. Either our enemies will decide to make peace, on which presumption we are prepared .to enter negotiations, or continue the war, in which case we will continue ; but the responsibility for bloodshed'* will fall on those who obstinately refuse to listen to the voice of humanity." The United Press Hague correspondent has learned authoritatively , that the German Liberals and Socialists are trying to convince General Ludendorff to postpone the west front offensive, until President Wilson's answer to von Hertling shows whether it will be necessary. In the Reichstag, Herr Vogtherr (Socialist) denounced Germany's infamous war golicy in Russia. He also accused the hancellor of breaking the law against importing food from Bavaria, and said that Austria and Germany were already disputing over Ukrainian booty. The Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung (organ of the Social Democratio Party) says : " Separate peace with Russia only makes a general peace more remote, because America, Britain, and France will fight to the bitter end." It declares that Austria needs a general peace; hence it does not rejoice at Germany's pyrrhic victory over Russia.'' The Leipziger Volks Zeitung (Socialist) says : " The Russian Government, by its latest rapid move, upset the carefully-pre-pared game of the German Government, which does not want peace." MR BALFOUR ON PEACE. NEGOTIATIONS HELPLESS YET. In the House of Commons Mr Balfour, replying to criticism that the Government was not using diplomacy in the interests of peace, said that diplomacy was out of court unless some measure of potential agreement existed, making diplomatic conversations fruitful of good results. All indications showed that we had not reached that happy stage. There was no clear direction m which the sunlight of peace could make itself felt. The time might come soon, but we would be deceiving ourselves if Ave took a sanguine view in face of von Hertling's speech. There was only one course for Germany to pursue. She must say, " I have sinned," and next say, " I will make reparation and restore without conditions what I have taken." Germany's idea of economic freedom and frontier security always meant commercial trammels upon a weaker neighbour and appropriation of territory. After dealing with other of von Hertling's statements, Mr Balfour declared that Britain did not use the balance of power for self-aggrandisement. She fought only because by so doing Europe would be saved from the domination of an overpowering, aggressive nation. Britain, in upholding the balance of power, saved Prussia from destruction, and later helped to recover her independence against Napoleon. It ill became a German statesman

to deride Britain's efforts for the balance of power. Until German militarism was abolished, and an international court with executive powers established for the protection of weak nations, it was impossible to ignore the principles underlying the balance of power theory. If von Hertling would induce his countrymen to give up thfir policy of an ambitious world domination, peace would come now and for ever. Referring to von Hertling's statement that Germany's policy in the East was directed to preventing atrocities and devastations, and upholding humanity, Mr Balfour pointed to the fact that the German policy in the West was entirely occupied with atrocities and devastations. He added: "We are ready to stand our trial at the bar of humanity side by side with Germany. While Germany is determined to have the rest of the civilised world creeping at her feet, It is difficult to conduct diplomatic conversations, which must bo a prelude to the peace for which no one longs more than we do." Conversations which began and ended in discord were, said Mr Balfour, worse than none at all. To begin negotiations without seeing a way to their successful terminataion would be the greatest crime against future peace. Negotiations must be preceded by a closer approximation of ideas. He would be injuring the cause of peace if he encouraged the hope that these verbal communications would be useful until a general agreement was apparent in the distance and the statesmen of all countries could see the way open to a settlement. AMERICAN OPINION. General opinion throughout the United States unequivocally rejects the possibility of peace on the basis of von Hertling's speech. United States officials distrust Hertling, and do not think his speech brings peace any nearer. Speculation is rife as to whether President Wilson will reply to the speech. The New York. Times editorially declares that von Hertling, in his speech, sank to the lowest depths of evasion and ignoble treachery. Germany knows the Allies' terms. Wars are not won by talking, but by fighting. The New York Herald says that von Hertling'fired the-first gun of Germany's new peace move, but his aim was bad. The New York World remarks that the speech leaves the issue quite unchanged.