The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1919. THE CLAMOUR OF THE HUN

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 194, 12 May 1919, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1919. THE CLAMOUR OF THE HUN

In spite of the experimental essays she has recently made in Bolshevism and other political novelties,' Germany is still a well-drilled nation. All possible proof on the point appears in the chorus of •abuse and vilification with which her spokesmen havo saluted the Allied peace terms. Rantzau had no sooner given the cue, by behaving like an ignorant boor in an assemblage of statesmen, than the chorus was , taken up in a fashion which demonstrates that the Hun has not lost his talent for mechanical organisation. Yet it is to bo said of the whole outburst, as President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George have, said of Eantzau's speech, that it is a proof—an. astonishing proof —of German stupidity. Surely there could be no more hopeless or profound stupidity than that of a nation which carefully engineers a protest for the edification of the world, and in doing it not merely ignores, but. wantonly violates, every consideration of justice, truth, and honesty. Here and thero in the German chorus a note is struck which is rounded and complete. It is possible, for instance, to understand the terse message- attributed to Ludendobff: "If these are the peace terms, America can go to hell"'!" This, no doubt, is the authentic voice of the exponent of brute force, baffled, defeated, but quite frankly unrepentant. But, in form at least, the total German outburst is an appeal to the moral sense of the world. That in the circumstances it is cast in such terms must be attributed less to the brazen effrontery with which some people have charged its authors and organisers than to a stupidity only to be likened to that of the brute in whom moral instincts are dormant or dead.

Practically everything has been said on behalf of Germany about the Treaty is epitomised in the observations of Scheidemann. He declares that the Treaty is "a death sentence on Germany"—"a document of hate and madness." Presumably neither Scheidemann nor any other man will seriously attempt to justify these frantic phrases. The- puzzling thing is to account for the mental attitude which makes their use possiblo when the world .at large is well aware that the. proposed' Treaty of Versailles makes, a closer approach to exemplary justice than any similar document known to history. All the screeching protests of SoheideiiANN and his kind are directed against a Treaty _ which requires Germany to repair in nart, and only in part, the awful havoc and damage she has wrought, and to cast down the edifice of militarism she erected with no other thought than that of reducing the worl'd to slavery. This is the essence of the Treaty. Apart from the payment of an amount in compensation, which at the utmost will bo far from adequate, Germany is asked to. yield nothing which is not either the direct fruit of barefaced robbery or part and parcel of an organisation created and developed with deliberately criminal intent, Scheidemann does not say in so many words that France and Belgium and other victims must be abandoned to irreparable ruin while Germany enjoys easy prosperity, that Germany must be left in full freedom to reconstruct her war machine, and that nations long enslaved which have seen the sun of freedom dawn must be cast back into slavery. But all this and more is implied in his furious denunciation of the just settlement the Allies have dictated. The quality of his protest is emphasised when account is taken of the record 1 of its author. Scheidemann was the obedient instrument of German militarism in the days when Germany laid rapacious hands on Poland and the western provinces of Russia, and enslaved, permanently as she hoped, moro than fifty million people inhabiting those territories. He was nothing else when a "peace" was imposed on Rumania which made that country a subject province and its people the helots of Germany ; and certainly he is nothing else today.

The practical ouestion now raised is how far the German masses are or .are not likely to be content with a protest on their behalf which deepens the degradation of their nation. Obviously, the answer to this question, as soon as it becomes clear, must largely determine the next step in Allied policy. Engin-. cored effort, as it manifestly is. the demonstration against the Peace Treaty makes a formidable addition to tho evidence already afforded that the German nation has yet to feel the first glimmerings of real repentance. No ' nation morally awakened, or awakening, would toleraro such a protest as Scheidemann. and others have made on behalf of Germany. The Allies significantly delivered their terms on the anniversary of the Lusitania crime, but for anything that appears to the contrary the German r people feel as little remorse now for that atrocity, and for all that preceded and followed it, as in the days when they still dreamed of victory. But if it is vain to expect repentance from tho German masses, something is still to be hoped from their sense of self-respect. Long ago tho Allied leaders intimated that the nations for whom they spoke were prepared to distinguish between the autocratic Government of Germany and the German people. . To some extent the distinction is still of practical importance, though there are the strongest reasons for holding that autocracy in Germany has yet to be definitely overthrown. Unless they are as blind to interest as they evidently are to moral senso, the German masses should be able to realise that they have everything to gain from a large part of the

Treaty against which their rulers are making such clamorous and discordant protests. The reparation provisions arc likely to be regarded with equal distaste by Germans of all classes, but while justice reigns in the world Germany will not be relieved of the burden of partly compensating those whom she outraged and despoiled. Other sections of the Treaty may be searched in vain for anything that conflicts with the interests of the German masses. The grand object throughout is to utterly destroy Prussian militarism, which is not more a deadly menace to the rest of the world than a frightful incubus on the German people. It is in the material interests of the German masses, as well as in their moral interest, that armaments should be reduced to a minimum, subject races emancipated, and the colonies of which the German Government made such illuse allotted to more enlightened control. Little, therefore, as tho German nation has _ shown itself aware of any moral impulse, it remains at least an open question whether the schemers who are now raising such an outcry will find themselves solidly backed by their countrymen.