THE MORAL STIGMA OF THE WAR.

Marlborough Express, Volume LX, Issue 227, 25 September 1926, Page 6

THE MORAL STIGMA OF THE WAR.

The ref erences ' made bv Herr Stresemann to nnandates and wa.r guilt continue to provoike comment. The probabilities in respcet to Germany's intention of bidding for colonial possessions were diseussecl in these columns yesterday. The reopening of the officially established principle of Gernnany's responsibility for the World. War is a.more delicate and much more complicated matter. The danger that attends it as a possible provocation of Erench sentiment is evidenced by the eomment of the Journal de Debats that "serious precautions rnust be taken before we go too far in negotiations with a Government whicli believes that the ex-Kaiser is not guilty,. " That warning-, however, may have re>ad too much into Herr Stresemann 's speeeh. To defend the rpart played by the exile at Doorn, discredited by his own nation as well as in the eyes of the world at large, and to plertd for th e self-respect of the German people are two different things. The reception at Geneva, the Poreign Minlster clnimed, was a sign that the Versailles spirit had been abancloned and it was also " a handsome recantation of the moral stigma placecl on Gernrany. ' ' The so-called stigma is .affirmed by two clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. In Article 227 the former German Enrperor is arraigned for "a supreme otfonce agaiust ihternational moralitv and the sanctity of treaties, " the reference oliviouslv being to 'the invasion of Bclgi.uni. Article 231, for the elinri nation or revision. of whieh Germany has clamored so insistently, roatls as follows: — .."The Allied and AssoeiGo.vernments affirm, and Germany accep.ts, the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the lo,ss and damage to whieh the Allied and Associated Govemmcnts and their nationals have been snbjected iu eonsequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies." The question of the lnoment is whether the Locarno Paets mean the tacit abandonmcnt of Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty. Again, if there such n meamng, what is its proper degree There j.s the full moral sense that Germany alone willed ihe war, alone prepared it alone precipitated it with the object of subjugating a pcacoful Europe, And there is the strretly

legal sense.. Over this wide ground there has been a great deal of argumentation, and if ever a thoroughly common verdict is to be reached it is not likely to be established during the life of the present generation. A lot of ransacking still has to be done among the widely scattered doeuments relevant to the origin of the war. But, though something may be eouceded to the self-respect of Germany, there are certain justiciary principles that cannot be dissolved even fby the warmth of the Locarno spirit. As has been pointed out by Mr James W. Gerard, former United States Ambassador to Germany, the fact cannot be altered thait it was the German General Staff that willed war and was the immediate determining caiuse of the Great War. The apologisis for Germany argue that the clash was precipitated by the Russian mobilisation, whieh, they say, was unnecessary and unjuftified ; but it was Germany (that declared war, and, while the general responsibility belongs to Europe — with its units constantly vying in increase of armaments, deadliness of arms, and the constructio'n of strategic railways — the particular responsibility must rest upon the German General Staff. Insisting on these conclusions, Mr Gerard absolves the mass of German people. The German lower classes — cannon fodder — he says, had no deliborate wish for war. That. is as far as Herr Str'esenmna has a right to ask the new international sentiment to go. As for the significancc of Article 231, it has to be observed that it stands at the head of Part VIII. of the Versailles Treatv,. whieh deals with reparations, and merely lays down the principle that Germany is bound to make good the damage done in the war. This principle Germany herself had accepted as one of the conditions of the Armistice of November 11, 1918. Eniphasising this aspec.t, Mr Bernaclotte tSchmitt, a ditsti nguished American historian, points out that, legallv, Germany was the aggressor, because there was no state of war until Germany launehcd her declarations again st Russia and France, and this fact can hardly be explaincd away. However much the German s may argue that military neeessity compelled them, in the faee of Russian moibilisation, to declarc war, it is clear that .the situation on August 1, 1914, though desperate, was not hopeless, and that it was Govmany's overt, act whieh destroyed the last chance of a peaceful solntion. From the point of view of international law, there is no case for a revi.sion of Article 231. But the reproaeh need not be cart'ied on from the war lords of 1914 to the Germany of to-day, Republic and member of the League of Nations.