The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1917. NO PRUSSIAN PEACE!

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9791, 15 October 1917, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1917. NO PRUSSIAN PEACE!

Cooing and shrieking by turns, the fearsome bird of the Hoherzollerns, the. Prussian eagle, has been distinctly distraught of late. But neither to its cooing—hardly sweet as that of any turtle-dove —nor to its frenzied shrieking, do the Allies pay the slightest heed, beyond registering these welcome signs of distraction as evidences of the fact that Prussian militarism at long last feels itself beaten and is endeavouring, now by means of peace talk and now by truculent braggadocio. to escape the punishment it so richly deserves. Prussia has been considerably chastened in the more than throe years that have passed ..since the groat, the long-looked for, day—“der tag”—when the All Highest War Lord’s huge war machine set out on tho “peaceful” march through Belgium which was to have led to the capture of Paris within three weeks, and, shortly thereafter, to the dictation to Europe, nay, to the world at largo, of a Prussian peace. But that Prussia is not yet sufficiently chastened is conclusively shown by the tact that tho basis of the peace oife,r, which tho “Berlin. Tageszeitung” tells us Germany and Austria have agreed to make, is “no territorial aggrandisement, tho surrender of Belgium and the occupied French territories, and no indemnity on either side.” This falls a long way short of Mr Asquith s formula, “restoration, reparation, and guarantees.” “No indemnity on either side,” it is true, marks from the Entente point of view a great advance upon the time when Prussia demanded such indemnities as would more than repay the full cost of the wai wickedly thrust upon her, as she declared. by the Allies. “No indemnity on either side” means that Prussia forgoes her demand for indemnities. But it also means no “reparation ; and that tho Allied democracies will certainly never concede. “Restoration” oven is by no means complete, ior Herr von Kuhlraann, the Foreign Minister, has made it very clear tnai ‘‘the surrender of t^ e occu "

pied French territories” does not mcludo tho restoration to Trance oi Alsace-Lorraine. “There is only one answer,” declares this blusterer, who is regarded by many German papers as “the only possible Chancellor”— “there is only one answer to the question, ‘Can Germany in any form make concessions regarding Alsace-Lorraine;-” The answer is, ‘No! Never so tong as a single German can hold a gun. The integrity of the territory handed down to us as a glorious inheritance by our forefathers can never be tho object of negotiations or concessions.’ Inadequate, miserably inadequate “restoration,” no “reparation,” ana no “guarantees”—for, what guarantees can there be so long as Prussianism rema.ns in the ascendant? —oitei no sulticient basis, indeed no basis whatever, for permanent peace. German Protestants, “conscious of mutual Christian aims to promote righteous feelings,” may “extend the band oi brotherhood to thc.r co-religionists in the enemy countries” and may declare “In the name of Christianity, war must disappear from tho earth”; but tho answer of the Entente peoples must be, like that of the Russian Socialists to the German Socialists, “First get rid of your Kaiser 1” There can be no treating with an All Highest War Lord whoso Foreign Minister speaks as Herr von Kuhlmann has spoken with regard to Alsace-Lorraine, and whoso Imperial Chancellor, , Hr Michaelis, declares .that “the peace which Germany is fighting for embodies the power of free development on tho Continent and overseas. Germany must strive to prevent an economic offensive against her.” “.tree development on the Continent and overseas” for Germany means, as those who know their Germany know only too well, that very little in the way of freedom or development will he left for anybody else; just as “a place in the sun” means practically all the sun for Germany, and everybody else very much in the shade. Indeed, lest there should be any mistake about this, egregious Pan-German Congress carried a resolution the other day “that Germany’s frontiers must bo vastly extended east and west,” following this up by the fatuous declaration “that the military situation is excellent, and that the naval situation would soon force England to sign peace with Germany.” Note also the implications of tho All Highest’® Chancellor, (1) that the present war was due to “an armed otfensivo against”—Germany! and (2) that the Entente’s economic defensive formulated at tho Paris Conference is “an economic offensive.” The truth is of course, not merely that Germany’s armed offensive, her unprovoked armed offensive, began the war, but that long prior to the war she had not only carried out by every underhand method an economic offensive against the rest of the world, hut had set on foot throughout the world a widespread espionage system, , offensive in more senses than one, to.the last'decree. The Kaiser himself, indeed, on one of his visits to England, had the effrontery to introduce his master-spy into Buckingham Palace as one of his entourage 1 ~ , , „ Well might Mr Lloyd George say that “he could not think of any statement more - calculated to prolong the war than Herr von Kuhlmann’s regarding Alsace-Lorraine” ; and rightly did he ' declare that “however long the struggle lasts Britain in. tends to stand by France until s he has redeemed her oppressed children from tho degradation of a foreign yoke.” Mr Asquith summed the position bp well at Liverpool the other day. “Tho dominant factor we have to deal with (he said) is not German public opinion, but the German Government. The world will never find its way to peace through a morass of equivocation and ambiguities. It has never been our policy to annihilate or mutilate Germany.” It is, however, our policy to annihilate Prussianism, Hohenzollernism. That cannot hut he our policy, For the future safety of the Entente nations, nay, the future safety of freedom and of the civilisation tho world

over, absolutely demands it. This America clearly recognises, refusing to be influenced by the “no annexations, no indemnities” peace offer, and declaring that she “will adhere without swerving to her attitude, which is not to negotiate with the Hohehzollerns.” There have been doubts in some quarters with regard to the position on the peace question of the British Labour Party, but those doubts have, surely, been sot at rest by Mr Arthur Henderson’s declaration at tho Socialist Congress in Bordeaux that “tie international movement had no chance of success while the war continued” ; that “he hoped that an inter-Allies Conference would soon be held” : and that “ho wanted a victorious peace, with the. destruction of German and the. abdication of tho Kaiser.” In this connection, it is also good to note that President Wilson has very definitely abandoned his former “peace without victory” attitude. Addressing on the SHh inst. the members of the National Unity League, which is making a concerted effort to eliminate the divergent elements in the United States. Mr Wilson “endorsed the purposes of tho league, emphasising the necessity for virile action and American thought to guide general opinion.” and “pointed out that the war must not end till Germany is beaten, and the ideals of democracy triumph.”