The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1919. VARIOUS CRITICS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10285, 21 May 1919, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1919. VARIOUS CRITICS

Hostile criticism of the Peace Treaty as accepted by the Allied Conference is rife. It may be divided into three parts, representing respectively th* German side, some neutrals, and.some British newspapers. The German side speaks for itself, through various channels. The head of the German delegation is, of course, severe, but he is not uncompromising. As far as can be gathered from the summaries of his spoken remarks and writings, and from the comments devoted to these, the chief of the delegation is heading for a compromise which, -without making any radical alteration in the terms, will save the German face, principally because it is a compromise of some sort. It. is as reasonable an attitude as can b'e expected; moreover, an attitude quite natural. That being so, it is conceivable that the statements of other members of the delegation are designed to give -weight to the President's arguments' againsti the Treaty terms, and therefore do not diverge from* the line of uncompromising resistance. This may -well be the casie, without any suspicion of bluff of the old sort. That sort is denounced by Maximilian Harden as played out by the Kaiser regime, which, however strongly it may be condemned for its failure, was, accordamg to this critic, very muoh better done than the attempt at imitation by the new rulers. Harden may be considered, therefore, as discounting the uncompromising part of the criticisms of the subordinate members of the delegation. The rest of the criticism on the German side may, in view of this situation, as framed by the President and members of thc # delegation and the leading publicist of Germany, be dismissed as merely beating the air. The probability is, we infer, that Germany will accept if some compromise, no matter 'how unimportant, is conceded. Whether the Allies will meet that lino of weakened resistance remains to be seen. As yol they have given no sign. The very many neutral criticisms are, with the exception of one class, merely without sense of iresrpnsibility and destituto of any guidance of information. They only remind us of the course of criticism adopted, except, in Switzerland, throughout the war. While the Swiss military expert, Colonel Feyler, was keeping up his series of predictions of German failure which he began after the first battle of the Marne, the bulk of the other neutral comments ran in the opposite direction. These reached their climax at the height of the great German offensive which broke the British Fifth Army fourteen months ago. In that climax a Danish critic distinguished himself by declaring that fche German long-range bombardment of Paris was tho tororunuor of what London and tho British Eastern ports were about to experience from the head of the German invasion and conquest of England, and was supported by the chorus of Dutch military writing which poured ridicule on the British reports of resistance to the German drive, and predicted an immediate and overwhelming German victory. Such was tho general neutral criticism on the military side, with, as we have pointed out, the Swiss exception. The non-military neutral criticism of to-day is not pro-German like tho bulk of military criticism. It resembles tho military criticism, however, in its disregard of responsibility and' its lack of information. Its leading typo is Troelstra, tho Socialist lender,"who seizes tho opportunity to preach revolutions for tho sake of humanity, and therefore a universality of revolution. This is, of course, his aim, for ho specifies as the theatre of revolution tho Allied countries and also Holland, while Russia and Middle Europe have already found their revolutionary role. This distinguished authority "does not reject Bolshevism, but opposes violence." Incidentally, this is, considering also the authority and what he stands for, the severest condemnation of Bolshevism, which, without its outrageous and systematic violence, would be nothing. K criticism of this wild order bns any effect, it can only be to make tho German rulers sign the Treaty as soon as possible. Tho other neutral commente are

only likely to inSpress Germans as being more futile than anything German in their line.

, The third order of criticism has its typical exponent, in the British •'Observer." Tho typo is one of those critics -who never hesitate to sacrifice the honour of a friend to an epigram, whoso loyalty is confined to the declarations of their own wayward, illbalanced minds, whoso genius specialises in distortion of facts, who only by occasional correctness avoid failure. Because this one is correct in a-sum-ing that Germans to n man dislike the Treaty, he expects to be believed when he declares that Germany can never,- and will never, pay tho penalties prescribed. Tho leading faot in the awful European situation is that the revolution which has fdled Middle Europe and Russia with tragic chaos is due to the old diplomatic system which, respected no rights, divino or human. This critic condemns the opposite system now in aues.tinn, because he chooses to rcny it will make the evil worse. Does he want to go back to tihe old system? Does he merely want to put the control of the Peace Treaty into other hands? Does he realise thn.t if he is taken -seriously all Europe will be in flames? This R fortunately, the crucial question. Xo one will take such a critic seriously. His own country has a limbo of forgetfulness Into wteth these critics subside automatically, and nobody beyond the border ovor bothers his head about them. However, therefore, wo may deplore such criticism, no ono need ever let it disturb his sleep.