REICHSTAG AND PEACE

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 23 July 1917, Page 5

REICHSTAG AND PEACE

SPEECH BY MR. *3jLOYD GEORGE.

LONDON, July 21. Mr. Lloyd Lcorgc, speaking at a Belgian Independence Day feast at Queen’s Hall, referring to the German Chancellor’s speech, asked what hope of an honourable peace did it contain? /‘lt was a dexterous -facing-all-ways speedy It was the speech of a man awaiting the military issue. Let the Allies bear that in mind. There were phrases in the speech that the German military powers will understand; phrases about ‘‘making the frontiers of Germany secure.” That phrase annexed Alsace-Lorraine, and had drenched Europe in blood since 1914. That phrase, if they dared, will annex Belgium, and Corn-land, and again precipitate Europe in a welter of blood within a generation, unless it is wiped out on the battlefields of Europe.

GERMAN CHANCELLOR’S SPEECH.

DISSECTED BY LLOYD GEORGE. FULL OF ILLUSIONS AND SHAMS. Received 5.50. I ■ " LONDON, July 22. Lloyd George, in his speech, after saying on the whole the German Chancellor s speech meant that the military party had momentraily won, proceeded to re-affiirm that the form of Germany’s Government was the Germans’ own affairs, ‘'but what manner of Government we can,, trust to make peace with, ’ said Lloyd George, ‘ ‘was our business. Democracy has not its guarantee of peace, and if you can’t get it in Germanp then we must se- } cure other guarantees as a substitute. The Chancellor’s speech showed that Germany for the moment elected for war. Belgium wasn’t even mentioned. Its phraseology was full of menace. Belgium makes German frontier secure, makes Metz and Strassburg safe, and they will take Liege and control Antwerp in order to secure German economic interests. The determination of the Allies is that Belgium must be restored as a free and independent pople, and not a protectorate. I road Dr. Michaelis s speech as my duty, once, twice' and thrice, to seek anything wherefrom we could hope to end the bloody struggle. I see in it a sham independence for Belgium, a sham democracy for Germany, a sham peace for Europe, and I say Europe has not sacrificed millions of her gallant sons to re-establish the soil consecrated by their blood as a mere sanctuary for shanrn Dr. Michaelis v tries to dupe his people with illusions; Germany will find these visions, like others, will be dispelled.” Received 9.20. LONDON, July 22. Lloyd George, continuing, said: “I am sorry to disillusion Michaelis at the outset of his career, but truth compels me to show how gradually but surely we are increasing production and diminishing losses at sea. Although our apprehensions were great during the summer months, we gradually decreased losses. For example, comparing the three weeks of July with the corresponding period of April, we have not lost half the dumber of ships. We will turn out in 191 S six times the number we did in 1916; in the lasi two months of 1917 we should turn out as many ships as we did during the whole of last year; we will turn out in 1918 six times more than in 1916. Far from starv-

mg Us. owing to the exertions of the Pood Controller and the Shipping Controller the food supply for 1917-18 on the basis of our present consumption is secured. We are arranging a programme of cultivation to make 1918 secure, even if the losses are increased. We don’t want the Germans to harbour delusions that they are going to put us out of this fight till liberty is re-established throughout the world. A great German newspaper the other day said that Germany was fighting for freedom and independence of the Fatherland. The fieer Germany' is the better we like it; her rulers, not the Allies, are the enemies of the freedom of Germany. We could make peace with a free Germany, but cannot -with Germany dominated by autocracy'. Since the Russian revolution and Russian offer to concede independence to nations under the Russian flag, the last shadow of pretext that Germany is fighting for freedom is banished. It is now a struggle between a group of democratic freemen and a group of nations governed by a military autocracy'.