# The New York Times/1916/11/22/London’s Comments on ‘Cosmos’ Articles

LONDON’S COMMENTS ON ‘COSMOS’ ARTICLES
Called “A New Peace Kite”—Asquith’s Guildhall Declaration Still Stands.
LONDON, Nov. 21.—A summary of the first “Cosmos” article in The New York Times was published in this morning's Times and Daily Mail. The subject is not mentioned in any other morning paper.
The Times displays a dispatch from its Washington correspondent, giving the summary prominently under the headlines, “The Peace Kite, No Allied Breeze to Carry It—New York Suggestions.” The headlines are followed by an italicized paragraph saying:
“In courtesty to The New York Times and in recognition of the natural desire for peace entertained by a respectable body of opinion in the United States, we publish the following dispatch. The British reply is still contained in Premier Asquith’s Guild Hall declaration: ‘We shall never sheathe the sword, which we have not lightly drawn, until Belgium recovers in full measure all and more than all that she has sacrificed, until France is adequately secured against the menace of aggression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domination of Prussia is wholly and finally destroyed.’”
The London Times’s Washington correspondent in the course of his dispatch says:
“There can be no doubt, as already indicated in this correspondence, that the drawn war theory is gaining ground here. The theory is not based upon any ​desire to help this side or that. The utterances of organs like The New York Times and The New Republic must be sharply distinguished from those of German propagandists like Mr. Hearst, who clamors continually for peace, but upon genuine humanitarianism.”
Then the correspondent gave the following condensation of “Cosmos’” argument:
“Germany may have been the sinister aggressor, but she has learned her lesson. If peace comes now her people can be relied upon to do their best to prevent more war, just as the people of the Allies can be. They would, in fact, now be ready to join honestly in a league to enforce peace, or whatever concerted means may be taken against more war, and some such guarantee, judging from utterances such as Viscount Grey’s, is what the Allies really want, besides, of course, the restitution of Belgium, the evacuation of France, and other things which Germany is believed to be ready to do.
“To continue the war indefinitely would, on the other hand, mean not only more and worse suffering, but the exacerbation of feelings deleterious to the future peace of Europe. The Allies might well win, but they do not want and would not probably be able utterly to crush their enemies, and if they succeeded in merely crippling the Central Powers, what would be the result? Exhaustion does not last forever. Instead of realizing the errors of their ways, the Teutonic peoples would be inclined to heed the arguments of their rulers that they had been unfairly attacked and despoiled by a jealous cabal, and would sanction efforts to prepare for a war of revenge.
“This is not, of course,” added the correspondent, “the view of many thoughtful Americans, who realize as well as we do what we are confronted with, and do not relish the idea of any effort to hamper the Allies just when they are beginning to overcome the handicap of their unpreparedness, but it is becoming prevalent enough to merit serious attention.”
Reference was then made to the American publication of Berlin and Vienna dispatches giving German comment upon President Wilson’s alleged belief that the time is coming when he might do something toward peace, or, at any rate, an armistice.
“The tenor of these dispatches,” said the correspondent, “is mildly and cautiously encouraging.”
The correspondent followed this by a quotation from the Washington announcement that there was no foundation for “statements that the President has changed his opinion that to intervene would be ill-timed and futile unless the belligerents indicated such action would be acceptable, which, it is intimated, they have not yet done.”
Lord Northcliffe’s other paper, The Daily Mail, printed a shorter dispatch, in which it spoke of “the first serious movement toward peace among American newspapers by The New York Times.” The Mail headed the dispatch “German Peace Trick—Fresh Effort to Make a Catspaw of President Wilson.”
In regard to the foregoing it is said that in the best-informed quarters here there is not the slightest idea that President Wilson will go beyond the limits which he has set himself.
Views of Daily Express’ Editor.
R. D. Blumenfeld, editor of The Daily Express, said yesterday:
“I can quite understand a willingness on the part of the German Chancellor and the German people to discuss peace suggestions as outlined by ‘Cosmos,’ namely that the war should be declared a draw, but it doesn't appear to me to be in the least sound to suggest that the Allies should now let bygones by bygones and shake hands with the Central Powers. German ambition was to dominate the world. It has failed. The Allies have sacrificed too much to desire now to call a truce without a definite result. There is no sane person in the country today who would care to accommodate Germany to an easy peace. There is no sane person in this country who wishes to destroy Germany root and branch, but every thinking woman who has gone through the terrible experiences of this war remains firm in the belief that it must go on until ‘never again’ has become a certainty.
“An inconclusive peace today would merely postpone the inevitable recurrence of bloodshed and sacrifice. The menace of aggression must be eliminated forever from the European horizon.”
Warns us “Hands Off.”
Among the evening paper all avoided reference to The New York Times article with the exception of the Pall Mall Gazette, which in its news columns emphasizes the view taken by the London Times, whose dispaotch it quoted in full, adding:
“Another peace kite is flying—in America. The New York Times definitely declares itself in favor of the theory that the time is nearly ripe for peace. The lines of the arguments are not new.”
The Pall Mall Gazette referred to Maximilian Harden’s Die Zukunft article urging Germany to understand the real objects of the Entente and suggesting that an offer to endeavor to fulfill those conditions would find fruitful response before Christmas as “interesting comment” on The New York Times article. I an editorial note the Pall Mall Gazette said:
“Those American newspapers which are flying a new peace kite may be perfectly free from German influences, but they are none the less playing the German game, and it is well they should understand that their efforts can only discredit the United States in the eyes of this country. The mind of the Allies is quite fixed that there can be no safety for Europe so long as a nation of Germany’s criminal instincts retains its military power. America has excused her aloofness from the defense of civilization by pleading she has no concern in the affairs of Europe. Very well, let it stay at that. She will only incur unpleasant consequences by interfering at this stage with measures which the Allies are taking to put their own side of the world in order.”
The Evening Standard had an editorial congratulating the Cabinet Ministers on the decision to address a number of meetings during the Winter, saying:
“Some such antidote to pessimism and underground intrigue is badly wanted. The patchy working of the censorship is all against the maintenance of healthy public opinion. It is impossible for honest commentators to say all they would like to say, while, on the other hand, the pacifists are free to carry on their underground campaign in the interests of Germany. Lying rumor has in these times an enormous advantage, of which the Morels and MacDonalds are quick to make the most effective use. It cannot be denied also that the Ministers themselves are much to blame for the gloom and uneasiness widely felt, if not articulately expressed.
“If the common people gain the impression that a patched-up peace is in contemplation, that Germany after all her crimes is to be welcomed back, Hohenzollerns and all, to the comity of civilized nations, then assuredly there will be no heart in the war. If, on the other hand, they are convinced that all these dreadful losses are not being incurred in vain, that the object to be achieved is worth sacrifice, all the wiles of Morel and Wolff will be in vain.
“In one sense, the issue of the war depends more on our civil leaders than on the army, for the army cannot conquer without the nation behind it, and the nation will lose its courage and hope unless it sees those qualities in the Government.”
The Globe published an editorial headed “Malignant Pacifists,” wherein it denounced an article in the organ of the union of democratic control, in which it was said:
“There is good reason for believing that upon the vital issue of peace by negotiations our Government is divided in opinion.”
The Western Morning News of Plymouth, under the title “Peace? With Slave Drivers?” says:
“Americans are not without ideals. They once went to war themselves to put an end to what they believed to be the degenerate system of colonial administration of Spain. Yet if The New York Times enjoys any substantial following in the United States in this peace propaganda America must be supposed to be ready to counsel this country to make terms with a conscienceless power which has outraged every law and practice of civilized warfare, whether on land or sea. Remote from the realities of conflict and failing to realize the poignant sacrifices in life and all that makes life dear which it has cost us, The New York Times and its friends proffer us their counsel to ‘throw up the sponge.’ They have adopted with remarkable readiness the German-made story that the war is reaching a condition of stalemate. Stalemate! When the mightiest efforts which this country has made to produce a preponderance in men and material have not yet reached full fruition, when next year will place us in possession of resources which will alter the whole aspect of the campaign!”
Confident Allies Can Win.
The Daily Chronicle in an editorial this morning says:
“Without in the least impugning the sincerity of The New York Times we disagree both with its premises and with its conclusions. The Allies, we believe, can win without paying a prohibitive price; much the heaviest part of their price has been paid already.
“In the month of September our forces in the West had got the Germans definitely ‘down,’ we were inflicting on them weekly very much heavier losses than we suffered, and there was nothing save the weather to prevent the process being pushed further and further to its inevitable end. That is still the position which the expansion of our artillery and air services can only accentuate. Six weeks’ nearly continuous rain gave the Germans respite, three months of Winter may give them more, but after all these respites the working of the process must return. The Germans can no longer hope, as in 1915, to stop it by [. . .]tion.
“The fate of Combles, Thiepval, and Beaumont-Hamel proves that. Nor do we believe Germany ‘learnt her lesson.’ If she had, she would not continue as she does in the path of perfidy and atrocity. This power, which we are told may ‘join honestly’ in a league, that would be utterly worthless unless composed of trustworthy parties, is not merely the power which invaded Belgium in 1914, but the power which in defiance of both general right and of special pledges is slave-driving in Belgium today.
“It is not merely the power which sank the Lusitania nineteen months ago, but the power which still exults in almost daily perpetration of piracy and murder at sea. No post-war settlement which depends for its stability on undertakings given by such a power can have any real stability at all. We are bound to fight on for a solid material guarantee. We want no peace of Amiens, we do not even want such a peace as was made and broken before Waterloo; we need an after Waterloo peace.”