The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-06-26
THEOLOG|ANS BACK
PAN-GERMAh AIMS
Professor TrtsItsrh. Of Heidelberg
Says Rights OF small States Are
Not 10 BE Considered.

The attitude OF large section OF
Germany'x theologians and college
professors toward peace by negotia-
ton" and the rights OF weaker ma
tons Is outlined In detail by Professor
Ernst Troeltsch. of Heidelberg one
OF the leading theological lights OF the
Pan~tlermans, in two articles printed
in the Munchner Neueste Nachrichten
OF April 6. Professor Troeitsch' 5
article begins by saying.
The Boisheviki drove the Russian
! border peoples into the arms Of the
central powers. and com PEELED the
central powers TO push forward 10 the
frontier, OF those border peoples the
plague cordon against worid-revolu~
ton. The fact that this could be
achieved in such an amazingly short
time Ia one OF our great military
achievements. Thereby. on the one
hand. we have achieved military ten
able frontier for Central Europe tow
ard the East. and, on the other hand,
we have created n gIrdle of buffer
states which stretches from Finland
to the Caucasus. follows the whole
front. OF the central powers, and in
the East already stretches out to
Persia as the last link In the chain
Az summarized by the London
Times. Professor Troeltsch does not
pretend TO accept any absolute right
OF self differentiation for the border
states: such a right must by alliances
and conventions be brought into ac-
cord with the vital interests of the
central powers" Here Germany has
no choice" and everything has now
become fate and necessity" Professor
Troeltsch sees no probability that the
Russian peace will be revised in the
making OF general peace
America Looms Up.
He proceeds to attack the western
powers especially on the ground that
the German attempts TO break their
home fronts" have not been allowed
tn succeed. He says:
The situation Is that the diplomatic
winter campaign, which aimed at OBJ
tanning a settlement and economizing
the strength and resources of Europe,
has been defeated by the stubborn
ness of Ciemenceau and Lloyd George.
while Wilson's attitude has at least
failed to prevent this and consequently
is deeply involved in the consequences
OF this stubborness. Tho question
whether German diplomacy conduct
ed Its campaign in such way, that
it could affect the home fronts Of our
enemies Is. like all Hypothetical Ques-
left alone. In any case the only thing
that remained was our present often
sive. which we were able to under
take with our whole forces. as at the
battle of the Marine, but this time
with our rear free. The iron fore
heads OF Clemenceau and Lloyd
George had. as / observed once be-
fore. to be smashed In
Professor Trosltsch then considers
various possible consequences OF the
offensive. He does not suggest the pos
sibility OF Geran failure, but he aug
gests that France might be cverrun
and forced into peace like that I'm
posed upon Russia and that England
might be driven from the contin.
emit" That would not end tho war
against England and America. but
THE great question would then be
how Germany's oversee world trade
could be restored" and whether Ger
many would have to abandon, more
or less, the hope Of that and to d.
rect all her main aims toward the
East Professor .Trosltsch fears that
reason" would still not prevail, and
that Germany would sttll have 10 deal
with morally poieoned ana agitAted
snAsses and with the ruthless schemes
~ nower cf individuals. : u :.