The New York herald., 1922-07-23

nothing more than every newspaper
of to-day knows. He is unable to
prove his statement that before the
war he was an advocate of the policy
Of approaching England.
Especially remarkable is the
Crown Princes expression of high
regard for Tirpitz. whom he repeat
edly characterizes as really an ex-
traordinarily great person-an orig
inal. strong wilIed man." 1t was
however. solely Tirpitz's rejection Of
the English proposals regarding an
agreement with reference to feet
building that prevented an agree
ment being reached with England
In spite of the adoption of Tirpitz's
action through the blindness Of the
Foreign Office and Won Buelow's for
eign policy. the author maintains
that he did not agree with the opin-
ion of Tirpitz that it was necessary
to prepare for a decisive battle with
England at sea- 1t Is perhaps pos
sible that he wants to keep the
favor of this ambitious man to aid
him in case he should return to the
throne Won Buelow. too. can be
satisfied with his criticism, for the
author expresses his regret that
Won Buelow was not made ChanceE~
lor in the summer of 1917.
The Crown Princes attitude tows
ard Ludendorff is strange. At first
he defends him against the criticism
that he took more part in the prob
lens of domestic and foreign policies
than he had a right to take as CONS
mander in chief Of the army. He
was forced to do so." says the aus
thor. otherwise nothing would
have been accomplished in the way
Of solving the imminent problems.s
Later he criticizes Ludendorff indi-
rectly in his complaint that the mans
ner of censoring the German press
prevented the spreading of truth
among the German people. Who
other than the commander in chief
was responsible for the censorship
Again. the Prince admits that he
kept ''dissuasive" papers from The
men at the front. In the same man
ner Of criticism he tells how unex-
pected was Bulgaria.s collapse for
the chief command and accuses it Of
not having comprehended the situa-
ton. He also speaks of Ludendorff's
underestimation of the ability of the
army to keep on fighting.
The Princes sharpest criticism OF
Ludendorf is found in the books dee
scription of the last phase of the war
in October, 1918, and the "calamitous
request for an armistice." Certainly,
it was caIamitous. That also was the
opinion of Prince Max Won Baden,
who did not wish TO ask for an arm-
istice but for peace negotiations as
long as the front could be mains
tanned. But who was 10 who so urgs
emily demanded OF Prince Maxs
Government that the request for an
armistice be sent of Immediately be-
cause the front could not be held
for more than twenty-four hoursfa
1t was Ludendorff. although he now
tries to forget it as an article in the
Snnddy Pictorial of London. May z
and Ii shows when it attributes the
whole blame to "a dagger thrust
from behind" and to the German
people who did not have sufficient
moral stamina and endurance. The
Princes word: "A liar is he who says
that the fighting spirit on the front
had given way" are directed toward
Ludendorff. the same Ludendorff who
'lost his nerve" at that time and fed
TO Scandinavia
Returning to the political views OF
the former Crown Prince. his profess
sion of liberal views is poorly SUBJ
stantiated. Although he maintains
that he is devoted TO the English con-
stlution and tells how he enjoyed lis
tening to the wise teachings of King
Edward VII. he does not seem to
have learned much. His whole pre-
cepts might just as well have come
from a Prussian noble except that
the latter probably would have FORM