Evening star., 1923-11-18
British REVERSAL
::::MYST|F|ES FRENCH
Revengeful Attitude at Ver-
..saiIIes Compared With
s',.'s Present Position.
BY ANDRE TARDIEU.


ifs BY ANDRE TARDIEU.
BY Cable to The Star.
PARIS, November 17.-However
much the allies may differ on techni-
cal matters, such as Germany's capac-
ity to pay reparations, it seems in
credible that they should differ on
the Questions of Hohenzollern re-
sponsihility for the war and the
necessity for disarming Germany.
Certainly during the eight months OF
the peace conference the English and
the Americans insisted on these two
points more than any others.
AS early as October IA, 1918, when
Germany began suing for peace.
president Wilson replied: No armi-
Stice is possible so long as Germany
il in the hands of the military pow
er which wrecked the peace of the
world" And President Wilson again.
on October %, when transmitting his
correspondence with the German
government to the allied powers, ~
peated: The peoples of the world
have, and can have, no confidence in
have directed the German policy"
The JHohenZollerns' fall and flight
We're consequences of this principle,
enunciated by President Wilson.
Maintained by British.
A little later. during the British
elections, it was. Premier Lloyd
George who raised the cry hang the
kaiser" In 1919. at the peace con-
ference, it was the British delegate.
Sir Ernest Pollock, who, at eleven sit
tingS of the responsibilities commits
sion, maintained, against all objec-
tions founded on precedent, the claim
for the surrender and Judgment by
the allies of those responsible for the
war.
1t was the British premier who. at
seven sittings of the council of four,
from April ! to May 5. demanded and
obtained revision OF the commissions
report in the direction of greater
severity. 1t was Philip Kerr. Lloyd
Georges secretary, who. replying TO
the counter proposals OF the Ger
man delegate. Brockdorferantzau,
drafted the letter of June 16, in which
the allies insisted on all their de-
mands concerning war criminals and
refused ito let the criminals be
judged by their accomplices."
Lloyd George Protests.
In the matter of disarmament, II
was Lloyd George who, in the coun-
ell of ten, on January 20, 1919. pro-
tested energetically against what he
called the softness of the armistice
terms and the deliberate slowness
of, the German rehabilitation. Here
is the text of his words, as taken
stenographically at that time:
This cannot go on. The Germans
are demobilizing very slowly. They
still have more than fifty divisions.
Why don't we compel them to de-
mobilize more rapidly? Why did not
the armistice impose that obligation?
Why not include that in the text of
the next armistice. which must be
signed February 16, when the old one
expires?
'It is important in some way not
only to oblige Germany without de-
lay to reduce the number of men with
the colors. but also to deprive her of
the war material which she has left"
Opposed Easy Terms.
1t was again Lloyd George who, a
few weeks later, on March 6, arose
against the terms proposed by the
military experts headed by Marshal
Foch and declared them insufficient.
Again, the stenographic report:
You propose that Germany have
an army of 100000 men, recruited by
conscription and serving for one
year. That means that Germany will
train 100000 every year. or 100000
in ten years. Why make her a
present of system which in fifteen
or: twenty years, will enable her to
mobilize millions of trained soldiers?
You reply that If we abolish con-
scription any professional army in
Germany would become a skeleton
army. But as the result of the war
Germany surely has a superabun-
fifteen years. If you allow her to
train 100000 men year. you can be
sure that in ten years she will have
trained 100000 under officers
If, now, England and America de-
clare themselves Indifferent both to
the return of the crown prince and
the disarmament of Germany, 1T SIM
ply means they have avowed their
ran Nnra ~
Il question of technical application
upon which experts may differ-as
on the reparations matter. 1t is a
case involving the essential principles
upon which Great Britain and Amer
lea fought the war and won the VIC
tory.
Lax From Start.
To tell the truth, if this decisive
population comes about 1t will not
be without precedent. On February
13, 1920, at the request of Premier
Lloyd George. the allies abandoned
the demand for former Emperor Will
helm, and turned over to the Leipzig
court the cases of minor criminals.
who have been judged in a manner
of which everybody knows. month
later they let the date for Germanys
complete disarmament pass without
comment. At successive conferences
they have granted additional time and
increaSed the maximum of effectives
permitted by the treaty.
Yet in the present case it is ques-
tion not of methods. but of principles
Just five years after the armistice
are the Anglo-S -Saxons Indifferent to
the rebirth of that militarism which
they swore to abolish in order to
avenge the dead and insure peace to
the aiving? Just five years after the
arrmtstice will the Anglo-Saxons
calmly accept the restoration to the
throne of those Hohenzollerns whom
they drove into exile and vowed to
sepA to the gallows? There is the
question in its starkest terms. If it
is. answered in the affirmative, then
what good has the war done?
ICnnYrrht 1909 4