The Daily Alaska empire., 1932-07-28
War Guilt.
(New York Herald Tribune


 As finally written the Lausanne agreements pas over the great question of "war guilt in discree silence. Chancellor von Papen did not get Ire peal" of Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty, which the Germans have so bitterly protested tht ground that in it they were compelled under dures to declare themselves criminals But does it mat ter? Was the article itself declaration of mora responsibility for starting the war, or simply legal responsibility for meeting it's costs? It reads
 The Allied and Associated Governments,
 affirm and Germany accepts the responsi bity of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allies and Associated Governments and their na- tionals have been subjected conse
 quence of the imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. That the authors of the treaty constantly founc la moral justification for their work in the theory lof German guilt is scarcely to be questioned. In- ldeed in their reply to the objections raised by Ger many to the of the treaty they officially ano lexplicity stated this with great emphasis The war they said twas the greatest crime against humanity |. that any nation calling itself civilized has ever consciously committed" and they brushed away every German protest with this moral argument What they sought, however, to write it into the definite text of the treaty is less certain. The treaty did specifically arraign the Kaiser the author of the war; but the Kaiser was a man who couls be held personally responsible, could be dealt with personally and then forgotten To arraign 8 nation as a criminal another and more dubious proceeding.
 M. Nhntoux reporter of the Supreme Council in 1919 has recently declared that in writing Article 23l there never a question of the origins of war, nor a condemnation solemnly pronounced against Gerhnany nor even of giving the sys- tenn Of repaiation moral basis. What they desired to write into the treaty the theoretical principle Of ne pecunary responsibility of Ger many" The arSce would never have been written had it been possible for the Allies to agree upon definite reparathns figure it was included simply to support whateveN claim should finally be assessed
 It was natural hat the passions of the time should give It anothe interpretation on both sides and the tendency wa promoted by one of those unhappy difficulties ofNanguage that so often con- fuse such matters. Thogh aggression" in French simply means a physica attack, in English the word has taken a flaor of ethical condemna- tion And the Germans, h hastily translating the treaty text, unfortunately rendered the phrase responsibility for causing alshe loss into "respon- sibty as orignators for all aosseso The original text stated a physical fact; he German version shaded this into something imrNing deliberate in- tention. NA
 Article 23l thus to be acce,ted in Germany as a statement of guilt. But there's ample reason for accepting M Mantouxs interpretation one of the strongest being that only in ytlA one section on separations does any implicationsof a moral verdict against Germany a nation Apear The preamble considering what the Allies Aelieyed at the time, is a monument of restraint. sIt states simply that the war originated in the dslaration of war by Austria Hungary against SerbiaA Kin the subsequent declarations of Germany and in he in- vasion of Belgium-facts all of which kyond dispute and are given without moral implicasons The authors of the treaty seem, in fact to Ave been very careful not to base it's terms he dangerous foundations of ethical verdicts. Oriv the emotional tension of a postwar period an an unlucky muddling of thought through the diff ficulties of translation gave it another inter pretation.