BELGIUM—YES OR NO ?
MR. ASQUITH, we think it fair to say, has been the orator of this war. His speeches have not had the warmth, colour, and driving-power of much that has been said by Mr. Lloyd George, but for appropriateness, clearness, wisdom, and steadiness at critical junctures they have been supreme and invaluable. Several times in the House of Commons since Mr. Lloyd George became Prime Minister it has fallen to Mr. Asquith at the end of a debate to say rather better what the Government had already been saying, and thereby greatly to strengthen the position of the Cabinet. One of the best speeches Mr. Asquith has delivered was that at Leeds on Wednesday night on the war aims of the Allies.
The nation, he truly said, " with a few negligible excep- tions," presents an unbroken front of unshakable resolve. Peace was worth any sacrifice except the sacrifice of those things whioh make peace worth having. That was why we were still fighting and still meant to fight—for the peace of the world. He traced the larger part of the present calamities to the spoliation practised by Germany under the treaty which concluded the Franco-German War. If a treaty were made at the end of this war with any semblance of the spirit of 1871, exactly similar disasters would be sure to follow. What was wanted now from Germany was very plain answers to very plain questions. Would Germany restore Alsace-Lorraine to France and thus undo the wrong of 1871 ? Would she make full restitution to Belgium ? The one word " Yes " in answer to such questions would be worth a column of Herr Michaelis's platitudes. As Mr. Asquith pointed out, there are of course many other questions which Germany must answer. The just claims of Italy and Rumania are long overdue. Serbia must be restored and allowed to expand. Poland, Greece, and the South Slays must all receive satisfaction. " All these dangerous accounts must be liquidated." But Mr. Asquith dwelt in particular on Belgium as providing a kind of test question. In the Spectator of July 21st, in writing of the peace rumours which were then beginning to fill the air, we said : " Surely the first thing the movers of the Reichstag resolution would tell themselves, if they were sincere, is that they must make amends—offer reparation—for the terrible wrongs they have done to Belgium and other countries; and the second thing they would tell themselves is that the Allies will naturally want some guarantee of security in future. As they do not even mention the -possibility of such things, the words that follow about International Courts signify nothing." We went on to argue that the test of good faith on the part of the Germans was to be sought, not in analysing dubious state- ments and trying to discover their meaning, but in trying to extract the simplest answers to the simplest questions. The promise of the restoration of Belgium would, we said, be only a fragment towards the satisfaction of the Allies, but it would at least be the first step towards peace. Nobody expects that Germany will yield everything at once. On several occasions since July 21st we have pointed out that in this one question about Belgium we have a policy which might unite, up to a certain point, the whole British nation, including those Pacificists whom Mr. Asquith referred to as "negligible exceptions."
Mr. Asquith's speech at Leeds was not the first occasion on which he lent invaluable support to this point of view. In the House of Commons on July 26th he said : " I want to put a very plain and specific question with regard to the Reichstag resolution. Is Germany prepared not only to evacuate Belgium, not only to make full reparation for the colossal damage which has accompanied her devastating occupation of the country—this is a very plain question which demands a very simple answer—but to restore to Belgium, not the pretence of liberty, but complete and unfettered and absolute independence ? I ask the German Chancellor that question. I want to know his answer, not the answer of the Reichstag. It is a very simple question." We remember hearing at the time that the culmination of Mr. Asquith's speech at the end of an extremely nebulous peace debate had an electrifying effect. One does not see why such simple and obvious remarks should be startling when one reads them now, but the explana- tion is to be found in the circumstances of the moment. They were an appeal for getting back to the point, an appeal for relevance and practicality. It seems to us that the occasion is apt again for a repetition of these very plain questions, and it is clear from Mr. Asquith's speech at Leeds that he thinks so too. The German official Notes on peace are becoming more hazy instead of less hazy. They speak of things holy and sacred, but never is there a word about how in a single practical act the interests of holy and sacred things could be made secure. We call to mind the wonderful words of South about plainness of speech. In writing about the soberness of St. Paul's language he said :—
" This was the way of the Apostles discoursing of things sacred. Nothing here of ` the fringes of the north star ; nothing of nature's becoming unnatural' ; nothing of the 'down of angels' wings,' or
the beautiful locks of eherubims' ; no starched similitudes intro- duced with a Thus have I seen a cloud rolling-in its airy mansion,' and the like. No, these were sublimities above the rise of the apostolic spirit. For the apostles, poor mortals, were content to take lower steps, and to tell the world in plain terms, ' that he who believed should be saved, and that he who believed not should be damned.' "
While Mr. Asquith presses his questions on the German Chancellor, we should like to address the same questions to British Pacificists, and indeed to any one who believes in the possibility of what is called " a peace by negotiation." Will one of them tell us why, since they believe in complete restora- tion for Belgium—there is no doubt that they do, for they freely admit it—they do not address themselves to Germany instead of to their own countrymen How necessary plainness of speech is to the Germans if they really desire peace is shown undesignedly in an official telegram from Berlin published in the newspapers on Thursday. This telegram states that the German Government have supple- mented their Note to the Vatican by a verbal communication by Herr von Kuhlmann on the subject of Belgium to a Papal Nuncio at Munich. The conditions are specified under which, Germany is willing to evacuate Belgium :— " Restoration and independence of Belgium. Germany would contribute a share of the compensation to be paid to Belgium for war damages.
Belgium would be required to give a guarantee that any such menace as that which threatened Germany in 1914 would in future be excluded.
Belgium must undertake to maintain the administrative separation of Flemings and Walloons which has been introduced by Germany, because this neparation corresponds to the wishes of the majority of the Belgian people, and because Germany desires such a separation for reasons of racial sympathy.
Germany must have the right to develop her economic enterprises freely in Belgium, especially at Antwerp."
What, we wonder, was the menace which threatened Germany in 1914 ? It was the old menace which the lamb directed against the wolf—according to the account of the episode, supplied by the wolf. The guarantee contemplated to prevent the poor lamb from throwing itself again into such a threatening posture would no doubt be the German occupation of such places as Lilige and Namur. They are not mentioned, but that must be meant. The demand that the Flemings and Walloons should be separated administratively is simply an insolent demand under another name for the control of internal Belgian policy. What little plainness of speech there is in Germany takes the wrong direction. The restoration of Belgium must be absolute, the compensation must be complete. If our " peace by negotiation " friends would straighten out the odd twist in their minds, they might begin at last to be helpful by joining in the plain question to Germany upon which, after all, they and we are agreed.
Previous page
