THE ALLIES' PEACE AIMS Sm,—In your leading article of December
1st you say: "Germany would have the unfettered right to choose her own form of Government, so long as that Government in- volved no menace to her neighbours." That means, I sup- pose, that when German citizens become free to choose, they may have a republic, a monarchy, another dictatorship, any sort of government they like, so long as it can be trusted to behave correctly to its neighbours. The thought that dis- turbs me is whether, under any form of government, any lasting trust can be placed in German words and signatures, no matter how gently the country may be handled in a peace settlement.
It seems to me of the utmost importance that peace terms should have something, a great deal, in fact, to say about Germany's internal administration under any conceivable form of government. Will anyone seriously contend that, having "destroyed Hitlerism," we should leave Germany free to throw up other Hitlers and Himmlers to perpetuate the ghastly systems of Gestapo and concentration camp, and to persecute the Jews? Mr. Harold Nicolson ("People sad Things," November 17th) clearly foresees this possibility when alluding to Hitlerism as " a malignant tumour that. will grow again unless subjected to a surgical operation." What I. feel certain of is that so far from an indicated peace, a considerable degree of dictation will be necessary. It is not reasonable to expect that a nation in which the roots of
mediaeval barbarism still flourish, and every so often shoot above ground, can be relied upon not to menace its neigh- bours, unless and until its own internal government is modelled within the framework of " liberty, mercy, justice and truth." And it will be for us and our Allies to say that it shall be so.—I am, Sir, yours faithfully, GEORGE C. OWLES.
6 Claremont Avenue, Southport.
Sta,—Your correspondent Mr. Lyall raises a complex problem which is of fundamegtal importance in any discussion of our war aims. Can we, he asks, afford to make a " good peace " with a " sick nation "? But this question begs a further one ; how else than by means of a " good peace " can we hope to restore Germany to health?
The alternative to a " good peace " is presumably a vindictive settlement imposed upon Germany, not negotiated with her. Once the Allies have achieved victory, they can only guarantee themselves militarily against further German aggression by occupying certain strategic points on German soil, notably the Rhine bridgeheads. It may also be thought necessary to insist on the immediate, unilateral disarmament of Germany, as one of the conditions of peace, while many would consider it just that the Allies should exact an indemnity from the defeated enemy to pay for the material damage done to Poland and Czecho-Slovakia.
Assuming that peace will eventually be made with a Germany which has overthrown Hitlerism, it would be a fatal psychological blunder to treat the German people as a guilty nation. For how else could they regard the peace terms suggested above than as a punishment for crimes, which they would not recognise as their own? Punishment can only do harm, when it is unaccompanied by a sense of guilt on the part of those on whom it is inflicted. The Allies would, of course, view such peace terms in a different light. But it is not what we think, but what the Germans feel, that matters, if our aim is to win back Germany to Western civilisation.
At the end of this war our statesmen will be faced with a situation analogous to that which confronted the peacemakers of 1815. Castlereagh realised that generous peace terms were essential to the stability of the newly restored French monarchy. If democracy is to prosper in Germany after the overthrow of Hitler, it must be allowed to take root under circumstances more favourable than these which surrounded the birth of the Weimar Republic.—Yours truly, E. P. WRIGHT.
" Trees," Oakhill Road, Sevenoaks.
SIR,—It is astonishing how our intellectuals, in discussing plans for a new order in Europe, seem to be quite incapable of emancipating themselves from the influence of their per- sonal emotions. On the platform and in the Press, the vast majority of these people proceed on the basis that the problem consists of freeing the unfortunate German people from the Hiderian regime under which they are groaning. This ex- presses a sentimental attitude which is every bit as dangerous as that of those who talk of vanquishing and punishing an evil nation.
"The internal affairs of Germany," these people repeat ad nauseam, "are no concern of ours." Nothing could be a more tragic mistake. The private affairs of the British family, to take a parallel, are within certain limits no concern of the State. But there are limits. We do not, for example, allow such things as cannibalism, incest or even cruelty to children within the British family because such things cannot exist amongst us without poisoning the whole community. Neither can the crushing of personal freedom, Jew baiting, the torture of prisoners and ferocious cruelty towards political opponents exist in any European State without poisoning the life of the whole Continent. But it would take an axe to drive this simple truth into the heads of the old ladies of the League of Nations Union.
The fact is that there is no room in the European com- munity for any nation which does not, both internally and externally, conform to certain minimum standards of decency and civilisation. After the .war, nations who fail to conform to those standards should be treated as outcasts. Civilised countries should not trade with them, or open their ports to their ships, or carry their goods, or allow their nationals into their territories, or have anything whatever to do with them.
When we have defeated Germany in this war, we shall be called upon to deal with a people who have no grievance, real or imaginary, who for the last century have dreamed of world domination, and who have taken their young people out of their families and deliberately trained them in that cruelty and ruthlessness which is essential for their concentration camps, and which no decent human being can acquire other than by special training. To do so, we shall have to begin by abandoning that particular form of wishful thinking which diVides the Germans into two imaginary categories, the government and the people. A people cannot wash their hands of their responsibility for their government. That responsibility is theirs, whether through their own volition, their negligence or their feebleness. We do not permit a man to keep a mad dog which goes about biting everybody, and plead that, after all, it is the dog which is mad and not the man.
It is as certain as anything can be in this life, that after the war the French, who are realists, with no patience what- ever for British sentimentality, will want to free coming generations from this eternal German menace by breaking up Germany into small self-governing States, which will be neither big enough nor powerful enough to threaten their neighbours. It is equally certain that if the French Govern- ment had any suspicion that the howl which will inevitably go up from our romantically deluded busybodies had any prospect of success, they would call the war off now, and make their own terms with Germany. And they would be right, for the sacrifices which this war is going to demand from every one of us before we are through with it, will have been in vain if we are not going to harden our hearts to produce a new Europe which will meet the needs of the situation, whether the German people like it or not.—
Previous page
