THE NO-MARTYR ARGUMENT.
W.; must deal separately with the argument that, even if it can be shown that there is legal warrant for the trying of the Kaiser, we ought not to try him because it will make a martyr of him and so forth. We are inclined to agree in the abstract with the martyr proposition, and if we had only to think of the effect of the trial upon Germany at the present moment we should feel like saying that it would be better policy to abandon the prosecution and not to run the risks of a St. Helena legend. In our opinion, however, we ought not to think merely of the effect upon Germany, or even of that effect at all. What we want to do now is to make an example and give a lesson to all wielders of supreme power, whether they call themselves War Lords, or Autocrats, or Dictators, or Presidents of Republics or Soviets. The man who exercises supreme authority either in the Council chamber or in the field must be taught and warned by the clearest example which we can make that he cannot violate the principles of international custom, and cannot behave with inhumanity, and especially with inhumanity to those with whom he is confronted in arms, and yet go unpunished.: In other words, if he fights he must fight not like a savage but with due regard to humanity, and that in respect not only to his foreign opponents but also to the civil population when it becomes involved in war. Ambitious men must be taught that the world is no longer a safe place in which to carry on a policy of frightfulness, the policy which the German Emperor expressed when he said in his letter to the Emperor Francis Joseph : " We must put everything to fire and sword, slay men, women and children, and old men, and not leave standing a tree or a house," * on the ground that, though such things were cruel, terrible, and awful in themselves, they were justified, even from the point of view of humanity, because they would make victory quicker. The need for making this clear was well put by Burke in a notable passage in the Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke argued that all Governments required to be spiritualized, and especially democracies, in order that they might be impressed with their responsibility to God for the power which they wielded. Incidentally he says of Kings and great rulers : " Such persons, however elevated by flattery, arrogance, and self-opinion, must be sensible that, whether covered or not by the positive law, in some way or other they are accountable, even here, for the abuse of their trust." Further, he notes that one of the greatest controlling powers on earth is " the sense of fame and estimation." Great rulers must be taught •that there is no safety for them in sovereignty. Or, as Lord Auchinleck put it, Kings must be taught that they have necks like other men. But here let us say that we do not suggest capital punishment in the case of the Kaiser. Not only have we had enough killing, but we are quite sure that in the present instance the crimes, if they are proved, deserve what in truth will be a heavier, and therefore a far more deterrent, penalty. The soldier or revolutionary dictator of the future is much more likely to dread imprisonment or exile than a firing party.
One more argument may be noted which inclines us be be in favour of the Kaiser's trial. We believe that if • We should my in quoting these words that the letter from which they coma was declared by the French Commission to be authentic. If it is put into evidence it will of course be for the prosecution to substantiate it. At present we admit that there is only primd facie evidence for its authentleity. properly conducted the effect upon the world, and even upon that part of Germany which is willing to listen to reason, will be to show that the war was without justifitation, and to show further in what an inhuman manner it was conducted. At present half the world is inclined to believe that the Germans had some provocation, and anyhow that if war takes place it is so horrible a thing that you cannot prevent inhumanity. In both cases it will be of great use to prove, as can be proved, that these two pleas are bad. There would have been no war if the Germans had not willed it. There need have been no more barbarity on the part of German troops than was shown by British troops if, again, the rulers of Germany, and chief of these the Kaiser, had not had "the will to crime."
We have demonstrated above that the Allies, though right in arraigning the Kaiser, are arraigning him oli a wrong indictment. We claim also that they are wrong in placing him on trial in England, with an English Judge presiding. That he would get as fair a trial here as he would get anywhere in the world, perhaps a fairer, we agree, but we cannot admit that it was wise or opportune of us to undertake the responsibility. The trial should have been held under the auspices of the League of Nations, and at Geneva in it§ ex-territorialized settlement. Further, we should have liked, if possible, to have seen added to the Court judicial representatives of at least two of the nations that were neutral .during the war. As we have said, the Kaiser's trial would be conducted here with the most meticulous sense of justice. But that is not enough. The world will not believe that we, who suffered so much from U '-boats and from aircraft, could provide an impartial atmosphere for the trial of the German War Lord. Besides, why should we discredit in advance the vitality and efficiency of the League of Nations ? The great thing is to get it to fun9tion. But what could be a more legitimate piece of work for it than to try the man who not only made an absolutely inexcusable war, but waged it with the maximum of inhumanity and ferocity I
Previous page
