Min. Recaro F. C. Master has ngt, up to the present, succeeded in obtaining'an answer to the very simple questions which he put in a letter addressed to the correspondence columns of this journal on November 1, when he asked whether the indictment of Herr Hitler, by Mr. Neville Chamberlain's in his broadcast to the German people on the commencement of the war, contained statements which were true, and what explanation reasoning Germans could give of the matter. He pointed out that Mr. Chamberlain's reference to utterances by Herr Hitler can be verified from the reports of his public speeches, while the events which belie his words are now matters of history. It may be as well to reproduce Mr. Chamberlain's accusation "You may ask why Great Britain is concerned. We are concerned because we gave our word of honour to defend Poland against aggression. Why did we feel it necessary to pledge ourselves to defend this Eastern Power when our interests lie in the West, and when your Leader has said he has no interest to the West? The answer is—and I regret to have to say it—that nobody in this country any longer places any trust in your Leader's word. He gave his word that he would respect the Locarno Treaty; he broke it. He gave his word that he neither wished nor intended to annex Austria; he broke it. He declared that he would not' incorporate the Czechs in the Reich; he did so. He gave his word after Munich that he had no further territorial demands in Europe; he broke it. He gave his word that he wanted no Polish Provinces; he broke it. He has sworn to you for years that he was the mortal enemy of Bolshevism; he is now its ally."
Chapter and verse can be quoted for every pledge which the British Prime Minister alleged Herr Hitler had given. It is now common knowledge, and written plain across the face of Europe for all men to see, how Herr Hitler repeatedly broke his promises. The smoking towns and blood soaked plains of Poland and the misery of the inhabitants of that foully-stricken country are but the latest proofs of a policy of perfidy, concerning which, fortunately enough, Great Britain and France were sufficiently warned, before the opportunity of stopping Herr Hitler had passed. All that was asked was how reasoning Germans could hope, in obedience to the common standard of honesty and truth, to reconcile Herr Hitler's word with his deeds.
To the original letter there have been two German replies, one by Mr. E. KOHLHAUSER, appearing in these columns yesterday, and another written over the signature of Mr. S. LaHRMANN addressed to a contemporary. A reader has sent in a copy of the latter communication, which appears in today's correspondence column in order that readers may obtain as full an idea as possible of the reaction of some Germans to the original letter. Mr. KonLHAUstR completely failed to answer the very simple questions propounded. With an accusation against Great Britain of violating the neutrality of the port of San Juan Fernandez, he combines an attempt to show what he thinks Britain is fighting for, and the reasons she has entered the war. With regard to the former point a reader aptly points out that if Great Britain were guilty at San Juan Fernandez, Germany was equally so in shelling a British submarine in Danish waters. If it is readily admitted that two wrongs do not make a right, it can also be pointed out that the German conduct of the last war was infinitely more open to criticism than was that of the Allies. But that is neither here nor there, the fact is that Mr. KoRLHAUSER does not answer the questions which Mr. MASTER put, and which a large number of Allies as well as neutrals would like to see answered. Mr. S. LAHRMANN is no more successful.
That the Treaty of Versailles is open to considerable criticism is admitted. It was realized by some of the Allied statesmen at the time, and one of them, Mr. Lloyd George sought modification of its terms in several respects. To call the Treaty the grossest piece of fraud imaginable is to handle words lightly. The fact is that the German conception of the famous Fourteen Points of President Wilson, and the Allied were miles apart. The former apparently believed that they would permit the retention of the status quo ante 1914, so far as German possessions were concerned; the latter were equally determined that, within the limits of the Fourteen Points, Germany should be deprived as far as possible of any opportunity of ever again plunging Europe into war. That Herr Hitler has succeeded in doing so, is entirely because the Allies did not see fit to stop him when he first embarked upon his policy of treaty breaking, and the fact stands out clearly that, if Europe is to have any peace at all, the activities of such men of ill-faith as Herr Hitler must be put an end to.
Mr. LAHRMANN does not answer the questions. The indictment of Herr Hitler by Mr. Chamberlain is simple and direct. He is accused of breaking. by his acts the pledges he had given. Mr. Master merely asks whether Mr. Chamberlain's acensations are true, and if they are, how it is possible for any reasoning German to reconcile Herr Hitlers conduct with the standards of honesty, and truth which are common to men of all races. The simplicity of the points raised is apparent. Either Herr Hitler did not give the pledges which are alleged, and there is ample documentation for every one of Mr. Chamberlain's allegations on that score, or he did. Of his actions Europe today bears witness, ghastly witness. In the face of his promises and assurances how can the military subjugation of neighbouring peoples be justified save on the principle that might is right? What issue could possibly be plainer? The answer is just as simple. It is impossible to reconcile the two in face of the commonly accepted meanings of the words "honesty" and "truth," for in Herr Hitler's actions there has been neither of those qualities without which it is impossible for either men or nations to dwell in security. It is just as impossible for the world to carry on without the existence of international goodwill, but that again is based solely upon these two standards in the light of which Herr Hitler has to be judged. There can be little doubt about it that the verdict which has already been rendered in most of the nations of the world will be that of posterity, for not all the words, not all the special pleading imaginable can destroy the one great fact that between what Herr Hitler has said and what he has done, there is an unbridgable gap which can never be closed. The truth is that, in pursuance of his grandiose schemes for the elevation of Germany to dominance of the whole world, Herr Hitler has been utterly and complete disregardful of all the canons of international and human morality, and these questions are not answered by Germans because they cannot be. It will be seen from the letters published today that some of the replies are becoming far too discursive and covering issues not raised by the original communication, and it is considered desirable to close this correspondence.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.