R

USSIA'S revolution and the entry of the United States into the war brought about a restatement of the purposes of the war by the Allies. The Russian Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates had previously forced the Russian Provisional Government to modify its original declaration of its war aims by forcing the retirement of Milukoff and the entire reconstruction of the Cabinet, with the more radical Socialists in control. The declaration of the new Government was summed up in the phrase, "Peace without annexations or indemnities on the basis of the rights of nations to decide their own destiny." On June 5 this policy was again announced in a call for an international Socialist peace conference issued by the Russian Central Federations and Socialist Parties, accompanied by a demand that Russia's allies in the war restate explicitly their war aims.

The first response to this demand was made in the British Parliament by Lord Robert Cecil in reply to a question from a pacifist member of the body, Philip Snowden.

The debate was originated by Mr. Snowden, who moved the following amendment on May 16:

That this House welcomes the declaration of the new democratic Government of Russia, repudiating all proposals for imperialistic conquest and aggrandizement, and calls on his Majesty's Government to issue a similar declaration on behalf of the British democracy, and to join with the Allies in conformity with the Russian declaration.

Mr. Snowden wanted to know whether the treaty made with the old order in Russia was still binding or whether it had been rendered void by the revolution; also whether the British Government accepted the declared policy of the new Russian Government in regard to war aims.

HATEVER there may be in store

WHA

as an

for Russia in history, she will at any rate have the credit of having carried through, by practically the unanimous wish, so far outsider is permitted to judge, of the whole of her people and of every class of her people, a revolution which has been stained with far less bloodshed than any movement comparable with it in size. I am anxious to make that clear, because, of course, in dealing with this declaration, possibly some phrase might escape me which would appear to be a criticism. I am anxious to avoid any chance of that being said. It is quite true that the phrase which is thought to crystallize the new policy is the phrase, “No annexation and no indemnity." The honorable member for Leicester says that the word "annexation" is a mistranslation -at any rate, a completely wrong version

But what would the real policy of "no annexation" mean? Take Arabia. Arabia has declared its independence from Turkey. No human being would suggest that we should use our power of influence to place Arabia again under the domination of Turkey. Take Armenia. I do not know whether it is yet realized what Armenia really meant and what crimes were committed upon Armenia. Here is a statement which says:

"Of the 1,800,000 Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire two years ago 1,200,000 have been either massacred or deported. Those who were massacred died under abominable tortures, but they escaped the longer agonies of the deported. Men, women, and children, without food or other provisions for the journey, without protection from the climate, regardless of age or weakness or disease, were driven from their homes

and made to march as long as their strength lasted or until those who drove them drowned or massacred them in batches. Some died of exhaustion or fell by the way; some survived a journey of three months and reached the deserts and swamps along the middle Euphrates. There they have been abandoned, and are dying now of starvation, disease, and exposure "-I am afraid they are dead now, because this was written some months ago. "A recent report tells of a group of survivors at Abu Herrera, mostly women, children, and a few old men, who had been without food for seven days."

The most imperialistic annexation would be of benefit to the people who suffered such crimes as that. Take the case of Syria and Palestine.

Although

in Syria the numbers are not so great, yet there in substance the same thing has taken place. I confess I have some hesitation in denouncing annexation if it means that no territory which has been taken by force during this war is not to be restored to its original owners. If that is what is meant, then I am certainly unable to accept the policy of no annexation. May I give a few examples? The favorite example referred to is that of the German African colonies. I do not say that we attacked the German African colonies in order to rescue the native from misgovernment. We did it as part of the war against Germany. I do not say that it would have been right in any circumstances to go to war in order to rescue the African population from misgovernment by Germany. But having rescued them, are you to hand them back? That is a very different question, which requires to be carefully considered.

German East Africa

Just let me read one or two descriptions, because I am not sure that this is always realized. This, for instance, is from a description given to us this year as to the treatment of carriers in German East Africa:

"Many carriers are dying of cold. The treatment of carriers lately by the Germans has been terrible; their carriers include our Indian soldier prisoners of war, and many wretched villagers, young

boys, old men, and women; in fact, they catch those who cannot run away. They chain them together, and just work them until they die of starvation and exhaustion. In following upon Wahle's track from Walangali to Lupembe we kept finding dead and dying carriers. Nor after an action do they trouble any more about their wounded Askari, but just leave them to die.

"The great aim of German policy in German Southwest Africa as regards the native is to reduce him to a state of serfdom, and, where he resists, to destroy him altogether. The native, to the German, is a baboon, and nothing more. The war against the Hereros, conducted by General Trotha, was one of extermination; hundreds-men, women, and children were driven into desert country, where death from thirst was their end; those left over are now in great locations near Windhuk, where they eke out a miserable existence; labor is forced upon them, and, naturally, unwillingly performed. Again with the Hottentotstheir treatment is still more barbarous, as the Germans are fully determined to root out that race lock,stock, and barrel." I do not know, of course, and it is impossible to say, what we may not be forced to do at the end of the war, but if there is any measure of success I confess I should regard with horror the idea of returning natives who have been freed from a Government of that kind. What about Poland? I think we are all agreed that it was desirable to set up an independent Poland. Is there to be no annexation there? Are you to say really that Germany, having taken two provinces from France, they shall not be restored? Take Italia Irredenta. Are we really to commit ourselves to the proposition that under no circumstances would we restore to Italy provinces populated by Italians? I should regret any acceptance of short, misleading phrases. Mr. Whyte referred to another phrase"No peace with the Hohenzollerns." There is a great deal in that that is very attractive to any ordinary British mind, but at the same time I agree with him that it is too attractive to be quite trueat any rate, to be quite prudent as a

definition of national policy. It may be quite true that it would not be a good ground for going to war to accomplish acts of justice and reparation such as I have described, yet it is quite a different thing to ask to resign and abandon the fruits which every one must recognize are desirable achievements.

"No Indemnity" Cry

About "No indemnity" I confess that for us to talk about not wishing for any indemnity seems to me a little difficult. What about Belgium? Does the honorable member say no indemnity to Belgium?

Mr. Snowden-We have always demanded as an essential of any settlement the restoration to Belgium of its independence, and not only that, but of all the damage that has been done.

Lord R. Cecil-What about Serbia? What about the northern provinces of France? Are we to rule out definitely all reparation for the destruction of peaceful merchant vessels by submarines? I certainly am not prepared to do it. Mr. Snowden said the allied Governments should rewrite their reply to Presidet Wilson and issue a new note in very different terms. He proceeded to give a description of the note, which, indeed, I read in the German papers, but which is altogether at variance with the terms of the note. The one statement in the note which I suppose is objected to is that referring to the turning out of Europe of the Ottoman Empire. I remember the time when it was one of the greatest doctrines of the most progressive forces in this country that the Turks were to go out bag and baggage. It was only we benighted Tories who ever said anything for the Turks in those days. We are all agreed there is nothing to be said for the Turks now. If that is the only sentence which the honorable member thinks conflicts with the general spirit of the declaration made by the Council of Workmen, I cannot see that there is any ground for saying there is any substantial difference of opinion between any of those who have spoken in this debate. I confess that at this moment it does not seem to me that it would

be desirable for us to ask for terms of peace from Germany. There is a wellknown French proverb, Que messieurs les assassins commencent, (let the murderers begin.)

Bethmann Hollweg's Speech

To judge by the German Chancellor's speech, there is no inclination on the part of the Germans even to state what terms of peace they are ready to accept. As far as I can see, what has happened in Germany now is what has happened in every domestic controversy in that country for the last forty or fifty years. There is a popular demand for some reform, an appearance by the Government that they are going to yield and make terms, a protest generally couched in very offensive terms from the Junker party, and an immediate surrender by the Government to the Junkers. That is really the meaning of Bethmann Hollweg's speech in the Reichstag yesterday, and until that spirit has been exorcised from Germany it appears to me to be ludicrous-apart from want of dignity -to suggest that we should ask for terms from the German Emperor.

We of the Allies are determined not to accept a peace that will be no peace. It must be a peace just and durable. I am a great adherent of the idea of a league of nations, but before there can be, in the most sanguine mind, the slightest expectation of its success, you must first establish a sound, just, equitable peace. The honorable member quoted some phrase about patriotism. I think the last word on that subject was said by Miss Cavell when she was under sentence of death. "Patriotism is not enough," she said. I agree; but you do not want less than patriotism; you want more-you want the condition, and this must be the foundation of any peace we make-justice, chivalry, respect for obligations, and respect for the weak. If we can secure peace founded on this central doctrine, I shall be glad to co-operate with any honorable member of the House to erect what barriers may be possible against the recurrence of a devastating war such as the present is.