# 3

        La Bête de Berlin.

        THE BEAST OF BERLIN.

Signing of Peace in Versailles, 1919

PART VII.
PENALTIES

ARTICLE 227

The Allied and Associated Powers publically arraign William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties.

A special tribunal will be constituted to try the accused, thereby assuring him the guarantees essential to the right of defense. It will be composed of five judges, one appointed by each of the following Powers: namely, the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.

In its decision, the tribunal will be guided by the highest motives of international policy, with a view to vindicating the solemn obligations of international undertakings and the validity of international morality. It will be its duty to fix the punishment which it considers should be imposed.

The Allied and Associated Powers will address a request to the Government of the Netherlands for the surrender to them of the ex-Emperor in order that he may be put on trial.

ARTICLE 228.

The German Government recognizes the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law. This provision will apply notwithstanding any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Germany or in the territory of her allies.

The German Government shall hand over to the Allied and Associated Powers, or to such one of them as shall so request, all persons accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws and customs of war, who are specified either by name or by the rank, office or employment which they held under the German authorities.

ARTICLE 229.

Persons guilty of criminal acts against the nationals of one of the Allied and Associated Powers will be brought before the military tribunals of that Power.

Persons guilty of criminal acts against the nationals of more than one of the Allied and Associated Powers will be brought before military tribunals composed of members of the military tribunals of the Powers concerned.

In every case, the accused will be entitled to name his own counsel.

ARTICLE 230.

The German Government undertakes to furnish all documents and information of every kind, the production of which may be considered necessary to ensure the full knowledge of the incriminating acts, the discovery of offenders and the just appreciation of responsibility.


HOLLAND REJECTS EXTRADITION OF KAISER WILHELM II.

KAISER WILHELM WIRD NICHT AUSGELIEFERT.

London 23, Janner

 

                                              QUESTION:

What was Wilhelm II's judgement of the Versaille demand for his extradition?


                      http://www.donaldbrittonconrad.com/wtb.html

# 2

Thucydides makes the distinction between the more remote or

underlying and immediate causes of wars.

Using Thucydides' axiom, I hypothesize that Kaiser Wilhelm was

not solely guilty for starting the Great War. The Allies share in the blame.

 

 

The Origins of the World War

by Sidney Bradshaw Fay

...however, scholars have begun to explore more fully and

justly the remoter causes of the War.
In each of these phases there has been a change in the angle
from which the question has been approached.

At first, during the War,  writers sought to fix the "guilt" for
having caused this un-paralleled "crime" upon a few single
individuals--chiefly the Kaiser, the Pan-Germanists, and the
Austrian and German militarists.

Then, with the publication of more complete documents which
began in 1919, it was seen that the Entente thesis of the sole responsibility of Germany and her allies was no longer tenable,
and writers who demanded  a "revision" of the Treaty of Versailles tended to go to the other extreme of fixing the "guilt" upon Entente

leaders--MM. Izvolski, Poincare, Sazonov, and even upon

Sir Edward Grey.

Finally, with the growing realization that all the Powers were
more or less responsible, and with the increased attention which
came to be given to the underlying causes of the War, more
judiciously and historically minded persons were less inclined
to accept the easy solution of explaining the War on the scapegoat
or personal devil theory--that is, of the "guilt" of this or that
individual.
(1)

They fell back on the truer explanation that the War was

caused by the system of international anarchy involved in

alliances, armaments, and secret diplomacy.
(2)
But, after all, the "system" was worked by individuals; their
personal acts build it up and caused it to explode in 1914.

In the discussion of the future, it will be the work of the historian

to explain the political, economic, and psychological motives which caused these individuals to act as they did.
He will also cease to talk about "war guilt", since no person in

authority was guilty of deliberately working to bring about

a general European War.
But he will still continue to discuss the "responsibility" which each statesman must bear for acts which ultimately contributed to the catastrophe.
 

For this reason the present writer has always preferred the

term "war responsibility" to "war guilt".
The German phrase, Kreigsschuldfrage, is open to either interpretation.

 

 

(1) Cf. M. H. Cochran, "New Phase of War Guilt Controversy," in

Current History, XXVI, 71-76, April, 1927.

(2) Mr. G. Lowes Dickinson gives a scholarly, effective, and charmingly

written exposition of this view: The International Anarchy, 1904-1914,

London, 1926


                  http://www.donaldbrittonconrad.com/wtb.html
 

#1

Thucydides, 460-400 B.C.

Greek Historian of Athens.

 

 

His one work, a history of the Peloponnesian War to 411 B.C.,
is a military record devoid of social and political references apart from war.

http://www.donaldbrittonconrad.com/