BEHIND SCENES

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 127, 11 March 1936, Page 5

BEHIND SCENES

MOTIVE FOR OCCUPATION. ANGLO-FRENCH PACT FEARED. ASPECT OF OIL SANCTIONS. (United Press Association—Copyright.) (Received This Day, 10.40 a.m.) LONDON, March 10. The Berlin correspondent of “The Times” gives an illuminating explanation of what was behind Herr Hitler’s impulsive act. Dr. Schacht- (Minister for Economy) constantly pointed out to Herr Hitler that there were limits to creating of recovery by financing rearmament by continuous expansion of Government credit. Dr. Schacht kept reminding Herr Hitler that Germany’s financial and economic salvation lay in resumed contact with the Western Powers but the Nazi Party insisted that Germany should not capitulate. Dr. Schacht, who faced the difficulty of funding the floating debt, was supported in that connection by international bankers. It is significant that Dr. Schacht and Baron von Neurath (Foreign Minister) were not present at the vital meeting of the Chancellery on (March 2, at which presumably the decision regarding the Rhineland was taken. It is reported that Dr. Schacht on the following day protested and offered his resignation. The events abroad last week which precipitated Herr Hitler’s decision included the threat of oil sanctions against Italy, who might leave the League and back out of the Locarno Pact. Germany also feared the possibility that M. Flandin, in return for France’s support of oil sanctions, might demand additional guarantees from Britain for security against German aggression in the Rhineland. HenHitler feared that Britain would automatically be committed to sanctions against Germany, whose encirclement would he complete and his foreign policy ruined. He therefore took the decisive step on Saturday hoping to appease British opinion by an offer to rejoin the League.

REACTIONS TO THE SPEECHES. STEADYING EFFECT ON EUROPE. LONDON, March 9. A correspondent of the “Sun-Hei-ald” service says that immediate reactions to the statement made by Mr Eden in the House of Commons were very favourable. Opinion in the lobbies was that the Government’s forthrightness will have a very steadying effect on the Continent. The House, earlier m a grim mood, was noticeably reassured when Mr Eden declared there was no reason to suppose that the present German action implied a threat of hostilities. Prolonged cheers oi approval interrupted Mr Eden’s declaration that Germany had profoundly shaken confidence in any future engagement into which a German Government might enter. Mr Baldwin, opening the debate on the defence proposals, asserted that France had virtually wrecked the Disr armament Conference. This statement met wide approval, because although the members of the House of Commons are completely unsympathetic toward Germany), they feel that France cannot be altogether absolved from contributing to the present crisis. The High Commissioner of every Dominion was present during Mr Eden’s statement, and took notes in the gallery. This strikingly illustrated tve Dominions’ difficulties when an emergency like the present arises. Events move so quickly that it is impossible adequately to consult the Dominionites. Admittedly such a situation rarely arises, but it proves that the consultation machinery must inevitably suffer in time of crises. REGRET IN BRITISH PRESS. PROPOSALS VITIATED BY VIOLATION. LONDON, March 9. British newspapers comment at some iength on the Rhineland situation. Broadly stated, they consider it a matter of great misfortune that Germany should have vitiated the scheme of proposals, several of which contain much of constructive value, by a violation of a treaty which was not forced upon her, but was freely negotiated. “The Times” says: “Herr Hitler’s violation of solemn treatyi pledges might prove to be the longest and perhaps the most disastrous road. Britain has held kVa nee to the League Covenant and to a policy of collective action through the trying course of the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. She is in honour bound to remain true to her own pledges in full consideration of the position of France.” A firm stand for the sanctity of international obligations—the ioundar tion of the League of Nations—need not, it is thought in London, preclude the fullest use of diplomacy, in the weeks and months ahead, towards the end of establishing a settled peace. The “Daily Telegraph” says: “Britain in other circumstances would have welcomed unreservedly the suggestion of Germany’s return to the League, but the actual circumstances are what they are—flagrant ‘repudiation of treaties, assertion and glorification of overpowering military strength, and a promise of good lieighbourliness (except, indeed, to Russia) within the League—with the hope that German colonial demands will be fully recognised. “The surest means Herr Hitler could have adopted to draw France and Russia closer together was to send German troops into the Rhineland and to denounce the Locarno Pact.” The “Daily ’Herald,” while recognising the “definite and deplorable” fact that Germanv had deliberately

broken, not only the dictated Treaty of Versailles hut the freely negotiated Treaty of Locarno, thinks that wisdom requires that when the League Council meets it shall devote itself to the constructive _ task of making a new, more equitable (and therefore more lasting) settlement.