WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 222, 19 September 1929, Page 6

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW. i . : (By BYSTANDER.) I 1 Three months ago, while the Reparations > Conference was discussing the Young Plan and ' the Germans were as usual assuring the world at large that they are a poverty-stricken people, and ' that they would be "bled white" if they were forced to disgorge anything more for the benefit of the Allies, the "New York Times" published some facts and figures that have a very direct bearing on the Reparations problem. The evidence was quoted from an article by a well-known German publicist and statesman, Rudolf Martin, who has been estimating the growth of Germany s wealth since the war. According to Herr Martin, there were in Germany in 1914 over 15,500 'mark millionaires." By 1923, as a. consequence of inflation and the financial ruin that followed in its train, the number had sunk to less than 4000. But by 1928 there were 8000, and Herr Martin predicts that by 1933 millionaires will be as numerous in Germany as they were before the war. It is a pity that Mr. J. M. Keynes and other eminent public men who have constantly maintained that Germany cannot pay substantial reparations without ruining herself, and incidentally ruining the Allies as well, have not given more attention to these figures. Pity the Poor Germans! As to the individuals who can lay claim to great wealth, we should not forget that the ex-Kaiser owns property, consisting largely "f 80 castles, with the estates attached, scattered all over Germany, and valued at £20,000,000. Next in order comes Frau Krupp von Bohlen, the heiress of the great Krupp whose wealth and industrial ability were so largely exploited by the German war-makers before 1914. To-day her fortune is reckoned, roughly, at £14,000,000. Fritz Thy seen, the heir of the great August Tliyssen, who, after the war broke out, turned against the Kaiser and denounced Prussian militarism, is said now, as a result of the policy of "sparing Germany," to possess as much wealth as his father 15 years ago, and whether this De true or not, he confesses to a "personal cash income" of £150,000 a year. Apparently the great landowners, the big bankers, and the heads of the industrial cartels and combines have mostly managed to survive the ordeal of the war and thft peace with great success. According to Herr Martin, all these people, along M'ith the brewers and newspaper proprietors, have done extremely well for themselves, and the heads of the great department stores which play so large a part in German city life, are "all richer than in 1914." The Case for France. In view of all these facts, which should be well known to the Allied Governments, it" may seem difficult to account for the policy of "sparing Germany" which has been so enthusiastically endorsed by many leading British publicists and statesmen. No doubt this policy is due at least m part to Britain's reluctance to impoverish a country which, before the war, was one of her best customers, and may be so again. But while such motives naturally appeal to Britain, we can hardly expect them to satisfy I* ranee. Some people seemingly do not understand the reasons for the bitter tone that French newspapers generally adopt in discussing reparations, or the caustic comments of the Parisian Press while the Young Plan was under discussion, and Mr. Snowden was making his courageous stand for justice to Britain. The French newspapers ask, with much reason, has France had fair play? To answer that question I offer a quotation from I the current number of the "National Review," which is certainly a public-spirited and patriotic journal: "It is a monstrosity that France, who was deliberately and scientifically devastated during four years, by the two million Germans camped on her soil, animated by the single idea of destroying her, should be saddled with colossal payments to the two nations whose Governments have made it their business for ten years to prevent France from obtaining adequate reparations from the aggressor." This charge is levelled by a British editor at Britain and the United States, and my readers may reflect upon it at their leisure.

The Freedom of the Seas,

Now that Naval Limitations have come once more to the front of the political stage, it may bo as well to consider one aspect of this momentous question which, it seems to me, has not yet been adequately represented in the discussion. Just now Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald is about to talk over Disarmament with Mr. Hoover, and the question of the Freedom of the Seas will certainly play a large part in these "conversations." Now, it must be remembered that the Freedom of the Seas is claimed by the Americans for the purpose of enabling them, and all neutrals, to trade with belligerents in war time without submitting to the "right of search" or paying any attention to traditional practices in regard to contraband and blockade. So determined are the Americans to secure this object that, in spite of their professed enthusiasm for Disarmament, they have frankly declared that, if Britain will not make this concession, they will go on building warships and cruisers till they can be sure of asserting what they believe to be their commercial rights if another war comes. But it has been pointed out by Vice-Admiral J. E. Harper—a naval officer already famous in connection with the Battle of Jutland, and particularly interesting to New Zealanders because of his relationship to one of the oldest families in the South Island—that if neutrals are, in accordance with the principle of Freedom of the Seas, permitted to trade with belligerents without let or hindrance in war time, their commercial activities must inevitably prolong the war. It was really the strangle-hold fixed on the German import trade, first by the British Navy and then later by the American fleet after 1917, that reduced Germany to submission. If it had not been for that invincible "Sea Power" on which the American Mahan has discoursed so eloquently, the war might have dragged on indefinitely. It follows that the Americans, while professing to abolish war, are in the .same breath demanding rights and privileges that might make war eternal. How can these conflicting claims be possibly reconciled ?

Labour's Disillusionment.

If the recent Trades Union Congress at Belfast proves noteworthy in no other way, it should be memorable for the fact that the British Labour organisations have made it an occasion for a solemn repudiation of Bolshevism and all its works. The report devotes considerable space to an analysis of Communist policy and methods, and declares emphatically that the object of the Minority movement :is "not to voice honest criticism and to use the unions as democratic machinery, but to divide and conquer the unions with the object of imposing a Communist autocracy." Not only this, but the report states' definitely that those responsible for the destructive ©perations of the Minority group are "acting under instructions from Moscow," and under the direction of the Third (Communist) International, "from which its finances are largely derived." The report expresses regret that action was not taken earlier to protect Labour against these insidious attacks. But it also expresses confidence that the unions are now "capable of stamping out this disruptive activity." So much for the Bolshevik dream of subverting capi -list Britain'by "whiteanting" Britieh unionism.