GERMANY AND THE WHITE

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21424, 16 March 1935, Page 9

GERMANY AND THE WHITE

PAPER Tn TIIS EDITOR OF TUB PIIBSS.

Sir, —Here are a few comments on Mr Grundy's letter, which appeared in "The Press" yesterday. The League of Nations (or the Disarmament Conference?), we are told, has fomented discord in the world to such an extent that it had to put up its shutters among the derision and laughter of all Europe. Clearly there are only three roads open to the nations to-day, (1) the way of isolation, (2) the way of the balance of power, and (3) the way of collective security. History shows us that the first two policies lead to constant wars and in the end to mutual destruction. The last has not yet been adequately tried; but it may in the end lead to lasting peace. Of course it is open to each nation to endeavour to travel on the three roads at once. Many at present are doing so; but such tripartite policies can only lead to chaos.

America is trying to follow the policy of isolation and has already found that she is not in fact isolated. She was unable to keep out of Die Great War, and it would seem that she has now entered into a naval race with Japan, which may end in war; for armaments breed fear, and fear brings war. No, the policy of isolalionisin is becoming less possible daily in a shrinking world. Yet Mr Grundy tells us that, "Without a strong navy, army, and (more especially) air force, Britain" can neither hold her Empire, nor keep the peace of Europe." Will Mr Grundy guarantee that, with these adjuncts, Britain will be able to maintain her Empire and maintain peace? T doubt it. When we had the strongest navy in the world, backed by the lighting forces of France and Russia, we had the worst war the world has known. Though the whole nation be conscripted, Britain alone will not, be able to prevent war arising. We are next told: "Agreements, treaties, conventions, leagues—(hose elaborate lies and international hypocrisies—have been suffered for 17 years." What does Mr Grundy propose to put in place of them? "Nations should return to the good old channels of ambassadorial negotiations. Cahn and stately letters are far more likely to reach agreement than all these conferences."—Does Mr Grundy know nothing of the history of secret diplomacy —with regard to Morocco, for example? Certainly it did not give us peace! "Open covenants openly arrived at," if we could be sure of getting them, would undoubtedly help us more than all the back-stairs intrigue of diplomacy. "Germany has been for years and will always be—war minded."—ls Mr Grundy a prophet? Mr Grundy cannot indict a nation, though it is quite true, as he says, "His (i.e., Hitler's) Germans are lined up for immediate peace and future war"; but Germans have not always been nor will always be Hitler's Germans. I have known some Germans who were anything but war-minded, one of them a major (Ausser Dienst)! "Germany is the most patriotic and certainly the most pugnacious nation in the world."—What about Japan? "So why not form a concert of European powers, who will tell Germany they will not stand for the menace of another war?"— This is almost a "reductio ad absurdum" of the whole of Mr Grundy's argument. Let us see whither it leads. Since the League of Nations with its 60 member states cannot restrain Germany, let us form a concert of Europe (a weaker league) to do the work; that is to say, select a body of states, seething with mutual hatred, embittered by unsatisfied ambitions, and many almost in the throes of revolution, to present a pistol at the head of Germany. How in the midst of all this discordance are we going to obtain a harmonious concert? True, an excellent thing, if the instruments were in tune!

But it may be argued, if we cannot get a concert of Europe, how can we expect the nations of the world to act together in the League of Nations? We cannot; but at least we are giving to each equal opportunities for stating its case, and we are endeavouring to base our world-policies on a foundation of reason and not of violence, as Mr Grundy proposes. The only method is constructive and leads to international organisation; the other is destructive and leads only to worldanarchy. When Canning heard of the failure of the original concert of Europe, he welcomed it in these words: "Things are getting back to a wholesome state again. Every nation for itself, and God for us all"; and in this "wholesome state" were already the seeds of the world war. No, in spite of the follies, weaknesses, disharmonies, and hesitations of the League of Nations, it has done an immense amount of excellent work, and as it is founded on goodwill and not on hatred, it has in it the germs of life. —Yours, etc., ROBT. M. LAING. March 15, 1935.

TO THE EDITOB 01 THE TRESS. Sir, —In reply to the letter signed by Alma Carey, I would like to point out that mine dealt, primarily, with the Disarmament Conference, not with the League of Nations as a whole. Some of the 17 committees mentioned have achieved results; let us hope, lasting results. In a talk I gave over 3YA last week I admitted that the League of Nations, or rather, the International Commission appointed under the auspices of the league, was to be congratulated on stamping out drug trafficking; but even to-day huge sums

of money are placed in the coffers of the Soviet Government through trade in drugs; and I understand the Bolsheviks are signatories to the pact. Is your correspondent aware that the League of Nations owes its inception to Mr Wickham Steed and to the bad faith of the American people? Had the Americans supported President Wilson and signed the Treaty of Versailles the league might still be a potent and useful force. The original idea of the league as an arbitrator and promoter of peace and goodwill among men was a good one; but as soon as it became plain it had no power to enforce its decrees, it became discredited. Latterly, its main function appeared to be the promotion of unsound European loans. As to the great Palace of Peace at Geneva being an expensive debating society. Sir Arthur Samuel, M.P., former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has pertinently pointed out that £62,000,000 out of the £66,000,000 of loans promoted by the league are in default. The league without Germany cannot be universal; without America and Japan it will become a figure of fun. Hence my assertion. Can your correspondent disclaim that Geneva, with words of peace on her lips, is really the fomenter of war in Europe? Why should Britain, or Germany, or Japan, or any great nation entrust its destinies to the hands of a league in which the vastly predominating influence is France? No, I am afraid the Disarmament Conference to-day is like an emperor without an army, and, like the World Economic Conference, should be ranked with the first-rate failures of modern optimism and verbosity. I reiterate that the Disarmament Conference has really been going on for 17 years without the slightest progress being made. Seriously, does anybody think that 50 delegates representing as many nations from all parts of the world are ever likely to agree about anything? I

Lord Lothian tells us that Germany left the league because she discovered that England had made a private arrangement with France to vary the terms of the draft convention to the detriment of Germany. That was certainly a very good argument for Germany's leaving the league and the Disarmament Conference, but it was shocking bad diplomacy on the part of Mr Mac Donald and Mr Baldwin to make such an agreement and let it leak out. The British Government has been running so madly after universal disarmament that it has lost all sense of proportion. Peace is a matter of will and not of armaments! It is rather amusing that Sir Eric Di'urnmond and Mr Vernon Barllelt, hitherto the most highly paid and zealous of the league's fuglemen, should now, having left its service, have become its most bitter critics. Many ascribe Mr Arthur Henderson's threat to resign from the chairmanship of the Disarmament Conference to the collapse of the League of Nations. Your correspondent's assumption that I really cry peace instead of war is correct: but I must point out that the illusion of universal brotherhood can lead to some curious results. And if it were ever accepted, the world would be a dreary place. Must we really believe that the centuries will leave all nations in exactly the same position? Will not some have profited more than others by their experiences and trials?— Yours, etc., A. A. M. GRUNDY. March 15, 1935.