A NEW TRIPLE ALLIANCE?

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 93, 22 April 1919, Page 6

A NEW TRIPLE ALLIANCE?

France's objection to being bound to the League of Nations and to disarmament,, without" receiving aaay compensating military guarantee, continues to be the subject of conflicting cablegrams. Yesterday it appeared that the disarmament restrictions of tha League had been relaxed, but that " the League of Nations remains the only American agreement supporting France in the ovent of attack." This apparently official statement, attributed to " American headquarters " in Paris, is now followed by a report from the Paris correspondent of tha Now York World, to the effect that " Amsusiga ion tuwiWl Fiajaca tfeafc.attp

will ontor a defensive alliance with Britain and France." This defensive aliianco, it is added, will not bear milita,ry fruit unless Congress sanctions the otep; or, to use tho exact words of the cablegram, "Congress will bo asked to aid Fi'unce, in the ovent of an attack by Germany, by declaring the existence of a stato of war." That is to say, this re-pot-tod alliance will not be a super-Parlia-ment affair, liko the old type of alliance, and like tho signing of tho ponding Peace Treaty; its oporation will bo conditioned by the approval of Congress. Such a reservation would, of course, detract from the purely military value of a defensive alliance. Moreover, an international agreement on those lines would not provide an instantly-ready army sufficient to throw into France to stop a sudden German rush to Paris, like that which w&3 checked at the Mamc. Geography and experience suggest that rapid military action on the Continent is a British rather than an American affair. A defonsive alliance on the lmeo set out in the World would not commit America. It would only commit the American Government to asking Congress to declare a state of war against a German invader of France. But, in running the gauntlet of American opinion, its military weakness might prove to bo its political strength.