Evening Post. TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1925. WAR COMMITMENTS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 42, 18 August 1925, Page 4

Evening Post. TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1925. WAR COMMITMENTS

The Note which was handed to Herr Stresemann by the French Ambassador at Berlin on the 16th June in reply to the German Government's suggestion of a Security .Pact was probably the politest document that had passed between the two parties since the War. The French reply, said the- "Saturday Review," is almost friendly, and documents which have been sent to Germany in the past'have frequently been so unamiablp that the tone of the present letter will be greatly appreciated by the Wilhelmstrasse. Indeed, we are inclined to believe that the letter's friendly ton.c is even more- important in one way than its contents. . , . The friendliness of the French reply will certainly be welcomed, in Germany as evidence that the Germans are no longer to be treated as outcasts. The wonder of the politeness shown by the French to the nation which, except for a few kind words from M. Herriot at the beginning of his term, they had persistently, treated, even after the signing of the Peace Treaty, as not merely an enemy but a permanent and incurable enemy, was exceeded by the German reply, German diplomacy has such an unhappy knack of saying even the right thing in the j wrong way that the Paria . Press was amazed by the courteous and conciliatory tone of the reply, and for a moment the fears and suspicions of France appeared to have been laid to rest. But the lull was not of very long duration, and the second thoughts of France appear to have been that Germany's weakness for saying the light thing in th© wrong way had on 1 this occasion been exchanged for saying the wrong thing in the right way. The fear that the great improvement in manners displayed by both parties does not represent such a ripening of mutual trust and such an approximation in pol-. icy as will be required for the success of the present negotiations is strengthened by the latest turn of affairs. Mr. Chamberlain and M. Briand have been conferring in London with what, from their points of view, is said to be a very satisfactory outcome. Substantial progress was reported towards a settlement of the few points, on which a complete agreement had not been reached, and British Ministers were said to have " expressed satisfaction and confidence that the conference would have important results." A French report, which, as it is called a "communique," was presumably official, went a good deal further than this. Complete accord, it said, was reached on the terms of the answer to be sent by Iho French Government, in agreement with the Allied Powers, to the last German Noto concerning the treaties fora mutual guarantee and arbitration. It is not easy to reconcile this assurance of perfect harmony with j the more guarded tone of the British reports; In the absence of any full report' from London, we are compelled- to rely for most of our information upon the Press criticisms of detached points. Thii political correspondent of the " Sunday Times," we were told yesterday, commends Mr. Chamberlain's stand against any automatic war commitments, and says, " oven hi a fin-grant- case of aggression by Germany or France, we reserve the right to determine the hour and the manner of our intervention." This is all to the good, but we are' still left in the dark on a point of even greater importance—viz., the method by which in the event of trouble between France and Germany the question who was theaggressor is to be determined. From the comments of the " Daily "Telegraph's" diplomatic correspondent it may be inferred that France has been induced to give way on a point, which Mr. Chamberlain has from the outset agreed with Germany in regarding as absolutely indispensable. British opinion may, indeed, be regarded us unanimous in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's contention that, if there is to be a Security Pact at all it must not be-one-sided like the Re-insurance Treaties that were signed for the protection of France by Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson contemporaneously 'with 1,-ho Treaty of Versailles. The objections of the Labour Parly to any limited pact at all do not invalidate this statement. The Labour Party object to Lhe proposed Pact because it.

lacks the universality of the Protocol, but they would object still more strongly, and rightly so, if the Pact were to protect not France and Germany equally but Prance alone.

Yet all Mr. Chamberlain's plainspeaking and all the support it has received from British organs of opinion as widely separated in domestic politics as, for instance, the "Saturday Review" and the "Manchester Guardian" had apparently failed to make any impression on French opinion. On the eve of the publication of the French Note in June, while British opinion was adamantine in its demand for a bilateral Pact, the Paris Press was equally uncompromising on the other side. The French objections to such' a Pact were summarised by the Paris correspondent of the " Manchester Guardian -". as follows: —

(1) Germany is not a Western but a Central Power, intimately in touch' with the storm zone in Eastern Europe.

(2) France could not take the risk without something much more precise, solid, and. tangible than the British guarantee under the proposed Pact, which would actually prevent a precise military convention between France and Great Britain.

(3) German psychology is certainly not ripe for it; all the evidence shows that German Liberalism is as impotent as ever.

It is indeed difficult for the French mind, as the " Daily Telegraph's " diplomatic correspondent was reported on Saturday to have said, "to accommodate itself to the bilateral idea," but his comments on the effect of the reciprocal clauses submitted by the British experts suggest that it has not proved impossible. But, even if the inference is justified, to persuade a disarmed Germany to enter the League of Nations unconditionally may be a much harder task.