Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1932. A CONCILIATORY REVIEW

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 15, 19 January 1932, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1932. A CONCILIATORY REVIEW

• The disappointment caused by M. Herriot's rejection of M. Laval's invitation to co-operate in the formation of a "Government of National Union" is appreciably diminished.by the attack on the good faith of Germany with which he has. followed it up. If the reason that he gave for his refusal, namely, that his party was "not convinced that the foreign situation justified broadening the basis of the Cabinet", was manifestly insufficient, his article shows that it is from no desire to temper the wind to the German lamb that M. Herriot and his Radical Socialists have declined' to co-operate. No more than M. Laval does he admit that there is any German lamb deserving the consideration of a patriotic Frenchman. What he sees is the same old German wolf clothed in exactly the same sheepskin as in the Kaiser's day and inspired by exactly the same spirit. Republican Germany may have made the disguise a little more plausible, but she can neither deceive nor terrify France. The essential identity of the old regime and the new is proved by the fact that the Treaty of Versailles is not to be treated just as the Belgian Treaty was treated in 1914. It is the'.duy of France to say at Lausanne what she then said at Verdun:— "They shall not pass." • Such is but a slightly coloured paraphrase of the "no surrender" attitude of the Radical Socialist leader to whom th% friends of peace were looking for some help in relieving the Franco-German tension which was the main cause of the World War, and is still the gravest obstacle to peace.

Dr. Bruening's" declaration, says 11. Ilerriot, has rendered almost impossible the establishment of a loyal and rcasonablo Franco-German reconciliation. Wo feel that it is not possible longer to belieyo in tho legitimacy of a contract if, its signatures can thus bo contested. What is to become of the international morality in tho face of temporary ills? Are we returning ,to tho regime of the scraps of paper? Even those who sympathise most strongly with Germany in her misery must regret that on one point at any rate. Dr. Bruening has justified the continuity between the old regime and the new which M. Herriot suggests. , The clumsiness with which the diplomacy of Imperial Germany was accustomed to do even the right thing in'tlie'. wrong way appears to be fully shared by the Republican regime. Even Stresemann, the ablest statesman that Germany has produced, and perhaps that Europe has produced, since the War, was-not entirely free from this weakness. While reproducing some of his merits Dr. Bruening has shown the normal Ger,man clumsiness both in the time i and in the tone of his declaration. Amid the ahxieties of Cabinet-making M.-Laval is believed to have found time for a talk with the German Ambassador, in which he complained that the statement had been issued "at a most inopportune time in view of the Lausanne discussions.?

On this point we may take it for granted that Mr. Mac Donald and Sir John Simon are in full agreement with the French Prime Minister. Dr. Bruening's declaration was inopportune because it was bound to irritate France on the eve of a Conference at which everything depends upon her goodwill. A mere declaration of insolvency would - have .been bad enough at such a time, but Dr. Bruening went beyond that, and beyond a prayer for relief, when he said that

Germany is.unable to pay her reparations, and her delegates to Lausanne must press for their total abolition.

. . . Any attempt to maintain reparations must lead to disaster, not only to: Germany, but to the world.

Mi Herriot may seem to be talking very extravagantly when he describes this statement as "returning to the regime of the scraps of paper," and still more when he says:

Dr. Bruening wanted to frighten Us, but Frenchmen do not yield to fear.

But it must be admitted that in urging that Germany should demand as of right what she ought to supplicate as a favour, and in emphasising the disastrous results in which refusal would involve the world the German Chancellor had given, him some colour. In extenuation of the mistake we must remember the des> perate insecurity of his Government and the chaos that would result from its defeat. Every German Government since the Armistice, or at any rate since the French seizure of the Ruhr, has been placed between the devil of German Nationalism and the deep sea of the Nationalism of France. • To-day the economic ruin of the country and the . steadilygrowing power of the Hitler party have combined to make this danger greater than ever. It is to be noted that Dr. Bruening was in negotiation with the Hitlerites and the Nationalists regarding the extension of President Hindenburg's term when he

made his declaration, and it- may well have been forced upon him as a condition of success.

While British Ministers have wisely refused to follow Dr. Bruening's bad lead into a public discussion, and Mr. Mac Donald's remark that it renders the Lausanne Conference more necessary than ever is approved by French opinion, the "Times" has reviewed the position in a calm, well-balanced conciliatory article, which may possibly foreshadow Britain's attitude at the Conference. The hope is expressed that the French Government will be able to ■ concur in a general agreement upon the extension of the Hoover moratorium which expires in July, and also upon the broader question of the resumption of payments after the depression has passed. Not only, however, does the article refrain from suggesting that Britain can support the,full German demand,' but it plainly indicates a- contrary conclusion.

Arguments against the immediate abrogation of tho rights conferred upon creditor countries by the Hague agreement are fully understood in this country, says, the,"Times." vNor does it soom reasonable ; finally and ' formally to cancel payments due, as long as war debt payments remain an obligation. This country long ago placed on record its view that the-world would profit^ by all-round cancellation. The question for discussion at Lausanne, however, is not war debts but reparations, but in regard to all'these intergovernmental obligations the conviction has steadily grown here that their payment has been pernicious to the general economic system of the world. In regard to reparations there must bo tho largest possiblo clearanco at Lausanne.

Failing any agreement on fundamental points at the Conference the suggestion is made that a brief extension of the moratorium in regard to reparations should be arranged, with an undertaking to reconsider the matter at another Conference before the end of the year.