Evening Post. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1935. SIR AUSTEN'S APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 32, 7 February 1935, Page 10

Evening Post. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1935. SIR AUSTEN'S APPEAL

The fuller record of Press opinion on the Anglo-French conversations which was supplied by Official Wireless on Tuesday does not weaken the highly favourable impression created by the previous summary. The "Daily Express" is again mentioned as the only exception to the general chorus of praise, but, as the "Daily Express" .believes that by withdrawing from the League of Nations and turning her back on Europe Great Britain could achieve an isolation from European entanglements which even the United States was unable to maintain during the World War, its opinion cannot be taken seriously. The "Daily Mail," which often suffers from Lord Rbthermere's inspiration as disastrously as the "Daily Express" suffers from that of Lord Beaverbrook, is on this occasion seen to better advantage. It commends the National Government for taking a line which "undoubtedly accords with the wishes of the people of this country." -'The Radical view, which was previously represented by the "News-Chronicle" alone, has now two other exponents in the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily Herald." But,- unlike the "NewsChronicle,'? the attitude of the "Guardian'! is very far from cordial. When it says-that "those who accept Locarno will accept the proposed convention also," the impression is conveyed that it dislikes the Locarno obligations, but recognises that those who do not may logically accept this addition to them. And as the report is limited to this one sentence there is nothing to correct the implication of hostility. Of greater representative importance is the opinion of the "Daily Herald" because it speaks for the Labour Party. It rejoices that "common sense has prevailed and Germany is invited to enter conversations for the purpose of concluding a''general settlement freely negotiated." It is the invitation to come in and discuss, on equal terms an arrangement under which all parties will incur equal obligations that is described by the '^Herald" as "a sane and sensible proposal." The naive assumption that this invitation to Germany is a mere formality appears to underlie the approval expressed from the diehard standpoint by the Post." We have dallied overlong, it says, with the dangerous delusion of a disarmed world. We shall be able to look other nations in the eyes when we combine with our friends to put an end to any lurking expectation that we can be caught disarmed and unawares. If Germany refuses to come in, the Locarno analogy will not apply, and if will then be necessary to "combine with our friends"—an operation of extreme delicacy after Germany has declined to be one of the party. Germany was of course the crux of the Locarno business, as she is of the arrangement now proposed, but on that occasion there was no anxiety about her attitude. It was actually on her initiative—a decision which put Stresemann in peril of his lifer and was never forgiven him by millions^ of his countrymen—that the principle of identical guarantees for France and Germany, which became the basis of the Locarno Treaties, was adopted. It is France that has now taken the initiative in proposing an extension of the principle, and Germany is at least prepared to give the proposal a fair hearing. Her Government's spokesman has told the Press that "Germany accepts the London Agreement as a basis for negotiation." The most interesting and the weightiest personal pronouncement that we have had on the subject is that of Sir Austen Chamberlain which was reported yesterday. He shared with Stresemann and Briand the honours of Locarno, including three of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded in 1925 and 1926, and from the impression made, by his protest in the House of Commons about two years ago against the cruelty of the Nazi persecutidns the German Government doubtless learnt that outside of the Cabinet no British opinion carries greater weight than his. It was not a protest, but an appeal that Sir Austen made to Germany in his speech at the Anglo-Polish dinner on Monday,'and he. was tactful and persuasive in the discharge of a delicate task. He showed a due regard for German dignity when he welcomed as a happy augury the fact that the provisional agreement was made in the Locarno spirit, which was that any agreement should be negotiated freely among all Powers concerned, and that no single Power should be confronted by a settlement to which the others had already agreed. Still more certain to be appreciated in Germany was the reference to a conspicuous feature of her German pre-War psychology. There was no factor before the War that poisoned so. much-the'■ relations between nations as the idea which was current in Germany that a policy of encirclement was being pursued by other Powers. Recently, he had seen signs that this feeling was growing un again. Whether Germany's obsession of encirclement before the War was well founded or not was immaterial

for the purposes of Sir Austen Chamberlain's argument. It was certainly real enough to make a big contribution to the causes that were making for war. The most powerful part of Sir Austen's speech, was his appeal to the rulers of Germany to prevent the revival of a fear which might culminate in the same disastrous fashion. If they would enter into mutual and reciprocal pacts of security freely negotiated as among equals, he said, there would be no encirclement of Germany, there could be no- international agreement against Germany, but there would be a general agreement among all . Powers. if one Power refused to enter into; those common agreements and mutual guarantees,' if it repelled approaches made in a genuine spirit of friendship, could it complain if it found itself isolated? He hoped that in this new proposed agreement a real advance in the pacific-relations of nations would be found to be made. While Sir Austen Chamberlain was speaking of "mutual and reciprocal pacts of security freely negotiated as among equals," the "Voelkische Beobachter," the Government paper controlled by Herr Rosenberg, was writing in substantially identical terms: We are convinced that a general agreement concluded in perfect freedom between Germany and other Powers would be an important step forward provided ' equality for both sides is guaranteed from the beginning. If both parties mean what they say, a settlement on these lines should present no insuperable difficulties.