Evening Post. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1935. GERMANY'S "TAIHOA"

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 42, 19 February 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1935. GERMANY'S "TAIHOA"

, The Anglo-French Ministerial conversations which opened in London on the morning of February 1 reached ( a happy ending just before midnight on the following day.' The success Avas indeed as complete as any arrangement between the two negotiating parties could bejbiuyas their object was notUhe renewal* of the Entente Cordiale, but an extension of the Locarno principlej their ultimate success was dependent on the co-operation of other Powers. "Those tendencies which, 'if unchecked, are calculated to lead to a race in armaments and to increase the dangers of war" would not have been checked but stimulated by an agreement or understanding which looked ho further than the improvement of relations between' France and Britain. In their official statement the consulting Ministers referred to the progress made in international co-operation by ihe joint declaration of Britain, France, and Italy in regard to the independence of Austria in February last and again in September, and by the Franco r ltalian agreement at the beginning of the present year, and expressed the hope "that the encouraging progress thus achieved may now be continued by means of the direct and effective cooperation of Germany." The substitution of a freely negotiated disarmament scheme would supersede the fiercely, contentious Part V of the Treaty of Versailles, recognise the equality of Germany, and be accompanied by her return to the League of Nations. But there was more solid ground for hope in the result of the London conversations than in the new approach to the1 old'puzzle of equality and security in a" spirit of friendliness, of which solid proof had been afforded in the harmonious settlement of the Saar problem. In the course of these meetings the British and French Ministers had paid particular attention to the new dangers with which peace was threatened'by modern developments in the air, and. especially to the possibilities of the sudden aerial aggression by one country upon another. They had come to the conclusion that provision might be best made against these dangers by reciprocal regional agreements between groups *of Powers. It is suggested, ' said the official • statement, that the signatories would' undertake immediately to ' -give the assistance of their air forces to whichever of them might be the victim of an unprovoked aerial aggression by one of the contracting parties. Believing that an arrangement of this kind for Western Europe would go far as a deterrent to aggression and a security against sudden attacks from the air, the British and French Governments decided to submit the proposal "to, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, and after getting their replies to' continue the consultations. It is to be noted that the Governments to be consulted included, with tho proponents,' all the parties to the Locarno Treaty, but that the procedure was different in two respects. Britain, who was merely guarantor under that treaty, was in this case actually to get as well as to give protection. The other • important difference was that,, whereas the success of the Locarno. Treaty was assured almost from the first because Germany had taken the initiative, her attitude in the present case was. uncertain, and without her the analogy of Locarno would ' cease :to apply. But though "the good will towards Germany" which "The Times" discovered in every paragraph of the Anglo-French agreement was less conspicuous in Berlin, the immediate reactipn-of Germany was not hostile. The Press was described, as "cautious but friendly,? and the Government spokesman declared that "Germany accepts the -London Agreement as a basis for negotiation." Nor at that stage could anything more be reasonably expected. On the following day (February 5), the "Voelkische Bepbachter," which, being under the direct control of Herr Rosenberg/is called "the Government organ," in a special sense in a land where an Opposition organ is unknown, went a good deal further. We are convinced, it said, that a general agreement concluded in perfect freedom between Germany and other Powers would be an important step forward provided equality lor both sides is guaranteed from the beginning. This is a preliminary condition under which alone negotiations can yield results. The official German reply which

was delivered to the British and I French Ambassadors in Berlin on Thursday was summarised in a London message on Saturday. The! tone is friendly throughout, but regarding the general scope of the Anglo-French proposals it has practically nothing to say. The German Government will, it I says, .make an exhaustive examination of the entire complex which had been laid before them of the European questions raised in Ihe first part of the London communique. A reply which icould have provided ■ ihe foundation for an agreement was, of course, not to be expected at this stage, but this is mere "taihda" with no substance or guidance or help of any kind in it. A less perfunctory '• attention is paid to the proposed air' convention. The German Government is ready to seek in co-operation with the . other Governments . concerned such a convention as will give all the signatories the greatest possible security, but considers it desirable to clarify a number of preliminary principles in separate conversations with these Governments. It would be glad if the British Government, as:that partner in the London conversations which is at the same time'a guarantor of Locarno, were to begin when ready -> to enter into a direct exchange of views on the sub- j ject with the German Government. - ' Approval is also expressed of the idea that an air convention would be i "an important step towards the solidarity of the European States," and would promote the solution of other European problems. It is not surprising that, while fully recognising, the conciliatory tone of the German reply, the British Press generally is critical of its' substance as "vague and imprecise." Emphasis is also laid by most of the papers on the fact that the air convention to which the German Gov-1 eminent gives most attention is concerned only with the regional security system in Western Europe, whereas the Anglo-French proposals have other systems also in view. But we must confess our inability to understand the point of this last criticism, seeing that exactly the same emphasis was laid on the Anglo-French proposals upon' the needs of Western Europe, "and that I the proposed aerial pact was sent to Germany, Italy, and Belgium* only, being the other parties' to the' Locarno Treaty." More material to us seems the strange logic by which Germany has asked for a direct exchange of views with the British Government, "as that partner in' die London conversations which is at the same time a guarantor of Locarno^* What on earth have Britain's special obligations under the Locarno Treaty to do with her" special competence to discuss another proposal under which no special obligations will arise? It looks as though Germany was anxious to exclude France from the preliminary negotiations and could find no better cover for her preference than this flimsy pretext. The promotion of the "hidden AngloFrench struggle," of which the "Pravda" is afraid may be Germany's real object.