Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1935. A MILITARY BIRTHDAY

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 94, 22 April 1935, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1935. A MILITARY BIRTHDAY

Germany's Note to the Powers in reply to' the League Council's resolution is ; reported to challenge the right of the Governments comprising the Council to constitute themselves Germany's judges.and to refer to the resolution as a "new discrimination" against Germany. Otherwise it advances no arguments, and, as Germany reserves the right shortly to define her attitude on'the different questions mentioned.in the Council decision, this Note is important only as indicating the tone in which a further Note will be drafted. Possibly a better indication is obtainable from the reports of Herr Hitler's birthday celebration. It was militant, as militant as the birthday of conscription on March 16. General yon Blomberg, Defence Minister, who /presented the army's congratulations to Herr Hitler, said that by' introducing conscription Herr Hitler put the education of the male population in the hands of the army. Herr Dietrich, the Nazi Press chief, sounded an even more militant note:

Amid all the tension of international politics, he wrote, Herr Hitler, with audacity and decision, has stamped the army out of the ground. •

It is in the light which such statements as these throw upon the spirit of re-armament that the wisdom of the League Council's decision must be considered. Is a Germany which has so quickly regained ,the old spirit of Prussianism more likely to be checked by a hesitant and pusillanimous League or by one which speaks with unity and firmness? . ■ -

French opinion is stated to be that Germany has been let down lightly and that the door is still open for negotiations. To endorse this view of leniency one must be able to point to a more drastic course which would have been practicable. Certainly the resolution is a verdict only; it carries with it no sentence, no punishment. But what sentence could have been imposed? France might have rushed into another Ruhr adventure, and her precipitancy in lodging her protest with the League, apparently without prior consulta« tion with other Powers, was ominous; but whatever panic was aroused in. Paris by the German bombshell was allayed at Stresa, and France'accepted the guidance of Britain and Italy, and the assurance given by their Teaffirmation of their Locarno obligations. This reaffirmation was at once a warning to Ger« many; and a friendly gesture to her —a warning that she had no excuse for. re-armament, and an assurance that, if her aims were not aggressive, she had no need. Locarno guaranteed the western boundaries of Germany, Belgium, and France, and ga,ve security until equality in armaments could be brought about. France could not ask more than this if she wished to retain the unity,of the Council, for obviously the present stage does not demand the application of sanctions. There is, however, another view of which Denmark, in addition of course to Germany, is an exponent. This is ■ that Germany should have been let down more lightly still. The dispassionate opinion of Britain is opposed to this as strongly as it would have been to any proposal from Paris to add a penalty to the verdict. The League Council would have been closing the door to future reconciliation, as well as making trouble for itself, had it attempted to do more; but it would have stultified itself had it done less. Its verdict was "guilty" with no sentence; but how could it possibly have accepted the Danish proposal that Germany's name should not be mentioned? Should a Court, having been summoned to hear a specific charge against an individual,' return a verdict: "We find that burglary is a. very serious offence which no right-thinking citizen should commit"? Tie League was asked to consider, not the general question of treaty repudiation, but a specific repudiation by a named nation. It would not have been conciliation, but sheer weakness, to, respond with a mere confirmation of its belief in the observance of treaties.

The League would have failed lamentably had it, refused, when called upon, to record its condemnation of a glaring repudiation of treaties. But in recording that condemnation it placed no barrier in the way of a return to the League by a Germany prepared to assist in devising a system of collective security. Indeed it reopened a door which Germany had attempted to

slam by affirming readiness lo continue the negotiations begun in London and communicated to Germany on February 3. The plan, as described in the resolution, was for

a general settlement to be freely negotiated for the organising of security in Europe and for the general limitation of armaments in a system of equality of rights while ensuring the active co-operation of Germany in the League of Nations.

A general settlement cannot be freely negotiated by unilateral repudiation of existing arrangements, by stamping armies out of the ground and by placing the education of the male population in the hands of the army. To meet such conditions there must be. a will to maintain peace .which has more firmness than a wish. It would be futile to enter upon negotiations for a new system of collective security with a blind disregard of the violent destruction of existing safeguards.