GERMANY WITHDRAWS

Evening Star, Issue 22683, 24 June 1937, Page 11

GERMANY WITHDRAWS

FROM NAVAL CONTROL SCHEME EARLIER MESSAGES EXAGGERATED STATEMENT BY MR EDEH (British Official Wireless.) Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright *RUGBY, June 23. (Received June 24, at noon.) In the course of a statement in the House of Commons on Germany’s and Italy’s withdrawal from the Spanish naval control scheme, Mr Eden said the British Ambassador in Berlin had seen Baron von Neurath concerning the matter, and he had been informed that the German Government regretted that it had not been possible to reach an agreement, and Germany therefore felt obliged to withdraw her ships altogether from the control system. Baron von Neurath said this action was being taken with the specific intention of avoiding the possibility of aggravation of the situation, and the German Government would confine itself to this action.

“The (British Government gladly recognises and welcomes the motives which inspire this assurance,” said Mr Eden. “ I understand further that the German Government does not contemplate ceasing participation in the Non-intervention Committee. 'The Italian Ambassador has since been to see me, when he informed me that his Government had also decided to withdraw its ships from the control scheme.” In answer to a question, Air Eden agreed that the withdrawal of the Germans and Italians from the naval control scheme left questions to be considered, but insisted that the important point was the assurance given the British Ambassador that the German Government would confine itself to withdrawal from naval patrol, following the failure of consultative procedure in the Leipzig case. He told Mr Lloyd George, as lie understood it, that Germany and Italy were withdrawing only from participation in naval control, and that the non-inter-vention agreement itself was unaffected. WILL EXERCISE RESTRAINT LOYALIST GOVERNMENT DETERMINED. LONDON, June 23. (Received June 24, at 2 p.m.) Italian and German warships will remain in Spanish waters for the present. The loyalist Government is determined to exercise restraint, but has taken measures to retaliate against attacks on Valencia and other loyalist ports. A Berlin communique discloses that Germany has not only dropped her original demand for reparation, but her demand for the internment of loyalist submarines. She agreed to an investigation immediately after a naval demonstration, but as these proposals were rejected the failure of the Powers to agree was inevitable. Naval control thus became impossible, and participation in it intolerable to any people sensible of its honour. It was better for the individual Powers to take the protection of their own interests into their own hands. OFFICIAL EXPLANATION GERMANY’S SPANISH POLICY. BERLIN, June 23. (Received June 24, at 1.30 p.m.) Baron von Neurath has assured the British and French Ambassadors that Germany is not taking further action in connection with the Leipzig. Herr von Ribbentrop issued an official explanation of Germany’s attitude, stating that she disclaims territorial ambitions towards Spain or Spanish colonies, desiring only Spanish independence. For this reason it should be the duty of European States to adopt a common attitude towards the appeals from Moscow in the direction of replacing the system of free States by international chaos tyrannised over by the Soviet. Germany had consistently tried to confine the Spanish strife to the domestic ambit, but the action of the democratic States had restricted this plan, especially regarding- the supply of volunteers and material to Valencia. The attacks on German, Italian, and British ships at Palma had forced Germany to change her base to Iviza, where the attack on the Deutschland compelled Germany, knowing that the committee would not take action, to adppt the only natural reprisals. The communique reviews the British and French attitude regarding the naval demonstration off Valencia, and describes it as encouraging pirates in criminal attacks. It adds that Germany would not tolerate doubts of her statements on questions of fact. Moreover, an inquiry would be futile. It was semi-officially announced earlier that Germany had notified Britain that insistence by Western Powers on any inquiry before the naval demonstration was incomprehensible, especially in view of the notorious uutrustwortbiness of the Bolshevists, which had been pnrticularlyrevealed in connection with the Deutschland incident. REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL ITALY FOLLOWS SUIT. * LONDON, June 23. (Received Juno 24, at 11 a.m.) The German Embassy announced that the German Government would not be willing to expose her naval forces entrusted to the international control task for further target practice off Red Spain. Germany limited to the minimum the guarantee necessary to ensure the safety of her ships

when she requested a joint naval demonstration. Since tho Anglo-French Governments refused even this minimum request Germany regrets to have to state that the spirit of solidarity is lacking among the control Powers, which is indispensable to the execution of a common international task. She therefore has decided to withdraw finally from the control scheme. A communique from Homo is phrased almost identically. It is stated in Rome that Italy now resumes the right of liberty of action in respect to acts of aggression. The German cruisers Koln, Deutschland, Luchs, Leopard, and Tiger left Algeciras in an easterly direction. The whereabouts of tho Leipzig is not known. EARLIER MESSAGES A DISTURBING REPORT LONDON, Juno 23. Germany has withdrawn from the Non-intervention Committee. Germany’s diplomatic offensive is regarded with the gravest misgiving in London, especially as it is coupled with such an abrupt snub as the cancellation of Baron von Neurath’s visit. Germany can hardly expect the invitation to be renewed. It is pointed out that Germany's attitude contrasts with that of England and France, ■which made similar incidents, such as the mining of H.M.S. Hunter on May 14 and the machinegunning of a French passenger iplane on May 26, the subject of peaceful representations. Moreover, as ‘ Tho Times ’ points out, a shadow of doubt hangs over the alleged attack on the Leipzig. ' The Times ’ emphasises that Germany herself condemned on June 15 the rumours that the Leipzig had been attacked as unscrupulous inventions, and adds: “ When the British and German discussions held out a prospect of deeper stability in Europe, Germany has chosen a curious moment to magnify the Spanish incidents. It will be small wonder if some suspect that she seeks to take advantage of the French political confusion. It may be wondered if Germany is repeating her past errors of succumbing to temptations of uncovenaifted opportunism by making hostility to other nations the price of German friendship.” GERMANY BLAMES BRITAIN. The Berlin Press bitterly blames Britain as alone responsible for the crisis, and adds that Germany won the right to independent action. FRENCH COMMENT. Thankfulness for British friendship, combined with alarm at the German action, is the keynote of the French comment, “ Pertinax,” in ‘ L’Echo de Paris,’ declares that “ Germany and Italy will use the bogey of Communism to explain their flagrant breaches of the non-intervention agreement, and will install themselves across the British and French lines of communication in the Mediterranean. France cannot tolerate further menaces to mobilisation.” Other French newspapers consider that it is significant that Germany reappears at the climax of the civil war as the principal supporter of General Franco.