"OPINION HARDENS”

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 February 1947, Page 8

"OPINION HARDENS”

SOVIET AND FUTURE OF .1 GERMANY PART OF GENERAL PROBLEM LONDON, February 11. Soviet opinion appears to have hardened on the. German question Which is now being regarded less as an isolated problem than as part of the general European and particularly the Western European question, says the Moscow correspondent of The Times, who points out that a distinction must be drawn between what may be described as the tactical Soviet approach to the German problem, examples of which are provided by the recriminations about the pace of denazification and deliveries of reparations, and statements of policy. . . In broad outline, the Soviet view, the correspondent says, is that what are described as the reactionary circles of British and American monopoly capital are ready to revive German monopolies and concerns under tneir control in order to implement the plan recently advanced by Mr. John Foster Dulles, of the United States, of placing the industrial Rhine basin in the service of Western Europe. Zone Fusion. The British and American agreement on the fusion of their zones is seen in Moscow as designed to accelerate the process of injecting British and American capital into the German economy, and it is no long step from this point to the assumption that Mr. Hoover’s present German tour is a preliminary to providing a special food regime for this western German ‘nucleus.” . ... How strongly Russian opinion is now coloured by the theory that attempts are being made to realise a broad unification of Western Europe, including part of Germany, is shown by the sharpness of the reaction to the Belgian and Dutch economic talks which are seen as a potential political and military alliance in Western Europe under British leadership. Britain’s Attitude. The correspondent adds that the question being asked is whether the British Government will show itself ready to,stand by that part of the Sri-tish-Soviet alliance according to which both countries undertook to work jointly for the organisation of security and economic prosperity in Europe ■ or whether it will leave Russia still in doubt about how far the Attlee Government is able or willing to restrain those forces in Britain’s “capitalist society,” which in the Soviet view are ready again to tread the path from Versailles to Munich. Since the recent exchanges between Mr. Stalin and Mr. Bevin, Russian minds are more open on this question than before, and there is little doubt that a general welcome would be given to a clear demonstration that m ' spite of their different social and poli- ‘ Heal systems and ideologies, Britain , and Russia can work together. SHARP DIVISION ALREADY APPARENT (Prom E. G. WEBBER, N.Z. Press Association Correspondent.) LONDON, Februay 11. A month before the opening of the conference of Foreign Ministers to discuss the Austrian and German peace treaties, it seems that there may be even less agreement in Moscow than there was when the conference of 21 nations discussed the Axis satellite treaties in Paris last summer. Although the several press interviews given by Mr. Stalin have raised hopes that the Russian attitude to the West might become more accommodating, this optimism has been-severe-ly shaken by the persistence of the r Russian press and radio campaign [ against Britain and America.. Some observers explain this campaign by i suggesting that the Russians are try- ; ing to create evidence which will enl able them to throw the blame on the I British and Americans if the Moscow i conference breaks down. Others argue that it is a smokescreen devised to hide Russia’s gradually worsenl ing economic plight. Others claim 1 that it represents a fundamental Rusi sian hostility to co-operation with the - West. •< i a Whatever the reasons, it already ’ seems probable that the Moscow meet- , ing will take place in a highly charged atmosphere. So far, all that > has emerged has been the views of ’ the smaller nations as conveyed to the Foreign Ministers’ deputies in s London. There has been no direct re- - porting of these meetings, but sumi maries of the various submissions 1 made by the deputies have been re- • leased. These disclose not only considerable disagreement on principle, 1 but also a wide disagreement on de--3 tail.

Political Administration. A split has already occurred on the question of the future political administration of Germany. South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Greece, Norway, Belgium and Holland have already plumped for a federal Germany in which administrative authority would be dispersed among semiautonomous German States. This is the solution favoured by Britain and probably by the United States. Australia and New Zealand so far have not committed themselves. The Australians have refused to make detailed submissions until the principle that the middle and smaller powers are entitled to a real voice in framing the treaties is admitted. New Zealand has said it is “too early yet’’ to make comments upon, the submissions of the other powers, and has contented itself with expressing the opinion that all of the Allies should share in the preparation of the treaty. The Czechs, the Poles and the Jugoslavs have already supported what is expected to be the official Russian formula—a centralised State —and have indicated tha.t they strongly oppose federalisation. The French plan proposes detachment of the Ruhr from Germany and placing its heavy industry under international control. British Plan. Details of the British plan for Germany have not been officially released but the weekly newspaper, the Tribune, which frequently represents the views of the Labour Party (Mr. Aneurin Bevin, the Minister of Health, was previously its editor), has published a summary of the main proposals. These are: (1) The Ruhr to remain part of a federal Germany. (2) Ownership of the coalmines and other heavy industry to pass eventually to the German Government. (3) The management, of these industries to be subject to. overriding international control and inspection. In addition, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Ernest Bevin, has several times recently publicly expressed approval of a federal solution in. Germany.

These are some of the divisions already apparent over the political shape of the Reich, but there are many others over reparations, boundaries and the level of industry. South Africa opposes Polish retention of German territories east of the Oder. Canada recommends that the German frontiers should follow an ethnic or racial relationship line. Australia recalls the Atlantic Charter and its pledge that frontier changes will not be made without the consent of the peoples concerned. The Dutch and Belgians both want pieces of German territory. Poland refuses to consider giving up any of the territory . she holds east of the Oder and the 1 Czechs and Jugoslavs support her. The Greeks, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Jugoslavs, Poles and Czechs all want reparations from Germany, but are divided about how they should be obtained. Level of Industry. In general the smaller Western European nations agree with the British and American view that Germany must be permitted to revive hei’ industry before she can be expected to pay reparations; but the Poles, Greeks, Jugoslavs and Czechs ignore this and demand reparations without further consideration of the present, state of Germany. In general, their view is that their own reconstruction must come first. As an indication of some of the demands that will be made upon Germany, the Greeks want a guarantee that the Germans will be compelled to buy Greek tobacco for the next 20 years. The Norwegians demand control of the German trawling fleet, limitation of the size of German ships and the prohibition of German whaling expeditions. The Jugoslavs want part of the German Danube fleet. The Belgians want 6,000,000 tons of coal and supplies of electricity and the Dutch with the Belgians want control of Germany’s inland water transport. These are only some of the conflicting claims and counter-claims with which the Foreign Ministers will be confronted in Moscow. They themselves will go to the conference with I few of the divergencies which manifested themselves in Paris settled and subject to fresh irritations created on the Russian side by suspicion of the British and American zone merger and on the British and American side by hostile Russian propaganda.