The Gisborne Times WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1935. WAS THE GREAT WAR IN VAIN?

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12536, 24 April 1935, Page 4

The Gisborne Times WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1935. WAS THE GREAT WAR IN VAIN?

| It is not unlikely that to-morrow—-j when the gallant sacrifice made by I the thousands of Anzaos who gave I their lives in the Allies’ noble cause I will be commemorated—attention will I be directed to the question as to whether a satisfactory peace was, after all. made. To-day, there is an even more restless spirit abroad j throughout the world than was the : ease prior to the Great 'War. That militarism is not dead is, unhappily, very evident. The Hitler Government, it would seem, intends taking its time over answering the ex-Allies indictment of Germany for breaches <of' the Versailles Treaty. In effect, it has, so far, been content to suggest that the ex-Allies have no right to dictate for all time to Germany as to how far she may go in re-equipping herself with armaments. If France, in particular, could have her way, Germany would, of course, never again become a- formidable military nation. Britain, on the other hand, has long appreciated the fact that it would lie impossible for all time to compel Germany to keep within the arms limit provided in the Treaty of Peace of 1918 What Britain is most ’anxious to bring about is an amicable re-arrangement in respect of the arms problem throughout Western Europe. At the moment, the main point at issue is whether or not Germany can be induced to stay her hand and join in a general scheme of limitation to aymamets. Seemingly, Germany does not realise that her action in flagrantly denouncing her solemn signature to the, Versailles Treaty is not likely to elevate her in the estimation of her neighbours. When one recalls that, at .the outbreak of the .Great War, Germany' treated the arrangement for Belgium’s neutrality as a mere, scrap of paper, her 'defiance of the Versailles Treaty would appear to make it doubly certain that any other bond into into which she ,enters may prove , worthless. .And what is Germany's excuse for violating the 1918 Peace Treaty? P.ut.. shortly, it is that, atthe . time .when that historic do.cu-' nient was f'vapiecj, it was held by the then Allies that, her armaments .alone furnished the reason why her neighbors were required heavily, to .arm themselves. Naiyelv, sh© go.es on to suggest that, at that time, her G.o.voerpment and her people were filled 1 with ff spirit that corresponds wjth ! . the non-armament fcleals of the Lea- 1 gue of Nations and ifs founders. And she now adefs that, as the ex-Allies' did not redeem their implied prom-' ise to cut down armaments when she

under the Treaty cpndibioiis, destroyed her armaments, she has been forced to re-arm to protect herself in the case of any amergency. What Germany overlooks, however, is this: that, iri the absence of proof that she lias in nowise provoked France, she must be held to have made out a very poor case. The proper place for a discussion upon her complaint against France was at Geneva. But, instead, she preferred to desert Britain and other nations ‘which’ were endeavoring to arrange a general plan of disarmament and a mutual security pact. It is in the light of this fact that Germany’s attitude to-day does not appear to be honorable. She should not have resigned front the Disarmament Conference seeing that a five.-Power accord had beep arranged at Geneva recognising her right to - "equality, within a- framework of security.” On every hand, it .must be held that a general restriction of armaments would have been futile without a mutual security pact. Germany’s attitude, therefore, lacks sincerity. In other words, evidence is lacking that she would have been satisfied with the grant of equality of armaments. If further proof of her untmstworthiness were required, it is to he found in the fact that, despite her denials that she was re-arming beyond the provisions in the Treaty of Versailles, diplomatic publications revealed last month that she already possessed a military aviation unit, including bombers. From that point, it was not a strain upon her national conscience to introduce universal militaiy conscription, which is also prohibited under the Treaty.