The Northern Advocate Daily “NORTHLAND FIRST” MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1939. Concessions or Defiance?

Northern Advocate, 30 January 1939, Page 6

The Northern Advocate Daily “NORTHLAND FIRST”

MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1939. Concessions or Defiance?

Regis'! ered for transmission through the post as a Newspaper

WHAT are “reasonable aspirations”? This question arises from Mr. Neville Chamberlain's statement, in the House of Commons, that “we'must satisfy other countries’ reasonable aspirations, and be ready to talk on a basis of equality.” Simultaneously, Signor Farinacci, one of Mussolini’s closest allies, who was identified with the early evolution of Fascism, and therefore should speak with authority, defines Italy’s territorial claims as Tunis, Jibouti, Corsica, and Nice., Any one of these would be a big mouthful. Taken together they represent an enormous and impudent demand. Then there' are Germany’s ambitions to be considered. So far. Hitler has confined himself to consolidating German influence in Europe, but today, in his speech to the Reichstag, he is expected to demand the return of some or all of Germany’s former colonies These are far scattered and vast-in area. There are islands, such as Samoa, now administered by New Zealand under mandate, and there are territories such as German New Guinea, Tanganyika, German West Africa, and many more. By the Treaty of Versailles- Germany’s colonial empire was wiped out at a stroke of the pen. Yet she is so confident of winning it back, presumably by those methods of “diplomacy by agitation,” which have served her so well, that for some years past she has maintained a school for training young Germans in colonial administration. It seems a reasonable inference from Mr. Chamberlain’s reference to “reasonable aspirations,” that he would not object to giving Germany some overseas territory if, as a result, there could be a guarantee of peace. Without such a guarantee, the return to Germany of overseas possessions would merely strengthen her for the inevitable war.* ' , Even if a guarantee were given, it is questionable how far it could be relied upon. The breaking, rather than the making, of treaties has hitherto been Hitler’s strong point. But the treaties he has defied were all of such a character, that, in German eyes, they imposed harsh and unjust humiliations on the nation. The military inoccupation of the Rhineland was an example of Hitler’s treaty-breaking. From the German viewpoint, however, that episode was a glorious demonstration of the reawakening of the nation’s strepgth and spirit. : ■ . Mr. Chamberlain, if seeking to concede “reasonable aspirations,” will have great difficulty in distinguishing between what is “reasonable” and what is “unreasonable.” Italy’s claims in the Mediterranean, obviously, are utterly unreasonable; more, they are outrageous. Beyond the existence of a large Italian population in Tunis, not one of them is well grounded, and if Italy continues to press them, substituting direct action for inspired propaganda, then obviously there must be a war. The fact that Italy’s aspirations will be coupled with Germany’s, if and when; the. latter’s are clearly defined, merely aggravates the position.. It would be easier, however, to restore some of the German colonies than to concede Italian demands in the Mediterranean. No New Zealander, for instance, could object, except on strategic grounds, to giving Samoa back to Germany. The mandate has been a liability ever since we took it over. . If peace could be purchased; by handing back; a few thousand square miles of African jungle and some specks of land.in midocean, then it would be far more cheaply bought than by prolonging for an indefinite period the colossal arms race in which the nations are now engaging. But in the meantime it is certain that Britain’s rearmament programme is her best guarantee of security, and it is heartening, too, to find a disposition to attaqk the inferiority complex lately fostered by people to whom ■ Sir Samuel Hoare, in his spirited speech last week, referred to as “timid panicraongers.” The old Scottish motto, “No one may attack us with Impunity, ” should still be the watchword of British communities. .