GERMAN COLONIES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 21 June 1937, Page 9

GERMAN COLONIES

QUESTION OF RETURN

REASONS FOR AND AGAINST

Germany’s return to Africa and the Pacific would mean another European Power to share the burdens in the possible future struggle between the coloured races and the white, said Mr W. H. Hemingway in an address to the Auckland University Commerce Students’ Association on the suggested return to Germany of her former colonies. The addition of another Power, he said, would assist in the influx of white population to the less developed parts of the world. Mandated territories were costly to the holders, but under the present system no fiscal benefits were available (reports the “Star”).

Mr Hemingway said that German youth was instructed that it was the duty of Germans to fight for their country’s former colonies if they were not returned; yet world peace had to be maintained.

One the other hand, said the speaker, there were many reasons why the return should not be effected. Germany was beaten in the war, and in signing the Treaty of Versailles, frankly renounced for all time all her rights to her overseas territories; Germany in the Eastern Pacific would be a menace to Japan, France and Holland as she would probably fortify places, serviceable as aerial, naval and military bases; by re-acquiring parts of New Guinea and the Solomons, Germany would be a menace to New Zealand and Australia. “Nazism” was strongly opposed to other than “pure Aryan stock,” and therefore there was no guarantee that it would not treat the natives as it had the Jews.

“Germany’s record as a colonising Power is not a proud one,” said Mr Hemingway. “Her treatment of the Hereros, a peaceful native race in West Africa, is a blot on her reputation for all time. After the battle of Waterburg in 1904 the German officers, in literally wiping out the Hereros, acted with a cruelty that was a disgrace to any civilised Power.”

THE MANDATE SCHEME

The speaker claimed the he based his comments on discussions with Germans, influential and otherwise. He explained the system of holding territory under mandate as something new in international matters. Tenure was provided for by Covenant of the Treaty of Versailles, under which, through the League of Nations, a Mandate Committee came into existence with the duty of seeing that the terms of the mandates were carried out faithfully. Explaining hpw this came about, Mr Hemingway mentioned that Australia had taken German New Guinea by force of arms, the Union of South Africa had taken the formdr German colonies in Africa, and New Zealand had captured German Samoa. Yet, in view of the number of belligerents on the side of the Allies in the Great War and the world opinion then existing against “annexations” (largely influenced by America), it did not seem right that territory formerly under German rule should fall to any of the victors as spoils of war. Therefore the mandate scheme had been promulgated.

REAL REASON LOST PRESTIGE

• “Meantime, Germany is clamouring for the return of her former colonies. As a reason she states she wants territory as an outlet for her surplus population, for the' development of her trade, and as a source of raw materials. While there may be some measure of truth hi these reasons,” said Mr Hemingway, “after travel in Germany and discussion of the subject with Germans, I am convinced the main reason is to regain a lost prestige. To regain her position among the great nations, Germany considers that she, like Britain, France, Holland and other Powers, should dominate extensive territories overseas.”

It was being urged in Germany that the cplonial policy must be more radical and energetic, concluded Mr Hemingway. When it was realised just what radicalism and energy meant to Germany, there could be little hesitation in pressing that the territories held under mandate should remain as they were. There could be no doubt, however, that the present mandate system was only a temporary means of settlement.