GERMANY AND ITALY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 24 June 1937, Page 7

GERMANY AND ITALY

ALARM IN FRANCE

MORE REASSURING

WITHDRAW FROM NON-INTERVENTION COMMITTEE LIMITED TO PATROL SCHEME GRAVEST MISGIVINGS IN LONDON BERLIN PRESS BLAMES BRITAIN FOR CRISIS I United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright] (Received 24th June, 9.30 a.m.) LONDON, 23rd June. It is officially stated that Italy and Germany have withdrawn from the Non-Intervention Committee.

A later message states that the withdrawal is limited to the patrol scheme.

Reuter’s Berlin correspondent says that a German Cabinet meeting was called for to-day to discuss Spanish problems. 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 that 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 the British cruiser Hunter on 1 4th May and the machine-gunning of a French passenger ’plane on 26th May the subject of peaceful representations. Moreover, as “The Times” points out, a shadow of doubt hangs over the alleged attack by Spanish Government submarines on the Leipzig. “The Times” emphasises that Germany herself condemned on 15 th June rumours that the Leipzig was attacked as unscrupulous inventions, and adds that when the Anglo-German discussions held out a prospect of deeper stability for Europe, Germany has chosen a curious moment to magnify the Spanish incidents. Small wonder if some suspect that she seeks to take advantage of the French political confusion and wonder if Germany is repeating her past errors in succumbing to the temptations of uncovenanted opportunism by making hostility to other nations the price of German friendship. The Berlin press bitterly blames Britain as alone responsible for the crisis and adds that Germany has won the right to independent action. The German newspaper “Volkischer Beobachter” contains a veiled threat of Germany’s withdrawal from the NonIntervention Committee. It states: “German sailors are too good to lie used as laboratory rabbits because English diplomats lack the courage to face Bolshevism. Since Mr Eden fails here he must admit the failure of his non-intervention policy.”

THANKFULNESS FOR BRITISH ; FRIENDSHIP KEYNOTE OF COMMENT [. (Received 24th June, 9.30 a.m.) , PARIS, 23rd June. ’ Thankfulness for British friendship combined with alarm at the German intransigence is the keynote of French , comment. “Pertinax” in “Echo De Paris” declares that Germany and Italy use the bogey of Communism to explain flagrant breaches of non-intervention anc instal themselves across' the AngloFrench lines of communication in the Mediterranean. France cannot tolerate further menaces of mobilisation. Other newspapers consider it signifl- , cant that Germany reappears at the clii max to the civil war as the principal , supporter of General Franco. : GERMANY’S REASONS SPIRIT OF SOLIDARITY LACKING SIMILAR VIEW BY ITALY ; (Received 24th June, 10.25 a.m.) LONDON, 23rd June. The German Embassy announced that the German Government will 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 the English and 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 had therefore decided to withdraw finally from the control scheme. An official message from Rome is phrased almost identically. It was stated 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 Algecins for an easterly direction. The whereabouts of the Leipzig is not known. OFFICIAL EXPLANATION TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS DISCLAIMED ONLY SPANISH INDEPENDENCE DESIRED BERLIN, 23rd June. Baron von Neurath, German Foreign Minister, assured the British and French Ambassadors that Germany was not taking further action in connection with the Leipzig incident. Herr von Ribbentrop, the German Ambassador, issued an official explanation of Germany’s attitude stating 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 appeals from Moscow in the direction of replacing the system of free states by international chaos tyrannised by the Soviet. Germany had consistently tried to confine the' Spanish strife to the domestic ambit, but the action of democratic states restricted this plan, especially regarding the supply of volunteers and material to Valencia. The attacks on German, Italian and British ships at Palma forced Germany to change her base to Iviza, where the attack on the Deutschland compelled Germany, knowing the Committee would not take action, to adopt the only natural reprisals. The report reviews the British French attitude regarding a naval demonstration off Valencia, and describes it as encouraging the pirates in criminal attacks. It adds that Germany would not tolerate doubts of her state- 1 ments on questions of fact. Moreover. 1 an inquiry would be futile. i The report discloses that Germany

In another answer Mr Eden said General Franco’s attention had been drawn to The Hague Convention forbidding the laying of mines off coasts at ports of an enemy with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation.

Concerning British cargoes detained

not only dropped the original demand for reparations but the demand for internment of the loyalist submarines, and agreed to an investigation immediately after a naval demonstration, but as these proposals were rejected failure of the Powers to agree was inevitable. Naval control thus became impossible and participation therein intolerable to any people sensible of its honour. It is better for individual Powers to take the protection of their own interests into their own hands.

It was semi-officially announced earlier that Germany had notified Britain that insistence by Western Powers for an inquiry before a naval demonstration was incomprehensible, especially th ■ view of the notorious untrustworthiness of the Bolshevists, which had been particularly revealed in connection with the Deutschland incident

1 STATEMENT IN THE COMMONS BARON VON NEURATH’S EXPLANATION [British Official Wireless] (Received 24th June, 11.52 a.m.) RUGBY, 23rd rune. In the course of a statement in the t House of Commons on Germany’s and 2 Italy’s withdrawal from the Spanish - naval control scheme, the Foreign Sec- : retary, Mr Eden, said the British Amt bassador in Berlin had seen Baron von - Neurath concerning the matter and he : had been informed that the German ■ Government regretted it had not been . possible to reach an agreement and ■ Germany therefore felt obliged to ■ withdraw their ships altogether from i 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. ‘I understand further,” added Mr Eden “that the German Government does not contemplate ceasing participation in the Non-Interven-tion 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 Mr Eder\ agreed that the withdrawal of • the Germans and Italians from the naval control left questions to be considered, but insisted the important point was the assurance given the British Ambassador that the German Government would confine itself to withdrawal from the naval patrol following failure of consultative procedure in the Leipzig case. Mr Eden told Mr Lloyd George that as he understood it Germany and Italy were withdrawing only from participation in naval control, and the NonIntervention ARgreement itself was un- 1 affected. MINING OF H.M.S. HUNTER 1 Mr Eden told the House of Commons . during the course of answering a large i number of questions concerning Spain that he had received a communication from the Salamanca authority containing a reasoned claim for recognition of the belligerency, which was being examined. No immediate change in the Government attitude on this matter was contemplated. He was also considering what further steps were to be taken following receipt of an answer to the British protest regarding the r mining of H.M.S. Hunter. An insur- t gent note explained that the disaster r was caused by a mine moored in terri- j torial waters, but this was at variance with the facts reported by H.M.S. Hun- ( ter. r