THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1925. GERMANY AND TRADE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19195, 8 December 1925, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1925. GERMANY AND TRADE.

j It is evident, that the die-hard Nationalists in Germany are determined to throw as much grit as posj sible into the machinery lately set ! going for the production of inter- | national understanding. Three of | their party were in the Ministry. ! They resigned rather than countenance the Pact, Nationalist influence was very active against the Government's resolve to complete at Lon- | don what was so well begun at ! Locarno. There were attempts to | fan into a flame popular German | prejudices against other nations, \ prejudices that were showing signs ! of dying down, if not of dying out. I When the German delegates left for ! London they made their departure in secret, lest Nationalist plots to | waylay them should have effect, j These machinations all failed to do | more than make the Government | anxious and embarrassed. In spite 1 of the Nationalists, Locarno's work. | was carried to a satisfactory interI national completion. But they are j j not deterred from fomenting j j trouble. They have an opportunity J j in their country's political confusion, j | The multiplicity of parties favours j opposing propaganda. All that is needed by malcontents is some catch-cry with a show of reason in it. Foiled over the Pact, the Nationalists have found their new occasion of offence in the actions of j Britain since the Dawes scheme was j adopted. That scheme, they say in j effect, was meant to put Germany on her feet, and Britain was a party to it, yet Britain has adopted a trade policy designed to put Germany at a disadvantage. Specifically, the Nationalists claim that the "key industry" and other duties making tariff changes in Britain, the mining subsidy introduced to aid the coal industry, and even Imperial preferences, are retarding Germany's export trade and hampering her making of reparation payments under the Dawes scheme. It is a cry astutely calculated to intensify Anglophobia in Germany and to win the Nationalists support in the party struggle impending in the Reiehstag. That the cry is so much humbug may not be evident at once, so speciously is it worded. Germany, to be sure, must export in order to ] implement her obligations; and Britain's attempts to build up her own trade make her a more formidable competitor. This is not fair, say the Nationalists ; if this goes on, we will not, for we cannot, continue making reparation payments. At the first blush—if such Nationalist propaganda can be said to have a blush —the argument looks all right. But it is fallacious in the extreme. Granting for the moment its truth, it is really a new tune played by harping on the old string of Germany's guiltlessness for the war. If Germany was guilty—and there is no doubt, even in many German minds about that—then her payment of reparations cannot equitably be as easy and congenial as, say, drinking lager beer. It must involve effort. She called the tune, and she must pay the piper. She has said she was too poor. Inquiry upon which the Dawes scheme was based proved her not to be bo poor as she professed to be, but to help her to raise the wind for the piper it guaranteed loans and even went the length of undertaking to relieve her of the bailiff's attentions as soon as she was willing to take to a peaceful and lawful way of living. She could not reasonably expect to be spoonfed for the rest of her days. Means to attain industrial and commercial prosperity were generously given her; her good usq of them was part of the compact made when she accepted the aid, and it is not for her to whine now that other nations are trying to earn a living, but to set resolutely to work to make ends meet with the gracious and extensive help given. If any nation has reason to complain of unfair advantage in competition, it is not Germany, but each of the nations that have combined to aid her to compete against them—after her plotting to engulf them in ruin for her gain. An ironical touch is given to the situation by the fact that, in commercial rivalry, Germany has usually shown —and been proud to claim —that she could give a good account, of herself, without any help. But these reflections are only on the surface of the question. The underlying fallacy in the Nationalist argument is that Germany's trade can only lie built up by other | nations consenting to let theirs de- j cay. If earth's customers were all in the moon, and all the nations of the earth produced precisely the. same goods for lunar consumption, i there might lie something in the ( argument. But the trade this world i knows is, so far, limited to this globe I itself, and it consists in mutual ex- | change, with mutual profit. There are occasional inequalities that do not affect the simple, broad fact. What sort of trade would Germany have if other nations did not bestir themselves to produce? With what then could they pay for German pianos and German tools or even German bands 1 There are no pauper customers anywhere in the world, and Germany needs, as the Nationalists themselves must admit, customers, not pensioners.

Every prosperous foreigner, from Germany's point of view, is a pote.m tial customer; and her business is to win liis custom, no matter where in the world he may live. How preposterous the Nationalist plea is liecomes startlingly evident when the Dawes plan, its ostensible basis, is considered. W hat led to that scheme ? The indisputable fact that a mendicant Germany was a hindrance to Europe's recovery. She had to be helped to produce for sale, in order that, she might buy. So other nations, Britain included, must to-day be at least allowed.to export in order to buy from their fellownations, Germany included. 'What was good sauce for the Allied goose in the day of the Dawes scheme is equally good sauce now for the German gander.