THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1929. RELEASING THE RHINELAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20364, 19 September 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1929. RELEASING THE RHINELAND.

There has begun this week the final phase of the Rhineland evacuation. It will take time. Months must pass before the last soldier of the army of occupation recrosscs the border. For the sake of some things in the'territory itself, its release from a regime lasting for a decade cannot very well be accomplished in a moment. For all the troops to march out at once would be disturbing to many local interests.. But, with due and detailed regard to these considerations, the withdrawal is going on and may be expected to be complete by July next. It was the recent Hague conference on the Young Plan concerning Germany's reparation payments that made possible this action by the Allied and Associated Powers —"the greatest political achievement since Locarno," as Mr. Snowden, returning to England after the conference, described the agreement to withdraw the occupying forces. His own splendid stand for financial justice as Britain's due made the reparation question overshadow tho political portion of the business at that conference ; but the fate of the Rhineland was inextricably bound up with the financial question. The conference, it will be remembered, did' its work through two committees, one confining its attention to the reparation problem and the other handling related political affairs, and only when these committees had reached finality in their separate tasks did the full assembly of the conference register its findings. Priority of importance was taken by the financial committee, for on its achievement of a satisfactory understanding all round, inclusive of Germany's, acceptance of reasonable obligations in lieu of those provided by the outgrown Dawes scheme, depended the readjustment of the political position in any manner more favourable to Germany. In that position the occupied Rhineland was a central and vital constituent. The desired financial understanding was reached, and the way was consequently oDen for favourable review of the occupation. What was thus done at the Hague conference had its authority in the peace treaty, which included the provision of guarantees for its faithful execution by Germany. In the region of western Europe—and this was the main item in the guarantees .—the German territory situated to the west of the Rhine was selected for military occupation during fifteen years from the coming into force of the treaty. It was expressly provided that, if the treaty conditions were carried out by Germany, the occupation would be restricted as follows: at the expiration of five years there would be evacuated the bridgehead of Cologne and the adjacent territory, and similarly, at the end of ten and fifteen years respectively, the bridgeheads of Coblenz and Mainz, with their lands, would be evacuated. As the treaty came into force on January 10, 1920, the final release of the Rhineland, supposing all went without any untoward happening, was meant to take effect at the beginning of 1935. There were further provisions: if Germany should fail to implement her promises as to disarmament, the evacuation could be delayed; if she refused to honour her obligations as to reparation, either during the occupation or after the expiry of fifteen years, the whole or part of the specified territory would be immediately reoccupied; but if, before the end of the fifteen years, she complied with all her undertakings, the occupying forces would be at once withdrawn. Responsibility for tho release of the Rhinoland, therefore, was placed on Germany. The story of the intervening years is well known. It was found that Germany's promises were not being fulfilled. Her big guns were not all destroyed, her munition factories were not converted to peaceful purposes, her general military staff was not dispersed, her youth was still being encouraged fo prepare for aggressive military campaigning, and by devious shifts she was maintaining a strength and a preparedness out. of all consonance with hei treaty undertakings. So the Cologne region was not evacuated at the expiration of five years, and she was plainly told why in a combined Note from the Allies. That Note had a salutary effect, It led to her proposal of the Locarno Pact, to the treaties based on that agreement, and to her admission- to membership of the League of Nations. Fully a year after due date, the Cologne evacuation took place. Since then there has been a reduction of the remaining army of occupation, Britain acting with more generous alacrity than France and Belgium but agreeing that there should be no serious slackening of control without the three Powers concerned being thoroughly agreed. So, with Germany complaining, and these three endeavouring to carry out, with fidelity the task accepted by them as trustees for all the Allied and Associated Powers, the interval -has passed since January of 1926. The complaints have not been reasonable, and the task has been per-

formed with adequate care to avoid tho fomenting of enmity; but it has always been understood that, given proof of Germany's honeßt determination to discharge her remaining obligations, the evacuation would ho expedited. At the Hague conference came an opportunity of reviewing the whole position, and now, with little more than half of tho stipulated period gone, the last of the occupied regions is given assurance of release as fast as arrangements can be made. History will record the revision of the agreement as a gracious concession. There remains, of course, the treaty provision concerning the right to reoccupy should there be default of reparation, but hope can be cherished that Germany's keeping of her word will render this provision a dead letter.