THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1934 FRANCE AND DISARMAMENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21759, 26 March 1934, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1934 FRANCE AND DISARMAMENT

It would be the height of pessimism to assume that the French reply to the revised disarmament proposals of Britain has destroyed the lasthopeof a convention being brought into being, but only a super-optimist | could pretend that the cause has been advanced in the slightest degree. One London newspaper speaks of the French Note as meaning' the "obituary of the Disarmament Conference in almost every quarter but Downing Street," and well it might if in all four countries to the territories of which the scope of disarmament proposals have shrunk there was not a substantial body of opinion supporting the general ideal. Unfortunately the new political systems of Germany and Italy preclude this opinion becoming articulate and expressing itself as it would under democratic rule, but the fact of its existence is bound to exert some influence upon the mind of the dictators, who, notwithstanding their extraordinary power, must have a care for public opinion that may be repressed. W6re England the only land in which the ideals of peace flourished, appalling would be the fate of Europe. That, however, is not so. Actually no European Government could to-day contemplate a declaration of war with the confidence of whole-hearted national support that could be relied upon in 1914. The sincerity of Franco in the present exchanges cannot be doubted, but the hand which wrote the Note is the hand that fought Germany on French soil. Naturally, almost inevitably, it might be said, objection is taken to the conception of a plan of disarmament under which immediate reductions by some Powers are to be accompanied by immediate increases by another. France "can neither understand nor admit that the exaggerated pretensions to rearmament put forward by one side should constitute an argument for asking the other Powers to agree to reductions which do harm to the interests of their security." There, in a nutshell, is the French case, and it would be idle to reply that the present plan according equality of rights to Germany is the only possible one under the circumstances, that behind the effort to scale down is the purpose of turning armies into instruments of defence and not of attack.

As anticipated, Germany, which, according to the Morning Post, has taken an equipped array of 300,000 for granted, since her withdrawal from the League, has promptly seized upon the French Note as evidence that France is the real menace to peace in Europe. "Frivolous, malevolent and dishonest" is one German comment. The suggestion is thai; France is still at Versailles refusing Germany her "modest claims to defence." There, as elsewhere, the question of additional guarantees required by France probably excites perplexity, for the British Memorandum prescribes for security permanent and automatic supervision over the arms of all signatories. But in language as blunt as diplomatic usage will permit, France says that in any case she must first know the present state of Germany's military strength. She declares that every concession has led to a, new demand or a new violation of the treaties. She affirms that she has always contemplated a supervised reduction of armaments progressively scaled down to the level of allowing the realisation of equality of rights, but is not prepared to accept as valid Germany's complaint of being defenceless. And no matter how carefully the British Foreign Secretary may avoid reference to German military training activities, it cannot be maintained thai, much of the organisation of political power through disciplined bodies, much of the development of physical culture for which young Germany is marshalled, does not have a definite martial basis. Though political ends may be served by these means, though the Nazi creed may thereby lie cultivated, it is a self-evident truth that youth that is so trained and organised can speedily be made a part of a military machine when arms are put in its hands. When the revised memorandum was issued, Mr. J. L. Garvin stated in the London Observer that Britain could not possibly have gone further to conciliate Germany, and she had done it at the cost of a good deal of temporary bitterness in Paris. French foreign policy does not change with Governments, but itwill be a miracle if French resentment against Germany is not heightened by the German criticism of her attitude. Believing what she believes, vitally concerned for her safety not merely to-morrow but in the years to be, France regards the so-called olive branch with grave suspicion. Much has already been made of the olive branch by Germany. Hitler observed: "Germany's fight for equality could find no better termination than through a reconciliation of the two great nations which have poured out the blood of their best sons on the battlefield without making any essential alteration to

the final disposition of the facts. I still do not give up hope that the will of both nations to come to real conciliation, and finally to bury the historical war hatchet, will continually become stronger and will eventually prevail." This and other German utterances on the subject may have provocative consequences in France that may not be so temporary as could be desired. German turbulence, German Machiavelism, it will be contended, are the real obstacles to agreement and not France's anxieties for security. Downing Street, in its wisdom, will decline to acknowledge defeat, but very soon the world should know if the last practical effort to remove aggressive military preparation from Europe has failed. Britain has gone all the way in example, and has provided convincing assurances as to her readiness to act against any violator of the conventions, though the formula in that regard is considered to be "quite inadequate" in some foreign quarters. Germany places final responsibility with France; France throws the onus on Germany. Italy looka on, evidently contemplating nothing more than a limit of armaments at present levels.