THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1934 GERMANY'S INTENTIONS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21972, 1 December 1934, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1934 GERMANY'S INTENTIONS

Does Germany mean war? Two answers, utterly different, are being offered. One is reassuring. It chooses to employ the term "Germany" for the German people as a whole, and enlarges on the homely, hospitable kindliness of many of them. It points to the economic straits of the country as a proof of national inability to make an effective assault. It asserts that Germany, disarmed by the peace treaty, cannot for a long time hope to muster a force, on land, at sea or in the air, capable of even beginning a serious attack anywhere. It quotes speeches of Herr Hitler couched in friendly terms. All that this Germany asks, according to this opinion, is to be let alone to be given liberty to set its house in oidei and to take precautions against dangerous plots of malevolent neighbours, This amounts, of course, as the advocates for Germany say quite frankly, to revising the treaty, so that its war-guilt clause shall be expunged, its demands for reparation (so far as they are not already withdrawn) finally abandoned, and its restrictions on expansion utterly removed. They argue that Germany was not really responsible for the war, other nations being at least equally to blame, and that any and every refusal to allow German relief from impositions never warranted and always irksome must provoke righteous resentment. This answer saddles the Allied and Associated Powers with crimes against a misunderstood Germany, and charges them with vengeful folly in hesitating to grant all it now asks. On this view, the way to peace is through yielding Germany's demands as those of a nation with laudable ideals and a reasonable policy; to do this would be to quench the last flicker of German resentment in defeat and remove the chief risk of illwill in Europe. According to these advocates, Germany does not mean war, and anything said to be indicative of such a purpose is wrongly construed. On the other side, a mass of evidence is offered to prove that Germany's intentions are unmistakably belligerent. For the second of these answers much is to be said. Mr. Baldwin said some of it in his recent speech to the House of Commons, heard in a hush, no voice being raised in challenge of his calm recital of facts. Not a syllable of pessimism was in that speech, not a hint of abandonment of British efforts to promote friendship in Europe, not a word calculated to excite panic. But he plainly spoke of "ground for very grave anxiety," and he deliberately ac cused Germany of accountability for it. The importance of that speech, made on behalf of the British Government, is not to be doubted. It was the declared outcome of months of careful Cabinet watching of the situation, and in closing the debate Sir John Simon, Foreign Secretary, has announced that full information concerning 'Mr. Baldwin's statement was sent beforehand to Germany, France, Italy and the United States. This action lifts the speech above all suspicion of being a merely dialectic utterance, and entitles it to international notice as a British declaration to the world. Berlin newspapers—and the press in Germany is under strict official supervision—make light of it and add reproaches. The German Government may choose to ignore it, as less than a formal Note between Powers. But the sneech, in both its tone and its details, should give pause to those pleading Germany's case. That case is weak in the extreme. German policy is not set by the numbers of kindly people in the Reich but by the Nazi Government. Care has been taken by that Government to hamstring all popular objection. The undeniable straits of the country are not deterring inflammatory Nazi propaganda. Official figures, as far as they are available, establish a programme of rearming, particularly in the air. This programme, begun before Germany left the Disarmament Conference, cannot be explained away. Against Hitler's broadcast protestations of peaceful intentions must be set the bellicose ravings of his henchman Goering, and other deliverances of Hitler's own are entirely out of key with his occasional pacific cooings. These latter, apparently meant to lull other nations into a false sense of security, are belied by too much to be unquestioningly accepted. By the million Hitler's book "My War," although not of recent writing, is now being distributed in Germany. It outlines "the educational work of the Nationalist State," declaring mental training to be a matter of secondary importance and "a people of scientists, of physic-

ally degenerated, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists" to be unable to ensure its existence. The young German, according to him, must be entirely educated and trained to believe himself superior to others, and the whole educational system should "take the form of a preparatory training for future army service." That he means this now no less than when he first penned the words is clear. A few weeks ago he addressed "German youth" through the Nazi Party Congress, urging it to be linked with "the great victorious battalions of our movement marching to-day through Germany" and to "be hard." This might be dismissed as flamboyant rhetoric were there not a mass of facts, including those given bv Mr. Baldwin, showing the military trend of Nazi policy. There is a rumour of an unofficial German proposal that, "in exchange for armaments equality," Germany should rejoin the League : but, as that eouality was in prospect when the Nazi Government suddenly withdrew from the League and ruined the team-work at Geneva, such a proposal is manifestly insincere. On all the relevant facts the British anxiety voiced by Mr. Baldwin is sadly justified.