THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1936 THE RHINELAND CRISIS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22378, 26 March 1936, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1936 THE RHINELAND CRISIS

Ax increase of tension adds to the difficulty of reaching a peaceful settlement of the trouble occasioned by Germany's sending of armed forces into the Rhineland. As a consequence, the international sky darkens. Unless some solution not yet appearing be found, the problem will become a chronic vexation of Europe, remaining to complicate, if not stultify, every effort to bring enduring peace. Germany, having asserted a right to equality, will apparently seek to build ujion this national achievement others designed to expand sovereignty into domination, in frank accordance with declared Nazi principles. France and Belgium, alarmed at so complete a ruin of the hopes cherished since the war, will as probably proceed with defensive measures on a larger scale and distrust all efforts, by Britain or others, to end the quarrel by amicable negotiation. To the risk of a revival of hatred between Germany and France is being added the menace of a breach between France and Britain, while in the immediate background is the determination of Signor Mussolini to take advantage of the baffling position, in order to advance his purpose in East Africa and incidentally frustrate the League's endeavours to compel him to accept negotiation. In these circumstances the mediation of Britain appears to be the only promising means of averting an impasse obstructive of agreement and inimical to all the future of international relations in Europe. And yet this very mediation is beset by the danger of fomenting enmity in either France or Germany, if not in both, for each is ready to suspect that any compromise suggested is, wittingly or unwittingly, calculated to work injustice to a cherished cause. More than ever it seems that only a conference of all parties, a conference prepared to discuss all the major issues at stake, can deal adequately with the situation, and there is at present no desire for such a conference. Hence the centre of influence is still in London, where the details of Herr Hitler's counter proposals are to be made known after the Gentian elections have endorsed his remilitarising of the Rhineland. At this critical juncture some will blame Germany, some France, on the general ground of their personal dislike of one or the other. There are Francophiles and Germanophiles in all countries where this crisis is ardently discussed. jThe habitual attitude of both is to be deprecated. No need exists to take sides thus on the basis of events not intimately related to the present dispute. However strong may be a settled sympathy with German aims to get again a place in the sun or with prevailing French fears of a German war of revenge, this sympathy should yield to a calm survey of the Rhineland facts. This area was demilitarised as a precaution against renewal of war, and Germany accepted voluntarily and freely, as Herr Hitler has admitted, the Locarno Treaty's endorsement of the provision, which was equally an assurance to Germany, France and Belgium that, as far as such a precaution could be effective, the frontier would not be violated. The German statement published to-day gives clear evidence that the military occupation of the proscribed area was undertaken as a unilateral action without any reference to the other Powers joined in the Locarno agreement, that it was inspired by a determination to assert Germany's freedom from restrictive covenants implying inequality, and that the alleged invalidating of the treaty by France in negotiating the pact with Russia was regarded as justifying the step. There is neither logic nor legality in the case thus presented. No provision existed for unilateral voiding of the treaty, and the Franco-Soviet pact, to which Germany was invited to become a partner, was not prima facie a transgression of it. Considering the facts, the other Locarno Powers Britain, France, Belgium and Italy—treated the breach as serious, and the League Council, by a virtually unanimous vote, declared Germany an unprovoked transgressor. Since then France and Belgium, after an expression by France of willingness to have the pact with Russia submitted to the Hague Court for adjudication on its legal validity, have made marked concessions to Germany. Now M. Elandin, supported by a Belgian pronouncement, refuses to continue negotiations on any basis further modified, and Herr Hitler, describing himself as an "iron man," attacks the judgment on the German breach as a humiliation. He uses the language of injured innocence, scorning the request for withdrawal of the Rhineland troops as a condition precedent of review of the whole position. Thus the chief antagonists are in defiant opposition, save for a possibility that Germany's envoy, Herr von Ribbentrop, may be given some liberty when in London he confers again with those ready to meet him. The outlook cannot brighten unless the German and French antagonism be modified, and of this there is little prospect*