BRITAIN AND GERMANY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22628, 20 July 1935, Page 2

BRITAIN AND GERMANY

NAVAL RATIO SETTLED ARMAMENTS RACE DOUBTS ! j FEELERS FOR FRIENDSHIP By Aubret L. Williams. We should hy this time be inured to shocks in the realm of international affairs, but the conclusion of an AngloGerman naval agreement on June 18' demonstrated that the British public and the French, Italian and other Governments and peoples are not yet shockproof. , , Official Britain and its press rejoiced at the rapid transformation of what were stated to be “ preliminary conversations ” into a-comprehensive settlement. Numerous independent Britons, however, felt that there had been somewhat indecent haste in the conclusion of a pact with a Government which hag flouted the armament clauses of the Versailles Treaty. They felt, further, that Britain has incurred a measure of dishonour by associating herself with Germany in a | violation of a treaty still nominally bindi in". i The reaction of our French and Italian friends lacked nothing in frankness. A section of the Paris press raised the old cry of “ Perfidious Albion,” and more responsible dailies did not conceal their chagrin. What, they inquired, had become of the\ Stresa front? Did the Anglo-French agreement of February then mean nothing? Those of us who write on international affairs felt that we had valid grievance against those extremely amiable and courteous gentlemen from whom we at times seek enlightenment on Britains foreign policy. “ You have for weeks by cogent argument delicately led us up the highway of collective security, and now you turn" abruptly into the path of unilateralism,” I chided a diplomat in semi-mock reproof to-day (June He admitted an apparent change of front, but urged that it was more apparent than real. The Stresa and February fronts would be revealed as still holding when Mr Eden had completed his convorsations with M. Laval and Signoi Mussolini. He hinted at a domestic contretemps indicated by a premature announcement of the agreement. Not driving to reopen the wound, I reveitect to the agreement itself. That be defended with vigour. As Germany had followed up her practical denunciations of the military and air claus.es of the Versailles Treaty by beginning the- coni struction of submarines in April last, l it followed that the naval clauses had also gone by the board. Insistence upon the juridical aspect of the breach was thus rendered rather pointless. We had to face an accomplished fact, and the problem was to minimise damage as tar as possible. , , rr . When Herr von Rihbentrop, Hen ll'i'er’s envoy, expanded his masters „! » of a 100—35 ratio, made in ns Reichstag speech of May 21, to a global and categorical limitation of Germany s fleet to 35 per cent, of the naval.tonnage of the British Commonwealth m all classes, with the exception of submarines, which were to be 4o per cent, of our tonnage, the British negotiators realised what a good bargain was ottered, and so snapped it immediately. Britain’s present naval tonnage is round about 1,200,000 tons, while that of France is about 600,000 tons. If, therefore, the Germans build up to 3o per cent, of British tonnage their fleet will aggregate 400,000 tons. That will ensure a 65 per cent, superiority, of British over German, and a 35 per cent, superiority of French over German tonnage, whereas pre-war Germany s fleet was 65 per cent, of the British, while the French Fleet was 35 per cent, inferior to the Gorman Navy. Fmtliei, the French were now free to build what briefly, is the official view. Mr J. L. Garvin,, editor of the Observer, however, has expressed himself as being rather less pleased with the agreement. The manner of its accomplishment, he ! hinted, was amongst the things no done” (meaning going behind your friends’ backs), and he produced criticism of various features. _ . . Mr Garvin dismissed official satisfaction with the agreement as premature and dangerous. It ruled out quantitative competition in tonnage but, apparently, did not restrict qualitative competition. Cramped by Versailles obligations, Germany evolved pocketbattleships of the Deutschland type, “which can sink anything they can catch and escape anything that can sink them.” In that same way, said Mr Garvin, we must expect much of the new German construction under the new ! agreement to develop a qualitative effi- ! cujncy far above the quantitative ratio. IHe concludes that the British Navy would have to be completely rebuilt. I Earl Beatty, whose opinion on matters naval is not to be despised, has expressed satisfaction with the agreement. There are, however, rumours of a defence loan which fnay be spent much as Mr ■ Garvin foresees. I Naturally, the Germans are delighted. i The agreement is claimed as the Leader’s greatest diplomatic success. They yearn for ties of friendship with Britain, but both officially and unoffi- ! eially there is a disposition in Britain ! to be cautious in that matter. Britain s ! policy'is neither to bo pro or anti any--1 body. She recognises that Germany is I the* only Power whose policy will pos- | sjbiv lead to conflict in Europe, and it is considered in official circles that the I naval agreement is likely to make trouble much more remote., The Stresa front holds, and the other matters outi standing which will promote collective | security—the Air Locarno, the Danube ! Conference, etc. —will be pursued in i concert. Outside governmental circles there is much discussion following the advice of the Prince of Wales “ to forgive and forget,” to bring the ex-servicemen of both countries get together. They, at least, are convinced haters of war. Judging by the correspondence columns of I the popular press the non-combatants, 1 and some combatants also, are not quite convinced that the time for fraternisa- : tion has come. They are not prepared to be friends with a people which oppresses Christians and Jews, and places Labour leaders in concentration camps. Those blots on Hitler’s Germany naturally deter leaders of the Church | in their approach, but the release of 10 i pastors from prison, recently announced from Berlin, seems to point to some relaxation in the persecution, and it may he that it is an official gesture made in hopes of creating improved relations between the two peoples. Where British 1 insistence can assist the moderate Ger- | mans only good can result. friendI ship implies acquiescence in Nazi harshness it were better withheld.