THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, January 7, 1937. GERMANY’S COLONIAL CLAIMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23082, 7 January 1937, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, January 7, 1937. GERMANY’S COLONIAL CLAIMS

According to the Berlin correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, Germany has prepared an elaborate “ colonies demand memorandum ” for presentation to the interested Powers. The forecast is that this will deal exclusively with the former colonies of Germany and make suggestions as to how mandates can be transferred to herself without economic complications. The manner in which this claim respecting colonies is being advanced clearly indicates that it is the belief of the Nazis that, if they are persistent enough, make trouble enough over this question, and exalt the issue to the importance of one affecting world peace, they will gain their end. But Nazi propaganda is not a little calculated to defeat its own purpose by reason of the extravagant forms which it takes, and if Herr Hitler’s Government desires its views respecting colonies to be sympathetically examined by other Powers it would do well to put a curb on the utterances of certain of its representatives on this topic. The German conception of the spirit in which other nations should engage in war against herself is amusing. Of one of the inevitable penalties of the defeat of her own ambitions Germany would make a loud and lasting grievance. To the accompaniment of her active rearmament the Nazis bluster increasingly of her right to “ a place in the sun.” One of the worst offenders among German statesmen in respect of the aggressive and insolent tone of his utterances is General Goering. In a speech which he delivered some two months ago he bluntly declared:Our colonies were stolen from us. We want to share in the world’s raw material sources, and we shall get them.” A day or two later Dr Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, said: “If English newspapers reply to General Goering’s speech by saying that we can buy raw materials, then we must reply that that is an insolent and 'insulting argument. We will, of course, take up the fight against the world for our colonies.” It remained for the Berliner Tageblatt to cap these sentiments with the sententious pronouncement: “ The Germans are willing to forget, but there is one thing they cannot forget, and that is the manner in which they were turned out of their colonies.”

It is a quite specious plea upon which Germany’s demand for the restoration to her of colonies is apparently to be founded. The argument respecting raw materials is not impressive. If Germany desires friendship with Great Britain, as is supposed to be one of Herr Hitler’s primary interests, that objective will not be advanced so long as the Nazi Party is shouting for the return of territories held under mandate in the British Empire. Complaints of hardships to which the German population is subjected will not impress the world so long as Nazi Ministers seek to cheer their country on the road to self-sufficiency with such slogans as “ Guns instead of butter.” Questioned recently in the House of Commons concerning the German demand for colony restoration, Mr Eden was content to reaffirm that Great Britain had no intention of relinquishing her mandates. Nor could there be any suggestion that such a step on her part would be an act of justice. The British Government’s attitude towards the question of raw materials has been that it would be a suitable one for “ impartial expert inquiry,” and perhaps for discussion at some international conference under the auspices of the League of Nations. There has been no encouragement, so far as it is concerned, of the idea, of restoration of territories to Germany. In a letter to The Times Viscount Elibank speaks of finding everywhere in New Zealand, Australia and Canada a belief that the problem of Germany’s claims for colonies could be solved, and that it would be folly to risk another

European war through not dealing with it. But his suggestion that the people of New Zealand would not feel very strongly about the return of Western Samoa to Germany, nor the people of Australia about the return to her of New Guinea, is rather surprising. The correctness of Lord Elibank’s interpretation of the sentiments of these dominions on such issues is certainly open to question. The whole temper that is being exhibited in Germany is not calculated to commend to the people of New Zealand the prospect of the renewed existence of a German territory so comparatively close to their shores as Samoa. The Australian feeling is likely to be the same as regards New Guinea. With what happens to Togoland or the Cameroons these dominions may not be greatly concerned, but mandates entail responsibilities. Consideration cannot be given to the future of the mandated territories without a just regard for the wishes of their peoples.