Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1937. COLONIES FOR GARMANY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19339, 1 June 1937, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1937. COLONIES FOR GARMANY

In an address in I’aris lasi week, the Gentian Minister of Economy re asserted Germany's claims to a return of her former colonies, 1 nit his remarks serve only to emphasise the weakness of the ease he endeavours to support. Only a few weeks previously, l)r. iSehaeht had insisted that Germany needed colonies as tin outlet for her surplus population and a market for her manufactured products. Now he Ims shifted his ground, and the basis of his claim is that “Germany is the only nation in the world which does not possess :i source of foodstuffs sufficient to feed her population.'' This argument, like most, of the others made in the same connection, requires no analysis, for it is common knowledge that there is practically no country that is self- j sufficient and many that, are less so than Germany. Dr. Schacht, however, is consistent to the extent that j lie argues mainly from economic grounds, but here he is at variance 1 with his own leader, for Herr Hitler j has demanded the return of the t former colonies in order that Ger- i many might recover her self-respect | and enjoy equality of status with j other countries. Hitler has not even t the virtue of consistency, for in his ‘ own book, “My Struggle,’’ lie condemned the “folly’’ of colonies. There are, nevertheless, the two broad grounds, economic and political, for ' the German claim to colonial terri- ( tory, and since this question is one of i the most serious obstacles to a Euro- ‘ i pean understanding it is necessary ( that it should be carefully examined i from both points of view. Touching on the political aspect, | Dr. Schacht says that the return of - the colonies would guarantee peace in 1 Europe and the world for generations. ; This remark seems to contain a veiled threat, but its validity is easily tested by the question of whether Germany’s former possession of colonies was a guaranlee of peace. Dr. Schacht and Herr Hitler both base their arguments on the assumption that Germany's colonial empire was stolen from her. This point is probably hardly worth reviving, but it is interesting to speculate as to what terms Germany would have imposed had she been victorious in the war. Judged by history, it is hardly conceivable that her enemies would have been left; in possession of their colonies or escaped heavy indemnities. The truth is that Germany gambled on war and having lost rcI gents being made to pay. It is

worth while recalling, also, that the surrender of the colonies was do mnnded under the Peace Treaty, not as a punishment, but. ‘'having regard to the record of German colonial mlministration,” and because of the menace colonies “would constitute to the freedom and security of all nations.” Because of this potential danger to the peace of the world, it was solemnly agreed that in no circumstances should any of the German colonies bo restored. Against this, Dr Schaelit says that the real danger lies in the refusal to return the colonies. In the light of history and experience, can Dr. Sehaeht’s opinion be accepted in preference to the studied judgment of the statesmen who took part in the Peace Conference? So much then for the political

argument. On tlu‘ economic side, the German case is even weaker. Dr. Schaelit claims that Germany must have sources of foodstuffs sufficient to feed her population, and implied that thiposilion would be attained by the return of the colonies. Before Unwar, Germany had a not inconsiderable colonial empire, but she drew from that empire exactly one-half of one per cent of her imports and she sent to that empire 0.0 per eent ol her exports. How. then, can it possibly lie suggested that the restore tion of her colonies would make hoi independent of other countries eitliei for imports or exports? Nor is this the end of this part of the story, for Germany is just as free to buy or sell in her former territories as is any other country. In reply, she wiP

say, perhaps, that she has not the foreign exchange with which to mal« purchases, but in recent years she has had a favourable trade balance with the countries which formerly belonged to her, but instead of using Unbalance to buy foodstuffs for the people she has chosen to use it to pile up hoi armnments--to buy guns instead of butter. fn 1029, a year when conditions were still prosperous, the total imports of the whole of former German colonies was £12,000,000 and Unexports were not a great deal more. Supposing that the whole of t lii. trade could have been confined to Germany, which is most unlikely, what dillVrence would it have made to a country whose foreign trade exceeded £1,000j)00,000? Eroin Hu- econ omic aspect, Germany’s claim is baseless. There still remains the contention that territory overseas is necessary to provide an outlet for surplus popu lation. That, there has been a surplus population will not be denied but not even the astute Dr. Schaelit or tin- voluble Herr Hitler can claim that it ever found its way in substantial numbers to German colonies. Over a period of 20 years, Germany sent to her colonies less than 20,000 Gentian settlors, but more than a million Germans migrated to foreign lands. During the 10 years immediately before the war, the average migration of Germans to their own colonies was less than -10 a year, but the annual emigration from Germany in (lie same period was 25,000. Clear iv, therefore, when Germany had colonies she did not use them either for trade or set Genicom, and there is not the slightest reason for supposing Unit she would do so to-day were she given the opportunity. At the best, Germany seeks their restoration as a matter of prestige and uses her claims for the purpose of creating antagonism against, other nations; at. the worst, she wants colonies not Unpolitical or economic purposes, but as military and naval bases which, in tin- words of the Peace Conference resolution would necessarily con stitule a menace to the freedom and security of the world. And for this reason, again in the words of the conference, “in no circumstances should any of the German colonies be rescued to Germany.”