TOPICS OF THE TIMES

Southland Times, Issue 19516, 16 May 1922, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE TIMES

Speaking at the gathering of o verseas students in London, under the auspices of the Royal Colonial Institute, Sir James Allen referred to the influence of the League of Nations. He said it was a great conception, but it had its limitations—serious limitations if it was to carry out the purpose of binding the nations together and preventing war. Its council was composed of the representatives of the four chief Allied nations in the war, and so constituted it could not represent the opinions of all nations. The assembly that pught to be representative of all the nations had several important countries missing from its counsels. These were serious limitations, and would have to be remedied if the League were to accomplish the work for which it was constituted. But the friendly contact of the members one with another at the assembly each year, had a great educational and psychological effect which was most necessary if the comity of nations was to be secured. The League of Nations could not succeed unless the ground had been prepared beforehand. Students who had come from overseas had the valuable opportunity of preparing this ground as they came into touch with’ one another within the walls of the universities. Those who came from overseas had much to learn from their Motherland. Whatever their ideas might be now, he ventured to say that when they left these universities and returned to their own countries they would be the means of disseminating the ideals of the League of Nations and making those ideals possible in the future.

An attempt to discover the trend of thought in Germany has been made by an Englishman who has contributed three letters to the Round Table. His strongest impression was the bitterness of feeling against France. He quotes a • doctor, the son of a general, as saying:—“We do, not hate them because of the indemnity imposed on us. We know we have lost and that if we had won the war we should have made all of you pay. It is because we know that the French are determined to break up Germany.” The Englishman continues that ths people are convinced that the French militarists mean to throttle their country. What they, or the party in control, seem to the Germans to be out for is to make sure that the day will never come, though otherwise it would as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow, when Germany’s intrinsic advantages will once more bring her to the fore. “Will they continue to hate the French? If they do—and that depends largely I suppose on the March (Genoa) Conference—l do not believe that anything can stop things working up for another war at some time in the future, because although the people who desire war for its own sake and for what they hope to get from it are few, hate, if it lasts, will in time give this nucleus the support which they would otherwise vainly look for. . . This attitude in Germany is, to my mind, the most dangerous factor in the present situation, the reverse side of the French fear of Germany. It is just as important to remove its causes as the French dread. No permanent peace can be built upon the foundation of national nightmare.”