THE GERMAN OFFER

Southland Times, Issue 18964, 11 June 1923, Page 5

THE GERMAN OFFER

ALLIED OPINION GOVERNMENTS NEGOTIATING (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association). LONDON, June 9. (Received June 10, 5.5 p.m.) The Daily Express says that the British Cabinet will at an early meeting consider the German offer. It also states that Lord Robert Cecil is in Paris to advance the proposal for the Allied conference and that Mr Baldwin is prepared to invite the representatives of the Allied governments to London. Whether M. Poincare will wait for this conference before replying to Germany 28 not known in London, but he could not refuse to entertain the suggestion by the British Premier for a conference without putting France in an awkward position. British official circles are disappointed with the Note but it is regarded as enabling the Allies to come together in a conference. PARIS, June 9. Lord Robert Cecil saw M. Millerand, who afterwards had a conference with M. Poincare. It is understood that the French and Belgium governments will both send a Note to London and to Rome explaining why the German offer is unacceptable. Meantime Germany will be asked to state her views on passive resistance in the Ruhr. M. Poincare, speaking at a meeting of the Senate Commission, said that the French and Belgian governments were agreed that no proposals by Germany would be examined unless preceded by a complete and definite cessation of resistance. BRUSSELS, June 9. The Belgian Government is in telegraphic communication with the British Government and has asked the British viewpoint on the decisions of the Brussels Conference and also indicated to those portions of the German note which Belgium considers unacceptable. It is not unlikely that Belgium will send a preliminary note to Berlin demanding the cessation of the Ruhr resistance. If the reply is satisfactory the Allied Conference will follow. M. Poincare told the Paris correspondent of the Brussels Soir that the French Government was not hastening its reply to the German offer. The only answer they would eventually make would be to ask the German Government whether it would be willing to conform with the decisions published officially after the Franco-Belgian Conference regarding the resistance in the Ruhr. M. Poincare adds that if Germany refuses her undertaking and asked for a new memorandum, it will not be examined by France or Belgium. ROME, June 9. Mussolini, speaking in the Senate, said it was agreed that Italy should insist that Germany must pay, but Italy would resist any attempt at domination by the other Powers. BRITISH CABINET TO MEET. LONDON, June 10. (Received June 11, 11.30 p.m.). The Observer’s diplomatic correspondent states that the first critical Cabinet meeting of Mr Baldwin’s administration will be held j to-day, when the Government’s policy towards France and the German offer will be considered. Mr Baldwin has made a special point of personally investigating the French , view. The correspondent concludes: — j ‘There is no solution until the French Gov- I ernment makes up its mind whether it ; wants the money which can be paid by a thriving Germany or the ruin of Germany. If M. Poincare’s policy is not changed it is certain the British policy will be to geek entirely new orientation.” PARIS, June 10. (Received June 10, 11.30 p.m.). It is stated that M. Poincare is in communication with London through diplomatic channels regarding the offer. M. Poincare has held a confeience with the Belgian Ambassador for the second time in two days. ‘•MARKS OF GENUINENESS” THE TIMES’S OPINION. LONDON, June 8. The Times in a leader says:—“The German memorandum represents the last word of the Government in the sense that mere rejection will lead to the abandonment of any further similar attempt and to political and social chaos in Germany, which will finally place beyond the bounds of possibility the hope of obtaining any substantial sum. From an economic viewpoint we are bound to regard the German memorandum seriously. It bears marks cf genuineness and studiously avoids reference to controversial questions. As a contribution to the settlement of reparations itself the note is in accord with the views of economists and financial experts of all leading countries and for that reason cannot fail to impress the world more favourably than any other German document on the same subject.” MR ASQUITH’S VIEW. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL WANTED. LONDON, June 8. Mr Asquith, speaking at Paisley, asked that the German Government’s new proposals should not be summarily dismissed and urged the setting up of a genuine international tribunal on which all parties would be represented. The Government’s policy regarding the Ruhr was one of benevolent indolence. It was essential that the Allies should act and work together to prevent unemployment. They must get rid of all artificial restrictions on trade, cut down wasteful expenditure such as the ten millions proposed to be spent on the Singapore base, and for the dole they most substitute works of public utility. FRANCO-BELGIAN NOTE. PARIS, June 8. After considering the German Note, “Quai D’Orsay” states that the greatest objection to the Note is that it does not mention the cessation of passive resistance in the Ruhr. The French Government therefore proposes that Belgium and France shall send a joint note asking for the withdrawal of all ordinances forbidding Germans to obey the orders of French and Belgians, the suppression of indemnities paid to strikers, and the cessation of sabotage. If Germany refuses the new Note will net be considered. If Germany agrees Britain and Italy will be informed and a joint note in reply to Germany will be possible. FRENCH NEWSPAPERS’ COMMENTS PARIS, June 8. . The newspapers are practically unanimous that the German proposals are unacceptable. The Petit Journal after referring in prudent terms to the slight advance in the Note says:—“Unfortunately the guarantees offered are preceded and followed by unacceptable suggestions. The obvicus purpose of the Note is by the pretence of general goodwill on the question of reparations to obtain an international conference at which they will barter.” The Petit Parisien remarks: “It is difficult to imagine a more vague document or one less satisfactory. There can be no question this time of a long; detailed answer.” The Matin says: “The Reich having omitted completely to allude to passive resistance it is probable the Note will be considered absolutely null.” The Pans Journal says the German Note provides an opportunity for discussion, but it does not constitute the submission deaired. “Pertinax” in the Echo de Paris states: ‘The Germans have merely abandoned one impossibility for another.”

OFFICIAL VIEWPOINTS. LONDON, June 8. It is understood official circles regard the German Note as an improvement on previous efforts. The Cabinet will probably deal with the question on Monday. Meanwhile there will be an exchange of views between the Allies. BRUSSELS, June 8. Official circles regard the new note as unacceptable as first abandonment of passive resistance in the Ruhr is a sine qua non for the consideration of any new German proposals. M. POINCARE’S OPINION. LONDON, June 9. (Received June 10, 8 p.m.) The Daily Chronicle’s Paris correspondent says that Cabinet has carefully examined the German note and found that it is net acceptable because there are no promises to cease passive resistance in the Ruhr, and that M. Poincare’s Government therefore, will not discuss the Note at all. A reply to this effect will be speedily sent to Berlin. M. Poincare also disapproves of the suggested International Commission on reparations which would entail the abolition of the Reparations Commission, and therefore be an infringement of the Versailles Treaty.