ANSWER TO BRITAIN

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3796, 17 August 1936, Page 7

ANSWER TO BRITAIN

GERMAN BLUE-BOOK. t THE FACTS DISTORTED. Some surprise has been producedin Britain by the publication of a German “Blue-book” (Locarno, eine Dokumentensammlung”), issued by the Foreign Affairs Institute at Hamburg, with an introduction by Herr von Ribbentrop, says the diplomatic correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. The German publication is clearly meant as a counterblast to the British Blue-book that was issued recently. (Correspondence showing the course of certain diplomatic discussions directed towards securing a European settlement, June, 1934, to March, 1936). But whereas the British Blue-book consists of documents selected without partisanship and giving an objective picture of the diplomatic discussions during the period in question (not a single relevant document of any importance was omitted) the'German publication is by its selection of documents, and above all by its omissions, extremely tendentious. Nevertheless Herr von Ribbentrop in his preface refers to “publications that have appeared abroad" —and he can only mean the British Blue-book —that are “tendentiously compiled,” and declares that the German compilation is “without omissions" and will give anyone who is “honestly concerned to learn the truth" an opportunity of getting an “objective picture” of the events that led to the Treaty of Locarno and to the extinction of that treaty. The German compilation, so Herr von Ribbentrop continues, shows “clearly and irrefutably” how “one foundation after the other” was withdrawn from the Locarno system by the “violations of the spirit and context of this treaty” by the French. Against the French. His preface, besides being a counterblast to the British Blue-book, is an anti-French polemic. Nor does he write as a private individual, but signs himself “Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the German Reich.” His preface also contains at least one particularly gross misstatement namely, that:— According to the Treaty of Locarno the demilitarised zone was to be followed by a disarmed France and a disarmed Europe. This is how the obligation of our partners in the treaty was worded.

There is nothing of this sort in the Treaty of Locarno. All that is said in that treaty with regard to disarmament is that in the final protocol the “conviction” is expressed that the treaty will “hasten on effec-

tively the disarmament provided for in Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.” No contractual obligation with regard to disarmament was undertaken—a conviction (and, as it has turned out, a mistaken one) was expressed, but nothing more. That the German Government (and more particularly Herr von Ribbentrop) took exception to the British Blue-book was known almost as soon as that book was issued, and on May 7 the German Charge d’Affaires in London, Prince Bismarck, acting on what seems to have been rather peremptory instructions from Berlin, called at the Foreign Office and made strong representations against what he alleged was the tendentious character of the Blue-book. He made a number of points—for example, that the British failed to do justice to the fact that Germany could not possibly negotiate an air pact as long as the Italo-Abyssinian war was in progress. But the purpose of the British Bluebook is not to present a ease—it is simply a collection of all the important documents relating to a series of diplomatic discussions. Charges Withdrawn. Prince Bismarck’s points were thrashed out one by one and—in the course of a long discussion conducted with complete courtesy on both sides—one of the points was shown to be without any justification whatever. Prince Bismarck was finally convinced that this was so, and had to withdraw any suggestion that the British Blue-book was tendentious. Neither he nor anyone else has so far been able to mention a single document that is not in the British Blue-book and ought to be. At the end of the discussion Prince Bismarck was told that statements such as were being made against the British Blue-1 ook ought not to be repeated, and that the discussion would be placed on record as a precaution. He thereupon gave an assurance that as far as the German Embassy was concerned no such statements would be made any more. All this cannot be unknown to Herr von Ribbentrop, and it mav be that this is the reason why he chooses not to mention the British Blue-book directly in his preface. That he has the British Blue-book in mind is beyond a doubt, all the more so as his thesis is the one that is purveyed in Germany about the British compilation which was attacked in the German Press as soon as it appeared.

Besides, what other compilation could he have in mind? Documents Omitted. As for the body of the German Blue-book, it is instructive to observe what documents have been omitted. It will be found that almost all documents in the British Blue-book which revealed any effort on the part of the British Government to come to a settlement with Germany are lacking. Lacking also are documents relating to efforts made by the British Government to facilitate the conclusion of an Eastern Pact, as well as communications made either to the German Government directly, or through the German Embassy in London, showing that the British Government reciprocated the ostensible German desire that there should be a closer understanding between this country, Germany and France. And yet in his preface Herr von Ribbentrop has the audacity to declare that the German compilation is “without omissions.” The full extent of the German omissions may be gathered from the fact that the following documents (all of them in the British Blue-book and all of them important—some of them indeed indispensable for any serious study of the diplomatic events in question) are not to be found in the German compilation. The numbers given are those in the British Blue-book:—l2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19. 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59.