HITLER’S POLICY

Taranaki Daily News, 15 April 1935, Page 5

HITLER’S POLICY

EASTERN PACT PLAN

HIS OBJECTION TO FORCE

OBLIGATION NOT WANTED

ONLY NON-AGGRESSION

NO OFFENSIVE INTENTION

By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Rec. 7 p.m. Berlin, April 13. Hetr Hitler to-day defined the German policy regarding the eastern pact proposal in a communique stating:— During the Berlin conversations the Chancellor- informed the British delegates that Germany 'regretted her inability to join the pact in the suggested' form but was ready to approve of a collective security pact consisting of mutual and general non-aggression obligations, arbitration and consultation in the event of disturbance of the peace. Germany, while emphasising the difficulty of establishing the identity of an aggressor, was ready to join general measures for the non-support of an aggressor. Germany still adheres to that.

The Chancellor declared that Germany was unable to accept a proposal which more or less made automatic military' assistance obligatory, as it menaced rather than maintained peace. Germany still adheres to that view. The German Government soon after the assumption of power expressed a wish for non-aggression pacts With its neighbours, making the offer regardless of existing bilateral and multilateral pacts. Germany, not possessing aggres*sive intentions and feeling itself unaffected by genuine defensive agreements, adheres to that view. Moreover, as Germany cannot join a pact including military obligations it is impossible that such arrangements, if they lie outside the pact, can prevent her concluding nonaggression pacts on the above-mentioned basis.

This is the spirit of Germany’s reply to Sir John Simon’s question whether Germany is ready to conclude .an eastern pact on the basis laid down. If other States had already made or contemplated mutual special arrangements Germany desires to add that obligations or military assistance supplementing non-aggression pacts, or pacts ruling out violence, are contradictory. If. one believes in obligations which are voluntarily assumed there is no need for such arrangements. If, however, there is doubt regarding intentions to live up to the obligations, such doubts would also be justified regarding the fulfilment of supplementary military obligations. If wars can arise from' non-aggression pacts it is equally possible that aggression will arise from defensive and mutual assistance pacts.

Nevertheless the German Government is of the opinion that it is much further from non-aggression pacts to a breach of the peace than from defensive military obligations to offensive obligations. Germany does not see in the development of European military alliances either the element of collective peaceful development or a guarantee of peace. Therefore she is unable to sign pacts containing such obligations, whether for all or any of the signatories.