PRESS COMMENT ON WHITE PAPER

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20056, 13 March 1935, Page 9

PRESS COMMENT ON WHITE PAPER

INTENSE INTEREST IN GERMANY

BRITAIN FACES FACTS OF WORLD SITUATION .

United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received March 12, 7.0 p.m.) LONDON. March 11. “The Times" says: “Nowhere outside Britain is the increase in the British estimates misunderstood or resented. Whatever foreigners think of British diplomacy they do not think of armed forces to be used except in defence of the victim of aggression. If it is the intention of the British Government to get Fart V. of the Treaty of Versailles superseded by a system, in which all will be equal. Then no purpose would be served by harping upon the breach of the Treaty. Herr Hitler’s present policy favours taking collective sanctions, but some advisers see the salvation of Germany in gradually renewing her strength and attracting friends from other nations, thus gaining more by the old system of blocs and alliances, than a new deal of union against agressors. “The News Chronicle,” in a leader, says: “Mr Stanley Baldwin was in a jauntily defiant mood. He not only refused to apologise for the White Paper or the occasion of its publication, but deliberately justified both. His defence at best was half truth. He gave no assurance that the Government was not proposing to abandon the idea of collective security.” “The Daily Mail,” in a leader, says: “Britain cannot be defended by fine phrases or leaving protection to other nations, which is the real interpretation of the pompous Socialist talk about collective security and the League of Nations. A large loan to provide an imposing air fleet would be perfectly justified.” “The Times,” in a leader, says: “If the dictatorships believe that their countries must be self-sufficient in war time, democracies would be feeble defenders of the collective system If they alone believed that they could remain inadequately armed. British democracy will certainly mainly agree with Mr Baldwin’s and Sir Austin Chamberlain’s statements.”

SATISFACTION IN FRANCE FRANCO-BRITISH WORK FOR PEACE VINDICATED United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received March 12, 9.0 p.m.) PARIS, March 12. Mr Stanley Baldwin’s speech is regarded as a vindication of the FrancoBritish work for “peace—but not at any price.” The speech has favourably impressed official circles, who see in it a parallel to M. Flandin’s speech on March 10. Both, it is pointed out, proclaimed the anxiety of the respective countries to organise peace security, while maintaining that the moment had come for an overhaul of the defence arrangements. BERLIN’S EAR TO THE GROUND DEEP INTEREST IN DEBATE IN ENGLAND United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph —Copyright (Received March 12, 9.0 p.m.) LONDON, March 12. The Berlin correspondent of "The Daily Chronicle” says that Herr Hitler was kept specially informed of the progress of the debate in the House of Commons. Portions of the speeches, directly hearing on the German situation, were telephoned to Munich from London and relayed to the Chancellor’s home. Featured in the Press The debate is featured in the newspapers. “The Volkische Boebachter,” commenting at length on Mr Baldwin’s speech, notes with satisfaction that the White Paper references to Germany were intended in a friendly spirit, but it remains regrettable that so little of this spirit is traceable in the document, and that in the opinion of practically the whole world a relapse into the Versailles methods and the 1919 way of thinking had to be recorded. Germany welcomed negotiations on condition that her equality was neither theoretically nor practically infringed. The editorial specially welcomes Mr Baldwin's reference to Russia, “which, avowedly for the purpose of a Communist world revolution, possesses the strongest war power in the world.” “Germany’s disappointment would not have burst out,” says the journal, “if the facts cited by Mr Baldwin had headed the White Paper’s survey.” Herr Scheffer, editor of “The Tageblatt,” finds satisfaction in Mr Baldwin’s statement that Germany was not the only nation engaged in increasing armaments, but complains that much for which the White Paper was criticised is still left unmentioned.