EASTERN PACT

Wairarapa Daily Times, 15 April 1935, Page 5

EASTERN PACT

GERMANY’S ATTITUDE

UNABLE TO JOIN. Press Association Electric Telegraph—Conyrighl BERLIN, Saturday. Herr Adolf Hitler, President and Chancellor of the German Reich, defined his policy regarding an Eastern pact in a communique, stating: First —“During tho Berlin conversations the Chancellor informed the British delegates that Germany regretted her inability to join a pact in the suggested form, but was ready to approve of a collective security pact consisting of mutual and general non-ag-gression obligations, arbitration and consultation in event of a disturbance of the peace. Germany, while emphasising the difficulty of establishing the identity of an aggressor, was ready to join in general measures for the nonsupport of an aggressor. Germany still adheres to that.”

Secondly—“ The Chancellor declared that Germany was unable to accept % proposal which more or less made automatic military assistance obligatory, as it menaced, rather than maintained peace. Germany still adheres to that view.” i

Thirdly—“ The Government, soon after its assumption of power, expressed a wish for non-aggression»pacts with its neighbours, making an offer regardless of existing bilateral and multilateral pacts. Germany, ’ not possessing aggressive intentions and feeling itself unaffected by genuine defensive agreements, adheres to that view. Moreover, as Germany cannot join ia pact including military obligations, it is impossible that such arrangements, if they lie outside tho pact, can prevent her from concluding non-aggression pacts on the above-mentioned basis.”

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

“Nevertheless the Government is of the opinion that it is much further from non-dggression pacts to a breach of the peace than from defensive military obligations to offensive obligations. Germany doesjnot see in the de 1 velopment of European military alliances either an 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 signatories.”