The Waikato Times With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1919. POSITION OF POLAND

Waikato Times, Volume 91, Issue 14128, 4 August 1919, Page 4

The Waikato Times With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1919. POSITION OF POLAND

Some of the sentimental pacifists of our own race have professed 1 to discern the seeds of the future warfare in those provisions of the Peace Treaty —an unjust treaty as they regard it—which affect Poland. They base their professions partly on the fact that there is a large proportion of Germans in the territory which is to form the new Kingdom of Poland, and partly on the assertion that the Poles are more reactionary and more militarist even than the Germans. It is to be acknowledged that there is a considerable German population in the territory which, in terms of the treaty, is ceded to Poland. Its presence there is the result of the persistent and brutal efforts of Germany to crush out the nationality of the Poles. The history of Poland through the greater part of two centuries was one o.f almost uninterrupted tragedy, which culminated in the final partition of the country to the enormous advantage of Prussia. A concise statement of the wrongs suffered by the Poles is supplied by Mr Justice Chapman, of the Supreme Court bench of the Dominion, in the June number of the National Review. The article, written before the achievement of victory by the Allies, is published by the National Review “as interesting evidence of the appreciation of European problems by the thinkers in the distant dominions of the King”—a statement that is somewhat flattering t* “thinkers” in the Dominions who are not possessed of the almost encyclopaedic knowledge and of the unusual breadth of vision of Mr Justice Chapman. “There can be no doubt,” Mr Justice Chapman writes, “that there is now a large German population in the two provinces forming what was once Prussian Poland, while East Prussia is’ almost wholly German in population and sentiment, the Polish population being confined to one corner and the Lettish population being unimportant. The Poles of Prussian Poland, however, remain to the number of several millions, imbued with a hatred of their conquerors and oppressors which free people like ourselves are incapable of measuring.” The acceptance of the arguments which the friends of Germany among British people found upon the extent of German population in territories wrenched by German hands from the rightful owners, would lead simply to the perpetuation of wrong and injustice. The assertion that the Poles arc a militant people may be due to a confusion of ideas. It is possible that their national yearnings for escape from the intolerable tyrannies to which usurpers have subjected them and their fixed determination to recover their liberty have been confounded with an Inherent passion for conquest. Upon this point a statement by Mi Paderewski, the Polish Prime Minister, in the National Assembly on May 22 is of some interest. “The reproach of Imperialism,” he said, “was made against us very long ago by the very three Empires that robbed us and divided us. To-day this reproach is made by just those people who are stretching out their greedy hands for Polish territory

and its wealth. Wc never conducted a war of conquest, and we have no intention of doing so. We do not want what belongs to others; we do not want to conquer anybody else’s territory.”

In the speech from which we have just quoted, M. Paderewski discussed the terms of the Peace Treaty with Germany and expressed the belief that on the whole Poland might be “grateful for the verdict.” He admited that lie was jjot personally satisfied with the western frontier which bad been assigned to Poland, but he credited the Conference with having “tried to decide justly according to the rule on ethnographical and national majority as regards all territory.” As a result of the treaty, he pointed out, the population of Poland would be increased by over five millions through the acquisition of territories to which additions might yet be made if the plebiscite in other districts that were formerly Polish were favourable to her. Supplementary to these acquisitions will be those secured by Poland under the treaty with Austria. M. Paderewski dwelt not unnaturally on the provisions of the treaty with reference to the port of Dantzig—or Gdansk, as the Poles call it —over which Poland is to have a protectorate “under almost the same conditions as in the most glorious day of the commonwealth.” “ These conditions,” M. Paderewski said, “are different only in so far as present-day life is different from the life of that time. The area of the free town has been considerably increased. In the course of 126 years of Prussian oppression and systematic Germanisation, many Poles have forgotten their native tongue, and there are many real Germans settled in Gdansk. Gradually Gdansk, will tend to become what we wish it to become, if we show seriousness and commonsense, enterprise and political understanding.” The establishment of Dantzig as a free port under the jurisdiction of the League of Nations constitutes an important safeguard of the independence of Poland. Mr Justice Chapman, whose article in the National Review was, as has been indicated, prepared last year,, submitted that the separation of the port from Germany was inevitable. “The only real solution,’ he wrote, “is to insist that Poland shall have Dantzig as her port and shall be at liberty to pass her trade through that port without 'control by Germany or any other Power. If it were found that to annex Dantzig to Poland would merely produce a crop of evil on the assumption that its people are mainly German, and would resent annexation, then some measure of incorporation short of annexation would have to he devised.” The solution evolved by the Peace Conference, under which the Scylla of annexation and the Charybdis of German control, are alike avoided, creates an impression of well-directed statesmanship.