March 18.
Great Britain has announced her intention to bring her defences up to date, on the ground that her present weakness, a3 the result of unilateral disarmament, paralyzes her efforts in establishment of a collective system of peace organiza~ tion, France is taking steps to increase the effectiveness of her man~ power, Germany has plunged into definite programme for compulsory military service and the crea~ tion of a defence force of twelve army corps or thirty-six divisions. The portents are ominous, Sir John Simon's forthcoming visit to Berlin thus promises to be fraught with considerable danger. The British Foreign. Secrotary will have the unreserved sympathy and support of all his fellow-countrymen in at~ tempting a peace mission in such circumstances. Tt is futile to argue which is cause and which is effect at this juncture. Dialectic discus-ion seems to be of little value, Yet there are clear grounds for the ex-frication. of certain apparent conclusions from the disappointing evidence of a further stampede in Europe toward the resumption of discredited instruments of national policy. The almost unassailable fact is that Germany 1s committing herself so deeply to the cult of force that Sir John Simon may find it virtually impossible to pursue the question of ce-operative peace-construction with any hope of fruitful results. The comfortable theory that Herr Hitler, having occured the recognition of Ger many's equality and the practical assertion of Gprmany's claim to the Saar, would be able to give undeniable proof of his solicitude for peaceful relationships with Germany's neighbours could hardly be sustained in the face of the precipitate announcement now made. It has been said that the cultivation of the military spirit in young, Germany has been rendered necessary purely as a means to restore much-shattered national morale. This view has been commended with the reassuring suggestion that the physical weakness of Germany deprived this aggressiveness of any real offensive significance. Can this contention be valid when, despite the plain evidence of a general desire to restore German nationhood to its full status, the German people are being marshal-Jed in an intensive programme of militarization?
Whether the Treaty of Versailles was an ineffective expression of a declared desire to stabilize peace in Europe may well be a matter for discussion. Machinery for such isoussion is not lacking. It has been actively in process by innumerable—forbearances wil ich have been shown by signatories toward Germany's disregard of the Treaty's provisions and misrepresentation of the obligations accepted under them. Germany has consistently exploited her position fas a weaker nation to treat concessions as maliciously deferred rights, to manipulate rights for the purpose of securing advantages which, by solemn agreement, she fore went. It may be urged that her position was rendered dificult by the reluctance of France to accept assurances in place of solid action. Yet, looking back on the train of events and on the manifest eagerness of Great Britain to justify Germany's bond fides, can France's hesitations be fairly criticized? No-one who has studied the currents of public opinion whether in Europe or America, can ignore the fact that the gradual education of nations in the realities of armed arguments has tended greatly to support Germany's valid Objections to the general tenour of of the Versailles Treaty. By the Tight of collective consultation and discussion, it seemed inevitable that, in the long run, a substantial measure of. remedial revision— complicated and long-drawn-out. though the effort might be—would be adopted. In pursuing this intention out of a genuine conviction of the futility of war, Great Britain, no less than' France, ran definite personal risks. If Germany's present mood—taken in conjunction with her ill-considered withdrawal from the League—is any guide, that tolerance has been treated by Its beneficiary merely as a convenient inspiration for de~ veloping the cult of force to the grave danger of European peace. "This frank exposition is given with no desire to ignore the contributions made by Hitlerite Germany to the reconstruction of a great nation. In Great Britain, at fall events, there is a firm belief in the genius of the German people and in their fundamental capacity {for neighbourliness. Inevitably the human mind cannot proceed entirely on the basis of conjectural optimism. The tree must be judged by its fruits. What can be ex-[pected of a nation which has, apparently, committed itself blindly to the same shibboleths which, less than twenty years ago, plunged the world in a catastrophic conflict? With what—complacence can European statesmen embark on che task of initiating agreements when, on the threshold of that task they Jare confronted by flagrant—and blatantly confessed—breaches of agreements already in existence? Ig the validity of a promise to be automatically destroyed by the effluxion of time, without the opera~ tion of any other factor?
These questions are pertinent indeed at this fateful juncture in a ong-maintained effort to solve the Jquestion of international armaments. The situation is not neces~ sarily hopeless. Tt is seriously jeopardized by the flippancy of certain Tecent German gestures, but Sir John Simon's speech at Swansea shows that he is worthily pre-jeerying the equable mind of the convinced exponent of reason and persuasion, in the face of the inister turn of events, While every sympathy must be felt with the German nation in the glow of what it is being led to believe is the revival of its manhood, such {false promises cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected. No power in the world to-day wants to deny to Germany the full stature which her great traditions and services to mankind deserve. She wrongs herself in imagining that the errors of Versailles can be remedied only resort to the very force which, in the event, gave those errors birth, In 1914 she appealed to Caesar—the Casar of armaments —and the verdict went against her. Has she any ground for believing that a reversal of that verdict can be secured by repeating }the appeal? Is not Sir John Simon right when he asserts that "there is no such thing as victory; every-tone is the loser"? Now that Ger~ many is hailing the re-imposition of compulsory military service with 2 fervour of ill-turned patriotic passion, is it not timely to ask German parents whether they lightly dedicate their sons to the Jsame Moloch whose shadows still blight the world to-day and should unite former enemies in a determination to withhold any sacrifice to him in future? Herr Hitler himself has often asserted his convietion in that sense. Even now— and it fs a cheering sign in an otherwise' gloomy _situation—the German Government _re-affirms fits loyalty to that view. Unfortunately, the system, where [by the German people are now kept {informed of world opinion and cur-Fent happenings, precludes much confidence in the emergence of German public. opinion to strengthen Herr Hitler's reputed allegiance to the cause of peace. Nevertheless Sir John Simon and Mr. Anthony Eden may be able to bring the cogency of their country's arguments to bear effectively on the Fithrer's sense of patriotism and Jealousy for German good faith. The yawning chasm of European strife must surely deter anyone [claiming the name of statesman from }wilful rejection of any proposals which may align Germany honourably in the ranks of the peacemakers and, by invoking her equal partnership in a practical movement; toward collective action, ensure her own escape from the toils of a tragic madness.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.