GERMANY AND LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 42, 12 November 1921, Page 3

GERMANY AND LEAGUE OF NATIONS

WHY SHE DISTRUSTS IT

INTEREST IN WASHINGTON CONFERENCE

, To anyone who has the opportunity of discussing the League of Nations with Germans it soon becomes apparent that the idea in itself is a popular one in all .Democratic and Socialistic quarters, says the Berlin correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian." There ar© in Germany many men with influential names who are staunch supporters of the League in principle. Among them it is only necessary to mention such men as Bernsdorff, Dernburg, Schucking, Gerlach, Bernstein. Wirth, and the murdered Eizberger. The Catholics of ‘Germany, with their powerful political organisation, are also well disposed towards the League. An absolute opposition on principle ig only to be met with in the ®, r ®jne Right of the Conservative Party, the German Nationalists. In the less ex-tre-me People’s Party, which includes the leaders of the big industrial enterprises in its ranks, friends and enemies of the League are to be met side by side, the latter possibly in the majority. Ono fact is certain: the leading spirit of the party,. Stinnes, in a committee meeting of Reichstag members held a short time ago, showed himself to be favourably disposed towards it.

If. en - on Hie whole, ths attitude of Germany towards the League may be eaid to be a decidedly favourable one it must by no means be assumed that. Germans are satisfied with the League in its present form. It must not bo forgotten that the constitution of ths League when first formulated meant a tremendous disappointment to Germany, who, towards the end of the war, 'had declared herself ready to become a member of Mr. Wilson’s projected League or Nations. The idea—no very clear one—existing in the' country at the time was of an international court of arbitration that stood aloof from the daily affairs of nations, a form of higher administration, and, at the same, time, a final adjudicator. This idealisation of its fundamental principles made of the League a tribunal of justice in its purest form above and beyond merely national interests. For this very reason many Germans placed special 'hopes on this League of Nations in the days of defeat, believing, not that they wolild be saved by its intervention from the consequences of defeat, but that they woiffil be spared that aftermath of war which consists of injustice and humiliation. Immediate developments went to prove tlie contrary. The fact that ths League of Nations Covenant was drawn up at Versailles and incorporated in the Peace Treaty is regarded in Germany to-day as a mockery of tho original principles underlying the idea. Nothing could be more likely to compromise the League of Nations in the eyes of the Germans than thia close connection with Versailles, which, added to the memories of Spa and the "sanctions,” is regarded as incompatible with true international morality. A particular subject for lively criticism is the fact that the constitution of the League places tho entire power, not in the Assembly, but in the Council of tho League, in which England, France. Italy, and Japan play the important parts. The reproach is levelled at the League that such a constitution transgresses tho fundamental principles of democracy—absolute equality of the parties. Even in those quarters which view the League with special favour the opinion still prevails to-day that its oligarchical character not only does not guarantee the rights of its members, but might even wield a fateful influence on the development of international justice. This strain is visible in an opinion expressed in the “Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,” tho organ of Stinnes, by Dr. Seitz, the former Governor of Kanierun: ‘‘lnternational law' is that which is determined by England and France in their subservient mouthpiece the Council-of the League of Nations and accepted by the democratic decoration of this institution for crushing down any opinion but its own as inviolable decrees.” If this description be found exaggerated by Democrats and Socialists, the root of tho matter is expressed therein and explains ihe dislike and distrust with which politicians In Germany regard the I<eagite. It is thus easy to understand why tho placing of the Upper Silesian problem in the league’s hands met with a very mixed reception. It would be difficult to-day to convince Germany of the absolute objectivity and impartiality of the League and its Council. The fact remains, though, that should the decision result In Germany's favour the present dislike of Geneva would result in a speedy oscillation of the pendulum towards a less biased view.

The standpoint of Gorman Government and diplomatic quarters is not very different from that prevailing among tbe general public. The question asked by tho Wilhelmstrasse is a simple one: Can the Geneva League of Nations be of sny practical use, to its? The renly to this quesGnn is a negative one. If, as occasionally happens, leading men, both in office and in party politics, urge Germany’s entry into the Longue, their teal reason is one of national prestige. They, too’, are not particiilarlv eager to play a part in the League, but they are eonnclons of the .awkwardness of being excluded from it. Their opponents argue that Germany is in a better position when isolated from the league, and upint out that the United States is not q member cither. This last point of view seems nt the moment to be that of the influential men in the Foreign Office. It is easy to understand., then, why developments of the TVbdhim’+on Conference are bring watched with the closest •ittention. This is regarded ft’ somethin* In the sharie of -a rival to Geneva and as proof above all that tho League in its present form is no absohitelv stabilised organisation. For Republican Germany Ims' not given nn hmms even vet that the truly democratic League of Nations of its dreams may one day become a reality. It must by no means he understood from this that fhe League of Nations Js not taken seriously in Germany.. The country is well aware that even in i ’ present form it is the decisive factor in international politics to-day. But. it vieaved here far more «isf a spceies or political clcaring-hoiiso for the outstand-, inr debts of th-i Allied Powers .and their satellite States than e.s a genuinely impartial tribunal standing aloof from all pettv national considerations. Taken all round, it is a wife venture to state that Germany will neither seek of her own accord to become a member of the Leamie nor refuse to enter it if she be invited.