ANTI-WAR PACT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 July 1928, Page 3

ANTI-WAR PACT

GERMAN COMMENT ON WAR TACTICS. L“ The Times ” Service.] LONDON, July 19. “The Times” Berlin correspondent states that in marking the decenary of the day on which, the German High Command realised that the European War was lost, the. newspaper “Germania” has published extracts from the State archives dealing with the Battle of the Marne, and suggesting that the supreme chance of victory was lost on September Bth. 1915. It censured General on Billow for his leadership of the Second Army, and says: The outcome was decided when it was resolved on the morning of September Bth. that the Second Army should retreat if a strong hostile force entered the gap between the second and first armies. General Von Billow’s troops believed themselves to he on the brink of victory. Von Billow’s intention was to prepare the soldiers for redoubled efforts. Even the officer who delivered the retreat order realised that the elements of a great victory were present, and he then raced to headquarters, but was too late to present his views. On tho one hand, it was a case of doubting his lender, while on tho other hand lie realised that tlie troops were convinced of an early victory, and they were ready to make any sacrifice to achieve it. The second army was betrayed. Tho history of the war (adds “Germania”) does not record such an example of conflicting views between the high command and the soldiers, proving that such misunderstandings are all too possible when a veil of artillery fire is between them. Von Billow’s concern was for tho first army, but he did not compare notes with the commander of the latter.

BR ITATN'S RESERVATIONS. WASHINGTON, July 19

The State Department has released the text of Great Britain’s acceptance of the multilateral treaty. In reply tho British Empire has retained freedom of action' relative to “certain regions, the welfare and integrity of which constitute vital interests for our peace and safety.” This is locally regarded as being in reference to Sue/.. Egypt- and India, and is acceptable as n- definition of selfdefence.

Sir A. Chamberlain declared: “Great Britain accepts the treaty in the form proposed, and will lie glad to sign at such time and place as are indicated hv the United States. The whole Empire is unable to sign any treaty undermining tho. League of Nations and the Locarno Treaty. It is evident that the United States treaty offers no possible conflict. I am in accord with the view that the proposed treaty will neither restrict nor impair tho right of self-defence, and likewise that each state alone is competent to decide when

circumstances necessitate recourse to war.”

The texts of the replies from Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India are substantially the same.

\ DIPLOMAT’S ARGUMENT. LONDON, July 19

“Obviously, if great nations insist on going to'war, neither treaties noi pacts will prevent them, but if tlie two greatest powers in the world., Britain and America, agreed to fstoiji war and refused credits and supplies, there is absolutely no question that they could stop war,” declared Sir Ksiiie Howard (British Ambassador to the united States) in a speech to a British Legion Meeting. “Can anyone dispute that, if these two agreed they could practically outlaw war? I hope they will.”

A U-STRA LTA’S R EIA AN CE. CANBERRA, July 20. The Commonwealth Government hns accepted the treaty for a renunciation of war with an assurance therein contained that the right of self-defence by each signatory state remains unimpaired by its signature to the treaty. The Treaty also is regarded ns not even inconsistent with the League of Nations covenant.

DOMINIONS’ ATTITUDES. LONDON, July 20.

The newspapers commend Sir A. Chamberlain’s reply to the United States. '

The “ Daily Telegraph’s ” diplomatic correspondent notes that New Zealand and India are content to associate themselves with the Note of the British Government,, whereas the Australian and South African Governments their acceptance on the independent consideration of their own obligations, which are more restricted than Britain’s. N.Z. REPLY. WELLINGTON, July 20. The Prime Minister to-day released for publication, the text ot the iep > on behalf of Great Britain to America regarding the proposad Kellogg multilateral pact for the renunciation ot war.