GERMANY’S STATUS

Hokitika Guardian, 20 October 1933, Page 7

GERMANY’S STATUS

EQUALITY DEMANDS . HISTORY OF CONTROVERSY. At the beginning of September, 1932 the British 'Government was consulted by the French Government on the claim just,put forward by Germany for “equality of status” in the matter of armaments. The Government gave its views in a statement published on September 18. It deplored the raising of a political controversy of such magnitude at a moment- when attention and energy should be concentrated on efforts to restore the productive and commercial prosperity of the world: and declared that whatever Germany might say, part V. of the Treaty of Versailles was still binding, • and could only cease to be binding by agreement. Nevertheless, it recognised the justice of the German contention that the limitation of Germany’s armaments contained in the treaty was intended to be, and announced to be, the precursor of a general limitation by others

The withdrawal of Germany shortly afterward from the Disarmament Conference at Geneva was regarded by the British Government as a great blow to the cause of peace, • and it considered that no efforts should bo spared to bring Germany back to tlie conference. With this end in view, it entered Qnto communication with the Governments of France, Germany and Italy in order to ascertain whether they would consent to exchange views on the difficulties which had arisen from the withdrawal of Germany from the confer* ence, suggesting London as a meetingplace, Italy declared herself willing, ;i but difficulties were raised by France, and Germany, especially the former.

On October 14, however, it was 'announced that the French and British Ministers wore agreed in considering that tlie proposed Four-Power Conference should take place and that the best place for it would be Geneva. Britain’s Desire to Meet Claim. Speaking in the British iHouse of Commons in November last year on the question of equality of status for Germany, Sir John Simon said that Britain’s desire was to see a disarmament convention framed which would meet that claim. If any hesitation had been diown in working for that end, it proceeded not from any desire to inflict upon Germany permanent inferiority of status, but from anxiety as to the use which might be made of the new situation and from fear of the . ... resulting dangers to the tranquility of Europe. To remove that anxiety, they suggested that, side by side, with the fair meeting of Germany’s claim, the European States should join in a solemn /affirmation that they would not in any circumstances attempt to resolve any present or future differences between them by resort to force. If some such assurance were given, they would advocate that the Article of Part V. of the Treaty of Versailles which at present limited Germany’s arms and armed forces should be superseded by a new disarmament convention, which should include both Germany and other nations; also that the new limitations to be applied to Germany should last for the same period and should be subject to the same methods of revision as those of other countries. They were also willing to see embodied in the new convention the principle that the kinds of arms permitted to other countries ought not to be prohibited to. Germany. This prnciple, however, could not be realised in practice all | at once.

It was necessary that confidence in ts application should be gradually built up, and the Government therefore conceived that what was needed was a practical programme of stages each step being justified and prepared 'fop by the proved consequences \ of what had gone before. A similarprinciple could, of course, be 'applied to Austria. Hungary, Bulgaria.