THE LEAGUE’S POSITION

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 665, 18 October 1933, Page 4

THE LEAGUE’S POSITION

Herr Hitler has very adroitly placed the onus of further action upon the members of the League j and can now afford to play a waiting game. There is no question that the League of Nations stands at a crucial point in its chequered career, and it may even be that the swastika will prove to be the final obstacle j over which it will stumble. With j only three of the world's great . powers now adhering as members, the League is facing a crisis j in its history ; its next move may j make or mar the history of the ! next half eentury. Nominally Germany is still a member of the League as her notice of withdrawal cannot take effect for two years, but she has to all intents and purposes, definitely severed her connection. Japan is in the same position, Russia is definitely hostile and America remains aloof. , j Of the three powers remain- j ing, both Italy and France give i their adherence with very defin- | ite limftations and the British j Empire stands practically alone | in giving unqualified support to !. the League's ideals. As Mr. Stanley Baldwin point- i ed out, the Empire is the only ! power which has shown concrete J evidence of sincerity in disarma- j ment — so much so that she i stands to-day in a dangerously weakened condition surrounded j by actively arming neighbours. There has ,been any amount of | plausible generalising in other | I quarters, but no actual disarma- j j ment. On the contrary, while | the dreary wrangle has been pro- | ceeding at Geneva, the war minstries of a number of the powers have been exceptionally active. In these circumstances the j British Government cannot be ! blamed if it takes some steps to j remedy the adverse balance of j armaments. This is not a threat J but a necessary precaution forced upon her 1 by the attitude of j the other powers. I It would be suicidal for the ; League in its present weakened j condition, to attempt to dragoon j Germany into adherence to the ' Treaty of Versailles. In the first place, it is extremely doubtful whether the League would be able to enforce its decisions and . in the second place, Germany , would have very just cause for j grievance if it attempted to do so. World opinion has definitely j decided that the Treaty of Ver- ; sailles is an unjust and inequitable document which has already sown a sorry 'harvest of misnnderstanding and dissension, and there would be very strong opposition to an endeavour to enforce its provisions upon Germany. The only way in which the Disarmament Conference can recover the ground it has lost appears to be in agreement upon definite and concise terms of disarmament among the countries still actively participating in its deliberations. If such an agreement were arrived at, it could then be submitted to Germany for her appfoval and this would place the onus for action upon Herr Hitler. At present the German Chancellor can justly argue that while the other powers cannot agree among themselves, it is useless for them to expect Germany to participate.