"Taranaki Central Press” MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1937. ANTI-COMMUNIST PACT.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 330, 11 January 1937, Page 4

"Taranaki Central Press” MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1937. ANTI-COMMUNIST PACT.

It is rather odd to find the Japanese Foreign Minister giving the anti-Cotnmunist agreement wi It Germany as the reason for Japanese intervention in China. He says, in effect, “We have an agreement with Germany to fight Communism and as Communist doctrines are making progress in China we have to take steps to counter them there.”

By the same reasoning Germany could quote the pact as justification for interference in the domestic affairs of Czechoslovakia and Rqmania, to both of which countries she has been giving a great deal of attention lately. French publicists, less prone than the British to take an idealistic view of politics, have been asking what the purpose of the pact might be. Nations, they say, do not indulge in mere pious expressions of displeasure, or if they do the expressions are not thought worthy of formal treaties.

The German-Japanese pact,in the view of the French critics, is intended for practical use. The most interesting speculation as to the possible use of the pact supposes that Germany plans to intervene, at some convenient season, in Czechoslovakia, ostensibly to prevent the advance of Bolshevism, and that it will be Japan’s part to threaten action if Russia should move to support the Czechs.

This is not altogether a fanciful idea, for although the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia has now no great strength, the German Press persistently describes the country as a Communist State and alleges that it is allowing itself to be used as the spearhead of the Bolshevists’ Western thrust.

The Czech Minister in Berlin has repeatedly protested against this propaganda, but it still continues, obviously with the approval of the Government. The French correspondents think that Germany will follow up the Press attacks by allegations of unfair treatment of the German and Hungarian minorities and so manufacture an excuse for intervention. The part of Japan, in that case, will be to keep Rusisa busy. Making Too Much Profit? Mr. Nash told the directorate of the Bank of New Zealand in London last week that the trading banks were making too much profit. Why he should say that immediately after the past depression, it is difficult to say, for while banking and credit practices are capable of improvement, banking profits during the depression years were not high by any means. It has been the common belief that the banks escaped the depression. While their reserves certainly kept them in a sound position, profits were not big. Due to the influence of this belief, the banks became distinctly unpopular. Fantastic currency theories gained great vogue, and some advocates of currency reform blamed the banks for the depression. There has recently been published by the Australasian Insurance and Banking Record a summary of bank profits for the past 25 years. For the five years before the depression, 1926-30, the aggregate profits of these, eleven banks averaged £6,260,000 yearly. Then came the crash, and the banks suffered too! During the ensuing five years, 1931-35, the profits averaged £2,980,000 yearly. In other words, banking profits dropped by no less than 52 per cent. During those years profits were less than during the pre-war years of 1912-14 this despite the responsibility and risk of carrying almost twice the amount of deposits that were carried in pre-war days.