ALLIES ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 March 1921, Page 5

ALLIES ACT.

ADVANCE ON GERMANY. ORDERED BY MARSHAL FOGH BRITISH TROOPS TO MOVE, NO REPARATIONS SETTLEMENT. ' Bj Teleeraoh—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received March 8, 10.20 p.m. London, March 7. The Allies have rejected the German proposals, and have decided to enforce the Paris decisions. i The German delegation has arranged to leave London at 2.30 to-morrow. Marshal Foeh has ordered the troops to advance into Germany, and the British War Office has instructed a detachment of the British Rhine Army to proceed to .Jiusseldorf. JOY IN FRANCE. large forces available. BRITISH TROOPS NUMBER 12,000. AMERICA WILL NOT TAKE PART. Received March 8, 10.20 p.m. Paris, March 7. The populace is delighted with today’s news that the Allies are determined to stand no more nonsense. The news ran through the boulevards like wildfire and there were smiles on every face. Frenchmen all along were convinced that the measures the Allies have now decided to take were the only possible ones with people like the Germans. General de Goutte has nominally 116,000 men at his disposal, including the following:— French 6,000 Belgians .2,000 Americans 6,000 British 12,000 Four battalions of the British Army of 12,000 men are now in Silesia in connection with the plebiscite.—Aus.-N.Z. diable Assn. Received March 8, 10 pm Washington, March 7. State Department officials announce that the American Army of Occupation v '.ll not take part in the advance into Germany.

GERMANY’S ANSWER. A PLEA FOR DELAY. FP.ESft PROPOSALS ABANDONED. APPEAL TO THE LEAGUE. London, March 7. At the Allies’ Conference Herr von Simons, head of the German delegation, informed the conference that he was unable to make fresh proposals. Germany was prepared to pay the annuities fixed for five years and the 12 per cent, levy on exports. Payments would only be possible if the plebiscite left Upper Silesia with Germany and the restnotions on Germany’s world commerce were abolished. Herr won Simons declared that the menace of the sanctions was in contradiction with the League of Rations pact which Germany had signed, and continued: “I therefore announce in •the name of the German Government an appeal to the Assembly of the League against the sanctions.” Herr von Simons said that on account of the far-reaching differences of opinion between both parties at the present moment and the grave difficulty in the way of a perfect solution of the reparation problem, they were compelled to abandon the idea of presenting a new plan and had decided to revert to the idea of a provisional arrangement for a definite settlement for the next five years and to give in addition a full equivalent for the 12 per cent, levy on their exports, although they did not think the latter practicable Such tremendous payments were only possible by way of loan and they could make the proposal only on condition of Upper Silesia, by virtue of the plebiscite remaining and’ by the abolition of the restrictions on Germany’s world commerce. Both these were essential to enable Germany to meet the payments honorably. If the Allies agreed to this proposal then he and his colleagues would do •their utmost to produce as soon as possible a comprehensive plan of reparations extending over a period of 30 years. If the Allies insisted on their present demands, then he asked for a week’s delay to enable him personally to consult the Berlin Cabinet. Mr. Lloyd George remarked that there was no doubt as to the answer the Allies would be forced to give, but thought it desirable to give a reasoned reply. The conference will be resumed at 4.3* p.m. THE ALLIES’ DECISION. FAILURE TO REACH AGREEMENT. “NO PEACE BETWEEN US” MR. LLOYD GEORGE’S SPEECH. Received March 8, 7.55 p.m. London, March 7. Speaking at the Allies’ Conference, Mr. Lloyd George said the German offer contained no certainty of payment. There was nothing definite and nothing adequate about it; it did. not offer a settlement for five weeks, let alone for five

years. It was not one. on which, in the markets of the world, a single paper franc could, be raised.

There were certain significant sentences used by Herr von Simons which showed clearly that Germany had not faced her problem. He talked of the enormous sacrifices Germany would have to make in order to pay the annuities in five years. Germany did not quite realise the essential facts, and that impressed him more and more each time he attended the conference. It was on account of the lack of effort that he had to announce, on behalf of the Allies, their failure to come to anything like an approximate understanding with Germany. It was common ground to all parties that it was essential for thfe world’s peace that there should be a definite settlement between us and each of us. We wanted to know exactly where we stood, so as *not to build on a rocking foundation, but on something which, however low, was firm and touched bottom. He would examine Herr von Simons’ proposal in the light of what he considered to be of paramount interest to Germany, the Allies, and neutrals, and it was in the light of such an examination that he thought they had completely failed. Mr. Lloyd George added: “Until we get proposals from Germany which mean a definite, unchallengeable settlement there can be no peace between us.” The Premier said Herr von Simons’ latest proposals were subject to conditions. on® of which was to take a plebiscite in Silesia. If the Allies accepted his proposal he, would be per* | fectly justified in coming here and saying Germany has been deprived of territory on which she depended to pay the annuities, therefore the London arrangement mas at an end. “If Silesia remained German and all went well with the annuities, what happens afterwards?” asked the Premier. “We have no proposal—not a figure, or a precise method of arriving at a figure. There was no minimum. Even while Germany was not anticipating that she would be able to pay annuities out of current revenue for the first five years, will she mortgage her revenue for years following? Even if Germany pays the first year’s annuity she will have to find £120,000,000 for all the Allies, onefourth of what Britain has to find, with a million unemployed, for her war debt charges and pensions, and one-ninth of what France has to find. Yet, comparing Germany’s population with that of Britain and* France, we are told Germany is making a colossal sacrifice.” Another significant part of Herr von Simone’ speech was his refusal to accept Germany’s responsibility for the war. ‘When he saw the proposal limited to five years it left an uneasy feeling in his mind that there was an inclination by Germany to consider the possibility *of history beginning five years hence, and an appeal for a revision qf the sentence. The Allies ceuld not enter upon a discussion on that basis. Germany’s responsibility* for the war fundamental. Unless Germany, whatever she thought of the verdict, was prepared to act upon it, no arrangement made could give confidence and restore that neighborly goodwill essential to Europe’s peace. A second point upon which a settlement must be insisted on was the method of payment. A mere paper agreement promising payment was unsatisfactory and insufficient. Herr von Simons’ proposal did not carry out any of these objects. He was afraid Herr von Simqns was really not* la a position to negotiate. He represents, and was returning to, a public opinion which was not ready to pay this debt. Such proposals were not a settlement, but merely evasion. The Allies regretfully decided that the sanctions must operate immediately.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

THE FINAL PROTEST. HERR VON SIMONS’ REPLY. DECLARES GERMANY IS SINCERE. PLEA FOR BRIEF DELAY, Received March 8, 7.55 p.m. London, March 7. Herr von Simons, replying, said he had taken refuge in a provisional settlement under pressure of the Allies’ ultimatum. He regretted he had not a second proposal in his pocket, and that was the reason why he had to try to find a new way. He regretted he was denied a brief delay to consult his Cabinet. He repudiated the suggestion that Germany was not ready to fulfill her obligations to the limits of her capacity. The fear that Germany would make use of a provisional settlement in order to secure later a revision of the Treaty was unfounded. Germany was prepared to fulfil her obligations to the limits. There was a possibility that they would be ready to furnish the Allies with part of the reparations by paying a portion of the purchasing prices of German goods delivered into Allied countries to the Reparations Commission, and he had submitted and recommended this proposal to his Government. He only regretted that the proposal should have been discredited in Germany by the Allies having placed it amongst the sanctions. He agreed with the Allies’ intention to institute an examination into the method of fixed and varied payments tu different countries. He thought these points should be dealt with by a joint committee of experts, but the experts were going to meet in an atmosphere embittered by the sanctions. He felt obliged to enter with all stress a protest against such a procedure.—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn. SPEECH IN THE COMMONS. WHY THE ALLIES ACTED, PAYMENT BY TRADE SCHEME. EXPLAINED BY THE PREMIER. Received March 8. 10.10 p.m. London, March 7. Air. Lloyd George, in a statement in the House of Commons to-night, announced that the German proposals had been refused. He said the conference felt no proposals were made J which would justify postponing the putting into operation of the sanctions Agreed uoon. The German xiatipa did *5

the least realise that the Allies were determined to enforce the Treaty. Proposals would be submitted to the House of Commons enabling the Allies to compel every purchaser of German goods in Allied countries to pay a proportion of the purchase money into the Exchequer. Referring to the sanction which enabled the Allies to Compel purchasers of German goods to hand over a portion of the money to the Exchequer, he said, in answer to a question: “We shall certainly pass the proposals on to the Dominions,, but they must legislate themselves, for they are just as interested in the indemnity as we are, and they will probably find thia the best way of collecting it. That is all we can do; we cannot pledge the Dominions.”

He explained that the proposal would operate thus. The Government proposed to deduct whatever percentage was necessary ip order to levy the proportion of annuities which would appertain to our country. Fifty per cent would cover the amount this year. A man who buys 2BUOOO worth, of German goods would pay £5OO into the British Exchequer and secure a receipt. Then he would send the German seller a bill of exchange for the balance, to which he would pin the Treasury receipt. The German seller would then go to his Government and say: “I want you to cash this receipt.” The seller cashes it into which was quite useful to him but of no good to us, so we get paid in our currency and Germans in theirs, and both are satisfied. (Laughter). Replying to an interjection asking what would happen if goods were exported ex neutrals, Mr. Lloyd George said they would not alloiy such fraudulent transactions. What settles the transaction is the origin of the goods; there was no difficulty in following that. Mr. Arthur Henderson asked for an early opportunity for a full debate, to which Mr. Lloyd George assented.— Aus.-N.Z, Cable Assn. QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT. London, March 7 Several questions were asked in the House of Commons regarding Germany’s obligations. Mr Bottomley asked whether the Government would recommend the decision waiving the right to seize German property in England, and whether the Government would destroy German military aerodromes and seaplane stations. Dr. M’Donald suggested that a combined force should march on Berlin. Lord Curzon proposed the blockade of the German coast in the event of a refusal to carry out the Allied terms. Mr. ‘Shortt replying, |said answers could not be given until the conferencehad arrived at its decisions.