GERMAN MENACE

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1921, Page 5

GERMAN MENACE

HUGE ARMY AV AIDABLE. SIX TO SEVEN MILLIONS. FRANCE WANTS SECURITY. CAN SHE REDUCE FORCES? (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Assn.) Received Nov. 22, 8.20 p.m. Washington, Nov. 21. This morning’s sitting of the Conference traversed the expected course. M. Briand (Premier of France), in a long and moving speech, reviewed the special conditions in Europe which would prevent France undertaking land disarmament. He foreshadowed the Government’s decision to halve the three-year service system, automatically reducing the army proportionately. Mr. A. J. Balfour (Britain), Admiral Kato (Japan), Signor Schanzer (Italy) and Mr. C. E. Hughes (United States) expressed the warmest sympathy. They all assured France that the Allies still stood together in the cause of peace, world liberty, and the freedom of nations. M. Briand thanked the Conference for the opportunity of presenting France’s case. France was more ready than any other country to direct attention to steps ensuring the final peace of the world. France was ready to make sacrifices to the fullest extent possible, but she had her own national security to consider. ‘‘lf you want to make peace there must be two people willing to do so—yourself and your neighbor — ant l t besides physical disarmament, there must be moral disarmament,” he added “The prevailing in Europe compel France to contemplate them from the point of view of her own security.” “FRANCE WANTS PEACE.”

M. Briand proceeded: “Some people said the war is over and peace is signed. Germany has reduced her army, so why should France maintain a large army. It had been said that France wanted military supremacy in Europe, filling the position to which Germany aimed. That was a most cruel, a most sad and disheartening thing to suppose. France was not capable of wishing to renew the horrors of war. France wants peace with all her heart, and she believes in it with all her faith; but there have been many disappointments since the armistice. France has seen Germany haggle over her pledged word, refuse to pay reparations and refuse to disarm, but under this provocation France has remained perfectly calm. -France in her heart has no hatred of Germany, but we have no right to weaken our position in a way that would give rise to certain hopes in Germany. There is one part of Germany for peace, especially among the working classes, and for that Germany we will do everything we can to help to restore her to the comity of democratic peoples. But there is another Germany, with her thoughts and ambitions unchanged by the war. France has witnessed several attempts by Germany to return to militarism, and her military leaders still declare that war is the corner-stone of Germany, and were still doing their utmost to keep this alive. How can France dose her eyes to this?”

Dealing with the physical aspects of disarmament, M. Briand said Germany not bnly had seven million men who have passed through war training, but in the Reichswehr and other organisations, ostensibly for peace purposes, but really ready for war, she had cadres of nearly half a million, almost entirely composed of officers and non-commissior.ed officers of the old regular army, who would be ready at a moment’s notice. France recognised that Herr Wirth (the German Chancellor) was a man of goodwill, who endeavored to maintain a state of peace, but the Government was weak against outride forces. “Germany can raise in a few weeks an army of six to seven million effectives, with trained officers,” declared M. Briand.

CANNOT DISARM. M. Briand said that undoubtedly Germany had destroyed a great many guns—some under the Allies’ supervision—but the problem was material, which was not easily solved. Germany was a vast manufacturing country, where plans, designs and everything were ready to ensure a speedy output of war material. “France has too many homes in mourning, and too many disabled men, and we do not intend to leave France defenceless,” he added. “And what of the rest of Europe?” he asked. “Russia, which is boiling over with anarchy, has an army of 400,000. She attempted, eighteen months ago, a wild rush through Poland, and if the Polish barriers had not held where would France and the rest of Europe be to-day? The thought of reducing the army had been constantly in the mind of the French Government, which had taken the responsibility for reducing military service from three to two years. There were now only two classes under the flag. In carrying out its pledge the Government would announce in a few days that it would further reduce military service to half its former length. If anyone asked them to consent to a further reduction France must answer that it was impossible. We appeal to your consciences. If France is to remain alone facing the situation described you must not deny her the right to do what she is doing.

‘The time has not come for France to disarm. We need to know whether France is morally isolated, or whether she has still with her the hearts and goodwill of the whole world which fought with her. It should be known to Germany that France is not alone, so as to dispel the poisonous propaganda designed to create suspicion and hatred among the Allies. Peace would come much quicker if Germany is told that France does not stand alone.” BRITAIN’S SYMPATHY. After M. Briand’s speech the delegates of all the nations spoke in warm appreciation and sympathy of France. Mr. Balfdur paid a tribute to the eloquence and power of M. Briand's speech, which placed before the conference the inmost thoughts of a great statesman. Mr. Balfour most sorrowfully admitted that M. Briand’s speech was not hopeful regarding a reduction of land armaments. Why did the conference look forward with serene confidence to arriving at some conclusion on the great naval problem of disarmament ? Because there was moral disarmament, on which physical disarmament could build. But France had no assurance from Russia and Germany of moral disarmament. Mr. Balfour said M. Briand seemed to have some fears that France would be left in moral isolation, but that would be a tragedy indeed. (Applause.) That the liberties of Europe, and France in particular, should be maintained and guarded against the dominating policy of her eastern neighbor was the cause for which the British Empire fought, and in which the British Empire still believed. The Empire had lost nearly a million men, and had

over two million wounded, and if the cause was worth this sacrifice how could we see the cause, for which we had done so much, perish before our eyes rather than make further sacrifice. Signor Schanzer said Italy was still morally on the French side, but he expressed the hope that the conference would consider a reduction of land armaments as essential to the promotion of the world’s peace. Italy had succeeded in coining to an understanding with Serbia. Italy’s policy was not only peace to her former enemies, but assistance. Italy had considerably curtailed her naval expenditure, and her land forces did not exceed 200,000.

POLICY’ OF OTHER NATIONS. Admiral Kato said Japan entertained the most profound sympathy with France’s peculiarly difficult position, and appreciated the great sacrifices made in the cause of peace. Japan was ready to announce her hearty approval of the principle of reducing her land armaments to the demands of her national security and maintaining order. It was not an easy task to lay down a general scheme, but Japan had not the slightest intention of maintaining a land army more than was necessary for defensive purposes. M. Cartier (Belgium) said Belgium kept her army at a level strictly necessary for her national security, and she could not make further reductions.

Mr Hughes, summing up the discussion, welcomed the opportunity for stating the. position and policy of the United States. No words ever spoken by France had fallen on deaf ears in America, which was thrilled with the sacrifice France had made, and the memory of her stand for liberty would be imperishable in this country. It was evident that what was essential at this time to achieve a great ideal was a will to peace until the institutions of liberty and justice were secure against all attack. He emphatically declared that there was no moral isolation for defenders of liberty and justice. (Applause.) They had before them a complete statement, and with a full appreciation of all the dangers threatening France they should meet the case to the utmost practical extent. They could not foresee what practical measures might be available at the conference, but he was confident there would be generated a disposition to preserve national security, which military measures would never supply. When that was effected peace will be enduring in our midst. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.