THE GERMAN PROPOSALS T HERE are only two ways of treating
Herr Hitler's speech—to regard it as fundamentally insincere, a deliberate screen behind which preparations for war can be pursued ; or to hail it, as Mr. Baldwin did in the House of Commons on Wednesday, as a weighty and notable utterance, deserving the most serious considera- tion. The first method leads straight to disaster. The second may not lead straight to salvation, but it means at any rate that the way of salvation will be explored. It ought to be not only explored but explored quickly and exhaustively. Too much time and far too many opportunities have been wasted already. Herr Hitler, unfortunately, was perfectly justified in his complaint that his previous advances had been completely dis- regarded. That was conspicuously true of his disarma- ment proposals of April of last year. It was the French who rejected them, but there has never been any evidence of adequate pressure on the French by our own Govern- ment. This country cannot be required to endorse every French veto. Now the Chancellor's speech opens a new chapter. He may not mean all he says. That will be made quite clear before any detailed discussions that may be entered on have progressed far. But that the programme he proposes offers, on its face value, the basis for an agreement that would give Europe something like the assurance of settled peace is incontestable.
The German proposals may be measured by two criteria—reasonable men's ideas of what is inherently reasonable, and specific proposals which the leading States of Europe other than Germany have actually made. The latter is the better test, for by its application the width of the gulf, if any, which separates Herr Hitler's ideas from those of Britain, France and Italy can be clearly gauged. The three vital questions are equality, disarmament and security. Germany in December, 1932, was promised equality of rights in a system providing for the security of all nations. She has taken that equality as regards armaments, and an achieved fact must be treated as an achieved fact. To make equality complete Herr Hitler now demands that the Covenant of the League of Nations, in which all States are equals, shall be separated from the Treaty of Versailles, which discriminates at every point between victor and vanquished. There need be no serious difficulty about that.
Those parts of the Treaty which Germany has not disregarded in the interests of equality she will faith- fully observe, even where, as in the case of the demili- tarized zone, they in fact constitute inequality. She strictly adheres to the Locarno treaties, and will supple- ment them by an Air Pact, though raising the question of the- bearing of the Franco:Soviet agreement on them, and agrees to take her part in the collective system; pro- vided the door is kept open for revision and evolution. ' She will conclude pacts of non-aggression with neighbour States, but not commit herself to mutual assistance except in the cases covered by Locarno. Herr Hitler not unreasonably declares that his country will take part in no international conference the preliminaries of which have been discussed in her absence. He once more thunders denunciation against Bolshevism, but with the notable proviso that Russia's internal affairs are no business of his, and his references to France are conciliatory.
Much of this, it may be argued, is abstract and vague. That charge, at any rate, cannot be brought against Herr - Hitler's offer in regard to armaments. The figures of Germany's armed forces already announced will be ' regarded as the maximum limit, and the Chancellor appears to mean that they can be reduced as part of a general disarmament agreement. This certainly applies to the Air Force, where parity with the other Western nations (it is noteworthy that no parity is claimed with Russia) can be fixed by agreement between them all. As regards aerial warfare, Herr Hitler accepts in its fullest scope the proposal put forward by the British Government at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva for the com- plete international outlawry of all bombing; from which would follow naturally and in due course the abolition of bombing aeroplanes. The limitations proposed for tanks, heavy artillery, naval guns, warship tonnage and sub- marines go again at least as far as the proposals Great Britain has made at Geneva. These are notable facts, and to decline to meet Herr Hitler, and to meet him promptly, on the ground he has chosen would be the com- plete bankruptcy of statesmanship. The precise method is no doubt matter for discussion. The simple and obvious course would be for Germany to resume, her place in the Disarmament Conference and for the Conference to resume its deliberations where they were broken off, with the British proposals, which Herr Hitler's own so closely resemble, still before it. That would in no way compromise Germany's relation to the League of Nations (of which she is in any case a member till next October), for the United States, which is not a member of the League, has been from the first, and still is, an active member of the Conference.
Meanwhile it is essential in the interests of humanity and sanity to base Great Britain's air policy on the assumption that Herr Hitler means what he says and will stand by his word. If the contrary is demon- strated, then the programme of 1,500 first line aeroplanes announced by Lord Londonderry and Mr. Baldwin on Wednesday will find few critics. But the interpretation put by Mr. Baldwin on Herr Hitler's speech is open to serious question. Germany, said the Lord President, was claiming parity with France, and France -had 1,500 machines ; therefore we must have the same. Birt there' is nothing sacred about 1,500. Herr Hitler said expressly that a maximum figure—any figure presumably—could be fixed at any time, by agreenient, for all the WeStern nations. Why 1,500 ? Why not, pending total aboli- tion, the 500 which Great Britain proposed for herself, France and Italy in her draft convention of 1933 ? Parity leaves each country in the same position relatively, whatever the level.'
It may prove under test that Germany, having built her 1,500 aeroplanes,- or something near that number; is unwilling to abandon any of them. In that case this country must build tip to parity, however reluctantly ; without that international action against an 'aggressor might be foredoomed to disaster and the collective system-break down. But the whole implication of Herr Hitler's latest speech, as of many before it, is that Gerniany is prepared for drastic reductions ' so long as other nations reduce equally. In regard to material, which is more important than men, even than the recruits to be secured under thernew cOnscription law, the Chan- cellor is explicit,'" giving the pledge that GermanY"'" is prepared at any time to limit armaments- to any extent which is alai adopted by the Other States." In denianding recognition of the principle of the peacefid revision of treaties on some such lines as Article XIX of the Covenant lays down he is asking nothing unreaionable.' On this and other points 'Herr Hitler'S good 'faith can soon be put to the test. Discussions on disarMament at Geneva and a Danubian pact at Rome, and Germany's willingness to sign an Eastern European non-aggression pact after further explanations, will prove whether a new era of hope has initiet dawned for Europe.
Previous page
