13 JANUARY 1917, Page 11

THE ALLIED TERMS HELIGOLAND.

(To THE EDITOR or etre " SPECTATOR.") SIR,—The terms you outline are suggestive and valuable, but they take no cognizance of the necessity of providing for the occupation of Heligoland. Had Heligoland not been ceded, the coast defences of Germany as they exist to-day would have been impossible. It is sometimes said : "But we should never have fortified Heligoland. How could we in, any case have held it against Germany? " I grant we could not have fortified Heligoland without causing at once a grave situation, and also that unfortified Heligoland on the outbreak of war would have been seized by Germany. But an unfortified Heligoland would have been little use to Germany, and to fortify it satisfactorily in war time would have been Impossible—even for Germany. It took the labour of hundreds of Italian workmen through many years to make Heligoland the practically impregnable fortress it now is. I described those works in the National Review of October. 1911, and asked: " Against whom is Germany arming, against whom is she expend- ing her millions in this island-key to the North Sea? " We got our answer very promptly. Any peace terms should certainly include the occupation of Heligoland, either as an outpost of the Allies in perpetuity, or as a " guarantee " for the execution of Treaty obligations. It cannot be too often emphasized that Heligoland never belonged to Germany until we ceded the island in 1890; that we took it from the Danes in 1807; and that the people were Frisians, speaking Island-Frisian, and not by language or race Germans, much less Prussians. There is of course an alternative to seizure—viz., the destruction of the rock of Heligoland—bat there are many sound reasons why this remark- able observation-point should be in the Allies' secure possession for many years to come.—I am, Sir, &c., WILLIAM Groaoz BLACK.

[We agree. Some six months ago while discussing " Peace Terms " we included the recession of Heligoland. It should certainly have been included in our article of December 30th last. —ED. Spectator.]