The Times of Monday publishes from its Berlin corre- spondent
an interesting summary of German feeling as to the retention of Kiao-Chau. It appears that the Reichstag in Committee have seriously considered the advisability of abandoning the leased territory. During the ten years of occupation £5,500,000 has been spent, and several more millions will be required to complete the contemplated scheme of development. Germany is confronted by a dilemma which is defined in the Zukunft by the well-known naval critic, Count Reventlow. In view of the overwhelming naval strength of Great Britain and Japan in the Far East, he describes German military aspirations at Kiao-Chau as absurd. As for the commercial value of the territory, be considers it very slight indeed. "Commercially it is at best only a speculation, politically it is an anxiety, and as a military position it is already lost." Why, then, should it be retained ? Count Reventlow, who is in favour of retention, believes that the maintenance of her prestige in the Far East is really important for Germany. Voluntary retirement would mean a great loss of prestige abroad as well as depression at -home. If- Germany were compelled to retire by foreign Powers, the bitterness in Germany might somehow be turned to good account. Therefore, he concludes that the best bad better be made of a bad bargain. One is tempted to think
that Germany's regrets over her acts of foreign policy are generally in proportion to the enthusiasm with which the policy was launched.
