IS GERMANY PREPARING WAR ?
By Dr. RUDOLF KIRCHER (Editor of the "Frankfurter Zeitung") •
[An article on this subject from the French point of view appeared in last week's Sp edator."] WHEN I read Count d'Ormesson's article in the last issue of The Spectator on the question whether Germany Means war, and was asked to reply to it froth' the German point Of View, I found myself in something of a dilemma, because, frankly, I found much' to take exception to in Count d'Ormesson's article: First of all. I do not like insinuations when proofs are lacking, nor do I like inaccurate figures when figures are given. Secondly, I do not think it helpful, when what is needed is not one-sided accusations but arguments, to pass judgement on a political situation without any 'regard to its origin: Thirdly, however useful a discussion between a French and a German publicist in a well-known British journal may be, it is questionable whether the average British reader should be encouraged to assume that he can fitly adopt the role of referee. British policy. is in my view very largely responsible for the creation of the situation whiCh Count d'Ormesson diseuSseS without a hint of the possibility- that anyone but Gerinany'may be responsible—least of all France.
As I am firmly convinced that a real and 'lasting understanding is never poSsible till on 'all sides feelings areielieVed and the fundamental facts revealed, I shall take leave to speak perfectly frankly. In one way my French colleague takes the same line, when he ends his grave accusations against Germany with the pathetic declaration that a single word, *a single gesture from Germany " in favour of the' consolidation of European peace as a whole " would be sufficient to take the wind out of the sails of that ill.starred Franco-Soviet Pact.
Count d'Ormesson goes fundamentally wrong at the outset in suggesting that Germany should buy Off that pact. Germany, I am convinced, would go a long way to come .to an' honest understanding with France, because there exists in Germany no hatred against the French people, nor is there any serious Franco-German problem which could not quite well be solved once it was removed from the present atmosphere:of suspicion or fear. But, on the other hand, there will be' no solution so long as the' old-fashioned game is played : intimidate or bluff your neighbour,- and then invite 'him' to btiy off the cause of his fear, and thereby strike as- favourable a bargain as you can. There- is nothing in the Franco- Russian pact in itself to induce Germany to pay anything at all for its abrogation, nor, as I have already said; would 'this be a right:method for creating sound -European' co- operation. It is not so much the pact us the policy hitherto underlying it which must disappear before prospects in Europe can be improved.
I doubt whether British readers realise how far that part of French policy which we call the policy of alliances was, and still is, connected with the famous " No pronounced by M. Barthel, when a military convention of great value was well in sight some eighteen months ago. Indeed, the very reason which prompted the French Government of that day to refuse the conclusion of the military agreement was M. Barthou's hope or achieving much greater security for France by sonic new political and military pacts in Eastern Europe than by a military convent-ion with Germany, Italy and Britain. Today everyone knows that this " no " was one of the most unfortunate of the many errors committed in recent years. Barthou's " No " prevented the limitation of armaments on a level which today would seem surprisingly low, whereas the eastern commitments of France met witli growing criticism and scepticism both in France itself' and elsewhere.
Why then, I shall be asked, if you consider Franee's policy of alliances isa failure, do you insist- on making a fuss about it ? The answer to that is that Germany, while very unfavourably impressed by the Franco- Russian pact, abstained from " making a fuss about it " up to the time when Czechoslovakia, was included in it, and this rather short-sighted country thus became a prospective starting-point for Bolshevist aeroplanes. Look at the map, and you will sec at once what I mean. In little more than half an hour Berlin could be reached easily by aeroplanes starting from Czechoslovakia. It may be replied that so long as Germany behaves as she should there will be no fear of that. But why, I rejoin, should we Germans trust other people more than other people trust us ? Your comforting assurance " as long as you behave you have nothing to fear"--is true either for everybody or nobody. And this at the same time is my answer to Count d'Ormesson's accusation, or rather insinuation : I and all of us resent utterly the hypocritical state of mind which permits other people to think and say We alone are -peace-loving, we alone can be trusted.
Even if we arm to the teeth, even if we conclude the most objectionable pacts, even if our ally is the only proposer and propagator of a world-wide revolution, we alone are right and righteous. You Germans are not and never will be." I said I should speak plainly, and I hope I may be forgiven if I have. The opportunity for a complete change of European policy is once more so great that it would be inexcusable to shrink from exposing the funda- mental facts. When Count d'Ormesson (like many others) asks whether Germany is preparing for war, the German answer can only be : after what has happened, Germany is bound to make herself as strong as possible in order to face any situation she may placed in by those who have not yet abandoned the hope of imprisoning Germany in a new cage—the old one, made in Versailles, being destroyed and done with. Barthou's " No " in connexion with the policy of alliances was one more attempt, perhaps the last, to avoid a square deal with Germany on the basis of full equality. France's eastern policy was one more attempt, perhaps the last, to negotiate with Germany after submitting her to the pressure not of common sense and goodwill but of force. Add to this the detestable slogan about " preventive war," add to this the poisonous propaganda of the Comintern, which British readers are certainly not fully aware of, since they do not listen in and understand when the Moscow wireless descants in German on the Red Army, " which is ready to invade Germany " and turn her Communist— I say, add to this all that is and must be in the minds of Germans as long as they are thus threatened, and you will begin to understand that Germany is making her preparations not in order to attack anyone, but to ensure that no one shall be able to attack or bully our country again.
But one thing is certain. If the contributors to public discussion do not refrain from giving erroneous facts and inaccurate figures, both of them rather objectionable in themselves, the aim of all who really desire to be helpful will hardly be furthered. how is it possible to speak of a German army of a strength of 900,000 in addition to several tens of thousands enrolled in " a special mechanised army styled the Hitler Militia " ? Count d'Ormesson might at least have read The Times on the subject, or asked the French military attaches. How is it possible for a distinguished writer like Count d'Ormesson to quote from a speech of the Ftihrer of the Reich a passage taken apparently from a grossly misleading newspaper cutting, but certainly not from the speech Adolf Hitler actually delivered ? How, moreover, can Count d'Ormesson, without a word of proof, simply state on his own authority that Germany will not hesitate to invade her neighbours suddenly and with overwhelming force once she feels certain of victory ?
How can a German be expected to embark seriously on the discussion of theories and misinterpretations of an article of this kind when he finds that even the cheapest propaganda stuff is not excluded from its arguments ? What I am referring to is this : the Fillver, in comparing the achievements and possibilities of National Socialism and Bolshevism, exclaimed in Nuremberg " what would Germany, who cultivates with infinite care every single inch of her soil, have achieved if her territory and resources were as vast as those, for instance, of the Ural district or the Ukraine, while. Bolshevism, in spite of all these advantages, seems unable even to keep its peasants from starvation ? " Instead of accepting the true meaning of Adolf Hitler's speech, Count d'Ormesson misuses it as a new proof " of Hitler's desire for imperialist expansion." How can we possibly discuss the means and prospects of attaining peace and friendship in Europe with any hope of success if a single word like " Ukraine " is sufficient to destroy the very basis of any honest discussion, fairness and goodwill ?
Count d'Ormesson, like others, will not understand my resentment. He will reply, as he has already in anticipation, " Don't forget that book, Mein Kampf ! " There is only one authoritative comment on this volume —Adolf Hitler's actions, that is to say, the actual pro- gramme and the deeds of the man who was defeated and imprisoned when he wrote his book, but is now the Ftihrer and responsible Chancellor of the Reich. Be fair to Germany and you will be rewarded. The absence of fairness and broadmindedness on the part of those who now raise offensive questions was responsible for most of what has happened in the past. That, at least, is the German contention.
Previous page
