Germany’S Demand For Return Of Her

Colonies

By R. W. Robson.

In August issue there was an article by Major Paul Schnoeckel, of Berlin, in which the Major very ably, and in moderate language, presented the case for the return of Germany's colonies.

We published the article without comment. We agree with much of what Major Schnoeckel has written; but we join issue with him, most definitely, on the question of Germany's responsibility for the war.

Major Schnoeckel's letter to its was published in certain German maga zines; and, therefore, we have sent him by post the following reply.

THIS question of the return to Germany of the Colonies which she lost in the War, is certain to become prominent soon in international politics.

Therefore, it is a matter of personal interest to residents in the Pacific Territories, and readers of “The Pacific Islands Monthly.” Therefore, as I wish to write on this matter with fairness in “The Pacific Islands Monthly,” I feel that I should try to make my personal viewpoint as clear to you, as possible.

When war broke out, in 1914, I was a young journalist, keenly interested in international affairs. I clearly remember the “Agadir Incident,” and other similar occurrences; and it is no exaggeration to say that the sabre-rattling of the German Kaiser repeatedly sent a tremor through a Europe that emphatically did not want war. War came; and within a week it was clear that there was only one nation completely equipped and ready for war, and that nation was Ger many. The logic of that fact alone should be sufficient to prove that the final word, as to whether or not there was to be a great war, lay with Ger many.

Before the war, I met Germans fre quently, and I had many German friends, among civilians. I found no war spirit among the German civilians I knew; but among the German official classes, and particularly among the men of the German Navy, there was a fierce long ing for war, and a tenseness and rest lessness that were very disturbing and significant. When war came, I did not enlist, owing to an accident with print ing machinery which rendered my right hand semi-useless; and I spent the war years as an editor of war news, and

a close student of all war literature.

Nothing I saw then, or since, has altered my early conviction that Germany wanted war, prepared for war and, finally, sought war. Germany must take the responsibility for the war and, therefore, the punishment.

But the punishment must be fair— not cruel and vindictive. The “settle ment” made at Versailles was not only vindictive, it was, from the point of view of anyone who looked to the future economic condition of the world, sheer lunacy. It wade inevitable the economic cataclysm of 1930-33, and it laid a foundation for an incalculable amount of international and political trouble. To-day, we are reaping the harvest of what we sowed in 1919 at Versailles —and I fear that, even yet, the harvest is far from being fully gathered.

Although we hold Germany guilty of the will-to-war, and prescribe punish ment accordingly, we cannot indulge in a campaign of hate against Germany.

Demagogues and professional politicians have screamed at Germany—our most famous war-leader promised to “hang the Kaiser!”—but no man with a know ledge of world history and human nature would be carried away by that kind of sentiment. The German nation bour geoned as a World Power just a century too late to get possession of territories in other Continents, in the way that had been done by Britain and France, Russia, Holland and Spain. At the be ginning of this century, Germany ap peared as anew, vigorous Power, magnificently equipped to lead and direct and colonise —and she found every empty land already under the flags of other European nations. So the war-spirit grew and developed in Germany. That is in accord with human nature —and with five thousand years of history!

Germany fought—and was defeated; and in her defeat she was terribly punished, because in going to war she threw away her most marvellous op portunity of penetrating and conquer ing the world by the methods of peace.

In the two decades prior to 1914, Ger man influence spread over the world in an extraordinary fashion. The Anglo- Saxon nations, in particular, were being “Germanised.” We did not like it very much, naturally, but the penetrative force of German “kultur” was well nigh irresistible. To-day, in these Anglo-Saxon countries, a new generation is coming to maturity which knows nothing whatever of the Germans or of the old German institutions. And I think that that is a pity. We do not know very much of this new Germany, which is expressed in the Nazi spirit; but in the old, pre-war Germany there was very much that we Anglo-Saxons ad mired and loved.

Apart altogether from any question of abstract justice, self-interest should see to it that Germany is not per manently crippled, in an economic sense. The Versailles settlement made of Germany a virtual slave, and the other nations in consequence lost the valuable mass of German trade. The other nations, in their eagerness to punish Germany, practically wiped Germany off the map as a factor m international trade —and then they wondered what hit them! They were just as stupid as the United States, which made the world pay its war debts in gold; and then, sitting on top of its accumulated mass of world credit won dered why American citizens should be come so seriously involved in the De

pression. Our politicians seem in capable of gripping the simple, fundamental fact that a nation’s external trade, to remain healthy, must be evenly balanced, in and out. The use of much gold, to adjust a one-way trade bal ance, is a sign that there is something wrong, which inevitably will cause suf fering; and, as U.S.A. discovered to its bitter cost, it does not matter whether the gold is coming in or going out.

It is hard to see what the future holds. The world outlook changes, almost from month to month. Out of this rapidly-forming spirit of aggressive nationalism, there must come new in ternational alignments and, possibly, much bargaining. I can visualise, at no distant date, the ghastly creations of Versailles being torn to pieces, and re formed more in accordance with the elements of justice, and with an under standing of international economics.

History holds many examples of col lective madness; but there is nothing to compare with the post-war “settle ments of international debts.”

When that inevitable revision of treaties and debt settlements is under taken, Germany will seek to influence public opinion—more particularly in British countries —and the merits of the Versailles treaties, and the respec tive war-guilt of the nations, will be much discussed. When that time comes, I think that British opinion will be kindly disposed towards Germany, and inclined towards some measure of a return of German colonies.

So far, so good—we are broad minded and altruistic! But what will happen when we come to the next stage—namely, the selection of the colonies to be returned to Germany?

Then, I fear, the less beautiful side of human nature will appear. We shall have the usual dog-fight,—every nation for itself,

Australian Point Of View

Letter to the Editor.

I SHALL be glad if you will allow me space in your interesting publication to reply to Major Paul Schnoeckel’s appeal to Australians to assist Ger mans in getting back their possessions in New Guinea, taken from them at the beginning of the war.

In 1878, six years before the Glad stone and Lord Derby Administration consented to Germany taking posses sion of portion of New Guinea, seven teen of us purchased the 47-ton schooner “Dove.” sailing in her to pros pect for gold in New Guinea. We explored all round Astrolabe Gulf, it being what is now known as Madang Har bour; no doubt being the first of a very few white men who had sailed through that narrow entrance.

Then, on the completion of the war.

I went to Java in the “Van Cloon.”

Among the passengers were thirty Ger mans, who had been planters in New Guinea; these were being returned to Germany. From the behaviour of the majority, I should be sorry to hear they had been allowed to again enter New Guinea.

Major Schnoeckel says Germans did not begin the war. Then for what reason did she raise such a huge army and build such a great fleet, and why were their naval men always praying for "Der Tag?”

Germany failed because they were economically unprepared for a long war, making the great mistake of thinking the war would be over in a few months.

We Australians will never consent to

this nation getting back portion of New Guinea.

Who destroyed men by gas, by sink ing the “Lusitania,” by shooting men in boats after they had abandoned their ships? Who murdered Nurse Cavell and Captain Cadell? Who are guilty of this atrocious behaviour to Jews?

No, we do not want the Germans as neighbours.

I am, etc..

Arthur Peck.

Melbourne, 24/9/1933.