Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1934-05-31
INTERNATIONAL
NEWS REVIEW
Continued from Page u

Continued from Page -
with increasing emphasis, that it will
not diSarm, nor will it permit Ger
many to rearm. There's the cruX of
the situation.
True-France may reconsider this
ance guaranteeing the national eX-
istence of France. But all the other
powers, realizing clearly what such
obligations may mean, have been in
no receptive mood for such sugges
tions.
Case OF Germany.
The trouble with France has its
origin i'm the attitude of Germany,
now considered justified by many
close students of current events.
When the victors of the World war,
sword in hand, forced Germany to
sign the Versailles peace treaty, they
compelled that vanquished country to
reduce its standing army to 100000
men. Probably in order not to seem
too unjust the victors injected into
the treaty, at this very point, state
ment to the effect that the forced
disarmament of Germany was to be
considered the beginning of a gen
eral disarmament-tha is, in other
words, that other countries would take
steps to decrease their ornaments.
Germany waited, year after year.
Mot of tho SiUnatnrU
moved in the direction of disarma-
ment, and finally the German gov
ernment-that was before the ascent
of Chancellor Adolf Hitler-insisted
that because the others did not keep
their promise, Germany considered
itself justified i'm claiming the right
to rearm. For not only had the vic
tOriOus powers neglected to disarm;
they had even begun to increase their
armies and navieS, and there, in the
Germany, practically disarmed-a de-
fenseless nation in case of a new war.
Hitler's Move.
Keenly realizing that the principal
aim of France was to keep Germany as
inertly weak nation, Hitler, as soon as
he became chancellor, took up the cry
for rearmament, and when he found
no response anywhere, he boldly re-
moved his country from the League
of Nations as we'll as from the dis
armament conference. That drastic
step has not changed the French
mind.
1t is perfectly clear to all observ-
ers that there can be no international
disarmament treaty until the differ
enceSI between France and Germany
have been composed; that is the very
first condition of success. And that
condition does not yet exist.
Weaker Powers.
AS has been mentioned here sew
eral times, Benito MussOlini, Italian
prime minister, has his own ideas
about all this; he believes that since
disarmament primarily is of concern
to the great powers. they-and they
alone-should discuss the problem
and then, when they have solved it,
have their decision ratified by the
League.
But Mussolini is looked at with
much suspicion, and the possibility of
great-power conference is feared
as the possible beginning of period
of increasing domination over the
smaller countries.
At that, MussOlini may be right.
East and West.
Among certain powers one always
finds desire to keep rivals in a
state of comparative weakness. That
is true, also, of the naval status OBJ
tanning among Great Britain, the
United States and Japan. The two
great western powers will not toler-
ate equal naval influence on the part
of Japan.
In 1921-1922 this question was
thoroughly discussed at the socalled
armaments conference at Washington,
and in February of the latter year
series of treaties were signed, one of
them STIMULATING that the British
Acknowledgements naval ratio was
to be expressed in the formula, 5-5-3.
That is, where Great Britain and the
United States permitted themselves
to have, say, 5000 tons, Japan was
given only 5000, or, if the two wes-
tern powers were to have each $4,000
tons, Japan's quota would be 10000,
and so on.
This principle found new express
sion in the naval treaty which was
result of the London conference in
1880; at that time it was decided
that the treaty would be in effect