GENERAL RITTER VON EPP
Reich Governor in Bavaria, Reich Leader of the Colonial League and the
Reich Governor in Bavaria, Reich Leader of the Colonial League and the
Colonial Board of the National Socialist Party
Germany's demand for the return of her Colonial
possessions has given rise to an animated world-wide discussion that still
continues, thus showing that the Colonial problem is one of those most urgently
in need of a satisfactory solution. It will be observed, however, that the most
essential aspect of the problem -i.e., Germany's claim that she has a right to
demand the return of her former Colonies - is frequently ignored in the
discussions. This circumstance suggests the probability that some writers on
the subject lack a clear perception of the arguments by which Germany supports
her claim, and that they are not familiar with her Colonial necessities as
such. The following account of Germany's standpoint may therefore be found of
some use, as it is doubtful whether a successful outcome of the discussion can
be hoped for if it is not based on a sound knowledge of the facts.
Germany
was a late-comer in the Colonial sphere.
She only entered it in the last quarter of the past century, when it
became apparent that the unclaimed regions of the world were about to be
finally distributed among the Powers. She then acquired certain territories in
Africa and in the Southern Pacific of which it could be expected that their
possession would satisfy at least some of her economic necessities. Her action
was in no way prompted by Imperialist motives, but was the direct outcome of a
development that had converted her from an agricultural into a highly-industrialised
country within a few decades. The more she became industrialised, the greater
became her need of imports from abroad, as her own resources of raw materials
have always been insufficient. Two reasons combined to bring about her
industrialisation: first, the large increase in her population, and second, the
unique technical progress achieved ever since. In 1800, her population amounted
to about 20,000,000; a century later it had risen to 56,000,000, and in 1914 it
had reached a total of 67,800,000. It had thus more than trebled; but as the
size of the country had remained almost unchanged, it follows that the
"space forces" had decreased by two-thirds.
Additional
industries were constantly growing up. A large part of their output was
exported, whilst those raw materials and foodstuffs which could not be produced
at home were imported. Without such an interchange of commodities, it would
have been impossible to provide enough food and work for the steadily growing
population. All this development, however, was based on the then existing
system of universal free trade. It was taken for granted that peace would
continue indefinitely, and that the sanctity of private property and the
business man's initiative would continue to be respected as usual.
The
acquisition of Colonial territories by Germany was intended to provide her with
a reservoir of supplementary "space forces," a matter which has at
all times been considered the premier aim of all Colonising activities. How
firmly this conviction was shared by all the Colonial powers may be gathered
from the conclusion of the Congo Convention (1885), which was signed by
Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, the United States, Italy, Portugal, and a
number of other countries. Article I I of the Congo Act provided that, should
any power exercising in Central Africa the rights of sovereignty or those
conferred by a protectorate be involved in war, the others would endeavour to
ensure that its Central African possessions should be declared neutral, and
that they should be treated as though they belonged to a neutral State. The
term" Central Africa," as here used, included not only the whole of
the Belgian Congo, but also the whole of German and British East Africa, about
one-third of the Cameroons, Uganda, Nyassaland, a small part of Northern
Rhodesia, and about one-half of French Equatorial Africa. All these wide
domains were to be kept outside the range of a possible European war, and their
integrity was to be respected.
Germany
vigorously applied herself to the opening-up of her Colonial Empire as soon as
the initial difficulties had been overcome. The task was enormous; and Germany
had practically no experience as a Colonising power. Large parts of her
Colonies had never been explored previous to their peaceable and lawful
acquisition by Germany. The natives had to be brought in touch with the
administrative system. For reasons of internal policy, the capital required for
all these purposes did not flow freely into the Colonies during the first
couple of decades; but their opening-up proceeded apace in spite of that
drawback; roads and other means of transportation and communication were built,
and economic progress was unmistakable. The value of the Colonial export trade
increased from 25,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1903 to 160,000,000 Reichsmarks in
1913; and the importance of the Colonies as markets for manufactured articles
was steadily growing. By 1914, after less than thirty years of opening-up work,
a state of development had been attained that promised well for the future.
It
is quite true that Germany's trade with her Colonies formed a small fraction
only of her total trade in those years; but this circumstance has no bearing
upon the present economic situation. In the pre-War days, when Free Trade was a
fact and not a mere name, and when no obstacles were placed in the way of any country's
foreign trade, Germany was not actually dependent upon the produce of her own
Colonies. Besides, she was a large creditor country; she had invested huge sums
in all parts of the globe, and she could buy all the necessary raw materials
and foodstuffs without endangering her currency.
And
then the War broke out. The solemn undertaking given by the signatories of the
Congo Act was ignored by Germany's opponents. On August 2nd, 1914, Dr. Solf,
the Colonial Secretary, relying upon the provisions of the Act, advised the
administrative authorities of German East Africa by telegram that the Colonies
would not be involved in the impending war, and that the European settlers need
not fear any complications. A few days later, Great Britain started hostilities
in East Africa, and the Colonies became a theatre of war.
This
obvious violation of a given undertaking was afterwards sanctioned at
Versailles, although those who dispossessed Germany of her Colonies had no
legal title to do so. On December 14th, 1917, President Wilson stated before
Congress that the War was not to be terminated by an act of revenge, and that
no nation and no people should be robbed or penalised; and on February 11th,
1918, he added, that "there shall be no annexations, no contributions, no
punitive damages." This was also implied in the fifth of the President's
Fourteen Points, which provided for "a free, open-minded and absolutely
impartial adjustment of all Colonial claims." Germany accepted the whole
of the Fourteen Points by her note of October 3rd; and the Allied and
Associated Powers also accepted them after the precise meaning of Point Five
had been explained in the so-called Lyons wireless message of October 29th,
1918, which was a report drawn up by American delegates at the request of
Colonel House, the President's confidential adviser. As regards the
"justified Colonial Claims of Germany," it was said in the message
that Germany must have access to the tropics and their raw materials, that she
needed space for her excess population, and that, in conformity with the
proposed terms of peace, the conquest of Colonial territories did not give her
opponents a legal title to their possession. In the note of the American
Secretary of State (Mr. Lansing) dated November 5th, 1918, it was stated again
on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers that President Wilson's Fourteen
Points were to be the sole basis for the contemplated peace.
In
spite of these unambiguous declarations, Germany was forced to surrender her
overseas possessions (Art. 119 of the Versailles Treaty), although the unwisdom
of making her do so was pointed out in many quarters. According to the secret
minutes of the Council of Ten (January 24th, 1919), the Allied and Associated
Powers were very far from viewing the whole question with unanimity. President
Wilson expressed himself as follows:
The
world will say that the Powers first of all divided among themselves the
defenceless parts of the globe and then proceeded to create a League of
Nations. The naked truth is that every one of these parts has been allotted to
a big Power. I wish to say quite openly that the world will never tolerate such
a proceeding, which will make the League of Nations impossible, and we shall
have to revert to the system of competitive armaments, huge accumulations of
debt, and the heavy burden of large armies.
To-day
it is only too evident that the President's forecast has come true. As the
Powers did not want to lose their hold on the German Colonies, the mandatory
system as set forth in Article 22 of the League Covenant was invented. It is
interesting to recall the following remarks made by Mr. Lansing in 1921:
It
may appear surprising that the big Powers lent their support so readily to the
new method of gaining an apparently limited control of the conquered
territories, and that they did not try to acquire full sovereign rights over
them. There is no need to look far for an adequate and very practical reason.
If Germany's Colonial possessions had been divided among the victors in accordance
with the usual method, and if they had been transferred to them with all the
rights of sovereignty, Germany would have been entitled to demand that the
value of such ceded territories should be credited to her reparations account.
The League, however, was supposed to distribute the mandates in the interests
of the inhabitants; and the mandates were to be regarded as obligations, but
not as a means for the acquisition of additional territory. In this way, the
mandatory system deprived Germany of her Colonies, the value of which would
have considerably reduced her indebtedness towards the Allies, whilst the
latter acquired the Colonies without losing any claim to compensation.
Actually, therefore, the apparent altruism of the mandatory system favoured the
selfish and material interests of the Powers by whom the mandates were taken
over.
In
order to justify the seizure of the Colonies and their transfer, under
mandates, to the supreme control of the League, it was asserted that Germany
was incapable of administering Colonial populations. In the notes dated July
16th, 19 I 9, it is stated among others that
The
Allied and Associated Powers are satisfied that the native inhabitants of the
German Colonies are strongly opposed to being again brought under Germany's
sway, and the record of German rule, the traditions of the German Government,
and the use to which these Colonies were put as bases from which to prey upon
the commerce of the world, make it impossible for the Allied and Associated
Powers to return them to Germany, or to entrust to her the responsibility for
the training and education of their inhabitants.
These
charges were based on the" Report on the Natives of South-West Africa and
their Treatment by Germany," issued by the Administrator's Office,
Windhoek, South-West Africa, concerning which the District Council for
South-West Africa unanimously resolved on July 29th, 1926, that it was an
instrument of war, and that the time had come for discontinuing its use.
General Hertzog, the South African Prime Minister, stated on January 28th,
1927: "The unreliability and worthlessness of the document in question
were sufficient to condemn it to the same disgraceful oblivion as all similar
documents dating from the time of the war." And it is interesting to note
in this connection that Mr. Amery, the former Secretary for the Colonies,
expressed himself in a similar manner in January 1937, by way of replying to my
explanation of the German view on the Colonial problem, when he said: "As
regards Germany's inability to rule native populations, that is an assertion
like many others made in the speeches and even in the official documents
originating in the unhealthy atmosphere of those days." This latter
statement should be read in conjunction with a remark on President Wilson and
the mandatory system made by Mr. Lansing: "His noble mind and his lofty
views made him blind to the base motives which seem to have been at the root of
the general consent given to his beloved mandatory system."
It
follows from the foregoing explanations that the alleged reasons for placing
the German Colonies under mandates, and therefore those for the continuance of
the mandatory system itself, are untenable. Contrary to a belief prevalent in
some quarters, there has never been any actual annexation of the Colonies by
the mandatory Powers. If it were otherwise, the question might well be asked:
Why should there be any mandatory system at all? And what is the use of Article
22 of the League Covenant, which was intended to form an integral whole
together with Article 119 of the Versailles Treaty? The fact that, in
accordance with the last-named articles, Germany had to surrender her Colonies
to the principal Allied Powers, does not imply a transfer of her sovereignty.
(Cf. the corresponding provisions respecting Memel and Danzig in Articles 99
and 100.)
Germany,
therefore, has a proper legal claim to the return of her Colonies. The German
people are profoundly conscious of having such a claim and regard the existing
position as a serious discrimination against themselves. It is evident that the
question of the Colonies is at the same time a question of equality of status.
Germany's
demand, however, is not only based on legal and moral grounds, but is supported
by weighty economic reasons as well. There are many people outside Germany who
do not realise the exceedingly unfavourable conditions which she has to endure
in many respects. The Versailles Treaty has deeply undermined the foundations
of her economic life. Apart from the loss of her Colonial empire, that treaty
also forced her to surrender 13 per cent. of her territory at home, together
with the valuable mineral and agricultural resources contained in those parts,
as well as her entire mercantile tonnage. The confiscation of German property
abroad was sanctioned by the terms of the treaty. Germany's foreign
investments, which represented a value far exceeding £ 1,000,000,000 gold, were
taken away from their rightful owners by a stroke of the pen. In addition, she
was asked to pay fantastic sums by way of reparation. After she had done so for
a number of years, it was seen that a continuance of these payments was an
absolute impossibility. In order to make the payments on reparations account,
she had been compelled to contract so large a foreign debt that, after the
lapse of ten years or so, her liabilities towards her creditors abroad were
almost as large as the value of her pre-War foreign investments. This foreign
indebtedness accounts for the gigantic losses her gold and foreign-exchange
reserves have sustained since 1931.
As
time advances, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Versailles Treaty
has brought about a serious disturbance in the world's equilibrium. It has
given rise to an economic development throughout the world the ultimate effect
of which has been to reverse completely pre-War conditions. Before the War, the
markets for raw materials were unfettered by any restrictions, and long-term
commercial treaties guaranteed the freedom of international trade. The economic
era, however, which dates from Versailles, is characterised by protectionist,
selfish, and monopolist tendencies. Most countries, notably the United States,
the United Kingdom and France, have surrounded themselves with high tariff
walls, and have introduced every possible device for promoting trade within
their own territories and for preventing the products of other countries from
entering them.
Thus,
present-day Germany finds herself confronted with the following facts:
Considerable territorial losses in Europe and abroad; the complete loss of her
foreign assets; a large debt resulting from her reparations payments, and the
impossibility of importing sufficient quantities of those commodities vitally
necessary for maintaining the standard of living of her population and for
ensuring the continued existence of her national economy itself. The
consequence of her declining export trade was that the foundation on which her
economic system had been based for more than a century suffered a considerable
contraction. Even though her Colonies may have been relatively unimportant to
the balance of her foreign trade in pre-War time, present economic conditions
are so different that the possession or non-possession of Colonies is a
question of the very first importance.
All
these circumstances have to be taken into account by those who want to
understand the justice of Germany's Colonial claims on economic grounds. The
fact that governs the whole situation is this: The centre of Europe is
inhabited by a nation which, despite every effort made, finds it impossible to
safeguard the foundations of its existence by making use of the resources
provided by its native soil.
Before
the War, Germany had started to develop, on systematic lines, all those
resources of the areas subject to her sovereignty which were-and which
are-necessary for the maintenance of her surplus population. At Versailles,
however, her Colonial empire (which, although but small, was of great
importance to her) was divided among nations that were in no need of additional
Colonial possessions. Besides, these nations had so many other matters to
attend to that they were not in a position to engage in the work of opening-up
the mandated areas. It can be shown that the development of the mandated
territories - not only as regards the production of raw materials, but also in
connection with many other items ¬ has received far less attention than that of
countries adjacent to them where the climatic conditions are very similar. It
is very instructive to compare, for example, the export totals of oleaginous
seeds and fruits from Togoland and the Cameroons with those from the Belgian
Congo and Nigeria, those of timber from the Cameroons with those from French
Equatorial Africa, and those of cotton from German East Africa (Tanganyika)
with those from Uganda and Kenya. Comparisons such as these indicate that the
Colonial possessions of the European countries concerned are developed far more
systematically than the territories under mandate. The development of the
transportation system in the latter has almost come to a standstill since the
advent of the mandatory administrations, as may be seen from the following
figures:
Railways open to traffic
or in course of construction. |
Increase.
|
|||||
1914.
|
1934.
|
|||||
East Africa.........
|
2,171
|
km.
|
2,215
|
km.
|
44
|
km.
|
South-West Africa..................
|
2,178
|
”
|
2,357
|
”
|
179
|
”
|
Cameroons.........
|
443
|
”
|
504
|
”
|
61
|
”
|
Togoland............
|
327
|
”
|
442
|
”
|
115
|
”
|
Thus,
almost the whole railway system of the mandated territories dates back to the
twenty odd years of German rule, whilst the mandatory Powers have hardly done
anything since to extend it. Equally slight has been the increase in the export
trade of the Colonies since their taking-over by the mandatory Powers. During
the period from 1908- 13, i.e., within five years, the total value of their
exports went up from £1,400,000 to £8,000,000, which is undoubtedly a clear
proof of Germany's successful Colonial work in Africa and in the Southern
Pacific. By 1936, after seventeen years of mandatory rule, that figure had only
risen to £10,000,000 gold. The increase, therefore, has been remarkably slight.
Even
in their present state of development, the Colonies could do much to ease
Germany's economic difficulties. They could supply considerable percentages of
the raw materials she requires. Based on the export statistics for 1936, these
percentages work out as follows: Oleaginous seeds and fruits, 14 per cent.; flax,
hemp, etc., 43 per cent. (for sisal alone, 261 per cent.); cocoa, 61 per cent.;
coffee, 13 per cent.; bananas, 61 per cent.; mineral phosphates, 49 per cent.
Other important raw materials that could be imported from the Colonies are
hides and skins, cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and various cereals.
No
attention has been paid so far to the considerable possibilities of future
development. In view of the relative neglect of the mandated territories by
their present rulers, we are justified in assuming that their production totals
can be greatly augmented within a short period of time. Experts with a good
knowledge of all the facts have ascertained that, on a conservative estimate,
the value of the exports can be raised to £30,000,000 gold within eight or ten
years, provided that intensive methods of cultivation are employed. This means
that the mandated territories could supply Germany with 12 or 15 per cent. of
her import requirements. It is obvious that this would materially ease
Germany's foreign-exchange position and her international trade relations and
would, above all, give her a feeling of economic security.
To
make such an increase possible, it would be necessary, of course, to accelerate
very considerably the pace at which the opening-up of the Colonies takes place,
both through private initiative and by means of Government assistance. A
typical example of the great success that can be achieved by systematic work in
the right direction is afforded by the Gold Coast Colony, where the cultivation
of cocoa was introduced about the turn of the century. In 1906, about 8,000
tons of it could be exported; and by 1936 that figure had risen to as much as
306,000 tons, so that the Gold Coast is now the principal producer of cocoa. As
the climatic and geographical conditions of the Cameroons are very similar to
those of the Gold Coast, it would seem quite possible to increase the cocoa
production of that country very greatly within a short time. The same
possibility presents itself for a number of other products that are of value to
Germany as foodstuffs or as industrial raw materials, e.g. timber, oleaginous
fruits, sisal, and rubber.
Before
the War, there was no need for Germany to adjust her foreign trade with an eye
to her Colonies. Today, however, large quantities of Colonial produce could be
used to cover the needs of the mother country; and the part not thus used could
be sold in other markets. In this way, foreign exchange would become available
for purchases in other countries.
All
the suggestions put forward with a view to making Germany renounce her Colonial
claim fail to do justice to the requirements of the country's body economic. It
has been said that Germany ought to make use of the numerous facilities
afforded by "the open door." But if we look at that "open
door," we find that it is very carefully locked indeed. It has already
been emphasised that the principal countries of the world have adopted
undiluted protectionism since 1924. Great Britain, more especially, has secured
for herself a very favourable position in the great raw material markets by the
Ottawa agreements. She, therefore, can hardly claim the right to speak of other
countries' freedom of access to raw materials. A glance at the customs lists
and import regulations of practically all parts of the British Empire,
Dominions as well as Crown Colonies, shows that the products of non-British
countries (more particularly finished articles, in the export of which Germany
specialises) are treated far less favourably than those originating within the
British Empire. Another example of the tendency on the part of the large
Colonial Powers to establish a privileged position for their own products is
Britain's policy in Nigeria and the Gold Coast Colony where a quota system for
textiles based on the import figures for 1935 has just been introduced. This
step is a serious handicap to the trade of the non-British countries, as 1935
was in many respects a year of bad trade. Since then the purchasing capacity of
the inhabitants has considerably improved, so that Great Britain alone will
reap the resulting advantage. Besides, nearly all the Colonial territories have
established a system of discriminating export duties that make it difficult for
Germany to obtain a sufficiency of Colonial produce. All this shows how
threadbare is the assertion sometimes heard that the have-nots need only set
aside an adequate amount of foreign exchange if they want to share in the
Colonial wealth. The very fact that payment must be made in foreign exchange
puts us at a disadvantage. Besides, nations deprived of their investments
abroad can only obtain foreign exchange by selling their goods.
Experience
has shown that Germany is not in a position to sell large quantities of her
manufactured products in the mandated territories. This applies still more to
the actual Colonies of the European Powers, in whose trade the latter-as a
rule-have the lion's share. France's share in the import trade of Morocco is
43.7 per cent., Great Britain's share in that of Nigeria is 55.2 per cent., and
Belgium's share in that of the Congo is 43.4 per cent., whilst Germany's share
in the trade of these and numerous other African territories is very slight.
Her trade with them is for the most part passive, because even now imports from
them considerably exceed her exports to them. The mandated territories are no
exception to this rule, notwithstanding the status of economic equality
supposed to exist there. The following figures indicate the losses Germany has
incurred in her trade with some of her former Colonies since they have ceased
to be administered by her.
South West Africa.
|
German
East Africa.
|
|||
1912.
|
1933.
|
1912.
|
1933.
|
|
Percentage of Total Imports
|
||||
Imports from Germany......................
|
81.4
|
11.1
|
51.3
|
10.2
|
Imports from British Empire.........................
|
13.2
|
77.7
|
22.5
|
46.1
|
Percentage of Total Exports
|
||||
Exports to Germany...
|
83.1
|
18.5
|
56.7
|
11.8
|
Exports to British Empire.........................
|
1.1
|
64.1
|
10.8
|
53.9
|
These
figures show how greatly the share of the British Empire in the trade with
these two mandated territories has increased at the expense of Germany.
Everywhere the Colonial Powers predominate in the import trade of their
Colonies and in that of the mandated territories administered by them. Their
nationals are sure to get all the orders from public authorities and also those
of any importance from most private firms.
Since
all the big Colonial Powers have taken successful steps in recent years to cover
an increasing part of their import requirements within the areas subject to
their political influence, it is difficult to understand why Colonial
possessions should be a burden to the countries that own them - an assertion
sometimes made to refute Germany's Colonial claim. The share of the United
Kingdom in the import trade of the British Empire went up from 31 per cent. to
42 per cent. within twelve years, and that in the export trade from 41 per
cent. to 49 per cent. The same tendency may be observed in regard to France,
where the share of the Colonies in the import trade of the mother country
increased from 10 per cent. to 26 per cent. in ten years and that in the export
trade from 14 per cent. to 32 per cent. Such developments could only take place
at the expense of other countries, largely at that of Germany. But even apart
from these facts, it is strange to hear it sometimes said that Colonies are of
no value. If that were true, the return of the German Colonies would be felt by
the mandatory Powers as a relief, and not as a sacrifice. In Germany it has
been noticed with interest that such a view of the Colonial problem has
frequently been advanced by British writers on the subject.
From
all that has been said it may be inferred that the Colonial question is not
simply a "raw-material question." There is no chance of Germany ever
being able to extend her trade unless she is reinstated in the possession of
her Colonies. The point of cardinal importance, in view of her foreign-exchange
position, is that she must be enabled to obtain from territories subject to her
own sovereignty, where her own currency circulates, a considerable part of
those raw materials and foodstuffs that have now to be paid for in foreign
exchange. In this way alone will it be possible for her trade to gain that
measure of security and stability which she so urgently needs in the economic
domain. Customs facilities and the removal of trade restrictions are
insufficient to do justice to her requirements, however desirable they are in
other respects.
Germany
asks only for the return of territories that were her own property before she
had to relinquish possession of them. She demands nothing unfair, and has no
design upon the Colonial possessions of other countries. She only desires to
recover those overseas territories to which she has a legal title. It is
evident that her claim is directed in the first instance against Great Britain,
whose Government was chiefly instrumental in depriving her of their possession.
In addition, most of the Colonies are now administered by countries that are
constituent parts of the British Empire.
It
has been shown that Germany has an unchallengeable claim to the return of the
Colonies, based on legal and moral grounds, and on the right of every nation to
safeguard the interests vital to its existence. This latter necessity is
especially urgent in Germany's case because of the many restrictions to which
her commerce is subject. Her demand is not prompted by a desire to stop up any
temporary gaps in the system of her supplies, but rather by a determination to
pursue a Colonial policy intended to bring about the economic assimilation of
the mother country and the Colonies. Her sole aim is of an economic kind; and
all allegations to the effect that she wants to turn her Colonies into military
bases are groundless. The Anglo-German naval pact ought to be sufficient proof
of the futility of such allegations.
The
great task with which the statesmen of the present generation are faced is to
establish a lasting peace among the nations. No Government anxious to
collaborate in it can want to maintain indefinitely a policy by which a nation
of 68,000,000 people is to be deprived of its vital rights. The Versailles
doctrine of the advantages to be derived from a system of arbitrary
restrictions must be abandoned, more particularly in so far as it applies to
restrictions that are meant to be of a punitive kind. Germany therefore expects
that the Colonial clauses of the Versailles Treaty will be made the subject of
a revision that does justice to her legitimate claims. The solution of the
problem must be effected by the method of negotiations, because - as the Führer
has said - "the Colonial problem is not a question of peace or war."
Once Germany has regained her proper share in the opening-up of overseas
territories, her economic system will function normally again and - above all -
a valuable contribution will have been rendered to the recovery of
international trade. Such a solution will provide the basis for the peaceful
co-operation of the white nations and will initiate a lasting epoch of quiet
development. It is the hope of all right-minded people that common sense - so
indispensable to all human progress - will prevail in the method of handling
Germany's Colonial problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment