Journal de Genève
- Abdication?
- Against Compulsory Military Service
- The Policy of Rapprochement and German Opinion
This Geneva front page of 1 October 1926 led with an editorial signed J. M. which, at the outset of the referendum campaign, gave the paper's first reason for opposing a permanent federal grain monopoly. It accepted wartime state control of bread and coal as an emergency necessity but called a peacetime state import monopoly a dangerous leap into statism. Below it, Colonel Feyler attacked an international pacifist manifesto to the League of Nations against conscription, singling out its Swiss signatories Auguste Forel and Léonard Ragaz and holding up Switzerland's long practice of compulsory service as what had secured the country's existence and freedom. A Berlin dispatch described German reactions to the Thoiry meeting and Locarno, from talk of a Franco-German alliance to the Tägliche Rundschau's demand that occupation troops and military control be ended first.
Translation
Abdication?
to do a thing, one annihilates still more completely the sense of personal responsibility and the drive of individual initiative. We fully agree that, in case of extreme peril for the nation, the temporary surrender of personal rights into the hands of the State is a necessity: when, during the war, our population had to be assured of bread to feed it and coal to warm it, only the Confederation had powers broad enough to make the necessary purchases abroad and have them brought all the way to the island of peace that Switzerland formed amid the nations at war. And, since this daily bread had to be secured, the Confederation was entitled to demand of the farmers a more intensive and more extensive cultivation of cereals; it therefore compelled them to plough up meadows which at that time brought them more, and it had to compensate them for the losses it had thus caused them. And that is why, again, we considered it inevitable that it should temporarily assume the grain monopoly during the period of war and the immediate post-war period.
Today it is something quite different: the question is whether the State will definitively, permanently, become a grain merchant; whether it will reserve — to itself or to a company that will depend on it and resemble it like a twin sister — the exclusive right to import wheat from abroad. In other words, are we going to take a considerable leap in the direction of the statism that has already done us so much harm? Are we going to give the State enormous new powers? Are we going to restrict still further, to tie up ever more tightly, individual initiative?
The grain monopoly, which we shall study for its own sake by asking a technical expert to explain its entire mechanism to us, must, at the outset of the popular campaign, be placed within the general framework of the political problems that arise. It would consecrate a new success for statism, a new encroachment by the State on the domain reserved for private initiative. That is for us a first reason — and a peremptory reason — to oppose it.
J. M.
Against Compulsory Military Service
“Compulsory military service entails the degradation of the human personality and the destruction of all liberty!” This sentence is taken from a manifesto that various eminently pacifist minds have addressed to the L. of N., in order to obtain from it the abolition of compulsory military service in all countries, as a first step towards complete disarmament. Two of our fellow citizens have subscribed to the sentence reproduced above: a French-speaking Swiss, the honourable Professor Auguste Forel, at Yvorne, and a German-speaking Swiss, the honourable Professor Léonard Ragaz, in Zurich.
Have they observed accurately the people of whom they are luminaries, to be able to assert that the human personality is degraded there and that compulsory military service has destroyed all liberty there? No laboratory could lend itself to a more conclusive experiment, for no people in Europe has practised compulsory military service for longer or more faithfully than the Swiss people. It owed its birth to it and it owes its present existence to it. No later than 1914 to 1918, it owed to it — along with other circumstances, naturally — the fact of seeing the scourge of war run along all its frontiers without overturning them.
Does Mr. Ragaz who, professionally and cantonally, must know his Zwingli at his fingertips, see in this reformer the proof of a Zurich and Helveti-
The Policy of Rapprochement and German Opinion
Berlin, 28 September. (From our correspondent)
The policy of rapprochement continues to interest all circles in Germany keenly. And the Thoiry conversation, which brought out its character, is regarded here as the crowning of those of Locarno. It was inspired by the same idea, whose realization last autumn so fruitfully complemented the diplomatic conferences and gave them greater cohesion by bringing goodwill together. So German republicans regard this democratization of traditional methods as a pledge for the agreements still to be concluded. Today, they say, diplomacy no longer rests on the right of the stronger: it has in a sense been demilitarized, and strives, for the sake of peace, to untie the Gordian knot that the sabre once cut.
It is from this angle that German opinion measures the significance of the policy of détente and entente. And parliamentary circles regard the Thoiry tête-à-tête as established proof that mutual goodwill will arrive at solutions satisfactory to both nations. The road is marked out; but a great deal of work remains to be done to clear it. Certainly, various newspapers — even Germania, usually so level-headed — are carried away by their joy at seeing the rapprochement that has taken place and are already speaking of a Franco-German alliance.
On the other hand, the Tägliche Rundschau does not abandon a certain reserve and envisages only a “collaboration between the two countries, such as is taking shape in the economic sphere for the formation of an iron cartel.” For the moment, it advocates settling another question, that of the occupation, which it is important to resolve first, because, it says, “before undertaking this work of collaboration, which is a necessity not only for the two peoples but also for Europe, and before it can be truly fruitful, everything that hinders this collaboration and makes it impossible must be eliminated.” And the official newspaper concludes that “if, according to the unanimous declarations of Messrs. Briand and Chamberlain, the Locarno agreements are the true expression of a real resolve to have peace and to leave the road of suspicion, hatred and fear, then the occupation troops and military control have lost their reason for being and are nothing more than the awkward survivals of a bygone era.”
A line of reasoning which, from the German point of view, is not lacking in logic. On this point all parties agree. And, the fact is certain, German opinion is convinced that, the Reich having been received on a footing of equality in the Geneva Assembly, it
Context
What became of the grain monopoly the editorial opposed?
J. M. wrote at the “outset of the popular campaign”, and the vote came just over two months later. On 5 December 1926 Swiss voters decided on a federal decree adding a new Article 23bis on the state's grain supply to the Constitution. As a constitutional amendment it went to a mandatory referendum and needed a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons. It failed on both counts, but only narrowly among voters: 366,507 in favour (49.6 per cent) against 372,049 opposed (50.4 per cent). The editorial had drawn its line at exactly this point. It accepted the wartime monopoly, when the Confederation bought grain abroad and made farmers plough up meadows, but rejected a permanent state importer or a state-dependent company acting as one. A margin of about 5,500 votes shows how evenly the country was split on a question the paper framed as a choice for or against statism, though the tally alone cannot show what moved individual voters.
Who was Léonard Ragaz, the Zurich signatory Colonel Feyler targeted?
Leonhard Ragaz was a Reformed theologian who, with Hermann Kutter, founded Swiss religious socialism. In 1908 he became professor of systematic and practical theology at the University of Zurich. That is the background to Feyler's jibe that Ragaz, “professionally and cantonally”, ought to know Zwingli, Zurich's reformer, by heart. By 1926 the title “professor” was out of date, because Ragaz had resigned his chair in 1921. He was also a member of the Social Democratic Party and, out of Christian conviction, had opposed the First World War as an active pacifist, even helping to prepare the Zimmerwald Conference of 1915. For Colonel Feyler, Ragaz's name on an anti-conscription manifesto therefore fitted a long public record of opposition to war.
Why did Berlin see Geneva and Locarno as a turning point in September 1926?
The Berlin correspondent wrote just after Germany's admission to the League of Nations. Germany entered the League with a permanent seat on the Council on 10 September 1926, and that is what the article means by the Reich being “received on a footing of equality in the Geneva Assembly”. The Locarno Treaties of 1925 had committed Germany, France, Britain, Belgium and Italy to guarantee the Franco-German and Belgian-German borders and to respect the demilitarized Rhineland, with disputes to be settled peacefully through the League. The lead negotiators were Germany's foreign minister Gustav Stresemann, and Briand and Chamberlain, whose declarations the Tägliche Rundschau invoked, for France and Britain. Chamberlain received the Nobel Peace Prize for 1925, and Briand and Stresemann shared it for 1926. The article's claim that Thoiry “crowned” Locarno is the German press's reading as reported by the correspondent.
What were the occupation and “military control” the German press wanted ended?
Under the Treaty of Versailles, Allied troops occupied German territory west of the Rhine, and an Allied inspection regime supervised German disarmament. When inspectors found significant violations, above all of the 100,000-man limit on the army, the Allies postponed the first planned withdrawal, from the Cologne region. That delayed British withdrawal took place only in January 1926, after Locarno, so when the correspondent wrote, occupation troops remained elsewhere in the Rhineland and disarmament control continued. Ending the Rhineland occupation was one of Foreign Minister Stresemann's aims. The Tägliche Rundschau's argument, that Locarno made occupation troops and military control “survivals of a bygone era”, therefore expressed a central goal of German policy rather than one paper's whim, which fits the correspondent's remark that on this point “all parties agree”. Later events moved in the direction the paper demanded: the Inter-Allied Commission overseeing disarmament was disbanded in 1927, and the last occupation troops left the Rhineland in 1930, five years earlier than Versailles had set.
Original
Abdication ?
de faire une chose, on annihile plus complètement encore le sentiment des responsabilités personnelles et l'essor des initiatives de l'individu. Nous convenons parfaitement qu'en cas de péril extrême pour la nation, l'abandon momentané de droits personnels entre les mains de l'Etat est une nécessité: lorsque, pendant la guerre, il fallait assurer à notre population le pain pour la nourrir et le charbon pour la chauffer, seule la Confédération avait en mains des pouvoirs assez étendus pour effectuer au dehors les achats nécessaires et les faire acheminer jusque dans l'îlot de paix que formait la Suisse au milieu des nations en guerre. Et, comme il fallait assurer ce pain quotidien, la Confédération était en droit d'exiger des paysans une culture plus intense et plus étendue des céréales; elle les obligea donc à ouvrir des prairies qui à cette époque leur rapportaient davantage, et elle devait les dédommager des pertes qu'elle leur avait ainsi fait éprouver. Et c'est pourquoi, encore, nous avons estimé inévitable qu'elle assume momentanément, pendant la période de guerre et d'après-guerre immédiate, le monopole du blé. Aujourd'hui, c'est tout autre chose: il s'agit de savoir si définitivement, de façon permanente, l'Etat se fera négociant en céréales; s'il se réservera - à lui ou à une société qui dépendra de lui et lui ressemblera comme une sœur jumelle - le droit exclusif de l'importation des blés de l'étranger. Autrement dit va-t-on faire un bond considérable dans le sens de l'étatisme qui nous a déjà fait tant de mal? Va-t-on attribuer à l'Etat d'énormes compétences nouvelles? Va-t-on limiter encore, ligoter toujours plus l'initiative individuelle? Le monopole du blé, que nous étudierons pour lui-même, en demandant à un technicien de nous en exposer tout le mécanisme, doit, au début de la campagne populaire, être placé dans le cadre général des problèmes politiques qui se posent. Il consacrerait un nouveau succès de l'étatisme, un nouvel empiètement de l'Etat dans le domaine réservé à l'initiative privée. C'est pour nous un premier motif - et un motif péremptoire - de nous y opposer. J. M.
Contre le service militaire obligatoire
Contre le service militaire obligatoire «Le service militaire obligatoire entraîne la dégradation de la personnalité humaine et la destruction de toute liberté!» Cette phrase est détachée d'un manifeste que divers esprits éminemment pacifistes ont adressé à la S. d. N., pour obtenir d'elle l'abolition du service militaire obligatoire dans tous les pays, comme un premier pas vers un désarmement complet. Deux de nos concitoyens ont souscrit à la phrase reproduite ci-dessus, un Suisse romand, l'honorable professeur Auguste Forel, à Yvorne, et un Suisse allemand, l'honorable professeur Léonard Ragaz, à Zurich. Ont-ils exactement observé le peuple dont ils sont des illustrations pour pouvoir affirmer que la personnalité humaine y est dégradée et que le service militaire obligatoire y a détruit toute liberté? Aucun laboratoire ne saurait se prêter à une expérience plus concluante, car aucun peuple de l'Europe n'a pratiqué depuis plus longtemps ni plus fidèlement que le peuple suisse le service militaire obligatoire. Il lui a dû sa naissance et il lui doit son existence présente. Pas plus tard que de 1914 à 1918, il lui a dû, en même temps qu'à d'autres circonstances, naturellement, de voir le fléau de la guerre longer toutes ses frontières sans les renverser. M. Ragaz qui, professionnellement et cantonalement, doit connaître son Zwingli sur le bout du doigt, voit-il en ce réformateur la preuve d'une humanité zuricoise et helvéti -
La politique de rapprochement et l'opinion allemande
Berlin, 28 septembre. (De notre correspondant) La politique de rapprochement continue d'intéresser vivement tous les milieux en Allemagne. Et l'entretien de Thoiry, qui en a fait ressortir le caractère, est considéré ici comme le couronnement de ceux de Locarno. Il s'est inspiré de la même idée, dont la réalisation, l'automne dernier, a complété si fructueusement les conférences diplomatiques et leur a donné plus de liant grâce au rapprochement des bonnes volontés. Aussi les républicains allemands envisagent-ils cette démocratisation des méthodes traditionnelles comme un gage des accords à passer. Aujourd'hui, disent-ils, la diplomatie ne repose plus sur le droit du plus fort: elle s'est démilitarisée en quelque sorte, et s'efforce, en vue de la paix, de dénouer le nœud gordien, que le sabre tranchait autrefois. C'est sous cet angle visuel que l'opinion allemande mesure la portée de la politique de détente et d'entente. Et les milieux parlementaires considèrent le tête-à-tête de Thoiry comme une preuve acquise que la bonne volonté réciproque en arrivera à des solutions satisfaisantes pour les deux nations. La route est jalonnée; mais il reste encore tout un travail à faire pour la déblayer. Certes, divers journaux - même la Germania, si posée d'ordinaire - se laissent entraîner par la joie de constater le rapprochement qui s'est produit et parlent déjà d'une alliance franco-allemande. Par contre, la Tägliche Rundschau ne se départ point d'une certaine réserve et n'envisage qu'une «collaboration entre les deux pays, telle qu'elle se dessine dans le domaine économique pour la formation d'un cartel du fer». Pour le moment, elle préconise la solution d'une autre question, celle de l'occupation, qu'il est important de régler en premier lieu, car, dit-il, «avant d'aborder cette œuvre de collaboration, qui est une nécessité non seulement pour les deux peuples, mais aussi pour l'Europe, et avant qu'elle puisse être vraiment féconde, il faut éliminer tout ce qui entrave cette collaboration et la rend impossible». Et le journal officiel en conclut que «si d'après les déclarations unanimes de MM. Briand et Chamberlain, les accords de Locarno sont l'expression vraie d'une réelle résolution d'avoir la paix. et de quitter la route du soupçon, de la haine et de la crainte, alors les troupes d'occupation et le contrôle militaire ont perdu leur raison d'être et ne sont plus que les survivances gênantes d'une époque révolue.» Un raisonnement qui, au point de vue allemand, ne manque pas de logique. Sur ce point, tous les partis sont d'accord. Et, le fait est certain, l'opinion allemande a la conviction que le Reich ayant été reçu sur le pied d'égalité dans l'Assemblée de Genève, il