Le Figaro
- THE BRITISH COLOSSUS
- General von Seeckt, Commander of the Reichswehr, Offers His Resignation
- KEEP YOUR QUARRELS AT HOME!
Le Figaro’s front page of 7 October 1926 previewed the Imperial Conference due to open in London on 19 October. In a signed column, Alfred Mallet asked how a small island of 40 million people holds together an empire covering a fifth of the globe. He listed the Dominions’ moves toward autonomy, from an Irish legation in Washington that Canada was about to follow to a South African flag, and pointed to loyalty to the Crown, economic ties and the fleet and its bases as what held the Empire together. A Berlin dispatch reported that General von Seeckt had offered Hindenburg his resignation after the former Kaiser’s grandson joined Reichswehr manoeuvres, and called the episode a blunder at a time of Franco-German rapprochement. Henri Vonoven’s editorial backed Interior Minister Albert Sarraut’s circular against foreign political agitators, including the rule that foreign-language posters must carry a French translation.
Translation
THE BRITISH COLOSSUS
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
THE BRITISH COLOSSUS
On 19 October the third “Imperial Conference” will open in London. It will be the event of the month. Like the previous ones, it is to seek every means of preserving, maintaining and strengthening the unity of the Empire.
Look on a map at the extent of the British possessions, which comprise one fifth of the earth’s surface and one quarter of living humanity. Consider, moreover, that the small island of England, with its 40 million inhabitants, dominates the colossal mass of India with its 300 million natives. A problem arises: how does this paradoxical association endure?
Yet in this immense Empire the forces of disintegration are numerous and active. Because of distance, first of all, the different parts tend to isolate themselves, to withdraw into themselves and to live their own life. Because of heterogeneity, fusion seems impossible between peoples so diverse in race, language, religion and climate. Because of its ubiquity, the British Empire confronts other nations at every point of the globe and presents points of friction or penetration.
These centrifugal forces, in spite of pessimistic predictions, have not so far gained the upper hand. Credit for this must go first to the “loyalism” of the Dominions. Respect, or better still the cult, of the royal family among all British subjects: that, no doubt, is the keystone of the Empire. And it is not without intention that the heir to the throne keeps multiplying his journeys to the Dominions and to India as well.
But this sentimental bond is not enough. England has known how to settle the status of its colonies with great liberality, and to measure out their rights and privileges with much diversity and prudence. The Dominions signed the peace treaty and became members of the League of Nations. There is no doubt that several of them wish to go further along the road of autonomy. Southern Ireland has established a legation in Washington, and Canada is about to follow. South Africa is demanding a flag recalling the old Boer colours. Canada, after the last Liberal elections, demanded the recall of the Governor General and claimed the right practically to designate his successor. It will be curious to see how the new conference will try to reconcile these attempts at independence with the necessities of association.
Even more than by a liberal policy, it is by close economic and political solidarity with the Dominions that England maintains imperial unity. The object of the conference is to study the means of developing the resources of the colonies and of increasing the offers on the part of the mother country. Modification of customs tariffs, use of the unemployed as labour, the need for new loans, acceleration of transport: all these questions will be examined.
Above all, Great Britain, through the power of its fleet and the creation of solid military bases from Singapore to Gibraltar, ensures the security of the Dominions in the face of the imperialist covetousness of Asia or America. To make peace reign on the seas, the constant principle of the Foreign Office was always, until 1914, to keep its hands free in Europe, and to that end to divide the continental powers. Since the Treaty of Versailles, it has understood that, in order to remain faithful to its fundamental maxim and not to have unfortunate European complications on its hands, it had to favour the rapproche-
General von Seeckt, Commander of the Reichswehr, Offers His Resignation
BERLIN, 6 October. – General von Seeckt, commander of the Reichswehr, has offered his resignation to President Hindenburg, who has not so far made known whether he accepts it.
This resignation, which will not fail to cause a certain stir, is said to have been provoked by the recent participation of the former Kaiser’s grandson in the Reichswehr manoeuvres.
The general’s career
General von Seeckt, a former minister of war, who took part in the Peace Conference as a member of the German delegation, has never ceased since the war, through the succession of governments and in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the Reichswehr, to pursue the reconstitution and improvement of the German army.
At one point, when Bavarians and Prussians were tearing each other apart in Munich and threatening to split Bismarck’s empire in two (late 1923), General von Seeckt received from M. Gessler, the Reichswehr minister, the mission of bringing the Munich tendencies to heel, and cut the figure of a dictator. Thanks to him – who already at that time was considered to be in thrall to nationalism – the seven regions of the Reichswehr were, it was said, imbued with the ideas of the Right. One cannot, however, reproach the general with any precise declarations on that score, for he knew how, while reserving his position, to avoid compromising himself through speeches. From a distance, his nationalism seemed to have faded somewhat.
He is reproached today, and rightly, for the participation of the Kaiser’s grandson, a possible heir to the throne, in the recent Reichswehr manoeuvres. At a moment when Franco-German rapprochement is taking shape and becoming more definite, it was certainly a great blunder.
It is probable that President Hin-
KEEP YOUR QUARRELS AT HOME!
Le Masque de Fer.
POLITICS
KEEP YOUR QUARRELS AT HOME!
A policy insufficiently national and lacking authority has, little by little, let it be believed that there was no need to stand on ceremony with France, nor in France. Foreign militants ended up feeling at home in our country and considered themselves free to pursue their politics here and to settle their quarrels among themselves here, at leisure.
On the eve of last 1 May, the Minister of the Interior – it was M. Durand – had already drawn the attention of his prefects to the agitation of these turbulent guests, who sometimes carried the ardour of their polemics to the point of murdering one another. 1 May passed without serious incident; M. Durand’s circular was forgotten, and the foreigners, ever more numerous among us, went on indulging in polemics almost compromising to our good name and in demonstrations disturbing to our tranquillity.
M. Albert Sarraut has judged that he must put an end to the abuse that agitators make of the hospitality France gives them. In recent circumstances, which have not been forgotten, opinion was unanimous in affirming our firm will not to restrict the right of asylum. But it is not tolerable that foreigners who amply enjoy all our liberties should carry their disputes over here and set up branches of agitation among us. It is not too much to demand this reciprocity: we guarantee their safety; in return, let them leave us in peace. Let them refrain from carrying their provocations even onto our walls; let them not take the liberty of condemning the measures taken by the French State to ensure order and calm in this country that receives them.
All the provisions of the minister’s circular are excellent. He orders that every poster written in a foreign language bear its translation into French. The onlookers, hardly polyglots, will thank him for it. These placards spreading their foreign idiom across our walls had an indefinable air of insolence and invasion. Will the obligation restrain shameless agitators? Will they not congratulate themselves on this extra publicity? Will these versions always be faithful? The official interpreters would do well to check.
In any case, that is only a very small detail. As a whole, the circular can only be approved. It marks the energetic will to act, and promptly, so as to obtain from our guests that they remember, on pain of sanctions, that our welcome is benevolent toward their persons as well as impartial toward their doctrines, but that they are requested to go back home if they insist on expressing their political feelings and stirring up their supporters. Intestine struggles – as the word indicates – are not articles for export.
Context
What the 1926 Imperial Conference decided on Dominion status
The conference Alfred Mallet previewed met in London from 19 October to 23 November 1926. Le Figaro called it the third Imperial Conference, while Wikipedia counts it as the fifth such meeting of the Dominion prime ministers. Its lasting product was the Balfour Declaration, which established that the Dominions were equal in status and defined Britain and the Dominions as “autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.” The formula was first proposed by South Africa’s prime minister J. B. M. Hertzog and Canada’s William Lyon Mackenzie King, the leaders of two Dominions whose autonomy demands the column listed. The conference’s conclusions were restated in 1930 and written into the Statute of Westminster of December 1931. Mallet wondered how the meeting would reconcile “attempts at independence” with the needs of association, and he expected it to deal mainly with tariffs, loans and labour. On the constitutional question, the conference formally recognised the Dominions’ equal status.
How the Dominions came to sign Versailles and join the League
Mallet offered the Dominions’ signatures on the peace treaty and their League membership as proof of British liberality. Those steps had left their status unclear. At Paris in 1919 the Dominions signed the Treaty of Versailles under a collective imperial designation, yet they were admitted to the League of Nations as separate members. That confusion over their international standing prompted calls for a formal statement of their relationship with the United Kingdom, which is what the 1926 conference went on to produce. The declaration also addressed the office behind the Canadian grievance Mallet mentions: it recommended that governors-general, the King’s representatives in each Dominion, should no longer automatically act as the representative of the British government as well.
Why Seeckt was forced out over a prince at manoeuvres
The Berlin dispatch left open whether Hindenburg would accept the resignation. A chronology of the Weimar Republic records that on 6 October Seeckt was forced to step down as head of the Heeresleitung, the army command, at the insistence of Defence Minister Gessler and President Hindenburg. The trigger was Hohenzollern Prince Wilhelm’s participation in a Reichswehr manoeuvre that neither the minister nor the president had approved beforehand, which confirms the cause the dispatch reported only as hearsay. The same chronology adds that relations had already deteriorated because Seeckt openly opposed the government’s Locarno policy. Le Figaro judged the affair a blunder because it came as Franco-German rapprochement was taking shape. Wikipedia dates the end of his term as army chief to 9 October 1926.
Seeckt's record in rebuilding the Reichswehr
The dispatch credited Seeckt with rebuilding the German army through every change of government since the war. In spring 1919 he represented the German General Staff at the peace conference in Paris, which fits the paper’s statement that he sat with the German delegation; the background sources describe him as a staff officer and army chief and do not give him the title of war minister that the dispatch uses. He was appointed chairman of the new Military Committee charged with reorganising the army under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, and he commanded the German Army from 1920 until he resigned in October 1926. Le Figaro’s suspicion of his right-wing leanings matches Wikipedia’s description of him as a monarchist who encouraged the retention of traditional links with the old Imperial Army. That record explains why a Hohenzollern prince at Reichswehr manoeuvres became a political issue.
Original
LE COLOSSE BRITANNIQUE
LES AFFAIRES EXTERIEURES LE COLOSSE BRITANNIQUE Le 19 octobre va s'ouvrir à Londres la troisième «Conférence Impériale». Ce sera l'événement du mois. Comme les précédentes, elle doit rechercher tous les moyens de préserver, de maintenir et de fortifier l'unité de l'Empire. Regardez sur une carte l'étendue des possessions britanniques qui comprennent le cinquième de la surface terrestre et le quart de l'humanité vivante. Songez, d'autre part, que la petite île de l'Angleterre, avec ses 40 millions d'habitants, domine le bloc colossal de l'Inde avec ses 300 millions d'indigènes. Un problème se pose: comment cette association paradoxale subsiste-t-elle? Pourtant dans cet Empire immense les forces de désagrégation sont nombreuses et actives. A cause de la distance d'abord les différentes parties tendent à s'isoler, à se replier sur elles-mêmes et à vivre leur vie propre. A cause de l'hétérogénéité, la fusion semble impossible entre des peuples de races, de langues, de religions, de climats aussi divers. A cause de l'ubiquité, l'Empire britannique s'oppose sur tous les points du globe à d'autres nations, et présente des points de friction ou de pénétration. Ces forces centrifuges, en dépit des prédictions pessimistes, n'ont pas eu jusqu'ici le dessus. Il faut d'abord en rendre hommage au «loyalisme» des dominions. Le respect, mieux encore le culte de la famille royale chez tous les sujets britanniques, voilà sans doute la clef de voûte de l'Empire. Et ce n'est pas sans intention que le prince héritier multiplie les voyages dans les Dominions et aussi aux Indes. Mais ce lien sentimental ne suffit pas. L'Angleterre a su régler avec beaucoup de libéralisme le statut de ses colonies, doser avec beaucoup de diversité et de prudence leurs droits et leurs privilèges. Les Dominions ont signé le traité de paix, sont devenus membres de la Société des nations. Il n'est pas douteux que plusieurs d'entre eux désirent aller plus loin dans la voie de l'autonomie. L'Irlande du Sud a établi une légation à Washington, et elle va être suivie par le Canada. L'Afrique du Sud revendique un drapeau rappelant les anciennes couleurs boërs. Le Canada a exigé, après les dernières élections libérales, le rappel du gouverneur général et réclamé le droit de désigner pratiquement son successeur. Il sera curieux de voir comment la nouvelle conférence essayera de concilier ces tentatives d'indépendance avec les nécessités de l'association. Plus encore que par une politique libérale, c'est par une étroite solidarité économique et politique avec les Dominions que l'Angleterre maintient l'unité impériale. La conférence a pour objet d'étudier les moyens de développer les ressources des colonies et d'augmenter les offres de la part de la métropole. Modification des tarifs douaniers, utilisation des chômeurs pour la main-d'œuvre, nécessité de nouveaux emprunts, accélération des transports, toutes ces questions seront examinées. Surtout la Grande-Bretagne, par la puissance de sa flotte et par la création de solides bases militaires de Singapour à Gibraltar assure la sécurité des Dominions, en face des convoitises impérialistes de l'Asie ou de l'Amérique. Pour faire régner la paix sur les mers, le principe constant du Foreign Office a toujours été, jusqu'en 1914, de garder les mains libres en Europe, et pour cela de diviser les puissances continentales. Depuis le traité de Versailles, il a compris que, pour rester fidèle à sa maxime fondamentale et ne pas avoir sur les bras de fâcheuses complications européennes, il fallait favoriser le rappro -
Le général von Seeckt commandant de la Reichswehr offre sa démission
Le général von Seeckt commandant de la Reichswehr offre sa démission BERLIN, 6 octobre. - Le général von Seeckt, commandant de la Reichswehr, a offert sa démission au président Hindenburg qui, jusqu'à présent, n'a pas fait connaître s'il l'acceptait. Cette démission, qui ne manquera pas de produire un certain retentissement, aurait été provoquée par la récente participation du petit-fils de l'ex-kaiser aux manœuvres de la Reichswehr. La carrière du général Le général von Seeckt, ancien ministre de la guerre, et qui prit part, comme membre de la délégation allemande, à la Conférence de la paix, n'a cessé, depuis la guerre, à travers la succession des gouvernements, et, en sa qualité de commandant en chef de la Reichswehr, de poursuivre la reconstitution et le perfectionnement de l'armée allemande. Un moment, alors que Bavarois et Prussiens s'entre-déchiraient à Munich et menaçaient de scinder en deux l'empire bismarckien (fin 1923), le général von Seeckt reçut de M. Gessler, ministre de la Reichswehr, la mission de mater les tendances munichoises et fit figure de dictateur. Grâce à lui, - qui dès cette époque passait pour inféodé au nationalisme - les sept régions de la Reichswehr étaient, disait-on, imbues des idées de la droite. On ne peut cependant reprocher au général des déclarations précises à cet égard, car il sut, tout en réservant son attitude, éviter de se compromettre par des discours. A distance, son nationalisme semblait s'être un peu estompé. On lui reproche aujourd'hui, et à juste titre, la participation du petit-fils du Kaiser, héritier éventuel du trône, aux récentes manœuvres de la Reichswehr. Au moment où le rapprochement franco-allemand s'esquisse et se précise, il est certain que c'était là une grosse maladresse. Il est probable que le président Hin -
LAISSEZ VOS QUERELLES CHEZ VOUS !
Le Masque de Fer. LA POLITIQUE LAISSEZ VOS QUERELLES CHEZ VOUS! Une politique insuffisamment nationale et sans autorité a, peu à peu, laissé croire qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de se gêner avec la France, ni chez elle. Les militants étrangers finirent chez nous par se croire chez eux et se considérèrent comme libres d'y poursuivre leur politique et d'y vider entre eux leurs querelles, à loisir. A la veille du 1er mai dernier, le ministre de l'intérieur - c'était M. Durand - avait appelé déjà l'attention de ses préfets sur l'agitation de ces hôtes turbulents qui poussaient parfois l'ardeur de leur polémique jusqu'à s'entre-assassiner. Le 1er mai se passa sans incident grave; la circulaire de M. Durand fut oubliée et les étrangers, de plus en plus nombreux chez nous, continuèrent à se livrer à des polémiques presque compromettantes pour notre bon renom, à des manifestations gênantes pour notre tranquillité. M. Albert Sarraut a estimé qu'il devait mettre un terme à l'abus que des agitateurs font de l'hospitalité que la France leur donne. Dans des circonstances récentes, et qu'on n'a pas oubliées, l'opinion fut unanime pour protester de notre ferme volonté de ne point restreindre le droit d'asile. Mais il n'est pas tolérable que des étrangers qui jouissent largement de toutes nos libertés transportent chez nous leurs disputes et y installent des succursales d'agitation. Ce n'est pas trop d'exiger cette réciprocité: nous garantissons leur sécurité; par contre, qu'ils nous laissent la paix. Qu'ils s'abstiennent de poursuivre jusque sur nos murs leurs provocations; qu'ils ne se permettent point de condamner les mesures prises par l'Etat français pour assurer l'ordre et le calme dans ce pays qui les reçoit. Toutes les prescriptions de la circulaire du ministre sont excellentes. Il ordonne que toute affiche rédigée en langue étrangère porte sa traduction en français. Les badauds, peu polyglottes, l'en remercieront. Ces placards étalant leur idiome étranger sur nos murs avaient on ne sait quel air d'insolence et d'invasion. L'obligation retiendra-t-elle des agitateurs sans vergogne? Ne se loueront-ils pas de ce supplément de publicité? Ces versions seront-elles toujours fidèles? Les interprètes officiels feront bien de vérifier. En tout cas, ce n'est là qu'un bien petit détail. Dans son ensemble, la circulaire ne peut être qu'approuvée. Elle marque l'énergique volonté d'agir, et promptement, pour obtenir de nos hôtes qu'ils se souviennent, sous peine de sanctions, que notre accueil est bienveillant à leurs personnes, comme impartial pour leurs doctrines, mais qu'ils sont priés de retourner chez eux s'ils tiennent à manifester leurs sentiments politiques et à exciter leurs partisans. Les luttes intestines - comme l'indique le mot - ne sont pas des objets d'exportation.