Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Extract n.d. [before 9 February 1937 [1]]

GERMANY-QUESTION OF COLONIES

The first part of this memorandum summarised a speech made by the
Minister for External Affairs, Sir George Pearce, in the Senate on
13 March 1936 (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, vol. 149, PP.
119-123). It then went on to summarise a report on German colonial
aspirations by a sub-committee of the U.K. Committee of Imperial
Defence. This report concluded that there were strong objections
to the transfer of territory to Germany, but that, in view of the
desirability of a general settlement with Germany, the possibility
of a compromise should be considered. The sub-committee's final
conclusion was that 'Germany's desires could not be satisfied in
the colonial sphere either politically or economically, and that
such contributions as [were] possible in the colonial sphere
should be combined with an attack on the wider and more
fundamental problems underlying the political and economic
discontents of the world'.
The memorandum then listed developments to the end of January 1937
and concluded as in the extract below.

25. There are three considerations which the Minister for External
Affairs [2] would like to stress, as being of paramount importance
from the Australian point of view, in this question of colonial
territories, and especially late German New Guinea:
(1) It appears to the Minister inevitable, if Germany gets her
colonies back, that she will use the argument that the protection
of those colonies and the lines of communication to them
necessitate a much larger Navy than that allowed her under the
present Anglo-German Treaty by which she is limited to 35 per
cent. of British naval strength. A denunciation of the Naval
Treaty would mean that Germany intended to build beyond the 35 per
cent. limits, or even that she was contemplating entering on a
naval armament competition with Great Britain, such as obtained
prior to 1914.
In either case, it would restrict the effective British naval
forces which could be despatched to, or based on, the Far East, in
the event of a deterioration of the situation in the Pacific
regions, particularly if it coincided with European complications,
as it most likely would.
(2) If Germany Came back into the Pacific we in Australia would
have her as a very near neighbour. Australia realised the
undesirability of this as long ago as 1883 when Sir Thomas
Mcllwraith, the then Premier of Queensland, formally took
possession of the eastern part of New Guinea. The action was
disallowed by the British Government, and shortly afterwards
followed by the annexation of the territory by Germany. It should
be remembered that Germany was not a good neighbour in the past,
and that the German Colony of New Guinea had a disturbing
influence on our other near neighbour, the Netherlands East
Indies. Moreover, in view of the fact that Germany today
represents a most disturbing element in Europe, it is unlikely
that her presence at our front doorstep would make for the welfare
of the Commonwealth.
(3) The third consideration is the possibility of having naval and
military and air force bases, in dose proximity to Australia, in
the possession of a foreign power. This was always regarded with
misgiving by Australia, and was one of the reasons which prompted
the despatch of the New Guinea Naval and Expeditionary Force early
in the Great War with a view to removing this menace. The
provisions of the 'C' Class Mandates, whereby such bases cannot be
established in Mandated Territory, have, from the defence point of
view, been of great value to Australia and [this] has tended to
preserve the political equilibrium of the Pacific. It was, in
fact, recognised as an important element in the 'status quo'
provisions of the Washington Treaty.
The return of New Guinea would bring Australia face to face with
the conditions prior to 1914, but in an accentuated form owing to
the development of the air arm. It is hardly likely that Germany
would agree to accept any conditions about demilitarisation if any
former colonies were returned, and assuming that New Guinea were
returned the possibility of bases there being used either by
Germany herself or by an allied Pacific power, would lead to a
feeling of constant disquiet and insecurity.
In connection with the air problem, a recent statement attributed
to Dr Heinz Orlovius, the Press Chief at the Air Ministry in
Berlin, is of particular interest. In a newspaper article Dr
Orlovius points out that the development of air routes from Europe
to other parts of the world is being governed largely by colonial
political considerations. Germany alone, he says, is prevented
from competing on equal terms. 'The most superficial observer', Dr
Orlovius continues, 'must be struck by the anomaly by which the
very country that has reached the front rank of commercial
aviation, and demonstrated with distinction its capabilities as a
coloniser, is still concerned only as a spectator in the close
relationship between colonies and aviation', and he goes on to
describe how, nevertheless, Germany has played a large part in the
development of air routes in China and Brazil, has organised a
service across the South Atlantic, and is now planning a flying
boat service between Germany and New York.
If commercial aviation is all that he has in mind, Dr Orlovius
tends to refute his own arguments: the political implications of a
demand for overseas air bases must not be overlooked. [3]