1 PEACEFUL CHANGE OR WAR? 33[W]e should be forgetting our own warning not to neglect the psycholog-
ical factor if we flattered outselves that economic justice, by itself, would
suffice to extinguish the hungry Powers’ grievances in the colonial sphere.
The Italian, German and Japanese spokesmen would object, and this with
sincerity, that Man does not live by bread alone, and that it is therefore not
enough for the non-colonial Powers to be assured of an equitable share in
the markets and sources of supply and other economic assets of the colo-
nial Powers’ colonies. ‘We are not content,’ they will tells us, ‘simply to
draw our fair share in the colonial profits under sufferance. We want, in
addition, to have our fair share in the management of the Pan-European
colonial firm. And our grievance will not be satisfied till you have given
us our seats on the board of directors, as well as our tranche of the annual
dividends.’^106In Berlin on February 28 at the Nazi law academy, Toynbee, allud-
ing to the long-stated German sense of injustice at being dispossessed
of its colonies and indignation about the slurs that had been cast on
German colonial administration against the background of this dispos-
session, said that he and most of his compatriots could understand and
were sympathetic to the German view that the return of its colonies was
a matter of honour. Having said this however, Toynbee pointed out
that when it came to the question of colonial retrocession in respect to
Germany, British honour was no less at stake. Taking care not to be seen
as impugning the Reich’s capacity for reputable colonial administration,
Toynbee declared the following:
The British felt that it would not be honourable to transfer native peo-
ples to another sovereignty without regard for their wellbeing, as if they
were not human beings but goods. The British did not say: ‘We know the
Germans would treat the natives worse than we do.’ What they said was:
‘Before we transfer a native anywhere from British rule to that of another
Power, honour demands hat we ascertain in advance that the natives will
suffer no injury from the change of sovereignty.’ He felt that it was possi-
ble to harmonize the German and English standpoints on the question of
honour.^107(^106) Ibid., 47.
(^107) Times, February 29, 1936. Crozier notes that Toynbee argued that Germany’s ‘eco-
nomic problems could be relieved by the establishment of the open door principle in
non-self-governing African colonies and by the opening up of states on the American con-
tinent to German immigration. Germany should also be allowed some colonial territory of