The Dominion TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1940. A RUDE AWAKENING

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 189, 7 May 1940, Page 6

The Dominion TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1940. A RUDE AWAKENING

One outstanding moral of recent events is the fact that neutrality in the present war offers no guarantee of security. In spite of various warnings from the Allies concerning the danger of their position, the group of Western European States united in what was known as the Oslo Pact of Neutrality have steadfastly adhered to the principles of action agreed upon at the conferences held at Oslo. The signatories to the pact were Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. In spite of extreme provocation endured from Germany’s ruthless attacks on neutral shipping, they refused to abandon their policy of strict neutrality. The fate of Finland, Denmark and Norway has been for all of them a rude awakening. The statement broadcast by Dr. Koht, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, and published today, tells the story of his country s disillusionment. “It has been complained,” he says, “that we were too strictly neutral. That is the best proof of our neutrality.” Yet what happened? Five hours after German forces had occupied important strategic points in Norway, the Norwegian Government was handed a 13-point ultimatum, acceptance of which would have involved the complete surrender of the sovereign rights of the State. But the Noiwegian Government was given no opportunity of even considering and replying to the demands. The country was already in the hands of the invaders, who had seized all points of communication in Southern Norway, controlling the Post and Telegraph system, the radio, and transport, and the police. Dr. Koht fairly admits that help (rom Allies could not, in the circumstances, have an immediate effect. “We were not armed as we ought to have been,” he adds regretfully, and we must take all the responsibility for this.” It has been pointed out that the Allies could not, even although aware of danger threatening neutral States, intervene unasked. But in adhering to this diplomatically “correct” attitude they themselves have become exposed to risks through the failure of those States to take adequate measures to defend their neutrality. • Norway, on Dr. Koht’s own admission, was ill-prepared to resist an attack on her neutrality, and has paid the penalty for relying too much on Germany’s previous assurances. Similarly, Denmark accepted the assurance of the German Minister at Copenhagen that his Government had no intention of interfering with her and the very next day was in Nazi occupation. As the result of these happenings the plans of the Allies have been disarranged, and new complications introduced which have added to the difficulties of their task. The question might well be asked: Can they afford to have their position jeopardized by similar happenings elsewhere? Obviously not. Gentlemanly manners and diplomatic niceties are ill-suited to dealings with gangsters. There is appropriate significance, therefore, in the remark of a British Third Sea Lord, Admiral Fraser, that there is a need for Britain to be “quicker off the mark,” both in the civilian and the military sense. Fortunately, though rather late in the day, other neutral European States, warned by the fate which has befallen Finland, Denmark and Norway, have at last appreciated the real danger of their position, and are taking measures to root out all foreigners suspected of subversive activities. A great deal of mischief, however, may have already been done by the enemy’s secret agents and organizations, and the utmost vigilance and preparedness will be necessary in the future. But it should be clear by this time that no neutral State can be certain of immunity from attack, and the best assurance of future safety obviously lies in coming to an early understanding with the Allies regarding measures for assistance and protection in case of emergency.