Evening Post MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1939. THE ALLIES' AIMS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 116, 13 November 1939, Page 6

Evening Post MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1939. THE ALLIES' AIMS

In what is frequently described as a "funny" war, one of the most important considerations for a people involved in it is to know what they are fighting for and to keep those aims, once they are stated, steadily before them. When the rulers of the enemy State repeatedly declare there is nothing worth fighting about, that there is no use quarrelling about undoing the past, it is time that the aims should be repeated also to the people who have entered the war so that they do not allow it to become too much a "war of nerves" in Which they may let their purpose be weakened. For this reason the clear restatement of Britain's position in the war by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Information (Sir Edward Grigg) last weekend was highly opportune. He puts clearly in his speech British policy as defined explicitly by the Foreign Secretary (Lord Halifax) on June 29, two months before actual war broke out:

British policy rests on twin foundations of purpose. One is the determination to resist force. The other is our recognition of the world's desire to get on with the constructive work of building peace.

The first aim of British policy is to stop aggression, in this instance represented by the deliberate action of Herr Hitler over a term of years. The second aim is a magnanimous general settlement with a view to what Lord Halifax described as the "next task," namely, "the reconstruction of the international order on a broader and firmer foundation."

Much has happened since June 29. War has come and is with us, threatening to burst out into the full violence of which, with modern armaments, it is capable. The whole British Empire and the Republic of France are arrayed in all their strength against the menace of Hitlerism. Their policy in war^ remains as it was in, peace, with war then only a black cloud on the horizon. So Sir Edward Grigg comes to the first point: that the Allies are pledged to destroy Hitlerism, to put an end to a malign influence that threatened to destroy civilisation in Western, Europe. He rightly blames the German people for accepting Hitlerism, for, says he, "there would be no Hitler today if the German people were not susceptible to crhde and1 brutal leadership of the type he represents." No tyranny could exist long in any coiintry if it were not more or less acceptable to the majority of the people, and the only way to get.rid of such a tyranny as exists in Germany is to prove to the people of Germany, that it is evil to them as well as to other peoples. At the same time neither Britain nor France has anything to gain in the material sense by a continuance of the war. What Sir Edward said of Britain applies equally to France:

Britain has no territorial ambitions of any kind, and she has. no desire to maintain a position of exclusive privilege under which the exclusive resources she commands will be denied to the rest of the world. It is time, and more than time, that the nations of Europe regarded their civilisation in Europe and elsewhere as a common charge, and we want no exclusive control of the wealth of other continents for ourselves. . ~ . We want nothing but extending/freedom, a higher standard of living, ample abundant life for our own people and for all peoples.

Such are the broad aims of Allied policy on the long-term view without regard to immediate influences or emergencies. The appeal of the Queen of Holland and-the King of Belgium for an; early peace comes under the latter category of contingency. The replies of King George of Britain and President Lebrun of France to the appeal of the Netherlands' rulers make it clear that immediate contingency cannot be permitted to alter the defined policy of the Allies. King George quoted in his reply the words of his Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain) uttered at an earlier date, that the purpose of Britain's entry into war was that

Europe may be redeemed from perpetually recurring fear of German aggression so as to enable the people of Europe to preserve their, independence and their liberties, and to prevent for the future the resort to force instead of pacific means in the settlement of international disputes.

President Lebrun was even more explicit when he said:

France has taken up arms to put a definite end to the methods of violence and force which in tlie past two years, in defiance of the most solemn engagements and in violation of the pledged word, have already enslaved and destroyed three nations in Europe, and which today menace all nations.

What kind of peace, then, will satisfy the Allies? Certainly not an armed truce or a* compromise which leaves things much as they are now. President Lebrun defined such a oeace in these words:

* A durable peace, therefore, can only be established by repairing the injustices which force has imposed on Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, and Poland. Moreover, it can only be established to the end in which effective guarantees of a political and economic nature assure in future respect for the liberty of all nations.

Both tlie British and French replies

make it clear that in the view of the Allies it is Germany's duty to declare herself and state how far she will go towards meeting the conditions set out by the Allies. It would be permissible in a peace so envisaged to quote Sir Edward Grigg's definition as satisfactory to general world opinion:

We seek no dictated peace, but peace by agreement, in which all peoples, including the German, will play their part. We seek peace which is guaranteed by general acceptance, not peace guaranteed by the strength of two or three dominant Powers while other people remain weak and disarmed.

In other words, it must be a peace that includes the prospect of a reconstruction of the international Order foreshadowed by Lord Halifax.