The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1939. PEACE OR WAR?

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20027, 28 August 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1939. PEACE OR WAR?

Whilst the whole world waited under a sense of utmost anxiety, the struggle on the momentous issue— Peace or War? —was waged in a more intensified form by the diplomats of many nations throughout the weekend, It must have amounted to a grim battle of wits, with Germany most unwilling voluntarily to depart from her contention that an appeal to the sword would require at once to be made by her unless Poland yielded. Britain, and the other peace-loving nations, on the other hand, were resolutely maintaining that Germany, in the interests of humanity, should allow the matter in dispute to be decided in a conciliatory manner, in order that Europe should be spared the horrors of another catastrophic conflict. The fact that Germany re-armed up to the hilt mainly, if not solely, with the object of effecting an expansionist policy by force (should the execrise of intimidation on a grand scale at any time fail her) had, unquestionably, proved the chief obstacle to the earlier negotiations in the cause of peace being fruitful, and'more especially had this been the case on account of her action in assuming an air of invincibility. What may be taken for granted, however, is this: That Britain, on this occasion, again assured Germany that she regarded any or all of her claims open to consideration. It is also certain that Britain did not fail again to impress upon Germany that France and herself (in addition to most of her smaller neighbours) had all been most reluctantly forced to build up armaments on an unprecedented scale in consequence of their fears that she (Germany) might, some day, attack them. Let it be trusted also that Germany was reminded of the stern warning that Mr. Chamberlain uttered at Birmingham in June lost. "We. too," said the British Prime Minister on that notable occasion, "have been compelled (but, in our case, most unwillingly) to become a great military Power and our national defence preparations have now become so extensive that I can say, with confidence, that no other country, ,however strong, could lightly undertake a conflict with us.”

It would seem to be fitting, at this juncture, to stress what a prodigious difference it would have made to the world at large if the very widespread arid most fervent appeals that were made to Germany months ago to reconsider her policy of aggression had then resulted in a decision on her part permanently to retreat from the intolerable attitude that she had adopted and which has been so pronounced during the past few months. Such a decision would have meant not only an earlier stupendous victory for Right over Might but also that the nations of Europe would to-day have been pgain enjoying complete freedom from serious unrest. As it has so happened, Germany’s neighbours (with the sole exception of Italy) have, in recent months, lived in dread as to what might happen even overnight (as it were). If a spirit of peace had, at the outset, been welcomed by Germany and Italy they would have been benefiting to-day as much as any other nation. Let it also sincerely be trusted that it was brought under Germany’s notice that, if (as she had previously unsuccessfully endeavoured to make out) her huge rearmaments policy was undertaken only on account of dread of Russia, its existence could no longer be justified now that Russia had made a nonaggression pact with her; also that it was further adequately emphasised

that all her neighbours have no other wish than to live at peace with her. What should have impressed itself upon Germany long before now was that if she continued to pursue her policy of intimidatory aggression, she would be held guilty at the bar of world- opinion of having rearmed mainly in order to enable her to absorb or cripple all the weaker nations around her.

Why Germany should, so unrelentingly, have turned a deaf ear to all the earlier entreaties that were made to her is, however, not difficult to understand in the light of the belief that she had ulterior motives in so heavily rearming. It would appear that, when she framed her wicked policy, she aimed at making herself supreme amongst the nations; that her people only too eagerly accepted the belief that they would reap enormous advantages from its adoption; that, consequently, they willingly allowed many additional burdens to be imposed upon them. Time and time again, Herr Hitler had voiced to the German people what to him is a great historical truth--that when a race ceases to expand it must inevitably decay. Not the least disturbing feature of the sorry business is the fact that such a large percentage of the German people continued to have implicit faith in Herr Hitler’s leadership and in his plans. This has been shown by the wealth of enthusiasm which has invariably greeted Dr. Goebbels’ pet phrase—“ The Fuehrer is always right!” But the time for a show-down could no longer be postponed. Germany had to be called upon to make her choice —to retreat from her immoral and so widely disapproved policy of aggression or to stake her all as a participant in another devastating struggle in which victor as well as vanquished must again become dreadfully impoverished.