The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1939. A DUAL DICTATORSHIP

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20056, 30 September 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1939. A DUAL DICTATORSHIP

The communique issued from Moscow following the talks between Soviet and German officials goes some distance towards clarifying the situation that has developed in Europe. It cannot be said, however, that the tension is in any way relieved, because, in the place of the former attempt at a Nazi dictatorship, there is now an obvious attempt to create a dual dictatorship to which the rest of Europe is expected calmly to submit. The attitude of this strange CommunistNazi alliance is made all too clear in the official pronouncement. “Following Poland’s liquidation,” says the communique, “there is no necessity for continued hostilities." In another place it is remarked that the agreement “denies the right of any third Power to interfere.” These two sentences are sufficient to disclose the astounding arrogance of the Kremlin and the Wilhelmstrasse. They are to be permitted to invade the territory of another nation, to destroy its property, to decimate its innocent civilian population, and to divide their illgotten gains between them, but no other Power must question their conduct or interfere with their actions. This means that the issues of peace or war are to be dictated and decided by Russia and Germany and the other great .nations are expected meekly to obey their orders. In other words, the democracies are coolly commanded to acquiesce in a policy of aggression and domination.

It must be clear to everyone that peace on these terms would be no peace at all, but instead would be a direct incitement to further invasion. Having annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, Germany next invaded Poland. Is it to be assumed that she would stop there? And what of her treacherous ally, Russia, who, hav-

ing given assurances of non-aggres sion, having expressed bitter antagoiv ism to Nazism and its policy of terra

torial expansion, and having given solemn pledges to Poland, waits until Poland is stricken to the ground, stabs her in the back, and grabs half of her territory? Nor is that the end of the story. Having tasted blood the Soviet, emulating the example of Germany, seeks another victim and courageously selects the smallest and weakest of her neighbours, Estonia, a State with a population of little more than a million people. It is significant that in this move Russia again adopted the technique of the Nazis, commanding the Estonian Minister to present himself at Moscow to receive an ultimatum which he had no alternative but to accept. In the meantime, it is true that Estonia retains a measure of independence equal to that which Germany .granted to Slovakia, but there can be little doubt that the State is already, in effect, a Soviet protectorate and that the pledges given her will be as valueless as those given to Poland.

Having established this new position, Russia and Germany consider the time opportune for a joint effort to end the war. Peace under such conditions, however, would mean complete acceptance of the principle of aggression, an admission that might is right, and for that reason peace today is impossible. A moment's consideration of the claim which Russia and Germany seek to establish will show how insupportable it is. Because Poland has been “liquidated” it is argued that there is no necessity for continuing hostilities. Because a Russian vessel was sunk off the Estonian coast the Soviet contends that she is entitled to occupy part of Estonian territory and issues an ultimatum to that effect. By the same reasoning, Russia and Germany between them could invade and liquidate Rumania or Hungary and, having reached an agreement for a division of the spoils, could “deny the right of any third Power to interfere.” If a German or Russian ship were to be sunk off the Belgian or Dutch coast, Germany or Russia, or both, could claim the right to occupy territory and establish military and naval bases within the borders of the State concerned. To accept “a dictated peace” on the basis of such spurious arguments would plunge the world into greater turmoil than ever before and no country would be safe from the

attempted domination of the dual dictatorship. The war, then, must go on; not a war between peoples who have few grounds for conflict but a war against dictatorial and militaristic regimes who seek to impose their will on the world and who flout all the principles of justice and decency. Unless the force of law can replace the law of force in international dealings the world will not be worth living in and civilisation cannot hope to survive. Britain and France are fighting for definite principles and until those principles have been firmly established they cannot, in honour, lay down the sword; if they cannot be established then it would be infinitely preferable to suffer the fate of Poland rather than to surrender. There is not the slightest reason to suppose,, however, that the new development of the situation will in any way weaken the democracies. On the contrary, the justice of their cause has been more than ever demonstrated, and on this occasion, as in the past, right will ultimately prevail. The new situation certainly lends force to the assumption that the war will be a long one, but protracted hostilities will give the Allies immense advantages, not only because of their vastly superior resources, but also because of the prospects of increasing discontent in Germany, and, most likely of all, the possibility lhal the alliance between Germany and Russia will prove as unhappy and unfruitful as it is unnatural.