EXPECTED MOVE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20057, 2 October 1939, Page 9

EXPECTED MOVE

MOSCOW PACT NAZI AIMS OBVIOUS SOVIET PLANS OBSCURE BRITISH PRESS REJECTION “PEACE OFFENSIVE” (British Official Wireless.? Reed 9 a.m. RUGBY, Sept. 30. , The dominant note struck by the f press comment on the latest NaziSoviet move continues to be insistence on its inevitability and expectedness in view of the manoeuvres which preceded it. The Times says of the ‘ agreement: “Its terms contain a faint element of surprise in the degree of insolence and iniquity they achieve, but no other.” “At the same time, the potential significance of the developments culminating in what The Times call:-; “nocturnal bargainings and banquetings,” of"M. Stalin and the Ger - man Foreign Minister, Herr vo Ribbentrop, is not minimised. The Daily Telegraph, the Manehe ter Guardian and the Daily Heral all give serious consideration t. their implications. In all the editorial comment, a( tention is also devoted to what 1 ,

discribed in the press as the “peat : offensive.” ‘ The suggestion made in the declarr tion that the “liquidation of the pr<sent war between Germany on the on : j hand and Britain on the other is i' ; the interests of all nations,” backe by a veiled threat of “further consul tations” is regarded as one more de -; monstration of the fact that to the * present rulers of Germany peace * means, and has always meant, peaceunder duress. Peace by agreement maintained by goodwill, is beyonc their comprehension. Responsibility For War

The Times interprets the attitude of the declaration on the ending of the war thus: “If Britain and France fail to accept this view—that is to approve, ratify and guarantee the momentary profits of calculated crime—it will be proved that they bear the responsibility for the continuation of the war.” The feeling of this and other newspapers is that the responsibility which the Allies might be glad to. incur is. being free, as all the world knows, of any responsibility for the commencement of the war. The Manchester Guardian, for example, considers that if the Allies were to show any signs of yielding to the new threat, “we should suffer a moral’ catastrophe.” The Times says that whatever the “peace terms” might prove to be,’ “Nazism has left not the smallest ground .or foothold for negotiations. It has perjured away every possibility of understanding upon any conditions whatever.”

The Daily Herald writes: “What it is essential we should do is to make clear to the world the moral principles for which we fight. The reply we give the Russian-German peace offer when it comes, must be no hasty reply or one on which our position can be misjudged. Principles At Stake

“We went into this war on behalf of certain principles which we believe to be vital to the continuance of civilised relationships among nations. We abide by these principles. We may hope that in our endeavour to secure them we shall receive the support of civilised opinion throughout the world. And, in the long run, that support will be decisive.”

The Yorkshire Post thinks that nothing could be more cynically impudent than the statement in. the new Moscow pact that Germany and Russia have created “a sure basis for a durable peace in Eastern Europe.” It points out that this durable basis is “in plain language the complete dismemberment of Poland by two predatory Powers.” The Daily Mail asks why does Herr Hitler want peace and answers: “Be sure that he who plunged the world into war for his own ambition is not moved now by any thought of mercy for mankind. By his acts we know him and his motives. He wants peace because he thinks that if he could get it now, he would appear to the world victorious, Britain and France overawed and his own threat of force enough to sweep him on to world domination.

Dreaded By Hitler “He wants it still more because he has not yet encountered what he dreads—the real strength of Britain and France. Even at this hour’ there is already for him the Writing on the walj. He sees the seas swept clear of German ships. He sees the failure of the German submarine campaign. At his western gate and in the air agove him, mightily gathering with sure, steady purpose, come his implacable foes.” While the motives of the Nazis are held to be obvious, comment shows less certainty in the case of M. Stalin. Doubts on this and on the general political portents of co-operation between the Swastika and the Red Flag are summed up by the Daily Telegraph in the sentence: "Where there are no moral or political principles at stake and the only motive is self interest, the possibilities are endless and speculation vain.” ,

A number of writers, however, draw attention to the fact that in the new demarcation line of the frontier which, in general, follows the “Curzon line,” the Soviet has, with minor exceptions, adhered to what may be regarded as the ethnographical frontier. As The Times puts it: “Russia takes over, in the main, the White Russians and the Ukrainians. Germany acquires new territory with a population indubitably Polish.”