The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1930. A PEACE OFFENSIVE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20058, 3 October 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1930. A PEACE OFFENSIVE

Having plunged Europe into a war which could not possibly have less justification, Herr Hitler’s main preoccupation at the moment seems to be to try to persuade others to stop the conflagration which he started. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that events have not moved according to the Nazi plan and that belated attempts are now being made to minimise the effects of tactical errors. Hitler has never said with greater truth that he desires peace, because it must be obvious to him that he cannot continue to wage war with any hope of success. His conquest of Poland has been a hollow victory which resulted in Germany losing a large proportion of the spoils and apparently sacrificing her position in the Baltic and the Balkans. Further than that, Hitler now finds that the war has been carried into his own territory on the Western Front and the psychological effect of this on the German people must be as serious to the Nazi regime as the actual military operations. Finally, there is the com-pai-ative failure of the submarine campaign against Allied and neutral shipping and the success which has attended the blockade of Germany. From a strategic point of view, Germany is unquestionably seriously embarrassed and it is equally certain that the economic position of the Reich is becoming increasingly serious. In the circumstances, Hitler’s plea for peace is understandable. Hitler’s major miscalculation appears to have been ,in regard to the attitude of Soviet Russia. It seems probable that he believed that the conclusion of a jjact with Russia would have such a psychological effect on' Britain and France that it would deter them from interfering with the Nazi designs in Poland. It is true that Britain, in particular, had made it abundantly plain that, whatever happened, the pledges to Poland would be honoured, but Hitler may have assumed that others would treat their pledges lightly as he has always done. There seems to have been little question that the action of Russia, too, took Hitler by surprise. Doubtless he envisaged the pact with Russia as having been concluded for Germany’s special benefit, but events have shown that the Soviet had other views. It is Russia, and not Germany, that has so far gained most from the alliance, and Russia, taking a leaf from Hitler’s own book, has made it clear that, having once adopted the role of aggressor, she proposes to continue a policy of territorial expansion. These developments, incidentally, give some indication of the difficulties which the democracies encountered in negotiating with Russia, for the inference is that the Soviet was far less concerned with establishing an effective peace front than with furthering its own nefarious ends.

Because things have not gone according'to plan, Hitler wants peace, but he will never secure it on his own terms, His State-controlled radio and newspapers are continually asserting that since Poland no longer exists there is no excuse for continuing the war and that the blame, if it does continue, must rest on Britain. Here, again, he displays a lack of understanding of the psychology of the British and French peoples who were finally goaded into war, not in their own special interests or in defence of any particular State, but in a firm determination to uphold the principles of international law. British policy is worth restating. It was first laid down, during the present crisis, in Mr. Chamberlain’s letter to Herr Hitler on August 22, when he said: “It would be a dangerous illusion to think that if war once started it will come to an early end, even if a success on any one of the several fronts should have been secured.” That is a direct answer to the contention that the “liquidation” of Poland has removed the cause of war. The position was carried further when Mr. Chamber-, lain stated in the House of Commons that the object was “to redeem Europe from the perpetual and recurring fear of German aggression, and to enable the peoples of Europe to preserve their independence and liberties.”

This objective has not been achieved and the war must go on until it has. This view was reaffirmed this week by Mr. Churchill who stated: "Now that we have begun, we are going on with the help of God and with the conviction that we are the defenders of civilisation and freedom.” Having set her hand to the plough, Britain will not turn back; indeed, she cannot, unless she is prepared to see the rest of Europe, and possibly even herself, brought under the domination of Berlin and Moscow. And the position of Britain is the position of every nation in Europe; their interests are all identical. Because of -this there is no reason to suppose that other States will lend their suport to a peace offensive that has no object other than to stabilise the

position of Germany and to leave her free at some later date to continue her policy of expansion. Italy, for instance, must know that if she permits herself to be used as a eatspaw in peace negotiations she will ultimately forfeit her influence with the other Balkan Powers, and Rumania cannot fail to realise that she, perhaps, is marked down as the next victim for division between Russia and Germany. All the circumstances and all the possibilities serve to emphasise the fact that this is not a war between particular States, but a war against tyranny and domination, and it is for this reason that the war must go on to the bitter end until freedom and independence have been firmly established.