The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBOUNE, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1939. “PEACE" REJECTED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20067, 13 October 1939, Page 6

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBOUNE, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1939. “PEACE" REJECTED

The statement made by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons yesterday may not have contained a great deal that was new, but it is of paramount importance because it represents the considered opinion, not only of the British Government, but also of the various parts of the Empire and of France. The attitude now officially announced gives formal expression to the unofficial comment that preceded it and makes it clear that there is to be no departure from the principles that were laid down when Britain and France, after years of provocation, decided that peace in Europe could no longer be achieved by negotiation. The war is to be continued until those principles have been firmly established. This means that the 'so-called peace proposals so vaguely advanced by Herr Hitler in his speech before the Reichstag have been definitely rejected. It is not likely that the attitude of the Allies will be misunderstood, because it has become all too apparent that “peace” on the terms offered by Hitler would be no peace at all, but instead would be a recognition of German conquest and an incentive to the Nazi Government to renew its aggression just so soon as advantage could be taken of the respite which it sought to obtain. This war, however, is a war against aggression and it obviously must go on until the fear of aggression is removed. Mr. Chamberlain succinctly enumerated the barriers to any agreement on Hitler’s terms. The first was the impossibility of accepting any peace that was based on recognition of German conquest. The second was that Hitler’s word had proved so unreliable that it could never be accepted and that the sudden reversals of Nazi policy gave it no permanency and created a difficulty in dealing with the wider aspects of Hitler’s proposals. A third point was that the Allies were determined on a real peace and were not prepared to accept an uneasy truce. These things are all directly related. If peace were concluded on Hitler’s terms what guarantee is there that it would be maintained? Even if Hitler’s sincerity could be assumed, which is doubtful, what would there be to prevent him changing his policy and embarking on a new course? Obviously there is nothing, and this being so there would be no greater permanency in European relations in the future than there has been in the past few years. It is for this stability and security that the Allies are fighting, not merely, as Mr. Chamberlain observed, to secure a victory over Germany, which is incidental to the real issue, but to secure freedom for all peoples and to create a- better and more stable international system. It was for this that Britain entered the war and she must remain in it until that objective is achieved.

The Prime Minister's remarks' served to emphasise the extent to which Hitler has endeavoured to establish a dictatorship over the whole of Europe. On more than one occasion, he pointed out, Germany had rejected all peace proposals and refused any reasonable negotiation until it had completed its aggression and conquest Then, having secured its ends it sought to have peace established. The position thus created was aptly described by the Leader of the Opposition who said that, in effect, Britain was being asked to condone a crime and trust a criminal. That is exactly the position. The annexations of Austria, Czechoslovakia, aand Poland were three instances of blatant robbery, and, in the case of Poland, the robbery v/as accompanied by the most brutal violence. After each crime the criminal gave definite and precise assurances ;that he had reformed and that he would not offend again. Is it reasonable, in the face of this record, that he should be trusted again? Or is it not the case that he has forfeited all right to the respedt of society and that it is imperative that whatever steps may be necessary should be taken to ensure that he is incapable of continuing his career of crime? After all, the policy of Britain and France, is ithe only common sense one, and the one that would be followed in any community which desired the preservation of law and order.

It is significant that while Mr. Chamberlain rejected Hitler’s proposals he did not close the door to the negotiation of peace on a jusi and equitable basis. He, conceded that Germany had a rightful place in Europe, but pointed out that other countries, also, had just claims which must bo considered and that these could not be determined by Germany alone. All the unrest of recent years has been due to the actions of Germany in seeking to dictate the rights of all countries, or, as M. Daladier said the other day, in attempting to re-make the map of Europe without giving consideration to the rights of peoples. If this policy were accepted by other Powers there could be no peace, no security, and no progress, and, so far, Hitler has offered no alternative policy. His proposals are not peace proposals at all but could

only result in a continued state of

anarchy throughout the world. He claims that Germany has been wronged but ignores the wrongs that he has inflicted on other peoples and assumes that there should be no question of these wrongs being righted. In these circumstances, the Allied decision to continue the war has been forced upon them and that decision must remain unaltered until such time, as Mr. Chamberlain says, that the German Government, by definite acts and effective measures, gives assurances that will re-eStablish confidence in Europe.