“FRANTIC FURY”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20069, 16 October 1939, Page 9

“FRANTIC FURY”

NAZI REACTION BRITISH REJECTION HITLER’S PEACE TERMS “FANTASTIC PERVERSION” LONDON COUNTERBLAST (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (British Official SVireles/ ) Reed. 9 a.m. RUGBY, Oct. 14. The morning newspapers deal with the German reactions to the speech by the Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in reply to Herr Hitler’s peace proposals. The News Chronicle, commenting on the Nazi official statement that the speech is “an insult to Germany” and that Britain’s object is to “destroy the German people,” asks why, if this be so, the free publication of Mr. Chamberlain’s speech was held up in Germany and. whether it is customary to suppress an enemy’s insults. “It would be difficult,” said the News Chronicle, “to invent a more fantastic perversion. Take one sentence in the Prime Minister’s speech: 'I am certain that all the peoples of Europe, including the people of Germany, long for peace—a peace which will ’ enable them to live their lives without fear and to devote their energies and gifts to the development of their culture, the pursuit of their ideals and the improvement of their material prosperity.’ Does that sound like a threat to destroy the German people? Is that insulting?” The Daily Telegraph says: “Judging by tiiO reactions which he excited, Mr. Chamberlain has every reason to be satisfied with the reply he made to Herr Hitler’s so-called peace proposals. The speech was applauded in France and the Dominions and almost unreservedly approved by neutrals, including the United States. Not even the Rome radio was hostile. Iri noting that Mr. Chamberlain, while maintaining his viewpoint, did not definitely reject the possibility of peace, an Italian commentator declares that ‘ltaly’s position as a neutral remains unchanged.’ Violent Contrast “Violently contrasted with this manifestation of neutral countries is the of frantic fury in Germany—a fury embittered, it seems, by painful disillusionment. Evidently Germany persuaded itself that France and Britain would collapse at a blast of Hitler trumpets like the walls of Jericho falling before the trumpets of Joshua. It was complacently supposed that Poland, having been crushed and dismembered, nothing remained but to celebrate one more characteristic Hitler triumph and to assimilate the spoil at leisure before staging another smash-and-grab assault upon a neighbour’s freedom.” The Daily Telegraph adds: “If Herr Hitler were sincere in his desire for a stable peace, he could tind in Mr. Chamberlain’s reply ample opportunity for putting forward proposals worthy of consideration. If he is not sincere, then it would be in the last degrse imprudent to be drawn into the net of mere make-believe negotiations.” Appreciation of British Policy The Daily Herald says: “Fortunately, in the rest of the world where the writ of Hitlerism does not run the purpose of British policy is understood and appreciated. Some day it Zjili be understood by the people of Germany also, and then it will be possible to negotiate with free men and women of a new Reich a decent and lasting peace.” The Portuguese newspaper Voz expresses the view that Herr Hitler’s peace offer was one basis that Britain and France could not accept with honour. A Sofia newspaper emphasises the British and French determination to

oppose force, and pays a tribute to the peace efforts of Mr. Chamberlain. The Swiss press is nearly unanimous in its interpretation, as a result of the declarations of Herr Hitler, M. Daladier and Mr. Chamberlain, in the sense that “peace” now depends on Germany. “Rushing to Destruction” Reviewing the position as it is left by the firm British statement, the Swedish newspaper Tidningen says: ! “The only thing certain is that Germany is rushing to destruction. A sense of impending doom in this, as in other cases, is likely to drive to counsels of despair.” ! The Danish paper Social Demokratin regards Mr. Chamberlain’s speech as a clear rejection of Herr Hitler's proposals without being violent. It does not preclude all negotiations in this newspaper’s view, but defines specific conditions on which peace would be possible. A message from Bucharest states that the Rumanian paper Universal says that Mr. Chamberlain's speech makes it clear that his three conditions for peace are: Firstly, the restoration of Poland and Czechoslovakia; secondly, real guarantees against further aggression, and, thirdly, restoration of confidence, which the present German Government is incapable of doing. A further condition is that Germany shall renounce further successes in eastern Europe. This newspaper takes the view that the Rumanian Government is of the opinion that the German “peace offensive” is misplaced, and it is plain that the Western Powers draw a clear distinction between the German Government and the German people!