The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26th, 1925. QUO VADIS?

Hokitika Guardian, 26 February 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26th, 1925. QUO VADIS?

In the new issue of the “National Review” the Duke of Northumberland has an article under the heading “Where Are ae Going?” The Duke is always interesting, says a London correspondent, when he deals with such subjects as Bolshevism, and in this article he maintains that the two world perils to-day are Bolshevism and a resurrected Germany, or, as he puts it, “disintegration and disruption front within through the revolt against the existing world-order; and an attack front without by Germany, with perhaps the resources of Soviet Russia behind her. Two European countries, he points out, have had to resort to a military dictatorship in order to save themselves from anarchy, and in many others, representative government is being more and more imperilled; while the attention of the British public is being diverted from the German danger by the futilities of Geneva. “The plain truth is,” says the writer, “that we either had to leave Germany powerful and gamble on her future friendliness, or we had to ensure her powerlessness to threaten the peace cf Europe again. The logic of facts compelled us to take the second course, but we have never in onr hearts accepted all the implications that

course involves, ami lienee tlie perpetual friction between us and the French.” Thus a great many Englishmen are hoping for a drastic revision of the Settlement, with an idea that thus Germany will l>e reconciled. Supposing, he asks, Germany had won; that she had demanded the cession of Kent and Sussex, an independent liepublic for Ireland, the handing over of Wales to one of her allien, the occupation of the Tyneside, the loss of our fleet and overseas dominions? Can it be imagined that we should acquiesce providing Germany restored Wales to us and ceased to occupy the Tyne area ? ‘‘lf only people would face facts, have a little imagination, and try to see such problems as they appear to others, they would recognise how ill-founded are all such hopes.” >So clear is it that force is the only guarantee against a future war that we have pledged ourselves to go to war if any of the signatories to the Covenant is attacked. ‘Hut the strangest part of this business is that the most ardent supporters of the tremendous obligations of the Covenant, of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, and of flic latest scheme for compulsory arbitration. which would, if worth anything at all, involve the maintenance of colossal armaments, absolutely decline to consider the modest proposal to form an alliance with France and Belgium, and they do so on the amazing ground that it would entangle us in Continental affairs. It is. thorelorc. less entangling to guarantee some fifteen or twenty nations, whose security is little or no concern of ours, than it is to guarantee two, whose security is synonymous with our own! There lias never in all history been a more tragic loss of opportunity than during the past six years. X’o group of nations lias over in the history of the world held such cards in their hands as the Allies did after the War. What could not have been achieved had that Alliance remained m existence, cemented not hy paper covenants, hut by naval and military agreements! What influenefor good could they not have exerted on the world, what a sense of security could they not have given to it! We might have looked forward—we had a right to look forward—to fifty years of peace in Europe. He would lie a hold man to-day who would venture to prophesy that peace could be preserved for ten !’’