“Taranaki Central Press” SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1937. NON-INTERVENTION IN SPAIN.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 329, 9 January 1937, Page 4

“Taranaki Central Press” SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1937. NON-INTERVENTION IN SPAIN.

After two direct requests by the British and French Governments, Italy and Germany have now replied officially to the original Note concerning their attitude towards non-intervention in Spain. The subject-matter of both replies is only what was expected, and from them three points stand out: 1. The lukewarm nature of both replies. 2. The combined antagonism to the Russian part in the conflict. 3. Ihe direct support of Fascist principles. Germany opened the reply with an immediate evasion of the points at issue. Why was it necessary to address a special direct appeal to its Government when that body was represented on the Non-Intervention Committee? Why should separate diplomatic action be necessary? Why should Germany and Italy be approached when they were the Powers who demanded non-intervention from the first? Italy, too, evaded a direct and immediate answer and admitted consultation with her fellow-I'ascist Power in drawing up her reply. SI ic also took the stand that she had done her best to prevent foreign volunteers going to Spain. She wondered whether the Non-Intervention Committee was worth retaining when its authority and prestige were being so rapidly undermined. I he antagonism of both nations to Russia is so definite as to be stated in the replies. The collusion is obvious when the political aspect is discussed. Germany says: “After an unhindered stream of Bolshevik elements have poured in ... a prohibition will now benefit only the Bolshevik party in Spain, which is obviously strengthened by foreign volunteers." Italy says: “Presently there will be an interdiction on volunteers only in favour of factions hostile to General Franco’s Government, which is insufficiently provided with foreign reinforcements." Russia is the black bogey of both Germany and Italy. Ihe Spanish situation is not the only issue interests of the two political creeds conflict, but it is one in which the Fascist Powers can direct a vigorous attack against Soviet principles. And that leads to the third apparent qualification of the replies. Germany and Italy look upon the Spanish war as one between the opposing forces of Fascism and Communism. As Fascist Powers they will support Franco, while Russia will, as begtting the protagonists of the Communist doctrine, lend its aid to the Loyalist Government. To sum up, both replies are quite unsatisfactory and express only hostility to Russia. Yet, actually, the Loyalist Government is not wholly communistic. Admittedly the Leftist element, by its methods of government, aggravated the position and gave Franco the chance he was awaiting. But a rebellion of the magnitude of that organised by Franco was no immediate uprising. It' was obviously planned for a long period before actual fighting commenced. From where, then, did Franco get his initial support? He stands as an out-and-out Fascist. He commenced the rebellion with a declaration of Fascism. I herefore, he must have had, at the outcome, the support of Fascist Powers in money and munitions. Russia knew this, and hence her open support for he Government. Then Germany end Itrly rushed in with active and apparent support. That to-dr” ; s position. Two Powers, Italy and Germany, have engineered the present civil war in Spain. Britain knetv this and France knew it. Their combined Note was the outcome, with a view to obtaining a declaration of the attitude, of those two Fascist Powers. Yesterday that declaration came. In spite of the evasiveness of the replies, the issue is clear.