Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1938. AN APPEAL FOR PEACE.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 30 August 1938, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1938. AN APPEAL FOR PEACE.

JN the studied moderation of its terms and as a statement of unexceptionable principles and aims, the speech, reported yesterday, in which Sir John Simon defined the attitude of the British Government towards the European crisis was entirely admirable. Any positive purpose served must depend, however, rather upon what to be inferred from the guarded words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer than upon what these words directly conveyed. Far from giving France the assurance predicted by a London correspondent last week—an assurance of British support in carrying out her treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia —Sir John Simon stated explicitly that, there was nothing to add to or vary in the content of the declaration made by Mr Chamberlain in March last. On that occasion the British Prime Minister said he could give no guarantee to go automatically to the assistance of Czechoslovakia should she be attacked, or pledge Britain to give full military aid to France should she fulfil her obligations under the France-Czechoslovakia Treaty. Although Mr Chamberlain added that if war broke out it would, be unlikely to be confined to those who had assumed such obligations, and elaborated this statement, the essence of his declaration was a refusal to guarantee British assistance to Czechoslovakia in the event of her being attacked. Sir John Simon has made it clear that this refusal stands. But for the fateful issues involved, it would be amusing to compare the varying and widely different interpretations placed upon the British Chancellor’s speech. Germans, foi; instance, refuse to accept the speech as a warning to Germany, preferring to regard it rather as a warning to Czechoslovakia. In Prague it is believed that the speech will restrain Germany, and Foreign Office officials in Paris also interpret the speech as a veiled and timely warning to Germany. One of the most interesting comments comes from Rome. The speech, it was there pointed out, does not herald a fresh pledge to France, which had been expected, “but Italy nevertheless believes it is a warning to Germany.” There have been other indications that Italy does not look kindly on the idea of an extension of German hegemony in Middle Europe by way of an attack on Czechoslovakia, but whether Italy could on this ground be divided from Germany in the event of an outbreak of war seems extremely doubtful. Apart from its being restricted in essentials to ,a reiteration of Mr Chamberlain’s non-committal declaration of March last, the weakness of Sir John Simon’s speech is in its implied assumption that the various nations concerned are or might be on the same footing in desiring peace. Having repudiated with emphasis the idea that war was inevitable, he added that: — He would rather proclaim the view that, if all ’ nations alike would do their utmost to remove the causes that might lead to war and would try to meet in a fair spirit all difficulties, from whatever quarter they came, war. was never inevitable. In a later passage of his speech, Sir John Simon expressed the belief that the people of all nations had a deep and abiding love of peace and that everywhere the man in the street desired to live his life in quietude and security. No doubt the love of peace is entertained as widely 1 and as sincerely as the British Chancellor has suggested, but nevertheless a million and a half German soldiers are mobilised at present, though their country, as Mr ’Winston Churchill observed the other day, is not. menaced. "Where Germany is concerned, Sir John Simon’s talk about what the nations might accomplish by meeting in a fair spirit and doing their utmost to remove the causes that might lead to war obviously wandered away from the realities of the situation that is developing dangerously in Europe at the present moment. If Germany were of the same mind as Britain and France in desiring to remove causes that may lead to war no problem would exist. Actually, however, Germany, under her Nazi dictators, has taken some reckless steps towards war, not only in her military mobilisation, but in a policy of deliberate provocation of which the latest example is a reported statement by the deputy leader of the Nazi Party, Herr Rudolf Hess, in which he denounced the “oppression” of the Sudeten Germans and declared that Germany was solidly behind them. An appeal to Germany as she is now organised and controlled to co-operate sincerely in peaceful effort is so far from promising results that it must be hoped that the speech of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is in fact interpreted by the Nazis, in spite of brave words to the contrary in Berlin, as a veiled warning of the kind that is not lightly to be disregarded.