Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1939. THE DANGERS OF BEING CRITICAL.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 3 January 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1939. THE DANGERS OF BEING CRITICAL.

TN the dying dayk of the old year, the British Air Minister (Sir Kingsley Wood) took it upon himself to find serious fault with “those who constantly pour condemnation on other countries with whom they do not. agree, and would seek to dictate to them how they should conduct their own alfaiis. Having said that such people would he the first to resent, interference with our own policy and democratic system of government, the Air Minister added: “If that is to be the policy of this country, the inevitable consequence will be war sooner or later.”

It must be said of these observations that a weaker ease has not often been stated in feebler or Jess convincing terms. Sir Kingsley Wood presumably had in mind the outspoken condemnation, in Britain and elsewhere, of the savage vendetta that is being carried on against the Jews in Gerjnany and Italy, and some other developments of Nazi and Fascist policy. If that be so, the. Minister is open to the charge of. subordinating principles, not only of democracy, but of humanity, to political expediency. Apart from the broad morality of the position, the suggestion that the cause of peace is to be served by say ing nothing about even abominable abuses in another country or countries is pitiably feeble and foolish.

As world affairs are ordered at present, a, British Minister who criticises the condemnation of other countries is virtually asking the British Press and people to side with the dictators against those over whom their tyranny has been established. There is here implied, too, an acceptance of the claim advanced, for example, by Herr Hitler, that the Nazi regime and the German nation arc a united and indivisible entity, t hat claim is made preposterous, however, by the facts of Nazi rule • particularly the complete and ruthless suppression of liberty of opinion and expression in the Press and elsewhere and the reduction of electoral privilege to a caricature and a mockery. The position that exists in Germany’ is, as one writer put it recently, that: “In the new Reich it is not permitted to disagree with Nazism or to express disapproval of its acts. Ihe penalty is prison or the concentration camp.”

According to Sir Kingsley Wood, if condemnation of other countries “is Io be .the policy” ol’ Britain, the inevitable conse.qncnce will be war sooner or later. This is meaningless il it docs not imply that the right, policy to' pursue towards the dictatorships is to abstain from all criticism of their actions and policies and to do everything that is possible to placate them. All recent experience goes to show, however, as might have been expected, that the policy of placating the dictators makes them more than ever aggressive and truculent.

In the extent to which the dictators are masters of their respective countries, condemnation in Jlritain and in other democracies of excesses and outrages in the totalitarian States perhaps makes in some degree for war. Probably, however, weak acquiescence in these excesses and outrages would make for war in an even greater degree. It is on. that, belief, that President. Roosevelt is said to have acted in. his recent rebuff to Germany, which led to the German Ambassador Io the United Slates being called home Io report, and in the unqualified support he has given to members of his Cabinet who have recently condemned the policy and actions ol: the Nazis in frank and sweeping terms.

. The Washington correspondent, of the “Christian Science Monitor” stated recently that the President and many officials at the State Department, are committed Io the belief that unless the Chamberlain policy is reversed Britain will become a second-rate power and its Empire a prey to German and Italian ambit ions.

They do not want that to happen (the correspondent added) because (a) they believe a strong Britain is essential to the future of civilisation and (b) they believe a week Britain would leave the United States exposed in turn to aggressive ambition. Therefore they are seeking to change the orientation of British policy as a move vital to American interests—selfish as well as moral.

As some American commentators have recognised, Britain is in a more difficult position than, the United States because she is much more deeply and intimately involved in European affairs. Strong sympathy with the American esifinale of Nazi policy does not necessarily mean that it is desirable or expedient that Britain should go as far as the United States apparently is prepared to go in making Germany, under her present riders, a pariah among the nations. Nothing, however, can justify British Ministers in making weak appeals in general terms for the exemption of foreign despotisms Irom criticism in the I less or on the platform in British countries. It has been said justly lhat if appeals of this'kind were allowed to prevail, fhe effect, would be tantamount to the establishment of a tacit foreign censorship of the British Press. It may be Imped that there is little enough danger of that shameful betrayal of liberty and democracy being accomplished in Britain. ,