Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1939. WAR AND PEACE AIMS.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 5 December 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1939. WAR AND PEACE AIMS.

WIT II Ihe possibility now in plain sight that the war may be extended by Russian aggression into new areas in and beyond Europe, it may appear that, the opinion expressed ol late by both British and French statesmen that the time lias not, yet come for the Allies more closely to define their peace aims is more than ever justified. Even belore Russia had launched out upon her present course of action it was cleat enough that no road to peace can be opened while Hi lerisn remains supreme in Germany. It is recognised IreeH anti widely not only throughout the Allied world, but m many neutral countries as well, that the discussion of peace wit i a Government headed by Herr Hitler would be considerably worse than a waste of lime. It is also very necessary, however—cert a inly not less so now that Russian policy has'assumed so menacing an aspect—to keep in sight the conditions in which peace with Germany would be possible. As ’the London “Spectator” observed recently:— It should be made unequivocally plain that if j 1 s eems, as it must seem, that no peace is possible with an undefeated Hitle , that does not mean that no peace is possible with an undefeated Germany. Hitler and his gang arc outlawed, but a Germany which had cast off the Nazi incubus agreed to free Czechoslovakia and Poland and to respect the independence of small Stales should be able not only to achieve speedy peace with the Allies but to play a worthy part in what the “Spectator” called the reconstruction of an international society to preserve peace. There has been some rather eonlused thinking on fh«subject In the House of Lords last week, for example, FieldMarshal Lord Milne declared that it was a very dangerous attitude 1o take up that we were not fighting the German people. Since we are fighting the German people, it evidently would be foolish as well as dangerous to take up the attitude Lord Milne condemned. Tt remains important, however, that it is not by our desire that we are fighting the German people and that it is entirely open to them to bring the war to an end by overthrowing a Government which has imposed a vile tyranny on Germany as well as on other lands. With the danger raised that Russia may be embarking on a policy of aggression which will directly and definitely threaten, as the Finnish Foreign Minister (M. Tanner) has said, all Western culture, it becomes more than ever necessary and desirable to emphasise the grounds on which peace between Germany and her democratic neighbours should be possible. There should be no fear of giving in this way any grounds for misunderstanding. Hitlerism, with its own crimes; of aggression unexpiated, has become also at least a consenting partner in Russian aggression. All that is best in Germany, on the other hand, must be revolted by the shameless and brutal attack on Finland, as well as by the earlier subjugation of Hie Baltic States and the German and Russian conquest of Roland. Even those Germans who are not ashamed of the active aggression of which their country has been, guilty must be conscious of the humiliation and the danger to Germany involved in the later developments of Russian aggression, to which the Nazi dictatorship has given its approval. No weakening of the Allied war effort, and no failure Io appreciate the very obvious fact that, we are now fighting the German people, need be implied in laying just emphasis on the truth that there are now better reasons than ever for distinguishing between the Nazi dictatorship and the German people. The practical importance of the distinction admittedly must depend upon the extent which the German people themselves are alive to it.

THE RIGHT TO CRITICISE. JN his broadcast address on Sunday evening', the Prime Minister (Mr Savage) said that any person could criticise the Government as he thought fit so long as that person did not break the law. This, of course, is not a concession by the Government or the Prime Minister, but a simple statement ot fact. The whole question might very well have been left at that. All sections of the community, whether they are in or out of political office, are governed by the law oi the land, administered by the law courts, although it is true that members of Parliament enjoy a special privilege and freedom of utterance within the walls of the Legislative Chambers. The essential point is that it is the appointed duty of the courts to uphold and enforce the law and that it is not the business of any other section to determine whether the law is being observed or broken. The same broad considerations apply to the freedom of the Press. Observing quite accurately, in his broadcast, that the newspapers of the Dominion claim to stand for freedom and the rights of democracy, the Prime Minister added: — ‘lf they expect their claim to be supported they must be true to their own best traditions. The Government lias no desire Io gag the Press, and no intention of gagging the Press. Freedom of the Press does not mean freedom to ignore the principles of fairness or give prominence to baseless rumour or obvious misrepresentation that may strike a blow at the very heart of the nation itself. Broad agreement with these observations as to the obligations of the Press most certainly does not mean that newspapers, in the discharge of their functions, should allow themselves to be dictated to by any group, section, or party, whether the party in question holds or doos not hold tlie reins of political power. The duly of a newspaper is to discharge its I'u'nelions, subject always to the law, in aceoi-danee with the judgment of those by whom it is conducted. No government is mn it led to take credit for having no desire to gag the Press. It would be guilty of at least contemplating a. crime and a betrayal of dmnm-raey if it. had any other desire or intention. There has been of late a groat deal of general talk about the rights of freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press. For reasons that are fairly obvious, much of this talk has been rather unprofitable. Most people in this country tire broadly agreed regarding the pripciples that ought to govern the exercise of the right of criticism, on the public platform or in the newspapers. On the other hand, there is almost endless disagreement on the question of whether these principles are or tire not being applied fairly in particular instances. The reduction of this mass of disagreement in detail to eomplele and perfect harmony ■manifestly is tin impossible task. To a great extent, the public must exercise its judgment as a jury upon the conflicting testimony and argument laid before it. Where any breach of tin 1 Law is alleged, tin l matter is one for the courts, but it is no part, of the duty of any good citizen to attempt an unauthorLsed and anticipatory exercise of the functions of the courts,