Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY. APRIL 3, 1940. NEUTRALS AND NAZIS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 3 April 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY. APRIL 3, 1940. NEUTRALS AND NAZIS

—» * « TN one section of his broadcast address reported on Monday _an address in which he gave ringing expression to the faith and resolution animating the people of the Allied nations —Mr Winston. Churchill took up again the question ol he noliev and attitude of the small neutral nations that hate the misfortune to be neighbours of Nazi Germany When he s]loke on the same subject a couple of months ago Mr ( lime hi I mis accused of endeavouring to put pressure on the neutral nations The only pressure he has really employed, however, is that ol facts 'Having pointed out in his latest address, tor example, that the Nazi dictatorship is conducting a campaign ol murderous piracy chiefly against neutral ships, he added: And this is the monstrous Power which even those very neutrals who 'have suffered and are suffering most are forced to supply with S’™ SS nffi-ession. This is the Power even while thev writhe in anger, they are foiced and whose victory they are compelled to aid even though, as they well know, that victory would mean their own enslavement. There is not a word here that could be challenged honestly by Holland, Sweden, Norway or other neutral States adjacent Germany. Because they are impelled by their .fears to adojt the policy that Mr Churchill has pungeutly described as feed ng the crocodile—each one hoping that if he feeds the , enough the crocodile Will eat him last—the neutral. States mentioned are at once submitting to outrage and helping Naz. Germany to continue its campaign of outrage. An admission of the painful and humiliating truth is made inevitable hr neutral statesmen even when they seek to justify the police t'hev are pursuing. For instance, the Norwegian Foreiom Minister. Professor Kohl. was reported yesterday as savhm that Norway was neutral because it was her only possible noliev. What that'policy really amounts to could not be brought out more clearly than in Professor Kohl’s accompanying observation that the damage Norway is suffering at the hands of Germany is deeply resented, and the protests made to Germany against neutrality violations are as strong as the protests made to Britain. Germany is destroying Norwegian ships and murdering Norwegian’seamen. Britain, though she is accused on doubt ul o'rounds of some technical violations of Norwegian neutrality, is scrupulously respecting Norwegian and other neutral lives and propertv.' The protests made by Norway to Germany are, however, as' strong, but not stronger, than those made to Britain. Professor Kohl’s statement may be left to speak lor itself. All the essential facts are written large. The foreign policy of Nazi Germany is precisely that to be expected from a o'aiig of thieves and murderers. Since they have made only feeble'and formal protests against that policy and are continuing to supply Germany with the sinews of war, the neutral nations concerned stand convicted obviously as -accessories to the crimes of the Nazi dictatorship—crimes of which they are. themselves in an important degree the victims. Much as this deplorable state of affairs is accounted for by the weakness of the small neutral States —living, as Mr Churchill has said, in the cage with the tiger—the Allies manifestly are bound to set what limits they can to neutral assistance to Germany. Plainly, too, they will be advancing neutral interests as well as their own in. the extent to which they are able to impose these limits. Mr Churchill was not suggesting some now and revolutionary departure in Allied policy when ho rejected interpretations of neutrality which give all the advantages to the aggressor and inflict penalties on the defenders of freedom.” Air Chamberlain had already warned the neutrals that if they Would submit to anything rather than war, their policy would be neither realistic nor safe. It has been said justly by an. oversea commentator that: “If circumstances or fear force a neutral to aid Germany, that neutral is a German ally'. In other words,-a-neutral must either remain neutral or choose on which side it will tight.”

By an intensification of the blockade, including a sharper scrutiny of imports into neutral countries and. in other ways, it is no doubt open to the Allies to do a good deal to counteract any assistance given by these countries to Germany. At best, h'o'wever, the plight of the small, neutral. States living in fear of Germany is.pitiful, and until the military power of the Reich is broken these States no doubt will continue in great part to do'the bidding of the Nazis and io submit to outrage. Though they will set what limits they may to the abuse of neutrality, the Allies must in a measure bide their time. _ It may be hoped reasonably, however, that the criminal coercion of neutrals ultimately will recoil on the Nazi gang. Help that is extorted by savage intimidation, is hardly to be relied upon in the day of real need. That apart, the abominable treatment by Nazi Germany of neutral States now standing largely at her mercy surely may be expected to awaken in the minds of people in those States and in others an appreciation of the absolute necessity of achieving the development of international organisation that is needed to give Europe and the world peace and security in the years to come. AN ASSURANCE OF VICTORY JN all the Allied countries, any inclination to boasting or bombast in regard to the war is rightly discountenanced. At times enthusiasm breaks bounds usually in acclamation and celebration of valiant deeds like those of our airmen who have flirted with death in attacking Germany’s strongest defences and of the officers and men of the British cruisers, including 11.M.5. Achilles, which fought and defeated the pocket-battle-ship Admiral Graf Spec. The ruling spirit of leaders and people in the Allied nations, however, as it should be. is one of deep and cpiiet resolution. In our democracies an assurance of ultimate victory goes hand in hand with a determination not to be weakened or led astray by complacency or a belief that victory will be won easily. It has been said justly that the confidence which upholds the Alli.es rests not alone on the military and naval strength and economic resources of the two greatest empires in the world, but at least equally on their faith in the justice of their cause. Emphasising that allimportant truth not long ago an American newspaper, the “Christian Science Monitor,” added-:— No doubt it is true that many Germans are deeply and sincerely persuaded that in this conflict right is on their side. But between these two convictions there is a vital difi’erence. The people of France and Britain are free to hear and to read both sides of the case. They may, if they like, listen to Gorman propaganda, broadcasts such as those of the now notorious “Lord Haw-Haw.” In striking contrast to this the Germans are strictly forbidden to listen to foreign radio programmes. In Franco and Britain, Government and people share a confidence in the righteousness of their cause so solid that there is little apprehension that any amount of Nazi propaganda could shake it. Furthermore, accompanying this conviction is a deep-seated faith that right is might and will prevail. In that faith the Allied people can desire to do nothing else than onrsue (his war to its conclusion, even should that conclusion be distant. We may all of ns perceive for ourselves that the heaviest demands the war can make are vastly to be preferred to the serfdom the German people have themselves incurred and, in blind obedience meantime to their gangster leaders, are seeking to impose on the rest of the world.