BRITAIN ROUSED TO RESISTANCE

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20911, 16 September 1939, Page 13 (Supplement)

BRITAIN ROUSED TO RESISTANCE

(Mr Donovan Richardson in Christian Science Monitor.)

Ik ANY ONE COUNTRY holds the key to the European puzzle, that country is Great Britain. Britain, not France, is the core of the resistance to German territorial expansion and to Fascist ideology. Politically, the immediate future of Europe lies in the relations between Britain and Germany. It was the British Prime Minister who flew to Berchtesgaden; the initiative in the new “peace front” came from London. Since public opinion ultimately rules in Britain, it is possible to estimate from what people in the United Kingdom are thinking to-daj what action their Government will take to-morrow. I spent seven weeks in England trying to do just that. It would be presumptuous to hope for a .complete plumbing of the “British mind” in such a period. But some years of living in England, the helpful interest of friends on the group, and the reputation of The Christian Science Monitor opened many doors to understanding. One thing must be clear to the most casual visitor. The Britain of to-day is a far stronger, surer nation than the Britain of last September. I was reminded of Milton’s words: “Methinks I see in my mind a Noble and Puissant Nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks.” Invincible may not be the word today, but Britain has taken tremendous strides in preparedness. She is putting £658,550,000 into arms this year. If the United States were to arm on the same scale it would be spending about five times as much as at present. In air defence especially has Britain gone ahead. Last January English friends were saying that Britain could never catch up with Germany in plane production and America must make up the difference. But by May the head of one of their largest factories told me they were already doing far better than expected, and there is reason to believe English production now exceeds German. More important is a re-armed morale. Many issues that confused the British people last year have been clarified. Indignation aroused by the way in which Munich was made worse than Godesberg and revulsion against the November pogroms, were capped by outrage over the final erasure of Czechoslovakia. The change wrought in British opinion when Germany went outside racial borders to occupy Bohemia and Moravia can hardly be over-estimated. I believe it is still under-estimated in “neutral” countries —and in Germany. The. ordinary Briton, who had said: “After all, the Sudetens are German,” felt his effort to be fair had been betrayed. And officials who had said: “If we will negotiate with Germany and appease, her by concessions in the East, she will stop seizing things and not threaten our power in the West,” had to ask themselves: “Have our calculations been all wrong? What assurance have we if promises are steadily broken? We must‘seek alliances and other guarantees.” Then took place what was described to me in the Foreign Office as a Revolution in British Policy. Construction of the “peace front” began and Britain undertook commitments in Eastern Europe which would have been refused to France a few months earlier. As earnests of national determination, conscription was adopted and negotiations opened for a Russian alliance. These moves have had popular support. In fact, Mr Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons that public opinion had been ahead of the Government in favouring a strong policy. Privately, Liberals, Labourites, and dissident Conservatives almost boasted that they were dictating foreign policy. A few of them expressed uneasiness as to the manner in which it was being implemented, particularly as to the slowness of negotiations with Moscow. But on broad outlines there was general agreement. And I believe that when the Government declares Britain will use all her power to resist new aggressions it speaks the present intent of the British people. Yet to leave it at that would be to present an incomplete and misleading picture of Britain to-day. How a general purpose is carried out may depend on how specific issues arise. When The Times said: “Danzig is really not worth a war,” such a protest arose that the “Thunderer” was constrained to explain that it did not mean Britain would avoid war if a violent solution were attempted, but only that a world war over Danzig would be a pity. Any war would indeed be a great pity, but would it be a war about Danzig or would it be to decide whether Germany is to dominate the Continent, and National Socialism is to supplant democracy as the most powerful political influence, in Europe? The fact that such a respected and influential institution as The Times could present the issue as a war over Danzig illustrates some of the difficulties of the British position. Here is the way it was put by one “realist,” a man who thinks in terms of haute politique: “ The peace treaties were unsound. They had to be revised. We were unwilling to appease the German Republic, give back colonies and arrange for a decent economic life. America must bear her share of blame for failure to make the League function and for trade barriers which led the march toward economic rearmament. As a consequence we have had National Socialism and unilateral treaty revision. We do not like it, but I prefer it to revision by war. “We cannot tolerate more seizures, but piecemeal changes, made by negotiation after a bit of bluffing, can go on for some time without endangering our vital interests. National Socialism is a Passing Phase in Germany; it will be ended or modified before the absorption of Eastern Europe is achieved. To build up a power sufficient to stop German nibbling we must make alliances with Polish, Russian, Turkish, Rumanian, and Greek dictators. That spoils the argument that we are defending democracy. If it is national interests we are chiefly concerned with; we should not risk a war and the probable aftermath of Communism on the assumption that the Germans will gobble Eastern Europe and then turn to destroy us. That’s why 1 want appeasement—a more strongly armed and equal appeasement—to continue.” But I should hastily add that public opinion in Britain is now so aroused that it would be perilous for a politician to express such views. Ordinary folk do not speak of national interests; they are moved more by feeling. For the most part this is expressed in the words of a Manchester railway porter: “ I was for justice for the Germans, but Hitler hasn’t stopped where he said he would; we can’t knuckle under any more.’’ Such people, if they are not Socialists, will occasionally question the defence of democracy by an alliance with Russian dictatorship, but for the most part their instinct is simply to defend their country by any necessary means. They arrive at the same conclusion as students of international politic.** who say that democracy cannot be strong if the democracies are weak. Probably the most vital point in the present situation is not the calculations of diplomatists but the fundamental responses of the people to the new technique of terrorisation. I think anyone who knows the English people is confident that under actual attack they would behave magnificently. But to-day they are living under the impact of undefined dangers and without the satisfaction of action. No one can understand without having experienced it, the effect of daily and hourly suggestions of impending personal peril and of threats already well advertised by those who hope to break civilian morale. During the. crisis over the Albanian invasion, I found British friends much less concerned than I about possible air raids. Jokes about the “Finsbury funk holes” (deep air raid shelters) and the general attitude of resolution, all the more admirable because covered with a smile, were impressive. Yet England is not a comfortable place today, and it is only accurate to say that in London particularly there was a distinct atmosphere of uneasiness. In no place on the Continent, not even in Germany, was the sense of tension so apparent. Plans for the evacuation of children, for food storage, provisions to turn trucks into ambulances—all appear necessary as a means of defence. But they contain constant suggestions of danger. Some people have questioned why so much of this sort of thing has been done around London, forgetting, I believe, that it is England, and London as England’s heart, which are particularly threatened, for they are the core of resistance. I found many British people taking precautionary measures, while still not really believing it was possible they would be attacked. One very astute French observer told me. that this made for confusion and dismay last September when the civilian population suddenly realised that they could be bombed in their beds. This is the way he put it: “We French .have always lived under

JUSTICE AND CLEMENCY Alphonsus, King of Naples and Sicily, celebrated in history for his kindness and generosity to his subjects, was once asked: “Why are you so kindly and favourably disposed toward all men, even to those most notoriously wicked ? ” "Because,” replied Alphonsus, “ I have learned that good men are won by justice, the had by clemency.”

Issues Clarified :: Re-Armed Morale :: Stronger and Surer

the shadow of an avalanche, we nave never known real security. But Britain has not been invaded for a thousand years. The British have not known what it was to be exposed to attack; the oak and steel ramparts of their navy have kept war from that green and peaceful land. For several years they have known theoretically that airplanes had changed all that. As early as 1934 the Prime Minister, Mr Stanley Baldwin, said that there would be full preparation in the air. But there was not. The British had not been able really to Sense Their New Position. “ September brought an awakening. Since then much has been done but I do not believe that the British yet quite realise their changed position. I am not sure what they will do when confronted again with threats of war against their homes. And remember there will always be a relatively attractive alternative.—some apparently small revision of the Versailles Treaty, which no one considers defensible to-day anyway. The British people believe they are ready to stand up under such double-barrelled assaults. They are sincere in their announced purpose to stand firm. But so were they last fall when the event proved that Hitler—or Von Ribbentrop—was in the final analysis a better judge of what they would do.” This is an interesting view, particularly as touching last September. But it would be a great mistake for those in charge of German policy to believe that they are dealing with the same conditions they had last year. To-day the British people are far more united. In addition, they had ten months more in which to become accustomed, like the French, to living dangerously. Moreover, this time they have —if the test comes over Danzig —specific commitments. They are far more courageous than they allow anyone to see and they are re-armed with righteous indignation. The manageress of a small hotel in Devon said: “ Everyone can see we have tried to avoid war and to do right. We are stronger for knowing that.” It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the public mind changes. Popular resistance to aggression depends especially on two potential leaders—the Press, and the Government. In Britain both sometimes say: “1l .vould be wiser for the people not to know this.” Whereas the American Press too frequently goes to extremes in exposing confusing and unimportant or personal “news,” the British newspapers frequently fail to give essential information. The self-censorship which kept the people so long in ignorance of the situation before Edward VIII’s abdication is well remembered. This spring the invasion of Albania came as a complete surprise to the English people, although newspapermen had had some information about Italian plans for several days and stories were printed in American papers. This kind of thing may leave the people unprepared for necessary decisions. To an American newspaper man it must appear to be a Chink in British Democracy’s Armour. Having studied British constitutional history in an English university and having a great admiration for British traditions of freedom and free press, I also found the habit of letting the editorial page creep over into the news columns more than a little disquieting. Where friends took only one paper they often failed to get all the news, and where they read several they sometimes distrusted all because the journals disagreed, not only as to opinions but as to news. I felt that the people of some other countries, notably the. Swiss and the Swedes, were better informed and were using a free press to better advantage in buttressing democracy. And while popular feeling has been pushing the Government, it is also true that on specific issues the Government can lead the people- To a larger extent probably than in the United States the English are accustomed to accept the views of the powers that be. A few weeks before conscription was adopted a public opinion poll showed 57 per cent of the people opposed, but another poll taken after the Government announced its plan reversed the majority. Some friends insisted that had the Government helped the people to understand the importance of the Sude.tenland, Britain would have been united and there would have been no crisis last September. If they were right the present efforts of Mr Chamberlain to be specific on Danzig and to explain that it involves more than a local issue should so unite and strengthen British resistance that National Socialist adventurers will take heed and there will be no chance of another Munich. Right here I would like to say a word to American critics of Munich: If you want to understand the British, if you think they should be ready to fight for democracy, ask yourself a few questions: What would I do? What have I done? Am I ready to support them, even with materials? Would Tbe ready—at the risk of being bombed to-night—to fight if Hongkong or even the Philippines were seized, as I say they should for Danzig? If they should have supported democracy in Czechoslovakia, can I let it down in France, and Britain? There may be negotiations to end a new crisis. But they will be on a better, more equal basis. If my observations in Britain are accurate, German expansionism will very shortly find that Threats Pay Diminishing Returns. The situation is not such as to encourage early hopes for the general peace conference urged in petitions signed by more than 1,000,000 Britons last winter. Popular sentiment is not in the mood for returning German colonies, though there are long-visioned Englishmen who believe such a gesture might break the log-jam and would in any case take much of the wind out of the “lebensraum” sail, and answer the sneer about “generosity with other people’s property.” Nor without more confidence is it likely that loans can be made, trade re-established on a decent basis and Germany enabled to obtain essential raw materials. It may be that so long as the present regime lasts in the Reich such hopes will be chimeric. But the best in Britain is preparing for such a time. Faced with the apparent imminence of another war and another bad peace, millions of Englishmen are searching for alternatives. They are more ready than ever before to rise above the narrow, racial, and materialistic nationalism which in all countries is the chief obstacle to a better world order. The British imperialism of a hundred years ago might have had few advantages in a struggle with the National Socialist imperialism of to-day. There are still weaknesses in British democracy—complacent acceptance of economic dictatorship and unconscious cruelties of caste —which any objective description must mention. And any liberal will gag over the regimentation involved in the present “war-time” emergency. But I differ emphatically with those who say Britain is going Fascist. Also with those who predict streamlined dictatorship will shatter British democracy and become the predominant influence in Europe. For Britain has broadened her base; she comes closer than any other nation to having a real “Weltanschauung” or world view. And in a basic struggle of ideas, the concepts of religion, liberty, fair play, economic opportunity, tolerance and international co-operation which obtain in Brtiain are more likely to succeed than are those propagated by National Socialism. Possibly I am not able to achieve complete objectivity in reporting on the present state of Britain, but when all is said I think there is essential truth in Sydney Smith’s picture: “Nations fall where judges are unjust, because there is nothing which the multitude think worth defending; but nations do not fall which are treated as we are treated, but they rise as we have risen, and they shine as we have shone, and die as we have died, too much used to justice, and too much used to freedom, to care for that life which is not just and free. . . . The Christian patience you may witness, the impartiality of the judgment-seat, the disrespect of persons, the disregard of consequences. These attributes of justice do not end with arranging your conflicting rights, and mine; they Give Strength to the English People, duration to the English name; they turn the animal courage of this people into moral and religious courage, and present to the lowest of mankind plain reasons and strong motives why they should resist aggression from without, and bind themselves a living rampart round the land of their birth.”

A NEW DAY Ne.ver mind what has been. Remember that every morning begins a new day—a day for fresh endeavour, a day that may and should be filled with hope and gladness. Don’t add to your blunders by condemning yourself too harshly for your errors and shortcomings. Better folks than you have made worse mistakes and bigger failures. Forgive yourself as fully and freely as you would forgive another, and go cheerily on, leaving the shadows of regret behind.—Anon.