THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1939 ISSUES AT DANZIG

British commonsense seems to be asserting itself by the revival of discussion in London as to whether the Danzig question could not be settled by negotiation. The very suggestion of appeasement will, of course, be anathema to the quondam pacifists and self-called intellectuals, but their logicchopping has brought them to the absurdity of advocating war in order to keep the peace. The plain man cannot follow this reasoning. He cannot see why Danzig should in 1939 follow the pattern of Sarajevo in 1914. He realises, moreover, that whoever "wins" in modern war, all will lose more than any possible gain. Law and order, justice and freedom, rights and independence—all will be submerged in battle and may never be recovered. Danzig has become the testing ground for peace or war and, before the issues become hopelessly confused and compromised by violence, every opportunity should be used to compose the rival claims. To consider the Polish claims first —the German city of Danzig was for hundreds of years under Poland's domination because, placed astride the mouth of the Vistula, Poland's great river and highway, control of the city was a condition of Polish independence. The geographical and economic facts were recognised in President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which the German Government accepted in 1918 as the basis of a peace settlement. Point 13 provided for .an independent Polish State with a "free and secure access to the sea." Such access, the Poles argue, is vital to their independence. AVithout a sea exit, they would be shut in, exploited, and perhaps partitioned a second time by their powerful neighbours, Germany and Russia. Their trade could be levied and throttled without hope of succour.

Such in barest outline is Poland's case for the acquisition and retention of Danzig, and it is a strong one. The unfortunate and fatal flaw is that, in the act of securing Polish independence, violence has to be done to the integrity of Germany. The Corridor divorces the Reich from one of her oldest and proudest provinces, East Prussia. If "free and secure access" to the sea is essential to Poland, cannot Germanyinsist as reasonably on equal access between one part of the Reich and another? Is there not justice in her claim to a corridor across the Corridor? As for the Free City of Danzig, even the Polish Foreign Minister, Colonel Beck, admits that its population to-day is predominantly German., That has been the case for 600 years and more. Now that the Poles have built themselves a port at Gdynia with direct rail access, the Germans argue that the Danzigers should be allowed to realise their express desire to return to the Reich. Herr Hitler quotes President Wilson's principle of selfdetermination. He also shows by reference to the Rhine that a nation does not necessarily lose its independence because it does not control the mouth of its main river. The fact is that land - locked States do not necessarily succumb. The treaty makers in 1919 deprived three nations of sea access while awarding it to Poland. Nevertheless none can deny the desirability of providing a people of 34 millions with a window on the sea. Even Herr Hitler in his speech to the Reichstag on April 28 fully recognised this need. On the other hand Colonel Beck admits that ethnically Danzig is a German city and also the justice of the claim for better transit facilities between East Prussia and the rest of Germany. The problem still remains complex, but hero are some points of contact that could be taken as a basis for the negotiation of a full settlement. It would have somehow to secure Poland in Gdynia and protect her river traffic that would still have to pass through Danzig; it would also have to assure Danzig of a fair proportion of Polish trade, because the German city is utterly dependent on the Polish hinterland and complains now of the diversion of business to Gdynia. Complex as the whole problem certainly is, it is not incapable of solution. A few years ago men of all nations, excepting the Poles, were ready to admit and even to insist that it should be solved. The pity of it now is that any attempt to unravel a tangled skein must be made in an arena where the principal parties have already struck belligerent attitudes and within sound of marching feet. Even so, the sights and sounds may remind the parties of consequences and induce an accommodating mood. The Poles may mutter about German chauvinism and lack of good faith, but they themselves have charges to answer under both heads. The one disturbing doubt is the use Germany might make of the position if Danzig were restored to her in full sovereignty. Herr Hitler would probably be ready to give all sorts of assurances to Colonel Beck as he previously did to Dr. Schuschnigg, President Bcnes and Mr. Chamberlain. But once he gained the foothold of Sudetenland,, he did not stop short of final subjugation of Czecho-Slovakia. Installed in Danzig, with perhaps a corridor across the Corridor, he could choose his own time for cutting Poland's life-line and reducing her to vassalage. In Colonel Beck's speech a question is repeated like a refrain: "What is the real aim of it all ?" The bar to a settlement at Danzig is not the complexity of the local situation, but the doubt as to Herr Hitler's good faith and ultimate intentions. The question is whether the world can afford to I take another chance with him..