CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 220, 17 September 1934, Page 11

CORRESPONDENCE.

POINTS PROM LETTERS.

ORIGINS OF THE WAR

Professor Rutherford's address on the origins of the war was important because it presented to the public points of vi6w that are less familiar here than in Britain. It was also another welcome link between the, university and the community, which is becoming more accustomed to look to professors for instruction in matters of public interest. I should like to say that I disagree with a good deal of what the professor said, but it is very desirable that the question of war responsibility should be freely and dispassionately discussed and that opinions formed upon the fresh information available should be made known. Professor Rutherford's sketch was necessarily skeleton-like; one missed the flesh and blood that could only, be put on in a longer survey. I will not discuss the question of Russia's responsibility, but I would like to make two'points. One is the wider acceptance of the view tliat Austria was much more to blame than we have generally believed, and the other that Britain was by no means so closely bound to France as Professor Rutherford says. It i 3 noteworthy that in a current review Mr. J. A. Spender, the distinguished English publicist, who recently published an important work on the pre-war history of Europe, expresses the opinion that from October, 1913, onwards, "Germany was the horse and Austria the rider." It' is. exactly the opposite view that is generally held; Austria was the tool of Germany. Professor Rutherford says that Britain had bound herself to help France in war, whatever the cause. Asquith said definitely that France had been told that Britain would not back her in a war of revenge. Grey shows in his memoirs that France was given to understand, long before the war that unconditional promise of support could | not be given. -He could not bind the nation, for willingness to light by the side of France would depend on the nature of the struggle. "From time to time the same question'was raised, butj never did we go a hair's breadth beyond I the position taken in the conversation with- M. Cambon on January 31, 1900.' Grey goes on to say that in the week before war broke out "the most pressing appeals were made to us to promise help, but not once in all the arguments used to me did cither the French or Russian Government or their Ambassadors in London say or imply that we were under any obligation of any kind.' If Britain had been so bound, why did the -Ambassador almost go on his knees in' asking for Britain's intervention? Grey has been criticised from exactly, the opposite side; it has often been said of him that, had he taken a strong etand in the fatal week, he would have averted the war. But he could not take a strong stand. He could not say to Germany that Britain would-side with France, and for a very good reason. Cabinet was hopelessly divided. Not until Belgium was by Germany did the majority in. Cabinet close their ranks. If Germany had left Belgium alonei Britain would not have come into the war then. Grey and Asquith and their party in Cabinet would have been overborne. We have Lloyd George's own word for this, but it is not needed. No doubt Britain, would have been forced .in eventually, but it would have -been too Tate. BALANCE OF POWER.

THE ENGLISH BLACKSHIRTS. Your editorial of June 11 concerning Fascism in Britain cannot be permitted to pass unchallenged, If this is a true example, then the New Zealand Press must be terribly badly informed as to Sir Oswald Mosley's movement; for I do not believe that the New Zealand Press could descend to the deliberate misrepresentation that is the practice of the British Press in regard to matters appertaining to Fascism, and British Fascism in particular. As to misinformation, two insignificant errors demonstrate this more than anything else— first, your reference to the Albert Hall "disturbances" when you mean Olympia (the Albert Hall meeting last April was the absolute virginity of peace), and then the beautiful legend of Blackshirts rushing through the streets in open truck 3° flying Union Jacks. They are not open trucks, and I invite any person to give me an instance of one of those trucks flying a flag. All lurid embellishments. But to return to tlie Olympia meeting. You commit yourself to the statement that "it- is questionable whether such meetings should be allowed." Why? Are the Fascists —because fifty per cent of their meetings are attacked and these attacks ,liave been proved in court to be without more provocation than the wearing of a black shirt—to be denied free speech? Somebody will reply and fling the usual Hitler mud. But the British Union of Fascists are not Hitlerites. Neither are the Blackshirts S.A. troops. No, as a score of magistrates have said from the Bench diirinsr trials after anti-Fascist riots, it is a disgrace to the nation that people cannot go to hear the creed of a political movement of any type without fear of possible injury.' Not "heckling." "Unless a strong line is taken to deal with the attempts to establish some form of dictatorship there, is grave danger of further clashes . which might develop into something like civil war." How many times have the B.U.F. reiterated the fact that they.do. not desire, and. will not create, any form of personal dictatorship? Really, all this wild sort of thing (which is utter banana oil) could be corrected if the persons responsible for it would only spend a few-moments with a cony of Fascist policy. So many people believe it. Of course there will be further clashes. Anti-Fascists will see to that. "It may develop iJito civil war." Well, who will be to blame for that? The Fascists, because they dare to claim and defend their rights of free speech ? What else have they done? Never in the history of the movement (from October, 1932) has there occurred an attack by members of the B.U.F. upon any anti-Fascist or other political meeting. That can easily he proved. The regulations of the union forbid any member to even heckle. Or is it because they dare to defend that right of free speech? For. of the "provocation caused by the methods of Sir Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts," what foundation has the writer for such a wild allegation? Do you imagine— can any responsible person credit—the idea that Mosley hired the Olympia Stadium for the sake and purpose of precipitating a gory massacre among 15,000 people, many of whom were making their first acquaintance with the movement? Of course not. He is not insane. For -weeks before the Olympia meeting it was impossible to walk for fivo minutes through the. greater part of London without meeting a huge chalked invitation to "Smash Olympia."

The police escorted thousands of Reds in columns there. If those interested would look up the June issues of the "Daily Worker" and the I.L.P. organs they "will see it plainly boasted that the anti-Fascist had prepared to turn Olympia into a shambles. And but for the pluck of the stewards shambles it would 'have been. As it was, two stewards were confined for days in the West London Hospital and nine at the National Headquarters' sick bay. That is the official figure. Out of 120 people treated at the four first aid stations in the liall, all but thirty were in black shirts. I have in my possession the orders issued by the officer commanding the London area, which implores stewards to warn interrupters twice before putting them out, and then only to employ force in urgent self-defcnce. I can state with conviction and knowledge as an officer that no Blackshirt is allowed to carry any weapons whatever. If he does life is removed from the ■ movement. But hundreds of reliable witnesses, not political and interested enemies, have sworn that the Red hooligans were armed—n collection of weapons made by the hall employees after the meeting- included broken bottles, gas pipinor, razors, spiked knuckledusters and leaded clubs. Arrested belligerents were sentenced for carrying them. S. M. W. BROGDEN. London, .Tuly .27. MONETARY REFORM. | Only those people (referred to in my letter of August 18) who have read little [ but the pro-Douglas literature would be I so accommodating (or should I say 'shamelessly audacious?) as your correspondents are when they say they are content to leave those perusing these letters to decide for themselves how far the London Chamber's views (my letter of September 3) follow the Douglas analysis and how far tliey follow the nine points of my letter of August 24. No amount of argument by Mr. Power about the Southampton Chamber of Commerce will alter the official view of the London Chamber of Commerce as set forth in my last letter. The views of the London Chamber of Commerce and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce are the' fundamental issue which initiated this correspondence, but Mr. Power seems unable or unwilling to adhere to that point. Mr. Power, in one . of his previous letters, made an unsubstantiated charge of sophistry against me; but one would have to go far to find so many irrelevancies, misstatements, and logical fallacies in a single letter as in his latest effusion; of which the following are only some: — (1) Mr. Power says the "explanation" of the recent crisis in my reply of August 24 to Mr. Grose is a "purely monetary" explanation, sufficient in itself, if true, "to place the existing monetary system in a padded cell." Does not Mr. Power see that the chain of reasoning there set forth could be broken by merely removing any one of the nine factors listed, e.g., a reversal of America's tariff policy—which is not a monetary factor at ail? (2) U.S.A. was not compelled (as Mr. Power gratuitously assumes it was) to raise protective tariffs against the repayment of war debts any more than Britain as a creditor country last century was compelled to raise tariffs against the products of her oversea-debtors. (3) The crisis developed only five years ago. Therefore an "explanation" on the basis of a temporary "defect of. fundamental j importance" (the words of the resolution of the Association of British Cham-

bers of Commerce) like that elaborated in my reply to Mr. Grosjv is prima facie preferable to an "explanation" on the basis of a permanent "fundamental flaw in the monetary system," such as that alleged to exist by Mr. Power and other Douglasites. (4) But to what is all this relevant? Mr. Power seems to overlook that the nine points enumerated in my reply to Mr. Grose were adduced only to refute Mr. Power's and Mr. Grose's assertions that a certain conclusion could be reached only through the Douglas analysis. The truth of those | nine points (or whether I personally accept them) is no more really at issue for purposes of this controversy than is the truth of the A plus B theorem. What is relevant is that these propositions are such that they cbmmend themselves to a considerable body of people. (5) lam not acquainted with any pronouncement by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce ou the recent crisis that in the remotest degree resembles that attributed to it by Mr. Power, with his customary distortion of facts. Here again Mr. Power would have been wiser to adhere to the main point instead of seeking to introduce irrelevant issues. In this correspondence I have exposed the lenctli to which advocates of Douglas Credit will go in order to concoct evidence that Douglasism has weighty support from expert economists and authoritative organisations. The Douglas Credit movement in New Zealand must have fallen on evil days indeed when its supporters feel constrained to adopt such tactics. So far as I am concerned this correspondence has now served its purpose, and I am not disposed to waste further valuable time in idle disputation with correspondents so deficient in their Tespect for facts and logic. E. P. NEALE.