BRITAIN IN TO-DAY'S WORLD

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22657, 11 March 1939, Page 14

BRITAIN IN TO-DAY'S WORLD

When Mr Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, returned from Munich at the beginning of October, 1938, he was received enthusiastically by most of his colleagues, by the plaudits of the multitude, and with feelings of shame and anxiety .by an informed minority. On his return from Rome the other day, nono of his colleagues awaited him at Victoria ' Station, though a small crowd gathered, or had been gathered, to greet him. Shortly afterwards, the British Radio Corporation, which is careful not to lend itself to criticism of the Government, allowed a commentator on ■ British policy to say that the outcome of the Prime Minister’s visit to Rome had been received with relief since, as far as could be judged, no harm had been done. The informed minority, and a growing proportion of the general public, are not yet sure that the Rome visit did no harm. They feel that the decision of the French Government not to accept British “mediation’” may have prevented great harm; but they are not sure that Mr Chamberlain failed to accept at their face value the assurances which Signor Mussolini gave him. They hear an unpleasant ring ox truth in an observation made by the editor of an important American review that Mr Chamberlain may be disposed to believe that what Mussolini, or Hitler; said to him was sincere, whereas the contrary things which they were saying to others were not sincere. Labour Party's Weakness Since his return from Rome, Mr Chamberlain has twice refused the request of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Attlee, that Parliament should be convened, before the appointed, date, in order to consider the Spanish situation. These refusals have not pro-’ yoked any outburst of indignation, because the Leader of the Opposition enjoys even lee: public confidence than Mr Chamberlain. Neither the Labour Party nor its chiefs have succeeded in making themselves spokesmen for the nation. They have always kept their narrow party interests, or what they mistake for party interests, in the foreground., They have failed to lead, or even to join with, the other, wjderi spread elements of oppositibn, both in Parliament and in the country, which look upon Mr Chamberlain’s Cabinet as a national liability and an international misfortune. Yet within the Labour Party, as within the Cabinet itself, deep dissatisfaction is stnouldering. It may break forth at any moment. Many people who cheered Mr Chamberlain on his return from Munich now understand that “Munich” was a disaster. Persistence along the road that led to Munich might, they feel, be suicidal- Mr Chamberlain will need to walk very warily if this feeling is not to explode in open revolt. ■ Events In Germany Mr Chamberlain has not been very kindly treated by Herr Hitler. More than once he has expressed his pained surprise that Herr Hitler —of whom he believed he had made a friend at Berchtesgaden, Godesberg and Munich

—should not have said or done anything to justify this belief. Now Hitler has announced that Germany intends to build submarines up to 100 per cent of British submarine strength—as Germany was entitled though not, expected to do under the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Besides one of the newest German cruisers, already built, is to mount 8-inch guns instead of the 6-inch guns contemplated in the agreement. And, as a cniiser has to be constructed specially to'carry heavier guns, it is clear that Germany intended to spring this surprise upon Great Britain from the very moment when the cruiser was laid down. Worse still. Dr. Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank, has suddenly been dismissed. Despite the prestidigitation which enabled Dr, Schacht to finance German- rearmament (and the whole Nazi system) he had continued to enjoy the friendship and even the confidence of British, financial circles, including especially the Governor of the Bank of England. Some private finance houses in London which had imprudently lent large sums to Germany in years gone by—sums that have since been “frozen” by German unwillingness to repay them —had almost forgiven Dr. Schacht this disguised default because he continued to pay interest on their “frozen” credits. These payments may now be discontinued. In the City of London it was believed —with what justification , I know not —that Mr Chamberlain’s policy of “appeasement” had been encouraged if not inspired by the trust which the Governor of the -Bank of England placed in Dr. Schacht as a “moderating” influence upon Herr Hit-, ler and as a safeguard against the Nazi “extremists.” Even if l?r. Schacht’s ingenious plan for persuading Great Britain to buy the persecuted Jews from Germany (by allowing them to bring to England a small percentage of« their fortunes in the form of German goods) was not favourably considered by the British Treasury, there re-» mained the lingering and consoling faith that Dr. Schacht himself was indispensable to Herr Hitler and. could always be counted upon as a kind of deus ex machine in the hour of need.

Now Herr Hitler’s rough hand has brushed away these politico-financial cobwebs. If the international situation itself were less grave than it is, much amusement might be derived from a perusal of those English journals whose views these illusions had coloured. But more than their disillusionment may be needed to shake TVlr Chamberthat “appeasement” was, ami is, a political conception of high nobility and incomparable value.

Events Since Munich * i \ MR CHAMBERLAIN AND THE DICTATORS [By H. WICKHAM STEED] Mr Wickham Steed attack* the British Government’s policy of appeasement and urges a defensive union of democratic States.

Mr Roosevelt’s Lead Fewer and fewer of his fellow countrymen now share this conviction. - They know it is not shared by the President or the people of the United States, with whom British co-opera-tion has become a political necessity. When President Roosevelt delivered his resounding message to Congress in . January—ra message of which every syllable was clearly heard throughout Great Britain—the vast majority of British citizens felt that the true exponent of their thoughts and beliefs was not their own Prime Minister but the President of the North American Republic. Mr Chamberlain himself may have felt this too, for, on the morrow, while the Governor of the Bank of England was conferring with Dr.' Schacht in Berlin, he issued a statement of almost whole-hearted ap r proval of President Roosevelt’s denunciation of the totalitarian dictatorship::. The latest British Note to Japan, and the financial support given to China, are further signs of AngloAmerican co-operation. So the visit of the King and Queen of England to the United States next summer is likely to be paid in an atmosphere of political cordiality. And I should not be surprised if an important book, entitled “Union Now,” which will shortly be published in New York and in London, should awaken thoughts that, have long been slumbering in the minds of English-speaking democracies on both sides-of the Atlantic, and perhaps in the Pacific as well. An American Suggestion This book, the work of a young American writer who observed for many years the progressive betrayal and. consequent failure of the League of Nations, compares the position of the British Commonwealth, the United States. France, and the other remaining democracies with the plight in which the 13 states of what was to become the American Union found themselves after Great Britain hajl been compelled to recognise their independence. These 13 states, and former English colonies, were linked, together in a “League of Friendship’; but each maintained its separate sovereignty over its armed forces apd: its fiscal and economic arrangements. The result was chaos, and would have been inevitable disaster had they not • l|ad the wisdom to pool the most im"portent of their separate'sovereignties -I and to form the “United States.” wPV a Federal Constitution. This Airtr;-| can writer urges Great Britain and fyif Dominions, together with the United v States, France. Belgium. Holland, the Scandinavian countries. > and to profit by this and to form, now. not a League of , sovereign States, but a Federal Union, in which their principal separate sovereignties will. be merged in selfdefence and for the salvation of human freedom. Divided, be fears, they may in turn be unable to withstand the onslaught of the totalitarian military dictatorships. United, and animated by a common purpose, their resources arid ' their vigour would be so superior to those, of. the anti-democratic systems that the latter would break .down pr be overthrown. When I survey, the British: position in the world to-day—after the recent years that have been marked by a progressive accumulation of weakness, folly, humiliation,' and disgrace, of which the stages bear the names "Manchuria,” “Abyssinia,” “the Rhineland,” “Austria,” “Czechoslovakia,” and “Spain”—l am disposed to believe that this American writer has truly diagnosed not only the British position but the disease of the democracies throughout the world. And, before it is too late, I trust that they may apply the remedy he prescribes. ■■■' (World copyright 1938 by Co-opera-tion—Reproduction even partially strictly forbidden.)