VEERING ROUND AGAINST GERMANY

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 78, 1 April 1916, Page 5

VEERING ROUND AGAINST GERMANY

DEFEAT IS INEVITABLE

PAIUS, 30th March.

The Matin's Stockholm correspondent says that Swedish opinion, which formerly favoured Germany's chances, lias' swung round since the German failure at- Verdun, and it is now believed that German defeat is inevitable.

While the above cable message implies, what has been generally understood to be the case, that public opinion in Sweden hitherto has favoured Germany, the public's representatives in the Riksdag have been nearly unanimous in upholding a neutral policy. In the debate on the Budget at the end of January speakers of most of the parties advocated this view. M._ Hammarskjokl, the Premier, emphasised in a great speech that neither in nor outside the country was there valid reason to doubt that the policy of the Government was a policy of sincere neutrality. Clear explanations in this respect had been given. The doubts which had arisen were the fruit either of a suspicious and unhealthy frame of mind or a lack of knowledge of what a sincerely impartial neutrality meant. On one occasion last summer (continued the Premier) we sought, to explain our position to the whole world. We repudiated the idea that our policy meant that, there should be no question of our abandoning our neutrality under any conditions. Thus, wa rejected any attempt to put into our policy anything else than what we meant by it, and we added the following words, "In conformity with the declarations which have been given as rega-rds onr neutrality and the clear and plain words of the King on different occasions, it is our fervent desire to keep the peace, and it is our duty to work for this end with all our might. But we also reckon with eventualities in which for Sweden herself the maintenance of peace, in spite of all our efforts, would no longer be possible." By these words, and by the rest of the same speech, which had the foil approval of the King and all the Ministers, ouv policy was described with as much, clearness as possible. In a later speech it was again 'emphasised that only Swedish points of view could be taken into consideration. Sympathies could decide nothing. We have hitherto acted according to these principles. If anyone imagines we have not been impartial, that depends either on a false premise or on an inadequate knowledge of the circumstances. M. Hammarskjold continued : Our intention is still to follow the principles we have hitherto followed. That embrace's also the relations of Sweden with neutral countries. We have always tried to co-operate with them for the common object, particularly with Denmark and Norway, and in that we have been successful to a considerable degree. We regret that these united forces for the right and welfare of neutral Powers and for the preservation, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, of the inheritance of international law should depend on circumstances over which we have no control and to judge which we have no right. But it is our conviction that the success of such efforts would be an advantage materially and ideally not only for Sweden, but for other neutral countries, and for belligerents, and even for the whole of Europe. The present grouping of Powers will not be eternal. In other circumstances, a belligerent will perhaps be very sorry that it has, for the safe of an often doubtful temporary advantage, torn up treaties and provisions of the international law when 'it is too late to restore or replace them. Experience shows us that, in view of the perpetual and rapid aggravation of' the commercial war, one can often depend for a short time alone on the precarious enjoyment of the advantages secured by a comprehensive arrangement. Other neutral countries havo also had the experience that concessions only give rise to fresh demands. When one enters on the road of concessions, it is easy for one to get farther and farther away from real neutrality. Although wo have in the interest of neutrality and independence renounced certain temporary benefits, the collective result for our industrial life had not become worse than in other countries, rather the contrary. After tho Prime Minister's speech, the Socialist leader, M. Branting, said the speech was not very clear regarding the Government's neutrality policy, in view of the important consequences _of that policy. Both he and the nation would be exposed to the greatest perils solely for the sake of the exact interpretation of a law which was supposed to be Sweden's present policy. What were wanted were reasonable compromises for the slackening of tension, and not to let oneself be driven to extremities by irreconcilable elements. The Prime Minister had repeated that the Government wanted to keep the peace, but it should bq/borne in mind that that might be impossible, notwithstanding all his efforts. The Socialist leader's speech was received with cheers.