"BARBAROUS"

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 58, 6 September 1939, Page 11

"BARBAROUS"

GERMAN GOVERNMENT

ATTACK BY MR. MENZIES

Describing it- as "barbarous," the Prime Minister (Mr.' Menzies) vigorously condemned the German system of government, and the belief of this country in the politics of force, in an outspoken pronouncement on Australia's attitude towards European affairs in August, reports the Melbourne "Age."

Mr. Menzies, who was addressing a gathering of commercial travellers, was unreservedly cheered when he .made it clear that Australia would be prepared to defend its democratic ideals.

Australia was. occupying a very critical position today, said the Prime Minister. It was a testing time for the whole of the British world ana lor the whole' of" the English-speaking world. He did not. believe, any more than thoughtful Americans -believed, that America was outside the world. He believed that the fate of the British Empire and the fate of America were inextricably bound together, and that all those things that the English-speaking people stood for, not only in government, but in the life of the individual, were today in peril.

Australians and British people wherever they were, believed in democracy, although they were sometimes a little cynical about it, and did little to preserve it. At the same time, deep down in their hearts, they believed in it, just as did the American and the" Frenchman, and1 many more other, people than most people imagined. That did not mean that democrats wished to thrust their views on the machinery of government down the throats of everybody else. The essence of democracy was that it did not interfere in the internal problems of other countries. ; ■'•'• ■■ •..'• . ■ .)'■. , - NON-AGGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. Democracy -was an entirely nonaggressive form of government. It was definitely for "home consumption" only, and he deplored the existence of many people who,were;so anxious to assert that there was an inevitable point of conflict between the democratic and dictator countries. ' Continuing; Mr. Menzies said the machinery of government was not nearly so important as those profounder things, without which the machinery could not work. Why did> there persist an almost unnatural degree of tension : and anxiety; a vast reserve of potential conflict? Democrats believed that the most important things in the world were to be found 4n some of those great principles for which democracy stood. They believed that the end of government was. not the power or glory of the country, or that much-abused thing, the prestige of the country, but that the real end of government was to be found in-the good life of the individual citizen. (Applause.) The' essence of democracy was that it dignified the individual human being, and gave him, whether rich or poor, influential or obscure, the right to his place in the community and the right to a happy, prosperous, and contented life. ■ . ■■■ /; -■ , ...''■ :... ■.'. :■■ PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM. Implicit in these two beliefs was the underlying principle of freedom. -Democracies must be prepared to recognise that the test of freedom was the kind of experience accorded the minority. There was no real freedom if it were only for the majority. , If, there were, tyranny for the minority, it might just as well be translated into tyranny under one man". Democracy Should not be content to sit quietly by. while the things they held dear were driven back. Democratic people believed those things represented civilisation; that a system of government which was brutal to minorities destroyed the fine flower of tolerance and subordinated and crushed the rights of the individual, was a barbarous system. (Applause.) British people had no desire to interfere in the mechanics of government,.in any other country, said the Prime Minister, and he believed the same could be said of the Frenchman and American. They Tiad no desire to impose their ideas on the people of Germany or Italy, but they had a real interest in the extent to which ideas which, from their point of view were not civilised, were imposed on people who did not believe in those things, and upon whom they could only be imposed by force or threat of force. That was the reason they were interested in Poland and Rumania-^hot that they were busybodies desiring to interfere in the internal affairs of Germany and Italy, but because they- believed they could have no security if the things that meant every thing to them were to be made the playthings of fears, threats, and force in the currency of international relationships. . / ADJUSTMENTS BY FORCE. Mr. Menzies, continuing, said there were two'sides to the story of Danzig in the minds-of democratic people, but what was overlooked by the rulers, was the democratic instinct- for arbitration. The ruler of Germany, could ease the whole tension of the world by saying, "We agree to have this problem thrashed out by arbitration." It was so simple that : most people would imagine it to be the first thing to present itself to the minds of all concerned. ; . Instead of-this, the whole world was preparing itself for the last ■ and greatest of all wars—all because adjustments in the affairs of Europe were believed things to be made by force,' and not by calmness, common sense, and conference. Few believed that a peaceful settlement was not possible. English people were as "one in saying that a settlement must be by discussion, and not by the sword. If the future of the British world was to consist of witnessing the steady absorption of country after country in Europe against their will, their subjugation and the, imposition upon them of ideas which were not their ideas, there could be no security for the things which meant everything to British people. . Life, said Mr. Menzies, was much more than three meals a day, a bed, and clothes to wear. ! It consisted of much more complex and valuable things than that. It was those things which democratic people regarded as worth defending. "And when, we say that, we throw down no gauntlet, and make no threat," he added.