A SPEECH THAT HIT THE TARGET

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 19, 23 January 1940, Page 6

A SPEECH THAT HIT THE TARGET

Obviously, and intentionally, Mr. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, did a daring thing when he challenged the neutrals. He well

knew that he would reach some sensitive spots, and a Belgian newspaper headline—"Churchill's Strange Reprimand to Neutrals"—dbows that he did. But if his speech had been destitute of sting, he would not have accomplished his purpose; if he had not to some extent flailed, he would have failed. Therefore, his challenge must be adjudged a success as much by the minority disapproval as by the majority approval with which it has been greeted. Had he published a tissue of generalities not provocative of any criticism or dissent, the problem of neutralism would not have been advanced in any appreciable degree. Instead, he saw that there was a nettle to grasp^ and he grasped it; and it is the nettle, not he* that is now under obligation to justify itself. The figure of speech that he used concerning the feeding of the Nazi crocodile may not have been strictly diplomatic—and almost certainly was not intended to bebut it is language that plain people can understand, to which comes back die plain language reply of the Beige": ".,

Belgium does not surrender to, fear. Belgium does not feed the crocodile.

This is excellent. "Belgium does not surrender to fear" is not merely a retort, but a promise and an obligation. The pride of neutralism has been touched to the point of selfjustification—but only because a British Minister, with thfe capacity to command a world audience, issued a daring challenge. He wanted the protesting parties to say just what they are saying—r-that the crocodile will not be fed. "And-a little neutral indignation helps the good work along. To tell the world that one is not afraid increases , one's own resolution.

Quite as obvious as Mr. Churchill's challenge. is the fact that neutral Governments of small States are put in a very difficult position. Every understanding i Briton knows that, and moderates his judgment accordingly. The editorial approach' to the Churchill speech "therefore centres in the question whether-— having regard to the fact that such a challenge, to be of any value, must be pointed—Mr. Churchill's terms are too strong. "Not one whit too strojrig" is the commenf of the "News Chronicle." On' the other hand, the friendly "New York Times" thinks that the speech contains "occasional lapses," but does hot say what they are, or whether1 the crocodile % is one of them. "The Times" (London)* finds thei utterance full of vigour and pugnacity, but not boastful. .A very great tribute to one of Mr. Churchill's talents in a crisis is latent in the phrase "infecjtious confidence," in which "The | Times" sums up what is perhaps I Mr. Churchill's most valuable contribution to the carrying on of the war! The editorial comments of the "Manchester Guardian" are very carefully worded; this newspaper thinks that neutral peoples should tolerate the "serious inconvenience" to which our war measures submit them because our fight for free existence is also their fight for free existence, wherefore "we may ask of them benevolent neutrality." "Popolo di' Roma" thinks that Mr. Churchill seeks much more from neutrals than benevolent neutrality^ and that he is "terrorising" them into the war. ,^_ Considering what Hitler is doing to neutral shipping and what Stalin is doing to the Finns, this Italian claim that not they but Britain is terrorising neutrals might well be placed on permanent record as an international joke. The "Manchester Guardian" points out that the terrorising of neutrals by Hitler-Stalin tactics is one of the weapons Britain will never use, and the "Daily Mail" reminds the world that not one neutral soldier is in arms in Europe through any fear- of the Allies.