Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1940. WHAT IS NEUTRALITY?

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 96, 23 April 1940, Page 8

Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1940. WHAT IS NEUTRALITY?

President Roosevelt has pointed out that to be neutral in action is not to be neutral in thought. Ninetenths of the people of the United States are against Hitlerism as revealed in its "ideology," in its abjuring of the same "ideology" (example, the Moscow Pact), in its foreseen invasion of Poland, and in its unforeseen "lightning" seizure of Denmark and part of Norway. No democratic population can possibly be neutral in thought towards a. country and a Government, with such Ia- record. But while the United | States Government has not tried to impose fetters on thought and on utterance of its Press and of its public, the same freedom has not existed in some other countries. , For instance, the Press of Italy, reflective of Government opinion, is biased obviously against the Allies in feeling, and is also accused of presenting a Norwegian picture in conflict with facts. We do not wish to- labour this point unduly. We wish to emphasise what will no doubt be admitted—that the American

)■ ■ . newspapers and the Italian papers are not neutral in thought, the latter (possibly under pressure) ■' being pro-Hitler, and the former (under no pressure) being anti-Hitler, as every truly democratic newspaper inevitably must be.

Under Hitler's hammer-blows,* neutrality in thought, so far as populations are concerned, is rapidly disappearing, for the simple reason that no free people inhabiting a small defenceless State can observe with calm philosophy- Hitler's latest aggressions. * These small peoples,, who, through fear, did try to be neutral, are now finally, undeceived. All such populations know perfectly which side ought, to win the war; 'but whether their sympathies can overcome their fears to the extent of abandoning legal neutrality, as they have abandoned neutrality in thought, is another question. In a'separate category are the peoples of the larger neutral, or non-belligerent, countries of Europe. For the present, at any irate, these peoples do not stand in fear as the small State populations do. But whether the,peoples of the larger European neutrals have a democratic conscience, and whether it can be reached, no one can say. Per* haps ignorance, as well asi conscience, enters into the matter. Wherever war news is falsified, there surely must be some design to prevent the natural inclination of a free people to modify its- neutrality-of'thought in the direction of sympathy with those nations that are fighting for freedom. To think that the popula« tion of any strong neutral country, which itself en joys freedom, is prepared to endorse Hitlerist aggression on others, because it mistakenly believes itself to be for ever immune from aggression, or likely to profit by aggression, is to despair of human nature.

Neutrality-of-thought among the people of a State is one thing.. Neu-trality-of•thought, so far as its Government is concerned, is another, In proclaiming the Axis, the Italian Government -modified its neutrality, both in thought and in substance, long before the war. Much later, the Russian and the Turkish Governments . modified their neutrality, but in different degrees, the Moscow Pact being not only a sudden bargain based on aggression but an "ideological" apostasy. Turkey has modified her neutrality along purely defensive lines; Under the influence of President Roosevelt's discrimination between neutrality in acting and neutrality in thinking—and under the pressure of other differences and discriminations arising out of the aggressiveness of some countries and the fears of others, as reflected either in their popular emotions or in their Government policies—new concepts of neutrality are constantly developing. Intermediate stages between neutrality and belligerence are repre* sented by such words or phrases as "non-belligerent," "hostile neutral," etc. Neutrality is taking new shapes on the Hitler anvil, and neutral codes and customary laws are in the melt* ing pot. The old neutrality is a diminishing quantity, and seems to be producing nothing save new words and Hitler surprises. What is neutrality? Nobody seems to "know. Whether there will be room for neutrality, in the Europe of, the future depends on whethter Hitler succeeds or fails. Within his own jurisdiction—-that is, within the range of his own hitting power-—he has abolished neutrality. Unless a truly international Europe, based on disarmament, arises, Hitler has given the old passive neutrality its deathblow. For the fiction of neutrality, as it existed fin Denmark, he has

substituted a realism:/that is con-

ymcmg,

Ever since April 9, when Germany suddenly invaded without provocation two neutral States, completely overwhelming one and seizing the capital of the other, all the rest of the Euro-. pean neutrals have seen where they stand. With the temporary exceptions of Russia and Italy, they know they may be in imminent danger. They know, too, that its source is Germany alone. Even Russia and Italy—though for the time being they feel safe and though Germany at the moment is pressing them to become her partners in a new crime, as Russia has already been in the ; crime , against Poland — must be aware that their security! would be gone if GermanyNvere finally victorious.

This summary, in the "Sunday Times," of the position of the neutral sheep, the neutral goats, and the neutral wolves, is a simple statement of fact. Among its tremendous implications are the fact that no mapdrawing in Europe can ever be stable as long as the small units are the prey of the large, protected from the large only by the neutrality pieces of paper which Hitler and Stalin' have torn up. Even if .the Versailles boundaries had been much more intelligently drawn, against a Hitler they would not have prevailed." Not until the road to Hitlerism is finally closed will map, boundaries, treaties, and neutralities resume their former reality and usefulness.