Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1939. Patience Exhausted

Britain's guarantee to Boland, a great and far-reaching change in foreign policy, is the outcome of patience exhausted. The change is one of truly tremendous significance that far exceeds first impressions; dulled as these are to-day from countless “great events.” At first thought it may seem strange that a few words should be rated so greatly in an ago of historical incident—of actual faits accompli. But the significance of that declaration by the Prime Minister of Great Britain lies in all it might mean.

Hitherto, since the close of the Great War, Britain had in fact, if not in theory, kept clear of European entanglements. This, with the exception of a simple understanding with France, the small nations across the Channel and the North Sea. No actual declaration of policy was needed with these nations. It was simply and clearly understood by all diplomats that Britain would resist immediately and with all her power any attack upon France, Belgium, Holland or Denmark. Earl Baldwin’s famous declaration: “Our frontier is on the Rhine,” enunciated that policy—a policy subject to no change of Governments or fashions in ideology.

The rise of Germany these past six years brought complications. But with the proven failure of the League of Nations over Abyssinia, Britain definitely withdrew to her “splendid isolation”—to a policy of no commitments. That did not, however, mean that Britain took no part in European affairs. Her influence was diplomatically available at all times to aid peaceful settlement of disputatious problems. And many there were, coming in rapid succession these past two years.

Holding the stage centre all through the past twelve months have been two men, Hitler and Chamberlain, the respective leaders of two great parties, the totalitarian and the democratic—one gaining all the glory and the other bearing the burden of trial and disappointment. When Chamberlain took over the active conduct of foreign affairs from Anthony Eden, he set out on a course that brought live coals of criticism upon his head. But steadfastly he held to that, course, seeking ever to reach an understanding with those whose ways of government were other than our ways.'

In that he has failed. But there is honour in his failure. Now his detractors doubtless declare: “We told you so!” In stern reality his policy of appeasement has failed. But Mr. Chamberlain was right in the spirit of his undertaking. To try as he did was the only course, morally right and rationally sound. He accepted Hitler’s word; his faith in that was broken, but that was no stain upon the character of Neville Chamberlain.

And in reviewing the events that have led up to this reversal of Britain’s foreign policy, the public must judge them all of a piece. The most outstanding is that until just a few weeks ago Germany never really exceeded her rights or truly threatened European peace. Her re-armament, occupation of the Rhine, absorption of Austria and re-possession of the Sudetenland, and, too, of Memel, were all justifiable. But the absorption of Czechoslovakia, the threats to Rumania and Poland exceeded any justification. Until these very recent events, Mr. Chamberlain could not be shown as wrong in his faith in his policy. Now, upon the very eve pf the saereu season of Easter, must he speak ominously—to utter a stern warning against aggression. His patience exhausted, Britain’s Prime Minister has abandoned his former policy; for one more far-reaching and definitely more belligerent. And by any who would risk his warning, let these words be remembered: Beware the righteous anger of the man of peace. Beware the man, the leader and the nation at his back. What may be the outcome of this new commitment no man really knows. It may drag Britain into another great war, or it may avert one. This latter is the end hoped for by the Prime Minister who made the promise and by all citizens of this Empire.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MT19390405.2.19

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 80, 5 April 1939, Page 4

Word Count
661

The Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1939. Patience Exhausted Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 80, 5 April 1939, Page 4

The Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1939. Patience Exhausted Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 80, 5 April 1939, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert