From the Editor's Desk

Northern Advocate, 27 January 1939, Page 4

From the Editor's Desk

I. N THIS issue we print a letter to the Editor from Mr. W. H. Chethara. who is highly critical of our recent comment on the speech made by President Roosevelt when he flung defiance at the Dictators across the Atlantic. _ We said then, and we repeat that opinion now', though with considerable regret, that it is doubtful if the people of the United States would endorse their President’s viewpoint to such an extent as to send forces to Europe to fight side by side with Britain and France against the enemies of democracy.

There is, as we pointed out, a huge body of opinion in the United States which is deeply suspicious of British diplomacy, and which cherishes the conviction that America was only jockeyed into entering the War in 1917 by means of crooked diplomacy and a misrepresentation of the .objects for which the War was being fought by the Allies.

The existence and reality of this line of thought in America is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. The tenor of opinion in practically every American newspaper is against any commitments to enter into a European war.

' The greatest dailies (with, the exception of the “New York Times” and “New York Herald-Tribune”), and the greatest periodicals and weekly magazines, reflect this attitude of suspicion, and while public opinion in the United States has greatly hardened against the dictator countries, until today representative public men in America permit themselves far more caustic expressions of opinion than would be thought politic in most European countries, still the fact remains that British communities, menaced by the shadow' of Nazism and Fascism, cannot prudently rely on any assumption that America would leap to their aid if they w r ere attacked. America might do so but only if a situation developed (in the Pacific, for instance) where her own interests w r ere threatened.

It does not follow', because the “Advocate” pointed out that President Roosevelt cannot commit his countrymen to fight side by side wdth Britain and France (though he would probably ■like to do so), that any criticism of his views was implied. Indeed, "it is only by a peculiar kind of reasoning that ahy such construction can be placed on our remarks.

President Roosevelt is one of the greatest figures in contemporary history. In spite of a severe personal handicap he has been twice elected to rule the destinies of a great nation, and has done so with a w'armth and humanity which have attracted the more attention and admiration because, 'in espousing those admirable principles, he has done so in the ringing wmrds of one of the greatest living orators.

Mr. Chatham laments the lack of competent editorial leadership in the New Zealand press. “One would think,” he says, “that they were all edited by the London ‘Times.’ ” There is no higher compliment he could pay. “The Times” maintains the traditions of a great impartial newspaper, fearless and wellinformed. There is no finer pattern on which a newspaper could model itself.

Unfortunately, Mr Chet ham is like a number of other people. They value a newspaper’s independence only when it happens to accord with their own views. Wo ourselves do not presume to speak for other papers. We know that in foreign, as in local affairs, we seek only to speak the truth as we see it. That many will disagree is inevitable. But in these confusing days the world would he a much happier place if there were less suspicion and less obloquy towards those of different opinions.

Mr Chetham is welcome to his opinion of Mr. Neville Chamberlain./ Historians will he in better position than we are to determine whether Mr Chamberlain is “an artist in compromise and deception,” or a sincere, honest and patriotic man, striving to do his best for his countrymen in a situation of appalling difficulty. Considering that hut for Neville Chamberlain the British Empire might even now have been at war, it seems singularly uncharitable to cast aspersions on his character, even though the wisdom of his policy may be honestly doubted.