Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1934 EUROPE’S FUTURE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 4 September 1934, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1934 EUROPE’S FUTURE

OF members of the British Parliament Air Winston Churchill . is probably, the most eloquent. As an orator he is incisive, clear, logical, and convincing. He is supremely patriotic and, like all sensible men, he has a deep love of international peace. Nevertheless recently he made a speech*which shows that, like many more, he is profoundly anxious in regard to the preservation of peace in Europe. He said in part:

What is the best course to take? Some say, “Disarm, and refuse to fight in any circumstances, and all will be well. So supreme an act of faith will carry all before it.” This is an argument which might suit our enemres better than ourselves. Others say, "Splendid isolation; let Europe go to Hell if she chooses. Our concern is with the British Empire, alone. ” This seems to overlook some important facts ... we are an easy prey to any Continental coalition . . ... we may be invaded from the air in a few hours. A third party says, “Let us trust to the League of Nations. A fourth favours a definite alliance with France

. . . . a peace-loving country, and, luckily, with the best army in the world.

Mr Churchill seems to support this latter policy, and lie points out that' if it were adopted, “the peace of Europe would be safe for ten years,” But that is not the policy of the British Government, neither is it a policy which would commend itself entirely to the Dominions, whose peoples recognise that Great Britain’s commitment to an alliance with Franco would commit therri -very largely in the same direction, and that in such circumstances the outbreak of a European war, in which France was involved, would probably involve them in a greater or less degree. But let the facts, r-acial and political, governing the European situation, be examined, and what is found? In the first place, the important nations of Europe, with the exception of Germany and Russia, are united by a network of treaties whose object is to maintain peace, and to resist forcibly any Power which might create war. Nothing can be more certain than that if France were attacked, Great Britain would be called upon to fulfil her obligations under tho League of Nations’ Covenant and other pacts, and would be in honour hound to assist her neighbour. There is no necessity to create any new pacts for the preservation of peace in Europe: the great need is to bring all the great European nations within the scope of the existing pacts. A few years ago, the difficulty was with Russia whose Government elected “to play a lone hand,” but now (with a potential enemy in the Far East, and another in Central Europe) displays an inclination to seek admittance to the League: at the present time the difficulty is with Germany, whoso Dictator has thrown over the League, and has at his command an immense army which he may use as lie thinks best and without reference to the League, from which he and his nation have separated themselves. Indeed, the German Dictator’s recent judicial execution of some seventyseven prominent men who were reported to have plotted against him, has made him for the time being a political pariah. Moreover his financial policy, implemented by Dr. Scbaeht, has alienated the sympathy of British financiers and politicians, and has resulted in isolating Germany more completely than ever. But recent pronouncements of that nation’s ! Finance Minister show clearly that, if! it is not actually bankrupt, it is so greatly embarrassed financially that it would he unable to meet the expenses of a war waged against another Great Power. Furthermore it is well known that it would be resisted by a combination of Great Powers, and that doubtless was the reason why the Dictator of Ger-

many not long ago made protestations of peace, which appeared to run counter to the warlike policy so loudly acclaimed by his immense following of Nazis. It is true that the development of the aeroplane gives a poor nation great powers of destruction at little expense in money, but it is also true that if such a nation should attack one of its neighbom's, retaliation would be immediate and in kind, with the result that it would suffer severely, and subsequently would be invaded by the forces of those nations which are leagued together for the purpose of resisting the very sort of aggression which it had used. The fact is that the scientists and mechanicians have made warfare unprofitable, because it has been proved that the victorious nation suffers as greatly as the nation which is conquered, by means of the destructive power’s of modern weapons and other means of destruction. Of icourse it will be contended that the sane thing would bo for the civilised nations to abolisli war as a means for settling international differences. That is exactly what the Covenant of the League of Nations was framed for, but it will be noticed that three of the strongest of the nations refuse to be members of the League, and therefore are not bound by its Covenant. Fortunately those three nations —Germany, the United States, and Japan—are widely separated and have not much in common, and that leaves the consolidated nations of the League in a position to deal effectively with any serious international trouble which may occur in Europe. So long as Great Britain, France, and Italy present an united front there is reason to think that Hitler and Iris Nazis will refrain from breaking the peace, the more especially if Russia continues to give moral support to the League of Nations. Unhappily it has been impossible to persuade the Great Powers to disarm, in which circumstances it is reassuring to realise that the proposal of the British Government to create an Air Force second to none, coupled with the aerial strength of France and Italy, gives reason for hope that Europe’s peace will be preserved.