MR. EDEN’S REVIEW

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 27 October 1939, Page 5

MR. EDEN’S REVIEW

THE EMPIRE’S PART COMING CONFERENCE OF DOMINION MINISTERS AIR TRAINING SCHEME Broadcasting from England yesterday on “Co-operation in Wartime” Mr Anthony Eden, gave a review of the war and the Empire’s part, particularly referring to the coming conference of Dominion Ministers. Mr Eden instanced the air training scheme as an important example of co-operation. The outline of the scheme, he said, had been given a fortnight ago, but he did not believe that the extent of it had yet been realised nor the influence it would have on the course of the war. The scheme, briefly, provided that each Dominion should make provision for the rapid expansion of its Air Force and air pehrsonnel. Elementary training would take place in the individual countries, and the advanced training would be concentrated in Canada in territory which would be free from all enemy interference. No action the German forces could take could interfere with the development of the scheme, and Britain would be assured of a continual supply of pilots and air personnel of exceptionally high standard, skill, and daring. Thus, the New World was offering to help in determining the future of the Old. Mr Eden referred to the coming London conference of Dominion Cabinet Ministers, and remarked that it was another sign of the tangible friendship and co-operation that existed. He also gave a brief biographical sketch of ! each Minister, and said that he hoped ! that his listeners would soon hear each Minister give his message in a broadcast. There would be no formal conference with the Ministers, said Mr Eden, and there would be no need to draw up an agenda, but there would be informal and practical discussions which • would result in the closer co-operation which was their aim. HITLER’S LOST INITIATIVE Dealing with the course of hostilities, Mr Eden said that although the war had been in progress for two months, Herr Hitler had already lost the initiative. The aggressor advantage already was spent. The road to the East was blocked by Russia and barred by Turkey. In the West every week saw additional strength to the democracies. The German attacks by air on our Fleet and convoys had failed utterly in their purpose, and, compared with the last war, the submarine had proved to be an indecisive weapon, and the percentage of losses among enemy boats had been infinitely higher. The Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine had swept and kept the seas, and the total loss of British ships sunk was less than 1 per cent, of the total tonnage. “This figure needs no comment,” he said.

The much-heralded German offensive on the Western Front had not eventuated. In all those facts, said Mr Eden, there was encouragement for the final victory. DIFFERENT CHARACTER The character of the war was in strong contrast to what most people expected, and was certainly very different from the war many had taken part in 20 years ago. It was different, also, in the way in which peoples of the British Comomnwealth had entered into the war. In this war the people had had no illusions. In one respect—in the spirit of the people—the character of the war was the same, and the generations that fought in the last war had the same qualities as those who were fighting and preparing to fight to-day. Every war was fought on two fronts—the army in the field depended on the spirit of the nation at home. Our democracy was alive and actjve and was going to help us win. There had been attempts in the past to establish an international system to outlaw war and to make possible free cooperation between the nations in search of common prosperity. Some had failed, and others had succeeded. Of the outstanding attempts, the outstanding example was the British Commonwealth of Nations.

BASIS FOR PEACE It was essential that we should be fully conscious of what we were fighting against and what we were fighting for, continued Mr Eden. The war, he said, had been thrust upon us and upon the world by the German nation’s flagrant breaches of faith and by the German Chancellor’s obsession that his will must prevail at all costs. We were not fighting against any land or for any given frontier, but in support of a principle—for good faith between peoples, for without it there could be nc peace. Though Nazi leaders were loud in the claim that the war was forced upon them, the evidence was against them. The documents had been published and the world would judge, and there was further striking testimony—in Warsaw and Prague German troops stood as invaders. Each one of them was there in defiance of the German Chancellor’s pledged word; each was a liviing testimony to the German Government’s broken faith. We had seen in recent years, said Mr Eden, the progressive deterioration of respect for international agreements; that made weJt ultimately inevitable. A patch-work peace was not acceptable. We must win the war, and the after-war, and the latter might prove a more difficult task. TASKS FOR FUTURE The freedom of many nations not I taking part in the war, but who may have to suffer consequences from the war, depended on our existence as a free and strong people. We believed that when we had won the war a heavy responsibility would fall on the Allied Powers. It would be their task to work for a united and wider understanding, for an international order. | fo»* religious tolerance, and a denial of the worship of an aggressive nationalism. Speaking of the Turkish Pact, Mr Eden said that Turkey had taken the stand for the same principles of good faith for which the Allies were fightmg. In that attitude Turkey had been consistent throughout the whole postwar period. When she sought the revision of treaties she had done so by negotiation and not by force.