NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13523, 22 August 1907, Page 4

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

I WHY SWEDEN AND NORWAY DID

! NOT FIGHT. i j Professor Pontes Fahlheck, a member I of the Swedish Upper House, explains, ] in the Deutsche Revue, why Sweden and, I Norway did not go to way over the crisis lin 1905. During the crisis the European i press, he writes, never, ceased to publish i variations of the theme, "A Peaceful Solution of the Conflict." . Why did the j two countries not go to war? . , Professor j .Fahlbeck makes answer:' Because the King . did not. wish it. In Sweden the monarch I alone '. decides on war. and peace. It is j therefore not easy for the people or the ! Parliament to oppose the definitely exj pressed will of the King. To go to war i contrary to the wishes of the Sovereign, public opinion must be united and strong. iln Sweden this was not the case. Nor I were those who wanted war with Norway united as to what •should happen afterj wards. There was no public opinion I which clearly wanted an appeal to the ultima ratio of war. King Oscar knew this, and the knowledge of it served to strengthen his own personal opinion. Satisfaction without war was the wish of the people. Nothing could have been more purposeless than a war;- there was no j great political scheme to justify such an oxtreme measure. In conclusion, the j writer says the union with Norway was a crutch v, hich prevented Sweden from using her own' legs. Without foreign policy, without responsibilities,' a nation becomes demoralised. What Sweden lost externally by the union she has regained in inner force.