THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1915. NEUTRALS AND PEACE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15884, 3 April 1915, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1915. NEUTRALS AND PEACE.

The renewal in the United States of discussions on the prospects of peace and the overture made by a Swedish-American millionaire to the Scandinavian Kings to call a peace conference may appear to be illtimed, but they serve to emphasise the widely different attitudes to the war prevailing in neutral countries. The neutrality of a State frequently restrains the actions of its citizens, but it can impose no restraint upon their thoughts nor in practice has it any great influence in checking the expression of these thoughts. We can, therefore, estimate with fair accuracy the state of mind into which sentiment and interest—sometimes in combination, sometimes in conflict—have led the various neutral nations after eight months of war- Such an estimate shows that as neutrals Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have much in common with the United States, while Italy and the Balkan States may be grouped together as looking at the war from a wholly different standpoint. America and the Scandinavian States havo completely detached themselves from the war. The interests of a common humanity have made for the Allies many strong friends in Denmark, Sweden and Norway as in the United States of America. Allowing for a percentage of pro-Germanism in all four countries we can safely conclude that the balance of opinion in each is strongly against Germany. But nations are seldom rallied to war on a cold judgment of the merits of the case as presented by rival belligerents. Neither in Scandinavia nor in America has the war aroused any national aspirations such as have made, and are still making, the continued neutrality of the States of South Europe doubtful. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, America are mere lookers-on, largely sympathetic with the Allies though displaying occasional irritation at the interruption of their commerce, but showing no desire to fight or to profit territorially by the war.

It might seem that historically and nationally Denmark at least has as good cause as Italy to think of her unredeemed province- The German occupation of Danish Schleswig is more recent than the Austrian occupation of Italian Trentino and Trieste, and might be supposed to arouse similar feelings. To some extent this is so, for the memory of tho hopeless though heroic fight of half a century ago still lingers in Denmark, nor is it likely to disappear under the German government of Schleswig, which is no less oppressive to the Danes than is the Austrian treatment of the Italians in Trontino or the Magyar suppression of Roumanian nationalism in Transylvania. But while the Danes have as little love for the Germans as the Italians have for the Austrians they have not nursed the idea of " redemption" as have the Italians. The national attitude of Denmark is rather one of resignation to the loss of Schleswig. In the same way the Swedes are resigned to the loss of Finland, and are hopeful that the war may bring to the Finns as well as the Poles more generous treatment at the hands of Russia. The traditional Swedish fear of Russia might have had an influence in moulding Scandinavian sentiment in regard to the war, but the German invasion , of Belgium and the brutality of Germans to non-com-batant Belgians appealed strongly to the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes as to all small nations. This and the confidence which the free-dom-loving Scandinavians repose in Britain were the deciding factors in the formation of a public opinion which German literature has been unable to shake. But the sympathies of the people are no more likely to lead them into war than the disturbance of their trade. The Danes have no ambition to attempt the admittedly difficult task of governing the Germans now resident in Schleswig; they view the war, as the other Scandinavian nations view it, purely from outside. It is this detachment of the United States, Denmark, Norway and Sweden that gives rise to the view that their rulers, under the guidance of President Wilson, may at the opportune moment intervene as peace makers- To the Allied

nations it may seem unfortunate that no aspiration to take the place of the Hague Convention manifested itself early in the war. A lead might then have been given by influential neutrals to an expression of neutral opinion regarding deliberate and repeated breaches of the laws of warfare and organised suppression of the instincts of humanity in the treatment of non-combatants. This would appear to have been the great opportunity for the disinterested mediator. It was lost and the present situation offers no prospect of successful negotiation, even if President Wilson and the Scandinavian Kings could bo presumed to be willing to pave the way for a peace which would leave the world armed to the teeth, and in a state of tension awaiting the next quarrel. It may be taken for granted that Germany is now in a mood to discuss such a peace; it cannot be doubted that Austria and Turkey would welcome anything that seemed to offer a cheap and easy way out. As for the Allies, the situation has not materially altered since Sir Edward Grey said there was no prospect of such terms as they would feel bound to insist upon being accepted by Germany. Whatever the future may hold there is nothing in the present outlook to suggest that intervention would bo useful or that any effort, however great, on the part of disinterested neutrals can lead to the durable peace which is as much to be desired in the interests of belligerent as of neutral countries.