IF WAR CAME WOULD AMERICA REMAIN NEUTRAL?

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23009, 9 April 1938, Page 1 (Supplement)

IF WAR CAME WOULD AMERICA REMAIN NEUTRAL?

Discussing the position of the United States in relation to a World War which might involve the fate of the British Empire, Miss Thompson, one of the most influential newspaper commentators in America, urges the wisdom of letting the Powers know clearly if it is true that the United States would find it impossible to maintain neutrality. She argues that a forthright declaration in that sense would contribute substanially to general appeasement.

TS it true, as I think it is, that we Americans, in common with the other nations of the world, are becoming slowly psychologically prepared for war?

It is not only that we, in common with all the others, are rearming. It is not only that rearmament, and even perhaps the use of those arms, seems more attractive when a depression looms on the horizon —and recession is characteristic everywhere —but there is a defeatism of mind in contemplating the picture of the world as it is to-day; there is no way out or back to order, in international intercourse and prosperity, which is acceptable merely by persuasion to all the nations whose acceptance is necessary. Question to Pacifists It is notable that even those who fight most valiantly to tie us by laws in order to keep, this country out of any conceivable war have no real conviction that if a world war comes their hopes will be realised. Ask the sincerest pacifist leaders of this country this question: "Do you believe that if the ' British Empire, including Canada, is engaged in a world war, if isolation means the complete stopping of our foreign trade with serious repercussions upon employment, and if England, Avhich has not been invaded for a thousand years, is bombed by a Fascist nation from the air, causing the deaths of large numbers of women and children, this country will stay out of the fight? " I have asked that question during the last few weeks of my most sincere pacifist friends, including those who are vigorously supporting the Ludlow Resolution, and they invariably answer: " No, I regret it, but it would be impossible to restrain the war fever." Worst Possible Policy If they are right, and I think they are, then it would seem that the worst possible policy the United States could follow would bo to talk isolation while arming; to contribute to deluding the world that wo may not act, when we will; to operate under a neutrality act, which by its cash-and-carry clause can actually be made into a form of trade alliance with Britain and Franco at the outbreak of any hostilities involving them; to make, as we have recently done, a naval demonstration, with the British in the Far East, and at the same time tell our own people that we are not doing so; to pretend that our v increased navy is exclusively for the defence of our own shores when it certainly is not; to conduct unofficial and unbinding conversations with the British which nevertheless are indica-

A Plea for National Candour

By DOROTHY THOMPSON

tive of where our sympathies lie; while at the same time, we create doubts in the minds of our own people and the rest of the world as to whether they really do lie there.

The British and the French are convinced that if they become involved in a world war we shall be in that war 011 their side. They are convinced that our commercial interests, our ideological biases, our national aims, and our historic sympathies will bring us into war if the two countries are threatened with defeat. Perils of Uncertainty Our own State Department believes this. The President of the United States believes it, Governor Landon believes it, and even the pacifists believe it. The only people Who may, regrettably, not believe it, are the people with whom we may eventually fight. For if they believed it, it is very probable that we would never have to fight at all, because it is inconceivable that any group of nations would take 011 Great Britain and her satellites, the United States and France, if they were perfectly certain in advance that is what they would be doing. The uncertainty encourages' hazards It is time that the United States faced the facts about herself. We have never been an isolationist nation. Wo have been involved in every world war since the founding of this republic. Our isolationism really consists first in the traditional unwillingness to enunciate policies in advance —not to make them in a show-down,

and secondly, to prevent this country from becoming a world empire. Wo do pot want or need colonial possessions. We do not want, through colonial possessions, to have the headaches and responsibilities of empire. We manage to get on with the British Empire, with whom we are about to sign a trade treaty which will bring us commercially much nearer together. We fear that if the British Empire should break up, parts of it would inevitably drift into our orbit, would look to us, and we do not wish this added responsibility. Should Tell the Truth So our isolationism really boils down to our being willing to fight for Britain to keep responsibilities which we neither wish to inherit nor see pass into other hands.

This is, admittedly, a quixotic view of the case.

Were we prepared to face for ourselves and to make clear to the world what we would eventually do or pot do, we would be in a powerful position to secure adherence to a real programme of world appeasement along the lines laid down by M. Van Zeeland, of Belgium, and by Secretary Hull. For we know that countries like Germany cannot exist and be prosperous without access to raw materials and to markets on terms more favourable than they have enjoyed since the war. We all know now —all except the most blind reactionaries know —that our tariff policy after the war was insupportable. We know that there are many ways of liberal economic collaboration, which might entail some sacrifice, but which would be a thousand times less costly than another war.

We know that Mr. Hull is right when he asserts that the countries pursuing an autarchial policy—the socalled " hermit states " —are flouting basic international relationships. But we cannot bring pressure to bear because we aro unwilling to face the eventual reality, and tell ourselves and the world the truth.