THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1939 A FAKE BY RIBBENTROP

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23487, 26 October 1939, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1939 A FAKE BY RIBBENTROP

In his speech at Danzig the German Foreign Minister, Ribbentrop, proved himself the equal of his master at cold, calculated and sustained lying. The complete answer to his falsehoods, mainly designed to show Britain as bellicose and Poland as intransigent, can be found in the precise official records of the six months prior to the outbreak of war. Most arresting of these is the White Paper publishing the correspondence between the British and Nazi Governments exchanged in the last ten fateful days of August. These letters, memoranda and telegrams leave no shadow of doubt as to where the blame lies. The war guilt is Hitler's. He refused to stay his hand on any terms save Polish surrender, terms that could not be accepted in honour or decency. And it was Hitler who plunged Europe into war by launching his bombers over Poland at dawn on September 1. These are matters of documented record, open for reference by anyone who might for a moment be deluded by Ribbentrop's imaginative fabrications. Actually there should be no need to check over a speech that betrays itself by excess of falsity. Examine, for instance, the picture of an aggressive Britain, of her "unconciliatory attitude," "systematically and secretly preparing war for years," egging on Poland, and "forcing war on the French." The picture is not true to the British character; it leaves out the unwarlike figure of Mr. Chamberlain doing every last thing to keep the peace; it belies Ribbentrop himself, the evil counsellor who kept assuring Hitler , that Britain would never fight; it omits the long-suffering policy and the sacrifices that went by the name of appeasement; it is not a picture, but a fake. Equally false is Ribbentrop's charge of Polish intransigence. The Poles are a proud and high-spirited people, but to all the twists and turns of Nazi diplomacy, beginning a year ago, they reacted straightly and reasonably. Their moderation under studied provocation compelled the world's admiration and respect. From first to last "Warsaw remained open to free and equal negotiation of Nazi claims, but steadfastly declined to accept terms dictated by Hitler. He on his part utterly refused to discuss or negotiate on his claims. None can blame Poland for. refusing to surrender to Hitler's will, thereby sacrificing independence, sovereignty and the future of a nation of 34,000,000 people. These extraordinary proceedings—"offers" by Hitler that were really commands and rejections by Poland —were begun in October of last year, directly after Munich, and only ceased when Hitler ordered his armies into Poland. How many of the Nazi "offers" were formulated does not appear in the record. Hitler deigned to define one of them in his speech on April 28, only to announce that the time for its acceptance had passed. Such tactics do not bespeak peaceful intentions. Yet a few days later Colonel Beck returned a conciliatory answer, leaving the door wide open for negotiation. Whether Germany took the same bewilderingly high-handed course with her earlier "offers" on October 14, 1938, January 5 and March 6 is not yet known. What is known is the strange business of Hitler's final "offer," formulated in sixteen points, and said to have been drawn up on August 29. Its content was never communicated to Poland and was first disclosed verbally to the British Ambassador in Berlin on the night of August 30, when Ribbentrop said it had already been withdrawn. He blamed Poland for not sending a plenipotentiary that day to Berlin to treat on terms not communicated to Warsaw. Finally Poland was accused of rejecting an "offer" it had never seen and of having thereby precipitated war. These typically Nazi proceedings have been well described as constituting "the most black-hearted episode in diplomatic history." Beginning with the calculated creation of a German-Polish crisis, worked up by atrocity stories of a nauseatingly familiar pattern, and topped off with fraudulent peace "offers," they were designed to put the war guilt on Poland. Now Ribbentrop seeks to plaster Britain as well with blood-guiltiness. The cunning framing of the crime may deceive the German people, kept in ignorance of the facts, but the outside world has already found a unanimous verdict against Hitler. It is enough that the Fuehrer exposes his warlike intention in document after document. Writing to M. Daladier on August 27, he said: "A solution must be found ... if that were to mean war." Just as emphatically and relentlessly, he penned his "musts" and "wills" to Mr. Chamberlain and shouted them at Sir Nevile Henderson for communication to London. Turning over this correspondence between London and Berlin, and between Hitler and M. Daladier, the reader becomes more and more impressed by the firm and reasonable tone of London and Paris, and the continuing readiness to negotiate for a peaceful settlement. On the other hand he cannot fail to be shocked at the arrogant, strident and demanding tone of Berlin. None can fail to identify the aggressor, just as there is no question of who committed the first act of aggression. In the preliminary exchanges and in the final disastrous fact of war, Hitler is plainly and terribly marked as the criminal. Ribbentrop's malignant , lying to the contrary, Hitler is the [ red-handed murderer of peace*