THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, January 25, 1940. WAR AND PEACE AIMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24205, 25 January 1940, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, January 25, 1940. WAR AND PEACE AIMS

The recurring demand for the clearest possible definition of the war and peace aims of the Allies indicates the extent to which public opinion, especially in Great Britain, is concerned to ensure not only that the struggle in Europe shall not be prolonged beyond the grim limits of necessity, but that there shall also be, beforehand, an intelligible appreciation of the conditions on which lasting peace may be established. The Archbishop of York, Dr Temple, speaks of the existence among the British people of a growing feeling which he describes as "We know what we are fighting against but we don't know what we are fighting for." The problem falls thus naturally into its two divisions. On the subject of war \ aims there should be few people, in any British country, who are actually in need of enlightenment. The purpose of the Allies is the destruction of Hitlerism and what it stands for in Europe, and from that purpose there can be no turning back. Mr Harold Nicolson, who has perhaps written and spoken as much as any of his contemporaries on the subject of war aims, recently stated that after a lecture tour of England, what struck him most was that the attitudes of his audiences, and the questions they asked, showed little variation between London and the provinces, between the educated and the uneducated. The majority response, he said, was the same upon every occasion. He would interpret it as follows:

We did not want this war. We did everything—perhaps even too much—to get out of it. Yet after March 15 it was clear that this country would have to choose between resistance and surrender. Inevitably we had to choose resistance, and we must now go on resisting to the end. We have only one war aim, namely, to win this war. We have only one peace aim, namely, to prevent such a thing happening again. Now let us get on with the job.

It would be difficult to reduce issues so portentous to simpler terms. What has been again 4 emphasised by Dr Temple is that the business of " getting on with the job" must take account, even at this stage, as much of the terms of peace as of efforts toward victory. He admits that any precise statement of the conditions of settlement is as yet impossible; but he also argues, with undoubted force, that the fact that Herr Hitler might reject any peace terms now framed, no matter how loose or general their nature, is no reason for not stating them. Rejection of such an Allied statement, he submits, would act as a stimulus to the British and French people, while later it would feed the mood of disappointment which might be expected to succeed military failure within the German Reich. There is a good deal to be said for such a view. It is much too early to assume any significant weakening of the determination of the German people to continue a struggle which, by skilful and persistent though unscrupulous propaganda, they have been made to believe was forced upon them by the democracies. But if there is to be eventual disillusionment for the German people, it is obviously wise for the Allies to place themselves in a position to use that development advantageously. Every statement on war aims made so far by the political leaders of Britain has heavily underlined the absence of intention to seek a vindictive peace. If, therefore, aims are now defined having as their objective the restoration of European

peace on the basis of security and free intercourse between all peoples, those of Germany among them, the ordinary German may come to the realisation, when he begins to find out that Germany cannot win, that earlier rejection of a just peace offer had amounted in fact to a betrayal. The new Europe, the Master of Balliol has urged, cannot be made without a Germany fairly ready to be an active partner. To that end a frank and generous avowal of the Allied peace aims would seem to be a useful preliminary.