LORD TAVISTOCK ON HITLER'S PEACE PROPOSALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24254, 23 March 1940, Page 19

LORD TAVISTOCK ON HITLER'S PEACE PROPOSALS

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—ln the Christian Pacifist of last November there is an article by Lord Tavistock for which " Christian pacifists" must take responsibility, and by which they stand condemned. It is a cunning, plausible statement from the Nazi point of view, with no recognition of the enormities of Nazi-ism, but rather a strong bias in favour of Germany. It reeks of Goebbels. It has reference to a speech of Hitler's on October 6, to which reference is made in cables of last Wednesday's Daily Times. I quote from the article and attach my criticism, Lord Tavistock's words being between inverted commas. "Hitler's proposals provide quite a fair basis for the beginning of negotiations, and the British Government cannot fairly object to them on the ground of the lack of precision, seeing that it has formulated no definite peace conditions of its own at all." But Hitler had Czechoslovakia and Poland ground under his heel, and was not likely to crive them up and restore damage done. Also Mr Chamberlain was very definite that our minimum was national freedom for these ravished nations, and that no confidence could be placed in the demoniac liars ruling Germany. There must be the disgorging of ill-gotten gains, and freedom from the menace of aggression and broken compacts such as is inherent in Nazi-ism.

"It has been stated that no peace proposals made by Hitler can be acceptable to the British Government unless they free Europe from the menace of aggression. This sounds, and to a great extent is, reasonable enough, but in view of the fact that in the past it has been the usual practice of the statesmen of all nations to put the interests of their own countries first, whether this involved the breaking of pledges or not, it is desirable to view the objective of 'safety from aggression' with the maximum amount of realism." While no one claims absolute honesty for our statesmen, it is offensive to anyone with some power of moral discrimination to rank them on an equal footing of.a-moralism and calculated perfidy with Hitler and Co. The democratic statesmen have not made "absolute dishonesty" a foundation clause of their ethics. "Two things are necessary; (a) a great measure of disarmament; and (b) removal to the greatest extent possible of all factors tending to provide some measure of excuse or provocation for aggression." Regarding (a) Britain and her Allies must not "insist on the retainment of a degree of military strength superior to that of Germany. He ignores the fact that it was Germany that had armed far beyond Britain or France, leaving all nations except Russia far behind in the race. Also, Britain does need a navy for her farflung Empire, as Germany does not. Regarding (b) he defends Germany's interference with her neighbours. ' It is unreasonable to expect Germany, or any other great Power, to tolerate the misgovernment by a neighbouring country of large numbers of people of her own race; and it is also useless to expect her to tolerate the use of such a country by large and unfriendly nations as a base for intrigue, and, in the event of war, as a starting point for military attack." He is not explicit, but he can only be referring to Austria, Sudetenland. Czechoslovakia and Poland. He implicitly denies that the disturbances among the German nationals and Nazi supporters were actually stirred up by the German Government to provide an excuse for attack. He implicitly asserts that Britain and France were using these lands "as a base for intrigue." That is, Germany was justified in all she has done. This is what Hitler told the Germans.

He agrees, however, that there should be " political freedom for whatever race is in the majority in the areas under consideration, and selfish financial interests should not be allowed to interfere with the attainment of this objective." This condition is just what Germany has repudiated, enslaving Czechs and Poles, and complicating the problem by evicting Poles from their own districts and filling their places with Baltic Germans. Should not these, in any peace terms, be driven into Germany, and Poles restored to their homes? He does riot define the " selfish financial interests," but further on states: "Again and again the British Government has sacrificed the peace of the world and the welfare of its own citizens to financial interests either in the city of London or of an international character". Also he holds that economic justice should be done to Germany either by the return of her colonies or a gift "at least equal to the wealth with which the colonies would be able to provide her." I agree that in the final peace terms economic justice should be done to all the nations, and believe every possible method should be studied and explored even now. I am not so sure about Lord Tavistock's method; however, it is open to discussion- i. «. Now what has he got to say about Germany's brutal rape of Czechoslovakia and Poland? " In regard to Poland hard facts should again be kept in mind when a decision on policy is being arrived at. Everyone who has known the country well is aware that the former territorial arrangements were faulty to a degree; the administration of affairs was undemocratic; acts of aggression were committed; and racial minorities, including Jews, were badly treated. It is neither possible nor desirable to restore anything like the original state of affairs, and the best objective at which to aim is the granting of political liberty to those districts where the population desires to manage its affairs without German interference. The same principle would, incidentally, hold good in regard to Czech districts. There is not much danger of German influence doing economic harm to the rank and file of the people of any country. This risk unhappily would be considerably greater in countries where the financial and foreign trade policy was of a kind approved by the financial advisers of the British or French Governments. It is greatly to be hoped that, in regard to German action in Poland, oui Government will resist the temptation to try to assume the role of a governess punishing' a naughty boy It will be quite useless, especially as no similar pressure can be brought to bear on Russia, to expect to succeed in forcing Germany to make sacrifices of reasonable German interests in Poland simply because she has caused the Poles such suffering in war. The German Government would reply that, if Poland had not rejected the not unreasonable proposals made by Hitler last spring, there would have been -no war, and that, if the British and French Governments had really wished to help the situation, instead of encouraging Poland to adopt an obstinate attitude, they would have endeavoured to discover some arrangement which was fair to Germany, as well as to Poland, which they would have urged the latter to accept." It is obvious that in these last sentences we have Lord Tavistock's own opinion. The whole thing is specious, anti-Ally, pro-German special pleading. The "governess" phrase >s straight from the mouth of Goebbels. Germany's brutalities are not hinted at. her news censorship and lie-feeding to her people, her Gestapo and concentration camps, her unspeakable treatment of the Jews, her persecution of the Roman Catholic and Confessional Churches, her methods of stirring up war within her intended victim before, and to provide excuse for, her final attack, Nazi " negotiations" with Dolfus and Schusnigg of Austria, with the leaders of Czechoslovakia and Poland, the breach of the Munich settlement, and the final conquest of a disarmed Czechoslovakia, and the frightful atrocities of the Polish war. Rather is Germany the victim of intrigue and hostility inspired by British and French financial interests. Regarding the Polish war, there is no hint of the Nazi reaction to the British and French " advice" to Czechoslovakia, and also the implicit assertion that the British White Book, recording the diplomatic action of our Government, and the Polish attitude to Hitler's desire to satisfy the German wish "to serve up Danzig for breakfast." with Sir Nevile Henderson's private report and the speech of Mr Chamberlain on the outbreak of war. these are. to put it bluntly, a pack of lies. There is also the revelation of a soulless degeneracy that is unable to sympathise with the passion of oppressed for "otinnai freedom, or to be

thrilled by sacrifices made to win and preserve that freedom. Rather, he practically says, the Poles and Czechs should be glad that they are under German influence from which they cannot suffer, instead of British or French. I belong to a small race that bled for centuries for national and religious freedom. The Parliament of Scotland in 1320 protested to the Pope in defence of its support of Robert Bruce, "So long as there shall but one hundred of us remain alive, 've will never give consent to subject ourselves to the dominion of the English. For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honour, but it is liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life." But, as the Christian Pacifist must accept responsibility for Lord Tavistock's article, those who stand by it must class themselves among 'those " with soul so dead". that Scott despises.—l am. etc.. Scot.