THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1949. THE SCANDINAVIAN ALLIANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26980, 15 January 1949, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1949. THE SCANDINAVIAN ALLIANCE

Although the traditional policy of the Scandinavian countries of Northern Europe is one of neutrality and the avoidance of commitments to blocs and pacts, Sweden’s reported offer of a full military alliance to Norway and Denmark has not come unexpectedly. The three countries have many interests in common, but the obvious obstacle to agreement is the condition imposed by Sweden that the junior partners in the proposed alliance should not enter any North Atlantic security pact. The decision, for both Norway and Denmark, will be a hard one. Genuinely desirous though both might be of entering into a Scandinavian alliance they must realise that the security offered is problematical in the extreme. In both countries there are considerable bodies of political opinion which doubt the desirability or possibility of continued neutrality in the event of war. Both countries suffered cruelly in the last conflict, and however much they may desire to keep out of war in the future their experience has taught them that the decisions of the future might be out of their hands. They realise, moreover, that even in alliance with Sweden their combined military strength would be quickly overwhelmed unless outside assistance was quickly made available—and the North Atlantic Pact offers concrete promise of that assistance, together with the preliminary planning that would make the help given most effective. One of the most interesting aspects of the present proposal is that Sweden has departed so far from its historic attitude of absolute neutrality as to initiate negotiations for a military alliance with its neighbours. A year ago, during discussions on the “ Bevin Plan ” for Western Union,"the Swedish Foreign Minister emphasised that his country “ desired to avoid any commitments that would lead to a departure from the traditional policy of neutrality, and would therefore nbt participate in any military alliance, understanding or entente, and would remain opposed to political blocs.” The Danish and Norwegian premiers also denounced the principle of military alliances, while advocating greater economic co-operation among the Scandinavian countries. World events have forced a revision of these ideas. The first step towards an agreement on defence was taken last September, when the Swedish Minister of Defence visited Norway to discuss standardised methods of training and equipment. The Foreign Ministers of Sweden, Norway and Denmark also agreed that their three Governments, as the first step towards an effective Scandinavian alliance, should set up a combined committee to study methods of military collaboration. These moves have been interpreted by overseas observers as a preliminary to Sweden’s eventual adherence to a combined European plan of defence, and there is an influ’ential minority in the Swedish Government which advocates the acceptance of Western Union or the North Atlantic Pact. It can be confidently assumed, however, that any excursions that Sweden might take in the new field of international collaboration will be made cautiously, and the prospect of its adherence to the European alliances supported by the United States is still remote.

THE FACE OF DR JOHNSON It is a familiar taunt that many who figure prominently at meetings in honour of Robert Burns, now that be has been dead more than a century, would have been most embarrassed if they had found themselves in his company—and the company of his friends—when he lived in Ayr. But Burns is not singular in having such admirers. There are many celebrated figures in history who have become the objects of a sort of cult after their deaths and the evil they have done and all things about them which are unprepossessing or unbecoming have been “ interred with their bones.” Men of literary genius seem especially to attract such followers. Burns needs no apologist, but Burris, “ the Man,” was a very different being from Burns, the patron saint of some clubs which are ostensibly devoted to his memory. Similarly, admirers of the ethereal Shelley choose to ignore some of the incidents of his life, and those who profess to love “ The Essays of Elia ” blot from their thoughts the image of the stuttering, gin-sipping buffoon whom Charles Lamb described in caricature. None of this, however, prepares the mind for the intelligence that the members of the Johnson Society in London tare guilty of worshipping a stained glass presentation of the great doctor; It has been reported that during the reconstruction of the Church of St. Clement Danes there has been some controversy about the statue of Dr Johnson which stands at the rear of the church, looking down Fleet street, and that the society is indifferent to its future because it is not “ a good one ” and makes him “ look like a negro.” Has not the awesome thought occurred to them: What would Dr Johnson have said? The pertinacious Boswell once ventured so far in the course of a discussion on clothes as to ask “ Would not you, sir, be the better for velvet embroidery? ” and Johnson angrily retorted: “ Sir, you put an end to all ai’gument when you bring in your opponent himself. Have you no better manners? There is your want.” This, it is to be imagined, would be an amiable reproof to the outraged roar of Ursa Major if someone had commented, favourably or otherwise, on his features. In truth, any representation of him which was prepossessing would not be a faithful one. Macaulay, in the article which still appears in the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: ‘‘The boy’s features, which were originally noble and not irregular, were distorted by his malady (scrofula). His cheeks were deeply scarred.” After her first meeting with Johnson in his later years, Fanny Burney wrote:

“He is, indeed, very ill-favoured.” And Boswell’s first impression, according to a recently discovered

fragment in the Isham Papers was of “ a man of most dreadful appearance . . . troubled with sore eyes, the palsy and the King’s Evil.” A flattering statue of Johnson would be an insult, but to criticise an unflattering one as making him “ look like a negro ” might have evoked an unexpected retort from Johnson for he was a very good friend to Frank, his negro servant. But good statue or not, it is now a part of Johnsoniana, and it should be retained in its old place ‘‘looking down Fleet street.”