Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, MAR, 9, 1939. STRENGTH OF BRITAIN

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19883, 9 March 1939, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, MAR, 9, 1939. STRENGTH OF BRITAIN

Al. a time when there has been a good deal of criticism regarding the policy and alleged weakness of Great Britain it is refreshing to hear the optimistic views of such a wellinformed commentator as Lord Nuffield. In the first place, he expresses the belief that there will be no war, and his confidence is demonstrated, as he himself points out, by the fact that he is prepared at the present time to absent himself from England where he has such vast interests. His second comforting comment is his assurance that Britain, at the time of the crisis in September last, was by no means so weak as had been suggested and that her policy was not for one moment dictated by fear of war. Thirdly, he brings encouraging news of the economic position in the Motherland and asserts that Britain is busier than any other country. Lord Nuffield is not a politician and is not in the habit of speaking for effect, and for these reasons his words carry more weight, and his outlook is heartening to those at this side of the world whose views are apt to be distorted by distance and by the political taint of so much of the comment. It is still true, of course, that Lord Nuffield’s opinion is only that of one man, but it is strongly supported by other facts that are available.

British foreign policy will always be the subject of differences of opinion based largely on political sympathies and irrespective of what particular party might be in power. Strangely enough, however, these differences are as much marked within the parties as between them. This was shown during the last war, when the Government lost some of its own supporters but secured support from the Labour Party. It is even more marked today. Not only have there been Cabinet changes through cleavages of opinion, but in the Opposition party there are at least three conflicting foreign policies—there is the group of straight-out pacifists led by Mr. Lansbury, the bellicose group led by Major Attlee who wanted intervention in Spain and war over Czechoslovakia, and the Independent Labour Party who, strangely enough, supported Mr. Chamberlain. If Lord Nuffield has any party political leanings he has succeeded remarkably well in obscuring them, but it is known that at one time he was a stern critic of the Government. Notwithstanding this, however, he willingly admits that it was Mr. Chamberlain alone who averted war in September and he gives the Prime Minister credit for the piesent international attitude of the United States and, more important than anything else, contends that the policy of the Government generally has succeeded.

Some measure of this success may be obtained by consideration of the progress of rearmament and the reactions to the programme. Great Britain is contemplating a defence expenditure during the coming financial year of more than ,£500,000,000, an outlay which has never been approached except in wartime. Notwithstanding this vast diversion of expenditure, the nation is able to face the situation, not only with equanimity, but almost with cheerfulness. In commercial and industrial circles there is an atmosphere of confidence and all the markets appear to be normal, if not actually buoyant. In other words, Britain has been able to undertake its huge rearmament programme without seriously dislocating her normal activities. It is only natural in the circumstances that there should be some recession of trade, but the fact that exports last year exceeded those of 193 G indicates the extent to which industry has been maintained, while the financial strength of the nation is disclosed by the funds that are available for investment and the low rates of interest. These facts give force to the comment made some months ago that if it came to a contest in which resources counted, as they must count, Britain was better armed than any country with which she was likely to be in competition.

There is further consolation of another kind in this week’s comment from Rome and Berlin. Dr. Goebbcls, who in the past has been in the habit of belittling Great Britain, now finds ground for complaint in the almost inconceivable size and wealth of the British Empire and bemoans the fact that Germany is scarcely able to supply her people with necessary food. There is a strikingly similar change of tune in Italy, where Signor Gaydn, the unofficial Minister of Propaganda, comments on the vast expenditure which Britain is able to afford for rearmament. In both Berlin and Rome there is resentment at British wealth, but the significant feature of the comment is that there are no longer belligerent threats but, instead, almost the language of jealous and petulent children. Signor Gayda, for instance, complains that Mr. Chamberlain’s formula of a negotiated peace is changing to peace by intimidation. The most effective retort, perhaps, is that peace by intimidation is better than no peace at all provided that it benefits all at the expense of none. It is well to recall, however, that both Italy and Germany used intimidation, not so much for peace as to secure their own ends at the expense of other people. Even if

the charge against Britain is correct, therefore, the answer is that it' is better to have a policeman who will act fairly and impartially than one who will act like a gangster to feather his own nest. The mere fact that Germany and Italy are showing signs of being intimidated is the best guarantee of world peace and the strongest possible endorsement of British policy.