ALLIED REPLY TO HITLER’S OFFER

Southland Times, Issue 23945, 11 October 1939, Page 7

ALLIED REPLY TO HITLER’S OFFER

STATEMENTS TO BE MADE SOON NEUTRAL STATES COLD TO GERMAN PLAN (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, October 9. Authoritative replies to Herr Hitler’s Reichstag speech will be delivered in speeches by the British Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain) and the French Prime Minister (M. Edouard Daladier) within the next few days. Meanwhile opinion both in Britain and France and in the Dominions whose governments are in consultation with the United Kingdom Government hats condemned out of hand proposals which are not supported by adequate guarantees.

The reception of the speech in neutral countries has scarcely been less chilling. Nowhere is there a sign that any neutral country will take _ the initiative offered by the Fuhrer. Signor Mussolini in a recent speech made no reference to Herr Hitler’s plan. Japan has denounced it. The sovereigns of Holland and Belgium decline to intervene. In the-United States Senator Key Pittman, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in declaring that the President (Mr Franklin D. Roosevelt) may make another effort for peace, adds significantly “but not until the spirit of adjustment is manifest”

Newspapers in these and other neutral countries reveal recognition of the fact that die speech offers no opportunity for mediation by a third party. The Japanese newspaper Yomiuri considers it unthinkable that Britain and France will adopt Herr Hitler's proposals. “Why,” it asks, “did not Herr Hitler try to bring about materialization of his peace ideals before the upheaval began?” It adds that in spite, of the Polish, British and French readiness to discuss a peaceful settlement, Herr Hitler showed no sign of acquiescence. “His speech,” says this newspaper, “has little significance except as an attempt to shift responsibility for the war to Britain and France."

The first Russian comment on Herr Hitler’s speech appears in the official journal Izvestia, which regards it as a practical basis for an early peace. Izvestia states: “The British and French 'Press comments do not reveal the expected desire for the termination of the war in a business-like way. The demand for restoration of Poland has modestly receded into the background and the annihilation of Hitlerism is proclaimed as the principal demand. Nothing can justify continuation of senseless slaughter.” Its marked change in tone has attracted attention to the latest article in the Rome newspaper Voce d’ltalia by Dr Virginio Gayda, who is generally regarded as Signor Mussolini’s unofficial spokesman. “For the sake of European civilization," he says “Italy invites the great and responsible nations to face reality so that they can withdraw in time from the fatal brink. We can understand some of the British and French motives in their hostile attitude, but we hope that they will not predominate in the final decisions. It is more true to say that Herr Hitler’s proposals, though vague, point the way. We are facing now problems which must otherwise remain to be faced after the war in the West. Italy for 17 years has foreseen what has occurred and invites recognition of the inevitable.”

GERMAN OPTIMISM The Rotterdam correspondent of The Times says the opinion in Berlin on the chances of peace is entirely optimistic. The man in the street talks as if .it, were certain in the near future, because, he says, Britain and France have no hope of winning and Mr Chamberlain and M. Daladier will soon negotiate or be forced to resign by the British and French peoples. This demonstrates the success of German propaganda. Dominion Press comment on Herr Hitler’s speech continues to show complete scepticism about the credit worthiness of his peaceful professions. Canadian newspapers of all politics are as one in pointing out the futility of sitting round the conference table with Nazi statesmen. Among the most effective rejoinders to the peace offensive is that made by The Toronto Globe and Mail. Without comment, that newspaper lists the previous occasions on which Herr Hitler has summoned the Reichstag to hear peace pronouncements and the sequels to those occasions. Readers are left to make their own estimate of the value of his latest proposals.

New Zealand Press comment unfavourable to Herr Hitler’s proposals is also quoted in London. The Delhi correspondent of The Times says that India is unanimous that Britain and France must reject peace proposals similar to those in Hitler’s speech. Nevertheless, the Viceroy’s attempts to reconcile all the communities of interest preparatory to a declaration of India’s position since the war has become increasingly difficult, with the multiplication of political and religious bodies and sectional views. “FUTILE TERMS”

Commenting on the trend of neutral opinion, The Daily Telegraph says: “Everywhere outside the frontiers of Nazi rule Herr Hitler’s terms are seen to be futile.”

The Times, after noting that the speech included several proposals in themselves unexceptionable, says: “The long record of Herr Hitler's broken pledges has proved to all the world that neither his spoken word nor his signature to a treaty has the slightest value. In these circumstances no proposals that he might make could lead to negotiations unless they were accompanied by tangible guarantees that what he contracted to do would, in fact, be carried out. No such guarantees were offered on Friday—it has been widely maintained in the United States and in other neutral countries that no guarantees strong enough to find Herr Hitler to his word are capable of being devised. “That is certainly the opinion that Britain and France have reached by a long and bitter experience of one whom they have tried to go on trusting even after that trust had been betrayed. There is nothing left for them to do but strengthen their resolve to rid Europe of the man and his policy that are an obstacle to its peace.” Mr Chamberlain, asked in the House of Commons by Mr Arthur Henderson (Labour) whether it was the Government’s policy to publish, jointly with France, a specific statement of Allied war aims based on the principles already enunciated by the Government, said that Britain and France were in complete accord on the purposes for which they had entered the war. “Those purposes have more than once already been stated by both Governments,” he said. “No doubt as time goes on both governments will consider whether their war aims shall be stated in a more specific form.”