SOUTH AFRICA’S POLICY

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 58, Issue 4188, 24 May 1939, Page 9

SOUTH AFRICA’S POLICY

ATTITUDE TO GERMAN AGGRESSION. CONVERSION OF HERTZOG. On April 19th, the South African Government dispatched a large police force to South-West Africa in anticipation of disorders among the German population there on Herr Hitler’s birthday. The event is considered by the writer of this article, a South African journalist, to mark a turning point in the relations between South Africa and the totalitarian States. Something new has happened in Africa. The ruthless march of totalitarian aggression has changed a cautious, diplomatic, polite leader on foreign issues into a spirit of flame and fight. General Hertzog, Prime Minister of South Africa—the man who, “on behalf of the nation,’’ apologised three times to the German consul and once to the Italian consul for newspaper and other criticisms levelled at the leaders of the totalitarian Powers —has disclosed for the first time, not openly, but by implication, what he thinks of the Nazi Government.

And 'what General Hertzog thinks of the Nazi Government is very important indeed, for this Boer leader, commanding so much support in the South African backveld, is the man who will lead, the nation if war breaks out and the man who can silence in a large measure the question: “Why should we Afriklander fight Britain’s wars?” A SUPPORTER OF MUNICH. For years General Hertzag insisted that the Union must be friendly with all nations. He refused to be stampeded into a dislike of Germany or the Munich agreement, sent an enthusiastic cable to Mr Chamberlain congratulating him on his part in that agreement, and then in a public address forecast that peace would be restored to the world for at least 50' years.

To General Hertzog Munich was the great gateway to peace. He refused to believe that the leaders of modern Germany were insincere. He stoutly defended all the Union’s trade agreements with Germany, said they would be maintained, and approved the Union’s large purchases from the Reich.

There was no reason why General Hertzog should, dislike Germany. A South African first and last, a typical Boer, he has nevertheless German blood in him. He recognised the evils of the Versailles Treaty and saw that injustice must be remedied. He made it clear that the Union would not allow itself without many reservations to be dragged into war in which Britain is involved. Peace with all nations he insisted, was the policy of the Union. If war broke out, the question of participation or neutrality would be decided by the voice of the people through Parliament. South Africa had no commitments whatever.

He resented harsh criticisms of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini. “In the name of decency” he made his apologies.

Not a newspaper reader in the country knew where the leader of the South African people since 1924 stood in relation to the issues that seem now to be coming to a climax. Unlike General J. C. Smuts, the Deputy-Premier, General Hertzog neve- lyricised democracy. He never spoke on the subject. SOUTH-WEST AFFRICA. That is why April 20 is an important date in South African history. On this day General Hertzog rose in the House of Assembly in Cape Town to justify the Government’s dispatch of a large body of constables to SouthWest Africa —one of Germany’s former colonies now held under mandate by the Union. He replied with anger and scorn to the criticisms of the pro-German Opposition led by Dr. Malan.

He did a thing he has never done before. He attacked the Oppositionknown to the South African English Press as the Malanazis—for their pro-Nazi sympathies. Before this day he had never used the name of a party in a “friendly country” as an epithet for his own Opposition. And the way he accused the Malanazis of Nazism can now leave very little doubt about General Hertzog’s present opinion of the merits of that ideology. It is difficult to give any phrase or sentence which commits the. Prime Minister. Even at the height of his anger he chose his words with care; but the interpretations of his attitude is most unanimous—that far more definitely than in any of his considered statements on foreign affairs he has placed the Union in opposition to authoritarian aggression; that he tacitly admitted that the coming conflict will be a war of ideologies in which the Union must of necessity be concerned.

THE PERIL OF SMALL NATIONS.

“We have seen,” said the Premiei, “how the fact that it may be said of a small nation that it is unable to maintain order may be enough to lead up to a great nation stepping in and destroying the small nation. And we are expected to sit still and see disorder in South-West Africa be-

cause we have practically to police there. “We are expected not only to see disorder created, but also to see ourselves treated in the same way as other countries have been treated. For people imbued with the spirit of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition that may be nothing—they would be prepared to sacrifice the most valuable parts of South Africa so long as peace may be maintained. “We have known, too, that as far as South-West Africa is concerned, should an enemy step in and lay hands on the'territory, the Opposition, notwithstanding the duty placed on us to see that South-West Africa is protected against any injustice, would be prepared to acquiesce—to hand over South-West Africa and to run away. ‘I wish to tell honourable members that we will not run rway from the

mandated territory.” General Hertzog then went on to say the conduct of the Opposition was of such, a nature that others said: “Here we have to do with Nazis.” The Opposition always protested against this, “but it almost seems to me that they protest too much.” BEGINNINGS OF NATIONAL UNITY. This was a new General Hertzog and the -people of South Africa rubbed their eyes when they read his speech. Nazi aggression has brought one re-percussion in the African sub-con-tinent: a partial sympathiser the leader of a small nation—has had his eyes opened and has become an enemy full of fight. The impact of events is brushing aside all the theories of neutrality which have been so popular in South Africa these last few years. At the time of writing there are persistent reports that Dr. Malan’s party itself is now deeply riven on'this issue, that the majority of its members are beginning to see, like' the isolationists in America, that neutrality is untenable.

These are the first signs of a united nation on a question which caused internal rebellion, and nearly civil war, in 1914.