NOTES OF THE DAY

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 62, Issue 4403, 17 March 1941, Page 3

NOTES OF THE DAY

COMMENTS—REFLECTIONS. THE NORWEGIAN OUTLOOK. “Above all the Norwegian nation has drawn fresh inspiration for its passive resistance from reaction against the worst psychological blunder made by the invaders the attempt to drive a wedge between a loyal people and their patriot King. King Haakon in exile has become just such a focus for the aspirations of his countrymen to freedom as long ago King Alfred was in Athelney. Any doubts they may have felt in the dark days of June have been dispelled. A gentleman in Oslo recently called at a restaurant to reserve a table for the day of the King’s return. He was told that all places were booked for the first three days of the celebrations, but room might be found for him on the fourth.”— London Times. * * * * A CONTINENTAL BLOC. “This attempt to create a great Continental bloc as against Britain is, as we all know, by no means new. There is the Napoleonic precedent which at one moment seemed likely to succeed on the same lines and by the same method, but Leipzig and Elba and Waterloo and St. Helena determined otherwise. The vast and glittering Empire of Napoleon is no more than a memory, while the British Empire, his antagonist, still endures and with added greatness. Britain also offers to the world an example of a new order, and Hitler and Mussolini will find there is all the difference between a freely associated Commonwealth and a conquered and enslaved Continent.” Viscount Samuel, in the House of Lords. * * * * HUNGARY’S DEFAULT. “Hungary’s default on her foreign debt the moment she definitely joined

the Axis provides a minor, but none the less characteristic, example of Nazi commercial morality. It has been part of the Nazi policy from the very outset that ‘interest - slavery’ must be destroyed, and debts contracted abroad must be either skilfully reduced to a fraction of their original amount or simply repudiated. For years German diplomacy sought to persuade foreign Governments to repudiate their external debts, advice to which some Governments were only too willing to listen. Many examples could be quoted to show that German diplomacy preached the Nazi anti-creditor doctrine in an attempt to drive a wedge between this country and its foreign debtors.”—Financial News, London. * * * * TO PREVENT AGGRESSION. “Some machinery to prevent aggression is an absolute necessity. The League machinery created with that purpose failed and with its failure went the dislocation of the whole international system. It failed because, first over Manchuria, and later over Abyssinia, the leading members of the League were not prepared to exert force to stop aggression. To trust to any other motive as sufficient to arrest a Hitler or a Mussolini is reckless folly. As a fact, every device for concentrating world opinion againt Japan and Italy in 1932 and 1935 was tried in vain. Later, every conceivable appeal was fruitlessly made to restrain Hitler. The only question is, can sufficient force be organised to prevent future aggression? I believe it can, but only if the Governments of Europe are prepared to use their whole strength, moral and material, to operate the international machinery for the purpose.” Viscount Cecil, in the Contemporary Review.

REQUIREMENTS OF MODERN WARFARE. “Like the French, the Italians greatly underestimated the material requirements of modern warfare. The absence of striking power in the Italian army and navy probably stems in large part from the lack of adequate supplies of needed raw materials. Military strategy doubtless is severely handicapped by the need for limiting consumption of petroleum and other strategic supplies. Germany made herself self-sufficient as regards a wide variety of raw materials before she declared war, and now draws upon the resources of the greater part of Europe to supplement her own production. Unless Italy receives substantial economic aid from Germany, her economic position may become intolerable, making it necessary for her to withdraw from active hostilities, either through the adoption of a purely defensive strategy or the negotiation of an armistice with Great Britain. Whether or not such an outcome can be brought about without internal political upheavals is yet to be seen.”— The New York Journal of Commerce. * * * * THE SOVIET’S AIM. “I believe the Soviets wish one of two things: either the endless continuation of the Sino - Japanese struggle, with no decision one way or the other; or, better still, a gradual partition of China between Russia and Japan, with a weak Chinese buffer State left in between. It is significant that such a partition of China has been virtually in progress for some time. A mixed SovietJapanese commission is now working on the demarcation of the frontier between Manchukuo and Soviet Mongolia. Whose territory is it that Moscow and Tokio are thus ‘amicably’ dividing ? China’s territory, of course. Before 1931 (the year of the Japanese aggression in Manchuria) the Chinese Governments of Peiping and Nanking protested time and again against the camouflaged Soviet annexation of Mongolia. So the question may well be asked: if China should win the war, would she not reopen her claim on Mongolia? For sections of Mongolia and all of Tannu-Tuva are very rich in copper, tin, lead, gold, silver and other mineral resources.” Mr Alexander Hagaroff, in the New York HeraldTribune.