The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1933. BAN ON THE PRESS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19509, 8 June 1933, Page 8

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1933. BAN ON THE PRESS.

Newspaper authorities in England ought not to be surprised by the decision of the new regime in Germany to place a definite ban on the circulation of certain newspapers in Germany. The Newspaper Society of the United Kingdom, it is interesting to note, claiming to represent one thousand British newspapers, has communicated with the German Ambassador in London, urging the removal of the ban on The Manchester Guardian. The only reply the Hitlerite authorities have so far deigned to make is to add The Daily Herald, the official organ of the British Labour movement, to the list of newspapers now forbidden to circulate in Germany. Doubtless further protests will be made by the spokesmen of the newspapers of the United Kingdom, but the Press in London ought to have realised by this time, that Herr Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists have made up their minds to permit the circulation only of newspapers that favour the Nazis. Twelve years ago the Working Man’s Party of Germany, now known as the National Socialists, drew up a programme of 25 points, which has since been accepted by Herr Hitler’s Government as the basis of its policy. Particular attention was paid to the press, and the most drastic measures were provided with the definite object of eliminating altogether the possibility of having to tolerate a hostile press. Below are the points of the programme designed to control the press:

23. We demand the legal measures be undertaken to prevent political chicanery and the propagation of political falsehoods by the Press. In order to create a German Press, we demand that: (a) All editors and members of the staffs of newspapers which are published in German shall be Members of the German Nation.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall appear only by special permission from the State. They shall not be published in German. (c) Non-Germans shall be forbidden to have any financial interest in, or to exercise any influence on, German newspapers, and we demand that any breach of these conditions shall entail the immediate closing down of the newspaper in question, and the immediate banishment from Germany of the non-Germans implicated. Newspapers which offend against the common weal are to be proscribed. We demand that the law shall wage war against any tendency in art and literature which exercises a disintegrating influence on our national life, and we demand the closure of any institutions which offend against the above demands.

24. We demand religious freedom for all denominations, so long as they do not endanger the stability of the State or offend against the German people’s instincts of morality and decency. The Party as such takes its stand on a postive Christianity, without committing itself to any particular creed. It combats the materialistJewish spirit (judisch-materialistsch) within and without (strongly interested in banking and the press) and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people is possible only from within and must be based on the principle of

The Common Interest before Self Interest.

It is scarcely likely that Herr Hitler will pay the least attention to the English protests, because he owes his success to the suppression of critics and opponents. He abolished free speech in Germany, shackled the press, and rigged the elections. For months he has been engaged in destroying the liberties of the people, but some day he may embark upon a constructive programme. A leader who has already driven many of his enemies, or those he conceived to be his enemies, into exile, and the rest into gaol or hiding, is not likely to pay much heed to the protests of foreign newspapers who have incurred the Nazis’ displeasure because they have dared to criticise their policy and performances.

NO MINI) FOR REACT

Although peace societies are loud in their claims that the danger of war can be met by pacts, con-

ferences and propaganda, it is disturbing to note that distinct notes of pessimism run through the pronouncements of many responsible people. One such note is sounded in the annual report of Professor Nicholas Murray Butler, director of the Division of Intercourse and Education, to the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment, for International Peace. Professor Butler writes: “Apparently (lie spirit and temper of mind which led to the Conference on the Limitation of Anna ments in .1921, (o the signing of the Treaties of Locarno in 1925. and to the signing of the Pact of Paris by fifteen Governments in 1928, and now adhered to by sixty nations in all, have been almost as completely forgotten as though they did not exist. . . . Those profit-making undertakings which are interested in the manufacture and shipment of arms are steadily reaching out to influence the policy of Governments as well as the approach to public opinion through the press. Changes that have recently taken place in the control of several

important newspapers on the Continent of Europe must b( regarded as distinctly ominous.

. . . The growing movement to make the manufacture of munitions of war a Government monopoly will be greatly strengthened as public opinion comes to recognise the dangers of permitting the continuance of conditions under which zeal for private profit is free vigorously to oppose the highest public interests of the people of the world. .. . The record of the year 1932 is so disappointing, indeed so bad, that it offers new and compelling challenge to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.” The American attitude at Geneva to the control of the manufacture of armaments, reported this morning, is rather disturbing. It is interesting to quote from another angle. In a brochure Professor Albert Einstein asks Siegnmnd Freud, the psycho-analyst, whether it is possible to control man’s mental evolution, so as to make him proof against hate and destructiveness and other emotions which cause war. Freud sees no possibility of the complete suppression of humanity's aggressive tendencies. “The Bolsheviks,” he writes, “aspire to do away with human aggressiveness by ensuring the satisfaction of material needs and enforcing equality between man and man. To me this hope seems vain. Meanwhile, they busily perfect their armaments, and their hatred of outsiders is not the least of the factors of cohesion among themselves.” Einstein writes: “The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.” Accordingly, he proposes the establishment, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations —one with greater executive force than the League of Nations possesses. Freud supports the idea, but a note of pessimism creeps in when lie says: “Why do we, you and 1 and many another, protest so vehemently against war, instead of just accepting it as another of life's odious importunities? For it seems a natural tiling enough, biologically sound and practically unavoidable. I trust you will not be shocked by my raising such a question.” This is a most staggering statement. Neveretlieless, so far there have been years of talk at conferences, but the critics say that not a single nation has made any move toward disarmament that affects in any material fashion the efficiency or strength of their fighting services.