Britain and Reich Say: ‘Firm Peace Between Us’

By a Staff Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

London, Sept. 30

Two feelings prevail throughout Britain today. One is of deep relief at lifting of dread of war which for tense moments appeared so imminent. The other is a firm resolve that – cost what it may – never again shall such a black shadow of impending conflict be allowed to deface the landscape of civilization.

As to the actual terms of the Munich agreement, in which Czechoslovakia has paid the price for the maintaining of today’s peace, the absence of the map attached to the accord and the lack of information on other points make observers here reluctant to form final judgment.

But in diplomatic circles there is not only the highest praise for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s efforts for peace but an unexpected amount of appreciation for the part played by premier Mussolini at Munich.

Smaller Than Godesberg Plan

Among the facts which are definitely established, the most important is that the areas to be ceded without a plebiscite are considerably smaller than in the Godesberg plan or even, it is reliably stated, than in the original France-British plan. The plebiscite areas on the other hand – though they have not yet been finally delimited – are understood to be considerably larger.

Much depends on the ultimate extent of these plebiscite areas and how the votings are to be taken; if they are small Germany will presumably get considerably more territory than if they are big enough to include a high proportion of Czechs.

Meanwhile, Signor Mussolini is represented as having been a definitely restraining influence, so much so that hopes are entertained that he may soon be ready to give the world a pleasant surprise about Spain.

Withdrawal of foreign volunteers from the Loyalist side has created a situation which makes the whole thesis under which Italy has hitherto intervened quite untenable, and it is therefore hoped that the unpopularity of the Spanish adventure among the Italians themselves may induce Signor Mussolini to liquidate it.

Eyes on Central Europe

That, however, is still matter for the future. Just now the eyes of Britain are all turned toward Central Europe. Mingled with expressions of relief at the lifting of war clouds is a deep feeling of sympathy and admiration for the Czechs. It is felt that throughout the crisis they have maintained a dignity and poise which are beyond all praise.

What Herr Hitler described as the “bloody terror” which caused 214,000 Sudetens to flee in panic boils down, according to Viscount Runciman’s report published in a White Paper, to sporadic disturbances in which not more than 70 were killed on both sides – and the majority of these were Czechs – down to the date of Lord Runciman’s departure on Sept. 16.

From such facts it is regarded here as incontestable that Germany’s new acquisition of territory comes as a sequel to a campaign of unparalleled threats, distortion, and calumny which, there is reason to believe, did not even convince the Germans themselves.

After War to End War

In the light of such a situation it is asked on every side: Why should this terror have recurred within 20 years of winning a “war to end war”? How, it is also asked, are we to make certain that the earthen pot of democracy shall be able safely for the future to float down the troubled stream of world civilization without danger of fatal collision with that iron caldron of Fascism that has been so narrowly escaped this time.

British Conservatives answer by pointing to the mobilization of the British fleet and to the calling up of French reserves as an immediate reason why the Czechoslovakian outlook seems likely to differ from that of Abyssinia, Spain and China. Liberals and Labor on the other hand, though still reluctant to put their trust for peace in Kipling’s “reeking tube and iron shard,” nevertheless also agree that aggressive force cannot be met without oppositional force in order to make law prevail. The consequence is to be seen here in continuance of armament measures.

“National Service for All”

The London Times gives big headlines on its leader page today to demand for “national service for all” as being “democracy’s hope of survival.”

The Daily Express says today, “We can weld men, money, and materials into an overwhelming array of weapons, a mighty curtain of defense between the Empire and any who might think of challenging its peace.”

The Manchester Guardian refers to the “big price” at which the present crisis has been surmounted and gives prominence to the view that “state tension” must remain and that Britain will have to be “better prepared for any future crisis than it was this time.”

A crowd in Whitehall cheered when the news of the Munich agreement came and there was cheering in newsreel theaters, but there was no mass demonstration.

The average Briton had felt that “it’s all over now” since the announcement that the heads of Western Europe’s four chief powers were getting together to settle Czechoslovakia’s war-breeding minorities problem.

Three thousand persons in Croydon theater cheered for five minutes when the manager announced the talks were succeeding.

A crowd surrounded Mrs. Neville Chamberlain as she left a special peace service in a London church.

Women shook her hand and almost embraced her.

Choking with emotion, the Prime Minister’s wife could only say: “Thank you! Oh, thank you!”