The assembly of important Allied forces in the Near East, and the general preparation against emergencies in that part of the world adds significance to the step taken by the Turkish Government on Monday in invoking the National Defence Law giving it what amounts to dictatorial powers. While the interpretation of the meaning of this step is held in some quarters to be because Turkey feels herself and the Allies menaced in the Balkans and the Nea: East, the probabilities are that she is merely making the necessary dispositions to meet any threat which may develop. It is to be doubted whether Germany will undertake any new ventures in the Balkans at any rate for the time being, for Herr Hitler is completely convinced on the necessity of not being engaged on more than one front at a time. There is a possibility that Russia might seek to invade Rumania, but that is unlikely until she has been able to settle the Finnish campaign and relieve herself of the expensive preoccupation she has discovered for herself at the northern end of the Baltic. Nevertheless the time may not be far distant when there will be an extension of hostilities into other parts of the world, and the most likely spot is in south-eastern Europe and the Near East. Against such an event the Allies have been assembling their forces, and it is estimated that with the adherence of Turkey there is already sufficient strength available to take care of any unfortunate development which might occur. The National Defence Law is wid" in its application and permits of the Government being able to place the country in an adequate posture of defence, purely as a precautionary measure. It is unlikely that the Allies with Turkey will themselves start operations in the Balkans and the Near East, for their only objective is the maintenance of the status quo but the fact that they are in a position to accept any challenge which may be made to their influence in that part of the world should have a generally stabilizing effect, and possibly prevent the spread of the war, Case Made Worse Two suggestions have been put forward for dealing with the case of the rescue of British prisoners from the German war vessel Altmark, one, that the whole question shall-be submitted to the League of Nations, and the cond, that a committee of experts under President Roosevelt should arbitrate in the matter. Norway is fully entitled to submit the matter to the League and will not be criticised if she does 50, though it would be something of an irony for the League to be called upon to decide a question under that very international law which Germany has consistently violated since she embarked upon this war. The suggestion of arbitration is, however, wholly inacceptable. There are three parties to the incident in question, and no real judgment could be delivered which failed to take account of German actions in violation of international law and those dictates of humanity which have been callously disregarded by them. Lord Halifax has made the British attitude quite clear, and unfortunately for the Norwegian case, so has Mr. Halvdan Koht, the Norweigian Minister. He is reported, to have told the Norwegian legislature, that even if they had known there were British prisoners on board the Altmark they would have allowed that vessel to use territorial waters. According to the Foreign Minister's statement the Altmark was fying the German government service flax as distinct from the naval or mercantile flags. which seems to indicate that the Altmark, being identifiable as neither fish, flesh, nor fowl nor good red herring, was permitted rights which Norway denies Great Britain. The Altmark was definitely a war vessel, engaged upon a warlike mission, and in the carrying out of it made use of territorial waters, Had she remained an unduly long time in any Norwegian port she would have had to be interned in the ordinary course of things, and the fact that she. was actually moving through territorial waters does not do away with the fact that she was indeed seeking refuge in them. If Norway is thus going to permit her waters to be used by one belligerent she cannot in all fairness deny similar use to the others, and to do so would be a breach of that neutrality in the observation of which Norway has displayed a very apparent passivity. It is a fallacy that only belligerents als. They in their turn have equal responsibilities to the former which have to be fully borne, and if neutrals cannot maintain their neutrality in an efficient manner they cannot expect much sympathy if belligerents find themselves forced to take into their own hands the defence of their very obvious rights.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.