Evening star., 1905-10-14

proofs touched upon because we are now
in the very heart of the question.
First of all. in political respect the dis
solution of the union makes an entire
change, that the states on the Scandi-
navian peninsula no longer form a united
whole, either outwardly or inwardly. In
order to be able freely and powerfully to
meet outer enemies, both countries must
have their back free from trouble at Ko-
len. With Norway it is SO, but not in the
case of Sweden We can foresee more
than political complication when TINS
condition must have weakening influence
on Sweden's policy. infusing IL with an
element of uncertainty and hesitation A
defensive alliance with Norway in this
respect causes no change for that country
has too clearly proved that such an ALI
snce is valid only as long as ii is deemed
to be suitable Not before Norway low
ers the barrel of the gu:i which She has
pointed toward the back of Sweden, can
the latter country feel confident that no
mischief can take it by surprise from that
quarter. AS a foreign country, Sweden
cannot bear what II could bear as a fed
eral state. AS long as a confederate held
the weapon Sweden could shut her eyes to
this fact, but when that confederate, as
foreigner, stands with finger on the trig-
ger, that will create an insufferable state
of things Such situation must cause
permanent political dependency. 1t must
be firing and produce nervousness. And
then new controversies might arise. The
frontier forts are thus incompatible with
the political conditions, if these are
standing.
From a military point of view 1t is more
than evident that the frontier forts must
be demolished The great strategical dam
ger to Sweden which they involve at a time
of war is not enough. If the Norwegian
frontier forts remain, the inevitable result
will be that Sweden will be compelled also
to construct unnecessary and burdensome
fortifications on the western frontier at
Kolen. The economical power which Swe--
den could give to its defense is thereby alb
sorbed at point other than that which
should be an object for military expense.
Besides, there must be troops detached as
garrisons in the new forts, whereby the field
army becomes divided and diminished.
Moreover the fact that the Norwegian
frontier after the erasing of the fortresses,
will be open does not in the least place
Norway al a disadvantage. The same fact
can be applied to Sweden. And, more than
that Norway has the River Glommen line
still fortified, while the Swedish Klaralf
line remains open. Viewed with military
eyes in general, and strategical in particu-
lar, 1t may be said that the disappearance of
the military fortifications would lessen the
disadvantages incident to the separation of
the union, which otherwise must bring
about steps to prepare for war by the two
states. the one against the other, especially
from the side of Sweden.
AS regards economy, We shall, by the
demolition of the fortresses, be released
from all expenses on our western frontier
Norway not only derives great financial
benefit by not keeping up the frontier forts,
but Is In position to apply her modern ma
terial for the equipment of such fortifica-
tions as every Norwegian must nowadays
consider necessary to erect up in the north.
Then, again. little Importance should be
attached to the question regarding the Nor
Weg1an forts, in an ideal respect. Up to
the present, Sweden has shown herself will
ing to concede to Norway's wishes by self
denyingly sacrificing points of considerable
importance. To that confederate who has
broken the bonds of union, Sweden has Of
fered her services in the work of settling
the unhappy dispute. Thereby Sweden de-
mands merely one condition, sine qua non,
and one which exclusively contemplates
good. This one condition is: take away the
bayonet directed toward us. The people of
Sweden only desire peace to work and live
In harmony at home, and peace is threat
ened at the frontier by the fortresses there
existing.
AS a practical step toward safety, and
IN order to obtain peace in this direction,
the Swedish rksdag unanimously demands
the removal of these hostile works. This
demand is founded both practical and
logical grounds, and is. moreover, SO linn
tied as to the extent of the neutral terri
tory that it cannot be taken as an insult,
not to speak of humiliation, except by des-
perate natures who refuse to the claims
of reason. By demolishing the frontier
forts, Norway no doubt makes a sacrifice,
but the advantage she gains Is double. In
the first place, she obtains the confidence of
the neighboring people and their reliance
on her upright and peaceful intentions re-
garding the future Further. she will be
entitled TO the respect or the whole world
for the sobriety and wisdom she has shown
Herein lies the ideal and profoundly moral
Interpretation of the question.
The question must be settled on a thor
oughly fundamental basis. Disarming the
forts is not enough. War-nay, the danger
of war-breaks every compact. Then the
forts may suddenly be rearmed, and thus
we find ourselves again in the same posi-
ton of old No, only an absolute end
of the case, only a real demolishment OF
the forts, can be regarded a definite
solution. This done. and no new contro-
versies on this question can arise Let 1t
once again be clearly and emphaticaliy de-
clared that the razing of the fortiffcations
is no mere request demanded by Swedish
gentry, but in reality is an eminently nee
essary Swedish claim. 1t Is more-it is put
forward as the result of loftier desire than
that which Sweden has-it is Scandinavian
demand in order TO secure the Scandinavian
peace.
May the barriers. constructed by the hand
OF discord, fall. and may the Swedish and
the Norwegian peoples, in peaceful pursuit,
thrive and live on either side of the ruins!