WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 75, 29 March 1928, Page 6

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW.

(By BYSTANDER.)

faV>ntrary to general expectation, the Powers decided to take the Russian disarmament proposals seriously, and last week at Geneva Lord CusHeriflvin devoted some time and trouble to the icriticism of Litvinoff's plans. It was easy to sbonv that most of the suggestions put forward on VAalf of the Soviet State are hopelessly impracticable. By the way, it is a curious fact that jut a time when in America and Australia the aiuthorities who have the responsibility of maintl lining law and order are constantly deploring and protesting against the practice of carrying and using firearms, the Bolsheviks suggesl that in the new and better society that they to inaugurate private individuals should carry re volvers "for personal defence." This does not see bo. to me a particularly attractive outlook, but I mvet not let it divert me from my present topic. '.I,'he most effective point that Lord Cushendu n made against Litvinoff took the form of a qtujstrion. Do the Bolsheviks believe in war, and if tfi ey do not, why do they proiqote revolutions and civil wars throughout the world? Litvinoff It attempt to find a plausible answer to this extrfntiely pertinent query had at least the effect of revealing the barrenness and futility of his widelj advertised scheme. War, with a Difference. One of, the most provoking features of Bolshevism i| that while it is never weary of denouncing war, its very existence is based upon violent and sanguinary conflict. In Russia itself the Bolsheviks seized power by violence, they have kept .it by armed force, and in the effort to maintain their own ascendancy they have steeped the land in blood. And all this is justified in ifcheir eyes because it is the natural and necessal y outcome of the doctrine of the Class War, «o.ti which their whole philosophy ot life and the ir political principles are founded. Yet these aini the people who now have the insolence to> rebuke the rest of the world for not choosing peace rather than war. More than this, not colli tint with carrying the Class War to these bitter and sanguinary extremes in Russia itself, they aire ceaselessly striving to stir up violent revolutions elsewhere. While Litvinoff prates about world peace at Geneva, the London newspapers are protesting against the activities of the Third International, whose emissaries are distributing seditious pamphlets throughout the British Navy ;<nd striving to rouse the men to mutiny. All tli|a£ Litvinoff was able to say in answer to Lord, Cusliendun's question was that civil war is not sort of war that he condemns, and that, anyho* v, Britain has no right to send troops and warsfiips to China and other remote parts of the eanth- But, seeing that the Bolsheviks were largely responsible for the trouble at Shanghai and |C*nton, this argument fell particularly flat. 14 is just because of such contingencies as this, as Lord Cushendun has said, that Britain canwtj afford to scrap her Navy altogether. But in any case Litvinoff was practically forced to pi end guilty to the charge of fostering and war while preaching peace. Let Britain Lead the Way. I da not want t<r overwork the question of Disarmament just n*-*', but a point was made in the recent debate »on the British Naval Estimates which seems ho me to demand a little comment. Mr. C. P. Trevelyan, a well-known member of the Libs ral "intelligentsia" now attached to the Labouf party, protested against the threatened "armam|T>t race" between Britain and the United States, t and hazarded the opinion that "if Britain led the \way to disarmament the other Powers would follow." This formula, "Britain must lead the »vav," is fast becoming one of the catch-words of politics at Home; and Mr. Arthur Ponsonby, one of Mr. Trevelvan's faithful friends, made the Baine proposal a year ago in the House of Com mens. "Disarmament by example," says Mr. Powsonby, "has the same effect as the scheme for tlie outlawry of war." He further explains that tl lis scheme solves the dilemma which every Government has to face "when by every other pre -posed scheme it is obliged to keep armaments in being, improve them so that they may not V>a out of date, and listen to experts as to their rudequacy." Therefore —"let Britain lead the w/iy." What Next 3' Perhaps the most effective reply to such proposals is the retort made bj' Lord Cushendun upon some of his critics at Geneva and elsewhere, who blame Britain for not doii ig enough in the cause of world peace. What a sensation it would have made at Geneva, he sai4', if the British delegate had been able to state %that Britain was prepared to scrap 1000 lighting 1 ships of a total tonnage of 2,000,000. Yet, as an actual fact, Britain has done this, and it ir not her fault that the rest of the world has not followed her lead. But suppose that Britain juow took the advice of Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. .Ponsonby and proceeded to put the whole of J»er fleets and armies out of commission at once. What then? What guarantee could he have —e>»cept the optimistic prophecies of these amiabl* gentlemen—that the rest of the world would! follow suit? Even Mr. Ponsonby seems haunted by & vague suspicion here; but he follows out his doctrine boldly to its logical conclusion. H|s scheme, he admits, "does not contemplate any it aed for selfdefence, which implies belief in an aggressor." But what if, m spite of your refuail to admit the possibility of aggression, someon*- insists 011 attacking you—what then? I fear Britain disarmed would need more than Mr. Ponsonby's sublime confidence in human nature to protect her. Who was to Blame?

In 1919" the newly-established Genuaßepublic set up a Committee to discover "why Germany lost the war." That Committee has jjust sept in its report, and the cabled extracts { rom this document make very curious reading. 3 Naturally enough the Committee could not find ajny facts to justify fixing upon Germany the responsibility for the war. That we might have expect* d. But it is a little surprising to find that the Coj nmitt.ee was equally unable to find anyone resp onsiblefor Germany's defeat. The collapse of Gt rniany was due to "a combination of various c ircumstances and events"—that is all. There .is no truth in the popular view that "a revolutionary movement caused the collapse on the home I ront." Nor is it true that the mutiny in the navj r was Socialistic or revolutionary in origin; nor Is it possible even to ascribe the revolution itsii If to "any particular incident," or to "any or gal lised revolutionary leadership." In brief, it has t»iken this Committee of experts nine years to discover that nobody caused the war, nobody caused 4 iermany's defeat, and nobody caused the revolution. All these things just "happened"; they ca toe about as a result of what somebody calls "a fortuitous concatenation of circumstances." Of course, it may salve the wounded pride of the German people to be assured not only that notjae of them was responsible for the war, but tin t they are equally guiltless of any responsibility y for their defeat. But as a defence againa t foreign criticism this report is a singularly ui| - convincing piece of evidence. Possibly it woulll be pleasant to live in a world where nobody ever to blame for anything; but we have no 6 got there yet.