A Soldier on the Civilian’s Peace Duty

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 140, 9 March 1929, Page 17

A Soldier on the Civilian’s Peace Duty

“What should the attitude of the fighting men be towards international peace?” asks Brigadier-General F. P Crozier, C. 8., writing in the “Glasgow Her “It would be a bad day for the Empire if the fighting Services,” he adds, “began to tackle their jobs in a spirit of peace. Their job is to be efficient for war to have great morale, fighting spirit, and sound military knowledge, in order that any country who dares to molest Britain or the Empire may be quickly checkmated. . , . . “The duty of the private citizen is otherwise. Having found out that war now leads nowhere, that in modern war neither side really wins, and that the aftermath of war inflicts immeasurable misery on international humanity it is the duty of each one of us to see that everything that can be done to avert future war is done. In other words, moral disarmament must precede material disarmament. “Serving tailors, soldiers and airmen, as a rule, know nothing about this aspect of the case, and there is no reason why they should—‘Their’s not to reason why’; but the fact remains that if moral disarmament is taken in hand properly the functions of the fighting men will gradually change as much in the next hundred yejirs as they, have done in the last five hundred

“The United Christian Churches of all countries have now a chance which will never come again to lead the world along the path of peace. Will they take it 9 Christianity spells peace, as peace was, and is, the message of Christ To assert that the Christian Churches were behind the last warns correct, but they were on opposite sides ! That is not good enough, lheie must have been something vitally wrong “It has bee- said by Mr. Lloyd George that once a movement has the support of the United Christian Churches it is irresistible “There in lies our hope for world peace. “But do not let us confuse the issue. If we want perpetual world peace, we must work for it and make the necessary arrangements for substituting something for a war policy-namely, security and arbitration. “We cannot have it both ways, so if we cannot accommodate ourselves to methods of peace, we must be prepared to fight. “I am not in the least afraid of the ‘next war,’ on the grand scale, much as I would regret it, as I have unbounded confidence in the nation, and know we would face up to our difficulties and dangers. “But it will be worse than last time, and there will be little or no c-lnmour or chivalry. while we shall probably destroy ourselves in the effort to destroy others. Is it worth it? Decidedly—No H’-’-