The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 22, 1935. PEACE AND THE PUBLIC MIND

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 252, 22 July 1935, Page 8

The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 22, 1935. PEACE AND THE PUBLIC MIND

+ “If war comes,” observed the Prime Minister of Australia m an interview in Canada, “it will have been caused by the politicians, not by the people.” Most people will agree with Mi. Lyons that “war thoughts do not spring from the hearts of the m any country,” though they may have doubts about the efficacy of his suggestion that the cause of peace might be greatly strengthened if all the “Government heads” should visit the battlefields of Prance once a year for the purpose of meditation. The fact is that it is neither the politicians nor the people who make wars, but combinations oi events and the operation of forces, largely economic, that engender, first, commercial, then public animosities against which politicians find it difficult to prevail. These animosities provide opportunities to special groups having a direct interest in war-making for . intensifying public feeling, and so serious crises develop. Commercial expansion and trade rivalry were the originating causes of Germany s naval and military aggressiveness before 1914. The same factors have supplie the impulses for Signor Mussolini’s policy in Africa, lhe Italian people are probably as much averse to the idea of war as the majority of the peoples in other communities, but lack of room in which expand, and the pressure of economic forces, have brought them to ’a state of dissatisfaction in which any suggested remedy for then troubles, even a war, becomes attractive.

Sir Norman Angell, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of 1933, declared in an address at the University of Oslo last month that if it came to a question of responsibility, the people themselves must accept a large share of it. Though not intentionally responsible they were unconsciously so. While people in the mass wanted peace they also wanted things incompatible with peace without realising that they were incompatible. Certain nationalist policies were certainly incompatible with peace or equality of right, yet they were supportet in most nations by a wide public without any vivid realisation of t.ie fact that they involved the risk of war. In homely illustration, a man may sincerely desire to live at peace with his next-door neighbour, but, if he insists on keeping a dog that howls all night, he can hardly be surprised if the other fellow nurses a legitimate grievance, that vitiates the atmosphere of friendly relationships. Public opinion, however, would not condone the latter’s action in shooting the dog and ending the nuisance. It would declare, because it has been trained that way, that his grievance and his claim for redress should be ventilated in a place specially provided for the settlement of disputes. Sir Norman Angell observes that “the innate quarrelsomeness of man is the supreme argument for the League of Nations. We may not be able to change human nature but we can certainly change human behaviour.” A big city fire might give a fillip to depressed building trades, but if anyone suggested that the town should be. deliberately set alight for that purpose he would be put under restraint. Yet if we think it over modern international conflagrations are started from more or less similar motives. The only difference is. that arson .is a crime, and war, in spite of efforts to make it a crime, is still legalised killing. What remains to be done is to educate the various peoples upon the importance of dealing with the things that are incompatible with peace. They have learnt—though it took them centuries to learn it —that bad drains, or no drains at all, are incompatible with hygienic conditions, and that if drainage is neglected disease will inevitably make its appearance. The trouble is that the things that are incompatible with peace are allowed to drift until they reach the critical stage, and people become fearful of what will happen next. I his state of apprehension induces a national psychological condition highly favourable to the spread of war rumours, and to those interests which make a profitable industry out of wars. If the people were educated enough to recognise the significance of circumstances and events, as they have been educated enough in their domestic life , not to handle inflammable materials carelessly, they would be in a stronger position to control their sequences. It is becoming increasingly probable that there will be a war in Abyssinia, but that is no reason why the advocates of peaceful negotiation should throw up their hands in despair. They must keep on. It is no use relying on the League, of Nations. That body is simply the instrument of public opinion operating through the various Governments. It is upon public opinion that the efforts of the peace-makers must be concentrated, to the end that it will be organised and effective.