OXFORD GROUP AND THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 119, 13 February 1941, Page 8

OXFORD GROUP AND THE WAR

Pacifist Charge Denied

INTERVIEW WITH MR. IVAN MENZIES

Some of the criticism to which the Oxford Group had been subjected was instigated by subversive elements, who realized that it was a force which, in rhe words of Brigadier-General Winser, lias doing more than anything else to strengthen the morale of the British people, said Mr. Ivan Menzies, of the Gilbert and Sullivan company, 'in an interview in 'Wellington last night. Mr. Menzies was asked to comment on two aspects of criticism levelled against the group: (1) A suggestion that the group is tinged with pacifism and that, In stressing the needs for moral rearmament, it deprecated the need for material rearmament at a time when, so far as the British Empire- was concerned, material rearmament was vitally necessary.

(2) A statement that a number of young British men. members of the group, are living in comfort In the United States, preaching the value of Moral Rearmament in settling American labour disputes, when they should be, in uniform or otherwise, helping to defend British homes against Nazi aggression. “You can nail that right away,” said Mr. Menzies in reply to the first suggestion. “The Oxford Group is not pacifist—it is a fighting force.” Everywhere members of the group had been among the first to join up. A leader of the group in New Zealand, who joined as a private, had, since Christmas, won a commission with the forces in the Middle East. Conscientious Objector. Mr. Menzies quoted the case of a Battersby man, a conscientious objector, who, when his life was changed by the group, admitted that his objection was inspired only by fear and joined the army. There were many other instances of men in the army testifying that a quiet time, listening to God, had driven out their fear. The group, said Mr. Menzies, had never deprecated material rearmament, but, on the other hand, the As-sistant-Secretary of the United States Navy, Mr. Charles Edison, had said that' moral rearmament was as essential as material rearmament if the war was to be brought to a successful conclusion. “The question anyone who wishes to give national service must ask himself is: ‘Where can I do most good? ” said Mr. Menzies in reply to the second criticism. Work In United States. At the beginning of 1939, he said, a team of English members of the Oxford Group, he among them, went to the United States. When the war broke out the young men naturally wanted to dash home. Because of the value of the work that they were doing, however, leaders in the American Senate and more than 25 members of the British Parliament had urged them to stay. Some had gone home; some had been killed fighting in the war; others had remained to carry on the work of moral rearmament. Testimony to the value of that work was given by the Hon. Harry S. Truman, Senator from Missouri and a member of the Senate Committee on National Defence. In a cable to Mr. George Mathers, J.P., and Sir Cooper Rawson, M.P., he said“ Democrats of every shade of political belief are united by this election in giving all material aid to help Britain’s gallant fight. You in turn can help our defence effort by enabling Jaeger and other workers for M.R.A. to continue their vitally important task in this country. They are effective ambassadors.”

“By helping to cure industrial unrest in the United States M.R.A. workers may make thousands of extra planes available to Britain,” said Mr. Menzies. “They may save millions of British lives. It takes real ‘guts’ for them to stay there and do their job as they see it, risking accusations of ‘funk’ by subversive forces, which would like to see their effectiveness reduced to that of one man with a rifle and bayonet”'