Evening Post. TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1922. THE POLICY OF THE OSTRICH

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 3, 4 July 1922, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1922. THE POLICY OF THE OSTRICH

We cannot say that, by the sermon which we reported yesterday, the Rev. Dr. Gibb has done much to counteract the mischievous effect of his address on "Disarmament" and his previous reply to the criticism which it provoked. He is most successful on a point where success was least necessary. His depreciation of . the military courage to which, like every, other non-com-batant, he owes the fact that he came out of the war with a whole skin, was, to say the least, very unfortunate, but the example was so little likely to be contagious that it was not calculated to do much harm. We all felt that a pulpiteer would be better employed in pounding the vices of an Ahab or a Jeroboam than in depreciating the virtues of the men who had saved the world, but it was certain-that the sympathy which the first of these processes always attracts would nOt accompany him in the second. Taking for his subject, "The Soldier's Courage and Some Other Kinds of Courage Now Much Needed," Dr. Gibb now puts the matter in something ,more like: its true perspective. There is no need to rely upon Gibbon's disparagement of military courage '-as cheap and common in order to establish the claim of other kinds of courage to equal admira-. tion, and to an even higher value for the normal purposes of civilised life. ' ■■'••'• , •

The fcther kind of courage which Dr. Gibb ; had chiefly in view was, he says, "the courage which would stand in the breach against the new encroachments of militarism and the widespread sentiment which would, if not resisted, sweep' the world into another Armageddon." It would be absurd to deny that the ordinary pursuits of civil life, and even the' peaceful movements of the most commonplace and securely ring-fenced democracy that the world ever saw,' repeatedly offer opportunities for the display of a moral courage which, both in its intrinsic merits and in its Value for the race, may deserve! a higher place in the scale of virtues than the courage of the soldier. But, after making this concession to Br. Gibb's argument, we are bound to add that we are quite unable to see what great scope is offered for moral courage in this country, or in any other part of the British Empire, by the cause for which he bespeaks its aid. "The courage which would stand in the breach against the new encroachments of militarism " is undoubtedly a fine phrase. .- fiven the pacifist orator denouncing the evils of militarism may stir our blood by a military metaphor /which is vaguely associated in our minds with Henry V. before the walls of Harfieur or Joan of Arc at Orleans. Of Henry V.,' we may remark in passing that Dr. Gibb would doubtless feel justified in flouting him as a "fire-eater," but Joari of Arc presents a greater difficulty.. She was a saint if ever there was one, but she was assuredly no pacifist, and it is to'be feared that Dr. Gibb must write her down as hopelessly given over to "militarism."

Reverting to' the fine phrase which led us. astray, let us ask Dr. Gibb what he really mean- by it. What are these " new encroachments of militarism "against which he invites us to stand in the breach, and in so standing to find a scope for courage comparable, if not superior, to that of the soldier?. War weariness, a false sense of security which Dr. t 'Gibb's new gospel has done much to encourage, and financial depression have combined to make great inroads into our second line of defence. In regard to the first line, which—we say it with bated breath—-is the Navy, though fortunately " navalism " has not yet been coined as a term of abuse correlative to " militarism, "we are still as badly in default as ever. Is the proposal that we should pay our fair share of the naval defence to which we owe our security "and our independence to be classed among "the encroachments of militarism"? We can hardly believe that even Dr. Gibb would say that It is, and even if he does he will hardly suggest that there is much room for courage in opposing a proposal which is so far from practical politics that Government, Opposition, and Labourites agree in ignoring.it, and not half-a---dozen of oiir M.P.'s bother their heads about it. There is just as little scope for courage in resisting the enoroachments of a " militarism " which is gladdening the heart of the pacifist by abolishing training camps and reducing drills to a minimum.

The fact is that most of these fine phrases which Dr. Gibb uses so freely are phrases and nothing more. There is no reality behind them. We invited him a week ago to come down from the clouds and face the facts, but he declines/to do «■*- la, i'A_i__.ia ..hie de-la__£iQil

that he was " too much of a patriot to have either lot or part in a policy of armaments or naval preparations," we asked whether he was so much of a patriot-that he favoured the unconditional scrapping of the British Navy, and with that the scrapping of the British Empire also? That question Dr. Gibb does not answer. • He assures us that "the Empire of Britain means as much to him as it does to any man," but how he proposes to do it except by hauling/down the flag there is not the slightest indication. After the next great war "the Empire would be prostrate ; all Europe would be prostrate. The white man's day would be over, and the way open once more for the Asiatic hordes to pour into a desolated continent."

The moral apparently is that we had better lie down to save being knocked down; that it will be cheaper and more comfortable to let the Asiatic hordes into an undesolated Europe than to put them to the trouble and expense of desolating it. Or does Dr. Gibb really suppose that we can keep these hordes away by confining ourselves to peace tracts and resolutions while they proceed apace with . every'■ kind of military and naval armament except battle-ships ? We cannot pursue the argument further, but may commepd to Dr. Gibb's attention the article from " Übique" which appears in another column. Having served in France, our contributor knows at first-hand what modern war is, and he is therefore under no temptation to minimise its horrors. But he ask s us to face the facts," and sees that "the policy of the ostrich" can only lead to disaster.