WAR-ITS LEGACY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1922, Page 11

WAR-ITS LEGACY

THE DISARMAMENT ISSUE

_l DEFENCE OF DR. GIBB.

TO Til WHO*.

Sir, —You have now published a good many columns of hostile criticism of Dr. Gibb's address on disarmament, including several letters and two long, very • characteristic, and particularly unhelpful leaders. I hope, therefore, you will see fit to print the following, which I shall try to keep within reasonable bounds of space; it certainly seems time that the League of Nations Union spoke out, or else somebody with the same cause at heart. As I happened to hear Dr. Gibb's address, the cause of all the outcry, I think I have as much grasp of the immediate facts as either your icorrespondents or your leader-writer, all of whom wrote apparently in a glow of righteous indignation after reading a very compressed newspaper report. It is utter nonsense to say that Dr. Gibb- depreciated the courage that won the war, to which "he owes the fact that he came out of the war with a whole skin," as The Post keeps on saying with a famous persistency, equal pnly—shall I say?—to Mr. Massey's. Dr. Gibb remarked that heroic courage was a virtue of all combatants and all men, and, as a coincidence, quoted Gibbon, whom he had lately been reading. It appears it is extremely unlucky to quote "English historical classics, even in an address to an society, who, one would imagine, might be trusted to look at such things with a certain impartiality. But no, the British Empire is insulted, The Post's generous blood is on. fire, Mr. J. P. Firth rises, a just man incensed, and your other correspondents help to fill in the breach. I see that unexpurgated editions of Rabelais and Boccaccio are now prohibited in Kansas, U. S. A. No doubt we shall in time arrive at having unexpurgated Gibbon prohibited in Wellington, N.Z. 1 However, it is unnecessary to labour the point. Dr. Gibb has explained himself, with clearness and cogency in the: columns of The Post and in the pulpit,: and: it is both \ Ungenerous and ridiculous, on The/Post's part to keep flogging aw^y at the dead donkey of this figment—it doesn't hurt the donkey, and it is not very dignified for the Cogger.

.-,'■_■ omit mention of the earlier letters on the subject, because the writers obviously did not know ; what, they; were talking about. I confine myself to "Übique," who sums up the whole position of The Post and like-minded people both capably and sincerely. Unfortunately,; his article is one mass of. fallacies. I had better explain, in fairness at first that I am not either one of Philip Gibbs's "old men" (thank God 1) or one of his "young men," if that term is confined to those who served in the war. However, 'I am young, and I have done my very best to understand what the war meant to the world and to individual soldiers, both from the books of Philip Gibba and others, and from talk with returned men, and the use of a. fairly vivid imagination. This equipment may appear totally inadequate (as no doubt it is) to "Übique," but I do not think it. affects many of, the questions at.issue. "The truth is (starts off "Übique")—if history and experience are heeded—that war is, and will be, as inevitable in the future as disease and crime." It may be so, but not half so dogmatically as "Übique" puts it. In discussions of this sort, as in theology, avoid dogmatism as we would the devil. The truth is, it seems to me—if history and experience is to be heeded—that crime and disease have gone on decreasing very Tapidly during the last few thousand years, and war with them. Once upon a time, history seems to say, war and crime (identical in fact) was the daily trade of every man in the 'community; and those people who escaped a violent death (not many) were pretty sure to be carried off by some peculiarly, loathsome form of disease. This is hardly the case nowadays, I think! Most of us die in our beds from nothing worse than an untended cold. History seems to show a decided improvement, both in and individual morals. Iv is-at least conceivable that'we may go on improve ing.. I venture to suggest that the present state of some communities (though certainly not New' Zealand) does encourage some hope of that improvement —I even put it to "Übique" with some confidence. To proceed: "Übique" quotes once again the hoary old paradox " Si vis pacem para bellum." Oh", Heaven! one feels inclined to cry, How much longer are we to be bound to the chariot wheels of those words? Because a Roman senator in a fit of jingoism made a handy little war-cry for his very militaristic (history seems to show) contemporaries, does that make his phrase eternally and universally true? I counter by another famous quotation, and a much truer one: "Words are wise men's counters; they do but reckon by them; but they are the money of fools." "So said Thomas Hobbes.Sir, the Romans may. have been "the greatest practical nation »>fantiquity "; they were also the most isili.taristic; they lived by the sword, and perished by the sword. It" is utterly wrong (and here history speaks with no uncertain voice) to say. the j Roman Empire fell only when it forgot to prepare. ;To the end of its existence its legions were all over the world, from Britain to Mesopotamia, and when the time came they fought like Romans— but the Empire fell. And it fell because its, whole internal economic and social system was rotten through and thspugh. It fell because the. luck of brilliant and disciplined soldiery enclosed a repulsive mass of effiminaoy growing out of slavery. '-" Preparation for defence,"—the phrase sounds very well; but put a pearifle in a child's hands, and it .will, sooner or'later, shoot its brothe.; put a modern armament outfit in a nation's hands, and it will, sooner or later, want to use it.' And then you'll hear the wa.il: "I didn't know it was loaded! I was only playing, really!" The world has had,five or six thousand years of preparing for war—it does not seem to have succeeded very brilliantly in ensuring . peace!—or perhaps •no one prepared hard enough? Why not give preparation for peace a trial? It sounds logical, somehow. " Had Britain in 1914 had military resources equivalent to her responsibilities " —the same old tale—it might have put off the war for a few years,.but the crash would have come, and it would have been a bigger crash than ever. Pacisque imponere morem, etc. " Übique's '.' Latinity, to anyone acquainted with modern history, however little below the surface, seems strangely beside the point. Old Virgil wrote, I believe, with more than one eye on Caesar Augustus, and less than half on the truth. I draw no decided inference about modern Britain; she seems certainly to have been rather better than Rome. V ' Next ?' Übique " turns his attention to '/those charlatans of our. age, the Eolitical economists, and their halfaked, dupes." Political economists,' 0 "Übique," did not prove that war was the great illusion. I am afraid your, reading has not carried you far enough. What they proved was .that..ho nation could carry on modern war profitably :.to' itself, cither economically, or any other way. And their prophecies have, come, true) and their proofs turned out remarkably right, and bitterly we know it, even in conservative, backwater, dunderhead New Zealand. " These charlatans of ..our age," these bitterly reviled Norman Angella and J 4 $,

Keynes, are not such crack-brained fools as they have been made out. I am afraid " Übique" in that paragraph of b_» argument scored a miss. But he scores a distinct hit, let, us admit, in his next, on the Christian Church. However, the Christian Church, in its present state, is no more necessary to the world than war, and will possibly disappear a. the same time—a consummation devoutly to be hoped for. I pass on to " Übique's " final peroration ,on preparedness and- the vexed question of " Oriental fatalism." Does anyone imagine that New Zealand's plans of military training, even if enlarged indefinitely, are going to n:op any war, however insignificant ? Ask any Territorial. The only sort, of preparation that is going to make . nation strong in war in the future is not' 3 few thousand, half-trained Cadets, but aeroplanes and submarines and poism gas; arid that New Zealand does not st&nd much chance in that sort of competition, I suppose even The Post will admit. , But to admit that it is, it seems " Oriental fatalism." We appear to be on the horns of a certain dilemma.

There is only one alternative to preparation for war, whioh has through so many centuries been so tragically abortive—that is, preparation for peace._ The League of Nations, imperfect as It is, | gives an opportunity, almost unique at present, to do so. " The idealist has but one easy method of avoiding facts, the method of the ostrich," says " Übique," echoing a favourite phrase of The Post's. The upside-down position is also very characteristic of the "practical" man; he is so busy examining the dirt beneath his feet'that he has no time to »cc the stars above his head.. " The supporters of the League," again says "Übique," are almost without exception, the old men. "I think be is wrong. I think he will find that the principles and idealsfor which the League stands are permeating all classes and all age. of men and women, slowly but surely; even though they havo hardly began to work in New Zealand yet; on account, perhaps, of Mr. Massey, that clear-visioned statesman, whose patriotism ' amd common sense and judgment, and parrot-like persistency and Casabiancan firmness in sticking to his political principles and vocabulary quite unregardful of facts, the British world so heartily applauds. (Again I partially • quote "Übique''.) "The1 complacent folly that prates 'of leagues," has already stopped at least, three serious European wars (consult the back files of the Evening Post).. "What is the League doing about the score or so of wars in full swing now i" asks "Übique," bitterly. Where are these score or so of wars? one inquires. There is a civil war in China, and another in Ireland, but I do not know that the League professes to interfere in the in-, ternal concerns of any of its members. The rest of the "score or so" seem to be hanging'over somewhere on the verge-of "Üblque's" cansrao_s_ese, ' perhaps. It is just as well to be accurate, even when one feels' most bitterly. Sir, I turn to The Times Literary Supplement (a_ very conservative, journalin matters political); I see: "The plain fact is that civilisation is quite incapable of sustaining another world war such as it has just barely survive!!. We dare not fall back on the expedients of the past. ... , Here, wiE we, will we, we must have recourse to that most practical of mankind, the visionaiy." (Compare The Post leader.) I turn to Mr. J. M'Keynes, I turn to President Harding, I turn to Brailsford, MaTwin, any prominent English or European publicist, old or young. AU are agreed onthe same essential point. I turn to Brigadier-General Sir Frederick Maurice, a soldier who has made a study of the subject, who is, I believe, something of, an authority, and he says the ; same thing in a: recent New York speech. He is not a man who is given to the airing of stray personal theories on every suitable or unsuitable occasion. It seems possible that all these men are not completely "visionary fools; it seems possible that there may be, at least a grain of sense in the feverish wanderings of their unhinged minds; Why not give their ideas at least the semblance of a chance? We can at least do no more, can land the world in no more horrible mesa, than all our years, of "defence" and- armaments have done. A few hundred people consciously working for peace may ;_o something; a few hundred thousand may give the world a new constitution. Why not give them a chanoe, and a modicumi of encouragement?

Let me conclude with a quotation from H. G. . Wells, 'a writer whose prophecies about'war in general and the lost war in particular, have come startlingly true; a man who has thought broadly on in-, taxational affairs; who has seen them steadily, and seen them whole. It cornea from'his'"Washington and the Hope of. Peace." He is talking about navies): T'The only effectual security for the communications of the British Empire is the recognition by all mankind that this great system of English-speaking states round and about the world is a good thing for all mankind, and a resolute effort of these States to keep to, that level. There is no other real security. This is net "lofty idealism" ; it is common sense; _nd the idea of security by armament and by the enfeeblement of possible rivals is not a practical recognition of present limitations; but a feeble surrender to entirely vicious tendoncie. of tie human mind." Sir, you have frequently rirged Dr. Gibb to come down from^ the clouds, where his "paoifist" imagination is presumably wandering— in company with Mr. Wells, and a goodl many more hopeless idealists—to strike good, solid earth, in short, 'to talk sense. I. think Mr. Wells here has come to earth with a good solid thud, and talks very strong sense; I shoidd much like to hear your opinion on the matter. (It may be a good thing, of.course, to surrender to the entirely vicious tendencies of which •he speaks). Anyhow, a little unbiased airing 'of a few facts, or even as a biased airing of opposing opinions, can do nobody much harm, and may do a certain amount of good.—l am, etc., J. 0. BEAGLEHOLB. sth July.