CAUSES OF WAR

Evening Star, Issue 20020, 10 November 1928, Page 12

CAUSES OF WAR

DR INGE'S SERMON AT GENEVA Ik luge, Dean of Sfc. Paul’s,/who bad boon .specially invited to preach on the subject -of tho League of Nations at Geneva, delivered his sermon there at the Cathedral Church before a crowded congregation, in which British residents were ■ numerous. < After speaking of the great privilege and the great responsibility of preaching at Geneva, and of the fact that even thoughtful and religious people are not sufficiently alive either to the peril which hangs over civilisation or to the flagrant contradiction between the condition of international politics and tho principles of Christianity, Dean logo continued: I do not think it is at all helpful to inveigh against the wickedness and folly of human nature in general; still less against the wickedness and folly of particular nations or particular classes. Tho out-aud-out pacifist (you must forgive me for saying it) is usually a rather naive and dl-informcd person, convinced of his own rectitude, and ready to denounce imaginary wicked people, whom ho calls militarists, Imperialists, diplomatists, aristocrats, emperors, or what not, and whom ho supposes to be naturally bloodthirsty and indifferent to the sufferings winch their insensate ambition causes to tho innocent masses I believe that such denunciations do unmitigated harm, and avo a serious hindrance to tho work of the League. 1 shall therefore take leave to contradict them, before passing on to what seems to me to he the real sources of danger.

Civilised nations do not, regard war as a sport. They do not enjoy fighting, as the head-hunting tribes of Borneo are said to do. Nor is it true, that wars are-made hv the manufacturers of armaments or by groups of financiers. Tho influence of such trades and groups is not great, and "big business ” lias far more to lose limn to gain by a general conflagration.

The notion that wars-are made only by kings and emperors, and that to make the world safe for democracy is to make it safe for peace, is utterly untrue and extremely dangerous. The old proverb. “ Dclirant reges, picctnntur Achivi,” requires to lie amended in tho light of recent events. It should run. “ Deliranfc Achivi. plectuutur reges.” Nations go mad and make scapeg«iiffi> of their rulers. My study of modern history convinces mo that in bellicosity and injustice to weaker nations there is not a pin to ehou.se between monarchies and republics. THE TRU.MI’ CAItD OF PEACE. ’There is, unfortunately, rather more justification for the charge that some wars have been wars of exploitation—economic wars. Those are always attacks by some great Power ou barbarous or ill-armed nations. This is precisely the kind of war which the League of Nations ought to bo able to prevent. As for wars between great nations on tho same level of civilisation, Jiko tho Great War of .1914, we may surely say without fear of contradiction that no one who has anything to lose is ever likely to vote for such a war again frankly, 1. regard this as the trump card in the hand of the friends of peace. It gives the opponents of war a must potent argument which_ they have never been able to use with such convincing force before. As for those persons—and I fear they are numerous—who wish to abolish international .rivalries only in order to clear tho way for a ruthless and probably sanguinary civil war of classes in the bosom of every nation, the friends of peace may pray to bo delivered from such allies. In that direction lies a deadly menace to the whole movement. Having thus to tho best of my ability deprecated some of tho mistaken diagnosis and unhelpful remedies which too often darken counsel in this groat problem, let mo try (o .suggest to you what are the real causes which place serious obstacles to tho triumph of the cause which we all have at heart. The first of these is tho form which the spirit of patriotism has taken in modern times.

The love of country has burnt with a peculiarly intense flame in tho time in which we live. There have been times when the privileged classes in different countries have felt more sympathy with each other than with the masses in their own country. This sympathy mitigated patriotic ardour in the eighteenth century. But ever since tho French Revolution and Napoleon kindled into a fierce (lame the national consciousness which they wished to extinguish, patriotism has been by far the strongest of the' generous emotions which make the European man ready to sacrifice his property and his life without counting tho cost.

These sentiments of love, pride, and devotion, continued Dean Inge, were not to be condemned outright. And yet this megalomaniac nationalism was one of tho chief causes of war. To the patriot in an exalted mood the questions at issue between his own country and its enemies seemed to lie simply questions of right against wrong. We know, alas (lie said), how, when the sword lias on e been drawn, every Government tries lo stimulate these prejudices by unscrupulous propaganda, and how, when terms of peace are to ho discussed hatred and indignation, _ thus artificially exaggerated, stifle the desiro to show justice and generosity to a beaten too, which enlightened self-interest no less than chivalry and Christian charity should encourage. Jn tins way a passionate wish for a war of revenge is generated in the minds of the lasers, and each war sows tho seeds ot another. TRUE LOVE OF COUNTRY.

But this sentiment of patriotism is far too noblo j tiling lo bo condemned outright. It needs only to oe directed into right channels, to he purified from its base, vulgar ana archaic perversions. The question is nor whether wo ought to lovo our country, but what kind of success and glory and happiness we should desm 10. it. Instead of the childish wish to paint the map of the world red, or whatever our national colour may be, our pride should be to make it honoured, respected, and even beloved by other nations.

Romantic patriotism, which is only tho distortion ot a noble sentiment, is one of the causes of modern war But Uio main cause is simply fear—fear of sudden and unprovoked attack. And here, again, we must beware of passing thoughtless censure. _ The plain truth is that tin- fcai is justified. J. need not point out to you how fear drove all the duel belligerents in the Great War to t-.ko up arms. Jn our own case the one convincing and unanswerable argument was that of the Prime Minister; ‘ It wo remain neutral we shall he left without .a. friend hi the world, the predestined victims of the next coalition.” , I have named the two chief causes of wax; but no doubt there is a third. The Government of a country may see that the nation is disintegrating and heading for civil strife. An appeal to patriotism, to defend the country against a foreign enemy, may seem to be the only chance of averting internal disruption H can hardly be doubted that this argument did weigh with more than ,om- Government in 1914. The consequences, however, were so disastrous that it seems very unlikely that tins gamblers stake will be played again THE LEAGUE AND SECURITY.

Wo are left, therefore, with the two causes which .1 mentioned first—patriotism unci leur. Can the League of Nations remove the well-grounded fear of the, nations that they, may be

attacked and destroyed without provocation? Hitherto unwarlike nations havo found no mercy. Wo need onlv think of tho treatment of China all through the nineteenth century. Or must ive go on as we havo done hitherto, each nation naturally desiring to he secure, and realising that it cannot bo secure unless it is stronger than any probable assailant? 'This is surely tho crux of tho whole problem. Car. the League offer the nations security not against nations which aro willing t( keep tho covenant, hut against any _ nation which may choose to break it? 1 have no doubt that this cpicsiion is constantly before the minds of the Council of tho League, and of the numerous publicists in Europe and America who realise the situation. It would .ill become mo ■to advocate any' particular solution; 1 have not the requisite knowledge. Whether the suggestion of ! >n international air force is worth serious consideration it is not for mo to say. But let us concentrate on this , point: that the removal of. fear—of quite ■ reasonable fear—is the riddle of the Sphinx. If the 'League can solve it, .it will ,have succeeeded ,in its work ; ,if not,-it; will have failed, , , ' Wliat.canwc do—what can you.and I. do for peace? .Wo can put away hatred and vindictiveness from our hearts. We can-, try to understand the point of view of oilier nations, and to help ou<- countrymen to understand iL We,can avoid expecting too much, uiid yet we,can remember that as ice melts at, a' certain temperature, so does the human heart Without quixotically surrendering important interests we car. look out for opportunities of generous conduct _ towards foreigners and foreign nations. We 'can lot our diplomatists and statesmen know that tho cunning of a smart solicits, outwitting the lawyers on tho other side is exactly what we {do not want from thorn. And, lastly, wo can remember tho League in oiir prayers,, and bring our earnest desire for pence before Him who is tho -;j?rinpo oJLJleimeL-. .Lvd