HOW TO PREVENT WAR

Evening Star, Issue 21624, 20 January 1934, Page 17

HOW TO PREVENT WAR

“EMOTION IS HOT ENOUGH" ‘ The Intelligent Man’s Way to Prevent War’ (by Lord Cecil, Gilbert Murray, W. Arnold-Forster, t C. M. Lloyd, Sir Norman Angell, H. J. Laski, C. R. Buxton; edited by Leonard Wolf), is reviewed by Beverley Nichols in the ‘ Sunday Times ’ as follows There are times in the history of civilisation when the intelligent man has to shut his eyes and close his ears, in order not to be blinded by the flashes of folly which are searing the world, nor by the roaring of the brutes and the bullies who are parading it. He has to withdraw into himself, even if it is only for an hour, in order that he may make to . himself a passionate restatement of his own beliefs. And then, refreshed, he can rise from his chair, open his study door, and face the tempest with a stronger heart. We have arrived at such a time today. A large part of Europe is in the hands of men who are distinguishable from Chicago gangsters only by the fact that they wear a uniform instead of a “ tuxedo.” The policies of some nations and the ethics of the Bowery are as one. . , , In times like these the intelligent man must get away for a moment into the quiet and ask himself where he stands. Merely to preserve his sanity, he must do this. Personally, when 1 go away to shut my eyes, I summon up the vision of a soldier with his face shot to pieces and the tissues of his lungs gradually being dissolved m Lewisite, and I say to. myself: Is there anything which can make it possible for me to inflict, or to be instrumental in inflicting, such agonies upon a fellow creature? Will the world be in any possible degree better because I have inflicted such agonies? Will the world be' richer? Will it be in any way nearer sanity, or permanent peace? And if I have a Maker,'whom I may one Oly meet face to face, will He approß' of my thus torturing a man whom He has made in His image? It does not take long to answer these questions. And the fact that one answers them so emphatically is a good thing; it is an emotional. tonic which gives one strength to. withstand the assaults of the aforesaid flashings and roarings of the world’s fools. But emotion is not enough. It has to be reinforced by reasoned intelligence, and above all, by knowledge. And that is the supreme value of the book I am supposed to be reviewing. SEVEN FIRST-RATE BRAINS. ' The Intelligent Man’s Way to Prevent War ’ is a masterly symposium ot seven first-rate br.ains, whose owners are coolly facing all the facts m the world to-day which make for war, admitting those facts, ticketing them, sterilising them, and prescribing the remedies. There is something of the laboratory about this book. When 1 opened its pages I felt like a manwno had been running down the streets oi a plague-infested city, had come to a door and broken it open, and had found seven doctors, calmly working in white coats. • . . “Is there a cure? Is there a way out? ” The words come, gasping. And they look up, and say: Ot course. Here are the disease germs, which wo have isolated very much more quickly and more easily than we could isolate the germ of influenza. And here, on this sheet of .paper, are a few simple rules of hygiene ■which will wipe out the disease for ever. » e are all in complete agreement about those rules. At least ... almost

all. ...” , And then they look over at a man in the corner, standing a little apart from the others, bending over a' special philtre. The name of that man is Professor H. J. Laski. And he deserves a little attention because ho is the only

contributor to the symposium whose chapter shows any marked divergence of principle from the chapters of his collaborators. The Laski thesis—and it is a thesis which is forcing itself ever more urgently upon the attention of thinking men—is that the ultimate causes of war are economic, and that we have now reached a stage where the struggle of economic imperialism must inevitably end in armed strife. These are old arguments,'but they have seldom been stated so concisely. He points out that Capitalism at the beginning of the industrial revolution had still plenty of elbowroom. The world'was still largely unexpioited, and new markets were to he had for the asking. But N as the wheels of industi'y began to turn, faster and faster, and vast new centres of population sprang up, dependent upon ever more delicate systems of exchange, new markets were not quite so plentiful. And the new industrialism, in order to maintain itself—(it must expand, or explode)—had to identify itself with nationalism, and, by such an identification, with the militarism which was necessary to protect its interests. THE LASKI THESIS. 1 cannot compress these arguments into a few words, but I can and do implore you to read what Laski has to say. He sounds incontrovertible. But is he? That is a question which I should like to see answered by an enlightened supporter of Capitalism, such as Sir Arthur Salter. Sir Arthur once argued the point with Mr G. D., H. Cole over my dinner table. And he made two very damaging dents in the shining shield of Socialism as a safeguard to peace. He pointed out, first, that the protagonists of Socialism nearly always assumed a uniform Socialisation of all the great Powers in order to work out their arguments—an assumption which is utterly unwarranted by modern Weltpolitik. He pointed out, secondly, that even if the world were to receive a complete veneer of Socialism, even if the Russian mou- i jik and the French peasant and the' Canadian lumberjack were to declare themselves to be brothers, the struggle for the world’s good things' would still continue, but with this difference . . . trade quarrels would no longer be the quarrels of individuals, but would become' the quarrels of States. You would then have the irresponsibilities of private quarrelling combined with_ immense powers and forces of public quarrelling. To 'which Laski would reply: “ But my dear Sir- Arthur, you already have that condition, though you mayn’t admit it. You may say that the great • economic interests do not, in your capitalist world, involve the State. But they do.” And lest you should think I am putting words into Laski’s mouth which lie would not speak, let me quote a sentence or two from his bitterly brilliant analysis of the. causes of some recent wars. He writes:—• “ Nobody now denies that the British occupation of Egypt was undertaken in order to secure the investments of British bondholders; and that the South African War was simply a sordid struggle for the domination of its gold mines. The French invasion of Mexico under Napoleon 111. was an effort to protect the interest of French investors in that illfated State.” And so on, ad nauseam. It would need a whole issue of this paper to do justice to this book. Professor Gilbert Murray’s essay would alone be worth a great deal more than the price it costs, for he points out that the most poisonous of the provisions of the Versailles Treaty have largely been eliminated by _ the ruthless logic of events. But it is to Laski that wo must return, in the end. It is vitally important that “ tho intelligent .man ” should study his questions and attempt to answer them. For upon the nature of his answer depends the very existence of our tottering civilisation.