WITH GLOVES OFF

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 19 November 1927, Page 9

WITH GLOVES OFF

(TVIIE results of the recent sham attack on London from the air seems to show that, contrary to the hopes of some of our experts, London cannot be successfully defended. Within two or three hours of a declaration of war—in the unlikely event of that formality being observed —the declaration of the capital and the massacre of inhabitants vvi 1 i begin. Among all the booklets of the brilliant “To-day and To-morrow” series, none, 1 think, is so weighty and impressive as Professor iMeDougall’s “Janus, or the Conquest of War,” writes the Very Rev. W. R. Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s, in the “Evening Standard.” The writer reviews, not at all hopefully, the various plans which have been made to prevent another war. It is a commonplace that very few people wanted war in 1914, and that still fewer want it now, after the appalling experiences which MeDougall illustrates by poignantly touching anecdotes at first hand of the years 1914-18. lie recalls how the very modest proposals of the nineteenth century for naval holidays, proportionate reduction, of armaments, and the like, were rejected one after another. lie reminds us how a whole body of international law, intended to make war more humane, was thrown on to the scrap-heap, first by the Germans and then by the Allies.

not likely to cause another war, unless a threatened 'Government thinks that a successful war is its only chance of escaping .revolution. This was undoubtedly one of the causes of the Great War; but the Governments which tried the experiment had one and all the most bitter reasons to regret it. Germany was probably misled also by the memory of her former wars, especially that of 1870, which were actually made to pay; but nobody will dream again that a European War can be profitable either to winners or losers.

We must, however, remember that there is one diabolical Government — that of Russia—which would not shrink for a moment from massacring three quarters of the. population of Europe, if the remaining 25 per cent, could be subjected to the same miseries which ' they have inflicted on their own people. The bitter truth must be spoken, that until this nest of hornets has been smoxed out disarmament in Europe is quite impossible. Italy also is said to be n menace to peace; but in my opinion Mussolini is only indulging in the dangerous game of sabre-rattling; a serious war would ‘be too dangerous to himself.

I agree with MeDougall that fear is the real cause of war. We must have often seen two dogs approaching each other with bristling hair and perhaps with wagging tails. Neither wants to fignt; but when they meet they stand eyeing each other nervously, until 'one of them flicks an ear or. twitches a leg, and in a moment they are at each other’s throats. “The proper remedy to work for is the removal of fear.” Or, as Lord Cecil puts it, “What keeps alive armaments is one thing only—the fear and suspicion of the nations for each other.” T,S PREVENTION POSSIBLE? This clears the ground for discussing preventives. Christianity no doubt offers a solution, but unnnppily the nations do not seem more disposed to listen to the teaching of the Gospel now than they have been in the past. Arbitration treaties are sometimes useful, but not when two nations are vitally interested in getting something which onlv 'oih* of them can have.

lie quotes at length front a terrible article written in 1924 by Mr Winston Churchill, to show what the next war will be like. “‘Nations who believe that their life is at stake will not secure their existence. It is probable—nay certain —that among the means which will next time be at their disposal will be agencies and processes of destruction wholesale, uncontrollable.” Among these he names bombing aeroplanes guided automatically without a human pilot, poison gas in far deadlier forms, and pestilences methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast. “This study is certainly being pursued in the laboratories of more tnan one great country.” 1 snail return to these predictions presently. Among the manifestly inadequate explanations of the causes -of war are the inherent wickedness of mankind, the special depravity of emperors, kings, and other rulers not elected by universal suffrage, and the desire of armament manufacturers and profiteers to make fortunes. Four human nature is not so bad as to enjoy killing and plundering for their own suites. Monarchies are not at all more bellicose and aggressive than republics. Economic imperialism —the wish to secure markets and monopolies; the pressure of population upon me means of subsistence; and bombastic patriotism, are real causes which have promoted wars in the past. But they arc

The Quakers say. disarm and trust to the decency of your neighbours, not to plunder a defenceless and obviously unaggressive people. The fate of China, which actually adopted this policy in the last century, is not very encouraging to these idealists. The proportionate reduction of armaments bristles with difficulties. If a gambler who has won a heavy stake savs to his opponent, “Now we will play for love for the rest of the evening,” the loser is not likely to consent; he wants, as he says, to “have his revenge.” This is very much the

WILL 1914 COME AGAIN

SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD

position of the losers iu the late war. It might have been wiser to treat them with wholly unexpected generosity. Internationalism and abolition of nationalities is manifestly impossible. It commends itself chiefly to those who, under cover of pacifism, desire a bloody class-war.

But 1 want to raise briefly another point. Is it as certain as it is .almost always assumed to be that the next war will see a promiscuous massacre of non-combatants, men, women, and children, perhaps by poison? Twenty years ago the very suggestion of such a thing would have been received with scorn. It was then a commonplace that civilised peoples had advanced in humanity far beyond even the comparatively high standard of the eighteenth century. Yet here is a retrogression to a point far behind even the Greeks and Romans. We have to go back to the Book of Joshua for anything approaching iii horror what we are told to expect in the next war, and the Jewish nose, which i not Bedouin, is a proof that “the people of the land’’ were not exterminated as the ferocious chroniclers narrate. When Plato lays down the laws of war for Greek 'States, fruit trees are tint to be injured, houses and temples are not to be destroyed, the invador .may take only the standing crops. Greeks arc not to be sold as slaves. The massacre of non-eom/batants and the poisoning of wells have always been practices quite outside the limits of severity in civilised warfare. It is alleged that modern wars are between nations, not between armies, and that the distinction between combatants and noncombatants has ceased to exist. This plea will not serve. The non-combatant, population has always worked to make the continuance of the war possible; it has always done the work of the men who were called to the colours; it has always supplied food, clothes, and munitions for the fighters, and tended the sick. Xor is it true that the new methods of destruction have made a great difference. It is as easy to kill a child with a spear as with a poison-bomb; but such things “are not done.’’ Barbarous and cruel weapons have, as a matter ot fact, not always been used when they would have given military advantage. The Greeks gave up the use of poisoned arrows, of which there are traces in Homer. Dumdum bullets, which were introduced in war with the Afridis, who, it was said, could not be stopped by ordinary bullets, were (barred by the rules of war. Other examples could easily be found. There is something radically wrong with a civilisation which can thus deliberately return to the worst traditions of savagery. Frankly, T do not understand it, and T am amazed by the acquiescence of the civilised world in this appalling and suicidal relapse.