WAR AND SELF-DEFENCE.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3253, 11 September 1917, Page 2

WAR AND SELF-DEFENCE.

A FEW WORDS TO LABOUR EXTREMISTS.

WHY BRITAIN IS AT WAR. In the London Sunday Chronicle Mr. Robert Baltchtord talks straightforwardly to Mr. .lowett. M.P.. and the Independent Labour Party. Mr. Blatchtord is a Socialist and generally a most progressive democrat. Mr. •lo.vett i a viionary and malcontent with a bad kink. Ihe Independent Labour Party has' this distinction: that it is not-independent, and does not- truly represent Labour. Its general attitude in the war is antiBritish. and to that extent it depends on the Kaiser and his Junkers for support and countenance. Everything that Mr. Blatchtord writes in this verv lucid and timely article applies to a raucous extremist minority ot irreconcilaldes and peace maniacs in Australasia. Incidentally. Mr. Blatchtord preaches a little sermon to conscientious objectors. With such oi those as are genuine we have no ipiarrcl. though it luus never yet been explained to us why they don't go out with the Red Cross. Hut the average conscientious objector, so called, is merely a sidling and evasive gentleman who conscientiously shrinks from the idea of risking his skin.

TMIE I.E. P. Conference was what - cue might call si, heady t unction. It was marked by wrong-lmadedness, thiek-headedness. aml swcllod-headcd-m ss. Nothing so cgregiouslv and contemptibly silly has happened since Mr. ford's comic ark of peace set out upon it ; great adventure.

Still, as the I.E.P. counts tor nothing and can do nothing. I should certainly not have mentioned its conference were it not for the very remarkable effusion oi Mr. F. W . .lowett. M P. Mr. .lowett is an old friend of mine. 1 have always regarded him as the most sincere, the most honest, and the most sensible man in the I.E.P. What he i, doing in the I.E.P. gallery: how he can shut his eye.s to facts •«,< obvious as a tidal wave or an earthquake: how In contrived to make a speech so hopeless, .so muddled, and so absurd as the speech with which lie opened that conference. really does, as the Canadians say. "get niy goat." I did not think it possible for Mr. .lowett to have got into such a mental tangle, and I have been marvelling how he did it. However, I don't propose to wrestle with Mr. .Jowett's baseless assertions mid glaring contradictions. It would do no good. A man capable of such a speech is incapable of logical reasoning as he is of weighing evidence. There is only one of Mr. Jowett's nianv errors that it seems necessary or useful to deal with, and that is to be answered because it is an oiteii made in connection with this and with other wars.

Mr. .lowett said at the end ot his weirdly distorted oration that he is

"not an advocate of the policy of nonresistance." lie said. "Whatever ill the nature of protective armaments' is necessary to keep the land of my birth from an invading loice I would vote to provide." A WEIRD IDEA. But while he believes in protecting the land of his birth against invasion, he does not admit that 'we ought to have gone to war with Germlany in fDll. He claims that we ought to have waited, a.-s America waited, until the Germans sank some of our sihips. I have heard many men speak the same www They generally say. "If the country were invaded we would take up arms to defend it." And I generally make answer, Supiiosc there were no arms for you to take up. and suppose yen did not know how to use them?" Let us examine this curious' idea. These persons admit that a nation has a right to defend itself. But they would paralyse the defence by waiting for the attack. That is 'because they have never given an hour's thought or study to war and the ways of war.

Let us suppose that two swashbuckling bandit, are arming lor a light. Let ii- suppose that one friend of out's who liver: west of them is very nervous and apprehensive, and that another friend of ours who lives east of them is' also very nervous, l.et us suppose that we have reason to believe that the two armed bandits have an eye on our wellfilled safe and fertile field-. Are we to sit still while the bandits beat and rob our two neighbours because we on I. v believe in scf-defenco, and they have not yet attacked it-? Or are we to nigree with our two friends that ii the bandits attack one they shall have to fight all?

Is a war of self-defence any the less a war of self-defence because the detenders are allied with other defenders against a. common enemy? Is there any reason to believe that had Germany defeated France and Rus-ia she would have l'elrained from attacking us?

A FEW QUESTIONS. Is it not proved to the hilt that Germany meant to defeat France and Russia and then to fall upon us? Had the Germans beaten France they would have taken both Belgium and Holland. They woud have taken Calais. They would probably have absorbed or dominated tin- whole of Scandinavia■ when then attacked us we should not have had a friend or an Ally.

As I pointed out years heloiv the. war, the deieat ot I'ranee meant* th * isolation and peril of the P.riti-h Knipire. Unprepared a. we ,-hould have, heen had we remained neutral. we hould have heen mo-t <ei tainly ruined and defeated.

What could wo hnv<- donor' -Mr. dowett ;iml his friends secin to suppose v." i'i iitil .sit I'Diniortnlily heiv on our islana ;uid defv tin' jit'eat German world confederation of (icrinniiv, Austria. Ilol|;iiid. Belgium. Turkey. ;nd very proh:i!ily other nations. All we have to do i- to wait until the enoni>v invades us. Tin 1 enemy nerd not invade us. Ho , ould invade our colonies and India. Docs the I'ielit. of scli-di ;eii( C apply oulv to (»r<*:it Britain Area tuc allowed 11\* tlie 1.L.1'. code of morals lo defend Canada. Australia. South Africa. it New Zi aland '1 Are we to .-it -till while the enemy captures our coaling st:i timis r* Ai ewe to lose India, and Kiivpt. and .Malta, and the Suez Canalr |'| we are pel ti.it ted to defend 011' - sel vi ■ < ale We Hot permitted to lle^ill

lllltil it is too la I e ' SuppOM', \\ e did not loin in with 1' ralire amd I!u.->sia. hut waited. What would happen lo our trade and lo our lood -applies when our turn came' H:iil:lT plafed a part v. hi.h all the other nations would regard as c<.- •. ard!y .iiid sell'Jdi. fhould we have an\ io complain il I'rait'e anil 1J a--la turned upon us in the hour . i "i;r tu d:SKI MKT DIPLOMACY NO\sK\'SK. Tllefe i ; a verv ohl motto about the u i-dom of " e'et line your blow ill til'-t." It IS -.1 reeo;a! : -ed part c.f the seieuee ■! war 'i he n .lion which wa-its supinely until aii ' iir• 11\ attacks it uivo> mvr tile e| il i ie, > i • f tile t i 111 < • to it.- advef a".V. \'rrv naturally the adversary ehoe-e-, a time wliiti his ihaiiee, are ;jv>od and the ( 11:111' e . I I the del eiidei's a re li d. Al. nlle with the •- a! a 11 e M 1-i HO W I e'' / e ot military miviii . 01 ti;:1 itvv Id-tor , kiio\\ s \*. 1 at Mr. • lowrll',s ]u lii• v uoid I lead to. \Y!ia' do all the dark ami my-tenon-Hint ti rii)",.s ; bout " -e fit (!:'•! nnr.cv''

amount tor There wa, no secret about the Anglo - Ru-so - French Entente. Everyone in Europe wilio knew anything all about foreign politics know th.it France and Russia were really allied to resist an attack by Germany on one or the other.

Everyone who knew anything understood that our entente with France was dictated by our mutual interests. If any fault could be found with the Anglo-French relations, it was that there was not a iormal and binding delensive alliance. We went to the help of France not because we had a secret diplomatic understanding with France, but because our own safety depended upon tin safety of France.

.Vow the thing I want to make clear h that if we arc justified in defending ourselves against invasion, we are justified in defending ourselves against starvation and against political, .social, and financial ruin. And if we are justified iu deteiiding ourselves against attack. wc are justified in attacking, for attack i-i the best defence. And if we fire justified in making war upon an enemy in our own defence, we are justified in making war upon an enemy ill the defence of another nation whose safety is essential to our safety. Let us turn from the ethical side of the (|uestiiin. and look at what I may c ill the business side.

Suppose we had kept out of the war. France would certainly have been doteated: she was outnumbered, and she was not ready. The German Navy would have landed an army of invasion in Brittany, and would have cut off all supplies from America or England by blockade. We should have incurred tin scorn and hatred oi France. We should have seen the manacles fastened tightei upon the Russian people. We should have left ourselves in danger of invasion, in danger of losing India, Egypt, and our colonies. We should have seen the small nations driven into the German confederation. We should most certainly have been lo.st; and we should have deserved all we got.

Fortunately, we chose the braver ana the nobler part. We went to the as-si-tance of Russia and France. We saved the situation with our navy until wc could make an army. This protracted the war and enabled Russia to throw off her chains and expel her tyrants. It won for us the friendship of the French. Jt saved us and Europe from the domination oi the unspeakable Huns.

Because ot our co-operation in the war the Germans have been exposed for the barbarians time are, and the horrible Prussian menace has been checked. To say, as Mr. .lowett says, that America has a better reason for entering this war than we had is to convict oneself of ignorance and stupidity. America came in because her interests were menaced and her tftig insulted, and because she recognised the oiliness of the enemy. We went into the war because Germany wantonly broke the peace, and because our interests and our honour were threatened. If self-defence is justifiable, then wo and the i'rench, and the Russians, and the Belgians, and the .Serbs are all justified in taking up arms against the eomomn enemy.

I believe that the result of our entrance into this war will be the breaking of the Prussian menace and the establishment of such an alliance of tho democratic and peace-loving nations as will make another war very improbable.

Ii Mr. Jowett believes in self-defence, I suppose he would not sit tamely at home while a gang of cutthroats carried arm; and ammunition into their den ready for an attack on his home and fa mil". He would surely act while there wa- a ehanci>of his action being iulCONS FETING THE PEOPLE. There was just one chance of preventing this war. It was to tell the British nation Irankly that they must prepare for defence. But when I told the nation that. the Government and the pacifists hooted me.

\Vli;it becomes of the fooli-h ohjection that the people utiv not consulted before we made warr They could not be consulted. There was no time to consult them. The Germans took care ot that. Our Navy hid to he at its stations in-antly, or it would have heen 100 late. Everything that our Government could d<i to avert war was done. At tin- last the decision had to he made suddenly. There wa< no time to consult the people, and the people had heen »•> s"-teinaticalK- misled and deceived that thev eouhl not have Ix'on made to understand. Thou-,:nds of them do not. understand now, ami .Mr. Jowett, I reyet to see. is one of tllem. It iva strangely oi Mr. Jow,tt to tell his audience that if our j r ople had heen a, well informed as America we should not have come into the war when the well-informed Ameri-

ran-; had just conic in. It is incredible that anv -aue and holiest iikui can at thi-' tune < I day persuade lnmselt that we dmuld have' acted morally, honourahi v. and spaciously in :i 1 lo\y ill <j; Gernianv r;nd Au-trii to heat and suhdue our Allies in detail while we waited for i■ ir turn to come.

11 irive. cue to laiph to hea.r that i'i e!ile. purblind i tdicy described iis -cltdei'em e'. And how can amyone read the ncw-p-vers and fa.il to reali-e what Prus-iani-tn reallv is and what it

C:ll'i nii'ii. it my L'o;it. it •• ••«! Iv. Wli.-iv <;il! I £T«t til'' until nal lit' Panama and Chili an<l the A iL r 'ii t in*', and wlio -las a copy of ; jI.. ('?;ini• -1■ national anihoiii?