SANCTIONS AND WAR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22401, 23 April 1936, Page 14

SANCTIONS AND WAR

Sir, —I have just had my attention called to a letter in your issue of April 18, in which Mr. C. W. H. Pickering wrote of "the unchristian selfishness advocated by Archdeacon Mac Murray." What was it I advocated? "Britain's entry into the war, except under the compulsion of an honourable obligation would be unwise; nay, more, it would be follv akin to madness." For many months I have endeavoured to make the public realise the peril which arises from the use of an instrument designed for a certain purpose—to give collective security—but which has been so greatly mutilated that it is now wholly unequal to the task laid upon it —the task of controlling an aggressor. When British statesmen have been stating that every aggressor must be dealt with by th« League, I trembled at the possibility of Japan, Germany and Italy being disciplined by the only Great Power in the League, that could be depended upon to act. Don Quixote tilting against a windmill would be a model of wisdom, when compared with the possibility of Great Britain, which has disarmed beyond the edge of risk, attempting any such task. Mr. Pickering does not realise that if Britain used force to restrain Italy, it would bo the signal for a world-wide war—which would wreck civilisation. We should probably hear of millions of Londoners being treated to mustard gas bombardment. It is no pleasure to me to find that the warnings I have tried to give my fellow citizens of the dangers which threaten us, and the imperative need of preparing for defence, are being justified by tlie facts of to-dav. I emphasise what T wrote —"it would be mad folly for Great Britain to plunge into war with Italy, except under the compulsion of an honourable obligation." The corporate action of the Great Powers against an aggressor is wholly impossible to-day. George MacMtjrray.