LITERATURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17402, 24 August 1918, Page 2

LITERATURE.

THE LEAGUE OF FREE NATIONS* AS DEFINED BY MR H. G. WELLS. By Constant Readee. Nutions " is defined by "ells as " a phrase suggestingplainly the organisation of a sufficient instrument by which war may be ended far ever. The implications of the phrase are so tremendous and fax-reaching as to involve tno virtual overturn of the existing order, ine alternative to the establishment and maintenance of such a League of Nations is tno inevitable succession of a series of wars, each more dsvastating and destructive than its immediate predecessor, and •resulting m the reversion of the world to practical barbarism. This is the theme of Mr H. G Wells s latest book, entitled "In mo Fourth Year: Anticipations of a World Peace "—a book which is giving rise to Keen discussion and which, whatever the popular verdict upon it, may by no means be ignored or passed by. Mr Wells elaborates his idea of a Leagno of Free Nations m a singularly frank and fearless fashion, caring little for prejudices on the one side or for popularity on tho other, so long as he speaks the truth as he himself sees it. To his mind, and in his idea, the establishment of the League of Free Nations means nothing less than th-a substitution of internationalism for nationalism, and the ending of all imperialism with a vista of a great world republic as the ultimate goal. On this point Mr Wells is quite clear and exceedingly emphatic:

The plain truth is that the League of Free Nations, if it is to be a reality, if it is to effect a real Daeification erf the world, must do no less than supersede empire; it must end not only this new German imperialism, which is struggling so savagely and powerfully to possess the earth,_ but it must also wind up British imperialism and French imperialism, which do now so largely and inaggressively possess it. And, moreover, this idea queries the adjective of Belgian, Portuguese, .French, and British Central Africa alike, just as emphatically as it queries "German." Still more effectually does the league forbid those creations of the futurist imagination—the imperialism of Italy and Greece, —which make such threatening gestures at 'the world of our children. Are these incompatibilities understood ? Until people have faced the clear antagonism that exists between imperialism and internationalism they have not begun to suspect the real significance of this project of tho League of Free Nations. They have not begun to realise that peace also has its price. Mr Wells insists that "there can be no great alleviation of the evils that now blacken and threaten to ruin human life altogether, unless all tho civilised and peaoeseeking peoples of the world are pledged and locked together under a common law and a common world policy." He advances two chief arguments, which run the one into the other, for the necessity of merging all the existing sovereignities into a worldwide League of tho Free Nations. The first of these two arguments insists on " tho present geographical impossibility of nearly all tho existing European States and Empires." The second argument is "the steadily increasing disproportion between the tortures and destructions inflicted by modern warfare and any possible advantages that may arise from it." Underlying both arguments is the fact that "modern developments of mechanical science have brought the nations of Europe together into too close a proximity." This leads Mr Wells to coneludo that the present war is more than anything else " a violent struggle between old political ideas and new antagonistic conditions." Mr Wells is credited with a vision beyond the average. Ho certainly possesses an uncanny gift of prophecy, and he has lived to see many o c his forecasts roalised. Ho puts what he believes to be the present issue dramaticallv and forcefully when he writes: "It becomes more and more plainly a choice between the League of Free Nations and a famished race of men looting in search of non-existent food amidst the smouldnring ruins cf civilisation." In that prophetic story, "Tho War in the Air," written and published more than 10 years ago, Mr Wells describes in detail the smash of "tho high and dangerous and splendid edifice of mechanical civilisation that had arisen so marvellously " and how the war, once begun, had no end: "But why didn't they end the war?" asked the little boy. "Obstinacy," said Old Tom. "Everybody was getting 'urt, but everybody was 'urtin', and everybody was 'igh spirited and patriotic, and so they smeshed up instead.' They jes' went on smeshin'. And afterwards they jes' got desp'rite and savage." _" It ought to have ended," said the littlo boy.

'•'lt didn't ought to 'avo begun." said old Tom. "But people was proud. People was la-dy-ish and uppish and proud. Too mnch moat and drink thev 'ad. Give in— not them! And after a bit nobody a-rs't 'em to give in. Nobody ars't 'em." He sucked his old giuris thoughtfully. ._ . . A dim large sense of waste and irrevocably lost opportunities pervaded his mind. He repeated his ultimate judgment upon all these things, obstinately, slowly, and conclusively, his final saying upon the matter. "You can say what yon like." ho said. " It didn't ought ever to 'ave bog tin." ll© said it simply—somebody, somewhere, ought to have stopped something, but w,ho, or how, or why wero all beyond his ken.

The lapse of 10 years, with its added experience and its astounding happenings, finds Mr Wells still of the same mind. "It is too often assumed," he writes, ''that this war is being as horrible and destructive as war call bo. There never was so groat a delusion. This war has only begun to be horrible. No doubt it is much more horrible and destructive than any former war, but even in comparison with the full possibilities of known and existing means of destruction it is still a mild war." Mr Wells proceeds to point out that in the matter of the mcchanism of destruction this war has but touched the fringe of the dreadful possibilities. Ho hints at air raids, lasting not an hour or eo, but a week or longer, which " will really burn out and wreck towns," and " will drive people mad by thousands"; at huge land ironclads levelling every possible defensive ; at submarine campaigns compelling a "complete cessation of sea traffic." Indeed, full of this dreadful vision of the future, Mr Wells ventures to doubt wbethor "any sort of social order will really bo able to stand the strain of a fully worked and modern war." "We have still," ho goes on to remark, "to feel the full shock effects even of this war. . . . And tlio shock effects of tho next war will have much the same relation to tho shock effect of this, as the shock of breaking a finger nail has to the shock of crushing a body." The only alternative to never ending wars, ultimately reverting to barbarism 'which Mr Wells can discern is tho League of Free Nations.

Mr Wells seeks to arrive at tho truth about tho present war, by regarding the whole thing from tho point of view of the average decont Gorman. In one illustrative passage of this sort he writes:— Let me ask the reader to suppose himself a German in Germany at the present time. Of course if ho was, lie is sure that he would hate the Kaiser as tho source of this atrocious war, ho would be bitterly ashamed of tho Belgian iniquity, of the submarine murders, and a soore of such 6tains upon his national honour; and lie would want to alter his national system and make peace. Hundreds of thousands of Germans are in that mood now. But as most of us havo had to loam, a man may be bitterly ashamed of this or that incident in his country's history—what Englishman, foxinstance, can be proud, of Glerrcoe? ho mav disbelievo in half its institutions and still love his country far too much to suffer the thought of its destruction I prefer to see my country right, but if it comes to tho pmoli and my country sins I will fight to save her from the destruction her sins may have brought upon her. That is tho natural way of a man.

But suppose a German wished to start a revolutionary movement in Germany at tho present time, havo wo given him any reason at all for supposing that a Gormany liberated and demoralised, but of course, divided and weakened as she would be bound to bo in the process would get bettor terms from tho Allies' than a Germany etill facing them' militant, imperialist, and wicked? Ho would have no reason for believing anything of tho sort. If wo Allies aro honest, then if n revolution started in Germany to-day, wo should, if nnythinf lower tho prico ,of peaco to Germany! But those pooplo who p—tend to lead us will state nothing of the sort. For them a revolution in Germany would bo the

signal for putting up the price of peace. At any risk they are resolved that that Gorman revolution shall not happen. Your sane, good German, let me assert, is up ag-ainst that as hard as if he was a wicked one. And so, poor devil, he has to put his revolutionary ideas away. They are hopeless ideas for him because of the power of the British reactionary, they are hopeless because of the line we as a nation take in this matter, and he has to go on fighting for his masters.

The position occupied by Mr Wells is very far removed from tho popular patriotic attitude. "I was much interested to read the British press," he writes, "upon the alleged proposal of the German Chancellor that we should give up (presumably to Germany) Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt, and suchlike key possessions. It seemed to excite several of our politicians extremely. I read over tho Gorman Chancellor's speech very carefully, so far as it was available, and it is clear that he did not propose anything of the kind. Wilfully or blindly our press and our demagogues screamed over a false issue." Mr Wells goes on to say: The Chancellor was defending the idea of tho Germans remaining in Belgium and Lorraine, because of the strategic and economic importance of these regions to Germ.-i.ny, and he was arguing that beforo we English got into such a fervent

stato of indignation about that, we should first ask ourselves what wo were doing in Gibraltar, etc., etc. That is a different thing altogether. And it is an argument that is not to be disposed of by misrepresentation. The British have to think hard over this quite legitimate German tu quoqtie. It is no good getting into a patriotic bad temper and refusing to answer that question. We British peoplo arc so persuaded of the purity and unselfishness with which we discharge our Imperial responsibilities, we liave been so trained in Imperial self-satisfaction, we know so certainly that all our subject nations call us blessed, that it is a little difficult for us to see just how the fact that we are, for example, so deeply rooted in Egypt looks to an outside intelligence. Of course the German Imperialist idea is a wicked and aggressive idea, as Lord Robert Cecil has explained: they want to set up all over tho earth coaling stations and strategic points, on the pattern of ours. Well, thev argue, we are only trying to do what you British have done. If we are not to do so—because it is aggression, and so on, and so on —is not the time ripe for you to make some concessions to tbe public opinion of the world? That is the German argument. Either, they say, tolerate this idea of a Germany with advantageous posts and possessions round and about the earth, or reconsider your own position. Well, at the risk of raising much mtriotic wrath, I must admit that I think we have to Teconsider our position. (>ur

argument is that in India. Egypt, Africa, and elsewhere, we stand for order and civilisation. Wo are the trustees of freedom, the agents of knowledge and efficiency. On the whole the record of British rule is a pretty respectable one; lam not ashamed of our record. Never-

the less the case is altering. Mr Wells recalls that in the latter half of 1914 a few men were writing that, this war was "a war oE ideas," and the phrase "the war to end war" got into circulation amidst much sceptical comment. ' Even to those who expressed these ideas tfiere lay visibly upon them the shadow of impracticability; they were very 'advanced' ideas in 1911, very Utopian." Since then this "wax of ideas" has "gone on to a phaso few of us had dared hope for in those opening days " : The Russian revolution put a match to that pile of secret treaties, and, indeed, to all the Imperialist, plans of the Allies; . in the end it will burn them all. The greatest_ of the Western Allies is now the United States of America, and the Americans have come into this war simply for an idea. Three vc-ars and a-half ago a few of us were saying this was a war against the idea of Imperialism—not German Imperialism merely, but British and French and Russian Imparia.lism: and we were saying this riot because it was so, but because we hoped + o see it become so. To-day we can say so because now it ie so.

Arguing along similar lines, Mr Wells exclaims: "In 1913 talk of a world League of Nations would have seemed to the extremist pitch 'Utopian.' To-day the project has an air not only of being so practicable, but of being so urgent and necessary and so manifestly the sane thing before mankind that not "to bo busied upon it, not to be making it more widely known, better understood, not to be working out its problems and bringing it about, is to be living outside the contemporary life of the world." Mr Wells inclines to the opinion that a Leaguo of Free Nations can come into being' at once without waiting until such time as Germany and Austria throw off the Imperial yoke and give democratic expression to their desires. He sees a League constituted by the direct election of representative and responsible men, and with as its primary function a Suoreme Court, whose decisions shall be final, and before whom every Sovereign Power or group of Powers must appear with any matter in dispute. This League alone would have the prerogative of exercising military power, and all armament industries would come beneath its control. Mr Wells may be deemed a visionary, and his scheme too revolutionary to gain general acceptance; but of his sincerity thero can be no two opinions. The closing paragraphs of this book, which breathe a fine faith and a lofty hope, can scarcely fail to appeal 'to the imagination: It is absurd to suppose that anywbare to-dav the nationalisms, the suspicions, and hatreds, tho cants and policies, and dead phrases that sway men represent the current intelligence of mankind. They ars merelv the evidences of its disorganisation. Even now we know wo could do far better. Give mankind but a generation or so of peace and right education and this world could mock at tho poor imaginations 'that conceived a millennium. But we have to gat intelligences together; we have to canalise thought before it can work and produce its due effects. To that end, I suppose, there has been a vast amount of mental activity among us political " negligibles." For my own part I have thought of the idea of God as the banner of human unity and justice, and I have made some tentatives in that direction; but men, I perceive, have argued themselves mean and petty about religion. At the word "God" passions bristile. Tho word "God" does not unite men; it angers them. But I doubt if God cares greatly whether wo call Him God or no. His ssrvice is the service of man. This double idea of the League of Freo Nations, linked with the idea of democracy as universal justjoo' Is . f re, ~ from the jealousy of the theologians, and great enough for men to unite upon everywhere. I know how warily onu must reckon with the spito of the priest, but surely these ideas may call upon the teachers of all the great world religions for their support. The world is full now of confused propaganda propaganda of national ideas, of traditions of hate, of sentimental and degrading loyalities, of -every sort of error that divides and tortures and slays mankind. All human institutions are made of propaganda, are sustained by propaganda, and perish when it ceases; they must bo contiually explained and re-explained to the young and the negligent. And for this new worid of democracy and tho Leagite of Free Nations to which all reasonable men are looking there must needs be the greatest of all propagandas. For that cause everyone must become a teacher and a missionary. "Persuado to it and mako tho idea of it and 'the neressity for it plain" —that is the duty of every school teacher, every tutor, every religions teacher, ovary writer, every lecturer every paront, every trusted friend throughout the world. For it, too, everyone must become a student, must go on with the task of making vagus intentions into definite intentions, of analysing and destroying obstacles, of mustering tho tan thousand difficulties of detail. . I am a man who looks, now t'owarrla the end of life; 51 years havo I scratched off my calendar, another clips bv. I cannot toll how many more of tho sparse remainder of possible years nro really mine. I live in days of hardship and privation, when it seems more natural to ■feel m than well; without holidays or rest or peace; friendh and tho sons of my friends havo her.,, killed > death soemn to bo feeling always now for those T most lovo; the newspnpers that come intc my lionso toll mostly of blood and disaster of drownings and slaughterings, of crueltics and base intrigues. Yet never havo I been so sore that thero is a divinity j n man, and that a great order of human life, a roign of justice and world-wide happiness, of plenty, power-, hone mid gigantio creative aftort. lie oloso a I, hand Even now wo havo tho science and the ability available for a universal welfare though it is scattered about, the world like a handful of mont-v dronped by a child; oven now there exists alf the knowledge that is needed to mako roanJceod

universally free and human life sS"3et and noble. We need but the faith for it, and it is at hand; we need but the courage to lay our hands upon it, and in a little space of years it can be outs.