ATTITUDE TO WAR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22568, 11 May 1935, Page 5

ATTITUDE TO WAR

CONFLICTING VIEWPOINTS THE PACIFIST POSITION NO SUPPORT FROM EX-SERVICEMEN While at the present time many people are uncertain concerning the attitude which they should adopt towards the question of war, there is in Dunedin a body of men and women who have come to a very definite decision. They have hound themselves by a pledge never to support war in any : shape, and they state that they are prepared, in the event of a national crisis arising, to declare their intention to take no part in any preparations to defend the country. They are the members of the No More War Movement. A body of about 50 men and women, comprising people of all classes and creeds, they have individually bound themselves by this pledge; •" War is a crime against humanity. We, therefore, are determined not to support any kind of war and to strive for the removal of all causes of war." They have, as members of the movement, no political aims. They are simply objectors on conscientious grounds to all forms of fighting. And, though their numbers are few, they are stated to be increasing.

" There are many young men who are showing the keenest interest in our organisation," said a member of the movement to a,reporter yesterday. "It is particularly gratifying to us to see that the young men from the various churches in the city are among those inteiested, together with many from the University. One young man told me that, if it were not for the fear that the No More War Movement had some political aspirations which it was concealing, there would be recruits for it by the hundred. That fear is entirely groundless, for the struggle against war is our only aim." NO MORE WAR MOVEMENT The No More War Movement, it was stated, grew out of the No Conscription Fellowship, which was formed in England during the war about the time conscription was introduced. The president of the fellowship was Clifford Allen, now Lord Hurtwood, who was three times imprisoned as a conscientious objector. The aim of the fellowship was to oppose conscription to the utmost and to assist all conscientious objectors. At first this was done by constitutional means, but once conscription had been adopted, the opposition passed to defiance of the Government by the members, who refused to have any connection with the fighting. Following the signing of the Armistice, a congress was held in London of representatives of the fellowship,, and it was ■ then decided that the struggle against war in every form should be continued. The No More War Movement, which grew out. of this, was introduced into Dunedin about 12 years ago. Its members meet monthly, when they discuss questions relative to the cause for which they stand. They are particularly concerned with developments which they regard as threatening the liberty of the individual and' his right to hold his convictions even if this should lead him into conflict with the State. The movement, it is declared, is anxious to see that its; aims do not become merely negative. It endeavours to do as much constructive work as possible. One thing to which it is absolutely opposed is the re-introduction of compulsory military training, and where parents object to their sons being drilled in school cadet companies, the members of the movement see to it that they are fully informed of their legal rights. But, for the individual members the principal concorn is that they are pledged to resist war at any price. They realise that they have committed themselves to a course of conduct which must in certain circumstances place them at variance with the remainder of the community, and they are not unaware of the hopelessness of their efforts in the final struggle to end war. ATTITUDE OF CHURCHES

While it cannot be said that the Christian Church as a whole has any defined attitude to the question of war, in recent months two important denominations have discussed the position during their annual gatherings in Dunedin. These debates, which were among the most eagerly participated in at both gatherings, revealed a divergence of views, but certain conclusions were arrived at/in each case. The Presbyterian Assembly last November, after adopting a lengthy statement on the church's position, decided to add the following comment:-—"The General Assembly of"the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand feels that the time has come to make an urgent call to the nations of the world to stand by their solemn obligations as defined by the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris, and the assembly further appeals to the constituted authorities of the various churches in Christendom to urge their members to refuse to participate in any war unless endorsed by the League of Nations."

This addition was sent down to the various presbyteries for consideration. It came before the Presbytery of Dunedin at its last meeting, and it was then decided that it should be referred to the sessions of the individual congregations for discussion. It is understood that, following this, the matter will be again before the presbytery at its next meeting, when a keen debate is anticipated. There is considerable divergence of opinion among presbytery members oh the subject, and it is stated that some incline closely to the pacifist viewpoint. The position of the Methodist Church was defined at the annual conference last February, In the course of a series of resolutions, it was stated: " We believe that war is a crime against humanity, and must be utterly repudiated as a method of settling international disputes, and we pledge our support of every endeavour, to make these pacts and pledges effective. We declare our resolve to refuse to support any Government which refuses to submit a cause of dispute with another Government to an appropriate international tribunal for peaceful settlement." A further resolution was adopted urging the Government to replace tlio system of cadet military training by a citizenship training system entirely separate from the present war system. The conference even went so far as to debate an amendment favouring the withdrawal of all official connection with the military, naval and air forces, and, although this-was defeated, of ,119 who voted 37 were in favour of the proposal. RETURNED SOLDIERS* VIEWS On such a question as this returned soldiers must speak with special authority, as men of proved loyalty who have experienced the horrors of war. The Dunedin Returned Soldiers' Association eome time ago gave consideration to the trend in public opinion against preparation for war. As a result of that exchange of views, a remit wa9 placed before the New Zealand conference of representatives of Returned Soldiers' Associations, in which an

attempt was made to define the attitude of those who took part in the last war. This remit was adopted, and on behalf of the Dominion was carried to the conference of the British Empire Service League in Melbourne last November by one of the New Zealand representatives, Mr W. Perry. The remit was there the subject of an interesting discussion and was adopted in the following form as an expression of the ideals of the league:

" That this conference, while proud of the efforts of Great Britain to secure peace, fefils that it is its plain duty to express its opinion that the present comparative weakness of the defence forces of the Empire imperils the natural security and is provocative of war. It, therefore, strongly urges on Empire Governments, as a matter of immediate national necessity, to provide such defence forces as will be adequate to preserve the national honour." A member of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, who served as an officer during the war, summed up what.might be termed the unofficial views of exservicemen. "We who fought during the war," he said, " and know all its horrors, have no desire to see our country plunged again into fighting. Most of us now have sons of our own who are coining to an age when they would be called into the front line, and we do not want them to go through what we experienced. But, because we saw human nature in the raw, we know that it has not yet readied the stage where defensive preparations can be abandoned." Another returned soldier said: " The only war we would support would be a war of defence."

MILITARY TRAINING DEFENDED Complete disagreement with the opinion that military training was injurious to the youth of the community as is contended in some quarters was expressed by an officer who is associated in a voluntary capacity with the present territorial system. " I can speak with the authority of one who has had actual experience of the voluntary and compulsory systems," he said. "I was a cadet in a school company before compulsory training was introduced, and I know how great were the physical benefits which I received. Nor was it confined to that alone. When I was a University student of about 17 or 18 I thought the universe just about revolved round me. A few days in camp with territorials from all walks of life knocked a good few of the corners off. It is an invaluable experience for a youth of that age to have to submit to discipline, and I can say beyond all shadow of doubt that the experience and knowledge of other \men that I gained by contacts with all classes of territorials have been of inestimable value to me in my profession. It is litter nonsense to say that the territorial system engenders a war-mongcring spirit in the youth of the country. New Zealand is too far removed from the centres of disturbance for that to take place. But it is essential that New Zealand should have an adequate, trained defence force."