THE NO MORE WAR MOVEMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22826, 10 March 1936, Page 4

THE NO MORE WAR MOVEMENT

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Member N.M.W.M.” asserts that we were wrong iu saying that the movement of which he is a member was originated by the Communist movement and is still linked with that party. In doing so he conflicts with the authority of the Third International, with which this movement is indirectly connected. To deny this admitted fact indicates want of knowledge on his part. Those behind this and other similar organisations candidly state in their speeches that the objective is to rope in people with whom the Communists would not otherwise come into contact. Your correspondent and some of hi* fellow members of this organisation maybe and no doubt are genuine and bona fide pacifists. If so, they are being used by those whose motives are openly declared to be the weakening of defence in capitalist countries.—We are. etc., March 0 N.Z. Welfare League TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In his answer to the New Zealand Welfare League, “N.M.W.M.” writes: “The No More War Movement welcomes persons of all creeds and of all political colours, but only so long as they are sincere pacifists.” Does he mean by that statement that we have to stand and watch a powerful enemy brutally destroy a weaker and inoffensive country which has neglected in the past to prepare for eventualities and whose civilisation was somewhat backward, but nevertheless 'was slowly progressing, but to satisfy the lust for revenge must now be wiped out of existence despite the fact that it belongs to the League of Nations? While I was listening last week to a talk over the air by the Rev. Hugh Graham on the Scottish Covenanters the thought crossed my mind, Where would the Scottish people be now, where would we all be, had not those brave men fought and given their lives for the cause we so much enjoy to-day? Some 30 or 40 years ago the world was startled by the atrocities committed by the Turks on the Armenians and Assyrians. These atrocities were repeated many times, and the details of them made horrible reading. I mention this to illustrate the aggressivencss of a section of Immunity, and before there can be any peace the aggressor must be eliminated. In yesterday s Dailv Times is the following sentence:— “ Professor Karl Barth, the eminent theologian. wrote in a recent article in the Manchester Guardian that to keep faith with Christ and with Hitler was impossible.” The same applies to Signor Mussolini. Here is what he said in a speech in Rome in May, 1934:—'“Perhaps this is the tragic destiny of man. War is for man what maternity is for woman. 1 do not believe in perpetual peace. 1 consider that perpetual peace deprives and negatives all man’s fundamental virtues. Only by bloody effort can man live in the sun.” Evidently he is carrying that into effect at the present time. On Monday we listened to the King’s speech. What a contrast to some ot the speeches we have read from Mussolini and Hitler! Our King would conciliate and unify by word of mouth and action not only our own Empire, but the world at large, whilst Mussolini and Hitler would drench the world in blood. To join the pacifists’ organisation as far ns 1 can see is to invite the aggressor and the oppressor to do their worst. We have had our lessons iu the past. We should learn bv them. As a man thinketh so is he. —I am, etc.. Israel. March 6.