“WAR! WHAT FOR?”

Southland Times, Issue 25313, 17 June 1935, Page 5

“WAR! WHAT FOR?”

MR GRIFFIN’S ADDRESS LIVELY QUESTION TIME Close on two hundred people, including a good many women and a number of children, gathered in Everybody’s last evening to hear an address by Mr Gerald Griffin, of Wellington, on “War! What For?” The meeting was quiet until question time but a certain amount of heat was then engendered as the result of queries put by one member of the audience. Mr M. O’Rorke who presided, briefly introduced Mr Griffin, stating that he was secretary of the anti-war and anti-fascist movement in New Zealand. His mission was to expose the danger of war and build up an anti-war organization. Mr Griffin first referred to the attitude of the Press and City Council in Invercargill, remarking that no city councillor was going to restrict his Utterances. He then spoke of the real danger of war which existed to-day and by quoting figures showed the cost in life and fhoney of the Great War. Touching on his experience at the hands of the Australian Government, he stated that he had no intention of engaging in any subversive acts when in the Commonwealth but was merely accepting an invitation to attend an anti-war congress as the representative of the New Zealand movement. He waxed sarcastic at the test in the Dutch language to which he was subjected on arrival in Sydney. Because he had failed to pass the test, he alleged, he was classed as an undesirable immigrant and was refused the right to land. He then told the story of his transference from the Monowai to the Marama and of his return to Wellington; of Mr Peter Fraser’s questions from the floor of the House and oi the allegedly unsatisfactory replies of the Minister. Mr Griffin claimed that the New Zealand Government had supplied information to the Australian Government which had caused his being subjected to the test. He then dealt with his vindication by the High Court of Australia. Mr Griffin accused both the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand with attempting to thwart the anti-war and anti-fascist movement. Before crossing to Australia the second time he had armed himself with a pair of horn-rimmed glasses and travelled incognito on the Wanganella. Mr f’riffin entertained his audience by relating his adventures with officials in Sydney; and spoke of Herr Egon Kisch’s activities in Australia. Kisch, he alleged, had been subjected to a test in the Gaelic language, the speaker making capital out of the fact that Kisch, a European, had been tested in Gaelic while he himself, of Irish birth, had been given a test in Dutch. Mr Griffin outlined the protests made by Australian citizens against the treatment he and Kisch had received. He told his audience of the meetings he and Kisch had addressed and of the protracted court proceedings before they were released. Kisch’s treatment at the hands of the Nazis was used by the speaker to illustrate the activities of the present regime in Germany. He alleged that the Australian Government had planned to capture Kisch and place him aboard a German ship to suffer again, on his return to Germany, at the hands of the Nazis. Hitler’s regime was castigated by the speaker who questioned the sincerity of the Nazi leader’s peace protestations. He submitted that Kisch’s release in Australia was due to the triumph of organized workers over the Federal authorities. “I have not come here,” concluded Mr Griffin, “to incite subversive acts or stir up bloodshed. But there is ample reason for feeling alarmed at the possibility of war. Money is being raised for many military projects in Australia and New Zealand. Sooner or later these weapons of war will be used to mangle and maim. Kisch and I, who tried to organize against war, were regarded as undesirables, whereas the Hankey mission which concerned preparations for war was regarded as desirable. The war of 1914-1918 was a war of commercial antagonisms and the war of the future will be of a similar complexion. The demand for a redivision of the world market is stronger than ever. We have failed to emerge from the economic crisis. In spite of starvation among the masses, there is still restriction of foodstuffs and markets. The world is moving towards a war greater than the last. Britain is supporting Germany’s plea for rearmament. The League of Nations has utterly failed to act as an effective barrier against war. Nations are spending more on armaments to-day than ever before. The policy of preparing for war will as surely lead to war as it did in 1914. The masses of the people should organize to oppose war and fascism and thus united in every country, should prevent the plans of Imperialistic factions from coming to fruition. The movement also aims at preventing political repression -and its consequence, fascism, which leads to war. The movement against war and fascism well, if successful, establish a new world of amity, peace and prosperity for the mass of humanity. A collection was at this stage taken up in aid of the movement. Some of the Questions. In reply to a question Mr Griffin said he thought there was little chance of New Zealand being attacked by an outside force unless it were a party to an Imperialistic power. “If Mr Forbes demanded a blood tax, the people would be wise, in the best interests of the masses, to refuse to pay it,” he added. “Whether victorious or not, it is the masses who suffer most in war.” A speaker (Mr F. Robson), referring to Mr Griffin’s remarks concerning the unification of the in Australia for military reasons, submitted that this could only be for defensive purposes. Surely Mr Griffin would not oppose Australia defending herself. The same speaker also suggested that Hitler’s regime was to counteract Communism. Did Mr Griffin advocate Communism as a solution. Replying to the latter point Mr Griffen said that he was not advocating Communism as a solution to the problem; but he could not discard the factors making for war and peace, and supporters of the movement to which he belonged believed that the Soviet Union was one of the greatest factors for a world peace to-day. When the questioner asked whether the Soviet Government in the course of carrying out its programme had "liquidated” or killed millions of men, the chairman interposed and asked the meeting whether the internal working of the Soviet concerned the purpose of the meeting, the answer from the audience being in the negative. Mr Griffirt proceeded td enlarge upon the theme that the Soviet’s external policy assisted the cause of peace, but the questioner, who was growing unpopular with some of the audience, contended that Mr Griffin was not answering his query. Mr Griffin then stated that the Bolshevist Government had come into power without bloodshed, but had, through the action of counter-revolutionary bands, been forced to take repressive action. It was felt that the aim of the Soviet justified the suppression of those who actively opposed the Government. The Soviet leaders did not de-

sire to shed a single drop of blood, but had been forced in defence of their policy to suppress violence which was not of their own creating. Violence was inseparable from Imperialism, and only with the ending of Imperialism would force and violence be abolished. When the questioner wanted to pursue the subject he was told by the chairman to sit down and give others a chance to put inquiries. He might be given an opportunity later. “You’re afraid of my questions,” said Mr Robson. “What is the difference between the Red Army in the Soviet Union and Imperialistic Armies?” asked another speaker. “I have heard the answer but I would like to hear it again..” Before Mr Griffin replied Mr. Robson asked if it were a serious inquiry. The questioner said he knew the answer. What was the good of his asking it? “Sit down” was shouted from many sides, but the questioner did not obey the injunction. Mr Griffin, replying to the question, said that the Soviet Army was not out for aggression; the Imperialistic Armies were. “Was the movement being taken up in Europe?” was another query, the answer being in the affirmative. No other queries being forthcoming, the questioner was permitted to ask the speaker to give a concise and constructive suggestion to avoid war. If this were not forthcoming they were only wasting their time attending such meetings. If Mr Griffin suggested Communism as a solution, that was something concrete. Otherwise he was beating the air. Mr Griffin submitted that in 1914 the minority fooled and tricked the people into war. The people to-day would be fooled and tricked again unless there was the organization which constituted the practical policy of the movement. War could not be waged if those waging it refused to carry on. Collective action was necessary and the movement aimed at unity of purpose throughout the world. The meeting having by resolution i agreed to disband at 10.15 p.m. and this , time having been reached, the chairman declared it closed I