WAR AND SELF-DEFENCE.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 7914, 4 August 1917, Page 2 (Supplement)

WAR AND SELF-DEFENCE.

A FEW WORDS TO LABOUR EXTREMISTS.

WHY BRITAIN IS AT WAR. In tlio London Sunday Chronicle Mr. Robert Baltchford talks straightforwardly to Mr. Jowett, M.P., and] the Independent Labour Party. Mr. Blatchford is a Socialist and' generally a most progressive democrat. Mr. Jowett i a viionary and malcontent with a had kink. The Independent Labour Party lias this distinction : that it is not independent, and dioes not truly represent Labour. Its general attitude in the war is antiBritish, and to that extent it depends on the Kaiser and hijj Junkers for support and countenance. Everything that Mr. Blatchford writes in this very lucid' and timely article applies to a raucous extremist minority of and peace maniacs in Australasia. Incidentally, Mr. Blatchford preaches a little sermon to conscientious objectors. With such of those as are genuine wo have no quarrel, though it -has never yet been explained to us why they don’t go out with the Red Cross. But the average conscientious objector, so called, is merely a sidling and evasive gentleman who conscientiously shrinks from the idea of risking his skin.

LITHE I.L.P. Conference was what A one might call in. heady function. It was marked by wrong-lieaded'ness, thick-headedjiess, and swelled-headedi-ness. Nothing so egregiously and contemptibly silly hag happened l since Mr. Ford’s comic ark of peace set out upon it* great adventure. Still, as the I.L.P. counts for nothing and can d.o nothing, I should certainly not have mentioned its conference were it not for the very remarkable effusion of Mr. F. W. Jowett, M.P. Mr. Jowett is an old friend of mine. I Im vo always regarded him as the most sincere, the most honest, and the most sensible man in the I.L.P. What he is doing in the I.L.P. gallery; how he can stout his eyes to facts w® obvious, as a tidal wave or an earthquake ; how ho contrived to make a speech so hopeless, so muddled, and so absurd as the speech with which he opened l that conference, really does, as the Canadians say, “get my goat.” I did not think it possible for Mr. Jowett to have got into such a mental tangle, and I have been marvelling how he did it. However, I don’t propose to wrestle with Mr. Jewett’s baseless) assertions nnd glaring contradictions. It would do no good. A man capable of su*ch a speech is incapable of logical reasoning as he is of weighing evidence. There is only one of Mr. Jowett’s many errors that it seems necessary or useful to deal with, and that is to be answered because it is an error very often made in connection with this and with, other

Mr. Jowett said at the end of his weirdly distorted oration that he is “not an advocate of the policy of nonresistance.” He said, “Whatever in tlio nature of protective armament# is necessary to keep the land of my birth from an invading force I would vote to provide.” A WEIRD IDEA.

But while lie believes in protecting the land of his birth against invasion, he does not admit that <we . ought to have gone to war with Germbny in 1914. He claims that we ought to have waited, as America waited, until tho Germans sank some of our ships. I have heard many men speak in the same irt\v. They generally say, “ If the country were invaded we would take up arms to defend it.” And I generally make answer, “ Suppose there were no arms for you to take up 7 and! suppose you did not know how to use them?” Let ns examine this curious) idea. These persons admit that a nation has a right to defend itself. But they would paralyse the defence by waiting for tho attack. That is because they have never given an hour’s thought or study to war and the ways of war. Let us suppose that two swashbuckling bandits are arming for a fight. Lotus suppose that one friend of onr&i who lives west of them is very nervous and apprehensive, and that another friend of ours who lives east -of them iy also very nervous. Let us suppose that we have reason to believe that the two armed bandits have an eye on our wellfilled safe and fertile fields'. Are we to sit still while the bandlite beat and rob our two neighbours because we only believe in sef-defence, and they have not yjet attacked u<?? Olr are we to aigree with our two friends that if tho bandits attack one they shall have to fight all ? Is a war of self-defence any the less a war of self-defence because the defenders are allied with other defenders against «. common enemy? Is there any reason to believe that had Germany defeated France and Russia, she would havo refrained from attacking us? A FEW QUESTIONS. j

amount to ? There was no secret 'about the Anglo - Russo - French Entente. Everyone in Europe who knew anything c/b sill aibout foreign politics knew that France and Russia were really allied to resist an attack by Germany on one or the other. Everyone who knew anything understood that our entente with France was dictated by our mutual interests l . If any fault could be .found with the Anglo-French relations, it was that there was not a formal and binding defensive alliance. We went to the help of France not because we had a secret diplomatic understanding with France, but because our own safety depended upon the safety of France. Now the thing I want to make clear is that if we are justified in defending ourselves against invasion, we nre justified in defending ourselves against starvation and against political, social, and financial ruin. And i.f we are justified in defending ourselves against attack, we are justified in attacking, for attack hi the best defence. And if we are justified in making war upon an. enemy in our own defence, we are justified in making war upon an enemy in the defence of another nation whose safety is essential to our safety. Let us turn from the ethical side of the question, and look at what I may cn.ll the (business side. Suppose we bad kept out of tile war. France would certainly have been defeated; she was outnumbered, and she was not ready. The German Navy would hove landed an army of invasion in Brittany, and would have cut off all supplies from America or England by blockade. We should have incurred tile scorn and hatred of France. We should have seen the manacles fastened tighter upon the Russian people. Wo should have left ourselves in danger of invasion, in danger of losing India, Egypt, and our colonies. We should have seen the small nations driven into the German confederation. We should most certainly halve been lost; and we should have deserved all we got. Fortunately, we chose the braver ana the nobler part. We went to tile asl- - of Russia and France. We saved the situation with our navy until wo could make an army. This protracted the war and enabled Russia to throw off her chains and expel her tyrants. It won for us the friendship of the French. It saved us and Europe from the domination of the unspeakable Huns. Because of our co-operation in the war the Germans have been exposed for the barbarians they are, and the horrible Prussian menace has been checked. To say, as Mr. .Jowett slays, that America has a better reason for entering this war than we had iy to convict oneself of ignorance and stupidity. America came in because her interests were menaced and her fia.g insulted', and because she recognised the oiliness of the enemy. We went into the war because Germany wantonly broke the peace, and because our interests 1 and our honour were threatened. If self-defence is justifiable, then we and the t rench, and the Russians, and the Belgians, and the .Serbs are all justified in taking up arms against the oomomn enemy. 1 believe that the result of our entrance into this war will be the breaking of the Prussian menace wnd the establishment of such an alliance of the democratic and peace-loving nations as will make another war very improbable. If Mr. .Jowett believes in self-defence, l suppose lie would not sit t/aimely at homo while a gang of cutthroats} carried arm.; and ammunition into their den ready for an attack on his home and family. Ho would surely act while there was a clKi<nc(>of his action being fulCONSULTING THE PEOPLE. There wag just one chance of preventing this war. It was to tell the British nation frankly that they must preparo for defence. But when 1 told the nation that, the Government and the pacifists hooted me. What becomes of the foolish objection that the British people were not consulted before wo made war? They could not be consulted. There was no time to consult them. Tho Germans took care of that. Our Navy had to he at its stations insantly, or it would have been too late. Everything that our Government could do to avert war was done. At the? last the decision had to be made suddenly. There was no time to consult the people, and the people had been so systematically misled and deceived that they could not have been made to understand. Thousands of them do not understand now, and Mr. Jowett, I regret to see, is one of ithem. It was strangely nbyurd of Mr. Jowett to toll his audience that if our 5>?oplo had been as well informed as America we should not have come into the war when the well-informed Americans had just come in. It is incredible that any sane .and honest mlnin can at this time of day persuade himself that wo should have acted' morally, honourably, and Sagaciously in allowing Germany land Austria, to heat and subdue our Allies in detail while we waited for our turn to come. It gives one to laugh to hear that feeble, purblind policy described as selfdefence. And how can aaiyone read the newspapers and fail to realise what Prussianism really is and what it wants? Gentlemen, it “gets my goat,” it doea really. Where can T get the national flags of Panama and Chili and the Argentine, and who .has .a copy of the Chinese national anthem?

Is it not proved to tlio hilt that Germany meant to defeat France and Russia and then to fall upon us? Had the Germans beaten France they would have taken both Belgium and Holland. They worn! have taken Calais. They would probably haiv© absorbed or dominated tho whole of Scandinavia. Then when they attacked us 1 we should not have had a friend or an Ally. As I pointed out years before the war, tho defeat of France meant tint isolation and peril of the British Empire. Unprepared as we should have been had we remained neutral, we should have been most certainly ruined and defeated.

What could we have done? Mr. Jowett and his friends seem to suppose wo could sit comfortably here on our island and defy the great German world confederation of Germany, Austria, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, and very probably other nations. All we have to do is to wait until the enemv invades ns. Tlio enemy need not invade us. He could invade our colonies and India. Does the right of self-d%jfence apply only to Great Britain ? Aren’t we allowed by the I.L.P. code of morals to defend Canada, Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand? Are we to sit skill while the enemy captures our coaling stations? Are we to lose India, and Egypt, and Malta, and the Suez Canal? I f wo are permitted to defend ourselves are we not permitted to begin ■ until it Is too late? 'Suppose) wo did not join in with France wild Russia, but waited. Wiliat would happen to our trade and to our food supplies when our turn came? Having placed a part which all the other nations would regard as cowardly wild fJelfiJsh, r.hould we have any right to complain if France nnd Russia turned upon us in the hour of out trial?

SECRET DIPLOMACY NONSENSE. There is a very old motto about the wisdom of “getting your blow in first.” It is a recognised part oif the science of war. The nation which wtodts supinely until an enemy attacks it gives ever tho choice of the time to its adversary. Very naturally the adversary chooses a timo when his chance* are good and the chances of the defenders 'are bad. Arf’one with the smallest knowlodlgo of military sicence or military history knows what Mr. Jowett’s policy would lead to. What do all the dark and mysterious mlitterings about “secret diplomacy”

GENTLEMEN ONLY.

Tn p. certain regiment the wash-house is divided into two parts: one side is reserved for N.C.O.’s and the other for the men. Lately there had been some friction between the parties concerned, which ended in a painted hoard being placed' up at one of the wash-house with N.C.O.’s Onlv. Bv Order.” Shortly afterwards appeared a sign on. the other *side. It rend simply:— “Gentlemen Only.”