IS WAR JUSTIFIED?

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 August 1939, Page 5

IS WAR JUSTIFIED?

TERRORS OF PRESENT DAY FIGHTING THREAT TO CIVILISATION. “That war cannot under any circumstances be justified,” was the subject debated between the Peace Pledge Union and the Masterton branch of the League of Nations Union. The affirmative for the Peace Pledge Union was taken by Messrs R. I. Wadhams (leader), S. Esler and A. Handyside. On the negative side for the League of Nations Union it was contested by Mr McKirdy (leader), Mrs Fouhy and Miss M. E. Barrer. Mr Wadhams maintained that there could be no comparison between war in the past and today. Modern warfare was just suicide, and its object not to win a battle but to exterminate a whole nation. It was murder not only of soldiers but of civilians and its only end was anarchy, revolution and the disruption of economic life, culture and religion. When not unspeakably degrading it was unspeakably stupid. It was a denial of liberty and of every democratic principle. It was a denial also of every principle laid down by Christ, the great, true and perfect pacifist. Mr McKirdy contended that had we not undertaken wars in the past we would not today be free to discuss its pros and cons, but would be under the tyranny of dictatorship. There were various forms of war —civil, financial, ■ economic—besides the war of bloodshed. War was just if it was in defence of liberty, freedom of speech and the right to maintain our standard of living. We could not allow our women and children to starve at the behest of another nation. He asked what his opponent would do if an aggressor came to New Zealand? Would he stand by and allow women and children to be ruthlessly attacked? If a nation became an aggressor, as defined by the League of Nations, the measure stick of international law, the nation attacked had every right to defend itself. The fact that a nation was declared an aggressor showed that its action was unjust, and injustice must be resisted. Is a nation or individual, the speaker asked, not in the right in endeavouring to do the best for its people? In denying that right was provided justification for war. Mr Esler said that dictatorships were the result of the last war. The League of Nations had named Italy as an aggressor and Great Britain gave them 35 per cent of the ammunition to carry on with. For centuries China had won its way through its pacifist principles. After 2000 years of Christianity speakers should be ashamed to debate whether it was right to murder fellow beings. Today in the world everyone wanted peace,' yet because of vested interests war was knocking at the door. To foment war there must be a barrage of lies and war propaganda. There was no defence possible in modern warfare. Passive resistance was the only method. Defence aggravated the evil. Butchery and slaughter could never be justified. Mrs Fouhy maintained that the opposition made no attempt to justify the terrible pictures just painted. Life, however, was the most precious possession of any man. If an enemythreatened it he was justified in defending it. What would happen to our civilisation if all Christians stood in a row and were shot down? Suppose a man had two neighbours, and ope threatened to shoot the other, and afterwards himself. Which neighbour would he be entitled to assist? It was betraying a trust if arms were not taken up in self-defnce. Pacifist China had ultimately to take to arms to defend herself. Certainly she had justification in doing so. “If we xiact not resisted Germany we might today have become automatons without liberty of religion, thought or action,” said Mrs Fouhy, and she quoted the oath taken by German teachers to train the-youth of Germany in the ideology, aims and objects of Hitler. Until such time as education had taught all nations the inefficacy of war, and given them a basis of common humanity, wars against aggressors would continue to be justified. Mr Handyside claimed that man was the only animal that slew his own kinsfolk. War was the world’s greatest collective crime. He quoted “Those that take the sword shall perish by the sword," and said it was a defensive sword that Peter was using. Men and women could defend Christianity only by being Christian, even if it cost them their existence. Empires had risen and disappeared, yet progress had continued. War broke out of the Ten Commandments, and violence grew by what it fed on. How could it possibly be defended? He contended that the slaves of America would have gained a truer freedom if it had been gained more gradually by the growth of humanity and public opinion. To defend New Zealand would only provoke more aggression. He drew a lurid picture of modern warfare. Once a war machine was put in motion it could not be stopped. If Germany marched through Britain passive resistance would conquer in the end. Fear and hate were infectious but so also were courage and foodwill. He asked what was the ultimate purpose of life—might or right? Miss Barrer said she was no detender cf war, but maintained that defmee measures taken in initial stages would prevent much greater bloodmed, She instanced that policy of ppcasement which had resulted in he successive swallowing up of Manb.uria, Abyssinia. Spain, Czechoslovakia and Albania. Had a firm stand •eon taken aganist the great aggressor a ..ons by the League of Nations the

-they acts of aggression would never .ve taken place. But the policy of pacifism, of appeasement, indulged in ■y member states of the League had . akened its authority and resulted in ueh greater bloodshed which might .'.lumately destroy civilisation itself. A firm stand by a League international force in the first place would have been justified in its prevention of this. Again there were economic wars which must be resisted. The present day crop of refugees, concentration camps, starvation and wholesale scourges, was the result of appeasement. In ordinary life it was at times necessary for the police to preserve order by means of force. As with individuals. so with nations. If international law were broken force must be resorted to after legal means had failed and such force was then justified. Mr G. Pi. Sykes acted as adjudicator and gave his decision in favour of the opposition (League of Nations Union) by a small margin.