WITH GLOVES OFF.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17221, 3 October 1927, Page 4

WITH GLOVES OFF.

WILL 1914 COME AGAIN? SOMETHING WRONG WITH WORLD. A SUICIDAL RELAPSE. The results of the recent sham attack on London from the air seems to show that, contrary to the hopes of some of our experts, London cannot be successfully defended. Within two or three hours of a declaration of war —in (Ik 1 unlikely event, of that formality" being observed—the destruction of the capital and the massacre of its inhabitants will begin. Among all the booklets of the brilliant "To-day and To-morrow" series, none, I think, is so weighty and impressive as Professor McDougall's "Janus, or the Conquest of War," writes the Very Rev. W. R.-Inge, Dean of St. Paul's, in the Evening Standard. It contains twice as much matter as the other volumes, and instead of the Puckish humour of some of the other contributors, it is profoundly serious. The writer reviews, not at all hopefully, the various plans which have been made to prevent another war. It is a commonplace that very few people wanted war in 1914, and that still fewer want it now, after the appalling experiences which McDougall illustrates by poignantly touching anecdotes at first hand of the year 1914- ] 18. lie recalls how the very modest proposals of the nineteenth centdry for naval holidays, proportionate reduction of armaments, and the like, were rejected one after another. lie reminds us how a whole body of International Law, intended to make war more humane, was thrown on to the scrap-heap, first by the Germans and then by the Allies.

Dread Weapons. ('*,<'

He quotes at length from a terrible article written in 1924 by Mr Winston Churchill, to show what war would have been like in 1919. and still more what the next war will be like. "Nations who believe that their life is at stake will not be restrained from using any means to' secure their existence. It is probable—nay certain —that among the means which will next time be at their disposal will he agencies and processes of destruction wholesale, unlimited, and, perhaps, once launched, uncontrollable." Among these he names bombing aeroplanes guided automatically without a human pilot, poison gas in far deadlier forms, and pestilence's methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beasL. "This study is certainly being pursued in the laboratories of more than one great country." I shall return to these predictions presently.

Among the manifestly inadequate explanations of the causes of war are the inherent wickedness of mankind, the special depravity of emperors, kings, and other rulers not elected by universal suffrage, and the desire of armament manufacturers and profiteers to make fortunes. Poor human naturo is not so bad as to enjoy killing and plundering for their own sakes. Monarchies are not at all more bellicose and aggressive than republics. Those who think otherwise may profitably study the published letters of Roosevelt and Senator Lodge. Roosevelt was supposed to be rather more friendly to this country than most American politicians; but these letters reveal him contemplating with satisfaction a war against England, at a time when we had not given the United States the slightest provocation. As for the ambitions of profiteers and others, we may feel certain that nobody who' has anything to lose will lightly vote for another war.

How Wars Are Caused. Economic imperialism—the wish to secure markets and monopolies; the pressure of population upon the means of subsistence; and bombastic patriotism are real causes which have promoted wars in the past. But they are not likely to cause, another war, unless a threatened Government thinks that a successful war is its only chance of escaping revolution. This was undoubtedly one of the causes of the Great War; but- the Governments which tried the experiment had one and all the most bitter reasons to regret ii. Germany was probably misled by the memory of her former wars', especially that of 1870, which were actually made to pay; hut nobody will dream again that, a European War can be profitable either to winners or losers. We must, however, remember that there is one diabolical Government—■ that of Russia —which would not shrink for a moment from massacring three-quarters of the population of Europe if the remaining 25 per cent eould be subjected to the same miseries which they have indicted on their own people. The bitter truth must be spoken, that until this nest of hor- ' nets has been smoked out, disarmament in Europe is quite impossible. Italy also is said to be a menace to peace; but in my opinion Mussolini is only indulging in the dangerous game of sabre-rattling; a serious war would be too dangerous to himself. I agree with McDougall that fear is the real cause of war. We must have often seen two dogs approaching each other with bristling hair and perhaps with wagging tails. Neither wants to fight; but when they meet they stand eyeing each other nervously, until one of them flicks an car or twitches a leg, and in a moment they are at each other's throats. "The proper remedy to work for is the removal of fear." Or, as Lord Cecil puts it, "What keeps alive armamenls is one thing only—• the fear and suspicion of the nations.i for each other." i

Is Prevention Possible?

This clears the ground for discussing preventives. Christianity no doubt offers a solution, but unhappily the nations do not seem more disposed to listen to teaching of the Gospel now than they, have been in the past. Arbitration treaties are sometimes useful, hut not when two nations are vitally interested in getting something which only one of them can have. If two men want the same woman, they will never submit to arbitration which of them shall have her. Nor will great nations invite their neighbours to decide whether the Moors or the Indians or the Filipinos are "peoples rightly struggling to be free." The Quakers say, disarm and trust lo the decency of your neighbours not to plunder a defenceless and obviously unaggressive people. The fate of China, which actually adopted this policy in the last century, is not very encouraging to these idealisLs. The proportionate reduction of armaments bristles with difficulties. If a gambler who has won a heavy stake says to his opponent, "Now we will play for love for the rest of the evening," the loser is not likely to consent; lie wants, as lie says, to "have his revenge." This is very much the position of the losers in the late war. It might have been wiser to treat them with wholly unexpected generosity. Jjularnaiuinaliiru. And abolilion Qtjs

nationalities is manifestly impossible. It commends itself chiefly to those who, under cover of pacifism, desire a bloody class-war. Whether McDougall's suggestion of | an international air force, with, a prohibition of national air fleets, is feasible, I will not discu'ss. It is perhaps one of the best suggestions yet made. Non-combatants. But I want to raise briefly another point. Is it as certain as it is almost always assumed, to be that the next war will see a promiscuous massacre of non-combatants, men, women and children, perhaps by poison? Twenty years ago the very suggestion of such a thing would have been received with scorn. It was then a commonplace that civilised peoples had advanced .in humanity far beyond even the comparatively' high standard of the 18th century. Yet here is a retrogression to a point far behind even the Greeks and Romans. We have lo go back to the Book of Joshua for anything approaching in horror what we are told to expect in the next war, and the Jewish nose, which Is not Bedouin, is a proof that "the people of the land" were not exterminated as the ferocious chroniclers narrate. When Plato lays down the laws of war for Greek States, fruit trees arc not to be injured, houses'and temples are not to he destroyed, the inavder may take only the standing crops. Greeks are not to be sold as slaves. The massacre of non-comt>atants and poisoning of wells have always been practices quite outside the limits of severity in civilised warfare. It is alleged that modern wars are between]

nations, not between armies, and that ! the distinction between combatants ! and non-combatants has ceased to exj ist. This pica will not serve. I The non-combatant population has always worked io make flic continuance of the war possible; it lias always done the work of the men who were called to Hie colours; it lias always supplied food, clothes, and munitions for the fighters, and tended the sick. Nor is it (rue that the new methods of destruction have made a great difference. It is as easy to kill a child wilh a spear as with a poison-bomb; but such things "are not done." Barbarous and cruel weapons have, as a | matter of fact, not always been used when Ihcy would have given military advantage. The Greeks gave up the use of poisoned arrows, of which there are traces in Homer. Dum-dum bullets, which wore introduced in war ' with the Afridis, who, it was said, 1 could not be slopped by ordinary bullets, were barred by the rules of war. Olber examples could easily be found. There is some thing radically wrong with a civilisation which can thus deliberately return lo the worst traditions of savagery. Frankly, I do not understand it, and I am amazed by Hie acquiescence of the civilised world in this appalling and suicidal relapse. |