A Peace Pact
S1R,—In your comment on Mr. Brunel's letter you appear to beg the question. You may be right in saying that " a demand for a peace pact will not avert war." It is as true to say a " demand " for heavier rearma- ment will not avert-war. But Mr. Brunel is taking you to task for stating that " no one has been able to suggest any means of averting war except the mobilisation of such defensive forces in the West as to deter Russia from attacking." Grudgingly, Sir, you admit that "a peace itself 'might, though that is not certain." Indeed nothing is certain, and even those who advocate extensive rearmament would hardly dare to assert that that was certain. ,History is by no means conclusive in their favour.
You conclude by stating that the Russian offer on disarmament is not a satisfactory basis for a pact. Assume that to be so. Let us have from our own country and Arnerica some more suitable basis, and above all let this intolerable burden of rearmament, which is crippling our own and the world's economy, be discussed. A policy of building more armaments than your potential enemy has no end ,except beggary or, I venture to suggest, ultimately war. If war is to be averted, sooner or later the outstanding differences must be settled by negotiation. Amongst those differences is clearly the question of the level of armaments. Let us hope that such a negotiated settlement is sooner than later.—Yours 45 Templars Avenue, N.W.11. .
Previous page
