Peace and War
THE celebrations of Armistice Day have been gradually changing in manner and import. Here is a very strange and impressive example of the purposive intuitions of a nation. No one has ordered the change ; no official hand, no Royal Proclamation, has had anything to do with it. It has simply been that the feelings of the people themselves and their sense of appropriateness have insensibly brought about a development fraught with the profoundest meaning.
What were the original intentions of those who pro- jected the idea of a day of remembrance ? They wished first of all, of course, that the dead' should be held in honour, but their minds were also occupied with the fact that a great victory bad been won. In grateful and reverent memory of the -dead the survivors would dedicate themselves to a corresponding sacrifice if dread necessity should require it. The first three or four Armistice Days were celebrated in this double sense. The nation was like a battalion which marches to a military funeral with muffled and mournful tunes, but returns with a quicker step and to livelier music. No sooner had the dead been remembered at the cenotaph, and in the great silence throughout the country, than thoughts turned to the celebration of the victory. Now all the second part of this ceremony has by tacit consent been lopped off ; we do not hear of victory balls or rollicking street demonstrations on Armistice Night. The sense of loss and a humble grieving, as it seems to be, for the cruel irrationalities of a .blundering world seem to have forced all other thoughts aside.
It used to be said that the two minutes' silence could not be repeated for more than a few years—the natural- ness of it would fade, a generation would grow up which could not share in it with sincerity, and it would then come to an end as all forms ought to do which signify nothing. By a wonderful and unforeseen evolution, however, the act of remembrance seems to have become more intense. The silence is more carefully organized by street crowds, who are barely aware that they are organizing it, and more scrupulously observed and felt. All this being so, there is no reason why the two minutes' silence should not last for ever. Millions perceive now what only the few- perceived before, that there was reason and wisdom in the precepts of those sages and saints who recommended occasions of seclusion and meditation.
It is held almost universally now that war is a shameful. thing, not indeed because it does not call out the noblest and bravest qualities of individual men, but because it is a disgraceful reflection upon the degree of reason at which civilized nations have arriveds It is a base calumniation of human intelligence, a dating- back of our methods- to the 'darker ages of knowledge. Popular intuitions are much more potent than the logical con- victions' of the learned, and if we are right in believing that the popular intuition about war is now practically universal, nothing will prevent it from becoming the monitor and director of the policy of thiS country.
Even after the War newspapers • which are called " Imperialist " had not lost the habit of reiterating the ancient maxim that if you want peace you must prepare" for war, but now urgent doubts intrude themselves. Is there such a thing as victory ? Are -frontiers which are left unarmed by agreement less safe than those where the garrisons of block-houses look on one another across the imaginary line and where a haphazard encounter may lead to a general outbreak ? Has the Canadian frontier, which has remained inviolate for a hundred years, no lesson for the world ? We cannot call to mind a more striking example of thoughts rushing together and concentrating on one point than the recent demand for disarmament expressed by the popular " Imperialist " papers as well as by the Liberal and Labour newspapers. And they can cite the opinions, not of cranks, but of . many of the most distinguished soldiers and sailors. - A cautious Government, responsible for the safety of the country, cannot, of course, go ahead of national feeling. If it does it will be accused of being false to its trust, and no heavier • charge can fall upon any responsible body of men. Yet it is equally true that 'a Governnient is false to its trust if it does not interpret the obvious wishes of the nation, and it is for the present Government to decide whether it is doing all that it can to keep abreast of the common desire. We freely admit the danger that there always is in making a false step through sentimental rashness, or through any precipitate estimate of what the people are really thinking. In this latter case a sectional sentiment may be presented as a widespread conviction, and if once such an error is made all hope is lost of preserving continuity in foreign policy. For our part, we would rather consent to the pace of progress towards disarmament being a trifle slower than it need be than accept the risk that the next Government or the next but one may undo what its predecessors have done, because it will say that folly or reaction (as the case may be) has to be remedied. Nothing more readily induces a belief in foreign countries that Great Britain is not to be trusted than frequent chopping and changing in 'our foreign policy. A discreet Government, then, will secure that its policy will be regarded by its 'successors as neither offensive nor inadequate.
But when all these pitfalls have been catalogued, much ground remains ' where it is not risky to move: After every great war there is a period of almost complete safety when the nations are ' too crippled and too weary to fight again. During that period—and we are living in such a period now—every rational experiment in building up a new machinery of peace ought to be tried. If the experiments fail and new generations arise not averse from war, then it will clearly be necessary for the' nation to defend itself on the old terms and in the old way. . • In our judgment the Government could do three things at once which, so far as we can -see, would run the country into no further dangers, yet would be positive demonstrations of the sincere determination of Great Britain to ensure peace. First, the Government might make it perfectly plain to the United States that we have no intention whatever of entering uPoii 'a' naval' competition with her. We believe that the effect of such' a demonstration would be tremendous. Popular' opinion on this subject in the United States has not yet really formed itself. We could help form it. We believe that the feeling of the two peoples -would exactly' coincide. Secondly, the Government's could sign 'the " optional clause " which would pledge Great Britain to submit disputes to the Internatiorial Court of Justice. Thirdly, the Government could express their readiness' to enter-into " all-in." arbitration treaties. If reserva- tions are necessary in this case, by all means let reserva. tions be made. Lord Grey of Fallocion has suggested that- internal affairs ought to be iexclrided, and that it ought also to be laid' down that' acts' Committed when a nation is at war site not suitable fdr arbitration Until the war -is bier. "
Previous page
