REDRESSING THE BALANCE
SIR,—In the course of an otherwise admirable article in your issue of March 14, Mr. Geoffrey Barraclough, discussing a recent small book of mine (Defence and the English-Speaking Role), implies that I hold the view that the defensive policy of this country should. include at one of itS objectives the destruction of Communism. Yet, in a chapter of the book, devoted to outlining the conditions which are indispensable] if any form of military power is to be deterrent, occurs, (page 29) this passage : Russia and China must not become persuaded that it is the purpose of our power to forbid them to adopt the economic or social system they deem best for their circumstances. We must somehow manage to make it clear that what we fight is not Communism, but aggression. We might usefully recall that we fought as Russia's ally in the last war, thus implying her right to be Communist as against Hitler's challenge to that •right. If we allow the impression to grow that we are out to 'destroy. Communism,' we start a new war of religion, fertile soil for all the passions which the religious wars of the past revealed; wars in which both sides were Christian professing the Christian doctrine of love, mercy, compassion, pity, and both reveal- ing themselves as capable, during whole centuries, of ferocities and cruelties, torturings, burnings' massacres, wars, records of which make some of the bloodiest pages of history. The Marxian religion, despite its profession of rationality and the scientific spirit, has furnished ample evidence that it would, if engaged in war, prove itself quite equal to the Christian record.
It is the more curious that Mr. Barraclough should have overlooked this phase of my argument, for it supports what I take to be his own main con- tention.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
