SIR, I cannot agree with " Janus " that there
are two quite different things involved in this question of defence against air attack. The pacifist holds that there is no defence against war and its moral, social, economic and political conse- quences—that there is no justification for warfare whatever
the motive, shells fired with the blessing of the League mur- dering just as brutally as any others. In any event the people pay with their life-blood for the sins of their government.
The pacifist wants people to recognise the fact and act with courage and determination, sacrificing those unworthy ideals which stand in the way of good relations with other countries. To pretend or hope that there is defence, to comfort oneself by hoping that what seems inevitable will not be too bad after all, is merely to shirk facing the issue. How much longer are we going to present the pathetic spectacle of people trying vainly to erect defences against something which courage on our part would destroy ?
Whilst our minds are full of measures for defence we forget the real problem, " How are we to prevent war ? " Is there amongst all the tumult and the shouting of the present rearmament any demand by the public that this country shall not repeat the mistakes of the last nineteen years (such as the unsympathetic treatment of democratic Germany and the refusal to dispense with bombing 'planes for service in India) or that it shall not pursue the unbending imperialist policy which seems likely ?
I suggest that it is now high time that the public should be allowed to concentrate their attention on what is really the only hope for peace, and be urged to demand that the Govern- ment make a sincere effort to lead the world to peace and disarmament. This is the vital problem. The emphasis on air raid precautions distracts attention from it and does irreparable harm to the cause of peace.—Yours truly,
Previous page
