28 OCTOBER 1938, Page 19

AFTER THE CRISIS

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—Mr..H. N. Loch, writing from Rome, puts a series of eight qUestions to your readers in his letter appearing in your issue of October 21st. As one of your readers .who served as a civilian volunteer in the South African and .Great Wars,

who has for years advocated compulsory service . the TerritoriaL Army, who has ever since the National Govern- ment came to office frequently spoken and written on " Peace by air rearmament," who has when occasion offered during the last two years placed his services at the disposal of the War. Office, and who has also strongly criticised the National Government's policy of inadequate air defence combined with surrender to the blackmail threat of war by totalitarian Powers, the writer ventures to answer the questions put by Mr. Loch. The writer divides his time between London and the depth of an agricultural county, was for some years president of the local branch of the British Legion, and has also presided over non-party organisations that have brought him into close touch with industrial and agricultural workers in this country. May I answer Mr. Loch's questions seriatim ?

(1) Did critics of Mr. Chamberlain's policy consider the chances of a successful issue from war ? Yes. But as Germany was isolated and her people opposed to war, many conSidered that Hitler's threat of war was a bluff on a line with his former bluffs on die Rhine territory and in AuStria, when everyone knows that he was quite unprepared for war.

(t) Did critics realise the inadequacy of our armed forces ? Yes, but they considered that as Britain held the command of the sea outside the Mediterranean and that she would have as Allies France, Russia; Czechoslovakia and probably Poland, Hangar); and' Roumania, with a syMpathetic U.S.A. supplying the Allies with oil, munitions and food, that this great com- bination of inti-aggresiive-war nations must ultimately be victorious.

(3) and (4)—Questions concerning " chivalrous gesture" and " common sense "—are answered in the negative, although such foolish questions deserve neglect. (5) How many critics of Mr. Chamberlain fought in the last war ? A great number.

' (6) How many' critics advocated national service or adequOte defence forces The answer to this question is that a strong minority have supported both but that the majority accepted Lord Baldvvin's pledge to assure adequate defence and did not realise that he was letting them down.

(1). How many' were willing to bear arms ? The great majority of men if called upon by order as a matter of recruiting for security.

• (8) How many will " offer " their servicei ? Presumably this means volunteer without compulsion: The answer is- ai large a proportion as in any previous crisis in our history. Nothing was shore remarkable during the crisis than the calm, the sense of unity, and the courageous acceptance of the aggressors' challenge that suddenly took the place of argument and criticism on the day the Navy was 'mobilised and war was believed to be inevitable. This calm gave the writer a renewed -faith in the future of the British Common- wealth of Nations, a faith that was not destroyed by the hysterical jubilations which accoinpanied the removal of the

immediate danger of war. Similar hysterical outbursts accompanied the Relief of Mafeking and Armistice Night, and only meant that the neurotic section of the population had seized on the opportunity for an emotional orgy.

Mr. Loch, living in the flamboyant Fascist atmosphere of Rome, has lost touch with the quiet peace-loving people of Britain and has confused their very genuine hate of war with a reluctance to fight for their ideals of freedom and justice, which just does not exist except in a small and negligible