28 OCTOBER 1938, Page 19

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—A careful study of

the letters of those who have defended the Munich Agreement in your recent issues makes it clear that nearly all the writers rely on two main arguments :

(r) That in any case we would have been unable to save Czechoslovakia. " Czechoslovakia could not have been saved . . . "—(her) " escape from a fate too terrible to con- template "—" A fate' more terrible . . .", &c. It is perhaps pertinent to ask whether she herself should not have been given the opportunity of judging this for herself ! Did we use this argument about Belgium in 1914 ? We were unable to save her from invasion and occupation. Should we have made this an excuse for abandoning her at the last moment ? Would it really have been to her advantage if we had?

(2) The lois of life which war would entail. " The blood of another million or so young men . . . "—" To bathe the world in blood . . "—" Anxious to destroy civilisation. in the name of democracy . . . " It would be interesting to know if all those who use this argument are prepared to carry it out to its logical conclusion (i.e., that nothing is worth fighting for). Surely the Rev. Roger F. Marldiani has given the only possible answer to this question of " the choice between evils." " He .(Canon Barry) seems to confuse moral with physical evil and to assert that it is right to do a great moral wrong in order to avert a great physical catastrophe. In short, he would agree with those who say ; ' Let us do evil that good may come '." You yourself, Sir, say quite candidly in your footnote to a letter that you prefer " peace with dishonour in view of the appalling consequences of war." This recalls the words of Sir E. Goschen in 1914: " Fear of the consequences can hardly be regarded as an excuse for breaking solemn engagements."

:Today, I suppose, he and Sir Edward Grey would be accused of " wanting to plunge Europe into war," &c. ! Yes, Sir, some of us are so old-fashioned that we still believe that honour is the most important thing in life and that deli- berately to choose the dishonourable course is not only wrong in all circumstances but fatal in its consequences. It may be objected that all this is past history and that we should be looking to the future. I agree, but of what use is your advocacy of rearmament, National Service, &c., if we are not united on what '(if anything) we are prepared to fight for? We are being told (ad nauseam) that "war settles nothing." I wonder if a Belgian (or Abyssinian) believes this ? (Conversely, I suppose, one can claim that peace has " settled " Czecho- slovakia !) History hardly supports this comfortable theory. I disapprove of personalities in any argument but, since Mr. Loch has issued a general challenge to those who " abuse " Mr. Chamberlain, I might add that I did actually fight in the last War ; I am willing and able to bear arms ; I do advocate National Service and I have offered my services. I (and thousands like me) neither expect nor want credit for fulfilling these obvious duties but rather resent Mr. Loch's implication that those who disagree with Mr. Chamberlain are necessarilY