DOGS OF WAR [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR, —Owing
to absence from England I have only just seen Mr. Beverley Nichols' letter in your issue of July 27th, protest-
ing against a brief allusion that I made to him in a review of Major Yeats-Brown's book.
Mr. Nichols reads into my words a " cruel and libellous " insinuation that his interest in the question of peace and war has only been a passing mood. That is not at all what was in my mind. What I meant to convey, as delicately as possible in the limited space at my disposal, was that the " peace at
any price " pacifism, with which he has become identified in the minds of very many since his sensational reference to the white flag at an Albert Hall meeting not very long ago, represented only a passing mood, both in his ease and that of others of his generation. That this was so in his case I knew, because I had read Cry Havoc and noted the reasoned conclu- sion following on the emotional passages in the earlier chapters.
Mr. Nichols is at pains to inform your readers that he was a " peace at any price " pacifist as early as 1927 and that he worked " in the cause of peace " (since he prides himself on his consistency one can assume, I suppose, that it was the same kind of peace) " incessantly " during the succeeding five years " not only in England but in France and Germany." What regret he must be feeling today over the damage that he may have done during these crucial years to the cause of the League of Nations and of the more responsible school of thought with which he has now allied himself.
Perhaps I should add that I would not write in this tone about Mr. Nichols' earlier views if they had been based upon religious conviction, as in the case of the Society of Friends. But I do not gather from Mr. Nichols' writings that he approaches the subject from that angle.-I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
