MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON
IHAVE heard it asserted by wise and well-intentioned men that war will only be rendered impossible when the nations learn to " understand " each other. I ask myself whether those who use such phrases have any clear conception of what they mean. Obviously, if they are using the word " understanding " to signify " agreement " they are merely saying that if-people never quarrelled there would be no dis- putes. This incontestably is a true statement, but it gets us no further _than to argue that if men and women were eternally healthy there would be no illness. I have sometimes been given a version of the phrase indicating that what is meant is that if " the common people " in each country were to establish con- tact with each other, then all danger of war would be averted. The argument is that the ordinary citizen is by nature pacific and that it is the machinations of diplomatists or the selfish aims of governments that create differences soluble only by force. Even if we were to admit so superficial a premise, the actual operation of bringing the " common people " of, let us say, Yugoslavia and Belgium into close contact with each other represents a serious problem in what the Americans call " logistics." Nor do I in fact believe that the degree of " under- standing " reached between uneducated people visiting each other's countries is either very deep or very lasting. These " get together " meetings furnish much forced hilarity, many untrue speeches, and an atmosphere of general embarrassment concealed by empty joviality. The pleasure derived from being able to ape a few words of a foreign language is as transitory as the amusement derived from being unable to understand a word. At the best, such reunions between people who cannot grasp the meaning of what is being said to them will 'live in their memories as a curious occasion; at the worst they return to their respective countries with a sense of mutual dislike. * * * * The unpleasant fact remains that any real understanding of the mentality of a foreign nation must be based on a com- plete mastery of that nation's language, literature and traditions and on several years' unbroken residence in the country. Such an expenditure of time and money is not within the desires of the capacities of ordinary people; thus the idea that " understanding " can be achieved by ordinary citizens mingling amicably together is one that must be dismissed. We have to fall back on the experts; and experts, as I have often contended, are sometimes dangerous and misleading folk, since inevitably they acquire personal prejudices and affections. We must, I fear, come to the conclusion that any person, however expert, who claims that he " understands " the psychology of a foreign nation is making a most hazardous claim. He may understand their literature perfectly; he may even have some knowledge of the way their minds work; but only rarely can he predict the course of their emotions. Such " understanding " as he may acquire is certainly a valuable deterrent against blatant mistakes; but only very rarely does it enable him to forecast with any accuracy what a given nation will feel on any given issue twelve months ahead. His diagnosis of probable reactions, reasonable and well-informed though it may be, is always liable to be disturbed by the sudden winds of mass emotion or some relapse into the primitive instincts of the herd; strange atavistic rancours or suspicions may arise to stultify his predictions. Thus those who in the past have based their prophecies upon such apparent constants as the German respect for law and order, the charming inefficiency of the Russians or the French passion for logic have discovered that when exposed to certain pressures and impulses these nations do not behave according to rule. * * * * Even those peoples who possess the same language, and who share many cultural traditions, fail to " understand " each other when it comes to difficulty. I should always, for instance, distrust a man who claimed that he fully " understood " the Americans, or the Canadians, or the Australians, or the South Africans; after all, they do not thoroughly " understand " themselves. It seems preferable to start from the assumption that it is not pgssible wholly to comprehend the mentality of a foreign nation, and that to make guesses regarding their possible reactions is to risk grave errors of interpretation. We can of course acquire some simple principles and learn from experience that certain nations are more sensitive than are other nations to certain modes of solicitation or offence. It was, for instance, an error on the part of Admiral von Tirpitz to forget that the British people as a whole were more sensitive to naval security than to military security. Similarly, in deal- ing with Germans, it would be wise to realise that their conception of " personal honour " is something both potent and specialised, which must be studied with care. But on the whole it is better to concentrate upon rendering your own attitude as clear as possible rather than to fiddle with the psychology of others. " Never worry," an experienced diplomatist once said to me, " about what is at the back of their minds; make quite sure that they realise what is at the back of yoeu• mind." That surely is sound advice.
Such doubts and reservations assail me when I hear people venturing to interpret the language and pronouncements of the rulers of Soviet Russia. Even if they know the Russian language perfectly, even if they have devoted much of their lives to the study and practice of Marxist dialectics, there must always remain a vast hinterland of the unpredictable and the unknown. Throughout her history Holy Russia has been impregnated with mysticism and has taken proud pleasure in mystifying the West; Stalin in such matters is the counterpart of Alexander I. Always there remains the possibility of some great renunciation such as that of the hermit Fomitch; always there is the chance that the tide of Russian expansion may be sucked back by the Asian moon. It would be foolish to base any calculation upon such mystic events; but surely it is equally unwise to assume that these pronouncements are any more decipherable than Minoan inscriptions. Naturally there exist experts who can analyse, and to some extent interpret, the fifty-page article contributed by Stalin to The Bolshevik: a quarter of his meaning and intention can assuredly be explained. But there remain some three-quarters that are wholly incomprehensible to the ordinary Westerner, and our speculations thereon are otiose. Does Stalin, a man of long experience and high intelligence, really believe, for instance, that a war between the Western Powers is " inevitable " ? Does he think that France is intending to invade Belgium, or that even the most fervent admirer of Mr. Aneurin Bevan contem- plates for one mad moment the possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States ? To our minds it appears inconceivable that a man holding a position of such immense responsibility should put into writing statements of such fantasy. That he really believes what he wrote appears incredible. We fall back upon the rather vapid conclusion that he was not expressing a considered political thought, but intoning some mystic rune.
* * * *
I quite agree that it is an error to assume that foreign states- men share our complicated mentality and will behave in given circumstances exactly as an educated Englishman would behave. But I contend that it is almost equally dangerous to deduce from certain generalisations upon national character that a given nation will behave in a predicted way. What expert ever forecast that the Social Democrats and the trade unions would put up so short and feeble a defence against Adolf Hitler ? Yet from our misinterpretations of that situation much misfortune followed. Certainly under- standing is preferable to misunderstanding. But in the end we are left with the question " Understand what ? "
Previous page
