WHO ARE THE DEFEATISTS ?
By SIR ARNOLD WILSON, M.P.
DEFEATISM, like " defeatist," first appeared as an English word in a great newspaper in June, 1918. The O.E.D. defines it as " conduct tending to bring about acceptance of defeat, especially by action on civilian opinion." Sir Norman Angell couples it with pacifism ; Mr. C. L. Graves regards it as the antithesis of foolish optimism. Galsworthy hints that to acknowledge that human nature has its limitation may be defeatism.
It is an old weakness of ours. Pepys notes (Nov. 28th, 1666) the belief of a friend that " the true English valour we talk of is almost spent," and that we should be beaten at sea next year by the Dutch. Two days later he met a friend " looking for a little house for his family, his wife being much frightened with the discourses of troubles." " This," says Pepys, " is now the general apprehension of all people; my own fears are also great." Such utterances can be paralleled at every crisis in our history.
Cassandra was not a defeatist: her trouble was not that she prophesied evil but that she was not heeded. One of the curses of modern controversy is that no distinction is drawn between advocacy and exposition. To explain anything is to incur the accusation of advocating it. To draw attention to impending perils is to be abused as an alarmist till it is too late and then called defeatist.
Defeatists today are of four kinds. First come Pacifists, pur sang, who reject the Common Law obligation to wear weapons and serve in the wars (arma portare et justa bella administrare. Article 36), or even indirectly to assist in the conduct of a war. Pacifism is almost unknown among Catholics and in Catholic countries : it is a by-product of the Protestant reformation, but is also held on " ethical " grounds by some non-Christians in English-speaking countries (refusal to kill is a principle of personal conduct of the Society of Friends, but is held passively rather than actively).
Between 1914 and 1918 British pacifists (conscientious objectors) numbered some 16,000 in all, of whom some 1,200 went- to prison sooner than perform any sort of military or substitute service. In New Zealand their names were officially published—to the number of two thousand. There were less than a thousand in Canada; in America 4,000, one-tenth as many pro rata as in Britain. There may be twice as many today. The second category are persons oppressed by their own helplessness in an emergency, not on grounds of infirmity but because they have never acquired any skill which would be of use in an emergency. They are men who have never learned the elements of any military art, being " too busy," whose physical fitness is low, and who have no contacts with the rank and file who would carry the main burden and only require leaders worthy of them.
They are few in number: they are proud of being " intellectual." They are happy, as William Cowper put it, in " forecasting the future of uncertain evils." They are the first to say what should have been done. They seem commoner in Universities and the B.B.C. than elsewhere, perhaps only because there is more scope there for talking than in commercial or industrial life.
My third category are, in truth, pathological cases. La vie vaut-il la peine d'être vecu? C'est une question de foie! —it depends on the liver. They feel more hopeful after a good dinner and a few glasses of wine. The greater their worldly goods the greater their fears. The less they know, the more certain they are that those in authority are blind and deaf to what the papers say. Invalids are very seldom to be found in this galley: some of the bravest and most indomitable optimists I know are seldom free from physical pain or consciousness of infirmity. Lastly I place the largest category whose malady was known to our forefathers as accidie—sloth or torpor, and was classified as the fourth of the seven deadly sins. They will do nothing voluntarily: they regard public spirit in others with cynicism. They " cannot be bothered." They are of all ages and either sex. We all qualify sometimes for membership of this body. They are unaffected by posters and printed appeals; they do not attend public meetings: they are deaf to wireless appeals. They do not answer letters. They are the central problem of government in every country. They say in a hundred different ways—" we'll go when we're fetched "; " it's up to the Government "; " I'm no hero." They often combine these qualities of mind with strong political con- victions : they love to talk of " bull-dog breeds " and " no surrender." Their influence is considerable, for the argu- ments against any given course of personal action are always attractive. Whether or not compulsion in any particular matter is necessary depends on their numbers. Potentially they are good citizens but prefer to be carried by their active friends as far as possible.
So much for the defeatists. Their tenets seem to me to lie at two extremes. Some, with H. F. Lyte, regard change as synonymous with decay and, hie Spenser's shepherd, watch the world wend its allotted course, from good to bad, from bad to worse, convinced that nothing that they, or anyone else can do can save us from ruin at the hands of enemies abroad or traitors at home. Philip of Spain, Van Tromp, Bonaparte, Russia, Louis Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, the U.S.S.R., the Japanese, Signor Mussolini, and now Herr Hitler, with the Papacy, the Jews, the Free- masons and International Fascists, Financiers and Com- munists have been or are to them horrific spectres, in suc- cessive centuries, leading to outbursts of cruelty and hysteria, the children of fear. Soldiers and sailors, in my ex- perience, are not a prey to such emotions, and regard with aversion those who use their pens to preach hatred and instil contempt. " Hell knows no fury like a terrified civilian "—To defeatists of this complexion, and they are not numerous, the war is lost before it is begun.
At the other extreme lie those who preach " no com- promise." They hold sincerely that the British Empire, as it is at any given moment is an organism so delicately balanced that whilst it may safely expand it cannot give ground in any direction without disintegration. " Once we give way anywhere, there will be no end to further demands: we must draw the line somewhere; the only safe place to draw it is at November 11th, 1918." To them the creation of the Irish Free State, the India Act, the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, the Anglo-Italian Treaty, the absorption of Austria, the Czecho-Slovak settlement, the victory of General Franco, to mention only a few items in the past twenty years, are examples of changes which indubi- tably mark decay. In each case they have declared that they would concede nothing to force: in each case they have in practice paid little regard to argument or persuasion not backed by force or threat of force. They are defeatists because at heart they know that whatever is living is sub- ject to change; that Britain's responsibilities are far greater now than in 1914 and greater perhaps than we can dis- charge with credit to ourselves. Not confidence but lack of confidence makes them believe that the forces against us will not rest until they have despoiled us of all we hold dear and that the only possible way to make territorial changes is by putting the balance of forces to the test in a New War. They can imagine no change of opinion abroad; they can visualise no peaceful compromise. The settlement of 1919 was in favour of the Allies : that of 1939 must necessarily in some respects be in favour of the new group of Central Powers, if it is to be permanent. To the defeatist mind this spells defeat. To me it spells common sense, and hope and confidence. History, as I read it, shows that Britain in the past, in ceding, for example, Mauritius, the Balearic Islands, Tangier and the Ionian Islands, Corsica and a score of other spoils of war earned a reputation for generosity and gained strength. I believe we shall do so again.
Previous page
