WAR AND FORCE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your correspondent " H. W. R.," in your issue of July 28th, carefully omitted the words, " if the Peace Pact is to be effective," which were in the first sentence of my letter in your issue of July 21st and on which the rest of the letter was based. Those words just make all the difference.
The words of the Peace Pact are, " they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relation with one another." The words of your correspondent are, " The object of a ship of war . . . is to overcome the armed force of an enemy who is attempting to do, or enable to be done, something prejudicial to the national interests." That practically amounts to " making war as an instrument of national policy."
In the recent case in Chinese waters, the vessel which dealt with a piratical attack happened to be a submarine, but a small cruiser or a destroyer could have done it equally well.
" Destroyer " is really only the war name of a small fast cruiser. The remarks about the battles in the Heligoland Bight, off the Dogger Bank, in the Skagerrack, or in the action between the ' Shah ' and the Huascar ' are quite irrelevant, because at those times no Peace Pact had been signed by the countries concerned. If, after the Peace Pact is signed, we are to go on making preparations for war against other countries which have signed the Pact, then the Peace Pact will not be effective and would hardly seem to be of any use at all. After the Peace Pact is signed and assuming it is meant to be effective, it will still be necessary to maintain a sufficient number of armed ships, by whatever names they may be called, for police purposes, i.e., maintaining peace and preserving order, but that is not the same thing as deliberately preparing to make war as an instrument of national policy against other countries which have signed the Peace Pact, —I am, Sir, &c.,
J. D. ALLEN,
Rear-Admiral (retired).
Previous page
