Dangerous Words
By EDWARD CRANKSHAW WE are all prisoners of words: that Is a truism, and I suppose there is no escape from it. We cannot do without labels ; and sooner or later the label takes charge and reality is amended to conform with it. All the more reason to be careful in choosing the labels. If I were asked to name the most dangerous word in the language, the word which in the last decade has done more harm than any other, my choice would be the Munich word " appeasement." I put it into in- verted commas because it is not fit to stand without them. There are plenty of other words and phrases dangerous in different ways : democracy, self-determination, fair shares and many more besides. But " appeasement " seems to me to be in a class by itself, not only because it is meaningless, but also because it is killing like a creeping weed a number of other words which used to mean something: negotiation, bargaiging, conciliation, accom- modation, compromise. Our values are being killed with them. WE are all prisoners of words: that Is a truism, and I suppose there is no escape from it. We cannot do without labels ; and sooner or later the label takes charge and reality is amended to conform with it. All the more reason to be careful in choosing the labels. If I were asked to name the most dangerous word in the language, the word which in the last decade has done more harm than any other, my choice would be the Munich word " appeasement." I put it into in- verted commas because it is not fit to stand without them. There are plenty of other words and phrases dangerous in different ways : democracy, self-determination, fair shares and many more besides. But " appeasement " seems to me to be in a class by itself, not only because it is meaningless, but also because it is killing like a creeping weed a number of other words which used to mean something: negotiation, bargaiging, conciliation, accom- modation, compromise. Our values are being killed with them.
To object to the appeasement complex now is to be accused, immediately, of refusing to learn frOfti history. Almost all of us, we are told, were taken in at MtInich time, and that soft of thing must never happen again. AlmoSt all of us were not ; and it is surely time that legend was scotched. A far greater number of Englishmen than was reflected either in Hansard or in the newspaper headlines objected with extreme bitterness to the German policy of H.M.G. in 1938. It was called " appease- ment " ; but in plain English it was selling the pass. And what seems to have happened now is that those who thought it was a good idea to sell the .Czechs on that occasion, and invented a label to square their consciences, are now so filled with remorse that the very idea,,,of making concessions to anyone anywhere at any time reminds them of their own great error, which they called " appeasement." And so the whole apparatus of negotia- tion and compromise, which is the foundation of any civilised society, has fallen into disgrace. Men at all times have been ready to "die for a word or a phrase ; and women, they say, have watched them go with a sort of exasperated awe. But at least most of the battle-cries of the past have meant something. King and country, God and right, honour, justice, freedom—all these are big words which reflect decent emotions in the individual heart, and stand, if a little pompously, for principles worth dying for. It was a downward step when politicians with a vested interest in a particular con- stitutional device asked us to fight for democracy, which, to put it mildly, can hardly be presented as an absolute principle, or even as an immemorial aspect of the British way of life. But the new catchword stands for the negation of everything. It has reduced our statesmen to the condition in which all they can do is to strike rigid attitudes and wait until they are pushed off the board ; and although we have not been asked to die for it yet, the day may well come when we shall be. Then we shall pre- sumably be required to march to the conquest of Siberia with banners blazing "No Appeasement! " To the wondering mouzhik that will seem quite homelike—" Death o the Cannibal Invaders ! " his banners will scream—but most' us, us, I imagine, if we have to have slogans, would prefer " St. George for Eng- land." It would at least have the merit of reminding us that what we are interested in is the survival of this country.
We are supposed to have practised " appeasement ' towards Russia at Yalta and subsequently. We did nothing of the kind: we sold Poland down the river to keep Russia in the war, and so on. We made a bargain, which for a variety of reason's turned out to be a bad bargain, and probably an unnecessary ohe. But one bad bargain, or even a whole series of them, does not invali- date the principle of bargaining. When a business-man is sold a pup he does not adopt a high mural tone, wrap himself up in a cloud, and refuse to bargain again as long as he lives ; he resolves to do better next time. There is all the difference in the world between throwing an ally to the wolves and diplomatic bargaining of the old-fashioned kind. There is no magic middle course between compromise and war. In face of another Power whose interests and ambitions conflict with our own, we have to decide between bargaining on the one hand and conquest or sub- mission on the other. When we have decided against a war of conquest, the fact that we do not believe in the good faith of the other party is neither here nor there. Nor is the faOt that agree- ment is difficult and, if reached at all, likely to prove. conditional and fleeting. Nobody expects Mr. Morrison, for example, to build for all tithe.
But too many exalted representatives of the West in general, and this country in particular, talk and behave like prima donnas who will not perform at all unless they get their own way in everything. It is impossible not to wonder whether they them- selves may not be at least partly to blame for their repeated failures ; but it is something like, treason to ask this question aloud, so firmly established is the new convention that our leaders, instead of being ashamed of themselves for allowing foreigners to out-manoeuvre them, should receive our warmest sympathy iii their distress. Why should they? Of course, it is easy for Mr. Gromyko to make rings round Messrs. Davies, Parodi and Jessup' he has the destructive brief. Of course, the Kremlin is a hot-bed of iniquity. The motives and methods of Whitehall and Pennsylvania Avenue as seen from the Red Square are not remarkable for their selflessness and purity ; but this does not inhibit Soviet statesmen front trying to get the better of us, and sometimes succeeding.
The real trouble with the " No Appeasement " slogan, it seems to me, is not that it gives away too little, but that it gives away too much. It ties the hands ; it denies all freedom of manoeuvre ; it stands for the blocking defensive ; it gives the other man his choice of ground. The Russians are good on their own ground. They are excellent chess-players. Given a fixed board with 64 squares they may be trusted to win. But why should we play on their board? Only, surely, because we are more interested in blocking every trivial pawn, regardless of its real importance, than in playing our own game on our own ground and with our own rules.
Of course, there are other aspects of the present absurd situa- tion vis-a-vis the Russians. We are afraid of being taken in. But how, at this time of day, can we conceivably be taken in? We know that every move the Russians make is intended for the Russian advantage, and because of this, because we credit Stalin and his friends with superhuman prescience, it never occurs to us that with careful handling a move made for the Russian advan- tage might very well be turned to our own. We know that if the Russians seek accommodation this will not indicate a change of heart but only a change of tactics. But is it not possible at least to try to exploit that change of. tactics for ourselves?
In the service of the new slogan we have become muscle-bound and dull. It is so much easier to block one's opponent's initiative than to develop an initiative of one's own, which might even, giddy thought, involve provisional and tactical concessions. This country was once renowned for its capacity for cool-headed manoeuvre and intrigue. I wonder what Salisbury or Disraeli would have thought of our present form; when the only weapon in our armoury appears to be the clinch. There was never, it seems to me, in the history of these islands a more promising opportunity for manoeuvre and the exercise of wits. Of course, we are tied to America, which still has a good deal to learn in these matters. But we can hardly blame the Americans for the present stalemate while we ourselves regard our duty as well done when we can proudly point to the fact that we have not budged an inch -from this or that position—forgetting that the position was dictated by the Russians, who have since moved off else- where, leaving us still standing in fixed attitudes of scandalised protest, unappeasing, and saved only from destruction by mis- takes on the other side. We should not rely on those alone.
Previous page
