Objection to War (3)
Continued from page 2
My objection to war is fourfold —
(1) That intra-specific competition is unnatural to humanity and will lead to its eventual destruction.
(2) That war never achieves what it sets out to achieve.
(3) That the method of war is itself far worse than anything against which it may be used.
(4) That there is a practical alternative method of dealing with any International problem which may arise, including the direct threat of aggression.
3. That the method of war is itself far worse than anything against which it may be used.
Assuming that war was a just and successful method of overcoming an evil, would it be certain that the consequences of the war itself would be worth suffering on that account? Is it not possible that the cure might be more disastrous than the disease? Let the present case be considered. We fear that if we did not defend ourselves against Germany to-day, we might shortly find ourselves in the same predicament as the Germans, dominated by the German totalitarian government. The loss of our colonies and our national honour would not be considered by the majority of people to be so catastrophic as being under German rule. True, there is a class of people who would take the opposite view, but they are a small minority. The question is whether German Fascism in England would be so disastrous as a major European War. I do not believe, as people would have me believe, that the German is fundamentally any more brutal than any other man, despite the fact that there is a particularly cruel system of government in his country at the present time. The National Socialist régime seems to survive on account of three factors unconnected with the alleged pathological sadism of the ordinary German. These are — Fear from the outside, false promises from its own leaders, and a very effective and well organised propaganda. It may be said that the fear of attack and encirclement is unjustified. Whether this is true or not, it is the actual fear which is very real, and which causes a fair amount of unity of the German people, although there is considerable repressed internal opposition. If Germany did conquer an unresisting Britain, we should have to put up with what the German people are suffering, but only for a time. There is no reason to suppose that it would last long or that its effects would be comparable to those of a major war. We might have thousands in concentration camps, but that is surely preferable to millions in their graves. We should not suffer from famine and disease as the Poles are doing at this very moment. Europe would not be a prey to devastating epidemics as it was at the end of the last war. The number of children with rickets would not be greater than it is already. Our industries would not suffer from the post-war depression which always succeeds an artifical boom. We should not have to waste a large proportion of our resources and energies on armaments and defences. We would not suffer the consequences of incendiary bombs, high explosive bombs, gas warfare and bacteriological warfare. Given the choice, which country would one have preferred to live in during recent months, Poland or Czecho-Slovakia? I know that I would be prepared to sacrifice the vain and empty honour and prestige of my country and also whatever theoretical freedom I might possess, in order to save Europe and its civilisation from annihilation. It is war which destroys culture, freedom and civilisation, and not transitory systems of government.
Below will be discussed an alternative method of resisting aggression and conquest.
Continued ...
