Objection to War (4)
Continued from page 3
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.
4. That there is a practical alternative method of dealing with any International problem which may arise, including the direct threat of aggression.
It is unnecessary to give details of how causes of friction might be settled round a conference table. We all agree that this is a desirable method, but it is when it seems to break down that another method must be resorted to. Recent history provides us with a number of examples of the successful application of non violent resistance to violent aggression. The campaigns of Ghandi in South Africa and in India are well known. Lest it be thought that this technique is something which can only be put into operation by the Eastern mentality, it should be pointed out that it has been used with succcess in Europe by the Hungarians against the powerful Austrian Empire during the years 1861—1867, more recently by the Finns agaist the Russians at the beginning of the present Century and by the early Christians including Christ himself against Rome. Let us try and visualize a campaign of non-violent resistance and non-co-operation being employed by Britain against an imaginary German invasion at the present time. It would require great courage and sacrifice, but so does war. In the first place, if Britain had neither armaments nor defences, the aggressor would not find it necessary to send over fleets of bombing planes, in order to defend himself or in order to break down resistance. He would be at liberty to send his armies to occupy the country. He would find it impossible to make his soldiers turn their guns on a fraternizing and unresisting populace. Atrocities are committed through fear and desperation during a long and bloody war. Assuming that the Army had met with no violent resistance, the aggressor would then try to govern the country to his own advantage. If all the civil servants in central and local government departments refused to co-operate, it would be impossible for the invader to make any progress, whatsoever. No doubt many people would be victimized, shot and imprisoned, but is this to be compared to the effects of a European War? Whenever Germans would be sent to replace the English, they would be greeted by organised non-co-operation in every department of life, taxes would not be paid, there would be no machinery to collect them, strikes and boycotts would be used against the aggressor. Extreme measures might be taken to break them but these measures would not succeed, provided the spirit of the resistors was sufficiently strong. It might be that the invader would abandon the attempt to subjugate the populace, in despair, as the Austrians did in Hungary in 1867. The German government finds it difficult enough to govern its own people already. It would find it doubly so, were the fear of aggression removed. What chance would such a government have against the opposition of another forty million people? Fascism would probably be painlessly removed from the face of Europe, were all nations fearing aggression to practice the methods briefly mentioned above. The method of non-violent resistance is not likely to cause resentment by those against whom it is used, because it does not seek to harm them in any way. It is not likely to sow the seeds of a future war, rather it is likely to point the way to a new era of peace and co-operation.
It must be stressed, however, that a nation which intends to carry out such a campaign, must not give any other nation any just cause for aggression. It must be prepared to sacrifice its own ill-gotten gains.
Those are my objections to war and a brief outline of the methods I would use against it. Being convinced of the truth of these views, I cannot conscientiously take my part in it whatever, nor can I deliberately take advantage of any protection offered to me by a state which is engaged in a war, but I will not do anything to add to the possible loss of life on either side. I have not signed the National Register because as the Minister of Labour stated, it is a measure designed to enable the State to prosecute the war more efficiently. I will not carry a gas mask nor enter a public air-raid shelter, otherwise I would be morally bound to offer any assistance to the State in return for this protection. I do not intend to Register for Conscientious Objectors. If I were to do so, I should be recognizing the justice of this and be showing my willingness to take advantage of it were its decision in my favour. I do not recognise the right of anybody to try my conscience and I think the Conscription Act is undesirable in every way.
End.
Tailpiece by Patrick (Kenneth's eldest son).
It should be appreciated that early in 1940, when these pages were written, Nazism had not yet revealed itself for what it was and that the German invasion of Poland might have been seen as little different from any other colonisation of the kind historically undertaken by several European nations, including Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. The tragedy of Nazism did not become fully apparent until early 1945, by which time Kenneth had already fought with the Green Howards half-way across Northern Europe precisely to defeat it.
In 1938, he toured the whole of Germany in his car with a friend and presumably found nothing too sinister. Indeed, he loved foreigners and their languages and was always a committed European, so it is not so surprising he might have given Germany the benefit of the doubt as to its qualities as a fundamentally civilised nation (Bach, Beethoven etc), even as an occupier.
As the facts emerged, Kenneth's youthful idealism quickly gave way to an obvious need to forego theoretical principles and take action against outright human evil. That is why these pages, interesting they may be historically, should be read in a different context to now.
« Page 3
