Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 3, No. [3]. 1940

Editorial

page break

Editorial

EDITORIAL

The Conservative Government of Great Britain is delightfully vague when it comes to a question of war aims. This is a highly moral war, almost religious, to save democracy, Western civilisation, to crush Hitlerism, to defend the rights of smaller nations, a war to keep the peace in Europe, for a new world order. They state very definitely that this is not another imperialist war. Hosts of well-meaning idealists accept these aims without question. Moral claptrap such as this was a feature of the last war, and idealists were sadly disappointed after the Peace Treaty. Familiar statements such as these were then current.—

"Our selfish interests are small."

Mr. Asquith, November 1914.

"We are not fighting for territory."

Mr. Bonar Law, December 1916.

"We are not fighting a war of conquest."

Mr. Lloyd George, February 1914.

"We have no desire to add to our imperial burdens either in area or responsibility."

Mr. Asquith, October 1914.

These were war aims for public consumption. What happened? As a result of the Treaty of Versailles Britain acquired nearly 11/2 million square miles of territory. A comment which applies equally today is that "when war is declared truth is the first casualty."

But let us examine Official Labour's war aims. To them this is not another imperialist war similar to that which they opposed in 1914-1918. On the contrary it is a war forced on British Imperialism by the people of Great Britain who refuse to tolerate any further surrender to Nazi aggression. It is a war to uphold the principles of collective security of the League of Nations, which are being trampled underfoot by Nazi Germany. Thirdly it is not the issue of Nazi imperialism versus British imperialism, but of western civilisation (Chamberlain & Daladier) against the Nazi reversion to barbarism.

Examining the policy of collective security advocated by official Labour in the League of Nations, and which is their main platform plank: to say that this war is the logical outcome of such a policy is erroneous, for it was never adopted by the British Government. Instead, the latter, by an adherence to "appeasement", which meant the destruction of such relatively democratic nations as the Spanish Republic, Czechoslovakia, (and before this connivance in the rape of China, Abyssinia, and Albania), aborted the idealists' League of Nations, and the latter became revealed as an organisation of 1918 victors and neutrals acting as a rallying point of all capitalist elements against advancing socialist revolution in Europe. The primary purpose of the League was to give an aura of international sanction to the peace settlement, Which had been forcibly imposed on Germany after an Armistice which was to have as its basis President Wilson's 14 points. These were conveniently ignored. As regards concrete action on major issues the League has an unenviable record. A record peculiar because of the fact that where fascist aggression (Germany, Italy, Japan) is concerned a wail of high indignation (sometimes not even that) on the part of the British and French governments has resulted but, no concrete action has been taken. Armament firms in these countries continued their export of armaments to the aggressors. Germany, Italy and Japan walked out of the League like little gentlemen. However when Soviet Russia happened to demand from Baltic countries certain strategic points essential to defend her frontiers, and when in the case of Finland she enforced these demands, the League in one of its shortest sessions in record promised (Britain and France in common with fascist Italy) arms, ammunition and men. Sweden and Norway however refused to grant a passage for troops page break through their territory. If this had been done the Scandinavian countries would have been at war not only with Russia but also with Germany. Such is the nature of a League that Labour supports; and such is the main basis on which Labour supports the second World War. A League that has supported fascist aggression through a thin mist of crocodile tears for the unhappy victims.

That this is a war "to save western civilisation" must also come under close scrutiny. Firstly it is essential to find out what is meant by "western civilisation". Does it mean monopoly capitalism (or as textbooks politely put it democratic plutocracy), for that is the basis of "civilisation" in Britain. One only needs to read and quote unrefuted statements from "A Tory M.P." on the connection between the economic and political government of Britain to discover that this is not "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". 181 Conservative M.P.'s who are company directors hold no less than 775 directorships. Many holding no directorships are members of important industrial families. Mr. Neville Chamberlain is an ex-director of Birmingham Small Arms, of Elliotts Metal Company (a subsidary of Imperial Chemical Industries). 27 Conservative M. P.'s hold between them 42 directorships in finance companies, issuing houses, and investment trusts. 51 M. P. 's hold 109 directorships in the iron, steel, coal, and engineering industries (including armaments) and the influence of these industries in politics has become a tradition. Sir John Anderson was on the board of directors of Vickers, which called the League of Nations "a fancy convention" and "troublesome organisation."

This is only a fragment of the weight of evidence to show the ramifications of monopoly capitalism in Groat Britain, a monopoly capitalism that has its counterparts in Germany and France. Is this "the western civilisation" of Labour?

As for the people of Great Britain, the "Times" in an editorial 13 February 1936 said: "One half of the population is living on a diet insufficient or ill-desiged to maintain health". This document is based on the research of Sir John Orc. Lord Hordor, P. E. P. organisations, and a host of others. This is the nature of western civilisation.

To preserve that freedom, that liberty ... war aims.

Should we not do as Bernard Shaw has said, "Cease fire, and turn turn up the lights?"

M. L. B.

References.
Falsehood in War-time Lord Ponsonby
Between two wars K. Zilliacus
Tory M.P. Simon Haxey
Poverty and population [unclear: W.] M. Titmus
Labour movement discusses the war J.R. Campbell
Private manufacture of armaments Philip Noel Baker