by Gavin Fuller
If the peace talk is not more articulate, and has not been so precise as to enable His Majesty’s Government to treat it seriously, the explanation is probably to be found in the fact that first, that German despotism does not tolerate independent expressions of opinion, and second, that the German Government has contrived, probably with success, to misrepresent the aims of the Allies, which are supposed to include the destruction of Germany, the imposition upon her of a form of government decided by her enemies, her destruction as a great commercial community, and her exclusion from the free use of the seas.
An immense stimulus would probably be given to the peace party in Germany if it were understood:
1. That we do not desire the annihilation of Germany as a Great Power;
2. That we do not seek to impose upon her people any form of government other than that of their own choice;
3. That, except as a legitimate war measure, we have no desire to deny to Germany her place among the great commercial communities of the world;
4. That we are prepared, when the war is over, to examine in concert with other Powers the group of international problems, some of them of recent origin, which are connected with the question of ‘the freedom of the seas’;
5. That we are prepared to enter into an international pact under which ample opportunities would be afforded for the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.
I am under the impression that authority could be found for most of these propositions in Ministerial speeches. Since the above lines were written, 1, 2 and 3 have been dealt with by our own Foreign Minister at the public meeting held in honour of M. Venizelos at the Mansion House.
The question of the ‘freedom of the seas’ was amongst those raised at the outset by our American Allies. The formula is an ambiguous one, capable of many inconsistent interpretations, and I doubt whether it will be seriously contended that there is no room for profitable discussion.
That an attempt should be made to bring about the kind of pact suggested in 5 is, I believe, common ground to all the belligerents, and probably to all the neutral Powers.
If it be once established that there are no insurmountable difficulties in the way of agreement upon these points, the political horizon might perhaps be scanned with better hope by those who pray, but can at this moment hardly venture to expect, that a new year may bring us a lasting and honourable peace.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Lansdowne
Lansdowne House
ALLIED WAR AIMS
Lord Lansdowne’s Letter
SIR – Lord Lansdowne’s hostile critics, almost without exception, write as if the policy he advocates implied a weakening of the will to fight. To argue thus is, intentionally or unintentionally, to beg the whole question. This nation, like others, has suffered intolerable wrong from Germany, and is threatened with intolerable danger in the future, therefore we fight, have fought, and mean to go on fighting until we see our way to some degree of ‘reparation and security’. The whole nation is involved; the whole nation, with infinitesimal exceptions, is working and making sacrifices. So far we are all agreed. The question is whether we shall fight and work less well, or be less ready to make sacrifices, if we know what object we are fighting for and recognise that object to be both just and moderate. For myself, as an average man, I know I shall do my modest part in the war much better and with better heart. I have never for a moment begun to lose heart about these matters except when reading certain articles or listening to certain speeches which – so I am credibly informed – were intended as war propaganda to rouse my fighting spirit. I looked askance at some Socialist working men whom I saw near me, and devoutly hoped they were asleep. But I fear they were not and I wondered what our rulers thought men were made of.
In one place only is Lord Lansdowne’s letter likely to damp the fighting spirit. It will doubtless do so in Germany and Austria, if the enemy Governments allow it to circulate there, but I fear that is not likely. What the enemy Governments want their subjects to believe is the exact opposite of Lord Lansdowne’s five points: that we do wish to destroy Germany and impose upon her an English-appointed Government; that we do mean, unconditionally, to strangle German trade, and to make of the League of Nations a vast anti-German alliance, which shall reduce the peoples of central Europe to a state resembling serfdom, such as the worst pan-Germans proposed for France; and, lastly, that we absolutely refuse to discuss any international problems, whether relating to sea power or otherwise. Put forward that programme, and I do not know if it will make anyone in England fight the better, but it will certainly rally the Germans round the Kaiser and earn the gratitude of the Berlin Press Bureau.
Yours obediently,
Gilbert Murray
Oxford
SIR – To reply to Lord Lansdowne’s letter in detail would occupy too much of your space, but one matter must be emphasised in the nation’s interest for the sake of all those thousands of men who have gallantly laid down their lives in our own and the Allied cause. Lord Lansdowne is absolutely right when he says that we are fighting for one thing above all – security. Security against the repetition of such a horror as this war, which has deluged the whole world with blood. But what security does he suggest? Germany’s word – Germany’s solemn pact. As M. Clemenceau has lately remarked, the Belgians, looking at their desolated country, can tell us what Germany’s pledges are worth.
The decisive defeat of Germany is essential, for since it is impossible to trust her promises, the only possible safeguard for Europe is to be found in her powerlessness. The other word must be added. Lord Lansdowne says that we do not wish to force upon the German people a form of government which is objectionable to them. That is true. Such an attempt would be futile in any case, seeing the permanent conquest of Germany is and never has been any part of the Allied programme. But the fact remains and should not be ignored that so long as the despotic hate of the Hohenzollerns continues, so long will the whole of Europe need to stand on guard against Germany’s aggressiveness. Whether a democratic Germany is possible, and whether, if a democratic Germany did come into existence, it would prove less aggressive than the autocracy which the German nation has hitherto so whole-heartedly supported in all its crimes, the future only can show. I am not myself sanguine, but if as some hopeful people think, the Germans are capable of reform, the best and undoubtedly the only proof they can offer would be the overthrow, complete and final, of their present rulers.
Yours faithfully,
E. Bowden-Smith, Hon. Sec.
British Empire Union, 346 Strand, W.C.2
17 December 1917
CHRISTMAS SHOPPING
SIR – In the interests of a large community – the shopkeepers and assistants of the country – may we appeal through your columns to the public to make their Christmas purchases as early as possible in the week remaining before Yuletide, and early in the day. Leaving purchases to the last day and hour is trying to the sellers at any time, but more particularly so when shops and establishments are working under special difficulties.
Faithfully yours,
Winston Churchill, President
E. Cubitt Sayers, Chairman
G.J. Bentham, Parliamentary Chairman
Albert Larking, Secretary
Early Closing Association, 34–40, Ludgate Hill, E.C.4
3 January 1918
WOMEN TRANSPORT DRIVERS
SIR – May I draw the attention of your readers to the very urgent need of more women motor transport drivers? The services of so many women are required for this purpose in the Royal Flying Corps that I am anxious to appeal to all women who are suitable to volunteer for this national work. Applicants must have driving experience and be willing to serve where required in the United Kingdom. Application should be made to the Commandant, Women’s Legion Motor Transport Section, 13a Pall Mall East, S.W.l
Yours, &c.,
Londonderry
Londonderry House, Park La
ne, W.1
THE AIR IN 1918
SIR – After upwards of three years’ war in the air it might not be out of place to consider what has been done and what can still be done by properly directed effort. For the past, we may sum up everything in one sentence – the blunders of our politicians have been retrieved by the heroism of our aviators. It was this heroism and marvellous courage, coupled with the supreme fighting instinct of our youthful ‘air sportsmen’, that led our generals (often, I fear, not quite accurately) to claim for us supremacy in the air. This was true so far as the actual individual contests went, but, alas! no real effort was made at home to attain such a command of the air as would paralyse the activities of the German army on the Western Front.
It is clear that in 1917 there has been to a great extent equality of material in the air forces at the front. The very mobility of air power involves temporary supremacy at a given spot at a given time for whichever Power chooses to concentrate. For example, when we were the attacking force, as at Vimy Ridge, Mossines and Cambrai, we had the mastery of the air by reason of the invisible concentration which we had prepared; on the other hand, in the case of the German attacks at Lombartzyde, Italy, and the surprise thrust at Cambrai, the mastery passed temporarily to them, and so it must be until one side or the other, by great and persistent manufacturing effort, can present its generals with an overwhelming number of high-powered machines.
So much for 1917, with its lack of imagination and slackness in manufacture: but what of 1918? War on foot is generally ended by the invasion of the enemy’s country. All history from the time of Caesar to the Russo-Japanese War teaches this. May it not be the same in the air? Whichever side can effectively invade the other in the air will win the war. Lord Rothermere, our new Air Minister, has, I am delighted to see, spoken out frankly and courageously as to ‘reprisals’, which is only another word for aerial invasion, but let us see to it that the invasion is on the right side. Often we have been invaded by squadrons of Gothas up to twenty-five in number. True, only a few have readied London, but are not Essex and Kent equally parts of Britain; and we have at last invaded Germany at Mannheim with eleven machines. I disregard altogether mere tactical raids on Belgian aerodromes. They have nothing to do with a strategic effort to end the war. They are comparable only to the cavalry raids of olden time, and have little more real effect.
What then of the future of this year? The war will probably end before the autumn. Germany can hardly stand another winter, but she will make a desperate effort to win in the air by an invasion of England this summer. If she invades London night after night, as she may do, we shall of course put up gallant defence, but the only way to stop her is a counter-invasion of the Rhine towns. We all revere the heroic defence of Verdun two years ago by our French Allies, but what saved Verdun was our counter-attack on the Somme; and what will save London will be our counter-attack on Cologne. Can we accomplish this? I do not mean petty raids of twenty or thirty machines at intervals of ten days, but a real invasion by 100 machines a day, repeated until the dose cures, or rather kills, the patient. I make no attacks or even criticisms; nor do I state publicly what I know of the manufacturing position. I merely ask, can we do it?
Yours, &c.,
W. Joynson-Hicks
5 January 1918
THE AIR IN 1918
SIR – Mr Joynson Hicks has done national service by drawing attention in your columns to the importance of the air service during the year which is just commencing. Germany has enjoyed one great advantage over the Allies, for Germany has appreciated the fact that the present is a war in which science must play a deciding part, and where mere physical bravery is not as important as in the days of old.
This is especially true in connection with the air service. More attention should be concentrated on the design and development of aeroplanes than has been the case during the last three years. The facilities for research in aeronautics should be increased, but this is not all. The bravest man on the best aeroplane ever designed could, without technical knowledge, accomplish little. Yet at the present time the young men who at eighteen or eighteen and a half are admitted to the Flying Corps have as a rule only received the ‘general education’ provided at the public or secondary schools of the country.
A man who is to become a really efficient pilot should have received before entering the Government service a sound ground in science and in engineering. This fact is fully appreciated by those connected with the Air Council, but the official machine must necessarily move slowly. The only preliminary course specially designed for young men who wish to become pilots in the air service is at the East London College. More facilities for such instruction should be provided.
Even a six-month course such as that alluded to is hardly adequate. A scheme should be devised whereby a combination of special aeronautical training with military instruction is possible. Important as is the design of an aeroplane, the efficiency of the man who is to handle it is no less important.
Yours, &c.,
John L.S. Hatton
East London College, Mile End Road, E.
7 January 1918
SOCKS FOR THE TROOPS
SIR – Will you allow me through your paper to thank most sincerely those who so generously responded to my appeal for funds to provide wool for my knitters who are making socks for our soldiers. We have sent out 800 pairs since last August, and have over 400 still to go out, but I have no more wool left now, and socks are ever more and more urgently needed. My knitters, all but one, are voluntary, and many of them working women. They are keen to help, and do splendid work, the blind knitter, to whom I alluded before, having now completed 200 pairs of socks. May I earnestly appeal for more funds to carry on this most necessary work? Wool is getting dearer and dearer. I have the chance to procure a large quantity of excellent wool at a moderate price if only funds are forthcoming at once. The worst weather is still to come, and socks will be needed in ever-increasing quantities.
Yours faithfully,
Evelyn Templetown
10 Onslow Crescent, S.W.7
8 January 1918
THE TESTING TIME
SIR – Everyone who is at all sensitive to the signs of the times realises instinctively that Britain has now reached, and during the next six months will be compelled to pass through, one of the gravest crises of her long and varied history. But, though everyone realises it instinctively, it may be well to state the fact explicitly. Britain has now to face, and will during the coming half-year have to contend with, three perils of unprecedented magnitude, viz., first, the peril of Austro-German attack; secondly, the peril of famine; and, thirdly, the peril of her own Bolsheviks. A word as to each.
A year ago the decisive defeat of the Central Empires appeared certain. The Allies on the Western Front were impregnable in defence and strong for attack; the Russians on the Eastern Front, well supplied for the first time with all the munitions of war, had before them a comparatively easy task in the reconquest of Galicia and Poland. Now, however, all the advantages secured by strenuous effort and devoted sacrifice have been recklessly cast away by a band of fanatics whose folly has jeopardised the very cause to which they profess supreme devotion. Hence the certainty of the Allied victory has been converted, not by German strength or prudence, but by the feebleness and lunacy of the Leninites, into the grim necessity for a renewal of desperate conflict to escape disaster. The entry of the United States into the war, happily, more than counterbalances the Russian collapse; but not for some months can the might of America fully display itself, and during that critical interval it will rest with the sorely tried veterans who have already stood the strain of over three years of unparalleled warfare to hold their front intact against what will probably prove to be the most desperate of all the onslaughts of the enemy. Of their ability to do it there is fortunately no doubt, provided only that they are adequately and steadily supported and fortified at home.
We at home, however, are faced with a prosp
ect of famine, more near and formidable than has ever faced the people of this country since the close of the Middle Ages. Shall we pass through our ordeal of hunger with the same serene certainty of success as will our soldiers through their ordeal of fire? We ought to do so; for we shall have to bear nothing worse than the Germans have already borne with exemplary discipline and docility for over two years. It would be an everlasting disgrace to democracy if it could not endure in the cause of its high ideals the hardships to which the slaves who seek for world power patiently submit. But the omens are not wholly good. There are heard in our midst baseless or wildly exaggerated cries of ‘profiteering’, senseless demands for reductions of prices, ignorant protests against inevitable privations, violent threats in case supplies are not forthcoming. There is thus urgent need that the nation should be told clearly the unpleasant truth, viz., that the customary food is not available on any terms, and that the people should be called to sacrifice and duty.
It is the hardships which must unavoidably be faced by all classes of the community that renders the peril of the British Bolsheviks so grave. Such mistaken people as believe that their hardships are due, not to causes inseparable from the war, but to failure on the part of the Government or to the machinations of ‘profiteers’, fall an easy prey to pacifists, syndicalists, Germanophiles and other types of Bolshevik agitators, who see in the present discontents a golden opportunity to precipitate the ‘social revolution’ and the ‘class war’. Hence there is need at one and the same time of a vigorous campaign of enlightenment for the people, and of a policy of stern suppression of those who would undermine the nation’s resolve to subordinate all personal interests and all party questions to the pursuit of this just and necessary struggle to a conclusion in decisive victory.
