The contrast between this progressive, go-ahead Soviet country and western Europe, with its ever-increasing troubles, is very marked. In spite of all its difficulties, western Europe is still far richer than Russia. In the long days of its prosperity, it accumulated a great deal of fat, on which it can live for some time. But the burden of debt which each country carries, the problem of Reparations, which under the Versailles Treaty Germany was to pay, and the continuous rivalry and conflicts of the Powers, great and small, have brought poor Europe to a terrible pass. Interminable conferences meet to find some way out of the difficulty, and no way is found, and daily the situation worsens. To compare Soviet Russia with western Europe today is to compare a youth, carrying a heavy burden but full of life and vigour, with an aged person with little hope or energy left, and going forward, not without pride, but inevitably, to the end of his present state.
The United States of America seemed, after the war, to have escaped this European contagion. For ten years they prospered exceedingly. They had in war-time pushed out England from being the boss of the money-lending business. America was now the money-lender to the world, and all the world was her debtor. In an economic sense she dominated the whole world, and she might have lived comfortably on the world’s tribute, as, to some extent, England had done previously. But there were two difficulties. The debtor countries were in a bad way and could not pay their debts in cash; indeed, even if they had been in a good way they could not have paid these vast sums in cash. The only way they could try to pay them was to manufacture goods and send them to America. But America did not like the idea of foreign goods coming to her, and huge tariff walls were put up which stopped most of these goods from entering. How, then, were the poor debtor countries to pay? A brilliant way was found. America would lend them more money to pay the interest due to her! This was an extraordinary way of getting a debt paid, for it meant the creditor paying more and more and the debt going up. It became clear enough that most of the debtor countries would never be able to shake off the debt, and then suddenly America stopped lending, and immediately the whole paper structure came down with a crash. And another very strange thing happened. America, prosperous America, filled to the brim with gold, became suddenly a land of vast numbers of unemployed workers, and the wheels of industry stopped running, and destitution spread.
If rich America was so hard hit, it can be imagined what the state of Europe was. Each country tried to keep out foreign goods by heavy tariff rates and other devices and buy-home-made-goods propaganda. Each country wanted to sell and not to buy, or to buy as little as possible. This kind of thing cannot go on for long without killing international trade, for trade and commerce depend on exchange. This policy is called economic nationalism. It spread to all countries, and so did other forms of aggressive nationalism. As trade and industry languished, the difficulties of each country grew, and the great imperialist Powers tried to make both ends meet by greater imperialist exploitation abroad and by cutting down the wages of workers at home. Rival imperialisms, in their desire and attempts to exploit various parts of the world, came more and more into conflict. While the League of Nations talked piously of disarmament and did nothing, the spectre of war seemed ever to draw nearer. Again the Powers started grouping themselves for the conflict that seemed inevitable.
So we seem to be nearing the end of the great period during which capitalist civilization held sway in western Europe and America and dominated the rest of the world. For the first ten years after the war it appeared that perhaps capitalism might recover and steady itself for another considerable period. But the next three years or so have made this very doubtful. Not only is the rivalry between capitalist States growing to dangerous dimensions, but, at the same time, within each State the conflict between classes, between the workers and the capitalist owning class, which controls the government, is becoming acute. As these conditions worsen, a last desperate attempt is made by the owning classes to crush the rising workers. This takes the form of fascism. Fascism appears where the conflict between the classes has become acute and the owning class is in danger of losing its privileged position.
Fascism began in Italy soon after the war. The workers were getting out of hand there when the fascists, under the leadership of Mussolini, gained control, and they have been in power ever since. Fascism means naked dictatorship. It despises openly democratic terms. Fascist methods have spread to a greater or lesser extent in many countries of Europe, and dictatorship is quite a common phenomenon there. Early in 1933 fascism triumphed in Germany where the young Republic, proclaimed in 1918, was ended and the most barbarous methods were adopted to kill the workers’ movement.
So in Europe fascism faces democracy and the forces of socialism, and at the same time the capitalist Powers glare at each other and prepare to fight each other. And capitalism offers, further, the most remarkable sight of abundance and poverty side by side; food rotting away and even being thrown away and destroyed, and people starving.
One ancient country in Europe—Spain—has during the last few years turned herself into a republic and driven out her Hapsburg-Bourbon ruler. So there is one king the less in Europe and the world.
I have told you of three of the outstanding events of the fourteen years after the war: the rise of the Soviet Union; the economic world domination of America and her present crisis; and the European tangle. The fourth outstanding event of this period is the full awakening of eastern countries and their aggressive attempts to gain freedom. The East definitely enters world politics. These eastern nations might be considered in two classes: those that are considered independent, and those that are colonial countries controlled by some imperialist Power. In all these countries of Asia and North Africa nationalism has grown strong, and the desire for freedom insistent and aggressive. In all there have been powerful movements, and in some places even rebellions, against Western imperialism. Many of these countries have received direct help and, what was of far greater importance, moral backing at a critical stage of their struggle, from the Soviet Union.
The most remarkable rebirth of a nation that seemed to be down and out is that of Turkey, and for that the credit must go in a large measure to Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the gallant leader who refused to submit even when all seemed against him. Not only did he win freedom for his country, but he modernized it and changed it out of all recognition. He put an end to the Sultanate and the Caliphate, and the seclusion of women and a host of other old customs. The moral and actual support of the Soviet was of great help to him. The Soviet also was of help to Persia in her efforts to get rid of British influence. A strong man, Riza Khan, rose there also, and he is the ruler now. Afghanistan also succeeded during this period in establishing its complete independence.
The Arab countries, with the exception of Arabia itself, are still under foreign control. The demand of the Arabs for unity has not been met. The greater part of Arabia has become independent under Sultan Ibn Saud. Iraq is independent on paper, but in effect is within the British sphere of influence and control. The little States of Palestine and Trans-Jordan are British mandates, and Syria a French mandate. There was an extraordinarily gallant rebellion in Syria against the French, and it partly succeeded. Egypt also had insurrections and a long-drawn-out struggle against the British. That struggle continues still, though Egypt is called independent and a king, supported by the British, reigns there. To the far west of northern Africa there was also a gallant struggle for freedom in Morocco under the leadership of Abdel Krim. He succeeded in driving out the Spanish, but later the full force of the French crushed him.
All these struggles for freedom in Asia and Africa show how the new spirit was abroad and affecting the minds of men and women in distant countries of the East simultaneously. Two countries stand out because they have a world significance. They are China and India. Any radical change in either of these countries affects the whole great-Power system of the world; it is bound to produce enormous consequences in world politics
. The struggles in China and India are thus far more than domestic struggles of the peoples concerned. The success of China means the emergence of a mighty State which makes a difference to the present balance of power, as it is called, and which automatically puts an end to the exploitation of China by the imperialist Powers. The success of India also means the appearance, at least potentially, of a great State, and inevitably it means the end of British imperialism.
China has had many ups and downs during the last ten years. An alliance of the Kuo-Min-Tang and the Chinese communists broke up, and ever since, China has been a prey to the tuchuns and similar brigand chiefs, who are often helped by foreign interests who want disorder in China to continue. For the last two years the Japanese have actually invaded China and taken possession of several provinces. This informal war is still going on. Meanwhile large areas in the interior of China have turned communist, and there is a Soviet government of a kind there.
In India the last fourteen years have been very full ones, and have seen an aggressive and yet a peaceful nationalism. Soon after the war, when expectations of great reforms ran high, we had martial law in the Punjab and the horrible massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. Anger at this and Muslim resentment at the treatment of Turkey and the Caliphate led to the non-co-operation movement of 1920–22 under Gandhi’s leadership. Indeed, from 1920 onwards Gandhi has been the unquestioned leader of Indian nationalism. This has been the Gandhi Age in India, and his methods of peaceful revolt, by their novelty and efficacy, have attracted the world’s attention. After a spell of quieter activities and preparation, the fight for freedom began again in 1930, with the definite adoption by the Congress of the goal of independence. Since then we have had, off and on, Civil Disobedience and overflowing prisons and the many other things that you know of. Meanwhile the British policy has consisted of petty reforms to win over some people if they can, and an attempt to crush the nationalist movement.
Burma had a great revolt of the starving peasantry in 1931. It was suppressed with great cruelty. In Java and the Dutch Indies there was also a revolt. In Siam there has been a ferment and some change has taken place limiting the King’s powers. In French Indo-China nationalism is also on the move.
So all over the East nationalism struggles to find expression, and in some places it is mixed with a little communism. There is little in common between the two except the common hatred of imperialism. Soviet Russia’s wise and generous policy towards all eastern countries, within her Union as well as outside, has found many friends for her even in non-communist countries.
One other outstanding feature of recent years has been the emancipation of women from the many bonds, legal, social, and customary, that held them. The war gave a great push to this in the West. And even in the East, from Turkey to India and China, woman is up and doing and taking a brave part in national and social activities.
Such are the times we live in. Every day brings news of change or important happening, of the friction between nations, of the conflict between capitalism and socialism, and fascism and democracy, of growing poverty and destitution, and over all lies the ever-lengthening shadow of war.
It is a stirring period of history, and it is good to be alive and to take one’s share in it, even though the share may consist of solitude in the Dehra Dun Gaol!
157
Ireland’s Fight for a Republic
April 28, 1933
We shall now consider the important events of recent years in some greater detail. I shall begin with Ireland. From the point of view of world history and world forces, this little country of the far west of Europe has no great importance at present. But it is a brave and irrepressible country, and not all the might of the British Empire has been able to crush its spirit or cow it into submission.
In my last letter about Ireland I told you of the Home Rule Bill that was passed by the British Parliament just before the Great War. This was resented by the Protestant leaders of Ulster and by the Conservative Party in England, and a regular rebellion was organized against it. Thereupon the southern Irish also organized their “National Volunteers” to fight against Ulster if necessary. Civil war in Ireland seemed inevitable. Just then came the World War, and all attention was diverted to the battlefields of Belgium and northern France. The Irish leaders in Parliament offered their help in the war, but the country was apathetic and by no means keen. Meanwhile the Ulster “rebels” were given high office in the British Government, and this made the Irish people still more dissatisfied.
Discontent grew in Ireland and a feeling that they must not be sacrificed in England’s war. When a proposal was made that conscription be introduced in Ireland, as in England, and all the able-bodied young men be forced to join the army, there was an angry flare up of protest all over the country. Ireland prepared to resist with force, if necessary.
During Easter week in 1916 there was a rising in Dublin, and an Irish Republic was proclaimed. After a few days of fighting this was crushed by the British, and some of the bravest and finest young men of Ireland were shot down afterwards under martial law for their part in the brief rebellion. This rising—it is known as the “Easter Rising”—was hardly a serious attempt to challenge the British. It was more of a brave gesture to demonstrate to the world that Ireland still dreamt of a republic and refused to submit willingly to British domination. The gallant young men behind the rising deliberately sacrificed themselves in order to make this gesture to the world, well knowing that they would fail in the present, but hoping that their sacrifice would bear fruit later and bring freedom nearer.
About the time of this rising an Irishman was also caught by the British in an attempt to bring arms to Ireland from Germany. This man was Sir Roger Casement, who had been for long in the British consular service. Casement was tried in London and sentenced to death; from his prisoner’s dock in court he read out a statement which was extraordinarily moving and eloquent, and which laid bare the passionate patriotism of the Irish soul.
The Rising had failed, but in its very failure it triumphed. The repression by the British Government that followed it, and especially the shooting of the group of young leaders, created a powerful impression on the Irish people. Ireland seemed to be quiet on the surface, but anger blazed below, and soon this found its outlet in Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein ideas spread with great rapidity. In my last letter on Ireland I told you of this Sinn Fein. It had met with little success to begin with; now it spread like a forest fire.
After the Great War was over there were elections all over the British Isles for the Parliament in London. In Ireland the Sinn Feiners captured the great majority of seats, displacing the old nationalists, who were for some co-operation with the British. But the Sinn Feiners did not get elected to the British Parliament in order to attend it. Their policy was entirely different; they believed in non-co-operation and boycott. So these elected Sinn Feiners stayed away from the London Parliament and instead set up their own republican assembly in Dublin in 1919. They proclaimed the Irish Republic, and called their assembly the “Dail Eireann”. It was supposed to be for the whole of Ireland, including Ulster, but the Ulsterites naturally kept away. They had no love for Catholic Ireland. The Dail Eireann elected De Valera as its president and Griffith as the vice-president. Both of these heads of the new republic happened to be in British gaols at the time.
Then began one of the most extraordinary of struggles, a fight that was unique and quite unlike any of the numerous former fights between Ireland and England. A mere handful of young men and women, with the sympathy of their people behind them, fought against fantastic odds; a great and organized empire was against them. The Sinn Fein struggle was a kind of non-co-operation with violence thrown in. They preached boycotts of English institutions and set up their own wherever possible, like arbitration courts to take the place of the ordinary law-courts. In the countryside a guerrilla warfare was carried on against the police outposts. The Sinn Fein prisoners gave a lot of trouble to the British Government by hu
nger-striking in gaols. The most famous hunger-strike, which thrilled Ireland, was that of Terence MacSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork. When put in gaol he declared that he would come out, alive or dead, and gave up taking food. After he had fasted for seventy-five days his dead body was carried out of the gaol.
Michael Collins was one of the more prominent organizers of the Sinn Fein rebellion. The British Government in Ireland was largely paralysed by the Sinn Fein tactics, and in the country districts it hardly existed. Gradually violence grew on both sides, and there were frequent reprisals. A special British force was enrolled to serve in Ireland; it was highly paid, and contained the more desperate and violent elements out of those recently discharged from the war armies. This force came to be known as the “Black and Tans”, from the colours of their uniforms. These Black and Tans started a campaign of cold-blooded murder, often shooting people in their beds, in the hope that they would thus terrorize the Sinn Feiners into submission. But the Sinn Feiners refused to submit, and carried on their guerrilla warfare. Thereupon the Black and Tans indulged in terrible reprisals, burning down whole villages and large parts of towns. Ireland became one huge field of conflict where both parties vied with each other in violence and destruction; behind one of the parties was the organized strength of an empire, behind the other was the iron resolve of a handful of men. For two years this Anglo-Irish War lasted, from 1919 to October 1921.
Meanwhile, in 1920, the British Parliament hurriedly passed a new Home Rule Bill. The old Act, passed just before the Great War, which nearly brought on rebellion in Ulster, was quietly dropped. The new Bill divided up Ireland into two parts: Ulster or North Ireland, and the rest of the country, and there were to be two separate parliaments. Ireland is a small country, and by dividing it up, the two parts became tiny areas in a small island. The new Parliament was set up in Ulster for the north, but in the south, in the rest of Ireland, nobody paid any attention to the Home Rule Act. They were all busy with the Sinn Fein rebellion.
Glimpses of World History Page 102
