Pacifism is not enough nor patriotism either

By Lord Lothian

Read this article as a pdf.

This text was written as the Burge Memorial Lecture, delivered on 28 May 1935. It is rightly recognised as one of the essential texts in the history of federalism. This edition was edited by Richard Laming.

There has never been a time when there has been so widespread and determined an attack on the institution of war. There have been periods of relative peace in human history, when great empires made war impossible or unprofitable over vast stretches of the earth's surface. There have been centuries, like the last, when war was relatively rare, as compared with its frequency during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But never before, I think, has public opinion over a large part of the earth come to recognise both that war is incompatible with a civilized life and that it is an institution which ought to be and can be abolished.

On the other hand, most thinking people today realise that the great movement against war which grew up among the democracies during and after the World War of 1914-18 has failed so far to realise its promise, and that at this moment, at any rate, we are steadily drifting back towards a worse war than the last. That drift is shown by the withdrawal of Germany and Japan and the continued abstention of the United States from the League of Nations, the failure of the Disarmament Conference, the recommencement of the race in armaments, the rise in international fear and diplomatic tension, and the absence of any counter-movement, save the adhesion of Russia to the League, to offset these melancholy events.

Moreover, it is clear that if war does come again it will be far more devastating than in 1914-18. Not only has the conquest of the air added a new weapon to the armoury of nations and a new terror for the civilian, but mass production has immensely facilitated the manufacture of all the instruments of death, and the new totalitarian states are much more highly organised for war than was any state in 1914. The next war, if it comes, will start with a far more rapid and overwhelming offensive attack, and that attack will be directed almost as much at the morale of the civilian population as at the armed forces themselves. Do not let us deceive ourselves about these things. The fury of the next war will be immeasurably greater than that of the last.

In consequence of this return towards militarism, there is a fresh outcrop of expedients for avoiding or preventing war. Some people proclaim that war is murder and that they will go to jail or be shot as passive resisters rather than join in the organised killing of their fellow men. Others denounce the futility of war as a method of settling disputes, the inherent injustice of its decisions, the inevitable disaster it brings upon belligerents and neutrals, victors and vanquished alike. One group pins its faith on strengthening collective security; another group preaches the virtues of the policy of virtuous isolation. There is a section which regards the armament makers as the real merchants of death and sees salvation in the nationalisation of the munition industry. The largest group still believes in the League of Nations, as the peace ballot shows, though recent events have done much to shake confidence in its ability to prevent war. But despite these efforts millions are beginning to feel that war is once more approaching and inevitable and to make preparations so that when it does come they will find themselves in the end at the top and not at the bottom of the blasted and mangled heap.

War, of course, is not inevitable. If it comes it will be because humanity has failed to take the steps necessary to end it. What is clear, however, is that the post-war peace movement has failed, so far, to find the way to prevent war. That is why I want today to probe ruthlessly to the real causes of war and to try to set out what I believe to be the only final remedy. For fifteen years the peace movement has been largely engaged in what psychologists call wishful thinking. It has not penetrated to the fundamentals or faced up to the price which must be paid if war is to be ended. That is probably a more dangerous attitude than that of the hard-boiled realist, who is solely concerned to avoid war if he can and to win it if he cannot. If we are to make a success of a renewed attack on the institution of war we must think and act from more fundamental and eternal premises than we have yet done.

Next

Read more about Lord Lothian here.