,— Anyone who attempted to correct all the dis- tortions and
misrepresentations to which CND and the British Left are subjected would be taking on a full-time job. But is it too late to suggest to Robert '° request that he abandon the nasty techniques which h
4 has persistently used in attacking the British Left? [s reference recently to 'neutralists and appeasers'
is an example of that technique of implying guilt by association which Mr. Gaitskell used when he lumped together 'pacifists, neutralists and fellow- $r ivellers,' as if they were all one horrid breed.
Unless Mr. Conquest agrees with the late Mr. Oulles's dictum, 'neutralism is immoral,' it is hard to
see why he should sneer at neutralists. If India end L- the mis-named 'uncommitted' countries can be neutral without being disreputable, why can't Britain? pr is he unable to conceive of there being a position Putside the two camps of the Cold War which is morally and intellectually tenable?
As for appeasement, Mr. Conquest seems to be
one of those who have learnt the lessons of the Thirties too well to be able to adapt themselves to ebanged realities. Then the choice lay between making immoral concessions to Hitler and resisting him by force. Now we have to choose between negotiations and nuclear destruction; and the settlement of inter- national problems by negotiation always involves Mutual concessions. It might be reasonable to con- sider some concessions to be immoral and so to constitute a form of appeasement. But Mr. Conquest a t,s not say what those concessions are, or who are e appeasers', who support them. He has simply used the term as a damaging smear.
Previous page
