[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—May I be allowed
to point out to "Janus," who i; scornful of pacifist criticism of the Government's anti-air raid precautions, that there are at least three pieces of evidence which anyone with common sense can appreciate, whether or not they are scientific authorities ? (t) The gas-masks being manufactured cover only the face ; they are therefore no protection against gases which attack the skin. (2) The masks are being made at a cost of a few shillings each, but the lowest factory price for an efficient mask is, according to a contemporary of The Spectator, over £4. (3) The Government claim that the present masks are effective against any ga; which is known to the Government and can be used in war ; in the mouths of professional politicians such a statement is ominous.
With regard to the wider question, " Janus " apparently thinks that, to guard against panic in time of war, the people should be trained to endure the damage of war without enquiring too closely into the realities of the situation. The possible advantage to be gained by this policy is problematic ; the danger is certain and the cost too heavy. So that fewer people may be killed in time of war (actually a quite small number would be saved) the whole civil population is to be hypnotised into acceptance of war conditions. This implies first a false sense of security. The Government are drawing attention to protection against gas attack, but gas attacks will form only one small part of the dangers of war. Against these other dangers (for instance those mentioned in "Air War and the Civilian—I ") the Government can offer no protection which is not ludicrous by reason of its insignificance. Disease and famine cannot be prevented by a half-crown gas-mask, and this Government which makes such a noise about a doubtful protection against a small part of the dangers of war is guilty of perpetrating a most dangerous red-herring. The policy implies, secondly, war mentality in the people's outlook on international affairs. Preparations for war cannot be made with the necessary enthusiasm unless someone is regarded a3 the enemy, and the very idea of an enemy is dangerous to peace.
Under these conditions, which are the result of the attempt to minimise the damage of war, it is hopeless to expect peace except as a chance gift of the gods. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the present race of international politicians can never give us peace ; it must come from the people. If, then, the Government prepares for war by inculcating a false sense of security, thereby making the people blind to the realities of war, it is the first duty of those who are working for peace instead of piously hoping for it to disabuse the minds of the people and make it possible for them to judge as they are entitled to, and with the facts in front of them.—Yours [Janus writes : Let us keep two quite different things separate. No one can be more opposed to war than I am, and no one more determined to press for national policies that make for peace. I am quite certain that this country, under any Government, will never commit aggression. But it may, in support of that collective security which I, like one of your correspondents, believe to be the best hope for the world, become the object of aggression. Is no provision tc be made against that eventuality ? Could any Government that failed to make such provision survive, or deserve to survive ? Would persons who pressed for strong collective action against Italy during the Abyssinian conflict have argued against the supply of gas-masks to the inhabitants of Malta ?]
Previous page
