e ,MARGINAL COMMENTS
By E. L. WOODWARD
LETTERS in this and other journals during the last fortnight have dealt, incidentally, with a problem of practical as well as theoretical importance at this present time : the' 'attitude of a democratic, peace-loving society towards the profession of arms. One writer thinks that the views of teachers in State schools have had a good deal to do with the shortage Of recruits for the army ; another writer, of Left-wing outlook, admits that, whatever their views about the expediency of rearmament as things are now, peopk who share his opinions must be repelled by anything concerned with preparation for war. It is possibk to suggest that both these correspondents are right, and that each one of them fixes upon a certain confusion of ideas in the mind of the other, though one of the two spoils his case by the assumption—too common among converts to a cause—that his own side has a monopoly of clear thought, virtuous emotion, and honourable purpose. Exhibitions of naïf spiritual pride are not limited to one political party ; if they are given more vociferous expression on the Left wing they often take, on the opposite side, the form of a silent, impenetrable superiority which is hardly les 3 irritating.
It is probably true that a certain confusion of thought— not confined to school teachers—has made many young men believe that because war may be aggressive, and is always hateful, soldiering is a degrading profession. This distaste for the profession of arms is not new in England. There are large historical reasons for its diffusion, parti- cularly among the working class ; but these reasons do not explain its intensity today. It may be noticed in passing that those who want the downfall of England are inclined to draw an entirely wrong inference from this feeling. If the English people were brought into a war today, they would fight it, not with the idea that war was an instrument of policy to be adopted or dropped according to convenience, but with the tenacity and endurance of those who, once and for all, intend to do away with an abominable thing. The English people in the past have shown more steadfast- ness in this respect than any other nation ; they have not changed for the worse in the last hundred years.
It happens that an American scholar has just found some remarks of Coleridge which put this question about the profession of arms as it appeared to a man of deep insight at the height of the Napoleonic war. "The great question is whether or no it be congruous with a free country that the profession of a Soldier should be considered in the same light as any other Trade : whether a great evil made by necessity good for a time, as a means of averting a greater evil, ought to be made co-ordinate with professions perma- nently good and essential to society ? " What is the answer to this question ? The Duke of Wellington, who may be taken as typical of the best English soldiers of every modem age, would have given an answer, without bombast, in terms of duty. No other answer is satisfactory ; }et this answer has certain implications. No political party ought to be satisfied with "attracting recruits" or with appeals to "join the army and see the world." Military service should be recognised for what it is ; it has nothing to do with football. Those who Volunteer for this duty can be honoured for so doing, but no citizen of sound body ought to leave wholly to others the priority of risk. If there are any values, or, in the last analysis, any hopes, worth defending at the price of modern war, the primary burden should be shared by all who believe in defence. Jaures once pointed this out to his fellow-socialists in France. Historical tradition has made it a hard doctrine for Englishmen to accept even during a war. Its acceptance in the half-peace, half-war of today would be easier if there were less talk about the army as a pleasant career for youth.
Previous page
