MODERN WARFARE

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20274, 17 August 1937, Page 9

MODERN WARFARE

PROBLEM TO BE FACED. “SUICIDE OF CIVILISATION.” “With all th<? knowledge we have gained in the last 150 years applied to the purposes of destruction, war under modern conditions does seem like the suicide of civilisation,” said Mr W. T. G. Airey, lecturer in history at Auckland University College, when speaking in Hamilton last evening on the problem of peace. The lecture, at which Mr F. A. de la Mare presided, was the last but one of the series of university extension lectures which are being given in Hamilton by members of the staff of Auckland University College. “Resignation in the face of the present problem of war and peace,” continued Mr Alrev. “Is only a mode of escape from reality and has no dignity to commend it. We must examine the problem again and again. Even if we do not succeed in finding a solution, in having faced up to the problem there must he in us some sort of vitality and for us some sort of glory." In his lecture, which was the second on the subject, Mr Alrev dealt, with the liberal and conservative approaches to the problem of peace, and he intimated at the outset lhat he would he unable to strike a very hopeful note. League and World Problems. He began by traversing briefly tho history of the past generation. Since the war. and partly as a result of tho resultant and intellectual and emotional disturbance which it caused, the League of Nations had come into being. It had to be realised that this was an institution in being with 17 years of history behind It. Even those who had worked most strenuously for the League, however, could not escape a sense of disappointment at its failure to get to grips with the fundamental social problems of the day. Much useful work had been done by tho League, but it had failed materially to alter the basis of International relations. Now, with a rearmament race in being, the world was faced with, on the one hand, the League, and on the other a reversion to the old order of armaments and alliances. Liberal Attitude to Peace. ‘‘The common point in the attitudes of liberals and conservatives to war,” continued the speaker, “is that they regard it as a problem apart from tho social revolution. I think that if we fall to solve the problem of war we will be faced with revolution; that If we are to avoid revolution we will have to solve it properly; and the solution, I believe, demands the reorganisation of society.” Discussing the liberal approach, Mr Airey dealt with the opinions of such liberal protagonists as Sir Norman Angell, Sir Arthur Salter, and Mr Gilbert Murray, who were typical of the intellectual liberals. These writers appealed to most people because, given the assumptions they made, their logic was Inescapable. The basis of the liberals’ appeal, however, was that most people were reasonable, and free to be reasonable. The characteristic liberal clung ardently to the principles of parliamentary democracy, discussion and education, with the object of raising the standard of government, which was the expression of the general will. In the words of Mazzini, a typical liberal, nationality was the path to internationalism and "all things in liberty through association.” In its conception the League of Nations was a sort of liberal Institution. Criticising the liberal philosophy, the speaker said that It did not face up to the realities of existence. The liberal assumed that people were free to do as their best feelings dictated, whereas they were not. The liberal did not properly face up to the implications of life in a society where the foundation was not disinterestedness but the profit motive. The first step toward peace, Mr Airey contended, was economic disarmament —the abolition of tariffs, quotas, embargos and such barriers. But both employers and employed were interested in the maintenance of these harriers, and economic nationalism could not be expected to he dispensed with merely on an appeal to reason. Even Sir Arthur Sailer tolls how incapable Governments are of escaping from the pressure of sectional interests. Conservatives More Reallstlo. “I believe that conservatives are more realistic than liberals,” said tho lecturer; “their Ideas are more rooted in realities.” The general attitude of the conservative was that people did not want to think very hard, and that it was better to rely upon the disinterested leadership of a few, preferably of the leisured classes. In this direction, said Mr Airey, the British aristocracy could make out quite a good case for themselves. Conservatives loved the past and cherished it and were fearful of change. Burke, one of the greatest of conservative thinkers, deified the nation, anil Baldwin tended in the same direction. “All British Governments are conservative.” the speaker continued, “and the conservative atittude of tlie League of Nations is one of opportunism. The policy of the British Government toward collective security has always been one of limited liability.” The conservative doctrine dealt wholly with 11 1 c old concept of indi j \ idual national power, not Ihe pooled resources of a league, so that whenI se“ined wholeheartedly !o support the j League there were gm>d grounds for ' scepticism. The real function of ! !i1..-n,li-!ii. Mr Airey r< nrlmlej, lay in j the “.le bunking" of other policies, j “iiiisorvat ism. on llie oilier band. ) .1 s an approach lo practical problems.” ! he added, “can on I \ give us bigger an I j better wars Mid make the world's Mr Airey answn il se\eral questions a! the close of his lecture. after i which he was given a v.de of thanks ! l.v acclamation.