As I Please
Tribune, 4 August 1944
saturation bombing, a correspondent who disagreed with me very strongly
added that he was by no means a pacifist. He recognized, he said, that
‘the Hun had got to be beaten’. He merely objected to the barbarous
methods that we are now using.
Now, it seems to me that you do less harm by dropping bombs on people than by calling them ‘Huns’. Obviously one does not want to inflict death and wounds if it can he avoided, but I cannot feel that mere killing is all-important. We shall all be dead in less than a hundred years, and most of us by the sordid horror known as ‘natural death’. The truly evil thing is to act in such a way that peaceful life becomes impossible. War damages the fabric of civilization not by the destruction it causes (the net effect of a war may even be to increase the productive capacity of the world as a whole), nor even by the slaughter of human beings, but by stimulating hatred and dishonesty. By shooting at your enemy you are not in the deepest sense wronging him. But by hating him, by inventing lies about him and bringing children up to believe them, by clamouring for unjust peace terms which make further wars inevitable, you are striking not at one perishable generation, but at humanity itself.
It is a matter of observation that the people least infected by war hysteria are the fighting soldiers. Of all people they are the least inclined to hate the enemy, to swallow lying propaganda or to demand a vindictive peace. Nearly all soldiers – and this applies even to professional soldiers in peace time – have a sane attitude towards war. They realize that it is disgusting, and that it may often be necessary. This is harder for a civilian, because the soldier’s detached attitude is partly due to sheer exhaustion, to the sobering effects of danger, and to continuous friction with his own military machine. The safe and well-fed civilian has more surplus emotion, and he is apt to use it up in hating somebody or other – the enemy if he is a patriot, his own side if he is a pacifist. But the war mentality is something that can be struggled against and overcome, just as the fear of bullets can be overcome. The trouble is that neither the Peace Pledge Union nor the Never Again Society know the war mentality when they see it. Meanwhile, the fact that in this war offensive nicknames like ‘Hun’ have not caught on with the big public seems to me a good omen.
What has always seemed to me one of the most shocking deeds of the last war was one that did not aim at killing anyone – on the contrary, it probably saved a great many lives. Before launching their big attack at Caporetto, the Germans flooded the Italian army with faked Socialist propaganda leaflets in which it was alleged that the German soldiers were ready to shoot their officers and fraternize with their Italian comrades etc., etc. Numbers of Italians were taken in, came over to fraternize with the Germans, and were made prisoner – and, I believe, jeered at for their simple-mindedness. I have heard this defended as a highly intelligent and humane way of making war – which it is, if your sole aim is to save as many skins as possible. And yet a trick like that damages the very roots of human solidarity in a way that no mere act of violence could do.
I see that
the railings are returning – only wooden ones, it is true, but still
railings – in one London square after another. So the lawful denizens of
the squares can make use of their treasured keys again, and the children of
the poor can be kept out.
We hope to
review before long – and meanwhile I take the opportunity of drawing
attention to it – an unusual book called Branch Street, by Marie
Paneth. The author is or was a voluntary worker at a children’s club, and
her book reveals the almost savage conditions in which some London children
still grow up. It is not quite clear, however, whether these conditions are
to any extent worse as a result of the war. I should like to read – I
suppose some such thing must exist somewhere, but I don’t know of it –
an authoritative account of the effect of the war on children. Hundreds of
thousands of town children have been evacuated to country districts, many
have had their schooling interrupted for months at a time, others have had
terrifying experiences with bombs (earlier in the war a little girl of eight,
evacuated to a Hertfordshire village, assured me that she had been bombed
out seven times), others have been sleeping in Tube shelters, sometimes for
a year or so at a stretch. I would like to know to what extent the town
children have adapted themselves to country life – whether they have grown
interested in birds and animals, or whether they simply pine to be back
among the picture houses – and whether there has been any significant
increase in juvenile crime. The children described by Mrs Paneth sound
almost like the gangs of ‘wild children’ who were a by-product of the Russian
Back in the
eighteenth century, when the India muslins were one of the wonders of the
world, an Indian king sent envoys to the court of Louis
XV to negotiate a trade agreement. He was aware that in Europe women
wield great political influence, and the envoys brought with them a bale of
costly muslins, which they had been instructed to present to Louis’s
mistress. Unfortunately their information was not up to date: Louis’s not
very stable affections had veered, and the muslins were presented to a
mistress who had already been discarded. The mission was a failure, and the
envoys were decapitated when they got home.
The Estate of Eric Blair
Reproduced here under educational Fair Use law