To the Editor of the News"
Sim,—Lest TweNTY-TWO's letter be taken as typical of the feelings of a 1 young men of his generation, may I, failing other replies, be permitted to say a few words, both to him and to what may possibly be a large body of his critics'
Your decision to sti out of the next war, TwENTY-TWO, does you credit and shows that you possess the divine quality of imagination to a greater degree than is, unfortunately, displayed by the average young man. in Shanghai You have no desire to be carried off the scene of battle in separate pieces, later to drag your mangled body around a veteran's "hospital, ce ing and retching your life to its final miserable end, and so, you say, you will be among the lookers-on in the next war. With part of your sentiment I agree entirely—any Sene person would—but from the tone of your letter one would surmise that this, and this alone, is the sole determining foctoy which will keep many young men out of war I take issue with you.
I, too, have no desire to play any part, prominent or insignificant, in any war fostered by the armament makers, but my one desire was merely to CMY out at the end in full possession of limbs and mind and organs, T assure you I would join up like a shot. At least in the Services one would have a fighting chance, with weapons of defence (sic), gas-masks, ete., whereas from the tragedy being played now on our very doorsteps one can see that the lot of civilian populations in war-time-especially between two Major Powers—would place the stories of brutalities and horror of former wars in the children's fairy-tale class.
No, no, TwzNTY-TWO, if mere gard ior personal safety were the determining factor in my coming to decision on the vital question of "To fight, o: not to fight," I'd be in uniform before hostilities ever opened, and would you, if you thought it But there are more vital ngs to consider You will, no doubt, remember the storm that arose over the vote taken two or three years.ugo by students of a great English university that they would not, under any consideration, fight for their King and Country." It caused quite a furore. didn't it? Yet it need not have, and probably if instead of "thei y had made it riy King or Country. Although T am a pacifist, I'm not a passivist Gf there is such a word, meaning som nue addicted to passivism), and while 1 would definitely vote in favour of not fighting for "any King or Country," I'm not sure but that in certain es I, too, would rush around and grab a rifle, machine-gun or other instrument of destruction—but it would have to be in a war between say, an international body like the unjustly-abused. always hampered League of Nations and a recalcitrant member of the states of the world.
T would then look upon myself as a special policeman, called out to deal with a and not as a murderer paid by politicians of one country to kill, maim and torture other equally, idiotic murderers paid by a different bunch ai politicians, while the armament manufacturers back and sat watched the money rolling in from both sides. You cannot stop war just by saying "I will not fight for King and Country," just as you will never stop it by rallying around War Memorials and weeping crocodile fears while you are full of stupid sentiments like "My country, right or wrong" and "I'm as good as any twa —toreigner.
Peace, universal, eternal peace will have to be fought for, though not necessarily in the same useless, costly manner that took the lives of hundreds of thousands during the World War, the lives of men who, supreme jest of all, thought they were fighting to ensure the future peace of the world!
Mr. J. Haynes Wilson, in a recent talk at the Park Hotel, showed how the engineers and technicians of the world, if they united, might do much to make war impossible; the League has shown how the armament firms have deliberately fostered wars and have endeavoured to influence the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.