The Spectator at war

The Spectator at war: Left behind

29 August 2014

8:30 AM

29 August 2014

8:30 AM

The Spectator, 29 August 1914:

THE loafers in London look more pitiable than ever. The best have enlisted, and the rest are drinking to their good fortune and safe return. In the poorer streets a kind of holiday atmosphere prevails, and a sort of excitement which is in a measure pleasurable fills the air. The children rush out of school eager to go on playing at soldiers. The smallest boys tie tin cans about their persons and beat them with hoop-sticks as they march. In the byways of poor neighbourhoods London is still the London of thirty years ago. There is not much traffic. It is still possible to walk in the road if the street happens to be unusually full of people, and the children swarm in apparently greater number than where the traffic drives them to take cover indoors.


Dotted about the West of London there are many small islands of poverty. Little streets of small, low houses are clustered together. The squalor is not in the least picturesque. No sort of interest or tradition attaches to any of the buildings. It is the squalor of what were once poor suburbs and now are dirty slums. One such island of poverty lies on the south-west of Regent’s Park. It consists of a short and fairly wide thoroughfare with small streets running off on either side. It is in process of improvement. That is, portions have been pulled down, and the spaces have been boarded up, and many consecutive houses in many wretched-looking streets have been condemned and shut up. The broken windows stare down upon the hardly less condemnable houses whose lives have as yet been spared. The neighbourhood in a general way is dreary enough, but just now it is full of life. At the lowest corner of the wide thoroughfare stands a recruiting sergeant, and his influence has changed for a little while the life of the place. All the children are intensely excited. Many fathers have “gone to the war,” but not quite so many as are said to have gone by little boys and girls who cannot bear to be behind their friends and neighbours in importance. It is a tremendous step up in the world to have relations “at the front,” and “the front” has a very wide meaning to children. Indeed, it seems to include the whole of England, except London. Visions of victory and glory rise before eyes which have seen nothing but Regent’s Park and a squalid street. How do they picture these things? Story-books have not initiated them into the fields of romance. They are familiar with bands, and have occasionally seen soldiers riding down the fine streets not far off into which they seldom penetrate. Fighting they know something about. Did not Tommy Jones’s father get a month’s hard labour a little while ago for assaulting the police? The thought of conflict is fairly familiar to them. It is all very stirring, and not at all sad, for while “mother” is at home it is of no supreme consequence where “father” goes.

As for the grown-up people, they are almost equally excited, but excitement takes different people in different ways. The women are a great deal more out of doors than usual. Every one seems to move about more, to talk more, and, unfortu- nately, to drink more, than usual. The scraps of conversa- tion which reach one’s ears as one passes down the street are all upon one subject. “My husband will go, you know, like the rest,” says one woman addressing a little group of cronies. “He’s determined to go.” “What does he want to go for?” says a sharp-faced friend. “To have a smack at the Germans,” is the instant reply, delivered with a look of defiance. The questioner is not satisfied. There are a few, a very few, people who are born minimizers. They are not anything like so common as alarmists and exaggerators, but they exist, and there is something curiously irritating about them. Even in the present crisis they have an ignorant conviction that nothing will happen. “The papers make too much of it,” they announce, endeavouring to assume an appearance of superior knowledge. “They always do. You mark my words, and never believe the half they say.” But apart from these cold- headed fools, there are people to whom all excitement is painful. They are fairly common among the educated, and a few exist among the poor. What they ask of life is a sense of security, and that can only be attained in conjunction with sameness. All excitement has to them some connexion with dread, some relation to sorrow. in anxiety they get no relief from the bustle of the moment, and no pleasures but what we might call flat pleasures make them happy. For such natures, especially where they are found among the ignorant, the fer- ment of the last few weeks has been agonizing, but they are not many enough to make much show.

Monotony is detested as much among the overworked as among the blasés. Anything which breaks it is welcome, and just now it is so completely broken as to seem gone for ever. By a great number of usually dull people the anxious moment is enjoyed, and attempts at reassurance are not very well received. A woman who declared herself to be nightly expecting to hear of her husband’s death rather resented the explanations of the present writer to the effect that he was at present safe in England, and that there was small probability of his being sent on foreign service. “The public knows nothing,” she replied somewhat resentfully, “and it’s very difficult to say which is the safest place, here or abroad.” The state of mind argued no calculated indifference to her husband’s safety, and no undue or ignorant panic about the likelihood of a German invasion. It meant nothing but a desire for emotional dignity and to enjoy the full flavour of the psychological moment. Again, certain women who express no particular anxiety about menfolk have made up their minds that they will starve. It is idle for the workers from accredited societies arriving with money allowances to assure them that they will be provided for. They are not going as yet to believe it, and so lose, as they think, the true dignity of a soldier’s wife. There can be no doubt that exceptional distress of mind and exceptional intelligence go together. The people who really care, the fathers and mothers and wives who dread the news, take the trouble to inform themselves as well as they can. They know why they are anxious and seldom make ridiculous mistakes, although those who say out what others only think will always bring a smile to the lips of even the most sympa- thetic listener. ” I feel as if it were extra hard for me,” sail an elderly widow, whose exemplary son might even at the moment she spoke have been fighting for his country. “You see he is such a good boy—more than a husband to me he has been, far better than ever my husband was. You see,” she went on with tears in her anxious eyes, “there are so many bad boys about, boys that any one might be, as you may say, glad to lose, but mine was so different.” The educated do not say those things, do not perhaps think them in words, yet how true is the sentiment to human nature! An immense trust in Lord Kitchener prevails among the men, the hard-working men with families in good employ who descend to no excuses for remaining at home. “I fancy that leaving Brussels is what you may call a blind,” said one such on the morning that the news of the surrender of Brussels arrived. “You see, there is no doubt but what it’s Kitchener that has the handling of the whole business, and if he has told them to surrender he has his reasons. He knows what he’s doing, and he’s right.”

But if the martial stir is enjoyed among simple people, the absence of boasting is no less remarkable. Drink alone mars the dignity of the Englishman’s attitude this time. It is a new thing, this self-control, which can bear even the silence. Some force greater than the law is at work. Truly the “Recessional ” has been laid to heart. The power of poetry was never better illustrated. “The artist’s vantage o’er the King” again astounds us. Why have we nothing new from our master of martial song?

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Dean Jackson

    In one of the many senseless campaigns fought on the Western Front, the Cambrai campaign (20 November 1917 – 7 December 1917) witnessed more than 44,000 casualties, including 7,000 servicemen of the United Kingdom and South Africa dying for zero ground claimed. That 44,000 casualty figure should have been used instead for the more critical campaign against the Bolsheviks in Petrograd (who had just mounted the November 7 coup, overthrowing the Provisional government), resulting in the re-entry of Russia into the war, thereby sparing the exhausted Western Front Allies the prospect of facing another thirty German divisions previously deployed against Russia on the Eastern Front. In fact, a 57,000-man Allied military unit was already in Russia (the Ukraine) at the time–the Czechoslovak Legion–and could have been used to overthrow the Bolsheviks if the Allied powers so wished. Instead, the Czechoslovak Legion was sent on a 6,000 mile odyssey across Russia, its destination Vladivostok on the Pacific coast for passage back to Europe and the war, instead of sending the legion 700 miles due north to Petrograd and collapse the Bolshevik coup. The politicians of the West were doing all they could to (1) protect the fledgling Bolshevik regime in Petrograd; while (2) sabotaging every opportunity to immediately get Russia back into the war before the Bolshevik position had strengthened throughout Russia. Only when the position of the Bolsheviks was relatively secure would the Allied powers mount campaigns to supposedly overthrow the Bolsheviks (North Russia Intervention and Siberian Intervention), campaigns that were sure to fail due to the lackluster number of soldiers assigned to both missions (though the Japanese contingent of 70,000 soldiers deployed to the the Siberian Intervention is a minimum number one would expect from the combined American, British and French contingent, whose actual total complement registered an anemic 10,250 soldiers up against 600,000 Bolsheviks) and the remote locations for the soldiers’ landings–Archangel (British, French, Italian and American), Murmansk (British, French, Italian and American) and Vladivostok (American, British, French, Canadian, Italian, Polish, Chinese and Japanese)–far from the Bolshevik’s Command and Control center located in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), where too the Bolshevik’s leadership (Central Committee) is located.

    When Allies did attempt to intervene in Russia they do it (1) too late (now Allied troops would be up against the Red Army, not incompetent Red Guards); and (2) in ports that are remote from the Command and Control Center that is Petrograd!* The Allies land in the remote, out of the way, Archangel or Vladivostok, but won’t land in Petrograd! To ensure that they win the war, the Allies needed to immediately move on Petrograd to quickly get Russia back into the war. In fact, knowing that Lenin had been sent to Russia by the Germans in order to get Russia out of the war, the British would have already drawn up battle plans for a Russian intervention centering on Petrograd.

    It should also be understood that as the Czechoslovak Legion moved north to annihilate the Bolshevik Command & Control centers in Petrograd–a mission a non-Marxist co-opted Allies would have assigned the Czechoslovak Legion on November 8–the ranks of the 57,000 strong unit would have swelled with disaffected officers, non-commissioned offices and enlisted personnel of the former Imperial Russian Army who were furious over the inexplicable dissolution of the Imperial Russian Army. No wonder so many ‘White’ officers had disdain for ‘democracy’, for ‘democracy’ in Russia was a front for Bolshevism.

    The above is a clear case of intentional botching of the Allied war effort in order to assist the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, proving that World War I was a Marxist ‘Scissors Strategy’ operation, the purpose of the operation to lead to the establishment of the first aboveboard Marxist nation that would spread the Marxist germ to China, where the West in 1949 would throw up its arms asking, “Who lost China?” The Marxist West lost China, of course! Then the French lost northern Vietnam thanks to China. Then America intentionally lost the Vietnam War, where (1) over 50% of NVA regiments were 100% manned by Chinese soldiers; and (2) the United States refused to invade and liberate the atheistic Marxist North Vietnam; where (3) the constant replenishing of NVA regiments by Chinese ringers and the refusal of the United States to bring the war to a quick end by invading North Vietnam, led to the loss of the war, resulting in Americans’ loss of faith in their government and institutions.

    The following is a discovery I made in May regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,** otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    For more on this discovery see my blog…


    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.


    * During World War II, the German General Staff wanted to concentrate resources on capturing Moscow, since Moscow was then the Command & Control location for Soviet forces. Hitler insisted on dissipating the effort on three fronts. The same sabotage took place during the Marxists’ World War II operation, where after the war the Marxists’ global position was strengthened.

    ** The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.