The Spectator at war

The Spectator at war: What we are fighting for

25 August 2014

8:30 AM

25 August 2014

8:30 AM

The Spectator, 29 August 1914:

NO decent or self-respecting person will ever indulge in a word of recrimination even against those men who supported Germany and German aspirations till the beginning of the war, who deprecated any attempt to make adequate military provision for war in these islands, and who denounced as criminal, and even inhuman, the distrust of the governing class in Germany when it was publicly set forth. Time has proved those who held these views to be wrong, and they are now, as a rule, the last men in the world to entertain them; but their forced disillusionment, though it may prove them to have been wrong in fact, does not of course in the least prove them to have been wrong at heart. Their error was in thinking too well of human nature. They were deceived, no doubt, but deceived by artful pleas which appealed to their generosity and better feelings, and no true man will think the worse of them on that account. Indeed, they deserve our sympathy, for very bitter must be the sense of disillusionment to men who honestly believed that the German Government were utterly incapable of playing a false part, of interfering with human rights, and of seeking to destroy human liberty in the way that they are now doing. But though these men have our sympathy, and no foolish “I told you so” talk should ever pass our lips, such reticence is not necessary and is not wise in the case of those who still persist in suggesting that their country is in the wrong and the Germans in the right. Take, for example, the amazing letter from Mr. Arthur Ponsonby, the leader of the pacifist group in the House of Commons, published in last Saturday’s Nation. The letter, which no doubt is perfectly sincere though so astoundingly wrong-headed, takes the form of a long string of sophistical questions. They end as follows :—

“Is it not deplorable that when Great Britain is plunged into the most devastating war the world has ever seen, we should none of us know clearly what we are fighting for?—Yes.

Are the peoples of Europe going to be massacred in hundreds of thousands and are incalculable numbers of non-combatants going to be reduced to misery and ruin only because a few ministers, diplomats, and monarchs have quarrelled?—Yes.

Are the victorious going to gain anything either materially or morally by this war?—No.”


Let us take these questions in their order. If Mr. Ponsonby does not know what we are fighting for he is in a very singular position, or, rather, he is in the position of some of the extreme Radicals during the Napoleonic Wars, who, contrary to all evidence, believed that in siding with Napoleon, his military caste, his subservient Court of vassal Monarchs, and his military aristocracy of brand-new Dukes, Counts, and Barons they were siding with democracy and liberty. We are fighting against the determination of the ruling military caste in Germany first, to have their tyranny at home still more firmly established, by a foreign war, and next, to make Germany the dominant Power of the world—dominant as was Louis XIV in the height of his glory and as was Napoleon for the twelve years between 1800 and the failure of the Moscow campaign. The aims of the German military caste, of which the Emperor and the Hohenzollerns are the willing instruments, are exactly the aims of Napoleon. Their methods of realizing those aims by a “ruthless, relentless, and remorseless” war, which shall arouse the sense of terror and overwhelm all opposition, are also the same. Apparently they have also exactly the same power of making a certain small percentage of Englishmen believe that their killings, burnings, and slayings are all in the interest of civilization, freedom, and democracy. Mr. Ponsonby is no doubt a sincere hater of war, yet even now his sympathies are with the War Lord, or else it is impossible to believe that he would declare that he does not know what we are fighting for. Again, he would tell us, and of course truly, that his sympathies are with the small nationalities. Yet, though Belgium and Servia are drenched in blood, and Holland and Denmark are coerced by terror of the German arms, he cannot tell what we are fighting about. Further, we are sure that he prefers civil rights, justice, and freedom to tyranny and militarism, and yet again, and with the Zabern incident staring him in the face, he cannot tell what we are fighting about. If he will only be a little more honest with his own heart, and a little less susceptible to verbal refinements and dialectical sophistries, he will soon know clearly what we are fighting for.

Take his second question. Does he really believe that this is a quarrel of “a few ministers, diplomats, and monarchs”? Is that how he reads the White Paper and our Government’s pathetic struggle to maintain the peace? No doubt certain “ministers, diplomats, and monarchs” quarrelled with, or, rather, fastened a quarrel upon, France, Russia, Servia, Belgium, and Britain; but they did it, not because our Ministers or our diplomats or the Monarch of Russia were quarrelsome, but because they thought that the hour had struck—that they had reached the moment of least resistance in their antagonists and greatest strength in themselves, and that therefore they ought to strike. Bismarck tells us in his Memoirs that he made three wars, but that in every case he took care to ascertain that his country’s preparations were absolutely complete and that, as far as he could learn, he was bound to succeed. He added, if we are not mistaken, that he would have deserved to be hanged if he had not done so. The “peoples of Europe are going to be massacred in hundreds of thousands and incalculable numbers of non-combatants are going to be reduced to misery and ruin,” not because “a few ministers, diplomats, and monarchs have quarrelled,” but because the military caste in Germany and in Austria came, as we have said, to the conclusion that the hour had struck, and that they could make war with advantage to themselves’ and disadvantage to the rest of Europe. That is the answer to Mr. Ponsonby’s question, and if he did not let his mind be bemused by mere words he could not have failed to recognize the fact.

We come to his third question : “Are the victorious going to gain anything either materially or morally by this war?” That depends upon who is victorious. The Germans no doubt think—though here we believe they are mistaken—that if they are victorious they are going to obtain great material prosperity by seizing the colonies of their opponents and by the infliction of huge indemnities. If eight millions is the indemnity for one comparatively small city like Brussels, what would be the indemnity for Belgium, and what the indemnity for France or for Britain? To say what they would gain morally is somewhat difficult. If Mr. Ponsonby were to ask some German Professor of Philosophy or History at a State University, such Professor, if he cared to tell the truth, would say that they were going to impose German culture—the true culture—on the rest of the world, to take the sceptre of the seas too long held by an effete nation like the British, and, further, to put an end to the arrogance of a decadent France. From their point of view no doubt the Germans would esteem that a great moral gain. Germany would have her place in the sun, and have gained intellectually and morally as well as economically. If we, and not the Germans and the Austrians, are the victors, how is Mr. Ponsonby’s question to be answered ? That we shall gain nothing material we fully agree. Our material loss must be enormous whichever way the balance inclines. But what are we to say as to the moral loss or gain? The answer is plain to any man who will put the question to himself honestly, and not with a mind drugged by an inverted sense of patriotism. The whole world will gain by our victory, for it will be a victory for individual freedom, the government of the people by the people for the people, for national independence as against servile and dependent States, and defeat for a monopolizing and despotic military caste. If we lose, human liberty and national independence will go down for a generation at least in blood and thunder, perhaps go down never to revive again.

We know very well what will be Mr. Ponsonby’s answer to what we have written. He will say that we are talking Jingo claptrap, and will try to uphold his suggested defence of Germany by throwing Russia in our teeth and asking whether she is the model we should like to imitate. Our answer is not difficult. If Russia shows the same desire to dominate that Germany has shown and develops an arrogant military caste, we must restrain Russia also. But surely he must see that the chances of Russia doing this are not increased but greatly reduced by alliance with the democracies of France and Britain. States, like men, are known by the company they keep. Germany keeps company with Austria, an Empire more feeble, but none the less arrogant and dominating, than her own. Russia is linked to two democratic self-governing nations. Her alliance with France and Britain will make it very difficult for her, if she ever desires, of which we do not admit the possibility, to break her word to Poland, to the Finns, and to the Jews. The notion that Russia is as great a menace to liberty as Germany is a mere piece of special pleading put into the minds of Englishmen by German writers and speakers. There may be great faults in the Russian Government, but at any rate it is not organized with that dreadful mechanical harshness and efficiency which have made every independent State in Europe dread a German victory, as every independent State in Europe dreaded the victory of Napoleon.

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.