Pacifism's Contemporary Step-Child

 Every Form of Unfair Attack

In the mid-thirties, Germany was rapidly re-arming--in clear breach of the Treaty of Versailles.  Britain, however, was caught in a malaise of pacifism and anti-war sentiment.  It refused to see the growing elephant in the room.

Winston Churchill was one of the few MP's who devoted this part of his career to crying, "Wolf".  He warned consistently of the dangers, and urged a much greater commitment to defence spending.  He was mocked and pilloried in public, if not private.  To this day it is remarkable to reflect on the indomitable spirit which enabled him to persevere and persist.  Such conviction and moral courage over matters of public policy are rarely seen.

Finally, the House of Commons began to wake up to what was happening in Germany.  It decided to increase spending on the Royal Air Force.  When Churchill stood up to speak in favour of the measure, he warned the House of the inevitable vociferous reaction of the disarmament and pacifist elements of UK society.  He warned the members of the torrent of abuse which would be unleashed upon them.  Even now it is difficult to conceive the strength and power of idealistic pacifism which held the Britain in its grip at the time.

Warned Churchill:

Even now we are not taking the measures which would be in true proportion to our needs.  The Government have proposed these increases.  They must face the storm.  They will have to encounter every form of unfair attack.  Their motives will be misrepresented.  They will be calumniated and called warmongers.  Every kind of attack will be made upon them by many powerful, numerous, and extremely vocal forces in this country.

They are going to get it anyway.  Why, then, not fight for something that will give us safety?  Why, then, not insist that the provision for the Air Force should be adequate, and then, however severe may be the censure and however strident the abuse which they have to face, at any rate there will be this satisfactory result--that His Majesty's Government will be able to feel that in this, of all matters the prime responsibility of a Government, they have done their duty.  [Winston Churchill, The Second World War.  (London: The Reprint Society, 1950).  Volume I: The Gathering Storm, p. 111.]

Maintaining an adequate defence is the prime responsibility of the Government or the Civil Magistracy, says Churchill.  He is right.  For the fundamental God-given duty of all governing authorities is to punish evildoers, thereby protecting the innocent from the depredations of the wicked.

In order to fulfil that duty unto God, governments have to be armed and equipped to defend against external enemies, just as much as those within the borders of its jurisdiction.  The pacifist and disarmament movements confronting Churchill and Britain at the time quixotically were quite happy to have the neighbourhood bobby patrolling their streets, keeping them safe from evildoers, but with splendid inconsistency, believed that evil has somehow stopped at the border, beyond which all others were exceptions to the Fall.

Modern, secular states in the West have conducted another kind of disarmament--for very different reasons.  But the end result is the same.  Modern secular governments have armed themselves to the teeth to conduct wars upon sugar in ice-cream and fizzy drinks--the costs of which, in both monetary terms and distraction, have left no little resource and no time to build up an actual defensive military capability.

To all intents and purposes the West has disarmed itself, and Western governments have abdicated or diminished their prime responsibility.