The Real Issue Before This Tortured
pp. 7-8 · Read in the full issue
World
FROM now on, owing to general strikes in Australia and elsewhere, goods and services will be in very short supply “ n? 1 S fnf Tip 6 real cause oi our troubles is riot txic dc* mands of organised labour, but a Communist conspiracy against Western civilisation, made possible by the dithering weakness of Socialist administration in the British Empire.
VTEVER in our recorded history did ■i i the stars gaze down upon a madder world. To-day, wherever we look, we see empires and nations and communities being torn apart in political, or racial or economic conflict. Every day, the situation grows worse. Civilisation is moving to some sort of crisis.
The United States and Russia seem to be quite openly preparing for the inevitable fight for supression be- Democracy, based upon the freedom of the individual, and
T^ hl fV?i« 1S pnnflip?
the Slave State. In this conflict, every nation on earth will be involved. From this, there may emerge a civilisation worthy of the human being at his best-or else all human institutions, as we know them, will go down in utter chaos, into a Dark Age of horror and misery, which easily may last for hundreds of J y ’
There may not seem to be any connection between the persecution of
Catholic prelates in Middle Europe, the racial disturbances in Africa and Southern Asia, the struggle in Western Europe and elsewhere between the ta^i p i nvn itroiv*rr Dollar and the Pound, the paralysing strikes in Britain, Australia and Canada, the submergence of China by incredible waves of Communist armies, and the growing economic unbalance throughout the world; yet they all fit into the one general pattern. They are part of the Cold War, by which the Communist hier archy hopes to overthrow Western civilisation, and bring the whole world under the Red Flag, Within the Communist countries, there are great discontent, indescrib able human misery, ruthless oppres g,°?= ilf j ut gr % er 0 f 1 which keeps all the “satellite” nations quiet, anc j a pp aren tiy united. Throughout the non-Communist States, because we insist that all political creeds S b a n have freedom for argument and clamour, there is no united front, no aprpprnpnt no tiptop and no security agreement ’ n 0 Peace—ana no security. ¥p f western civilisation l F ’ , as some tear ’ wes „" 5 iv f l £!„ . J t ia approaching collapse then we laid the foundations of our own des traction in 1945 when, instead of accepting the responsibilities and obligations placed upon us by our overwhelming victory over Axis Totalitarianism, we of the British Empire rushed off into an adventure with Socialism.
In 1940-41, by their staunchness and courage, the British people saved Western civilisation. In 1942-45, the Anglo-American Alliance, helped con siderably by the Muscovite armies, destroyed utterly the three Great Powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, and so became completely masters of the world. Never in history was the prestige of the English-speaking nations greater than it was then.
Never did we have a greater oppor tunity. Although the destruction throughout the world, both material and spiritual, was appalling—even terrifying in volume and significance —most thinking people faced the future with quiet confidence. They felt that in the United States and the British Empire they had nations and institutions capable of policing the world while it was restored to orderliness and good government, and that we had more than sufficient military strength to cope with all combinations and emergencies.
A few men looked closely at Russia —and did not like what they saw.
Here was a ruthless and brutal force that, unchecked, could be far worse than Hitlerism. They looked also at Southern Asia, and saw there that nationalist and anti-European move ments, shaped and put into action by Japan in 1935-45, might react danger ously against world peace. But the magnificent, organised strength of the world-conquerors, United States and British Empire, acting together as one force in the preservation of human rights and human decencies, seemed to give an assurance that all would be well in the hard, cruel years of reconstruction and rehabilitation that lay immediately ahead.
AND it was then, in the moment of their proudest triumph and greatest responsibility, that three of the most important units of the British Empire—Britain herself, and Australia and New Zealand—chose to launch themselves into a mad whirl of social and economic experiment.
The world’s most urgent needs, from 1945 onwards, were intensely hard work, to make good the incalculable ravages of war, and ruthless police action, to preserve order in scores of countries that were tottering on the brink of politico-economic collapse.
The world was offered, instead, the economic and industrial nostrums of the Bloomsbury Planners, and the Brown Brother system of settling racial troubles in Asia, Africa and Indonesia.
It was bad enough that Australia and New Zealand —just at a time when they might have gained pros perity beyond belief from the post war troubles of the old world —should have gone plunging into Socialism; but the Empire’s outstanding calamity was the rejection of Churchill by the British masses, and the establishment of a band of Socialist nonentities as the Government of Britain. It was not only a calamity for the Empire —it was, as the history of 1946-49 has proved, a disaster for the world. And we have not yet seen the end of the disaster.
IN relation to world affairs—and especially the affairs of Africa and Asia—the two Powers which stood supreme after the 1945 vic tories, Britain and the United States, are very differently constituted.
The United States is homogeneous, united, tightly organised, and, stand ing four-square with Canada in the North American continent, incredibly powerful.
Britain, in both a geographical and economic sense, is exactly the opposite of the United States. The British Empire is spread right across the
world. There are great British Dominions in five out of the six con tinents, a British Territory literally in every sea. Because of theVe things, British influence in inter continental affairs, like United States economic strength at home, is very great.
The two things together, British influence and American economic strength, surely could have ruled the world, for the good of the world. Had the two Powers stood together, Rus sian activity would have counted no more in 1945-49 than it did in 1935-39.
But the British Socialist Govern ment went jazzing off into a realm of economic fantasy. Vital needs of rehabilitation and reconstruction were sacrificed to vast, far-reaching schemes of “social security”—as if there can be social security without economic stability. The need for sternly holding the Empire together, until the inevitable economic blizzards and racial storms of the post-war period had passed, was ignored, and the trained men of the British Colonial Office saw their policies shaped by long-haired visionaries from Chelsea and addle-pated writers from New York and Chicago. The Socialists withdrew the Union Jack from Burma and China, India and Ceylon; and with it went the centuries-old prestige of the Britisher —and most of the immensely valu able markets which had belonged as of right to the British manufacturer for a hundred years, and on which much of Britain’s home economy was built.
There was only one way to restore the economic strength of the United Kingdom, and that was to give private enterprise its head: British trading genius would have done the rest. But that was of no use to the Attlee- Morrison-Cripps combination. Just when the country was least able to bear it, the Socialists shackled and hamstrung private enterprise, and made confusion worse confounded by nationalising the biggest industries.
VIRTUALLY deserted—in spirit, if not in fact—by Britain in their joint task, the United States has made a sorry muddle in the mainten ance of world order. Hitherto strictly non-interventionist, USA was not equipped for the delicate job—it lacked traditions, and a corps of trained diplomats. Yet none can say that the Americans have not brought an eager and unselfish spirit, and enormous material wealth, to the job of trying to bolster up Western civilisation. The blame for their failure goes to the British Socialist Government—not to the Americans.
For example, the Marshall Aid which they gave Britain (in other words, a free gift of billions of dollars) would have sufficed, under normal government, for the restora tion of a safe balance between Britain’s exports and imports. But under Socialism, which just naturally discourages individual effort and re duces per capita production, Marshall Aid has failed to restore British
economy; and the Americans, who hate Socialism, are unwilling to in crease Marshall Aid, In consequence, we have to-day’s “Dollar Crisis” and no solution in sight, while Socialism rules Britain and the British Empire.
MOSCOW, which could have been controlled easily enough in 1945-46, has taken rapid advantage of Anglo-American helplessness and dithering, and her agents now have
penetrated almost every corner of the civilised world which they plan to control. Their mischief-making pro pensities are endless; and the stupi dities of Socialist Governments—as in Australia and Britain—create for them most favourable opportunities for the advancement of their work— which, of course, is the destruction of all our most cherished institutions, and the enslavement of the individual.
The strikes which now are nara lysing Australia and Britain clearly are part of the world-wide operations of the Muscovite Communists. Even the Attlees and Chifleys are be ginning to realise that, and are pro ceeding, in divers futile ways, to “fight” the Reds.
While Socialists are in charge of our Governments, there is no hope of the Communists being controlled in British countries, or in international affairs.
The world situation has deteriorated so much in 1946-49 that one almost despairs of its recovery. We have only one hope. The average Britisher, in his heart, loathes Communism— or the things that Communism stands for. Perhaps, by now, he has “had”
Communism, and realises that its swift underground extension across the world became possible through the weakness of Socialist Govern ments. Maybe, within the next few months, in the coming general elec tions, in Britain, Australia and New Zealand, he will throw the Socialists out of office, and elect truly British Governments, which really will co operate with other democratic Gov ernments in policing the world for a while, until the nations settle down to some sort of orderly system. Per haps—we can only wait and see.