[1]

July 8, 1959

Dr. K.J. Hahn
Katholieke Volksparty
Mauritskade 25
'S-Cravenhage, The Netherlands

Dear Dr. Hahn:

It was a great pleasure to meet you at the Atlantic Congress. I appreciate very much your courteous invitation to speak in The Hague, and only the fact that I have been in Africa for the past several weeks has kept me from writing to you sooner. While my schedule is still a little unclear and I cannot say definitely that I will be able to do it, I am hoping very much that we will be able to work something out. At this point it looks as if September 29th or 30th would be possible, with the 30th a little more convenient for me. If neither of these dates would be possible, I might be able to do it October 5th or 6th. I would therefore suggest that a formal invitation be sent as soon as possible giving me a maximum degree of choice as to the dates I indicated. By the time it arrives my schedule will be clearer and I can then let you know fairly quickly.

With kind regards and much appreciation.

Sincerely yours,

Henry A. Kissinger

July 20, 1959

Dr. K. J. Hahn
Katholieke Volksparty
Mauritskade 25
'S-Gravenhage, The Netherlands

Dear Dr. Hahn:

This is just a further note
about possible dates for visiting the
Netherlands and speaking in The Hague.
At this point it is almost definite that
September 30th is the only date that
would be possible for me. Could you
let me know as soon as possible whether
this would be suitable for you, as my
schedule is becoming very tight.

With kind regards.

[L.C]

I

Russia will not in the forseeable future agree to the reunification of Germany, nor can she be made to agree by force. No one in their senses would be willing to start a world war in order to break Russia's resistance.

The West, including Germany should be ready to recognise de jure a second German state; but - and this is a crucial but - only on condition that the population of that state is free to decide their own destiny, that is, is allowed to choose a national constituent assembly by secret ballot in elections under neutral supervision.

The negotiations ahead of us should be concerned with more than the freedom of West Berlin. I believe that statesmanship has been offered an opportunity, which may never return, to give Europe's destiny a decisive turn for the better. The Western powers should make a supreme effort to open the road to freedom for millions of Germans who today live under alien rule.

Too high a price?

Suppose the attempt were successful. Suppose a second German state were established, free and independent. In that case the renunciation, at this stage, of German reunification would not be too high a price. I do not under-estimate the blow which would be inflicted on German pride and on the prestige of the Western alliance. But those who think the price is too high should try to put themselves in the place of a German in East Germany who had made up his mind to escape but today no longer can escape; or one who does not want to leave his home and whose sons are serving prison sentences because their consciences compelled them to say what they thought. Suppose such Germans were asked, without risk of being overhead by the secret police, which of the two alternatives they preferred.

.../2

- 2 -

[Lc]

Either the Soviet Zone persists, but the ideal of an indivisible Germany is proclaimed in continuity - or else the Zone is transformed into a second German state where the inhabitants can choose their own government as freely as the Germans in West Germany or in Austria. There seems little doubt which alternative would be chosen.

## II

*Will Russia ever accept a second German state which is free?*

To answer this question, we must try to be clear about Russia's hopes and fears, and the various impulses for action which they transmit.

a) Russia is disturbed by the great revival of West Germany, and is determined to block the vast increase in power which reunification would inevitably bring about. Can you blame her? Every Russian who lived through the war is appalled by the memory of unspeakable sufferings which the Nazis inflicted on the population. And they are haunted by their country's narrow escape in 1941. Russia still needs reassurance. And the revenge she has exacted could only bring reassurance as long as the conquered enemy lay helpless at her feet.

True the Federal Republic genuinely repudiates revanche - many Germans do so on grounds of conscience, others under the influence of prosperous contentment. But there is no doubt; Russia is afraid of Germany's revanche. That is an emotional necessity and concern for Russia's security is the "Leitmotiv" behind Khrushchev's determination to bar the way to German reunification.

b) The second place in the hierarchy of motives I would assign to Russia's world mission, to which Khrushchev feels committed from deep conviction. It is remarkable how much

.../3

- 3 -

[lc]

time and energy he devotes to 'enlightenment' at home and
abroad. He dreams of a world empire of Soviet states, with
loose formal ties but inherently belonging together, a sort
of Russian commonwealth. And we shall do well to remember
from history that the Russians are tenacious dreamers, and
that their dreams have a way of struggling towards fulfilment.

## Dreams and Realities.

Khrushchev needs realities for his propaganda, and in
Russia he has them. I am convinced that Russia today, though
far from being a state based on the rule of law, is equally
far removed from Stalin's reign of terror. 'We live in a
humane prison,' a Russian scholar said recently to a boyhood
friend revisiting his country after 40 years in exile. The
émigré, registered a distinct relief everywhere in the
intellectual works, in which he felt at home.

I believe future historians will date the beginning of
Russia's liberation - her peaceful liberation - from that day
in 1956 when Khrushchev, in his great speech before the Party
Congress, declared that torture and massacre had been essential
parts of the Stalin regime, and promised reform in the
administration of justice. He has kept his promise, and relief
has made for contentment. Relief, however, is a condition
which lasts only while one 'rejoices over sufferings past';
the moment comes when the present is compared less with the
past from which one has escaped than with a future as one
hopes to shape it. The longing for freedom cannot be
extinguished in human nature, and it can only be repressed
by the use of Stalinesque or Hitlerian methods.

Khrushchev faces the choice of going further on the road
to freedom, or of reverting to Stalinism, as he is continually
being urged to do. I believe he does not want to go back
that way; but he is certainly under strong pressure, from

.../4

- 4 -

[LC]

two sides at once: from the Stalinists, on the one hand, and on the other from those who have tasted some freedom and want more of it. Will he prevail? I believe he will. But he feels the need of international crises from time to time designed to bring victory without war, to exhibit Russia's might, to sow discord in and between the allied nations and to close the ranks tighter at home.

I think he will be able to keep to his course; the realities in Russia will not only be preserved, they will develop further in the direction of humanity.

But realities in Russia are very different from the realities in Soviet Germany, which hamper Russia in her world mission. Khrushchev today is passionately wooing Africa and the Middle East: in campaigning against Colonialism he speaks as the champion of self-determination. What is happening in East Germany gives him the lie direct, and cannot be concealed from the eyes of the world so long as West Berlin is a free city. The "wall" is no barrier to the truth; quite the contrary. There is a symbolic significance in the picture published in the newspapers all over the world of the German in the 'People's Police leaping the wall to freedom.

The propaganda situation would, of course, be considerably relieved for Khrushchev if he could finally close the gap in the Iron Curtain. That is only possible if West Berlin is liquidated and the whole of East Germany is as completely cordoned off from the free world as, for instance, Hungary. This is what Stalin tried to achieve in 1949 through the blockade, what Khrushchev hoped to bring about in 1958 by his ultimatum, by the clash at the Geneva Conference in summer 1959, by his threats at Paris in 1960, which he repeated at Vienna in 1961 when he met Kennedy; and he will be trying it again at carefully spaced intervals.

.../5

- 5 -

[Lc]

In 1949 Stalin would have gone to war had the Americans not possessed an atomic monopoly. He had no doubt that in a war they would misuse that monopoly as they had misused it at Hiroshima.

But Khrushchev does not want war though he still cherishes the hope that one day the West will offer no resistance to a 'coup' in Berlin. At the moment he has serious doubts; he is impressed by Kennedy's resolution. But he is continually feeling the pulse of the Western homefronts - and goes on hoping that the time is not far away when public opinion in the N.A.T.O. countries will make it impossible for their governments to go to war in defence of Berlin.

It was my task in both World Wars, in Germany in the first, in England in the second, to explore the enemy press in particular for unintended indiscretions. If I were to investigate the morale of the West today on behalf of Russia, I should report: "not yet but quite likely soon a *coup* could be laumched with impunity; morale is softening up nicely!" This process is intimately connected with the neglect of conventional preparedness. The West's defence policies even today have not yet sufficiently shaken off the Dulles 'All-or-Nothing' attitude, at any rate not as public opinion sees it. It is still believed that atomic weapons would be used even against a purely 'conventional' attack. Everywhere in the West, not surprisingly, efforts are therefore being made to find a so-called honourable formula which would present Khrushchev with greater concessions than are compatible with security and treaty obligations.

I repeat: *Khrushchev does not want war*. He is immensely proud of Russia's 'economic miracle', which as an effort puts

.../6

- 6 -

[Lc]

West Germany's reconstruction completely in the shade. He feels he is the architect of this miracle, dreams of victory in the industrial and technological contest with the United States, and proclaims triumphantly every advance towards this goal: to reach it he needs peace. But there is the danger that he will sooner or later embark on some military move, originally just to test Western reactions, confident that our resolution will be paralysed. But when meeting an unexpected resistance, at first no doubt with conventional weapons only, he will look no longer on the West's nuclear threat as bluff. Then, under pressure from his military experts, he may decide to forestall a 'nuclear defence' by getting in his nuclear strike first. That way lies disaster to the human race; and we can slide into it against our will.

## III

### What hope for East Germany?

I will now try to answer the question: how would Khrushchev react to an offer from the West to recognise the division of Germany into two states, on condition that East Germany becomes a free country?

Much depends on the details and attendant circumstances. The second Germany must pledge itself to remain neutral and to maintain no armed forces; such a pledge would have to be placed under international guarantee and control. Berlin would become the capital of this second Germany, and at the same time the seat of the international control commission.

The Western powers, also the Federal Republic, would have to promise to recognise a German Soviet state if such a state should be decided on by a freely elected national assembly. Wide-scale disengagement should form an integral part of the

.../7

- 7 -

[LC]

offer, and the Federal Republic should renounce atomic weapons for all time, the international status of this new nation should be especially guaranteed by the four great powers whose unanimous consent would be required, were it ever to be changed.

This solution would offer Russia undeniable advantages: the 'German danger' would lose much of its menacing quality, the odious Ulbricht regime would disappear, and with it the almost intolerable burden on Russian propaganda.

The West under-estimates Khrushchev's passionate eagerness to win the world's confidence.

> Nevertheless, I believe that today he would say No.

With all dictators prestige is the greatest source of error. The replacement of the Ulbricht regime by a government chosen in freedom would be a serious blow to Khrushchev's pride. Moreover he has not yet given up hope of successfully cording off West Berlin, perhaps at the next international crisis, to be released at the appropriate moment. He will never lose this hope, as long as he can diagnose symptoms of progressive disintegration in the West's will to resist. At the moment he does not think the process has gone far enough to let him venture on a coup.

The fact that we expect Khrushchev to say No must not stop us from giving the offer all possible publicity. World opinion would say Yes, as would a secret Russia, which is weary of the continued threats to peace. The Russian "No" would not be popular in Poland.

In the present situation we can hope for only a compromise which will gain time. But this compromise must be only a sort of truce: that is, it should not include any concessions which would make the final solution difficult or impossible. Such a concession, for instance, would be the de facto recognition of the present East German regime.

.../8

[lc]

- 8 -

IV

Time gained must be well used. We should certainly
use it to convince Khrushchev that threats of violence will
never bring the West to heel. Resolute words by Western
statesmen are not enough; on the contrary, they encourage
the aggressor if they provoke strong voices of protest in
their own countries, advocating solutions which amount to
surrender. Unlike Western statesmen, Khrushchev's eyes are
ceaselessly focussed on the enemy's home fronts. Western
public opinion is as important to him as the speeches of
Western statesmen.

The morale in the West can be restored only if public
opinion becomes convinced of the following: the Allies in
defence of their rights are no longer dependent on being the
first to use atomic weapons; they can effectively resist a
conventional attack with conventional weapons. We need a
declaration, as soon as our conventional readiness has become
a reality, that we will never be the first to use atomic
weapons; they will only be used to retaliate against a nuclear
attack.

The credibility of a threat is more important than its
'frightfulness'. So long as we threaten that we shall be the
first to start an atomic war in case of a major clash, we shall
always encourage Khrushchev to believe that we are ready for
any concessions in order to avoid suicidal madness.

At present millions of free men and women who are not
pacifists have secretly, or rather unconsciously, decided that
they would rather accept a Russian dictate, than engage in an
atomic war. Probably when the day of decision came many would
change their mind. But the present mood cripples our negotiators,
and tempts the carefully watching Khrushchev to step up his
demands perhaps even to try a coup. The declaration, 'We would

.../9

- 9 -

[Lc]

never be the first', would have a liberating effect in the Western world, particularly in England, and even among the pacifists, whose numbers are continually growing.

The curse of Hiroshima weighs heavily upon many consciences in this country, quite independent of party allegiance or the basic attitude to war. There is an awakening in the West. People are beginning to realise how immoral a defence policy is, which through neglect of conventional preparedness bars the way to the outlawing of nuclear weapons.

Before Hiroshima the physicist James Franck, as president of the committee set up by the United States' government, gave the following warning (11.6.45): 'The military advantages and the saving of American lives achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and by a wave of horror and revulsion sweeping over the rest of the world and perhaps even dividing public opinion at home. From this point of view a demonstration of the new weapon might best be made before the eyes of representatives of all the United Nations, on a desert or a barren island.'

'The nation capable of suddenly releasing this new indiscriminate weapon might not be trusted by mankind, should it proclaim its desire to see such weapons abolished by international agreement.'

Supposing some clairvoyant had made the following forecast to Franck in 1945: 'The American government and America's allies will oppose the outlawing of these weapons after the war, because they will not dare impose on their peoples the exertions and austerities which the readiness for conventional resistance would entail.' What in the summer of 1945 would have been regarded as absurd and impossible, has actually happened after the war: *the curse of Hiroshima has been renewed through the West's defence policies.*

.../10

- 10 -

[L.C]

It is not too late for retracing our steps. The free
peoples would be ready for great sacrifices provided these
were demanded for a cause which was clear and clean. Our
present defence policy will have to undergo a radical change.
This can only be brought about after the present conflict
over Berlin has been provisionally settled. But before the
next crisis this change should have taken place. We should
then be in a position to face a Khrushchev who had no longer
any illusions as to the West's will to resist an attack on
rights guaranteed by solemn pledges: the human rights of
Berlin.

Then the way would be clear to negotiate a solution
offering security to Russia, freedom to East Germany, and
peace to the world.

Kurt Hahn.

October, 1961.

[L]

ATLANTIC COLLEGE

Address to the Morning Assembly by the Headmaster, Admiral Hoare,
on 23rd November, 1963

At our Morning Assembly a week or so ago, a student quoted the lines of John Donne which open with the words: "No man is an island" and which close with: "Seek not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". To-day it is tolling everywhere for President Kennedy.

For most ordinary people life is a voyage from harbour to harbour, along a fairly safe coast. We run no great risks, nor do we work very hard to make our passages. A few men in this world are not of this kind, President Kennedy among them, and his whole gifted life has been one of great endeavour.

He sought power to influence Policy, and his Policies were guided by the two great passions of his life, the love of his own Country and the love of Freedom. The wanton futility of his killing is the ultimate denial of freedom, the use of a bullet to silence a voice.

The two great issues of public business on which he was engaged just prior to his death, were those of racial discrimination in his own country, and of his overseas aid programme which had been cut back by Congress. John Kennedy saw that freedom was indivisible, that there could not be freedom for the whites in the U.S.A. unless there was also freedom for the coloured; that there could not be freedom for white and coloured in the U.S.A. unless there was also freedom from want in Africa and Pakistan.

To me as to many other people, President Kennedy seemed a most fitting representative of his nation, young, and young for his years, vital, confident, powerful, but above all humane.

In this International School the sympathy of the rest of us goes out to the U.S.A. students, and because they are here, it is our sad privilege to fly their flag over this Castle at half mast. We have been told that John Kennedy came to St. Donat's with his father as a sixteen year old boy and swam in our pool. If this is true, and it seems very likely, I have no doubt that he also leant on the sea wall and dreamed his dreams. He must have looked out from our foreshore across the Atlantic to his own country; not only to his own country but

2./.

- 2 -

also to Ireland whence his ancestors came. I have thought it
appropriate therefore to read what an unknown early Irish Poet
had to say on the death of their Chieftain:

In his own ground by the wild western sea,
Where oft this true Knight led the galloping band,
Now his homecoming saddens all the land.

The land held high his generous renown,
From Beare to Diarra from Lee to Liffey brown,
From Galway west to southernmost Cape Clear,
Kilkenny to Loch Ce - afar, anear.

Peace, to give peace where he may not return,
To heal our hurt, to light the eyes that mourn,
Shield of our hearts, a strength in sorrow found,
Lord grant the peacemaker thy perfect peace.

Henry V. Kissinger

Sincerely yours,

Kind regards,

Great interest in your project.
Please be assured of my

you left the United States.
that we did not meet again before
see you at Harvard and I am sorry
It was a great pleasure to

Dear Dr. Hahn:

England
London, W. 1
Dover Street
Brown's Hotel
Dr. Kurt Hahn, C.B.E.

March 26, 1962

As from
Brown's Hotel,
Dover Street,
London, W.1.

[cc]

TEL: PFULLENDORF
476

SALEM,
BADEN.

29th October, 1965

NOV 1 1965

I read of your new important
assignment, so I hardly dare hope that
you will be in Harvard during November.

I will spend almost the whole of
that month in the United States and
will ring your Secretary on my arrival
in New York, Drake Hotel, on the 4th
of November to make sure that I don't
miss the opportunity of consulting you.

In the menatime I am sending you
a talk which has been recently published.
I am encouraged to do so remembering
what you said to me en route from London
Airport about the significance of Russia's
manoeuvre in Berlin in April, this year.

Professor
Henry A. Kissinger,
Havard University,
6 Divinity Avenue,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

HAL-0900

Drake
440 Park Ave.

© 1965 by The Lindsey Press

NOTE

This lecture was delivered by Dr. Kurt Hahn on 14th April, 1965, at the University College of Swansea, during the Annual Meetings of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. In the text printed here a number of transitional passages have been inserted to clarify the train of thought which, while apparent in the spoken word, would not have been so apparent in the printed word. The substance of the lecture has been maintained.

[c]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME
OF THE WAR

I FEEL very honoured by the invitation to give this lecture. I had made up my mind really, at my time of life, to refuse all invitations to speak in public. I wanted to sit down and look back and not address meetings, but I had a strange experience which made me change my mind. I was speaking to some parents of Gordonstoun boys in the presence of their nine-year-old son, and I made the not very profound remark that my great grievance against life was that it passes so quickly, whereupon the boy of nine said, 'Yes, by the time you know the trick, all is over.'

Now I don't pretend to know the trick, but I have certain hopes and anxieties which I would like to deposit, if I may put it like this, among my natural allies. And so I was delighted when I was asked to talk to you, because I know how deeply concerned you are about the destiny of youth and the Christian purpose of their life which is endangered.

I am going to talk to you about the outcome of the war and the young of today. The aftermath is affecting the lives of every one of us, yet at the same time we find it convenient to forget about it. But when the cold world war is warming up as it did last week one somehow feels that old and young should focus their attention on the dangerous tensions which divide the world. Désintéressement—indifference—in face of an

5

[LC]

## 6 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

explosive international situation is the negation of active citizenship.

In the first week of this April there took place a dramatic clash of will power between Russia and the Western Allies.

For the first time since 1958 the Bundestag, Western Germany's parliament, assembled in Berlin to proclaim to the world that Berlin is the legitimate capital of a Germany, as yet divided, but one day to be reunited in 'freedom and peace'.

The Soviet Union decided to reaffirm their claim, which is rejected by the Western Allies, namely that Berlin is an independent international entity, and to make it clear to the world that Germany will remain divided until Western Germany is ripe for a Communist rule.

The Soviet Union arranged to hold military maneuvres under 'combat conditions', jointly with the East German Army, and to do this while the German Bundestag was sitting in Berlin.

This is what actually happened: on the Autobahn American and British convoys were held up for hours before they were allowed to proceed. All members of the German Bundestag travelling by road were turned back. The Mayor of Berlin, Willy Brandt, was also turned back.

At the moment when Chancellor Erhardt, who had arrived by air, mounted the steps of the big Congress Hall a shower of leaflets descended on the cheering crowds—they were fired across the wall by East German Police and bore the words, 'Hands off Berlin'. Worse was to come: low flying aircraft swooped down across the roof-tops every few minutes—machine guns were roaring, firing blanks. MIGs buzzed commercial aeroplanes flying into Berlin from the West, even

[L]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 7

cutting across their approaches. Others buzzed the
British and U.S. Military Headquarters so persistently
that telephone communications were impossible for a
whole afternoon.

Hundreds of West Berlin windows were shattered. For five days the 'disturbances' continued. They only stopped when most Bonn parliamentarians had dispersed. Traffic on the Autobahn then returned to normal. U.S. troops were cleared through Communist check points without delay.*

How shall we explain this strange Russian behaviour
which combined reckless display of force with carefully
designed restraint? Was this a noisy but empty
threat? Or a diagnostic operation designed to feel the
pulse of the Allies and of their will to resist? Was it a
prelude to a military promenade? Do the Russians
hope that one day it can be undertaken with impunity
—lamented by the Allies but not resisted?

I do not attempt to answer these questions, but I
maintain they ought not only to exercise the public
mind throughout the free world, but disturb vigilant
citizens who feel responsible for what is done or will
be done in their country's name. Perhaps I may
indicate what I feel on this issue by recalling a cartoon
which appeared in *Punch* before the Berlin Congress
assembled in 1878 to avert the danger of an Anglo-
Russian war: Disraeli was shown leading Britannia
towards the brink of a precipice. Britannia was walk-
ing warily. Disraeli asked her: 'Am I going too far?'
Britannia answered: 'Not an inch further!'

My point is that today Britannia (or call it the
British democracy) is not watchful enough in the face
of the disquieting happenings which took place last

* I have outlined the sequence of events, as reported in *Newsweek* of 19th April, 1965.

[LC]

## 8 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

week. In saying this, I am primarily thinking of the older generation. People are often completely absorbed by the day's work; they are not interested in foreign affairs which they leave to the professional politicians. There are many others who feel a great concern about the aftermath of the war, but they think that they cannot do justice to their vocational assignments if they look too closely into the frightening future.

I had a friend, unusually gifted, highly efficient, with an outstanding war record. His wife questioned him about the bewildering international situation. He answered: 'I come home dead tired and you confront me with world problems.' I am reminded of a saying by Prince Max of Baden: 'We need the dedication of the best to the common cause in peace time, not only in war.'

It is my belief that a vigilant democratic control could have prevented World War I and World War II.

How seriously do young people take their citizenship? I am not thinking of adolescents only, but have very much in mind the attitude of men and women in their early twenties.

Vigilance and devotion depend on the strength of basic human qualities which are generally present in healthy children, but which are in danger of being sapped while they grow up. What are these qualities? An enterprising curiosity, an undefeatable spirit, tenacity in pursuit, the joy of movement, readiness for sensible self-denial, careful attention to detail, a faithful memory and a lively imagination, and above all compassion.

I regard it as the foremost task of education to en-

[LC]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 9

sure the survival of these qualities into manhood and womanhood. We must be under no illusion as to the difficulties of this task. It can only be accomplished if schools widen and deepen their responsibilities and accept the burden of building up a resistance in the young against the insidious influences to which the modern way of life inevitably exposes them. As yet this burden is not generally accepted. Too many young people are left at the mercy of a sick civilization with results which should frighten us.

Among the young of the Western World I single out four types who cause disquiet. The labels I attach to them do not do justice to the subtle shades of human behaviour. They should be regarded as direction-pointers only, which may be of use in exploring the uncharted wilderness of juvenile and post-juvenile societies.

There are the lawless, there are the listless, there are the angry young men and women and there are the honourable sceptics.

People have tried to dispel our anxieties by pointing to the great numbers of young people who come through their adolescence with their human strength intact and with a confident outlook on life. Statistics are important but must not be used in the service of complacency. When there is a number of suicides in a certain University I am not comforted if I am told that the great majority of undergraduates have not committed suicide. I am concerned about those who have despaired of life, and I am also concerned about the ever increasing number of young people who emerge from adolescence in a sorry state, and no less about those who on the threshold of manhood and womanhood are already disillusioned, feeling that 'the

[LC]

## IO THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

struggle naught availeth, the labour and the wounds
are vain'.

Among the lawbreakers you find not a few young
people who had shown real promise in their childhood.
The lust for gain and pleasure by itself would not have
been powerful enough to drive them into crime: it
needed support from another force in their emotional
life—the longing for adventure which had remained
unsatisfied in their upbringing. To outwit the authori-
ties, to plan with imagination and stealth, to execute
with resource and circumspection, to experience the
thrill of narrow escapes—all this has a great fascina-
tion. Let me give you an example. A girl of sixteen
stood before a probation officer, a lady. The girl had
been caught in the company of young burglars in a
chase over roof-tops. The probation officer asked
this friendly looking girl: 'Is there any point in being
chased over the roof-tops by the police every fort-
night?' The girl answered: 'Oh, Madam, it is just
heaven!'

The listless for the most part are law abiding.
Among them there are a good number who obey the
law, less from any virtue than from a lack of enter-
prise. What prevents them from becoming enter-
prising criminals also disqualifies them for active
citizenship.

Then there are the angry young men and women.
We can distinguish two very different kinds among
them. There are those who deplore that which angers
them—they are distressed often to the point of despair.
We can only feel deep sympathy for them. But there
are others who enjoy their anger as some people enjoy
bad health. They really do not deserve to be called
angry young men and women, but rather cantankerous
young men and women. They often are not amateur

[L.C.]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR II

debunkers, but professional debunkers. I am reminded of something a London humorist once said: 'They have an inner itch and nobody to scratch them.'

The young who are sad and angry have much in common with the fourth type I singled out: the honourable sceptic—perhaps the most dangerous type of all. 'The concrete is more poignant than the abstract,' says George Trevelyan. This encourages me to relate to you a personal experience which at the time came as a great shock to me.

When I had the honour of being imprisoned by Hitler in March 1933 there was a boy of fifteen in Salem who was bewildered by what had happened. He wrote the following letter to Hitler: 'Dear Mr. Chancellor, if you carry on like this, National Socialism will not make much progress in this school.' The father was a courageous man and sent this letter to Hitler. As you can imagine things became rather hot for this boy, so his parents decided in 1935 to send him for a time to Gordonstoun which had been founded in the meantime. When he arrived I noticed a great change in this boy. He was convinced that the Nazis were the devil, but he was equally convinced that the devil was invincible. I thought I was in a strong position to console him, for through a friend I had been introduced to General Smuts. Smuts had a sixth sense; he not only gave an answer to what you had said, he also answered questions which somehow you could not bring yourself to put to him. Smuts must have felt that I too at that time was almost despairing about the country of my birth— would an honourable Germany ever assert itself? He suddenly said: 'Young man' (I was forty-seven, he was seventy-five), 'I can console you. What has happened is the most un-German thing. Throughout the spiritual history of Germany you can feel a sense of

[LC]

## 12 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

responsibility for the human destiny. This pest will be wiped off the face of the earth.' I related this heartening forecast to the boy as I have related it to you. His face grew 'instantly old' and he said: 'Mr. Hahn, I do not wish to destroy your illusions.' A terrible thing for a boy of seventeen to say.

Today scepticism is rampant among the young of the Western World. The shrugging of shoulders some years ago almost became a Western form of salutation, I would say in Britain perhaps even more so than on the Continent and in the U.S.A. The young in great numbers have little hope left that the right will prevail in this modern world. No wonder. Youngsters growing up today in this country often suffer from disillusioned grandfathers and fathers, and that is a great hereditary handicap.

If you go to the beautiful churchyard in the Gloucestershire village of Overbury, you will find there a memorial tablet in remembrance of men who gave their lives in World War I. The inscription runs like this: 'Remember the Overbury and Conderton men who gave their lives in the Great War so that justice, love, and honour may prevail.' That was the truth—they gave their lives for this very purpose. The men who fought in World War I and survived were poor comforters for their sons and daughters who questioned them about the wars and civil wars of the twenties and thirties and all the hatred and misery which accompanied them.

And the outcome of World War II? I remember a saying of William Temple in October 1939: 'Against a deified nation we take up arms as a dedicated nation.' I say again, that was the truth. We began the war for a sacred cause, it became a war for our very lives, and it ended as a war of revenge which culminated

[LC]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 13

in Dresden and Hiroshima. Just after the war had begun, a mother of an only son said to me, 'My David has volunteered, he may not come back. But I would not like to have lived any more if we had left Poland in the lurch.' Her David did not come back. I feel very bad when I go to see this mother nowadays.

Scepticism is rife today among the young. The vocabulary which inspired the free world in Britain's 'finest hour' is still in use from time to time, but thoughtful young people squirm when they hear it. The memory of Hiroshima is a living memory even in the minds of those who were too young to remember those terrible days in August 1945, or were not even born at that time. The rising generation cannot recapture the passions which had been roused through the iniquities of our enemies, exercising an emotional pressure which, at that time, it was difficult to resist. They are not adequately informed about the exact sequence of events that led up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they feel in their bones that the decision to release the atomic bomb was an act of barbarism only to be explained by a doctrine this country has always repudiated, namely that 'necessity knows no law'. We have no right to deceive the young. Atomic warfare is not only a crime against humanity; it violates international conventions which, as is said in the Geneva Protocol of 1925, should 'bind alike the conscience and the practice of nations'. There is no doubt that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is against the law, and the use of weapons likely to plant insidious diseases is likewise outlawed.

Honourable sceptics are ruthless in their search for truth. We cannot keep from them that a solemn warning was issued to the Government of the U.S.A.

[LC]

14 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

by the commission which Roosevelt had set up to
advise about the use of atomic warfare. In June 1945
the commission presented the so-called Franck report
which was named after the great physicist, the Nobel
Prize man, who presided over the commission. I quote
his prophetic words:

'The military advantages and the saving of American lives achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and by a wave of horror and revulsion sweeping over the rest of the world and perhaps even dividing public opinion at home. From this point of view a demonstration of the new weapon might best be made before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on a desert or a barren island. The nation capable of suddenly releasing this new indiscriminate weapon might not be trusted by mankind, should it proclaim its desire to see such weapons abolished by international agreement.'

James Franck died last year, but he lived long
enough to deplore the tragic position into which the
Western powers have drifted, namely the adoption of a
defence policy which relies on the first use of atomic
weapons even against a purely conventional attack. No
wonder that genuine pacifists have many fellow-
travellers! We may condemn the logic which governs
the reasoning of the 'Ban the Bomb' marchers. We
should never fail to point out to them that unilateral
atomic disarmament on the part of the Western allies
would tempt an aggressor to misuse his monopoly in
atomic weapons, as such monopoly was misused in
1945. No, there is no logic in their campaign. But
let us honour the sorrow and the shame which move
young men and women to undergo hardship and

[c]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 15

ridicule. They are in the true sense of the word conscientious objectors and we should realize that there are many thousands who do not join the marchers but who are harassed by doubts and fears which are 'not loud but deep'.

I believe we can never lift the curse of Hiroshima from the minds of the young until such time as our responsible statesmen, in word and action, repudiate the German doctrine: 'Necessity knows no law'; that is to say, until we recover and restore the faith for which the flower of youth gave their lives in two world wars, the faith that there are limits to inhumanity, even in war. These limits demand from the armed forces: to care for the wounded; to respect the rights of neutrals; not to kill captured enemies nor to torture them, even when they can give most valuable information; not to bombard centres of the civil population; not to use poisonous weapons and 'such like devices', not even on the battlefield; not to shoot hostages in order to accelerate the surrender of a besieged city; not to sink merchant ships without warning; not to prolong reprisals after they have been effective.

The conventions and protocols, even the tacit understandings which have embodied these limitations, constitute a triumph of the Samaritan spirit, in fact an advance towards a Christian society.

Such advance may be regarded as microscopic if we think of the goal towards which we are striving, but the advance is immense when we look back to the state of barbarism from which we have emerged and into which we are in danger of sinking again.

This progress has been halted since World War I through a strange dual alliance of two vested interests which for very different reasons discouraged efforts to mitigate the horrors of war. There were the militarists,

[LC]

16 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

who resisted any restriction on the use of the most
effective weapons, and the pacifists, who were con-
cerned lest their propaganda for the abolition of all
wars would be weakened in its appeal if the public
image of war would lose some of its frightfulness. So
it came about that the pacifists—suffering under the
illusion that the millennium is within our reach—had
opted out of the campaign to clarify and safeguard the
laws of war.

I mention milestones in the progress of this cam-
paign: the Geneva Convention of 1864; the St. Peters-
burg declaration of 1868 which prohibited the use of
certain projectiles likely to cause unnecessary suffering;
the two Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. Pro-
fessor Goodhard is right when he says in his remarkable
pamphlet, *What Acts of War are Justifiable?*, published
in 1940: 'We can answer the question whether there
are any rules governing the conduct of war in the
affirmative, although we must always remember that
their efficacy depends in large part on the honour and
conscience of the belligerents.' I am often told that
this was all quite true before Hiroshima, but that I am
putting the clock back if in the Atomic age I speak of
the 'laws of war'. My answer is: we put the clock
back in August 1945.

To carry conviction on this issue I will tell you of a
protest against total war which took place over 2,000
years ago. Plato wrote in the Fifth Book of the Re-
public: 'None who are Greeks will ravage Greece or
burn homesteads. They will never consider all the
men, women and children their enemies but only those
few who are responsible; they will in fighting Greece
have peace in their hearts.' It is true he does not
want to extend this mercy to the women and children
of the Barbarians, but we can only do justice to the

[Lc]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 17

humanity of his appeal if we judge it against the
background of the common practice in the Pelopon-
nesian war.

I quote from Thucydides' description of how the Athenians treated the Island of Melos which had unconditionally surrendered. 'Athenians thereupon put to death all of military age and made slaves of women and children; they then colonised the island of Melos sending thither five hundred soldiers.'

I put this question:

Was our conduct at the end of the war more in keeping with the Athenian practice or with Plato's plea for mercy?

Kennedy's death was felt as a personal tragedy by many thousands of young people. They looked to him to save the world from the disaster which has threatened it ever since August 1945. Here was a man who faced the future with vision and resolution. He was in control of immense power and determined to use it in the service of humanity and peace. Kennedy gave us reason to hope that a defence policy would be developed which one day would enable Western statesmen to say: We will never be the first to use atomic weapons. This would be a healing act of repentance. We could regain the trust of mankind and bring the day nearer when atomic weapons can be abolished by an effective international agreement.

The conduct of public affairs often has a decisive influence on young people, their opinions and aspirations. We should be careful to recognize the limits of the influence schools or parents can exercise.

Let us look back for a moment and picture before our
mind's eye the dedicated young men and women of the
last war, what they said and did and what they looked

[lc]

18 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

like. They served a cause which claimed them body
and soul and the magic of Churchill's words inspired
them with a sense of mission.

Dictators take infinite trouble to ensure that the
young over whom they rule grow up to be docile sub-
jects. We schoolmasters have a right to plead with the
responsible statesmen of the free world that they should
do everything in their power to encourage active
citizenship in our young people. But it is futile to
hope that we can transmit a sense of urgency to our
political leaders unless our appeal is supported by a
potentially powerful agency in public life.

I find it natural to look to the Christian Churches for
such support. Could the Churches—Protestant and
Roman Catholic—go into combined operations to set
up a watchtower? In this country, to begin with?
Could they regard it as their responsibility to release a
wave of popular feeling which would stir statesmen into
action?

The voice of the mob may be the voice of the devil,
but I am convinced that the voice of an enlightened
people is the voice of God. Who shall enlighten them?
A watchtower manned by independent men and
women, historians, lawyers, scientists, theologians.
The task of this watchtower would be to penetrate to
the truth with patience and tenacity and to speak it
'without economy' in order to plant certain facts of
recent and contemporary happenings in the public
mind; facts which have set the human race on the
way to disaster, unless—perhaps at the eleventh hour
—we retrace our steps; such facts to be planted so
firmly that self-deception cannot uproot them. I am
setting down some questions to which answers may be
available in learned papers, but which remain un-
answered for ordinary citizens:

[L]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 19

Was Japan's readiness for unconditional or for conditional surrender carefully explored before Hiroshima?

Is it not true that responsible statesmen were unaware that radiation injury would cause slow torture in survivors?

What were the recognized laws of war before 1939 and even in World War II before Hiroshima?

Does Britain's practice in war, while not free from blemishes, not show a greater respect for the rule of law than the record of the other nations?

Is it not therefore Britain's responsibility to take the initiative in order to bring about a revision of international agreements such as would clearly and precisely establish the essential rules of warfare, thereby removing that nebulousness which constitutes an unfair temptation for General Staffs?

Is it not a fallacy to believe that passions in wartime are irresistible? Did there not occur again and again acts of individuals inspired by the Samaritan spirit in revolt against what has been called the 'Moratorium of the Sermon of the Mount'? (I am thinking of the Jewish Captain in the British Army who saved a German airman from drowning. I remember the Commander of a German submarine who ran fatal risks to save women and children he had taken on board.)

Is it really true that in the Congo the murder of two innocent children was filmed by an Italian photographer—the mercenary waiting, not firing the shots which killed until the film operator signalled that he was ready?

Is the photograph published in the British press really genuine depicting the torture of a Vietcong captive by the South Vietnamese who are the allies of our allies?

There are many other questions which disturb our

[lc]

20 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

peace of mind. A watchtower inspired by the Christian purpose of life, sounding the alarm with no uncertain voice, would rekindle faith and hope in many young people who today no longer believe that our sacred heritage is still a power in the land.

I have so far mainly dealt with young people who care deeply. They are indeed important because their example could set a fashion of conduct. But what about all those who 'could not care less'? They will not be accessible to enlightenment until the basic human qualities are restored which have so often wilted in their adolescence.

Do not let us blame the lawless and the listless, or the cantankerous; let us blame the 'sour pasture' which has reared them. I have indicated that schools, and I add further education, could clean up this pasture for the young—but that can only happen if the sickness inherent in present-day civilization is recognized in all its gravity. A cure will not be attempted in earnest as long as the illness in need of the cure is denied as such.

I mention six declines which surround and influence us all, young and old:

> There is the decline of physical fitness due to the modern methods of locomotion. There is the decline of skill and care due to the weakened tradition of craftmanship. There is the decline of initiative due to the widespread disease of spectatoritis. There is the decline of self-discipline due to the ever-present availability of tranquillizers and stimulants. There is a decline of memory and imagination due to the confused restlessness of modern life. There is the decline—the worst—of compassion, which William Temple called 'spiritual death'.

I will give you some examples. Take the decline of self-discipline; you will not believe it, but I know of a

[L]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 21

mother who sent her boy to a boarding school with
pills against home sickness! I will give you another
example. A progressive educator severely cross-
examined me and asked me one day: 'Do your boys at
Gordonstoun enjoy jumping, running and throwing?'
I said: 'Do you enjoy brushing your teeth, sir?' He
said: 'I don't enjoy it and I don't do it.' Or take
carelessness and the philosophy of slapdash which
encourages it. I remember a boy at Gordonstoun who
produced a very shoddy piece of work. I said:
'Aren't you ashamed of yourself?' He looked at me
radiantly and said, 'It's the genius of the British race
to muddle through.' And in his innermost heart he
believed he contributed to the genius of the race!

I will now indicate the decline of compassion. When
I was in New York last year I found thoughtful men
and women deeply concerned and deeply ashamed
about an event which had taken place at an apartment
house in a respectable part of the city. A girl was
murdered just outside this house, in which she lived.
It took the murderer thirty-five minutes to complete
the job. He went away twice, frightened by the
screams of the girl, probably expecting that somebody
would come to her help. Thirty-eight witnesses looked
down from their comfortable apartment rooms and
did nothing, not even call the police. They called the
police two minutes after the girl was dead. The
police arrived within a few minutes. When they were
cross-examined by the police, by lawyers, by social
workers, they all gave one answer: 'We did not want
to become involved.' I flattered myself at the time
that this could not happen in Britain, but when I came
back I read a leading article in *The Times* on the 38
witnesses, ending with the question: 'Could it happen
here?' Then I went to Germany, where I visited an

[L.C.]

22 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

old friend. His daughter had just been attacked by a
hooligan in a University town. Nothing serious
happened. The hooligan had been chased away. The
girl lay on the ground, shocked, and asked a passer-by,
would he telephone for a taxi? The man said, 'Do it
yourself.'

We are in the Western World confronted by a pro-
gressive inhumanity of the societies in which we live.
But there is a resistance movement in progress which
has welled up from many independent sources. Healing
forces have been set in motion everywhere—also
behind the Iron Curtain.

I am thinking of the Surf Life Savers of Australia
who have saved one hundred and thirty thousand lives
since 1910. I point to their disciples in Cornwall and
Devon. I mention the National Ski-Patrol in the
U.S.A., all volunteers who use their weekends in the
winter to be on duty in the hills, magnificently trained
by the American Red Cross. In this country mountain
rescue teams are doing splendid work, often under the
guidance of the Royal Air Force. We must not forget
the devoted young men and women who are enlisted
by the British Red Cross and by the St. John's Ambulance
Brigade. I am also thinking of good Samaritans
in Russia like the mountaineers who were such a help
to Sir John Hunt's party when climbing in the Caucasus.
I naturally have in mind the four rescue services at
Gordonstoun. I will always remember how on stormy
nights our watchers were on duty in our coastguard
tower, looking into the darkness 'lest a vessel in
distress burns an inefficient flare'.

Let me tell you of a conversation which I once had
with William Temple when he was Archbishop of York.
In the thirties I had designed a pledge for our watchers.
It ran like this: 'I promise to serve Hopeman village

[1c]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 23

and this district, through them my king and country,
and Christ through all.' I asked Dr. Temple's advice
on this wording. He gave me an astonishing answer:
'Can't you leave Christ out?' He added in effect:
'You see I am not only interested in the mission to the
Christians but also in the mission to the heathens.'
And then he added: 'Samaritan service is a source of
the Revelation.'

This conversation greatly influenced my work. I am
certain today that the Archbishop was right. He who
drills and labours, accepts hardships, boredom and
dangers, all for the sake of helping his brother in peril
and distress, discovers God's purpose in his inner life.
'The Unloving do not know God.'

I have mentioned voluntary bodies trained for dramatic rescue. We should take equally seriously those epic labours of love which are undertaken by young people: helping old people, the spastics, the blind, the deaf, helping in hospitals, helping to preserve the treasures of nature.

I mention Alec Dickson's Community Service and
the great work done by Voluntary Service Overseas
which he founded. I draw attention to Anthony
Steen's 'Task Force 64' which has enlisted thousands
of young people to help the old and lonely.

Social service is increasingly encouraged and organized through many day schools. Dedicated schoolmasters, often sacrificing their spare time, are guiding volunteers, girls and boys, in activities of real use to people in need of help. But on the whole the timetable both of teachers and pupils has not been adequately adjusted so as to put sufficient strength and time at the disposal of these activities. Many schools are groping towards a structure of the day's work which would transform them into day-boarding schools

[LC]

24 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

and enable them to do what the Newsom Report has
challenged them to do; namely, establish leisure
guidance as part of education. Day-boarding schools
would keep boys and girls till after high tea. They
could transmit all the benefits of a residential com-
munity without the disadvantages of isolation.

I repeat, a healthy development has been started in
this direction. Progress will be steady but slow. In
the meantime the declines are advancing at an alarm-
ing rate. Will they win the race, or the healing forces
which have been set in motion? I would have given a
pessimistic answer until two years ago. But in May
1963 there took place an event which has given me
great hope. The Royal College of Surgeons held a
Convention on accident prevention and life saving.
Eminent doctors had been alarmed by deaths from
exposure, which had occurred during adventurous
pursuits, and they were deeply conscious of the revolu-
tionary change which has taken place in the attitude
of the medical profession to the rôle of the layman.
This was due to the rediscovered expired air method of
resuscitation, originally introduced by the prophet
Elijah, and to the closed cardiac massage which has
been developed in the United States and which has
already saved many lives.

At this convention there were three highlights which
were of special interest to me and which I would like
to mention:

A distinguished doctor from Norway, where they
teach the expired air method in elementary schools,
created quite a sensation when he said: 'Lifesaving
is the business of the layman; the less serious things
we can leave to the doctors.'

Twelve apprentices of the Army Medical School,
all under eighteen, demonstrated on a life-size model

[L.C.]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 25

the methods of resuscitation they had learned. The doctors present were deeply impressed. One very distinguished surgeon said to me: 'I wish all young doctors would be as competent as these boys.'

The Duke of Edinburgh pleaded in a moving speech that Rescue and Relief Organizations should make use of teenagers, girls and boys, and trust their competence and dedication if they are well trained. He said that hospital beds and casualty departments were certainly essential—likewise cemeteries. He then stressed the vital necessity of correct action taken promptly on the spot. He ended by expressing the hope that the Convention would rouse a conscience for safety and bring the thoughtless and callous into deserved contempt.

For us schoolmasters a threefold call went out from this Convention:

* A call to schools to give training in first aid and for the Bronze Medallion of the Royal Life Saving Society a place of honour in the timetable;

* A call to Rescue and Relief Organizations to open welcoming gates to adolescents;

* A call to the young of the free world to help in the fight against unnecessary death and suffering.

As a result of this Convention a medical commission has been set up under the eminent surgeon, Norman Capener, which will advise on accident prevention and accident control in the home, in industry, on the roads, in adventurous pursuits by water and by land. There will be close co-operation with non-medical experts on training, equipment and the limits of endurance of different age groups.

All who are interested in Service by Youth would now welcome a conference of Relief and Rescue Organizations to discuss under medical guidance the aptitude

[L.C.]

26 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

and the readiness of adolescents for a demanding active
service and to consider how to enlist such readiness in
the common interest and in the interest of the young.

Is it too much to hope that a loosely federated Corps
of Helpers will be called into life? This Corps would
have many and various branches from traffic police
and helpers of the disabled to fire service and surf life-
savers. It would be a Corps of adults, but admitting
well-trained volunteers from the age of sixteen, and
prepared to use them in earnest once they have passed
certain basic tests and special proficiency tests. The
basic tests would be tests of physical fitness and of
competence in first aid and swimming (including life-
saving). The proficiency tests would vary in accord-
ance with the skill or technique demanded by the
requirements of the particular organization the young
volunteer wants to join. Special concessions should
be made to physically handicapped volunteers; they
have often developed a remarkable 'power to over-
come' through the very challenge they have accepted
in their daily lives—the challenge of their disability.

I don't expect that volunteers would come forward *en masse*—at least not at first—but a minority would respond. We need conspicuous examples which will inspire others to do likewise. 'Aristocracy,' as a Norwegian democrat said, 'is the salt wherewith democracy should be salted.' He did not think of the aristocracy of birth or social position. We need an 'Aristocracy of Service'. In a democratic society you can only accelerate developments by example.

The Atlantic College at St. Donat's, not far from
Swansea, is now in its third year. I hope that the
demonstration which has taken place there will carry
conviction. This is to be the first of six Atlantic
Colleges, the other five to be established on the Conti-

[L.C.]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 27

nent and in America. One hopes for a Girls' College in this country sooner or later.

This sixth form College at St. Donat's recruits the majority of boys irrespective of the financial position of their parents. Nobody is admitted who is not a promising candidate for University entrance. They come at the age of sixteen or seventeen and stay for two years. Academic standards are high and they work very hard. Games are played for fun, but have been dethroned as the dominant leisure activity. Training for rescue has taken their place.

All boys acquire competence in first aid and practically all gain the Bronze Medallion of the Royal Life Saving Society. In addition, everyone will master a skill which qualifies him to join one of four Rescue Services. These Services operate from St. Donat's. Ten miles of this dangerous coast are entrusted to them. They are on duty at weekends during the 'drowning season'. These Rescue Services consist of the Surf Life Savers, who are trained on the Australian pattern; the Surfboats, which can travel at 20 knots an hour; the Canoe Life Guards who patrol outside the surf; and the Cliff Ladder Party which operates with a crane developed by the biology master.

The headmaster, Admiral Hoare, while at the Admiralty, worked for four years for the London Federation of Boys' Clubs. He inspired hundreds of boys to build their own canoes and he started a Canoe Lifeguard Corps to be on duty at danger spots. He regards it as his mission in life to encourage in the art of life saving that meticulous care which is generally devoted to the art of war. The facilities and the instructors of the College are put at the disposal of young people from the district, even in term time. In the holidays short courses will be run for teachers and

[L.C.]

28 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

youth leaders who want to study the techniques of
rescue training developed at St. Donat's.

Reverence for human life and human dignity permeates the community life at St. Donat's. At present there are 156 boys coming from twenty different nations. Many of them will go out into the world, having shed national prejudices and having learned the important lesson that resolute humanity is the true bond of free people and should be the spiritual basis of the Western Alliances.

One day I hope boys will come from behind the Iron Curtain to attend this college—there is spiritual unrest among the youth of Russia and of the satellite states ever since Kruschev admitted in 1956 that massacre and torture were part of the system he served. Many young people look westward with hope and with distrust and ask a question which will make us blush: 'Are you in earnest about the ideals you profess?' Who shall give an answer? Young men and women who render hard and willing service to their fellow men, in danger and in need.

I should like to see two inscriptions engraved on the wall of the beautiful library in St. Donat's Castle containing words which were written by two great Europeans and which should not fade from our memory.

The first quotation comes from Winston Churchill's *World Crisis*:

> 'May there arise from the very fires of conflict the reconciliation of the combatants which will unite their genius and secure for each of them in safety and freedom a share in rebuilding the glory of Europe.'

The second quotation is taken from George Trevelyan's *Garibaldi*:

[LC]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 29

‘Two passions are not likely to die out of the world; the love of country and the love of freedom—but they can be kept pure by one thing which can tame yet not weaken them: tender love for all mankind.’

## POSTSCRIPT

IN THIS address I have pleaded for a defence policy which is clear and clean and will restore the faith of right-minded young people in the justice of our cause.

I have since been told that to say in advance we will never be the first to use atomic weapons might well tempt a potential aggressor to break the peace. The geographical realities make it impossible for the West to hope to meet an all-out conventional attack with a conventional resistance which would have a chance of victory, so the technical experts tell me.

My answer is this: I believe that the Russians would refrain from an aggression if they knew that they would encounter a conventional resistance so strong that only an all-out effort on their part could break it. In other words, I agree with those observers of the Russian scene who believe that the Russians do not want an all-out war. The question arises, could the Western allies become manifestly ready for a conventional resistance which would make the aggressor feel that victory could be achieved only at a price he is not prepared to pay? Such readiness is not there now. Can it be built up?

Are the Western nations prepared to accept the necessary sacrifices? Are their resources in men and material adequate to the task? Is scientific and technological inventiveness available to improve our mobility and the quality of our conventional armaments?

[lc]

30 THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

These questions will only be answered once the goal of a clean defence policy is accepted in all sincerity. Only then will the material and spiritual resources of the free nations be mobilized to achieve this end. This will not happen until the responsible planners of our strategy and also the independent experts engaged in strategic studies have realised that the morale of our people is low at present and that it can be restored—and that until it is restored every defence policy is built on quicksand.

Supposing the manifest conventional readiness is achieved in the not too distant future and that then, and only then, the declaration is made that we will never be the first to use atomic weapons: is there not the risk that the Russians would then decide to make the all-out conventional effort which would give them victory? I admit that there is this risk. We can reduce it, but not remove it, by a foreign policy which dispels legitimate Russian fears and regains the trust of mankind. Russia is not impervious to world opinion; but still the risk would remain.

All I claim is that it is not as great as the other risk which is involved in a defence policy relying on the first use of atomic weapons.

The aggressor carefully studies our home fronts. Sooner or later he may well come to the conclusion that throughout the Western World the will to resist is weakening and that the very reliance on the use of atomic weapons will help to condition the Western Powers for another Munich. If we accept the thesis that the Russians would be deterred by the prospect of an atomic war, we cannot escape the conclusion that the Western Powers would go to almost any length to avoid a war which is planned as an atomic war.

As yet, the Russians do not regard the threat that we

[LC]

THE YOUNG AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR 31

will use atomic weapons against a purely conventional
attack as an empty threat, but how long will this
deterrent carry conviction? The time may come
when, after having diagnosed further signs of dis-
integration on our home fronts, the Russians will decide
to undertake the military promenade for which re-
hearsals have already taken place. They would under-
take it in the hope that it will not be resisted. If this
hope is justified, then Europe is doomed to enslave-
ment. If, on the other hand, the Russians misread
the temper of the West, as they well may, and encounter
an unexpected serious resistance—at first only con-
ventional—they are then likely to be the first to use
atomic weapons in order to forestall the first atomic
strike of the Allies, which is threatened by our official
defence policy.

I sum up like this:

The official defence policy may in the long run deter
the defenders more than the aggressor—it may even
encourage him and land us in the dilemma of surrender
or atomic disaster. The defence policy which demands
a manifest readiness for a formidable conventional
defence as the basis for a declaration: ‘We will never
be the first to use atomic weapons’ is certainly also
fraught with considerable danger, but I believe the risk
is not as great as the one involved in the present defence
policy.

The certainty of the punishment is more important
than its frightfulness. The threat of a resolute con-
ventional resistance, if backed by impressive prepared-
ness, would be believed. The renouncement of a first
atomic strike could lead to disarmament negotiations
with Russia of far-reaching consequences, and bring
about a rapprochement which may safeguard the peace
of the world.

[LC]

UNITARIAN PUBLICATIONS

ESSAYS IN UNITARIAN THEOLOGY
edited by Kenneth Twinn. 8s. 6d.

THE BELIEFS OF A UNITARIAN
by Alfred Hall. 5s.

*Essex Hall Lectures*

1964. SCIENTISTS' RESPONSIBILITY IN THE ATOMIC AGE, by J. Rotblat. 2s. 6d.

1955. MEN, CHANCE AND HISTORY, by Alan Bullock. 2s.

1959. MASS COMMUNICATIONS AND THE SPIRIT OF MAN, by C. O. Rhodes. 2s.

1961. ALIENATION AND FELLOWSHIP, by D. Russell Davis. 2s.

A full list of the Essex Hall Lectures can be obtained from

THE LINDSEY PRESS,
1-6 Essex Street, Strand,
London, W.C.2

*Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press), Ltd.,*
*Bungay, Suffolk*