====
Anti-war essays, poems, short stories and literary excerpts
Roger Martin du Gard: Selections on war
====
Roger Martin du Gard
From Summer 1914 (1936)
Translated by Stuart Gilbert
“You and people like you,” Jacques cried, “it’s positively criminal the belief you have in your security! When at long last the middle class makes up its mind to see things as they are, it will be too late. Events are moving at breakneck speed. Read today’s Matin, the issue of July 19. It talks about the Caillaux trial. About the summer holidays, seaside hotels and the prices they are charging. But you’ll find as well in the editorial columns an article that wasn’t put in by accident, and begins with a phrase potent as an explosive: ‘If war should break out…’ That’s how things stand. The Western world is like a powder magazine. A spark let fly by chance would touch it off. And people like you go on talking about war in the tone of voice you used just now – as if you thought of war as just a word, a trivial word, and uttered it accordingly! When you refer to war, none of you thinks of the unprecedented slaughter, the millions of innocent victims it involves. Oh, if only your imagination could shake off its apathy just for a moment!…”
***
“Every government in Europe, whether it calls itself democratic or not, with its underhand diplomacy in which people have no say, is just a tool in the hands of those international money-grubbers! And if Europe’s been spared a general war during the last forty years, it’s only because it suits the financiers’ purposes to keep up a state of armed peace, in which nations are getting deeper and deeper into debt. But the moment it pays the big banks for a war to break out – well, you’ll see!”
***
“Isn’t it illogical, isn’t it preposterous, that in these days of democracy and universal franchise the power of declaring war should be left to a few men, a government? Jousselin says: ‘Nobody wants a war.’ Surely no government in any country should have the right to embark on a war – even a defensive war – against the will of the majority of its electors. When it’s a question of life and death for a nation, the least one can say is that the nation itself should be consulted. That ought to be a sine qua non.”
…
“There’s nothing Utopian in all that,” he added. “All that’s needed is for every nation to force its government to add a short amendment to its constitution. ‘Orders for a general mobilization shall not be passed, and no war shall be declared, unless and until a plebiscite has been held and a clear majority of 75 per cent has voted in favour of such measures.’ Think it over! That’s the only legal and practically certain way of putting an end to war. In times of peace – we’ve seen it in France – a man with jingoistic views may on occasion find a majority to vote for his election; there are always hotheads who delight in playing with fire. But if, when there’s talk of mobilization, that man was compelled to sound out the opinions of those who put him into power, he wouldn’t find anyone willing to confer on him the right of declaring war.”
***
“My father was an officer,” he went on. “He served in all the campaigns of the Second Empire. I was brought up on military history. Well, if you take the trouble to unravel the real causes of any recent war, you’re always struck by their non-necessity. It’s very interesting. Looking back at it in perspective, we always see that it could have been avoided – to all appearances, quite easily – if two or three statesmen had shown some common sense and a real wish for peace. And that’s not all. In most cases, it seems that each of the nations concerned let itself be stampeded into a state of mistrust and fear, both of them quite groundless and due to a misunderstanding of the true intentions of the adversary. It’s panic that nine times out of ten sets nations at each other’s throats.” He gave a short, crisp laugh that sounded like a cough. “Exactly like a pair of nervous imbeciles who meet each other in a lonely lane at night, get panicky, and end up by going for each other – because each one thinks he’s about to be attacked and prefers taking the offensive, with all its risks, to remaining in suspense. It’s comical, really. Just look at Europe now – hag-ridden by fear! Austria’s afraid of the Slavs and afraid of losing her prestige. Russia’s afraid of the Germans and afraid that, if she stays put, it will be taken as a sign of weakness. Germany’s afraid of a Cossack invasion, and of being ‘encircled.’ France is afraid of Germany’s armaments, and Germany is arming only because she’s afraid, in self-defence. And not one of them will make the least concession for the sake of peace, because they’re all afraid of seeming to be afraid.”
***
“In almost every European cabinet there are men who’re out for peace, but everywhere, too, just now there are others out for war. There’s not a single government that hasn’t found itself brought to bay by the alarming possibilities of the situation and isn’t thinking: ‘After all, it’s a gamble – and, who knows, a war may stand us in good stead!’ Yes, I assure you! Don’t you realize that every European nation has always some secret axe to grind, and if it gets involved in a world war, reckons on making something out of it?”
“Surely that’s not true of us?”
“Even the most pacifist-minded of our leaders are already saying to themselves: ‘After all, perhaps this is a chance of settling Germany’s hash and getting back Alsace and Lorraine.’ Germany feels herself ‘encircled’ and wants to break through the ring; England to destroy the German fleet and filch their colonies and commerce from the Germans. Yes, each country is looking beyond the catastrophe – which it still hopes to avert – and already reckoning up what it stands to gain, if a war breaks.”
Source