army

Went to the office of the [New Statesman][1] to see what line they are taking about home defence. C.[2], who is now in reality the big noise there, was rather against the “arm the people” line and said that its dangers outweighed its possible advantages[3]. If a German invading force finds civilians armed it may commit such barbarities as will cow the people altogether and make everyone anxious to surrender. He said it was dangerous to count on ordinary people being courageous and instanced the case of some riot in Glasgow when a tank was driven round the town and everyone fled in the most cowardly way. The circumstances were different, however, because the people in that case were unarmed and, as always in internal strife, conscious of fighting with ropes round their necks… C. said that he thought Churchill, though a good man up to a point, was incapable of doing the necessary thing and turning this into a revolutionary war, and for that reason Chamberlain and Co. hesitated to bring the whole nation into the struggle. I don’t of course think Churchill sees it in quite the same colours as we do, but I don’t think he would jib at any step (e.g. equalisation of incomes, independence for India) which he thought necessary for winning the war. Of course it’s possible that today’s secret session may achieve enough to get Chamberlain and Co. out for good. I asked C. what hope he thought there was of this, and he said none at all. But I remember that the day the British began to evacuate Namsos[4] I asked Bevan and Strauss[5], who had just come from the House, what hope there was of this business unseating Chamberlain, and they also said none at all. Yet a week or so later the new government was formed[6].

Read the rest of this entry »