peace pledge union

7/28/2019 Peace Pledge Union

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/peace-pledge-union 1/14

British Pacifists and Appeasement: The Peace Pledge UnionAuthor(s): David C. LukowitzSource: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 115-127Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260271 .

Accessed: 10/06/2013 10:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of

Contemporary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.167.166.43 on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:28:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/260271?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/260271?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd



British Pacifists and

Appeasement:The Peace Pledge Union

David C. Lukowitz

Studies of British foreign policy during the 1930s reflect the

deep concern felt in the country about the prospects for

peace. Anti-war books and plays were very much in vogue,and pacifist activity was intense and widespread: parades,

petitions, boycotts, demonstrations, pamphleteering and

speech-making were all employed to awaken people to the

evils of war. Numerous peace organizations flourished; largein numbers and

endowed with ample funds, they took theircase to the public with messianic zeal, often employingpropaganda techniques that today would elicit the admira-tion of a Madison Avenue executive. Over fifty such organiza-tions were said to have existed in Britain, and it is thereforenot surprising that the popularity

- or passive acceptance -

of the Government's appeasement policy is often explained,at least in part, in terms of this pacifist strength and activity.

Sometimes the term pacifist is used for people who pro-foundly desired peace, who were constantly exploring newideas and channels in order to reconstruct international rela-tions on a less chaotic and more idealistic basis, but who inthe last resort were willing to accept war (or military sanc-tions, to use the contemporary euphemism) in order to

preserve certain cherished principles. The League of NationsUnion is a good example of a society that held such views,and perhaps it might be more accurate to describe this atti-

tude as one of 'peace sentiment' or 'anti-war feeling' ratherthan pacifist. At other times the term is applied to individualswho were opposed to war under any circumstances, usuallyon grounds of religious or ethical principle, and it is these

people for whom the label is appropriate.

115







CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

Of all the pacifist organizations that existed during the

thirties,the

largestand best

known was the Peace PledgeUnion. Its founder was an Anglican priest, the Rev. Dick

Sheppard, at the time probably one of the best known and

best loved men in Britain. Paradoxes abound in his life. He

became a world famous pacifist, yet was a good shot with a

gun and had volunteered for military service in the Boer War.

He worked among the poor in London's East End, but felt no

embarrassment in going to Bond Street for his haircuts and to

Mayfair for his clothes. His health was poor throughout most

of his life, and he also had a slight limp due to a carriageaccident in his youth; yet he had immense mental and phys-ical energy. By no means an intellectual, he still managed to

attract internationally known poets, novelists, and philoso-

phers to his movement. A source of friendship and consola-

tion to innumerable people, he was to see his own marriageflounder and break up. By the standards of most men's lives,

Sheppard would be judged successful, yet there seems little

doubt that in his final years he saw himself as a failure.1On 16 October 1934, his 'Peace Letter' appeared in the

British press, surely one of the most famous letters-to-the-

editor in history. In it he asked other men who agreed with

his resolve never to support another war to send him a post-card stating this agreement. The response was tremendous,

despite the fact that only three national dailies published the

letter. Within a few days a postal van had to be used to

deliverreplies.

Twelve months later some80,000

cards had

been received, and they were still coming in at the rate of

400 a day.2 Encouraged by these results, Sheppard organizedthe Peace Pledge Union, which he hoped would direct this

vague but powerful expression of pacifism into more effec-

tive channels. The organization held its first meeting on 22

May 1936, and soon made its presence felt.

It is hard to exaggerate the dynamic quality that charac-

terized this organization in its early years, and the sense of

enthusiasm and optimism it generated. In June 1936,

membership was opened to women, and although the initial

R Ellis Roberts, H.R.L. Sheppard: Life and Letters (London 1942), passim2 Laurence Houseman, ed., What Can WeBelieve? (London 1939), 6.

116







BRITISH PACIFISTS AND APPEASEMENT:

response was good - some 13,000 joined in the last four

months of that year-

they never equalled the number ofmen. Nevertheless, membership grew steadily and totalled

almost 130,000 by the outbreak of war in 1939. To be more

effective, the membership was divided into local groups. In

October 1936 the groups numbered 183; two months later

the figure surpassed 300; by early March 1937 it had risen to

over 500; more than 1,150 groups were theoretically in

existence when war came.3In its initial stage the PPU was run by Sheppard, assisted

by a board of sponsors who gave advice and direction to themovement. It was a simple but effective arrangement, but as

the movement spread the sponsors appointed an Executive

Committee to meet more frequently, almost weekly, and

business was dispatched more efficiently. Spacious quarterswere secured in Regent Street, and at the height of its

activity PPU headquarters staff, including part-time and

volunteer help, numbered 30 to 40 people. Later, new

arrangements were adopted for the election of officers, givinga more democratic character to the movement.

Illustrious names from the artistic, academic and politicalworld joined the organization. Bertrand Russell, Aldous

Huxley, Rose Macaulay, Storm Jameson, Vera Brittain, Max

Plowman, and John Middleton Murry were active as

sponsors. Several M.P.s were members, including George

Lansbury and Lord Ponsonby, former Leaders of the Labour

Partyin the House of Commons and House of Lords

respec-tively. Well known and highly respected clergymen joined,such as Donald (now Lord) Soper, Charles Raven, and StuartMorris. In addition, many well known people (Cyril Joad,Ethel Mannin, George Bernard Shaw and Virginia Woolf),while not members, spoke favourably of the PPU and occa-

sionally contributed articles and pamphlets to help its cause.

THE ORGANIZATION TOOK ITS CASE to the public by a

variety of methods. It soon acquired its own weekly paper,Peace News, which, starting from humble beginnings,expanded from eight pages to twelve, built up its circulation

3 Minutes: Sponsors Meeting, 15 September 1937. Statistics for groups areculled from the columns of Peace News.

117








to 22,000, and was placed as a result of an intensive cam-

paignin over

400 libraries across the country.4 In addition toPeace News, the case for pacifism was carried to the publicby means of leaflets and pamphlets, some groups being veryenergetic in this respect. In Chester, 20,000 leaflets werehanded out within a four day period to crowds attending a

military tattoo. The Leeds Anti-Tattoo Committee was parti-cularly active, distributing over 100,000 leaflets during the

summer of 1937. Nor was propaganda limited to these con-

ventional methods. In the autumn of 1937 the Union beganto use films, and set up a lending scheme which included a

projector, sound equipment, and a small van.

Meetings were well organized and well attended. InNovember 1936 a series of big rallies was held in Glasgow,Birmingham and London. At Birmingham, 4,000 filled theTown Hall and overflowed into two other meetings; in

London the Albert Hall was the scene of a mass meeting and

Kensington Town Hall had to be used to hold the overflow.

Whenever the national leaders went into the provinces, largeaudiences greeted them, especially when Sheppard was

among the speakers. Outdoor meetings also attracted largeaudiences, especially those at Tower Hill addressed byDonald Soper. (Soper knew by sight the police officer

assigned to jot down his remarks, and used to pause while

speaking and solicitously inquire whether he was going too

fast for the officer to take proper notes.) Demonstrations

wereorganized

forappropriate occasions,

such as the annual

RAF air display.Of course all this activity and organization took money.

The first estimated budget was ?4,320, but this quickly

proved too conservative; the size of succeeding budgets grew,the last pre-war budget reviewed by the sponsors totalling?10,860. In addition the Union raised ?7,500 to purchase its

own building in Bloomsbury, an impressive sum in those

depression-ridden times.5

An examination of the minutes of the sponsors' meetingsand the Executive shows that they took their work seriously

4 Peace News Circulation Figures (on deposit at Peace News offices, London).5 Minutes: Sponsors Meeting, 14 October 1936, 8 March 1937, 16 April 1939;

Minutes: National Council, 26 June 1939.

118








but always in an amiable spirit, at least while Sheppard was

alive. In general, conservative policies were pursued; sugges-tions to affiliate to international organizations whose attitude

towards class war or military sanctions was suspect were

rejected. Despite intermittent rumblings from the rank and

file, the sponsors were reluctant to engage in political activityand declined to set up a pacifist party; in fact, they showed

little enthusiasm even for contesting a by-election. It was also

agreed to keep clear of schemes that bore little chance of

success and might have severe legal consequences, and for this

reason little sympathy was shown for a plan to refuse to payincome tax.6 The strength and soundness of the organizationwas proved by its ability to withstand the sudden and un-

expected death of Sheppard in October 1937. Not only did it

survive this tragedy, but actually continued to grow.In approaching international problems, the PPU was guided

more by a principle- the renunciation of war - than by any

specific policy. Indeed, on some issues members strongly dis-

agreed with one another. During the 1930s three major issueswere of paramount interest to the membership: the League of

Nations, the Spanish Civil War, and Hitler's Germany.

Hostility to the League was fairly widespread; it was

attacked in Peace News, which on one occasion called it 'a

whited sepulchre'; and many of the sponsors were harsh in

their criticism. Most of this opposition was directed againstthe policy of collective security, condemned as both immoral

and impractical. Immoral, because collective security wasseen as simply a euphemism for war; and impractical, becausein an age of aerial warfare and parochial-minded nation

states, no real cooperative defence based upon altruistic

principles was deemed possible. Even economic sanctionswere opposed on the grounds that they often entailed starva-

tion, and affected the innocent while the rich and the power-ful scarcely suffered.7

6 Minutes:Sponsors Meeting,

3September,

14October,

12 November1936;

5May, 14 July, 15 September, 27 October 1937; Minutes: Executive Committee,17, 24 February, 14, 22 April, 1 June 1937.

7 Aldous Huxley, An Encyclopaedia of Pacifism (London 1937); Sanctions

(London 1936); What Are You Going To Do About It? (London 1936); Stuart

Morris, Christianity and War(London 1936); Roy Walker, WhoStarves? A Discus-sion on Blockade (London 1940).

119








It should be emphasized that opposition to the League

meant opposition to the principle of coercion and not to theprinciple of international cooperation. There was much

support for an 'acceptable' League. This League would have

no coercive powers; instead it would uphold the principle of

cooperation, especially in regard to economic matters, and its

efforts would be directed exclusively to the prevention of

war and not to the punishment of an aggressor once war had

broken out. Pacifists emphasized the need to strengthen the

League's moral authority, arguing that if it could be cleared

of the charge that it cloaked the sinister ambitions of the

Anglo-French bloc and European colonialism, then its

decrees would command greater respect and compliance from

all the nations of the world.8

An issue that generated considerably more emotion than

the League was the Spanish Civil War. Since most pacifists

rejected civil and class war as strongly as they did inter-

national conflict, it is not surprising that the PPU opposed

military involvement in Spain. However, this position was notreached without a good deal of moral anguish, for manymembers saw the issue as one between the forces of Lightand Darkness. Pacifists tended to identify with the Madrid

Government, which they regarded as democratic, republicanin form, liberal or even socialist in policy, representing the

aspirations of oppressed workers and land-hungry peasants,but there was fairly general agreement that the Union should

not take sides.Pamphlets

werepublished against militaryinvolvement; Peace News ran editorials against the war; and

Lord Ponsonby, a sponsor, came right out and supportedNeville Chamberlain's policy of non-intervention. To counter-

act any pro-Republican sentiment, the members were occa-

sionally warned that even if the Republicans won a military

victory, it would be Force and not Justice that was the victor,

and that an imposed peace by either side would be harmful

to the future.9

It is uncertain whether this attitude caused any defectionsfrom the PPU. Certainly, no major personalities defected;

8Huxley, Encyclopaedia, 64; Sanctions, 4; Morris, Christianity and War,5.

9 Huxley, Encyclopaedia, 25-26; PPU, Pacifism and Civil War London 1936);Alex Wood, ChristianPacifism and Rearmament (London 1937).

120








there was little support for military intervention, and

membership grew steadilywhile the war continued.

To otherpeace societies with a more socialist outlook, Spain was the

epitome of the clash between Right and Left, and it wasdifficult for them to stand on the side-lines. The PPU, with aless pronounced socialist and anti-imperialist outlook, wasless vulnerable to the attractions of class warfare.

However, both the League and Spain were secondary to

the problem of Nazi Germany. Most of the sponsors had noillusions about Nazism and the threat it presented, althoughthere was a discernible desire in certain quarters of the PPUto understand and at times to sympathize strongly with someof the aims of German foreign policy. Lansbury, for example,certainly put too much trust in Hitler and his intentions, but

admittedly men like him were the exception.'0 More repre-sentative were those who believed that, although Hitler andhis regime were distasteful, justice had still to be done to theGerman people. It was generally felt that Versailles was an

iniquitous treaty which had had disastrous consequences forGermany. Many pacifists saw that country as a 'Have-Not'

power which should be given colonies or at least mandates.

Indeed, some PPU literature reflected a willingness to go to

extraordinary lengths to redress Germany's alleged griev-ances. In 1938 the Union published a pamphlet by Clive Bellin which he stated that 'I see no reason why Germany shouldnot have colonies and hegemony too', and went on to saythat 'we welcome the idea of a United States of

Europe,even

though that Europe be policed by Germans'. Another pamph-let published called upon Britain 'to win German friendshipby a surrender of the African territories taken from

Germany.''lEven after Hitler's designs upon central and eastern Europe

became more blatant, there was still much sympathy for

Germany's position. Most of this pro-German, as distinctfrom pro-Nazi, sentiment was found in the columns of Peace

10George Lansbury, My Pilgrimage For Peace (New York 1938), 120-21.

1 Clive Bell, WarMongers, 14. Bell was not a member of the PPU, but was akind of satellite figure who sympathized with some of the views of British paci-fists and counted them among his friends;George Glasgow,The War As Before? 12.

121








News, whose editor at this time was Humphrey Moore. What-

ever its limitations, Peace News was not dull. Famousnovelists and philosophers and politicians contributed regu-

larly, but occasionally articles of questionable taste and value

were published; at least two of them were, if not anti-semitic,

strikingly unsympathetic about the fate of European

Jewry. 12

The Czech crisis, of course, dominated the diplomaticscene in the summer and autumn of 1938, and war seemed

imminent. The Union threw its weight in the scales for peace,but at the same time Peace News gave fairly strong support to

Germany's case. In August and September it ran a series of

articles disparaging the Czech people and state, while the

anonymous author of the weekly column on 'Public Affairs'

consistently took a strong line against the Czechs. He main-

tained that the German Government had a 'moral case', that

the boundaries of Czechoslovakia were unjust, and that the

country had ignored its minority problem; he praised Hitler's

work for peace and asked for 'some appreciation ofGermany's contribution'. The editorial columns were more

restrained, expressing the hope that an honourable treaty or a

fair plebiscite would resolve the crisis. There was little

support for the argument that Czechoslovakia had perhapsdone a pretty good job in trying to create a democratic state

and that she was being bullied by a tyrant who showed

precious little concern for minorities within his own country.

ONCE THE MUNICH SETTLEMENT was reached, there was

relief in the PPU as there was throughout Britain. Peace News

(8 October 1938) expressed 'unfeigned thankfulness' that the

method of negotiation was preferred to the method of mass

murder, and on the same day its 'Public Affairs' column

warned its readers that sympathy for Czechoslovakia should

not blind people to the fact that 'an act of justice had been

performed'and that the Sudeten Germans 'had their traditions

12 One of the articles (3 March 1939) was written by Richard Gregg, a res-

pected pacifist whose book, The Power of Non-violence, was regarded as some-

thing of a classic by pacifists through the world. The other (4 August 1939) was

written by Ethel Mannin.

122








of fighting for freedom' too. A more judicious statement

in the same issue came from StuartMorris,

then Chairman

of the PPU, who recognized the immense sacrifice made

by the Czechs and called upon other countries to makesimilar sacrifices for peace. Some members saw Munich as an

honourable settlement reflecting the people's will to peace.Lord Ponsonby, for example, claimed that war had been

avoided 'because each statesman knew that he was represent-

ing the heartfelt and desperate abhorrence of war in the

people of his own country and of other countries'.

But in Peace News, some writers showed not only anabsence of any regrets over Munich, but a discernible callous-

ness towards the fate of the Czechs. One of them calledCzechoslovakia a 'magpie state' and President Benes a pro-crastinator (22 October). Wilfred Wellock, a sponsor, while

expressing sympathy for the Czechs, wondered whether it

was a mistake to have ever formed Czechoslovakia (8October).

The year 1939 was certainly a gloomy one for pacifists.Poland was now the storm centre, but Peace News continuedto see the German point of view. On 7 April 1939,

Humphrey Moore wrote an editorial in which he accepted thethesis that Germany was once again being 'encircled' byhostile Powers. On 5 May another editorial sarcasticallyreferred to scares that were put about in the country 'withHitler as the villain of the piece'. The policies of Peace News

finallybrought

arejoinder

from an eminent novelist andformer sponsor, Rose Macaulay, who complained (19 May)that at times some pacifists gave 'an impression of partialityon this Nazi business, of condoning or minimizing cruelty'.She also remarked that 'Occasionally, when reading someletters in Peace News, I (and others) half think we have gothold of the Blackshirt by mistake.' In the following weeksletters to the editor showed that she was not alone.

However, this hardly affected the editorial direction of

Peace News. Sympathy for Germany's position on Polandwas expressed to some extent in the editorial columns, buteven more strongly in two columns called 'The Plain Man'and 'A Pacifist Commentary', which by and large took theview that the Poles were too aggressive in defending their

123








national sovereignty, that the disputed lands were probably

more Germanthan

Polish, and that there was a dangerthat

the Poles would drag Europe into a conflict over their paro-chial claims.13 There was no suggestion that perhaps the crisis

was largely due to the territorial ambitions of Hitler.

It was also at this time that the PPU was embroiled in a

controversy which would have been trivial if it had not poseda real threat to the cohesion of the movement. It arose from

the publication of a Peace Service Handbook in May 1939.

The Handbook, which sold something like 165,000 copies in

only a few weeks, suggested ways by which members could

help the cause of peace. In particular it contained the names

of several peace societies and also groups promoting goodwillbetween nations, along with their addresses and activities.

In July the Research Department of the Economic Leagueissued a memorandum, published in the Daily Telegraph,

asserting that the PPU was being used, consciously or uncon-

sciously, as a channel for Nazi propaganda. The controversy

centred on the charge that the Handbook in effect encour-aged readers to become acquainted with an allegedly pro-German organization, 'The Link', and that mention was also

made of the Anglo-German Review, a journal said to be

backed by Nazi funds. Stuart Morris wrote a letter to the

Daily Telegraph, pointing out that the Review was mentioned

only once, and that several organizations of differing outlook

were listed without being specifically endorsed. He emphatic-

ally rejected any chargethat the PPU was

pro-Nazior anti-

semitic. At this point the matter might have rested, but

unfortunately it was revived, this time by another daily, the

News Chronicle. On 11 August it printed an interview with

Stuart Morris, who was quoted as saying: 'I am all for giving a

great deal more away [to Hitler]. I don't think that Mr.

Chamberlain has really started yet on any serious appease-ment.' A special meeting of the PPU Executive was held the

following day. Morris told the Committee that he had been

seriously misrepresented, and moreover had made it clearthat he was speaking personally and not for the PPU. The

Committee agreed that Morris and Laurence Houseman

13 Peace News, 7, 14, 28 July, 25 August 1939.

124








should seek an interview with the editor of the News

Chronicle topersuade

him topublish

a lettercorrecting

the

impression given. It was also decided that no further edition

of the Peace Service Handbook should be issued, and that a

letter should be sent to group leaders dissociating the Union

from any connection with The Link.14 On 13 August a letter

from Morris was published in the News Chronicle in which he

asserted that the PPU had no official connection with The

Link, and that his organization neither supported the German

demand for colonies nor did it believe in buying peace at the

expense of smaller nations. However, he once again openedthe way for misunderstanding by stating that the Union was

willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order 'to meet

legitimate German needs', although he did not specify what

he believed these needs to be.

It should be emphasized that the allegations about The

Link were not red herrings. Max Plowman, an important

figure in the Union, believed that its purpose was to give

sympathy and support to the Nazi regime, while JohnBarclay, the national group organizer, contended that it

could not pass the test of wanting true friendship among all

peoples.15 Andrew Stewart, who was on the staff of Peace

News, warned those who treated the matter too lightly: 'Let

us make sure that we are not, out of excessive sympathy or

sheer obstinacy, involving ourselves fatally with a bodywhose ultimate aim is the very antithesis of our own.' (18

August).It would be unfair to place all the blame on the individuals

who innocently put the Handbook together, or on the

'wicked dailies' or a botched-up interview. Ordinarily, the

incident would not have reached serious dimensions, but bythis time there was some concern in the mind of the general

public as to whether pacifists were indeed too sympathetic to

the demands of the fascist governments. The PPU had

certainly been associated with pamphlets, editorials,

speeches, interviews and casual remarks which on occasion

14 Minutes: Executive Committee, 12 August 1939.15 Max Plowman, Bridge Into the Future (London 1944), 674; Peace News, 25

August 1939.

125








seemed to suggest a marked willingness to meet many of the

demands of German foreign policy. Consequently, when thepress was running unfavourable stories about pacifists, serious

people took these reports seriously. It was a major weakness

of the PPU that it seems to have been unable to convince the

general public that it had absolutely no illusions about Hitler

and Nazism, that it recognized the cynicism, the hatreds and

ambitions consuming the dictators, and that it was fullyaware that under the guise of 'just demands' and 'legitimate

grievances' the Nazis were working to establish hegemonyover Europe. The Link affair was the last major internal eventfor the PPU before the war. On 1 September the debate on

international problems was transferred to an entirelydifferent level.

IT WOULD BE EASY TO DRAW erroneous conclusions

from the above evidence, but it is nonsense to charge the PPU

with pro-Nazi sentiments. From the outset it emphasized that

its primary dedication was to world peace, to economicjustice, and to racial tolerance. Even ostensibly pro-Germanstatements were to some extent more an expression of a

desire to render justice to all nations, irrespective of their

domestic regimes, than of any particular sympathy for

Germany. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that there

was too much sympathy for the German position, often the

product of ignorance and superficial thinking. There was also

acomplete

failure tograsp

the nature of the Hitleriansystem;Germany's policies with regard to colonies, Austria,

Czechoslovakia, and Poland could not be dissociated from

the whole ruthless spirit and philosophy of the Nazi state. It

was hardly the moment either to advocate or to accept the

handing over of additional territories to the Third Reich. It is

understandable that some pacifists might prefer handing over

the Sudetenland, Danzig, the Polish Corridor, or other lands

to the Nazis on the grounds that such actions, while unfortu-

nate, were infinitely preferable to a general European war.But some writers in Peace News went further, claiming that

they were compatible with 'justice'.

Admittedly, these sentiments were entertained by only a

small section of the Union, but this was a vocal group, and

126








since it aroused little public criticism from either the leaders

or the rank andfile,

it oftengave

theimpression

ofspeakingfor the entire movement, which by and large held rational

and decent opinions in a world becoming increasingly irra-

tional and brutal. The cruel paradox was that for a brief time

two totally disparate ideologies, fascism and pacifism, found

for totally different reasons that their interests converged. It

was to the benefit of both the fascist dictators and British

pacifists to see an enfeebled League of Nations, a re-division

of territory at the expense of the smaller nations of central

Europe, delays in British rearmament, and the creation of aclimate of opinion conducive to accepting German hegemonyon the continent. History occasionally produces strange bed-

fellows, and few have been stranger than these.

127

peace pledge union

Documents