Concentration Camps
There may be some people who still believe, in face of the mounting evidence, that the last war was fought to defend democracy and freedom. If so, they might care to ponder these facts. In 1945 the Allies (Britain, the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., and so on) won the Second World War—at the cost of much sacrifice and suffering on the part of their respective working classes. They had the world at their feet. If they had really fought the war for freedom, then freedom would have been assured for all the worlds people, throughout the foreseeable future.
And what in fact happened? A prominent French medical expert. Professor Charles Richet of' Paris, gave some figures on April 29th in a speech at an Oslo conference organised by the World Veterans Federation. In 1945, he said, there were twelve million people in concentration camps throughout the world. But what about I960—after fifteen years in which the victorious Allies, who fought for “freedom," have in effect ruled the world between them? According to Professor Richet's estimate, there are now more than twice as many people in concentration camps as there were in 1945: twenty-live millions of them. These twenty-live million people might have their own opinion on the question of whether the Allies really fought to make the world safe for freedom.
Greatly put out
To turn to some of those at the other end of society, there were reports of annoyance in Buckingham Palace circles when, a week before Princess Margaret's wedding, a New York paper published what was alleged to be a sketch of the wedding dress. This led to some reminiscence in the papers about previous occasions when this had happened. The Observer (1/5/10) said:
In 1937 a morning newspaper printed a detailed description of a Hartnell dress that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (then the Queen) was to wear the same evening at a State banquet in honour of King Carol of Rumania. It was made of pearl grey satin and embroidered with silver, pearls and amethysts.King George VI was greatly put out the dress was thrown away and Mr. Hartnell had to apologise.
Some people are fond of saying that the working class is now prosperous. If the workers are now prosperous, what adjective must be used to describe people who can afford to throw away a dress embroidered with silver, pearls and amethysts simply because a picture of it has appeared in a newspaper?
Mercenaries
Harold Hutchinson, the Daily Herald's political commentator, comes up with some strange ideas from time to time. In the Herald of May 7th he attacks those people in the Labour Party who dare to advocate ideas which Mr. Gaitskell doesn't agree with, and says “The only people who can determine policy are the people who have to carry it out." He goes on: “At present, minorities in the Labour Party can exert power without responsibility, and virtually treat the leaders of the Party in Parliament as mercenaries who take orders."
How terrible, Mr. Hutchinson! How degrading it would be if the leaders of the party had to do what the party wanted, instead of the party doing what the leaders wanted!
Mr. Gaitskell has not repudiated these opinions of his henchman. So if ever you feel tempted to vote Labour, remember Mr. Hutchinson’s view that “the only people who can determine policy " are the leaders—"the people who have to carry it out": and then ask yourself if this is your idea of democracy.
Some more Socialists?
How topsy-turvy can politics get? Here is a quotation from the Daily Mail (28/4/60):
A spokesman in Seoul for Dr. Rhee's Liberal Party (now leaderless) said today it planned to change its name to the "Democratic Socialist Party “—but it would remain Conservative.
One hopes this paragraph will be read by all those who tell Socialists that we should support other parties (whatever their policies are) merely because they claim to be Socialist.
Alwyn Edgar
No comments:
Post a Comment