New Phases of the War—What Will Italy Do? (1940)

From the June 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The conflict now raging on the Continent has awakened the average worker to some extent from the lethargy of a decade, but the serious character of the world’s situation he does not, in general, as yet perceive. When his friends or relatives are called up he is induced to try to follow world events, but in regard to them his attitude is one of resignation: he leaves political direction to others : he may have a vague feeling of uneasiness but he relies absolutely upon those in authority for guidance: what is involved is too much for him to grasp: in the main his mental blindness condemns him to be controlled solely by circumstances and be obedient to the will of those in authority.

All the same, 1940 is not 1914. Subconsciously the working class have imbibed knowledge from bitter experience; it may be latent, but it is there, and it can, and will, eventually find a means of expression.

The Tablet, a Catholic paper, has in its current issue summed up the Nazi power in strong but correct language : “Its weapons are the weapons of fear and falsehood. Debauched by the vision of authority acquired by the bomb, and maintained by the jack-boot and the whip, the German people have placed their strength and their abilities at the mercy of a ruthless gang, who are using that strength to enthrone themselves as the masters of an enslaved continent.”

The Government here has come into being as a result of various groups arriving at a tacit understanding, anything may happen as a consequence, even a new orientation on the part of Russia and the Communist Party.

The Labour ministers of the Crown, newly appointed, can hardly do anything for the working class: their business will be to show that they can run the system efficiently and well; the leaders of the older parties found themselves in difficulties, the leaders of Labour are to help them out. ‘Twas ever thus.

The paper quoted from above has something to say which lends colour to our viewpoint: “Some of the appointments are conspicuously good. Mr. Herbert Morrison at Supply and Mr. Ernest Bevin at Labour are both men with proved reputations as organisers well able to defeat obstructions and delay. What is more important, they can go ahead without the feeling that they may impair national unity and incur charges of Fascism (if they ask for suspension of the ordinary privileges and safeguards, normally enjoyed by business firms and trade unionists). The old Government had to walk very warily, simply because opposition journalists and speakers had for so long been blackening its character.”

The Tablet, being an upholder of the old religion, is naturally opposed to Stalin and Co., but it may be right when it surmises that the suppression of the Communist Party in France has greatly hindered the work of the Russian Foreign Office. “We must be wary of attaching any importance to signs and rumours of estrangement between Stalin and Hitler. They may be true, but they may equally be intended to restore more freedom of subversive action inside Britain and France to the hidden army.”

The Daily Mail is jubilant over the Discipline Act.

We are told it is the most revolutionary law that Parliament has passed in modern times. “At one stroke we relinquish our right to choose our own tasks or to dispose of our own property as we think best.”

The wage slave has, in reality, had few rights in regard to choosing what he should do and as to property: he has few possessions. Why the Daily Mail should see anything revolutionary in the Discipline Act is beyond us : it makes little difference in the lives of those who live by selling their labour-power. . . .

The invasion of Holland has brought about certain international complications. The latest news at the time of writing is that Germany, Russia and Japan are to hold a conference to discuss and decide what to do about the Dutch East Indies. This is likely to bring the United States directly into the war and induce Roosevelt to run for a third term.

The readers of the Socialist Standard will be alive to the importance of these developments, but, to refresh the memories of our readers, we would remind them that 15 per cent. of the world’s bauxite comes from Dutch Guiana and over 17 per cent. of the world’s tin from the Dutch East Indies. In rubber also, the Dutch East Indies produce a third of the world’s supply and they are also the most important source of copra and produce a quarter of the world’s palm oil. The petrol produced in the Dutch East Indies is not inconsiderable in amount and, what is more, Dutch interests in the oilfields of Roumania and the Near East have been placed unreservedly at the disposal of the Allies.

Japan is finding China a problem, the war game there is not worth the candle: the exploiters of the wage slaves of Nippon perceive that, if their hands were free, they could make large profits by taking advantage of their industrial rivals’ troubles in Europe: the markets are waiting, but the war in China absorbs all the efforts of the industrialists of Japan and the gains from the conflict are not perceptible.

The Evening News of May 21st says: —

“American and European fears that Japan might interfere in the German campaign against Holland is easily understood in view of the pronouncement of a number of Japanese naval and military authorities.

Behind it there is the economic question of oil.

The Japanese Navy, like every other, has turned exclusively to oil fuel; and the tremendous enthusiasm for Diesel engines in the Merchant Service, only recently checked by Government decree which demanded the return to coal wherever it was economically possible, has increased the shortage of oil.

Demand Now Greater.

Even in peace-time Japan consumes two million tons of oil a year—the greater part of it by the Navy and Merchant Service—and can produce less than a quarter of a million tons herself.

If she obtained complete control of the oilfields in Sakhalien, which Russia would prevent to the limit of her forces, it would mean rather less than half a million tons more.

That was in peace-time, but the campaign in China has greatly increased the demand for the Navy, Air Force, and Merchant Service which is caring for the supplies.

Rubber, Too.

The greater part of this excess demand has had to come from the United States. This is paid for in silk, but the mobilisation of the Army has depleted the supply of peasant labour available for its production.

So the exchange with the United States is not nearly as advantageous as it might be.

Possession of the Dutch East Indies would supply Japan with all the oil that she would require, as well as other commodities, of which the principal is rubber, which Japan has to import to the tune of 100,000 tons a year.”

Before concluding this article we must draw attention to events in the Mediterranean. The situation appears to be dangerous to the peace of the Near East. Mussolini, however, is not having all his own way. The Italian papers do not give us the true opinion of the Italian people. When Italian journalists get their instructions, and understand what the Government line is, they must not go against it, and the only way they can distinguish themselves is by their zeal for it. The organ of the Vatican, Osservatore Romano, solidly supports the Allies. It has a circulation of 300,000 and is supported by a following strong enough to cause Mussolini to pause before lining up on the side of Germany.

If Italy does enter the war on the side of Germany, and the resistance of the Allies becomes too strong for the Germans to overcome in Northern France, Germany will, no doubt, invade Switzerland with Italy’s aid. Hitler is pressed for time : he had to win quickly or he could not hope to win at all.

From what has been written the reader will be able to perceive that, owing to the inter-relations prevalent in the productive world of capitalism, all countries are likely to be involved in the conflict sooner or later. Marx says : “Force is the midwife of an old social order pregnant with a new one, that it is the tool by the means of which social progress is forwarded and foolish, dead political forms destroyed.”

When the smoke clears away from the battlefields, and we can calmly view the results, we can better judge the outcome of force in the present instance. In the meantime we continue our task of striving to bring into being a new social order “in which there shall be neither rich nor poor, neither master nor master’s man, neither idle nor overworked, neither brain-sick brain-workers nor heartsick hand-workers, in a word, in which all men would be living in equality of condition and would manage their affairs unwastefully and with the full consciousness that harm to one would be harm to all—the realisation at last of the meaning of the word commonwealth.”

The quoted words are from William Morris, who hated with all his heart “the dull squalor of capitalist civilisation,” whose fruit is so often war. In the commonwealth of Morris there is no cause for conflict—when we establish Socialism we establish peace and plenty.

Charles Lestor

The New Defence Regulations (1940)

From the June 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May 9th the Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, announced in the House of Commons that the Defence Regulations affecting propaganda had been amended. The amendment had taken place after consultation with members of the opposition parties, but it was pointed out by Mr. Attlee for the Labour Party that the consultations “in no way implied that those members either approved or disapproved of the regulations, which were, necessarily; put forward on the sole responsibility of the Government.”

The relevant part of the Home Secretary’s speech is reproduced below : —

The Home Secretary’s Statement

“The second group of Regulations is concerned with the activities of individuals and organisations who, by spreading defeatist or anti-war propaganda, are seeking to undermine public morale and to weaken the resolution of the people to prosecute the war to a successful issue. As I said in my reply to Questions on 25th April, there is a risk that our traditional reluctance to limit the free expression of minority opinions may be exploited by persons whose real purpose is to hamper, for ulterior motives, the war effort of the nation. The Defence Regulations introduced on the outbreak of war included stringent provisions dealing with propaganda, under which it would have been an offence for any person to endeavour to influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of the war; but after the Debate on the Regulations which took place in this House on 31st October last there was a drastic curtailment of those provisions of the Regulations which had attracted special opposition on the ground that they were capable of being used for the suppression of minority opinions. The Government are anxious to avoid any unnecessary interference with our traditional liberties, but they feel that a distinction can and must now be drawn between the mere expression of honest opinion on the one hand and, on the other, the deliberate and systematic advocacy of defeatist or antiwar policies with intent to weaken the national resolution to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.

Legal provisions on this subject must necessarily be cast in somewhat general terms if they are to cover all forms of propagandist activity which are prejudicial to the national interests; and the difficulty has always been to find a form of words which will suffice to check the really mischievous activities without at the same time penalising expressions of opinion, with which we should all desire to avoid interference, however much we may disagree with the opinion expressed. The consultations which I have held have led me to the conclusion that this point cannot be fully met except by giving, to a responsible Minister answerable to Parliament, an administrative discretion to determine in what cases individuals or organisations should be made liable to criminal proceedings for engaging in mischievous activities of this kind; and in the new Regulation which has now been made a novel procedure has been adopted in order to secure that the sanctions of the criminal law shall be applied only to persons acting with deliberate intent to prejudice the national interest. The Regulation provides for the issue of a warning to any person or organisation who appears to the Secretary of State to be concerned in the systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue. The warning will draw attention to the matter objected to and will make it clear that if after the warning there is any future publication of matter calculated to foment such opposition the person or persons concerned will become liable to prosecution under the Regulation. Until a warning has been issued no person can be prosecuted for an offence under the Regulation; but if after receiving such a warning there is a continuance of mischievous activities those responsible then become liable to prosecution and, if convicted, to heavy penalties—namely, seven years’ penal servitude or a fine of £500, or both.

The Regulation provides ample safeguards against any misuse of the new powers which it confers. In the first place the Secretary of State must be satisfied, not by an isolated remark but by a consistent course of conduct, that there is systematic publication of matter which is calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue, and further that the continuance of these activities may cause serious mischief. Then there must be a formal warning by a notice in writing of the consequences of persistence in this course of conduct. Then, if such conduct is persisted in, proceedings based on a specific contravention of the Regulation can be instituted only with the consent of the Attorney-General and can be taken only at Assizes or courts of corresponding jurisdiction; and the defendant cannot be convicted if he can show to the satisfaction of the court that he had no intent to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue and had no reasonable cause to believe that his activities were calculated to foment such opposition. I hope that what I have said will suffice to satisfy the House that this new Regulation is so drawn as to penalise only deliberate, organised and systematic efforts to undermine the national morale; and I need hardly add that it is the firm intention of the Government to apply the criminal sanctions provided by this Regulation only in cases of real gravity where the national interests may be seriously threatened.

A second Regulation in this group is designed to extend and strengthen the provisions of Defence Regulation 39A, under which it is already an offence to endeavour to seduce from their duty persons in His Majesty’s service or in the various services of Civil Defence. Experience has shown that it is not enough to restrict this provision to persons already embodied in the various services. The efforts of those who wish to undermine the efficiency of these services may be directed not to persons already serving but to those who are shortly to be called up for service; and the Regulation has therefore been amended so as to make it equally an offence to endeavour to incite persons liable to such service to evade their duties or to endeavour to incite persons to abstain from enrolling voluntarily in any of the defence services. Here again care has been taken to avoid penalising the mere expression of opinion. It will be no offence merely to state the statutory rights of men liable to military service to claim exemption on conscientious grounds, nor will the Regulation prevent the giving of guidance to a young man who is troubled in conscience and seeks advice from a priest or a friend. The Regulation is aimed at those who try to incite young men liable to military service to simulate conscientious objections for the purpose of evading their duties. I am satisfied that this limited provision is necessary and that it will command general support.

Finally, power has been taken to apply really effective sanctions against the use of printing presses for the production of publications which contravene either the new Regulation dealing with the corruption of public morale, or the expanded provisions of Regulation 39A regarding attempts to cause disaffection or Regulation 39B dealing generally with the publication of false statements prejudical to the national interests. Under this new Regulation the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that any printing press has been used for the production of any document in respect of which any person has been convicted of an offence under any of these three Regulations, direct that the press shall not be used for any purpose until the leave of the High Court has been obtained for its further use. The High Court may grant such leave if satisfied that the use of the printing press for the production of the offending document was due to a mistake, or even though not so satisfied may grant leave for its future use subject to conditions, or may if it thinks fit order that the printing press shall be destroyed. In many cases documents constituting an offence under these Regulations will have been printed, by persons other than those convicted of distributing or publishing them; and in serious cases it is desirable that there should be power to bring it home to the printer that his plant cannot be used with impunity for the production of mischievous documents of this character which contravene the law. A power to seal up the printer’s plant is likely to operate as a more effective deterrent than criminal proceedings leading to a fine; and this new power should materially reduce the extent to which printing presses will be made available for the production of documents of this type.”

Text of the Regulation regarding publications

The following is taken from the Manchester Guardian, May 31st, 1940.

“Power to suppress a newspaper is provided by a new Emergency Powers (Defence) Regulation, issued yesterday, which reads: 

1. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is, in any newspaper, a systematic publication of matter which is, in his opinion, calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful issue of any war in which his Majesty is engaged, he may by order apply the provisions of this regulation to that newspaper.

2. No person shall print, publish, or distribute or be in anyway concerned in the printing, publication, or distribution of any newspaper to which this regulation applies.

3. An order of the Secretary of State under this regulation specifying a newspaper by name shall have effect not only with respect to any newspaper published under that name but with respect to any newspaper published under any other name if the publication thereof is in any respect in continuation of, or in substitution for, the publication of the news¬ paper named in the order.”

Another regulation empowers the Secretary of State to seize printing presses used in the production of a newspaper it he is satisfied that the newspaper is one in which there has been a systematic publication of matter which is, in his opinion, calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution to a successful issue of any war in which his Majesty is engaged.

Editorial: How will the Defence Regulations be Used? (1940)

Editorial from the June 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Elsewhere in this issue we reproduce the Home Secretary’s statement on the new Defence Regulations. The Home Secretary declared that it was his desire to avoid “penalising expressions of opinion, with which we should all desire to avoid interference, however much we may disagree with the opinion expressed.” Elsewhere he referred to “mere expression of honest opinion.” Much depends of course on how the regulations are used and what the Government regards as honest opinion. As far as the S.P.G.B. is concerned it should be clear even to the most embittered opponent of Socialism that there could be no better indication of honest opinion than the fact that, unbrokenly for 36 years, the members of the S.P.G.B. have constitutionally and democratically propagated the same unchanged Socialist principles. It is our claim now, as always, that we are Socialists and we preach Socialism. And if the declaration made by Mr. Justice Stable in a recent libel action holds good we shall continue to do so : —

“The expression of views, no matter how unpopular, how fantastic, or how wrong-headed they might appear to the majority, was a right, and a right which he (the judge) was paid to see was observed”.— (Reproduced in Manchester Guardian, May 10th, 1940.)

As was however to be expected, certain newspapers (including some which for years were expressing admiration of odious aspects of Fascist regimes abroad) are using the fierce feeling against Quislings to support action against every opinion uncongenial to themselves. The following appeared in a Times editorial on May 23rd, 1940:- —

“But public indignation and suspicion are undoubtedly being aroused also against the activities of British citizens who, consciously or unconsciously, ally themselves with the evil forces against which their country is fighting. The Defence Regulations have already been amended to give the Home Secretary powers to deal with such people. They provide heavy penalties for persistence in anti-war propaganda and for attempts to dissuade men from undertaking defence duties. They give power also to require persons to reside within a specified area and not to travel outside it without permission. No one would be sorry to see these powers exercised immediately against those responsible for publications or activities which seek to traduce or to impede the high purposes of their country in waging this war, and many would prefer to see such persons confined to their own society in internment camps. They have a right to their own opinions, if indeed these opinions are their own and not manufactured or procured by the nation’s enemies : but they have no right to inflict them on others at such a time.”

It will be observed that The Times proclaims the principle of “right to their own opinions”—“in internment camps.”

It can hardly be supposed that this specious doctrine is held by the Labour Party representatives now in the Government. If it were it would be against their own long-proclaimed Party tradition.

We may add that, in the matter of forming opinions of our own, “not manufactured or procured” by any other person, party or government, here or abroad, the S.P.G.B. and the Socialist Standard, during the period of their existence, have not had to take guidance from The Times.