General Principle

Peter Hitchens writes:

Is Britain becoming an army with a country, instead of a country with an army? Who is actually making national policy on Ukraine and war in general? The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roland Walker, delivered an astounding speech to soldiers last week. He said, as if he were prime minister: ‘Our citizens have got to consent to sacrifices to prioritise defence and security.’ And then he told the soldiers: ‘Ultimately, we’re going to need them to back us, to back you, to do the one thing that you do, that nobody else gets to do, and that is to take the fight to the enemy.’

It was surely not his job to put the case for sacrifices by the voting public. Nor was it for him to tell politicians to explain this to the public. Whatever you may think about the Ukraine issue, is this not the wrong way around? Surely politicians tell generals what to do? Generals, spies and chiefs of the secret police (for that is what MI5 is, I’m afraid) have queued up in recent years to make militant speeches about the Russia threat and the necessity of supporting Ukraine. But support actually means a sustained effort to stoke and prolong the Ukraine war.

Look carefully at that conflict over the past two years and you will notice the outcome, a change from a grinding land war into an increasingly costly and bloody exchange of missiles and drones, much of it deep in Russian territory. Whether you like this policy or not, is it proper for public servants to promote it? Until quite recently, all these people would have been bound by a rule of silence. I have heard from reliable sources that Roland Walker is a pleasant, intelligent and likeable person. And he has a fine record as soldier and commander. But he is not a minister of the crown. He holds no elected office. His duty is to ensure that this country has an effective army.

Other sorts of nation, generally despotisms, like to install generals as defence ministers. We do not do that here, because the principle of civilian control of the military is a key part of the rule of law. Yet the general’s speech was blatantly political. It was surely designed to increase the fear of approaching war and make the populace more war-minded. I would be glad to have a debate about these issues in parliament, in which both sides were for once fairly represented, but there is none. Dissent is dismissed as treachery. Parliament, the BBC and almost all the print media are deserts of conformity on this topic. Even apparently independent minds, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, join in the general Ukraine worship. The question of how Britain benefits from stoking war with Russia is never debated.

What remains of the left, once sceptical of war, has now begun to press its trouser creases and polish its marching boots, ready for combat with Moscow [you need to get out more]. Dame Emily Thornberry, a prominent Labour MP and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said a wondrous thing during a recent visit by German politicians. She opined that Germany ‘is and always has been a key ally’. I have met Dame Emily, and I would not be surprised by anything she says. Yet this remark illustrates something very important about modern Britain. I know that a lot of people find the endless Struggle for Mastery in Europe a bit of a strain, striving to tell their Talleyrand from their Metternich, or the Aare from the Elbe. As for the Ukrainian hero Stepan Bandera, best not even speak his controversial name.

Yet every boy in the land was until quite recently brought up on the great 1939-45 conflict with Germany. We bent over our lurid little volumes of the War Picture Library [that was not ‘quite recently’], in which rock-fisted British heroes yelled ‘Eat lead, Fritz!’ at cringing Krauts in coal-scuttle helmets, who cried – ‘Aaaaargh!’ as they died. I believe English football crowds, where German teams are involved, are still heard to chant ‘Two world wars, one World Cup!’ The Russians, by contrast, were our vital if unlovable allies. We sent them a beautiful hand-crafted sword to commemorate their victory at Stalingrad. My late father risked his life on the Murmansk convoys, taking tanks and guns to Stalin. I have his campaign medal.

It’s easy to work out when this began to change. But is there any enthusiasm for our new alignment, or any understanding of it? The old balance in Europe has now been so totally forgotten that the actual chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee thinks Germany has ‘always’ been our ally. The reality is that the wiring of diplomacy in Europe has now been reversed. The European Union has become the continuation of Germany by other, more tactful, means. And the EU and its cousin Nato are now our friends. Russia, our ally in 1914 and 1941, is now mysteriously our enemy. Most of the grimmest battlefields of Europe’s gory 20th century, the Balkans, Ukraine, the Baltic coast and the Caucasus, are alive again, ready to receive new corpses or already doing so.

In general, I think our decision to go to war in 1914 on the Russian side (or anyone else’s) was a grave mistake which ruined us and wrecked Europe. But in 1914 our home islands were rich and secured by a mighty navy. The years since have proved Adam Smith’s maxim that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. But now there is not much left. Our navy is a melancholy remnant. We are sunk in debt. Why do we want this new war? If there are any intelligent and responsible people in our governing classes, perhaps they could speak up for wisdom, experience and our national future. But no generals, please.