Two letters from you rolled up together this mail, for both of which
many thanks.
Like everyone else you write under the cloud of Warsaw and in the
expectation of the enemy forthwith dashing back on us in the West. But
the last two months have made it much harder for him to do that soon,
if at all: and I hope the month which will pass before you get this
will have made it harder still. I found it difficult weeks ago to
explain what induced the Germans to commit themselves so deeply into
the interior of Russia so late in the season, and I came to the
conclusion that with each forward movement they had been much nearer
to enveloping and smashing the Russians than the Reuters would have
led one to suppose: and so had been lured on.
It now looks to me as if they are playing for one of two alternatives.
If Von Below can get round their right flank he will try a last
envelopment: if that flank falls back far enough to uncover Petrograd,
he will make a dash for P. But all that will mean locking up even
bigger forces in the East. Indeed it seems so reckless that I can only
account for it by supposing either that they are confident of rushing
Petrograd and paralysing Russia within a few weeks: or that they are
in a desperate plight and know it.
As for the future, I think it would be a mistake to expect this war to
produce a revolution in human nature and equally wrong to think
nothing has been achieved if it doesn't. What I do hope is that it
will mark a distinct stage towards a more Christian conception of
international relations. I'm afraid that for a long time to come there
will be those who will want to wage war and will have to be crushed
with their own weapons. But I think this insane and devilish cult of
war will be a thing of the past. War will only remain as an unpleasant
means to an end. The next stage will be, one hopes, the gradual
realisation that the ends for which one wages war are generally
selfish: and anyway that law is preferable to force as a method of
settling disputes. As to whether National ideals can be Christian
ideals, in the strict sense they can't very well: because so large a
part of the Christian ideal lies in self-suppression and self-denial
which of course can only find its worth in individual conduct and its
meaning in the belief that this life is but a preparation for a future
life: whereas National life is a thing of this world and therefore the
law of its being must be self-development and self-interest. The
Prussians interpret this crudely as mere self-assertion and the will
to power. The Christianising of international relations will be
brought about by insisting on the contrary interpretation--that our
highest self-development and interest is to be attained by respecting
the interests and encouraging the development of others. The root
fallacy to be eradicated of course, is that one Power's gain is
another's loss; a fallacy which has dominated diplomacy and is the
negation of law. I think we are perceptibly breaking away from it: the
great obstacle to better thinking now is the existence of so many
backward peoples incapable (as we think) of seeking their own
salvation. Personally I don't see how we can expect the Christianising
process to make decisive headway until the incapables are partitioned
out among the capables. Meanwhile let us hope that each new war will
be more unpopular and less respectable than the last.
I'm afraid I haven't even the excuse of a day's fishing without any
fish.
Now for your letter of August 11th. I'm sorry you are discouraged
because the programme you propounded to Auntie's work-party in
February has not been followed. But comfort yourself with the
reflection that the programme which Kaiser Bill propounded to _his_
work-party has not been followed either.
Your Balkan programme, or rather Bob's, does not at present show much
more sign of fulfilment than the one you propounded to Auntie's
work-party, I'm afraid.
As usual nothing whatever has happened here. Elaborate arrangements
have been made to have a battle to-morrow 120 miles up the river at
Kut. It ought to be quite a big show: the biggest yet out here. As the
floods are gone now it may be possible to walk right round them and
capture the lot. If we pull off a big success the G.O.C. is very keen
to push on to Baghdad, but it is a question whether the Cabinet will
allow it. It means another 200 miles added to the L. of c.: and could
only be risked if we were confident of the desert Arabs remaining
quiet. Personally I see no solid argument for our going to Baghdad,
and several against it (1) the advance would take us right through the
sacred Shiah country, quite close to Karbala itself (Karbala is to the
Shiah Mohammedans--and the vast majority of Indian Mahommedans are
Shiahs--what Mecca is to the Sunnis; and Baghdad itself is a holy
city). It would produce tremendous excitement in India and probably
open mutiny among the Moslem troops here if they were ordered up. (2)
Surely Russia wouldn't like it. (3) We can't expect to hold it
permanently. Everything, so far as I can see, points to portioning
this country into a British sphere and a Russian, with a neutral belt
in between, on the Persian model, except that the "spheres" may be
avowed protectorates. The British one must come up far enough to let
us control the irrigation and drainage of Lower Mesopotamia properly:
and stop short of the holy cities: say to the line Kut-el-Amarah
(commonly called Kut)--Nasiriyah, along the Shatt-al-Hai. The Russians
would, I suppose, come down to about Mosul.
This campaign is being conducted on gentlemanly lines. When we took a
lot of prisoners at Nasiriyah we allowed the officers to send back for
their kits. In return, last week, when one of our aeroplanes came down
in the enemy's lines and the two airmen were captured, they sent a
flag of truce across to us to let us know that the prisoners were
unhurt and to fetch their kits.
I just missed Sir Mark Sykes who cruised through here two days ago. I
have written to him in the hope of catching him on his way back.
* * * * *
AMARAH.
_September_ 27, 1915.