ENDS AND MEANS
The Council of Action formed on August 9th of that year
warned the government that if it persisted in its scheme
of sending British troops to Poland for an attack upon
the Russians, a general strike would be called, labour
would refuse to transport munitions or men, and a com-
plete boycott of the war would be declared. Faced by
this ultimatum, the Lloyd George government abandoned
its plans for levying war on Russia. (This episode proves
two things: first, that if enough people so desire and have
sufficient determination, they can prevent the government
of their country from going to war; second, that this
condition is fulfilled only in rare and exceptional circum-
stances. In most cases the great majority of a country's
inhabitants do not, when the moment comes, desire to
prevent their government from going to war. They are
swept off their feet by the flood of nationalistic sentiment
which is always released in a moment of crisis and which
a skilful government knows how to augment and direct
by means of its instruments of propaganda. Once more
we see that the machinery for stopping war is present,
but that the will to use that machinery is generally lacking.
To create and reinforce that will, first in themselves and
then in others, is the task of devoted individuals associated
for the purpose of establishing peace.)
I have given examples of the use of non-violence in the
relations of individuals with individuals and of whole
populations with governments. It is now time to consider
the use of non-violence in the relations of governments
with other governments. Examples of non-violence on
the governmental level are seldom of a very heroic kind
and the motives actuating the parties concerned are seldom
unmixed. The tradition of politics is a thoroughly dis-
honourable tradition. The world sanctions two systems
of morality—one for private individuals, another for
national and other groups. Men who, in private life, are
148