My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleywere prepared to risk their country, their Empire, the life of Europe and of worldcivilisation, when by any cool calculation all the odds were against them. Theymissed their chance when it was easy, and took it when it was desperate; but at what acost. Strong moral feelings are certainly necessary to great action, but they should beexercised with realism. We need the heart of fire but the brain of ice.All that mattered to me at the time was the maintenance of peace and the devising andestablishment of practical machinery to serve that supreme end. My part was to fightfor my cause, which was the League, to stand by my friends and play for my side.Lloyd George was my first target, because he abrogated the machinery of the Leaguein favour of his own method of using the smaller and more mobile body of theSupreme Council of the great powers. It is, of course, always easier to decide and actin a small body of able men representing great powers, but in the long run it is not soeffective in mobilising the opinion of mankind for peace. Lloyd George never hadmuch grasp of deep principle and in practice had endured for years an extraordinaryexperience of obstruction in national and international affairs; consequently hefavoured the Supreme Council in his feverish search for rapid action. This appeared tome to undermine the authority of the League. My object above all was to establish thecomprehensive authority of the League in place of the old balance of power whichdivided Europe and risked recurrent war.The particular mixture of reason and vitriol which was my recipe in that period isillustrated by a speech I made in the House in February 1922. I reinforced myargument in favour of the League and against Lloyd George's 'method of slipshodconference' in the Supreme Council with a satirical attack on the Prime Ministerwhich evoked much laughter at his expense and much indignation at my impudence. Iremarked on his 'state of a Roman emperor' at conferences in the villa of hismillionaire Parliamentary Secretary, Sir Philip Sassoon, where he could be 'regaled inthe evening with the frankincense of admiring friends', and the 'abrasions ofcontroversy could be soothed' by a 'liberal application of precious ointment from thevoluptuous Orient'.In serious argument I agreed with the Prime Minister that some countries were'threatening the peace of Europe, because they fear the aggression of others. Fear isthe most potent factor today in the disturbance of peace. There are only two ways ofalleviating that fear, one by a strong League of Nations which can guarantee the peaceof the world and can guarantee countries against aggression, the other way by theseentangling alliances to which the Rt. Hon. Gentleman is now about to commit thecountry.' I concluded by advocating that a comprehensive guarantee for all theprincipal powers in the League of Nations should be constituted under the Covenantof the League as an alternative to the old system of the balance of power which wasresponsible in large part for the catastrophe of the immediate past. We should moveon to a 'new order and conception of the world which originated as the result of sogreat a sacrifice'.My passion was peace, and I pursued it through any means which seemed the mosteffective. The way of the League was the opposite to the fatal division of Europe,caused by the traditional doctrine of the balance of power, which in my view had beendeeply responsible for the First World War. This concept and its protagonists must beattacked with every weapon the debater carried. Some of these weapons of sarcasm120 of 424