10 May 2016
3 hours

J.B. Th. Hugenholz Archief
Archive Box 11. The cover states: International Union / 1926-1938 / Correspondence A-Z.
The box contains four original, typed letters by Bart de Ligt to J. B. Hugenholz, three in Dutch and one in French, dating from 13 January 1930, 5 April 1932 and two from 8 April 1932. 
All letters deal with plans for the resurrection of the Joint Peace Council – with the people they want to get on board (Einstein, Ponsonby, Brockway) and with how to finance it – and a new large scale action directed against conscription. As part of De Ligt’s plan he wants Hugenholz to write a series of short ‘shock’ articles that strongly denounces the particular form of ‘modern slavery’ known as conscription. 
- Letter from Bart de Ligt to Hugenholz (added in ink: No. 2)
Original, typed letter. Author: Bart de Ligt. Date: April 8th, 1932. Format: A4. 2 pages. Language: Dutch.
De Ligt complains that he is no longer allowed to talk publicly in Switzerland and is fearful that his residency permit will be revoked. There is further talk about the Joint Peace Council. De Ligt would like Hugenholz to be its new secretary and is planning on asking Fenner Brockway to become the new chairman as “die heeft het meeste gezag in de arbeidersbeweging, wat voor onze beweging van zeer groot belang is.”

Archive Box 12. The cover states: International Union of Antimilitaristic Clergymen.
- ‘Thoughts on Non-violence’
Peace News, p. 7. Author: J. Middleton Murray. Date: May 7th, 1938. Format: B2. 1 page.
An article about the difference between ‘Parliamentary Swaraj’ and ‘Real Swaraj’.
In his book Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule) Gandhi had taken up the position of Real Swaraj. “This little book has done more to change the hearts and minds of men than any other written in my time. It is thirty years old; it was published and suppressed in 1908. In the new preface thirteen years later he writes: ‘I would warn the reader against thinking that I am today aiming at the Swaraj described therein. I know that India is not ripe for it… It requires a higher simplicity and action than the people are today prepared for. The only part of that programme which is now carried out in its entirety is that of non-violence. But I regret to have to confess that even that is not being carried in the spirit of the book. If it were India would establish Swaraj today’.”
Murray is quite critical of Gandhi’s change of heart and his choice for Parliamentary Swaraj over Real Swaraj. Gandhi’s remarks in his 1921 preface, Murray states, result in a paradox. Gandhi declares that he is working for a Parliamentary Swaraj “in accordance with the wishes of the people”, whereas the book itself “contains a withering attack on parliamentary democracy”. Yet “Real Swaraj is to adopt nonviolence as a condition of being; Parliamentary Swaraj is adopting non-violence as a political technique.” Along these same lines Murray differentiates between real “pacifism” and “political pacifism”, “which is not to say that pacifism has no political expression, and the only non-delusionary political expression of pacifism is unilateral and complete disarmament. Nothing else is pacifist politics.”

- ‘The Fallacy of Non-Resistance”
The Unitarian and Free Christian Monthly, p 111-112. Author: H.W. Kemshall. Date: October 1938 (Vol. 35, No. 420). Format: A5. 2 pages
Ultimately pacifism is based on the assumption that  people are at heart peaceful beings, and that war is the result of “a military caste or clique that has been allowed to gain domination”. Kemshall reframes pacifism in terms of the age-old question whether evil can be projected outwards or whether it is part of our spiritual and psychological makeup. “The issue to-day is not simply between the abstract forces of ‘right’ and the forces of ‘might’, but rather between the physical power able to be used by the righteous and the physical power able to be used by the evil. ‘Might’ can no more be abolished than the physical universe can be abolished, but it can be harnessed to the will of the righteous. Armaments are actually only the outward and visible sign of the spiritual state of the people of the world to-day. Merely to cry for their abolition is to cry for the impossible. Even if it were possible, that would achieve nothing. Armaments are not a cause of war, they are just symptoms of our own spiritual imperfection. A cause cannot be destroyed by attacking the effect, or by calling the effect the cause.”
In short, the Kingdom of God certainly provides a hopeful perspective for the future, but until it arrives we cannot do without arms. 

- “The Theory of Non-violence”
The Unitarian and Free Christian Monthly, p 112-114. Author: The Editor. Date: October 1938 (Vol. 35, No. 420). Format: A5. 3 pages
This is ‘The Editor’s’ response to the above article by Kemshall. Without directly go into the core premise of Kemshall’s, the rebuff is both effective and persuasive. He takes apart each of Kemshall’s arguments and shows their shortcomings. “To begin with, it should be said that the term ‘Non- Resistance’ misstates the pacifist principle. We believe in non-violent resistance to aggression. If a dictator-state invaded our country with a view to coercing our citizens into any unfree system of government, we should deem it our duty to resist in every way possible except by force of arms. What can be done by such methods has been shown to us to some extent by Gandhi in India. Ton non-pacifists it may seem a very weak line of action, but we believe its possibilities have been only faintly exploited.”
With regard to the confusion of cause and effect the Editor writes: “The realization of the vicious circle [the armament of one nation provokes the super-armament of another; suspicion increases in all nations] also bears upon Mr. Kemshall’s rather unthinking statement that ‘Armaments are not a cause of war, they are just symptoms…’ Admittedly they are both symptoms and effects, but that does not mean they are not also causes. An effect may very soon become a cause. Typhoid fever is simply an effect of deficient sanitation somewhere, but it soon becomes the cause of infection elsewhere if it is not stamped out. Both it and its causes must be treated if general safety is to be secured.” Furthermore many historical examples show how armaments can become a cause of war. As to our hope for the Kingdom of God, the editor states: “Finally, when Mr. Kemshall says that the Kingdom of God upon earth is a hope for the future, we must point out that either it must be also a hope for the present, or a despair for the present. He seems to think it is the latter, but we urge that religious people have no right so to view it. If God wants us to live in peace one with another to-day, then there is a discoverable way of living [so] to-day. So far we have missed the way, but we believe that the more individuals there are to say unequivocally ‘We will live as friends of all men because we are all children of God, and we will not fight against other children of God,’ the sooner the world will emerge from the anarchy that results from unrighteous will. […] We also believe in values for which we must be prepared to sacrifice our lives, and the supreme value is the understanding friendliness that we learned from Jesus of Nazareth. If that value leads us to personal or national destruction, it will either be a sacrifice from which other nations learn the values for which the sacrifice was offered, or else it will be an ending no more tragic than that which overtakes a civilization or a race which fights for justice but forsakes fellowship.”

Archive Box 13. The cover states: International Union of Antimilitaristic Clergymen.
- ‘Civil Resistance’
Reconciliation, p. 232-234. Author: H.J. Prickett. Date: August 1938 (Vol. 16, No. 8). Format: A5. 3 pages.
“But how will you defend liberty?” is a question that inevitably pops up in any discussion on unilateral disarmament and pacifism, Prickett says. And it is a question that pacifists at some point will need to answer. The key to the answer might be found in Flanders, where a movement of some 40,000 ex-servicemen promote the substitution of civil resistance for military methods as the main means of national defence. 
The ex-servicemen have come to the conclusion that when a new war breaks out in Europe, Belgium (Flanders) will inevitably be part of the battleground. And instead of spending large amounts of money on the upkeep of an army that will be unable to stop invading armies from entering anyway, it would be much wiser to spend that money, and the expertise of the officers, on non-military alternatives (non-cooperation), which will preserve Flemish culture and identity. “First of all, there is constructive work for peace,” i.e. diplomatic solutions. If that is to no avail, the movement proposes the demobilization of the Belgium army and to deploy the officers as agents of civil resistance. An effective deterrent might be the threat of the destruction of all communication systems as soon as a foreign army crosses the border, as without functioning communication systems the advance of the invading force would soon come to a halt. They also hope that foreign nations will be less inclined to invade an armyless country as that would be devastating in terms of propaganda. But even if they were to be invaded it would be better to “sit it out” and preserve the cultural identity than to be “annihilated”. The downside is that governments are fearful of training their people in these “powerful techniques”, as they know these might be used against them.

Archive Box 14. The cover states: International Union of Antimilitaristic Clergymen.
Mainly announcements, minutes and correspondence.

Archive Box 15. The cover states: International Union of Antimilitaristic Clergymen.
More minutes, announcements and correspondence. 

Hi Joseph

A few hours early, but what the heck, many congratulations on reaching the big 77!  

Had an interesting day at the institute. Especially the last item on the new list begs for further research. I don’t know anything really about Belgium in WOII, so this may all be common knowledge – for all I know scores of books have been written on the subject – but it came as a surprise to me to learn that in 1938 some 40,000 ex-servicemen wanted to replace the Belgium army with a nonviolent civil defence force. They felt that the preservation of the Flemish cultural identity was much more important than forcefully defending the borders and running the risk of being “annihilated” by enemy armies (they probably were of the opinion that Flanders was being occupied by the Walloons anyway). This article may help to explain the roots of the particular brand of Flemish ‘collaboration’. Anyway, somewhat outside the scope of our site but still a fascinating find.