At present we non-army people are doing only a fraction of what we would like to do for our country.  We are not being used.  We are made to feel out of it, and we watch the not always very able proceedings of the military authorities and the international mischief-making of the Censorship with a bitter resentment that is restrained only by the supreme gravity of the crisis.  For my own part I entertain three Belgians and make a young officer possible by supplementing his expenses, and my wife knits things.  A neighbor, an able-bodied man of 42 and an excellent shot, is occasionally permitted to carry a recruit to Chelmsford.  If I try to use my pen on behalf of my country abroad, where I have a few friends and readers, what I write is exposed to the clumsy editing and delays of anonymous and apparently irresponsible officials.  So practically I am doing nothing, and a great number of people are doing very little more.  The authorities are concentrated upon the creation of an army numerically vast, and for the rest they seem to think that the chief function of government is inhibition.  Their available energy and ability is taxed to the utmost in maintaining the fighting line, and it is sheer greed for direction that has led to their systematic thwarting of civilian co-operation.  Let me warn them of the boredom and irritation they are causing.  This is a people’s war, a war against militarism; it is not a war for the greater glory of British diplomatists, officials, and people in uniforms.  It is our war, not their war, and the last thing we intend to result from it is a permanently increased importance for the military caste.

Yours very sincerely,

H.G.  WELLS.

Sir Oliver Lodge’s Comment

To the Editor of The [London] Times: 

Sir:  In a strikingly vigorous letter Mr. H.G.  Wells claims that a nation of which every individual prefers death to submission is unconquerable and cannot be successfully invaded.  Ways of hampering an army are too numerous, if people are willing to run every risk, not only for themselves but for those dependent on them.

This may be admitted.  And we may also agree that the British race would be likely to risk everything if the consequences of carefully engendered hate were loosed upon us.  But here comes a point worthy of consideration.  An invasion of England is, to say the least, unlikely; an invasion of Germany may soon have to be undertaken.  May it not add to the difficulties of our troops if a policy of “arming every woman, child, and cat and dog” is favorably regarded by us?  Is not such a policy a sort of left-handed outcome of the Prussian contention that even their own unarmed civilian populace is contemptible and may be slaughtered without mercy if military procedure is resisted, or even if supplies are not forthcoming?