Baxter morally right to stand by conscience

The article by Gerrard Eckhoff (ODT, 11.7.17) argued that the decision by Archibald Baxter to refuse, because of his beliefs, to take any part in military action in World War 1, was wrong. I beg to differ.

Mr Eckhoff seemed upset about the ‘‘strangely reverent’’ title of John Drummond’s opera War Hero, based on Baxter’s life. His arguments, though, seemed confused and illogical.

Mr Eckhoff adopted Richard Dawkins’ modus operandi of setting up a ‘‘straw man’’ and then attacking it: not Dawkins’ caricature of religion, but a statement, unsupported by evidence, that Baxter is undergoing a process of ‘‘unofficial beatification’’, and then using that assumption to argue that Baxter has been declared to be (quoting Roman Catholic dogma) ‘‘in a state of bliss and veneration’’. But has anyone really claimed this?

He wrote: ‘‘In this politically correct age Archibald Baxter’s ‘contribution’ to the war effort is compared by some with those who were prepared to fight and die or return home.’’

A question: what does ‘‘politically correct’’ mean here? It’s generally used to decry attempts to avoid action or language that’s discriminatory or hurtful: attempts which could be described as ‘‘courteous’’. Here it seems irrelevant: mere Trumpian abuse.

Back to the point: to refer to

Baxter’s ‘‘contribution’’ to the war effort is nonsense. The principle of his stand, based on his belief that war was evil and only caused more evil, was to refuse to contribute to it in any way, hence his refusal of noncombatant duties. He opposed not just killing, but the whole concept of war as a way of solving disputes.

As Mr Eckhoff says, Baxter was intelligent, and ‘‘a man of conscience and conviction’’. Unlike many, he’d thought through the issue of war carefully, and become convinced that any contribution to war was morally wrong. Mr Eckhoff disagrees with that conclusion (as does Civis, who believes there can be a just war), but Baxter was morally right to stand by his conscience despite the conscription laws enacted by the government. The government accepted that conscientious objection could be a valid reason to refuse service: Baxter wasn’t accepted as a CO because he didn’t meet the governmentset qualification of belonging to a church which, prior to the war, had adopted pacifist beliefs.

Mr Eckhoff argues that harsh or ‘‘bad law’’ must be obeyed until changed: the Nuremberg trials disposed of that argument.

It’s an arguable view that Archibald Baxter was wrong to refuse even noncombatant service, but it’s laughable to claim that ‘‘he benefited from the actions of all others who held a differing point of view’’. Did anyone, other than armament firms, war profiteers, and a few politicians and top brass (FieldMarshall Haig received an earldom and a gratuity of £100,000, equivalent to about

$NZ9.1 million now — British privates who also served five years received £29 each) benefit from the Great War? Archibald Baxter certainly didn’t (New Zealand wasn’t threatened), and it’s arguable that the Entente ‘‘victory’’ led to the horrors of Nazi Germany and World War 2, in line with his predictions.

Recognising the courage and integrity shown by Archibald Baxter doesn’t, as Mr Eckhoff charges, imply that those who served were wrong to do so. And we should remember that many of the ‘‘other ranks’’ who did serve supported and encouraged Baxter, sometimes disobeying orders to do so.

When Mr Eckhoff wrote he couldn’t have seen the opera which he said beatified Baxter, Civis suspects he also hadn’t read We Will Not Cease, Baxter’s remarkably dispassionate account of his imprisonment, beatings, starvation, torture, and frontline gassing and shelling during the Great War. He should read it, and, if he’s able, see the opera. Civis has: it tells a horrifying story of brutality, sadism, futility, and determination, but it doesn’t beatify Archibald Baxter, or suggest he’s ‘‘in a state of bliss and veneration’’. Rather, we see him left frustrated, at the end, at the intransigence of politicians.

Mr Eckhoff believes that only those who died overseas should be described as war heroes (what about those who fought and survived?). Dr Johnston defined a hero as ‘‘A man eminent by bravery’’; the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘‘A man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude . . . in any course of action.’’ That seems to sum up Archibald Baxter pretty accurately.