Monday 9 July 2018

Rudyard Kipling the Warmonger - a Charge Examined

The picture above shows the writer, Rudyard Kipling (RK), speaking at a recruiting rally in my home town of Southport, Lancashire, in 1915. I discovered this photo on the Facebook page of a Southport history group, where Kipling received some harsh criticism. I cannot now locate the link, but as far as I can remember, one group member dismissed RK as being one of those people, like Tony Blair, who send others (not identified by the member) off to war while remaining safely at home. 
Now, it is undeniable that RK supported Britain's war effort in WW1, but, to fully assess the charge of warmonger against him, we really should examine the historical context. 
First, we should remember that Kipling was an influential writer in his day, writing many books, short stories and poems about the British Empire and Britain's manifold destiny as an imperial power, in which he passionately believed. As this viewpoint has long since vanished along with the Empire, it is only too easy to sneer at RK, misquote him, or quote him out of context. Just one example will suffice: "Lesser breeds without the law". This is usually interpreted as flagrant racism, but it is the wrong interpretation. It is taken from his poem "Recessional" and almost certainly refers to Germany, for which country RK had an abiding aversion. This is not to say that RK was without the imperial prejudices of his time. As George Orwell observed in his 1942 essay on RK:
"It is no use claiming, for instance, that when Kipling describes a British soldier beating a 'nigger' ...in order to get money...he is acting merely as a reporter and does not necessarily approve what he describes".
Orwell is right, but Kipling was more than the author of "Gunga Din" ("I've belted you and flayed you"). Although he never fought in a battle, he wrote with sympathy of the fate of the ordinary British soldier, and he wrote a penetrating critique of expat life in late 19th century India in a book of short stories called "Plain Tales From the Hills", which is emphatically not a glorification of British India - even though RK approved of "The Raj". 
Returning to the warmonger charge, we need to understand the international political situation before and during WW1. The arms race between Britain and Germany was a constant cause for concern to political conservatives such as Kipling. When war began in 1914, the German invasion of France and Belgium must have seemed a vindication to Kipling of his anti-German views. If we dismiss him as a simple warmonger, we forget that he was not alone in his anger over German aggression and (admittedly exaggerated) atrocities in Belgium. Professor Peter Simkins has said of recruitment in 1914: 
"In all, 478,893 men joined the army between 4 August and 12 September, including 33,204 on 3 September alone – the highest daily total of the war and more than the average annual intake in the years immediately before 1914".
Kipling supported the recruiting effort wholeheartedly, although it is difficult to say how many men joined the army in 1914 because of his efforts. He is thought to have been the first person to refer to the Germans as "Huns", further expressing his hatred in lines such as this:
"There are only two divisions in the world, human beings and Germans".
This view is shocking to us nowadays, but it was widespread in the early years of WW1, and Kipling cannot be blamed for his views in isolation. This is not to say he was right, but we have to allow for popular sentiment at the time. There was widespread support for the war in every combatant nation, and did not decline for several years. We forget, also, that political personalities of all shades of opinion supported the war. One notable left-wing supporter of the conflict was trade union leader, Ben Tillett. As Spartacus International says:
"Unlike many socialists, Ben Tillett fully supported Britain's involvement in the First World War. His enthusiasm for aerial bombardment of German civilian centres and his views that pacifists should be severely punished, made him unpopular with many people in the labour movement. Tillett travelled throughout Britain and helped to recruit a large number of industrial workers into the armed forces."
As a recruiter, Kipling was only one of many celebrities of the day to assume this role. We are familiar with the impact of Lord Kitchener's poster, and the influence of the popular press at the time. This is now thought of as the start of the age of "spin". But there is another factor to be included here, and that is the music hall. In an age without cinema and TV, the music hall provided popular entertainment for the masses, reflecting and reinforcing popular attitudes. Hours after war broke out in 1914, songs supporting Britain's entry into the war were being composed and sung. As John Lewis Stempel has written:
"Music Hall’s support for the war effort is sometimes interpreted as a ruling class conspiracy to “sell” the war to the workers, but the British elite was never that organised. Music Hall reflected and enlarged popular attitudes. Where Music Hall did consciously “sell” the war it did exactly that; it made money from it. Music Hall was always good at cashing in. In the August 13, 1914, edition of the trade newspaper, The Encore, songwriters advertised they would add “a war verse” to any given song: For a fee".
The cross-dressing singer, Vesta Tilley, would invite young men on stage and invite them to join the forces; those who refused were handed a white feather. The music hall legend, Marie Lloyd, sang to young men a song called " I Do Like Yer, Cockie, Now You’ve Got Your Khaki On". The double entendre would not have been missed!
In short, if Rudyard Kipling was a warmonger, he was not alone in this, and can hardly be singled out for vilification. He shared popular sentiment, but did not create it. If he is to be condemned, what are we to make of Ben Tillett and Vesta Tilley?
Kipling did not serve in the front line. He was too old and had poor eyesight, like his son, Jack. John Kipling should never have been allowed to join the infantry because of this, but RK pulled strings to get his son a commission in the Irish Guards. John was killed at the Battle of Loos in September, 1915, shortly after the photograph above was taken. Like thousands of other families, the Kiplings were victims of the First World War. Instead of hatred, Kipling poured his grief into his poem, "My Boy Jack":
"Have you news of my boy Jack? Not this tide When d’you think that he’ll come back? Not with this wind blowing, and this tide."
Vesta Tilley



3 comments:

  1. It is almost impossible for us today to understand the mentality of those who actively supported the war more than 100 years ago. Women - safe from the risk of being recruited themselves - presented white feathers to men who they judged should have been fighting. There was almost a hysteria about it.

    However, the hysteria failed to infect quite a large number of UK citizens, otherwise the government would not have needed to introduced conscription. I'm not sure why you've picked Kipling out for this examination, but the lunacy and delusions surrounding the First World War, the most costly in human terms in our nation's history, were highly infectious among those who weren't directly involved.

    Robert Graves, poet and writer who fought throughout the war, described how the hysteria and pro-war sentiment at home became entirely at odds with the attitudes of the British soldiers at the front who knew what the war was really about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I chose RK because, as I said, his photo appeared on one of the Southport History FB pages where I thought he was ignorantly criticised. Not that RK does not deserve criticism, but it should be informed criticism. While we may deplore his imperialist views, it is remarkable how RK has survived as a writer of significance. Films, such as "The Man Who Would be King", are still made of his tales, and "The Jungle Book" remains a favourite story for children, albeit as an animated film. RK was more than just an imperial apologist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We live in an age of knee-jerk reactions when historical figures are dismissed with a single word: "imperialist", "racist", etc. People, including those in history, are rather more complicated than that and have to be judged in the context of the times they lived in. Would we all hold our current views had we been born in a previous age? None of us can be certain we know the answer to that.

      I am a pacifist, but I can't guarantee that I would have been so had I been born in, say, the 1890s and thus eligible for recruitment for the First World War (although I like to think I would have been). We are all products of our times.

      Delete