H.G. Wells’ Views on War and Peace by Tony S.

H. G. Wells’ 1915 essay “The War and Socialism” is in the form of a small booklet without any illustrations or decorations. In the essay, Wells voices his support for British participation in the First World War then raging across Europe. Upon rereading “A Dream of Armageddon,” I believe that both the essay and the short story assert the same position that peace can only be defended through forceful and vigorous action.

In “The War and Socialism,” Wells combines two seemingly irreconcilable sentiments: his disgust for war and his support for the First World War. The essay’s attitude towards war is clear; describing it as “an atrociously ugly thing, cruel, destroying countless beauties” (Socialism 3). However, the essay also argues that British involvement in WWI is justified because of the great threat German militarism poses to world peace. They must fight because the German people “has become obsessed by pride…by the evil suggestion…that they were… destined to dominate the earth” (Socialism 2). Only after defeating Germany will there be “the opportunity to do fundamental things that will otherwise not be done for hundreds of years” such as “setting up a Peace League that will control the globe” (Socialism 12). As we can see, while the pamphlet is pro-peace, it is nonetheless supportive of strong, even violent, measures to protect peace from militarism.

The 1901 short story “A Dream of Armageddon” argues the same case that peace must be actively defended from jingoism. In the story, a fellow train passenger tells the narrator of his recurrent dreams as a political leader who retired from office with the woman he loves. Disillusioned with politics, the dreamer refuses to return to the government even as his successor Evesham threatens to plunge the Continent into total war. War does eventually break out, ultimately leading to the deaths of the dreamer and his beloved. Throughout the story, we are repeatedly reminded that the dreamer alone has the sole ability to stop Evesham’s reckless militarism. When the messenger begs him to return to his country, the dreamer recounts that only he “had been able to control and soften [Evesham].” (Armageddon 553). When the dreamer sees Evesham’s warplanes on route to threaten the neighboring countries, he tells himself that it is still not “too late” to intervene, “since the east and the south would trust [him] as they would trust no other northern man” (Armageddon 557). These quotes imply that the war broke out as a direct result of the narrator’s inaction. All subsequent tragedies, from the fortification of the once idyllic Capri to the death of the dreamer’s own beloved, are thus consequences of the dreamer’s refusal to act in the name of peace. In light of Wells’ pamphlet, it is clear that “Armageddon” is a cautionary tale, illustrating the potential consequences when we fail to actively defend peace from those who threaten it.

Personally, I do not agree with Wells. While it is true that we must actively protect peace from those who threaten it, who gets to decide whether someone is a threat to peace? Despite Wells’ claims to the contrary, it was not “German militarism” that caused WWI but rather the complex web of military alliances that escalated a political assassination into a global war. Ironically, Wells’ is being jingoistic himself when he demands for the total defeat of Germany in “Socialism.”

I also think its very interesting that fourteen years after writing “Armageddon,” Wells chose to republish the same argument in pamphlet form. In doing so, Wells can spread his message to a larger audience. After all, “Armageddon” is also a work of literary fiction, so its audience is probably restricted to the intelligentsia and the upper class of society. On the other hand, “Socialism” is clearly intended for mass public consumption given the object’s listed price of one penny. I wonder why Wells felt the need to communicate to a larger audience his political views on war. Was Wells trying to transition from a novelist to a political writer? Or was Wells simply disturbed by the British pacifist movement and felt the need to publicly criticize their beliefs?