Mers-El-Kebir
| DOI | 10.1177/002070205100600309 |
| Published date | 01 September 1951 |
| Author | S. Mack Eastman |
| Date | 01 September 1951 |
| Subject Matter | Special Book Review |
THE
PSYCHOLOGY
OF
WORLD
TENSION
233
by
the
almost
complete impossibility, owing
to
semantic
difficulties,
of
establishing
communication
between
the
powers
concerned.
An
under-
standing
of
world tension requires,
therefore, not
only
the
knowledge
and
insights provided
by
psychology
and
psychiatry,
but
also
a
mobili-
zation
of
the
data
of
the
social
sciences
on
a
large and
unprecedented
scale.
Dr.
Kisker's
book may
be
regarded
as
a brilliant
beginning
in
the
effort
to
achieve
an
"orchestration"
of
psychology
and the
social
sciences
in
the
service
of
humanity.
Toronto,
June
1951.
John
A.
Irving,*
Mers-el-Kebir
*
This
disturbing
but
fascinating
volume,
relating
in
careful detail
though with
comprehensible
bitterness
the
most
dolorous
story
of
the
Second
World
War,
is
undoubtedly
important
in
the
field
of
Anglo-
French
relations.
Some
may
think
that
Mers-El-Kfbir
might better
never
have
been
written-that
it
will
reawaken
deep
resentments
in
certain
French
milieux.
M.
Varillon
does
not
agree:
he
feels
that
"there are
wounds
that
must
be
opened
in
order
to
heal,"
and
he
is
sure
"that
this
book
will
render
service
to
the
cause
of
French-English
friendship."
His
hope
will
probably
be
fulfilled
only
if
a
sufficient
number
of
British
writers
and
teachers
take
honest
cognizance
of
his facts
and arguments,
especially
as
the
substance
of
this
volume
had
already
appeared
in
three
articles
in
La
Revue
des
Deux
Mondes
and
was
widely
known
in
France
as
a
severe
criticism
of
Winston
Churchill's
account
of
the
same
tragic
event
in
the
second
volume
of
The
Second
World
War.
The Right
Hon.
Lord
Hankey
finds
these
essays
"brilliant," and
speculates
whether,
had
a
Nazi
victory
set
up
a
Nuremberg
Tribunal
in
reverse, Churchill
and
even his
subordinates
would
not
have
been
punished
for
the
crime
of
"waging
aggressive
war"
in
this
"deplorable
episode."
He
substantiates
Varillon's
claim
that
Admiral
Somerville
and
the
Admiralty
objected
to
and
"deplored the
decision
of
the
War
Cabinet"
to
turn
their
guns
on
friends
in
misfortune,
obviously
bound
to
obey
their
own
government
and
chiefs.
[Politics,
Trials
and
Errors,
pp.14-16].
The
main
points
of
M.
Varillon's
documented contention
are:
that
the
Armistice
was
necessary
to
France
and
beneficial
in
the
long
run
even
to
the
Allies.
That
French
naval
officers
could
have and
*Professor
of
Ethics
and
Social
Philosophy,
Victoria
College,
University
of
Toronto.
*Mers-EI-Kebir
(avec de
nombreux dicuments
inidits).
Par
Pierre
Varillon,
1949.
(Paris:
Amiot-Dumont,
230
pp.)
To continue reading
Request your trial