342 J.-A. PEMBERTON
Indeed, Woolf suggested that the policy of appeasement failed the test
of realism, precisely because it involved in an attempt to placate Hitler,
the ‘abandoning of any common resistance to aggression’ and ‘any obli-
gation to aid victims of aggression.’^363 In other words, Woolf suggested
that one of the important reasons why the policy of appeasement failed
was because it was not grounded in morality: a policy that bypasses moral
considerations is unrealistic as it is likely to prove self-defeating.
This same line of argument was evident in Kohn’s review of The
Twenty Years’ Crisis as he stated therein the following: Carr’s ‘realism
easily becomes unrealistic’ because of its ‘underestimation of the moral
element.’ Indeed, Kohn criticised Carr for conveying an attitude which
on certain key points was ‘almost indistinguishable from that of many
German political thinkers and propagandists’: it displayed an attitude
‘in very many points’ that was comparable to ‘the predominant German
contempt for what is called in Germany the western or natural-law con-
ception of law and thought.’^364
In this regard, one might recall a distinction that Berber drew in
Paris in 1937: the distinction between the abstract method which insists
on universal norms and the concrete political approach according to
which one responds to specific situations as they present themselves. In
all likelihood, Carr heard Berber insist on this distinction as Carr had
attended the 1937 conference on peaceful change in Paris as a member
of the BCCIS, although going by the conference proceedings it appears
that Carr made no contribution to the debates that took place in that
forum.^365 Irrespective of whether or not Carr was present on the occa-
sions when Berber spoke in Paris, in The Twenty Years’ Crisis he certainly
displayed a familiarity with Berber’s work: in the course of discussing a
(^363) Ibid., 174.
(^364) Kohn, review of Frieden und Abendland by Ernst Ferger; The Twenty Years’ Crisis
1919–1939 by Edward Hallett Carr; and Modern Political Doctrines by Alfred Zimmern,
- In regard to Neville Chamberlain’s policy Murray wrote in a letter on April 14, 1938:
‘I am profoundly shocked at the way he absolutely ignores the moral element in politics.
Germany and Italy break their treaties and announce their intention to make war when-
ever they like, and Chamberlain treats this as a mere difference of policy, morally indif-
ferent, and claims that we should be equal friends with those who keep the law and those
who break it; and when we suggest that the nations which mean to abide by the cove-
nants should stand together and support one another diplomatically, he says that is dividing
Europe into two camps.’ Madariaga, ‘Gilbert Murray and the League,’ 183.
(^365) ‘List of Participants’ in Bourquin, ed., Peaceful Change, 622.