Our National Defense: The Patriotism of Peace Part 3

This suggests the question whether such a manufacturer is a safe pilot for a peace movement, however generously it may be subsidized, and whether an armor-plate mill and a peace palace are appropriate trace-mates. It would be unfortunate if the subtle influence of subconscious self-interest should creep into peace councils or affect the policy of a peace movement. However that may be, the theory that armaments prevent war has been pretty well exploded by recent events.

The Pacificists, in case of war, have no plan of their own to propose.

_They, too, leave that to the Militarists._

Then we have the _Pacificators_.

They advocate disarmament and a tribunal of peace in the nature of an international court to determine international differences and make binding decrees; and they propose the establishment of an international army and navy under the control of that court to enforce its decrees. Of course it must be conceded that this plan may fail, or its success be long delayed, and that in the meantime it affords no guarantee of peace.

The Pacificators, however, propose no plan in the event of war.

_They also leave that to the Militarists._

Finally comes the Woman's Movement for Constructive Peace, out of which has grown the organization of the Woman's Peace Party.

Much may be hoped for from this organization if it will concentrate its strength, and not try to do too many things at once.

If the women of the world will unite and put the same militant force behind the peace movement that they have put behind the suffrage movement they can end wars. There is no doubt of that. But it will require world-wide organization, good generalship, and great concentration of effort. "One thing at a time" should be their motto.

The following platform was adopted by the Woman's Peace Party:

"The purpose of this organization is to enlist all American women in arousing the nations to respect the sacredness of human life and to abolish war. (1) The immediate calling of a convention of neutral nations in the interest of early peace. (2) Limitations of armaments and the nationalization of their manufacture.

(3) Organized opposition to militarism in our own country. (4) Education of youth in the ideals of peace.

(5) Democratic control of foreign policies. (6) The further humanizing of governments by the extension of the franchise to women. (7) Concert of nations to supersede 'balance of power.' (8) Action toward the general organization of the world to subst.i.tute law for war. (9) The subst.i.tution of an international police for rival armies and navies. (10) Removal of the economic causes of war. (11) The appointment by our government of a commission of men and women, with an adequate appropriation, to promote international peace."

That platform is a well condensed outline of a very comprehensive program.

It covers the whole ground. Some of the things it advocates ought to be possible of accomplishment within a few years. Others will require generations. For example, it is well to frankly face the eventual necessity for it, but democratic control of the foreign policies of Germany and Russia, for instance, must be worked out by the people of those countries, possibly through b.l.o.o.d.y political revolutions.

However, faith and not skepticism was the reason for publishing this platform in full. The tenth plank, "Removal of the economic causes of war,"

would include many features of the plan proposed in this book. As embodied in the book, the plan is specific. The platform is a generalization, and might include many other plans.

But it will be observed that the platform does not suggest any plan as to what should be done by the Woman's Peace Party in the event of war or to safeguard the country from the dangers of actual war. They must concede that war may occur, pending the partial or entire success of their campaign to establish universal peace throughout the world. But they propose no plan covering the contingency of war.

_They likewise leave that to the Militarists._

So, although we have plans galore to promote peace, we have in case of war no plans except those of the Militarists.

They have three plans:

_First:_ A standing army large enough for any contingency.

_Second:_ A standing army, reenforced by state militia.

_Third:_ A standing army with a reserve composed of men who have served a term of enlistment in the regular army.

None of these plans could be relied on for national defense in the event of war between the United States and any one of the great world powers. That will be fully demonstrated in the subsequent chapters of this book.

To insure the national safety as against such a contingency, a standing army of over 500,000 men would be necessary. It would cost this country $600,000,000 a year to maintain such a standing army, and the army itself would be a more dangerous menace than a foreign invasion.

The utter worthlessness of state militia as a national defense in the event of war with a first-cla.s.s power is strongly set forth in the warning by George Washington quoted in a later chapter.

The impracticability of a reserve force like that proposed by the Militarists is clearly shown in the article from which quotations are made in a later chapter by Honorable James Hay, Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States.

The situation when a.n.a.lyzed is certainly a most extraordinary one and can only be accounted for on the theory that the people of this country are not informed as to the facts and a.s.sume that we must be prepared for war, and able to defend ourselves in case of war, by reason of the stupendous expenditures we have been making for over ten years for the military branch of the government. To the average man it would seem as though $250,000,000 a year ought to be enough to provide for the national defense.

The situation would be different if we had any a.s.surance that the United States would never again be involved in a war. In that event we would need no plans for national defense.

_But we have no such a.s.surance._

The Peace Advocates give no guarantee against war.

The Militarists believe war inevitable.

Neither insures peace and neither is prepared against war.

The people are between the upper and the nether millstone.

We cannot be certain of peace.

We are undefended in case of war.

The situation is ill.u.s.trated by the old darkey's c.o.o.n trap that would "catch 'em either comin', or gwine."

The frank belief of the Militarists that war must be regarded as inevitable is well expressed in the following quotation from a recent editorial in "The Navy," a journal published at Washington, D.C.

"Since the beginning of the war in Europe, the a.s.sertion has been repeatedly made that this is the last great war; that the peoples of the world will be so impressed with the wanton destruction of life and property, that there will be organized some form of international arbitration that will prevent future wars. _Not so._ The war now raging between the nations of Europe is much more probably but the first of a series of tremendous world-wide conflicts that will be fought by the inhabitants of the earth for national supremacy, until the supremacy is obtained by a single people, or possibly by an amalgamated race, the ingredients of which are just now being thrown into the melting pot.

"The wars of the past will sink into comparative insignificance when future historians compile statistics of coming conflicts among the nations of the earth."

Whether all this be true or not, there is enough foundation for such beliefs to make it imperative that the comprehensive and complete plan set forth in this book should be adopted to harmonize the peace propaganda with plans for national defense in case of war.

_It can be done and it must be done._

The plan proposed in this book will tremendously strengthen the peace propaganda and there is no reason why every Militarist should not heartily approve and accept it, unless he is making a profit out of the manufacture of war machinery or dependent on it for employment.

In that event we must strongly appeal to patriotism and try to induce the surrender of personal profit or benefit in order that we may preserve the nation and promote human welfare.

Anyone who rejects the possibility of war must be blind to current events.

Sad indeed it is that it should be true, but none the less it is a staring fact that every theory that war between civilized nations had ceased to be possible has been rudely shattered by recent events.

Every prediction that there would be no more wars has proved false.

Every plan heretofore proposed to prevent war has thus far proved futile.

Every influence relied on to put an end to war has proved a broken reed.

The Socialists have inveighed against war.