t e h a n d b o o - forgotten books · , a counter prop aganda, for a strong army, a big navy, and...
TRANSCRIPT
T H E H A N D B O O K S E R I E S
D ISARMAMENT
1011 ! C
! From Labor, December I I , 1920]
UNITED STATES APPROPRIATIONS,1920
I. Pas t War s 68
II. Fu tu re Wars 251,III. Civ il Departm ents 37,IV . Pu b lic Wo rks . 31,V . Edu cation and Sc ience 1
°
Z,Total 1007,
!Analysis byDr . EdwardB. R osa, of the UnitedStates Bureau of Standards]
T H E H A N D B O O K S E R I E S
SELECTED ARTICLES ON
DISARMAMENT
COMPILED BY
MARY REELY
NEW YORK
THE H . W. WILSON COMPANY
LONDON : GRAFTON 55 Co .
192 1
E! PLANATORY NOTE
Thi s is a handb ook compiled from contemporary sources .The art icl es for repr int and, with few exceptions, the references, do not dat e back of 1920 and 192 1 . I t i s ent irely a b ookof post-wa r di scus sion .
In some features it depart s from the usual pl an of this se r i e sand i s not arranged as a debate . I n the fi rst p lace i t s eemedimposs ib le to ar range a systemati c debate i f al l the divers epo ints o f vi ew among advocates of disarmament wer e to berepresented. In the s econd place there is comparatively l it tl eact ive oppos ition . There i s, on th e othe r hand , a counter propaganda, for a strong a rmy, a b ig navy, and for aer ial andchemical armament . In p lace o f the usual div is ion into Affirm
ative and Negative,the b ook, fol lowing the General Discuss ion ,
has acco rdingly been divided into two part s, w ith the headings :Fo r Disarmament ; and For Cont inued Armaments . The bulko f mate ri al i s much greater on the side for Disarmament . TheBig Army and Navy advocates are not doing so much talkingnow . They talked in th e P reparedness campaign befo re 1916
when th e navy bu ilding program was adopted and are nowharvesting the f ruits in the naval app rop riation bi l l .Under the heading Gene ral Di scuss ion are presented : a
summary of Congress ional action , stat ist ical mater ial bea ringon th e si ze o f armies and navies and the cost of war, some int imat ion o f what war wil l b e like in the futu re, and a group of
a rt icl es di scu ss ing the under lying economic facto rs .The student i s re ferred to other books in the s eri e s closely
related to thi s : R eely : Wo rld P eace, 2d ed . 1916 (now out
o f pr int ) ; Bacon : National De fens e, v 1 , 1915 (now out o f
prin t ) ; Van Valkenbu rg : National De fense , v 2 , 1919 ; Johnsen
National De fense , v 3, 192 1 ; Pa rsons : Non-Resistance, 1916
Phelps : The League o f Nations , 4th ed . 1919.
Augu st 10, 192 1 M. K . R
CONTENTSFRONTISPIECE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GENERAL DI SCUSSION
Congr essional Action
The Bo rah ResolutionArmy and Navy Appropr iat ions
Th e Army
Haan, Maj or-General W . G. Our New A rmy ForumTh e Nav y
Naval P rogram of the United States
New Yo rk Times Current History MagazineSecreta ry Dani e l s ’ Statement New York TimesRepo rt on Which P resent Bui lding P rogram I sThe Naval P roblemA Brit i sh View New Yo rk Wor ldNaval Hol idays Freeman
Th e Bu rden of A rmament
The Doom o f the TaxpayerDisarmament and Taxat ion Wo r ld TomorrowWhat Wa rs DO to Taxes Searchl ightThe Cost o f War Searchl ight
Addit ional Figures on the Casualti es o f the Great War . .
Naval App ropriat ions Congres s ional Reco rd
B rown , Will iam G . The Wo r ld ’ s Debts ForumTh e S ituation in E u r ope
The New Regime in E uropeTh e Nex t War
What the New Gas Does
Maxim , Hud son . The Next War New York Tr ibuneAi rplane and “Wirele ss " in the Nex t War
Rev i ew of ReviewsCauses fo r Wa r—192 1 World Tomo rrow
Th e E conom ic Backgr ound
Bo rchard, E dwin M . Under lying CausesBul let in . League o f Free Nations Association
vi i i CONTENTS
B rai l s ford, H . N . The War o f Oi l and Ships ;London Daily He rald
Near ing, Scott . E conomic Rivalr i e sP ettigrew, R. F. Resto ration Must P recede Disarmament
Minnesota Daily S tarGaston, H erbert . The Disarmament
'
Congress
Daily S tarP re sident Harding’ s Invitat ion
LIM ITATION OF ARMAME NTSTh e Demand for D isarmament
The Neces s ity for Disarmament Wo r ld’s WorkS enato r Borah’ s Posit ion Reco rdFrear, James A . A Reco rd of Barbar i sm .
McDonald, James G . Can We Affo rd not to Disarm ? .
Woman Citizen
The So-Cal l ed A rmament Race Scientific Ameri canBattl eships and Bankruptcy Literary DigestJ ingoes . Cu rrent OpinionCobb , Frank I . Limi tat ion o f A rmaments
Bullet in. League o f Free Nations Associat ionTh e Tr eaty and . th e L eague
One Condition o f E ffect ive Disarmament . .New Republic
Holt, Hami lton. Limitation o f A rmaments and the League .Independent
The Militaris tsB liss, Tasker H . Limitat ion o f Armaments Nation
Statement From General P ershingAndrews, Lincoln C. The Unfai l ing B reeder o f Wars .
Bul letin . League o f Free Nat ions AssociationThe Position o f the Nat ional Secur i ty League
Th e Chu r ch
The Church ’ s Cal l fo r Disarmament Literary DigestTh e Quakers
Russel l, E lbert . The Quaker Chal lenge to a Wo r ld o f Fo rce.Fri ends ’ Intell igencer
Th e Pacifist:Randal l
, J . H . Should Amer i ca Dis'
arm Now ?Holmes, John Haynes . The P r ice o f P eace and A re WeWil l ing to Pay It ? .
Reasonable Pacifism” Wor ld Tomorrow
CONTENTS
Th e Demands of Women
B rown,Harr i et Conno r . Amer i ca Menaced by Mil itari sm .
S earch lightHaines, Dora B . Chal lenge o f Women to Congress
Searchl ightIn R elation to E ngland
Wilson, P . W . Disa rmament—E ngland ’s PositionReview o f Rev iews
The Menace o f Naval Competition Nation
The Naval Skin Game Spectator
In R elation to Japan
Iyenaga, Toyokich i . A Japanese V i ewBul let in . League o f Free Nations Association .
Arner ica and J apan Independent
Disa rmament Impetus in Japan Literary DigestMussey, Henry Raymond . Ou r A rmament Race With Japan .
Nation
The Anglo-Japanese Bogey New York Wo r ld
F rance
Sanchez, J . A . M . de . A French View
Bulletin . League o f Free Nations Associat ion
Th e Posi tion of th e United S tates
The United State s Wi ll ing to Disarm Wo r ld ’
s Wo rkAmeri ca as an Obstacle to Disarmament
New York Wo r ldA P recedent fo r Disarmament Scientific Amer i canAd ler, Phi l ip A . Mil itary Nations Wait fo r P residentHarding Minnesota Dai ly Star
Th e Difiicu lties of D isarmam ent
Wilson, P . W. P ractical Difficulties.
o f
New York Times MagazineLisl e, R . Mason . Disarmament and Arbit rat ion
Legal Intel l igencerLaur i e, Stephen . The Inadequacy o f Partial Disa rmament .
Wo r ld Tomo rrowThe Ha rd Road to P eace Wo r ld Tomo rrow
FOR CONTINUED ARMAM ENTSDisarmament v s . P r epar edness
A Statement From P resident HardingA Statement From Secretar v Hughe s Wor ld ’ s Work
149
163
I 77
181
x CONTENTS
Gibbons, H . A . Should We be th e F irs t to Disarm ?Bul letin . League o f Free Nations Associat ions
Disarmament and P reparedness . .Army and Navy JournalD ri ft ing Towa rd Unp reparednes s . .Army and Navy JournalLessons From Our Recent History . . .Review of Reviews
Th e ArmyOur Needs With Respect to an A rmy
Army and Nav y JournalRegu lar Army Needs Two Hundred Thousand
Army and Navy JournalTh e Navy
The Future o f Our Navy Army and Nav y JournalA Navy to Match E ngland
’
s ! Rear Admi ral Huse]New Yo rk Times
Shal l E ngland Continue to Lead ? !Admiral Koontz] .
New York Cal lHurd, Archibald . Naval Supremacy . . .Fortnightly ReviewFrothingham,
Thomas G . The 1916 Bui lding P rogram . .
. . Current Histo ryFol ly to Disarm Now. ! Secretary of War Weeks]
.New Yo rk TimesAdmiral Von Ti rpitz App roves New Yo rk Times
Th e PacificFiske
,B radley A . The Question o f the Pac ific
Minneapoli s T ribuneFi ske
,B radley A. The De fens e o f the Phi lippines
. .North Amer i can ReviewAn Austral ian V i ew ! P r ime Minister W . A .
New Yo rk TimesCh emical P r epar edness
Into the Hands o f Chemists Manufacturer s ’ Reco rdChemical Disarmament .Literary Digest
Indus tr ial P r epar edness
Clarkson, Grosveno r B . Industr ial P reparednes s. .Review o f Reviews
Th e S ituation in E ur ope
Simonds , Frank H . Disarmament and E uropeReview o f Reviews
Th e P osition of th e Uni ted S tates
Dan iels, Josephus . Why the United States Needs a Big
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Art ic les starred have been repr inted entire l y or in part in th isHandbook.
GE NE RAL REFERE N CE S
Books and Pamph lets
Angel l,No rman . Fru it s o f victo ry. Centu ry. New York.
192 1 .
Bakeless, John . E conomic caus es o f modern wars . Mo ti at,Yard co . New York . 192 1 .
Bogart , E . L . Direct and indi rect cost s o f the Great WorldWar . Carnegi e E ndowment fo r Internat ional P eace ; Oxford Univers ity P re ss . New York . 1919.
Dickinson, G . Lowes . Causes o f international war . Harcou rt,B race co . New Yo rk. 192 1 .
Disarmament ; Hear ings be fo re the Committee on Naval A ifairs , House o i Representat ives . 66th Congres s
, 3d s es sion ,on Di sarmament in it s relation to the naval pol icy andthe naval bu i lding program o f the United States . Supt .
o f Doc .
I rwin, Will . The next wa r. Dutton . New York . 192 1 .
Johnsen , Jul ia E .
, comp . S el ected artic le s on national de fense .
Vol . 3. (Debate rs’ Handbook Series . ) H . W. Wilson
C0. New Yo rk. 1920.
Naval Intel l igence Office . In fo rmation concerning the US .
navy and othe r navi es . Supt . o f Doc . 1919.
Navy Year Book . Supt . o f Doc .Gives annual appropr iat ions and var ious acts re lat ing to navy begin
ning 1883.
‘Near ing, Scott . Th e American Empire . soc ; $ 1 . Rand School
o f Social Sci ence , 7 E . 1sth S t ., New York . 192 1 .
Ogg, F . A . Inte rnational sanct ions and the l imitation o farmaments . I n Duggan , S . P . League o f Nat ion s . p 1 1 2
27 . Boston . 1919.
xi i B IBLIOGRAPHY
Parsons, Mary P . , comp . Selected article s on non- resi stance .(Abr idged Debaters
’ Handbook Ser i e s . ) 35C. H . W. Wilson
C0. New York. 1916.
Phelps,E dith M .
,comp . League o f nat ions. 4th ed. rev . and
en]. (Handbook Ser i es . ) H . W. Wilson C0. New
Yo rk. 1919.
The Race to bankruptcy. 4p . I s sued by Fo reign Pol icy Assn.
o f Mas s . Boston . 192 1 .
*The Stagger ing Burden o f Armament . (I ssued as v IV .
No 2 of A League o f Nations ) se Wor ld P eace Foundation .
Boston. 192 1 .
Van Valkenburg,Agnes
,comp . S elected art icles on national
de fense, including compulso ry mil itary service . Vol . 2 .
(Debaters’ Handbook Ser i es . ) H . W . Wilson C0.
New Yo rk. 1919.
Wells,H . G . Salvaging o f civi l i zat ion . p . 1 -96. Macmil lan .
New Yo rk. 192 1 .
On a world state .
Wo r ld Almanac . I ssued annual ly by New Yo rk Wor ld . New
Yo rk.
Gives facts and figu res relat ing to size of armies and nav ies , etc.
Wor ld Disarmament : Hearings before the Committ ee onMil itary Afi airs . House o f Representat ives . 66th Congres s ,3d Session, Ja. 1 1
,
’
2 I . Supt . o f Doc.
Magaz ine Ar ticles
Advocate o f Peace . -
9. My.
’
2 1 . Disarmament andcost o f armament and war : l is t o f re ferences preparedin the l ib rary o f the Carnegie E ndowment for InternationalPeace .
Annal s o f the Amer ican Academy. 96 : Jl.’2 1 . Place o f the
United States in a wor ld o rganizat ion fo r the maintenanceo f peace .E nt ire number devoted to th is subj ect .
*Bull et in : League o f Free Nat ions Assn . 2 24-
5 M r. ’2 1 .
Limitat ion of armaments . E dwin M . Bo rchard .
*Congress ional Reco rd .-1406 My. 13,
’
2 I . Debate onnaval appropr iation . Senato rs Bo rah
,Wadsworth
,King
and oth ers .No attempt h as been made t o list th e Congr essional debates .
Anyone w ish ing to fol low them may do so thru th e fi les of th e Recordfor 1 920 and 1 92 1 .
BIBLIOGRAPHY xiii
Contemporary Review. 1 19 533-8. Ap .
’
2 1 . Japanes e foreignpol i cy.
Contemporary Review . 1 19 : 550-
4. Ap .
’
2 1 . France and navalarmaments .
*Current Histo ry. 13 : 189—90. F.
’
2 1 . Naval p rogram o f th eUnited States .
Cu rrent H isto ry.—5. M r. ’
2 1 . Shal l we scrap ou rgreat battleship s ? V i ce Admi ral B r i n e .Wi ll th e dreadnaught b e superceded by other types of fight ing craft ?
*Current H isto ry.-6. M r . ’
2 1 . P rogram of the UnitedStates Navy.
Current Histo ry. 13 : 386. M r. ’
2 1 . The bi l l ions spent fo r
armaments .Current H i s tory.
—80. Mr . ’
2 1 . Amer ican and B r iti shNaval preparation . Admiral S ir Cypr ian B r idge .
Current Histo ry . 14 : 49. Ap .
’
2 1 . Secretary Weeks ’ statemento f po li cy.
Current H i sto ry . 14 : 54-6. Ap .
’
2 1 . Costs o f the Wor ld War.Current Opinion. 70 : 399
-401 . M r. ’
2 1 . Our naval bui ldingprogram i s no menace .
E dinbu rgh Revi ew . 233 : 238-54 Ap .
’
2 1 . Naval s ituation . Ad
mi ral S i r Cypr ian B ridge .Fortnightly Review . 1 14 : 491
-500. S .
’
20. Revival o f mi l itari sm . H . Knight .
Fo rtnightly Review . 1 15 : 62 1 -34 . Ap .
’
2 1 . Futu re o f sea powernaval and mercanti le . Archibald Hurd.
*Fo rum . 65 : 291-
7 . M r . ’
2 1 . Our new army . W. G . Haan .
*Fo rum .-22 . Je.
’
2 1 . Disarmament . Will iam GrantB rown .
*Freeman . p . 604 . Mr . 9,’
2 1 . Naval hol idays .Independent . 105 : 1 7 . Ja. 1
,
’
2 1 . Disarmament in France .I ndependent. 106 : 7 1 -2 . Ag. 20
,
’
2 I . Harding and h is associat ion o f nations . Talcott Will iams .
Jou rnal o f the Washington Academy o f Sciences . -82 .
Je. 19,’
20. Analysi s o f gove rnment expend itu res fo r warand other purpo ses . E . B . Rosa .
LaFollet te’
s Magazine . p . 93-
4 . Je .
’
2 1 . The E ffects o f war onthe soldi ers . T . H . P rocto r.Reprinted from Internat ional J ournal of E th ics.
Literary Digest . 68 : 10- 1 1 . Ja. 15,’
2 1 . Huge secret a rmies inGermany.
xiv B IBLIOGRAPHY
*Literary Digest. F. 12,
’
2 1 . Chemical disarmam ent .Litera ry Digest . -1 2 . M r. 12
,
’
2 I . Del ays o f disarmament .
Litera ry Digest . O . 8,’
2 1 . League’
s cou rt s tarted .
Literary Digest . O . 8,
’
2 1 . Cel ebrating a 3000—milevictory o f peace.
.Dedicat ion of th e“Portal of Peace on th e Canadian boundary at
Blam e , Wash . , cal led a“sermon on disarmament .
Manufacturer s Record . Ja. I3,’
2 1 . Into the hands o f chemists .Minnesota Daily Star. Je . 27 ,
’
2 1 . Resto ration must precededisarmament. R. F. Pett igr ew .
Minnesota Daily Star. J]. 1 1 ,’
2 1 . The disarmament con ference.Herbert E . Gaston .
Nation . 1 12 : 105. Ja. 26,
’
2 1 . Action o f congres s regardingarmy.
Br ief note on above and on German disarmament.Nation . 1 1 2 : 385. Mr . 9,
’
2 1 . Disarmament notes .On German disarmament.
Nation .
-20. S . 2 1,
’
2 1 . China, p rofi teer
’
s paradiseand di sarmament . Hsu Chung-tz e.
Nation . 1 13. N . 9,’
2 1 . Special disarmament number .New Republ ic . 19 : 137
-8. My. 31 ,’
19. What Germany wil lsave on armaments .
New Republ ic . 27 : 202—3. Jl. 20,’
2 1 . Disarmament conference .New Republic. -
91 . Ag. 10,’
2 I . Disarmament andthe E ast . H . N . B rai l s fo rd.
New Republ ic. - 19 . Ag. 1 7 ,’2 1 . Wa r and the publ ic
mind . Norman Angell .New York Cal l . D . 31 ,
’
20. War o f oi l and ships . H . N .
B rai l s ford .
Repr inted from London Dai l y Herald.
Nineteenth Century. 88 : 787-802 . N .
’
20. Disarmament o f Germany as v iewed by the Germans . E velyn Blii che r .
Polit ical Science Quarter ly. 35 : 2 72-5. Je .
’
20. Burdens o f p repar edness and war. Samuel L. Levy .
Revi ew of Reviews . 63 : 159-61 . F.
’
2 1 . Safeguards o f peace .Mau r ic e Leon .
On German disarmament.Review o f Revi ew s . 63 : 243
-
4 . Mr. ’
2 1 . Disarmament becomesa world i s su e.
Review o f Reviews . 63 : 273-7 . M r . ’
2 1 . Ai r power v s sea
power. B r ig. General Wil l iam Mitchel l.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xv
Saturday E vening Post . 193 : 18—19. Je. 4,’
2 1 . Cost o f being
cavemen . E . G. Lowry.
*S earchl ight . 5 : 1 7 . My.
’
2 1 . What war s do to taxes .Searchlight . -
9. Je.
’
2 1 . Wars o f Uncl e Sam .
Searchl ight . 6 : 1 1 - 14. J l.’
2 1 . Borah .
Sketch of h is career, inc l uding account of h is disarmament fight.Search light . 6 : 19-2 1 . Ag.
’
2 1 . Publicity and the disarmamentcon ference.
Su rvey. 45 : 562-
3. Ja. 15,’
I 2 . Disarmament . Henry R . Mussey.
Spectato r (London ) p . 5-7 . Ja. 1’
2 1 . The future o f navi es .Wor ld ’ s Wo rk. 42 : 548-54 . 0. 2 1 . I f “peace on earth” cam et rue. A . D . Turnbu ll .
Wo rld’ s Work . 42 : 555-9. 0.
’
2 1 . How can Japan disarm .
Sydney Gr eenb ie.
Wo r ld ’ s Work.
—505. S .
’
2 1 . The ,Washington conference . French Strother.
Wo rld Tomo rrow . F.
’2 1 . Causes for war.
AFFIRMATIVE REFERE N CE S
(Fo r the Limitation o f Armaments )*B rown , Harri et Connor. Amer i ca m enaced by mil itar i sm . 1OC.
The Searchl ight . Washington,D .C . 192 1 .
Repr inted from Search l ight. -1 3 N . 1 5,’ao
Cadoux, C . J . An appeal to the people o f the Chr i st ianChu rch . grati s . Fel lowship o f Reconci l iation . 192 1 .
*Disarm or per i sh . 8p . grati s . Amer i can union againstmi litar i sm . Washingt on, D .C . 1920.
*Disarmament : Hear ings be fo re the Committee on Fo reign Affai rs , House o f Rep resentat ives . 66th Congres s , 3d s ess ion ,on H .J . 42 4 . Supt . o f Doc . Washington , D .C .
Fosd ick,H . E . Shal l we end war ? Clearing house fo r the
l imitat ion o f armaments .Sermon preached at First Presbyter ian church , New York , J une 5,
1 92 1 .
*Frea r , James A . Speech o f Representat ive James A . Frea rin Hou se Debate on Army Bil l
,Ap . 29,
’
2 1 . (leaflet ) . I ssued
by Women’
s Committ ee fo r World Disarmament . Wash
ington, D .C .
*Holmes , John Haynes . The P rice o f peace : Are we wil l ingto pay it ? 5c . The Community Church
,Park Av .
,and
34th S t ., New Yo rk . 1920.
! V I I 1 I
*Lisle , R. Mason . Compulso ry arbitration instead of war.Repr in ted from Legal Intel l igencer. Dec. 1 7 ,
’20.
*Randal l, John Herman. Shou ld Amer i ca d i sarm now ? me .
Community Church . Park Av ., and 34th St ., New Yo rk.
1920.
Sweetser, Arthu r. Disarmament . In The l eague o f nation s
at wo rk . Macmi l lan. New York. 1920.
*Wor ld disarmament is advocated by nat ional secur ity l eague.(l eaflet ) . I s sued by National Security League. New York.
192 1 .
Magazine Ar ticles
Atlantic Monthly. 1 28 : 145-9. Ag.
’
2 1 . E conomic aspects o fdisarmament . Frank I . Cobb .
*Bul let in : League o f Free Nations Assn .-2 . M r.
Limitat ion o f armaments . Frank I rving Cobb .
*Bullet in : League of Free Nations Assn .-
4 . Mr. ’2 1 .
Limitat ion o f armaments . General Lincoln C . Andrews .*Bullet in : Le ague o f Free Nations Assn . Mr. ’
2 1 . Limitation o f armaments. Toyskich i Iyenaga.
*Bull et in : League o f Free Nations Assn .-9. M r. ’
2 1 . A
French view of l imitat ion o f armaments . J . A . M . deSanchez .
*Congres s ional Record . 61 : 1386- 1406. My. 13,’
2 1 . Debate on
Naval appropr iat ion . Senato rs Borah,Wadswo rth
,King,
and others .*Cu rrent Opinion .
-
4 . F.
’
2 1 . J ingoes .
Current Opinion . 7 1 : 1 -5. Jl.’
2 1 . Appeal fo r disarmament .Current Opinion . 7 1 : 26-30. Jl.
’
2 1 . Shall Amer i ca disarm ?Hudson Maxim .
Fo rtn ightly Review .
-80. Ap .
’
2 1 . Disarmament . M .
McD . Bodkin .
Fo rum . 65 : 306- 1 1 . M r. ’
2 1 . As to wor ld disarmament.Freeman . p . 391
-2 . Ja. 5,’
2 1 . An incompetent method .
A cr it ic ism of th e pol i t ical methods of th e Woman’s Peace Party .
Freeman . p . 391-2 . Ja. 5,
’
2 1 . An Incompetent Method .
*Fr i ends ’ Intel l igencer . 78 : 24 1-
3. Ap .
’
2 1 . Quaker chal lengeto a wor ld o f force .
*Independent. 105 1 14 . Ja. 29,’2 1 . Amer i ca and Japan .
Independent . 105 1 16- 1 7 . Ja. 29,’
2 1 Beating swords into plowshares .
*Independent . 105 : 161 -3. F. 12 ,’2 1 . Limitation o f armaments.
Hami lton Hol t.
7
2T.
xvi i i B IBLIOGRAPHY
*New Yo rk Wo rl d. Ja. 14,’
2 I . Anglo-Japanes e bogey !withtext o f Anglo-Japanese treaty].
*New York Wor ld . M r. 29,’
2 1 . America as an obstacle to
disarmament .Outlook. 1 27 : 166. F. 2
,
’
2 1 . Di sarmament.Outlook . 127 : 190. F. 2
,
’
2 1 . Di sarmament . P . W . Wilson .
Review o f Revi ews . - 1 7 . F.
’
2 1 . The way to disarm .
Review o f Reviews . 63 : 155-8. F.
’2 1 . Disarmament—Eng
land’ s pos it ion . P . W. Wilson .
Scientifi c American . 1 2 1 : 6o2 . D. 20,
’
19. P eace League and
di sarmament .*Scientific Amer ican . 1 24 : 22 . Ja. 8
,
’2 I . Di sarmament .
*Scientific Amer ican . 124 : 62 . Ja. 22,’
2 1 . The so-cal led armament race .
*Searchlight . 5 : 8-13. N . 15,’20. Amer ica menaced by mil itar
i sm . Harri et Conno r B rown .
Searchl ight . 5 : 10- 12 . D. 1 ,’
20. An immediate program forwomen . Harr i et Conno r B rown .
A lso issued in pamph let form at 1 00.
Searchl ight . 5 : 15-18. M r . ’
2 1 . Women wage war on war.Searchl ight . 5 : 1 7-20. Ap .
’
2 1 . What Wiscons in would do
about wa r.Reso lut ions passed by Wiscons in state legis lature .
*Searchl ight . 5 : 1 1 - 12 . My.
’
2 1 . The chall enge o f women to
Congres s . Dora B . Haines .
Searchl ight . 6 : 19. Je .
’2 1 . LaFollette pleads fo r disarmament .
Under th e generah h eading“M i l itary Matters” th e fi les of th e Search
l ight ofi er a good rev i ew of Congress ional act ion.
*Spectato r (London ) . p . 765-7 . D . 1 1 ,’
20. The naval skingame.
Weekly Review. 4 : 57 1 . Je. 18,’
2 1 . A plea to do away with
wa r.*Woman Cit izen . My. 7 ,
’
2 1 . Can we aff ord not todisarm ? James G. McDonald.
*Wo rl d Tomo rrow . 4 : 43—5. F.
’2 1 . I nadequacy of partial dis
armament . Stephen Laur i e.Wo r ld Tomo rrow .
—4 . Je .
’2 1 . Stop the next war now.
No rman Thomas .An editorial on th e Mex ican situation.
*Wor ld Tomorrow. J l.’
2 1 . Reasonable pacifi sm.
*World Tomo rrow . 4 : 201 -3. Jl.’
2 1 . Hard road to peace .
BIBLIOGRAPHY x ix
*Wo r ld’s Wo rk. 4 1 : 425-30. M r. ’
2 1 . Neces s ity for di sarmament.*Wo rld ’ s Work. 42 : 12 1 . Je .
’
2 1 . The United S tates wil ling
to disarm .
NEGATIVE REFERE N CES
(For Continued A rmaments )*A rmy and Navy Jou rnal . 53 : 540-1 . Ja. 8,
’
2 1 . Disarmamentand p reparednes s .
A rmy and Navy Jou rnal . 53 569. Ia. 15,’
2 I . Crux of wor lddisarmament.
*Army and Navy Journal . 53 : 62 1 . Ja. 29,’
2 1 . Future o f ou rnav y.
*Army and Navy Jou rnal. 53 : 669. F. 12 ,’
2 1 . D r i ft ing towardunpreparednes s .
*Army and Navy Journal . 53 : 696-7 . F. 19,’
2 1 . Regular armyneeds men .
Army and Nav y Journal . 53 : 697 . F. 19,’
2 1 . Hamper ing navalapp ropr i ation progres s .
A rmy and Navy Journal . M r. 12,
’
2 1 . Congres s andthe se rvices .
Army and Navy Journal . -9. Ap . 9,
’
2 1 . Sho rtage o f
navy personnel .Army and Navy Journal . 53 : 869. Ap . 9,
’
2 1 . Larger s erviceappropr iat ions needed.
Army and Navy Journal . -8. Ap . 30,’
2 1 . Reducing the
siz e o f the army.*Bull etin : League o f Free Nations Assn .
-1 2 . M r. '2 1 .
Should we be the fi rs t to d isarm ? Herbert Adams Gibbons
*Cu rrent H i sto ry. 12 : 943-52 . S .
’
20. Increased strength of
the United States on the sea. Thomas G. Froth ingham .
Fo rtnightly Review . 1 13 : 849-63. Je.
’
20. Shal l we su ffer eclipseby sea ? A rchibald Hurd.
*Fo rtnightly Revi ew . 1 14 : 916-30. D .
’20. Naval supremacy
Great B ritain o r the United States . A rchibald Hu rd .
Fo rtnightly Revi ew . 1 15 : 384-7 . Mr. '
2 1 . The Amer ican navalbu ilding program . Thomas G. Frothingham .
Literary Digest . 68 : 22 . Ja. 15,'2 1 . Aust ralia ’ s “pacifi st mil i
tar ists.
xx BIBLIOGRAPHY
‘Minneapol is Tr ibune. Je. 22,’
2 1 . Question o f th e Pacific.Bradley A . Fi ske .
*New Yo rk Cal l . Ja. 4,’2 1 . Shal l E ngland continue to l ead ?
*New Yo rk Times . N . 8,’
20. Addres s by P r ime Mini ster W.
A . Hughes o f Austral ia .*New Yo rk Times . F . 23,
’2 1 . A navy to match E ngland
’
s .1“No rth Ame r ican Revi ew .
-4. Je.
’
2 1 . Defense o f the
Phil ipp ines . B radley A . Fi ske.*Review o f Reviews . -
54. F.
’
2 1 . Disarmament andE urope. Frank H . S imonds .
*Review o f Reviews . 64 : 4. Jl.’
2 1. Lessons from our recenthi sto ry.
*Review o f Reviews . -6 J l.’2 1 . Industr ia l preparedne s s .
G . B . Clarkson .
*Satu rday E vening Post . p . 8-10. M r . 19, ’
2 1 . Wh y the UnitedStates needs a big navy . Josephus Daniel s .
*Wo r ld ’s Work. 42 1 2 1 . Je .
’2 1 . Our needs with respect to an
army*Wor ld’s Wo rk. 42 : 133 Je.
’
2 1 . P ersonal interview withCh ar le s Evans Hughes . Wil l iam H . Crawford.
ORGANIZ ATIONS
Amer i can Counci l o f th e Wor ld Al l iance for InternationalFr i endship Th rough th e Chu rches. 70 sth Ave ., New York.
American P eace Soci ety,61 2-14 Colo rado bldg., Washington,
D .C.
American Union Against Mil itari sm,203 Westo ry Bldg ,
Wash
ington, D .C .
Clearing Hous e fo r Limitat ion o f A rmaments, 3 W . 29th St .,
New Yo rk.
Fel lowship o f Reconci l iation,108 Lexington Ave ., New York.
Foreign Pol icy Assn . (fo rmer ly Leagu e o f Free Nations3 West 29th St . ,
New York .
Fr i ends P eace Committee, 304 A rch St . , Phi ladelphia.National Se cur ity League
,1 7 E ast 49th S t . , New York.
Woman ’ s Committee fo r Wo r ld Disa rmament, 7 1 7 WoodwardBldg.
, Washington, D .C.
Women’ s Peace Society, 525 Park Ave ., New Yo rk.
Wor ld Peace Foundation, 40 Mt . Vernon S t ., Boston.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
THE BORAH RE SOLUTION 1
Th e Borah amendment pr ov ides°
Sec 1 7 . That the president i s autho ri zed and requested toinvite th e governments o f Great B ritain and Japan to sendrepresentat ives to a con ference which shal l be charged with theduty o f promptly enter ing into an understanding o r agreementby which the naval expenditu re s and bu ilding programs o f e acho f said governments
,to wit
,the United States
,Great B r itain
and Japan , shal l be sub stantially reduced annual ly du ring thenext five years to such an extent and upon such terms as may beagreed upon
,which unde rstanding o r agreement is to be repo rted
to the respect ive governments fo rAdopted May 25, 192 1 .
Senator Borah int roduced a resolution , Senate Joint Resolut ion 18, on Apri l 3, autho ri z ing the pres id ent to cal l such acon ference . The above amendment to the naval appropriationbil l took the place o f the resolution .
ARMY AND NAVY APPROPRIATIONS 2
The naval appropriati on bil l , afte r a sto rm-tos sed career ,has final ly reached po rt. O f th e approximate i t
prov ides,
i s for fu rther construction o f ships al r eadyunde r way
,besides fo r additional ai r-cra ft bu ild ing.
No ai rp lane carriers were autho rized,but the de feat o f that
prov i s ion was not due to any de si re fo r economy. I t was voteddown in th e House on the ground that it should be b rought u pby the Naval Affai rs Committee , wh ich h as charge o f l egi slat ivematte rs . As th e final sum is l es s than th e amount
d emanded by the Senate,however , the advocates o f economy
have won a m easu re o f v icto ry. The enl isted personnel o f th e, Th e Search l ight , May,
1 9 2 1 .
“From Bul let in issued by th e American Union against M i l itar ism .
J ul y 1 4 , 1 92 1 .
2 SELECTED ARTICLE S
Navy was reduced to one hundred six thousand and the Mar inesto twenty-one thousand. The offi cer personnel i s not aff ectedas it i s fixed at a certain percentage o f the au th or ized enli stedpe rsonne l which i s at this t ime
In the Army the s ituat ion is d i fferent . The enl i sted personnel i s to be reduced to one hund red fi fty thousand by October 1
,
but the offi cer personnel, which i s fixed by law at men,wi l l
remain the same. In that huge officer corps li es the danger o f thespread o f mi l itar i sm . There are not enough posts in the regu lararmy fo r so many officers so a l arge group are sent to give military instruction in schools and co l leges
,and to o rganiz e paper
companie s o f reserve forces . Their specia l task i s to createinterest in things mil i tary so they wil l t alk p reparedness and inevery way faci l i tate th e growth o f the war machine. Unti l thelaw
'
i s changed and thei r number is reduced thi s menace wil lremain .
I f you fol lowed the debate on the reduction o f the army toone hundred fi fty thousand by October 1
,you read much about
the great hardship under which thousands o f so ldi er s were tobe p laced by be ing ruthles sly thrown out o f the A rmy befo retheir enl i stments expired . Therefo re you wil l be interested tol earn that by July 6
, (the o rder went into effect July I ) indica
t ions were that 25 per cent o f the men in the Army wereseeking discharge . Based on the ear ly reports it was e stimatedthat i f al l appl ications receiv ed dur ing July were granted, nearlys ixty thousand men would be di scharged as a result be foreAugust 1 . This reduction , coupled with the normal discharges,i t appeared
,would bring the Army strengt h down very clo se to
one hundred fi fty-fi v e thousand men by August (Army
and Navy Journal, July 9,The total o f th e Army Appropriation bi l l was
This i s l es s than the bi l l v etoed by P res ident Wil sondur ing the last s es s ion o f Congres s.
OUR NEW ARMY 1
The policy fo r National Defense, as conceived by Congres s,i s out lined in S ection 3 o f the National Defens e Act, as
amended by the Act o f June 4, 1920. The pertinent part o fthi s S ect ion reads as fol lows
1 By Maj or-General W. G. Haan. Forum.-7 . March , 1 92 1 .
4 SELECTED ARTICLE S
those nations o r groups of nations, wh ich might pos sib ly and
even most p robab ly become ou r enemies in wars of th e nearfutu re
,shou ld such wars occu r. Ou r studies have gone so far
as to make reasonab le estimates o f the intens ity and speedwith whi ch such enemy effo rts might b e made, and the su c
cessfu l so lution o f the p rob lem requires that our mobi li zationmust b e such and at such speed as wi l l success ful ly res i s t th eeffo rts o f the enemy. Tak ing ou r studies on thi s l ine, we haveattempted to set the requi rements o f the prob lem by showingwhat fo rce i s neces sary to have ready to meet the max imumeffo rt s o f the enemy at certain definite periods af ter the dayhost i l i t i es begin, and bas ed upon thes e conc lus ions we have
const ructed what may b e cal led “the man-power cu rve” showing graphical ly the rate o f increase requi red in our o rganizedfo rces taken as a function o f time reckoned f rom the beginning o f host i l i t i e s .
The peace estab li shment must be such as to permit o f immediate mobilization of the neces sa ry fo rce to accompli sh themiss ion as above stated . Mobi li zation to b e immediately effactiv e requi res that thos e elements which cannot b e p rovideddu r ing the per iod of mob ilization must b e provided befo rehand ; must b e p rovided in time of peace ; some o f thes e elements requi ring much tim e in the making may be mentionedas fo l lows :
T rained commanders fo r th e large r units .The pr incipal staff offi cers for the larger combat units .Commanders , staff offi cers and subo rdinate ofiicers for al l
unit s .
Offi ce rs fo r taking charge o f corps areas and undertak ingo rgani zation and training o f the second and subsequent mobilizat ions.
R eserv e equ ipment and supplies and an o rgani zat ion for
mobi li zing the industri es o f the country acco rding to p lanspreviously prepa red to supply the field fo rces with all manne rof neces sar i e s b efor e th e r eserv e supplies are exhaus ted.
The man-power curve fo rms the basis for al l preparation .
I t i s the Dir ectr ix o f al l activiti es in preparation for the national defens e. I t appli es not only to personnel
,but to mate
r i al . It i s the guide not only fo r the Wa r Department General S taff , but fo r the great supply department s o f the A rmy,and ou r Army school development .Befo re approving the man-power cu rve
, the h igh est au thor i
DI SARMAMENT 5
t i es o f th e War Department consulted with other departments of th e government, particu lar ly with th e Navy Depa rtment . Thi s matter i s mentioned here mere ly to show with
what care and caution the s ituation was s tudied b efo re theman-power cu rve was accepted.
Having reached conclusions upon th e man-power curve, th ep rob lem reso lved i ts e l f into one o f concretenes s . I t was poss ib l e then to make intel l igent s tudies as to how best to makeu se o f the means p rovided by the Congress to accomplish th e
mission contained in the Congres s iona l Mandate . The es sentia l means p rovided have already b een stated. The best pos
s ib le deve lopment o f thes e means has been considered andstudied from every angl e . In accordance with the requi rementsin the National Def ens e Act
,exper i enced offi cers o f the Na
tional Guard and the Reserves have been detai led on duty withthe War Department Genera l Staff fo r the pu rpos e o f s tudying
,with offi cers Of the War Department General Staff , the
best pos s ib le o rgani zation for the National Guard and the Organized Rese rves . I am glad to stat e that there has been nodi ff erence o f opinion between the Regular offi cers and th eseNational Guard and Reserve Offi cers in the mi ss ion that is tobe accompli shed by the Nationa l Defens e fo rce and th e besto rganization fo r accompli sh ing that mis sion with the meansmade avai lab le .
The most impo rtant e lement o f an army, and the one thatrequi res the greatest amount o f time in the making, is the of
ficer personnel . The various c las ses o f office r personne l as toimpo rtance, and as to l ength o f t ime requi red in preparation,are as fol lowsCommander s and p rincipal staff Offi cers o f large units
(Above the Regiment ) .
Commanders and staff offi cers o f subordinate units .Subalte rn offi cers .Fo r al l those o rgani zat ions that must be a part o f the im
mediate mob ilization prescribed by Congres s , th e enti re officerpersonnel must be provided be fo re the emergency, so thatthere shal l b e avai lab le , when the emergency - i s dec lared byCongress
,suffi ci ent offi ce rs to at once take charge o f troops
cal l ed into se rvice and to proceed wi th the o rgani zation , concent ration and deployment in acco rdance with th e approvedwar plans .The offi cer personne l that should b e avai lab le by 1924, if
6 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
fu l ly developed as contemplated, under the present law, wou ld
be approximately as fo l lows ‘
Regular ArmyNat ional Guard (est imated)Reserve Corps (est imated)
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . O O O Q O O C Q I SO’OOO
Thi s in numb er s would be suffi ci ent fo r a fo rce cons istingo f fi fty
-fou r combat divi s ions,o rgani zed into nineteen co rps
and six field a rmies and,in addition thereto
,offi cers fo r the
War Department ove rhead and the personnel neces sary fo r al lthe activit ies i n the co rps areas and the great supply system .
Unde r a preceding .paragraph are given the var ious cl asseso f personnel . Those unde r the fir st two classes requ ire care fuland special training, both theo retica l and pract ical ; those underthe fi rst c las s requi ring, o f cou rs e, mo re than those under thesecond ; those under the thi rd require b asic theo ret ica l andp ractical in struction in a lesser degree .Our Army Schoo l
.
System i s being so developed as to gi vein the Sp eci al and General Service Schools the necessary faci l it i e s to instruct qual ified office rs f rom al l avai lab le sourcesp rovided by law for var ious clas ses o f office r personnel . Thi sbrings u s to the mi ss ion o f ou r school s fo r officers . GeneralO rders No . 56, current s er i es , War Department, gives u s the
miss ion o f school s for officers as fol lowsTo provide officers t rained correct l y in theory and pract ice for all pos i
t ions in command and s taff for th e Peace E stab l ishment of th e Un itedStates Army as organ ized under Sect ion 3, Act of J une 4 , 1 920, and to
provide in addit ion there to a reservo ir of trained offi cers qual ified for or
ganizing and deve loping to its max imum capac ity th e potent ial m i l itarypower of th e nation in accordance w ith th e approved war p lans.
I n o rder that we may carry out in time of war a completeand immediate mobi l i zat ion as cal led fo r by Congress , wemust provide in t ime o f peace an el igibl e l i st o f comm ander sand an e ligible l i st o f the important staff officer s so trainedthat they shal l b e ,
imm ediately avai lab l e to take charge o f thisimmed i ate and complete mobi l i zation . Thi s is the p r incipalfunct ion o f our A rmy Schoo l System fo r officers .Officers included in the Regular Army li st can b e counted
upon as definite ly availabl e in the near futu re . Those o f th eNat ional Guard i t i s hoped may be m aintained at near themaximum . The indefinite prob lem rests with the Reserves .At the present t ime and perhaps for five years in the future
DISARMAMENT 7
suffi cient Reserve Offi cer s may be obtained f rom those whosaw s e rvice in th e War . to furnish the minimum required forth e fi rst mobi l i zation . The National De fense Act makes p rovis ion for maintaining th e Officer s
’ Reserve Corps by commissioning new reserve officers as the p resent l i st gradually ceases tobe avai lab le. The Reserve Officer Training Corps ’ at E ducational Institutions being the pr incipal source . The Civ i l ian
Mil itary Training Camps under Section 47d, National DefenseAct, should also generate a cons iderable numbe r ; and there a reother channels o f el igibi l i ty. A p racti cal exper i ence alone w i l ldetermine whether the requi s ite numbe r with proper qualifications can be obtained.
The enl isted personnel require s les s t ime in the making i fofficer s be availab le to “gi ve the instructions . With the enl i stedpersonnel, as with the officer personnel, the Regular A rmy cont ingent peace strength may be counted upon with definiteness .
The National Guard withlless definiteness and les s per fect ly
trained but ful ly o rganiz ed ; the O rganized Reserve Fo rce i sas yet wholly theoretical as to enl i sted component—no one canat present foretel l with anything bett er than an est imate as tohow thi s may deve lop ; but in any case, i f we are able to main
tain the offi cer personnel in the numbers requi red in the variousgrades , by th at alone much wi l l have been accompli shed , s ince
with the officer pe rsonne l the basis of organization fo r war canbe made in t ime o f peace . I t i s the pol i cy o f the War De
par tment , as I under stand ,it,not to ask for fu rthe r legis la
tion unl ess by actual tr ia l the p resent l aw should fai l to p roducethe means whe reby the miss ion , which i t cl early d esc ribes ,can be accompl ished .
I have spoken mainly o f personne l so far. The Wa r Depar tment plans being prepared unde r the va rious p rov i s ions o fthe National De fense Act
,as amend ed
,include not only the
adequate res e rv e m unitions and equipment o f al l kinds , butcare ful stud i e s and p lans fo r the coo rd inat ion and mobil izat ion o f the industr ie s necessary to supply the Field A rmiesw i th al l m anner o f equipment and munition s as th e rese rvesbecome exhausted . Thes e studi e s and plans a re al l basedupon the man - powe r cu rve as th e gene ral guid e .
The care ful studies so fa r mad e and th e pol ici es thereunderin process o f development are to b e conv inc ing proo f that asa piece o f construct ive l egis lation involving a broad policy
8 SELECTED ARTICLE S
cover ing the p robabl e needs of National Def ense, th i s l aw is byfar the best and most rational ever placed on our statute books .The mandate in S ection 3, modestly inte rpreted by the
War Department as i ts mis s ion , i s yet so large an undertakingthat the means provided by th e law may not be suffici ent for
its accompli shment . There are many o f our best in fo rm edboth inside and outs ide the A rmy who bel i eve that universaltrain ing alone wi l l b e sufficient . The earnest and honest effo rtnow being mad e should b efore .
long give us definite and su f
ficient in formation for i nt el l igent recomm endations as to neces
s ary o r des irab le modifications .
NAVAL PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATE S 1
Appear ing be fore the Hous e Naval Aff airs Committee onJanuary I I , Secretary Danie l s declared that the t ime was r ipefor a l imitation o f naval armaments by general internationalagreement . Such a movement
,in h is opinion, might properly
b e init iated by President-e lect Harding, who could . cal l and
hold an international d is a rmament conference within two monthsa fte r hi s inauguration . As P res ident he would have comp leteauthor i zat ion to cal l such a conference under the Naval Appropr iation act o f 1916.
On th e fol lowing day Mr . Daniels p resented to the committe e the first complete official picture o f the rel at ive navalstrengt h , present and prospect iv e, o f the th ree leading naval
powers—the United States, Great B r i tain and Japan . One o fhi s tab les
,which showed the tonnage and number of vesse ls
o f each type, was this :
GREAT BRITAINTons
Battlesh ipsDestroyersL ight cru isersBat t le cru isersSubmar inesA ircraft carriersDestroyers ’ leadersCruisers
Total
1 Current History Magazine .-1 90. Februar y, 1 92 1 .
DI SARMAMENT 9
UNITED STATE S
7 79’ x7 3
JAPAN
. . Q Q O O O O O O C Q O O O Q O O O O O O C
The author iz ed building p rograms were given as fol lowsQ
GREAT BR ITAIN
Bat tlesh ips 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 Destroyers5 L ight cru i sersBatt le c ru isers
1 9 Submarines1 Destroyer leaderCru isersTotal : 36 units ; tons
UNITED STATE S0
1 1 Battlesh ips“ . 1
38 Destroyers.
10 L ight cru i sers6 Batt le cru i sers43 Submari nes
Total : 1 00 units ; tons
JAPAN
3 Battlesh ips1 5 Destroyers9 L ight cru i sers4 Bat t le cru i sers1 0 Submar ines
Total : 4 1 uni ts ; tons
M r. Daniel s said that in addition to thi s au tho rized programJapan had a “proj ected bu ilding program o f
4 Batt lesh ips30 Des troyers4 Batt le cru isers30 Submarines
Total : 68 units ; tons
SELE CTED ARTICLE S
SE CRETARY DANIELS ’ STATEMENT 1
With reference to the naval program'
o i the United States,
there are j ust two cours es, and only two , open .
1 . To secure an international agreement with al l,o r prae
t ically al l,the nations, which wi l l guarantee an end of com
pet ition in navy bui lding, reduce the national burden and leadin the movement to s ecure the buttres s wo rld peace.
2 . To hold aloo f f rom agreement o r association with theother nations as to th e size o f a rm ament . This wi l l requireu s to b ui ld a navy strong enough and power ful enough to beable
,on our own, to p rotect Am er i cans and Amer ican shipp ing,
de fend Amer ican pol ici es in the distant possess ions as wel l asat home, and by the p resence o f sea power to command th erespect and fear of the wor ld .
There i s of cours e the th i rd alternative o f being content witha sm al l navy in a wo rld o f b ig navies, exposed to certain dest ruction in case o f wa r wi th a great power o r powers . I d ismis s that alternat ive without di scus s ion, b ecause it is a wasteo f money to spend money on an agency o f war which wouldbe helpl ess i f needed . Whatever el s e the Am er i can people mayapprove they wi l l not approve such an ineff ective pol icy. Equalitywith the greates t o r an inte rnational agreement alone can bes erious ly cons idered .
Of the only two plans fo r cons ideration I am he re to pres sth e fi rst . The hou r had arrived befo re the Wor ld War fo rinte rnational agreement i f the statesmanship o f the wo r ld hadbeen equal to the opportunity. An international con ference to
end competit ive navy construct ion was propos ed by me in myfi rs t annual report in December, 1913, and proposed in everysuccess ive report and in every hearing before the Naval AffairsCommittee for near ly eight yearsI held
,in 1913, the opinion I wish to emphas i ze now : that
no hal f-way measu res would meet the world question . An
all i ance limited to th e United State s, Great B r i tain, and Japanwould make for suspicion and d i s trust and be fol lowed laterby a counte r- entente o f other nations j ealous o f what they r e
gard as an Anglo-Saxon and Japanese al l i ance to di ctate to1 From th e New York T imes, January 1 2 , 1 92 1 .
12 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
THE RE PORT.
ON WHICH PRE SENT BUILDINGPROGRAM IS BASED 1
The navy o f the United States should ultimately be equalto th e most power ful maintained by any other nation o f thewor ld . I t should b e gradual ly increased to thi s point by such arate o f deve lopm ent Year by year, as may be permitt ed by thef aci l i t i es o f the country, but the limit above defined shouldbe attained not later than 1925.
The General Board is convinced o f the great advantages,bo th mi li tary and economic, which wi l l fol low upon the ac
cep tance o f the general p r incip l e o f a bui lding program extending over a per i od o f years . On one hand a continuingp rogram enabl es the Navy Depa rtm ent to plan with greaterfores ight than i s pos sibl e with an annual noncont inu ing p rogram .
The m il itary end to be reached at the clos e o f such a pe riodi s thus m ade cl ear ly evident by the Navy Department to Congres s and to the country . On the other hand, a d egree o ffinanci al s ecur ity i s o ffered the indust ri es o f the country by thefo reknow l edge which they thus obtain as to probable n avalexpenditu res . This wi l l encourage them to invest money in
enlarging their plants fo r naval shipbuilding and al l i ts al l i edindustr i e s . At the same time, the st rong probabi l i ty o f con- r
t inu ed wo rk throughout the per iod o f the program,wi ll t end
to reduce contract pr i ces .The General Board bel ieves that th e cours e o f the present
war in E urope affo rds convincing reasons fo r modi fying theopinion which i t has expres sed fo r the past e leven years as tothe prop e r s iz e o f the navy .
A navy in fi rm control o f the seas f rom the outb reak o fthe wa r i s the prime es sentia l to the defens e of a country sit
uated as i s the United States bo rde ring upon two great oceans .A navy strong enough only to defend ou r coast f rom actualinvasion w i l l not suffice. Defens e f rom invas ion i s not theonly function of the navy . I t must p rotect ou r s eaborne commerce and d rive that o f the enemy f rom the sea. The best
way to accompli sh al l these obj ects i s to find and defeat the
host i l e fleet o r any o f i t s detachments at a di stance f rom ou r1 From Report of th e Secretary of th e Navy , 1 9 1 5, 7 5
-76, quot ing r e
port of General Board of th e Navy Department.
DISARMAMENT 3
coast suffi ci ent ly great to p revent int erruption o f ou r normalcourse of nationa l li f e . The cu rrent war has shown that a
navy of th e s i ze recommend ed by thi s Board in p revious yearscan no longer be considered as ad equate to the def ens ive needso f the United States . Ou r present navy i s not suffici ent togive due weight to the dip lomatic
.remonst rances o f the Uni ted
States in peace no r to enfo rce it s po lici es in wa r.
THE NAVAL PROBLEM 1
Nav i e s a re mo re clo sely al li ed i n the pub li c mind with fo reign relations than armies . Di ff erences between nations that
are contigu ous to each othe r a re comparatively f ew ; they
a lone rai s e a question of employing armies . All other diff erences have had the navy in the background as a final reso rt .And there is a notab le tendency on the part o f the naval mento bank on that ci rcumstance : Ou r present navy i s not suffici ent to give due weight to the dip lomati c remonst rances o fthe United States in peace,” acco rd ing to the Amer i can Genera l Board o f the Navy .
Time was when that atti tud e was unquestioned and whenthe number o f naval powers was great enough to j usti fy i t i nsome d egree . But the situation has changed . The World
War has given the naval rival ry an enti re ly new aspect. Justbefo re i t some figu res were care fu l ly compi led with the obj ect
o f show ing the moneta ry investment o f the wo rld i n navi es .I t was found that the then eight powers had combined fl eet s
w ith a conse rvatively ind i cated worth o f whi le
the twelve othe r powers having fleets o f any si z e could value
them only at o r sub stantial ly one-t enth . Obviously,any possib l e rival ry th en was confined to the leading eight .
But afte r the Wo rld \Nar the re emerge but five powers withmaj o r fleets
,and thei r naval a rmament i s relatively la rge r than
befo re the war,i n compari son w i th the mino r fl eets . In fact
,
on th e basi s o f tonnage , Great B ritain in 19 14 had the only
fleet a s big as th e tota l mino r nav i e s , whi le today fou r out o fthe five maj o rs each out ranks al l th e minors togethe r. Not
only has th e d i sc repancy between maj o rs and mino rs increased ,but the d i ff e rences among the maj o rs have become notably
‘ From Th e Stagger ing Burden o f Armamen ts . World Peace Foundst ion.
14 SELECTED ARTICLES
la rge.The war , general ly speaking, effected great reductions
in tonnage by rend ering ships obso lete, so that only GreatB ritain and the United States show increas es f rom 1914 to
192 1 . For compari son, the figures are
FLEE T TONNAGE S, 1 9 1 4 AND 1 92 1
MAJ OR
1 9 1 4
Great Br itainGermanyUnited Stat esFranceJapanRuss iaItal yAustr ia-Hungary
M INOR
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
What the war d i d to fl eets was to s end pract ica l ly eve rything o i any age to the j unk pi le o r to the intermediate pu rgatory of being out of commission . The B r i t i sh nava l l i s t o fMarch, 1914, gives s eventy- s ix batt leships ; th e United States
Naval Intel l igence now cred i t s her with twenty-six ,whi le the
B rit i sh retu rn to Par l iament o f March,
192 1 , accounts fo ronly twenty—two . Stati stics o f cu rrent value are dis crepant,showing the doubts in the minds of the expert s . The B r it i shretu rn ref erred to a rranges ships acco rding as they do o r do
DISARMAMENT 15
not embody war l essons ; Rear Admi ra l A . T . Long, Directo rof Naval Intel ligence , writes that “i t is not possib l e to stat e
definit e ly what ves sels embody the lessons l earned at Jut land,but the Offi ce can fu rnish you with what i s b e li eved to b e theco rrect numbers o f tota l ship s in the variou s clas ses . This
statement fol lows
STRENGTH OF MAJOR NAVIE S , MAY 1,
1 92 1
Great Un itedBr itain States Japan France Ital y
Batt lesh ips, rst l ine 1 6 6
Batt lesh ips, 2d line 1 6 4
Bat t le cru isers, r st l ine 4
Batt le cruisers, 2d' l ine
Cru isers, r st l ineCruisers , 2d line
L ight cru isers , xst l ineLight cruisers , ad l ineDestroyer leadersDestroyers, 1 st l ineDestroyers, 2d l ineSubmar inesAircraft carr iers
I n connection with fl eets as a whole, one of the most f requent arguments u sed is the neces si ty o f defend ing coast lines .At fi rst glance i t s eems clea r that the relation between sea exposu r e and sea power is fundamental ; but on clo ser examination no such conclusion fo l lows . The cha racte r o f a coastthe number
,si ze and contou r o f i ts -harbors
,fo r instance—may
throw theo ry aw ry . On ou r own Atlantic s eaboard the re a reseveral good harbo rs to one on the Pacific . The B rit i sh A tlanti c coast includ e s not only the B ri ti sh I s les
,but po rtions o f
A f ri ca,No rth and South America and the West Ind i es . The
Dutch colonial coasts are twenty-fou r t imes the length o f thatof the Nethe rland s i t s el f and thousands o f mi les away f romthe mé t ropol e , etc . So i t would s eem that no general conclu~sions can be d rawn f rom such figu res ; b u t as they have notbeen publi shed 1 they are presented herewith fo r what they arewo rth :
1 Th e s tat is t ics ar e rearranged from a ph o tostat chart o f th e UnitedS tates Coast and Geode t ic Survey O ffi c e , wi th addi t i ons from t h e Ser ialNo. 2 2 .
16 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
SEA COAST or THE VAR IOUS
Pac ificArgent ineBe lgi umBraz i lCentral Amer ican statesCh ileChinaCo lomb iaCuba
E cuadorFrancehI oroceo
GermanyGreat Br itainGreece
Hait iHo l landItal yTr ipo l i
JapanI(or ea
L iber iaMex icoNew Hebr ides and Santa Cruz
Is lands
OmanPers iaPeru
Russ iaSan Dom ingoSpainSwedenTonga (Fr iendly) Is landsUnited States1A laskaPh i l ippine Is landsPorto R icoGuamHawai ian Is landsPanama Canal Z oneSamoan Is lands
UruguayVenezue la
1 T idal shore l ine , un it m easure 3 statu te m i les , for Uni ted S tates andpossessi ons . Th e general coast l ine of th e Un ited S tates proper is : A tlant i c, 1 888 ; Gulf, 1 629 ; Pacrfic , 1 366 ; total , 4883.
COUNTRIE S OF THE WORLD
S tatu te M i lesIndianAt lant ic
7 1
887
58
4 1 5
7 37
607
Arct ic Totals
7 1
L 7 9 1
835
4 1 5
7 37
1 1
DISARMAMENT 1 7
The cost o f a navy i s constantly r i s ing and the types o fves sels multiplying. The latest figu res for naval maté r i el
as given in House and Senate hear ings in January and Peb rua ry fo l low :
COST OF NAVAL VE SSE LS 1
Battlesh ip, w ith ammun iti onBatt lesh ip, Without ammunit ionAi rp lane carr ie r, tons
Ai rp lane carrier, tons
Cru iser, tons
Submar ine chaserF leet submarineTransportM ine -laying submar ineDestroyerGunboat
COST OF AIRCRAFT 2
(Heavier than air )Sh ips ’ spotting planesSh ips ’ figh t ing planesTorpedo planesReconnaissance planesPursu it planesPract ice planes
(L igh ter than ai r )Non-r igid airsh ipSmal l tour ing airsh ipKite bal loonsFree balloons
Anothe r phase o f nava l costs i s dete ri oration . Ves se ls arereti red afte r a pe riod o f s e rvice which i s constantly decr easing in length . A batt leship can not be expected in thes e daysto hold i ts place mo re than ten years , though i t may not bewri tten o ff complete ly fo r a much longer t ime . German batt lesh ips, by the t reaty o f Versai l le s, may not b e rep laced fo rtwenty years . I n time o f peace ,
“obso let e”
is the caus e o f
death of naval vesse l s . The ve ry specia l cha racte r o f naval
c raft i s i l lu st rated by the fact that they a re wo rth p racti ca l lynothing except fo r thei r designed pu rposes . The fol lowingtab le
,d rawn f rom Bri ti sh sou rces because American figures
Tes t imony of Rear-Adm iral David W . Taylor , Chie f , Bureau of Cons truc t ion and Repair, House Hear ings , 54 7 , 7 67 , 7 69 .
“Hear ing before th e Comm ittee on Naval Affairs, Uni ted States S enate , 1 92 1 , 67 .
18 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
s eem not to be avai lab le,shows that ten years ago the j unk
value was negligib l e
WHAT OB SOLE TE MEANS IN MONEYBr it ish Warsh ips So ld in 1 909
-1 0
Year of Val ue of GearName Complet ion First Cost Sale Pr ice Removed
Rodney 1887 -88Co l l ingwood 1 886-87Snap 187 2 -7 3Anson 1 888-89Benbow 1887 -88Thunderer 1 87 7 -78Defiance I I 1 861
Hornet 1894-95Torpedo boat 1 887 -88Submar ine 1 907
-08
Gladiator 1 899-1 900
L ee 1 900-1 901
Mooding L ighterNo . 7 7 1 82 7 Not known
Harpy 1 845-46
Daisy 1 878-79
TotalsTotal rece ipts from saleExpenses of sale
Net rece iptsPercentage of net rece ipts to first cost ,
A BRITISH VIEW l
America’
s naval plans dominated the debate on the B ri t i shNavy estimates i n the House o f Commons last night. S i r E dward Carson appeared as the leader of the b ig navy party b ecaus e o i hi s b el i ef in the necess ity o f bui lding against the
United S tates . His stand in thi s character i s parti cu lar ly impo rtant at thi s j unctu re, when the disappearance o f Bonar Lawis hai led by the Tory extremi sts as a great opportunity fo rthem to as se rt themselves as the ruling fact ion .
He warned the Gove rnment i f they fai led through econo
m izing to maintain the one power standard they should “te l l i t
to the people,te l l i t to the empi re
,te l l them there i s another
naval pow er which may interrupt the great highways of theempire . Let them see what they can do to p revent the greatest catast rophe that has ever happened in thi s country.
He expressed the hope that pres sure had not b een put toB ri t i sh naval experts to make them agree to the one-power
1 From New York World. March 1 9, 1 92 1.
20 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
B r it ish Government made this p roposal,apparently so fai r and
reasonab le . Fi rs t o f al l, B ri ti sh naval expenditure then, as
now, had reached the b reaking point ; and the B ri ti sh taxpayerthen
,as now, was growing rest ive . But there were other and
deeper reasons fo r the p roposal—the secret naval and mi litaryplans o f the E ntente had been fu l ly worked out and agreedupon . Among other i ncontrovertib l e testimony, Sazonov
’
s l et
t ers to the Tsar are expli ci t on thi s point .A glance at the B ri ti sh White Paper of 1914, giving the
annual expend i tu re o f the Great Powers on new naval construction
,shows clear ly the state of affai rs when M r. Chu rchi l l
b rought forward h is p roposal .
Great Br itain France Russ ia Germany£ 1 0, 1 7 7 ,o62
1
1
1
There a re , however, other figures to b e considered i f animpartia l j udgment i s to be fo rmed in thi s matter : namely,the figures showing the gros s naval expenditure and
'
the ex
p enditu r e on new construction o f th e Tr ip le E ntente and theT r ip l e Al li ance in the yea r preceding the outb reak o f the war.
GROS S NAVAL E ! PENDITURE S , 1 9 1 3
GermanyAustr iaItal y
Triple E ntente Tr iple A l l iance
NEW CONSTRUCTION, 1 9 1 3
GermanyAustr ia
Tr iple Entente £ 37 ,859 ,4 SS Tr iple Al l iance
I ta ly’
s naval expenditu re, o f cours e, did not give much aidand comfort to he r pa rtners in the Al li ance
,becaus e they
knew wel l enough that her th ri fty dip lomati sts had al readybound her to France by a secret naval t reaty which wouldprevent he r f rom taking part in a war against the E ntente.In a wo rd then , the amiab le suggestion o f a “naval ho liday
was merely another case of heads, I win ; tai ls, you los e. How
DISARMAMENT 2 1
could it b e expected that the German Adm i ralty would ente rtain the idea as long as B ritain’ s a l l i es , France and Russia,were incr easmg thei r naval expend i tu res by leaps and bounds ?No one knew bette r than Mr . Churchi l l that the German Gov
e rnm ent would not even consider the suggest ion to ceas e bui lding unles s the bui ld ing p lans of France and Russ ia werechecked as wel l as B ritain
’
s . Ind eed th e att itude of Germanyat that t ime i s accu rately refl ected in an officia l repo rt f romBerl in to M . P ichon, then French Mini ster o f Foreign A f
fairs ; which makes it pretty p lain why th e p roposal fo r ahol iday received such scant attention at German hands .I t would not b e ami s s i f those who a re now talking so
easi ly about the notion o f an Anglo-Ameri can nava l ho l idaywould take a backward glance at the naval expansion of thegreat Powers f rom 1887 when th e German imper i ali st s firs trai sed the c ry fo r co loni es . A few years later the FrancoRussian Al liance was consummated
,and E ngland b egan at
once to bui ld against the combination ; and Germany also tookwhat are pleasantly cal led “p recautionary measu re s .
GROSS NAVAL E ! PENDITURE S , 1887
France Russ ia
GROSS NAVAL E ! PENDITURE S , 1 897
Great Br itain France Russ ia
After the Boe r War,i n 1904 , the year i n which the Anglo
French agreement was signed, the figu res fo r gross expendi
tu re we re :
Great Bri tain Germany£ 4 2 ,4 3 1 ,ooo 16
Let us now glance at what was happening in GermanyThe German Fleet Law was laid down in 1905 (the yea r afte r the publication o f the Anglo-French agreement ) , and wasamend ed in 1906, and 1908. At the t ime o f the second amend
ment th e nav i e s o f the fi rst th ree Powers were a s fo l lowsBattlesh ips Armou red Cruisers Destroyers
57 34 1 4 2
2 1 1 9 48
8 61
22 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
So the f atefu l year was ushered in and the race fo r navalsupremacy reached i ts d i sas trous end. The mo ral Of the
who le mise rab le story, i n our vi ew, is something like thi sThat no one suggests a naval ho liday unles s i t i s quite conv enient to have one, and that the road to war i s paved wi thp reparednes s . But mo ral o r no moral
,we shou ld like to sug
gest to thos e who are inte rested in the p res ent agitation fo ran Anglo-American naval hol iday that they would do wel l to
study ve ry thoroughly the motives which under lay the lastproposal , the reasons why it came to naught , and how di rewere the cons equences of tu rning nations o f men into nationso f j ingoes cower ing behind dreadnaughts .
THE DOOM OF THE TA ! PAYER 1
The financial aspect of armament may p roperly b e fi rs t considered in connection with the worl d war. The total direct costso f th e war , not counting interest charges, is official ly given at
fo r al l bel l igerents . The capital i z ed value o f
human l i fe destroyed, sold i ers and civ i l i ans, on a cons ervativebas is is given as The claims fo r damagesagainst Germany
,constituting part o f the p r ice sh e pays fo r the
pr ivi l ege o f us ing her armament,p re ferred under the treaty of
Versai l l es by the parti es thereto as offi cial ly reported to theReparat ion Commiss ion
,but w ithout review
,was
o r about a bi l l i on a month fo r the duration o f the war . Shippingand cargo losses are given as los s o f productionat war rel i ef and lo ss to neutrals atThese figures totalI t may roughly be said that i s the financial
handicap that the world has taken on s ince 1914.
The los s o f l i fe 18 given In a compilat ion o f the Danish Re
s earch Society on the Social Resul ts o f the War as fol lows :
Loss AmongThrough Those
Dec . in I nc . of K i l led TotalB irth Rate Death Rate in War Loss
GermanyAustr ia-HungaryGt . Br itain, Ire landFrance
1 From Th e S tagger ing Burden of Armaments. p . 2 1 3-20. Wor ld
Peace Foundat ion.
2 E rnest L. Bogart , D irect and Indirect Costs of th e World War, 299 .
DISARMAMENT 23
Be lgi umItal yBulgar iaRumania 5ServiaE uropeRuss ia and . 2 O ,2 50,ooo
In th e Engl ish House of Commons on December 20, 1 920, M r. L loydGeorge , replying to S ir A . Sh irley Benn said th e Government was con
s ide r ing whether a re turn, showing th e cost of th e Great War to eachnat ion wh ich h ad been engaged in it, cou ld b e compi led w ithout labor o r
expense disproport ionate t o i ts valu e . S ir A . Sh ir ley Benn .
—I s th e r ighthonorab le gent leman aware that i t is reported that there werecasu ali t ies, inc l uding deaths , and t hat th e cost amounted to
direct and indirec t , and would i t not b e
advisable to have an author itat ive statement to hand down to fu ture gen
e r at ions, so that they m ight know what war meant ? Mr . L loyd George .
Th ese figures ar e subs tant ial l y accurate . I agree i t wou ld b e very de
s irab le , if poss ib le , t o get fu l l re turns , but i t does not depend ent ire l yupon t h is count ry . It involves invest igat ions abroad, and in some countr ies where th e losses were very heavy th e r e turn wou ld b e , at th e best ,conj ecture . In Russ ia, Austr ia and T urkey we cou ld not get any th ing l ikeaccurate est imates .
The worst o f thes e pe rcentages i s not their siz e . The worsto f i t i s that thes e post-war figures would only be cut about 15pe r cent, i f the wo r ld r etu rned to it s fo rmer habits . The UnitedStates, which j ust now i s setting the pace in armament competition used to sp end more than 70 pe r cent o f its total annual
budget fo r war purposes , not in a s ingle year only, but on thebasi s o f the running o f the government since 1870. Here are
the figures
E ! PENDITURE S FOR ARMED PEACE AND WAR-1 9 16 1 87 0-1 9 1 9
Omitt ing Spani sh Inc l uding SpanishAmer 1can andWor ld Amer ican and World
Wars Wars4 7 years 50 years
1 3,9 1 3,544 .ooo 34 32 7 578 000 76 4A l l other pu rposes 5,543, 7 2 7 ,ooo 1 0 2 3 6
To tal
The burd en o f this debt brings i t about that eve ry be l l igerenthas such staggering taxation as to ham pe r al l the processes o fnational and ind iv idual l i fe . For th e fi rst time in h isto ry a
nation , d i smembered Austr ia , has gone into the hands o f a
receive r . Moreover, el even out o f twelve E u ropean states , evenw i th t remendous taxat ion a re spend ing far beyond thei r income
,
and th ree out o f fou r countri es in th e wo r ld a re unabl e to
24 SELECTED ARTICLE S
rais e the taxes to meet the ir running expenses . Th e United
States,widely heralded as the r ichest nation in the wor ld , thi s
year shows an est imated Treasu ry deficit o f and
in 1922 o f taking into account as part o f expenditu r es re funding ope rat ions o f the fi s cal per iods . I n E uropethe si tuat ion i s so bad that any nation which can even approachno rmal conditions o f solvency regards that as a tr iumphal accomp lishment .
GROWTH OF MILITARY AND NAVAL E ! PENDITURE ,1 87 2 -1 92 1
COUNTRY 19 12
Austr ia-HungaryFrance 1 085%
Germany .
Great Br itain .
Ital yRuss iaUnited States . 1 ,4 2 2 , 7 52 ,ooo 2 4 1 370
Totals
I taly, fo r in stance, after a he rcul ean effor t at par ing downnational expenses proudly announces that this year ’s deficit hasbeen cut f rom l i re to and the
cabinet got a vote o f confidence as a resu lt .The United States is but l i tt l e better off than E urope . The
year a fte r th e war,Congres s appropr iated 92
'
pe r cent o f thetotal allotment o f money for the year ending June 30, 1920, forpu rposes o f war , l eaving 8 per cent for the rest o f the Government . By a certain amount o f luck and a sl ight d i spos itiontoward economy the expenditures f el l b elow the app ropr iationand the percentage o f d isburs ements for that year was p er
cent for war purposes and per cent for the normal act ivit i es o f civ i l i z ation .
1 Annual Report of th e Secretary of th e Treasury . 1 920, p . 2 78.
DISARMAMENT 25
Meantime, the a rmy and navy h ad acqui red bi l l ion dollarhabits
,and the percentages s ince then stand as fo llows
CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE UNITED STATE SBy th e United States Bureau of E ffi ciency
1
1 92 1 1 92 2
Appropr iat ions E st imatesPast warsNational defense (Army
and Navy)Total , past wars and
present defenseGeneral purposes (exceptPost Offi ce )
Total for all purposes(except Post
I t i s‘
a notable fact that after every war expend i tur es fo rmilita ry and naval purposes have tended to r i se . The reason i snot far to seek . The
“expe rt s” who be fore the war explainedthat thei r current weapons were absolute ly necessary
,on em erg
ing f rom a war,discover that much o f the armament they went
in with was a b roken reed . The guns d id not shoot fa r enough,the ship s were not big enough : and expenses take anotherj ump . A war in which a nat ion is an onlooke r has the sameeffect . And so , after confl ict, “the danger o f b leeding to deathin t ime o f peace
”
i s inc reased . The World War i s no exceptionto the rul e
,as w i tne ss these figu res
GROWTH OF ARMAMENTS AFTER WARARMY NAVY
Country 1 9 1 2 1 92 13 1 9 1 2
Be lgi um NO navyFranceUnited KingdomI t al y“JapanUni ted S tates .
Prepared from table o f th e U . S . Board o f E ffi c iency , Hearings be foreComm i t tee on Fore ign Re lat ions on H . J . R es . 4 2 4 , 4 3.
2 Inc ludes cost o f Federal Con tro l o f Rai lroads in 1 9 2 1 .
‘ Val ues o f fore ign money in do l lars calcu lated on a go ld bas is , as
mos t near l y represe n t ing th e burde n upon th e populat ions aff ec ted .
‘ F igures fo r year 1 9 20.
“Inc l uding air force .
0 F igures fo r fiscal years 1 9 1 2-1 3 and 1 9 1 9
-20 .
7 F igures fo r th e fiscal year 1 9 1 2 -1 3.
26 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
A member o f Congress has figu red about the same thing forthe United State s in th e terms of the cost per capita o f thearmy
,bas ed on the army appropr i ation bi l l s . These compara
tive figu res fol low °
COST OF ARMYO fficers andE nl ist ed Men
O O O O O O O O D O O O
I t i s perhaps neither new nor start l ing to learn that armieshave been steadi ly increas ing in s ize, but the progress towardthe mi l it ary system o f universal dra ft in case o f hosti l it i es i snot unenl ightening. In the fo l lowing table the years 1800
,1854
and 1870 indicat e the cu rrent eff ects o f the Napoleonic, Cr imeanand Franco-P russian war s . The later year s were per iods o fpe ace . I t wi l l be noticed that in 192 1 Germany and Austr ia hadboth ceased to b e what they long had been, the E uropean pivoto f the armament race.
GROWTH OF STANDING ARMIE S1800 1854 1870 1880 1900 1906 1921
Uni ted S tates
1 Congress ional Record, Apr i l 30, 1 92 1 , 849 .
”Probab l y not effic ient as compared w ith o ther arm ies .
3 S ince reduced to in accordance wi th th e terms of th e treatyof Versai l les.
4 Th e figures for 1 92 1 were given ou t by th e War Department on
February 1 6.
PE R CAPITA1Army
Appropr iat ions
1 0
1 2 ,2 7 1 ,868,0oo
28 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
per iod o f war there i s an inevitabl e tendency toward expans ionand extravagance in civi l expenditures as wel l. But when
due al lowance i s made for a l l thes e so-cal l ed civi l expendi
tu res,the tota l cost o f the Civi l Wa r was down
to the 3oth o f June , 1865, and that did not include a verylarge sum due upon claims thereafter l iquidated b etween 1865
and 1870. So that the cost o f the Civi l Wa r alone makes thi ss tart l ing showing o f expenses near ly twice as great as the
governmental expenditu res in the s eventy-two years precedingthat t ime.
The late war has i ts l es sons that are equally str iking. The
final estimate has not yet b een made up . We can not te l l h ow
much i s due to the di rect and indi rect costs o f thi s confl i ct,
but it i s probab le that the tota l co st wi l l b e quit e as much as
the tota l expenses o f the Government in the one hundredtwenty- eight years preceding.
The total estimated cost o f thi s Government down to 191 7
was approximately o r i f we make a computat ion merely to the 3oth o f June, 1916, the tota l was
When we take into account the expens es o fthe fo l lowing years including loans to the Al li es , care of sol
di ers , vocationa l education , the expenses o f maintaining theShipping Board, deficit s in rai lway operations, and interest onthe pub li c d ebt a l ready paid
,i t i s a saf e estimate to say that
the tota l amount wi l l exceed the preceding 191 7 .
I am making thes e s tatements to show how futi l e i t is to
attempt any pruning without a radical change of the polici eso f ou r country in regard to wa r and peace. An estimate hasbeen made that by a parti a l reorganization of the department stwenty thousand employees can b e di scharged. What does that
mean ? A saving about equa l to the cost o f a single batt leship .
Large expenses wi l l continue as an af termath of war. In theyea r that ended June 30, 1920, appropriations aggregated near ly
o f which barely was fo r the civi lexpenses of the Gove rnment . Thus 93 per cent was associatedwith war and 7 per cent fo r peace . Fo r the di sab led and su f
fer ing who fought in the late great struggle provi s ion oughtto b e made to the las t scruple in the T reasu ry. We al l agreeto that.
DISARMAMENT 29
THE COST OF WAR 1
Senato r Spencer, o f Missouri , contributed to the Congressional Reco rd some inte rest ing figures re lating to gross warcosts fo r the al li ed nations . These were p repared by M r. FredA . Dolph , and show a grand tota l o f nearly one hundred eightybi l l ions , divided as fo l lows :
United StatesGreat Bri tai nFrance
Against th i s cost M r. Dolph estimates German indemniti esat o f which, i n round numbers , he s ees th eUnited States getting two bi l l ion, Great B r i tain ten, Frances ixteen, I taly th ree and a hal f , Belgium six , China one hundred mi l l ion
,and Japan two hundred fi fty mi ll ion .
What the United States actual ly paid out fo r the greatwar i s itemi zed as fo l lows
M i l itary cost as per Secretary HoustonExtra cost Government func t ions under war condit ions , as
per Secre tary of th e TreasuryCivi l ian damages , lost sh ipping, and pens ions to b e paid .
R ed Cross contr ibu t ionsO ther contr i bu t ions e st imated at one-hal f R ed Cross amount .Congress ional E uropean re l iefCredit ex tended by Grain Corporat ionCredit given by War DepartmentCredi t given by Sh ipping BoardCredit given by Am erican nat ionals to E uropean nat ionals , as
pe r bul le t in of Bankers Trust Co .
Government loans to E uropean nat i ons , inc l uding unpaidm teres t 9 , 7 6o ,ooo,ooo
Total
ADDITIONAL FIGURE S ON THE CASUALTIE SOF THE GREAT WAR 2
! An extract from a paper by Margaret Hatfie ld , compi led from ProfessorE rne s t L . Bogart ’s book , “D irec t and I ndirect Cos ts of th e GreatWor ld
Let me give you a few figu res which show the costs o fone thousand , five hund red s eventy days o f wa r to the peoplesof Europe . They are authentic figures
,care ful ly compil ed from
1 From Search l igh t . March, 1 92 1
3 From D isarmament . Hear ings on H . J . R es . 4 2 4
30 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
official sources by P rof esso r E rnest L . Bogart, o f the Univers ityo f I ll ino is .
I n war the re are two kinds o f costs,human costs and prop
er ty costs . The fo rmer are immeasurably mo re impo rtant, butthe latte r are also s ignificant b ecause when a great deal o fproperty use ful to the support o f l i fe i s destroyed
,men
,women
,
and chi ld ren suff er . Property lo sses, there fo re, direct ly affecthuman beings .
Fi rst,l et u s see what the insurance o f armaments
,practi ced
by al l the fighting nations , did toward insu ring human l ives .I n the one hundred twenty- three year s f rom 1 790 to 1913 therew ere n ine b ig wars, including the g reat wars o f Napoleon .
I n al l these nine wars , four million fou r hundred forty-ninethousand men were ki l l ed in battl e . I n th e four years andthree months o f the late E uropean war ten mi l l ion menwere known to have been ki l l ed in battl e and two mil lion, ninehundred n inety—two thousand were miss ing,
” which meansthat they also had been k i l l ed
,shot into such f ragments that
they could not be ident ified . Altogethe r then almos t thirteenmil l ion men were ki l led in battl e o r near ly th ree times as manyas were ki l led in the nine p reviou s wars i n one hundred twentythree years . SO much fo r insurance against death in battle .I n add i tion to the thirteen mi l l ion men kil led there were
twenty mil l ion,two hundred ninety-seven thousand men wounded .
Studies have b een made o i the percentage o f them that
recovered from thei r wounds . I t was found that a l itt le
ove r nine mi l l ion . o f them ,o r 44 per cent recovered completely
and became normal men again ; ten mi l l ion , five hundred thousand
,o r 52 p er cent, recovered but they did not get back to
no rmal— thei r abi l ity was permanently reduced ; 4 pe r cent o fthem either di ed f rom the ir wounds or became total ly in
capac itated— helpl ess,crippled
,bl ind
,armles s , demented .
So much fo r the los ses on the fi eld o f battl e . To these
human costs must be adde d thos e result ing f rom d i sease,pest il ence
,privation
,and exhaust ion suff ered by the civi l ian pop
u lation who were , you w i l l remember , most p articularly insured .
Over six mil lion p ersons d i ed from influenza, a war di sease .
Tubercu lo si s made gigantic strides during the war . E ighty-s ix
thousand men w ere d i smis sed f rom the French Army in one yearbecaus e o f tuberculos i s . They had been physical ly fit when
DISARMAMENT 31
accepted as soldi er s . This di sease increased 75 per cent amongthe l itt l e chi ld ren o f Germany .
Famine and disease ki l led eight hund red thousand p eoplein Roumania . Serb ian and Austrian civ i l i ans
,due to famine
and spotted typhus, paid a death tol l o f nearly one mi l l ion l ives .In Russia two mil l ion civ i l ians d i ed in exces s o f the no rmaldeath rate . At the end o f the war Dr . Lee , o f the War TradeBoard , t ravel ing in Poland reported that chi ld ren unde r s ixyears o f age had pract ical ly al l p eri shed f rom starvation .
Over one hundred thou sand neutral seamen and fi shermen
were drowned at sea . I w i l l not pu rsue thi s ghastly tabu lationexcept to say that i t may be fai rly est imated that the loss o fcivi l ian l ives
,dir ect ly due to war
,equal s i f it does not exceed
that suff ered by the armies in the fi eld .
Twenty—fi v e mill ion peop le , includ ing mi l l ions o f women andchi ldren d i ed in these one thousand, five hund red s eventy daysand mil l ions more were weakened and exhausted by famine anddi sease . And al l o f them insured .
Tu rning now to the p rope rty destruct ion . Great a reas in
France,Belgium , Poland , Rumania, Serb ia , I taly, and Austria
have been l it e ral ly blown to pieces , chu rned and r idd l ed bytrenches and shel l holes and satu rated w i th nox ious gases , chemicals and l iqu id fi re
,so that the p roductive p ropert ies o f the
soi l have been destroyed fo r generations . In Northern Franceone thousand
,five hundred school s , one thousand , two hund red
churches,th ree hundred seventy—seven publ ic bu i ld ings
,and
over one thou sand indust rial plant s were comp l etely obl ite rated .
The total o f al l p roperty loss has been est imated atto which must be added more fo r the fi fteen
mil l ion ton s o f shipping sunk at sea . How much was the
insu rance worth on thi s o f d est royed property ?Lastly
,l et u s look at the money co st o f the war to the
variou s bel l igerent gove rnments . This cost i s not al l dead los sfo r some o f i t went to feed and c lothe sold i e rs but the greatbulk o f it was blown away o r th rown away on pu rposes thatse rved no use ful human end .
Up to Novembe r,19 18, the Al l i ed Go ve rnments had spent
to p rosecute th e war whil e Germany and Austriahad spent a total o f
32 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS1
(Figures p resented by Senator King)
I n 1900- 1901 Great B ritain expended fo r her navy— and that
include d al l exp end i tures for const ruction,maintenance
,and
so forth p lus . I wi l l give the fi rst figures and
not the hundreds o f thousands . The United States in the sameyear expended for her naval purposes Germany
and FranceIn 1901
-2 Great B r itain expended the UnitedStates Germany and France
In 1902-3 Great B r itain expended the United
States Ge rmany and France
In 1903-4 Great B ri tain expende d the United
S tates Germany and FranceIn 1904
-
5 Great B r itain expend ed the United
Stat es Germany and France
In 1905-6 Great B r itain expended the United
States Germany and FranceIn 1906-7 Great B ritain expende d the United
S tates Ge rmany and France
In 1907-8 Great B ritain expended the United
States Germany and FranceIn 1909
- 10 Great B ritain expended the United
States and Germany The Kaiser haddetermined to prepare in a mi l itary and naval way to carryout his ambitious p roj ects and he fe lt the importance o f a largenavy . For the same year France appropr iat edIn 1910
- 1 1 Great B ritain exp ended the United
States Germany and FranceIn 191 1
- 1 2 Great B r itain expended the United
S tate s Germany and France
In 191 2- 13 Great B r itain expended the United
S tates Germany and France
In 1913- 14 Great B r i tain expended but the United
S tates Germany and FranceIn 1914
- 15— that would car ry Great B r itain into the period
o f the war— Great B r itain expended the United
States Germany $ 1 13,ooo,ooo only, and France
1 Congress ional Record. May 1 3, 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 33
So that, M r . President, the highest figu re reached by Germanyfor naval exp enditu res p rio r to the war and includ ing oneyear o f the war was and our highest appropri ation was Now we are appropriat ingplus, because I make the prediction that i f this b i l l shal l passin its present fo rm w e wi l l b e cal l ed upon to meet deficit s andother ex pend i tures fo r th e Navy which wil l swel l this sum
mil lions of dol l ar s .
THE WORLD ’S DEBTS 1
I n the light o f the fo l lowing facts,can th e wo r ld pay its
debts and continue the war game,and i f not
,what then ?
NATIONAL POPULATION IN 1 9 1 8 AND NATIONAL DE BTSBEFORE THE WAR AND AT PRE SENT
Popu lat ion P r e-War Deb t Af terWar Deb tGreat Br itain (1 9 1 4 )Great Br i tain (1 9 1 8)Un ited States (1 9 1 0) 1
,
Uni ted States .
Russ ia (1 9 1 5) 25, 7 50,000,oooChina (1 9 1 1 ) (est imated)France (1 9 1 1 ) 6,346,ooo ,ooo 34 ,84 2 ,ooo ,ooo
I tal y (1 9 1 5) 2,9 2 1 ,Ooo ,ooo 1 5,600,ooo,ooo
JapanJ apanGermany (1 9 1 0) 1
, 1 94 ,ooo ,000 37 , 1 50,ooo ,ooo
Great Bri tain Co lonies . (1 9 1 4 )Be lgi um (1 9 1 4 )Austr ia-Hungary (1 9 1 4 ) 1
,044 ,000,ooo 2 5, 7 99 ,000,ooo
TurkeyBulgaria (1 9 1 4 )
COST OF WAR TO NEUTRAL NATION SHol land $67 2 ,ooo,ooo
Swi tzer landSwedenNorwayDenmarkO ther countr ies
TotalINCOME S AND CO ST OF ADMINISTRATION , JUNE 30, 1 920
Country E st imated Rece ipts 1 9 1 9-20
J nited (1 9 18)To tal D isbursements
reat 1 ,20 1 , 1 00,ooo (Expend. 1 920rance Fr. (1 9 18) 8,9 26,534 ,33o Fr.tal y L 1 re (1 9 1 9 ) L ire
49 , 100,ooo ,ooo Roub lese rmany . . (TO t R OW )hina ( 1 9 1 6) (E xpend. 1 9 1 6)
1 ,037 ,ooo ,000 Y en (1 9 1 9-2 0) Y en 1
us t r ia-H ungary . 4 ,854 , 789,ooo Cr. (1 9 18-1 9 )1 By Wi l l iam G. Brown in Forum.
-2 2 . J une, 1 92 1 .
34 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
It is apparent that the wo r ld’ s bonded debt has been increased by one hundred bi l l ion do l lars and that the di sburs ements of the several countri e s are exceeding thei r receipts
,
and thus new sources of income must b e found or the pres enttax rate increas ed . The young men ki l led in the war numbered P roperty on land wo rth was
dest royed, and in production o f the usefulthings o f the wo r ld was p revented. Of sea-going merchantves se ls gros s tonnage was destroyed and lost at sea.
The di rect costs of the war were and the ind i rect costs o f the wa r were making the tota l
di rect and ind i rect costs o f the warGreat B ritain, United S tates, France, I ta ly, and Japan have
app ropr iated fo r the year 1920, two b i l l ion dol lars more thanthes e same countri e s appropr iated dur ing the fou rt een yearsp rio r to '
1920 fo r mi lita ry estab li shments ; and the UnitedS tates under the p resent p rogram is spending mo re fo r warpu rposes than al l these other s combined. The rates o f exchange with the other countr i es clear ly indicate that they cannot liquidate thei r indebtedness , unles s the time i s extended,and when the United States cannot s el l its surplus manu factu r ed artic les ab road on account o f exchange rates, in duecours e a s imi lar condit ion wi l l obtain here .Without a complete, f rank understanding and agreement
between the peoples of the wo r ld fo r the liquidat ion o f thei rmutua l indebtednes s , over such a per iod o f time that wi l lpermit the wor ld ’ s production to pay the debt s and the immed iat e s topping of the costs o f future international wars ,there can b e but one end, viz . : the confiscat ion o f property,with the inevitab le consequences that have fo l lowed such ac
tion in the past.
THE NEW REG IME IN EUROPE 1
The armament prob lem was inevitab ly one o f the sub j ect sto b e considered in the settl ement o f the Wo r ld War. Therewere two possib l e point s o f vi ew at th e t ime o f the armistice.One was to arrange fo r a change at the time and the other wasto arrange fo r the future . The Al li ed and Associated Powers,
1 From “Th e Stagger ing Burden of Armaments.
” World Peace Foundst ion.
36 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
Germany had previous ly surrendered s ixteen thousand airplanesand twenty-fi v e thousand moto rs . I t i s not to be doubted butthat the d i sarmament of Germany under the treaty i s as comp lete as the very technical condit ions o f fact permit . The following summary o f th e exi sting condit ions is official, revi sed fromofficial documents : 1
Mili tary F or ces—The German army strength may not exceed one hundred thousand including four t housand officer s,
2
with not over s even div isions o f infant ry and three of caval ry,to b e devoted exclus ively to maintenance of internal o rder andcontro l o f f rontiers . The divi sions may not b e grouped undermore than two army co rps headquarters s taff s . The GermanGreat General Staff i s abo li shed. The army administratives ervice
,cons i sting of civi l ian personne l not included in the
number o f eff ect ives,i s reduced to one-tenth the total in the
1913 budget . Employees o f the German states, such as cu s
toms offi cers , fo rest guards and coast guards , may not exceedthe number i n 1913. Gendarmes and local poli ce may b e increased only in acco rdance with the growth o f popu lation .
None o f these may be as sembled fo r milita ry t raining. No
reserve of officers with war s e rvice i s permitted. The high
command confines its e l f to admini strative duti es .Armaments—All estab li shm ents fo r the manufactur ing, p rep
aration,sto rage o r design o f arms and munit ions o f war,
except those specifical ly excepted have been closed and thei rpersonnel dismis s ed .
3 The exact amount o f armament andmunitions al lowed Germany is laid down in detai l tab les , al lin exces s to b e surrendered o r rendered useles s . The manufacture or importation o f asphyxiating, poisonous o r othergases and al l analogous l iquids is forbidden, as wel l as the
impo rtation o f arms,munit ions and war material s . Germany
may not manufactu re such mater i als fo r foreign governments.No reserves o f munitions may b e fo rmed . No tanks nor
1 Th e provis ions summar ized ar e Part V, Art ic les 1 59-2 1 3, of th e Ger
man treat y ; Part V, Art ic les 1 1 8-1 59, of th e Austr ian treaty ; Part IV,
Artic les 64-1 04 , of th e Bulgar ian t reaty ; Part V , Art ic les 1 02 -1 43 of th e
Hungar ian treaty ; Part V , Art ic les 1 52 -207 , of th e Tu r k ish treaty, as
s igned at Sevres, Augu st 1 0, 1 920.
“Turkey , offi cers and men ; Hungary, Austr ia,and Bulgar ia,
3 Th e Krupp works at E ssen and th e famou s Skoda works ar e nowboth devoted to industr ial manufactures. Cf . Commerce Reports, Apr i l 29,1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 37
armored ear s shall be manu factured o r imported . The Ge rmansare obliged to not i fy to the pr incipal Al lies fo r approval th ename s and s ituation o f al l f actor i es manu facturing munitions ,t ogethe r with part iculars o f thei r output . The German government arsenal s are suppressed and the ir personne l has beend i smissed . Munitions for use in fortified works wil l be l imi tedto one thousand rounds apiece for guns o f cm . cal iberand under
,and four hundred rounds fo r guns o f a higher
cal iber. Germany i s prohibit ed from importing a rmam ents andmunitions .
Cons cr iption—Conscript ion is abol i shed in Germany.
1 The
enl i sted personne l must be maintained by voluntary enl i stm entsfor terms of twelv e consecutive years, th e number o f discharges be fore the expi ration o f that term not in any year toexceed 5 per cent o f the total eff ect ives . Offi cers remaining in the service must agree to se rv e to the age o f forty-fiv eyears , and newly appointed officers must agree to serve activelyfo r twenty-fiv e years . No mil itary school s except thos e ab solu tely for the units al lowed shal l ex i st . No associ at ion such
as soci eti es o f di scharged so ld i e rs, shooting o r touring club s,educational estab l i shments o r universi t i es may occupy themselves with mi li tary matter s . All measures o f mobi l i zation areforbidden .
1 Th e text of th e act abo l ish ing conscr ipt ion in Germany as passedby th e Re ichstag on August 2 1
, 1 920, is as fo l lows1 . Th e German de fense force cons ists of th e state army and t h e
s tate navy , formed of vo l unteers and noncombatant offi c ials . A l l membersof th e de fense force m ust b e of German nat ional i ty . Conscr ipt ion(allegme ine Wehr pfl ich t ) is abo l ished. A l l decrees t o th e contrary ar e
resc inded .
“2 . Th e number of men in th e s tate army from January 2 1 next w i l l
b e and in th e state navy , In addition, there w i l l b e th erequ is i te m edical and ve ter inary offi cers .
“3. Any man w ish ing to enl ist in th e de fense force must undertake
to remain uninterruptedl y in th e s tate army o r navy fo r 1 2 years .
“4 . Be fore promo t ion to offi cer ’s rank a candidate mus t undertake
to remain un interruptedly in that rank for 2 5 years from th e day ofpromot ion.
“5. M embers of th e former army , th e former navy
, th e form er defense corps (S ch u tz t r uppen) , th e provis ional state army and th e p rovis ional s t ate navy , w i l l b e paid according to th e provis ions o f th e armypay ac t and budget ac t .
“O ffic ers o f both forc es must agree to remain in th e service unt i l theyhave comple t ed the i r 4 5t h year.“N oncomm iss ioned o ffice rs re tain the ir form er ins ignia o f rank , b u t
may no t c laim to b e g1 v en employm ent consonan t w i th th e ir form e r rank .
6.
.
Th is ac t come s‘
into force on t h e day o f i ts pu b l icat ion.
"
Trans lat ion from E cono im c R ev i ew , Septem ber 1 0, 1 9 20 .
.
A revised law was passed on March 1 9 , 1 92 1 , in compl iance wi th anall1ed demand.
38 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
F or tr esses —Al l fortified works, fo rtresses and field wo rkss ituated in German terr ito ry within a zone fi fty ki lomete rs easto f the Rhine are di sm antled. The construction o f any newfort ifications there i s fo rbidden . A few fort ifi ed wo rks onthe southern and eastern frontiers remain .
Nov al—The German navy is al lowed six smal l batt leships , sixl ight cruiser s
,twelve destroye rs , twelv e to rpedo boats and no
submar ines,e ither military o r comm ercial
,with a personne l o f
fi fteen thousand men, includ ing officers , and no reserve force o fany character. Conscript ion i s abol i shed
,only voluntary service
being permitted, with a minimum period o f twenty-fiv e years’
s erv i ce fo r officers and twelve for men . No member o f theGerman mercanti le mar ine wil l be permitted any naval training. Al l Germ an vessel s of war in foreign port s, the Ge rmanHigh Sea Fleet
,forty-two m odern dest royers
,fi fty modern
torpedo boat s, and al l submar ines, with their s alvage ves selswere surrendered, and all war vess el s under construction
,in
cluding submarines, broken up . War vessels not otherwiseprovided fo r were p laced in reserve o r us ed; fo r commercialpurposes . Replacement o f ships
,except those lost
,can take
place only at the end o f twenty years fo r batt leships and fi fteen
years fo r destroyers . The largest armored ship permitted i s o ften thousand tons . Materi al ar i s ing from the breaking up of
German warsh ips may not be used except fo r industr i al p ufposes, and may not be sold to foreign countri e s . Except underspecifi ed condit ions Germany i s forbidden toconstruct or acquire any wa and the construction o racquis it ion o f any submar ine prohibited . Vessels
o f war hav e a fixed al lowance o f s,munitions and war
mater ial . Al l exces s of arms, munit ions and war mater ial wassurrendered
,and no stocks o r reserv es are al lowed . All Germany
fo rtificat ions in the Balt i c defending the passages through theBelts have been demol ished . Other coast defenses a re permitted,but the number and cal iber of the guns must not be increased .
A ir—The armed force s o f Germany must not include anymil itary o r naval a i r forces . NO d i r igibl es shal l be kept . Theenti re air personnel i s d emobil i zed . No aviation grounds o rd i rigib le sheds are al lowed within one hundred fifty ki lometerso f the Rhine o r the eastern o r southern f ronti ers, exi sting installations within thes e l imits to b e destroyed. The manufactureo f aircraft and pa rts o f a ircra ft was forb idden for six months.
DISARMAMENT 39
Al l mi li tary and nava l aeronauti ca l mater ia l under a most exhau st iv e definition was surrende red within three months .Contr ol—Interall i ed comm i ss ions o f cont ro l are seeing to the
execution of th e provi s ions fo r which a time l imit i s set . Thei rheadquarte rs are at th e German seat o f gove rnment—and theymay go to any par t o f Germany des ired . Germany must givethem complete faci li ti es, pay their expenses
,and also the ex
penses o f execution o f th e treaty, includ ing th e labo r andmaterial necessa ry in demol ition and dest ruction o f su rrenderedwar equipment .1
L eagu e of Nations P r ov isions
The art ic les o f the Covenant o f the League o f Nations r e
ferr ing to the subj ect appear in the treaty o f Versai l l es in thisform :
ARTICLE I,2 . Any ful l s el f-governing state
,dominion or
colony not named in th e annex may become a Member o f theLeague i f i t s admis s ion i s agreed to by two-thi rds o f the Assemb ly, provided that i t shal l give effective guaranti es o f i tss incere intention to obse rve i ts international obl igat ions
,and
shal l accept such regu lat ions as may be p rescr ibed by the Leaguein regard to i ts mi l i tary
,naval and air forces and armaments .
ARTICLE VII I . The Members o f the League recognize thatth e maintenance o f peace requires the reduction o f nationalarmaments to th e lowest point consi stent with national sa fety
and the en fo rcement by common action o f international obl igat ions .
The Counci l, taking account o f the geographical s ituat ion andci rcumstances o f each Membe r
,shal l fo rmul ate plans fo r such
reduction fo r the consideration and action o f the several Governments .
Marshal Foch reported German de l iver ies of arms on December 31 ,1 920, as fo l lows
Cannon (comple te )Cannon (barre ls )Mach ine guns (complete and barre ls )R ifl esA irplanesA irplane motors
Th e German comm iss ioner fo r disarmament o f th e populat ion an
nou nced totals o f arms , vo l untari l y de l ivered , pu rchased or confiscatedu p to January 1 0 , 1 9 2 1 , apparent l y addi t ional to th e above , as fo l lows :
932 cannon ; mach ine guns ; 584 r ifl es and carb ines ;revo lvers and pis to ls ; hand grena e s ; pieces of fi r earms ;pieces o f mach ine guns ; pieces of r ifl es ; andcartridges . (L e Temps, January 1 5,
40 SELECTED ARTICLE S
Such p lans shal l be subj ect to recons iderat ion and rev is ionat l east every ten years .After thes e pl ans shal l have been adopted by th e several
Governments,the l imits o f armaments therein fixed “
Shal l not
be exceeded without the concurrence o f the Counci l .The Members o f th e League agree that th e manu factu re by
private enterpr i s e o f munitions and implements of war is Open
to grave obj ections . The Counci l shal l advi se h ow the ev i leff ects attendant upon such manu facture can be p revented, dueregard being had to the necess ities o f thos e member s o f theLeague which are not ab le to manufacture the munitions andimplements of war necessary for their safety.
The Members o f the League undertake to interchange ful land f rank info rmat ion as to the scale o f their armaments,the i r m i l i tary, naval and air programs, and the condition o f
such o f the ir industr i e s as are adaptabl e to war l ike purposes .ARTICLE I ! . A permanent commiss ion shal l be consti tuted
to advis e the Counci l on the execution o f the p rovi s ions o fA rticles I and VI I I and on mi l itary
,naval and ai r quest ions
general ly.
WHAT THE NEW"
GAS DOE S 1
This is the latest, the quotation be ing from D . B . B radner,chie f o f the Chemi cal Research and Development Div i s ion,Uni ted States Chemical War fare S ervice :
“The Chem i ca l Warfare S ervice has discovered a l iquid ap
proximately th re e drops o i which, when appli ed to any parto f th e ski n, wi l l cause a man
’
s death One plane car ryingtwo tons o f the l iquid could cover an area one hundred feetwide by seven miles long in one trip and could depos it mater ialto ki l l every man in that area by action on hi s skin . I f the men
were not p rotected by gas masks, wh i ch would be the case
i f the attack were made on a city, the fata l area would bes everal t imes as The only l imit to the quantity o f
thi s l iquid which could be made is the amount o f avai lableelectr i c powe r, as near ly every nation has p ractical ly an un
l im ited supply o f the,neces sary raw material s . I t would be
entirely possib l e fo r thi s country to manu facture several thousand tons per day, p rovided the necessary plants had been built .
1 From “Th e Staggering Burden of Armaments . p . 2 24-5. Wor ldPeace Foundati on.
DISARMAMENT 4 1
Dur ing the Argonne off ens ive in the past war the entirefirs t Ame rican army of a mi l l ion and a quarte r men occupiedan area o f forty ki lom eter s long by twenty ki lometer s wid e.I f Germany had had fou r thousand tons o f th is material andth re e o r four hundred planes equipped fo r its dist r ibution theenti re fi rs t a rmy would have b een annihi lated in ten to twelvehou rs . Dur ing th e past war, gas p roduced ove r 30 per cento f ou r casualt ies . I n the futu re the percentage wi l l b e farhigher . New methods o f de fens e w i l l be dev i sed to meet thi sparti cula r new development .”
The gas re ferred to was invented by W. Lee Lewis, head o f
the ch emistry depar tm ent o f Northwestern Univers ity,in a se ri e s
o f experiments costing and conducted during the warby di rection o f th e P resident . Speak ing at West Point onApr i l 20
,Pro fes so r Lewis is repo rted as saying
“We face the possib i l i ty in the nava l warfare o f the futureo f a rmor-piercing, toxi c and t ear she l l s, smoke screens , toxicsmoke clouds and invi s ib l e toxic fumes . We also cons ider inth i s connection paral le l de fens ive measu res , such as a gas maskfor a whol e batt leship . Gas weapons a re capable o f a muchfiner adaptation to purpos e than explos iv e weapons and th e
future w i l l see worked out a great degree o f scientific r efine
ment in the development o f gas weapons fo r al l types o f mil i t aryoperations . Futu re batt les wi l l not b e to the strong, but tothe super i o r in intel l igence . War fare wi l l become les s a matter o f b rute strength and relat ive man power, and more andmore a matter o f scient ific acumen .
”
THE NE ! T WAR 1
I now predi ct th at in the next great war the ai rplane i sgoing to play th e most important part o f al l arms o f navaland military serv i ce . I t was fo rmerly supposed that no nationwould dare to use poi sonous gases fo r fea r o f retal iation . Fo rthe s ame reason it i s now bel i ev ed by many that no nationwould dare to sp read germs o f dead ly di seases . Histo ry provesthat in war fare any nation o f peop le w i l l reso rt to any
1 By Hudson Maxim in N . Y . Tribune . Repr inted in M innesotaDai l y S tar, J u l y 2 3, 1 92 1 .
42 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
expedient whatsoever that promises succes s—th at promises v icto ry.
In the next great war not only wi ll the most deadly po isonousgas es be sp read broadcast over actual contending fo rces, bothon land and sea, but also over in land c it i es . Not only wi l l
th e actual fighters b e attacked, . b u t non-combatants al so wil l b e
attacked . In the next great war we may look for the most
di sastrous and fa r- reach ing results f rom the use o f the airplane as a sower o f death and destruction .
In the next'
great war, we are going to see ge rms o f themost deadly diseases sown broadcast by ai rplanes . We aregoing to see in land cit ies smothe red in poi sonous gases andtens o f thousands o f inhab itants, men, women and childrenki l l ed in a f ew m inutes .
Fleas and coot ies o r body l ice wi l l be in fected with bubonicplague and typhus f ever and other deadly ai lments and sowedby bi l l ions over the inhabit ants o f enemy countr ies . Rats andmice wil l b e in fected with buboni c p l ague and let down f romairp lanes to spread contagion . There wil l be no place that onemay hide himsel f and b e safe from attack . All non- combatants
wi l l b e exposed to destruction,as the s inful, according to R e
velat ion, are to be exposed on the Day o f Judgment .Bombs car rying f rom hal f a ton to a ton o f high exp lo sives
can now b e car ried by airplanes and dropped with most di sast rous results
,either upon or about enemy warships
,and upon
enemy fortificat ions and enemy cit ies .Warfare today has lo st most o f the o ld heroics o f combat
between man and man, with pi sto l and clanking sword. P resent-day war fare i s v iperous wo rk ; it is mu rder, pure ands impl e . There is nothing glo rious about it, for there can benothing glor iou s in smother ing with poisonous gasses a c ityful l o f women and ch ildren .
I s i t pos s ibl e that we have reached a stage o f inte l lectualdevelopment and
'
mechanical accomplishment that is going to
be suicidal ? Is i t possibl e that th e human race is going toturn al l its wonder ful instrumental iti es o f this great mechanicalage to the destruction o f humankind ? A re the same instr umental it i es which hav e l i fted m ankind out o f barbar ism to beemployed to send h im back to barbarism ?
I t i s time fo r the nations to take counsel o f one anothert ime to cal l an armament truce and to m ake ser ious inquiry
44 SELECTED ARTICLE S
intended to cover . Although thi s airplane flew without anypi lot on board, i ts cour se was completed without a singl e erro r.The technical detai l s o f the invention may be le ft to scient ific
men . I t i s sufficient to say that fo r th e success o f this amazingexper iment two essential conditions had to be fulfi l l ed . First,i t was neces sary to devise means which would secu re automati cstabi l ity for the aerop lane, no matter what pos ition it mightassum e ; and secondly, to apply to aerop lanes the mechanismby which it had been found possibl e even b e fo re the war tomove heavy obj ects by wi re les s - e lectr i cal power. But i f thesetechnical matters are complicated and abstruse
,the result s o f
aviat ion by Wirel ess are quite obvious and concern eve ryone .That the conquest o f the ai r wi l l continue so l ong as science
last s cannot be doubted, and its results may br ing incalculab leb less ings to mankind . But so l ong as the possibi l i ty o f warcontinues to menace the civi l i z ed wo r ld, the consequences o fwi re-l es s aviation are appal ling to contemplate . I t cannot failto revo lut ioni z e the functions o f th e Air Service as they havehitherto been understood.
This means,o f cou rse
,that i f a irplanes unmanned by any
crew can be sent out and control led f rom long d i stances, avi at ion
,m erely as a means o f observing the enemy ’s movements
and p reventing h is observation,wi l l becom e relat ive ly unim
po rtant . I t means that the air s ervice wi l l no longer be auxi li aryto the a rmy and navy but must i ts el f b ecome in t ime the mostimportant arm
,whether fo r attack o r fo r de fense .
In the application o f wi rel ess control to to rpedoes an Am eri can i nvento r, M r. John Hays Hammond, J r ., has been notably
success ful . One o f hi s invent ions was an aerial torpedo to befi red at targets on the ground
'
from a di stance o f tw enty-fiv e
miles,but the most sensational of his d iscover i e s conce rns the
di rection and control o f boats by wi rel es s at long distances .In one o f hi s offici al d emonstrations he showed that a
hyd roplane flying at about nine thousand feet and at a distance
o f s ix or seven mi les was able to maneuver a ship t ravel ing at topspeed, in and out among other boats in a large port ; i t su c
cessfu lly avoided a num ber o f mudbanks and nine t imes out
o f ten succeeded in reaching it s goal . In anothe r demonst rat ion a m otorboat t ravel ing at twenty—three m i l es an hour wassteered through a crowd o f merchant sh ip s at For t Monroeunder the control o f an ai rp lane flying at five thousand feet and
DISARMAMENT 45
from two to five mile s away, whi le the pi lot o f the ai rplane hadno mo re diffi culty in managing the ship than would a good pi loton board her . By us ing one hand to guide hi s machine andthe ot her to manage the "
apparatus contro l l ing the boat, hewas able to d i rect both with ease . A fleet o f such boats con
t rol led at long distances f rom the air would revolutioniz e thepract ice o f naval war
,and al l the more i f the st rategi st s on
either s ide should decide to sacrifice thei r ships— whi ch r e
qui re no crew s— in the attempt to reach thei r goal .The introduction o f torpedoes control led by w i rel es s is the
worst nightmare of al l , and its feasibi l ity h as long been proved.
CAUSE S FOR WAR— 1921 1
M . Scel le, professo r o f international law at Dij on Univers i ty,p resents an ar rest ing clas s ification o f the caus es fo r war, whichhe d eclares are more numerous in 192 1 than in 1914 . He l ist s
them as fo l low s :I . A po rtion o f Asiat ic Turkey i s p regnant with immediate
confl i ct,even among the A ll ies . Four o r five nat ions ar e en
gaged in th i s struggl e .2 . Balti c compet it ion is mo re bitte r than ever .3. The Saare Val ley contain s the germs o f a confl ict fo r
the future .
4 . The blaze may break out in the Ruh r at any moment .5. Patchwo rk reconst ruct ion o f Poland , the Danzig cor ri
do r and the i so lation o f E ast P russia a re so many wasps’
nests
o f t roubl e .
6. S ilesi a i s a bu rning question . Teschen puts Poland and
Czechoslovakia in b rutal opposi tion .
7 . Jugoslavia cannot achieve h er unitv .
8. Reactionary Hungary i s s imp ly awaiting he r hour tospr ing upon he r neighbo rs .
9 . Austri a cannot l ive alone .
10. Bulgaria is sulky and stealth ily i s pl otting revenge .
1 1 . Greate r Greece o f th e Sev res T reaty is an absurd and
impossibl e concepti on .
1 2 . Rumania is th reatene d by h e r ne ighbors both on th e
Bessarabian and '
l‘
r :1nsylv anian flanks .
From World Tomorrow . F ebruary , 1 02 1 .
46 SELECTED ARTICLE S
13. Anglo-Amer ican r ivalry.
1 4 . Antagoni sm of th e J apanes e and Amer i cans in the Pacific .Over the whole dark pictur e the shadow o f Bolshevi sm
throws s ti l l darker gloom .
He ends thi s statement with an appeal to h is fel low citi
z ens to take new interest in fo reign polit ics and to rej ect thedictations o f s ecret dip lomacy and extreme chauvini sm .
UNDERLY ING CAUSE S 1
What is the place o f disa rm ament in th e whole scheme ofthings ? Why, when everybody wants it and i s universal ly a ft eri t,can ’ t we have it ? D r . Iyenaga has stated the reason pretty
wel l—we are al l interested in “s el f-preservation .
” Sel f-de fense,the protect ion o f thei r communications and necess ity force themto keep arm s . E very nation has the same reason, tho roughlyconvincing to it sel f . Also
,each one agrees that some othe r
nat ion shou ld commence th e di sarmam ent. Now, i t i s because
they al l s eek the same goal that they can ’
t reach it withoutconfl i ct and host i l ity ; thes e concurrent aims tend to confl ictand obstruct each other ; they get in each other
’ s way.
The argum ent fo r universal m il i tary servi ce as the p rotection against war and armaments was th e p revai l ing Ge rman argum ent , and I thought the war had p robably s ettl ed itfo r good . I don ’
t bel i eve, at al l events , that it i s the way out .
Mr . Cobb very p roperly asked, What are we p repar ing for ?We don
’
t know ours elves . We are p repar ing fo r emergenci es,
eventual it ies,o f unknown character . Fear
,suspicion
,di st rust
create the motive and reason and dictate the preparation . My
obj ect , in the f ew minutes that I have, i s to try to point outwhy thi s f ear and why thi s d i s trust exis t .A rmament
,in my j udgment
,i s merely an incident
,an eff ect ,
o f an underlying cause and process,and unti l you get at the
under lyi ng cause your chances o f el iminating armament arevery modest, although nothing i s imposs ib le . I f you look at
our Canadian boundary you w i l l se e that disa rmament-n or ,
rath er, l imi tat ion o f armament, fo r that ’ s what we real ly mean—i s within the realms o f p ract ical statesm anship .
1 From a speech by Dr. Edwi n M . Borchard. Repr int ed in Bu l let inLeague of Free Nat ions Assn.
-5. March , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 47
Now,Mr . Cobb ’ s argument i s add res sed to your logic and
common sense . There i s no question o f the logic of hi s argument ; it
’
s ob solu tely sound logi cal ly . The nations can’
t go on
in thi s way without committing suicide . But, unfortunately,emotion easi ly disp laces logic
,and emotion is dictating the
po lic i e s o f today,of yesterday
,and p robab ly of tomorrow. I t
i s only the unimportant deci sions in li f e that a re di ctated by
logic ; th e big ones are dictated by emotion . I happened to see
thi s morning Mr . Lamont’
s account o f ou r Amer i can attitudetoward the war debts and find M r. Wilson quot ed by M r. Lamont thi s way : “Logi c,
” M r. Lamont said the P resident exclaimed,
“I don ’ t give a damn fo r logic ! ” That i s a quotat ion .
I f logic could so lve th i s p roblem it would have been so lvedlong ago . But competi tion in armament i s not
,I repeat, a
p roblem o f logi c ; i t ’ s a p roblem o f em otions . I t i s the consequence O i distrust and apprehension which gives r i s e to f ea r,and fear creates hat red . I t i s a natural and psychological h uman proces s . Mr . Cobb mentioned th e prevai ling deli r ium .
The Peace Treaty was conceived in del i r ium and we are paying the penalt i es and E u rope i s paying the penalt ies now.
Logi c wasn’
t p resent . Emotions a re dictat ing the cou rs e ofevent s , and unti l we get at the under lying reasons fo r thes eemotions , we wi l l neve r get anywhere near a so lution, I b el i eve .
Now, what is thi s p roblem ? In our domesti c relat ions wefind that our l egal system has c reated certain inst ruments fo rthe maintenance o f the equil ib r ium between groups ; that i s ,i t tend s to keep one group f rom attaining an unfai r advantageover anothe r group , unde r a standard o f fairnes s that i s dictated by th e mores o f the t ime . So w e have the She rmananti-t rust l aw , the Federal Trade Commission law ,
the In
ter state Commerce Act,the Federal Trade Commission l aw
d esigned to prevent un fai r comp et ition . Th e pol ice powe r continually intervenes to l imi t th e l ibe rty o f action o f the p rivateindividual in th e publ ic interest . We have that machinery . In
the international domain there i s no such machinery. E ach
nation d r ives fo rward toward i t s own obj ectiv e and neces
sar ily col l ide s w ith othe r nations out fo r th e same obj ective .
The confl i ct o f inte rest l ead s to confl ic t o f policy .
Let us in the few minute s I have t ry to get a gene ral p ic
ture o f what thi s inte rnational l i fe i s,th is international
48 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
economi c l i fe,because today at l east 75 per cent o f th e confl ict s
o f inte rest b etween nations ar i s e in the economic field .
There are two dominating motives in every national poli cy. D r . Iyenaga has mentioned one o f them—s el f-preservat ion ,s ecuri ty ; it ’s fundam ental in human beings, i t
’
s fundamental
in nations ; you can’ t get away f rom it
,and i f you try to reason
without taking thos e facto rs into consideration you are notreasoning from the premi ses—you ar e reasoning from an arb itrary assumption . The other motive i s p rosper ity. Now,
nations have thei r device s, their methods o f obtaining these
two great obj ectives o f every nat ional pol icy.
The unde rlying mot ives and aim s being secur ity and prosper ity, the inst ruments fo r attaining these ends a re thos e withwhich we are al l famil i ar . The pr incipal ones are the assuranceo f a steady supply o f raw material s and the as surance o fovers eas markets . With the arr ival o f the industr i al age, withthe app l icat ion o f machinery to mining, agr i cu lture, manu factu re
,came thi s need for overseas markets . You manu fac
tared more than you could u se at home ; you had to get ove rs eas market s . This but s trengthened the demand fo r co lonie s,which was a p retty o ld system , and as we know the o ld colonialsystem existed largely for thi s very purpose
,to insure ma rkets .
The co lony was the pres erve o f the home country. Thatl argely underlay the B r i t i sh obj ect ion to Ameri can independence .They had thi s market and they wished to hold it— a per fectlynatural w i sh . The colony d eveloped mo re modern p rogeny,the sphere o f influence
,the m andate and the protecto rate
and you don ’ t need thes e to insu re markets, for financi al investment alone o ften enab les you to contro l them .
With th is development o f th e industri al machinery andthe surp lu s p roduct ion involved. came certain national policies— the protection o f the home market fi rst
,then the in
su rance o f foreign markets, and finally th e most impo rtant
and the very modern phenomenon o f investment o f the su r
p lus incom e in foreign countr i es, thus increas ing both themarket abroad and the source o f Supply o f raw material s . Allthe mo re or l ess great industr ial nations, with which we a renow pr imar i ly concerned , pu rsue thes e same pol icies , though invarying d eg ree . O f course, sooner or later they lead to confl i et— it can
’t be avoided . The p romotion o f her foreign t radetoday
,Dr . Iyenaga said, explains why Japan i s developing her
DI SARMAMENT 49
nav y—to help bui ld up he r foreign trade and protect her communications. Now mind you
,th i s i s the most honest argu
ment in th e wor l d—only they are al l p laying the same game,they are al l after th e same markets . They are not distr ib u ting these m a rket s according to capacity and need ; they arecompeting for them .
The investment o f th e surplus income overs eas broughtinto be ing natural ly a pol it ica l interes t in th e resulting national prosper ity . One o f th e phenomena o f th e p resent time,reflected l ikewis e in domest i c economy i s that th e doct rine o fIaissez fair e i s steadi ly lo sing ground . The government isnow identified more o r l es s with b usiness . Look only as faras Washington—th e trade-promoting functions o f ou r Departments o f Commerce and o f S tate have increas ed enormously,the approp ri ation s have gone up al l th e t ime, and we regardit as one o f the most fundamental neces s iti es o f our nationalwelfare . We p roduce normal ly, acco rding to stat isti cs, about20 per cent mo re than we can consume at home . We must
there fo re find foreign markets .The inevitable al l iance b etween finance and pol it ics
,o f cou rse ,
has many ramifi cat ions , and in the few m inutes that I have Icouldn ’t b egin to go into th e subj ect .
Those two m aj o r inst ruments,the development o f colonial
domination—we cal l i t imper i al i sm more o r l es s— and the investment o f the su rplus income ove rseas , tend , o f cou rse, tostrengthen economical ly the home country
,and requi re fo r su c
cess inl operation a certain mino r equipment in tool s,partly in
the economic, partly in th e pol i tical field . In the economic
fi eld the m inor inst ruments l i e largely in th e catego ry o f communications—th e development o f a merchant marine, regardedas a national asset . A nation w i thout a merchant marine
, as
the recent war dem onst rated,carr ie s on fo reign t rade by su f
ferance only . Hence ou r own e ff orts to get one,and what
our natu ral abil i ty can ’
t attain and retain we seek to secu re byplacing handicaps on ou r compet ito rs
,such as S ection 34 o f the
Jones Act . This , o f cours e, merely inv i t es repri sal s .Then w e have the cables . Those who read the paper s with
some know l edge o f foreign a ff ai rs can draw a beauti fu l le ssonfrom the recent cabl e con ference in Washington
,where each
nation sought to monopol i ze some part i cu lar cabl e route . I fea r,
notw ith stand ing the avowal s in the Covenant o f the League
50 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
of Nations,that d is interestednes s among nations i sn’ t any more
prevalent now than it was in 1913. E ach o f those nations i s
attempting to control certain cabl es fo r its e l f . Why shou ld thatbe ? Why shou ld anybody wish to hol d a cable l ine alone ? Thereason i s obv iou s— for the power it giv es, the power to readyour competito r’ s cab les ; not that they wi l l use it, but they havethe power to us e it when the emergency ar is es, and they areth e j udges o f the emergency. The control o f coal ing stat ionsand trade routes are col lateral economic tools .Now
,then
,the pol it ical equip-ment in thi s vast enterpr i s e
i s, o f cou rse, p rimar i ly the army and navy, and they strengthendip lomatic notes immensely. They are al so used , as Dr . Iyenagasays
,to protect communicat ions
,becaus e i f you have a large
merchant m ar in e, i f you have cab les, you have got to protectthem
’
again st those who are ever ready, because o f this veryeconomic competit ive game
,to take them away from you i f
they can . I t ought not to be so , certainly not . But it i s So .
Then,o f cou rs e
,comes the casting about for al liances . That
also gives a feel ing o f strength in en forcing national pol i cies .O f cours e i t i s real iz ed that they merely enlarge the area o fconfl ict and f requently l ead to ruin . The reason that so manynations got into th is war was pr imar i ly due to the fact thatthey were tied by al l iances . I f the re i s one thing that i s
dangerous fo r thi s count ry i t would be to fo rm an al l iance, Idon ’ t care with which nation . Washington ’ s advice should bea co rne rston e o f pr incip l e for us ; we have le s s reason thanany other nation to encumber ou r future by any all iance
,avowed
o r d isgu ised .
There natu rally comes certain inc idental equipment,such
as secret diplomacy— a ne cess ary part o f thi s game,which
cannot lead to open covenants,openly arr ived at . I t i s im
poss ibl e . I t i s inconsi stent with the game itsel f .
And then,propaganda—that wonder fu l
,new invention co
incident with the growth o f the newspaper,the rap id ity o f
communicat ion , and the movies .” That is one o f the most
subvers iv e el ements in modern civi l i zation,I bel i eve , because
it debauche s the inte l l igence ; and yet I know o f no way tocombat it except by an intel l igent j udgment . The p reservationo f the f reedom of pr int ing i s mo re necessary even than
52 SELECTED ARTICLE S
THE WAR OF OIL AND SHIPS 1
Always,he ins i sted
,capital i sm competes and scrambles .
I t i s the antithesi s o f co l l ect ive act ion . I t cannot develop into
social unity, o r into wor ld unity.
”As I read thes e remarks o f
Lenin to Mr. Wells my eye fe l l upon the headl ines o f th e day’ sTimes . Th e contes t o f the naval s chools provided columns o fb ig typ e, displayed with rotund and eloquent headl ines . Mustwe have mo re super- dreadnoughts
,o r shal l i t b e mo re sub
mar ines and aircraft ? A real ly modern post-Jutl and superdreadnought costs
,i t s eems
,about to build, and when
the monster i s afloat ‘ under war condition s,it requi re s a whol e
armada o f destr oyer s to protect i t from submar ines, and abomb-proo f dockyard for shelter . To som e pockets the cost
and the vulnerabi l ity o f the capital ship may seem a disadvantage : to others it i s cl ear ly the revers e .Behind thi s r ivalry of the naval s chool s looms a new rivalry
o f the naval forces . The German fleet i s at the bottom o fScapa Flow. I t i s not qu ite clear where the next enemy wil lbe d i scovered
,but in ou r i s land story we were
“never long at alo ss . I am old enough to have wr itten unpopular l eading art icl e sin the distant days when we were bui lding against France andRuss ia . The new facts are, Of course, that the Amer ican program will give that kindred “as soci ated power a bigger navythan ours by 1924 and the new Amer i can ships, l ike thos e o fou r al ly
,Japan
, W i l l be indiv idual ly mo re fo rmidabl e than anywe have yet l aid down .
Simple mind s might rej oice at such an acces s ion o f strengt hto an al ly and an associ ate . Are not thes e par t o f the combination which made the wo r ld s afe for democracy ? Shouldwe not rej oi ce that th i s insu rance fo r democracy i s paid indollars and yen instead o f pounds ster l ing ? I have not heardthat view expres sed. There is in some quarters a shudder o falarm at the thought of competing in ship-bu ilding with a powerwhich has twice ou r populat ion and fou r t imes our wealth
,but
no one venture s to suggest . that the Amer icans are rel ievingus o f a burden . And yet, be tween u s and ou r cousins therei s much ident ity o f purpos e . We both want oi l .
1 B y H . N . Brai lsford in London Dai l y Herald. Repr inted in N. Y . Cal l ,December 3 1 , 1 920.
DISARMAMENT 53
I t needs a w ide sweep o f imagination to grasp the newphases o f wor ld r ival ry which open up after the war to endwar . Ou r next war wi l l not originate in E u rope . E urope i s
a ruined continent ; its dying cit ie s and gasping civ i l izationw i l l lu r e no conque ro r whose fleet can car ry him furtherafi eld . We are not vultures to quarre l over th is co rpse . The
French, indeed, may have paroch ial interests in the Ruhr coalfi eld, but that i s not our concern . A Ge rman thinker namedSpengler
,who has l ate ly written a book on the declin e o f
Western civi l i zation,predicts that the future l ies in the Pacific .
We are a mob il e power . The Syr ian chi ef in Disrael i ’ s “Tan
cred” inv ited Queen Victo ri a to remove hersel f, with hercourt and crown , from London to the E ast . One need not dothat . But i t would not be su rpr i s ing i f the now superfluousfleet which Lo rd Fisher concentrated in the No rth Sea shouldgradual ly t rans fer i ts el f to the Pacific .A few weeks ago I was watching a Chinese general and
h is staff,very smartly d res sed
,motoring past the Kreml in . The
same evening I saw at the Moscow opera that myste r ious Mr .Vanderl ip who has since become famous . I was to ld to obse rves i lence
,and I have done so
,but s ince Lenin gave the se cret
to the wo r ld and Mr . Wells I need no longer b e ret i cent . Iread the quaint document addressed to “His E xcel lency N .
Lenin by a group o f American banker s who boasted themselves d eep in th e counsel s o f the Republ ican party. I t was
an odd mixture o f h igh moral ity and sh rewd bus iness , and Igathered that its main pu rpose was to secure the o i l o f Kamschatka, together with an el igible naval station, fo r the u se o f
the American fleet .
O i l i s always use ful , wherever found , but when Providencehas p laced oi l on the shore s o f the very sea hithe rto dominatedby you r chie f r ival
,what godly republ i c would res i st the cal l
o f it s “mani fest destiny” ? Mr . Vand e rl ip has got h is concess ion .
Japan h as al ready protested,and in the Kremlin a shrewd face
rai ses a cynical eyeb row,as i t watch es the perpetuum mobi le o f
st ri fe which a st roke o f its pen has set going among the
cap i tal i st powers .No one , o f cou rs e , i s th inking o f wa r . One arms to p revent
it . Nor do I see how Japan w ith h e r present d i spa rity o f fo rcecould face a wa r w i th th e United States . Ou r al l iance w i thher h as a cl au se which rel ieves u s o f the obl igat ion to come
54 SELECTED ARTICLE S
in agains t Amer ica . Moreove r,i t wil l want th e efforts of
more pens than Mr Bot tom ley’
s to work up a war fever againstou r cous ins and associates . The thing might be done, however ;one o f the biggest naval sca res and bui lding boom s in ourhisto ry was di rected agai nst France
,immediately afte r ou r
cooperation with her as an al ly in the Cr imea.
In any event Ships are u sefu l fo r the d ry war fare o f diplomacy. A great many occasions and much valuable raw mate ri alcan be al located, as the Mo roccan aff air showed, merely byarming and counterarm ing. That may go on fo r years untilsomeone mu rders a king. Two gaps in the peace s ettl ement
made the renewal o f the old war o f steel and gold inevitab le .Fi rstly, we re fused even to discus s the fr eedom o f the seas,and thereby fo rced America to build against us . Secondly, theLeagu e o f Nations was created without power to ration thewor ld ’ s raw materi al s . Already from Baku to Kamchatka,f rom Mosul to Mexico , the scramble fo r oi l h as set the ships
and the ai rcra ft moving,to an accompaniment o f diplomati c
notes . There i s talk o f disarmament, and there w i l l b e mo re ,but there w i l l be arming unti l th e wo rl d’ s weal th is dis tr ibutedby consent . “Always,
” he insisted,
“cap ital i sm competes and
scramble s .”
E CONOMIC RIVALRIE S 1
Some nation,or some group o f nations has always been
in contro l o f th e known wo rld o r e l se in act iv e competit ion forthe right to exerci s e such a control . The p resent i s an era o fcomp et it ion .
Capitali sm has revolutionized the wor ld’ s e conomic l i fe . . By
1875 the capital i st nations were“
in a mad race to determinewhich one should dominate the capital ist world and have fi rstchoice among th e undeveloped port ions o f the earth . The com
p et itor s were Great B ri tain , Germany, France, Russia and Italy.
J apan and the United State s d id not real ly enter the fi eld fo r
anothe r generat ion .
The Wa r of 1914 decided thi s much —that Franceand I taly were too weak to play the big game in a big way,that Germany could not compete eff ectively fo r some timeto come ; that the Russ ians would no longer play the o ld game
1 From th e Amer ican Empire , by Scott Near ing. p . 2 35-4 1 .
DI SARMAMENT 55
at al l . There remained Japan, Great B r i tain and the UnitedStates and i t i s among thes e three nations that the capita li stwo r ld i s now divided . Japan is i n contro l o f the Far E ast .Great B ritain ho lds th e Near E ast, Af r i ca and Australia ; theUnited States dominates the Western Hemisphere.The Great War began in 1914 . I t w i l l end when the ques
tion is decided as to which o f these three empi res w i l l cont ro l the E arth .
Great‘
Britain has been the dominant facto r i n the wo r ldfo r a centu ry . She gained her posit ion af ter a te rr ific struggle
,
and she has maintained i t by vanqui shing Ho lland,Spain
,
France and Germany.
The United States i s out to capture the economic sup remacyof the earth . Her business men say so f rankly . Her poli ti ciansfea r that thei r constituents are not a s yet ready to take such astep . They have been reas sured , however, by the p residentia lvote o f November, 1920. American busines s l i f e a l ready i s
impe ria l , and polit ica l s entiment i s mov ing rapidly in the samedi rection .
Great B ritain holds t it le to the pickings o f the wo rld .
America wants some o r al l o f them . The two count ries a re
headed st raight fo r a confl i ct,which i s as inev i tab l e a s morning
sunri se , unless the menace o f Bolshev i sm grows so st rong,and remains so th reatening that the great capita li st r ival s wi l lbe compell ed to j oin fo rces fo r the sa lvation o f capita l i st soci ety .
As economic r ival ri es increase , competit ion in mi li ta ry andnaval preparat ion w i l l come as a matte r o f course . Follow ingthese wi l l be the e ff ort s to make poli t ical al li ances—in theE ast and elsewhe re .
These two countri es a re old t ime enemies . The root s o fthat enmity li e d eep . Two wa rs
,the white hot feeling du ring
the Civ i l Wa r,th e anti-B riti sh propaganda
,ca rri ed
,within a
few yea rs,th rough the American school s
,th e t rad i tions among
th e ofli ce r s in th e American navy,th e presence o f I ri sh
bo rn persons in th e United States th e immense plund e rsei zed by the B ri ti sh du ring th e War o f 19 14 ,
—these and manyothe r facto rs w i l l make i t easy to whi p th e Ame rican people
into a wa r- frenzy against th e Brit i sh Empi re .
Were there no economic rival ri es,such antagoni sms might
slumber fo r d ecad es,but with th e economi c st ruggle so active ,
these other matte rs wi l l be kept continual ly in th e fo reground .
56 SELECTED ARTICLE S
The capital i st s Of Great B r i tain hav e faced dark days andhave su rmounted h uge ob stacle s . They are not to b e tu rnedback by the th reat of r ivalry. The Ameri can capital i st s arebacked by the greatest avai lab le su rpluses in the wo r ld ; theyare ambitious
,fu l l o f enthus iasm and energy
,they are flushed
with thei r recent v ictory in the wo r ld wa r,and overwhelmed
by the unexpected sto res o f wealth that have come to themas a resu lt o f the confl i ct . They are imbued with a boundles sfaith in the poss ib i l i t i e s o f thei r count ry. Neither Gr eat B r i tain no r the United States i s i n a f rame of mind to makeconces s ions . E ach i s confident—the B r i t i sh wi th the tradit ional confidence o f centur i es o f world leadership ; the Americans with the buoyant , i deali st i c confidence of youth . I t is
one against the other unti l the future supremacy of the wo r ldi s decided .
American busines s interests are engaged in the work ofbui lding an international bus ines s s tructu re . Amer ican industry
,direct ed from the United States , exploiting fo reign resources
fo r Amer i can profi t,and financed by Amer ican inst itut ions ,
i s gaining a footing in Latin Amer i ca, in E urope and Asia .
The busines s men o f Rome bui lt such a s tructu re twothousand years ago . They competed wi th and final ly crushedtheir r ival s in Tyre
,Corinth and Carthage. In the ear ly days
o f the Empi re,they were the economic masters , as well as
the po li t ica l masters o f the known wor ld.
Within two centur i e s the bus ines s men of Great B r i tainhave bui lt an international bus ines s structure that has knownno equal s ince the days of the Caesars . Perhaps i t i s greater,even
,than the economic empi re o f the ‘
Romans . At anyrate
,fo r a century that B riti sh empi re o f commerce and in
du st ry has gone unchal lenged, save by Germany. Germanyhas been i cru sh ed. But there i s an indust ria l
-
empi re r i s ing inthe West . I t i s new . I t s strength i s as yet undete rmined .
It i s uncoo rd inated . A new era has dawned, however, andthe busines s men of the United States have made up thei rminds to win the economic sup remacy o f the earth .
Already the war i s on between Great B ri tain and theUnited States . The two countri es are just as much at wartoday as Great B r itain and Germany were at war during thetwenty years that preceded 1914 . The is sues are es sentia l ly
DISARMAMENT 57
th e same in both cas es ,—commercia l and economic in ch a racter
,and it i s th es e economi c and commercia l i s sues that are
th e chi ef causes o f modern mi litary wars—that are in themselves economi c wars which may at any moment be trans ferredto the mi li ta ry arena .
B riti sh capitali st s are j ealous ly guard ing the privi leges thatthey have co l lected th rough centu ri es o f busines s and mili taryconfl i ct . The American capita l i st s a re out to s ecu re thes epriv i leges fo r themselves . On neither s ide would a mi litarysett lement o f the i s su e b e we lcomed . On both s ides i t wou ld
be regarded as a painfu l neces s ity. War i s an incident inimpe r i a li st po l icy. Yet the position o f the imperiali st as an
internationa l exp loit er depends upon hi s ab ilty to make war successfu lly. War i s a part o f the pr i ce that the impe ri al ist mustpay fo r hi s oppo rtunity to explo i t and contro l the earth .
After Sedan, i t was Gerrhany versus Great B r itain fo rthe control o f E u rope . After Vers ai l l e s i t i s the UnitedStates versus Great B r i tain fo r the cont ro l o f the capita li stearth . Both nations must spend the next f ew years in act ive
preparation fo r . the confl i ct .The governments o f Great B ri tain and the United States
are today on terms o f greatest intimacy . Soon an i s sue wi l l
ari se—perhaps over Mexico,perhaps over Pers ia, perhaps ove r
I re land, perhaps over the extension o f Amer ican control inthe Car ibbean . There is no diffi culty o f finding a p retext .
Then the re wi l l fo l low the t ime-hono red method of arou sing the peop le on either s ide to wrath against thos e acrossthe bo rd e r . Great B ritain wi l l point to the race- riot s andnegro- lynchings in Amer i ca as a proof that the people o f the
United States a re barbarians . B riti sh ed ito rs wi l l ci te the
wanton taking o f the Canal Z one as an indicat ion o f th e
w i l l ingness of American statesmen to go to any lengths i nthei r effo rt to extend thei r dominion ove r the earth . The
new spapers o f th e Uni ted States wi l l play up the te rro ri smand supp ression in I reland and the re are many I ri shmen morethan ready to lend a h and in such an enterp ri s e ; tyranny inIndi a w i l l com e i n fo r a gene rou s sh are o f comment ; then
there a re th e relations between G reat B ritain and the Turks ,and above al l
,the re are th e ev idence s in th e Pari s Treaty o f
th e way in wh ich Great B ritain i s gradual ly abso rbing th e
earth . Unless the powe r o f labo r i s st rong enough to tu rn
58 SELECTED ARTICLE S
the b low, o r unles s the capi tali sts decide that the saf ety ofthe capitali st wo rld d epends upon thei r getting together andd ivid ing th e p lunder, the resul t i s inevi table .The United S tates i s a wo r ld Empi re in her own r ight .
She dominates the Western Hemisphere. Young and inex
per ienced, she neverthe les s pos ses ses the economic advantagesand po litica l autho rity that giv e he r a voice in al l int ernationalcont rove rs i es . Only twenty years have passed s ince the organizing genius o f Ameri ca tu rned i t s attention f rom exclusively
domesti c p rob lems to the p rob lems of financia l imper iali smthat have b een agitat ing E u rope fo r a ha lf a centu ry. The
Great War showed that American men make good soldiers,and
i t a lso showed that Ameri can wealth commands wo r ld power.With the aid o f Russia, France, Japan and the United
States Great B r i tain crushed her most dangerous r iva l—Germany . The stru ggle which dest royed Ge rm any ’
s economic andmi litary power erected in her stead a mo re menacing economicand mi l itary power—the United States . Unt rained and inexper ienced in world aff ai rs , the maste r clas s o f the United S tateshas been p laced suddenly in the ti t le rOle. Amer i ca over nighthas become a world empi re and over night her rulers havebeen cal led upon to think and act like wo rld empero rs . P art lythey succeeded
,part ly they bungled, but they learned much.
Thei r appet ite s w ere whetted,thei r im aginations sti rred by the
vi sion o f wo rld autho rity. Today they a re talking and w ri t ing,tomorrow they wi l l act—no longer as novices , but as maste rsof the rul ing c lass in a nation which f eels hers e l f destined torule the earth .
The imperial st ruggle i s to continue . The Japanes e Empi redominates the Far E ast ; the B ri ti sh Empi re dominates South ernAsia
,th e Near E ast, Af ri ca and Aust ral ia ; the Ameri can
Empi re dominates the Western Hemi sphere . I t i s impossib l e
for these three great emp i res to remain in rival ry and at pe ace .
E conomic st ruggl e i s a fo rm of war, and the economic strugglebetween them i s now in progres s .The War o f 1914 was no war fo r democracy in spit e o f
the fact that mi l l ions of the men who died in the t renches
beli eved that they were fighting fo r f reedom . Rather i t wasa war to make the world saf e fo r the B r it i sh Empi re . Onlyin part was the war success ful . The old wo rld was made saf e
by the el imination o f B ritain’ s two dangerous r ivals—Germany
60 SELECTED. ARTICLE S
in the year s preceding the War of 1914 . The years from 1914
to 1918 were the opening episode ; the first engagements o fthe Great War.There i s no question, among thos e who have taken the
troubl e to in fo rm themse lves,but that the War o f 19 14 was
fought fo r economic and commercial advantage . The same
rival ri e s that p recede d 1914 are more act ive in the wor ld todaythan ever be fore . Hence the possib i l i t ies o f war are greaterby exactly that amount . The imper ial struggle is being cont inued and a part o f the imper i al struggl e is war.
RE STORATION MUST PRECEDE DISARMAMENT 1
(Th e Woman’s committee for world disarmament recent l y wrote to
former United S tates Senator R . F . Pett igrew of South Dakota, ask ingh is he lp in i ts eff orts t o br ing about an internat ional conference on disarmament, Senator Pett igrew repl ied giving h is r easons for be l ieving th at
such a conference would b e use less, in th e fol lowing letter, wh ich was
given to th e press. )
I n cal l ing a conference o f the robber nations of the wor ldth e so-cal l ed Chr i st i an nations—you ar e working r ight intoth e hands o f th e armament people. That is exact ly what theywant you to do—cal l a con fe rence . Cal l a con ference o f thethieves to see who shal l quit steal ing fi rst . Cal l a conferenceo f th e pirates o f the wor ld who are out robbing the maj o rityo f mankind and who are armed to the teeth
,and discu ss the
quest ion a few years, and then adj ourn without doing anything,and cal l another conference . I n the meantime
,keep on building
battl eships and inventingnew implements o f death .
The remedy i s not in a con ference. I t would be absurdand child i sh to cal l a conference . That i s j ust exactly whatthe p rofi teer s and scoundrel s who now compose the so- cal led
civ i l i zed wor ld want you to do . DO you think E ngland wil l
disarm ? She has control o f ful ly hal f o f the whol e earth,and
much mo re than hal f o f the population,and sh e i s robbing
and exploit ing these people in the name o f Chri st ianity forthe benefi t o f a few ar istocrat s in E ngland . She cannot
disarm .
1 By former U .S . Senator R. F. Pett igrew from M innesota Dai l y Star.J une 2 7 , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 61
All in th e Same Boat
Cal l a con fe rence with France ? She is engaged in the
same bus iness as E ngland is . She cannot d i sarm— sh e has a
large p iece o f China, northern Africa, a port ion o f Arabia,and i s engaged in the same despe rate busines s o f p i racy androbbery that E ngland is engaged in, and al l for the glo ry o fou r God !Cal l a conference with Italy ? She is out for empire the
same as the others . O r is you r conference to be with Japanthe heathen Jap who i s al so well on the course o f empi re, fo llow ing E ngland ’s model ? A conference w ith Japan might dobecause Japan would undoubted ly agree to decrease he r armament , and do it qu ick, j u st as soon as th e conference got together ; and then sh e would keep r ight on bui lding battl eship s .She has learned al l about hypocr i sy and deceit f rom E ngland—sh e is out to rob Ko rea, Formosa and China .
But what ’s the matter w ith the United States that it wantsto d isarm ? The United States w i l l no more d i sarm than wil lany o f the others . To cal l a conference fo r that purpose i spu re hypocr isy . We started on the cou rse o f empi re when we
stol e Hawai i,and put a black page o f in famy in our hi sto ry ;
when we tu rned upon the al ly and began butche ring our al l i esthe people o f the Phi l ipp ines and annex ed thei r country ; whenwe took Porto Rico ; when we occup ied Panama by fo rce o fa rms ; when we entered Hait i and Santo Domingo pu rely asconque ro rs under the p retex t that we we re co l l ecting a debtfo r the City Bank o f New Yo rk upon which those p eop l e hadnot paid the inte rest , and now we have pu rchased , withoutconsulting the people
,the Dani sh West Ind i e s
,have landed
our t roops in Nicaragua and Costa Rica , and are in a quarrelwith Japan about th e rock in the Pacific ocean cal l ed Yap .
We have fi fteen thousand th ree hund red American soldie rsqua rt ered in E urope on the German peop l e ; we have seventhousand men in Hawai i
,five thousand nine hund red in Pan
ama,ten thousand in th e Phi lippines
,one thou sand eigh t h un
dred in Porto Rico,and one thousand fou r hund red in China .
G iv e Back Te r r i to r ies
In th e face o f al l these fact s you peop l e want me. to j o inin a petition to Congress , which is composed o f the atto rneys
62 SELECTED ARTICLE S
o f the p rofi teer s, to ho ld a conference o f the robber nation so f the wor l d and see i f w e can’t agree to reduce armament !I f the women o f Amer i ca wi ll organi z e and insi st upon our
restoring ou r stol en co lonies to the people who inhabit them ,
and wil l ins is t upon taking the government o f the Uni ted Statesout o f the hand s o f the New York gamble rs who now completelyown it
,and the ir atto rneys out o f Congress
,and put in members
who bel i ev e in the r ights o f man,I shal l be very glad to j o in
in the movement .
You can, in that way, accompl i sh something fo r humanity.
THE DISARMAMENT CONGRE SS 1
Under the guise o f a di sarmament congres s P resident Harding actual ly has cal led a confe rence on wor ld po l it ics , Invitat ions have been extended to Great B ritain , France, I taly, Japanand China to part icipate . The topics o f the conference areto be disarmament and far eastern affai rs . The re i s l ikely tob e much talk o f far eastern affai r s and l i tt l e o f disarmament .Our own mil itar i s ts constantly have hel d up Japan as a
bogey. That nation is presented as the main obstacl e to disarmament because of its menace to our peace .There fo re i t wil l be a good thing to discus s ou r rel ations
with Japan and all the far eastern s ituation which contains theseeds o f poss ibl e t roub le .
There are very serious and diffi cul t problems in the far east .The future o f China alone i s a tough nut to crack, to say
nothing o f S ibe ria,which is fu lly as se rious . Many care fu l
obs ervers th ink the o r i ent i s th e quarte r from which “our nextworld war” i s to sp ring, i f we are to have a next wor ld war.For that reason it is highly important to do two things . One
’
i s to ar rive i f pos s ib le at some working bas is fo r the adj ustment o f th e far eastern questions ; and the other i s to determinehow we are to s ett l e a definite i s sue between two of theprincipal nations hav ing inte rests in the far east i f such adefinite i ssue should ari s e .The nations chiefly inte rested in the Pacific coast o f Asia
are China,Russia
,Japan
,Great B r i tain and th e United States .
Representat ives o f al l these nations are to sit in M r . Hughes ’
1 By Herbert Gaston, in M innesota Dai l y Star. J ul y 1 1 , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 63
and M r. Hardi ng’ s confe rences at Washington except Russia .We have not heard even that the republ ic o f E astern S iber ia,w ith its headquarte rs at Chita and cla iming j u risd ict ion clear tothe Pacific
,has been inv i ted to part icipate . This nation
which i s not bolshevik nor communist— is not a recogniz ednation . I t does, however, rep resent the p eopl e o f E astern
Siberia . Japan has an army in E aste rn S iberi a car rying onwa r against the far e aste rn r epublic . When the al l ies ceased
to back the Cos sack brigand Semenov and others o f h i s strip e,Japan took them up . They aid by creat ing a cond i t ion o fanarchy which is favorable to Japan ’
s scheme to seiz e a lot o f
t err ito ry in Rus sia . Jap an al so is said to be working throughthe Mongols . These w i ld horseme n of the p l ains have beeninduced to declare thei r independence o f China and Russ iancounter- revo lutionarie s w ith headquarte rs in Urga are organiz ing raids into S iberian te r r ito ry .
The activ i ty o f the Mongol s w i l l recal l to those who haveread a l it tl e ancient h isto ry vague stories o f repeated invasionso r overflow s” o f the w i ld barbarian hordes o f this centralAsian te rr ito ry into E urop e . I t w i l l recal l recol lection o f theHuns and o f that great o ri ental conquero r Gengh iz Khan , withhi s domain in the early thi rteenth centu ry
,running from eastern
E urope to the Pacific,and o f Tam u r lane
,another mighty yel
low man .
Brita in is inte re sted , too , in the Pacifi c coast o f the or ient .B r itai n has h er po rt, Hong Kong, on the southern coast o fChina below Canton and i s s eeking to make i t the commercialcap i tal o f China . In a recent a rticle in the New Republ icJohn Dewey
,the American educato r
,tel l s how B rit ish capi ta l
has consp i red to seize p ractical ly al l the coal supplie s o f therich p rovince o f Kwantung and th rough the construction o fBrit i sh rai l road s to d ive rt the t raffic o f South China fromCanton to Hong Kong, making the great Chinese city o f South
China a mere way station .
Given possess ion o f the coal suppli es fo r which i t i s consp ir ing,
w i th th e op pos it ion o f the South Ch ina gove rnment ,Great B ritain pract ical ly w il l cont ro l the indust ria l futu re o fChina .
I t i s common pol iti cal goss ip in the o rient that there i s atacit und erstand ing between Great B ritain and Japan that th eBriti sh wil l be le ft free to exploi t and rob South China i f
64 SELECTED ARTICLE S
Japan is pe rmitted a free hand to do the same thing in thenorth . Whether t it l e to und i stu rbed aggress ion in Mongol iaand S iberia as wel l as in Shantung, Manchuria and Korea i s tobe included in the parcel ing out o f pr iv il eges between Japanand E ngland i s not stated .
This i s j ust a gl impse o f what i s involved in the far easternquestions . Just the othe r day Secretary Hughes reaffirmed onbehal f o f the Harding administ ration that the United Stateswould continue to stand by th e pr incipl e o f the f ‘
open doo r”
in China. I f we are real ly ser ious about this , and i f w e intendto see j ust ice done to China - to say nothing o f S iber ia—wehave something ser ious on our hands .The principle o f the “open doo r
,
” enunciated by John Hayapparently with the intention that the United States wouldinterpos e to '
p rev ent the same fate happening to China as has
happened to India,to E gyp t and to Korea, can mean something
o r i t can mean nothing. I f i t means nothing China i s going
to be looted by Japan and by E ngland, each in their sphereso f influence . The pretty language o f dip lomacy and the hypocr it i ca l p retensions o f statesmen cannot conceal that fact . BothE ngland and Japan today are bus i ly at work on thei r schemeso f the ft .
In rai s ing these quest ions M r . Hughes may be seeking away to d i sarmament or he may be seeking to show that theUnited State s cannot disarm . But he i s tho ro ughly r ight inl aying down the pr incipl e that we must have some kind o fagreement o r sett lement regard ing the or i ent . We should induce E ngland and Japan to cut out th e cant and tel l us whatthey real ly intend to do and then we should decide what weare go ing to do about it
,i f anything.
I f the th ree nat ions are to go on bui lding up armaments andthen stand grow l ing at each othe r while the bones o f China andSiber i a are being p i cked
,a war some t ime in the futu re is about
as certain as anything can be .
I f there is any hope at al l fo r a fair s ettl ement o f the fareastern question it is in settlement which w i l l include disarmament and a way to adj ust d i sputes .But something more than that i s needed to insure peace .
The kind o f exploitat ion being carr ied fo rward now both byE ngland and by Russia i s incompatible with continued pe ace,no matter what may be the diplomatic relat ions b etween nations .
DISARMAMENT 65
The schemes o f these two nations mean the robbery by foreigncap ital i sts o f already impoveri shed peoples .I t i s probable that we shal l have a con ference on the far
east and d i s armament . That conference is as,impor tant to
the future o f the wo rld as the Versail les confe rence . I f anygood i s to come out o f it the nations wi ll have to deal on abas i s d i ff erent from that on which they dealt at Versail le s andwith a different spi rit . Anothe r such sett lement as that atVersai l l e s, with continuation o f the race in armaments , meanswor ld ruin on a scale impossib le to comprehend .
FORMAL CALL TO CUT ARMAMENTS SENT TOPOWERS BY PRE SIDENT 1
The P resident i s deeply gratifi ed at the cord ial response tohi s suggest ion that there should be a conference on the subj ecto f l imitation o f a rmaments, in connection with which Pacific.and Far E astern quest ions should also be discussed .
Product ive l abor is stagger ing under an economic burdentoo heavy to be bo rne unles s the present vast publ ic expenditu res are great ly reduced . I t i s id l e to look fo r stabi l i ty
,o r the
assurance o f social j ust ic e, o r the security o f peace, whilewaste ful and unproductive outlays deprive effo rt o f i t s j us treward and de feat the reasonable expectat ion o f progress .The eno rmous disbu rs ements in the r ival ri es o f armaments
mani festly const itute the greate r part o f the encumbrance uponenterpri se and national p rosper ity ; and avoidable o r extravagantexpense o f thi s natu re i s not only without economic j ustificationbut i s a constant menace to the peace o f the wo r ld rathe rthan an assurance o f its pre se rvation . Yet there would seemto be no ground to expect the halting o f these increas ing outlays unles s the powers most largely concerned find a sat i s facto ry
basi s fo r an agreement to e ffect thei r l imitat ion .
The time i s bel i eved to be opportune fo r these powers toapp roach th is subj ect di rect ly and in con fe rence ; and while, inthe d i scu ss ion o f limitation o f armament, the quest ion o f navalarmament may natural ly have fi rst p lace, i t has been thought
1 Text o f th e formal invitat ion to th e disarmament conference, Augustxx, 1 92 1 .
66 SELECTED ARTICLE S
best not to exclude quest ions pertaining to other armament toth e end that al l p racticabl e measure s o f rel ie f may have approp r iate cons ideration . I t may also b e found adv isab le to form
nlate pr oposals by wh ich in th e inter es t of humani ty th e u se
of new agencies of warfar e may b e su i tab ly contr olled.
I t is, however, quite clear that the re can be no final assurance o f the peace o f the wo rld in the ab sence o f the des ire forpeace, and the prospect o f reduced armaments i s not a hopeful one unles s this des ire finds exp ress ion in a practical effortto remove causes o f misunderstanding and to seek groundfo r agreement as to pr incip le s and thei r appl i cation .
I t is th e earnest wish of th is gov ernm ent that th r ough an
inter change of v iews wi th th e facili ties affor ded by a confer ence,it may
-b e possib le to find a solu tion of Pacific and Far E as tern
pr ob lems, of unqu es tioned impor tance at th is time, that is, su ch
common u nder s tandings wi th r espect to matter s wh ich hav e
been and ar e of international concern as may s er v e to pr omote
endu r ing fr iends h ip among ou r peoples .
I t i s not the purpos e Of this Government to attempt todefine the scope o f the d i scuss ion in relation to the Pacific andFar E ast, but rather to leave this to be the subj ect o f sugges
t ions to be exchanged b e fore the meet ing o f the conference,in th e expectation that the spi r i t o f fr i endship and a co rdialappreciat ion o f the impo rtance o f the el imination o f sources ofcontroversy w i l l govern the final decision .
Acco rd ingly, i n pu rsu ance o f the proposal which has beenmad e, and in the l ight o f the graciou s indicat ion o f its ac
cep tance, the P resident invites the Government o f Great B r i tain(the name i s changed in other inv itations ) to part icipate in aconf erence on the subj ect o f l imitation o f armament
,in connec
t ion with which Pacific and Far E astern quest ions wil l a lso bed iscuss ed
,to b e held in Washington on the 1 1 th day
,of
November, 192 1 .
68 SELECTED ARTICLE S
respons ible . For. two years Mr . Daniels
'
has been th reateningthe civi li zed wor ld with an Ameri can Navy larger than thecombined navies of al l nations . Doubtles s h e has personal lyinspi red the recommendation of the Genera l Board fo r a dup licat ion o f ou r present bui lding p rogram . Yet M r. Danielsis practica l ly the only person i n respons ib l e posit ion who hasengaged in such irrespons ib l e fo recasts . On thi s s ide of the
water the Daniels proposals ar e not s er ious ly taken. The fo reign cri t i cs who accus e the Amer i can peop l e of going in for“naval i sm
”ignore the fact that the programm e which so
arouses their exci tement now is the same one which inspi redthei r app lause when o r iginal ly adopted in 1916. Fo r our shipyards are at present merely engaged in carrying out a law
passed five years ago .
“P r epar edness
”
in 191 4 and Now
This law was the resu lt o f the p reparednes s campaign”
which had arous ed only a languid interest fo r s everal yearsp reced ing the Wo r ld War, but which took on a new intens itywhen Germany crossed the B elgian f ronti er. I t is only whenwe turn back and read the speeches and books and arti cles onthi s once burning sub j ect that we gain a p roper viewpoint fo rthe pres ent discus s ion of di sarmament .” In al l thi s vast and
now antiquated literature there was a clear appreciation ofthe fundamenta l fact that a nation ’ s mi li ta ry policy necessari ly rest ed upon it s national pol icy. The idea that in bui lding
d readnaughts and creating armies we had no pa rt icu lar enemyin view
,was pure hypocri sy. Poss ib l e enemies, then as now,
always assumed a definite fo rm ; the extent to whi ch weshou ld arm depended
,then as now
,on th e l ikelihood that we
should have to defend ours elves and uphold ou r national polici es against aggress ion f rom sources that were always keptcl ear ly in m ind. A su rvey o f th e inte rnational field in 1914
di sclo sed that the United States had assumed heavy responsib ilit ies. In upholding the Mon roe Doctrine we had announcedou r dete rmination of def ending two great continents f rom anypossib l e foe . I n acqui ring Hawaii , Samoa, Guam, and the
Phi lippine I s lands we had extended ou r radius of naval ac
t ion mo re than s ix thousand miles . John Hay’ s “open doo r”
po licy in the E ast had certain ly given u s a strong interest inthe integri ty of China, even i f i t had not definitely committed
DISARMAMENT 69
us to def ending that po li cy with a rms . The bui lding of th ePanama Canal had created a vulnerab le point in the Car ibbean which we must stand ready to p rotect at any cost . Thusthose who, di scus sing
“p reparedness” s ix years ago,asked
whether the United States had undertaken ob ligations outs idehe r own bord er which might conceivab ly cal l fo r batt lesh ip sand a rmies, found themselves compel led to answer th e question in the affi rmative .At th e same time we d i scu ssed not only polici es bu t pos
s ib le enemi es . There were only three that were s erious ly consider ed. Wh at was the chance that we shou ld have a confl i ct
with Great B r itain ? At that t ime we had not been B ri tain ’ sa lly in a great war : yet, even then, an honest su rvey o f thefield d i sc lo sed f ew causes of poss ib l e troub le . The outstanding fact was that
,fo r twenty years—ever s ince the Vene
zu elan incident—the B ri t i sh Governm ent and the B r it i sh people had shown eve ry d esi re o f maintaining the most harmoniou s relat ions with thi s country. This des i re was a consp icu
ou s note in Br it i sh fo reign policy,and almost an ostentatious
one . Such misunde rstandings as had ari s en in the cou rs e o fa centu ry had b een adj u sted by diplomacy o r arb i tration . In
the only policy which cou ld conceivab ly caus e f riction—theMonroe Doct rine—Great B ritain had long s ince acquiesced .
Thus no intel l igent Amer i can regarded the B rit i sh nav yGreat B ritain had only a smal l army— as anything which we
shou ld“bui ld against . With Japan
,thei r case was not so
clea r.’
I t was not necessa ry to accept the fo recast s o f a Hobson and th e wi ldest Cal i fornians to conclude that
,afte r al l
,
th ere were matte rs which might make t roub le between Japanand ou rselves . The fact was that only P resident Roosevelt’ sprompt and energet ic b ehavio r i n 1907 had prevented war b etween th e two countries . Ou r ideas about China did not co
incid e with Japan ’ s . Ou r posses s ion o f many of the bestst rategic points in th e Pacific might perhaps b e regarded byJapan as a provocation . Ou r inhospi tab l e atti tude towa rdJapanese immigrants was a constant i rritation to a proud andvaliant people . Many Americans su spected that Japan nou rish ed impe rial i sti c ambition s indeed , i t was unquestionable thatthe mi l i ta ry spi ri t i n that count ry was powerfu l .Yet th e influences working fo r peace i n both Japan and the
United S tate s were so strong that war was by no means
7o SELE CTED ARTICLE S
regarded as l ikely. The one enemy who loomed large in al l“preparedness debates was Germany. The aggress ive po licyof the Kais er was always b latant ly mani f est . Long befo re19 14 the German Fo reign Office had demonstrated that itsideals were thos e of a mediaeval bandit. In 1902 the Kai s erhad attempted to destroy the Monroe Doctr ine ; s ince thenGermany had scarcely concealed its hosti li ty to this
,the main
f eature of Amer i can fo reign po licy. With the outb reak ofwar Germany threw off a l l pretensions to decency and stoodconfes sed as the wo rld ’ s great buccaneer. In cas e the Alli es
shou ld b e defeated, there was not the s lightest question thatthe United States would b e attacked . Thus
,o f the th ree pos
s ib le enemies against Whom we were p reparing in 1916, GreatB r i tain was not a possib l e foe
,Japan was a possib l e—though
not a likely one— and Germany,i n cas e sh e won the late war,
which then s eemed not improbab le,was a lmost a certain foe .
I t was in thi s state o f mind that the naval program o f 19 16
was conceived . I t 'was not adopted as a p reparat ion fo r immediate War with Germany. Any adequate p reparation forthe war in which we u ltimately engaged would have takenthe fo rm of destroyers and other anti-submarine craft , not o fbatt leships and batt lecru iser s, which could not have b een bui lt
fo r many years . So far as any logical po l i cy control l ed at al l,ou r proposed fleet was regarded as p reparation fo r war withGermany after Germany had defeated the Alli es
,o r as a pos
s ib le p reparation against a Japan which might refus e to ac
cept certain impli cat ions of ou r domesti c and fo reign poli cy.
A R adical Change in th e International S i tuation
Such then was the pos ition o f the United S tates when thebuild ing program which i s now under way was adopted .
It i s quit e apparent that our position has radical ly changed .
The great enemy that s eemed so powerfu l in 1916 i s now, in
a mi l itary sens e,contemptib l e . The German fleet could now
hardly make war on Spain o r Norway. Her great batt leshipsa re eithe r in the hand s o f her enemies o r at the bottom ofthe s ea . The Kaise r ’ s hope o f a great German colonial emp i re
,o f taking Great B ri tain ’ s place in Canada
,India , and
South Af rica,and o f convert ing the Monroe Doctr ine into a
dead lette r,has gone . No r i s i t likely that , in the li fetime of
the p resent generat ion,Germany wi l l ever bui ld another fleet .
So far as the new Ameri can Navy was intended as a protect ion
DISARMAMENT 7 1
against Germany, i t ha s outl iv ed i ts use fulness . Far f rom
need ing more dreadnaughts,we cannot poss ib ly u se those which
we al ready have .
Despit e ce rtain influences now at wo rk to make troub le b etween the United States and Great B ritain
,the relations o f
thes e two nations have not changed . They have not changed
becaus e the fundamenta l f acts have not changed . The reasons which exi sted five years ago fo r good relations b etween
the United States and Great B ritain ar e even st ronger today.
Temperamental caus es fo r i rr i tation a re p lenti fu l enough,but
the war emphasi z ed the fact that the ideals o f the two count ri es a re the same, and that the welfare of mankind dependsupon thei r clos e understand ing and cooperat ion . An Anglo
American war would mean the end of modern civi l i zation . I t
would mean the rej uvenation o f Germany and of GermanKai se ri sm . I t would mean the r econst itution o f Austri a-Hungary and the Hapsbu rgs . In a word i t wou ld mean the los sof eve ryt hing which has been gained by the d readfu l strugglewhich has j u s t c lo sed . The war h as ended with Great B ri taina greater f ri end o f th e Monroe Doctrine than ever befo re . I thas l e f t the B ri ti sh Emp i re more depend ent upon f ri end ly r e
lat ions w ith thi s count ry than most E ngli shmen care to admit .
To the United States Great B ritai n has su r rendered, tempo
rar ily at l east—perhaps permanently— her pos ition as the
wo rld ’ s financial center . The d ebts which the B riti sh Gove rnment owes the Amer i can Government are greate r than sh e
can pay in a gene ration , and in the coming years E ngland wi l l
become mo re and more depend ent upon American trade andAmerican finance .
Certain new facts h ave,indeed
,appeared that are u sual ly
accepted as hav ing a tend ency to estrange f ri endly nations .Those mi staken phi losophe rs who att ribute al l wa rs to economic causes may point out that th e United S tates is now“going out” fo r that fo reign t rade and that shipping u pon
which the p ro spe rity o f G reat B ritain has d epended fo r a centu ry . Again w e shal l h e to ld that i t i s G reat B ritain ’ s h i sto ric
po licy to “c ru sh any nation th at attempts to di spute h er as
cendency on th e s ea . Th e fate of S pain , Holland , and Francewi l l once mo re b e parad ed befo re ou r eyes . But th es e phantoms do no t di stu rb an America wh ose d i sp lay o f powe r in
th e recent war was as much a revelat ion to i t se l f as to th e
72 SELECTED ARTICLE S
wo r ld . Its match les'
s s trategic pos it ion,its economic independ
ence, the youth and energy of its peop le, its industr i e s, its re
sources—no American can survey thes e advantages,contrast
ing them with a bankrupt and devastated and heart- s ick E urope, and entertain any fear of an attack f rom overs eas . And,despit e certain discou raging f eatu res of the present s i tuat ion
,
a common ideali sm does contro l the minds o f both peoples .Between them arbi tration i s a p racticab le method of sett lingdi sputes . An impo rtant influence i s the fact that the incomingAdmini stration is fa r more f ri endly to Great B ri tain than theoutgoing. No better guide to Anglo-Ameri can relations cou ldbe asked than the lett er wh ich Mr. Harding has recently ad
d res sed to M r. John A . Stewa rt, Chai rman o f th e Board o fGoverno rs o f the Sulgrave Inst itute. As definite ly committ ing Mr . Harding to a po l icy o f cooperation it is wo rth quoting in ful l :
Dear M r. Stewart : Th e labor of unit ing into st i l l c loser am ity and
understanding t h e Engl ish -speak ing peoples of th e wor ld h as a s ign ifi canceof good to all Amer icans and to all nat ions and races of th e wor ld.
Dest iny h as made it a h istor ical fact that th e Engl ish-speak ing peopleshave been th e instrument through wh ich c ivi l izat ion h as been fl ung to
th e far corners of th e globe . I am impressed not so much by th e
glory t hat Engl ish-speak ing peoples may take to themse lves as by th e
profound du t ies that God h as thrust upon th em—dut ies of be ing r e
strained, to lerant, and j ust. These dut ies w i l l find the ir gr eatest recognit ion in a unit ed, unshakab le fr iendsh ip and understanding and oneness .
of purpose—not for th e exc l us ion from brotherhood of others , but for a
better brotherhood fl owing t oward others .
0I be l ieve that when th e w isdom of Ameri ca is summoned to ass i stth e wor ld in bu i lding a workab le , as dist ingu ished from a bungl ing agree ‘
ment or assoc iat ion for th e prevent ion of war , uni ty of E ngl ish-speak i ngpeoples w i l l play no smal l part, not to invade th e r igh ts or ex c lude th e
f e l lowsh ip of other nat ions, but to protect and inc l ude them . Faith fu l l yy ours. WARREN G. HARDING.
Japan as a P ossible“F oe
The only remaining possibl e foe” o f the United States , acco rding to the wo rld s ituat ion o f 1916, i s Japan . The observe rmost f ri endly to Japan must admit that ou r . r elat ions have
changed . In 1916 the so-cal l ed “gentl eman ’ s agreement” s eemedto have definite ly settled the problem o f Japanese immigrat ion .
I t i s now al l too apparent that i t has not done so . The antagonism s between the Japanes e and the citizens o f the Pacifi c
coast are much mo re strained now than then . Cali fornia haspas sed re ferendum laws , against the holding o f property byJapanese
,that have made condit ions fairly acute . The restr iction,
ve ry l ikely the prohibit ion,of Japanese labo r immigration into
DISARMAMENT 73
the United S tates i s now a fixed nat ional pol icy. The Asiat ic
s ituation has al so become mo re tense . Most Amer icans bel ievethat Japan used th e World War as an oppo rtunity to sol idi fy
her position in China . She emerged from Versai l l es w ith apowerfu l hand upon Shantung, China’ s r ichest prov ince . Thatit i s Japan
’
s highest asp i ration to contro l the whole o f Chinaand monopoli ze it s t rade i s the wel l-grounded suspicion o f theUnited States and E urope . Moreove r
, th e Jap anes e strategicposition in th e Pacifi c i s much st ronger than in 1916. At that
time i t was possible to draw a diagram and show how impregnabl e the United S tates could make its el f
,with such points a s
Manila, Guam , Samoa, Hawaii , and Ki ska, Alaska . The Pe ace
Con ference,however, act ing in obedience to what s eemed a
necess ity, awarded Japan al l the German I slands north o f th eE quator “
. Regarded str i ctly f rom a naval point o f view,th i s
cess ion i s a very ser iou s thing fo r the United States . I f Japanestabl ishes naval bases in the Caroline
,Marshal l
,and Ladrone
is lands, sh e has s imply cut communicat ions between the United
States and the Phil ipp ines . Unles s th i s count ry should stat iona fleet more power ful than the Japane s e in Manila
,Japan would
have no diffi cul ty in captu ring the Phil ipp ine s and Guam . With
Guam and the German i slands in Japanes e posses sion,the
United States would have the utmost d ifficul ty in regainingits Pacific possess ions , as ou r nea rest base, that o f Hawai i,would be mo re than th ree thousand mi les away.
These are the pu rely mil ita ry and polit ical aspects o f American-Japanese relat ions ; more important than eithe r is nationalsentiment . Though i t would be absu rd to maintain that the
average American feel s as f r i end ly toward Japan as in the
days o f the Russo -Japanese War,there is no real hostil ity in
thi s country . The attitude i s on e o f a somewhat di strust fu lcu riosity. Just what does Japan w i sh to do ? The Japanese
themselves are apparently div ided into two camps . There isa purely j ingo el ement
,ready fo r aggress ion ; but the w i s est
Japanese—those who real ly gove rn the count ry—p robably real i zethat Japan cannot affo rd to antagonize mankind and th at th esafest cou rse i s not th e path which Germany trod . Th e fact
that Japan finally j oined the Chinese Consortium on te rm s
sati s facto ry to th e United States and E urope ind i cates thatthe saner e l ement s a re gaining th e up pe r hand over th e Mil itaryParty . The most fie ry Japanese probably real izes that wa r
74 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
with the United States would be something quite diff erentfrom the war with Russ ia.
Nav al Super ior ity Ov er Br i tain and Japan
Thus o f the three poss ibl e enemies against which the presentbui ld ing program was aimed , Japan is the only one which can
conceivably be regarded in that l ight at the present time . And .
Japan hardly belongs to that class . I t i s , there fo re , quite ap
parent that the United States certainly needs no larger navythan the one p rovided by the law o f August, 1916. This program wil l give u s a navy very much more power ful thanany Great B r itain can complete by 1924 . The mere statementthat ou r tonnage the n wi l l amount to and that o f
Great B r itain to only tel ls part o f the sto ry . The
real ly important fact i s that our ships wil l b e immeasurablymore power ful than those o f Great B ritain . A new nomen
clatu r e i s now appl ied to battl eships ; we no longer refe r tothem as super—dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts . The far mo redescript ive phrase now used i s pr e-Jutland and post-Jutland.
The fi rs t i s meant to descr ib e the typ e o f ship which went intothe Jutland batt l e
,the second the vessel s bu i lt s ince, with al l
the increase in s ize and improvements which that struggleshowed to be ne cessary . By 1924 the B ri t i sh navy wil l containj ust one post-Jutland warship , the battlecru iser Hood, fortyone thousand tons ; the American Navy wil l contain s ixteen .
Moreover,o f ou r pre—Jutland fleet, s even are larger than any
ship in the B riti sh navy except the Hood . Over the Japanesefleet our super io rity w i l l be even greater ; we shal l be near lythree t imes as power ful .
Any discus sion o f disarmament does not involve the quest ion whether w e a re to build ship s additional to the p rogramo f 1916—that would b e shee r fol ly in any event ; the only
point i s whether we are to stop construction on that p rogram in whole o r in part . Work has started on al l theone hundred fi fty-six ships
,though on some, especial ly the
batt le cr u iser s, not much progres s has been made . Mr . Danielstakes the stand that the United States is to have the largestnavy whether o r not we make an international agreement fordisarmament . E vidently th e only question open to argumentin h is opin ion i s whether we are to have a fleet larger thanal l other s put together . But thi s i s hardly a conci l iato ry atti
76 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
expens ive modern navy,and even the United States does not
find the experi ence altogether comfortab l e . When one thinkso f the publ ic school s that a s ingle batt lesh ip could bu ild
,of the
wo rk which thi s money could accompli sh in stamping out d i sease and promoting agriculture, th e w ickedne ss o f the wholething stand s mani fest .
A Gr eat Amer ican Army Unnecessary
The Borah resolution contemplates a d i scuss ion only fo rl imit ing naval d is armament . That is probably wi se fo r the
quest ion o f a rmies e ach nation can set t l e fo r itse l f . The United
S tates is al ready decreas ing th e s ize o f it s army. The mil itarybi l l o f 1920 l imited the A rm y to two hundred eighty
thousand men— at l east that was the interpretat ion o f S ecretary Bake r
,who has been working hard to b ring it up to that
quota . At p resent the re are about two hundred thi rty
thousand sold i ers in khaki . E ven the men who were most
strongly advocating p reparednes s in 1916—such men as Jul iusKahn in th e House and James W . Wadsworth in the Senate
regard any such stand ing force as excess ive unde r p resentcond it ions . The debate as to whether the figu re should be
placed at one hundred fi fty thousand or one hundredseventy-fi v e thousand str ikes most observers as fut i le . What
i s real ly needed is a skeleton fo rce” large enough for routinepurposes , and so o rganiz ed that it can be rapidly enla rged incase o f emergency . The pol i cy o f Great B r itain seems to be
about the same . So long as these two countri e s have al readytaken a stand fo r l imit ing the siz e o f thei r armies there i sreally no need o f an inte rnational conference to discus s th i s
subj ect . A land fo rce such as is now p roposed fo r thi s count ry involves no poss ibi l ity o f aggres s ion . Indeed , the onething which l ies l east heav i ly upon the American mind todayis the fear o f an attack f rom any source—from the sea or
from the land . Ou r posit ion is quit e d iff erent f rom that inthe few years which preced ed the World War . The rap id ityw ith which we gathered our r esou rces
,the ski ll and spi rit
with which we s ent two mil l ion men to E urope, the fighting
qual it ies they d i sp layed— these things gave the world an obj ectl es son it w i l l not soon fo rget . Thus the United States has
everything to gain f rom d i sarmament and nothing to lo se .American inte rest in the question o f d i sarmament, and
DI SARMAMENT 77
Briti sh as wel l,i s thus largely on the naval s ide . With con
tinental E urope, howeve r, th e s ituat ion is reversed . So far ascan now be foreseen, the time for contine ntal nav i es h as passed .
Spain has neve r rebui l t the navy which the United States d estroyed in 1898. The only continental navies that eve r assumedany size
,the Russ ian and th e German
,ex i st no longer . France
and I taly,though the E uropean al l iances p reced ing 1914 t e
qui red them to c reate a naval force,never became fo rmidabl e
on the ocean , and they are everyday becoming les s so . The
matter o f d i sarmament w i th these Powers concerns the possible de creas e o f the i r land fo rce s . Thi s question is fa r morecompli cated than that which p rimari ly inte rests the UnitedStates
,Great B ritain
,and Japan
,and i t i s one w i th which ,
at the p resent time,the United States has l itt le to do . Senator
Borah has done wel l , there fo re, in l imiting the proposed discu ssion to the th ree great sea Powe rs .
SENATOR BORAH ’S POSITION l
I t h as been stated here before, and I want to state it again ,that it may go into the Reco rd , that 93 per cent o f the money
expended by the Government during the year 1920 was on ac
count o f wars , past and fu ture, c losed and antic ipated ; 7 percent fo r al l the other Operat ions o f the Gove rnment, civ ic, enducat ional, and everything which h as to do w ith the bui ld ingup o f a Gove rnment and maintain ing it .The cost o f al l the civ i l- se rv ice activ it i es o f the Gove rnment
from July I, 1909 ,
to July 1,19 19, averaged a year p er
cap ita,and during that period the cost inc reased p ract ical ly w ith
th e populat ion . From 1834 to and th rough 19 19, the War De
par tm ent actual ly d i sbu rsed In the same period
the Navy Department expend ed Thi s makes a
total fo r those two d epartments o fNow
,Mr President
,for com parison , th e total cost o f the
Civ i l War,f rom J une 30,
1861,to June 30,
1866, was
I have somewhere the total expend i tu res o f th e Gove rnment for the fi rst sev entv -two years o f i t s exist ence , whichis a l itt l e more than the inc rease in thi s naval app rop riation bi l l .The net cost o f the World V\ ar to the United State s was ,‘ From Congress ional Record . May 1 3, 1 92 1 .
78 SELECTE D ARTICLE S
up to January 1,192 1 , Acco rding to the ap
pr op r iations passed prior to May I,1920, including the deficiency
bi l l,our expenditure fo r that year was Of this
expenditure there was expended fo r the War and Navy Depar tments o r 25 per cent o f the entir e amount ;
o r 67 per cent was fo r prev ious wars, in the wayo f pensions
,and so forth . Fo r pr imary governmental func
tions $ 181 ,ooo,000 was expended, in round figure s,o r 43 per cent
o f the enti r e expenditures o f th e Government . There was expended for publ i c works
,o r per cent o f
the enti re amount . For research and educational developmentwork there was expended o r per cent o f th e
entire expend itu res .Fo r research
,for educat ional work, fo r the building o f citi
zensh ip , fo r the build ing o f character upon wh ich repub licaninst itut ions must rest
,we appropriate I per cent o f the entire
expenditures o f five bi ll ion and odd dol lars,and 93 per cent
fo r war .Now I ask you
,not as an acad emic question but as a p rac
tical p roposition,how long can a republ ican fo rm of govern
ment ex i s t under that cond it ion o f affa irs ? I t i s not guns alone,o r ships alone
,which const itute the sa fety and the securi ty
o f a f ree gove rnment ; i t i s the intel lect and the character o fthe cit iz enship upon which the government rests . One percent fo r laying the basi s o f character and ci ti zenship and 93 percent dedicated to the pu rposes o f destruction and death, thati s a road to speedy and certain breakdown in republ ican gove rnm ent .
M r P resident, it i s o ften stated, in answer to those whowould l ike to cu rtai l naval expenditures and Army expend i tures,that th e distressed cond i t ion o f the wor ld
,the di scontented
condition o f the world,the unrest throughout the wor ld
,wi ll
not pe rmit o f it at thi s t ime . The dis content and diso rderwhich p revai l th roughout the wo rld at th is t ime are due veryla rgely to the great debt which has been and i s being imposedupon the peop l e by reason o f these Army and Navy expendituresthroughout the wo r ld.
Alrnost equ al to the crime o f those who were gui lty o f theb ringi ng on o f the war was the crime which the al l ied and as~sociated powers committed
,when
,afte r the signing o f the ar
mistice, they each and al l b egin to a rm against one another
fo r there was no one el se against whom to arm— upon a mo re
80 SELECTED ARTICLE S
othe r count ry in the wo r ld,barring alone Great B r i tain
,our
a l ly in the recent war . Jingoes who want war l ive in everyland . In Japan they declare our count ry i s an internationa lbul ly looking fo r war, whi le Ameri can j ingoes see red wheneve r Japan i s mentioned . Today mutual ly they would fo rcetwo great nations to fly at each other ’ s throats over the poss ess ion o f an i s land five thousand mi les dis tant f rom ou rsho res and less than three mi les square .With f eve ri sh haste We a re now bui ld ing warships at a cost
to the Government o f about fo r each of the
capital ships under const ruction , a tax o f about two do l
la rs fo r the average fami ly o f five fo r each of these s eventeenships . Thi s i s mo re than twice the cost of the Nationa l Capi
to l Bui ld ing fo r a single batt leship o r crui s er ; ove r two-thi rdso f al l Government app ropr i at ions in 1920 fo r education andsci ence combined— spent fo r a single vesse l .— I t has beendemonst rated that 92 per cent of al l our annual Gove rnmentexpend i tu res are made fo r wars , past , p resent and futu re,counting charges di rect ly occasioned by war
,whi le only I per
cent i s spent by Congres s fo r educational purpos es . Whatanswer can w e make to thi s reco rd o f barbari sm that r iva lsthe wo rst pages of hi sto ry
,anc i ent o r mod ern ?
Near ly four years af te r the armist ice Congres s wi l l b easked to vote to in a bi l l fo r naval
purposes for 1922 alone . The world l ies d evastated andp rost rate ; E ngland , mist res s o f the s eas for centu ri es, refusesto continue thi s mad batt leship -bui lding race, yet a powerfu lp ropaganda in our country demand s more ships and st i l l moreship s at cost pe r ship , dwarf ing the combined naval p reparations o f E ngland and Germany eight short yearsago .
I f the voice of the people back home who are paying theeno rmous tax l egacy o f the war could be heard, what thinkyou would b e thei r opinion of nearly naval exp enditu r e th ree years afte r war had ended and a scarce
ly l es s cost fo r the Army ? Would they adv i s e us .to th rowwid e open the Treasu ry doo rs in o rde r to lead the race innaval domination on the Atlanti c and the Pacific ? What
would b e thei r j udgment ?An ounce of inte rnational confidence and f r i endship i s
wo rth a ton o f war mater ial s when i t comes to insu ranceagainst war.
DI SARMAMENT 81
One o f the most vita l questions o f the day i s whether thehand o f inte rnational greeting extended by Gove rnments
,one
to the other , contains a token of genuine f ri endship o r gripsa w eapon that may again th reaten the peace o f the wor ld .
That i s the cal l o f d i sa rmament .I f the po li cy o f wor ld domination i s to b e ou r aim
,then in
deed the future i s obscu red by dark clouds . But I can not
bel i eve that the eve ryday fo lks,the God-f ea ring
,peace- loving
pe0p1e who pay the b i l l s and who speak with the voice o f u ltimate autho rity
,wi l l indo rs e a p rogram that fo reshadows
st ri f e and mi se ry fo r thos e who must eve r bear the bu rden .
Thi s stupendous naval p rogram in time of peace,I b eli eve,
wi l l p rovoke a p rotest f rom the peop le,and that p rotest should
be heeded at both end s o f the Capito l .The fo l lowing war stat i st ics car ry thei r own lesson
NATIONAL DE BT BY WARS OF THE UNITED STATE SRevo l u t ionary $ 1 7 o ,ooo ,ooo
War of 1 81 2
Mexican War
Civi l War 3,4 78,ooo ,ooo
Span ish War 1,902 ,ooo ,ooo
World War 2 4 ,ooo ,ooo ,ooo
MONEY APPROPRIATED BY THE U . S . FOR MILITARYPRE PARE DNE SS
1 909-1 9 1 0
1 920- 1 92 1
E st imates 1 92 1-2 2
ACTUAL E ! PENDITURE S FOR FISCAL YEAR 1 9 1 9-20
Research , educat ion, pub l ic h eal thOrdinary Government Funct ionsPubl ic WorksArmy and Navy 1 ,348,ooo ,ooo
Pens ions, interes t , and expendi tures du e to pas t
CAN WE AFFORD NOT TO DISARM ? 1
Th e app rop riat ion by the House o f Rep resentat ives a fewdays ago o f fo r cur rent year naval expend i tu re sw i l l p robably be inc reased by the S enate
,i f the " big navy”
group have thei r way, to Th e adoption o f thi sp rogram would p robably involve th e expend itu re o f an even
By Jam es G . M cDonald, E x ecu t ive Chairman of Fore ign Po l icy Assoc iat ion. Woman Ci t izen. May 7 , 1 92 1 .
82 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
larger sum for the navy du ring 192 1- 1922 and hence fo rth , b e
caus e would prov ide fo r only a part ial fu lfi l lmento f a program which tend s each year to increase in s iz e andcostl iness .
For the naval and mi l itary servi ces combined,the estimates
recently presented to Congres s contemp late,as General P ersh
ing explained,
“an appropr i ation for the next fi scal year o f
more than fo r every working day . D r . E dward
B . Rosa, o f the United States Bu reau o f Standards , has analyzed the United State s appropriations for 1920 as fol lows
1 . Past Wars 68 Per Cent2 . Fu ture Wars 2 5 Pe r Cent3. Civi l Departments 3 P er Cent4 . Pub l ic Works 3 P er Cent5. Educat ion and 1 Pe r Cent
Total 1 00 P er Cent
Recently the Bureau o f S tandards h as als o estimated thatduring the las t four years
,for every man
,woman and chi ld
in the United States has b een contributed d i rectly ' o r
ind irectly fo r the expenses o f the army and the navy . In viewo f these figures ; in v iew o f the p resent indust r ial depress ion ,th e u rgent ne ed for fund s fo r education
,agriculture
,sci ent ific
research,etc . , i s i t not ou r Government
’ s duty to canvass eve ryposs ib le method to minimiz e those mil i tary expend i tu res
,which
are absorbing approximately nine- tenths o f the nation ’ s
revenues ?Acco rding to the most recent estimates, we are told that the
war cost app rox imately a sum roughly equ iv a
l ent to the total wo rth o f the e nti re United States . Having
destroyed this much p rop erty during the years 1914- 1918, the
nat ions are now spend ing between eight and ten bi ll ion dollarsyearly on past and future wars . This means that the interest
on about is being used fo r war pu rposes .I t is everywhere admitted that most o f the countri es o f Cen
tral and E astern E urop e are actual ly i f not nominal ly bankrupt . E ven the states w est o f the Rh ine a re facing economicp robl ems o f appal l ing difficulty . Great B ri tain and Belgiumonly are able to balance thei r budgets w ithout exces s ive andcostly inte rnal o r for eign l oans . I t seems obvious that the E u
r opean and Asiatic States must drast ical ly l imit the i r armament ,i f they are to avoid complete disorganization .
84 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
battl eship in mod ern war fare . Many cr it i cs have u rged thatthe submarine and hyd roplane and other new devices havemade the capital sh ip obso lete . Without presuming to j udge
as to the mer its o f this controversy,is i t not questionable
w i sdom fo r our Government to continue to spend hund reds o fmi ll ions in the construct ion o f giganti c ships o f war which may,befo re the next international confl ict
,be utterly obsolete ?
A striking les son in the fal l acy o f “adequate p reparednes sis suppli ed by the exper ience of Germany in the recent war .I f ever a power had been adequately p repared , i t was theGe rman Empire . Yet within three months o f the opening o fthe war German preparedness had shown i ts el f quite inadequate .After the Batt l e o f the Marne, Germany was forced to recons ider in the l ight o f new exper iences her whole mil itary p roblem . Like al l the other bel l igerents, she found that the i s suesin modern war fare are not determined so much by the mili tary
machines, armies and nav i es , as by the basic economic st rengthand th e moral and phys ical fibe r o f the whole p eop l e. ~ The
mo ral is plain : The only hope of “adequate preparednes s l iesin the fu ll and harmonious development o f our economic l i feand in the str engthening o f the qual ity o f c i t iz enship ratherthan in the enl argement o f our army and navy .
International r ival ry in naval armament produces susp ic ion .
Suspic ion produces j ealousy and distrus t . From these easi ly
fo l low ser ious misunderstand ings,which not in f requent ly result
in war . All economic considerations aside, we ought ser iou slyto consider the effect which our increased naval p rogram w i l lhave upon the programs o f the other naval powers and therefo re upon the rel at ions b etween u s and Great B ritain .
I t is f requently u rged by the e lder statesmen o f both parti esthat the b iggest navy is neces sary to make the vo ice - of the
United States respected in the counci l s o f the nations . I s
not this j udgment bas ed on a phi lo sophy o f inte rnational relat ions very l itt le d iff e rent f rom that which we were to ld dominated the German imperial i sts b efo re 1914
? Does not this
bel ie f in the neces s ity fo r the big st ick to support America’ sinte rnational po li cie s ignore our unique indust rial
,agricul tural ,
commercial and financial strength ? Much o f E urope and Asiais starving and bankrupt . We alone, as a nation, can be con
st ructiv ely helpful . Who can bel i eve that we must needs have
DISARMAMENT 85
an enormous navy to induce the rest o f the world to l i stento u s ?
The wo rld needs peace— real p eace,and opportunity to work
and to p roduce and to exchange commod it i e s . In sho rt , to l iveagain as i t d id befo re the holocaust which bu rst upon E uropein August , 1914 . We may help to rebui ld the shatte red st ructu reo f the world ’
s economic l i fe . We alone are relat ively d i s inte rested ; re lat ively
'
w ithout b ias o r th e spi ri t o f nat ional hatredand revenge . Shal l we not l ead the world onward towardreconst ruction by taking the init iative in the movement fo rl imiting the bu rdens o f naval armament ? O r shal l we be sat i sfi ed to stimulate , th rough inte rnational naval rival ry, th e
i
alr eady
'
ruinous cost of p reparednes s ? We are at th e cros s road s .Quoting the statement
,
“O f every dol la r paid in as Federal
income tax the Gove rnment w i l l b e compel led to sp end 88 centsto cove r the expense s o f past wars and to prepare for poss iblefuture wars
,
” Mr . Chri stophe r Morley, in h is column in the
New York E vening Post , said : would l ike every cit izento paste that statement insid e h is r ight—hand t rou ser pocket(o r , in the case o f the lad ie s , ins id e those l itt l e handbags ) ,and ask himsel f , eve ry now and then , whethe r war is se ventimes as impo rtant , enj ov ab le and sati s factory as al l the othe r
bu s ine s s o f mankind put togethe r.”
THE SO -CALLED ARMAME NT RACE 1
I t i s a st range anomalv that thou gh the re is j us t now aworld -w id e d i scus s ion o f the so -cal l ed race in armaments
,such
a competit ion does not in fact ex i s t . On the other hand,i f
the p resent talk by the Secreta ry o f the Navy and h is im
med iat e adv i so rs about the n ecessity fo r u s to bu i ld the biggestnavy in the wo rld i s ca rri ed on much longer , th e armament
race w i l l begin in good earnest . I t cannot too f requently be
imp res sed upon th e Ame rican peop l e that , as the naval situat ionstand s today
,there is no othe r co u nt r v which h as a large p ro
gram o f const ruct ion in hand . Japan . i t i s t rue , d rew up ap rogram for new battl esh ip s and b att lecr u iser s
,p rompted
,so
h er statesmen tell us , by th e d ecla rat ion o f ou r Naval Secre
‘ From Sc ient ific American. i z4 z62 . January 2 2 , 1 9 2 1 .
86 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
tary that, i f the nations o f the wo r ld would not j oin the Leagueo f Nations in the fo rm in which the present administ rat ionhad d rawn it up , he wou ld be in f avo r not only o f completingour pres ent large program but o f doubl ing it— a policy which
would cal l fo r the expend itu re o f another bi l l ion dol lars o fthe taxpayers ’ money to see i t through . Th e new Japaneseproposal is purely on paper and apparently, so far as anyonecan ascertain
,no appropr i at ions have been made to car ry it
on . There is certainly no race in naval armaments that can becal led such so far as active Japanese bui lding operations areconce rned .
With regard to Great B ritain,i t i s suffici ent to say that in
the face o f M r . Daniels ’ th reat , sh e del iberately scrapped al lo f her pre- d readnought batt leships
,broke up three si ster ships
to the Hood, vess els o f forty—two thousand tons which wereal ready in cou rs e o f construction , and made a sw eeping cleanup o f armo red cruise rs, protected cruis ers, destroyer s and submarines that were not o f tho roughly modern construct ion .
Furthermo re , she reduced h er personnel from some four hund red fi fty thousand m en to about one hundred thousand,which is over thirty thousand l es s than the p res ent enl istedst r ength o f our own Navy . And for two years past, in spit eo f the, shal l we say, mili tar i st ic att itude o f ou r fo rmerlypacifi stic Secretary, sh e h as drawn up no program whatsoeve rfo r future new construction . E v id ently
,ther e is no race in
naval armaments between the United States and Great B r itain .
Neverthe les s,in spite o f the mo r tifi cat ion with which the
great body o f the Amer ican people have witnessed this i l l-t imedand uncal l ed—fo r “swash-buckling, i t has not been without
i ts good eff ects . I t has served to cal l fo rth,mainly through
the effo rts o f one o f our great leading dai l i es,a w idesp read
protest against the continuation o f huge app ropr iations fo rnaval and mil itary construction , which h as been su rp r i s ing inits wo rld—w ide range and unan imity of sentiment . Both here
and ab road,statesmen o f al l shades o f pol it ical op inion
,naval
and mil itary officers o f the highe st rank,l eaders o f thought
in the chu rch , at the bar, in education, and in l iteratu re, hav ere sponded in no unmeasured terms of approval to the sugges
t ion,that the nations o f the wor ld should get together in an
end eavo r to reduce thei r ex i st ing naval and mil itary p rograms
88 SELECTED ARTICLE S
BATTLE SHIPS AND BANKRUPTCY 1
The entire sum needed to save the l ives o f th ree and a hal fmi l l i on starving chi ld ren in the war—devastated areas of E uropeis
*
less than the cost o f one modern batt leship,as Mr . Hoover
recently po inted out . An E ngl i sh superd readnought o f thelates t type i s s aid to cost o r over Co rrespondents put the cost o f J apan ’ s new fighting monster
,the
Mutsu , at A United States batt lecr u iser o f the
fo rmidab le type shown above costs the taxpayer about
to b u ild. O u r nav al estimates fo r 192 1 , the New Y ork
World not es,are nearly as com pared with naval
appropriat ion s o f about $4oo,ooo,000 in Great B ritain and about
in Japan—and we a re facing a defici t for thecu rrent fi scal year o f approximately An offi cial
stati sti cian recent ly show ed that 93 cents out of every dollarco ll ected by the United States Government goes to pay forpast o r future wars . And from Germany comes the est imate o fDr . Bernhard Dernb u rg that
“the lowest cost o f maintaining th earmed establ i shments o f the wo r ld today i s b etween seven andeight bi l lion gold do l lars— al l unproductive .Such facts and figures explain the international interest
roused by the New Yo rk Wo r ld ’s crusade against what i t describes as “the cr ime o f competit ive armament .” “Disarma
ment,
” says Maj or-General Tasker H . Bl iss , who was mi l itary
rep resentat ive o f the United States on the Supreme War—Counci land Commis sioner P lenipotentiary on the American Peace Com
mission,
“is the only means o f p reserving the wo rld f rom bank .
r uptcy and civi l i zation f rom ruin .
” “The pi l ing up o f arma
ments i s caus ing general bankruptcy, anarchy, and pe rpetualand universal wa r
,
” avers Baron d’
E stou rnelles d e Constant,chai rman of the Ai r Commission o f the French Senate ; andhe add s : I f gove rnments
,afte r the lesson o f the war, do
not agree simultaneous ly to l imit thei r armaments , they commit suic ide .
” A London dispatch quotes Lo rd Cowdray, the
B riti sh “o il king,
”as saying that the chie f r ival ry between great
nations today should be a r ival ry in d i s armament . “Why shouldthe nations waste thousand s o f mi l l ions on p robably usel essbattleships
,about the future ut il ity o f which the best expert s
1 From L iterary D igest. January 1 5, 1 92 1 .
DI SARMAMENT 89
are now violently div ided ? ” too much asks Lord Northcl iff e,owne r o f the London Times and oth er E ngl i sh new spapers
,who
welcomes The World’ s campaign for a “naval ho l iday” because“governments need the suppo rt of public op in ion when theydo anything that may seem to aff ect national s ecu r ity .
” Any
move in the d i rection of d i sa rmament by Amer i ca, as s erts theed ito r o f the Ber l in Neue Welt, an ex-officer o f a crack Pruss ian caval ry regiment, “w i l l give a knock—out blow to P russ ianmi lita ri sm
,
” “ini tiat e a new era fo r E u rope,” and resto re
America ’ s p re—Ver sai l l e s p re st ige in Germany .
” “I t is fool i sh
and i t is t ragic to think o f the big states o f Great B r itain ,the United States
,and Japan competing in a race fo r arma
ment,
” exclaims Baron Hayash i,Japan ese Ambassado r to Great
B ritain ; and , he add s,“Japan can not aff o rd i t .
”
E verywhere ,repo rt s The World
,i ts appeal fo r an international agreement
to l imit naval armament meets w ith enthusiastic response f romorganized labor . But the repl ies f rom France
,i t says
,
“tend
to reflect the dread o f German mi l itari sm and Russian bo lsh ev ism that st i l l p revai l s there .
”
Gene ral P ershing adds h is impress ive warning to that o fGeneral B li s s . Sp eaking at a recent dinner o f the E uropeanReli e f Counci l in New Yo rk, he cal l ed attention to the factthat the est imates p resented to our Congress fo r naval andmilitary purposes contemplate an appropriat ion fo r the nex tfi scal year amounting to over fo r every working
day in the year ; and he w ent on to say :
I t is a gloomy commentary upon wo rld condit ions that ex
penditu r es seve ral times greate r than ever be fo re in p eace t imesshould be considered ne cessary
,especial ly when the most r igid
economy in governmental admini stration is essential i f we wouldavoid nat ional bankruptcy .
“But w e are only one o f the many nations that contemp latetaking u pon themselves such an eno rmous burd en in add i t ionto thei r t remendous war-debts .
“The world does nor s eem to learn f rom experi ence . I t
would appea r that th e l e sson s o f th e past six year shou ld b eenough to convince everybody o f th e dange r o f nations strid ingu p and down th e earth armed to th e t eeth . But no one nation
can reduce armaments unl e ss al l do .
Ours is not an aggres sive nation . We want no t er rito ry,
and w e h ave no designs on othe r people . I f other nations have
90 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
the s ame attitude, it seems unreasonable not to bel ieve thatal l would be wi l l ing to prove it
i
b y consenting to l imit a rmaments . Unless some such move be made, we may wel l ask ours elves whether civ i l i zation does real ly reach a point where i tbegins to dest roy its e l f
,and whethe r we are thus doomed to
g0‘
h eadlong down through d estruct ive war to darkness andbarbar i sm .
”
“When p rof es s ional fighters talk i n thi s st rain,what excuse
can civi l ian legi s lato rs giv e for their blind adherence to a suicidalpol icy ? ” asks the Syracuse -Herald .
“There is no more inconceivable fol ly than thi s continued riot o f expenditure onbattl eships at a t ime when great masses o f humanity are dyingo f starvation in certain parts o f the world
,paral le l with burst
ing warehouses o f rott ing food in other places , declares Mr .Hoover, who po ints out that the money sp ent on naval armament since the armist i ce “would have contr ibuted mater ial ly tothe ent ir e economic rehabi li tation o f the wo rld.
” To meet this
s i tuation,Senato r Bo rah has o ffe red a reso lution author i zing
the P resident to advi se the Governments o f Great B r itain andJapan that the Governm ent o f the United States i s ready totake up w i th them the question o f naval di sa rmament w ith avi ew to arr iving at an understanding to reduce “during the next
five years 50 pe r cent o f the p resent estimates o r figures .”
At the same t im e S enato r Walsh offers a resolution requestingthe P resident to appoint an American member o f the Leagueo f Nation s d i sarmam ent commiss ion .
In E ngland Lloyd Geo rge has apparently anticipated the proposal contained in the Borah reso lut ion by o rder ing Great B r i tain’ s mil itary and naval est imates fo r the coming year cut intwo . Commenting on thi s o rder
,the New Yo rk E vening Post
says :“I t s boldnes s l ies in the fact that it i s made in the f ace o f our
tremendous est imates—estim ates which are being discu st in
every E uropean capital . Briti sh pe riodical s teem with arti clesshowing that by 1924 the United States wi ll actual ly haveincomparably the biggest navy in the wor ld .
’ Fo r the fi rs t times ince modern nav ie s began Great B ritain wi ll take second p lace .But Lloyd Geo rge is not af raid . He set s out f rom the p r0posit ion that war between Great B ri tain and the United States i sunthinkab le . To deny that i s to invoke di s aste r on civi l i zation .
“We owe Lloyd George a debt o f grat itude fo r his action
92 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
With the di sappearance o f the German Fleet the wor ld ’
s
naval pos ition i s changed .
“Today civi l i z ation is not threatened by any mar i tim e Power .There is no alte rnat ive to compet itive bui ld ing o f ships o f
war except an international naval agreement .“I t would seem that sci ence, as applied to destructive
gencies, i s fo rcing u s ever mo re rapid ly to the conclusionthat the highest ideal i sm o f al l i s the only pract ical alternativeto wor ld suicide.
“Th e Nav y League holds that the sea hi story in the past o f
Great B ritain and the United S tate s imposes on them mutual lythe duty of attempting to render to the wor ld st i l l greaterse rv ice, and fo r ‘ thi s reason i t urges that the invitation to thep roposed conference should come f rom the two great AngloSaxon nations j ointly .
”
“When a navy l eague, which has existed to promote the
naval strength o f the B r it ish Empire,adopts the ideal i sm o f the
disarrnam ent p r incip l e and s ays th e only alternative i s wor ldsuicide, we are getting ahead,” exclaims the Spr ingfi eld Republican .
JINGOE S1
Talk at thi s t ime about disarmament is fut i l e . I n a wor ldas upset as th is , no nation i s actual ly going to d i sarm unle sscomp el l ed to by maj o r fo rce . The eff ect o f such talk i s a
muddling of ideas .
Limitation o f armaments i s another thing, and the cal l fo rthi s
,especial ly fo r the l imitation of naval armaments
,i s as
sum ing an imperative tone . The great German fl eet is at the
bottom of the sea . Great B ri tain has at last cal led a halt i n
the const ruct ion of great batt leships,part ly fo r economic rea
sons , part ly to study the l es sons o f th e war and the relativ evalues of dreadnoughts
,submersib l es and ai r craft . France i s
not much concerned about he r nav y, no r i s I ta ly much concerned about he rs . The two nations that continue to pi l e uptheir naval armaments with fever i sh haste a re the UnitedStates and Japan .
Accord ing to figu res given by Admi ral Coontz,th e capital
1 From Current Opinion.-4 . February, 1 92 1 .
DI SARMAMENT 93
ships in th e th ree chie f nav i es o f the wo rld rank today as fol
lows : Great B ritain , tons ; United States tons ;Japan
,tons . But i f w e add to these the cap ital ships
now under construction we shal l get the fol low ing figures
(Great B ritain hav ing suspended const ruct ion o f such ships )Great B ri tain , tons ; United States , tons ;Japan, tons .
The question is, are we going to keep up thi s pace, s et
when the wa r was at its height , and compel Japan to continueand E ngland to resume a s imi la r pace ? There is no doubtabout the feel ing in E ngland . The Navy League ove r theresays that “with the d i sappearance o f the German fl eet the
world ’
s naval posit ion is changed,
” and i t would welcome a
conference o f naval power s to l imit naval armament .The Committee on Fo reign Relations in ou r S enate i s con
side r ing a resolution o ff ered by Senato r Borah requesting theP resident to enter into negoti ations w ith Great B ritain andJapan fo r a reduct ion o f 50 pe r cent in naval p rograms fo r thenex t five years . Anothe r reso lution
,p resented by S enato r
Walsh,would author ize the P resident to appoint a representa
t ive to meet w ith the Di sarmament Committee o f the Leagueo f Nations .
But th e j ingoes a re on the rampage al ready,and
,strange
to say, they are receiv ing ai d and comfo rt f rom such a pacificpe rson as S ecreta ry Daniel s . The New York Sun
,fo r in
stance , get s out i t s tape measu re and finds that we have a
coast l ine to d efend that i s fo rty-eight hund red miles long,
whi l e that o f the United Kingdom i s b u t thi rty-two hundredmi les , and i t takes seven times as long fo r a ship to pass f romone extremity o f ou r coast line to the oth er as in the case o f
th e United Kingdom . Logical ly,the re fore
,th o the Sun does
not pu rsue the a rgument to it s logical end,we shou ld have a
navy about ten times as large as Great B ri tain ’ s . The Hea rstpape rs a re , o f cou rse , in th e game , and th e New Y o rk Amer ican assu res u s th at “noth ing i s mo re ce rtain” than that
,i f we
fight Japan, th e la tt e r w i l l have “th e cooperation o f England
and the ve ry probabl e benevolen t ass i stance o f France .
” Con
seq u ently we must have a navy abl e to res i st au v such combination .
The Washingt on Post is per fectlv w i l l ing that we ente r
94 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
into an agreement to curtai l naval armaments—not now butthree years from now
,
“when the Sta rs and S tripes float over
the most fo rmidab le a rmada eve r put to sea by a nation .
” The
Butte Bulletin find s an insu rmountable obstacl e to decreasingarmaments . I t i s oi l. T rade sup remacy in the future wi l l b ebased upon the contro l o f oi l fie lds, and the fight for thatcont ro l i s the cause fo r increasing armaments . S ecretary Daniels b el ieves the t ime i s r ip e for an international agreement ,but he wants no hal f—way m easu re s . Unless “al l nat ions” en
ter into the agreement, not fo r one year o r five years but fo r“al l t ime
,he thinks we should go ahead to bui ld the largest
navy in the wo r ld .
But such utterances are few and far between . The s enti
ment , as voiced in the Amer i can p res s, i s ove rwhelmingly infavor o f ou r j o ining in a movement with Japan and GreatB ri tain to limit naval a rmaments . The Chicago T ribunethinks that po lit ica l reali t i es permit a nava l truce at the present ratio o f s trength
,becaus e ou r pol icy i s a def ens ive one
and E ngland can not conquer us by land. I t argues,even
,in
f avo r o f an “unreserved departu re” f rom the Phi lippines in
o rder to rel iev e the strain on our rel ations with Japan , andfaci l itat e an agreement fo r l imitation o f navi es . The New
Yo rk Tribune th inks that ou r gui lt wi l l be worse than that o fGermany i f we fai l at thi s time to unite with Great B r itainand Japan to prevent the possibi l i ty o f anothe r Wo r ld War .We shou ld b e wi l l ing to prese rve the pres ent s tatus qu o in naval a rmaments
,as E ngland i s the only country in E urope that
could war with u s upon the sea , and such a crime as a war
between the two count ri es i s unthinkab le .” War with Japan
would be almost as criminal as war with E ngland, and, i f i tw ere to come
,ou r navy i s almost 50 per cent st ronger than
Japan’ s . The New Yo rk World has been running a seri es o fedito rial s and inte rv i ews in favo r o f a naval ho liday by thethree nations
,and i t t e rms the p roposed program of spending
for eve ry wo rking day in th e year on naval andmil itary purposes “
madnes s unworthy o f the race .
”
To thes e utte rances by the p res s— and many more could b egiv en—may be added two statements made by eminent cit i z ens .Says M r. Herbe rt Hoover : “The re i s no mo re inconceivab lefolly than thi s continued riot o f expenditure on battl eships ata time when great masses o f humanity a re dying o f starvation
96 SELECTED ARTICLE S
I f they are to have thei r way fo r the nex t f ew years the wo r ldwi l l not b e fi t fo r any but savages and b eas ts to l ive in . The
t roub le is not that they are co rrup t and designing but thatthey a re so often te rrib ly sincere . They are as s incere, manyof them
,as a chi ld crying in the dark fo r f ear o f hobgob lins .
And ' one o f the most dangerous things in national li f e i s apanicky fea r of th is kind . There is no limit to the terro rs theimagination can conj u re up once i t i s set i n act ion .
LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS 1
Several weeks ago P rofes so r Borchard and I d i s cus sed thi squestion o f d i sarmam ent before the Cosmopol i tan Club, andafter we had fini sh ed there seemed to be some d iff e renceso f op inion about what we had been discus s ing .
T here fo re,I shal l begin at the beginning by defining the
quest ion . I am not going to talk about disa rmament in the
abso lute sense o f the te rm . I am going to talk about i t in it s
cont empo rary s ense,by which I mean the rigid l imitation o f
al l defence armament to the actual necessi ties o f de fence andthe comp l ete el imination o f competitive a rmament, which afteral l i s the head d evi l i n the whole cont roversy .
The wo r ld has j ust fini shed a war that was the di rect producto f competit ive armaments . A great many peopl e think it wasdue to the fact that the Germans were inherently base and
w icked and ev erybody e l se was pure and vi rtuous . But warsdon ’ t happen that way. The compet it ion o f armament hadreached a point where the overhead had become prohibi tiveto the imperial system and the imperial system thereupon
adopted the o ldest expedient o f imper i al ism,which i s that
when you are facing an impasse at home the best way out i sa succes s ful fo reign war— a very good recip e sometimes
,but
it doesn’ t always wo rk .
Now,that war cost
,in a pu rely financial way
,acco rd ing
to the most recent estimates , i s a l i tt le matte r o fwhich is equ ivalent to wip ing out the Uni ted States f rom theeconomic system o f the world ; i t amounts to that, and thenations are now trying to adj us t themselves to thi s s ituat ion .
'
1 From a speech by Frank Irving Cobb , editor of New York World.
Repr inted in Bu l let in. League of Free Nat ions Assoc iat ion. March , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 97
Three years be fo re this war began Lloyd Geo rge,who was
then Chancel lo r o f the E xcheque r,made a speech in the House
o f Commons in which he est imated that the nations w ere thenspend ing about a year fo r war
,past and futu re
,
and he predicted that thei r economic systems could not longendure that st ra in . That speech att racted the same kind o fattention that a speech o f that kind always att racts : eve rybodysaid something ought to be done about it— and nothing wasdone about i t .At the end o f a war which has cost in
p rop erty and production,the nations are now spend ing
,ac
co rd ing to the best est imates you can get,between
and a yea r on past and futu re wars . Lloyd
George’
s at th at t ime meant that about
o f the wo rld ’
s asset s we re s egregated to ea rninte rest fo r war purposes
,and now afte r burning up
the world is segregating aboutmore to pay interest on war pol ici es .Now , the economic systems o f the world cannot stand that
st ra in ; i t can’ t be done . Government h as no money o f its
own . E very dol lar i t gets it takes out o f somebody ’ s pocket,and befo re it takes that dol la r out of anybody ’ s pocket somebody el se has to earn it in the sweat o f h is face— the re i s noothe r way out o f i t— and th e p roduction o f the wo rld cannotstand the st rain that government is putting on it . The whiteman ’ s civ i l ization has always rested on h is economic sup remacy. E ven hi s mi l itary fo rce has been due to h is economicfo rce
,and th is war h as shown in a mos t st riking way that
economic energy can be almost instantaneously converted into
mil i tary ene rgy,but mi l i ta ry energy can ’
t be converted backinto economic energy . I t i s l ike the rad iated heat o f the sun :
nobody can gathe r it up and weld i t into another sun. The
stronge r a nation i s economical ly the bette r prepa red it is to
de fend i t sel f . The w eake r it i s economical ly the l e ss preparedit i s to d e fend its el f
,even i f eve ry man
,woman and chi ld is
car rying a gun .
Now,p reparedness h as p robably bemudd l ed more minds
than anything that ever happened excep t p redest inat ion andperhap s th e Armen ian heresy and a few th ings l ike that . I t
i s a lovely wo rd, but it doesn’
t mean anything ; the re i sn'
t
any such thing. Armies don’
t go to war ; nat ions go to war.
98 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
You mobi l i z e eve rything . Stri ct ly spe aking,there are no non
combatants , except the chi ldren, and they are potential combatants. The German Genera l S taff boasted on the I st o f
August, 1914, that i t was prepared fo r war to the last button ,and I suppose that that was probably th e most perfect mil itary
machine that the mind o f man ever put together , and the wholething was in the d itch in six weeks . They were not preparedfo r war at al l ; they were p repared for one br i e f campaign, onemight say they were prepared fo r one battl e. Then they hadto go to work and mob i li z e thei r economic resources andprovide fo r a long struggle in which they were ‘
finally wornout and a fte r which they col lapsed.
What are we p reparing for ? You know,I have talked
th at matter ove r with S enators—and Senators are the sourceo f al l wi sdom—and I haven ’ t been able to find out . In thi s warthree mil itary empires were complete ly destroyed
,and so we
are spending twice as much on our army as we spent before.Th ree navies were completely ob li terated, there is nothing le fto f them— and we are spending near ly fou r t imes as much on thenavy as we did befo re . What i s i t al l about ? I cannot findout . The Senat e Committee on Naval Affair s announced the
other day that we had to have a navy at l east equal to that o fany other power, which means, o f cours e, the B rit i sh navy .
What are you going to do with it when you get i t ? The UnitedStates i s al l d ressed up and
‘
no place to go .
Now, there was at l east m ethod in the German madnes swhen they created thei r mil itary establ i shment . They wered evis ing an army that cou ld attack on two fronts simu lta
neou sly i f necessary, wedged in as they were between Russi aand France, which had an o ffens iv e and de fensive mi l itaryall i ance . They were bui ld ing a navy which, without any hopeo f being equal to the Br it i sh navy, cou ld at le ast menace theB rit i sh l ine o f communicat ions . That might have been a fool ish
thing to do, but i t was at l east a logical th ing to do—you can
und ers tand i t,you know what i t i s about. There has always
been a s imilar method in the B r i t i sh naval pol icy -bas ed upon
the very s imple f act that Great B ritain doe s not produce enoughfood to f eed i tse l f and there fore can be starved to death withinsixty days i f i t s communicat ions are cut ; and therefore theB ri ti sh peopl e have had to maintain a navy that could protecttheir food suppli es . That is what it is al l about.
100 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
d i sturber o f the peace o f the world,and we are ratt l ing the
sabre rather awkwardly . Unles s we are doing that,we are
not do ing anything that’
s intel l igib le,i t doesn ’ t mean anything.
Now, I am very certain that anybody can give fi fty excellent reasons fo r continuing the cost o f armament . I can give
fi fty excel lent reasons why I need a new automobi le, and I cangive only one why I am not going to get i t
,which is that I
haven’
t the money ; and that’ s soon going to b e the condition
o f government in the wo r ld today. I t i s t rying to maintain a
Roll s-Royce outfi t on a “fii v v er
” income,and it can ’t b e done .
With al l due and necess ary apprehension o f our fo reign foes ,I can say to you what I said to the Republi can Club last S atur
day, namely, that i f God Almighty wi l l p rotect u s f rom Congres swe can take care of our enemies.
ONE CONDITION OF E FFE CTIVE DISARMAMENT 1
I n the newspapers and in Congres s there has been muchd i s cus sion recently about the desi rabi li ty and the b es t meanso f b ringing it about . The man who started the di scus s ion wasSenator Borah
,the ab lest and most reso lute among the ir r ec
oncilab le opponents o f American part ic ipat ion in the Leagueo f Nations . But the suppo rt which he has received has comechiefly f rom newspapers
,such as the New Yo rk Wo r ld and
E vening Post , which were st rongly in favo r o f the Amer i canrat ification
'
o f the T reaty of Versai l l es . In general those
Americans who are u rging the immed iate impo rtance of disarmament be long to the group who ignored the erro rs , thev ind i ctivenes s
,and the bad fai th of the Treaty and cons idered
that document a desi rab le legal foundation fo r the futurepeace of the world . At p resent they are us ing their influencein f avo r both o f disa rmament and of the ratification and theexecution of the Treaty. In our opinion the two pol ici es arecont rad i cto ry. As long as the T reaty of Versai l l e s remainsthe foundation o f the pub lic law of E u rope i t i s as vain to expeet effect ive d i sa rmament as i t was to expect i t when theT reaty o f Vienna determined the relat ions one to another ofthe Powers o f E urope .
1 From New Repub l ic .-2 . May 1 7 , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 101
By ca l l ing attention to the incompatibi l ity between execu t
ing the Treaty o f Versai l les and expecting the world to di sa rm
,we are not d i spa raging the p roposed negotiat ion with
Japan and Great B ritain fo r a limitation of naval armaments .It is poss ib le, i f not p robab le, that th e governm ent s o f thes ethree countri es can reach an agreement to rest rict the bui lding of capita l ships which under sub sequent ly favo rab le condit ions might constitute the fi rs t step in the di rection o f gen
era l and permanent d i sa rmament . The American governm ent
shou ld open negotiat ions fo r such an agreement . But in thatcase i t becomes a matter o f the utmost impo rtance to b ring into exi stence the “sub sequently favo rab le conditions” and sop revent a relaps e into the mad wast e of competition fo r nava l supremacy. The standard s of inte rnationa l behavio r es
tab lish ed by the Treaty of Versai l les wi l l rend e r the generalcond i t ions o f inte rnationa l po l i tics hosti le to d i sa rmament .The presupposit ion of d i sa rmament i s that nations f ee l
enough confid ence in their fai r t reatment by other nations tocount in the event o f di sagreement s upon a conci li ato ry discu ssion o f the i ssue and its impartia l ad j us tment o r ad j udicat ion und e r some j oint ly accepted ru le . I t impli es the w i l l andthe means to base int ernational government on consent . Thi simplication has no real ity in the wor ld o f today. I t can have
none unde r the te rms o f the T reaty o f Versai l les and underthe d ictato rship o f the Sup reme Al li ed Counci l . The v icto rious nations in thei r d ealings with the vanquished nationshave subo rd inated al l othe r law s to one sup reme law
,the law
o f fo rce . Those nations which were disarmed and lackedpowe r o f res i stance were ruthles s ly coe rced in so fa r as they
re fu sed to submit to th e w i l l o f the v icto rs . But the nationswhich retained some feeb le powe r o f fighting and used i t toresi st th e d ictates o f th e Su p reme Counci l have fa red b ette rthan they otherwi se would . At no time in the hi sto ry o f thewo rld h as armament seemed more ind i s solub ly associated withnational ind epend ence and s el f- respect than i t has und e r theex i sting government o f E u rope .
Take th e case o f Germany . Sh e i s fo r al l p ract ica l pu r
poses comp l ete ly d i sa rmed and is enj oying al l th e advantagesin th e way o f economy and d emilita ri zation which d i sa rmament can p roduce . She i s th e fi rst great and economical ly
powe r fu l nation in the hi sto ry o f th e world which has eve r
102 SELECTE D ARTICLE S
di sa rmed . I t might have b een supposed that consider ing sh e
su rrende red her arms on condit ion that she b e treated in certain specific ways fair ly and considerately
,the v i cto rs would
have shown themselves sc rupulous to vindicate in thei r policytoward Germany their own pretens ions to highe r standards o finternational b ehavio r . Instead they have taken the utmostadvantage of the help les sness “
of the German people. Disagreements they have almost always decided in thei r own favo r , i rrespect ive o f the te rms of the armistice, and then d rivenhome thei r deci s ions by fo rce. They are now invading Germany fo r the pu rpose of exacting payments in money and kindwhich the German nation considers i ts e l f physi cal ly unab l e to
deliver and which , i f del ivered, would inj ure the victo r asmuch as the vict im .
On the other hand take the cases o f_ Russia and Turkey.
The Supreme Counci l was j ust as wi l ling to igno re the wi shesand inte rests o f the Russian peopl e as i t was to igno re thewishes and interests o f the German peopl e . I t despatched
a rmies and suppli e s to Russi a and al lowed them to be used by
em igr és who would have dest royed the Revolut ion and set up
in i t s p lace a mi l ita ry d ictato rship . I f Russia had di sarmedas Germany did , they would have succeeded . But sh e did not
di sarm . The Soviet government put up a stubbo rn resi stanceto the Ko lchaks , Denikins and Wrangles who represented inRussi a the po li cy o f the Supreme Counci l o f the victo rs , and inthe end it conquered . Russi a i s consequent ly being l et alone
and i t s government i s even obtaining a measu re o f recognitionf rom some of it s fo rmer enemies . Something s imi lar happenedto Turkey. I f sh e had b een incapabl e o f resi stance, the Tu rki sh people would have had nothing to say about the T reatywh ich determined thei r future status . But they could sti l l
fight a l itt l e,and by fighting the ragged armies o f Kemal
Pasha have won fo r thei r nations a la rger measu re o f consi deration than the victo rs have granted to helpl ess Aust ri aand Germany. We may feel su re that th e meaning o f thi slesson i s not los t upon the peoples of E urope . The penaltyof di sarmament
,as
‘
th ey very wel l know, i s to have you r inter ests and w i shes spu rned and you r national l i f e th reatenedwith extinction .
Those Amer i cans who favo r di sarmament should attackth e roots o f th e t ree o f mi l itari sm instead o f t rying to cut off
104 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
thei r chief motive and reason fo r ruthless ly impos ing thei rd emands on the vanqui shed . I t can us e it s r esources o f credit
to scale down the swo l len liab i l it i e s,the burden of which
th reatens to b e so ruinous to E urope . I t can, but at p resent it
wi l l not . One reason why it wi l l not i s that the Americanswho f ee l most keenly the national respons ib i l i ty to E uropeand wish to intervene are committ ed to a po licy o f rati fyingin toto the war—p rovoking document and thus of emb i'oilingAmerica in the f eud which she is ab le and shou ld b e W i l lingto paci fy. Thei r atti tude instigates other Americans t0 ) oppose
any intervention as a dangerous entanglement of Amer i ca inE uropean quarre ls . But she i s not l imited to a s el ection b etween these two p rofound ly dub ious alternatives . She cam in
ter v ene as a di sinterested f ri end ly and powerfu l thi rd party.
She can acce le rate pacification and dis armament by makingsuch inte rvention contr ibute to the revi s ion of the T reaty andso to the e rad ication o f the most u rgent motives o f theE uropean nations fo r quarreling and arming. Wh ether sh e wi l l
ever do so depend s largely upon the ab i li ty of thos e Americans who beli ev e in the need o f a pos it ive Amer i can cont r ib u tion to pacifi cat ion and d i sarmament to rel inqui sh a pol icyof parti zan intervention and sub st itute a poli cy of di s interestedmediation in the interest o f a new ,
more conci l iato ry and morehumane handling o f the i ssues and consequences o f the GreatWar .
LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS AND THE
LEAGUE 1
To limit o r not to limit armaments , that is the question .
S ecretary Dani els says we must have the largest and mostpowerful navy in the wo rld
,unles s we ente r the League o f
Nations . Senator Bo rah , anti- l eaguer and bitter—ender, rej oinsby int roduc ing a b i l l into the S enate requesting the P resid entto open negotiat ions with Great B ritain and Japan , to the endthat thes e three greates t naval powers may agree to take a naival holiday and to work out f easib l e plans fo r proport ionala rmament reduction .
What ought to b e the attitude of the American people on
1 By Ham i l ton Hol t . Independent. -3. February 1 2 , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 105
thi s great.
question ? In o rder to understand the prob lem itwi l l b e neces sa ry to go back a litt l e and su rvey some recenthi sto ry.
When the Tsa r of Russia cal l ed the Fi rs t Hague Conf erence o f 1899 hi s fondest hope was that the burdens of overgrow ing and ever-grow ing armaments that were impove ri sh ingthe peop le s o f th e wo rld might in some way be taken o ff thei r
backs . He d id not see that di sarmament cannot take pl ace unti lthe world i s po lit ical ly organiz ed and that i t is j u st as absu rd fornations to d i sarm befo re the ex i stence o f inte rnat ional cou rts
,
parl iaments and execut ives as it would be for cowboys tod i scard thei r pi stol s be fo re there are sheriff s and j usti ces o fthe p eace . The Firs t Hague Confe rence started i ii b ravely
enough . The l imitation o f armaments was the fronti spiece
o f th e Circula r o f the Russian Government . The Russian
de legat ion st rained every ne rve to have the Con ference takesome action in the matte r . Yet despite al l Russ ia’ s e ff orts tothe contrary
,the Committee which had the matter in charge
made the fol low ing repo rtI t would b e ve ry d iffi cu l t to fix, even fo r a te rm of five
years,the numbe r o f t roops
,without regulating at the same
time othe r elements o f the national def ense ; s econd , that it
wou ld be no les s d iffi cul t to regulate by an internationa l agreement the elements o f thi s de fense , o rgani zed in each countryupon ve ry d i ff erent p rinciple s . Hence
,the committee regrets
it s inabi li ty to accep t the proposit ion made in th e name of theRussian Gove rnment . The maj o ri ty of i ts members be li evethat a mo re tho rough study o f the question by the governments themselves would be d esi rab l e .Th e Conference accepted thi s memori al f rom the Commit
tee and ad j ou rned a fte r having pass ed the fol low ing resolution :“Th e Confe rence i s o f th e op inion that the rest riction o f
mi li ta ry charges which a re at p resent a heavy bu rden on thew o rld i s ext remely d esi rab le fo r the inc rease o f th e mate rialand mo ral wel fare o f mankind .
”
I t al so add ed the fo l low ing w i sh (v oeu ) :The Con fe rence expres ses th e w i sh that the government s
taking into consid eration th e p roposal s mad e at th e Con fe r
ence may examine the possibi l i ty o f an agreement as to th e lim
itat ion o f armed fo rce s by land and sea and o f war budget s .”
During th e inte rval between th e Fi rst and Second Hague
106 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
Conf e rences the governments paid no attention to'
th_
es e sug
gestions,but went ahead increasing thei r armaments at a rate
and on a scale hitherto unprecedented . The only two utterances by responsib l e head s o f S tates against thi s mi l itari st i caggrand i zement that I recal l we re mad e by the B r i t i sh P r imeMini ster and the P res ident of the United States . S i r HenryCampbel l-Bannerman
,in a notab le speech at Albert Hal l
,Lon
don,ia December, _
1905, sa id :“I ho ld that the growth of armaments i s a great danger to
the peace of the wo r ld . A po li cy of huge armaments keep s
alive,and stimulates
,and f eed s the idea that fo rce is the b est
,
i f not the only,so lution of inte rnational diff erences . I t is a
policy that t ends to inflame o ld sores and to creat e new so res,
and I submit to you that as the princip l e o f pacific arbitrationgains ground, i t b ecomes one o f the highest tasks of a statesman to adj us t thos e armaments to a newer and happi er condit ion o f things . What nob ler ro le cou ld thi s great country as
sume than at the fi tting moment to p lace its e l f at the head o f
a League o f P eace through whose instrumentali ty this greatwo rk might b e eff ected ?
”
And Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to the New YorkP eace and A rbitration Congres s held in Apr i l, 1 907 , w rote :
“The most p racti ca l step in the dimini shing o f the burdeno f expens e caus ed by the increas ing si z e o f naval armamentwould
,I b el i eve , b e an agreement l imiting the s i ze o f al l ships
hereafter to be bui lt .”
E ngland and the United States acco rdingly res erved ther ight” to b ring up the d i scuss ion of the limitat ion o f armament s at the S econd Hague Conference, o f 1907 , especial ly as
Russi a had abandoned he r championship o f the cause and waspropos ing to bar i t out o f the d i scussion . Not
,however
,unti l
afte r the Conf erence had been in ses s ion over eight weekswas the subj ect introduced . Then E ngland made the fo l lowing tentative p roposi tion , although Germany, Austri a, Russ iaand Japan had announced that they would take no part i n thedi scu ss ion
“The Government o f Great B ri tain wi l l be ready to communicate each year to the powers that wi l l do the same, i t s
p lan o f const ructing , new warships and the expenditures whichthi s plan wi l l requi re . Such an exchange o f info rmation wi l l
108 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
I am speaking wi thin the bounds of truth when I assert thatthey are s ick and ti red o f the who le mi li tary system.
Whi le in Pari s as a de legat e o f the League to E nfo rcePeace I conf e rred with rep res entat ives o f other o rganizationsf rom othe r countri es p ledged to the estab li shment o f a League
o f Nations . I was inst ructed by the E xecutive Committee o fthe League to E nfo rce Peace not to commit the League to any
p rogram of armament reduction in ou r j o int de lib erations,as
the League had never express ed its e l f one way o r the otheron that i s sue . Bu t I very soon learned that the l imitat ion o farmaments , i f not d i sa rmament its e l f , was not a question ati s sue at al l, but a sett led poli cy wh ich al l E u rope, except, o fcours e, the l i tt l e p ro-milita ry and reactionary groups, werebent on carrying into effect at the ear l i est poss ib l e moment.So when the Covenant was f ramed I was not at al l surpr i sedthat i t contained A rt ic l e VI I I
,the fi rs t s entence o f whi ch
read s“The Members of the League recogni ze that the main
tenance of peace requi res the reduction o f national armamentsto the lowest point consist ent with national saf ety and the em
fo rcement by common action of international agreements .”
The League o f Nations b egan its offi ci al exi stence on
Feb ruary 10. At the e ighth meeting o f the Counci l held at
San Sebast ian,Spain , f rom July 30 to August 5, a permanent
Armaments Commiss ion was created under A rti cl e I! o f th eCovenant to adv i s e the Counci l on mi litary, naval and ai rquestions . This Commission consi sts o f one mi li tary, onenaval and one ai r rep res entat ive nominated by each of th epowers hav ing membership in the Counci l . I t was decided tohave on the Commission only military expert s so as to forestal lth e mi lita ry parti es w ithin th e respect ive nations f rom charg.ng the League with tackling the prob lem amateu rish ly.
The Commission immediately o rgani zed its el f and sta rted towork . But mani festly i t w i l l n atu rally take much time be forei t can properly investigate the prob lems awaiting it, l et alonemaking any report to the Counci l .When the Assembly met on the 15th of November one of
th e fi rst things to engage i t s attention was the question of th e
reduction of a rmaments . As I wrote in The Independent o fJanuary 29, the Assembly was not unmindfu l o f the
“cosmic
urge fo r disarmament now so prevalent thruout the wor ld .
DI SARMAMENT 109
I t f e lt,however, that as the Armament Commi ss ion had
scarcely had t ime to begin wo rk,and as Germany was sti l l out
s ide the League , and as America was hold ing up the wo rld withher fidd ling and fudd ling (the Assembly of course was too po lit eto u se such terms ) i t was time to take things a l itt l e lei su rely.
So a ll the Assemb ly d id was to recommend that the Counci lsuggest to the member states that they shou ld not increas ethei r mi lita ry budgets fo r the nex t tw o years
,and that a
temporary committee o f po li t ical,economic and socia l expert s
be added to th e Commiss ion,i t b eing f e lt that th e quest ion o f
d i sarmament was a p rob lem fo r statesmen and students as
wel l as fo r generals and admirals . The Assemb ly further recomm ended that the large stock o f implements accumulated
du ring the war shou ld not b e permitted to find thei r way intothe less civ i l i z ed zones o f Asia and Af rica .
Here the whole matte r rests at the p resent moment. The
world h as ev idently learned something since 1914 . The
fai lu res at the two Hague Conf erences have given way to theunequivoca l acceptance by al l nations o f the pr incip le of thel imitation o f armaments and the League is al ready engaged inworking out the prob lem .
Will the League succeed where th e Hague Conf erencesfa i led ? I t w i l l i f i t apprehend s the p rob lem aright . The
problem is o f cou rse nothing but the p rob lem o f the us e of
fo rce . This has always been the bone of contention b etween
the mi li ta ri st s and the pacifi sts . The mi li tari st s claim that
a rmaments insu re national saf ety . The pacifi sts d eclare theyinevi tab ly lead to war . Both d i sputants insi s t that the GreatWar fu rni shes i rre futab l e p roo f o f thei r contentions .As is u sual i n cases of thi s kind the shi e ld has two s ides .
The confusion h as a ri sen f rom a fai lu re to recogni ze the
th ree fold natu re o f force .1 . Force u sed fo r the maintenance o f o rder—police fo rce .2 . Force u sed fo r attack—aggres sion .
3. Fo rce u sed to neut rali ze aggression— defence .Pol ice force i s almost whol ly good .
O ffense i s almost wholly bad .
Defence i s a necessa ry ev i l,and exi st s s imply to counter
act fo rce emp loyed fo r aggression .
The p robl em o f a League o f Nations i s how to abol i sh th eus e o f fo rce fo r aggres s ion , and yet maintain i t fo r police
1 10 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
purposes . Fo rce for off ense wi l l o f course automatical ly ceasewhen fo rce for aggres s ion i s finally abo l i shed .
How can this be done ? The principle is very s imple . Letthe League a lways keep a fo rce suffici ent ly large to protecti t f rom any nation o r group of nations using aggres s ion
against i t e ither w ith in o r w i thout the League . E v identlythen
,the nations can only in saf ety d i sa rm as far and as fast
as they a re as su red o f equa l o r greater p rotection f rom theLeague than f rom thei r own might . But they wi l l only cometo trust in the protection of th e Leagu e af te r the machineryi s p rov i ded whereby thei r diff erences may be s ett led by
courts and counci l s and assembli es and there has been p roofthat thes e agenci es fo r arb it ration
,conci liation and adj udication
wo rk and promote international j ust ice.Now
‘
i t happens that the exi sting League of Nations isso constituted that i t meet s a l l the above conditions for inte r
nationa l di sarmament. I f the new admini stration o r Senato rBo rah o r any other group o r indiv idual i s s er ious ly des irouso f hav ing the United States di sa rm it must see that we enterthe exi sting League o r one so nearly l ike i t that only a
micro's cope could d etect the di ff erence . Al l ta lk of any othermethod o f disarming is so much time and effo rt wasted .
But what of Senato r Borah’ s p roposal fo r a j oint navalholiday fo r Great B ri tain
,Japan and the United States ? I t
wi l l mani f est ly not so lve the probl em of di sarmament s incedi sa rmament must be unive rsa l to b e effective . But as Germany i s now mi li tari ly impotent and wi l l continue to b e so fo ranother generation at l east ; as France and Ita ly are no longerin the running ; and as both B ri tain and Japan are strainingevery nerve to maintai n and extend f ri endly relat ions with u swe have everything to gain and litt le o r nothing to lo s e byente ring into a naval ho l i day w ith them . I t w i l l s ave thestaggering taxpaye rs o f each nation a pretty penny. In thi s
count ry for i nstance approximately 90 cent s out o f every
dol la r co l l ected by the Gove rnment i s spent for mi litary pu rpos es . I t wi ll al so set a good example to the les s wealthy nations o f th e world by cal ling a halt to thi s mad scrambl e fo rgr eater
’
and ever greate r a rmaments whose end i s bankruptcyfo r every competitor except the richest , and moral and mater ial ruin fo r al l .Let the United States
,therefo re , invi t e B ritain and Japan
1 12 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
on what i t was intended that al l the rest o f the wo r ld shoulddo as rapid ly as i s p racticab le .
!After p rotracted d i scuss ion the Counci l o f the Powers ruledin favo r o f al lowing Ge rmany an army o f one hundred thous andmen
,o f voluntary enl i stment , and the abol ition o f conscr iption .
In o rder to complete the dest ruct ion . o f the mi l itary system itwas further provided that unive rsal mil itary se rv ice and training shal l be abo l ished ; also that] there should be only the
amount o f arms,ammunition
,and equipment necessary for th e
smal l autho rized army to perfo rm its funct ion o f maintain ing
inte rnal o rder . The accumulation o f stocks o f arms and munitions o f any kind was p rohib ited 1 What I have given com
prises the es sent ial s of the conditions imposed upon Germanyby the unanimous j udgment o f the world .
“In o rder”— to quoteagain those wo rds o f f ar—reaching meaning in the preambl ewhich I have al ready read— “
in o rder to render poss ibl e theiniti ation o f a general l imitat ion o f the armaments o f al l nat ions .”
In other wo rds,th e nat ions have bound themse lves , at
l eas t so far as a so lemn form o f wo rds can do , to begin atthe ear l i est p racti cab l e mom ent a general l imitat ion o f the irarmaments
,culminating in the abolit ion o f mil itary systems and
al l mil ita ry material,the sole obj ect o f which is international
war .Why i s i t that thi s quest ion is now , more than befo re, a
problem o f such grave mom ent ? The only answer that I cangive i s that i t i s due to the rad ical change in the character o fwar
,with it s attendant resu lts in cost, loss o f l i fe, and dest ru c
t ion o f material wealth . This change has come to stay, and wi llbe mani fest
,in an inc reasing intensity, in future wars so long
as the present system. o f un iversal p rep aration for i t throughout the world continues . I f the p resent system continues , thenex t war o f the nations in arms wi l l be as much more horribl ethan the recent one as the devi l i sh ingenuity o f m en can make
i t .But
,some w i l l say
,in future wars w e wil l p rohibi t the things
that made thi s one so horrib le . How ? By another Hague con
v ent ion ? We had p roh ib i ted the u se o f toxic gases, the ruthlessuse o f the submarine
,had rest ricted the us e o f aerial bombing
,
and put l imitations on the ruthles s blockade . All o f these
1 F or summary of t erm s imposed on Germany see“Th e new regime
in E urope .
”
p . 34 of th i s vo l ume .
DI SARMAMENT 1 13
restri ct ions were v iolated by both s ides during th e war. I t is saf eto say that only a l itt l e whi l e ago every person in thi s aud iencewas crying out against the inherent w i ckedness in the u se o f
toxi c gases,and saying th at when we have won the war that, at
least,i s one o f the things that we wi l l put a stop to . And you
would have represented th e average sent iment o f the UnitedStates . Well, a sho r t time ago an act o f Congress reorganizedth e mil ita ry establ i shment o f the United States in ord er to profi tby the teachings o f the war . One o f the things that they didso far as I know without a di ssent ing protest—was to create achemical war fare bureau
,the so le function o f which i s to em
ploy the genius of our chemists in devis ing fo rmulae fo r newerand more deadly tox i c gases and more eff ect ive methods forthei r u se . And that i s t rue everywhere .I have ref erred to a radical change in the character o f war .
Thi s has been entirely du e to the mi l i tary doctr ine o f the“nation in arm s ,
” he reto fo re adopted by the great Power s o fEu rope and Asia and now,
per force,being gradually accepted
by the United States . The appl icat ion o f this doct r ine seems
to have a tendency, i t i s t rue, to reduce the f requency o f wars .But the u ltimate result i s inevi tab le . The pent-u p dynamicfo rces o f th e nat ions reach a point o f tension at which resi stance ceases and then comes an explos ion which rocks the wo r ldto its base . A little spark, a s light shock i s al l that i s required .
The ki l l ing o f a man and woman in a mountain town o f Bosniabrought on the World War
,but i t was the p retex t fo r i t, not
the cause o f it.
I f nations are a rmed to the l imit against each other andeach knows that the armament o f the othe r has no use againstany othe r than h imsel f
,can we not al l see that when one ap
p roach es i t s l imit and bel ieves the othe r to be capabl e o f
fu rther expansion , war, wi thout warn ing, is almost inev i
table ? I t i s th is alone which enabled many mil i tary men to
p red ict the war of 1914 and fo recast the approx imate t imewhen i t came . Exper i ence shows that w e cannot depend uponhono r to p revent the outbreak ; nor do universa l a rm amentsp resuppose a st rong sense o f hono r .You w i l l now see why it i s that in a war o f nations in arms
i t becomes increasingly d i fficult fo r any nation , w i th howeve rl itt l e o riginal interest i n th e matte r, to maintain i ts neutral ity,unti l the war final ly becomes one o f the “worl d in arms .” Modern
1 14 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
agencies o f war fare have al ready made i t impossib le to blockadedi rectly and clo s e at hand
,w ith any certainty
,enemy ports and
coasts . Therefo re , when i t has become necessary, in o rder toeffect our purpose
,to b lockade whole s eas and ocean s ; when , to
stop al l t rade o f eve ry kind whatsoever with an enemy country,to prevent every possib le pound o f food or supp l i es o f any kindf rom leak ing through a neutral country to an enemy country,whether thei r bo rders are contiguous o r not
,i t has become
necessary to put thos e neutrals on short rations o f food,of
clothing, of fuel , of everything—then those neut rals can escapemany of the hard ships o f war only by j o ining in i t on one sideo r the other . And i t may be that some wi l l j o in a s ide becausethey think it wi l l w in , rather than because they think it i s r ight .In such a case the horr ib leness o f futu re war wi ll b e equal edonly by the hor riblenes s o f the inj ust ice that wil l result f rom it .The bas i c reason fo r the ruth less blockade i s not far to seek .
With the modern nation in arms every woman,o ld and young,
who can knit a wool en sock fo r the so ld i e r at the f ront ; everychi ld able to knit a mitten ; every old man who can cultivate abushel o f potatoes o r wheat beyond h is own needs~—each of themis a so ld i e r ; thei r work i s commandeered and d irected by thegovernment fo r the purposes of the war . The merchant dealsin the goods that the government p ermits him ; the farmer sow sthe crop s that the government ord er s h im . E ve ry one is draftedfo r the war—the labo r o f some at the f ront, the labo r o f othersat the rear in orde r to enable the former to stay at the f ront .The tendency h as been to abol i sh the d i st inct ion between combatants and noncombatants, to t reat al l as sold iers , the m otherrocking the crad l e at hom e , as the husband o r son in the
trenches . Unti l recently nations at war settled thei r diffe rences by a sort o f p rize fight . They rai sed l imited armies whichmarched and countermarched and fought batt le s unti l one s idewon and the other s ide lost the p urs e . The vast mass o f thepopulat ions had so l itt le to do w i th the war that they were real lynoncombatants . Yet each o f these populations was, in a sense,part o f the body o f one or the other o f the contestants and thelaw s o f war
,l ike the “gent leman ’ s rules” o f the p ri z e r ing
, We remad e to p rotect him against unfair blows . The pri ze fightermust not hit below the belt, the sold i er must not u se toxic o rasphyx iat ing gas ; the civ i l ian must be protected as far as poss i
bl e from the hardship s o f the war . But suppos e that the pr i z e
1 16 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
intens ity, and wi l l be an increas ing menace to our civi l i zation .
The kind o f wars which we have passed through,to be r e
p eated i f th ey are to continue, you know only too wel l . Therepetition o f som e figures may be o f interest in focus ing yourattention on thi s phase . I doubt i f many o f you know that, fo rthi s war, th e al l ie s o f E urope and Japan, and excludi ng theUnited States and the Central Powers, mobi l i z ed men.
Not al l o f them, o f course, s erved under a rms, though manymil lions o f them did. The Central Powers and th e United Statesdid, more o r l es s, th e s ame to th e extent o f many add i t ionalmi l l ions , probab ly doubling the above figure . And all o f thelabor thus conscr ipted was engaged in th e production o f mater ial a large part o f whi ch was to be immediate ly destroyedafter accomp li shing its own so le purpos e o f destroying li fe andthe s low ly accum ulated wealth o f centur i es, the rest o f it lyingid le and usel es s in t im e o f peace . No business man here needsmore than these figures to understand the wor ld convul s ions inindustri al l i f e due to the r eadj ustm ent o f th is labo r in normalproductive channels. Of the total mobi l i z ed
,were ki l led
outr ight in battl e,
were wounded,and an unknown
num ber o f mi ll ions o f thes e have had their l ives sho rtened orwi ll continue a burden upon others ; whi le we re captu r ed or reported mis sing, a large par t o f whom were dead atthe t ime o f the armisti ce . And more than these are th e mi l l ions
,
mostly women and chi ldren , who di ed as the d irect result o f thehardships o f the war.To ki l l and wound these men it co st i n money actual ly rais ed
by taxat ion and in debts yet to be paid something like
with an addit ional o f p revious ly ac
cumulated material wealth destroyed and to be replaced.
I f al l armaments could be abol i shed tomorrow there wouldsti l l b e an annua l interest bi l l o f at least to be
paid by the bel l igerent nations on th e debts incurred in the lastwar alone . I f these a rmaments ar e to b e maintained
,you must
note that the mi l i tary and naval expenditures of the greatPowers fo r the year 1913 amounted in round numbers to
The economic loss due to withdrawal f rom productiveindustry could then have been asses sed at That
meant a total annual loss due to the mere maintenance o f mil itary establ i shments o f To maintain these same
estab l ishments now wil l co st approximately double that sum, o r
DISARMAMENT 1 1 7
near Nor does this take into account the ac
cumulat ion o f mil i ta ry mate ri a l o f expens ive types in far greaterquant iti es than h as been d eemed neces sary he reto fo re . So wehave staring u s in the face a total annual b i l l o f about
and th is only fo r a very smal l number o f nations,fo r
many others are stagger ing unde r l ess er similar bu rdens whichare al l that they can bear .I f
,i n the future, nations are to r ely fo r the ir s ecu ri ty upon
thei r ind iv idual p reparednes s fo r wa r, i t wi l l not suffi ce i f themeasures taken for thi s ar e confined
,as hereto fore , to the train
ing and equipment o f armed forces . Perhaps the most strikingdevelopment o f the recent war was that which imposed uponeach bel ligerent the necess ity o f mobi l i z ing al l i t s civi l ac
t iv it ies fo r war pu rposes . In futu re no nation can rely uponits p reparedness unles s i t conduct s these activiti es in time o fpeace w ith a v iew to thei r best emp l oyment in war. Mili taryuti l ity w i l l then be a large and f requently a control l ing facto rin dete rmining the natu re o f its i ndust ri es , the t raining o f itswo rkmen
,and even the u se o f its land fo r agricu ltu ral purposes .
The resulting condit ions w i l l b e economical ly waste ful,and thus
increase ind i rectly the cost o f the maintenance o f armaments .Moreover
,they wil l keep the th reat o f war more constantly in
the minds o f the peopl e than was the case even unde r pre—warcond it ion s
,the resul t o f which w i l l be to p roduce national and
popula r t ensions which w i l l be a materia l facto r in b r inging onwa r . The status o f the c iv i l i zed part o f the wo rld wi l l b e l ite ral ly that o f an armed t ruce , with it s entire populat ion ready fo rprompt mobi l iz at ion
,indust rial as wel l as mil itary . And that
statu s w i l l grow to be so into le rab le that wa r i tse l f may cometo be regard ed as a r eh e f .
All admit the imperat ive neces s ity o f finding a remedy, butit has not been found . National and inte rnational societ ies and
con ferences pass re solutions , exp res sing ala rm at the ove rgrownmil ita ri sm o f the age . But eve ry proposit ion made has been too
vague to force the attention o f practical statesmen , o r so a rbit rary and d rastic , so fa r beyond the possibi l i t i e s o f th e moment ,that they have rej ected i t . Du r ing th e war I happened to be in acompany o f gentl emen who were playing a great part in d i recting the ene rgie s o f thei r countrie s in the prosecution o f i t . They
began to d i scu ss the a fter-the-war problem . They spoke o f th eappal l ing burdens thei r peopl e would have to carry and the
1 18 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
neces sary readj ustments o f every phas e o f national l i f e . Theyseemed to think that now
,i f ever
,with al l the nat ions brought
to the verge o f ruin under the ex i st ing system,now i f ever
,
those nations would eagerly s ink al l differences and agree uponsome other system . I said to them Suppose the representat iveso f thes e nations
,includ ing ou r enemies
,were seated about a
tab le,and you were to ask th em the quest ion, ‘Do you desire to
put an end, as far as possib l e, to international war,’ what doyou think would be thei r answer ? ” They said that
,in thei r opin
ion, the answer would be “Yes .” Then I said,“Ask them thi s
o the r quest ion : ‘
I f you honestly me an what you say, are youready to reduce you r armaments to a l imit beyond which theyhave no u se excep t fo r int ernational war ? ’ What wil l be theiranswe r to that ? ” They sti l l s aid they bel i eved it would be “Yes .”
Then I asked : Do you suppos e that,when they say ‘Yes ,’ they
include in the word ‘armament ’ ves sel s bu i lt and armed sole ly
for international war ? ” “No,
” said one o f th em .
“I am af raidmy country could not accept that . We are dependent on theouts ide wor ld for ou r food and raw mater ial and w e must proteet ou r t rade routes . I t i s t rue that with no ves se l afloat onthe seven seas mo re power ful than a coast guard or a revenueves sel
,i t i s hard to see how thes e routes can be ser iou sly endan
ger ed ; but you cannot convince ou r people that there may notbe some deception and then that they may be i rretri evablyru ined .
”
We are saying to the wor ld, We do not wish to j oin inany fo rmal association with you because we fear i t wi l l not makefo r our peace, but war .” They are saying to us, We want youb ecaus e without you the re can be no continued peace .” Why
should not the United States say to the nations,
“We wil l take
you at your wo rd and will t est it to dec ide its worth . Wil l you,the nations that accepted the preamble to the mil ita ry peacete rms with Germany
,s ign this furthe r document with u s ?
“We wil l agree w ith you that each nation that so desi res shal lkeep and build whateve r front ie r and coast fortificat ions i twishes . For t ifi cat ions cannot st r ide across th e earth dev astat
ing fi elds and destroying cit ies .“We wi ll agree with you that each nation may maintain it s
120 SELECTED ARTICLE S
long therea fter need have no mi l itary fear o f Germany,due to a
reduction in thei r forces and stoppage o f manu facture o f material . Because, whil e there are now mill ions o f young men in civ i l
l i f e on both s ides trained in the r ecent'
war , on the one side
there wi l l b e amp l e reserves of the present materia l fo r thes emi l l ions i f cal l ed to a rms
,whi le on the other s ide there wi l l b e
none at al l . But , above al l , we wi l l have gradual ly aecomp lish ed a rad i ca l change in a system which alone i s a standingth reat to inte rnational peace .
I agree that perhap s the greatest d ifficulty wil l be in comingto an agreement with the E uropean Powers as to the reasonableforce that each nation requ ires to maintain internal o rder . ButI do not bel ieve that th is difficulty i s insurmountable . Underlying thi s quest ion i s the l atent fear of Germany. Under present conditions we can hard ly understand this . Nevertheless, Isee no reason why an agreement cannot b e reached . They all
admit that a large part o f their fo rce s have been maintain edsole ly because o f the menace o f the German system .
“ With
that menace removed— removed not only as coming f rom Germany but from anywhere el se —the peoples themselves are notl ikely to al low any excess ive number under the guis e o f preserving order . And whatever that number i s fo r each Power
,l et i t
retain it p lus enough to give a reasonable exces s over the smalla rmy they have al lowed to Germany and which cannot be increased w ithout the cons ent o f these Powers .Those o f you are mistaken who may think that there can be
an enduring and eff ect ive as sociat ion o f the nations fo r themai ntenance o f peace so long as those nations are armed to theteeth
,so le ly against each other . And thos e are mistaken who
think that, so long as the mil itary system exists, there can beany success ful international court of arb it ration . Had Ger
many and her al l ies be longed to such a league with such a courtin 1914 they could have said “With our preparedness we candefy the league and the deci s ions o f the court
,
” as they d id saythen,
“We can defy the wo r ld .
”
Why should not the United States take th e'
lead in a definite
proposal and demand for a reasonable limitat ion o f armaments ?Who can do it bette r than we ?
DI SARMAMENT 1 2 1
A STATEMENT FROM GENERAL PERSHING 1
As we contemplat e the causes o f war and real iz e i ts horro rs ,every r ight- thinking man and woman must feel l ike demand ingthat some steps be taken to prevent it s recu rrence . An important step would be to curtai l exp end itu res for the maintenanceo f navie s and armies .The estimates recently presented to ou r Congres s for the
naval and mil itary services contemplate an appropriat ion forthe next fi scal year o f more than for every workingday in th e year .I t i s a gloomy commentary upon wo r ld conditions that
expenditures several t imes greate r than ever be fore in peacetimes shou ld be conside red neces sary, especi al ly when the mostrigid economy in governmental admini st rat ion is es sent ial i f wewould avoid national bankruptcy.
The wor ld does not seem to learn f rom experience . I t wouldappear that the lessons o f the last six years shou ld be enough toconv ince everybody o f the danger o f nations striding up and
down the earth armed to the teeth . But no one nation can r e
duce armaments unles s al l do .
I sn ’ t i t, then , t ime fo r an awakening among enlightenedpeoples to the end that the leading powers may reach somerational agreement which would not only rel ieve th e world o fthi s terr ib le financial load
,but which in itse l f would be a long
step toward the prevention o f war ?Ours is not an aggres s ive nation . We want no terr ito ry
and we have no d esigns on other peop l e . I f othe r nations havethe same attitude
,i t s eems unreasonable not to bel ieve that al l
w i l l be w i l l ing to prove i t by consenting to l imit a rmaments .Unless some such move be mad e
,w e may wel l ask ourselves
whether civi l i zat ion does not real ly reach a point where i t b eginsto destroy it se l f and whethe r we are thu s doomed to go head longdown th rough destruct ive wa r and darknes s to barbari sm .
1 From an address at New York , December 29 , 1 920. Repr inted in th e
pamph le t , D isarm o r Per ish . Issued by Amer ican Union Against M i l itar ism .
122 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
THE UNFAILING BRE EDER OF WARS 1
I t i s incred ib le to me, when I hear men talk of the nextwar in a matter o f fact way . I t cannot be that they have any
mental concept ion o f what the next war wi l l be l ike . I t wil l
b e so hideous in its devastat ion,that it w i l l matter l itt l e which
s ide wins, fo r both w i l l be ruined . Look at the eff ect o f the
las t wa r— and America had not b egun to fight . We were j ustcomplet ing means for wholesale d evastation that were beyondcomprehension . Those means st il l ex i st
,and othe r nat ions wil l
equal or exceed them .
we face today an unknown futu re . We s ense but cannot
analyz e the working o f mighty fo rce s . Our le aders meet thesporadic mani festations o f thes e forces with the best expe
dients at hand . But everywhere i s mystery and suspicion andpo rtents o f struggl e.We say that whi le human nature remains what it i s men
ar e going to fight . Right . But shal l we the re fore sit quiet ly
by and let them fight ? The fact but emphasiz es the need fo rlaw s
,fo r court s
,and fo r efficient pol ice . Ou r great grand
fathers said that gentlemen had to fight duels—but we haveoutgrown that .
We say,“Let America bu il d as b ig a fleet as E ngland and
both can then pol ice the seas to the safety o f the world .
” The
seas are no vaster than they were twenty years ago when England ’ s small e r navy po li ced them alone . We reverently un
cover to that sacred fi ct ion o f the “Absolute Sovereignty o f
Independent Nations .” I t i s in real ity the present cu rse o f mankind . It is the inexo rab le bui lder of armaments, and the un
fai l ing breeder o f wars— and so,i t is unworthy o f our con
tinned acceptance .This i s our actual problem : I n the face o f th e wor ld ’ s u n
ce rtaint ie s,r iv al r i es and suspic ions
,are we going to w i thdraw
from each other,and
,nurs ing our fears and j ealou sies, plan
independently each fo r hi s own good as he impe rfectly sees i tthrough selfi sh
,fear fu l eyes ? No , not i f we are men o f reason .
For that means inevitabl e war and ruinous p reparation fo r war—a stupid solution !
1 From a speech by General L incoln.
C . Andrews . Repr inted in Bullet in. League of Free Nat ions Assoc iat i on . March , 1 92 1 .
124 SELECTED ARTICLE S
3. Main t enanc e o f r e co rd s o f indu s tr i a l fac i l i t i e s b y th eUn i t e d S tat e s
,a t an annua l exp endi tur e o f no t mo r e than
4 . E du cat io n o f th e Am er i can p eop l e in th e phys ica l ,menta l an d mo ra l b en efi t s o f Un ive r s a l M i l i t a ry T ra in ing ,wi th s p e c ia l emphas i s up on th e Amer i c an i z a t i o n influen ce i twou ld hav e upon th e fo r e ign b o rn .
F or eign S entiment
Commenting upon the S ecuri ty Leagu e’ s pos ition,Charle s
D . O r th , P re s id en t o f th e League , s a id :“D isarmamen t mus t b e ac comp l i s he d i f i t is humanly
p o s s ib l e,bu t is a hop e l e s s dr e am unl e s s th e o th e r b ig p ow er s
c o op e ra t e . They wil l do so if th e ir p e op l e wan t d i s a rmamen t . I n o rd er t o o b ta in a r e l iab l e r ep o r t o n th e s ta t e o fB r i t i s h s en t im en t , we cab l ed t o Cap tain S tan l ey Ab b o tt , th eD ir e cto r o f th e M idd l e C las s e s Un ion in London , which isan o rgan iz a t io n i n E ngland s im i l ar t o th e Nat i ona l S e cu r i tyLeague h e r e . Ou r me s s age was :
‘Mid d l e Cla s s e s Un ion , London , E ngl and .
Pub l i c s en t im en t favo r in g wo r l d d i sarmamen t is rap idlygrowing in Amer i ca . Doe s s im i lar se n t im en t exi s t in E ngl an d . Woul d app r e c i at e you r cab l ed v i ews .
‘
Nat iona l S e cur i ty L e ague .
“The rep ly of th e M idd l e Cla s s e s Un ion r ead s :‘National S ecu r i t y League , New Yo rk, U-S-A '
S trong fe e l ing favou r s dras t i c re du c t io n of a rmamen t sif un iv e r s a l .
Middle Clas ses Union .
’
D isarmament E conomy
The exp end i tur e fo r th e main t enan ce o f indu s t r ia l re co rd san d fo r Univ e r s al Mi l i tary T ra in in g
,which th e Leagu e ad
v ocat es , i s bu t a drop in t he bu cke t c ompa re d t o th e s av in gwhich w i l l b e a c comp l i s h ed by d i s a rmamen t . We ar e awar eo f th e an tagon i sm fo r Unive r s a l M i l i ta ry T ra in ing fe l t bymany women an d s om e m en , bu t b e l i ev e tha t , if sup erfic ialimp r e s s ion s of the sub j e c t w er e d i s p l a ce d by fu l l er know led ge , Univ er s a l M il i t ary T ra in in g wou l d b e d i s c l o s ed asa b en ign an d
.
human e , as we l l as a w is e and p rop e r, po l i cy .
Th e b l ind s em i-hys ter i a wh ich p r efe r s p i t i l e s s ly to s end
DISARMAMENT 125
b oys to fac e d ea th in a he lp l e s s an d unp repar ed mann er,ra th er than to g iv e t hem a fight ing chan ce
,i s hard t o un d er
s tan d . Thi s w i l l happ en aga in , as i t d id in 1917 , i f w e ar efo r c e d in to war . I f
,fo r tuna t e ly
,w e ar e n ev e r fo r c e d in t o
war,t h e b oys who hav e had th e tra in ing w i l l b e b e t t e r off
moral ly,mental ly
,phys ical ly and vocat ional ly, and a stronger
s our c e o f happ in e s s t o th em s e lv e s an d ev eryo n e w i th whomth ey come in conta c t .
S ecu r i ty L eagu e P olicy
The Se cu r i ty Leagu e ’ s p o l i cy an d p rogram fo r i t s n at i ona le duca t io na l p rop agan da on d i s a rmam en t ar e l aid d own inth e fo l l ow in g r e s o lu t i o n pa s s ed b y th e Leagu e ’ s E xe cu t iv eComm i tt e e ,
“RE SOLVED : that the National Secur ity League hereby declaresi tse l f unreservedly in favo r o f world disarmament
,to be brought
about by an agreement among al l o f the fi rst and second clas spower s o f the world
,such agreement to p rovide that no war
ships shal l be bui lt fo r a period o f at least five years,and that
the armies o f al l nations be maintained only as ske leton organi
zat ions o f officer s and men ;“Be it Fu rthe r RE SOLVED : that the National Se curity Leagu e
advocate, as the immediate pol icy o f the United States , a rad icalreduction in the expend itures fo r mi l i tary and naval pu rposes ;al so that the army o f the United States be reduced to a skeletono rganizat ion o f officer s and men suffic i ent only fo r po l ice purposes ; al so that th e League advocate that there shal l be no newexpend i tu re s for naval o r mi l i tary pu rposes except :
“
(a) Not to exceed p er year fo r the establ i shmentand maintenance o f a Bu reau which shal l m aintain a surveyo f th e indust rial resources o f the United Stat es , as related topossibl e war requi rements .
“
(b ) Not to exceed annual ly fo r a mode rateand reasonable d egree o f Unive rsal Mil itary Train ing
.
Training Benefits
Be I t Furth e r R ESOLVED : that th e League undertake a national
educational p ropaganda to demonst rate to the American peopl ethat Universa l Mili tary Training i s not a mi li tari stic measurebut i s a sane and b eneficent in su rance and police measu re ; thatit would not take young men away f rom thei r fami l ies o r
126 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
their work except for th ree o r four month s at a period to beselected by themselves , during thei r eighteenth o r nineteenthyear
,at a t ime when the physical, mental and moral t raining
and d i s cip l ine involved would be o f invaluable benefit to them ,
their f ami li es and the nation ; furthe rmore, that such moderateand reasonable Universal Mil itary Training woul d const itutea much needed method o f Americani zation in that i t wouldp rovid e coo rd inat ion and assimi lation o f the fo reign bo rn, therebymaking them real Americans .”
THE CHURCH ’S CALL FOR DISARMAMENT 1
Ground arms,cri es the Church
,in effect, in taking up the
widely ci rculated appeal fo r reduction in the wo rld ’ s mi litary andnaval estab li shments . Disarmament
,i t i s pl eaded
,would mean
bread instead o f bul lets, p l-owsh ar es instead o f swo rds , and a
topsy—turvy world” would have a breathing space in which tor ight i tse l f . Once the chu rches gave at l east tacit adherenceto the s logan
,
“in t ime o f peace prepare fo r war” ; but now,
we are told,the waste o f war and the moral ruin which i t spreads
have awakened rel igious thought to agree with Lloyd Georgethat armed peace is “o rganized insanity .
” Arms and arm orhave too readi ly lent themselves to the use they were designedto avoid
,i t i s comp lained, and in the present race fo r mi li ta ry
supremacy “we are pursuing the very course which i s mostcertain to l ead to the suicid e o f civ i l i zation .
” P rotestant , Cathol ic,and Jew a re at one on thi s v i ewpoint
,and a beginning in
naval and mil ita ry reduction is u rged as a step toward worldpeace . From Rome comes the message that the Pope wouldrej oice at such a happy event . Some would have the Uni tedState s sta rt the movement, arguing that thi s country i s s afeagainst attack and that the war- racked nations o f E urope wouldwill ingly accept ou r l eadership . All would have d i sarmament
,by
whatever method achieved . To what extent the movement h astaken hold was shown in a symposium recently p r inted in theNew York World
,in which rep r esentat ives o f al l shades o f
rel igious bel ie f take up the new crusade wi th the same unanimityo f sp i ri t w i th which they answe red the cal l to arms in 1 91 7 .
In the rel igious p ress many w r iter s regard the i ssue as being1 From L iterary D igest . February 1 2 , 1 92 1 .
128 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
holds the key to the peace o f the wor ld , and the Church holdsthe key to America . Men and wom en who hate war mayaccompli sh more during th is new year than they w i l l have anopportunity to accomp l i sh for a generation afte rward .
And the duty of every Chri stian man i s clear , says The Lutheran . I t is to u se his personal influence, whereve r poss ibl e, inthe di rection o f international peace :Fi rst
,every warl ike express ion
,every p redict ion of war o r
argument in favo r o f it,should be chal lenged and combated .
Al l the selfi sh and s ini ster influences that are at work againstany inte rnational agreement should be met, checked , and ove rcome . This ne far ious t ide must be stemmed by a stronger one .
These deadly ideas must be displaced by sound and healthy
ones . Only by the use o f these methods can the Christian
idea o f peace among men be b rought nearer to a p ract ica l rul eo f conduct in thi s cri s i s . The Chr i st i an citizen ’ s duty is plain .
”
The Chr i st ian Regi ster (Unitarian ) argues that the Americanpeople do not want a great navy . Rather
,
“the voice o f the
people .demand s that Am e ri ca cast the weight o f i t s influenceon the side o f an era o f moderation and good feel ing.
” Religious
influences'
must immed i ately be put to work , fo r, says TheWestern Christi an Advocate (Me thodist ) ,
“the only safeguard o fthe future against the sprouting o f the seed s o f war that havebeen sown broadcast is the intens ive propagation o f the Chri st ianity that now prevai ls in Amer ica . I f th i s i s not done
,there
w i l l be another war w i th in the nex t fi fty years as sure as timepasses and the years ro l l round .
”
The head o f the Cathol i c Church is deeply inte rest ed in themovement , w rites Card inal Gasparri , Cardinal Secretary o fState at the Vatican , to the New York World . He call s atten
t ion to the fact that the Pope i s sued an appeal to the bel ligerentsfor d iminution o f armaments on August 16
,19 1 7 , and adds
In view o f the fact that the Holy S ee fi rst set forth such a
proposal and official ly urged i t,you can imagine with what
j oy it would hai l the real izat ion . Both victo rs and l ose rs
have discovered that war doesn ’
t pay, decla res the San Francisco Monito r (Cathol ic ) . E conomic reasons alone
,i t says
,
“should arou se the conscience o f the wor ld against th is monstrous evi l o f war . When to these a re added the rel igiousmotives o f universal brotherhood and the common love o fhumanity, there i s hope that the consci ence of humanity wi l l
DISARMAMENT 129
soon be arous ed to ex erci s e thi s evi l demon of f rat ricida l wa rfare. “Why, then, when all the wor ld i s hungry fo r peace,shou ld we not mak e p lowshares out of our how i tze rs ? ” asksThe J ew i sh Voice (St Louis ) . A weapon in a man ’
s hand i s“th e b est seed o f hate that can be invented .
”So
“Let u s take th e death-dealing guns from th e hands o f the
mi l lions o f men and give them usefu l too l s o f p roduction . As
Jew s we can not vi ew in any oth er l ight this d isarmament p roposal . As Amer i cans we must ur ge ou r country to take th elead in thi s movement . America’ s word wi l l mean much in th ecounci l o f th e nations even th e fo r the t im e being w e are st i l l outo f th e League of Nations . Now that
‘politics has adj ourned’
we sha ll sure ly be part o f th e League and our voice wi l l meanmuch . I t can mean much i f our deeds and our p ro fess ionsharmoniz e, but not oth erwise.
THE QUAKER CHALLENGE TO A WORLD OFFORCE 1
Ou r present socia l institut ions a re based too largely on theconv i ction of th e reality and power of the evi l, with too li tt lefaith in the equal o r greater potency o f the good in man . Our
poli tical,socia l and indust ria l l i f e i s amply p repared to dea l
wi th evi l action by fo rce, but not equally expectant of o r r e
l iant on good . Our j ai ls, cou rt s , poli ce, bus ines s safegua rds,d ip lomacy, armies and navie s are a l l ready to dea l with menwhen they do evi l . But there i s no such preparednes s fo r co
operation when they do good . How slow and unwieldy was
E u ropean d ip lomacy when trying to prev ent war in 19 14 ! How
prompt and su re i t s procedu re in declar ing war ! How p romptwe are to def end ou r right s
,prope rty
,and priv i leges by doing
v io l ence to othe rs : how S low to se l f-sacr ifice i n o rde r to provid e opportuniti es fo r othe rs and to supply thei r needs . OurGovernment i s prov id ed with plans fo r mobi l i zing ou r t e
sou rces o i men and money to resi st fo rei gn aggres sion by mi l itary fo rce ; but we have nei the r in chu rch o r state p rovi s ionfo r mobi li zing thousand s o f men o f good -wi ll and mi l lions ofmoney to meet such campaigns as those now carri ed on by
‘ From an address by E l bert Russe l l de l ivered in New York Ci ty ,Apri l 10, 1 92 1 . Repr inted in part in Fn ends
’ Inte l l igencer, Apr i l , 192 1 .
130 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
p res s and p lat fo rm to emb roi l us with Japan and Mexico . Ou reducation prepares each oncoming generation With rules, s tanda rd s o f hono r, and cod es of conduct for using o r invokingforce against the evi l that men do . But there i s no equal education to make, as a matte r o f course, love, unselfi sh ness, and
se lf—sacr ifice the basi s of thei r relations with thei r f el lows .The Quaker reaction to evi l i s to meet and overcome i t wi thgood ; to meet hate and fo rce with kindnes s ; and to hea l thewound s o f vio lence by good—wi ll . We hold that the mini stryof love shou ld not only b ind up the wounds of the wronged
,
but anticipate vio lence, prevent i t by r ight conduct, and bui ldSoc i ety on foundations that make r ight conduct easy and natu raL
Altrui sm is as ancient in the hi story of even prehuman li f eas se lfishnes s . The “s truggle fo r the li f e o f others” i s as
p rimeval a law of li f e as the st ruggle fo r indiv idual exi stence .Kropotkin has shown in hi s “Mutual Aid
,
” that the popularmisconstruction of the doct rine o f the survival o f the fi ttest
i s f ar f rom sci entific . I t does not mean the su rviva l o f themost s elfish o r most b rutal o r even the st rongest physical ly.
God i s not a lways on the s ide of the heavi est battal ions . We
have lea rned that men can b e t rained to courses o f conductwithin l imited areas control led by altrui sti c motives . Parentsgive themse lves fo r thei r chi ldren ; patriots d i e fo r thei r country . T rad i t ion , hi sto ry, l i te ratu re, monuments , pub lic ceremonies and celeb rations glo ri fy the deed , prai s e the heroi sm,
and perpetuate the motive . A simi la r al l-pervas ive educationenj oining the p racti ce of universa l b rotherhood , cal ling out inu s alt ru istic motives and t rusting in others a code o f unselfish
honor in al l personal and inte rnationa l relations , would produce a Chri stian universal i sm as re li ab l e as the basi s o f socia l
institutions as is national i stic pat riot i sm ; and as fa r abov e it,as mode rn pat rio ti sm is above the t ribal c lanni shness o f anci entS cotland o r I s rael .We beli eve there i s ample basi s i n histo ry, as wel l as in the
sc ience o f li f e, fo r b el i ef in the suffi ci ency o f the higherfo rces ,—j u stice, sympathy, kindnes s, love and faith ,—to provid efo r the pres ervation o f a l l that we value in ou r p resent socia lo rder
.We often fo rget that l i f e b ecomes s ecu re in propo rtion
as men abandon the resort to fo rce and rely on the commonsens e of j usti ce and respect fo r law to protect thei r r ights .
132 SELECTED ARTICLE S
appealed to hi s pers ecuto r’ s s ens e of j ustice . When arrested,
he refused Peter’ s sword and submitted. On the cross hep rayed fo r hi s executione rs . He met vio lence with love andsought to overcome evi l only with good
,and b lessed thos e who
suff e red persecution in the caus e of r ighteousness .We may be reminded that J esus lost hi s li f e ; that love and
truth were not suffici ent to protect him . Nietsch e takes sev
e ral volumes to say j ust that : Look what happened to Jesus !But we must not forget that a large part o f thos e who attemptto defend thei r prope rty o r l i f e, o r count ry, by armed forcesuffer the same fate . I t i s a curiou s menta l twist that l eads somany to as sume that a person or nation that ‘ i s a rmed and de
f end s i t s e l f i s saf e ; whi le a person o r nation that fol lowsJesus ’ method i s su re to b e inj u red o r destroyed. Both as
sumptious are hi sto rica l ly fals e . Not al l wars o f def ens e a resuccess ful . Witnes s the fate o f E gypt
,Greece
,Judea
,Pol and
,
the Boe r repub lics , Belgium , S erbia ! Remember What
happened to Leonidas , to Coligny, to Koscu isco ,to Casement !
The ri s e and dominance o f the great mi l itary empi res meansthat most wars o f se lf-def ense have fai l ed .
But the E arly Chr i s t ians , the s eventeenth century Quakersi n E ngland
,and Penn among the Amer i can Ind ians
,won with
out fighting and suff ered l ess than most so ldi ers . In estimat
ing th e efficacy of the two methods we must take account o f
the effect on character and the u ltimat e wel fare o f one’ s peop le and of poste ri ty.
We do not c laim that rel iance on spir i tual fo rces would al
ways and infa l l ib ly succeed . We only b el ieve that after a cen
tu ry o f such t ria l , as the methods of fo rce, hate and nationals e lfi shness have had , i t wou ld not fai l as they fai led in 1 914,
af ter hav ing formed the bas i s o f international relations fo rm illenniums .
We beli eve that the solution o f the prob l ems which conf ront u s in Japan and Mex i co , i s not in the reso rt to a rms o rthe show of fo rce
,but in the s ervice o f th e mi ss iona ry and
educator . Ten thousand mi ss ionar i e s , t eachers , edito rs , sanitary engineers , and statesmen , s ent to Mexico twenty-fiv e yearsago
,when it b ecame ev ident that Diaz’ s pol icy was robbing the
peons and unfitt ing th e Mexicans fo r s el f-government ,—s ent toMexico to help Mexico
,not to exploit her as the Ameri cans
who got conces s ions f rom Diaz o ften did—wou ld have done
DISARMAMENT 133
vast ly more to make the bo rd er secure and to p rotect American interests than a. hund red thousand so ldi e rs on the bo rderin 1916 o r warships on the coast today. And i f a mere handfu l o f ou r best young men and women compared to the number a war wou ld cal l fo r, not waiting fo r the cal l o f a limitedpat riot i sm to fight thes e countri es in def ens e of our supposedinte res ts
,would now vo luntee r at the cal l o f the b roth erhood
of Chri st to help Chri stiani ze and civi li z e thes e lands , and i four people at home were wi l l ing to t reat the citi zens of thesecountri es with impart ia l j ustice and equal good-wi l l
,the dan
gers o f war wou ld d i sappear.Meanwhi le we must d ef end ourse lves by acts of helpfulness
which wi l l s ecu re the t rust and grati tud e o f the peop les o f theworld . We mad e Japan our f ri end by Peary
’
s peaceful mis
s ion . She wi l l b ecome ou r enemy only i f we sco rn and mi s
t reat her people o r inf ringe selfishly her rightfu l interests . Wewon the confidence of China by retu rning some of
the Boxer indemnity. I t was the pr ice o f a fourth- rate batt leship
,but it ensu red the f ri end ship o f one of the most potent
peoples of the futu re . We need no armies o r nav i e s to protectu s f rom her . When we repealed the Panama to l ls act, f reedCuba
,and sent help to st ri cken Messina and Martinique
,and
cont ributed to the reli e f o f B elgium, A rmenia and China i nher present famine
,w e d i sarmed possib le foes .
We shou ld equip ou rselves as a nation with specia l governmental agencies fo r wo rks o f Chri stian neighbo r l ines s toother nations . I t is unfortunate that such work as the sanita
tion o f Havana , Vera Cruz , and Panama , the d igging o f thePanama Canal
,the d i rect ion of e lect ions and the management
o f the finances o f count ri es like Cuba,Haiti
,Santo Domingo
,
and Nica ragua must be done by sold i e rs unde r the di rect iono f a secretary o f war . Such a re es sentia l ly deed s o f peace ,not so ld i e rs ’ wo rk ; and the fact that the agents a re so ldi ersa rouses fea r that countri es so helped may be subj ugated . I t
touche s the p rid e o f sensi tive peop le s to have so ld i e rs in th euni fo rm o f anothe r nation managing thei r a ffai rs . We ought
to have a S ecretary o f Peace in th e Cabinet to di rect such
work . Und e r him shou ld be a fo rce o f worke rs as effectiveas the a rmy
,but as ino ffensive to th e p rid e and l ibe rt i es o f
other peop l es as th e Red Cross . They shou ld be engineers , financ ial expe rt s , admini st rato rs , teache rs , missionari es , edi to rs ,
134 SELECTED ARTICLE S
physicians, nurs es and statesmen . He shou ld have direct ion o fthe Red Cross . The Ameri can Consu ls should report to himall cases o f need in other nations ; famines and floods
, confla
grat ions and earthquakes ; opp res s ion and desti tution that
b reed desperation and p rovoke riot and revo lution such as thetaking o f the peons
’
land by f raud i n Mexico o r the p resenthunge r o f easte rn E urope ; race f ri ction and national hatreds ,such as p roduced the Boxer up ri s ings in China
,the Second
Balkan War and now d i sturb re lations with Japan in Califo rnia and Aust ra l ia ; incipient revo lut ions, due to despOtic abuse
o f power o r personal po l it ica l ambition,such as sometimes
caus e . civi l wars in Latin America ; plagues and epidemics ,which threaten the health and impede the commerce of thewor ld , l ike the Spani sh influenza,” the bubonic p lague in Ind iaand typhus in Poland and Russia ; igno rance and superstit ion ,such as make popula r government so diffi cu lt i n Mexico ; acts
o f aggress ion o r po lici es o f i rr i tation on the part o f Amer i cansho ld ing concess ions , o r doing busines s in foreign countri es ;and al l other cond i tions that th reaten the inte rna l peace andwel fa re of les s favored nations o r which might invo lve us inconfl i ct with othe r peop le s . The secretary of peace wou ld thenu se the fo rces at hi s d i sposal in a way to help the needy peoples w i thout any suspici on of aggres sion o r ev i l des igns againstthei r rights
,territo ry, o r sovereignty on ou r part. By such
measures we would most s ecu rely p rotect ou rse lves f rom at
tack o r aggress ion .
The Quaker be li eves that we d raw out f rom others largelywhat we give them . War produces hate, and hate p roduces war .Good -w i l l educes a response o f good-w i l l . In 187 1 Germanyimposed an enormous indemnity on p rostrate France and tookAlsace-Lorraine from her . I t r e freshed an ancient enmity, madeGermany and France armed camps fo r a generat ion, and endedin the deluge o f blood in 1 914 . Now France i s demand ingex orh itant reparations from prost rate Germany and seiz ingher terr ito ry. She must hencefo rth squander the earnings ofh er peasants on an army to gua rd against German revenge .We Quakers b el i eve that the only way to end this continuous
entai l o f hate and fear is by active good-w i l l ; by the heal inggrace o f mercy and the mini st ry o f reconci l iation . A part o f
the people o f the United States have done Friends the hono r toentrust us with the di str ibut ion o f thei r gi fts o f mercy to the
136 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
it would awaken a dynamic fai th in ourselves as posses sed o fthe moral courage to do the only sens ibl e and wise and rightthing in this cr i ti cal hour fo r humanity.
I do not need to remind you that in the war waged uponthe Central Powers
,the avowed purpose o f the Al l i es was to
crush utter ly mil itar i sm , which w e al l decl ared on every possib l eoccasion was the greatest menace o f civi l i zation . But in the
proces s o f crushing Ge rman mil itar i sm,the v irus o f the d read
poison has been t rans ferred to the veins o f the alli ed nations ,so that today both the spir it and the o rganization o f mi li tari smare stronger in the al l i ed countries than ever befo re . Andwe rub our eyes in amazement to find that ou r own country,that befo re the war was the least mil i tari sti c o f al l the greatpowers
,has in the past S ix years exchanged place s with Germany
and i s even now leading the world in the mad race fo r a rmament . Such a complet e trans fo rmation is inconceivable unles swe admit f rankly the deadening and cor rupting influence ofwar
,and confes s wi th shame that , in spite o f al l our boasted
ideals,w e ours elves are not immune to the same poison that has
brought about the down fal l o f the Central Powers .I t i s now two years and a hal f S ince the armi stice was
S igned,and what has been done ? The fatal influence o f war
upon civi l i zation has been made pit i less ly p lain in what has taken
place . I f any doubt remained as to whether Civi l ization couldw ithstand another general war, that doub t has been swept awayby the logic o f facts . The masses of the p eople are cryingout more and more ins i stent ly against the hydra-head ed monsterthat h as plunged mil l ions into sorrow and destitution and l e f t
the wo rld bankrupt and help les s and hope les s . I f it was cl earduring the st ruggle that war must b e ended o r els e humanitygo down to ruin
,i t is a thousand times more clear today.
Why has there been thi s long delay ? Why after two yearsand a hal f has nothing yet b een done ? Why is i t so difficultto get any act ion on a matter of such sup reme importance ?Why shou ld i t b e neces sary to d i scus s and debate and a rguethi s question through long months of wea ry waiting ? Theonly way to di sarm is to di sarm . I f an inhabitant f rom Marswere to v i s it ou r planet and witnes s al l that we have sufferedand are suffering f rom war , afte r l i s tening to al l that ou r publicists and that papers l ike the New Yo rk Wor ld are saying,as to the duty and neces sity o f di sa rmament, would he not b e
DISARMAMENT 137
i nclined to ask in su rpri se, Why, then, do you not di sarm ? ”
What would b e our answer ? Let me give you the real answeri n the wo rd s o f Car lton J . H . Hayes , P rof esso r o f Histo ry atColumbia Univers ity.
He tel l s u s that the actual suppo rt ers o f mi litari sm,either
di rect ly o r indi rect ly, fa l l into th e fo l lowing class es1 . Traders and merchants d esi ring p rotection fo r trade.2 . Foreign investo rs des ir ing protection in
.
undeveloped
countr i e s .3. Holders o f government bonds desi r ing p restige and
st rength .
4 . Conservatives des i ring to suppres s internal unrest .5. Manufacturers of munit ions
,
—th e wo rst and most un
scrupu lous,—the Krupps in Germany, the Schneiders in France,
the A rmstrongs in E ngland and the DuPonts i n Amer i ca.6. Patriotic interests , claiming need o f national def ense,
hono r,pride in warfa re and war t raditions .
7 . Profes s iona l mi li ta ri sts ,— vest ed inte rests again .
(a ) Reti red A rmy and Navy officers, writing books ,e .g. ,
Bernhard i,Lord Roberts
,Mahan
,Wood
,etc.
(b ) Col lege professor s o f the infe rio r sort ,—weakkneedpro fes so rs seeking support and populari ty
, e .g. ,
C ramb ,McE lroy, Hobbs , etc .
And then P ro fes so r Hayes sums up the methods pu rsuedby these consciou s o r unconsciou s mi li tari st s as fo l lows : (1 )By emphasi zing a rmed st rength o f neighbo rs , thus creat ingala rm and f ear at home . (2 ) By boasting o f one
’ s own
st rength,thu s inspi r ing d i s trust and f ea r ab road .
Mod ern war fare i s ide ntified with big busin ess today as i tnever was in the past ; i n fact , i t i s the b iggest “busines s” in
the wo rld today,and mo re people p rofit f rom mi l i tari sm , and
in more d i ff erent ways , than eve r befo re in human hi sto ry . I t
can read i ly b e und er stood that the war busines s that has created in the United States alone twenty- two thousand new mi l lionai res i n the last five years , and a p ropo rtionate number in a l lother countri es
,i s p ret ty st rongly ent renched in mode rn so
c iety. What d i ff e rence does i t make i f eight mi l l ion youngmen we re ki l led and thi rty mi l lion mo re cripp l ed fo r l i f e andmi l l ions o f othe rs
,women and chi ld ren
,d i ed o f s low sta ry a
tion and th e whol e st ructu re o f soci ety was wel l-nigh dest royedand th e nations l e ft bankrupt and al l th e finer ti es o f the spi ri t
138 SELE CTED ARTICLES
wiped out,—i f only in each nation a few thousand new mi l lionai res can be added to the priv i l eged classes ? I t s eems mons trous to put it in such wo rd s
,but are not these the pla in facts
,
and i s i t not high time that the world faced the facts as theyare as respects thi s bu siness o f war ?But in v i ew of these facts
,i t should not surp ri s e anyone
that i t s eems d ifficu lt to secu re action in the matter o f disarmament , for
“we are wrest ling not against fl esh and b lood
,
but against spi ritual wickedness in high places”—and also inlow places . We can dest roy war i f we wi l l
,but i t wi l l never
be done without a he roic struggle in which every true lovero f hi s kind must dare to engage . And the t ime i s now . ForI da re to b eli eve - that in every land the vast maj or ity o f menand women are ready and eager ly des i rous fo r di sarmament i fonly there could b e found some channel through which thei rdesi res might be made articu late . In the presence o f the express ed wi l l o f the people the governments of the wo r ld wouldb e fo rced to take some action .
Let me emphas i ze j ust a f ew of the reasons why it i s imp erat iv ely neces sary that , without fu rther delay, immediate
steps b e taken towa rd di sarmament . And I shal l b egin withthe lowest motive fi rst .
1 . The economic reasons why the nations should disarma re unanswerab le . S enator Borah has recently pub li shed thefol lowing significant figu res : In 1920,
the five great Nations,—th e United States
,Great B ri tain , Japan , France and I taly,
expended fo r military and naval pu rposes a total o f
which was ove r more than al l
thes e nations together expended fo r mi litary pu rposes in thefou rt een years f rom 1900 to 19 14 . And this rememb er
, was
two years a fter we had waged the war that was to end war !I taly i s carrying today an armed force o f fou r hundred thousand men
,whil e France has an army of nearly eight hundred
thousand men,and yet al l the wo r ld knows that both France
and I taly are bankrupt . The pape rs stated that in M . V iv iani’s
fi r st con ference with P res ident Hard ing he said that the b u dget of France today i s doub le the amount o f her total i ncome.Ou r papers are st rangely s i lent as to the economi c condition o fE ngland
,but the official figu res state that befo re the last min
e rs ’ s t rike,the re were not les s than one mi l l ion seven hund red
fi fty unemployed in E ngland,which meant that seven mi l lion
140 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
postpone action i s to invi te wo r ld-wide di saster. How long,
think you , will the peop le s o f al l lands endure thi s backb reaking burd en o f taxation fo r the sake o f war s yet to come ? I fanything cou ld p lunge the wo r ld into the th roes of a purelyd est ructive r evo lution, i t wi l l b e the continuation of thes ea rmament programs , fo r everywhere the nations face economicco l lapse and thei r peop le cry out fo r rel i ef f rom the burd enstoo heavy to b e longer bo rne . In the common economic interest o f the wo rld
,i f fo r nothing els e
,the armament race shou ld
be ha lted . Madnes s and utter ruin l i e that way.
2 . Another unanswe rab le argument fo r immediate reduet ion of armaments is found in the field of sci entific di scoveri es .I t i s even mo re conv incing than the economic argument fo rthos e who have any concern fo r the futu re o f humanity’ s l i f eon thi s p lanet . E ve r S ince the time o f Franci s Bacon man has
be li eved inc reasingly that hi s advance in the knowledge of theworld of natu re was limit less
,and that through sci ence the
t ime must come when man wou ld stand as the master o f themighty fo rces that are operative in thi s material universe. The
d i scove ri es o f the last fi fty years and , espec i al ly, o f the lastgeneration have mo re than j u st ified thi s hope . The imaginative sto ri es o f men like Jules Verne and later of H . G . Wells
that once s eemed wi ld and fantast i c a re now known to be
based on Sci entific possib i l i ty, and many of thes e imaginatived reams have al ready been t ranslated into realityWe of thi s generation have been b rought up to b el i eve that
sci ence is the greates t f ri end o f man , and that th rough sci encet rue p rogress a long every l ine i s eventual ly to b e achieved .
Through sc i ence , we have been taught , man i s to conquer di seas e and ob li te rate poverty and even destroy war,—in a wo rd,science is the great const ructive fo rce which i s to enab le manto reach the fa r—lying height s of hi s ideals fo r the wo r ld . But
the thing that we have lea rned o f lat e i s that sci ence may b ecome the greatest dest ructive fo rce in human l i f e just aseasi ly as i t may b e employed fo r constructive pu rposes . Thefault is not in sci ence as such , but in the men who use th e
wonde rful know l edge that sci ence di scloses . Sci ence in i t s el fi s neither moral no r immoral ; i t i s unmo ral . What gives i te ithe r a moral o r immoral value depends sol ely on th e menu ho emp loy it .During the war we have witnessed that sci ence which has
DI SARMAMENT 141
done so much to preserve and en ri ch human li f e p rostituted,
with apparent ease, i nto channels that are pu rely dest ructiveof human li f e
,and employing method s so unspeakab ly barba r
ou s and inhumane that , i n compari son,the “crue l savages” o f
ea rly times are mad e to appear like veritab le angels o f light .The engines o f dest ruction used in the last war make the weapons o f even a generation ago look like the merest toys . When
it was found that the Cent ral Powers were reso rting to poisonou s gases and l iquid fi re and al l the other d iabo l ica l inv entions of hel l , a c ry o f ho rro r went up f rom the Al li ed nationsat these inhumane method s o f mod ern warfa re . And then immed iat ely the Alli ed Governments set thei r expert chemists at
wo rk to go the enemy one bette r,and i f the repo rts are co r
rect , they succeeded . In the United States and E ngland andal l the “civ i l ized” nations today there a re chemical warfa rese rv i ce d epartments o f the governments that a re devoting thei rwhole attention to the d i scovery of st i l l mo re poi sonous gas esand more dead ly d i sease germs and more powe rfu l explos ivesthat can be emp loyed i n the “nex t wa r” to th e utter annihi lation o f the enemy
,whoeve r i t may chance to be . It i s a l ready
stated confid ently by mi lita ry autho ri ti es that,ow ing to thes e
new d i scoveri es o f sci ence and to the ai rc raft,the next war
wi ll b e a war u pon the civ i l ian populat ions , that a rmies andnav i e s w i l l no t be requi red , and that women and chi ld ren andcivi li ans gene ral ly wi l l b e st ricken down in thei r homes and asthey go about thei r peacefu l pu rsui t s . I nc red ib l e as i t sounds ,the last wa r revealed the fact that i t is not only possib l e buthigh ly p robabl e
,fo r th e only j ustification that the A l li es u sed
fo r resorting to poi sonous gas,was that “i t was employed by
th e enemy ; we must u se th ei r method s .”
In the nex t war, l eta s ingl e gove rnment u se d i s eas e germs o r attack a civi lian popu lat ion w i th poi sonous chemical s and , w e have lea rned , underth e madnes s o f the wa r sp i ri t , al l th e othe r gove rnment s involved would speedi ly fol low su i t .
3. Sti l l anoth e r reason why immediat e step s Should b e
taken in th e redu ction o f a rmaments i s found in ou r cl earknow l edge today that p reparat ion fo r wa r inev i tab ly b ringswa r
,sooner o r lat e r . No so phi s t ry in th e la st few yea rs has
been so comp l etely ridd l ed as th e id ea th at “preparedness is
th e best p reven t i on o f wa r .” I do no t know how many peopl ethe re sti l l a re who hone st ly bel i eve th i s Fal seho o d , but i t ought
142 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
to be ob literated once and fo rever f rom the human mind. Let
me mention but th ree facts . (a ) We have learned that nomatter how p eacelov ing or peaceab iding a people may be
and most people a re j ust thi s,
—the po licy of “p reparedness o rthe general spi ri t o f mi li tar i sm in the dai ly li f e of a people
inev i tab ly infects the minds o f people, so that when any cr i s i soccurs i t i s easy and natural fo r the war- l ike spir i t to b reakout . This i s simply a matte r o f psychology . Any system of
universal mi li tary t raining,any glo rification of army or navy,
any appeal to the pomp o r glo ry o f war, the continua l appealto youth to serve thei r country in arms i s a constant mentalsuggestion through eye and ear to al l members o f the popu la
tion that thei r count ry’ s greatnes s and s t rength and saf ety depend primari ly upon armed fo rce . I t i s inevi tab le therefo re ,when the cri s i s comes
,that the people general ly shou ld clamo r
fo r recou rs e to arms . We have seen demonst rated in th iscountry that i t i s j ust as easy today to make peopl e narrowlypat riotic and be l lige rent as i t i s to make them international and
pac ifi st i n Spi rit . I t al l depends upon the appeal that i s madeto them . The p resence o f a rmaments in th e l i f e of a people ,w i th al l that thi s invo lves , is a dai ly suggestion o f mi l ita ri smand war
,in the p res ence of whi ch al l teaching and preaching
o f peace is fut i le and ab su rd .
(b ) We have been l ea rning much o f late of .the influence
o f mi li ta ri sm and d ip lomacy. The obj ect o f d ip lomacy i s to
get what you want fo r you r part icular country. The method
of modern d iplomacy i s to get the d esi red thing by th reat s,and
i t has been found by experi ence that the value of the th reats
that are mad e depend upon the st rength o f the a rmed fo rcebehind the th reat . The greate r the fo rce
,the st ronger the
th reat . Thi s is one o f the common arguments used fo r theperpetuation o f armaments , but enti re ly apart f rom the degradation o f diplomacy that thi s involves
,i t i s clea r f rom histo ry
that thi s method of th reats and counter- th reats which i s u sedin j ust the degree that there is st rong a rmament behind them
,
sooner o r late r reaches the b reaking point,the b lu ff i s ca l led
and war fol low s . The dip lomati c hi sto ry o f E u rope f rom 1900
to 1914 , not to go back of that, i s the proo f o f thi s statement .I n 1905 Germany th reatened Russia and France over Morocco .
In 1908 and 1 909, Austri a th reatened Russia over Bosnia-Herzegov ina whi le Germany decla red sh e
“stood in shining armo r
144 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
tu res to the ends o f the earth,into it s wo r ld-wars . But a
world thus div id ed against i ts e l f cannot long endu re . I t mustreso lutely w i l l to commit i ts e l f to one path o r the other. I tmust ceas e i t s hypoc ri sy and b egin to take serious ly the mo ra li deals i t p rof es ses with its l ips . Bernard Shaw said when thewar b roke out : “I t would b e a great deal b etter i f al l thechu rches would clo se thei r doo rs and keep them clo sed unti lthi s mise rab le bus ines s o f war i s over.” They did not takehi s advi ce and fo r the most part they base ly su rrendered thei rid eal s to the madnes s of the wa r spir i t . But the war i s over
,
and how many chu rches have yet l i f ted thei r voices in favo r o fd i sarmament ? I t takes no gi f t o f p rophecy to decla re that unl ess th e churches -and the synagogues of whatsoever name o rpersuasion in al l civi l i z ed land s j oin now heart and hand inth e great task o f s ecuring the di sarmament of the nations
,i t
wi l l not b e long befo re they w i l l b e ob liged to clos e thei r doo rs
fo r good and al l,fo r then men and women wi l l have complete
ly lost a l l f aith in thei r ideals and al l r espect fo r thei r officialp ro fes sions .
Think o f the moral effect on the wo rld i f th e news could
b e flashed to al l land s that at las t the governments had decidedto begin di sarmament . I t would mean that sanity and reasonwere retu rning to their th rone and the madness of the pastf ew years was final ly b eing overcome . I t would mean that thefi rst step had b een taken away f rom a s lavi sh reli ance upon
Force as the a rbiter of the d estini es o f mankind, and that atlast men and nations had awakened to the supreme value o f
reason and good-wi l l in the conduct o f human affai rs . I twou ld b ring new hope to a world that i s today wel l-nigh despair ing,
and would inspi re al l w i th the confidence that , in thesame sp i r i t
,al l ou r great p rob lems could eventual ly find so lu
tion . I t would release new energi es and new moral and spi ri tual fo rces that now li e dormant unde r the dark shadows of
bi tte r d i s i l lus ionment . At least,i t would b e the fi rst honest
step that h as yet been taken toward the bui ld ing o f a new andb ette r world .
I wonde r how many of us reali ze the incredib l e and monst rous pos ition that Amer i ca hold s today toward the matter o fd i sarmament . Of al l th e nations , we are the ,only one that
can affo rd financia l ly to continue to bui ld up armament with
DISARMAMENT 145
out bankru ptcy, and by ou r ab surd nava l p rogram as at p resent proposed , we are fo rcing the other naval powers to a pacein a rmament that they cannot in any sense aff ord . Thi s means
that we are d i rect ly respons ib l e not only for the taxation ofou r own peop le, but what i s wors e, fo r the crushing burdensof taxation on the people of E ngland, o f France, of I taly andof Japan . E ngland and Japan have both signified thei r wi l lingness and des i re to begin nava l di sa rmament, but we sti l lcontinue to boast that by 1924 we wi l l have the greatest navyin the world . Strange as i t may sound when we rememberou r prof es sed id eals in the past, i t i s l i te ra l ly t rue that th eUnited States constitutes today the greatest s ingle menace tothe peace o f the wor ld i n it s p ropos ed naval p rogram . As
Athe rton B rownel l st rikingly puts i t i n h is play,
“The Uns een
Empi re .”
“Chri stendom ! And i t is Chri stendom that makes war !I/Vh o bu ild s the biggest batt l eships today ? The Christ ian Nat ions . Who fights fo r the supremacy o f the world by theth reat o f leashed monste rs whose b reath is o f the pi t ? The
Chri stian Nations . Who lays the pavement ove r which menmarch to the fight in the st ruggle o f b rother against b rother ?
The Ch ri stian Nations .And we must add
,with shame and indignation in ou r
hea r t s , i t i s the United States today that lead s the wo rld andsets th e pace in the mad race fo r a rmaments among Ch r i st iannations .
THE PRICE OF PEACE : AR E WE WILLING TOPAY IT ? 1
One o f the fi rst l e ssons that is taught u s in our l ive s , andone o f th e last that w e ever real ly l ea rn , is that eve ryth ing inthi s wo rld h as i t s pr i ce . There i s nothing e ither good or b adthat can be obtained w ithout ou r paying fo r it . In saying th i sI do not have in mind th e buying and sel l ing o f mate ri al th ingsin the market-p lace fo r money— the thing wh ich James Rus sel l
By John I laynes Ho lmes , M inister o f th e Community Church . F or
sale at se . Address , Th e Commun i ty Church , Park A v e . and 34 th S t .,
New York City .
146 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
Lowell re ferred to in the Vision of S ir Lannfal, when he wrotethat
E arth gets its price fo r what earth gives u s .
Rather d o I have in mind the fact that i f w e want to do anything o r be anything, i f we desi re to become remarkable fo r
any achievements o r qual it ies o f v i rtue,we must be w i l l ing to pay
the pr ice in terms o f moral and Spi ritual sacrifice .
Now i t is th is question o f the p r ice o f peace which I proposeto d i scus s with you th is morning. I shal l not attemp t to laydown any detai led program fo r the establ i shment o f inte rnationalo rde r . I am not concerned with the detai l s o f pol it ical andeconomic reforms
,whi ch make up the items o f such a p rogram .
Rathe r is it my intention to leave behind me these low landso f ways and means
,and mount th is morning to those high
table lands o f the spi rit,where w e can encounter those general
p rincip l e s o r ideal s which must be the in sp i rat ion o f any su c
cessfu l program o f re fo rm . I shal l deal,there fo re
,not w ith
detai l s o f p rocedure,but w i th those gene ral izations o f compre
h ensiv e understand ing and v i s ion in which al l such detai l s arenecessari ly involved . And f rom thi s standpo int may I say that ,to fu y m ind , the p ri ce o f peace means today , as i t h as alwaysmeant in the centuri es gone by
,th ree ve ry d efinite and funda
mental th ings . I venture to name and d i scuss each one o fthes e in o rder :Fi r st o f al l
,I would point out that th e price o f p eace is the
abol it ion o f war and al l the things o f war . This would seemto be an elementary p roposi t ion
,fo r peace by its very definition
means the ab sence o f armed confl ict , does i t not ? And yet nothing is more ev ident than the fact that men have always pers i sted in the id ea that it is possib l e to estab l i sh peace upon theearth and st i l l not su rrender the luxury o f war . In other
word s,we are v ictims
,in th is particular case, as in so many
others,o f the s i l ly superst it ion that it is poss ibl e to eat our
cake and have i t too .
The reason for th is ex t rao rd inary not ion that p eace can besecu red and war r etained at one and the same time
,is to be at
t r ibuted,I bel ieve
,to ou r fai lure to understand what the nature
o f war fare between nations real ly is . For war is not confinedto the struggle and carnage o f the battlefi eld . Confl ict i s j o ined
148 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
and balances o f power,in the strategic f ront iers and buff er states ,
in the giganti c comp et ing armaments on land and sea, above al lin the j ealou si es
,su spicions and hatreds generated in the heart s
o f gove rnments and peopl es,was the flaming lava which some
day was ce rtain to bo il over the yawning crater o f E u ropeandissens ion
,and bu ry the wor ld beneath it s consuming flood
o f arms . Never in ou r t ime has E urop e been at p eace !Do you suppose
,for example
,that Germany mad e war on Eng
l and only in 1914? On the contrary
,the Kaiser declared war
against E ngland when he o rganized hi s conscript a rmy, fo rtifiedHeligoland
,and began the bui lding o f his high seas fleet . Do
you imagine that E ngland took up arms again st Germany onlyat that fate ful moment when the German legions b roke th ef ront ie r o f B elgium ? On the contrary
,E ngland began her fight
against the Teuton when she establ ished her two-power navy,o rganized her “terr ito rial s
,
” and mad e her armed al liance withFrance and Russ ia in the west and the Em pire o f J apan in theeast . Always in this modern age has war been w i th u s . Ourpsychology is a war psychology, our economy a war economy.
The whol e vast s t ructu re o f our‘
civi l i zation h as been bui ldedin the fear o f war
,and to the end o f v icto ry in war . In spit e
o f al l our p retenses , and al l the e laborate camouflage o f our outward l i fe
,w e l ive in confl i ct and not in concord with our
brot he rs . Ours i s the di shonest cry o f the ancient prophet ,Peace
,peace
,when there is no peace .
Now i t i s th is unde rstanding o f war which leads me to thecatego ri cal d eclaration t hat the condition o r p rice of peace isthe total abol it ion o f war—war l atent as well as active, war inpreparat ion as wel l as in explosion . Over the thin and inte rm ittent pipings o f peace
,
” wrote I s rael Z angwill, be fo re th eGreat War
,
“c rash the imperturbabl e hamme rs o f the War Dev i l ,fashioning hi s ships
,the great furnaces roar
,forging his can
nons, the war drum beats , the trumpet b lares , the kings go tothei r thrones to the sound o f tramping so ld iers the great captains o f indust ry, the chie f s o f art and l earn ing, th rust intothe background , hidden away l ike poo r relat ions . So long asthe War Devi l dictates the very symbol s o f our civil i zat ion
,he
wil l remain the master. I t i s these symbols,both o f thought
and act ion, which must b e removed, i f international peace i s tobe achi eved.
DISARMAMENT 149
REASONABLE PACIF I SM
I t is a substantial and encouraging vi ctory fo r the disarmament movement which Senator Borah has won in fo rc ing theadmini strat ion not to oppose h is amendment to the naval app rop r iat ions bi l l , d i rect ing the President to cal l a confe rence with
Great B ritain and Japan on the subj ect o f l imitation o f armaments . These pow e rs set the pace in navali sm and they arethe ones who can effect the naval agreements . I t i s al so encou r
aging that publi c inte res t in the subj ect increases . The inst itut ion o f Disarmament Sunday and a church conference on dis
armament are both good . I t i s,howeve r
,disquieting that Dean
Shailer Matthews , p res id ing ove r a d i sa rmament conference,fee ls compel led to pret est so eage rly that
“w e are not whatyou would cal l a pacifist crowd .
”
Limitation o f armaments may save taxes and have somepsychological e ffect in p res e rv ing p eace ; i t wi l l not do muchfor the latte r cause so l ong as preparations fo r chemical warfare continue
,and the prevai l ing capital i st- impe rial i st ph i losophy
and organization o f society go unchal lenged . I t is not “reason
abl e pac ifi sm ,
” but un reasonable credulity to bel ieve that youcan take the beast o f mi l i tari st ic impe rial i sm
,fi l e down hi s
teeth , and make h im as harmles s as an old watch dog.
AMERICA MENACED BY MILITARISM : ANAPPEAL TO WOMEN 2
All women,I t rust
,want to u se thei r new polit ical powe r in
such a way as to help humanity . \fVe have b eneficent dreamsthat we want to see real i zed
,d reams o f a glorified earth w ithout
sickness or poverty o r igno rance o r c rime . We have beenthinking al l along that once w e had th e bal lot we could use itto make those d reams come t rue . \Vell
,we can in t ime
,but no t
d i rectly, as most o f us th ink . Not yet ! The re i s one th ing more
to do be fo re we can settl e down to th e busine ss o f posi tive r e
fo rm . We must el iminate f rom Congre s s th e men wh o ar e
‘ From \Vorld Tomorrow. J une, 1 9 2 1 .
2 By Harriet Connor Brown . In Search l igh t .-1 3. November 1 5, 1 9 20.
150 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
misappropriat ing nearly al l the wealth o f the country, l eavingu s women next to nothing w ith which to do our work .
Th e I r ony of I t
See the i rony o f the pos it ion in which we find ourselves !We w ent into the Wor ld War to end war—at l east the women
o f the country d id,though I doubt i f the general staff o f the
army and the manufactur ing interests o f the country which secured contracts f rom the War Department would have answeredto that cal l
,s ince in the natur e of things a war to end war would
put many of them out o f busines s . But certainly the rank andfi l e o f mothers and s i sters and sweethearts who sent thei r mento the t renches d id it in the high spi r it o f sacr ifice , as a dutythey owed humanity
,and those young m en went general ly
,many
o f them to thei r doom , in the same lo fty spi rit , and in ful lexpectat ion that when the fight was over and they were eitherdead in E urope o r back here vi ctor ious , their swo rd s were to bebeaten into plowshares
,and they w ere to l ive amicably with the
wor ld forever a fter .But what has really happened ? The men are again at home
except fo r one hundred and fi fteen thousand b rave boys whohave paid the supreme sacr ifice, fi fty thousand o f them dead in
batt l e,s ixty-fiv e thousand d ead o f wounds and d i sease— but
there is no p romi s e o f d i sarmament as the reward o f al l their'
to i l and bloodshed,o f al l thei r women ’ s tear s and labo r . On the
contrary,a vast increase o f armament h as actual ly been autho r
ized, whi ch i s to be paid fo r by a cruel levy o f taxes that w i l ltake away not only f rom them
,but from their chi ld ren and their
chi ldren’ s chi ldren,i f not the very b read from thei r mouths and
the Clothes f rom their backs,at l east the laughter from their
l ip s,the sweetest luxuries o f l i fe , the choicest fruits o f science
and education and benevolence fo r at l east a century .
I t s eems l ike a tr i ck,a h ideous
,gigantic tr i ck— and perh aps
it is — that weak, sm ug, misguided o r wicked congressmen haveplayed upon u s whi le our boys were dying . I am incl ined to
think that some o f these congressmen were t r icked l ike ourselves , that th ey are as honest as are the bulk of women , the
mass o f mothers in the world . But i f so ,they are certainly m is
l ed by corporate inte rests and by m i l i tary potentates while wewomen, unenf ranchis ed and brooding, were looking the other
152 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
provis ion is made for a bonus to sold ier s at a cost o f from one totwo b il l ions and i f p rovis ion is al so made fo r “
univ er sal'
m ilitary
t raining” at another b i l l ion and a hal f,our expend itures for
the year wi l l be not fou r but seven thousand mill ion doll ars .On the average
;each one o f you w i l l have to pay about
$40 o f that four thousand mi l l ions . I f you and your husbandhave the ave rage Ameri can fami ly o f th ree chi ldren
,your con
t r ib u tion thi s year to the S tate w i l l be about $200 for you rfamily o f five . That is enough to pay the fees o f one chi ldat th e unive rs ity thi s year . Instead, i t wi l l go toward the suppo rt of some stoke r on an id l e batt leship o r some o rderly at aus el es s army post.
A Viv id Compar ison
I am af raid you wi l l not see how thes e taxes di scriminateagainst the non-mi litary populat ion unles s I give you some concrete i l lus t rations . Here in Washington live many officers o fthe army. Here i s Mrs . A . l iv ing comfo rtab ly on he r husband ’
s salary, he b eing an office r in the army and fi fty yearso ld , l ikely at that age to b e a l ieutenant- co lonel, drawing f rom
to a year, acco rding to the length o f hi s s ervi ce .
Do you happen to know what the duti es are to which he maybe as s igned at the War Department ? He i s perhaps sup er v is
ing one poo r, underpaid , civi l ian c le rk . Or, i f he i s mo re fo rtunate
, he may, with numerous others o f s imi lar mi litary dist inction
,be at wo rk fo r the general staff of the army
,planning
the campaign to b e mad e against Mex i co when that campaignis made . In any ci rcumstance
,he i s adequately paid and not
ove rwo rked ! I f ever he goes to wa r, he i s saf ely far f romthe batt l e line . When he reaches the age o f sixty- fou r he wi l l
b e reti red on ret i red pay of at l east a year,possib ly as
much as even though not advanced in rank after agefi f ty, considerab ly mo re i f he reaches higher rank . At al l times
he has the p riv i l ege o f feed ing h is fami ly and clothing themto some ext ent out o f commissa ry sto res at rates ve ry muchbelow the general market p ri ces . I f he i s not p rov ided witha good house in which to l ive
,fu rni shed largely in Phi lipp ine
mahogany at gove rnment expense,he i s al lowed commutation
fo r quarte rs . H is fuel and lights a re al so fu rni shed him . He
can get h is d ru gs f rom the hospital steward , h is automobi l eti res f rom the quarte rmaster general when Congres s does not
DISARMAMENT 153
al low him an automobi le fo r h is especia l use . When his chi l
d ren are i l l,yes , even when they are born, he may cal l in the
army docto rs and when he o r anyone of h is fam i ly goes tothe army hospita l fo r an operation hi s f ees are mere ly nomina l.
These perqui s i tes and al lowances,together with hi s sa la ry,
s eem to you and me rath er generous payment fo r superv i s ingone poo r civi l ian clerk
,but th en you must remember that the
War Department has an app rop riation of over and
can easi ly pay him la rge sums . M r s. A . may tel l you, p lain
t iv ely,that army people ar e poo r
,and
,of cou rs e
,cannot com
pete i n soci ety wi th busines s people,but I notice that she
neve r find s i t necessa ry to he lp suppo rt her fami ly and thatthey have al l the neces s iti es and what many of us cal l luxur i e s .But look at M r s . B. ! Her husband i s a chemi st in the De
par tm ent of Agricu ltu re . Perhaps he is a chemi st, o r a physi
ci st,o r a plant patho logi st . The chances a re he is an autho r
i ty in h is l ine . His d i scoveri es may have added great ly to thewealth o f the nation, may even have saved i t f rom terrib l epest o r plague . The work may have been done und er mosthazardous cond i t ions , in the swamps of Central America o r inthe fo rest s o f B razi l
, where hi s li f e was more imperi led than
was eve r that of the army offi ce r at headquarte rs b ehind thel ines . And al l the t ime he has been se rv ing sci ence and hi scount ry thus d evoted ly, Mrs . B . has been t rying to make h issala ry of f rom to buy b read and boots fo r herl i tt le b rood o f chi ld ren . Many eminent men o f sci ence a re r e
ce iv ing f rom thi s pat riot ic count ry conside rab ly less than
a yea r fo r thei r s e rvice s , not becaus e thei r wo rk i s unsat isfac
to ry,but because Congres s app rop riates only fo r
the great p roductive Depa rtment o f Agricu ltu re as against th efo r th e great non-productive War Department .
\Nhen th e sci enti st reti res f rom the se rv ice, at seventy years o fage
,inst ead o f at s ixty- fou r as inr th e case o f the army office r .
he w i l l b e al low ed a pension o f only $720 a yea r , one- thi rd o fwhich i s o f h is own saving . He pays fo r one- thi rd o f thi spen sion ,
b u t receives in amount only about one-fi fth o f whatth e l i eutenant-colonel receives fo r nothing . The last time I
h ea rd o f Mrs . B . she had gone into a gove rnment offi ce h e rse l fto ea rn monev to educate the chi ld ren .
I am su re that you women w i l l agree w i th me that therei s unfai r d i sc rimination h ere . You w i l l acknow l edge
,too
. I
154 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
think,that such di scrimination against men of sci ence and
lea rning,men who are sav ing and inc reasing our materi a l r e
sources instead of spend ing them , must b e"
harmfu l to the na
tion . There i s something wrong with ou r way of thinking andacting when we acknowledge our indebtednes s to men likeGeneral Pershing by granting them honors and competence
and d eny it to men like Dr. Howard, head of the Bu reau o fEntomology . The one is reward ed fo r hav ing led ou r forcesagainst a fo reign foe and the other i s igno red
,a lthough fo r
every thousand enemies o f the nation Pershing has s lain,How
ard has s lain h is t ens o f thousand s . I n fighting the mosquito,
the bo l l weev i l,the gyp sy moth and othe r enemies of man and
hi s c rops,Dr . Howard h as s e rved humanity mo re truly than
has ev e r any gene ral o f great a rmies .Now
, what a re w e women going to do about thi s dist r ib ut ion o f ou r national w ealth ? Are we going to accept the sit
uat ion ? Some of you may say that we cannot reasonab ly do
otherw i s e,that we cou ld not ourselves make a bette r d i sposi
t ion o f pub lic fund s than the men have done, o r appropriatel ess . Let u s s ee .
I think w e shal l agree that there i s no a rgument about the68 per cent a l lott ed fo r payment o f ob ligations on account o fpast wars . These are d ebts o f honor . They cannot be r epudi
ated . I t is fundamental that an hono rab le nation , l ike an hono rab le pe rson , must pay its debts . I n a way, i t i s proper, too ,I think, to remind some o f ou r credito rs that w e expect themto be j ust as hono rab le as we are and pay thei r debts , too , andwhen we come to talk to honest B riti sh working women aboutcoop eration fo r th e sake of peace
,that is one thing w e shal l
want to say to them,that we are su re they wi l l p ref e r to have
thei r taxes spent in paying back to u s what we loaned themrathe r than in bui ld ing new battl eship s to coerce us .Then too
,ou r boys we re gathered up f rom ou r fa rms and
ci ty homes,f rom ou r field s and facto ri es , ou r shops and mines
and offices . Some of them volunteered but mo re o f them wered raf ted— driven l ike catt le into pens where they were inst ructedin the art o f s laughter
,and shipped then overseas to thei r
doom in the t renches . They had no choice in the matter . Theleast w e can do to make i t up to them in some faint way isto pay thei r insu rance to thei r fami l i es, nu rs e them and care
for them in sickness,and set them on thei r feet i f their
156 SELECTED ARTICLE S
together, budget-fashion . But pleas e ob serv e that i f the E ureau of the Budget were composed of archange ls f rom heaven
,
a l l accompli shed accountants, i t cou ld not save mo re than theenti re amount of the approp riation fo r genera l purposes—andthat i s only 12 per cent o f the whole. The 1 o r 2 per centwhich might possib ly b e saved wi l l hardly b e reflected in theindividual ’ s tax b i l l . I t i s only a dribb l e at the spigot . I f the .
Bu reau of the Budget is given supervi sion of the army andnavy estimates
,some larger reduction may b e accomplished.
There at leas t i s the bung hole that should b e plugged.But as long as approp ri at ions fo r the Army and Navy are
granted in lump sums there is no hope that even an inspi redBureau of the Budget cou ld save enough to aff ect taxation.
The saving accomplished in one o r another divi s ion o f the WarDepartment by simplificat ion of routine j obs wi l l only b e app li ed to new wo rks o f wa r, to en ri ching a new batch of cont racto rs or granting additional perqui s i tes to offi ce rs . I t i snot general ly understood that civi l ian employees—cl erks , stenograph er s, messengers , al l thos e who wea r citi z en
’ s c lothes—inthe War Department a re car ri ed on the legis lative, executiveand judicia l approp ri ation b i l l
,not on one of th e mili tary bi ll s .
When,therefo re
,effici ency expert s improve War Department
office methods , they aff ect the 1 2 per cent and not the 20 percent area shown on our chart . There is only one su re way tointroduce economy into the conduct o f the Wa r and Navy Depar tments and that i s to cut the approp riations fo r those depar tments to a minimum .
The operations o f the A rmy and Navy shou ld be restri ctedat once to mi li tary operations . Adherents of the A rmy andNavy wi l l te l l you how much usefu l wo rk of a non-milita rycharacter i s pe rformed by thos e services , of how roads a rebui lt by them
,maps made, harbo rs dredged, sanitation im
proved,human beings educated . E very wo rd o f thi s is true
but it constitutes the chie f offense of the system . That the
civ i l functions o f our Government are now largely perfo rmedby the Wa r and Navy Departments shows that the cu rs e o fmi l i tari sm i s a lready upon u s. The A rmy i s bu i lding roadsthat the Bu reau of Pub li c Roads in the Department of Agr icu ltu re should bui ld
,making maps that th e Geological Survey
should make,d redging rivers and harbors that a Department
o f Publ ic Works should d redge, carrying on sanitary wo rk thatthe Pub l ic Health S ervice should perfo rm, educating human
DISARMAMENT 157
beings to whom a dozen civ i l ian bureaus o f the Governmentcou ld fu rni sh equal ly good inst ruction i f Congres s would onlysupport those bureaus a f raction as wel l as i t suppo rts theA rmy and Navy . Duplication of work and Subversion of
democracy are the ends'
ch iefly s erved by the War and NavyDepartments . The most se riou s f eatu re of the whol e stealthy
campaign o f the mi li ta ri st s against ou r peace and f reedom i sj ust thi s much- lauded fact that a great p ropo rtion of the approp r iat ions fo r the Army and Navy are fo r non-military purposes .The obj ection to the non-mili ta ry activiti es o f the mi li ta ry
and nava l estab lishments i s twofo ld ; fi rst, that the cost to thecount ry i s much greater when the Wa r Department undertakesthe per fo rmance o f a civi l funct ion than when the proper civi ldepartment unde r takes it ; and second ly, that i t i s not b ecoming to requi re a f ree peopl e to liv e under mi l i ta ry di scip l ine intimes o f peace, even i f i t cou ld b e shown that such a systempromotes economy and effici ency . In v iew of th e fact that th e
cou ntry allowed fou r m illion of i ts you th to b e drafted and
th ir ty- th r ee and a half b illion dollar s of i ts tr easu r e to b e spent
in an efi or t to b r eak up a s imilar sys tem of mili tary despotismin th e gov ernment of Imper ial Germany, th e effor ts of th e War
and Nav y Depar tments to es tab lish su ch a sys tem in th e Uni ted
S tates can only b e character ized as an impudent disr egard ofth e people
’
s fu ndamental conv ictions. Will not the mothers o fAmerica b e -
j u st ified in raging with a t ruly div ine wrath againstthose who make such an effo rt ?
Now it i s general ly recogn ized that there wi l l have to b e areo rganization o f the depa rtmental s erv i ce b efore any thoroughgoing financial re fo rms can b e instituted . Let u s insi st then
th at th e non-mili ta ry activ i ti e s o f the Wa r and Navy Depa rtment s b e as s igned to the p rope r civi l b ranches o f the Government . Most o f th em cou ld b e taken care o f logical ly in the
proposed new Departments o f Publi c Works and o f Pub lic
Wel fa re . The spectac l e that would fol low of seventeen thousand office rs and two h und red eighty thou sand enli sted menliv ing in id l enes s might h elp peopl e to see them in thei r truelight as nonp roductive bu rd ens ca rri ed by th e rest o f u s .
Mili tary and Nav al E s tab lishments Mu s t b e R edu ced
I t s eems clea r that th e only i tem o f appropriations that canbe reduced mate ria l ly i s that 20 per cent fo r mi l i tary and na
val estab li shments . I f anyone reduces that i t wi l l have to be
158 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
the voters o f the country. Neithe r the Wa r Department no rthe Navy Department i s accustomed to retu rn to the T reasu ryan unexpend ed balance . We women are voters now . We can
fo rce a reduction in that 20 pe r cent,i f enough of us desi re i t .
I f we are not wi l l ing to fo rce that reduction ou r s ituationi s l ikely to grow worse and worse . The huge appropr iationso f $855,ooo,ooo fo r the A rmy and Navy dur ing the current yearare appal ling enough
,but th e War Department alone has pre
sented est imates for 192 1-22 fo r near ly that much and the two
se rvices together have asked for approximately a b il l ion anda hal f dol lar s . At this rate, the mil itary caste o f th e UnitedStates will soon be fi rmly seated on ou r backs . Like the mil itarycaste o f Germany, i t w i l l then find a war necessary in orderto j ust i fy it s existence and it wi l l be amply and ably as s i stedby the predatory inte rests o f the country that fatten on wars .When that happens , even our l itt le 12 per cent appropriation fo rgeneral purposes wi l l b e in j eopardy
,fo r thi s 68 per cent
expenditure fo r past wars wi l l increase so inevitab ly and rapid lythat w e shal l be fortunate indeed i f more than the merestf ract ion o f ou r revenue can be d evoted to the works o f peace, tothe inte rests o f women and chi ldren and the race .
No Need of a Nex t War
But there a re peopl e who wi l l t e l l you that we must havethi s b ig army and navy
,that we must even subj ect ou r sons
to “automatic peace—time conscr ipt ion”
'
in o rder to p repare fo r“the next war
,and that i f we do not p repare fo r i t we shal l
b e beaten .
Well,in answe r to that
,I have thi s to say, now whil e we
ar e at peace with the wor ld : that if you women will work, as
hard to pr ev ent th e nex t war as mos t of yetu wou ld work to
win a war , if i t wer e declar ed, that nex t war w ill nev er com e.
Let u s rouse ou rselves and u se ou r pow er . Without ou r help
there wi l l b e no war with Mexico , E ngland , Japan,
'
o r any othe r
country ; with ou r help ou r b eloved count ry may live in peacewith al l the wo rld . Brit i sh and American voting women alone,i f tho roughly o rgani zed
,can keep the peace o f the wor ld . Ce r
tainly, the United States o f America can only b e invaded withth e help o f Canada o r Mexico . Let us t ry to j oi n hands with
the women of Canada and the women of Mexico, who have
160 SELE CTE D ARTICLE S
We can say to the men : We are done with armies . We shal lno t let you have them any mo re . Now,
what are you goingto do about it ?” And i f we refus e to li sten to thei r fooli shtongues, they cannot help themselves , they wi l l have to take
what we consent to l et them have, fo r we hold the balance o fpower . There a re many sp lendid men who fee l about thesegreat armies exact ly as we do, but without our aid they cannot make their ideas prevai l .I have talked with a number of such men“ recently
,men on
the Hil l and men in the departments who know the ways of
Congres s and watch the preparation o f estimates,year after
year, and they say :“The re is no hope fo r the peop le at large
,
fo r the wo rld , unless you women save us f rom this crush o fmi li tar i sm .
”
To thes e men I say : We are coming,Father Ab raham
,
coming twenty- s even mi l l ion strong,in the next e l ection. Hold
the fo rt unti l we get there ! ” Surely women wi l l not fai l thei rnob lest men .
The program fo r these non—parti san club s of women to “fol
low is clea rly indicat ed . The fi rs t th ing fo r such a club to do
i s to subscrib e to the Congr essional R ecor d and Th e S ear ch
ligh t, the nex t to detai l members of the club to fol lowthroughthe pages o f thes e sheets the speeches and vot es and ab sences
f rom rol l—cal l o f the th ree men in Congres s (two senators andone rep resentative ) who rep resent them in the legi s lative
b ranch o f the Government at Washington . The Wo rds andacts of these men should b e repo rted with regular ity at the
meetings o f the club,and the effect o f thei r wo rds and acts
analyzed and summari zed at the close o f e ach sess ion o f Congres s . I f thos e repres entat ives a re found to b e speaking o rvoting fo r inc rease of armaments , ind i ffe rent to the needs o fthe civi l b ranches of the Gove rnment , the secreta ry of the clubshould b e autho ri zed to wri t e them ofli cial l ette rs o f Warning.
Al l that some Congressmen need i s to b e reminded f requent lythat among th ei r consti tu ents a re a large number of mothersas wel l as a smal l number o f p rofi teer ing manufactu rers ; youcan make them do you r wi ll u nder th reats o f withd rawingthem. f rom Congress , i f they waste you r money on war andthe preparat ion fo r war . S ee to i t that the local papers r e
po rt you r club meetings .As you r power is recogni zed , you r opportuniti es fo r more
DISARMAMENT 161
di rect app lication of your ideas wi l l increas e . You may sendsome of your number to Congres s and you may put others inimportant executive pos itions where th ey wi l l have the spending of money appropriated by Congres s . Ju lius Kahn i s ins i sting that th e suppli es o f army mater ia ls must b e purchas edby the ass i stant s ecreta ry of war, who shou ld b e an expert incommerce and indust ry.
”Personal ly I shou ld like to s ee an
honest, th ri f ty woman, an experi enced buyer f rom some bigmercanti le hous e, get that job . _ I f eel su re that nobody but a
man would do what a li eutenant in the Wa r Department didin 1918, o rd er one hundred thi rty thousand b randing i rons ata cost o f Did he think that b randing i rons fo r muleswere like sanitary drink ing cups fo r humans and only to b eused once ? The army pu rchased only one hundred tw entyeight thousand ho rs es and mules in 1919.
Th e Winter's Work for Non-Par tisan Clu bs
Dur ing the coming winter there a re th ree definite things fo rwomen ’
s non-parti san club s to tel l thei r congressmen and thei rcongr essm en
’
s wives .Fi rst
,not a penny of increas e fo r a rmaments ! The appro
p r iat ion o f $855,ooo ,ooo fo r 1920-2 1 i s suffici ently di sgracefu l
and must not be increased . I t should indeed b e decreas ed andrecruit ing fo r the A rmy and Navy should be stopped at once .
Second,no conscript ion o f ou r youth under the head ing o f
universa l mi li ta ry t raining,
” “s elect ive draft,
” or any othereuphemi sm !
Thi rd,a reo rgani zation o f the Government Se rvice that
w i l l st rip the War and Navy Departments of thei r civi l functions
,l eav ing them thei r p roper military duti es and no others .
11 . P e ti tion th e P r es ident-E lect
The second thing to do i s to demand of the new P residentelect that
,as soon as he takes office
,he cal l a conference o f
rep re sentatives f rom eve ry d e facto government o f the worldfo r th e expres s pu rpose o f agreeing to d i sa rmament , and fo rthat pu rpose only . We should ask that each count ry b e r e
quested to name th ree d el egate s , one o f whom shal l b e a wo
man,one a rep resentative o f labo r , and one a repres entat ive o f
sci ence o r l ea rning in th e pe rmanent employ o f hi s o r her r e
spectiv e gove rnment . I suggest th at the con ference be composed
162 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
o f rep re sentatives of women,labor
,and l earning
,rather than
rep resentatives of armies and nav i es,o f d ip lomacy and finance
Fi rst,becaus e the latter have had thei r tu rn at running the
world and have mad e a mess o f i t,and
,
Second ly, because women, th e working c las ses,and the in
te llectual c lasses , are the backbone o f the wo r ld , th e peop lewh ose inte rests should b e paramount and neve r yet have beenso .
111 . S ign a P ledge of Passiv e R esis tance to War
The thi rd thing to do and the most effective thing we can
do i s to sign a p ledge o f pass ive res i stance to war and thep reparation fo r wars . By “
p as s ive res i stance” I mean resi stance mad e with tongue and pen
,with b rain and bal lot
,with
mo ra l and sp i ri tual fo rces and with those weapons only . Such
p ledges w i l l b e in e ffect a notice to men,given now whi le the
nation is at peace, that i f they go to war, they must go with
out u s .
All women who long fo r d i sarmament wi l l make a realcont ribution to the cause by add ing thei r names to the ro l l o fthose p l edged to pass ive res i stance . A s long as only a f ew
hund red o r thousand women have taken th e p ledge, the idea o fd i s armament seems v i s ionary, i t is t rue, but once a mi l l ion voting women have done so , i t is no longer a v i s ion, but a p rogram
,no longe r an idea
,but a command to Congress . The
fo l low ing p l edge shou ld be s igned w i th you r name and add res sand s ent w i th 25 cents regi st ration f ee , to the United States
S ection o f the Women’
s Inte rnational League fo r Peace andFreedom
,1 25 E ast 37 th St reet , New York City :
Believ ing that tr u e peace can b e s ecu r ed on ly th r ough r e
conci liation and good-will and that no cau se j u s tifies th e or
ganis ed des tr u ction of hu man life , I u rge imm ediate and u ni
v er sal di sarmament and pr om ise nev er to aid in any way th e
pr osecu tion of war .
IV.
“ J oin Th e lVom en’
s International L eagu e for P eaceand F r eedom
The fou rth thing to do is to p romulgate thi s programamong the women of other count ries , u rging them to concen
t rate th i s winte r on the th ree preced ing i tems ; s ecu ring pledgesof pas s ive res i stance to war and the p reparation fo r war ;
164 SELECTED ARTICLE S
Already the Hous e has repas sed both navy and army ap
p rop r iat ions, as b ig as befo re, with the S enate adding to thei rstaggering tota ls . Whereve r opposit ion appeared i t was crushedby the b rutal power o f the machine.Only fif teen among the four hundred thirty-fiv e Congress
men, on a viva voce vote, obj ected to the nava l
bi l l . And only fou r s tood up to demand a r oll call on th e final
passage of th e b ill, through which the pub li c might have knownthe f r i end s and th e enemies of di sarmament upon the s eas .The final pas sage o f the big army bi l l in th e Hous e reveals
an identical s i tuat ion, with the same smoke-screen o f secrecy.
The mino rity against i t was unab le even to s ecure a reco rdvote .
Throughout the consideration o f both thes e mi li tary measures , hair—spli tting par liamentar ians r ev elled in Hind
’
s P r eced
ents , with th e r esu lt that practically ev ery impor tant attempt
to change th e b ills th r ough amendment was r u led ou t of order .
I n the S enate, a hundred mi l l ions were added to the amounto f the House b i l l to b e spent next year on the naval estab l i shment . That body did , in respons e to woman’ s wo rk fo r disarmament
,adopt the Borah amendment autho ri z ing the P res
id ent to inv i t e Great B ritain and Japan to j oin with u s in a
d i sarmament conference ; but the S enate did not withhold as ingle i cent o f app ropri ations unti l i t cou ld b e determinedwhethe r o r not such a conference would b e effective .On the day that th e S enate voted unanimous ly fo r th e
Borah amendment,i t was pass ing naval app ropr iations mo re
than three times as large as thos e immediately befo re thegreat wa r . Nor did i t suspend by one cent th e 1916 bui lding
p rogram .
” Thus did i t Show i t s own faith and desi res !Th e identical measu r e in which ou r late allies wer e b idden
to a confer ence pr oclaimed to th em that we wer e at once to
spend half a b illion for nav al supr emacy.
To woman’ s universal cry fo r love and peace, Congres s isanswering in the only way it understands—tari ff monopoli es ,t rade conces s ions
,mo re burdensome taxes , defici ts , b onds,
'
pen
s ions,reparat ions , continued armaments .
Centur i e s o f b lu rred and b iased thinking appear to haveculminated in the present Congres s . I t i s b l ind , igno rant, hopeles s . It wi l l go on to the end without comprehension o r const ru ct iv eness.
DISARMAMENT 105
Thousands o f thi nking women of America see all that.
They are preparing to p lay th ei r part in th e saving of our civi lizat ion. Thi s war agains t war in which they are en li s ting,means j ust that to woman—th e sav ing of civ ilization.
Both men and women,al l o f them who think, are agreed
that civi l i zation cou ld hard ly w ithstand another wor ld war.E ven Lloyd George, with a mind both mi lita ry and imper i alist ic, has expres sed that opinion . I n a speech at Manchestersoon after the Armisti ce, the B ri ti sh p remier s aid
Th is mus t b e th e las t war . Th e las t, or b eliev e me—I hav eb een s tu dying all th e mach inery of war for months as a busi
ness and for year s as a par t of my bu s iness—b eliev e me, ifth is is not th e las t war th er e ar e men h er e today wh o will see
th e las t of civ ilization.
On the side of i t s cost in wealth,no argument i s neces sa ry
Its consequences in al l other respects wi l l soon b e as completely unders tood .
Certainly there i s no d i spute b etween men and women asto the extent of the devastation anothe r war would entai l
,o r
upon whom i t would fal l . The next war wou ld not be foughtwith a rm i es and batt leship s : gases and germs wou ld be it smost e ff ect ive inst ruments o f d est ruction . The fo rces on landand sea would b e only incid enta l to forces beneath the sea andthroughout the ai r . The st ri f e would not b e among armies
,
but d i rected th rough d eath- d eal ing sci ence against non- combatant populat ions .Civ ilization cannot su r v iv e anoth er gr eat war . I f there i s
agreement as to that , where then , do men and women d iff er ?Congress , man-made and man-minded , whi le talking di s
armament , is p roceed i ng u pon the theo ry that we must b e pre
pa red fo r war : Women beli eve down deep and th rough andth rough , not only that competi t ion in a rmaments wi l l make fo rwar , but al so that continued a rmaments
,even without fighting
,
wi ll b reak the back and c ru sh th e sou l o f humanity.
Even though Congres s , th rough a lack o f vi s ion and its
fea r , i s cont ributing to the causes o f wa r, every thinking woman beli eve s that the re cannot b e anothe r wo rld war withinthi s generation ,
b ecau s e th e plain people w ill no t again consent
or b e coer ced into par ticipation in that supr eme folly.
E ve ry war , d i rect ly o r ind i rectly, i s cau sed by th e as sump tiono f power on the part o f a few pol it ic ians
,w i th that assumed
166 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
power exercis ed in secret . Th e ci tizensh ip of no nation will
ev er again consent to th e mi su se and abu se of th eir sov er eignty
for that pu rpose, i f the facts can be got to them .
Th en th e people th r oughou t th e whole wor ld wou ld s tr ike
agains t war . When fort ifi ed with info rmation,the women
a lone are strong enough to outlaw al l pol it ici ans who wouldplunge the i r country into war .War has al l its sources in pol it i cs . That is the fi rst and
last thing to be clearly comprehended . There are numerous
secondary causes of international confl ict,but they al l cu lminate
and become powe r ful through pol itics . Pol itics no longer meansstatesmanship : i t h as come to be the inst rument o f spoil s andp rivi lege . War is th e final expr ession of per v er ted poli tics .
There wi l l never be an end o f the causes o f wars unti l eve rycivi l i zed country has had a thorough pol it ical housecleaning .
Let us reduce this monst rou s menace to te rms which evena Congressman should be able to understand . Take no mo re
than three o r four great nations,governed as al l great nation s
are by master pol it icians . Assume that John is king o f one,
James p resident “o f anothe r and Henry czar o f the third .
These rule rs , prompted by j ealousy o r fal s e pride, might havea p ersonal quarre l . I f they were ind ividual c iti z ens
,the i r
d iffe rences would be adj ud icated without i nvolv ing other people .But because they happen to be p res idents and kings
,pol it ical ly
power ful and in cont ro l o f machinery through which to disto rtpubl ic opinion
,the i r quarrel as ind ividual s could eas i ly cost the
wor ld b i l l ions in wealth and r iver s o f b lood .
The attache o f a fore ign embassy might not appeal to the
w i f e o f the pol it ician at the head o f a nation . She might get
him d i scharged . That might in turn be construed as an insu lt
to the sacred “honor” o f the country f rom which he came . Anapology cou ld be demanded, and thenDoes th i s seem si l ly ? I t is—beyond the power o f words to
describe . But wars have come out o f j ust such absurd lyfool i sh s ituat ions . And remember th is
,whatever the cause ,
war itse l f is the supreme fol ly .
Perhaps maste r pol it ic ians have advanced so far that theywi l l never again set the wo rld on fi re th rough some govern
ment ’ s fai lure “to salute a flag” o r because some ind iv idualruler is insulted o r assass inated . The fact remains that pol it ical
168 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
ment and growth, are almost al l-power ful in gove rnment . Theydraft and vi rtually initiat e legis lation . Only a t idal wave o fdi sarmament sentiment can le s sen thei r cont ro l o f Congres s .What ar e the inevitabl e resu lts o f war ? This i s sue
,through
quotat ions f rom several Senators and Congres smen,reveals much
that always fol lows in the wake o f war . Let me present abr i e f summary
1 . The last war cost mo re than the whol e previous exp enseo f the nat ional government from the adop tion o f the Constitu tion. We have now a debt upon which th e interest equalswhat the government was cost ing before the war . Mo reover,the regular expense o f the federal government has j umped fromfou r to six t imes what it was in 1916.
2 . In terms o f human l i fe, who can estimate the los ses o rmeasu re the pain and suffer ing
,not only when war i s on
,but
eve r a fte r . With in fo rty years, say experts , th is nation wi ll
hav e two million dependent ear-soldi er s .
3. Legit imate indust ry is weakened almost to the point o fparalys is . Be fo re conditions become normal
, p rofi teer s have
had their b il l ions,and the massses must face vastly increased
handicaps and hardship s fo r generations to come .
4 . E verything most fundamental to democracy becomes moreand more remote . E ven in “a war fo r democracy
,
” the victo r
and the vanqu i shed are almost certain to exchange charactersin that respect .Bu t th e gr eates t of all tr u th ab ou t war is that i t leav es dis
pu tes mor e diffi cu lt of'
adj u dication than th ey cou ld possib ly
hav e b een wi th ou t figh ting.
Fo r centur ie s men have conducted the government o f thewo rld . The resul t i s a str i cken wor ld
,war-weakened, with
bankruptcy in the background . Civi l i zation its el f i s th reatened .
In this cr is i s,women are p repar ing to take a hand .
‘They have
trusted male pol it icians as long as it can safely be done . Therea re no present s igns o f improvement
,not even o f comprehension .
They themselve s must play thei r part .I pred ict, and it certainly shou ld come to pass, that in the
next campaign there wi l l be a strong,courageous woman can
didate in every Congress ional dist rict where the s ituat ion demand s it . There i s no other way.
The women are al ready sett ing up the machinery throughwhich to know most intimately the record o f every present
DISARMAMENT 169
member o f Congress, not only on mil itar i sm ,but on every im
portant quest ion . They wil l not oppose,on the contrary they
wi ll suppo rt to the last ditch, eve ry true fri end o f the pe op le inboth b ranches .They already know most o f the statesmen in the national
legi slature, as d i st ingu i shed from thos e who are p ro fes s ionalpol it icians .
Bu t th er e must b e a candidate, man or woman, in ev ery
dis trict wh o is not a pr ofessional poli tician. The cal l has come
to th e womanhood o f America to attend to thi s c iv i l iz ation-savingmatter o f nominating and el ect ing a new kind o f Congress .
DISARMAMENT—ENGLAND ’S POSITION 1
The wor l d today is conf ronted by the most solemn deci sionin th e histo ry of mankind . While the embers ar e smoldering
,
the Great War i s over, and the question i s whether civ i l izationas shattered in E urope and as shaken el sewhere is now to bereorganiz ed on a basi s o f l i fe or o f death . I f we prepare forwar, we now know that inev itab ly we shal l get i t, and in theyears to come there can be no peace unless we d i sarm . E veryobserver agrees that B r i tain i s today swept by anti-mil itarism .
The population o f this planet where we l ive i s s tated to be
seventeen hundred mil l ions . I t cannot be said that the peoplesare as yet o rganized consciou sly fo r p eace, but it can be saidthat they are i n the main uno rganiz ed fo r war . On sea the reare only three navie s wo rth attention , suppo rted as fol low s
By Great Br itain peopleBy th e United S tatesBy Japan
people
E ven i f we add France and I taly as naval powe rs , th is meansthat the rule o f the waves i s confined to few ove r th ree hund redmil lion actual taxpaye rs out o f seventeen hund red m i l l ion pe rsonsbelonging to ou r speci es . Thi s result fol low s f rom th e fact
that the B rit ish Navy i s paid fo r enti rely by B rit i sh subj ectsl iv ing in the United Kingdom itsel f . On the ocean
,there fo re
,
By P . W . W i lson . New York Correspondent of th e London Dai l yNews . I n Review o f Reviews .
-8. February , 1 9 2 1 .
1 70 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
the outstand ing fact which emerges is not the present extento f the preparat ions for the nex t war
,but the vast and hither to
untapped poss ibi l it ies fo r futu re p reparat ion . I f one—s ixth o fthe human race can maintain such navies as we see today
,what
wil l the empire o f Neptune be l ike when the other fi v e- sixthshave j o in ed the rival s ?The land on which men l ive can be divided into five great
areas . I n the tab le that fo llows there is shown for these a reas,
fi rst, the populat ion maintained and, s econd ly, the app rox imatenumbe r o f sold i e rs actual ly under arms today °
Popu lat ion
These figures indicate that the re are today under arms abouts ix mil l ion so ld ie r s, o r one sold ier to every three hund red peop l e,app rox imately . Here again there is evid ence o f infinite un
tapped poss ib i l it ies o f mischie f . I f the whole wo rld were rai sedto the E uropean standard o f mi l itari sm today there would b enot s ix mil l ion soldi ers under arms
,but near ly thi rteen mil l ion .
Ye t even in E urope the largest armies are only as fo l lows :
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I f the m eh in E urop e who have actual know l edge o f warwere cal led up
,the total wou ld be multip l ied s everal t imes . One
of the essentials o f peace is that the o ld generation o f conscript s shou ld pas s away w ithout a new generation aris ing totake thei r place . Again , take the African figure . No fewerthan one hund red thousand out o f the two hund red thousandthere allott ed are in fact the somewhat nominal and unequippedtroop s o f Abyssinia . On the other s ide o f the account , however
,the force s o f the Commonweal th o f South Africa are
reckoned as being enti r ely in re se rve— a remark which app l ie sal so to Canada and Austral ia, which count ries have not tenthousand men under arms between them . I f the white manarms fo r the next wa r against himsel f , w e may take it as certainthat h e wil l al so enl i st the reserves o f the black races, who are
1 72 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
mercy against the civi l ian, including the women and the chi ld ren .
How to l imit the build ing o f lethal ai rcra ft must be considered .
Germany is accu sed o f hav ing as many aeroplanes as B r i tainand France combined . And B r itain today prefe r s battl eplanesto batt leship s . She is bui ld ing th e former while sh e is s crappingthe latte r . On her air s ervice sh e i s spending $ 100,
ooo,ooo
a year .I f, in thi s respect, we wish to make the wor ld safe for
ou r boys and gir l s to l ive in, there is a method whe reby we cancertainly do so . During the war ther e was a care ful reco rdkept of al l the main metal s and raw material s u sed for the making o f munit ions . Food s and many other commod iti es were alsorat ioned and, while doubtles s there was some evas ion , the inspect ion was suffici ently effect ive to secu re the broad result sdesi red . I n large c ities like New York the re i s a s imi lar recordkept o f al l dynamite u sed in building operations . Occas ional lyexp lo s iv es wil l e scape detect ion and there wi l l b e a disasterin Wall tr eet , but with inspection it would be imposs ibl e f orthe manu factu rers o f these things to elabo rate a chemicalars enal on a scale that would . threaten other nations w ithoutthe fact being known .
Such inspect ion o f shipping, des igned to guide underwrite rso f insu rance, h as been for three generations conducted on aninternational scal e by Lloyd ’ s Register,w i thout offense and withabso lute re l iabi l ity. E very ves sel l aunched has been watchedduring construct ion and i s sti l l watched as it goes to sea . YetLloyd ’ s Register is an exclu s ively B riti sh conce rn, act ing without the sanct ion o f any government o r l eague o f nations . Theinte rnational i nspect ion o f dange rous chemical s and. d i seasegerms would be the more feasib l e, because , after all , the fi rms
aff ected do not want to kil l peopl e except as an incident o f
thei r p r ofi t-earning busin es s . I f they know that no governmentdare buy thei r p roh ibited ware s and that in th e natu re o f thecase no one except a government can use these wares, they wi llfol low the market into sa fer fi elds .
Land Disarmam ent E asier Becau se of Change in S ea Power
Disarmament on land is rendered the simpler becaus e thenatu re o f sea-pow er h as changed . Before the war i t used to besaid that B ritain could not be invaded because she had a biggernavy than that o f Germany. Today we see that, ow ing to theinev itabl e development o f submarines and aircraft, no count ry
DI SARMAMENT 1 73
at any t ime wi l l b e able to invade any other country across theocean . Assuming for the moment the t ruth o f thi s p roposit ion
,
which I w i l l e l aborate a l i tt le late r,i t fo l lows that armies may
be disbanded , continent by continent . This is the reason why,under the Monroe Doct r ine, Latin America is able to regardsold i ers merely as pol ice . The Japanes e Army is important
becaus e i t is p enetrat ing the main land o f Asia . I t is not im
portant as a menace to Aust ral ia,New Z ea land
,and North
America . A s pract ical po lit ics,the conce rted l imitation o f
armies is thus a manageab le p robl em ,part icu larly impo rtant fo r
E urope and especial ly fo r France and Germany . Russ ian man
power might become a menace,but the Sov iet Army is
,at
p resent, incapable o f any aggress ion d i sturb ing to general peace .
I f thi s be the situation l e ft by the war,i t rests with the Con
t inent o f E urope whether sh e w i l l handicap hersel f in futu reby maintaining vast numbers o f men in c riminal id l en es s merelyin o rder to foste r ancient feud s
,whi le the new wo rld
,saved
from such fol ly by the inte rvening wate rs , goe s ahead andel aborates new standards o f comfo rt and happ iness . Whatever
be E urope ’ s d eci s ion , her armies w i l l b e local ized by the sub
marine and the aeroplane,whil e the cactu s hedge cal l ed the
Himalayas,w ith the I s thmus o f Suez —the Thermopylae o f
Africa—w i l l rest rain,i f they need it , th e a rmies o f Russia .
S u bmar ines and A ir craf t v er su s Battlesh ips
The fact is that whe reas seapowe r used to make the sea sa fe ,seapower now makes the sea impassab le . When the war b rokeout Germany had only thi rty- six submarines . “l i th ten t imesthat number sh e would have won . Usual ly th e re we re not morethan eight o r nine U -boat s in u se at any one time . But on the
average each U-boat sank $ Ioo,ooo
,ooo wo rth o f shipping . In
the las t w eek o f the war,w ith h e r sai lo rs in m u tiny, Germany
concent rated on tanke rs and actually sank nine o f them . To
th e end she d est royed sh ipp ing in th e narrow I rish seas , yetth e I ri sh seas we re pat rol l ed by two thousand fi ve h u nd red v es
sel s o f al l d esc ription s . \f\’ith six hund red dest royers and six
thousand au x iliarv c ra ft on th e wa tch (lav and night fo r four
and a hal f v ear s th e All ies captu red o r su nk onlv two hundredfive submar ines
,and th e s e su bmarine s we re o f a type
'
as yet
rud imenta ry .
The submarine i s now su pp l emented by th e large r sub
me rs ib les and b v ai rc ra ft which can di scharge no t bombs alone,
(74 SELE CTE D ARTICLE S
but to rpedoes al so . So fo rmidable are thes e nove l engines o fsea-war that B ritain has not only ceased bui lding any newbattleships o r battle crui sers, but has actual ly sc rapped three o fthe latest - type which were at various stages o f construction .
So far as B r ita in i s concerned,there fore
,the race in battle
ship s i s dropped . Our pr ivate yards ar e complet ing three fo rJ apan at Japan
’
s expense— that i s al l . Acting on expert advice ,B r itain thus holds her hand fo r a whil e
,as she d i d in the years
1906- 1918, when the fi rst Dr eadnough t with uni form armament
o f big guns was under design . Most B riti sh Admirals cons iderthat the monste r batt leships now under const ruct ion in theUnited States, at fo rty mil l ion dollars apiece, would never gointo batt l e in any war fought w i th the new weapons o f attack .
B ri tain has also s crapped mo re than s ix hund red warships andthe scrapping merr i ly goes on . In addition she has handed toCanada
,fo r u se on the Pacific Coast in harmony -with the
United State s fo rces,a squad ron cons ist ing, i t i s b el i eved, of
e ight cruisers and twenty- fou r dest royers . At the moment, then,i t is not e asy to make out a case fo r nav al r ival ry on the B r i t i shs ide
,whether against Japan or the United States . Whatever
be her mot ive,B r itain thinks it w el l to sav e her money to pay
he r debts .The compar i son between the three powers may now be stated ,
type by typeVE S SE L S TONNAGE
Comp lete Bui lding Total Comp lete Bui lding Total33 t o 4 3
46 none 46 none
r r 8 1 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In capital ships , there fo re, it fo l lows , f rom figu res publish ed in American books o f re fe rence, that when the Daniel sprograms are complete
,the United States wil l have fo rty—n ine
ves sel s to B r i tain ’ s fi fty—s ix and Japan ’ s twenty—three
,while
tonnage wi l l be : United States , B r i tain ,Japan, That i s the s ituat ion as it wi l l be in 1924 .
But the stat i st ics should be read in the l ight o f the fact thatthe United States fleet w i l l be o f a late r const ruction on theaverage than th e B r it i sh
,with larger units, heavier guns, and
1 76 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
I t i s a fixed principl e o f her pol icy that sh e wil l under no ci rcumstances enter into naval competition with the United States
.
She noti ces certain unmistakable indications o f what obj ectives
American statesmen have in V i ew . She sees the gradual transference o f the United States Navy f rom the Atlantic to thePacifi c, the large expenditure on Pacific bases , the almost cont inuou s negotiations with Japan , and th e now admitted rap
pr och ement between the United States and sel f-governingB riti sh Dominions , which cher i sh simi lar aims in the Far E ast .What B ritain fears i s not the huge American D r eadnough t
cruise rs, eight hundred feet long— an incomparable target,by
the way, for to rpedo and aerial bomb— but a much d eadl ierpe ri l to an island power .~ From being the mistres s o f the seas
,
Britain i s , fo r the t ime being, deposed , not by American expen
ditu r e, but by inevitab le geography . She i s surrounded by thepotential submar in e base s o f I reland
,France
,Belgium
,Holland
,
Germany, Denmark , Sweden, and Norway. Being the only
country in the world that cannot feed hersel f except by importsoverseas, she is the country, o f al l o the rs , most vulnerable todead ly attack , even by the w eakest o f he r neighbors . An
Ameri can batt leship a mil e long,with a hund red 30- inch guns
,
would matte r l e ss to E ngland than hal f a dozen submarines,
built against her by No rway,at a hundredth the cost .
Navies,l ike al l inst itut ions
,are conse rv ativ e . Years a fte r
the battl e b etwe en the M oni tor and the Mer r imac wooden
ships,al l o f them obviously valuel ess
,were built and launched .
The D r eadnough t is popular w i th contracto r s , i t impres ses thepub lic
, it is the pr ide o f the crew , i t l ooks we l l at maneuve rs .To fight for one ’ s country in a submarine requi res heroic ne rveand courage . I t is
,l it eral ly
,a martyrdom to pat riot ism . But
a nation l ike E ngland that has been nearly starved out by afo reign foe can affo rd no mere sentiment to inte r fe re with
scientifi c conclusions . And Americans may assume that theB rit ish Admiral ty i s enti re ly unmoved by megalomaniac stat i st icso f tonnage and engine- power. E ven with d eck armor, as shownto be necessary at the Batt le o f Jutland
,the D r eadnough t has
to fear and w i l l probably succumb to aer ial bombs from a
fl ight o f seap lanes . This means fo r B ritain something much
more vital than the loss o f D r eadnough ts . She is th inking o f
her food ships . What i f ai rcraft can destroy them al so ?
DISARMAMENT 1 7 7
THE MENACE OF NAVAL COMPETITION’
Admiral A . T . Mahan wrote in The Influence o f Sea Powe r Upon History in 1889 :
“The necess ity of a navy,in the
rest ri cted s ens e o f the word,sp rings
,therefo re
,f rom the ex
istence o f peacefu l shipping, and d i sappears with i t, except inthe case o f a nation which has aggres s ive tendenci es
,and
keeps up a navy me rely as a b ranch o f a mi li ta ry estab l i shment . As the United States at p resent has no aggress ive pu rposes, and as it s merchant s ervice h as disapp eared, the dw indling o f the a rmed fleet and gene ral lack o f inte rest in it arestr ictly logical consequ ences . When fo r any reason sea t rad e i sagain found to pay, a large enough shipping inte rest wil l r e
appear to compel the rev ival o f the war fleet .” Naval compet it ionis the normal accompaniment o f comp et it ion in me rchant marine .As long as the United Kingdom is dependent on fo reign commerce fo r it s su stenance , as long as it is determined to carry
thi s comme rce largely in its own ship s , as long as the Brit ish
Empire has dependencies , po rts , concess ions , and fuel stat ionsto d efend on eve ry t rade route
,and as long as there is any pos
sib ility o f war, Great B ritain w i l l place naval sup remacy fi rstamong he r nat ional pol icie s
,and w i l l go to almost any lengt h
to maintain it . Likew i se,now that the United States has dete r
m ined to enla rge he r fo reign commerce and to compete with
B ri tain in the car rying t rade,the re h as been , as Admiral Mahan
sh rewdly put i t,
“enough shipping inte re st to compel the rev iv alo f the war fleet .”
I t was on Feb ruary 3,19 16, that P resid ent Wi lson said at
St . Loui s ,“There i s no othe r navy in th e wo rld that has to
cove r so great an a rea o f de fense as th e American Navy, andi t ought
,in my j udgment to b e incomparably the most ad e
quat e navy in th e world . The most adequate navy to thela rgest a rea must necessa ri ly be th e la rgest navy. And area
o f d efen se” i s not a prec i s e ph ras e . I t might mean merely the
A t lantic and Pacific coasts o f continental United State s . Butthat wou ld not b e so large a s th e coastal and sea area o f th e
B riti sh Emp i re . I t migh t includ e also Hawai i , and th e Phi l ippines
,and th e Panama Canal . But i f we remembe r th e fact
that at th e time o f th e speech , ove r a yea r be fo re ou r ent ry‘ From Nat ion.
-2 . May 1 1,
1 9 2 1 .
1 78 SELECTED ARTICLE S
into the war, we were sti l l contesting v igorou slv with GreatB ritain as to the rights of ou r commerce in respect o f b lockades and s ei zu res , we may inf er that in the back o f M r. Wilson
’
s mind “area o f def ense” had something to do with merchant ships onthe Sev en Seas . At any rate
,the di stinct ion b e
tween o ff ense and d ef ense in naval aff airs i s a meaningles sone . I t i s an estab li shed princip le o f naval strategy that thebest d ef ense is an attack, and consequently the largest navyad equate for defens e would b e capab le of a gene ral supremacyNaval boards o f strategy in considering thei r bui ld ing programs take into account capabi li ti e s rather than exi sting in
t ent ions .
On August 29, 1916, i n respons e to the words o f the P resident
,Congress pass ed a naval appropriation act autho ri z ing,
in the wo rds o f S ecretary Dani els,
“a continuous bui lding pro
gram compri s ing one hundred fi fty- s ix wa r ves sel s , w i th s ixteen cap ital ships
,the la rgest numbe r ever p rov ided fo r at any
one t ime by any nation .
” Du ring the war,in o rder to coneen
t rate on the anti—submarine campaign,most of ou r naval bui ld
ing energi e s went into modern dest royers—o f which we now
have over th ree hundred—and the rest o f th e p rogram was delayed . Many thought that this eno rmous program was adoptedchi efly fo r i t s moral eff ect on Germany ; but now the wa r i swon
,and in spi te of the fact that Great B ritain has authori zed
no new capital ships , ou r p rogram i s going ahead ful l speedfThe d elay enab led us to take into account the les sons o f theBatt l e o f Jutland in designing the capital ships . Befo re 1925,
on the bas is o f the programs at present autho ri zed , we shal lhave a navy markedly superior to that o f Great B ri tain bothin tonnage and in eff ective fight ing strengt h .
1
We shal l have twelve batt leships o f post-Jutland des ign toB ritain ’ s one . We shal l have twenty-one batt leships of thefi rst l ine in al l
,to B ritain ’ s eighteen . We shal l have six batt le
crui s e rs car rying fou rteen- inch guns to B ritain ’ s fou r, ours o flat er design than he rs . We shal l have two hundred eighty-fiv ed est royers capabl e o f 34 to 36 knots , to E ngland
’ s one hundred
ninety- th ree . We shal l have one hundred sixty-th ree modernsubmarines
,ninety- fou r of post-war type, to B ri tain’ s total o f
one hund red five modern subsea boats . Our nav y w i l l be1 Th e new Bri t ish bu i lding program ,
recent l y announced, though i t
does not great l y en large th e total t onnage of th e Br i t ish navy, wi l l increase it s eff ect iveness not a l it t le .
180 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
sens e o f the fo l ly of pou ring so much treasure into dreadnoughts . I t i s thei r argument deal ing wi th the enormous expens e o f the modern navy that i s o rd inar i ly cited i n favo r ofarmament limitation . Yet , whi le i t wou ld be highly beneficial
to the pub lic t reasu ry and the pockets o f the taxpayers to l imita rmaments in thi s fashion, the a rgument over looks the crux of
the who le matte r in i ts re lation to possib l e war . “You mustbea r i n mind ,” said Admiral Huse, “that there is no such thingas a powerful navy, used as an abso lute t e rm; the power ofthe navy i s pu rely a relative term . suppos e all the great nations shou ld agree among themselves to cut down these bui lding p rograms by one—half o r three—quarters o r nine- tenths
,i f
you like ; the re lat ion of the forces would remain th e same asbefo re .” So the general i ntention to reduce navi es does notsolve the p robl em o f whose navy i s to be the l argest . We goto a conference on di sa rmament reso lved that ou r navy shal lb e as la rge as Great B r i tain ’ s
,o r as Great
,B ritain’
s and Japan’ s comb ined ; Great B ritain goes to the conf e rence reso lvedto retain he r sea supremacy. Such a conf erence can lead to
nothing, without reconsideration of fundamental nat iona l po licy. I s Great B ritain wi l l ing to renounce her contro l o f theseas ? Are we wi l l ing to al low Great B r i tain to retain it ? Suchquest ions
,the imper ial i st s str ident ly ins is t
,must b e answered
be fore di sarmament i s pos s ibl e, and they must be answeredbe fore long unl es s the situation i s to grow wors e rapidly.
A confe rence capab le of so lv ing such p rob lems must go into the whole region o f international relationship . I s total di s
a rmament f eas ib le ? Or can navi es b e inte rnationali zed th roughthe estab lishment o f some supe r-government capab le o f exer
ci s ing i t s power imparti al ly ? There can b e l itt le doubt thatthe exi sting governments might answer an unqualified nega
t ive to both thes e questions . On what terms , then, should anynation b e al lowed to retain naval supremacy ? This l eads u s
back to cons iderat ion o f f reedom of the s eas , merchant marineand commerce
,and fo rward to considerations o f finance , oi l ,
communications and canals , and imperial po l icy. I f the United
States i s prepared to yi eld naval supremacy to Great B r itainin exchange fo r conces s ion s in re lated fields which Great B ri tain i s prepared to grant
,there may b e another way to avoid a
naval competi tion . A move toward mutual limitation of armaments might possib ly l ead to a stab l e agreement on these
DI SARMAMENT 181
weighty questions , but when t radit ional ly mi nded statesmen
get to bargaining with th reats against commercial advantages,we are in the oute r edd i e s o f the whi rlpool . Yet how incr ed
ib le i t s eems that two such kind red nations shou ld be pou ringout t reasu re to arm against one another becaus e the conv en
t ional statesman’
s mind is so bound up in t rade questions andin regard fo r p recedent ! What the situation cal ls fo r i s f rank,st raightfo rward world d i sa rmament . I f that i s not pos sib le,then at least an agreement b etween Japan
,the United States ,
and E ngland . I f that is also not possib le,we agree with ex
Secretary B ryan that the United States must take the r i sk andgo it a lone ; i t must set the w i s e and Chri sti an example o f cutt ing armaments befo re they b ring the great Anglo-Saxon coun
t ries to war .
THE NAVAL SKIN GAME 1
The Admiralty,i t is said , are demand ing that new cap i tal sh ip s
shal l b e laid down . O the r repo rt s say that there i s a party o foppos it ion in the Cabinet . E v idently the matte r is in suspense ,and we desi re to look at i t f rankly f rom the point o f vi ew ofou r national inte rests . The argument for f resh shipbu ild ingi s obv iou s enough . The United States and Japan are both going in fo r consid erab le nav i e s ; the United States is planningto bui ld twelve cap i ta l ship s
,and Japan sixteen . All these ships
w i l l be o f the post-Jutland type—that is to say, ships inco rpo
rating the lessons l earned at Jutland w ith regard to the need forspeed
,fo r large r guns , and fo r a rmou r with greate r resi sting
powe r . E ve ry one know s that when naval powe r i s reckonedup only th e latest typ e is supposed to count fo r the purposes
o f battle,but again st these p rograms Great B ritain has not
laid down a s ingl e post-Jutland ship,though the Hood , which
is being mod ifi ed in ce rtain respects,may perhaps be described
as a post-J u tland ship . I t i s d ec la red,the re fo re
,that within
a ve ry few yea rs Great B ritain w i l l have sunk to th e thi rd posi tion as a naval Pow er . T h e Admi ralty case is
,as we have
said,obvio u s enough .
Opposition to the Admi ralty p rogram may take e ithe r o f
two forms o r even both fo rms . I t can b e argued that a s th e
From Spec tator ! London] . p . 7 65-6. December 1 1,1 9 20.
182 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
s ecrets o f Jutland are not yet ful ly reveal ed,i t is by no means
certa in that a Fleet o f post-Jut land capita l ship s would b e ou rbest weapon o f de fence . Opposit ion may al so come f rom thosewho , though they would not cr i t iciz e th e Admiralty p rogramon its bare mer its, hold strongly that we ought not to spend a'
great deal o f money on new sh ips (at al l events , unti l the ne
cessity i s absolutely p roved ) , partly because we cannot afford it,and part ly and chi efly becaus e under the T reaty o f Versai l l eswe p rof es s to b e engaged at this very moment in bui lding notships but a theory o f inte rnational relations in which the competition in armaments wi l l play no part.
Now to revert to the fi rs t o f these two lines of oppos it ion .
We should be rather su rpri s ed i f the Admiralty,on what we
have called the bare merits o f their program , were not ab leto estab li sh a good case . Di re though the submarine peri l was
through the greater part o f 191 7 , and nearly as Germany cameto clea ring the seas of merchantmen
'
and winning the war, ananswer to the submarine was after a l l found . I t was provedthat d est royers equ ipped with hydrophones and with depthcharges were more than a match fo r the submarine . TheGrand Fleet
,surrounded by dest royers , could at las t c rui s e with
impunity in the North S ea . The d est royer, by reason o f herl ight draught
,need not great ly f ear to rpedoes ; a to rpedo to b e
effect ive has to t ravel at a dep th o f about fifteen f eet , whichi s mo re than the draught of d est royers . Again , with the help
“
of the latest hydrophones,th e pos it ion o f a submerged sub
marine can b e placed with accu racy. When thi s has b een done,the depth- charges di spose of her almost as a certainty. But it
may b e said that though an answ er was final ly found to the
submar ine,would capita l ships b e saf e f rom the ai r ? We
might remark that a Fleet s teaming in l in e ahead o r in l ine
ab reast pres ents a ve ry smal l target fo r aeroplanes whichwould hav e to manoeuvre at a great height . When both shipsand aeroplanes are moving
,the aiming of bombs i s very dith
cu lt.Moreover
,some kind of answer i s invariab ly found to
every new danger,and i f i t b e conceded that the huge floating
platfo rm fo r gun-fi r e—in other wo rds , the capital ship—i s thebest fo rm of naval o ff ence and defence , an answer to the danger f rom the air would no doubt b e found . I t i s not , then , fo rsu ch reasons as we have presented that we are hearti ly opposedto the Admiralty p rogram of bui lding capital sh ips.
184 SELECTED ARTICLE S
set themselves to do . To encou rage them to a competition
would b e of al l foundations for a policy o f B r it i sh sel f-defencethe most s i l ly. The Americans can now spend more than we
can on a hobby, and as the years went on they would b e ab leto spend even more . Mo reover, even i f we cou ld estab li sh as light margin of power ove r America in a desperate r ivalry
,i t
wou ld not sati s fy any B riti sh nava l expert . “Two kee ls to
one”
used to be the motto fo r the competition in capita l shipsagainst Germany. Imagine such a motto inspi ring a r ivalryw ith Amer ica ! The whol e thing does not bea r th inking o f .I t i s quit e t rue that the Americans are not at p resent suchgood shipbuilders as we are, no r have they a genius for thesea, but thei r d efects might b e tu rned into posit ive achievements i f they were pushed . Histo ry shows many examples o fnations d el ibe rately recognizing thei r weaknesses and makingthem good . We mu s t not found ou r policy on th e possib ili tyof a war wi th Amer ica. Let us rule that pos sib i li ty out altogether
,and save ou r energies and resources fo r cooperating
with America in the new era o f internationa l relat ions whichcan alone save civi l izat ion .
We pass to the case o f Japan . We may, b e reminded thatJapan i s sti l l ou r Ally, and that we could cal l her to our aidi f ever we were threatened by America . Al l we can say in
answe r to that i s that i f ever we j o ined with Japan in fighting
against the E ngli sh- speaking people o f the New Wor ld, weshou ld have sounded the knel l o f the B r it i sh Empi re . No
doubt Japan,when she has he r new capital ships , wi l l b e in a
t remendous ly st rong pos ition in the Far E ast , but we mustremember that Japan and America , so far as they are bui ldingagainst anyone in particu la r, are bui ld ing against one anotherand not against us . There wi l l a lways be that rest raint uponthe Japanese w i l l in the Fa r E ast . I f it came to a di spute b etween Japan and ou rs elves in the Far E ast— a d i spute whichconce rned nobody el s e except , o f cours e, China, and she wouldprobab ly be pas sive—we shou ld not wish to enter upon an ad
ventu re which,i f car ri ed on on a grand scal e, would mean
t ransf e rring most of ou r naval powe r to the E ast, and wouldrequ i re E aste rn bases and docks on a scale co rresponding tothe hugenes s o f the eff o rt . All that i s very unpleasant tothink about
,and we mention it only b ecause we want real ly to
DISARMAMENT 185
face the si tuation . Fortunately,we can end with a much mo re
agreeab le note .
Have those E ngli shmen who advocate a great new Navy r e
fl ected upon the possib l e a lte rnatives ? Japan has been ou r Ally fo r s evera l years , and has b een a loyal Ally. I f the reportso f the League of Nations at Geneva do not mis l ead us , theJapanese rep resentat ives there were as d eeply interested
,as
help ful and as since re as thos e o f any other nation . Japan,we
are conv inced , is on the s id e o f civ i l i zation . I s there any reason fo r supposing that i f we talked the matte r over wi th theru le rs o f Japan
,they would not b e found to be as eager as we
are to prese rve the peace of the world,and to ente r upon the
new way o f l i fe ? We have suggested the right roads to ex
p lo r e, the b est road s to saf ety . No doubt the re must alwaysbe ri sks in thi s t roub lesome world when we are dealing withmen of othe r races and of temperaments di ffe rent f rom ourown . But the most ri sky, the most fa ls e, and the most ruinou s pol icy w e have yet heard o f is that we shou ld immediatelyente r again upon the game of naval competi tion .
A JAPANE SE VIEW‘
As regard s naval di sarmament, i t should be, and i t wouldbe
,a feasibl e p roposition i f the powe rs conce rned app roach it
in the right sp i ri t and i n good earnest . Japan ’ s naval programwas formulated with a v i ew to assu ring the de fence o f thei sland emp i re
,to sa feguard ing th e vital communicat ions w i th its
te rrito ri e s across the sea , and to protect ing its oversea t rad e .
This,howeve r
,my friend s
,may sound to you a me re p latitud e,
fo r ev er v naval power w i l l ins i st that th is is the princip l e gov erning it s naval pol icy. Mani festly
,mo re p lain talking is there
fo re demanded . As th e case stand s , as al ready th e p reced i ngspeaker has said , there are on ly two navi e s in the wo rld thata re l ike ly to end ange r
,in cas e o f confl ict
,Japan ’ s sa fety and
th reaten her communicat ions . It i s th en,c l ea r that to p rov id e
again st the possibl e dangers feared f rom th e act iv i t ie s o f the setwo nav i e s Japan is sp end ing a vast sum o f m oney fo r naval
‘ Ry Dr . Toyokieh i I yenaga, D irec tor o f th e Eas t.
and West NewsBureau . From Bul le t in . League o f
' Free Nat i ons Assoc i at ion . March ,1 9 2 1 .
186 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
armament . To spend almost hal f o f her enti re revenue fo rarmam ent, including the mil itary and the naval—more than tentimes the exp enditu re al lo tted for th e important i tem of education— thi s i s in it se l f an absurd, i f not tragic act . But the i ronyo f i t al l i s that th is tragic act becomes comic when you cons iderthat one o f the naval powers is Japan ’ s al ly and the other herbest f r i end . J apan might, in her turn, v ery wel l inqu ire o f herf r i ends , “What i s your purpose in maintaining such vast armaments as you are maintaining— more especial ly o f your expand ing them, as America is doing, on a gigant ic scale ?
” Wel l,
Amer i ca wi l l answe r, “J apan,we are not going to expand our
navy in o rder to intimidate you , but s imply to have a navy‘at
l eas t equal to that of any other '
I t i s not w i thin myprovince to say what shou ld be the ext ent o r p roportion o f theB r it i sh . and American navies . The que stion of arm-ament
i s nothing but that o f propo rtion— o f ratio . Two mil l ion tonsto one mi l l ion tons holds the same ratio as two to one . Why
not then convert the usel es s waste ful mil l ions,which are devoted
for the construction o f engines o f de struction,to the bu ild ing
o f ships that carry messages o f good-wil l and commerce
between nations , or to the build ing o f school s and hosp i tals ?To conclude, my fr i ends, it is then clear, fi rst
,that the init iat ive
o f curtail ing naval armament must come f rom the chie f o ffender,
second,that the ratio to be maintained among the three
great naval powers,however del icate and difficult may be the
task,must be agreed upon . O therw i se, I agree in thinking that
these nation s are clear ly head ing toward bankrup tcy, i f not sti l lWO I
'
SC consequences .
AMER ICA AND JAPAN‘
The perennial quest ion o f American-Japanese relations hasmany aspects o f which weste rn land l egi s lat ion is but one .
Perhaps the most serious quest ion at p resent is that o f the
naval cont rol o f the Pacifi c . Unless a definite agreement as to
naval l imitat ion is reached, eithe r by special a rrangement w ithB ritain and Japan as
’
suggested by Senato r Borah o r as part ofa wo r l d-w ide d i sarmament program th ru the League o f Nations o r otherwise
,there wil l b e one o f thos e strange armament
1 From Independent . January 29, 1 92 1 .
188 SELECTED ARTICLE S
one hundred six tv—fi v e ves se ls and the United State s ninety-six ;France s ixty- th ree, Japan fo rty, and I taly
’
twenty-two .
An incident in connection with the Japanese occupation of
the S iberian city o f Vladivostok has l ed to exp lanations and
apologies on the part o f the Jap anes e. On January 8 LieutenantLangdon o f an American cruis er was shot by a Japanese sentryfo r fai l ing to halt when challenged . Japanes e official s in high
posit ion p romptly expressed the ir regret fo r the occurrence .Admiral Gleaves o f the American Asiat ic fleet has appointed a
court o f inqu i ry .
The Japanese excus e their continued occupation of parts o f
eastern S ibe ria on the ground that Bol shevi sm is w idely sp read .
General O i Japanese commander , has warne d the S ibe riantowns that the Japanese t roop s w i l l not recogniz e communismin the d i st rict s in which Japanese t roops are stationed .
” The
Bolshev iki ar e endeavo ring to gain comple te pol it ical cont ro love r that part o f eastern S iberia which h as been fo r severalmonths v i rtual ly independ ent o f the rest o f Russ ia and whichthe Japanese hoped to erect into a permanent barr i e r state againstthe eastward march o f Bol shevi sm .
DISARMAMENT IMPETUS IN JAPAN1
The cry fo r d i sarmament is beginning to penetrate evenJapan
,
” i t is noted by those who are imprest w ith the cont inu ou s re fe rence to the subj ect in variou s Japanese newspape rso f importance . E ven some pol it ic ians have taken it up , altho atthe los s o f a certain amount o f the i r popularity, we are told .
The Japan Magazine (Tokyo ) is sufficient ly moved by the viewso f Marqu i s Sh igenob u Okuma
,as set down in the Japanese
Taikwan,to condense them for the benefi t o f readers o f E ngli sh ,
and it emphasize s the fact that th is dist ingui shed elder statesmanis not p r epared to favo r uncond it ional d i sarmament so h ear tilvas other advocates seem to do , but bases h is hope that Japanw i l l adopt this pol icy upon the supposition that E ngland andAmerica w i l l l ead the way
,as the two nat ion s most vital ly con
cerned.
” Before the war there were eight Great Powers , theMarqu is Okuma remind s u s , and three of them were navalPowers—E ngland , Germany, and Am er ica . Germany, Austria ,
1 From L i terary D igest . p . 1 8. May 7 , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 189
and Russia are now in a desperate o r at least struggl ing pos ition
,
” and the two great naval nations a re E ngland and America.I f the wor ld s incere ly de sires peace l et the strongest nat ionsmake the fi rst move
,the Marqu is suggests
,for i f the weaker
nations w ere to in it iate such a movement it would be “tanta
mount to uncond i tional su rrende r,
” and he continues :“To be sure the w eake r nation can u se its armaments only
as a threat, but being so w eak i t can not d i s r egard armamentsaltogethe r . The nation which has greater d e fenses can notd emand that the weake r nation d i sarm fi rst . I f the st rong have
no aggress ive d es igns, they do not need so powerful a fleet fo rde fense mere ly. That Jap an and I taly have no aggress ive des igns is proved by the weaknes s o f thei r respective fleets . To be
sure,Japan ’ s 8-8 program may sound big, but compared with
E ngland and America, i t is not even one-hal f as l arge . Hence,Japan has on ly the minimum
,and can not begin to reduce . By
all means l et E ngland and America begin . That wi l l b e th e
one sho rt method o f secur ing world -peace,and J apan wi ll de
ligh tedly welcome such an arrangement .“No one can d eny the fact that the wor ld is spending im
mense sums on armaments and is f eel ing severe financial em
bar rassm ent on account o f th is enormous expend i ture . At a
time when the nation s a re su ff ering serious financial depres s ion
afte r a war extend ing through nea rly five consecutive years ,and when p rov i s ion fo r the national d efense can hard ly be madeeven with the utmost effort
,h ow does Japan feel about thi s
matte r ? We are,ind eed
,not st rong either financial ly o r eco
nom ically,yet w e can not neglect ou r national def ense s "even
for a day,s i nce we a re as depend ent upon these fo r ex i stence
as a bi rd upon beak and spu rs o r an animal upon teeth andc l aws .
“I f the Great Powe rs could mutual ly agree to reduce thei rarmies and nav i e s it would
,ind eed
,be a bl essed th ing fo r Japan
as wel l as fo r thi s war-weary world . Merelv f rom the financialrel ie f a lone
,Japan wou ld s ing for j oy . And , i n clo sing, I would
repeat once mo re that,as th e u sual o rd e r o f p rocedure i s fo r
aggression to come from the st ronge r upon the w eake r, w e arelooking fo r America and E ngland to se t our hearts at ease by
taking th e in it iative in d i sa rmament and giv ing a good exampl eto th e wo rld in thi s regard . As th e fi rst gleam o f l ight I look
to see England and America negotiate th i s question su cces s ful ly,afte r which I t rust France
,Japan
,and I taly w i l l fol low su it .”
190 SELECTED ARTICLES
OUR ARMAMENTRACE WITH JAPAN‘
The governments o f the United States and Japan are bothsuff er ing from an acute attack o f nav alitis . Both sufferersgreat ly need a mi ld inj ect ion o f common- sense. Du ring thepast fi scal year we added to our navy one batt leship
,ninety-six
destroyers, eighteen submarine s, and one hund red nine otherves sel s ; and we had under const ruction on October 1
,el even
batt leships, s ix crui ser s, and one hundred twenty- three othe rships, p ract ical ly al l fighting craft . Meanwhil e
,Secretary
Daniel s and a t rain o f admiral s go be fore Congres s and talkp ro foundly about “rounding out the navy
,
” whatever that maymean, winding up with the genia l recommendation that as soonas the capital ships now under way are launche d we enter upona new three-year program o f eighty- eight addit ional ves se ls,including three battl eships and a battl e crui ser .What i s th e excus e off e red for this amiabl e lunacy ? Get
t ing down f rom vague talk about “the present state o f the
world,
” “protect ing our commerce,having “incomparably the
most adequate navy in the world,and other mean ingles s
phrases , we come to the brut e fact that , unles s we are crazy,we are bu i lding against a potenti al enemy. At the moment,d esp it e anti-B riti sh propaganda
,i t can scarcely be Great
B r it ain ; for the one-t ime mistres s o f the seas has suspendedal l const ruction o f cap ital sh ips unti l th e Admiralty can determinewhether the dreadnought i s o f any further u se, unti l the
Treasury can find money to build ships , and unt il the ForeignOffice can discover whethe r the Government o f the United Statesi s going utter ly daft . Lo rd Rothe rmere points out that nonation wil l hencefo rth enj oy naval sup remacy and that GreatB ritain cannot affo rd to sp end any money on naval const ructionat present . I t is not Great B ritain against whom we a re bui ld ing,but J apan .
In that d i stant i s land empi re our own folly is being matched .
The Japanes e peopl e are al ready taxed almost beyond endurance .
Yet the naval program final ly autho ri zed (after years o f dis
cu ssion) in 1919 requi res them to p rov ide the money to bui lddur ing the next eight year s eight battl eship s and eight cruisers ,along with seventy-fi v e destroyers , submarines , and other fighting
1 By Henry Raymond Mussey . From Nation. February 2 , 1 92 1 .
192 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
spent in bu ilding warship s f rom 1900 unti l we entered the war .Poss ibly we can stand such a pace, but we shal l ce rtainly d r iveour r ival s into bankrup tcy and bol shevi sm
,unles s war intervenes
as the cu lmination o f the mad del i r ium .
And, meanwhi le , what o f the trade whose maintenance isa l leged on both sides as a neces sary reason for the wi ld armament race ? Curious ly enough , more than a thi rd o f al l ourAsiatic imports come f rom Japan, and sh e takes materia lly morethan hal f o f our exports to the greates t o f continents . OurJ apanese imports rose f rom in 1910 to $527 ,ooo,oooin 1920, and expo rts f rom to (more thantwenty-fo ld ) . Just how we are to cult ivate ou r best Asiati ccustomer by bu ilding battleships and ult imately making war onher i s hard to see . But we are to ld that Japan is s teal ing ou r
Chines e t rade . There fo re , by some mysterious logic, we mustoutstrip her yet further in warship const ruct ion . Yet whi l eJapan was steal ing ou r Chine s e t rade, our Chinese imports
stubbo rnly rose from in 1910 to in 1920,
and our export s f rom to I t i s al l ve ry
odd . Somehow even the total figures of our Asiatic trade,
though running wel l ove r two bi l l ions in 1920, make the two
thi rds o f a bi l l ion asked next year by the Navy look likeexpensive insu rance, especial ly as i t i s apparent that a warwould automati ca l ly cut off nearly hal f that t rade .The common- sense o f the s ituat ion is plain enough . So long
as both Governments go on bu ild ing battl eship s,we may have
polite speeches and inte rnational d eputat ions ad nau seam , but
the unde rlying process o f d eveloping susp icion and fear wil l gor ight ou— and the mo re fear the more navy . Neithe r people ,i t i s p lain enough, has any reasonab le ground fo r bui lding anavy against the othe r
,except a de si re to put battleships behind
its fo reign investors and trad ers . I f either peop l e wants to dothat
,knowing th e cost and consequences, such is its p rivi lege .
Bu t neither peop l e need l et it s el f be fooled w i th specious pleaso f national d efen se
,p rotection o f commerce , and l ike bosh that
covers the real meaning o f the pol i cy. I f the peop le s real lywant national safety and commerce and peace they have got topierce th rough the ve i l o f so lemn humbug that enshrouds thissu ic idal navy building and tel l thei r governors , in words thatcannot be mistaken
,to d isa rm . Until that day comes, i t i s
vain to talk of peace . Has not the day arr ived ?
DISARMAMENT 193
THE ANGLO -JAPANE SE BOGY‘
The Wo rld prints e l sewhere on thi s page the ful l text o f theAng lo-J apanese treaty as cabled to the New York E vening Postby i ts Pari s co rrespond ent
,who obtained i t f rom Viscount
I shi i .
The Anglo-J apanes e t reaty i s th e favo rit e bogy of most ofthe Amer i can opponents of the limitat ion of armament, in Congres s and out of Congr es s . I t i s commonly d escribed by statesmen o f the Senato r Reed type as an o ff ensive and def ens iveal liance d i rected pr imar i ly against the United States
,the con
e lusion being that the United States must continue to arm
against this unholy coal it ion.
I f the Anglo-J apanese t reaty were an o ffensive and d ef ensiveall iance which might be made in imical to the United States
,
this might be a legitimate argument against reduction in sea
power whi le the menacing agreement continued in force,but
anybody who takes the trouble to read the t reaty for himse l f w i l lread i ly see that it admits o f no such far - f etched inte rp retation .
But i f the re be t imid soul s who d ecl ine to be reassured , Artic l eIV
,o f the treaty p rovides that neither party has any obl igation
to go to war w ith a country w ith which i t has an arbit rationt reaty. By so simp le a p rocess as an arbitration t reaty w ithGreat B ritain the United States can obtain al l the p rotec tionf rom thi s al l iance that the most timid Senato r could des ire .
The Anglo—J apanese agreement app lies only to the Fa r E ast ,and there is not th e remotest po ss ibi l ity that the United State swi l l be d rawn into war with ei ther J apan o r Great B ritain overany question in the Far E ast
,whe re B riti sh and American
inte re sts at least are v i rtual ly id ent ical . A s an argument
against the l imitat ion o f armament the t reaty i s d evoid o f fo rceand can be d i s regarded so far as the United States i s concernedin any d i scussion o f the p ractical reduction o f naval pow er .Secretary Daniel s has submitted a statement to the House
Naval A ff ai rs Committee which show s that on the basi s o f th eexi sting bui ld ing p rograms the United State s would achievesup remacy in sea-powe r by the end o f 1925. Assuming th e
co rrectnes s o f Mr . Danie ls’
s estimates , what should w e do w iththi s sup remacy when we had i t ? What benefi t would i t br ing
1 From New York Wor ld . January 1 4 , 1 92 1 .
194 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
u s ? What good could it do u s ? We should have paid approximately fo r i t, every dol lar o f which would betaken out o f American labo r and American industry
,and it
would have b rought u s nowhere . What earthly reason is the refo r imposing such a burden on Amer i can p roduction ?E ven af te r this eno rmous expend i ture our nominal supr emacy
in sea-power wou ld not be an actual sup remacy . The American
Navy would s t i l l be weaker than the combined B rit i sh andJapanes e Navies and far w eaker than that o f hal f a dozenpossibl e coal it ions that could be organiz ed against u s. All the
b i l l ions wasted in thi s competition o f sea—power would haveconferred no gains in re lation to any practical question o f nat ional def ense o r national i nterest . We should b e no safe r onthe seas and we shou ld .b e the weaker at home because o f the
d ive rs ion of'
v ast sums o f money f rom p roductiv e industry tomi l itary fol ly.
Th e Anglo- Japanese Tr eaty
The complete text of the Anglo-Japanese T reaty fo l lows :“The Government of Japan and the Government o f Great
B ri tain hav ing in vi ew impo rtant changes which have takenplace in the situat ion since the conclusion o f th e Anglo-Japanese agreement on the 1 2 th of August
,1905, and b eli ev ing that
a rev i s ion of that agreement responding to such changes wouldcontribute to the general stab i l ity and r epose, have agreed up
on the fo l low ing stipulat ions to replace the agreement abovementioned
,such st ipulati ons hav ing the same ob j ect as said
agreement,namely :
“
(a) Consolidation and maintenance of general peace in theregions of E aste rn Asia and India .
“(b ) P reservation o f the common interests o f al l powers
in China by insu ring the independence and integrity o f the
Chines e Empi re and the p rinc ipl e o f equal oppo rtuniti es incommerce and indust ry o f al l nat ions with China .
“(c ) Maintenance o f the te r ri tor ial rights o f the high con
tract ing parti es in the regions o f E astern Asia and Ind ia andthe d efense o f thei r specia l interests in said regions .Artic l e I— I t is agreed that whenever in the opinion either
o f J apan o r Great B ri tain any o f the r ight s and interests r e
f erred to in the preamb le o f this agreement a re in j eopardy,the two Governments wi l l communicate with one another fu l ly
196 SELECTED ARTICLE S
A FRENCH VIEW
I shou ld fi rs t l ike to make clear that i n what I am goingto say I in no way offic i al ly rep resent France , either her people o r her government . But the v i ews which I shal l p resentare my own deductions o f the di scussion on this inte restingtopic which is going on in France . To us i t s eems
,f rom the
word s o f an old Spani sh p rove rb,that one cannot walk in the
p roces s ion and at the same time ring the bel l s in the chu rch .
You ei ther a re for d i sa rmament o r you a re against i t . I f youare for i t, you act that way. I f you are against i t
,you act the
othe r way . In view of that fact and in v i ew of ou r analysi so f the who le subj ect in that way
,I am going to te l l you how
we have acted , in what way pub li c op inion, becaus e a fter a l lno matte r how bad gove rnments a re they eventual ly fo l low thet rend o f pub lic op in ion— how th i s pub lic opinion has fo rced o rhas d i rected the action o f the French government along suchand such lines .A s th is is ou r const ructive contribution to the quest ion
,I
shall deal with it at some length . We recogniz e at the outset
that i t is v ery d ifficult fo r any one country to show the wayto th e rest o f the wo r ld by d rastica l ly reducing its a rmy andnavy . We therefo re propose that there b e d rawn up an inte rnational p rogram o f d i s armament ; that th i s p rogram be basedupon (a ) each country
’
s ca re ful ly und ertaking the eliminationof al l its milita ry and naval e lements in thos e spheres in whichit bel i eves itse l f to
'
be immune f rom attack (a p ractical examp l e o f the possib i l ity o f doing thi s is the agreement betweenth e United States and Canada not to fo rt i fy thei r resp ectivebo rd e rs and not to maintain powerfu l naval uni ts on the GreatLakes ) ; (b ) the gradual limitation o f armaments in thos espheres in which dange r of attack is b el i eved to li e, in p ropo rtion to the d i sappearance o f thi s danger .The second po r t ion '
o f thi s p rogram is ev idently much mo red ifficult to reali ze than the fi rst
,because a people once attacked
f rom a certain d i rect ion o r convinced of the fact’
that i t wi l l
again be attacked by its former enemy at an opportune
1 By J . A . M . de Sanchez . From Bul let in. League of Free Nat ionsAssoc iat ion.
-9 . March , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 197
moment,i s difficult to wean from its conviction . The necessary
prelimina ry to the rea l ization o f thi s proposal there fore ap
pears to u s to b e a j o int inte rnational guarantee , after certain
possib le ad j u stment s,o f the present te r ri to rial s tatu s qu o. We
do not conceive the maintenance of the present s tatu s qu o to
b e incompatib le with a j oint d i sarmament agreement i f i t i saccepted i n good faith by al l nations , nor do we be li eve imposs ib le the o rganization and maintenance of such an agreement .We do beli eve that i t is es sentia l to the enfo rcement of suchan agreement that it b e endo rsed not only by the gove rnmentsbut by the peoples o f al l the countri es party to it . The sanc
t ion o f . the variou s peop les o f th e world to such a p lan depend supon the leadership o f thei r publ i c men and upon a t ruth fuland unprej udiced d i scus s ion o f the whole sub j ect . We have
suffici ent faith i n the common sense o f men to b eli eve thatsuch leadership and such di scuss ion wi ll make it po ss ib l e to ob
tain thi s sanction .
A s fa r as we ou rselves a re conce rned , we hav e al ready oh
tained i t . We are convi nced that we are in no danger o f attack by sea. We have , there fo re , not only d i scontinued bui lding capita l ships
,but have fu rthe r reduced the bui ld ing o f al l
othe r naval uni t s to such an ext ent that only a po rtion of oneo f ou r navy yard s is d evoted to new work . The f ew destroye r s which w e a re const ructing a re d estined to rep lace ob so let eve ssel s at p resent in u s e in ou r colonia l s e rv i ce . The ways on
which batt leship s we re bui lt have b een given over to the bui lde rs o f t ramp steamers and passenge r l ines . Much of the
money which would have fo rmerly been spent upon ou r navyi s now being d iverted to the d evelopment o f ou r co loni es andto the reconst ruction o f ou r d evastated regions . In 1920,
we
spent les s than on new naval const ruction .
During th e past yea r , we have not only great ly reduced ou rnaval estab li shment , but we al so made p rov i s ion fo r the reduetion o f ou r army f rom seven hund red thi rty thou sand men tofou r h und red ninety thou sand men
,o f whom two hund red
twenty thousand wi l l b e French and the balance co lonia lt roops , a fo rce which i s no t exces sive when ou r colonia l en
gagem ents a re consid ered . Thi s reduction means a sav ing tous o f about th ree b i l l ion francs a year and w e ar e p repared toreduce ou r a rmy fu rth e r as th e s i tuation in E u rop e becomesmore sett led .
198 SELECTED ARTICLES
I th ink, i n view of these facts , that you wi l l find France
favo rab le to any scheme fo r the l imiting o f armaments whichis inte rnational in it s s cop e and practical in i ts poss ib le app lication . We have given p roo f that we a re imbued with morethan good intentions ; we are ready and w i l l ing to j oin hand swith the rest o f the world in any feasib l e attempt to eliminate
th e greatest waste known to man : War .
THE UNITED STATE S WILL ING TO DISARM1
There ar e th ree b ig nav i es i n the world,the American
,the
B riti sh , and the Japanese . The cost o f maintaining them is anext remely onerous bu r den in every cas e. There i s no reason
fo r any one o f the three navi es b eing as la rge as they are ex
cep t that the nav i e s o f the othe r two are as large as they are .Mr . Hard ing has said that the United States i s wi l l ing to meetthe other nations hal f way in any reduction of a rmaments .There is evidence that the B ri ti sh a re o f th e same mind, andi t is presumed that Japan would l ikew i s e b e w i l l ing. The si t
nation reso lves i ts e l f into which one of the th ree wi l l invi tethe cooperat ion o f the others . Mr . Hard ing has int imated alsothat he might cal l a conference to discus s the limitation o f
armament . I t would be most fi tting that the United States, the
most powerfu l and least th reatened,should take thi s step .
A naVal rival ry b etween the United S tates and G reat B ritain can hardly b e founded on any reasoned set o f facts . No
conceivab l e B riti sh navy cou ld prevent the United States f romattacking Canada o r could b lockade the long coast o f theUnited States suffici ently to keep American crui sers f rom inte rr u p t ing the flow of commerce to E ngland in the At lantic. Onthe other hand no conceivabl e American Navy could cont rolthe narrow wate rs a round Great B ritain and prevent her getting food f rom the Continent . Such b eing the cas e both sides
might as wel l reduce thei r costs and continue in th e assump
tion o f th e last hundred years that there would b e no quarrel ,an assump tion to which Great B ritain testified by maintainingan undef ended Canad ian borde r and to which the United Statestes tified by building her .fi eet without ref erence to G reat B r itain .
1 From World’s Work . J une, 1 92 1 .
200 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
AMERICA AS AN OBSTACLE TO DIS
ARMAMENT1
I f a d ependab le inte rnational agreement comes into beingwhereby al l naval powers shou ld agree to rest ri ct thei r naval
fo rces , says Vice Admi ral Kato , Japanes e Mini ster o f Marine
,
“I would b e glad to j oin to a reasonab le extent i f a suitab le fo rmula could b e found .
” In j oining the League of Na
tions,adds the Vice Admiral
,the Japanese Government sup
po rted the p rinciple o f the reduction of armaments .” But Japan
,with a navy much smaller than that of Great B ritain o r
the United States , does not f eel l ike lead ing the way in revi sing her build ing program .
Great B ritain does not ca re to lead the way either, but thespokesmen fo r he r Government have made it inescapab ly plainto the United States that they w i l l ente r into an agreement i fwe w i l l . Both Japan and Great B ritain are financia l ly handi
capped in the a rmament race and would gladly cal l a halt .Only the United States
,ri ch in go ld, bold, young, succes s ful
and unscarred,remains unconv inced . And if
_the United S tates
keeps On with it s bui ld ing plans , Japan and Great B ritain mustfo l low as w el l a s they can . Though Americans have not as
yet realized i t,thei r Government now constitutes a greate r dan
ger to the peace o f the wor ld and— in pol itical eyes— a gravermenace to it s neighbo rs than any othe r on earth .
Bearing in mind that the arming o f Great B ri tain,Japan
and the United States i s in p reparation fo r a war among themselves
,and that fu rther war within ou r generation could mean
for a l l the powers concerned nothing but moral and financial
ruin,any reluctance to l imi t the si ze o f nav i e s sh ows an in
cred ib le stup id ity . Yet , inc red ib l e or not, i t exi st s in officia l
ci rc l e s in suffic i ent p ropo rtion to render thi s Nation the laststumbling—b lock in the way of an inte rnational pact fo r d i sarmament . Is a steady p ers i stence in thi s atti tud e to give u s intime the p lace one occupi ed in Weste rn civi l i zation by thatWi l li am I I . who is remembered as th e las t o f the Hohenzollerns ?
1 From New York World. March 29, 1 92 1 .
DI SARMAMENT 201
A PRE CEDENT FOR DISARMAMENT1
I t was a happy thought in this s eason o f p eace and goodw i l l fo r the New York World to d i spatch a message to lead ingmen throughout the wo rld
,asking fo r thei r sentiments and
op in ions on the subj ect o f di sarmament . The rep l i e s reveal ap ractical ly unan imous and evid ently very s incere d esi re on th e
part o f civ i l i zat ion to get rid o f the eno rmous financial warburd ens which w e are st il l ca rrying
,in spite o f the fact that a
great World War for th e vind icat ion o f j ust ic e and humanitywas recently b rought to a victo riou s conclu sion .
I t was at fi rst s ight i l logical , but on second thought per fectlyconsi stent that thi s quest ionnai re shou ld have been sent out fromthe United State s . I t was i l logical because our Navy Department is the one power which has an eno rmou s p rogram ofwarship const ruct ion in hand ; it was fitt ing because
,outs ide o f
the Secretary o f the Navy and a smal l m ino rity o f naval officers ,the Navy as a whol e and the c it i zens o f the United States as awhole bel ieve that w e sh ould cu t down rather than inc reas e ou rnaval approp riat ions
,and that as a peop l e w e should take the
lead in d i sarmament and the substitut ion o f reasonableness andj u st ice fo r the arbit rament o f the sword .
I t i s in the natu re o f things that th i s appeal should find amore ready response among civ i l ians than in naval and mil itaryc i rcl es ; but w e would remind the latte r that the histo ry o f thetwo lead ing powers in the wo rld today a fford s a notabl e case
,
in which an agreement for the d i scontinuance o f a rmed p rotect ion was d rawn up and put in fo rce at the c lo se o f a bit te r
war in which they had been engaged . We re fer to the war o f1812 and the agreement o f the United State s and Great B ritainto set no fleets o f fighting ship s afloat upon the Great Lakes ,and to l imit thei r const ru ction in th es e wate rs to one o r twosmall gunlioats d esigned pu re ly fo r pol ice and pat rol du t ie s .
This m omentous and ex t r em e lv s ignificant agreement was d rawnup and s igned ove r a centu ry ago and has b een most faith ful ly
‘ From Sc ientific Amer ican. January 8. 1 92 1 .
202 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
fo llow ed . Moreover,along the whole stretch o f mutual front ier,
reaching fo r over th ree thousand miles,there has not been
erected dur ing the intervening centu ry a single fort ificat ion .
Nobody,o f cou rse
,demands that any such sweeping e l imina
t ion o f warship s should be made upon the high seas . The
policing o f the s eas and the keeping open o f the trad e routescal l fo r the maintenance o f fleets
,whose relat ive st rength
should be drawn up after a careful and f riendly cons iderat iono f the relat iv e respons ib i l it ie s and l iabi l i ti es o f the two nations
a del icate and difficu lt probl em , but one that is entirely possib leo f so lution i f the representat iv es o f the two powers gathertogethe r in a spi r it o f mutual confidence and fair play. In
the one case wei
hav e an inland empire, sel f- contained and so
strong in population,wealth and natu ral resources that it i s
unconquerab le by any conceivabl e host il e combinat ion . In the
other case we have an i s land empire that i s scatte red over everyquarter o f the globe
,and whose very ex i s tence depends upon
the freedom o f the s eas and the maintenance o f th e highwayso f commerce
,so that her ships and those o f the nations o f the
wo rl d may come and go as they please .
I f such a happy solut ion o f the problem was so quickly
found at th e'
close o f a bitter war between the two count ries , itshould certainly be possib le to find an equal ly happy so lution at
the close o f the l ate war fo r civ i l izat ion,in which the two
countries fought s ide by s ide as loyal and mutual ly appreciat iveall i es . I t i s the bel ie f o f all thought ful Ameri cans that ourbeloved count ry stands j ust now at the parting o f the ways . Thefo rtunes o f war have le ft us in a commanding position , andwith an influence in internat ional aff airs which not even themost sanguine among us be l i eved would b e ours fo r many adecade to come . Upon the u se which w e make o f thi s heritagedepends to an immeasurabl e ex tent the future peace and happinesso f the great wo rld o f which w e fo rm a part . I f ou r statesmenare guided by the sp i ri t o f Wash ington and the spi rit shown byhis worthy succes sors in the ever-memorable agreement as toarmaments on the Great Lakes
,they w i l l have the opportunity,
du ring the next f ew years,to write some o f the most glo r ious
and honorable chapte rs in th e h i sto ry o f thi s country .
204 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
pacifist president and war secretary,Wi l son and Baker
,real ized
that the moment was opportune for mil itar i sm and covered theUnited States with a net o f recruit ing offices
,offer ing phys ical
,
mental and normal perfe ct ion, i f not a complete beatitude, toevery volunteer. By the time the dange r o f the Wil son-Bakermeasure was reali zed by congress and a l imit to the army wasset at one hund red eighty thousand
,Bake r had already recruited
two hundred thirty thousand men . Ou r republican congres s hasfu rther cut down thi s army o f unproductive labo r to one hundredfi fty thousand .
I t is understood that S ecretary Weeks o f the war departmentfeel s moral compunct ions on this matter and regards the reduetion o f the army as a break o f contracts with the enl i sted men.
L eads to Armament R ace
I t thus tu rns out that men who occupy high mil itary andnaval offi ce s as wel l as thos e who look forward to a p rospectiv eAmeri can empi re
,which in the i r opin ion cannot come without
our defeat ing Mex i co, Japan and poss ibly E ngland , manage tomaintain their ho ld on the growing army and navy and
,con
t rary to the expressed desires o f the American people, upsetthe anti-militar i s t pol icy o f our l iberal s tatesmen . Japan and
E ngland,on the other hand
,ar e wel l aware o f the pol it ical
s ituat ion in this country . They reply with sweet rheto r i c to al lpacifi st o rations o f ou r a rmy and navy departments and con
t inu e to bu ild warship s and dr i l l so ldier s so as to keep up with
the mil itary preparations o f the United States . The grand totali s a w i ld armament race, by far greater than that conducted bythe mi l itary powers o f the wor ld pr io r to 1914 and which made
th e world war possib l e .Admitt ing for a moment that our mil itary and naval author
it ies are s incere in thei r de s ire to do away eventual ly witharmaments and u rge the pas sage o f the approp ri at ion bi l l s bycongres s as a purely defensive measu re, the enti re internationalarmaments p robl em reduces itse l f to the question which country should be fi rst in opening the way to unive rsal disarmament .The att itude o f B ritain was made cl ear by Premier Lloyd Georgein hi s addres s to the imper ial con fe rence of premiers .
Th e l i fe o f the empi re— the whole basi s o f it s exist ence
i s buil t upon sea power, he said .
“We have there fo re to lookto measu res which our secur ity r equires . As for di sarmament
DISARMAMENT 205
Lloyd George announced that B r itain was wil l ing to di scus swith American statesme n “any p roposal for l imitation o f a rmaments .”
Japan’
s P oint of View
As fo r th e atti tude o f Japan,R oku sab u ro Nakanishi
,chair
man o f the Japanes e parl iamentary delegation announced inthe cours e o f hi s recent v is it to Washington
“While the p r imary obje ct o f adequate p rovis ions for war
may be to keep the balance o f powers among nation s,due to
inte rnational misunderstand ing and suspic ion each i s bound toaspire to hold the favo rabl e end of the scale ; hence, the o ftrepeated and regrettable race fo r armament which has led thewor ld to many a war. Should the United States take the leadas the march o f events would seem to i nd icat e
,i t wou ld rece ive
an enthus iastic wel come at the hands o f the Japanese peopl e .”
Thus runs the s ituat ion in a tox i c ci rcl e . From the standpoint o i the impartial spectato r it must s eem certain that England and Japan —two is land countri es— are l ess than the UnitedState s in posit ion to attempt to init iate d i sarmament .
As Br i tain S ees I t
The s ituat ion that confront s the Washington admini st rat ion
has been wel l summed up in a recent ed ito rial in the Mancheste r Guardian :
“The s ituat ion in Washington,
i s suffi ciently d ifficult , says
the Mancheste r Gua rd ian .
“Mr . Weeks,the secretary fo r war
,
h as j u st mad e a speech in favo r o f a power ful army and un ive rsa lmi l itary training . H is col l eague
,Mr . Denby o f the navy depart
ment,i s fo r th e l argest navy . The senate maj o rity, whil e voting
to l imit th e army to one hundred fi fty thousand men , asks fo ran increase in the navy bil l to a figu re app roaching one hundredtwenty mi ll ion sterl ing . At the same time the mass ing o f popularsentime nt against th i s p ro spective burden is unmistakable , andit can hard ly be doubted that, w ith Mr . Hughes at the statedepartment pres s ing steadily towa rd international coope ration ,an announcement o f Mr . Hard ing’
s d eci sion will not be longdelayed .
”
Thi s deci s ion,the Mancheste r Guard ian points out , i s to
open negotiation s for d i sarmament i n accordance with thepopula r wi sh o f the American peopl e and despite the sentiments
206 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
o f th e army and navy departments and even not ful ly in acco rdance with P resident Harding’s indiv idual incl inations
.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIE S OF DISARMAMENT1
With somb re e loquence, Maximi lian Harden o f Germanyhas warned us that “he who prepares fo r the next war i s p repa ring the sheet o f paper on which a new S t . John wi l l wr i t ethe Apocalyps e of ou r civi l i zation .
” On the same so lemn theme,
invo lving i s sues of li f e and death fo r the human race,Viscount
Grey observes “I pre fer the chance o f utop ia to the certaintyo f dest ruction, whi le Wi lli am G . McAdoo, with terse vigo rcri es ,
“di sarm o r bust . Al l of u s reali ze,then
,that arma
ments ought to b e limited . In the chu rches o f the UnitedS tates, P rotestant, Catholi c and Jewi sh, a day has j ust beend evoted to the matte r, and reso lutions in favo r of di sarmament , more o r les s complete, have been passed by bankers ,Chambers o f Commerce and o rganizations o f women whosevote s now count . While f rom Japan and B r i tain s imi lar movements are repo rted . The time has come, therefo re, fo r as suming the generalit i es and descending to particu la rs . We wantdi sa rmament ; then what do we mean by it ?The fi rst attempt to limit armament by international negotia
tion was made by the B riti sh Government o f Gladstone in 1870,when troub le with France and Germany was developing. In
Pari s , the B ri ti sh Ambassado r was Lord Lyons , who approachedthe subj ect f rankly as a skeptic
,but he induced the Empero r
Napoleon I I I to support B ritain in an appl icat ion to P russ ia,th rough Queen Victo ria and others , as intermediari es , whichovertures
,however
,were b rusquely rej ected by Bi smarck, as
Lo rd Lyons had foreseen . The idea lapsed and a few months
lat e r th e Franco-German War b roke out .In 1898, a
’
second attempt to disarm the wo r ld was made bythe late Czar Nichol as I I o f Russia
,as a resul t o f whose fam
ous rescrip t,The Hague Cou rt was estab li shed and peace con
fer ences there held . The cou rt , s i tting j udicial ly, has given
about a dozen d eci s ions,and i t has b een shown that where
1 By P . W. W i lson . From th e New York T im es Book Review and
Magaz ine . p . 8-9 . J u l y 1 0, 1 92 1 .
208 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
the war i s he ld to b e that neither Germany no r any other nation i s ab le thus to prevent thi s di scus sion by a mere non possumu s. The T reaty of Versai l les contains thes e wo rdsIn o rde r to render possib le the initiat ion of a genera l limi
tat ion of a rmaments of a l l nations,Germany undertakes str i ct
ly to ob serve the mi l itary, naval and air clauses as fo l lows : etc .Mr . Lloyd Geo rge has given figu res which show that on
land and on sea th e Ge rman war machine has been smashed .
Under the League o f Nations there is already s itting a commiss ion to examine d i s a rmament . On th is commission the UnitedStates has no representative , but the commission repo rts toth e Counci l o f the League, which i s not fa r f rom the Sup remeCounci l, where the United States ho lds , at any rat e, a watching b ri e f . A second line o f advance i s suggested by Senato rBorah, who wants a naval conf erence between the UnitedStates, Great B ritain and Japan . A third p roposal, understoodto b e favo red by the P res ident
,i s fo r a conference to include
a rmies as wel l as nav i es , with I ta ly and France b rought in ;and on these l ines M r. Harding is s aid to be sounding otherpowers . Senato r Borah and hi s f ri ends are credit ed with thev i ew that ta lk b eh ind closed doors merely helps the mi li tar i st so f every nation, and that disarmament must b e carri ed, i f ata l l
,by open diplomacy and an overwhelming popu lar movement .In what fo l lows
,i t wi l l b e as sumed that a nation i s disa rmed
when it s fo rces on land and sea are reduced to no more thanthe number and equipment needed to guarantee internal o rder.In the case o f Germany, the T reaty o f Versai l l es a l lows onesoldier fo r six hundred o f population . And acco rding to th is
test,i t i s a fact that the whol e o f the B rit i sh Empire, o f A fr i ca,
o f China,and o f No rth and South America are al ready disarmed
on land so fa r as man power i s concerned . The only armiesserious ly to b e conside red are thos e of Russia, I taly, Franceand Japan . Simi la r ly
,there are no nav i es o f sub stance save
th ose‘
of B ritain , the United States and Japan . We thus arr ive at the conclusion that , complicated as di sarmament mustalways be
,i t i s a po l icy dependent at thi s stage on the good
wil l of the f ew great powers . I f they agree, the smal l nat ionsmust fo l low
,and war wil l b e severely locali z ed. On the other
hand,i f the great powers refus e to disa rm , they wi l l invo lve
in a common peri l,not themselves only but al l the smal l na
tion s and undeveloped races , say of Af ri ca .Considering the fou r great a rmies, of Russia, I ta ly, France
DISARMAMENT 209
and Japan, we may ask, fi rst,whethe r thes e powers are pre
pared in time of peace fo r a general wor ld-wide abandonmento f conscr ipt ion whi ch would thus become str ictly a war measu re . I s that poss ib l e ? Next
,having placed themselves thus
on a voluntary basi s , a re nations ready to limit the man powero f thei r standing a rmies to th e German, B ri t i sh and Ameri canproportion of not
'
mor e than one so ld i er to every six hundredo f population o r thereabout ?Let us take the fou r mili ta ry powers
,one by one. Over
Russia , at the moment , diplomacy has no control. This , howeve r, i s not a si tuation which can b e permanent, fo r Bolshevi sm i s a phas e that must b e temporary
,at any rat e in i t s ex
t reme and logical fo rm . And in the meantime the industryand finance o f Russia are so d i so rganized and her commercia li so lat ion i s sti l l so complete that di sarmament e ls ewhere neednot await her retu rning sanity.
In Italy,
finance wi l l operate toward demobi li zation whi lethe f ear of unemployed masses o f di s charged so ldie rs wi l l t eta rd i t
,but thi s latte r condit ion i s , once more, l et u s hope,
tempo ra ry .
France sti l l f ears the recove ry of Cent ral E u rope and, withher
,di sarmament would be much helped i f her f ronti ers could
be guaranteed against fu rther attack . The misgivings o f
France are the mo re plau sib l e b ecaus e Germany, : l ike al l the
great bell igerent states,whi l e sh e has demobi l i z ed , st i l l remains
a nation t rained to war . Such knowledge o f wa r can only b e,at i t were
,cu red by the pas sage o f the years and the r i s e o f a
new generation .
For the Japanese A rmy,at least s even hund red thousand
st rong,i t i s diffi cu lt to find eithe r explanation o r reasonab le
p ret ext . Befo re the Disarmam ent .,Comm ission o f th e League
o f Nation s Baron Uchida stated that Japan could not d isarm
on land o r s ea whi l e another country was arming. On land ,at any rate
,the United States has now reduced her fo rces to
one-fi fth those o f Japan for a la rge r population and in Indiathe a rmed fo rces on land pe r head of popu lation a re one- tenththose o f Japan . The conclu sion appears to be that Japan ,though an i s land powe r
,maintains thi s army eithe r as a means
o f reta rd ing he r people ’ s progres s toward const itutional l iberty o r fo r some unavowed pu rpose beyond he r present f ronti ers ,o r fo r bargaining reasons .In the days o f Bonaparte you cou ld calculate a rmaments
2 10 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
by three simple measu res o f strength : men, guns and ship s.All the guns were muzz le- loade rs and al l the ships were wooden, uni fo rm i n general st ructu re and p ropel led by sai ls . Today the mechani sm o f war i s infinite ly complicated and
,so far
as I can see, no a ri thmetica l compari sons can now be regardedas conv i ncing. You have to take into account men
,t raining
,
equipment , t ranspo rt , b ig guns , l i tt le guns , shel ls , rifl es, trenchmorta rs , bombs , gas and flame p roj ecto rs
,ai rc raf t and their
proj ecti les , including di rigib les and s eaplanes , batt leships, crui sers , d est roye rs and submarines . Then there a re tanks—evensubmers ib l e tanks—s tee l helmet s
,gas masks and an infinitely
var i ed paraphernalia o f attack and defense . Other facto rs o finca lcu lab le moment a re contro l o f raw mater ia ls
,of metals
and oi l , and o f indust r ie s adaptable to making munit ions . Al lthes e a re indices of a nation ’s preparednes s . And probably it
i s a fact , now as throughout hi story, that when you have reckoned up al l the men and war materi al
,i t w i l l b e the nation
with the longest pu rse that wi l l W in in the end . I t is the
wealth accumulated by peace that insu res victo ry in war.Sti l l
,with al l these rese rvat ions
,it remains b roadly t rue that
a nation’
s mi li ta ri sm i s measu rab le by the men,the money and
th e materia l put into the busines s f rom year to year— in aword , by the annual appropriations placed at the di sposal o f
the army and navy and ai r departments . Some o f thi s expenditu r e may be masked by al lowing undi sclo sed credit s to accumu late, as in Germany before 1914, but i f a par l i amentary system be fai r ly worked , bu reaucracy cannot long conceal what i ti s spend ing . And here the habit o f Congres s o f announcing
eno rmous appropriations which are af terward cut down laysthe United S tates under a charge of mi li ta ri sm which i s notj ustified by the final deci sion . In B ri tain, the estimates p resented by the Government are usual ly the estimates adopted byParl iament . I doubt ve ry much whether the extent o f demob ilizat ion o f the Amer i can Army is app reciated abroad .
E xpenditu re i s not , o f cou rs e, a guarantee o f wa r effici ency.
Money may be squande red,l et u s say, on extravagant pensions
and futi l e but showy expensive devices ; and a conscr iptarmy i s obv iously cheaper than voluntary service . A sum of
may be spent on one battle sh ip, when many o f the
highest expert s doubt whether battleship s wi ll ever again go intoeffective b attl e . I t was not Germany’ s outlay on battleships that
2 1 2 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
sovereignties are merged, as among the fo rty- eight States o fthe Amer ican . Union . The B r it i sh Empire i ts el f has been defined as a convenient arrangement whereby four hundred fi ftymi l l ion people agree not to cut one another ’s throats .For such a super sovereignty the wo r ld i s not prepared,
though it may be held that the Supreme Counci l has b een anattempt in that di rection . Fo r the moment i t i s enough to argue that the combative s ide o f sovereignty i s f ed by naval andmil itary expenditu re and that the b est saf eguard against imper ialism i s economy. I t i s qui te probab le that we shal l see inGermany the ri s ing prosper i ty of a nation which, rel i eved o farmaments by her own defeat
,i s thus abl e to concentrate
who lly on productive enterpri s e. That ob j ect l es son may profoundly affect al l othe r countr i es .Limiting expenditu re wi l l al so abate the danger o f the ex
port of a rms f rom one country to another. Of this there havebeen recently some start l ing instances—guns to b e s ent f romDanzig into Mexico and f rom New Yo rk into I reland ; andB riti sh airmen assi sting Japan , whi le B ri ti sh di rigib les a re going to the United States and a Japanes e o rder fo r a warshipto B rooklyn ! In t ime o f peace the armaments industry is, andmust b e, l ike al l other trades , int ernational in scope, and thi smeans that nations industria l ly are constant ly arming thei rown rivals against themselves . The only reason why guns didnot go to Dub lin was that the I ri sh Repub lic is not recognized,and that was the reason why guns did not go to Mexico . The
ai rplanes fo r Japan were adj udged a perf ect ly legitimate commer cial t ransaction .
Are we prepared to say, then , that the export and impo rto f munit ions shal l b e prohib i ted by international agreement ?I f so
,then the armament fi rm wi l l have but one customer—the
Gove rnment under which it i s carri ed ou—and independent ex
per iments on weapons of dest ruction wi l l b e much di scouraged.
Hav ing reached this point,do we
'
consider that al l pr ivatemanu factu re o f arms
,with the profits invo lved, should b e
stopped and that Governments alone should conduct thi s manu factu r e ? And what a re munit ions ? How do you different iate between boot s fo r soldi e rs and boots fo r civi l ians , b etween ai rplanes fo r mai l and ai rplanes for bombs , b etween coalproducts fo r dyes and per fumes and coal p roducts fo r poi sonsand explo sives
,b etween rubber fo r p rivate and fo r milita ry
DI SARMAMENT 2 13
ti res ? The war has shown that al l indust ry can b e rationedand al l mater ia ls schedu led
,but I can hardly beli eve
,mysel f
,
that such measures would be need ed as a step in di sarmament .They would constitut e a grave inte rf e rence with trades whichare enti re ly pacific and , p resumab ly, the inspection would have
to b e i nte rnationa l and , therefo re , in a sense , fo reign and un
sympathet ic . I f the S tat e i s not spend ing money on munitions ,i t wi l l b e to nobody’ s inte res t eithe r to make o r to invent mumi tions . T rade and p rofit s wi l l flow along other channels . Thehandmaid of di sarmament i s thus s impl e
”
economy,p racti ced
by nations in f ri endly concert instead o f by each nation in
d ividual ly,as hitherto attempted .
DISARMAMENT AND ARB ITRATION’
We entered the war to stop war, and we d id it, and now wehave reached the hal f—way point in ou r work —in our destiny,and we have th e r ight to demand that the nations j oin us in ap lan
,having to do with nothing el se than to prevent future
wars . Wars have always taken place f rom the dawn o f t imeright down to ou r own days . E very att empt to save the world
from futu re wars has been a dismal fai lure . From the Con
gress o f Vienna ; th rough the times o f th e Treaty o f the Declaration o f Pa r i s and the Hague Con ferences and th e Declarat iono f London
,which
,however
,fai led o f adopt ion— al l Con fe rences ,
having to do w ith peace,have
,sooner o r later
,been fol lowed
by war . The question,es sent ial ly
,has become a mo ral one
and t ime is ve ry p reciou s—it wil l not long wait it s presentat ion .
Now,o r never
,be fo re desol at ion
,th e question
,must be con
side red ; i t seems to be in the ai r . Clearly, the United State s
should be the nation to p resent its plan to the wor ld .
E ve rything— th e League o f Nat ions is, as yet , in its in fancy
h as been tri ed and everything has been found wanting, and , atlast
,it h as been brought home to the world that there are only
two ways in which war can be preventedDi sarmament
,and Compulso ry Arbit rat ion—el se blockade ,
embargo and boycott .
By R . Mason Lis l e . From Compul sory A rb i trat ion Instead of War .
Reprint from Th e Legal Inte l l igencer, December 1 7 , 1 920 and Addenda,February 1 , 1 92 1 .
2 14 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
And, fi rs t of - th e curtai lment o f war sh ipbui lding forsome definit e per iod . This i s not at al l “di sarmament” and
,
real ly, how little it has to do with disarmament—it was neverto so apply—wi l l be s een in a moment
,in what we wil l say o f
disarmament . I t has one virtue, however—it wil l give theal ready overtaxed Treasu ries o f the Nations an oppo rtunity tocatch up in their finances , and , it wi l l al so giv e t ime to workout a true and honest di sarmament. But
,i t must always be
remembered how tr i cky nations are about di sarmament . Onceupon a time
,an agre ement was p roposed to l imit the P russian
Army to two hundred thousand men . I t was quickly acceptedby P russ ia’ s great statesman—Stein
, was i t not ? —~who saw
the loophole . When two hundred thousand men had beentrained, as only P russia could train them
,they wer e returned
to civi l l i f e and anothe r two hundred thousand recru its weretrained in the same per fect way and so on
,unti l the whole o f
P russia became a nat ion o f t rained so ldi ers . And now,o f
d i s armament.(1 ) Disarmam ent would stop future wars , o f course,— but ,
there are so many ways in which di sa rmament can be s imulatedthat a faithles s nation would have at it s mercy the honestnation which kept faith and
,the re fo re
,in these days
,disarm
ament, so to speak, i s a delusion and a snare . I t could veryeas i ly be thought that “disarmament” was being carr i ed out , whenas a matter o f fact, modern invention, physical sci ence andever—progres s ing scient ific research may have produced someunthought-of weapon o f war fare which would render uselesseve ry weapon hitherto thought supreme and true and eff ect iv e“disarmament” would be as far off as ever . For instance , o fcourse
,there are two s ides to the que stion, but Admi ral S ir
Percy Scott i s o f opinion that capital sh ips should be scrappedhi s country thinks so ,
too, perhaps,fo r sh e i s not bu ilding them .
Planes and poi son gases seem to b e the coming weapons and
who knows,but that
,very soon
,the el ectr i ci ty in the air—the
l ightning— may be control led by man , and, at thi s very moment,that t err ibl e weapon destructive of every thing that fl oats— thetorpedo Plane—i s being studied the world over, by most capabl emen. I t wi l l at once be understood that disarmament is alwaysj ust over lapped by some new type o f armament.(2 ) Nations wi l l not agree to dis armament o f S ea-Power
that ’ s fo r de fense,alone
,they maintain, not heeding the fact
2 16 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
o f the creat ion o f plants a lready equipped fo r the immediateproduction of the most de structive weapons o f war.Whil st, on the other hand, arb itration— en forced by blockad e,
embargo and boycott —th e subj ect o f this paper—demands ias tant positive action in it s in iti al movement . I f two nations go
to war ins tead o f to arbitration,blockade, embargo and boycott
are r ight to the fo re at once . A nation which does not respondto i t s agreement to enforce— against nations propos ing to figh tarbitration by blockade, etc ., etc., would be breaking faith and ,at once, would, hers el f, b ecome a pariah nation .
Disarmament should go, hand in hand with Arbit rationThese two be the Great Twin B rothers to whom the Dorianspray."
THE INADEQUACY OF PARTIAL DISARM
AMENT1
This i s the plain tale o f the way a man,a l i fe long foe o f
armament,was almost per suaded to sta rt a League for Universal
Armament . To understand my story,you must know that I
read General B li s s ’ d enunciat ion . of armament with great j oy .
At last a Danie l had come to j udgment out .of the ve ry rankso f the army itsel f ! My j oy was increase d when a paper o f theprestige of the New Yo rk Wo rld started i ts d i sarmament campaign. With the powerful backing o f General B li s s , the NewYork Wor ld, General P er shing, and numbers o f pol it iciansand busines s men alarmed at the r i s ing tax rate, even the clergybegan to speak boldly. Senator Bo rah ’ s resolut ion fo r a sort o fnaval hol iday excited my co rd ial approval . Wor ld peace” seemedneare r than I had hoped . In thi s f ram e o f mind
.i t chanced that
I was obl iged to take a railway j ou rney to a di stant ci ty.
In the smoking car I fe l l in with a . clean~cu t young man
wear ing an American Legion button . He saw me reading thatmo rning’ s World and began conversat ion .
“I s ee you are interested in thi s di sarmament stu ff. I t ’ s ther ight dope . I ’m al l fo r i t.
“Good,
” I repl ied.
“I f you Amer ican Legion men are for i tnothing wil l stop it .
1 By Stephen.
Laurie. From The World Tomorrow. February , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 2 1 7
Y es, was the answer, a lot o f u s are fo r i t, but get mestraight. I t is not fo r th e s entimental reasons that these minister s are spouting. I do not like war
,but I know we ’ l l neve r
get r id o f it, and I want Amer i ca prepared to hold up he rend . But these great expenditures on big armaments do not dothe tri ck . I don
’
t claim to b e a mi l itary expert,but I found
out some things in the war. One of them is that a lot o f mil itaryand naval expenses o f the so rt included in our budget hithertoare p retty badly out o f date . I suppos e i f other people bui ldbattleships we have to , but th ey
’
r e a ter r ibly expensive luxu ry,out o f date as soon as they
’ re fini shed . They can’
t fight shorebatter ies . They aren ’ t very effect iv e in protect ing commerceagainst submar ines— and think o f the money they cost ! So it
i s with a lot o f thes e mi litary expenses . Now,the next war i s
going to be fought by sci ence . ~ You don ’ t l ike i t and I don ’ tl ike it
,but i t i s so . I nstead o f wast ing mil l ions on fancy batt le
ships,we have got to go to work and bu ild up the best system
o f gas and chemical warfar e and o f aeronautics poss ibl e . I
know som ething about i t,becaus e I used to d rop bombs out of an
aeroplane . Maybe we ’ l l have to exper iment with germs . I t i sn ’
t
nice,but i t i s the logi c o f wa r, and I have seen that the B riti sh
generals are al ready talking about it . Now my idea is th i sLet’s have a naval ho l iday and agree w ith the other powers toreduce expenditu res on a rmaments . Then let ’ s spend a reasonabl e sum w i sely : fi r st ou the development o f scient ifi c war fare ,second on educating a lot o f offi cers , and thi rd on short—te rmuniversal m il i tary train ing . Soldiers can ’t be trained fo r warin t imes o f peace
,but the war showed that you can give the
young man the right kind o f psychology and educate out o f himany mol lycoddle pacifi sm within a few months . Give him someidea o f what h e owes h is country and all that . Then we cankeep a lot o f well - t rained office rs to act for u s when th e r ightt ime comes . I see th ey are talking abou t that in France nowY es, sir , I am al l fo r th i s disa rmament campaign . No u se
wasting the tax-payer ’ s money—but w i th the part ial d i sarmament I have suggested we hav e got to have a const ruct iveprogram fo r th e right use o f what i s spent .”
What I rep l i ed doe s not much matte r . I am a fraid I wastoo bew i ld ered to make adequate rej oind er . To have my ea rnestyoung friend advocate partial d i sarmam ent in the name ofmil itary effici ency was a su rpri se . But worse was to fol low .
2 18 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
I was late going into the din ing- car. Almost everyone had le ftand about my only companion was a young Hindu whom I hadnoticed be for e on the train . He seemed an intel l igent chap
, so
I sat down with him . (He explained that he found i t ratherdesi rabl e in Amer i ca to wait unti l near the end befo re going intoa dining-car becaus e when the car was crowded he had suffe redsome unpleasant exper iences at the hands o f people who thought
he was a Negro and resented hi s p resence at the tab le . ) In thecourse o f ou r conve rsat ion I brought up thi s question o f d i sarmament and asked him i f h e d id not find new hope fo r thi sold p lanet in the spectacl e o f gene rals and preache rs and theNew Yo rk Wor l d un it ing on so ideal i st ic a program .
My very courteous Hindu f riend almost forgot to be pol ite .“Not a bi t o f it,
” he said .
“I t i s the o ld story—a conspiracyon the part o f those in power to keep thei r power w i th theminimum o f t roub le. You w i l l notice that none of them arep ropos ing a genuine d isarmament which would give the 0p
pres sed any chance . I t doesn’ t help England to keep India ino rder to have a race in a rmaments with the United States .Japan can handle Korea and China and E astern S iber ia bette ri f she i s not obl iged to bu ild a navy large enough to fight
America . And as fo r the United States , I do not think thel itt l e Latin-Amer i can countries wil l profi t by a 50 per centreduction in you r naval program . You wil l pardon my sayingso
,but all th i s disarmament talk seems to u s the usual sort o f
Anglo—Saxon hypocrisy. I t i s to your advantage to save moneyand to cut down on a competit ion in armaments that the
bus iness inte rest s o f the wo r ld s imply cannot stand at thep resent t ime . I shou ld neve r mind a f rank
'
acknowledgment o fthe w isdom o f this po int o f v iew . What I obj ect to i s the
attempt to make a virtu e o f it .”
I shal l not t ry to repeat al l h is conversat ion . He went onto give me facts which I had neve r be fore real iz ed about oppr ess ion under B r it i sh rule in India and the terrib l e drain o fcapital i st ic impe rial ism upon that exhausted count ry .
“As a matter o f fact,
” he concluded , i t i sn’
t d isarmament
that I want but a rmament and more armament . Let the westernpowers w reck themselv es by thei r own fol ly . Let them more
and mo re cal l upon Asiatics and Af ricans to fight . their battles .By and by they wi l l educate a rmies o f colo red men capabl e o f
winning their own freedom . So long as India i s disarmed a l itt le
220 SELECTED ARTICLE S
speaker. My second is th is : Whether the speaker knows it o r not,
th i s talk about disarmaments chi efly serves the purpose o f keeping the workers quiet, o f promoting pacifist ideas among them sothat they wi l l b e content to have the guns in the hands o f the
po l ice and smal l regu la r a rmy. The few have always wanted
the many d i sarmed , and they have grown afraid o f the ir bigarmies af ter they saw what the army final ly did in Russia andeven in Germany. I
’
d l ike p eace as well as the next man,but
there never wil l b e peace whi l e th e workers are s laves . Whatwe need to be told is not about di sarmament but armament .”
He sat down amids t the most hearty applause o f the evening,
but I confess I was too busy with my own thoughts to noticewhat was s aid ; no r d id I pay much attention to the somewhatineffect ive summa ry o f the principal speaker .E ver s ince, I have been thinking the matter over. Thi s i s my
conclus ion, which I should l ike to see discussed in the pages
o f The Wor ld Tomo rrow :
On the one hand I conf es s that the more I think about itthe mo re I sympath iz e with my Hindu f ri end and the youngworker at the forum, but the l es s I agree with them . To begin
with, modern mil itar i sm is not the s imple matter i t was in theear ly days o f gunpowder. The Amer ican colonist was a comparativ ely easy match for any regulars the B r i t i sh crown mightsend against him under the condit ions o f war fare that thenp revai led . But the o ld conception o f the power o f the f reeman with hi s gun over hi s door s imply i s not adequate in thepresent s ituation . I t i s not the oppres sed Hindu o r the Ameri canworker who can best command the newengines o f destruction,machine guns , arti l l ery and the inst ruments o f chemical warfare .Thes e things are l ikely to remain in the posses s ion o f therul ing governments
,who wil l have an eno rmous super ior ity in
them . A League fo r Universal Armament giving a rifle intothe hands o f eve ry worker o r every opp res sed E ast Indian
won ’ t much avai l against smal l bodies o f di scipl ined men in
possess ion o f ae roplanes, m achine guns , and the lates t resourceso f modern warfare . Against such means o f destruction theman with the r ifle might make a bloody fight, but he would b ealmost as powerle ss as was the Amer ican Indian with his bowand arrow against the early settl ers . His only hope would beto w in over the army
,o r by economic means to stop the manu
facture o f the weapons hi s master uses against him . But o f
DISARMAMENT 22 1
course that i s only part o f th e sto ry. Sane men ought not to
look with equanimity upon universal war fare as a road touniversal f reedom . The destruct ion o f l i fe and o f the things
that make l i fe beauti ful would b e altogether too great . The
surv ivors o f such a confl i ct, when they at last crept out o f theholes and caves o f the earth where they had final ly taken
re fuge, might indeed be free to f rame a Cooperative Common~wealth o r a Federat ion o f Cooperat ive Commonwealths
,but
they would face a desolate wo r ld with v ita l energies sadly exhansted . Acco rding to the ancient Hebrew legend
,God himsel f
once t ri ed to get a bette r wo r ld by drowning al l i ts inhabitantsexcept one family ; but i t i s not reco rded that the method wasent irely success ful : a new populat ion d id not make a new ea rth .
I am skept ical whether a universal war would prove any moreefficaciou s than the flood . Meanwhil e
,I am certain that the
great expenditu res on armaments are at the cost o f the feedingand education o f thousands upon thousands o f the chi ld ren to
whom we must look to br ing the new social o rde r which i s ourheart ’s desire . S imply on the ground o f prope r concern forthe ca re o f the chi ldren, i t i s immense ly impo rtant to l imita rmaments . Mo re than that, i t i s probable that the l imitat ion o farmaments may serve somewhat as a b rake upon war . In theol d fronti er days the unarmed man was les s l ikely to startquarrel s than the armed man
,and the two—gun man was o ften
more provocative than h is one-gun neighbo r . Something o f
the sort may hold good in nat ional aff airs . E special ly i s it
t rue that universal mil i tary training in the United States willmake for war not peace ; fo r narrow national ism in polit ics, andconservatism in economics . So far, i t i s only defeated armies
which have become revolutionary,and neithe r in Germany nor
in Russia has the old army trained by the m il itar i st s been abl eto do the const ructive wo rk o f the new Commonwealth . This
needs to be said w ith emphasis ; yet at the same time we whodesi re peace must very fai rly face the fact that part ial di sarmament
,and even the de feat o f un ive rsal m il i tary t raining, are by
no mean s a guarantee o f peace , stil l l e ss o f j u stice . The exsold ie r was p robably right ; s imp ly f rom a m i l i tary standpointth e old- fashioned type o f p reparedness may rapidly be scrapped .
Be fo re th e end o f the war th e E ngl i sh mil itary expert , Mr .
S ideb oth am ,w rote an impo rtant articl e (publ i shed , I th ink, in
the Atlantic Monthly ) , in wh ich h e suggested that there might
222 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
be a complete alteration in mi l itary preparat ions owing to theadvance in chemical war fare . I t i s highly significant that England has fo rbidden the importation o f German dye-stuffs fo r tenyears , not merely for commerci al reasons but avowedly tost imulate in Bri tain an industry which i s closely al l ied to themaking o f chemical s fo r war purpos es . I t cannot
,there fore
,be
too emphatical ly ins i sted that d isarmament o f the part ial typenow being d i scus sed does not go very far toward ending thedeadly menace o f war . Thi s i s true , i f for no other reason thanbecause al l part ial s chemes o f di sarmament presuppose maintain ing the relat ive mi l itary o r nava l s trength o f the powers atthei r p resent point. Ambition, fear, greed , hate—a hundred andone passions—will not long permit d i sco rdant nations to acceptth e present ratio o f powe r as o rdained o f God. Even i f the
power fu l nat ions could be persuaded to enter a permanent imper ial trust in which thei r respect ive shares o f power wereabout as they are now,
—a whol ly improbab l e suppos ition,—it i scertain that the Hindu, the Chinese, the Negro, the I ri shman,the explo ited toi ler s o f al l nations , have nothing to hope froma naval o r a mil itary hol iday. No r wi ll they regard the attemptto create such a respite as an ideal i st i c measure .
Th e consistent advocate of a peace which i s dependent upon
j ust ice and good-will cannot,there fo re, be content with any
plan now under s er ious dis cu ss ion . By al l m ean s l et h im sup
port S enator Borah ’ s resolut ion,but with the convict ion that
“
i t
i s only a short step fo rward . Disarmament fo r peace meanstotal disarmament
,not som e hal f-way measu re . To be com
pletely eff ect ive it must be attended by a resolute re fusal onthe par t o f indiv iduals to render mi l itary service to the warlords . Above all , i t must b e accompanied by a new pu rpose toobtain social j ust ice . The pacifi st i s fut il e and wo rs e thanfut ile who does not see that there can be no t rue o r worthypeace so long as the few po ssess and u se th e power to makesocial class es and subj ect races obey the i r wi l l and ministerto thei r comfo rt o r their ambition . The struggle for peaceand the struggle for j ust ice i s one. I t i s a struggl e for theestabl i shment o f r ight economic and social rel at ionships . Wewho are persuaded that these relationships can never be securedby war are chal lenged to devote far mo re vigo rous attentionthan in the past to the per fect ion of other methods which wi ll
224 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
S ecretary of S tate has become the exponent o f a vigorous po licy toward Mex i co and the wo r ld in general
,which is not l es s
imperia li sti c b ecaus e M r. Hughes has to a high degree a ta lent fo r mo rali z ing what are es sentia l ly imper ia li sti c interests .And whi le Secretary Hughes writes vigo rous notes to Mexico,Japan, and Russi a, and refuses to see the Hait ian mis
s ion, the S ecretary of War preaches pure P rus siani sm to thegraduating class o f New York Univers ity. M r. Week s openlyregrets that pub lic opinion is at present opposed to universalmi litary training. He renders l ip s erv ice to the idea l o f disarmament, but he says never a wo rd in favo r o f even so mod
est. a proposal as that the United S tates should cal l a conf erence on the subj ect . The gi st o f hi s declaration is th at i t
would b e “the height o f fo l ly fo r the United S tat es to b e thefirs t to di sarm . Other nations
,i t appears
,a re arming
,but
after warning u s M r. Weeks hurri e s to deny the poss ib i l i ty o fwar with Great B ritain . Who i s l ef t ? I t doesn
’ t take a verybr ight boy to answer “Japan.
” Congres s has no mo re princip l ein thi s matter than a weather vane ; the House, and to a les sextent the S enate
,j ust now feel th e anti-high- tax Wind.
Of cours e, al l ou r statesmen explain that ou r arms arepurely fo r def ense—“We des i re nothing that is not ou rs .” But
so say a l l statesmen ; so said the Kai s er. New batt leships
speak louder than pacific speeches .The government’ s disappoint ing attitude on di sarmament
reflect s dominant American sentiment. The Wo r ld (NewYork ) makes the te l l ing point that i f ou r mi li ta ry and navalapprop ri ations are maintained fo r forty years at the rate o fthe clos ing fis cal year we shal l have paidfo r ou r next war
,which i s the maximum sum the most opt im
istic expert b el i eves Germany can pay as an indemni ty fo r herl ast war ! Facts l ike thi s may keep the s i z e o f the standingarmy low
,and fo rce reductions in the S enate’ s naval appro
p r iation. I t i s even poss ib le that pub li c opinion may b ringabout a di sarmament con ference, for which prominent J apanese and E ngli sh leaders have declared . Of cou rs e, there is nodoubt that the people want peace . But i t i s very doubtfu l i fthey want it enough to pay the price . They want di sarmament,bu t they want some things mo re than di sarmament . The passion fo r peace is nothing like so intense in various groups asthe pas sion for sup remacy over Mexico , o r “s ecu r ity” against
DISARMAMENT 225
Japan, o r f reedom fo r I reland. No fact in po li tics is b etterattested than that the intens e desire and purpose o f a mino r i tyis more eff ect ive than th e l e ss intense though more wide ly di ffused conviction of a m aj ority.
But i f th e only troub le were th e weakness of the des i re fo rdisarmament i t might be our duty merely to get behind th e
Borah proposal and push i t on the genera l pr incip l e that weought not to despis e th e day of smal l th ings . But the Bo rahreso lution hasn’ t i n i t th e s eed o f wo r ld peace. Peace wi l l
n eve r b e won unti l men prepare for i t and r i sk fo r i t as theyhave prepared and r i sked fo r wa r. The cu rrent—and t rueargument that th e Bo rah disarmament p roposal invo lves nor i sk is a reason why i t ho lds so l i tt l e' hope o f s ecur ing peace.Some nation must b e so swept by a pass ion fo r brotherhoodand a conception o f the wo rth not only o f human li f e, but o fthos e ideals which war destroys , that i t wi l l take th e ri sk o fbeing the fi rs t to di sa rm . I t must t rus t fo r i t s own securi tynot to arms , but to th e f ri endship that disarmament may evoke,and the contagious powe r o f a reasoned refusal to b e b rib ed,bul li ed , o r hypnoti zed into th e shamb les . I f o rganized Chr i st ianity has any message fo r ou r t imes i t ought to be sayingthi s f rom al l i ts pu lpit s instead of giving watered-down vers ions o f General B l i s s ’ fine statement and the New York
World ’ s edi to ria l s .Thi s di sa rmament i s mo re than a matter of getting r i d o f
fo rts and guns . I t i s unive rsal ly admitted that the warfareo f the future i s chemical warfa re . Th rough chemist ry andbacterio logy men have acqui red power to enri ch and p ro longl i f e
,but that same power i s al so a power fo r death and d e
st ruction . As long as there are large chemica l indust rie s and asmal l pe rsonnel trained in the sci ence o f dest ruction there i s apossibi l ity o f warfare so d eadly that it wi l l amount to the su icid e o f civ i l i zation . No reduction in standing armies , therefo re
,no reduction in the s i ze o f navies—important as these
may b e—can amount to d i sarmament unti l mankind has by ane ffo rt o f the w i l l del ibe rately renounced even the thought o fdeveloping o r o f using chemical warfa re . Organi zed sci ence
wi l l fai l u s as compl etely as o rgani zed religion unle ss sci entificmen take the lead i n refusing to put at th e service o f wa rmakers the t riumph s o f thei r ski l l .So complete a renunciation as thi s cannot possib ly grow
226 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
out o f ou r present way o f li f e without being accompanied by,
o r rather sp ringing f rom, a spir i tual and economicl
r ev olu t ion.
Here we have space only to state the prob lem in its baldestout line . So long as chauvinisti c nationali sm and
,s ti l l mo re,
the extreme race feeling o f our present time continue,real dis
a rmament i s impossib le and would not be comp letely eff ective .Unles s we can rea li z e in our habit o f thought o f one anotherthat
“God hath mad e o f one al l nations for to dwel l upon
earth we cannot look fo r peace . Again we repeat : I f i t isutopian to believe that men can be made to think o f one another as b rothers
,b rothers differing perhaps in temperament
and capacity, but sti l l brother s, then i t is utopian to think o fany d ecent futu re fo r mankind in an age when renewed warfare means wholesa le destruction .
What has been said of the prob lem of race f ee ling appli eswith even greater fo rce to the prob lem of the economic o rdero f soci ety which i s so interwoven in the warp and woof o f ra
cial and national - re lationships . The p rimary eff ect ive caus eo f modern wa rfare is economic . Wars spring f rom the Searcho f su rplus capita l fo r investment in countr i es where i t is poss ibl e for investo rs to co l lect larger rates o f interest than theycan get at home. I ts roots are in the pr ivate ownership ofland
,natu ral r esou rces
,and al l the principal means o f produc
tion . The estab li shed owners get su rplus profits ; thes e theyinvest ab road ; they come in confl i ct wi th the outraged peopleo f the exploi ted country o r rival exploiters and s eekers aft erraw materi al f rom other nations . They use the extravagantf eel ing o f national ity to make the peop le accept thi s quarrelfo r gain as a matte r o f national concern . Secret diplomats ,j ingo edito rs , emotional flag-wavers , pro fes s ional mi li tar i s ts , dothe rest. War i s an expansion o f the ruthless competit ion of
business , the supreme way of getting the b etter o f one’ s f ellows even i f it hurts one ’ s s el f . That spir it cannot be kept within bounds . I f i t i s the primary motive in industry it wi l l b ecome the primary motive in po l it ical r e lat ionships . I t i s ab
surd to expect that the exploiter who has wo rsh ipped wealth ,succes s , and power al l hi s l i f e wi l l suddenly have the vi s ion toperceive, o r the wi l l to draw back f rom,
the abyss o f war towhich h is economic r iva lry and hi s lust o f maste ry lead him.
There can b e no sure peace without reconci l iation ; no reconci l iat ion without revo lution . That revo lution may not b e
achieved al l at once ; i t must b e purpos ed now without delay.
228 SELECTED ARTICLE S
We favo r arbitration o f disputes and every step toward aLeague o f Nations o r Associat ion of Peoples—cal l i t what youwi l l—which is something more than a fai r mask fo r an imper iali st trust.We favo r a constitutional amendment making a popular ref
er endum a neces sary pre liminary to a dec laration o f war.We admi re the international movement in labo r ci rcles and
among young men in which organizat ions and individuals set
themselves to take no part i n war b etween nations . I n parti eu lar
,we should applaud concerted act ion by scienti st s to refus e
to develop chemical warfare.We advocat e the fo rmation . o f international f ri endships
th rough labor bodies and sci entific,cultural
, and rel igious o r
ganizations.
We favo r open diplomacy.
We urge the adoption (which we do not expect f rom im
per ialist governments ) of the so-cal l ed Calvo-D rago doctrine,which fo rb ids any nation to use arms to co l lect debts owed byanothe r nation to it s cit i z ens . Thi s doctrine was fo rmulatedby Latin-Ameri can statesmen and seemed likely once to b e accep ted by the United S tat es , as i t i s accepted by the SouthAmerican nations . I t i s a monstrous ab su rdity that governments shou ld b e debt-co l l ecting agencies .
We favo r a long vi ew of fo reign polici es and an effo rt tofo restal l wa rs by education o f the pub lic. We a re, fo r example, concerned fo r an end o f the I r i sh tragedy becaus e o fi ts u rgent bearing on wo r ld peace . We are oppos ed to the b el i ef , as futi l e as i t i s un just , that one nation is not concernedwith anothe r nation ’ s at roci ti es and robber i es . The power o finte rnational pub l ic opinion to secu re fai r deal ing has neverbeen suffici ently exert ed .
One o r another o r a combination of thes e measu res mayavert pa rticu la r wars . No panacea wi l l conquer war, but onlya new way o f l i f e . Th e opponent o f war must be intent uponthe di scove ry o f ways to estab l i sh j ustice b etween men andnation s and the end o f the dominance o f mankind by a pr iv ileged clas s . I t may b e that ou r generation i s cal l ed upon tochoos e between li f e and death, i f not fo r ours elves then fo r,our chi ldren . We in Amer ica are very near to the parting of
the roads . On the one hand i s the path that l eads to imperi almaste ry. Along that road li es wealth and power greater th an
DISARMAMENT 229
that which the strong have ever won upon the face o f theearth , but the end i s death . The othe r road i s the road thatl eads to cooperative human b rotherhood . I t cannot b e trodwithout difficul ty. Those who walk it may sometimes miss the
way ; they may stumbl e and fal l, but only in following i t i sthere l i fe o r hope for men .
SELE CTED ARTICLE S
SHOULD WE BE THE FIRST TO DISARM ?1
We have been ext remely interested in the graphic and truesu rvey, real ly a repor t o f facts, of what M r. MacDonald saw
during h is vi s i t in the d i ff erent countr i e s in E u rope,and I
think that we al l agree that he accomplished a very great f eatto b e ab le to sum up the si tuation and give even a s light discu ssion o f certain o f the remedies for i t within a hal f-hour.I t was very significant, what M r. MacDonald saw there
that in the countri e s o f the victo rs the conditions were onlyrelat ively better than in the countri e s o f the vanquished
,that
i t was rather a Pan-E uropean than a central-E u ropean problem of economic anarchy and o f pol it ical confusion and su s
p icion.
M r . MacDonald, at the end o f h is talk, spoke o f four thingsas s tanding out among many. In three out o f fou r I am inhea rty acco rd with him . Upon the fourth I di sagree with himutter ly. I n regard to the sei zing of property o f ali ens in thi scountry
,we acted not only di rectly contrary to international
law but also to our own law, and directly cont rary to treati eswe have signed . I am sure that in supporting the move togive back the p rivate p roperty of p rivate cit i z ens which hadnothing to do with war that we are taking a step in the r ightdi rection . There was nothing done throughout th e whole warwhich was mo re truly Bol shevi s t than the confiscation of private p roperty of enemy citi zens .In regard to th e s econd point—th e fixing o f the German in
demnity ; M r. MacDonald has covered i t very wel l in pointingout the crying need o f a s econd mo rtgage and the inabi li ty o fGermanv to get a second mo rtgage unti l the firs t mo rtgage i sfixed .
With the thi rd thing M r . MacDonald advocated I am also
in hearty accord—the importance of an ear ly peace with Germany
.and with Austri a.
I n regard to the fourth point , the quest ion of di sa rmamentand the whole treatment o f the sub j ect by M r. MacDonald, I
hearti ly and p ro foundly and radical ly disagree with him . Herewe come up against one o f the gravest peri l s o f the s ituation .
1 By Herbert Adams Gibbons . From Bu l let in. League of Free NationsAssoc iation.
-1 2 . March , 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 233
We have come safely through the di s cus s ion over rati fying theLeague o f Nations in o rder to suppo rt and help to rehabi li tat ethe wor ld and we defeated it . M r. MacDonald ex poses th e fa l
lacy of thos e who feel that i f America were in the Leagu e ou rparticipation would immed i ate ly put the wo rld on a new basi s .Now, there a re always some peop le who are ab so lutely impenitent . You know that . Once they get through with one hobby
,
they go ou to something el se ; and that has been the case with
these disa rmament people, headed by the New Yo rk World her ein Ameri ca . Having been tho roughly defeated in th ei r Leagueo f Nations without ratificat ion , they now take up the di sarmament hobby, and are riding i t j ust as hard, to t ry to get a
new is sue .
I think i t i s as i l logical to argu e fo r a naval ho l iday o r alimitat ion o f a rmaments , o r anyt hing o f that so rt, as i t wasto a rgue that the United S tates shou ld swal low the Leagu e o fNations and the T reaty o f Versai l le s wi thout ratification andenter into it .The great diffi culty, I think, with al l l ib eral movements as
opposed to react iona ry movements—and we al l want to b e l iberal i f we can—i s that zeal s eems to b e accompanied by a t remendons amount o f optimism without cons idering the end atal l o r how that end i s going to b e arrived at . You have you reyes fixed upon a goal
,and you think the path toward i t must
be easy because the goal i s so great and so wonderfu l , and youa re tempted to t ry to j ump over the int ervening space to a rr ive at i t .I n the case o f di sarmament, what Mr . MacDonald has sug
gested is what the French would cal l trap simplis te—too easy.
H e speaks o f s everal di ff erent things . Of cou rse , coming b ackf rom E u rope, he i s ove rwhelmed by the mi s fo rtunes o f the re
cent war and the bu rden o f taxation and eve rything, and tosee u s continuing to bui ld a navy, o r rath er launching fo rthtowa rd the build ing o f a navy
,s eems to ho rri fy h im . But i f
w e want to get at the heart o f the d isa rmament p roposition ,we must recal l th e o r igin o f th e Daniel s Naval Build ing p rogram
.Now
,I have not h ad much admi ration fo r M r. Dani el s
on a good many points . But there i s one thing you can neve r
question,and that i s that M r . Daniel s i s a ve ry good pat rio t
and a ve ry good l ibe ral and h e has been so th roughout hi swhol e career . H e i s not a reactionary ; he has not been unde r
234 SELECTE D ARTICLE S
the spel l o f j ingoi sm ; and he has not been under the spel l o fthe armo r p late manufacturers at a l l . There was a good reason fo r the Amer i can Nava l Bui lding program in 1916, and
before we attack i t now and say that we ought to abandon it
fo r the sake o f economy, as i t i s wr itten here in these declarations o f po l icy o f th e League o f Free Nations Associat ion
,
we should go back and see why thi s naval program wassta rted .
Have condit ions been so changed that the re i s no reasonfo r continuing it ? I f in 1916, befo re ou r ent ry into the war,there was a reason why we should vote thes e tremendous sumsfo r bui lding a huge navy, let me te l l you that the reason is sti l ls tronger today, and we have four years of exper i ence, near lyfive, behind us .Th e .Nav al Bui lding P rogram of 1916 was the answer to the
O rders i n Counci l o f the B r i ti sh government in 1914, i n 1915.
I t was due to the fact that ou r various notes on the policy o fcarrying on ma ri t ime wa rfare were unanswered. Now, therewas a great d iff erence between Germany and Great B ritain,and I d on ’ t want you to think that I don’ t see thi s diff erencein what I am going to say now, fo r I want to say here that Iwrote the edito ria l about the “Barre l o f Po rk” in th e New
Yo rk Hera ld,i n 19 15, that you may remember, that human
l ives a re worth mo re than a ba rrel o f po rk. But whi le we can
not compare in any sens e at a l l the German vio lations of warf are on the sea, w ith the v io lations by Great B r itain, yet wemust remember that as far as the United S tates , then a neut ral nation
,was concerned
,thes e vio lat ions by the B ri t i sh o f
the ru les of warfare that we have advocated eve r s ince thefoundation of this nation were a very s erious thing ; and theywould have been a f ar more s erious thing had it not b een fo rthe fact that we were in universa l sympathy here with ‘
the E u
tent e Al li es . We were so much in sympathy with France andE ngland during the fi rst two o r th ree years o f the war thatwe we re w i l l ing to let the end j usti fy the means in regard tothe interf erence with our commerce on the high seas by theB riti sh . We saw very clearly that i t was impossib l e fo r u s toprotest against encroachments o f this most f r i endly nation
ou r b rothe rs— ou r own blood b rothers . I t was imposs ib le to
p rotest at that cri t ical time against E ngland’
s interp retation o fthe rules of war fare in accordance with its own inte rests
236 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
fifty years p reced ing the recent war, did not real ly have tothink very much at a l l, fo r we were kept so busy here thatwe d id not need fo reign markets . We did not need any outletfo r ou r capita l . Have we changed ? Most peop le think wehave .
Now , i f we are going to develop th e merchant marine,i f
we are going to develop a fo reign commerce, the most important thing fo r u s and fo r th e peace o f the wo r ld is that wehave some sort o f an international mar i t ime law. We shou ld
put an end to the p resent anarchy on the seas . We must putan end to the present s ituat ion which i s , f rank ly, that the nation with the largest navy inte rp rets international law on theseas as i t sees fi t . I t i s not bound by rul es for contraband
,by
rules fo r b lockade . I t may interf ere with the commerce of
any nation , of neutrals with neut rals , in o rde r to win its ownwa r, and then say to the nations , “We are fighting you r batt l eas wel l as ou r own .
” In the recent wa r the B ri t i sh were mo reo r l es s fighting ou r batt le and therefo re I was not much op
posed to what Great B ritain did . But there may come a timewhen we may not f eel that Great B ritain is fighting ou r batt le
,
i f she happens to .b e fighting France , o r I taly, o r Russ ia, o r isengaged in some othe r war , and int erf eres with our commerce.The initi ative in regard to disarmament must come f rom
the B ri t i sh and not f rom ou rs e lves . Why ? Fo r the simplereason that the B ri t i sh at the p res ent t ime have the largestnumber o f ships . I f we agree with the B r i ti sh to have a five
years ’ naval hol iday, o r to suspend ou r building program fo rthe present, o r to l imit armaments o r anything o f that kind,what we a re doing i s thi s : we, a nation o f one hund red t enmi l l ion people
,depending very la rgely now fo r ou r prosper ity,
for ou r s ecu ri ty upon sea-power, a re saying to a nation whichdoes not number s even mi l l ion white men
,
“See here,we wi l l
give you the priv i lege o f continuing to guard the s eas and interpr et inte rnational law as you want .
” We cannot do that
Let me say, that I don’ t think it would make fo r peace. I t
would not make fo r good relations between thi s country andGreat B ri tain i f we renounced ou r r ights to equal power onthe high seas . I t would not make fo r wo r ld peace Wh at we
want to do in regard to di sarmament i s to say, Yes, we
’ l l
s top ou r building program,condit ional ly— “
if” There i s a
great b ig “i f .” Now the “i f” i s thi s : we should say,“Look
DISARMAMENT 237
here, Great B ri tain, you have the sup remacy o f the s eas . Wedon ’
t want to wrest i t f rom you . I t i s not becaus e w e want to
have more ships than you that we adopted thi s shipbui ldingprogram , but we have had a few unpleasant experi ences in thepast f ew years . We are coming to a period when we ’ l l havea great fo reign t rad e in competition w i th yours . We have alarge merchant marine . We don ’
t know how to run it yet,but
after al l, whi le there i s li f e there i s hope, and we want to b esure that on the sea inte rnational law rule s in the same manner as on land . Let us get back to 19 13 and back to the Coun
ci l o f London . Let u s get back to the London Decla ration o f1913. You sign the London Decla ration and we wi l l stop bui ld
ing ou r great fleet , and i f you don ’ t sign the London Declaration , we would be untrue to ou rse lves and unt rue to ou r chi ld ren, and we would be fals e to the ideal s o f world peace i fwe agreed to abate one s ingle whit thi s naval p rogram thatwe have at the present t ime .” We shou ld put E ngland up
against the proposi tion either o f agreeing to the Decla rationof London o r to some fai r law . We don’ t want to dictate ou rwi l l to the B riti sh at a l l . We a re w i l ling to compromise wi ththem . But on the seas we want i t to be a case o f live and let
l ive . I f neces sary to come to some agreement , then we can b egin to talk about d i sarmament and we can b egin to talk aboutl imiting ou r present bui ld ing p rogram .
Let u s take the other s id e o f it . What would happen i f wed id what Mr . MacDonald argues fo r ? I f we stop ou r bui ld
ing program now we shou ld be sti l l in a posi tion o f in fe rio rity.
We should not have the sea-power Great B ritain has . Now
giv ing the B riti sh al l the c red i t fo r good-wi l l in the world , i fwe stop ou r naval bui ld ing p rogram and say to them ,
“We aretaking the lead
,
”as Mr . MacDonald says , We have given up
ou r naval bui ld ing program . We have confidence that you wi l limmed i ately give up you rs
,
—well,they might , and again they
might no t . And even i f they d id give i t up they sti l l wou ldh ave a supe rio rity ove r ou rs . And i f , hav ing al ready th rownaway al l ou r t rump s
,w e we re then to find that th e B riti sh
we re unwi l l ing to a rgue inte rnational law and marit ime law , i f
we th en go back to Congres s , do yo u think we could get Congress to vot e such a naval bui ld ing program again ? We couldnot say to th e Brit i sh ,
“Look he re , i f you .don ’
t come to t ermswe a re going to sta rt o u r naval bui ld ing program again .
" I f
238 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
i t is a question of good faith, i t must come f rom London andnot f rom Washington .
S imi lar ly, the question o f the Japanes e al liance with GreatB r i tain . Now it i s said that the B r i t i sh are . not bound to help
Japan in a war upon us . Well, in the reading of the t reaty asi t stands at p resent
,that i s a contingency. There is an “i f” in
that . also . I t depends upon our adherence to a certain arb itration treaty which has not y et been definit e ly a rranged . So iti s not a thing which i s a b inding claus e in the contract as yet.They say that when thi s new alliance is made between Japanand Great B ritain
,there wi l l b e a clea r p rovi s ion in i t stating
that under no ci rcumstances wi l l Great B r i tain ever combinewith Japan against us . Well, i f the B ri t i sh want u s to stop
ou r bu i lding program,l et the B riti sh cabinet make such a dec
larat ion and send it to Washington , and say,“In renewing the
al l iance with Japan we propose and we“
p romis e that we shal lput a claus e in that wi l l prevent under any ci rcumstances o rany contingency our uniting with Japan against you .
” Then
they would show us by that p romis e that there was not any
possibi li ty o f thi s contingency.
I n conclusion,I want to come back to what I was saying
about the two compartments in any foreign pol icy—s ecur ityand prosperi ty. I t i s pos s ib l e to env i sage foreign policy f romthe standpoint of security and the standpoint o f p rosper ityf rom an ideali stic point of vi ew . I t i s pos s ib le to see whereideal i sm and ou r materia l inte rests combine. The truest andbest kind of internationali sm is where a number of nationscome togethe r and f rankly recognize each other’ s interests andtry to see i f they cannot by pooling them get together andeach one of them be bett er off fo r i t . I have always f elt in
regard to the League of Nations that we should never have aLeague of any kind that would b e success ful
,that would not
be simply meaningless phrases unles s we were ab le to convince
the individual nations that thei r own inte rest s were b ettered byj oining it .Now when we come to that—and ou r propaganda should b e
d i rected toward that aim—some peopl e say, as on the questiono f d i sa rmament Let someone lead . Let someone start .” Bu t
can we—can any other nation,abandon its own secur i ty ? Wil l
any nation j eopardi ze i ts own prosperity when it s ees thatothers are not doing it ? I think that i s th e ve ry heart and secret o f the whole t roub le here . How are we Ameri cans going
240 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
o r awakened a sense o f grim humo r . They felt,and with j ustice
,
that the Amer i can peop le were paying for thei r indiff erence tom i li tary aff air s in bitte rnes s and mort ification o f spi r it
,eno r
mous sums o f money, i n l ives . Our Army and Navy officers
hoped, more ea rnest ly, perhaps, than any other one clas s o fAmer icans, th at out o f al l thi s turmoil and effort the Americanpeople would learn the one vital les son taught by the war
,the
need o f the adoption by ou r country of a suitab le mili tary pol icyand the s tr ict maintenance o f it .From the present craz e fo r disarmament that i s sweeping
over the country and from the expres sed attitude o f leaders inCongress as to the reduction o f the personnel o f the Army andNavy it i s p lain that th is l esson has not been l earned . Since
the publ icat ion o f the a rticl e on“Plans to Reduce Naval Con
struct ion,”
on page 458 o f ou r i s sue o f December 18,the re has
been an extraordina ry spread o f the idea for the reduction o fthe Navy in part icul ar through the adoption o f the plan fo r a“naval hol iday” to be agreed to by Great B ritain
,J apan and
the United States . From Boston to Po rt l and,O re .
,th e dai ly
p apers have taken up thi s idea with an earnestness wo rthy o f abetter cause and are e ither warm advocates o f it o r lukewarmlyopposed to it . The Portland O regonian says that “disa rmamentwil l b e effected through a league reo rganiz ed on the l ines to beagreed on between Pres ident Harding and the S enate .” The
Boston Transcript,one o f the few pape rs op enly opposed
'
to
th e general idea,says that di sarmament, that unp reparedness ,
and not new battleship s i s exact ly what we are now paying fo rwith h eavy taxes on ou r breakfast tables and ou r backs .”
The Scientifi c Amer ican says ed ito ri al ly : “Outside o f theS ecretary o f th e Navy and a smal l minority o f naval offi cersthe Navy as a whol e beli eve that we should cut down rather thanincrease ou r naval appropr iations .” The edito r of th is same
publi cat ion in a personal statement favoring d i sarmament saysI f we pers ist in thi s pol icy ! o f car rying out the Navy buildingprogram] w e shal l take the place o f Germany as the war pacemaker o f the wo rld .
” The New York World, whi ch i s car ryingon an exten sive campaign in favo r o f di sarmament, i s doing soonly fo r economic reasons
,as i t states in thes e wo rds : “What
The World i s concerned about at thi s t ime is not the relat iono f a reduction o f armam ent to the maintenance o f peace, butthe relat ion o f a reduction o f armament to the pres s ing quest ion
o f national and international bankruptcy. I t i s now pr imar i ly an
DISARMAMENT 24 1
economi c i ssue, and it should b e cons idered as an economic
i s sue .”
Japanese newspap ers either are heart ily in favo r o f thisd isarmament plan o r else put the sole respons ibi l ity for its beingcar ried out on th e United States . B riti sh paper s general ly appearto favo r the idea, but th e Navy League of Great B ri tain urgesth e United States and Great B ritain to combine in po l icing theseas
“and in fram ing a sane naval po licy to which oth er powers
must perforce con fo rm .
”
S enato r Borah, who intr oduced a reso lution in Congres sproposing a di sarmament sch eme
,declared to th e Washington
co rrespondent o f the Phil adelph ia Publi c Ledger that “among
hund reds o f commendato ry l ette r s and t elegrams reaching theS enato r f rom Idaho f rom wid ely separated s ect ions o f theUn ited States he has had but two voicing opposit ion .
” The
paper adds,
“f rom hi s col leagues i n the S enate, Mr . Borah
declares, he has received as su rance o f suppo rt on al l hands .Only one member o f the S enate h as expressed ho sti l i ty to theidea o f th e “naval hol iday
,
” we learn f rom the same sou rce .Chairman Kahn, o f the House Committee on Mili tary Affai rs ,says in a statement on this quest ion : “The tax upon the peopleso f the l eading nations i s a te r rific burd en , due largely to theparticipation o f thos e nation s in the Wo r ld War. To add to theburden by build ing up enormous fleet s , fo rtificat ions and the
manu factu re o f munit ions,in my bel i e f
,is a vital question that
the statesmen o f al l great nations ought to serious ly cons ider .I hope that an agreement may be eff ected that wil l p revent theinc rease o f the load now being bo rne by the taxpayers o f thesenations .” A Philadelphia mini ster s ’ association and a woman ’
s
peace society have added thei r official voices to th is demand fo rdi sarmament .There i s one nation that is not l ed ast ray by thi s disarm
ament talk . As might be expected , that nation i s France , wh ichusual ly has the co rrect inst inct in mi l ita ry matte rs . General
Fayol l e s ent a mes sage to the New Yo rk World in which hedeclared that unti l Ge rmany ex ecute s the te rms o f the peacet reaty she h as signed , “nothing can be done” in th e way o fd i sarmament . General Maud e d ’
Huy expressed the same sentiment s
,only mo re forcibly . General Sarrai l bel ieves that dis
armament should begin fi r st on l and and then on th e sea and
blames compet it ion in armaments to th e mi l itari sts . Denys
Cochin,the French Mini ste r o f Blockade in th e war , says that
when America s igns the peace treaty she may then “come to us
242 SELECTED ARTICLE S
and invi te u s to di sarm, and Stephen Lausanne, the edito r o f
Le Matin o f Pari s, says that whil e France is ready to d isarm onthe sea,
“we cannot d i sarm on land unti l Germany shal l havebegun to repair
-
the ruin sh e has created .
” The nation that fi rstsaw that war s meant th e employment o f the whole nation andnot merely it s mi l itary elements
,as France d id by it s famous
p roclamat ion o f 1 793, i s not l ikely to be misled again by its
pacifi s t and Social i st e l ements . I s it pos s ibl e that we fai led tolearn this l es son as we fought side by s id e with the French atthe Marne , at St . Mihie l and in th e Argonne ?Dangerous as i s this “naval ho l iday plan , i t should not over
shadow the impo rtance of the expressed de termination o f someRep resentat ives in Congres s to so reduce the appropriations inCongress that the A rmy may hav e no mo re than one hundredsev enty-fi v e thousand men , Mr . Good stat ing that he would l iketo reduce thi s number to one hundred fi fty thousand , and thatthe Navy enl i sted pe rsonnel should be reduced to a figure as low
as s eventy-fi v e thousand men . I n spit e o f the fact that the Fleet
lacks the very important . el ement o f battl e crui sers and fleet
submarines,i t i s in so much better condition , so far as numbe rs
a re conce rned,that the adopt ion o f the “naval ho l iday” plan
would be o f infinite ly l ess harm to the country than such p ropo sals as that o f reducing the Army and Navy personnel toth e extent ind icated by membe rs o f Congress . A modern armyand a modern navy cannot be made to.
“work with a numbero f men l imit ed to such an extent as i s proposed fo r ou r Armyand Navy. Costly as i s the wast e of war, it can be outdone bythe wastes o f peace in a mil itary establ i shment not maintained
at a proper st rength . The problem at the present t ime is howto make the peopl e and Congres s real ize this fundamental t ruththat we began avoiding on June 2
,1 784, when we reduced our
Army to eighty r'
nen.
DRIFTING TOWARD UNPRE PAREDNE SS1
That the combined movements toward the reduction o f theA rmy and Navy pe rsonnel
,the del imitat ions o f Se rvice appro
p r iat ions w ith the consequent harm ful e ff ect on maté r iel that1 From Army and Navy Journal . p . 669 . February 1 2 , 1 92 1 .
244 SELECTED ARTICLE S
E uropean war, and to save the l ives of at l east a mil l ion o f
the best young men o f the E uropean countrie s . There werewell-meaning persons in the United States who wrote and spokeconstantly in the years from 1914 to 191 7 in favo r o f scrappingeven such naval a rmament as we then posses sed
,on the theory
that this would be a beaut i ful obj ect l esson to warr ing E uropeand would lead the wor ld to peace and ha rmony. I f we had
possess ed three mo re good battlesh ips in 1898, .we could easi ly
have sett led the Cuban question by negotiat ion with Spain andavoided a war . I f we had spent a a year fo rarmy and navy preparedness, in addit ion to the o rdinary appropr iations, during the fi scal years ending in the summers o f 1915,1916 and 191 7 , we would have saved our selves the sub sequentexpenditure o f at least five times the and we should
hav e saved the world at least o f the stupendous
economic lo s s that the war has entai led .
We have exp res sed such v iews upon preparednes s , consistentlyand steadi ly
,in th is per iod i cal fo r twenty-fiv e years. And surely
at th i s t ime , when thei r soundnes s i s so evid ent to al l thosecapable o f s eeing things as they are
,and o f thinking from
p remises to j ust conclusions,i t would b e absurd to oppose the
naval armament po l i ci es suppor ted al ike by the Wilson andHarding Admini strations and by both parti es in Congress . Doesit fol low
,there fore, that in upholding the present armament
pol i cy we repud i ate th e idea o f disarmament, and accept thedoct rine o f mil itar i sm ? On the cont rary, we hold mi l itar i sm inabho r rence
,and demand di sarmament as es sential i f we are to
save what i s valuabl e in our civi l izat ion . The United States
i s recogn iz ed everywhe re as potential ly fo remost on the side o fj usti ce
,o rder
,independence and equality among the nat ions and
peoples o f the earth . I f thos e who have thei r own ends to
gain,regardless o f the equal rights o f thei r neighbo rs , ins i st
upon the use o f force,there i s no way by which wa r can be
kept f rom spr eading far and wide except by the show of fi rm
st rength on the part o f thos e who stand fo r r ight and just ice .In the sphere o f local affairs we do not di sarm the police asthey con front criminal r ioting in the streets . On the contrary,we employ and arm extra pol icem en
,cal l
'
in the sheriff with hi s
deput ies,and i f neces sary ask the Gove rnor to send State troops .
DISARMAMENT 245
OUR NEEDS WITH RE SPE CT TO AN ARMY1
The war demonstrated ce rtain things about ou r Army1 . Under a skeletoni zed peace strength system we have no
units properly equipped to figh t—witnes s the per iod neces saryfor train ing the I st Divis ion fo r active combat ;
2 . To rais e a large army, cons cr iption i s the only fair andeff ective method ;
3. A large army can be rais ed and trained very quickly if th eoffi cers and equipment are ready ;
4 . To equip a large army quickly a p lan fo r the mobi l iz at iono f indust ry to war aff ai rs must be prepared be fo rehand .
S ince the Civ i l War our army has engaged in the Ind ianCampaigns, the Spani sh War, the Rel ie f o f Peking, the PeaceE xpedit ion into Mexico
,and the Wor ld War . I n al l o f thes e
but the World War wel l—equ ipped exped it ionary fo rces wereal l that we re requ i red . For anything in the future o f s imi larcharacter fou r d ivi sions o f i n fantry (eighty thousand men ) with
the prope r othe r a rms wou ld in al l probabi l ity be sufficient, butwe should have at least fou r d iv i s ions at ful l st rength and inpe rfect condit ion ready at al l t imes . I f we should get intoanother la rge war we should have to rely on conscript ion as wed id i n the World War to p rov ide the men . At present there
is no law granting to the P resident the power to apply conscr ip
t ion in case o f war . There certainly should be such a law on thestatute books so that the War Depa rtment might know its prov i sions and have p l ans ready fo r carrying them out .Befo re the United States entered the World War the Counci l
o f National Defense drew up a plan fo r a censu s o f al l plantscapabl e o f war wo rk and a system fo r keeping these pl ant sinfo rmed and prepared for what they would have to do incas e o f war . Thi s plan call ed fo r ve ry l ittl e expense . Had it
been in operation it would have saved mil l ions o f doll ars andmonths o f d elay . Some s u ch p l an shou ld be inaugurated now .
We can have a smal l but h ighly t rain ed and comp l etely readyfo rce fo r exped it ionary wo rk
,and the p lans fo r the mobil ization
of men and indust ry fo r a nat ional wa r fo r ve ry l ittl e i f anymo re than th e cost o f th e system of skeleton unit s which are
‘ From World's Work . 4 2 1 1 25. J une , 1 92 1 .
246 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
now immediately ready fo r any service and no p rovis ion at al lfo r a gr eat s truggle .The Secretary of War has announced that General Pershing
i s to b e the head o f an “expedit ionary” staff ready fo r instantact ion . For possibl e smal l expedit ions this would imply at leastthe four prepared fu l l st rength d iv i s ions mentioned . For theposs ib il ity o f a large r wa r i t would imply that a plan fo r themobil iz at ion o f men and material wi l l be on the statute books,fo r not even General Pershing can make preparations to l eadan army unless he knows what resou rces he can count on andthat can only be fixed in advance by law .
The P res ident i s committed to a vo luntary t raining pol icys imi lar to that which M r. Garr i son suggested when he wasSecretary o f War . How much value this wi l l be to the nationaldefence depends upon how many young m en voluntee r fo r thetraining ,
The theo ry that th e suppo rt o f the country by taxesi s compulsory but that th e de fence thereo f i s optional, i s hardlytenab le
,but nevertheles s i f some young men real ize the obl igat ion
to prepar e for the poss ibl e neces s ity o f fighting fo r thei r countryit wil l be that much gain.
REGULAR ARMY NEEDS TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND MEN’
Within a few days the S enate wi l l b e engaged in the debate
o f the Army Appropriation bi l l, which as passed by the Houseprovided funds est imated to pay fo r a force o f one hund redfi fty thousand enl i sted men . This act ion , in the face o f a
recent act provid ing fo r reduct ion of the Army to one hundredseventy—fiv e thousand men , and o f the testimony o f BrigadierGeneral Herbert M . Lord , Chief o f Finance, that the averageenl isted st rength o f the Army dur ing 1922 wil l be approx imatelyone hundred e ighty—one thousand men, has so con fused thes ituat ion that it i s expected the S enate wi l l take some actionmaking fo r clarity and al so fo r fol low ing the provis ion s o f theArmy Reorganization act
,by wh ich the War Department w i l l
be enabled to car ry out the miss ion laid down for the Regular1 From Army and Navy Journal . p . 696-7 . February 1 9 , 1 92 1 .
248 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
strength on the Mexican bo rder, and divis ions at peace strengthlocated near the Pacific coast
,in the middle west and near the
Atlantic coast.
Seventh, the Caval ry arm requi res not les s than eighteenthousand men.
Adding these s even requi rements, we find that the minimum
peace strengt h of the Regular Army (exclus ive o f Phi lippineScout s ) demands the serv i ces o f two hundred thousand men . A
Regular Army of two hundred thousand enl isted men andcommissioned offi cers funct ioning under no rmal cond it ions canbe maintained for app rox imately $300,000,ooo a year . In additionto the Regular A rmy, the mi l itary part o f the preparednessprogram estab l i shed in the act o f June 4, 1920, requires a reasonabl e amount o f funds specifical ly appropri ated fo r the development o f the National Guard, the O rganiz ed Reserves and theReserve Officer s’ Training Co rps in order that th ese fo rces , withthe ass i stance o f the Regular A rmy
,may be completely o rganized
,
partial ly equipped and partial ly t rained in t ime o f peace. Withthi s al lowance o f funds
,and al l oth er expenses requi red for
purely mi l itary pu rpos es , the total annual amount o f moneyneces sary for the eff ect ive development of the mil itary programwil l be wel l under IA o f 1 per cent o f the national wealth ;su rely a low rate o f national insurance through national de fen se .The Regular Army of offi cer s and two hundred thou
sand enl i st ed men i s unquest ionably th e m in imum peace estab
lishment that can eff ect ively carry out a mis sion which i s basedupon the American pr inciple o f national de fense and which has
fo r i ts purpose a reasonable degree o f mil itary preparat ion int ime o f peace to meet a war emergency. To maintain this
min imum force and thereby accomplish the purpose fo r whichthe Regular Army ex i sts , i s wise and economical . To maintainle ss than thi s minimum force and thereby fai l to accompli sh thepurpose fo r which the Regu l ar Army exi sts i s both foolhardyand waste ful . For the great cont rol l ing factor in determining thest rength o f the Regular Army is its miss ion in thi s matter o fpreparation . Since the Regular A rmy is a body o f pro fes sionalsoldiers maintain ed in t ime o f peace fo r the purpose o f insur ingprepa rat ion for war
,that i s the reason fo r i ts exi stence , that i s
its mis s ion . Success o r fai lure in war i s largely determined bythe proper o r improper functioning o f the combat troops . Thatevery offi cer shou ld see se rvi ce in t ime of peace in the type of
DISARMAMENT 249
divi s ion he i s to serve in time o f war i s beyond question .
That the uni t s which make up a divis ion should be tested int ime o f peace in organiz at ion
,equipme nt and armament is also
undebatab le . A S many offi cers as pos sib le should have exper i enceas divi s io n staff offi cer s . But we u rge in the final cons iderationo f the appropri ation bi l l that Senato rs and Representat ive s askthemselves how it wi l l b e poss ib l e to win success through thep roper functioning o f combat d ivi sions under the p roposedreduction in personne l . When approximately one hundredfive thousand enli s ted men are requ ired fo r the minimum of onewar-st rengt h and three peace- strength div i s ions
,and a minimum
of some ninety- s even thousand enli sted men are requ ired forfixed duties apart from the combat d ivis ions
,how can the Army
proper ly functio n with appropriat ions which would l imit the
total enl i sted strength to one hund red fi fty thousand ? We
leave the answer to the S enate and the con ferees- to-b e on theArmy App ropr iat ion b i l l in th e confident b el ie f that they wil lreach an adj u stment which does not d emand the imposs ibl efrom the Regu lar Army. We ask them to contemp late the actof Congre ss o f June 4, 1920, wherein they laid down the lawautho r iz ing war p reparat ion i n t ime of peace so as to insure areasonabl e degree o f effi ciency and economy in expend itu reso f vast sums o f money that war w i l l cos t when war comes , al so areasonabl e degree o f efficie ncy on the batt lefi eld that wi l l giveou r youth s who go out to fight a reasonable chance fo r theirl ives . Can thes e things be done w ith in the reasonable expectat ion o f a nation o f one hund red five mil l ion peop l e w i th anenl i sted st rength cut below two hund red thousand ? I t i s fo r
those Senato rs and Representat ives alone to answe r these quest ions
,fo r thei rs is the great responsibi l i ty .
THE FUTURE OF OUR NAVY‘
Th e Sec reta ry o f th e Navy, i n a lette r to Rea r Admi ralCharl es J . Badger
,presid ent o f th e Gene ral Board ,
which appea rs on page 622,d i rects th e board to p resent a r e
po rt on th e question o f the Navy’
s bui ld ing program . The
Sec reta ry's pu rpose i s ev ident ly to b ring out expe rt opinion
wh ich may cla ri fy th e gene ral d i scussion o f naval armaments.
‘ From Army and Navy Journal . p . 620-1 . January 29 ,1 92 1 .
250 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
di sarmament, and of the vulnerabi li ty - of su rface ship s to at
tack f rom the ai r and f rom under the surface . This i s i n connect ion with the S enate
’
s endeavo r to estab li sh whether a su s
pens ion fo r six months of nava l bui ld ing p rogres s is practicaland with d i s cu s s ion in the press of the types o f ships to b econsidered most effective in futu re warfa re.Among line officers of the Navy in Washington who com
mented on the S ecretary’ s lette r the opinion was expressedthat the part o f the navies in the World War, i f i t p rovedanything
,proved that the capi ta l ship was the preponderant
fighting unit . These officers also ho ld that the naval operationso f the war p roduced only general p rincip les as a guide to acountry l ike the United States , lying between two oceans andwith very great coast l ines, since thes e operations were r e
st r icted to areas no greater than the Gulf o f Mexico . I t is
pointed out that the diff erences of opinion as to what consti
tu tes an adequate Navy fo r the United States are inextr i cablybound up in the question whether thi s nat ion intends to main
tain a Navy fo r defense,pure and s imple, o r whether the Navy
shal l b e bui lt up to assume the o ff ensive i f need be , and b e
power ful enough to w in in any field o f batt l e a naval war in
to which thi s nation may be d rawn . A nation lacking in wis
dom,to be sure, may commit i t s e l f to a poli cy of throwing a
co rdon o f defense ships about i t s coasts and waiting for attack .
In the war with Spain the United S tates sent a fl eet to Mani la
und e r Dewey, but i t did not cro ss the Atlanti c to s eek batt lewith Cer v e ra
’
s fl eet . I t strengthened the enemies o f Spain ina nearby Spani sh possess ion and fo rced Spain to c ross the Atlanti c to meet the gauge of batt l e, with what resu lt i s hi sto ry.
Assuming,becaus e th e example i s suggested by much of the
di scussion in the pub lic p ress , that Japan fo l lowed ou r exampleo f 1918, then
“the shoe would be on the other foot .” The na
val analysts ask,
“What would Japan be expected to do :” Andthey answ er the question by saying : “To sei ze the Phi lippine
I s lands ? ” Would the United States then countenance a pol icy
of let-alone and demand that ou r Navy be kept near ou r coastsunder such a condition and allow the captu re of the i s lands tob e unopposed ? Such a situation , they add , i s unthinkab le tothe Ameri can mind ; consequently ou r Navy would be expectedto have the ships and the power to fight fo r the recaptu re o fthe i s lands and to win that fight . Such being the s ituation,
252 SELECTED ARTICLE S
fo reign policy should definitely in fo rm the War and Navy Depar tm ents as to the fo reign po licie s which the A rmy and Navyare to be p repared to enfo rce . Unti l the Navy i s p rovidedwith a definit e idea l i n the form of a definit e statement o f thefo reign polici es which i t i s to b e prepared to enfo rce the managem ent o f the Navy cannot formulat e bui lding programs andwar plans except upon a mere hypothesi s as to such poli ci es .The Admira l lays down the mi ss ion of the S enate in thi s
controversy and does i t with preci s ion and logic. The GeneralBoard may anti cipate the future type o f fighting ship
,bas ing
its repo rt on an analysi s o f naval warfa re o f the immediatepast . But back of thi s whole question i s the fundamental oneo f thi s nat ion’ s relation to other nations and to fo reign aff airs .Therein the S enate may have it s wo rd and an admini strationi t s poli cy. But no S enate, no administration, not ours elves a sa nation
,can wholly read the future . Granting the good-will
o f the wo r ld at the present moment toward a policy o f reduetion in armament
,none can determine when economic condi
tions o r s el f- int erest may tempt some nation to seek to evadethe conditions o f any agreement on the sub j ect o f disarmament.I n the future
, as the past has shown, there i s only one adequat e po l icy fo r th is country, and that is to b e prepared withadequate a rmed fo rces to meet any eventuality that may ari s e.On thi s basi s should the st rength of the Navy be maintained .
A NAVY TO MATCH ENGLAND ’S1
I f the United S tates stops bui lding battl eships it will b e b ecaus e some other nation hasn ’ t got the money to bui ld andwants u s to stop
,Rear Admiral H . McL . P . Huse, the
new commandant at the New York Navy Yard,declared las t
night at a dinner at the Waldo rf-Asto ri a given by the Societyof the Cincinnat i in the State o f New York in commemo rationo f the one hundred eighty-ninth anniversa ry of the bi rth o fGeo rge Washington . He added that it was hi s opinion that it
wou ld not b e a bad idea fo r us to keep on bui lding.
Admi ral Huse as sert ed that the statement often made thatthi s i s the end of the battl eship must b e qualified with such ab ig “i f” that none must b e mis led . He said that so far nothing
1 From New York T imes. February 23, 1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 253
has shown that the batt leship does not continue the ruling power o f the s eas . He ref erred to the cost o f batt leships
,which
i s now about each,he said
,and added that this
might cause us to have f ewer rivals .In the d ete rmination of nava l st rategy
,regard ing the si z e
o f the navy, Admi ral Huse said, the Navy officia l s must fi rstknow the pol icy o f the Government—that the Navy offi cial smust know against what count ry we a re planning to a rm . He
said that the same thing appli ed to the Army.
I know that i t wi l l make some of you catch you r b reath,continued Admi ral Huse
,
“i f I say we wi l l have to have anavy large enough to fight E ngland.
” I t might be said , he added ,that such talk shou ld not be indu lged in
,that there i s no talk
in E ngland about a possib l e naval engagement with the UnitedStates .
The Admiral h as j u st returned f rom E urope and he saidthat England i s openly d i scuss ing j ust what would be neededin the way of a navy in cas e there i s t roub le with the UnitedS tates . The E ngli sh papers
,he said
,come out openly in di s
cussing the question , and he inqui red why there should not b ean open d i scu s s ion in thi s count ry .
Only Th r ee Gr eat Nav ies
There a re only th ree great nav i e s in the wo r ld,he pointed
out,thos e o f th e United States
,E ngland and Japan . So , then ,
in answering inqui ri es f rom Congres s as to what a re the nava lrequi rements
,i t must b e neces sa ry fi rst to dete rmine what i s
to be the po l icy o f thi s count ry. I f i t i s E ngland that we a re
to arm against,then we must equal E ngland ’ s navy, he said .
He added that i t must be remembered that Japan and Eng
land are al li e s,and that i t wou ld then be necessary to have a
navy to meet that al l i ance .As an analogy
,Admi ral Huse ci ted the construction o f a
b ridge . I f the b ridge reaches only th ree-quarters o f the spano f the st ream
,then i t i s o f no se rv i ce and had best not b e bui lt
at al l,h e said . He added that th e same i s t rue o f th e navy.
I f i t wi l l not do what i t i s bu i l t fo r , i t is o f no se rv i ce . Herepeated that i t i s a quest ion o f pol icy and that i f we a re tobuil d a navy again st E ngl and , then w e must equal i t , and i f
we ar e to bui ld against Japan , then we must double that count ry ’ s naval st rength .
254 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
Take Germany, continued Admiral Huse, We know sh e
bui lt her navy agains t E ngland. H e said that we must builddestroyers ab le to cross the Pacific Ocean and sti l l have fuelwhen they get there . “
E ngland,” he said
,
“has had her fuelstations . We have ou r fue l ships . This is something that England has not . E ngland needs a defense against a submarineb lockade . A submar ine b lockade would not b e eff ect ive againstus
We have to know in the navy against whom we bui ld
ships . This is necessary, so that we can decide on what kindo f ships we must bui ld . We must construct diff erent shipsagainst Japan than against E ngland.
SHALL ENGLAND CONTINUE TO LEAD .P1
The Senate Comm i tt ee on Fo reign Relat ions was given aninsight today into the complications that surround the questiono f naval di sarmament .With Admi ral Koontz
,chief o f naval operations
,b efo re it
,
the committee learned some of the fine technical points rai sedin the minds o f naval men by S enato r Borah ’ s reso lution fo r aconcerted reduction of armament by Great B ri tain
,Japan and
America .
The committ ee was made aware also that no United Stat es'
naval ofli cer i s wi l ling to conside r a change in program thatw i l l prevent Ameri ca’ s naval st rength equal ling that o f GreatB ri tain .
Koontz denied to the committee that P resident Wi lson o rthe State Department had consu lt ed with him concerning a cal lfo r a wo r ld confe rence on di sarmament under the autho rity o fthe naval act o f 1916. Koontz said that so far as he wasaware
,noth ing had ever been done, and an offi ci al o f the gov
ernm ent was considering action under that p rovi s ion, whichsuggested that the P resident inv i t e other nations to send repr esentat iv es to a di sarmament conference in Washington .
I t i s the vi ew of Ameri can naval men that Bo rah’ s reso lut ion
,in it s present gene ral te rms , wou ld permit Great B ri tain
to cl inch her p resent predominance and fo restal l th e othe rwis einevitab le equal i zation of th e navi es o f the two countri es .
1 From New York Cal l . January 4 , 1 92 1 .
256 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
said today, shou ld include al l the nations, but when the UnitedS tates s it s down at a conference to di sarm
,the United S tates
should s it as a nation equal in naval s trength to any other naval power.”
NAVAL SUPREMACY : GREAT BRITAIN OR
THE UNITED STATE S1
While th e nations o f E urope are tending the gr i evous woundsthey received during the Great War
,the creat ion o f naval
armaments in the United States and Japan is be ing continuedwith greate r act iv i ty than ever be fo re and at a far higher cost ;a post-war battleship involves an exp end itu re o f f romto as compared with about le ss than twentyyears ago . The shipyards, engine ship s , and armament factor ie sin Amer i ca and Japan have neve r been so busy as they are at
p resent wh i l e s imi lar estab l i shments in thi s count ry and on theE u ropean continent have in hand not a s ingle capital ship .
Now that peace has been s igned th ere remain only threenavies of importance— the B r it ish, the American and the Japanese .The relat ive st rengt h o f thes e three forces in 1924 can now beest imated w ith some Confidence . Disregard ing vessel s p roj ectedbut assuming that those now under construction wi l l b e comp leted in the next four years, the standing o f these Powers incapital ships wi l l be as fol low s
GREAT BR ITAIN UNI TED STATE S JAPAN
D i s Dfs Di s
No. p lacement NO. p lacement No. p lacement
Tons Tons Tons
Batt leshi ps and
Batt le Crui sersF ir st Class
14-111 . Guns and 18 27 1 4
Second Class :Smal ler Guns 18 8 3
Totals 36 35 1 7
I n the l ight o f the act iv ity in'
America and Japan,on the
one hand,and inact iv ity in E urope
,on the othe r
,two arresting
fact s emerge f rom an examinat ion o f the naval outlook .
(I ) By 1923, o r at latest by 1924, the B riti sh Fleet w i l l have1 By Arch ibald Hurd. From Fortnightl y Review.
-3o. Decem
b er , 1 920.
DISARMAMENT 257
ceased to occupy p ri de o f place on the s eas , which it has heldfor over th ree hundred years . The Trident wil l have passedinto the hands o f th e American peopl e unles s some unfo reseenevent occurs on thi s o r the other s ide o f the Atlant ic, thusfulfi l l ing, by a proces s he d id not foresee, the prophecy o f GrandAdmir al von Tirpitz, who, in th e Memorandum which aecompani ed th e German Navy Act o f 1900, remarked that even if
“a
great naval Power should su cceed in meeting the GermanFleet with cons ide rabl e superior ity o f strength, the de feat o fa strong Ge rman Fle et would so substantial ly weaken the enemythat, in spite o f th e vi cto ry he might have obtained, hi s ownpos it ion in th e wo r ld would no longer be secured by an adequatefleet .”
(2 ) I f we igno re the new p rogram o f eight capital shipswhich Japan is about to put in hand and take into account only
such capital sh ips as are now on th e s l ips and advancingtoward complet ion, i t is apparent that in 1924 Japan wi l l b e
the “runne r up” as the second greatest naval Power in the wo rld,being weake r than Great B ritain and far s t ronger than Franceo r I taly, neithe r o f these two countri es hav ing laid down a capitalsh ip dur ing the past s ix years . Indeed
,as fi r st—class naval
Powe rs, France and I taly have al ready di sappeared below theho r i zon .
The hope that acceptance o f the princip les embodied in the
const itution o f the League o f Nations would lead to a generall imitat ion o f naval armaments must be abandoned . Neither theUnited States no r Japan i s prepared to acqu iesce in any suchpol icy, whateve r may be th e incl ination o f other Powers . Boththese countri es are p res s ing forward programs o f naval construction which wil l change radical ly the balance o f powe r bysea
,as has been shown . S ix years h av e , e lapsed s ince i t was
assert ed,on the outb reak o f the Great War, that i t would
prove the l as t o f al l war s and would l ead to the adoption o f apol icy o f
,at least
,part ial di sarmament , aff ect ing nav i e s as wel l
as a rmies . Since thi s confident prophecy was made , th e United
States and Japan have embarked upon notabl e p roj ects fo rstrengthening thei r naval as wel l a s the i r mil itary forces . Boththese State s were fa r removed from the main seats o f the lateconfl ict ; the United States , in pa rt icu la r , remained free unti l
the sp ring o f 19 1 7 to pu rsue h e r own nat ional pol icy w ith l itt leo r no di stract ion, while , from fi rst to last, the part which J apan
258 SELECTED ARTICLE S
took in the struggl e was comparatively small . I n these circumstances the Great War swept on toward it s clo se
,d rawing into
it s vortex the manhood and wealth o f the p r incipal nat ions o fthe O ld Wo rld, whi l e leaving the United States and Japanpractica l ly unscathed, except in
‘
so far as they su ff ered’
from
the reaction o f events in E urope .On the other hand, there appears on th e Statute Book o f
the Amer i can Congre ss a significant clause which was insertedat the instance o f P resident Wi lson in th e Navy AppropriationAct o f 1916 ; thi s measure author is ed the construction o f whatamounts to a new Amer ican Fleet at an expenditure whichwi l l probab ly f all not far sho rt o f This clause
foreshadowed cond it ions in which the P res ident would be autho ri sed to arrest naval construction in the United State s . Afterreference to a nebulous proposal to ho ld a wo r ld conference, “not
later than the close o f the wa r in E urope,
” to fo rmulate “a plan
fo r a court o f arb itrat ion o r other tr ibunal, to which disputedquest ions shal l be re ferred for adj udication and peace fu l s ettl ement and to conside r the quest ion o f disarmament,” it was
added“I f at any time befo re the construction author i zed by this
Act shal l have been contracted for there shal l have been establ i she d, with the cooperation o f the United States o f Amer i ca,an internat ional tr ibunal or tr ibunal s competent to secure peaceful determination o f al l international disputes, then and in thatcase such naval expenditures as may be inconsis tent with the
engagements made in the estab li shment o f such tribunal o rt r ibunals may be suspended when so o rdered by the P residento f the United States .
What has happened s ince that notabl e clause was inco rporatedin the Navy Appropr iation Act o f 1916, which was passed whenE urope had al ready been plunged into the crucibl e o f war andmen o f vi s ion were entertaining the hope that the strugglewould signal i ze the end o f al l wars ? The wo rld , i t was sug
gested,would emerge f rom the horrors witnes sed by sea and
by land determined at whateve r r i sk to abate the fever i shcompet ition in naval and mil itary armaments, and would holdout it s hands eagerly toward any reasonable prospect o f find inga peace ful solut ion o f international problems . I t was in thosecircumstances that the United States committed its el f to alarger naval program than had ever been entertained by any o f
260 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
by a counting o f noses but whether compar i sons in futurebe based upon the numbe r o f units o f contemporary construetion in the various classes, gunpower, torpedo strength, armourprotect ion, o r other bas is, i t i s apparent that in mater ial theB rit i sh Fleet i s about to suffer an eclipse . I t may be arguedthat, af te r al l, ships const itute only one element o f sea-power ,and that not the most impo rt ant . I t i s true that it i s the menwho convert the stee l boxes into mobil e engines o f v iol ence .We pr ide ou rs elves on possess ing the sea inst inct, and place highconfidence in the effi ci ency o f the oflicer s and men o f the B rit i shNavy. Th e Great War has shown that that confidence is wel lj ust ifi ed . But the Americans have no reason to blush fo r th eofficers and men who composed the crews of thei r batt leships,dest royers
,and auxil i ary craft which took part in naval opera- 4
t ions in E u ropean waters .I n th e new condit ions which are now em erging, not only the
peopl e o f th e B ri ti sh I s l es , but the peoples o f the Dominionswi l l be compel led to ask themse lves two st raight quest ions . In
the fi rst p lace,i s it true that the Battl e o f Jutland has shed
such fresh l ight upon the probl ems o f naval construction thatno batt leship o r batt le-cruiser built b e fore that batt l e can beregarded as ful ly effi cient ? On that matter there i s no diff erenceo f opin ion among the naval author iti es o f the wo rld . This
l eads up to the s econd quest ion : A re the peop le o f the B riti shCommonwealth content that the men .who hazard their l ivesin p rotect ing B rit i sh interests should se rv e in ships in fer io r inpower and endurance to th e vessel s under other flags ? To
thos e two quest ions answers must b e given at no distant date ,in the know l edge that the people o f the B r i t ish Empire, est imatedto number four hundred forty mil l ion , are dependent upon thes ea for thei r l iber ty as wel l as fo r thei r prosper ity, and that oncethe sea communicat ions are endangered th e confidence whichsuppo rts credit and faci l it ates commerce wil l disappear, eveni f the Empi re it se l f does not undergo a proces s o f dis integration .
Fo r next to th e Crown,the B rit i sh Fleet, exist ing in high
prestige and strength , i s the vis ib le l ink o f this Commonw ealtho f f ree peopl es . On its suffi ci ency and efli ciency depend the
secur ity against invasion o f al l s ections of the Empi re and thesa fety o f th e ocean t racts over which B r it i sh merchant ship spas s
,maintain ing that system o f exchange and barter which
DISARMAMENT 261
i s the l i feb lood o f the B ri t ish peoples . Shal l the key o f the
oceans b e surrendered to any other Power,however f r iendly ?
That i s a matte r which can be decided neither by the Board o fAdmiralty, by the Cabinet, no r even by Parl iament . One o rth e other, o r al l three in uni son, may give a lead to publ icOp in ion, but in the l ast resort the answer must be suppl ied bythe peoples o f the Empir e themselves
,and
,in the main
,by the
voters o f the United Kingdom .
In introducing the Navy E stimates for th e present year, theFirst Lo rd o f the Admiralty stated that
,
“looking around thewor ld to find what is the Navy which at this moment is thenext strongest to ou r own
,we find that the only one i s the
Navy o f the Uni ted States o f America .” Commenting on thi s
relat ionship,Mr . Long remarked that “the naval po l icie s o f al l
past Governments,whichever party th ey repres ented
,hav e at
least included thi s common pr incip l e,that ou r Navy should not
be in fer io r in strength to the Navy o f othe r Powe rs,and to thi s
principl e the present Government fi rmly adheres .” He expres sedthe hope that
,i f the re were to be any emulation between the
United States and the B rit i sh Empi re, i t is l ikely to be in thed i rection o f reducing that ample margin o f naval strength whichwe al ike posses s over al l othe r nations . Whether the expectat ion that the Uni ted States wi l l coope rate with u s in l imiting
nava l armaments w i l l be fu lfi l l ed , must , in the l ight o f late revents
,be a matte r o f some doubt . But, at any rate , the B rit i sh
Government remain s pledged to the maintenance o f a fleet not
in fe rio r in strength to that o f any other count ry . The Fi rst
Sea Lo rd in hi s recent Recto ria l Add res s in E dinbu rgh remindedus o f the w ide- sweeping influence exercis ed by sea—powe r on thepeop l es who const itute the B rit i sh Empi re . He recal led that
on ou r strength by sea depend s in large measu re the security alsoo f weake r nat ion s o f the world . He reminded h is fe l low
count rymen that “hi sto ry shows no instance o f sea sup remacyonce yield ed being regained . E arl Beatty remarked : “We have
establ i sh ed a great wo rld -w id e Emp i re based upon the sea— an
Emp i re which i s l inked up by th e sea. I t i s a t rust , a h eritage ,which has been hand ed down to us fo r sa fe-keeping f rom thedays o f the great E l i zabethan adventu re s—Gilbert , Raleigh ,Drake
,Hawkins
,Frobishe r
,Dav i s , Grenv i l l e , and Cavend ish .
We have to prove ou rselves worthy by maintain ing it inv iolate . "
262 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
THE 1916 BUILDING PROGRAM1
!With] the World War the United States woke to the fact
that i t was comparatively weak in the most es sential e l ement
fo r it s de fense, a battl e fleet. So evident was this, that pub lic
opinion asserted it se l f, and in 1916 Congres s autho ri z ed thepresent bui ld ing program .
I t should be strongly emphasized that thi s fact o f the pe0p1eand Congres s in 1916 fixed th e terms o f our bui lding program
,
which i s now suddenly causing so much comment in Great
B ritain . I t involved no change o r threat . Our p rogram i s
only the resu lt o f a t imely real izat ion among our pe0p1e thatou r neces sa ry de fense must be a strong navy . There was at
the t ime no definit e thought in the publ i c mind o f using thi snaval force . against any part i cu lar nat ion
,although natu ral ly
the unbrid l ed ambit ions o f Germany showed our need o f de fense .But defens e alone was the obj ect o f increase
,and defense alone
i s the reason fo r it s continuance, impe rsonal and not directedagainst any _ power .
This inst inct fo r de fense on the seas has be en most fo rtunatelyaroused in our people . Ou r country is bounded by two greatoceans
,and the only real de fense o f our boundar i e s i s the far
flung use o f ou r battl e fleet upon these wide stretches o f sea .
Fo r the United States navy, more than fo r any other, theult imate service i s a batt l e o f fleets . I n al l human calculat ion
,
ou r country i s saf e f rom attack as long as we maintain a batt l efleet that i s abl e to defend ou r sea app roaches in a naval act ion .
Consequently for th e United S tates a battl e fleet that can
hol d it s own in an action o f fleets i s a ne cess ity—and the possess ion o f such a fleet has been assured by the building program o f1916. That i s the whol e s to ry—and in this wise pol icy
,which
our country adopted four years ago, there i s no t race o f n ewinfluences at work fo r “fanning into flame th e in stinctive national
j ealous ies o f the two nations— to quote f rom Mr. Hu rd . Any
American knows that our country i s barren ground fo r j ealousyo f any other nat ion .
1 From Increased S trength of th e United S tates on th e Sea, by ThomasG . Froth ingham (Captain In Current H istory . -52 . S eptember, 1 920.
264 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
make it,with al l i ts horro rs
,the only alternative to a dishonor
abl e peace . Then every patr iot ic citiz en wants war .”
He said he was personal ly in sympathy w ith every wise andsane endeavo r to b ring about the adoption o f a world-widemov ement for d i sarmament, “but , he added, “we must rememberthat the pas s ions o f war and th e di sturbances to soci ety
,as wel l
as to individuals, cannot be overcome or forgotten in a day.
Only time, and a great deal o f t ime, wi ll b ring peopl e andnations back to a no rmal condit ion .
S ees Normalcy R etu rning
I be l i eve there i s a great improvement in conditions bothat home and ab road and that the wor ld i s gradual ly returningto a stat e o f mind where, with a vivid recol l ect ion o f the horror so f the past war, i t can take definite action in b ringing about areduct ion in armament and poss ibl e complete disarmament .Under p resent cond it ions, howeve r, i t would be the height o f fol lyfor th e United States to be the fi rs t to d i s arm . W
'
or ld-wid-edisarmament must come as the result o f an internat ional agreement and must be done s imultaneously . Prudence would not
p ermit us disarming whil e othe rs hold w eapons in thei r hands .“I do not anticipate war
,but there ar e act ive and fever ish
mil ita ry preparat ions among those with whom we might poss iblycome in contact .
“I am not,however
,sol icitous that we maintain the largest
mi l itary o r naval fo rce in the wo rld. I want to say he re andnow
'
that I cannot give a moment ’ s s erious consideration to thepossibi l i ty o f war with Great B ritain . We have l ived more thana hundred years with an unp rotected border l ine o f mo re thanth ree thousand mi les between the United States and Canadaand there has neve r been the sl ightest fr ict ion between the twocountries . In my opinion
,a war between Great B ritain and the
United States would be the end o f civi l i zat ion, and'
whatev er
may be the fol ly o f the l eaders in e ithe r o r both nations , the
peopl es o f Great B ritain and the United States would neversuppo rt
,indeed they would not permit, a contest between the se
two countr i e s.
Isolation Impossible, He Says
E ve rywhere Ameri ca symbol iz es the things making fo r thebette rment o f humanity,” he said .
“The logi c o f events s eems
DISARMAMENT 265
to give u s a p lace in wor ld aff ai rs f rom which we can hardlyhonorably w i thd raw . This does not imp ly
,howeve r
, that w eshould recogniz e and become part o f a super-government
,o r
that we should take any action aff ecting the res t o f the wo r ldin which th e in iti at ive is not entirely in ou r own hands .”
S ecretary Weeks said he regretted that the National Defens eact did not contain p rovis ion for unive rsal mi l itary t raining
,
although he real iz ed that the people o f the country were not insympathy with that idea becaus e they d id not real iz e it s adv antages to th e nation ‘ and to the individual . Volunta ry mil ita rytraining would in a smal l way take its place, however, he said andwould aid in developing a mil itary pol icy.
“I f al l men were honest and law-ab iding there would be nonecess ity fo r maintaining a police
’
fo rce,” he said .
“But al l men
ar e not law-abiding and al l nations not unselfi sh, and there forewe need pol icemen and armies .
S ees Danger in Cov etou sness
In many case s,too, i n some parts o f the wo rld, there i s
develop ing large exces se s o f popul at ions requir ing expansion o fterr i to ry . The future can only add to the requi rements o fnations for increased terri to ry and the d iffi culties in acqui r ingsuch add it ional domain
,and the re can be no assurance, notwith
standing our own dis inte restednes s,unselfi sh motives and des i re
fo r peace,that ou r wealth wi l l not be craved by others l ess
fortunate .”
ADMIRAL VON TIRPITZ APPROVE S’
Admi ral von T irpitz,the German naval autho rity, who was
Minister o f the Navy du ring the c ritical pe riod o f the war, inthe course o f an inte rv i ew today di scussed the American navalp rogram and its re fe rence to the prospect ive relations o f theUnited States w i th Great B ritain and Japan .
“The United States i s about to build a great fleet , said theAdmiral . “As the country borde rs on both the Atlantic andPacific Oceans
,and lacks outlying naval bases, Amer ica wil l
presumably give specia l attention to the rad iu s o f action o f he rships . That holds good equal ly fo r su r face ships such as battle
From New York T imes.
266 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
sh ips and batt le cruise rs, and fo r submar ine s and aircraft, bothdir igib les and ai rplanes . In creating a navy Amer i cans shouldremember that the great deci s ion l ies not with coast def enses
,
but on the open sea.
”
Admiral von Tirp itz contrasted America’ s pos it ion today withthat o f Germany a few years ago
,and said
Amer ica’ s great indust rial growth and the consequent increase o f her merchant mar ine requi re increase o f the navy
,and
it i s my bel ie f that Amer i ca wi l l not make the mistake Germanydid o f trust ing the l i f e and p rosperity o f her commerce andindustry merely to ‘the b rother ly feel ing of the E ngli sh .
’
“I t is al l very wel l to regard the brotherhood o f nat ions asa distant aim wo rth str iv ing fo r, but meant ime P rovidence haso rdained a r ivalry in o rder to keep al ive the impul se for nationaladvancement . Whether they l ike it o r not, the United States wil lb e forced to give th eir international trade a sol id protect ion,either th rough their own power o r through gaining pol it icalf ri ends .
S ees Am er ican R iv alry Wi th Japan
While E ngland fo r the moment has only to cons ider Ameri ca ’ s commercial r ivalry, yet the United States must contemplatethe natural development o f confl i ct ing inte rests in the Pacificthat cal l fo r deci s ion
,and must inevitab ly face the economic
,
m ilitary'
and pol itical hosti l ity o f Japan . France, although stil l
a factor in wo rl d pol it ics, i s o f a secondary o rde r and i s so
completely dependent on E ngland that fo r a very long t imeFrance cannot be a pol it ical as set fo r the United State s as shewas in revolut ionary days when France was E ngland ’
s s ea r ival .“When and in what manne r the is su e between the United
States and Japan wil l be decided cannot be fo reseen today,continued the Admiral . “In the inte rest o f the whole wo rl d,war wil l be avoided . But behind that confl i ct wi l l a lways bea growing confl ict between E ngland and Ameri ca .
“Consciou s o f her youthful power,America i s prone to
underest imate E ngland ’s powe r. I t i s not America , but E nglandwith her numerous outposts acqui red in the cou rse o f centuriesand with her b ridgeheads advanced against other countri eseven against the United States themselves— that rul es the wavesand rul es the wor ld . Such wil l b e the case , though in a les s
degree,when Ameri ca owns a st rong navy. I n a certain way
268 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
controversy now raging in E ngland over the submar ine andthe sur face warship, and decla red it was l argely due to a lack
o f in fo rmation among many disputants,a confl i ct o f personal
interests , and a “des i re on the part o f the E ngli sh Cabinet to '
keep the wo r ld ignorant o f the real official vi ews .”
THE QUE STION OF THE PACIFIC’
Admi ral Jellicoe’
s plan fo r augmenting B r i t i sh sea power inthe Pacific
,s et forth in The Ledger-Minneapoli s Tr ibune News
Se rvice di spatches , comes at a timely moment.I t reminds us that the question of the Pacific conf ronts the
United S tates , Great B r i tain and Japan. Great B r i tain and Japan are tackling i t with that combination of wisdom, energyand determination, which has made thos e li tt le i s lands the mast e rs o f thei r parts o f the wor ld .
The eno rmous“ United S tates on the other hand, is.
not tackling i t at a l l . On the cont ra ry, i t i s igno ring i t. Certain ly weare n0t showing one- tenth o f the wisdom , energy and determination that Great B ritain and Japan are showing.
I s the Unit ed States going to weaken at thi s cri s i s ?There i s a t ide in the affai rs o f men that taken at the flood
leads on to fo rtune ,” and that tide i s at the flood r ight hereand r ight now . Will the United States take i t o r not ?
Congr ess to Decide
The quest ion i s up fo r deci s ion now,and Congres s i s doing
the deciding, because it i s deciding whether o r not we shal lhave enough men to handle ou r ships and guns with reasonableeffe ctivenes s . Accord ing to the deci sion which Congres s nowshal l make, the United States wi l l b e led on to fortune, o r wi l labandon the fo rtune to Jel l icoe and Japan .
Admi ral Jellicoe’
s plan i s merely one fo r perpetuating astate o f affai r s that has lasted fo r many years—namely
,B r it i sh
sea trade sup remacy in the Fa r E ast . That i s the hidden
Spring o f Jellicoe’
s activity. The facts o f histo ry during mo rethan fou r thousand years prove that s ea trade needs navalpower to p rotect i t against competito rs . By reason o f the s i
1 By Rear-Adm iral Bradley A . Fiske . M inneapol is Tr ibune . J une 2 2 ,
1 92 1 .
DISARMAMENT 269
mu ltaneou s advances of the United States and Japan,Great
B ritain’
s supremacy in the Far E ast i s se rious ly threatened .
Admiral J el l icoe, as a pat riot ic and ab le statesman, suggestsan increas e o f B ri ti sh nava l power in the Pacific
,in o rder to
maintain i t .
Not A cadem ic Mat ter
I f the maintaining of that sup remacy were merely an academic matter, Admi ra l J el l ico e would not b e busying himsel fabout i t . Neithe r would the B rit i sh nation . But i t i s a praetical matte r . I t is fundamental ly a matte r o f t rade w ith thevast te rrito ri es o f China that a re about to b e exploited and dev eloped ; it i s the biggest commerc ia l quest ion befo re the wo r ldtoday.
O f cou rse , the defensive necess i ti es o f th e B riti sh over-s eadominions—Australasia and Canada
,enter into the quest ion ,
but the fostering o f B riti sh t rad e in the E ast i s the u lt imateobj ect ive . How long would the B r it i sh Emp i re l ive i f B rit i sht rade shou ld d i e ?But Admi ral J el l i coe and the enti re wo r ld besides have
over looked the key to the whole Pacific quest ion,though i t l ies
di rect ly in f ront o f them . The Phi lippine I s lands , the beauti
fu l and wonderfu l ly f e rti l e I s land s li e right acros s th e oceant racks f rom the Pacific to China , except where Japan , j u stno rth o f them
,l i e s s imi la rly .
Door s to Ch ina
The Phi lippines and Japan constitute doo rs f rom the Pacificto China
,and l i e on th e flank of the roadway to China f rom
the Med i t e r ranean . They command al l the ocean roads toChina .
Japan i s la rge r than the Phi lipp ines , but not much la rger.Japan has an area o f one hund red fo rty-nine thousand squaremil es
,but Dou bleday-Page and Company ’
s at las says : On ac
count o f th e mountainous natu re o f th e count ry, not mo re than
one-sixth i s avai l ab le fo r cu lt ivation .
The Phi l ipp ine I sland s have an area o f. one hund red fi fteen
thousand square mi l es , but v i rtual ly al l o f i t i s cu lt ivatable .
E ven th e mountain fo rest s bea r t rees o f ebony , cedar and othe rvaluabl e wo ods ; whi l e gold and o ther preci ous metal s en rich
th e ve ry stones .Great B ritain and Japan ar e the best f ri ends we have in th e
wor ld . We have th e greatest possibl e admi ration fo r them ,
270 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
and the peace o f the wo rld depends upon their continuing to beour f r iends . But the peace o f the wor ld depends also on aclear real izat ion o f facts and on an acceptance o f the conditionsthat result .
Compet itiv e R ivals
The plain fact is that the United States,Great B ri tain and
Japan are ent er ing into competition fo r trade with China ; andthe condit ions that result must continuous ly increas e the danger o f war, as time goes on.
A s I have pointed out many times,the danger o f war
reaches its maximum when one o f the countri es invo lved inthe danger l eaves it s valuab les unprotected f rom attack.
We have lef t th e Phi lippines unp rotected,though they con
stitu te our only nava l bas e and ou r only comme rcia l bas e inAsia, and are vi tal ly neces sa ry, i f we are to compete fo r tradein China with Great B r i tain and Japan . We can easi ly protectthem with ai rplanes , submarines , mines, etc., to th e extent that
they could hold out unti l ou r fleet could‘ reach them .
Mor e M en Needed
But even thi s p rotection w i l l not avai l, unles s ou r fleet isgiven enough men to handle it s mechani sms ski l fu l ly ; fo r afl eet consi st s mainly, not o f ships and guns , but o f men . The
ships and guns are merely the too ls that the men use ; and theu ltimate resu lt i s merely the product o f the possib le wo rk thatpe rf ect ly ski l fu l men cou ld do with the too ls
,multip li ed by the
f raction representing the actual ski l l which thei r training hasgiven them . Fi fty ships , handled with Ioo per cent ski l l, wouldaccompli sh (theo ret ica l ly ) exact ly the same as one hundredships handled with 50 per cent ski l l .To give ou r Fa r E astern t rade a fai r chance in the coming
competition with Great B r itain and Japan,the United S tates
navy must have enough men, o r United States ’ trade wil l fadeand die, as i t did afte r the Civi l War .
THE DEFENSE OF THE PHILIPPINE S1
E ver s ince the battl e o f Manila Bay that took place on MayI , 1898, the people o f the United States have been in consid erab le doubt as to what they should do with the Phil ippine I s lands .
1 By Rear-Adm iral Bradley A . Fiske , U . S .N . (Ret ired) . North Amer icanReview.
-4 . June , 1 92 1 .
2 72 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
the Phil ipp ines might prove too strong a temptation to beres i sted .
The last Congres s re fused to give the navy the very moderateamount i t asked fo r, in orde r to take advantage o f the possibi l it ie s o f aeronaut ics . I f Congress pers ists
, we may find ou rs elveswith a navy that i s ve ry expensive
,but so old- fashioned as to
be ineff ect ive. Some people think that the more ineffect iv e anavy is, th e l es s danger there is o f war. Thei r attention is r esp ect fu lly invited to the h istor i cal f act that aggress ion has u sual ly, i f not always, been caused by the temptation presented by avaluable property l e ft unprotected from attack .
I need not say that I do not suggest us ing only ai rplanes to
de fend th e Phi lippines ; al l the u sual weapons would , o f cour se,be needed ,
’
especial ly submar ine s . I do wish,however
,to cal l
attent ion to our amaz ing backwardness in uti l iz ing airplanes,
and to point out the special attr ibutes that make them valuable
as preventers o f actual invasion .
These attr ibutes areI . Great speed, and consequent abi li ty to concentrat e in large
numbers against part s o f mo re s low ly-moving bodies,such as
sh ips , beats and troops .2 . Abil ity to r i s e high and discern obj ects at great distances .3. Abil ity to carry high explos ives in convenient forms that
have merely to be dropped .
By reason of these th ree att r ibutes , a fo rce o f say one
hund red fi r st-clas s ai rpl anes , properly equ ipped and manned, i fdi st r ibuted at different po ints in Luzon (the no rthernmost
be able to concentrate at any threatened pointon the coast be fo re the invading troops could start from thetransports to the shore .The only defense against our airplane s would be a greater ai r
force posses sed by the enemy. But it must be clear that nocountry in th e wor ld cou ld compete wi th u s in bu ilding airplanes.
The cost to u s o f a force o f airp lanes able to protect the I s landswould probably be l es s than I per cent o f the cost o f anyendeavo r to recapture them .
One o f the poss ib le obj ections to b e u rged against de fendingthe I sl ands may be th e supposed fact that the Fi l ipinos have been
led to bel ieve that they would be given the I s lands as soon asthey should p rove their capacity for sel f-gove rnment .Passing over a number o f questions, such as who could have
the autho r ity to give the Fil ip inos any cause to bel ieve this, i t
DISARMAMENT 273
may be pointed out that, even i f the Fi l ip inos shou ld prove the ircapaci ty to gove rn themselves
,they cannot possibly p rove thei r
capacity to p rotect themselves against any strong nation desi ring
to posses s them ; and that no is lands of thei r great area and r ichnes s in al l kinds o f natu ral resources
,can safely be le ft unp ro
tected in these days o f ann exation and coloniz ation .
Again, i f the I s lands were given to the Fi l ipinos , would theyretain them long ? I s the re any oth er equal ly large and valuabletract o f land in th e posses s ion o f any peopl e, so helpless againstattack as the Phi lippine I sl ands wou ld be i f ou r protectionshou ld be withdrawn ?Fou r course s o f act ion seem to be open to usI . Defend the I s lands : 3 th ing eas i ly done, using airplanes,
submar ines,mines
,etc .
2 . Leave them defen seless as they p ractical ly are now,with
the vi rtual c ertainty that they wi l l be taken by an enemy someday, and we fo rced to s end the most expensiv e exped it ion eve rknown to retake them . I f we should succeed , the I slands wouldcontinue to belong to us .
3. Give them to the Fil ipino s with no guarantee o f protect ionf rom us . I n this case, the I s lands w i l l su rely be taken not longafterward by some country .
4 . Give them to the Fi l ipinos with the guarantee o f ou r protection. I n th i s case , the diffi culties and cost o f the exped ition toretake them a fter captu re w i l l b e identical with those in case 2 ;but the I sl ands
,in stead o f belongi ng to u s afte r the crushing
expense and loss o f l i fe o f the expedit ion , wi ll (in case o fsuccess ) belong not to u s but to the Fi l ipinos .
But there i s a power ful reason fo r de fend ing the I sl ands thati s apart f rom any question o f having to retake them : that then
w e shal l be as st rong in the West P acifi c as any other nat ion .
We shal l be j u st as abl e to protect ou r me rchant s and ou r ship
ping and j u st as wel l p l aced fo r t rad ing d i rect w i th China .
We shal l be even better placed in some ways : for whi le thePhil ippines have as good harbo rs as Japan , they a re nearer tothe po rt s o f E u rope by way o f th e Med it e rranean . In fact , they
are d i rectly between th e Mediterranean and Japan .
I t i s unneces sary to cons ide r th e suggest ion , sometimes made,that to attem pt to de fend ou r coast and ou r over-seas possessions adequately
,would constitute a th reat to othe r nation s ;
because i ts fool i shnes s i s proved by the facts o f hi sto ry and theprincipl es o f Inte rnationa l Law .
274 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
AN AUSTRALIAN VIEW1
Consider the inte rnational s ituat ion as i t concerns us today.
The World War i s over, but i t can hardly be said that wo rldpeace is yet in sight . The wor ld i s now disturbed by propagandawh ich menaces al ike th e wor ld and the pol it ical integrity o fnations , propaganda, which , whether we spe ak o f it as bo l shevismor Sinn
'
Fein, o r whatever name we cal l it, nevertheles s doesmost ce rtainly di sturb and menace th e peace o f the wor ld .
The wor ld as we see i t today i s obviously a wo rld in whichno nation can al low its war insurance pol icy to lapse . Turningf rom the international s ituat ion let us look at the League o fNations . The Le ague rep res ents a nob le idea and its acceptanceby the greater part o f the civi l iz ed world i s the on ly hope o fendur ing peace . On its u lt imate success depends the future o fcivi l i zat ion . But the League is yet in its in fancy and it i s
utopi an to expect from th e League in i ts present stage o f
development that protect ion which would render unneces sary anyp recaution fo r ou r own de fens e.Great B ritain fo r instance could not submit the f reedom
o f the s eas as interpreted by Germany to the arb itrament o f
any league . America could not submit the Monroe doctr ine ,and we could not submit the question o f a white Austral ia.Britain and America must be prepared to fight to the death
fo r these p rincipl es,which we bel i eve to be vital to ou r ex i stence .
The most v ital po int o f ou r pol icy is the white Austral ia .
We cannot hope to maintain a white Aust ral ia pol icy by merepious o r b latant declarations o f ou r intention s and determination .
Behind this,there must be some fo rce and i t cannot b e anyt hing
le ss than the utmost resou rces o f thi s nat ion .
INTO THE HANDS OF THE CHEMISTS 2
While men talk about d i sarmament and fi l l the newspaperco lumns ' with learned discuss ions as to the wisdom o f cu rtai ling our naval p rogram by international agreement, hour by
1 From address by Pr ime M inister W. A . Hughes. Q uoted in New
York T imes . November 8, 1 920.
2 From Manufacturer’s Record, January 1 3, 1 92 1 .
276 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
the German proposals now in Par i s cons ider that Amer i ca i sthe last hope the German manufacturers have, and they wil l notgive up as long as Amer ica does not protect its dye industryby a law similar to that o f Great B r itain . They see , further,that real chemical disarmament can be accompl ished only bybreaking Germany’s monopoly o f the dye industry and encou rag
ing the building up o f a s imi lar industry in al l the countr ie so f th e entente, and especial ly in the United States .
I t i s the absolute truth that the " ‘United States i s the only
impo rtant nation actual ly at the mercy o f the German chemistsf
’
The War Trade Board,which now protects the Amer i can
dye indust ry,wil l go out o f existence March 4 unles s funds to
finance its act iv it i es are provided, and it w i l l go out o f existenceanyhow so soon as peace i s concluded . The dye industry, therefo re, i s nearing hou r by hour the day when it wi ll be at themercy o f the Germans . That wil l not be long. P rivate industrydoes not poss ess the power o f taxation and cannot long standup unde r heavy financial loss es . I f there i s no inhibi to rylegislat ion , enough dyes can be dumped on our shores withina few months to swamp the market .I t i s difficult to speak w i th moderation o f those Senato rs
who have reso rted to the fi l ibuste r and every other technicaldev ice o f legis lators to delay and prev ent enactment o f the “
dye bi l l . Be thei r motives what they may,the fact remains
that thei r cours e i s exact ly the cou rs e that i s most acceptabl eto the Germans . There is no one thing Ber l in more desire sthan the fai lure of the Longwo rth b i l l . Men who shape theircou rse in Congres s so as to suppo rt a pol icy obviouslybeneficial to our enemies and destructive to the United Statesne cessar i ly are obj ects o f suspicion . Men are j udged not by
thei r motives, but by the things they do , and when the thingsthey do are fatal to the futu re wel l-being o f their country
,
they must expect cr iti ci sm . This i s more than ever true whenthey obstruct the maj o rity and employ the i r technical powero f delay to p revent an enactment favored not only by theHouse o f Rep resentatives and recommended by the P resident,but al so favo red by a large maj o ri ty in the Senate itsel f .There i s h i story back o f thi s enti re s ituat ion. The states
men who went to Par i s to wr it e the Peace Treaty were well
DISARMAMENT 277
aware that a me re phys ic al d is armam ent o f Germany would bea grotesqu e prov i s ion against the late r attack by that nation .
They favored not merely the dest ruction o f the German navyand the disbandment o f the German army
,but they al so ex
pected to compel the Germans to d i sclo se thei r chemical s ecrets,vital in warfare , and the d i smantl ement o f huge chemical workswas contemplated . This essential and wise cou rs e was prevented by Pres ident Wil son , who advanced the idea that theAll i es and the United States could adequately protect themselves by bu ild ing up thei r own chemical indust ri es , shuttingout the German product . He favo red compe l l ing the Germansto d i sclose thei r chemical s ecrets
,which they have not done,
but h e wanted each indiv idual nation to protect itse l f .That i s what al l o f the chi ef All ies and ne ut ral nat ions
have done—al l except the United States . Over in E ngland
the Government l i stened to al l the arguments against p rotect ion o f the B r it i sh dye industry and then promptly enacted,last month, the most d rast i c so rt o f legis lat ion to assur eabsolutely that the German chemical industry would not ruinthat
‘
o f Great B ritain . She carried out the und erstandingthat had been reached in Pari s . I t is more than pas sing st range,however
,that every eff ort to carry out the same understanding
in the United State s h as been p revented by fi lib u ster s o r th reatso f fi lib u ster s in the S enat e. I t is amazing, but i t i s t rue .
I t is a fact that the Germans have not yet yi elded up the i rwar me thod o f ext ract ing n i t rogen f rom the ai r . The methodswe have are obsolet e
,and w e know it . But the final Haber
process we have not got . I t wil l be got, in one way o r anothe r,but i t has not yet been got .
I f gentlemen w i sh to continue the argument on the dyebil l , l et them do so , but not w ith the gates o p en . The barri ersmust at l east be kept u p unti l a definite decision has beenreached . This can be done by passage o f a j oint resolut ionextend ing the autho rity o f the War Trade Board and prov iding funds whe rew i th to suppo rt it . The Longworth bi l li t sel f ought to be passed . I t is the sensibl e and proper course .
But,fail ing that
,the next best cours e is emergency protect ion
o f th e chemical indust ry pending a final deci s ion by the next
Congress on a d efinite national pol icy.
Th e absolutely essential characte r o f the dye indust ry in
278 SELECTED ARTICLES
relat ion to national de fense i s not a quest ion of ce nj ectu re or
o f theo ry. I t has been demonstrated with mathemat ical accuracy,
and i t can b e so demonstrated at any time,b efore any com
m ittee o r any jury. I ndeed , i t i s admitted even by the opponents
o f the Longwo rth b i l l . They claim,however
,that the industry
can be p rotected adequately by tar iff s . The facts are al lagains t them . Tar iffs are fo r hone st men, in pure commerce .Control o f the American dye market by the Germans i s notinherently a commercial undertak ing at al l . Germany can affordto give away dyes in America i f by so doing she can destroy theAmerican dye indust ry. Dyes, with her, is preparedness fo rwar . Dyes , with u s, can be nothing e l s e.
We would be sa fer without a gun factory in the nation, ap owder plant or a warsh ip than without a chemical industryand a chemical personnel equal to any others on earth .
CHEMICAL DISARMAMENT 1
Germany is sti l l uber all es in dye-product ion . E verybody
who i s interested in dyestuff s i s concerned about this . The
All i ed nat ions are l egi slat ing about it,yet f ew real iz e that the
bal ance and control o f the dye industry i s an es sential facto rin world d i s a rmament . Dye- facto ri es a re chemical plant s, andto tu rn thei r production from dyes to explo sives and poisongas i s the work o f a very br ief pe riod . V. Lefebure, fo rmerlyB rit i sh l i ai son officer with the French force s
,makes the asser
t ion,in an art icl e cont ributed to Chemical and Metal lurgical
E ngineering (New Yo rk ) , that “chemical di sarmament is the
crux o f al l d i sarmament .” Al l the more is this so because we
can not di sarm chemical ly by destruction . Guns may be broken
up and fo rt s dismant led,but we can not dest roy chemical
indust ry,becaus e it i s essential to the arts o f peace . In thi s
case,Mr . Lefebure as serts , we must d isarm by preventing
monopoly . Di st ribute the chemical indust rie s uni formly overthe wo r ld
,instead o f concent rating them in Germany, and a
menace to world peace wi l l b e removed . He bel i eves that the
Versail l es Treaty contains the machinery for doing thi s verything. He says
* From Lit erary D igest . February 1 2 , 192 1 .
280 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
fore'
th e wa r Germany held the almost ab so lute monopoly o fwor ld o rganic chemical p roduction . Through thi s monopolysh e launched the poi son-gas campaign
,and fo r mo re than two
years the A ll i ed rep ly was relatively f eeb le. This was not dueto Al li ed lack of invention
,but to lack o f producing capacity.
“During the wa r, however, fo r economic rather than military reasons, dye-producing industri es sprang up in France ,Amer i ca, and E ngland . Thei r development was relativelyf eeb le, owing to numerous obvious reasons . From the pointo f vi ew of ou r argument this development lef t the wor ld inthe fo l lowing si tuation regarding o rganic chemical-producingcapaci ty
“The German dye industry, the source o f her wa r-chemicalproduction
,was considerab ly strengthened. Other countr i es
were l eft with promising but relat ively feeb le o rgani c chemical resou rces which could not immediately
,even under normal
commercial condi tions , hope to b reak the Ge rman monopoly.
In other wo rds, altho fo r most types o f a rmament the prewar balance in favo r o f Germany was decreased, yet fo r thi sone type o f chemical armament the German monopoly was
strengt hened .
”
“We are, the re fore, declares M r . Lefebure, l ef t i n face o fthe fol lowing s ituat ion : Fo r most types o f armament the warhas led to a redi st ribution of producing capacity in the direct ion o f an equi lib rium . By dimini shing thi s capacity and con
t rol l ing and inspecting we may obtain international di sarmament ; but in chemical warfare, the final s ituation is j u st as
remote f rom equ i lib rium as b efo re. The conclusion i s obvious .The wo rld must have o rganic chemical-p roducing capacity, buti t can not tol erate a monopoly held by those who so drast ical ly abused it s posses s ion . There must be a red i str ibutionbe fore we can claim to have even approached disarmament . I twould b e farcical to proceed with general di sarmament schemesand to leave thi s untouched . I n other wo rds , we must b reakth e German monopoly .
” He continu esHow can thi s b e achi eved ? There are two main avenues
o f approach . The new-born dye industri es o f France, Ameri ca
,and E ngland, and i f you wi sh , other count ri es, must b e
suppo rted national ly th rough legi s lat ion and international lyth rough some such o rgani zation as the League o f Nations .
DISARMAMENT 281
In America and E ngland legis lation designed to protectthe dye industry i s b efo re both countri es . The i s sue i s l ikelyto be fought out on purely national ground s . Thi s alone is
enti re ly unsat i s facto ry. I t must b e real iz ed by al l concernedthat they are legi s lating on a matter which has infi nite ly mo rethan commercia l s ignificance. They are legis lating on wor ldpeace .
“Chemical di sarmament i s a matter which, unfo rtunately,non-t echnical people do not ful ly understand . They think i tsuffi ci ent to i s sue an edi ct against the u se o f poi son-gas , not
real i zing that this a lone i s abso lutely futi le as an eff ectivemeasu re . You can not prevent any di scoveri e s i n chemicalwarfare
,b ecaus e
,unlike the development o f mechanical in
v ent ion,such chemical di scover i es can occu r, when di rected by
a trained mind, wi th the mere use o f a f ew pots , pans , beak
ers,in any unguarded and unsuspected locali ty. The redis
t r ib u t ion o f producing capacity i s therefo re cri t i cal .“:Art icl e 168 o f the Treaty o f Ve rsai l le s p rov ides fo r the
rest ri ction by the Al li ed and Associated Powers o f the manufactu re o f war-materia l and o f the approval o f thos e Powersfo r the continu ed exi stence o f facto ri es and works fo r suchproduction in Germany. On thes e g rounds i t is logical ly pos~s ib l e to l imit s e riou sly that capaci ty o f the German dye indus
t ry which produced poi son-gases du ring the war and may continne to do so . A rtic l es 169 prov ides for the su rrender to theAl li ed and Associated Powers o f any special plant intendedfo r the manu factu re o f mi l i ta ry material , except such as maybe recogni zed as necessa ry fo r equipping th e autho ri zedst rength o f the German A rmy . The execution o f thi s claus e
,
i f a prope r i nt erp retat ion o f chemical armament b e u sed,
would imply th e clo sing down o f many of the German dyeplant s which produced those huge quanti ti es o f poi son-gases
du ring th e wa r .“We repeat that the c rux o f al l di sa rmament i s th e redi s
t r ib u t ion o f o rganic chemical capacity th roughout th e wo rld .
Thi s i s , without any doubt , one o f the most important measu res now be fo re th e wo rld , and,
in add i tion,one o f th e few
measu res with rega rd to which immed iat e action can be takentoward the stabi li zation o f wo r ld peace . "
282 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
INDUSTRIAL PRE PAREDNE SS—ITS RELATION
TO NATIONAL DEFENSE,AS SHOWN
BY RE CENT E ! PERIENCE 1
Modern war makes terr ib le demands upon those wh o fight . To_an
infinit e l y greater degree than ever before th e ou tcome depends upon longpreparat ion in advance , and upon th e sk i l l fu l and un ified u se of th e na
t ion ’
s ent ire soc ial and industr ial no less t han m i l itary power.—TH EODOR E ROOSEVE LT.
As the miasma o f partisan cr i tici sm o f the conduct o f thewar grows les s toxic, as the d rama itse l f recedes into the greatback-drop o f his to ry
,th ere ar i s es a consciousnes s in the publi c ’s
mind that pe rhaps some o f the things in the Amer ican effortwere not so bad as they have been painted
,that poss ib ly the
country was a bi t to bl ame for some o f the matter s that wentwrong. This i s not, however, a postmortem ; i t i s a br i e fattempt to i l lumine and safeguard the future by seiz ing uponsome of the l es sons o f the wor ld war which al ready ou r amazingdemocracy has fo rgotten .
In taking advantage o f the apparent current approach to thattrue perspective which views histo rical events in the aggregate,I wi l l deal somewhat plainly with the future in respect o f thenational defense . I wil l discuss that aspect o f it which I know
best : industrial preparednes s, the p ract ica l appl ication o f indus :tr ial
,economic
,and scientific fo rces to the demands o f .modern
war. This i s the start ing point o f nat ional de fense ; and. i t i s
completely lo st s ight o f in preparednes s plans now being maturedby Congress .Without i t
,armies that have to be expanded overnight from,
say one hundred seventy-fiv e thousand to two mill ion men ares imply and unequivocal ly inefficient armies in the mode rn s ense ;and
,what i s more
,they are very possibly armies marked fo r
slaughter .Nitrates
,tungsten
,j ute
,t in
,steel
,shel l s , guns , shoes , blankets ,
motor transpo rt,factory capact ity, distribution facil it ies , p lant
convers ion,labo r d i lut ion—these are but a few o f the basic
el ements o f war today,but a few o f the thousands o f threads
making up the fabr i c o f industr ial preparednes s .
1 By Grosvenor B . Clarkson (former D irector, Uni ted S tates Counc i lof Nat ional Defense ; former Chairman, Interdepartmental Defense
’
Board) .
Review of Reviews .-6. J ul y , 1 92 1 .
284 SELECTED ARTICLE S
mil ita ry needs . The two functions shou ld not be j oined fo rone instant, fo r the mil itary mi nd does not understand thelanguage and methods o f bus iness ; and the bus iness mind does
not understand the science o f war fare . Thoroughgo ing l iai sonbetween the two elements o f cours e there must be .Whil e Chairman o f the Interdepartmental Defens e Boa rd
,
o rganiz ed after the armist ice fo r the express pu rpose o f meet ingsome o f th e fo regoing problems, the fi rst thing I d id
,at the
in itial meet ing o f the Board, was to ask a quest ion to which Ihad anticipated the answer ; indeed, my certainty that I knewthe answer was why I had pr ess ed the board’s creat ion . I t
was thi s : “Can the War Department giv e this Board its requirements for the upkeep o f a mi l l ion men in the field fo r six
months so that the Board, working down through the departmentsand busines s units repre senting th e necessary sources o f supply,can ascertain in peacet ime how, when, where, and in what
quantitie s those suppli es may be found ? ” The reply was, “No .
”
Now, that was an almost unbe l i evable thing to be true a fterwe had j ust come out o f the biggest war in ou r hi story. But i t
is a perf ect ly natural result o f lack of scientific study o f theseth ings be fore we went in. Being wholly unprepared in themodern sens e
,the War Department was forced to spend bil l ions
o f dol lars to off s et the f ruits of the valo r o f ignorance. I t wasimpaled on the merci les s day- to-day exigency o f the war itsel f .The task o f the doer i s always treb led when the thinker has notbeen permitted to precede him .
Leath er Needs, As An Instance
I repeat, the re can be no scient ific p reparation wh en thefight i s on . By the same token, When war, based on eleventhhou r preparation
,i s being waged, th ere i s l ittl e o r no time in
which,day by day
,to conse rve the knowledge being won in the
arena. Doubtl es s with a 100 per cent per fect organizat ion , anda 100 per cent qual ifie d personne l, these things could b e overcome . But there i s no per fect m ilitary organizat ion , no per fectlyqual ifi ed mil itary pe rsonnel
,in the quantitat ive sens e
,when a
democracy goe s to war.On finding the condition descr ibed above, the War Depart
ment was cal led upon to fu rni sh the Interdepartmental DefenseBoard i ts requ i rements in one typical wa rt ime commodity alone,l eather . After six weeks thes e requirement s were received, and
DISARMAMENT 285
when I le ft offi ce in March, 1920, the Board had begun to tracethi s commodity back to th e raw material
,studying subst itutes
fo r leath er as i t went along ; and, fo r the fi rst t ime in peace
under thi s Gove rnment , an attempt was be ing made to standard i z eth e p rocu rement o f one vita l el ement o f supply in t ime o f war .The idea was to proceed to other supp lie s one by one . That i sthe only way in which the j ob can be done scient ifical ly
,eco
nom ically, and prope rly . Ve ry l itt le has been accomp l i shed sincethe period with which I deal
,for reasons that need not b e gone
into here .I n antic ipating and providing fo r the mil itary and naval
needs befo re the outbreak o f war, requi rements must b e tracedf rom the finished p roduct al l the way back to the raw mater ial .Such a study must neces sari ly include actual
,normal production
o f the goods needed ; equipment always in read ine s s to p roduce,togethe r with the rate at which such equipment cou ld be produ ced ; and convers ion poss ibi l it ie s o f equipment, including theitems o f time and exp ens e
,with care ful attent ion as to whether
conver s ion o f equipment might withdraw product ion o f othe rpart s essential to defense .
The studies should go part icu larly to analysi s o f the production o f such items as are very limited in thi s count ry. For
example , i t would include care ful study o f quantity steel p roduct ion in the United States
,to find out i f w e we're producing
o r could produce enough steel o f specific qual it i e s needed int ime o f war . I t would go into shortage o f war material s , thelack o f some o f which was extremely embarras sing, to say th e
least,in the recent war . I t would include al so the study o f
substi tutes such as those fo r l inen in ai rcraft .
A Danger ou s Lack of Nitrates
The subj ect o f n itrates alone ital ici ze s th e need fo r indust rial preparednes s . I w i l l i l lust rate : The othe r day I di scus sedw i th one o f th e world ’ s greate st expe rts on explo sives thequestion o f nit rogen fixation fo r wa r pu rposes . A civ il i an
,a
dol lar-a-year man in the World War, h e p robably contr ibutedmore o f value to th e American exp l os ives program than didany othe r one man . His stand ing and j udgment are acceptedby eve rybody famili ar w ith th e economic and technical s ide o f
mod ern wa r . Afte r th is autho rity had d etailed to me , in amost moving way
, th e fundamental impo rtance o f the continu
286 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
ance by the United States Government o f it s development o fnitrogen fixation so that it may be independent o f an externalsupply of nitrate, I asked him :
“I f we went to war today, where would we be with regardto this matter ?”
H e repl i ed : I f ou r po rts were blocked,o r i f the element
o f submar ine attack were developed to such a point that ourmerchant ships could not load nitrat e, the war would be o fshort duration and we would be at the mercy of the enemy.
“How long would i t b e before we cou ld br ing our domesticsource o f supply up to an avai lab le point ?
“Two years, at l east .”
I ndustr ial mastery o f th e chemistry o f high explos ives,
identi cal with success ful commercial manufacture of coal-tardyes, pe rfumes, and medicines , i s the wo rk o f years, involvingthe creat ion and reconstruction o f whole industr i es .There i s a field d istinct ly advantageous to the national defense
inte rest s o f the nation in the peace- time consumption by thepub lic of goods prepared acco rding to army standards . The rei s no reason, fo r instance, why the publ ic shou ld not u se bucketsbui lt on a rmy specificat ions, j ust as wel l as b uckets sl ightlydiff erent, so that there might be on hand a ful l supply in themarket at the coming o f war. This pract ice could be carr i edout with benefi t to government, bus iness, and the public al ikeas to v ery many of the art icl es used by the War and NavyDepartment s in wartime . Even the standardizat ion o f automobi lechass i s in terms o f mil itary requirements should be included
,so
that army service bodies might b e fi tt ed immediately to civi l ian
owne d automobil es for swi ft troop movements at the outbreako f war.Since al l production fo r war pu rposes o r otherwis e depends
on the avai lab i l ity o f electr ic,gas
,and water s ervice, special
study should be given to pub lic-uti l ity development . Unle s s
I am mistaken the re i s no place in the government where suchdevelopment can b e studie d and in formation as to resourcesand cost o f service obtained .
A Card-Index Sys tem for Army Supplies
Whatever is done, i t i s elementary that cu rrent index l i st sshould be kept o f al l concerns exper i enced in making the diff erenttypes o f a rmy suppl ies . These l i st s shoul d be double- indexed ;
288 SELECTED ARTICLE S
bridgeheads, termini, freight tonnages, etc., with detai led maps .The point i s that no such complete info rmation was then (Pebruary
,1920) avai lab le .
I have only scratched the sur face o f what industr i al p repar edness means . I have not even gone into the maj o r quest iono f where pr io r it ie s in one industry shou ld be granted at thecost o f some other industry
,and where labor requ ired fo r
emergency pu rposes can be obtained and spared with the leastd isturbance to th e country. P r ior it i es in transportat ion alonei s a s ingular ly invo lved Subj ect . I wi l l l eave the quest ion nows imply by saying that wa r-t ime prio rit i e s can only be workedout in a normal and equitab le way when th e maj o r facts in al lo f th e impo rt ant industr i es have fo r a long tim e been maintained in a standardized and comparative manner . I n any
part icula r emergency, such as the rapid transportat ion o f rawmater ial s, the final value o f such data consi sts largely in thedegree in which th ey are up
-to-date . Dead in formation equal szero minus when war begins . I t merely clogs the wheels .
Intensi ty of Modern War
Modern war—and every American should get thi s wel l intoh is head— means , in i ts pract ical wo rking, the uti l izat ion o f al lo f the indust ri e s in one form o r anothe r
,to say nothing o f the
l ay citiz enship o f a country . Among the lay populat ion alone,the Counci l o f National Defense had on Armistice Day onehundred e ighty—fou r thousand organized units in th e UnitedStates
,which it guided through the State and local counci l s o f
de fense . The world probab ly never saw another organization
l ike i t ; i t was the non- part isan , ever-rami fying machine ry thatwel ded together American citizenship for the confusion o f theCentral Empi res . T hese units represented mil l ions o f act ivemen and women
,carrying to the peopl e, through the Counci l,
the measure s and needs o f al l departments and war agencieso f the Government and send ing back to Washington the mood
o f the people . America its el f has l i tt l e conception o f the fieldsystem only o f the Counci l o f National De fense, or o f what i twas call ed upon to do .
War today means the whol e force o f a nation in act ion . I t
has ‘ become a profes s ion to which the mi l itary alone has longceased to be cal led . The resou rces o f the nation its el f mustfu rnish the o rganized
,continuing, t i re les s force behind the
DISARMAMENT 289
cutting edge o f th e army and navy in time o f war . As HowardCoffin, th at automob il e engineer out o f the West who was thep ioneer protagoni st in this country o f industr ial preparednes s,has said : Twenti eth- century warfar e demands that the b loodof the soldier must be mingled with from three to five parts o f
th e sweat o f the man in th e facto ri es, mil ls, mines, and fieldso f the nation in arms .”
Whatever is done under th e Government in the contemplat iono f industrial preparedness
,the las t p lace where that contempla
t ion should be lodged is with the mi l itary, except in so far asa general study o f the subj ect as rel ated to mi l i tary needs i sconcerned . I t su rely should have become elementa ry that thespecific task must b e handled by civ i l i ans, and civi l ians so le ly.
Th e Indus tr ial S tory of a Gun and a Sh ell
Final ly—to d raw together into one p icture some o f thethings I have outlined above—consider the explos ion o f a shel lf rom the mouth o f a modern gun and al l o f the e lement s thatgo into that exp los ion . I cannot visual ize the subj ect betterthan by direct quotation f rom the remarkably impress ive finalreport o f the War I ndustr i es Board j ust i ssued by its fo rmerchai rman , Be rnard M . Baruch, who,
in th e marshal l ing and syn
ch ronizing o f indust ri al force s, accomplished in the Amer i canwar machine what nobody els e had been ab le to accompli sh,and what a great many pes simists o f the stati c s chool were surehe could not br ing about :
A she l l is made pr inc ipal l y of s tee l , brass and copper. It is fi l ledwith an explos ive and is fi red by e i th er a fixed or separate charge o fprope l lent powder. Th e product ion of such a she l l invo lves first th e preparat ion of a plant o r plants to forge , mach ine , and measure it , equ ip i tw ith a firing mechanism and w ith a band to take th e r ifl ing of th e gu n.
It requ ires another plant for loading, pack ing, and sh ipping.
“E ach of the se r ocesses invo lves , d ir ect l o r indirec t l y , a vast group
of industr ies t urned)
to a new fi e ld. But the stee l and copper used inth e she l l invo lve another set of forces as they are deve loped from th eo r e th rough t h e proce sses of extrac t ion and refinement to th e forges.
Th e blas t furnaces have to b e suppl ied w i th coke , w i th l ime ,and man
ganese . Th ey have to b e l ined w it h refrac tory br ick . Coke invo l v es mining b i tum inous coal and pass ing it through coke ovens . They all inv o lv ea large amount o f rai lroad transportat ion, for th e mos t favored spot on
earth does no t contain all t h e e lements for a piece of s tee l .“Turn ing to th e explos ive and prope l lent fo r loading and fir ing th e
she l l , t h e ni tr ic ac id is made from n i trate of soda, wh ich h as to b e m inedand refined in a desert part o f Ch i le , carr ied to th e coas t on rai lroadswhose rai ls , rol l ing stock , t ies , and fue l have to b e taken there fromd i s tant part s , and then i t is carr ied fi v e thousand m i les in v esse ls to ou r
shores ; th e su lphu ric ac id requ ired in great quant i t ie s is made frompyr i tes o r e com i ng from Spain or brimstone from Texas , plat inum fromRus s ia be ing needed for th e equ ipment of th e ac id-produc ing plants .
290 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
From some co t ton fie ld of th e Sou th h as to b e co l lected a l itt le ofth e fine l int st ick ing to th e seed as it comes from th e gin to form th ebas is of th e prope l lent powder. And after all th is preparat ion a she l l onth e front is fi red in
.
a few moments. One day its u se is necessary, anotherday it is not, but i ts preparat ion h as to go on and on unt i l th e confl icti s over.
A P lan for Industr ial P r epar edness
Fo r those who wish to study these matter s at more l ength,
I re fer to th e detai l ed wr i tten proposals that I gave Congress,
whi le director o f the Counci l o f Nat ional Defense,in December
,
1919. They cal led for an entirely wo rkabl e plan with the expenditu r e o f only a year . Think of it—those o f you whoare hypnoti z ed by the bi l l ions fo r mil itary and naval p reparedne s s set fo rth in the newspaper headlines—only a year !I t is about a third les s than the peace-t ime pay-rol l o f a regimento f caval ry, and th e regiment must be subsisted and its equipment maintained besides . I t is about one-hundredth o f our bi l lfor one day
’s p art icipation in the Wor ld War . I f such a plancould sho rten a futu re war by only one day it could, as war i swaged under modern conditions
,s ave fo r one hundred years
the operating expense o f such a working body as I p roposed .
The proposals were heart i ly app roved by the Secretary o f War,by al l o f the othe r five cab inet officers forming the Counci l, bysuch men as Daniel Wil lard
,P res ident
‘
o f th e Balt imo reOhio Rai lroad and former chai rman o f the Advisory Commission of the Counci l o f National Defense ; Frank A . Vanderl ip
,Otto Kahn
,ex-Secretary o f War Garri son, Home r Fergu son,
then pres ident o f th e United States Chamber o f Commerce ; bythe execut iv e s ecretary o f the National As sociation o f Manufactu r er s ; by a large numbe r o f great newspapers and magazines,and by p ractical ly the entire bus ines s press o f the count ry.
Congres s appropr iated j us t about enough to mark t im e on,and marking time has been the si tuat ion eve r s ince, though farmo re could have been done in the past year than has been done .
Yet here exists a great national insurance pol icy fo r an almostgrotesquely low premium . Sometime s I think that I made a
psychological b lunder in asking Congress for so l i tt le . Lo rdBacon
,in commenting upon the power o f figu res, i t wi l l b e
recal led,pointed out that even th e most intel l igent men wil l
stop to look at a process ion of ten wheelbarrows . Howeve r,I was trying to submit honest bedrock estimates at a t ime whenretrenchment was beginning to be imperat ive .
292 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
they have b een analyzed and class ified and made avai lab le as awhol e to the economic and national de fense pu rposes o f thegove rnment. They shou ld never be scattered. The only reservation that I make to thi s is that i f M r. Hoover gets hold o f thefi le s fo r the purposes o f the Department o f Comme rce, somegood wil l probably come of i t.
(2 ) There wi l l be initiated in peace-t ime no effi ci ent andsci ent ific, and there fo re no economical, s tudy o r plan for theappl ication of ou r industr ial, economic and scient ific fo rces towar ; that i s, a study o r p lan in which the l ay and mil itary mindsshal l be balanced for a proper preparednes s . The balance cannot be had otherwise.
(3) The re wi l l b e no continuing co rrelation and interpretation o f the figu res o f ou r indust ri al production . Today nothing
is mo re impo rtant, either for government o r bus ines s, for nationaldefense pu rposes o r fo r peace-t ime economic considerat ions .The public and the Federal p roblems o f the future in thi s count ry are economic p roblems . They cannot be solved without therequired facts , added to that cla rifying interpretat ion o f thefacts which makes them: dynamic and of pract i cal u se.
Commer cial Adv antages
To th e business wor ld I offer th is thought in connection withuti l iz ing our industri al and economic national defense reco rds :I t i s, in my j udgment, es sential fo r the common advantage
o f government and bus ines s that '
a great deal o f this mater ial ,which under the o ld economy was often cons idered confidentialtrade in fo rmation, should be rel eased . More and more doesmodern busines s mean trade cooperat ion . Men must know moreabout one another ’s bu siness . There is no reason why directeconomic national de fense research measu res
,which need cost
but very l itt l e,should not be t i ed into the l egitimate needs o f
bus iness . Industr i al production figures fo r the benefit o f bus iness,and the same figures for nat ional de fense research , are inseparable . A smal l coordinating and co rrelat ing staff could supplya fund o f in fo rmation which o rdinarily c ou ld be had only by the
expenditure o f mil l ions o f dol lars . Thus two highly valuableends would be serv ed , and a great deal of money saved bothin the peace-t ime wor ld o f business and i f war should come .I t i s fol ly
,i t i s s i l ly
,i t get s one nowhere, to attack th is
official o r that pol it ical party for lack o f preparedness . To do
DISARMAMENT 293
so merely exhib it s a mind,whether i ts posses sor be a congress
man, an editor ial wr i ter, a party hack, o r a layman, that is eitherhopeless ly par ti san o r hope less ly shal low . The whol e thing
goes back to the inertness o f the peopl e themselves and in greatmeasure, o f cours e, to the bitter lack o f scient ific thinking onthe part o f Congress—by whatever party controlled .
I t i s true, as General Dawes says (and I , too, speak as al i fe- long Republ ican ) , that we did a superb j ob when we gotin . I t i s true that we made our culminating and decis ive indust rial mob il iz at ion, thanks to M r. Baruch and hi s associates
,with
incredib le speed, consummate skil l, and great dar ing. I t i s
true that the rai s ing, training, transport, and conduct in the fi eld
o f the national armies make a noble and st irr ing epic that the
unilateral minds o f p rej udiced men cannot aff ect . But i t al l,
on the mi l i tary s ide, cost bi l l ions that i t need not have cost . Andthat, in an enl ightened age, i n an e conomic age , i s a moral
crime .To govern is to fo resee . Apparently in the p resent instance
we are not even looking backward .
Military preparednes s fo r modern war, without indust rialp reparednes s as i t s foundation , is s imply beating at the ai r .
To say mo re would be bathos ; to say l es s wou ld be to fuse
onesel f with thos e who d r i ft and dream .
DISARMAMENT AND EUROPE ’
Befo re pas sing to the conside rat ion o f the more impo rtant
event s in the past month in Eu rope i t i s perhaps t imely to dealb riefly w i th a question o f general inte rest which aff ects boththe United States and Eu rope equal ly . In recent weeks we have
had the old problem o f disarmament rais ed both in a generaland a specific fashion . At Geneva the League o f Nat ions
,a fte r
much d i scus s ion,and to the ve ry great disappointment o f the
smal l er states,re fe rred the whole subj ect to committees fo r
late r repo rt . Meantime the re had begun in the United S tates,Great B ritain
,and Japan publ ic debate ove r the possib i l i ty o f
placing some l imitation o f the naval p rograms o f the th ree
nations,th rough the medium o f a “naval hol iday .
"
Taking up fi rs t the general quest ion , one i s faced with the
1 By Frank H . S imonds . Review of Reviews .-54 . February , 1 92 1 .
294 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
all- important question : I s disarmament possible, giv en th e pr esentwor ld si tuation ? Th e answer is frankly negativ e. At the p resent
moment the B r it i sh are facing demands upon thei r mi l itarystrengt h unp recedented in the peace his to ry o f the Empire . Morethan one hundred thousand regular troops
,to say nothing o f the
various auxi l iar ie s, are occupied in I reland . An even largernumber, part ial ly d rawn from Indi a, to be sure, i s held in Mesopotamia . And i f there are Indian troops in Mesopotamia
,the
dangerous condition s in India have requ i red rein forcements o fthe B ri t i sh garr i sons there . Mo reover
,theE gypt ian si tuat ion is
also d ifficul t and B r it i sh garr i sons in that country have to bemaintained at maximum strength .
Reading the B ritish newspapers and the Amer ican di spatchesfrom London, there can be no mistaking the fact that there isa universal demand fo r th e reduction o f mil i tary expenses
,but
the desi re cannot mater i al ly aff ect the cas e,fo r the p ecu l iar
ci rcumstances i n variou s po rtions o f the Empire demand largemi l i ta ry estab l ishments, and recent events in the Near E ast haveonly s erved to multip ly the cal l s for troops .Looking to France
,what i s the s ituat ion ? From the French
point o f vi ew the army i s the sol e guaranty o f the payment byGermany o f the reparations sums
,which represent solvency o r
ruin fo r France. We have had in the past month a new Germancris i s , with a renewal o f the di scus s ion of the possib i l ity o fFrench occupation o f addit ional German ter r itory. The s ituation
in the Near E ast, and part icularly in the new French terr ito ryo f Syria
,cal l s fo r a garr i son near ly as large as the B rit i sh
are maintaining in Mesopotamia,whil e th ere i s mani fest chance
o f a real war with the reviving Tu rki sh Empi re .The whole quest ion o f the army has recently been aired in
the French Parl i ament,and a Mini ster o f War has j ust res igned
becaus e the Chamber ins i sted upon the reduction o f the periodo f service in th e a rmy from th ree year s - to e ighteen months .
This reduct ion,agreed upon in th e end, will not take eff ect unti l
nex t year and may be igno red i f conditions seem at that t imeto hold out pe ri l . Such a reduction o f the French Army, howeve r
,represents the max imum o f French demob il i zat ion conceiv
able at thi s t ime and i s v iewed with su sp icion by many Frenchmen .
I taly has j u st made a final settlement with th e Jugosl av s
and wil l unquest ionably fol low th e French example in reducing
296 SELECTED ARTICLE S
at the present t ime i s idle. Even the examination of the poss i
b ility o f a l imitation o f armament is unlikely to l ead to any usefulre sult, because th e p roblem today i s not that o f the years beforethe war . Nations are not now increasing their armaments in amad compet ition, they are not arming against each other, butthey are with extreme re luctance retaining thei r standing armiesbecause o f the situat ion which exists about them
,o r
, as in the
case o f Great B r i tain , within thei r own fronti ers .And thi s , after al l, was the real conclus ion reached at Geneva,
although it was disgu i sed by the appointment of commiss ions
to repo rt at the S eptember s ess ion . What the report wi l l becan be foreseen and was foreshadowed at the preci se momentthe commiss ions were appointed.
A“Nav al Holiday
So universal has been the recognit ion o f the imposs ib i l ity o fany disarmament at the present t ime that the di scus s ion hasgradual ly been restr i cted to the s ituat ion existing between thethree remain ing seapower s—B r itain, Japan, and the UnitedStates . H ere the debate has been p recip itated by the fact that,fo l lowing the war
,the B ri t i sh have p ract ically
'
stopped al l naval
construction and B r it ish naval expert s have begun to sound anote o f alarm
,declaring that i f the B rit i sh pol icy is pursued
, th e
United States,merely by fo l lowing its own program of 1916, wil l
in 1923 posses s a battlefl eet actual ly mo re power fu l than that o fGreat B ri tain .
Some s l ight d ifference exi sts among th e expert s o f the wor ldas to whether thi s assertion i s l ite ra l ly accu rate , yet it may besaid
,in pas s ing, that at the least , i f B ritain does not build and
we cont inue to fulfi l ou r program o f 1916, by 1923 Brit i sh sea
supremacy wil l have become a thing o f the past, unless— andthi s qual ificat ion is eno rmously important— the developments o fthe next three years shal l prove that th e era of b ig ships haspas sed and that sea supremacy wil l rest with the nation possess ingcommand of the air and o f the most powerfu l submar ine fleet .
I t i s a fact that one explanation fo r the B rit ish cessation o fbuild ing i s to be found in the growing bel ie f among B r it i sh navalauthor it ie s that the war demonstrated the fol ly o f putt ing mill ions into capital ships . S ir Percy Scott, who foreto ld somethingo f the submar ine developments o f th e war, has recently carriedon a br i l l iant and damaging attack upon the o lder ideas . Mo re
DISARMAMENT 297
over,inside ou r own navy th e same controversy i s raging. Thus
it might be that when we had sunk mil l ions in our new const ru ctions thes e would p rove archaic at the precise moment inwhich ou r battlefl eet had reached i ts maximum o f expectedstrengt h .
There i s,then
,a p ract ical reason why the whole question o f
naval construction shou ld be passed in review once more . Butth i s
,af te r al l
,is a detai l . What one has to face now is the b lunt
question whether we are to engage in a naval competition withthe B rit i sh
,recogniz ing al l the peri l s such a competit ion has
fo r f ri endly relat ion s between two countr i es o r by contrast a reto reach some agreement with the B r it ish by which we canadj u st ou r respective bui l ding programs .I f we unde rt ake a competit ion— in fact , i f we continue ou r
present program , without some f r i endly understanding, i t maybe accepted as axiomatic that the Br it i sh w i l l meet ou r programand p robably s eek to outbui ld us . The truth is that the B riti shGovernment would be fo rced by the sent iment o f its people totake such a stand . But to do this would be to put a f resh and
eno rmous addit ional strain upon B r i t i sh finance . I t would delay
B r it i sh read j u stment fol lowing the war. Above al l,i t would
excite a pro found resentment in the hearts o f the Br it ish peopl e .Unfortunately, th e whole quest ion i s compl icated by the
Japanese ci rcumstance . We have neve r consciou sly constructedagainst the B riti sh . Our 19 16 program , which now rai ses th ewhol e is sue, was adopted at a t ime when we were neut ral andthe whol e wo rld at war
,with one possibi l ity o f the struggl e
the emergence o f a victor ious and predato ry Ge rmany . Ou r navyprogram o f that t ime represented insurance against the poss ibl econs equences o f the wor ld st ruggle .But i f we have never regarded the B r it i sh as a possible rival
,
i t is usel ess to bl ink the fact that w e have watch ed with app r e
h ension the expansion o f Japanese naval st rength . We have
fel t that it was a matte r o f national sa fety to maintain ou r sea
powe r at such strength as to be abl e to envi sage an attack f romthe E ast
,whil e there has been an ever-grow ing desi re to avoid
any su ch unhappy ci rcumstance .
Since B ritain and Japan are al l ie s the quest ion i s compl icated,
although th e te rms o f their al l iance specifical ly exclude th e
possib il i ty o f Angl o-Japanese cooperat ion against th e United
States . Again,th e whole quest ion o f the Anglo-Japanese al liance
298 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
must come up again, short ly, and there are unmistakable s ignsthat the B r it i sh Dominions, notably Canada, Austral ia, and NewZ ealand, are opposed to i ts renewal and recogniz e the Ameri canfeelings in the matter . Actual ly, it i s accu rate to say that were
there no quest ion o f an Anglo-Japanes e al l iance,the Anglo
Amer ican question might be far mo re eas i ly adj usted.
In Washingt on the whole i s sue had been raised by a resolut ion introduced by Senato r Borah cal l ing for convers at ions withboth Japan and G reat B r itain to di scover the possibi l i ty o f somekind o f a naval ho l iday.
But at bottom there i s st i l l patent one maj or difficulty. Even
i f the Anglo—Japanese al l iance should not be renewed,there
would r i s e the probl em as to the bas i s on which Great B r itainand the United States should negot iate . In al l the Anglo
German d i scus sions which preceded the war,no fo rmula could
be found . The B r i t i sh natu rally decl ined to accept the bas is o fequal ity o f strengt h, the Ge rmans decl ined to recognize anyother basis as a matter o f r ight, although in pract ice they didnot attempt to equal B r i t i sh strength because o f the enormousexpens e involved .
Now it i s certain that th e United States would not agree toa basi s o f adj u stment which would concede B rit i sh s ea supremacy. I t i s j ust as certain that the B r it i sh Government woulds imi lar ly decl in e to surrender the last semblance o f that sea.
supremacy which has been held for so'
many centu ri es . But it
i s probabl e that the B r it ish would be ready to deal with us onthe bas is o f frank equal ity, recogniz ing the total di ff erence b etween ou r pol icies and purposes and tho se o f Germany in theyear s b e fore 1914.The fi rst real step in th e direct ion o f the l imitat ion o f arm
aments in the wo r ld would unmistakably be an agreement betweenthe United States and Great B ritain to re strict bui lding. T h e
supremest fol ly o f which it i s poss ibl e to think would be acompetition between the two countri es , who have al readyceleb rated the centennial o f unbroken peace . No question o fany importance serves to divide the countri e s , and
“recent partnership in victo ry suppl i es one more a rgument against insane navalcompetit ion .
I t i s,neverthel ess
,al l too true that there are el ements in the
United States,who
,becau s e of host i l ity to Great B ritain , grow
ing out o f E u ropean and not Ameri can ci rcumstances, are bound
300 SELECTED ARTICLE S
in the United States , so far, but by contrast const itutes thes ingl e intel l igent and possib le contr ibut ion to wo rld peace andthe so le and s imple step in the direct ion o f di sarmament yetdis coverable .As to al l other proposal s looking toward wo r l d disarmament
,
fo r a multitude o f reasons, some o f which I have indicated,d i s cus s ion o f thi s great quest ion must neces sar i ly be adj ou rnedto a t ime when there i s at leas t a poss ibi l ity o f even a modest
achi evement . Alone o f the great power s, our ci rcumstancespermit us to cons ider and even to carry out a reduction o f ou rmilita ry fo rces . S imi lar reductions would be welcomed by thewar-impoverished E uropean nat ions, but exi st ing condit ions atthei r f rontier s preclude al l but very l imited reductions at thepresent hour. And i f the United States should now set out uponan aggress ive pol icy o f naval expans ion
,the chances o f eventual
d i sarmament would be wel l-nigh aboli shed .
Disarmament i s , after al l , a misl eading term ,which provokes
much unnecessary controve rsy . No count ry in the wo r ld todayse riously considers actual d i sarmament . At best al l but a fewextremists hope for no mo re than the restr i ct ion o f armedst rength to the minimum which represents secur ity. But today
that minimum seem-s to impose the retention o f the system ofconscr iption and the cont inuation o f the t raining o f the youngmen o f al l Eu ropean nat ions . E ven in Great B r itain the talko f a r eturn to conscr ipt ion has been heard in respons ibl equarters in recent t ime . This wi l l hard ly come, but the talko f i t i s s ignificant . I t i s only on sea that the recent war s eemsto have opened the way fo r far-reaching reforms, useful reduet ions in expense and waste . But even here the whol e quest iontu rns upon an Anglo-Amer ican agreement . Fai ling this we arel ikely to see rather a mult ipl ication than a reduction o f armaments .
WHY THE UNITED STATE S NEEDS A B IGNAVY‘
The United States should have a nav y equal to any that sai l s
the seas . That is the goal to which ou r naval autho r it ie s havelong aspired
,which statesmen o f v is ion have recognized as a
1 By Josephu s Dan ie ls . Saturday Evening Post. p . 8 March 1 9,
1 93 1 .
DISARMAMENT 301
national need— the pol i cy set forth by the General Board o f theNavy years ago , which found its concrete express ion in theNaval Approp riat ion Act o f 19 16, authoriz ing the building o f
one hund red fi fty-seven fighting ship s w i th in th ree years .
Nothing but the ex igency o f the World War delayed theirconstruction. When thi s count ry entered the confl ict ou r capitalship build ing program was d i splaced because the immed iatedemand was fo r antisubmarine craft . I t was in that fi eld that
we could render th e most e ff ect ive se rvice,and w i thout a
moment ’s hesitat ion we discontinued work on these b ig ship s,
which had al ready been contracted fo r,and concentrated on
the p roduction o f dest royers,submarine Chase rs
,mine layers and
pat rol boats .
This was qu ite a s much in our own inte rest as in that o f ourAll i es , fo r ruthless U-Boat war fare threatened al l commerce
,
and had it not been put down we could not have t ranspo rt-edt roops o r supp l i e s ove rseas . Al l the other All ied navies
,as
wel l as ou r own , were exerting every eff ort , and ou r fo rces werecombined to overcome thi s menace . But the fact remains that
when the war ended th e United States was le ft,so far as capital
ships were concerned,in much th e same pos it ion i t was in'
at
the beginning . The battl eship s and battl e crui se rs autho r i z edin 1916, which would give u s the equal ity set forth as our naval
pol i cy, were st il l to be comp l eted .
Claims to S upr emacy Waiv ed
The re were two theo r ies in the United States as to it s Navybe fore , in 19 15, I di rected the General Board to prepare a program o f construction that would place ou r Navy on an equalfooting with that o f any othe r nation . There was an e lement
contend ing that th e United States should confine itse l f to bui ldinga few ships and be content w ith a navy second in rank
,the reby
recognizing that some othe r nation should be accorded fi rst
place in sea powe r. The othe r element , led by the General Board ,took the fi rm s tand that the only w i se and sa fe pol icy o f theUnited States was to maintain a navy unsu rpas sed by that o fany othe r country . Thi s nat ional pu rpose was thus expres sedby th e Gene ral Board :
Th e Navy of th e Uni ted S tates should ul t imate l y b e equal to th e mos t
powerful maintained by any o th e r nat ion o f th e world . I t should b e
gradual l y increased to th is po int by such a rate o f deve lopment , year byyear , as may b e pe rm i t ted by th e fac i l i t ies o f th e country , b u t th e l im itabove defined should b e at tained no t later than 1 9 2 5.
302 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
That doctr ine i s as sound s ince the war as i t was when it .
was fi rst penned and approved. I t is, too, unaff ected by the
discuss ion whether the wor ld wi ll go on building competit ivenavies o r by international agreement reduce arm ament . I f the
United S tates el ects to be a hermit nation,to l ive unto its el f and
enter into no association with other countr ie s,then it must con
t inu e to bui ld, so as to be p repared to defend itsel f against anynations with which it may have disagreement . I f
,however
,
some wis e and honorable way shal l b e found—whether i t i scal led a league o r an association o r a concert— for ou r entranceinto an agreement to safeguard the peace o f the wor ld
,then
the United States shoul d furni sh as l arge a p roportion as anyother nation o f the naval fo rce requi red to maintain pe ace.In th e event o f arb itration and peace by reason, the amity
and permanence o f the association would be best prese rved i fno nation had a dominating fo rce in the j oint pol icing of the
seas . I do not mean to imply that i f the United States or GreatB ri ta in o r J apan should furnish a superio r force
,any one o f
the s e would wish to enfo rce its wil l upon the wor ld . Far f romi t . But i f any one country was powerful enough to dominate, i tmight caus e resentment among nations having smal le r fleets .
Although the United States excels in wealth and r esou r ces,
’
and
could better affo rd to maintain a great naval force than anyother land , we would not inv ite even remote suspicion o rj ealousy by claiming the right to have the fi rs t naval power. Bythe same reasoning w e could not with good grace consent forany other nation to claim as it s r ight that posit ion in th e wo r ld .
Th e F r iendsh ip of E quals
I t is not dominance we seek, but equal ity in sea power ; andthat i s al l that the Fi rs t Lord o f the B rit ish Admiralty now asksfo r hi s country. In a recent statement Mr. Walter Long saidGreat B r i tain has had diff e rent standards ; our strength was atone t ime superio r to the thr ee next strongest Powers ; then tothe two ; now al l that we are suggest ing i s that ou r strength beequal to the nex t Power” ; and he asks , “I s not this proo f o f ou rdesi re for general r educt ion o f a rmament ?”
I t i s,in fact
,identical w ith our position that no nation ought
to ask to have commanding power . Our count ry should becontent with neither more no r l ess than that maintained by thenext Power. Between individuals i t has b een said that per fect
304 SELE CTEDARTICLE S
despit e the warnings o f P resident Grant,who pointed out that
“this po l icy must, o f cours e, gradual ly but su rely dest roy theNavy, and said :
“I t can hard ly be wis e s tatesmanship in a
gov ernment which represents a country w i th over five thousandmiles o f coast l ine on both oceans
,exclusive of Alaska
,and
contain ing fo rty mil l ions o f progress ive people,with relat ions
o f every nature with almost eve ry fo reign country,to rest with
such inadequate m eans o f enforcing any foreign policy e ithero f protect ion o r redres s . Separated by the ocean from thenations o f the eastern continent , ou r Navy i s ou r only means o fdi rect protection to our cit iz ens abroad
,o r for the en fo rcement
o f any foreign policy.
”
Lessons F r om th e Past
We are facing today a decision in regard to ou r Navy moremomentous than that which fol lowed the Civi l War. Shal l wemake the same mistake that was made then ?
When at las t the country,after long years o f naval decl ine
,
awakened to it s pl ight , i t had to begin at the bottom and bu i lda new navy from the keel up . This was begun by Wil l iam E .
Chandler, who was Se cretary o f the Navy under Arthu r, andonly thos e who enj oyed the confidence o f that fa r—s ighted leadercould know the difficult i es under which he and his successor
,the
ab le and b ri l l iant Wil l iam C . Whitney,l abored in inaugurating
,
enlarging and carrying out that undertaking. I t was a st ruggleat eve ry step, fo r they had to create the publ ic sentiment whichmade poss ib l e the app ropriations fo r the beginning o f the newtypes o f fighting ships . Fi f teen years were spent , under A rthu r,Cleveland and Harr i son , in bui ld ing up the navy we had atthe outbreak o f the Spani sh War . And
,even after the energy
and eff ort that had been put forth by Chandle r and Whitney,Tracy
,Herbert and Long
,by abl e constructo rs and offi cer s , it
was only a thi rd—rate navy then . But i f w e had not had it, i fthe Navy had been in the same cond it ion i t was ten o r twentyyears befo re
,we could not have chal lenged Spain . I t was the
victo ry of Dewey at Mani la Bay and the d estruction o f Cerv era’
s
fleet at Santiago which broke the Spanish power . I f Spain
had posses sed even a s econd- rate navy that wa r might havebeen measured in years instead o f months . Had we engaged afi r st-rate naval power the results might have been di sastrous .
DISARMAMENT 305
Germany Cu t Ofl'
The events o f the World War are too f resh in our mind sto need recounting. History records no more st riking ex emp lifi
cat ion o f the e ff ectivenes s o f sea powe r or the fut i l ity o f a navyle ss than adequate . Vast and wel l trained as were her armies ,Germany could not win becaus e sh e could not gain cont rol o f
the sea . H er commerce swept from the ocean , her po rt s closed,she was practical ly cut off from the outs id e world . The great
High Seas Fleet she had bui lt up at such enormous cost waspenned up in it s harbors . The dar ing exploit s o f he r commerceraiders
,the succes s o f Admiral von Spee at Co ronel , were mere
flashes without decis ive result . She was at last dependent solelyon he r submarines
,which were e ff ect ive only because they
operated as pi rates , v iolat ing the l aw s o f God and man .
'And
in the end they fai led,fa il ed ignominiou sly
,and long l ines o f
them followed the proud High Seas Fleet in su r rendei' , the mostinglo rious end in naval histo ry .
There is no di scou ragement to bel l ige rency so potent as
superio r power , and the count ry that pos ses ses it does noto ften have to u se it . Great B r itain has had
,for more than
a centu ry , except fo r a b rie f interval at th e end o f ou r Civi lWar, the greatest o f navie s , and yet unti l the Battle o f Jutlandhe r main fleet had not been in a maj or engagement fo r a
hund red years . Her armies w e re ins ignificant compared w i ththo se o f Germany and Austr ia
,France and Russ ia . She had
colonie s al l ove r the earth , merchant ships on every sea, and
inte rests in every cl ime that o ften confl i cted w i th those o f othercount ries . Yet sh e was exempt from succes s fu l attack whi le thatm ighty fleet was in existence . She did not stop build ing shipswheneve r wars ended
,o r wai t to bui ld them unti l confl ict was
imminent . She stead i ly pu r sued the pol i cy o f maintaining anavy as la rge as those o f any two othe r nations combined ; andit s mere exi st ence p rotected th e whole B riti sh Empi re . I t p re
vented more wars than were eve r fought .A great navy in th e possess ion o f a peop l e who have no
selfi sh ends to serve i s a power fo r peace . Theodo re Roosevel t decla red thatSo fa r f rom being in any way a provocation to war , an
ad equate and highly t rain ed navy i s th e best guaranty againstwa r
,the cheapest and most e ffect ive peace insu rance . The
306 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
cos t o f bui lding and maintaining su ch a navy represents thevery l ightest premium fo r insur ing peace which this nation canposs ibly pay.
“P robab ly no other great nation in the world i s so anxious
fo r peace as we are,” said P res ident Roosevel t. “There i s nota s ingl e civ i l i z ed power that has anything whatever to fear fromaggres s ivenes s on our part . All we want is peace ; and towardthi s end we wish to b e able to secu re th e same respect fo r ou rr ights f rom others which we are eage r and anxious to extendto thei r rights in return , to insure fair t reatment to us commercially, and to guarantee the sa fety o f the Ame ri can people .”
Wh ether power is a menace o r a bles s ing to the wor lddepends upon the country that pos ses ses it .
0 ! i t is excel lent
To have a giant’
s strength ; but it is tyrannousTo use it l ike a giant .
Amer i ca can be trusted with power ,'
with the confidencethat it wil l n ever be exercised save in a r ighteous cause . Wewill nev er invade the r ights o f other nations , and we do notintend that they shall invade ou rs . Germany could not be so
t rusted . Her great fleet,her mil itary power
,were created for
aggres s ion and were a menace to humanity. They had to be
destroyed before the wo r ld could be made safe .
P r ofitab le Destru ction
I was in Par i s fo r a short t ime dur ing the peace conference,
where the repres entat ives of al l nat ions and lands were gathered .
Leaving Ameri ca in the glow of faith in th e new-born altruismo f a nation grate ful for peace a fte r war, i t seemed to me that theonly thought that could be uppe rmost in the minds o f men
would be to perpetuate that peace by any and every sacrifice.
The war had given a baptism of real rel igion and b rotherhood ,a regene ration which I hoped would endure . But I had not
been in Par i s many hours befo re I l earned, to my dis i l lus ion ,that the topics mainly discu ssed were not how to perpetuate peacebut how to strengthen thi s count ry o r that, how to formboundar ie s that would add to national prest ige and power .Outside the circle o f “ideal i sts ,
” as they were even thensnee ringly cal l ed
,who were planning for sa fe reduction o f
armament,the vast maj or ity o f those gathered in Par i s from
308 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
countr i e s o r hold te rr ito ry. General Tasker H . Bli s s,fo rmer
Chie f o f Staff o f the United States A rmy,and one o f the
Amer ican peace del egates, in h is speech a f ew months s ince,advocating l imitation o f a rmaments
,said we could safely agree
that each nation may maintain its navy,as “no navy can conquer
and hold fo reign terr itory .
” Navie s are effi cient in repel l inginvasion , strong in defense.To the E uropean autho r it i es I met abroad I expressed the
convict ion that unti l the world recove r ed from shel l shock,as
long as disturbed condit ions existed in so many quarters o fthe globe, i t was neces sary for nations which were determinedto preserve pe ace to maintain navies suffi cient to suppress stri feand prevent aggres s ion ; to act, in eff ect, as an inte rnationalforce. I t s eems obvious that ou r country
,possess ing such weal th
,
and earnest ly and consistently exerting its influ ence fo r peace,should make at least as large a cont ribution . to thi s mobi l e
pol ice fo rce as any other country, and to rende r th i s service itwould be our high duty to continue to bui ld up ou r Navy alongthe l ine s la id down be fore our entrance into the war.
Our Th r ee Year P r ogram
There were not wanting thos e who thought the UnitedStates ought not to complete the b ig ships now bui lding
,but
the ir attitude seemed to be due largely to the fact that it wouldresult in the United State s eventual ly having a navy equal o rsuper io r to any in strength , with mo re powerfu l capital ships .I t was argued that forty-th ree-thousand-ton battl eships and batt lecruisers would set a n ew standard, rel egating lesser ships tothe second l ine . The same arguments were made against t h ed readnought and the batt l e cruiser when those types were o riginated, but it did not prev ent thei r construct ion , and they arenow a vital part o f al l modern navies . And we were not thefi rst to proj ect forty- thousand-ton sh ips . Du ring th e war GreatB ritain built the Hood
,forty-one thousand five hund red tons,
and laid down three others though they were not completed .
Japan had proj ected a number of even larger tonnage beforethe keel s o f ou rs were laid .
Perhaps th e pr incipal obj ect ion among our own people tocomplet ing the b ig program begun in 1916 i s the cost involved ;and that narrow s down to how much more money wil l b erequired
,in addit ion to what has already been approp riated o r
DI SARMAMENT 309
expend ed . The contracts fo r the se vessel s w ere made before o rdur ing the war
,and all but two o f them are under construction .
Quantiti es o f st ructural steel have al ready been delivered,and
are be ing produced in various pl ants . Work i s proceed ing onal l the parts o f the huge and compl icated engines and mach inery .
The greate r port ion o f the armor h as been completed,and th e
big guns and other armament are fa r advanced .
The three-year program , so far as cost i s concerned , i snear ly hal f done . The total present estimated cost o f construetion o f b u lls and mach inery is App rox imate ly$31 1 ,ooo,ooo has al ready b een appropriated for this pu rpos e, and
it i s est imated that more wi l l be requi red . More
than two-thi rds o f the est imated for armor,arma
ment and ammunit ion has been expended o r p rovided fo r, th e
additional appropriations need ed amounting toThe tota l cost o f complet ing al l the vessels now unde r con
tract w i l l be about extending ov er a period o fth ree years— that is
,about a year .
These new batt leship s and battl e crui se rs under constructionwil l more than doubl e the actual fighting st rength o f the fleet .Considering d readnough t s alone
,the s ix 43,2oo
- ton battl eships,
the s ix batt l e crui se rs o f tons,and the five battl eships o f
to tons nearing comp l etion wil l add tons,as
compared w ith the tons o f the modern dreadnoughtsnow in commission , and the tota l tonnage o f al l ou r
battl e ships , s ingl e o r mixed cal ibe r s ; and a number o f the latterwil l soon be obsol et e, not to be clas sed as fighting ships .
Adm i ral Dewey’
s Opinion
A navy that is not adequate is l ike a gun that has not rangeenough to reach its target . The Gene ral Board has set fo rth
it s op in ion that any navy les s than adequate is an expens e tothe nation w ithout being a protect ion
,
” and that no navy is
adequate unt i l i t is “st rong enou gh to m eet on equal te rms thest rongest poss ible adversary .
”
Germ any’
s navy, st rong as i t was, was inadequate and , so
fa r as e ffect ivenes s again st th e All ies’ navies was con
cerned , h e r High Seas Fl eet m ight as wel l neve r have beenbuilt . Author iti es agree that the United States shou ld havean ad equat e navy, b u t there is cons id erabl e disagreement as towhat thi s means . The General Boa rd—Admi ral Dewey was then
310 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
its head—gave its opin ion in 1915, decl ar ing that the UnitedStates Navy should be equal to any in the wo rld
,saying :
“A navy in firm control o f the s eas from the outbreak of
war i s the pr ime essential to the defense o f a country s ituatedas i s th e United States bo rder ing upon two great oceans . Anavy strong e nough only to de fend our coast f rom actual invas ionwi l l not su fli ce. Defense from invasion i s not the only functionof the Navy . I t must protect our s ea-borne commerce anddr ive that o f the enemy f rom the sea. The best way to aecom
plish all o f th ese obj ects is to find and de feat the hosti l e fleeto r any o f it s detachments at a -distance from ‘
ou r coast sufhciently great to prevent interruption o f our normal cou rs e of
national l ife .”
Congres s autho rized such an adequate navy in 1916. We arebuilding it, and i f const ruction p roceeds i t wi l l have been b roughtup to the desired point w i thin the t ime fixed by the GeneralBoard
,1925.
What wi l l b e the resu lt i f we stop building now ? We have
no battl e cruise rs . Japan has 4, Great B ritain 10—6 o f the fi rstl ine
, 4 of the second . The United State s has 16 fi r st-‘
l ine battl e
ships ; Great B ritain , 26 ; Japan 6. Of fi r st- l in e capital ships
the tonnage i s : Great B r i tain , Japan, the
United States, Cons ider ing only the most modernfighting craft
,acco rding to late figures p repared in the Navy
Department,Great B ri tain has 538 ships , tons ; the
United States , 330 ships, ton s ; Japan, 43 ships ,tons . The total tonnage i s o f cour se much larger, the UnitedStates having
,exclus iv e o f smal l craft and auxil iar i e s
, 424
vessel s,o f tons ; Japan , 75 ves sel s, tons ; Great
B r i tain, 7 1 7 ves sel s, tons . These figures include a
number that are regarded as not o f fighting eff ectiveness according to modern standards . I f we ceas e construction now, th is
country wil l be l e ft a poo r s econd in naval rank .
Let us cons ider the case i f we complete the th ree-year program . The United States i s bui lding a hundred vessels—1 1
battl esh ips,
tons ; 6 batt le cruiser s , 10 l ight
cruisers , 38 destroyers and 43 submar ines— a total o f
tons . Great B r itain has practical ly su spended construet ion o f capital sh ips fo r th e t ime be ing, bu ilding only a fewl ight cruiser s
,dest royers
,destroyer l eaders and large submarines,
total ing 36 sh ips, tons . Japan has author i z ed the bu ilding
312 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
1923 would be : Great B r itain, 28,total ing tons ; Japan,
24, total ing tons ; the United States, 27 , total ing
tons .
These compar isons are part icular ly pertinent at this t imein view o f the proposal that thi s government at once take upwith Great B ritain and Japan
,w ithout waiting for the coopera
tion o f any other nation,the question o f coming to an under
standing to reduce the i r naval bui lding programs .I f the p roposal i s to abandon the present p rogram
,to reduce
by 50 per cent the number o f ves sel s to be built , i t means thatthe United States wi ll not have a navy “equal to the most
powe r fu l maintained by any othe r nation” ; that i t wil l b ind it sel fnot to bu ild a navy o f the fi rs t clas s ; that it wil l del ib erately
and final ly accept a s econdary pos ition among the naval Powerso f the wo rld .
Great B ritain has nothing to lo se but al l to gain by such anar rangement . Without the expenditure o f a shot o r a shi l l ingi t confi rms the pos ition sh e has spent b il l ions o f money and
generations o f effort to maintain , that o f posses s ing, withoutd i spute
,the most power ful o f nav i es , without a rival on the seas .
Japan h as l ittl e to lose . Great B ritain i s he r al ly. Japanese
construct ion i s far behind sche dule , and even the present app rop r iat ions are burdensome .But this country i s in a diff erent s ituat ion . Congres s long
ago autho rized the ves sel s in its program,and they are actual ly
under const ruct ion and can be completed in three years . R e
duction in naval armaments means a very real sacrifice for us,o f both actual and relative power . I t would be a sacrifi ce wel lwo rth making i f it would p revent war and assu re world peace .Recent di sarmament proposal s
,however , merely look to a redue
tion in navies,but do not p ropose any l imitat ion on armies,
which are the real menace to pe ace . Any of the contract ing
Powers could maintain an army of mil l ions o f men withoutvio lating any terms o f such an agreement . Any nation outside
the t rio proposed could bu ild as many warships as it pl eased ,w ithout inte rruption o r protest . E ngland , Japan and th e United .
States are on f ri endly te rms w ith one anoth er and the rest o f theworld . In l imiting armaments they would s et a whol esomeexamp l e to oth e r count ries . But more than an exampl e is needed .
We need to br ing al l nat ions into a lasting agreement as b inding
DISARMAMENT 313
upon them as upon us , and one that w i l l l imit armies as wel las navies . Naval hol idays contain no assurances o f di sarmament . I f such a general ar rangem ent can be b rought about itcan be made eff ect ive . But I do not bel ieve armaments w i l l bereally and permanently l imited unti l th ere is a pract ical ly univer !sal agreement .
Two Cou rses Open
There are, in my opinion , j ust two cou rses , and only two ,open to the United States
To secu re an inte rnational agreement with al l,o r practical ly
al l , the nations , which w i l l guarante e an end o f competit ion innavy bu i lding, and reduction o f a rmed land forces , reduce thenational burden and lead in the movement to secu re and buttres swo rld peace.To hold aloo f f rom agreement o r associ at ion w ith the othe r
nat ions as to the s ize o f a rmament . Thi s wou ld requi re u s to
bui ld a navy st rong enough and power ful enough to be able onou r own to protect Amer i cans and American sh ipping
,de fend
American pol ic ie s in the d istant possess ions as wel l as at home,
and by the presence o f sea power to command the respect andfear o f th e world .
The re is o f cou rse the th i rd cou rse o f being content w ith asmal l navy in a wo rld o f big navies , exposed to certain destru ct ion in case o f war w ith a great Power or Powers . I d ismis sthat cou rse w i thout d i scu ss ion because it is a waste o f moneyto spend money on an agency o f war that wou ld be helpl essi f needed .
Whatev er el se the American people may approve , they w i l lnot approve such an ineffective pol icy .
The whole wor ld is d i s tu rbed today. Cond it ions were neve rmore unsett l ed o r th e futu re more uncertain . I s th i s a t ime
fo r the Uni ted State s alone , o r in conj unct ion w ith a fewnations
,to weaken its naval fo rce , to reduce the power which
m akes for wo rld stabil ity ?The re are fi v e outstand ing reasons , apart from obligation s
fol low ing th e World War and the Navy ’
s t rad it ional functionas our fi rst l ine o f de fense , why the United State s must maintain
314 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
a powe rful navy, al l growing out o f our wel l-defined nationalpol ici es . They are :
The Monroe Doctr ine .Th e Freedom o f th e Seas .The Me rchant Mar ine.The Open Doo r in China.rTh e Secur ity of the Panama Canal .
The Monroe Doctr ine has been for a centu ry the very keynote of ou r foreign policy. That no fo reign Power shal l takeone foot of t err i tory in thi s Western Wo r ld—in No rth o r Southo r Central Amer i ca—i s one thing upon which thi s country i sas dete rmined today as i t was when P resident Monroe laiddown the p r inciple .
We had the cou rage to ass ert that pol icy when this was asmal l nation with s l ender resou rces
,facing a power ful comb in
ation o f E u ropean monarchies . There i s no thought o f abandoning it now .
That doctr in e was the protection o f South and CentralAmer ica, Mexico and other countri es when they were weak andstruggl ing commonwealths . I t has fo r a centu ry prese rved themand u s f rom aggress ion . I t has done mo re—it has been thepreserver o f democracy in the wo rld . I t prevented in Amer i caexactly what has happened in Af ri ca i n recent years
,when a
continent has been parcel ed out among E uropean Powers . Butfo r th e Monroe Doctr ine who bel ieves that in th e age when
the avar i cious d ream o f colonial pos sess ions dominated E uropethe countr i e s o f South and Ce ntral -Amer ica would have beenpermitted to remain independent republics ?
The Monr oe Doctr ine
The Monroe Doctr ine, howeve r, was but a scrap of pape ri f Amer ica was not always ready to send its Navy to en forcei t. I f contested by any great nation in some such per iod as ,say
,in the sev enties , when ou r Navy was a negl igibl e factor, we
would have l acked the abi l ity to give it effect . I t has l i fe andvigo r only when it can be backed by force.The Monroe Doctr ine is as strong as the Amer i can Navy.
Reduce the Navy to impotency o r make it less than equal to thenavy o f any other country, and by that token the doctrine isweakened . When Russia l aid claim to posses s ions on the Pacific
316 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
wo rd, spr ings, there fore, f rom the existence o f a peace ful shipping, and disappear s with it, except in the case o f a nationwhich has aggres s ive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merelyas a branch o f the mi l ita ry estab l i shment . As '
the United States
has at present no aggress iv e purposes,and as its merchant
s ervice has d isappeared, the dwindling o f th e armed fleet and
general lack of interest in it are str ictly logi cal consequence s .Shipbu ilding was one o f the earl i est industri e s o f the in fant
Amer ican colonie s, and the colonist s not only carr i ed on anextensive coastwise and r iver trade but bu il t up a considerablecommerce with the rest o f the wor ld . Following the Revolut ion
ou r comm erce was rapidly extended and it was the hundredsof fast sai l ing ships outfi tted as pr ivateers which
,supplement
ing our smal l but gal lant Navy, enabl ed u s to win the Waro f 1812 . When ou r shipping was freed from impressment andth e many handicaps other nations imposed, the re fol lowed agreat development o f our merchant mar ine . The swi ft sai l ingships o f New E ngland
,the ves sels o f New York and Phi la
delphia, th e Balt imore cl ippers, carr i ed ou r commerce to al l
qua rt ers o f the globe . By 1855 Amer i can vess el s carr iedo f ou r $540,000,ooo fo reign trade—75 per cent o f it .
The Civi l War di srupted our fo reign comm erce and haltedshipping development . I n 1870 our sh ip s carr i ed only 33 per cento f our commerce.Ou r merchant mar ine stead i ly decl ined, and in a generation .
i t had dw indled to that o f a tenth-rate nation . By 1910 we werecarrying in Amer ican ves sel s only per cent o f ou r foreigntrade
,which had grown to Nine-tenth s o f this
was car ried in fo reign bottoms, and Ame rican freight s wentto the bu ilding up o f the vast merch ant s erv ices o f Germany,E ngland, Norway, Sweden , France, I taly, Holland and Japan .
We had practical ly placed the Amer ican carrying trade . in the
hands o f foreign shipping. Othe r nations did the work andtook their tol l . We paid out enough freights in fo rty yearsto have built and paid for the . l argest merchant mar ine onearth .
Men o f vis ion pointed out the folly o f such a pol icy. The
matte r was debated in Congress at almost eve ry sess ion, and al lkinds o f schemes were propos ed, bu t none wo rth whil e wereput into eff ect .
War came,and the cry was
“Ships ! Ships ! And more
DISARMAMENT 31 7
ships !”All th e world was clam o r ing for sh ipping. Only then
did our peop le realiz e how piti fu l was the handful o f ves sel sflying ou r flag, how dependent our commerce was on othernations . Fortunately fo r us, America was the sto rehouse onwhich E urope drew fo r i t s supp lies . Our wheat and co rn
,our
cotton and tobacco, nearly everything our farms produced wasin demand . Our factori es were kept busy producing munit ions .Foreign vessel s carr ied our products because they were fo rtheir own people . This re l ieved, to a large extent, ou r shippingsituat ion , which otherwis e would have been cr it ical .E ven afte r the outbreak o f the E uropean war
,when our
s ituat ion was plain enough to al l,i t was not easy to induce
Congres s to take act ion toward bui ld ing up ou r merchant marine .
P res ident Wil son , in 1914, u rged th e passage o f a shipping bi l lthat would encourage shipbuilding and operation, but this wasde feated . Had Congres s passed that b il l and the work beenbegun then , we would have saved two years ’ t ime and hund redso f mil l ions o f dol l ars . We did late r e stabl i sh an immense shipbuilding indust ry, w e created a great merchant fleet as bestwe could under the circumstances . But i t was a heavy pr i ceAmer ica had to pay fo r the years o f neglect o f our merchantmar ine .When the armist ice was signed there was unde r control o f
the Shipping Board a fleet o f 2 122 s eagoing vessel s,
gros s tons , and we had put into service gros s tons o f
enemy ships and gross tons o f Dutch ship s which w ehad requ is it ioned . I n 1904 ou r merchant fleet comprised only
vessel s o f 500 tons and ove r, with l ittl e more than
tons engaged in fo reign commerce .
Ou r Mer chant Mar ine Today
Amer ica now has a merchant mar in e second only to thato f Great B ritain , comp r i s ing ves sel s o f gros s
tons , and , even mo re important , 44 pe r cent o f al l ou r hugefo reign commerce o f last year was carried inAmerican vessel s
,as compared w ith per cent b e fo re the war .
Amer i can ves sel s are now p lying to al l quarte rs o f th e globe .
Can any American who has th e inte re sts o f h is country atheart
,wh o rega rd s i ts future , conside r fo r a moment permitting
a d ecl in e in ou r merchant marine or in the Navy which proteets it ?
318 SELECTED ARTICLE S
Th e United States i s committed to the Open Door in China.
The Amer i can not e to the o ther Powers requested an agreement
“to seek a solution which may b ring about permanent
safety and peace to China, preserve Chines e terr ito r ial andadministrativ e entity, protect al l r ights guaranteed to fr i endlyPowers by t reaties and international law
,and safeguard for
the wo r ld the p r incipl e of equal and imparti al trade with al lpart s o f th e Chine se Empi re .” I t was the acceptance o f thi s
note by the Powers which prevented the parti tion of China and
reaffi rmed the pol icy o f equal trade opportunity. How can the
United States maintainxth is pos ition i f i t lacks a great navy ?Completion o f the Panama Canal fulfi l led the dream of
centuri es, sho rten ing trade routes and benefit ing al l commerce.I t was also designed to give u s naval s trengt h in the P acificas wel l as the Atlantic
,and one o f the strongest arguments
fo r i ts const ruction was that i t wou ld double the effect ivenes s o fth e Navy.
Naval Use of th e Panama Canal
I t is the canal which makes poss ibl e the maintenance of a
great fleet in the Pacific as wel l as the Atlantic,enabl ing us to
exercis e ou r naval s trength freely in both oceans . This was
impract icabl e so long as ou r eastern and western shores weres eparated by a continent, and to sai l from one to the othervessel s had to go th rough the Strait of Magel lan o r roundCape Horn . But with the canal affo rding easy passage, pe rmitt ing squadrons to eff ect a rapid j uncture, the increased numbero f fighting ships enabled us
,without dividing our aggregate
st rength, to. put into eff ect a new fleet o rganization , with apowerfu l force in each ocean .
The peopl e o f ou r West Coast felt a new sense o f secur ity,a thr i l l o f p ride
, when th e new Pacific Fleet steamed throughthe canal to its home ports . They fel t that ours had become
truly a national Navy, affording protection to al l ou r shores .This move has not only greatly increased the interest in theNavy in that vast region but has directed general attention tothe necess ity o f providing new bases for docking and repai ro f ou r ves sel s . And with ou r thousands o f mil es o f coast, ourgrowing trade with the Or i ent
,ou r I sland possess ions l ike
Hawai i,Samoa
,Guam and the Phil ippines, ou r interests th ere
a re scarcely les s important than in the Atlantic .
320 SELE CTED ARTICLE S
naval strength i s as a guaranty o f peace if j eopardized by selfishnations . This must be secured th rough ostraci sm o f off ending
countr i es, cutting them off from associat ion and commerce withthei r f el lows, preventing ingres s o r egress , denying suppli es .This r igo rous pol icy would eff ectual ly teach the les son that theenl ightened and o rganized wi l l o f al l peoples i s supreme to thes elfi sh aim o f any nation or nations . Fo r
,afte r all that i s said ,
th e impel l ing wo r ld duty is the preservat ion o f free nations andthe protection o f the r ights o f small nat ions .Can we dar e disarm and leave al l that civ i l izat ion has gained
to the greed o f nations which, i f now quiescent, have notchanged their point o f v iew ? The dominant thought o f a nat ionsooner o r later finds expre ss ion in i ts laws and government .Can we truly say that the wo r ld has been converted ful ly to thegospel o f freedom and self-determination ? I s the re no dange r,with returning stab il ity
,that nations which are unrepentant o f
the cr ime o f aggres s ive warfare, may not look to retr i eving lostfo rtunes if the i r neighbo rs, in subl ime faith in peace ful processes,have thrown away thei r arms ?There may be reduction o f armaments
,and that wil l b e
welcomed i f it can be b rought about by general agreement . Buti t wil l b e sa fe to disarm only when stab le condit ions , buttressedby int ernational association
,have exi st ed long enough to become
a wor ld habit,and when universal acceptance o f arbitration is
in the warp and woof of the thought o f al l mank ind . Until
that day comes navies wi l l b e needed, and by no country morethan our own.
UN IV E R S ITY O F CAL IF O R N IA AT LO S ANG E L E S
TH E UNIVE R S ITY L IB R A R Y
Th i s b ook i s DUE on t h e las t. date stamped b elow
F o r m L -9
2um - 1 , 42 09510)