_Advocates of Peace present no plan for national defense in case of war.
They leave it to the Militarists to provide for that contingency. The
Militarists have proposed no adequate plan for national defense. No plan
has been evolved, other than that urged in this book, which would in all
emergencies safeguard the nation against war, and at the same time be in
sympathy with and strengthen every movement to promote peace._
To make this clear, the various schools of thought on the subject should be
classified, and their views briefly outlined.
On the one hand we have the _Militarists_. They constantly clamor for a
bigger navy and a larger army on the ground that we are unprepared for
war--unarmed, unready, undefended--and that war is liable to occur at any
time.
On the other hand we have the _Passivists_. They have the courage of their
convictions. Believing in peace, they oppose war, and all the means
whereby it is made. Having faith in moral influence, they oppose armaments.
They are consistent, and urge that this nation should disarm and check
military expenditures. In their peace propaganda before the people they
have squarely and honestly contended for this national policy _for which
they deserve infinite credit_.
In case of war, they have no plan.
_They leave that to the Militarists._
Between these two extremes we have the _Pacificists_. They deplore war and
talk for peace, but believe in building battleships. They argue for
arbitration and advocate disarmament, but have not opposed steadily
increasing appropriations for naval and military expenditures by the United
States. They justify this position on the plea that the best guarantee
against war is an army and navy. They oppose war but not appropriations for
war. They hold peace conferences and pass peace resolutions, but do not go
before the committees of Congress and object to expenditures for armaments
and militarism. In this class belong all peace advocates who are builders
of battleships or manufacturers of armor plate or armaments, and their
associates.
This suggests the question whether such a manufacturer is a safe pilot for
a peace movement, however generously it may be subsidized, and whether an
armor-plate mill and a peace palace are appropriate trace-mates. It would
be unfortunate if the subtle influence of subconscious self-interest should
creep into peace councils or affect the policy of a peace movement. However
that may be, the theory that armaments prevent war has been pretty well
exploded by recent events.
The Pacificists, in case of war, have no plan of their own to propose.
_They, too, leave that to the Militarists._
Then we have the _Pacificators_.
They advocate disarmament and a tribunal of peace in the nature of an
international court to determine international differences and make binding
decrees; and they propose the establishment of an international army and
navy under the control of that court to enforce its decrees. Of course it
must be conceded that this plan may fail, or its success be long delayed,
and that in the meantime it affords no guarantee of peace.
The Pacificators, however, propose no plan in the event of war.
_They also leave that to the Militarists._
Finally comes the Woman's Movement for Constructive Peace, out of which has
grown the organization of the Woman's Peace Party.
Much may be hoped for from this organization if it will concentrate its
strength, and not try to do too many things at once.
If the women of the world will unite and put the same militant force behind
the peace movement that they have put behind the suffrage movement they can
end wars. There is no doubt of that. But it will require world-wide
organization, good generalship, and great concentration of effort. "One
thing at a time" should be their motto.
The following platform was adopted by the Woman's Peace Party:
"The purpose of this organization is to enlist all
American women in arousing the nations to respect the
sacredness of human life and to abolish war. (1) The
immediate calling of a convention of neutral nations in
the interest of early peace. (2) Limitations of
armaments and the nationalization of their manufacture.
(3) Organized opposition to militarism in our own
country. (4) Education of youth in the ideals of peace.
(5) Democratic control of foreign policies. (6) The
further humanizing of governments by the extension of
the franchise to women. (7) Concert of nations to
supersede 'balance of power.' (8) Action toward the
general organization of the world to substitute law for
war. (9) The substitution of an international police
for rival armies and navies. (10) Removal of the
economic causes of war. (11) The appointment by our
government of a commission of men and women, with an
adequate appropriation, to promote international
peace."
That platform is a well condensed outline of a very comprehensive program.
It covers the whole ground. Some of the things it advocates ought to be
possible of accomplishment within a few years. Others will require
generations. For example, it is well to frankly face the eventual necessity
for it, but democratic control of the foreign policies of Germany and
Russia, for instance, must be worked out by the people of those countries,
possibly through bloody political revolutions.
However, faith and not skepticism was the reason for publishing this
platform in full. The tenth plank, "Removal of the economic causes of war,"
would include many features of the plan proposed in this book. As embodied
in the book, the plan is specific. The platform is a generalization, and
might include many other plans.
But it will be observed that the platform does not suggest any plan as to
what should be done by the Woman's Peace Party in the event of war or to
safeguard the country from the dangers of actual war. They must concede
that war may occur, pending the partial or entire success of their campaign
to establish universal peace throughout the world. But they propose no plan
covering the contingency of war.
_They likewise leave that to the Militarists._
So, although we have plans galore to promote peace, we have in case of war
no plans except those of the Militarists.
They have three plans:
_First:_ A standing army large enough for any contingency.
_Second:_ A standing army, reenforced by state militia.
_Third:_ A standing army with a reserve composed of men who have served a
term of enlistment in the regular army.
None of these plans could be relied on for national defense in the event of
war between the United States and any one of the great world powers. That
will be fully demonstrated in the subsequent chapters of this book.
To insure the national safety as against such a contingency, a standing
army of over 500,000 men would be necessary. It would cost this country
$600,000,000 a year to maintain such a standing army, and the army itself
would be a more dangerous menace than a foreign invasion.
The utter worthlessness of state militia as a national defense in the event
of war with a first-class power is strongly set forth in the warning by
George Washington quoted in a later chapter.
The impracticability of a reserve force like that proposed by the
Militarists is clearly shown in the article from which quotations are made
in a later chapter by Honorable James Hay, Chairman of the Committee on
Military Affairs of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the
United States.
The situation when analyzed is certainly a most extraordinary one and can
only be accounted for on the theory that the people of this country are not
informed as to the facts and assume that we must be prepared for war, and
able to defend ourselves in case of war, by reason of the stupendous
expenditures we have been making for over ten years for the military branch
of the government. To the average man it would seem as though $250,000,000
a year ought to be enough to provide for the national defense.
The situation would be different if we had any assurance that the United
States would never again be involved in a war. In that event we would need
no plans for national defense.
_But we have no such assurance._
The Peace Advocates give no guarantee against war.
The Militarists believe war inevitable.
Neither insures peace and neither is prepared against war.
The people are between the upper and the nether millstone.
We cannot be certain of peace.
We are undefended in case of war.
The situation is illustrated by the old darkey's coon trap that would
"catch 'em either comin', or gwine."
The frank belief of the Militarists that war must be regarded as inevitable
is well expressed in the following quotation from a recent editorial in
"The Navy," a journal published at Washington, D.C.
"Since the beginning of the war in Europe, the
assertion has been repeatedly made that this is the
last great war; that the peoples of the world will be
so impressed with the wanton destruction of life and
property, that there will be organized some form of
international arbitration that will prevent future
wars. _Not so._ The war now raging between the nations
of Europe is much more probably but the first of a
series of tremendous world-wide conflicts that will be
fought by the inhabitants of the earth for national
supremacy, until the supremacy is obtained by a single
people, or possibly by an amalgamated race, the
ingredients of which are just now being thrown into the
melting pot.
"The wars of the past will sink into comparative
insignificance when future historians compile
statistics of coming conflicts among the nations of the
earth."
Whether all this be true or not, there is enough foundation for such
beliefs to make it imperative that the comprehensive and complete plan set
forth in this book should be adopted to harmonize the peace propaganda with
plans for national defense in case of war.
_It can be done and it must be done._
The plan proposed in this book will tremendously strengthen the peace
propaganda and there is no reason why every Militarist should not heartily
approve and accept it, unless he is making a profit out of the manufacture
of war machinery or dependent on it for employment.
In that event we must strongly appeal to patriotism and try to induce the
surrender of personal profit or benefit in order that we may preserve the
nation and promote human welfare.
Anyone who rejects the possibility of war must be blind to current events.
Sad indeed it is that it should be true, but none the less it is a staring
fact that every theory that war between civilized nations had ceased to be
possible has been rudely shattered by recent events.
Every prediction that there would be no more wars has proved false.
Every plan heretofore proposed to prevent war has thus far proved futile.
Every influence relied on to put an end to war has proved a broken reed.
The Socialists have inveighed against war.
Now they are voting war loans and fighting in the armies.
The labor organizations have long proclaimed their opposition to war.
The war is on, and they are apparently giving little attention to it.
Again and again it has been declared that kings make wars and the people
fight them.
That is all very true, in the past and in the present, but once more the
people are doing the fighting.
We have been told that the workingmen of the world have power to stop war.
No doubt they have, if they would use it, but they will not do so.
While this greatest of all the world's wars was brewing, the workingmen
were busy manufacturing the machinery of destruction.
And they are still doing it.
And they will keep on doing it, as long as wages are to be earned that way.
Every piece of shrapnel that crashes into a human brain, or tears a human
heart, or mangles a human hand on a battlefield has been laboriously and
patiently made by some other human hand working for wages in some factory.
Some manufacturer has thereby made a profit.
And the money to pay that profit was loaned to some Christian nation for
its war chest by some sanctimonious pawn-broker of the class described in
"Unseen Empire" by David Starr Jordan.
It is civilized warfare, among civilized nations, in this age of
civilization, sustained by civilized legislative representatives of
civilized people, conducted by civilized soldiers, equipped for human
destruction by civilized business men who furnish machinery of war that is
manufactured by civilized workingmen.
And the workingman makes wages, the business man earns his good dividends,
the banker gets his snug profit, and the man at the top, "the man on
horseback," who started the bloody orgy gets dividends, honors, special
privileges, and greater power as his share in this twentieth-century
massacre of humanity by the so-called humane methods of modern civilized
warfare.
_It is the hypocrisy of it all that makes it so revolting._
And if it were not that so many _are_ making wages or salaries or profits
or dividends out of the whole organized scheme of modern warfare, it would
be much easier to put an end to it. That is the vital point where the women
of the world should strike first if they are to end war.
It is the private profit made from war by a few that makes it so hard to
stop the ruin by war of the many.
The awful waste of war has been made clear, and yet the most monstrously
wasteful war of history is now being fought.
It has been urged that the huge debts owing for old wars made new wars
impossible, but stupendous new war loans are now being made.
The people of Europe were said to have reached the limit of endurance of
war burdens, but they are bending their backs for a heavier load.
America has expressed deep sympathy in the past for the war-ridden and
burden-bearing nations of Europe, overlooking apparently, at least in
recent years, some important facts.
Germany makes no hypocritical pretenses to being a nation of peace. She is
avowedly a nation of warriors and believes in war.
But she gets something for what she spends besides soldiers and
battleships.
While she has been perfecting the most stupendous and perfectly organized
war machine that has ever existed in the world, she has perfected just as
gigantic and splendidly effective machinery for conducting the affairs of
peace.
Her people may well smile in their sleeves at us when we condole with them
about the heavy war burdens that have been loaded upon them. They have at
least got something effective and efficient for their money. We have got
practically nothing.
Germany has, it is true, spent huge sums for armament, but at the same time
she has developed her internal resources, constructed vast public
improvements, planted great forests, and built a system of waterways that
is the marvel of the world.
Have we done the same? No.
Why not? Because we are told by the guardians of Uncle Sam's exchequer that
we cannot afford it. We spend so much money on our army and navy,--a
quarter of a billion dollars a year--for which we get nothing in
return,--not even national defense,--that we are told we cannot afford to
enter upon any great plans for internal improvements, or stop floods, or
regulate rivers, or build a genuine waterway system.
_And the people stand for it, and allow themselves to be "led by the nose
as asses are."_
This, of course, is very gratifying to the speculators and exploiters who
are gathering into their own capacious grab-bags what is left of the
natural resources of the country.
When this reason is added to their interest in armor-plate factories, it
may account for some of their zeal for militarism. And of course they
realize the necessity for a good large standing army that will keep the
people from being troublesome when they discover that their heritage has
been stolen from them. Any little incident like the French Revolution would
be excessively annoying to the intrenched interests in this country. An
army looks good to them, and the latch-string is always out, socially, to
the members of the military caste who greatly enjoy the hospitality of the
gilded caste.
Every one who looks at all four corners of the situation in this country
understands why every pretext is seized upon to get bigger and bigger
appropriations for the army and navy. A navy provides a big profit in armor
plate and an army provides protection for that profit.
_The Wizards of Wall Street are wise._
They see a long way ahead. The people never see very far. They are easily
scared by a hue and cry about unpreparedness when naval or military
appropriations are wanted.
They readily swallow the bait of economy, when the interests desire to
defeat an appropriation that is needed to develop natural resources
belonging to the people that are coveted by the Water Power Syndicates, or
an appropriation that is needed to build waterways which would make
competition for railroads.
Water Power Syndicates and Railroads and Armor-Plate Mills are all
controlled by the same coterie of intrenched interests. They understand
each other and work together perfectly without even the necessity for a
gentleman's agreement.
_The people have been asleep a long time but some day they will wake up._
For years the Gospel of Peace has been proclaimed to the world from the
United States. During that period we have been busy building battleships
and piling up great private fortunes from making armor plate. We have been
urging disarmament while spending millions to increase our own armaments.
We have been advocating arbitration while constantly increasing our
military expenditures.
Since the day when Congress in a frenzy of patriotic outburst voted fifty
millions in fifteen minutes to start our war with Spain, the peace
propaganda has been vigorously prosecuted and in that period we have had
war after war: the Spanish-American War, the Russo-Japanese War; war in the
Philippines, war in Greece, war in the Balkans, war in South Africa, war in
Algeria, war in Morocco, war in Tripoli, war in Mexico, war again in the
Balkans, and now nearly all of Europe is ablaze with war and its flames are
reddening Asia and Africa.
It gives one an unpleasant, gruesome feeling to think about it. The
substance seems always to have been on the side of war, the shadow only on
the side of peace.
That is no reason why the movement for peace should be abandoned, but is it
not a reason for completely changing the ideals and methods of the peace
movement, and adopting a plan such as is embodied in this book for a
constructive peace propaganda, that will strengthen the peace movement, and
at the same time solve our most difficult internal social and economic
problems and make sure that if war ever does befall us we will be found not
unprepared, not unarmed, not unready, not undefended?
If everything were done that the most extreme Militarist advocates, we
would still be undefended, and we will remain so until our whole military
system is constructed anew, and a real system of national defense organized
as outlined in this book.
_The Frankenstein of war can be controlled._
But it can only be controlled by organizing a system of national defense
against Nature's destroying forces, which can, by touching a button, be
instantly transformed, if need be, into a force for national defense
against a foreign invasion or to uphold the rights or honor of the nation.