AFTER-THE-WAR MILITARY PROBLEM.
Two of the most important propositions of His Holiness the Pope more
especially deserve earnest consideration. They are indeed supported by
the Allies who are purposely fighting for their adoption.
In his note of the first of August, 1917, addressed to the Rulers of the
belligerent nations, the Pope says in part:--
"AT FIRST, THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT MUST BE TO SUBSTITUTE THE MORAL FORCE
OF RIGHT TO THE MATERIAL FORCE OF ARMS."
No truer proposition could be enounced. If Germany had put this
principle into practice, she never would have violated Belgian
territory.
When England protested against the proposed invasion of Belgium, she did
so in obedience to the sacred principle enunciated by the Sovereign
Pontiff. She strongly insisted to the last minute that _the moral force_
of solemn treaties should prevail upon _the material force of arms_.
In a letter dated October 7, 1917, His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri,
Secretary of State to His Holiness, addressing the Archbishop of Lens,
wrote as follows respecting conscription:--
"The Holy See, in his Appeal of the first of August, did not
consider, out of deference for the leaders of the belligerent
peoples, that he should mention it, preferring to leave to
themselves the care of determining it, but for him, the only
practical system and, moreover, easy to apply with some good
will on both sides, would be the following: to suppress, with
one accord between civilized nations, military obligatory
service; to constitute an arbitration tribunal, as already said
in the Pontifical Appeal, to settle international questions;
finally, to prevent infractions, to establish universal
"boycottage" against any nation attempting to reestablish
military obligatory service, on refusing either to lay an
international question before the arbitration tribunal, or to
abide by its decision."
Cardinal Gasparri then points to the ante-war British and American
systems of military "voluntarism", in the following terms:--
"As a matter of fact, omitting other considerations, the recent
example of England and America testifies in favour of the
adoption of this system. England and America had, in effect,
voluntary service, and, to take an efficient part in the present
war, they were obliged to adopt conscription. It proves that
voluntary service well supplies the necessary contingent to
maintain public order (and is public order not maintained in
England and America just as well, if not better, than in the
other nations?) but it does not supply the enormous armies
required for modern warfare. Consequently in suppressing, with
one accord between civilized nations, obligatory service to
replace it by voluntary service, disarmament with all the happy
consequences above indicated would be automatically obtained
without any perturbation of public order."
"For the last century, conscription has been the true cause of
calamities which have afflicted society: to reach a simultaneous
and reciprocal suppression will be the true remedy. In fact,
once suppressed, conscription could be reestablished only by a
law; and for such a law, even with the present constitution of
the Central Empires, Parliamentary approbation would be required
(which approbation would be most improbable for many reasons and
above all on account of the sad experience of the present war);
in this way, what is so much desired, for the maintenance of
agreements, would be obtained: the peoples' guarantee. If, on the
other hand, the right to make peace or war was given to the
people by way of =referendum=, or at least to Parliament, peace
between nations would be assured, as much at least as it is
possible in this world."
It should be very gratifying indeed to all the loyal subjects of the
British Empire to ascertain, from the declarations of Cardinal Gasparri,
that the Pope is in so complete accord with England on this the most
important question to be settled by the future peace treaty.
As proved in one of the first chapters of this work, the Government of
Great Britain, supported in this course by almost the unanimous opinion
of the peoples of the United Kingdom, was the first to suggest the
holding of the Hague conferences to consider the best means to adopt to
favour the world with the blessings of permanent peace. Their own view,
which they forcibly expressed, was that the surest way to reach that
much desired result was to limit the military armaments, both on land
and sea. For more than twenty years previous to the war, they pressed,
and even implored, for the adoption of their program.
I have also proved how obdurate Germany was in resisting England's
propositions, and her successful intrigues to thwart Great Britain's
efforts to have them adopted and put into practice.
England's policy has not changed. On the contrary, it is more than ever
favourable to the limitation, and even to the complete abolition, of
armaments, if one or the other can be achieved. It is the principal war
aim of Great Britain, only coming next after her determination to
avenge Belgium.
The future peace of the world could no doubt be well guaranteed by a
large measure of disarmament. But it would certainly be much more so, if
complete abolition could be obtained by an international agreement
binding on all nations, with, of course, the allowance of the necessary
forces required for the maintenance of interior public order.
The whole world can safely depend on the strenuous support of England
for either the limitation or the abolition of armaments whenever the
question is seriously taken up for consideration.
Evidently the problem will be difficult to solve. However, it should not
be beyond the resources of statesmanship which, assuredly, ought to rise
superior to all prejudiced aspirations after the terrible ordeal
Humanity will have experienced during the present war.
The maintenance of internal public order, and permanent preparedness for
foreign wars, are two very different questions to examine. The first can
safely be left to the care of every nation sure to attend to it if
willing to maintain her authority. The second has a much wider scope and
will tax the ability of statesmanship to the utmost limit.
Will the great civilized nations decide, when the war is over, to
completely abolish conscription to return to voluntary military service
within a very limited organization, thus doing away by a bold and
single stroke with a system which, for more than a hundred years, has
been the curse of continental Europe?
Or will they, at least as an initial attempt, come to the conclusion to
only limit armaments, maintaining compulsory service for the reduced
strength of the armies?
If armaments are either abolished, or merely reduced, will they be so on
sea as well as on land? I would answer at once:--of course, they should.
Looking at the question from the British stand-point--and I can also say
from that of the United States--it should be easily solved.
Public opinion in Great Britain and all over the British Empire, as well
as in the United States, has always been against conscription in peace
times, until the present war.
Not exactly foreseeing the full extent of the effort she would be called
upon to make, England entered into the conflict determined to meet the
requirements of her military situation out of the resources of voluntary
enlistment. Canada, joining in the struggle, did the same. Both have
done wonderfully well during the three first years of the prolonged war.
I can, without the slightest hesitation, positively assert that public
opinion, in the whole British Empire, and, not only in the United
States, but in the whole of the two American continents, is, as a matter
of principle, as much hostile to compulsory military service as it was
before the present war, and would exult at its complete abolition as one
of the happiest results of the gigantic contest still going on.
It is to be deplored, but still it is a fact, that great questions of
public interest too often cannot be settled solely in conformity with
the principles they imply.
If Great Britain, if the United States, if Canada, could consider the
question of conscription exclusively from their own stand-point, they
would most surely decide at once, and with great enthusiasm, to abolish
the obligatory military service they have adopted only as a last resort
under the stress of imperious necessity.
Moreover, I have no hesitation to express my own opinion that whatever
will be the military system of continental Europe after the war, the
British Empire and the United States will certainly not be cursed with
permanent conscription. They are both so happily situated that, in peace
times, they cannot be called upon to go very extensively into the costly
preparedness which the European continental nations will have again to
submit themselves to, if they are not wise enough to put an end forever
to the barbarous militarism they have too long endured for fear of
Teutonic domination.
Under the worst European situation, England, with a territorial army of
a million of men ready to be called to the Colours, or actually flying
them, backed by her mighty fleet maintained to its highest state of
efficiency, could always face any continental enemy. And such an army of
a ready million of well trained officers and men, voluntary service
would easily produce.
If future conditions would require it, Canada herself could do her share
to prepare for any emergency by reverting to voluntary enlistment, but
in improving the service so as to produce more immediate efficiency.
Very apparently, the United States will come out of the present conflict
with flying Colours and will dispense with compulsory service under any
circumstances in the peace days to follow.
What then will the continental powers do? Blessed they will be, if they
make up their mind to do away, once for all, with a system which has
crushed the peoples so unmercifully.
To speak in all frankness, I believe it would be almost vain, however
much desirable it is, to indulge in fond hopes of the complete abolition
of militarism on the European continent. The canker is too deep in the
flesh and blood of nations to be extirpated as if by magic. Such a
reversal of conditions grown to extravagant proportions, during more
than a century, will not likely be accomplished at the first stroke. Let
us all hope that, at least, a good start will be made by a large
limitation of armaments which may, with time, lead to the final
achievement for which the whole world would be forever grateful to the
Almighty. I have positively stated that extravagant militarism should
be discontinued on sea as well as on land. Such has been the policy of
England for many years past. I have proved it by the diplomatic
correspondence between Great Britain and Germany, and the solemn
declarations of all the leading British statesmen for the last quarter
of a century. How persistingly England has implored Germany to agree
with her in stopping that ruinous race in the building of war vessels,
we have seen.
So, the assent, nay more, the determination of England to adhere to her
old and noble policy, is a foregone conclusion.
The closing sentence of the last quoted paragraph of Cardinal Gasparri's
letter expresses the opinion that "_the right to make peace or war
should be given to the people by way of referendum, or at least to
Parliament_."
The system preconized by the Eminent Cardinal has been in existence in
England for a number of years; ever since the day when complete
ministerial responsibility was adopted as the fundamental principle of
the British constitution. That system was carried to the letter by Great
Britain with regard to her intervention in the present war.
The right to declare war and to make peace is one of the most important
prerogatives of the British Crown. This prerogative of the Crown, like
all the others, is held in trust by the Sovereign for the benefit of
the people and exercised by Him ONLY UPON THE ADVICE AND RESPONSIBILITY
OF HIS MINISTERS.
In conformity with this great British constitutional principle, what
happened in London, in August, 1914? The then Prime Minister, Mr.
Asquith, in his own name and in those of his colleagues, advised His
Majesty King George V. to declare war against Germany because she had
invaded Belgian territory in violation of the treaties by which these
two countries were, in honour bound, to protect Belgium's neutrality.
They were constitutionally responsible to the Imperial Parliament and to
the people of the United Kingdom for their advice to their Sovereign.
In his admirable statement to the British House of Commons, Sir Edward
Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said:--
"_I have assured the House--and the Prime Minister has assured the House
more than once--that if any crisis such as this arose, we should come
before the House of Commons and be able to say to the House that it was
free to decide what the British attitude should be, that we would have
no secret engagement which we should spring upon the House, and tell the
House that, because we had entered into that engagement, there was an
obligation of honour upon the country._"
The British House of Commons, had they considered it to be their duty,
had the right to disapprove the foreign policy of the Cabinet and to
censure the ministers for the advice they had given, or had decided to
give, to the Sovereign. On the other hand, the House of Commons had the
right to approve the stand taken by the Government. They did so
unanimously, and were most admirably supported by the people.
I must say that I consider it would be very difficult, if not absolutely
impracticable, to have questions of war or peace dealt with by way of
"_Referendum_." Crises suddenly created lead almost instantly to
declarations of war. But this outcome could hardly be so rapidly
produced that Parliament could not be called to deal with the emergency.
How could France have been able to oppose the crushing German invasion,
in 1914, if her Government and her representative Houses had been
obliged to wait for the result of a "_Referendum_" whether she would
fight or kneel down?
But the whole world--outside the Central Empires and their
Allies--witnessed with unbounded delight the spontaneous and unanimous
decision of the heroic French nation to fight to the last. She threw
herself with the most admirable courage against the invading waves of
Teutonic barbarism, and succeeded by the great and glorious Marne
victory in forcing them to ebb, thus giving England and the other Allies
the time necessary to organize and train their armies which, by their
united efforts will save Civilization from destruction and the world
from the threatened German domination.