=WAR AND THE IDEALS OF PEACE.= By HENRY RUTGERS MARSHALL, L. H. D., D. S.
published by Duffield & Co. New York.
“War and the Ideals of Peace,” is rather an abstruse study of the mental
and psychological processes which form human character and lead to human
action. It is mainly a discussion of the validity of the contention that
recurrent wars are inevitable because man is governed by the inexorable
laws of nature, which compel him to contend for dominance. The author
admits that man is by nature a fighting animal, but contends that he
possesses also “creative spontaneity,” and may by his own efforts mould
and shape ideals that will enable him to triumph over the natural bent of
his disposition. Thus individuals may be led in the ways and thoughts of
peace and mould the policy of nations to peace rather than war.
This is obviously true. It is shown in the history of nations, in the
fact that through enlightened public sentiment many nations, especially
during the past one hundred years, have been impelled to peace when there
was temptation to war. The exceptions, when wars have occurred, have been
due to the fact that enlightened public sentiment suffered a relapse
or reversion and favored war. The antidote for war undoubtedly lies in
developing the individual conscience, setting its creative spontaneity to
work to formulate peace ideals—in short, to get the mass of men to think
peace instead of war. Public sentiment is simply the superior weight of
individual opinion, and if public sentiment is decisively for peace, the
nation in which such public sentiment prevails will not go to war except
to repel aggression.
This leads us to a point of disagreement with the author of the book in
his practical application of his theories to the correct policy for this
country to pursue. That we should stand at all times for the principles
of peace no right-thinking man will deny. But that to realize these
principles it is the duty of this nation to disarm without a simultaneous
agreement of the other great nations to do likewise, we emphatically
deny. Dr. Marshall says:
“We are a specially privileged people, free at present from
enemies who might wish to attack us, and able to arm without too
long delay should we see signs of growing danger of aggression.
If we failed of alertness we might by a bare chance be caught
unprepared by some enemy not now in sight, but it were surely
better to take this small risk than to waste our energies in what
is likely to be uncalled for preparation. Protected as we are
by our broad ocean boundaries we have a unique opportunity to
show to the world the benefits accruing to a state that does not
spend a large proportion of its resources upon implements of the
construction of implements of destruction and upon the training
of large bodies of citizens to their employment. Did I, as an
individual, find living at some distance from me a first class
prize fighter, marvelously efficient, but at the time thoroughly
exhausted, it would surely appear stupid for me to take my time
and energies from the pursuits for which I seem fitted in order
to devote myself to the attempt to become what could not at best
be more than a second rate prizefighter, really because of fear
that the first rate prizefighter might regain his strength and at
some future time run amuck and do me injury.”
The present mode of fighting, as developed in the trenches of Belgium and
France, which takes all the glamour and romance and glory out of war, and
reduces it to a dismal contest of organization and machinery, requires,
for its successful prosecution, preparation of forces and machinery which
demands much time. The recruiting, organization, training and equipment
of men to fight modern battles is also a work of considerable time. In
the preparation of naval defense time is still a more essential factor.
The ocean which separates us from Europe is no longer a barrier, but a
highway. The transportation of men and arms and munitions is far easier
and more expeditious by sea than by land. So the broad ocean is no longer
our protection.
The analogy of the prizefighter and the private citizen misses the mark.
The prizefighter is held in check by the local police force which all
governments and municipalities must possess, no matter how peaceful their
ideals. If there were an international police force capable of preserving
the peace among nations, then it would not be necessary for a nation to
arm, any more than it is now necessary for the private citizen to arm.
But in the absence of such a protection it is necessary for each nation
to look to its own protection.
In the absence of a world Court of Justice empowered by the stronger
nations to settle international disputes, and armed with power to enforce
its decrees, world peace can only be maintained by a proper adjustment
of the balance of power. If all the great nations or groups of nations
were about equally armed and equally prepared, the chance of wars would
be minimized. The present conflagration in Europe and Asia is due largely
to the fact that rival powers were nowhere nearly equally balanced. One
power so amazingly surpassed the others in preparedness that conflicting
forces could not be held in check. Had England and France been as
prepared for war as Germany, and as efficiently organized, or had Germany
been as negligent as England, the war could hardly have occurred. It
would not have cost England a tithe of what she has already expended
in this war to have been so well prepared as to have enabled her to
absolutely hold the balance of power.
The argument that at the close of the present great war any of the
belligerent nations will be too exhausted to attack us, will hardly hold
water. The victor will have a great organized military establishment,
with troops inured to war, and perhaps filled with the spirit of war. To
such a power a rich, unarmed nation like ours might be an easy prey. At
the conclusion of our civil war this country, although it had been for
four years fighting an exhaustive war, was, from a military standpoint,
stronger than it ever was before or ever has been since.
We may perhaps in time rely for peace on world ideals of peace, but until
such ideals are of universal acceptance we cannot put our trust in them.
We hope that our nation may, at the end of this war, be instrumental in
organizing a world tribunal for Judicial Settlement, but in order to have
weight in the world councils looking to that end, we shall have to speak
with a strong voice. We shall have to be strong not only in ideals, but
in real and potential force.