"PREPAREDNESS" AND WAR.
_That military preparedness provokes war is the conclusion drawn by
Mr. Bryan in the second utterance in his series of three concerning
the European conflict and war in general. It reads:_
Washington, June 17, 1915.
The conflict now raging in Europe has been described as "The Causeless
War," but since no one would be bold enough to lay the blame for such
an unholy situation upon an overruling Providence, it must find its
origin in acts for which man, and man alone, is responsible.
It is not a race war; on the contrary, the races are quite
inexplicably mixed. Latin joins with Saxon; the Frank is the ally of
the Slav; while in the opposing ranks Teuton and Turk fight side by
side.
Neither is it a religious war. On the Bosporus the Cross and the
Crescent make common cause; Protestant Kaiser and Catholic Emperor
have linked their fortunes together and hurl their veteran legions
against an army in which are indiscriminately mingled communicants of
the Greek Church, of the Church of Rome, and of the Church of England.
Nor yet is it a rivalry between families. The leading actors in this
unprecedented tragedy are related by blood, but kinship seems to be a
negligible factor--it explains neither friendships nor enmities.
No. Race, religion, and family, each with many wars to answer for, can
plead not guilty in the present inquiry. So far as can be judged,
there appears upon the surface no cause that by any known standard can
be regarded as adequate for such a cataclysm as we are now witnessing.
The notes that passed from chancellery to chancellery were couched in
most friendly language. These notes could not have been intended to
deceive. Sovereigns visited each other and were received with every
evidence of cordiality and good-will. This hospitality could not have
been insincere.
Each ruler declared that he did not wish war; would they all say this
if an adequate cause for war had actually existed? They have all
denied responsibility for the war--would they have done so if they had
regarded the war as either necessary or desirable?
But there is even better proof, aye, indisputable proof, that no
sufficient cause existed, viz., the conclusion to be drawn from
inaction.
Would not these rulers have busied themselves trying to save their
subjects by the eradication of the cause had they known of the
existence of such a cause? Would they have spent their time in social
festivities and in exchanging compliments had they known that they
were on the brink of war? It is inconceivable! It would be a gross
libel on them, one and all, to charge such a wanton disregard of their
sacred duty.
What, then, was the cause? If I have correctly analyzed the situation,
the war is the natural result of a false philosophy. Theories of life
are invisible, but they control for good or for evil. They enter our
very being, and may be as deadly to the moral man as germs of disease,
taken into the body, are deadly to the physical man. The fundamental
precept of this false philosophy is that "might makes right." It is
not proclaimed now as loudly as it once was, but it is often acted
upon in particular cases by those who would be unwilling to indorse
it as a general principle.
The individual makes this maxim his excuse for violating three
commandments that stand in his way; this maxim also leads nations to
violate these same three commandments for the same purpose, but on a
larger scale.
Strange that men should fail to apply to nations the moral principles
which are now so generally applied to the individual units of a
nation!
The tendency is to condemn the violation of these commandments, not in
proportion to the injury done, but rather in inverse proportion. No
one will dispute the validity of the injunction against covetousness
as long as the object coveted is of little value or not greatly
desired, but the last and all-inclusive specifications, viz., "or
anything that is thy neighbor's," is sometimes interpreted by nations
to except a neighbor's vineyard or a neighbor's territory.
Covetousness turns to might as the principle to be invoked, and the
greater the unlawful desire the firmer the faith in the false
principle.
Conquest is the word used to describe the means employed for securing
the thing desired, if the force is employed by a nation, and conquest
violates the commandments Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thou Shalt Not
Kill.
By what sophistry can rulers convince themselves that, while petit
larceny is criminal, grand larceny is patriotic; that, while it is
reprehensible for one man to kill another for his money, it is
glorious for one nation to put to the sword the inhabitants of another
nation in order to extend boundaries?
It is a mockery of moral distinctions to hang one man for taking the
life of another, either for money or in revenge, and then make a hero
of another man who wades "through slaughter to a throne, and shut the
doors of mercy on mankind."
As in the case of the individual, the violation of the commandments
Thou Shall Not Covet, Thou Shalt Not Steal, and Thou Shalt Not Kill,
are usually traceable to the violation of the first great
commandment--Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me--that is, to the
putting of self before service of the Creator.
The violation of these commandments by nations is not always, but
usually, due to selfishness--the putting of supposed material
advantages before obedience to the Divine Law.
War is occasionally altruistic in purpose and the soldier always
exhibits unselfishness of high order, but, as a rule, conflicts are
waged for selfish ends.
The individual finds that Jehovah's justice cannot be evaded; for
wrongdoing works its own punishment on the wrongdoer in the form of
perverted character when he escapes the penalties of human law. The
nation is as powerless to repeal or to ignore with impunity the laws
of God--"Though hand join in hand they shall not be unpunished."
If I have made it clear that the doctrine that might makes right is
the most common cause of war, we may pass to the consideration of a
maxim quite sure to be applied in war, namely, that "like cures
like"--the theory upon which retaliation rests.
The two are so closely allied that it is almost inevitable that those
who indorse the former will resort to the latter--one representing the
spirit of will, the other its most familiar manifestation. Rivalry for
rivalry in wrongdoing--a neck-and-neck race to the bottomless pit. And
yet there are many believers in the gospel of force, who have brought
themselves to think that cruelty can be cured by greater cruelty--that
the only way to win an antagonist away from inhuman acts is to surpass
him in inhumanities. Absurdity of absurdities!
But might must find a pretext for arming itself; and what is the
pretext? There was a time when men openly advocated war as a thing to
be desired; commended it to each generation as a sort of tonic to tone
up the moral system and prevent degeneracy, but we have passed that
day.
Now all join in the chorus for peace. And how, according to the
jingoes, shall peace be insured? "By preparedness," say these sons of
Mars. Prepare, all prepare; equip yourselves with the most modern
implements of destruction; arm, drill, get ready, and then stand with
fingers on a barrel of a musket and preserve peace--you preserve it
until some one, by accident or design, gives the signal--then all fall
upon each other with cries for blood. Preparedness is the kindling;
opportunity is the match.
We dare not trust the peace of the world to those who spend their time
in getting ready for wars that should never come. Half the energy
employed in preparing for war would effectually prevent war if used in
propagating the principles which make for peace.
Instead of preventing war, preparedness provokes war, because it is
impossible to coerce the people into bearing the burdens incident to
continuous and increasing preparation without cultivating hatred as if
it were a national virtue. There must be some one to fear; some other
preparing nation that must be represented as plotting for war.
Hate sets up sham standards of honor and converts every wound into a
festering sore; hate misunderstands; hate misinterprets; hate maligns
its supposed adversary, while every contractor, battleship builder,
and manufacturer of munitions of war applauds.
How can preparedness prevent war, if all prepared? Each step taken by
one nation toward more complete preparedness excites the other nations
to additional purchases and new levies, until all have exhausted their
productive industries and menaced their moral progress.
The doctrine that preparedness will prevent war will not stand the
test of logic, and the conflagration in Europe shows that it fails
when tested by experience.
If any nation is without excuse for entering into a mad rivalry with
the belligerent nations in preparation for war it is the United
States. We are protected on either side by thousands of miles of
ocean, and this protection is worth more to us than any number of
battleships. We have an additional protection in the fact--known to
every one--that we have the men with whom to form an army of defense
if we are ever attacked, and it is known also that we have the money,
too--more money than we would have if the surplus earnings of the
people had been invested in armament. We not only do not need
additional preparation, but we are fortunate in not having it, as now
it seems impossible for a nation to have what is called preparedness
on slight notification.
The leading participants in the present war are the nations that were
best prepared, and I fear it would have been difficult for us to keep
out of this war if we had been as well prepared as they.
Happily for our nation, we have in the White House at this time a
President who believes in setting the Old World an example instead of
following the bad example which it has set in this matter. What an
unspeakable misfortune it would have been if in such an hour as this
the nation had been under the leadership of a President inflamed by
the false philosophy which has plunged Europe into the abyss of war.