Retired ironmaster and philanthropist; builder of the Peace
Temple at The Hague; founder of the Carnegie Institution at
Washington; founder and patron of a chain of libraries in the
United States and Great Britain, and benefactor of many
societies and institutions.
By Edward Marshall.
Here is the report of a truly remarkable statement by Mr. Carnegie. He
is the world's most notable peace advocate, and in this interview he
voices the reflections suggested to him by the great European war.
They are unusual, and make this interview especially worthy of a place
upon the pages of the Christmas issue of THE TIMES, although it
principally deals with war, and Christmas is the festival of peace.
"Has war ever settled anything which might not have been settled better
by arbitration?" I asked Mr. Carnegie.
"No; never," he replied. "No truer inference was ever made than may be
found in Milton's query, penned three centuries ago and never answered:
'What can war but wars breed?'
"War can breed only war. Of course, peace inevitably must follow war,
but, truly, no peace ever was born of war. We all revere the memory of
him who voiced the warning: 'In time of peace prepare for war'; but, as
a matter of fact, we all know that when one nation prepares for war
others inevitably must follow its dangerous lead.
"Hence, and hence only, the huge armaments which have oppressed the
world, making its most peaceful years a spectacle of sadness--a
spectacle of men preparing and prepared to fight with one another.
Sooner or later men prepared to fight will fight; huge armaments and
armies mean huge battles; huge battles mean huge tragedies.
"This never has been otherwise, and never can be. Peace can come only
when mankind abandons warful preparation. And so I seem to have replied
to your inquiry with an answer with a tail to it; and the tail is more
important than the answer, for the answer merely says that war never
settled anything which might not have been settled better by
arbitration, while the tail proclaims the folly of a world prepared for
war."
How to Prevent War.
"Armament must mean the use of armament, and that is war. If we are to
prevent war we must prevent preparation for war, just as if we are to
prevent burglary we must prevent preparation for burglary by prohibiting
the carrying of the instruments of burglary. The only cure for war" [Mr.
Carnegie in speaking italicized the word "cure"] "is war which defeats
some one; but two men who are unarmed are certain not to shoot at one
another. Here, as in medicine, prevention is much better than cure.
"Plainly it must be through such prevention, not through such a cure as
victory sometimes is supposed to represent, that warfare can be stopped.
Warfare means some one's defeat, of course, and that implies his
temporary incapacity for further war, but it goes without saying that
all conquered nations must be embittered by their defeat.
"Few nations ever have fought wars in which the majority of at least
their fighting men did not believe the side they fought for to be in the
right. Defeat by force of arms, therefore, always has meant the general
conviction throughout conquered nations that injustice has been done."
Nations Like Individuals.
"In such circumstances nations must be like individuals under similar
conditions. The individual believing himself to have been in the right,
yet finding himself beaten in his efforts to maintain it, will not
accept the situation philosophically; he will be angry and rebellious;
he will nurse what he believes to be his wrong.
"To nurse a wrong, whether it be real or fancied, is to help it grow in
the imagination, and that must mean at least the wish to find some
future means of righting it, either by strategy or increased strength.
"There are two things which humanity does not forget--one is an injury,
and, no matter how strongly some may argue against the truth of this
contention, the other is a kindness.
"In the long run both will be repaid. And nations, like individuals,
prefer the coin which pays the latter debt. Military force never has
accomplished kindness. Kindness means industrial armies decked with the
garlands of peace; military armies, armed and epauletted, must mean
minds obsessed with the spirit of revenge or conquest, hands clenched to
strike, hearts eager to invade.
"Every military implement is designed to cut or crush, to wound and
kill. Nations at peace help one another with humanity's normal
tenderness of heart at times of pestilence, of famine, of disaster.
Nations at war exert their every ounce of strength to force upon their
adversaries hunger, destruction, and death. Starvation of the enemy
becomes a detail of what is considered good military strategy in war
time, just as world-embracing charity has become a characteristic of
all civilization during times of peace. Must we not admit flotillas
carrying grain to famine-stricken peoples to be more admirable than
fleets which carry death to lands in which prosperity might reign if
undisturbed by war?"
"But do you not admit that wars sometimes have helped the forces of
civilization in their conquest against barbarism?"
"War has not been the chief force of civilization against barbarism,"
Mr. Carnegie replied with emphasis. Then he continued more thoughtfully:
"That is one way of saying it. Another is, no effort of the forces of
civilization against barbarism is war in the true sense of the word.
"Such an armed effort is a part of the force pushing barbarism backward,
and therefore, in the last analysis, tends toward kindness and peace;
while, in the sense in which we use the word, war means the
retrogression of civilization into barbarism. It is usually born of
greed--greed for territory or for power.
"Such war as that of which we all are thinking in these days is war
between civilized men. One civilized man cannot improve another
civilized man by killing him, although it is not inconceivable that a
civilized man may do humanity a service by destroying human savages, for
with the savages he must destroy their savagery.
"But a war in civilized Europe destroys no savagery; it breeds it, so
that it and its spawn may defile future generations.
"There has been much balderdash in talk about unselfish motives as the
origin of warfare. It is safe to say that 99 per cent of all the
slaughter wrought by civilization under the cloak of a desire to better
bad conditions really has been evil. It is impossible to conceive of
general betterment through general slaughter. There have been few
altruistic wars."
"But how about our Spanish war?" I asked. "Surely it was not greed which
sent our men and ships to Cuba."
"No," said Mr. Carnegie, "that was not war, but world-police work.
"Our skirmish with Spain was a most unusual international episode. We
harmed none of the people of the land wherein we fought, but taught them
what we could of wise self-government and gave them independence. To
battle for the liberation of the slave is worthy work, and this of ours
was such a battle.
"Our Spanish war was not the outgrowth of our rivalry with any one or
any one's with us; it was the manifestation of our high sense of
responsibility as strong and healthy human beings for the welfare of the
weak and oppressed."
That Was Police Work.
"It did not make toward militarism on this continent, but the reverse;
in a few months it established permanent peace where peace had been a
stranger. It was police work on the highest plane, substituting order
for disorder."
"But did it not emphasize the need for the maintenance, even here, of a
competent and efficient naval and military force?" I asked.
Mr. Carnegie shook his head emphatically.
"That is the old, old argument cropping up again," said he, "the
argument that a provocative is a preventive. For us to maintain a great
army for the purpose of preventing war thereby would be as sensible as
for each of us to be afraid to walk about except with a lightning rod
down his back, since men have been struck by lightning. No nation wants
to fight us. We have friends throughout the world.
"Millions now resident in military nations are hoping that some day they
may be able to become citizens of our beloved republic, principally
because it now is not, nor is it every likely to be, military. Humanity
loves peace. Here peace abides, and, if we follow reason, will remain
unbroken.
"Note the advantages of our own position. Imagine what the task would be
of landing seventy thousand hostile soldiers on our shores! First they
would need to cross three thousand miles of the Atlantic or five
thousand miles of the Pacific.
"And what if they should come? My plan of operation would be to bid them
welcome as our visitors, considering them as men, not soldiers; to take
them to our great interior, say, as far west as Chicago, and there to
say to them:
"'Here we shall leave you. Make yourselves at home, if that thought
pleases you; fight us if it does not. If you think you can conquer us,
try it.'
"They would make themselves at home and, learning the advantages of
staying with us, would become applicants for our citizenship, rather
than our opponents in warfare.
"And if they tried to fight us, what would happen to them? Our nation is
unique in an important respect. Its individuals are the best armed in
the world. Not only, for example, are its farmers armed, but they can
shoot, which is far more than can be said of those of Britain or of any
other nation.
"The Governments of Europe cannot afford to give their citizenry arms,
and, as for the European citizenry, it not only cannot afford to
purchase arms, but cannot afford even to pay the license fees which
Government demands of those possessing arms with the right to use them.
"But ours? Most Americans can afford to and do own guns with which to
shoot, and, furthermore, most Americans, when they shoot, can hit the
things at which they shoot.
"Combine this powerful protective influence with the fact that thousands
of any army coming to invade us would not want to fight when once they
got here, but would want to settle here and enjoy peace, and we find
that we thus are protected as no nation in the world ever has been
protected or can be.
"Imagine the effect upon the European fighting man's psychology if he
found that an army transport had conveyed him to a land where one man's
privilege is every man's right! Learning this, it is not a joke to say,
but is a statement of the probable fact, that the invading soldiery
would not want to fire its first volleys, but would want to file its
first papers. They would not ask for cartridges, but for citizenship.
"America is protected by a force incomparable, which I may call its
peaceful militia, and the man who, above all other men, I most should
wish to see appointed to its command would be Gen. Leonard Wood were it
not for the fact that there would be some danger that in such an
eventuation his professional training would carry him beyond the rule of
reason.
"That is likely to be the most serious trouble with the trained soldier.
The doctor wants to dose, the parson to preach, and the soldier to
fight. Professional habit may make any of us dangerous.
"But if it came to fighting I do not consider it within the bounds of
possibility that we could lose. I once asked Gen. Sherman how the troops
which he commanded during the civil war compared for efficiency with
European troops. His answer was:
"'The world never has seen the army that I would be afraid to trust my
boys with, man for man.'"
Would Surprise the Enemy.
"That thought of welcoming an invading army appeals strongly to me. The
hostile General would be amazed by the ease with which he got his forces
in, but he would be more startled by the difficulty he would find if he
tried to get them out. If they once learned the advantages of our
liberties they would find it hard not to get away, but to go away. I
restrain my temper with difficulty when I contemplate the foolishness of
the people who discuss with gravity the possibility of a successful
invasion of these United States by a foreign foe. The thought always
arises when I hear these cries from our army and naval officers for a
greater armament: 'Are these men cowards?' I don't believe it. It is
their profession which makes them alarmists.
"Not only are the physical difficulties which would hamper an invasion
practically insuperable, but the reception enemies would get, if any of
them landed, would be wholly without parallel in the world's history.
"If our liberties really were threatened, every man, and very nearly
every woman, in our vast population would rise to their defense as never
any people yet has risen to any national defense. Americans, young and
old, en masse, would sweep to the protection of what they know, and what
the world knows, would be the cause of right and human liberty.
"I, myself, should wish to be invited to advance and meet invading
forces if they came. I would approach them without any weapons on my
person. I would not shoot at them. I would make a speech to them.
"'Gentlemen,' I would say, 'here's the chance of your life to win life's
chief prize. Now you are peasant soldiers. You have the opportunity to
become citizen kings. We are all kings here. Here the least of you can
take a rank much higher than that of any General in your army. He can
become a sovereign in a republic.'
"I think they would hurrah for me, not harm me, after they had heard my
speech.
"Striving for peace, we shall become so powerful that if war comes we
shall be invincible. Peace, not war, makes riches; the rich nation is
the powerful nation.
"Perhaps I was as much a peace man in my youth as I am now, but when I
was asked, during the civil war, to organize a corps of telegraph
operators and railroad conductors and engineers and take them to
Washington, I considered it the greatest of all privileges to obey the
order.
"I was the last man to get on the last train leaving Burkes Station,
after Bull Run, and, now, if the country ever should be invaded, I would
be, I hope, one of the first to rush to meet the enemy--but I think my
haste would be to convert, not to kill, him.
"The man who has done well in business, however, learns to abhor all
waste, and I must admit that it does pain me to see hundreds of millions
of our dollars spent on battleships which will but rust away, and
thousands of our able men vegetating on them or in an army.
"The men who urge this vast waste of our money and men mean well, no
doubt, but they do not know the nation of which they have the good
fortune to be citizens--they do not realize how very potent a force we
have become in the wide world, nor the fact that one of the great
reasons why we have become a force lies in the circumstance that our
national development has not been hampered by the vast expense of
militarism."
Mr. Carnegie paused.
Some weeks ago, in an interview granted me for publication in THE NEW
YORK TIMES, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia
University, predicted that the present war would find its final outcome
in the establishment of the United States of Europe. I asked Mr.
Carnegie to express his view upon this subject.
"Nothing else could occur which would be of such immense advantage to
Europe," he replied.
"United we stand, and divided they fall. If the territory now occupied
by the homogeneous and co-operative federation known as the United
States of America were occupied instead by a large number of small,
independent competitive nations, that is, if each section of our
territory which now is a State were an independent country, America
would be constantly in turmoil.
"Europe has been set back a century because she substituted the present
war of nations for the promotion of a federation plan. The latter would
have meant peace and prosperity, the former means ruin.
"If in Europe this year such a federation as Dr. Butler regards as a
future probability had been a present actuality, 1914 would have left a
record very different from that which it is making.
"For instance, it would have been as difficult for the State of Germany
to fight the State of Russia, or the State of France, or that of
England, or all of them, and to trample neutral Belgium, as it now
would be, here, for the State of Pennsylvania to declare war on the
States of New York and Connecticut and to wreck New Jersey as she sent
her troops to the invasion.
"Originally we had thirteen States, and thirteen only, but there was
other territory here, and the attractive force of the successful union
of the thirteen States brought the other territory in as it was
organized.
"Thus we started right. Europe had begun before men had become so wise,
and, having begun wrong, has found herself, through the centuries,
unable to correct old errors."
A Federation of Europe.
"Certainly I hope that out of the great crime of this vast war some good
will come. The greatest good which could come would be a general
European federation. I do not believe that this will come at once; but
the world will be infinitely the better if it comes at length--if the
natural law of mutual attraction for mutual advantage draws these
nations now at war into a union which shall make such wars impossible in
future, as wars between our States, here, are impossible.
"But before this can come peace must come, and before peace can come one
or the other of the nations now at war must at least ask for an
armistice.
"If I were in the place of that great General, Lord Kitchener, and
should receive the news that such a request had been made by the
commander of the opposing forces, I should say: 'No armistice!
Surrender!'
"But, then, if the surrender should be made, I should say, in effect:
"'Gentlemen, we have made up our minds that these terrible explosions
must mark the end of war between our civilized nations. Our sacrifices
in this war have been too great to permit us to be satisfied with less
than this.
"'If we now cannot feel assured of such a federation of nations as will
result in the settlement of all future disputes by peaceful arbitration
at The Hague, then we shall keep on fighting till the day comes when we
can achieve that end.
"'Upon the other side of the Atlantic,' I should continue if I were Lord
Kitchener and should be confronted by such a situation, 'we see in the
United States of America an example which must satisfy us that world
peace now can be maintained.
"'There,' I should go on, 'thirteen States were banded into union in
1776. Their total population was less than the present population of
their largest city and their area has spread until it links two oceans
and offers homes in forty-eight States to one hundred millions, and the
population still increases rapidly. An experiment of world significance
was tried, and is a success, for the aggregated nation has grown and now
is growing in power more rapidly than any other nation on the surface of
the earth.'"
Would Mean World Peace.
"'It is plain to me and should be plain to all of us,' I should
continue, if I were Lord Kitchener, so placed, 'that we in Europe have
but to follow this example which America has set for us in order to
achieve an ultimate result as notably desirable. When we have
accomplished it world peace will be enthroned and all the peoples of the
earth will be able safely to go about the pleasant and progressive
business of their lives without apprehension of their neighbors.
Humanity, thus freed of its most dreadful burden, will be able to leap
forward toward the realization of its ultimate possibilities of
progress.'"
"And do you really think there is the immediate possibility of an
effective European league for permanent peace and general disarmament?"
I asked Mr. Carnegie.
"Naturally my mind has dwelt much on this problem," he replied. "The
culmination of the European situation in the present war is very
dreadful, but no good ever came out of crying over spilled milk.
However, it seems safe to conclude that a majority of the people of the
civilized world will presently decide that a step forward must be taken.
"Everywhere in Europe, when the present conflict ends, this fact will be
emphasized by shell-wrecked, fire-blackened buildings; by the vacant
chairs of sons and fathers who have fallen victims; by innumerable
graves and by a general impoverishment, the inevitable result of war's
great waste, which will touch and punish every man, every woman, every
child.
"In the face of such an emphasis no denial of the facts will be among
the possibilities, and I scarcely think that any even will be attempted.
If the federation Dr. Butler has predicted does not come about at once,
it will be admitted almost universally that future disputes occurring
between the Governments of Europe shall be settled, not by force of
fighting men, but by arbitration at The Hague.
"And now a serious question obtrudes itself. Must there not be a
carefully considered and cautiously worked out understanding, which may
be considered the preliminary of peace? Later on the foremost men of
every nation can meet in conference to consider with an earnestness
hitherto unknown the great problems which will be involved in the
permanent abolition of war and establishment of peace; but for this the
way must be prepared.
"Here, again, I think The Hague Tribunal is the proper body to assemble
for the purpose of devising means for the accomplishment of the great
end, which must be such legislation as will accomplish, at the end of
this war, the ending of all war among the nations.
"An important duty of the conference would be some arrangement for a
union of the forces of the nations now at war, charged with and
qualified to perform the duty of maintaining peace pending the
completion of the final comprehensive plan."
For One Purpose Only.
"It is possible and even probable that as a part of the accomplishment
of this it may be found to be desirable and even necessary to organize
and provide for the maintenance of a joint naval and military body of
strength sufficient to enforce world peace during the period necessary
for the preparation of a plan to be submitted to all powers. But if this
force is to be established, it must be done with the clear understanding
that it is designed for one thing only, the maintenance of peace, and
must not be used at any time for any other service.
"In the selection of the commanding officer to be intrusted with this
task, it will be conceded that the victors in this war, or those who
have a notable advantage at the time of the beginning of the armistice,
shall have the right of his appointment.
"No protest ever will arise from the mass of the people of Europe
against the abolishment of militarism. Even the people of Germany, as a
whole, have not found militarism attractive. It has been the influence
of the military aristocracy of Germany, the most powerful caste in the
world, which not only has encouraged the national tendency, but has
forced the Emperor, as I believe, to action against his will and
judgment.
"But a change was notable in Germany before the war began, and will be
far more notable after it has ended. The socialistic movement waxes
strong throughout the nation, and the proceedings of the Reichstag show
us that the nation is marching steadily, though perhaps slowly, toward a
real democracy.
"I believe the first election to follow peace will result in a demand by
the Reichstag that it, alone, shall be given power to declare war. It
will be argued, and it is evident that it then will be amply provable,
that it is the people who suffer most through war, and that, therefore,
their representatives should utterly control it.
"That itself would be a most important step toward peace, and I feel
certain that it is among the probabilities.
"As things stand in Germany, although the Reichstag has its powerful
influence in regard to war expenditure and might accomplish important
results by refusing to vote amounts demanded, the fact remains that
until it has been given the power of making or withholding declaration
of war the most important results cannot be accomplished."
"In Fried's volume," I suggested to Mr. Carnegie, "you are credited with
saying that Emperor William, himself and by himself, might establish
peace. Granting that that might have been the fact before this war
began, is it your opinion that he, or any other one man, could now
control the situation to that extent?"
"Assuming that the Germans should come out victorious," Mr. Carnegie
replied, "the Emperor would become a stronger power than ever toward the
maintenance of peace among the nations. At one time I believed him to be
the anointed of God for this purpose, and did not fail to tell him so.
"Even if his forces should be defeated in this present carnage, I am
sure he would be welcomed by the conference I have suggested as the
proposer of the great world peace, thus fulfilling the glorious destiny
for which at one time I considered that he had been chosen from on
high."
I asked Mr. Carnegie what part he thought this country, the United
States, should play in the great movement which he has in mind and
thoroughly believes is even now upon its way.
"The United States," he answered, "although, happily, not a party to the
world crime which is now in progress, seems entitled to preference as
the one to call the nations of the world to the consideration of the
greatest of all blessings--universal, lasting peace."