Commerce, and science unite the world States and probably will continue to do so after the war is over. Many believe that it would be easily possible, with modern ships and submarines, for Europe to land an army upon our shores. When one European country is at war with another it almost certainly injures or affects our commerce. The whole world is now so intricately bound together that any great waste of life or property such as is caused by war must make, broadly speaking, the whole world poorer. If we have goods to sell it is desirable that other nations should be able to buy. They cannot have means with which to buy if they lose life and wealth in war. Evidently we are being more and more closely connected with the welfare of all peoples. Second: new forces of a positive type at work have invention, been pointing toward a greater unity among all peoples. We have just spoken in the preceding paragraph of our relation as buyers and sellers, as borrowers and creditors. Another very important fact is that with our telegraphs and frequent mails, with the greater amount of travel between people of different countries, with the multitude of immigrants who have come to us from Europe, and with the lesser number who return to Europe after living here for a time, we are coming to understand other peoples better. They are not so foreign as they were. It is one striking illustration of this that representatives of the different nations now meet together and arrange common postal laws so that a two-cent stamp is of the same color among all peoples in the postal union; and the same is true for the stamps of the other denominations. Banks arrange to pay checks in any part of the world through their allied banks. Men in various scientific societies meet together and consider in common the discoveries and inventions that will promote human welfare, the methods of relieving poverty and sickness, of administering law and preventing crime. In all these ways the world is becoming united. needed to protect Third: coöperation in so many ways suggests that it Coöperamay be possible to coöperate in protecting liberty and tion doing justice. Coöperation is in some ways a larger idea than peace. Peace suggests that I am not to inter- liberty fere with any one by violence. Coöperation suggests that I shall positively help him. Now the nations are positively helping each other in many ways. Will they not be forced to carry out the thought further and help each other to maintain liberty and justice? Just how this can be done it is yet too early to say. One suggestion is that a League of Peace be formed democracy after the present war is over, which shall not merely encourage nations to make agreements but shall compel them to keep agreements, which shall guard the smaller nations from having their liberty taken away, which shall free the peoples of Europe from the ever-present fear that has oppressed them so long, and led them to spend such great sums in constant preparation for war and to maintain such enormous armies. It is clear that unless something of this sort can be done humanity cannot make more than very slow progress. We now even in this country expend enormous sums for our small army and navy. Unless some better method of protection is devised the expenditure that each country will think necessary in order to protect itself from others will increase until it will take all that the country can produce. Education and all kinds of progress will be stinted. And if we believe sincerely in democracy we shall need especially to coöperate with others for its defense. to Why For if there is any enemy to democracy it is militarism. militarism Militarism means the doctrine that military power is enemy ought to be the great aim of the state and that the democracy military class ought to be the ruling class. In some European countries the military class itself sincerely holds this doctrine. Further, this class has been so efficient in many ways that it has been able to convince many of other classes that the only safety of the nation lies in the militarist system. Such a military class despises democracy in the sense of self-government, for it thinks itself the only class fit to govern. It may put this belief into the old language that it governs by divine right. It ridicules democracy in the sense of equality, for it considers itself superior to other classes. It is often brutal and contemptuous toward civilians. Nations that prefer other ends than power are looked down upon by such a military class as weak and degenerate. It is indeed entirely probable that peaceful and democratic nations will be at a disadvantage in resisting a sudden attack by a militarist power. Perhaps they cannot defend themselves singly without setting up a military class of their own. Their best, if not their only course, is therefore to combine for protection and peace. The only hope for protecting our own democracy and for helping the growth of democracy in other countries is through positive coöperation. In President Wilson's great words, "The world must be made safe for democracy." Ο CHAPTER XLII WAR AND RIGHT UR policy has been to cultivate peace. Should There are three views about this which have been so much dis cussed recently that it is well to state them. ever First: war is a good thing. Second: war is always Is war evil and always wrong. Third: while war is always an evil it is not the worst thing; war is sometimes right. Let us see what the arguments are for each of these three views. We shall have to condense the arguments so that they will be somewhat like a debater's brief. The militarist argues: War is a good thing, for right? Arguments (a) War makes men brave; in peace they become for war weak and cowardly. (b) It is through war in the past that the brave nations have prevailed over the weak ones and so have survived. If there had been no war there would have been no selection of the most efficient peoples. (c) War makes men think of something besides themselves. It holds up an ideal of loyalty and patriotism. In peace men become selfish and think only of private gain. It is a more glorious thing to die for country in battle than to live a selfish or idle or luxurious life and die of disease. (d) War unites all the members of a nation into one strong state which is then able to provide for science and art, for education, for the care of the laboring Arguments against war people. Bismarck held that the three wars fought by Prussia under his advice, in 1864 against Denmark, in 1866 against Austria, and in 1870 against France, were the only way to make a united Germany. It was only by blood and iron-not by talk or negotiation— that this could be done. (e) War is the only way to make a change in the territory of peoples corresponding to the changes in their needs and ability. If a nation at one time is strong and covers a large territory, but later becomes degenerate and does nothing for progress, it ought not to hold all its territory as against a nation which is progressive, a nation which will make advances in science, education, and other forms of civilization. On the other hand, the pacifist urges: (a) War is simply murder on a large scale. Killing is killing. To kill a million men is a million times as. bad as to kill one man. Wearing a uniform does not change the essence of the act. Fundamentally, war means killing innocent men who usually are not at all responsible for whatever wrong their government has done. (b) War makes men brutal. It compels men to stifle every tender or generous feeling toward their opponents. It frequently leads men, under the plea of military necessity, to kill women and children, to torture people, and in general to outrage every decent feeling. (c) War crushes all freedom of action, of speech, and even of thought. There is no chance for the soldier to discuss or question whether he is doing right or wrong. He not only simply gives up his life blindly but also allows the government to take the place of his conscience. Even men not in the army are frequently |