« ПретходнаНастави »
elements of discord, as well as (in 19 above) "absolutely no handing about or division of peoples as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game" (such as in division of Poland in eighteenth century). 21. The relationship of nations with one another to be governed by exactly the same code of morals and principles of conduct as that which obtains between individuals in all modern civilized society. (Just the opposite to Gen. Von Bernhardi's German doctrine in his "Germany and the Next War.")
A consideration of the above twenty-one more or less separate propositions will show that President Wilson has set forth (notwithstanding the many criticisms of their "indefiniteness," valid criticisms to a degree) the most complete, definite and comprehensive peace program that has come from any source, despite the fact that the details in many respects are lacking. Moreover, since all the Central Powers accepted President Wilson's peace program as a basis for an armistice and peace negotiations, it was certainly imperative that the author of this program, above all others, be present at the Congress of Versailles, to interpret his own propositions. Such a consideration should silence once for all the opposition to and criticism of, his leaving the United States in the interest of humanity and peace—for his own country and the world alike. Opposition to some of his principles is valid, and the inalienable right of his fellowcitizens; but opposition to the part he is playing in the peace negotiations is a totally different thing, and is inexcusable, from every point of view. It is right, and it is to be hoped that such action may react disastrously upon these critics.
There are three of the above propositions, however, that the writer would call the reader's attention to, in particular. One is the demand for "absolute freedom of the seas." No one knows just what that means, and there are conflicting opinions as to what it might mean in the League of Nations. An able statement of the difficulties involved in this point—as well as others—is given by Joseph H. Odell, in Nov. 6,1918, issue of the Outlook. ("The President's Fourteen Points.")
The second point is the President's plan for the disposal of Turkey. In an early chapter of the series on the Causes of War the writer made this statement (in 1917): "Turkey must leave Europe, where she has never had a right to be. Turkey is not a nation in the true sense, anyway, and never has been. She has always existed unnaturally, by a criminal subjection of peoples who otherwise would long since have been free, and arbiters of their own destinies. If there ever was a chimerical state, it has been the Ottoman Empire. Her whole history has been one of cruelty, rapine and murder." All evidence and disclosures of her action during the war, which have recently been thoroughly exposed, serve only to justify this demand and make it doubly insistent. The writer would refer the reader especially to Ambassador Morganthau's story, just published in book form—the part dealing with Armenia, Syrian and Greek massacres and cruelties, as well as the nature of the Turkish Government.
The third point is concerning the "breaking down of economic barriers." What shall this "breaking down of all economic barriers" between nations include? Does it involve the doing away with all protective tariff between nations? If so what about war materials? The present League of Nations Constitution urges government ownership or control of all war materials or their production. Certainly, unless the League of Nations becomes a permanent preventive of war, the United States cannot be dependent upon any foreign power for war materials and manufactures. It must protect these industries sufficiently to build them up to a safe war basis, in readiness for any time of danger. Tremendous difficulty will also be experienced in bringing all the protective tariff nations to the point of giving up this commercial privilege in favor of their own industries. This point presents a veritable Chinese puzzle; and it may prove to be a puzzle that is unsolvable. Yet, something along this line should by all means be done, to prevent the benefits of a great portion of the world's commerce going to certain great commercial nations and privileged classes in those nations, to the detriment of all others—small, non-commercial nations in particular. Part of the difficulty may be overcome by a free commercial rivalry among the nations; but great international "trusts" and monopolies must also be regulated. Something toward a solution might be obtained by government ownership of those industries that might need protection. Certainly this last is one possible solution, since government ownership is one of the biggest industrial issues the world over, to-day.
The above situation, while presenting difficulties for the League of Nations, on the other hand is only one of the many instances that demand this effective League as the only alternative to a virtual race-suicide through war in the future. It is scarcely worth while discussing an international court of arbitration if there is to be no League of Nations behind it. The present League may not be permanent, may not include all the world—and may not be satisfactory in a number of respects—so much can scarcely be expected from it—but it must lead finally to a permanent league of the nations of the earth. No other outcome is thinkable. This final League may not be realized in our day, but our day must make it possible and start it on its way. This is the supreme duty and privilege of the present generation. I shall have more to say of this League in a later chapter.
There is one feature of the final negotiations between the German Government and President Wilson, leading directly to the Armistice and German surrender of Nov. 11 that is very significant—in the light of political development in Germany since. And that is, that President Wilson by his unshakable demand that the German people must speak for peace rather than the Imperial German Government alone, whose word he could never take for sincerity—that the President himself in this demand in Germany's hour of disaster, drove the Kaiser from his throne, and the German princes from theirs. In other words, it was President Wilson, together with the overwhelming victories of Allied arms in the last days of the war, and not the German people as a democracy, that drove the Hohenzollerns from power. And for that very reason the German nation cannot yet be accepted as a true democracy. Nations do not change their fundamental ways of thinking so soon, and never primarily by force. Germany has a splendid chance to develop a great democracy; but let us not be too hasty in receiving her with open arms, as a regenerated criminal.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
AFTER so much has been written and said on the subject of the "League of Nations," and especially, as it is being so widely discussed pro and con, at present, the writer would hardly feel justified in adding a chapter on this question to the present treatise on the War, were it not for two phases of the momentous peace problem which have not been so widely discussed, and which have been more or less neglected or ignored. These two phases are: (1) the German attitude and point of view on the matter of a League of Nations or International Arbitration, and (2) the progress of this League idea among the Allied Powers in the years just preceding the War.
And now, to take up the German attitude first. Few persons, among those who have not given the matter close study, realize how thoroughly the great German teachers and writers, political and military, dominated the thought and molded the convictions of the German nation. True, we have been told in our War Information campaign, that the German people had no will of their own, followed blindly their leaders, because they had been taught and felt that they had to follow them, etc. But, not until we begin to investigate this phenomenon for ourselves do we realize how the leaders, as those mentioned above, furnished the very moral, political and military gospel for the nation—and that not alone because they molded the thought of the people, but because they worked and thought along with the nation, and in some instances took counsel of the people and their temper. That there was a very strong undercurrent of the common people