Слике страница

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. Coöpera Third: coöperation in so many ways suggests that it tion may be possible to coöperate in protecting liberty and needed to doing justice. Coöperation is in some ways a larger protect liberty

idea than peace. Peace suggests that I am not to interfere 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? and

Just how this can be done it is yet too early to say. democracy One suggestion is that a League of Peace be formed

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.

For if there is any enemy to democracy it is militarism. Militarism means the doctrine that military power ought to be the great aim of the state and that the military class ought to be the ruling class. In some Why European countries the military class itself sincerely is enemy holds this doctrine. Further, this class has been so to efficient in many ways that it has been able to con- democracy vince 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."



[ocr errors]

Is war ever right?

Arguments for war

UR policy has been to cultivate peace. Should a nation ever go to war? There are three

views about this which have been so much discussed recently that it is well to state them.

First: war is a good thing. Second: war is always 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

(a) War makes men brave; in peace they become 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

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 negotiationthat 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:

Arguments (a) War is simply murder on a large scale. Killing against is killing. To kill a million men is a million times as war 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.

(6) 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

punished if they question in any way the policy of the government in war.

(d) While it is true that war compels men to be loyal this is not necessarily a gain unless they are to be loyal to a good cause. To be loyal to a gang of murderers and plunderers is not made any better by calling the gang a state and the head of the gang a king or a government. Most wars have been simply raids for conquest or plunder by such an organized gang.

(e) War is not only wicked, it is foolish. To conquer does not profit a nation; it could gain far more by peaceful trade. War wastes resources of men, loads the common laborer with a burden of debt, and prevents him from bettering himself. It is the great enemy of democracy.

(f) War declares might is right. It does not follow that the nation that can fight best is the one that will promote civilization. Greece was the most civilized nation of the Old World. It was conquered by Romans who were better fighters. It came very near being conquered by the Persians. In recent times some of the small peoples of Europe have been foremost in their contributions to science, music, and literature.

War an evil but not the greatest evil

So much for the militarist and the pacifist. The third view would agree with the militarist that war has helped make men brave, has been the way in which nations have been formed which have made possible the progress in arts and sciences. It would agree with the pacifist that war also tends to make men brutal, that it crushes out freedom of thought and speech, that it is stupid and wasteful from a financial point of view. In other words, that war is an evil and not a good. But the crucial question for this third point of view is,


« ПретходнаНастави »