Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

THE

WORLD'S WORK

NOVEMBER, 1915

VOLUME XXXI

NUMBER I

F

THE MARCH OF EVENTS

ROM one end of the land to the other there is a call for a national defense. National defense means men and money, ourselves and our money, personal service and higher taxes (unless, perhaps, we shall find the courage to abolish the pork barrel).

There is no short cut to an adequate army. A standing army of professional soldiers is a fine nucleus, a good police force, but under modern conditions no country can afford to hire enough regulars to defend itself. We must have citizen soldiers and they must give their time to be trained.

There is no short cut to an adequate navy. It would be fortunate for us if a fleet of submarines were all that were necessary, for they are comparatively inexpensive. But if we relied on them we could be cut off from the outside world even as Germany is now. If we are to have an adequate Navy we must be willing to pay for it.

Let us realize just what adequate national defense means-personal service and greater expenditures and then let us show that we really appreciate our citizenship in the United States by doing our full duty toward its defense.

There is no reason to be stampeded into military training as an end in itself.

There is no reason to fashion armies on a scale out of keeping with what any possible enemy can bring across the ocean, for we are talking of defense, not of aggression.

On the other hand an unnecessary fear of the word "militarism," a belief that even universal military service is un-American or contrary to the spirit of a democracy, a feeling that volunteer armies are essentially Anglo-Saxon-none of these things is founded on historical fact.

The danger of tyranny from a trained citizen army is no greater than from a mercenary army like our regulars or the British army in peace times. Compulsory military service is not essentially unAmerican. It was adopted in principle by the Continental Congress in 1778 and was actually put in practice by the Confederacy. Such service is not contrary to the spirit of democracies, for it is in use in France and Switzerland. Nor do AngloSaxon states necessarily depend mainly upon the voluntary system: witness New Zealand and Australia.

We are, then, free to adopt any plan of national self-defense that seems to us to be adequate. We can get men to take the necessary military training as volunteers, or make it a compulsory part of a citizen's duty. Any method is open to us that will bring the desired result. But we must have the result.

Copyright, 1915, by Doubleday, Page & Co. All rights reserved.

T

DEMOCRACY AND WAR

HERE is much talk in certain circles that the present war is a war of autocracy against democracy, and this leads many people to believe that the Allies are fighting our battles a phrase which minuates that our neutrality gives us.soitewhat the position of a shirker.

How far is this true? To begin with, is this a war of autocracy against democracy? On the one side Germany and Austria are certainly autocracies. England, France, and Italy are essentially democracies. But Russia, of course, belongs to the other category. But despite this, it is certain that an Allied victory would tend to put the democratic forces in Germany and Austria in control, and that a Teutonic victory would mean autocracy wherever the Germans could succeed in imposing their kultur. It is, then, essentially a struggle between autocracy and democracy.

Does it follow that the Allies are fighting our battles? This much is true: autocratic governments like those of Germany and Austria can prepare for war and start war suddenly. They are well fixed, therefore, to make offensive war. A demA democracy, on the other hand, can prepare for war only after thorough and open discussion, and democracies consistently refuse to prepare for anything but defense.

It is not conceivable that a French Administration would plan to start a war against Germany, because it would lose office before it could declare an unprovoked war. It is not conceivable that either party in England would deliberately start an unprovoked war against Germany, for such a move would cause the loss of the control of Parliament. But the Teutonic kaisers have power over their governments which enables them to start wars without the risk of being thrown out of office. It is true, then, that an Allied victory would tend to abolish the dangerous autocracies, and a Teutonic victory would strengthen the war makers of the world, which would be a disadvantage to us.

The existence of autocracies is a menace to the world's peace. How does this affect us? Russia is an autocracy, but

Russia holds no menace for us, for her abilities at sea are small and her ambitions in the East and Far East are so great that she would have no object in envying us anything we possess. Austria, too, though having a government that is capable of anything from forgery, as in the Friedjung trial, to starting a world-wide war, does not disturb us. Germany has a government which in the last fifty-five years has deliberately started three aggressive wars and pushed Austria into beginning a fourth. We have Bismarck's testimony for the first three and sufficient documentary evidence for the fourth. Along with this kind of a government Germany has a fleet larger than ours and the strongest army in the world. Moreover, she has world-wide ambitions.

Japan, also, has an autocratic government. Her wars with China and Russia show that she is capable of picking a quarrel at a convenient time and striking quick. Her recent demands on China show a disposition to take advantage of a neighbor's weakness. Japan has an army infinitely stronger than ours and a navy not much smaller, and her progressive programme of building for the next four years includes four superdreadnaughts, twenty-four destroyers, two scout ships, eight submarines, and an aero depot ship. We have islands in the area in which Japan would like to be dominant, and we have offended the Japanese by our racial feeling against them.

If we have little to fear from the democracies of the world because they prepare only for defense and because they give long warning in talk before they can go into offensive action, we are for other reasons in a position of relatively little danger from the autocracies of the world except perhaps two: Germany and Japan. One is on one side of the present war, the other on the other. Of the two, of course, Germany is the more dangerous, and she is allied entirely with autocratic governments. Japan is of itself less formidable and is allied with countries which we feel would not back any Japanese moves against us.

If, therefore, we should wish to take a purely cynical view of the situation we might accept the opinion that the Allies are

[graphic]

OF

MR. OCTAVE HOMBERG AND MR. ERNEST MALLET

THE MEMBER OF THE FRENCH TREASURY AND THE REGENT OF THE BANK OF FRANCE, THE FRENCH DELEGATION WHICH NEGOTIATED THE ANGLO-FRENCH LOAN, WHICH IS ALMOST UNIQUE IN ALLOWING PUBLIC SUBSCRIPTIONS WITHOUT ANY UNDERWRITING PROFIT

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
« PředchozíPokračovat »