With the major nations and a good part of the minor ones of the world embroiled in total war it is rather difficult at the moment to visualize peace, but as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow so must come peace—perhaps not this year, next year, or the year after that—but it will come.
Assumed that the Allied Nations will win, as win we must, what course and plan will we adopt to bring the world out of its present chaos and to a new normalcy? I use the phrase “new normalcy” because the course adopted by the Allied victors after World War I did not bring a happy and contented world but rather one that was bitter, jealous, and suspicious.
Whatever plan is to be used should be decided on immediately and announced to our enemies. Some may argue that we should catch the rabbit before we talk about skinning it but the parallel does not apply altogether in this case. A plan which will indicate definitely what course the Allies expect to follow at the peace table will save many thousands of lives provided the plan does not confine itself to vague generalities but categorically enumerates the steps which will be faithfully followed to bring the world back to normalcy. The plan must be absolutely simple of interpretation so that our enemies, even the most ignorant of them, will know just what to expect when the white flag is hoisted by them.
It has been said often and probably truthfully that World War II was conceived at the Versailles Peace Table. No doubt the learned and venerable gentlemen who sat around that famous table were vitally interested in world peace, a lasting world peace. Unfortunately for future generations, they failed to take into consideration some basic truths, one being that although oil and water are put in the same vessel they will not mix or stay mixed however hard one may try to accomplish the feat.
A large war indemnity was desired and demanded from the Germans by the Versailles Treaty, which is the price the vanquished is expected to pay. At the same time, however, conditions were imposed on her that not only made it difficult for her to reopen equitable trade relations but discouraged the building up of business. The original treaty terms called for the amount of the indemnity to be named many years after the termination of the war, as the Allies desired to see how prosperous the Germans would become. Then an amount could be established that would cripple her financially for many years to come, perhaps for all time. There being no incentive for the Germans to enrich their country and at the same time pour the earnings into the Allied war chest, they put all their efforts toward modeling a huge military machine which they hoped would remove this sword from over their heads.
Two things were very necessary to accomplish this—a leader, and the playing of one Allied nation against the other—Germany to profit at each instance when this was done.
Hitler was their answer for the first. History tells us the second.
Inasmuch as there was no internal unrest in Germany which would require war planes by the thousands, tanks by the hundreds, and other war equipment, it should have been apparent that trouble was brewing.
Wholehearted co-operation by the Allies would have prevented the onslaught on Austria. That was really the last opportunity the Allies had to check Germany without actual war—for the Germans were not bluffing at Munich. After Munich it was just a question of time until war became an actual fact. Even after Munich the smaller nations surrounding Germany would not believe that Germany would absorb each country piecemeal. A united front and complete co-operation any time after Munich by the countries now under German occupation would have materially checked if not completely stopped the Nazi war machine.
The League of Nations idea was a splended one if it had been carried out religiously. Its purpose was to prevent future wars by having all league members band together against the offending one or ones. Its great weakness and consequent failure lay in its inability to keep the members in line and present a united and determined front against an offending country. As the world girded itself for another world war there was even a greater reluctance if not an utter lack of interest in stopping a major nation from violating a smaller one. The League’s action in Manchukuo and Ethiopia was a classic example of this. Action should have been very determined and definite against nonmembers as well as members. As a result the League of Nations, a misnomer if there ever was one, failed of its purpose on every major issue. It was an idealistic idea but when dealing with nations who are innately and selfishly thinking of themselves, teeth are needed to promote the ideals.
Japan was an Ally in World War I and her reward was a number of islands in the Pacific over which she was expected to maintain a mandate. The law on mandated islands is very specific and any building of defenses on them is a direct violation. It was suspected and at a later date well established that the Japanese were fortifying the mandated islands, the reason now being most apparent, but when the Japanese were accused of it they blandly told the accusers that they had been grossly misinformed but at the same time steadfastly refused to permit an inspection of the islands in question. Definite League action at this time would have made Japan’s conquest in the western and southwest Pacific a much more difficult one if not impossible of accomplishment. The mandated islands were ideal in linking them with others to form the perfect steppingstones to objectives which had been marked out years before for the Great Pacific War.
The action of the League regarding Japan’s occupation of Manchukuo and her subsequent action in China was just another concrete example of the inadequacy of the authority which had been set up in Geneva.
We must therefore outline some clear-cut plan that is workable, fair in its texture both to victor and vanquished, and have the teeth necessary to enforce it to the letter.
To try to punish the leaders of the Axis nations would be a popular one no doubt. There was much talk of trying the Kaiser but when the Allies looked around for him they found he had jumped over to Holland for internment and they were left without an accused. To punish criminals does not prevent crime and to punish the leaders of the Axis nations would not prevent future wars or even discourage future leaders. As in the case of ordinary garden variety of criminal we must start at the source, and the source is at the people themselves. They must be diverted from war-making ideas by some effective method, preferably by one of education.
There seems to be one of three general courses that could be adopted which would prevent the recurrence of another world war.
The first would be a very drastic one and one that probably would not be followed that of extermination of our enemies. Some have termed this war to be one of extermination. Should the extermination continue after the Axis nations have been beaten to their knees? Unquestionably the extermination of Japan, Germany, and Italy as nations would eliminate them for all time as future troublemakers. With the war of extermination going on among the armed forces in the Pacific, the Russian front, the wholesale destruction of German cities by the R.A.F. massed around-the-clock bombing raids, it is not too farfetched to consider such a possibility. To kill the animal that breeds and spawns military graspers would definitely settle the question once for all. Perhaps this method will have to be resorted to eventually.
If the above plan were openly advocated by the Allied nations the war would drag on interminably, certainly for many years, for with death as a reward when defeat stared them in the face the Axis people would fight on to the bitter end and exact at the same time a heavy toll of the Allied nations.
The second course offers a more Christianlike solution even though this war cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed a Christianlike war.
We will assume that the Axis nations have been decisively defeated and beg for peace on Allied terms. These terms would be: The Axis nations to be totally disarmed. All boundaries to be rectified and amended so that only homogeneous people would be within the same boundaries. An allied intelligence force would be maintained within the borders of the Axis nations and given full co-operation at all times. A tremendous armed force from the Allied nations would be maintained throughout the world to smash instantly and ruthlessly any attempt by an Axis nation to rebuild its Army, Navy, or Air Force. The world would be a huge armed camp. The Axis nations would, of course, have to contribute the major part of money for maintaining this armed force. In return, they would be permitted to rebuild their homes and cities, have trade rights that would permit them to re-establish themselves in the world of trade, recognizing the fact that other countries would retain the right to institute protective tariffs against goods produced by cheap labor, the same as in pre-war days. This also if faithfully followed out would solve the problem of what to do with the conquered nations and no doubt would be quite successful. After a certain number of years the people of the Allied nations would begin to be weary of the maintenance of the huge armed force and its attendant expense as would the Axis nations. The latter would also grow restive at having armed guards in sight always and eventually one of them would get out of line and much blood would be spilled again, so this course could not be accepted as the panacea for the disease, particularly as no punishment for Allied nations who failed to co-operate has been named.
The only solution is one which must keep not only the Axis nations in line but also the Allied ones. There must be some method evolved which will keep the Allied nations united without the resorting to arms.
One has only to read history to recall individual Allied nations selling each other down the river at various times between 1918 and 1939 to appreciate why a solution in the case of the Allied nations is vitally necessary.
All nations in normal times depend on trade relations with other countries of the world to build up wealth and establish prosperity. The articles which England turns out in her many factories must be sold to other nations. Japan, the United States, Germany, and all the other countries depend on trade relations for their very financial existence. Take that away and they die like an unwatered vine. If then their life depends on trade relations why not start at that point to establish a plan for maintaining a lasting world peace.
Under this plan each nation or empire would have one and only one representative and vote in the World Council.
Then if some nation became grasping and attempted to “protect” another but weaker country by occupying it, the case would be submitted to the World Council. If this representative council decided that a wrong had been done, immediate restitution would be ordered. If this were not done promptly, a total economic boycott would be ordered and clamped on it and any of the other nations, Allied or otherwise, who failed to carry out the full provisions of the boycott agreement would themselves suffer the same boycott as had been designated for the erring nation. This rule would have to be applied ruthlessly and impartially whether it was the United States or England that had strayed from the mandates of the Council. Neither the United States nor Great Britain could separately withstand an absolute economic boycott by the other countries.
A limited international police force would have to be maintained to handle certain isolated cases but it would not have to approach the size of the one necessary in solution two above.
A nation would be considered to be an offender of world peace if it refused the right of inspection of its possible munition factories to the International Police Force. There would be no closed harbors, cities, or sections of the country; no mandated islands such as Japan maintained or permitted unless they were open to inspection.
Suppose that such a course of action as I have outlined immediately above had been strictly adhered to after World War I, would the Japanese expansion into Manchukuo, her attempted conquering of China, Italy’s excursion into Ethiopia, the gradual German expansion by land to the westward and preparation for World War have been possible? If an absolute boycott had been clamped on either Japan, Germany, or Italy, the expansion ideas would have guttered out completely.
When the conquerors sit around the table after this war and decide what is to be done with the vanquished ones, they must not only decide on a working plan for the beaten nations but must definitely lay down penalties for the Allied nations if and when any part of the plan is not strictly adhered to and see to it that the punishment is definite and conclusive.