Peace is a vision which mankind has long cherished but never achieved. Invariably the vision has faded and become but a dream. Yet the appeal for peace continues unassuaged. The advantages of peace cannot be gainsaid, and each year the clarion call, “Peace on earth; goodwill toward men,” rings out over the Christian world and fills men with renewed hope.
At times, peace seems to be the aim and end of all things. With peace is associated all that is finest and best in life; with war, all that is low, evil, and degrading. Especially after years of an exhausting war, nothing seems quite so good as peace. In 1918, after four years of the most destructive war this world has ever known, every man, woman, and child knew something of the terrible nature of war and wanted no more of it. Today, we are still relatively near to that great cataclysm and “war” in our minds has become synonymous with the World War. All of its gruesomeness, in loss of life and limb, material destruction, engendered hatred, are the recognized concomitants of war.
Moreover, the golden era of peace is that of our day. The twentieth century has been rich in fruits of a high standard of living, political and religious liberty, industrial and social progress, to the American people. The peace is so good and the war was so bad that we cannot see any bad in the former or any good in the latter. It has led us to make many extravagant claims for the one and preposterous charges against the other.
Such general approbation and denunciation is indicative of those affected by such proximity in time. It reaches its consummation in those short-sighted persons who cannot see beyond their own way of life. They do not look back to study the ebb and flow of peoples throughout the course of history; they do not consider the present condition of other nations less fortunate than we; nor do they look into the future for indications of the rise and fall of states.
War and peace have followed each other in regular succession across the stage of history. Wars have varied widely as to their nature, purpose, methods, and extent. There have been wars of defense and wars of aggression, wars of rebellion and wars of revolution, religious wars, racial wars, economic wars, dynastic wars. Weapons and methods of war have advanced from the early primitive stage to the extremely complicated technique of 1914-1918. Contrast the savageness of the Thirty Years’ War with the humaneness shown in recent wars. Most wars of history have been conflicts between two nations, while major conflicts, like the Napoleonic and World Wars, involving a number of powers, have been the exception. In fact, the World War stands in a class by itself as regards extent and the destruction of life and material involved.
“Nobody gains by war” is a modern thought derived from the experience of the World War which drained severely the strength of the victors as well as the vanquished. Certainly, nations have gained by war and in fact registered gains which could not have been won by any other means under existing conditions. The gains of the Seven Years’ War transformed Great Britain from a small island state to a World power. Three short and successful wars with Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870) made of the weak German states the great German Empire. The country which had been the scene of incessant warfare for three centuries was given peace, security, and the opportunity to develop into a great power from 1870 to 1914. That this gain was squandered during the World War shows merely that a state may lose, as well as gain, by war.
With the possible exception of the World War, the United States as a nation has gained by every war in which it has participated—our first and perhaps most important gain was our independence. Consider the Civil War. Surely, we could not have gained anything from that terrible, fratricidal conflict! Yet we did. It was necessary to finally unify the nation, to sweep away the internal barriers, and to permit us to bring our united strength to bear in the great economic war then impending.
People are loath to admit that there Bray be gains by war in the moral and spiritual realms, and writers, such as Bernhardi, who have given expression to such thoughts, have been classed as war mongers. Yet it is apparent to a student of history that war has acted as a cleansing agent in the spirit of men who in time of peace became soft, selfish, proud, and vain. War steels the spirit, teaches the principle of sacrifice, and brings each man back to his normal relation to society—that self must ever be subordinated to the common Weal. That losses in the moral and spiritual realms also result is too well known to require discussion, yet such a great thinker as Ruskin has this to say: “All the pure and noble arts of peace are founded on war—it is the foundation of all the high virtues and faculties of men.”
“War is unchristian” is another note we hear sounded today. Such a generalization without any distinction as to the nature of war is a gross libel on Christianity. God put red blood in our veins and it is unthinkable that He should have intended that we should not defend ourselves when attacked. Are we to put peace ahead of right and shall we let truth be vanquished? Thank God, no such doubts assailed our Christian forebears, for the greatest of them have ever been willing, yea even inspired, to fight for the right.
Constantine the Great became converted on the field of battle when he saw the vision of a flaming cross and the words, “In hoc signo vinces” in the heavens. He made a banner of this sign, gave it to his Christian “Legion Fulminatrix,” and his armies marched from impending disaster to decisive victory. That able and beloved ruler, Alfred the Great, was also a profound Christian, yet he did not hesitate to lead his people to war against the invading Danes. An American patriot of the Revolutionary War, Rev. J. P. G. Muhlenberg, preached his last sermon when hostilities were impending. His sermon was upon the duties men owe their country, and he closed with these words, “There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to fight—and now is the time to fight.” With that he stripped off his gown and donned the uniform of a soldier. Fortunate indeed that Charles Martel at Tours in 732 did not consider war unchristian, for this was the decisive battle which stopped the Mohammedan invasion of the Christian world.
With the perspective that time alone can give us, certain wars seem to have much similitude to a surgeon’s operation on a human being. To remove a cancerous growth, he applies the knife, causes temporary suffering, but only in the hope of effecting a cure, or at least a stay, of the primary trouble. Like such operations, all wars are not good; some are undertaken in hopes of personal or national aggrandizement; some are mistakenly undertaken but with the best of intentions.
Just as we find all kinds of war, so too history reveals all varieties of peace. True peace we will never find because life itself is a battle. There is war in all walks of our physical, economic, political, and spiritual lives; it exists between neighborhood grocers, local newspapers, political factions, capital and labor. Such strife is so commonplace that it is taken for granted, yet it is the same seed which may produce a great war. Normally it is kept within bounds by the police and military force of the state but at times it gets out of hand and then rebellion and civil war ensue.
Similarly, between tribes and nations, true peace is never to be found, and the problem consequently narrows itself down to what kind of a peace we are satisfied to accept. There is on the one hand the peace of the Israelites when they were in bondage to the Egyptians. It is perhaps the worst case of mass slavery on record for they suffered unspeakable cruelties. It will be remembered that at the time of the birth of Moses the Pharaoh decreed that every male child of the Jews should be destroyed as soon as born. That is one kind of peace and without a doubt it would be unacceptable to any living American, not excluding those who declare that war is unchristian. From this type of peace we find all gradations to the other extreme, our golden era of peace.
The history of states is generally divided into periods of peace and periods of war, and we are prone to think of a certain date, such as the declaration of war, as marking the transition. Any given day is at best only a formal mark. Invariably hostilities commenced at some prior time, sometimes with resultant loss of life but always with conflicts of policy. Jefferson, in his annual message in 1805, said, “Our coasts have been infested and our harbors watched by private armed vessels. They [the British] have captured in the very entrance of our harbors, as well as on the high seas, not only the vessels of our friends coming to trade with us, but our own also.” It caused intense suffering and hardship on our people; yet we were technically at peace. Between 1914-17, American lives were lost on the high seas in contravention of international law long before a state of war was declared as existing.
The transition from peace to war is more or less gradual. Often people little know whether they are at war or at peace —perhaps neither. When there has been a declaration of war, it is of course easy; but then we find such cases as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, in which the status is left in doubt. Are they examples of war or of peace? Perhaps it was because both Japan and Italy had renounced “war as an instrument of national policy” that no declaration of war was made, but most people will agree that it was war just the same. Other periods are much more in doubt, as for instance our undeclared war on France of 1798, the period prior to the War of 1812 when Great Britain harassed our shipping, and the recent Soviet-Manchukuoan border fighting.
As we look back in history, the more remote the period, the more events appear to occur of necessity, in which the persons concerned were actuated not by free will but by vital forces which just had to exert themselves. After the Caesars had built up their great empire, the Romans became soft, luxury-loving, and corrupt. They lost their will to fight and hired mercenaries to do it for them. Would it have been right for them to have retained for all time the vast territories they had conquered and to hold other peoples in subjection? No! For it is against the laws of God and nature that the corrupt shall rule the world. War was necessary to make Rome relinquish her hold and to set subject people free.
Few Americans today doubt the correctness of our course in revolting from English domination and in finally severing those bonds in the War of 1812. Only by war could we free ourselves from intolerable conditions. Now, however, the average American as he looks into the future says wars are evil—we must have no more of them—and he tells himself it is senseless for people to fight and kill each other.
We did not always feel that way about it. Only a few decades ago we were an expansionist nation and in a relatively brief span of time we moved westward from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific and across even to the Philippines, and to the southward to the West Indies and Panama. The people of the young republic were imbued with the urge to settle and develop new territory. The West called, and the strong and vigorous responded to face hardship, privation, hostilities, even death. The urge to strive, to contend, and to war moved them. Upon their struggles, their hardship, their fighting, was this nation built.
From the Revolutionary War to the World War, a period of only 134 years, the United States has advanced from a small offshoot of a world power to the greatest power in the world today. Step by step, hardly little by little, by peace and by war, our country was built up in area, in population, in industry, in material resources, to an incomparable degree. Before the World War we were one of the great powers of the world and, although we renounced all material gain at the Treaty of Versailles, the war left us the dominant nation.
The wealth of the United States is astounding when compared to other nations of the world today. We have far more acres of arable land per capita than any other great power. We hold the largest coal and iron reserves, and the second largest oil and forest reserves. The value of our industries exceeds that of any other country. We lead them all in potential water power and in electric power produced. We outstrip by far all others in miles of railway, number of airplanes, number of automobiles, and in miles of motor roads—to mention only a few items. The United States is the only nation which is self-sufficient in the most important natural resources.
If we analyze the resources of the great powers, we will find that Great Britain, the Soviet Republic, and France also have relatively large natural wealth. These nations, together with the United States, may be classified as the great powers “that have.” Germany, Japan, and Italy are relatively poor and fall into the “have not” category.
True, it is human to want more, but on the whole the nations “that have” are satisfied; perhaps too, in the plentitude of well-being, they recognize the right of other people to live, but more likely they fear for their own holdings. Thus, it is the most natural thing in the world for the nations “that have” to denounce war and to endeavor to maintain the status quo. Is there not a bit of irony on the part of those “that have” to say to those “that have not,” “We should now all be satisfied; we should cease contending one against the other; we should put an end to war.” It is not strange that those “that have not” do not feel that way about it. Their urge to live is just as strong, or perhaps stronger, than their more fortunate rivals. They would strive by all means at their disposal to even up this disparity. True, they would prefer peaceful means to gain their ends but they are not averse to war if they cannot gain them by other means. Strong pressure, usually war, is necessary to make nations part with anything that is their own.
What makes the situation worse is the unequal growth in population. The yearly percentage of increase of population is as follows: Soviet Republic, 2.0; Japan, 1.5; Italy, 1.0; Germany, 0.7; United States, 0.6; United Kingdom, 0.5; France, 0.1. To indicate the condition in another way, consider the yearly population increase of these countries per 1,000 acres of arable land: Japan, 67; Italy, 12; Germany, 9; United Kingdom and Soviet Republic both 5; France and the United States both 1. It is apparent that there is a marked disparity in the increase of population of the great powers, and, to aggravate matters, we find that, except for the Russians, it is the “have not” powers that increase faster than those “that have.” The American people can look into the future confident that they can give their offspring a good material heritage. Germany, Japan, and Italy do so with trepidation and say to themselves that something must be done.
Independent of the population increase, the variation in progress made by different peoples acts powerfully to unstabilize conditions. We are prone to think that civilization is on the up grade. Scientists lead us to believe that this is generally true but also that the level of certain peoples is actually descending. What is more important, some races are moving ahead faster than others. Japan would seem to lead the field in this respect, while France lags in comparison with other great powers. Sometimes a nation has latent power which requires only a man of exceptional ability to develop, as once did Napoleon for France and Mussolini in our day for Italy.
Where small material wealth, large population increase, and marked improvement in national strength are coexistent in a state, it is to be expected that its people will not forever live at peace with others. Japan, Germany, and Italy are the great powers in which we find these conditions, and the proof of the argument is that these nations are the trouble centers of the world today. Japan is penetrating inland and is threatening China, Mongolia) and the Soviet Republic. Germany occupies the Rhine and imperils the security of France, while on the east front her moves toward the Danzig Corridor, Memel, Czechoslovakia, and the Ukraine threaten the contiguous states. All Europe lives in dread of Germany’s threatened Anschluss with Austria. Italy on her part has moved into Ethiopia seeking the territory and natural resources of which she is in need.
The human element is in unstable equilibrium and it constantly strives to alter the status quo of the material element to conform thereto. Life is a struggle between man and man, and it cannot be otherwise between nations. Contest between men is governed by law and the force of the government gives teeth to the law. Right governs the actions of some men, but other men are unscrupulous; and law is necessary to protect the former and to control the latter. The lack of righteousness reveals itself in nations as it does in men, for men control the destinies of the state.
Moreover, the right is not nearly so well defined between nations as between individual citizens. We are governed by a code of law as well as by a code of morals. “Thou shalt not steal,” for instance, is a fundamental law handed down from the time of Moses, and it is generally recognized by all peoples. But is it equally binding on nations? Certainly it has not been so considered in the past. National boundaries have been established for thousands of years and with countless changes they have been handed down to us today. Such changes will and must go on, unless and until the utopian era of the brotherhood of man dawns and boundaries no longer exist to stop the flow of peoples from densely to less populated areas, or from undesirable to the better lands.
To govern the affairs between nations, we have an uncertain and incomplete code of international law. Such law is not universally accepted by all states; judge and jury are lacking to interpret the law and to determine the violator. Moreover there is lacking the force necessary to make an unscrupulous nation abide by it.
Every nation has policies which govern its foreign relations. Where these policies are aggressive, where they collide with other states, hostilities will occur, open inflict may ensue, and finally war may have to decide the issue. Policy must indicate the object of the people and force must be provided as necessary to maintain and uphold it. Where policy is defensive, where its interests do not clash with others, or where it is not threatened by aggressive neighbors, the armed force may be small. However, as policy becomes aggressive, as its interests clash with others, the armed force must be increased proportionately. Policy sets the pace and to be effective demands a commensurate armed force.
Where policy and armed force are not to harmony, trouble is to be expected. Historically, this has been a great weakness of the United States, for our policy was aggressive but our armed force was inadequate to the demand. When our policy was backed by adequate force, diplomacy gained its end unaided, as when we came near to a serious rupture with Germany in the Venezuela affair of 1903. On the other hand, we have entered upon wars which might have been avoided by adequate preparation, or which would have been terminated sooner with resultant decrease of loss of life and treasure.
Before our entry into the World War we championed the policy of “freedom of the seas.” It clashed with the policy of Great Britain and Germany and finally led to war with the latter. It is well known that it was in fact our weakness in armed force which prompted Germany to take the fatal step and declare unrestricted submarine warfare. The German General Staff in 1917 carefully weighed in the balance the advantage of unrestricted submarine warfare and the disadvantage of adding the United States to the list of their enemies. They decided that the advantages accruing to them by the former outweighed the latter since the United States was unprepared to engage in war against them. As we know, they guessed wrong, for the submarine campaign did not bring the Allies to their knees within six months as expected and we were given time to develop our potential strength. If our policy had been backed up by proper armed force Germany would have deemed it disadvantageous to engage us and we might have remained out of the war. There can be no clearer example than this of the interrelation between policy and armed force, and if we are wise we will never permit the one to outstrip the other.
Armaments are the most frequent targets of those working for the prevention of war. This is essentially illogical for armament is only a means to an end; it would be much more efficacious to attack the end if that end is leading to war. Even if it were possible to secure general disarmament, it would not keep nations from war because the cause has not been removed. The readiness of a state to go to war is not so much influenced by its condition of armament as by its preparation relative to other nations. If at one stroke all the warships in the world were sunk, then Great Britain would have command of the seas at will, for every merchant ship of her vast fleet can be quickly armed; if all the military and naval aircraft were destroyed, then the United States would have potential supremacy of the air, for a gun or bomb can readily be mounted on every commercial airplane; and if we scrap all guns, tanks, and similar instruments of war, then the country which has large iron, steel, electrical, and chemical industries can dictate to the others. In short, all the arts of peace lend themselves to war purposes upon demand.
Moreover, it is not to be expected that a nation, which has determined that its life depends on a certain end, will forego providing the means to attain that end. It is impelled by vital forces into launching on an aggressive policy and the appeal for disarmament falls on deaf ears. In the countries which have defensive policies, the people may be more easily lulled into a sense of security and thus the seed may find fertile ground. Thus the tendency is that those “that have” lag behind those “that have not” in preparing for war. The balance is destroyed, the “have nots” feel confident, and war ensues.
When the army and navy have political influence, it is quite possible that armaments may conduce to war, but even in this case almost invariably it is policy per se which is most aggressive and consequently the most dangerous. It is well known that in the United States the armed forces are devoid of any political power and consequently it is very unlikely that our condition of armament may lead us to plunge into war. Policy and the lack of co-ordination between armed force and policy are the vital factors which spell peace or war for the United States. If our citizens believe we are heading for war, let them first advocate a less aggressive policy and then a reduction in armed force may follow. Oddly enough, it is the pacifists who frequently advocate the most bellicose policy. Who but they were loudest in calling for embargoes and boycotts when Japan went into Manchuria? These are measures only short of war itself.
To arrive at a suitable solution, our citizens should ask and find answers to the following questions: (1) What should be our policy? (2) What are our vital policies and which are merely desirable? (3) What armed force must be provided to support these policies? (4) In view of the cost of the force required, are the policies worth the price, and if not, are we prepared to accept the resultant limitations on our commerce, industry, finance, etc.? It is easy to say we will restrict our trade, but we must also be prepared to accept reduced profits, which means reduced industry and eventually reduced standards of living. For we cannot give away our cake and eat it too. Jefferson found that out when his Embargo Act of 1807 gave away our foreign trade to France and England, while our ships lay rotting at the wharves and while all those concerned were thrown out of employment.
The first law of a nation is self-preservation and thus the fundamental consideration is the protection of its shores and borders from invasion. The armed force provided must be in proportion to the natural defense of the country, such as its insularity, its proximity to strong, aggressive neighbors, and finally to the wealth of the country. Our possessions also require protection, particularly the Panama Canal and the Hawaiian Islands which are vital to our security. The Philippines are difficult of defense in our present condition. When independence is finally granted to the Filipinos, it should be complete and absolute, and in that case we should renounce all connection, even moral responsibility, to our foster-child. Half-way measures are dangerous to their peace as well as ours.
Our policies chart the course of the nation. They vitally affect our relations with other countries and war clouds always gather when these policies clash with foreign interests. Consequently our people should give this serious consideration- From the broad internationalism of Woodrow Wilson we have progressed steadily on the road to nationalism. Our great war president’s ideal encompassed the peace of the world. We dismissed it as visionary and impracticable; moreover, our own peace appeared to be threatened by embroilment in the troubles of others. We have chosen our course deliberately; let us therefore be consistent by espousing the cause of peace of our own country and mind our own business.
Coincident with the turn back to nationalism, the period since the World War has witnessed a definite trend from an aggressive to a defensive policy. The present administration is consistently pointing in these two directions. More-over it is one of the few of our history that has demonstrated a proper appreciation of the interrelation between policy and armed force. Recognizing that our policy was too aggressive, we drew in our horns in the Orient and at the same time proceeded to build up our armed force. This seems to be the part of wisdom.
There is no panacea for peace. War seems to be preordained in all nature. It is waged relentlessly day and night, year in and year out, in all plant and animal life. It is the survival of the fittest. The strong vanquish the weak and take possession. Particularly is this war instinct ingrained in youth wherever found in nature. The young and growing fights the old and staid. The latter cries, “Peace! Let us preserve the status quo!” But the former replies, “Never! You have fought for your place in the sun and I must fight for mine. I do not have my rightful share and consequently the status quo is unacceptable to me.” So we observe it in all nature. So we observe it in the young man and in the young nation.
Were we all-wise perhaps we would bow our heads to the inevitable and say to Japan, for instance, as she grows in strength faster than we do, “You are cramped for space and lack raw materials, while we have a superfluity of both. Let us give you the Philippine Islands.” Then, as she grew further, perhaps Holland might cede her the Dutch East Indies. We might, but it is not at all likely. It would run counter to all history, where those in possession have yielded to the growing only upon strong pressure, usually war.
Like Rome in years gone by, we now stand at the pinnacle of our power. The former maintained her position as a great power for several hundred years before the “barbarians” closed in on her and tore her limb from limb. Perhaps we can maintain our position as a great power as long as she did. Geographically, materially, and in other ways, we are more favored than she was then, but we are living faster and the signs of the times point to a more rapid deterioration of our fibre. Hardy as the Romans were, they became soft when they settled down to the enjoyment of the fruits of their victories. Luxury is also sapping our strength as a nation.
If we truly would preserve the peace, let us not, like the ostrich, hide our heads in the sand, but let us be watchful. As long as we can maintain our strength as a nation, the virility of our manhood, and a correct national policy supported by an adequate armed force, just so long will we be permitted to enjoy the fruits of peace and our position as a great power.