More than one hundred and fifty years ago, a man named Knox recommended a Peace Establishment in the form of a compulsory military training bill; President Washington presented it to Congress in January, 1790. In the month of January, more than one hundred and fifty years later, another man named Knox advocated one year’s compulsory military training for every young boy when he reached the age of 17 or 18. He declared,
There is no safety in unpreparedness. Furthermore, the unspeakable folly of the theory that we arc more likely to resort to war or become involved in war because we are reasonably prepared against that danger has been made so plain that few will be found to deny it!
The first man was General Henry Knox, Secretary of War. The second man was the late Colonel Frank Knox, former Secretary of the Navy, and both men recommended a peace insurance policy with a double indemnity clause—the collection of an excellent Navy and Army if peace should die.
As a sequel, when President Washington’s First Congress convened they lacked time to pass any bill calling for a Permanent Peace Establishment of armed men. When the Second Congress convened, another National Defense Bill was introduced by the Honorable Jeremiah Wadsworth, of Connecticut. A committee took the bill under consideration, and when it emerged in May, 1792, it was so mutilated that a thoroughly disgusted Jeremiah Wadsworth refused even to cast a vote. In turn, a First Executive put his signature to the bill only because he was adverse to using his veto powers. A century and a half later, a James Wadsworth, of New York, introduced a bill to Congress, once more calling for a Permanent Peace Establishment in the form of a compulsory military training law.
It was generally hoped that this bill would not follow the tortuous bypaths that its forerunner saw between 1790, date of introduction, and 1920, date of its emergence as a halfhearted National Defense Bill which left us less than half prepared for the explosion in 1941. Going on that premise, we might expect to see compulsory military training in effect in a.d. 2075. However, while we talked about Peace Insurance for 150 years and promoted little action, our Latin American neighbors went into action and within fifteen days promoted us into a position where we are practically forced to buy the Policy. We have talked about Hemispheric Defense, and now we have to “put up or shut up.”
At present, there are two measures before the Congress awaiting action, one written by Senator Gurney and Representative Wadsworth, and another introduced on January 3, 1945, by Representative May.
There is a difference in the phrasing of the peace policies, but the principles remain identical. Briefly, the terms of the Wads- worth-Gurney bill call for military training for all American boys, and all alien boys residing in this country for a period of one year, between the ages of 18 and 21. The boys may elect whether their training shall begin when they reach the age of 18 or whether it shall be deferred for not more than three years. After this training shall have been completed, these boys will be enrolled as Reservists in the land or naval forces for a period of four years and shall be subject to such additional refresher training as may be prescribed by law. If a man, after completing his year’s training, serves for a year in either the Army, Navy, or National Guard, or Organized Reserves for a period of at least three years, he will be relieved from further liability for training as a Reservist. The boys are to be given opportunity to say whether their training shall be in the Army or Navy; as far as practicable, their preferences will be followed.
The proposed military training law will not go into effect until six months after the President has proclaimed war ended, or until six months after the date specified as the end of the war in a concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress, depending on which date is the earlier.
To touch the high spots of the May bill, it would supersede the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940 as soon as inductions are halted under that Act. It would set the draft age at 17, or upon completion of high school, whichever came the earlier; and would extend the obligation for service as a Reservist to eight years.
Secretary of Navy James V. Forrestal; Secretary of War Henry J. Stimson; General George C. Marshall, Admiral Ernest J. King, and General H. II. Arnold are wholeheartedly convinced that the best way to avoid war after this one is won is for the United States to be prepared and to let the world know that this nation is a power in fact and does not intend to be caught napping again.
Further, these leaders are convinced that the best way to impress this upon the world is to act now and to provide universal military training; thus piling up a reserve force in peacetime at the rate of at least 1,000,000 youths per year, and to keep the Navy as intact as possible. In this connection, the late Secretary Knox once stated,
No one should be exempt, rich and poor, boys from the city and boys from the farm, boys of all races and religions, all should be made to shoulder the common responsibility of personal preparedness as a shield for the future security of our country. Properly used, a year’s service with the colors would provide for every young man a chance to enjoy the benefits of occupational guidance,
and there would be no military castes formed, as so many fear.
Samplings among the enlisted men of the armed forces show that while the men want to finish this war and return to their homes, they echo the words of their leaders and are in favor of the training plans. From a questionnaire, it has been estimated that two- thirds of our fighting men voted in favor of military training for all young men in peacetime.
Public opinion today also appears to favor a permanent maintenance of a mighty military establishment on land and sea. One year of government service for all young men, the proposal twice brought to the country’s attention by President Roosevelt and endorsed by many civic clubs or other types of organizations, is supported by parents with and without sons. Some parents are in favor of extending the training to include the girls as well. Strangely enough, a majority have favored the principle of a peacetime government service for young people which lasts more than a year; Major George Fielding Eliot, in his testimony before a congressional committee, stated, too, that his chief objection was that the service was “too short to accomplish its purpose.”
Among the famous and popular organizations that have “gone all out” for compulsory military training are the American Legion and similar groups made up of 1917-18 veterans who continued all through the twenties and thirties to plead for universal military training. These groups would now like to see the system go into effect as soon as Selective Service comes to an end. In that way, boys just a bit too young to be called in the present emergency would not miss peacetime training; also, action at this time would make it possible for the Navy to determine what bases and airfields it wants to maintain and probably would save large sums of money in the disposal of surplus material. Peacetime conscription, the American Legion contends, not only would teach youths essential skills for civilian use, but would also ease the expected unemployment situation after the war. Prior to the entrance of the United States in the war, they point out, nearly 4,000,000 young men and women were neither in school nor gainfully employed. It has been estimated by some sources that compulsory military training would absorb about 2,000,000 young men annually.
Opponents of conscription, however, advance the argument that this method of draining off man power is artificial and harmful in that it avoids the reforms needed to solve the real problems of unemployment. Further, the continuing of a military program in peacetime would result in a lower standard of living for the nation and would be too costly. In this connection, the experts have computed the cost of the training would range from $1,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 a year. Taking the lower figure as an example, we have spent enough on World War II, thanks to pacifists, to pay for more than 200 years of military training for the youth of the nation—more years of Peace Insurance than the nation, itself, has been in existence —because our display of puny military strength encouraged Japan to attack Pearl Harbor while Germany put us on record as blind, dumb fools. Those who believe I am manipulating the figures may, if they wish, take the $4,000,000,000 for their argument against military training. At that figure for annual costs—we still might have escaped two wars and the doubly expensive depression followed by still a third war.
The dissenters will indeed be out in full cry and may be expected to impede the legislation to the best of “their histrionic and parliamentary abilities” every time universal military training is mentioned. In glancing over more of their arguments, one does not know whether to be amused or disgusted. The members of Congress who have been listening to their testimony ran the gamut of expressions—with one exception, never once did they register “indifference” to the debates.
“Compulsory military training is against our traditions,” declared one witness.
This, of course, shows that the person neither remembered our own history nor read the training bills very carefully.
It was “against tradition” for women to shoot firearms promiscuously—until the pioneers landed in an Indian ambush and the women manned the muskets as well as the men. It was not traditional for women doctors to serve in the military forces—until it was proved that skirts had no bearing upon a person’s ability to wield a scalpel. Furthermore, the military training bills do not call for the young men to become professional sailors or soldiers. Nor yet, declare the authors of the bills, is any conscription act meant to increase our standing Army and Navy for the purpose of aggression.
After testifying each time, witnesses undoubtedly step into an automobile (their ancestors said it was traditional to walk unless a horse was handy) and drive home to a brick apartment (a hangover from the cliff dwellers); they turn on an electric light (their ancestors used the traditional oil, then gas), and later consume a meal cooked on an electric stove (instead of the traditional open fireplace). Then they aver, “This government is out of date. Now if they would only listen to me,” etc.
In the face of statements from men who made a study of the subject from the time of President Washington’s own plan for a Permanent Peace Establishment, we still hear a witness assert, “we do not believe in the imminence of invasion which would be the only reason, in our opinion, for conscription.” This person apparently overlooks the fact that we forestalled invasion by fighting on someone else’s homeland; something we may not have an opportunity to repeat.
Despite the fact that aircraft make flights between here and Europe, a witness innocently stated, “we still think that the 3,000 miles of water between us and Europe are a great protection.”
By that assertion the witness contradicts the parents, grandparents and possibly the great-grandparents of persons living in eastern coastal cities during the last century. The wide expanse of the Atlantic certainly did not cool the fears of the eastern populations around 1888 when the late Rear Admiral Richard P. Leary told the Germans they could not have the Samoa Islands. Because of this audacity, rumor said, the German Navy was steaming for New York with its guns primed for action. Nor yet did that body of water bolster the morale of the same localities during the war with Spain when it was learned that Cervera’s squadron was at sea; the clamoring of the people kept the U. S. Navy at Hampton Roads when it should have been in the Caribbean.
Then just to be ornery and rub it in a little bit, let’s point out that the broad Pacific did not protect Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, Midway, Attu, Kiska, and it most assuredly was not shells fired by cockeyed Yankee gunners that splattered areas of our west coast.
Another argument advanced is that our possessing a large military establishment would lead us into war more quickly. An appropriate retort to that was given by our own Secretary of Navy Forrestal,
Possession of force by those who love peace docs not lead to war. On the contrary, to our bitter cost, we have found that lack of armed forces on the part of those who live peacefully makes their desire an empty and futile one.
In addition, Secretary Forrestal gave three suggestions, which from the Navy’s point of view, would provide us with a fairly peaceful hemisphere, for a while: (1) Getting on the statute books of the country as speedily as possible, a law for universal and compulsory military training of our youth; (2) a close and continuing study of national security based on constant vigilance in world problems, maintenance of scientific research on basic materials, and care that economy is not the sole criterion of what we shall spend on our Army and Navy; (3) retention of a strong Navy with sea and air power serving as an instrument for the maintenance of world peace rather than stimulus for war.
Looking back across to the years following each war it can be seen that after the first few years there was always an apathy toward military preparedness. The feeling was a natural and common desire to eliminate everything that recalled memories of war, a desire that was fostered by opponents of military training. In the light of these experiences, it is no surprise that military leaders are so insistent that Congress take action now before the current war is finished.
“This is the best time to deal with the matter,” they assert. “We know something about the holocaust of war, about the terrible waste of lives and wealth. Now is the time to make use of our experience. If there is going to be a breakdown of our whole concern, we know how hard it would be to overcome our inertia and rebuild it.”
At this writing, Congress seems to favor some form of universal training based both on the argument of preparedness and improvements in the nation’s health, but its final style cannot, as yet, be fashioned.
In casting about for a possible model, researchers produced the amazing evidence that the nation with the most rigid compulsory military training system has been the least troublesome and aggressive, as far as world peace is concerned—Switzerland. The military training system of that country, often cited as a possible pattern for the United States, not only has the most inclusive plan of training with regard to types of weapons but covers the longest period in a man’s life. The boys in the elementary grades are given complete physical training, with corrective exercises for those having defects; basic military drills are taught in the higher grades and the boys are encouraged to join rifle clubs; compulsory military training starts at the age of 20, but by that time they have been so well trained in so many combat techniques that they are able to complete the new training in about 65 or 90 days. A youth is then subject to brief retraining periods or regular military service until he is 60 years old. In other words, he is liable to call to the colors anytime during 40 years of his natural life.
Just to give a fill-in on peacetime conscription, it has prevailed in Europe for decades and in all but four of the Latin American nations; it is enforced in Japan, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, and Liberia. Military forces have been maintained by voluntary enlistment only in the United States, British Empire, Mexico, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, and Uruguay. The conscripts on completion of their active service, in various countries, became Reservists and for a number of years were summoned periodically for retraining courses; this period lasted for twenty-one years in little Netherlands and in gigantic Russia. In France, young men were required to devote two years to active service starting at the age of 20 and they remained subject to call up to the age of 48. German youths were given two years of service beginning at the age of 20, belonged to the Reserve until 35, and were members of the Landwehr until 45. Their military service was preceded by indoctrination in youth organizations and labor camps. Italy had a similar system of youth groups. Irrespective of which way the opponents turn, they can conjure examples of compulsory military training which will prove good foundations for their debates. But, according to official sources, like most things produced by conjurers, “it will be just the same stuff that dreams are made of.”
Those same opponents, moreover, are most assuredly going to be up against a Triple Threat Combination which will be hard to beat. First there will be the Army and Navy whose views are known. Then there will be the organizations who favor compulsory military training. Third, there will be those who want an adequate Navy —to be where they want it—when they want it—and big enough to do some good when it gets there. This last group are going to find themselves in the position of voting enough men into uniform to man that Navy. This adds up to the fact that the answers to “Whether we shall have an adequate Navy” and “Whether we shall have compulsory military training” are so closely related as to form practically a single answer.
Again we find that Congress is dotted with men who are just as much in the mood for keeping the Navy after the war as they are for passing a law that will insure enough men to keep that Navy on the seas. Gleaning a word here, a phrase there, and a sentence somewhere else and then putting them altogether, we have a prediction which will interest the Navy as a whole.
After the war, the men on Capitol Hill said, we should maintain the largest and most powerful Navy and the greatest air force in the world. Never again will we scrap battleships at the expense of the taxpayer’s money, as well as our security and freedom. Likewise, we must not let apathy, misapplied economy, or the influence of misguided pacifists weaken our Navy; a weak Navy is an invitation to hostility and treachery. In fact, sentiment must be built for a Navy before the pacifists once more get into control. One man asserted that he would continue to support the Navy to the fullest of his ability and also to appropriate as much money for its development and maintenance as the taxpayers could afford.
In this prediction, an interesting sidelight is developed by the assertion that not until an international organization to maintain peace has been established and demonstrated its effectiveness over a period of years could we afford even to consider any reduction in our naval strength. Our rapidly forming International Organization, too, has been snatched up as an argument against compulsory military training on the theory that with the world allied against war there would be no necessity for strong armed forces in the land. Of this, Senators Connally, McKellar, Overton, and Gerry have said that whether we join the international Organization to promote post-war peace and security, or refuse, we need to maintain a strong Navy, not only to preserve security at home, but also to suppress invasion and conquest by barbaric characters such as those who forced us into the present war.
In this same vein, Assistant Secretary of War John L. McCloy stated that, in his opinion, a plan for universal military training in the United States would not discourage any organization for world peace. On the contrary, he pointed out, it would encourage it because
Germany’s success in gathering her satellites has been due to the fact that these smaller nations could not depend upon any relatively prompt intercession in their interests against Germany. If Europe had had the knowledge that we were willing and had some capacity to throw a block in the way of the aggressor, the smaller nations would be more resistant and independent minded.
Admiral King’s concise thought on the matter is that “It is doubly important that we give much thought now that we retain a Navy capable of enforcing the will of peace- minded nations and of preventing another world upheaval.” But, in the final analysis, to use the words of Admiral William J. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt,
It is for all the people of the United States to decide whether or not we shall have a repetition of our altruistic gesture of 1921 when we volunteered to destroy our finest warships for an illusory notion that human nature can be changed by kind words, hope, and a signed paper.
The writer is most assuredly not plugging for Switzerland’s system of compulsory military training, but the fact is all too evident that the Swiss hold no “illusory notion that human nature can be changed” nor bank “on kind words, hope, and a signed paper” to preserve peace; further we have evidence that democracy and universal military training can exist inside the same boundaries—has existed for more than half a thousand years. All of which boils down to “it is just possible that promiscuous domestic defensive operations might have forestalled all foreign offensive aspirations and the means to conduct war must be in the hands of those who hate war.” Power may be used to promote Peace or War—it all depends upon who has it—and why.