Part 3 (1/2)

This suggests the question whether such a manufacturer is a safe pilot for a peace movement, however generously it may be subsidized, and whether an armor-plate mill and a peace palace are appropriate trace-mates. It would be unfortunate if the subtle influence of subconscious self-interest should creep into peace councils or affect the policy of a peace movement. However that may be, the theory that armaments prevent war has been pretty well exploded by recent events.

The Pacificists, in case of war, have no plan of their own to propose.

_They, too, leave that to the Militarists._

Then we have the _Pacificators_.

They advocate disarmament and a tribunal of peace in the nature of an international court to determine international differences and make binding decrees; and they propose the establishment of an international army and navy under the control of that court to enforce its decrees. Of course it must be conceded that this plan may fail, or its success be long delayed, and that in the meantime it affords no guarantee of peace.

The Pacificators, however, propose no plan in the event of war.

_They also leave that to the Militarists._

Finally comes the Woman's Movement for Constructive Peace, out of which has grown the organization of the Woman's Peace Party.

Much may be hoped for from this organization if it will concentrate its strength, and not try to do too many things at once.

If the women of the world will unite and put the same militant force behind the peace movement that they have put behind the suffrage movement they can end wars. There is no doubt of that. But it will require world-wide organization, good generals.h.i.+p, and great concentration of effort. ”One thing at a time” should be their motto.

The following platform was adopted by the Woman's Peace Party:

”The purpose of this organization is to enlist all American women in arousing the nations to respect the sacredness of human life and to abolish war. (1) The immediate calling of a convention of neutral nations in the interest of early peace. (2) Limitations of armaments and the nationalization of their manufacture.

(3) Organized opposition to militarism in our own country. (4) Education of youth in the ideals of peace.

(5) Democratic control of foreign policies. (6) The further humanizing of governments by the extension of the franchise to women. (7) Concert of nations to supersede 'balance of power.' (8) Action toward the general organization of the world to subst.i.tute law for war. (9) The subst.i.tution of an international police for rival armies and navies. (10) Removal of the economic causes of war. (11) The appointment by our government of a commission of men and women, with an adequate appropriation, to promote international peace.”

That platform is a well condensed outline of a very comprehensive program.

It covers the whole ground. Some of the things it advocates ought to be possible of accomplishment within a few years. Others will require generations. For example, it is well to frankly face the eventual necessity for it, but democratic control of the foreign policies of Germany and Russia, for instance, must be worked out by the people of those countries, possibly through b.l.o.o.d.y political revolutions.

However, faith and not skepticism was the reason for publis.h.i.+ng this platform in full. The tenth plank, ”Removal of the economic causes of war,”

would include many features of the plan proposed in this book. As embodied in the book, the plan is specific. The platform is a generalization, and might include many other plans.

But it will be observed that the platform does not suggest any plan as to what should be done by the Woman's Peace Party in the event of war or to safeguard the country from the dangers of actual war. They must concede that war may occur, pending the partial or entire success of their campaign to establish universal peace throughout the world. But they propose no plan covering the contingency of war.

_They likewise leave that to the Militarists._

So, although we have plans galore to promote peace, we have in case of war no plans except those of the Militarists.

They have three plans:

_First:_ A standing army large enough for any contingency.

_Second:_ A standing army, reenforced by state militia.

_Third:_ A standing army with a reserve composed of men who have served a term of enlistment in the regular army.

None of these plans could be relied on for national defense in the event of war between the United States and any one of the great world powers. That will be fully demonstrated in the subsequent chapters of this book.

To insure the national safety as against such a contingency, a standing army of over 500,000 men would be necessary. It would cost this country $600,000,000 a year to maintain such a standing army, and the army itself would be a more dangerous menace than a foreign invasion.