{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_65731/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_65731","id":"gutenberg_65731","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65731","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Peace"],"text":"THIS\n    TROUBLED\n    WORLD\n\n\n\n\n    THIS\n    TROUBLED\n    WORLD\n\n\n    ELEANOR ROOSEVELT\n\n    MCMXXXVIII\n    H. C. KINSEY & COMPANY, INC.\n    NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n    COPYRIGHT, 1938, BY ANNA ELEANOR ROOSEVELT\n\n    PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. BY J.\u00a0J. LITTLE & IVES, N.Y.\n\n    FIRST EDITION\n\n\n\n\n    To\n    MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT\n    who has led so many of us\n    in the struggle for peace\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    THE CASE AS IT STANDS            1\n\n    ULTIMATE OBJECTIVES             14\n\n    IMMEDIATE STEPS                 27\n\n    SUMMARY                         44\n\n\n\n\nTHIS TROUBLED WORLD\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CASE AS IT STANDS\n\n\nThe newspapers these days are becoming more and more painful. I was\nreading my morning papers on the train not so long ago, and looked up\nwith a feeling of desperation. Up and down the car people were reading,\nyet no one seemed excited.\n\nTo me the whole situation seems intolerable. We face today a world\nfilled with suspicion and hatred. We look at Europe and see a civil\nwar going on, with other nations participating not only as individual\nvolunteers, but obviously with the help and approval of their\ngovernments. We look at the Far East and see two nations, technically\nnot at war, killing each other in great numbers.\n\nEvery nation is watching the others on its borders, analyzing its own\nneeds and striving to attain its ends with little consideration for the\nneeds of its neighbors. Few people are sitting down dispassionately to\ngo over the whole situation in an attempt to determine what present\nconditions are, or how they should be met.\n\nWe know, for instance, that certain nations today need to expand\nbecause their populations have increased. Certain people will tell you\nthat the solution of this whole question lies in the acceptance or\nrejection of birth control. That may be the solution for the future,\nbut we can do nothing in that way about the populations that now exist.\nThey are on this earth, and modern science has left us only a few\nplaces where famine or flood or disease can wipe out large numbers of\nsuperfluous people in one fell swoop. For this reason certain nations\nneed additional territory to which part of their present populations\nmay be moved; other nations need more land on which to grow necessary\nraw materials; or perhaps they may need mineral deposits which are not\nto be found in their own country. You will say that these can be had by\ntrade. Yes, but the nations possessing them will frequently make the\ncost too high to the nations which need them.\n\nIt is not a question today of the \u201cfree\u201d interchange of goods. If\nstandards of living were approximately the same, throughout the world,\ncompetition would be on an equal basis and then there might be no need\nfor tariffs. However, standards of living vary. The nations with higher\nstandards have set up protective barriers which served them well when\nthey were self-contained, but not so well when they reached a point\nwhere they either wished to import or export.\n\nWhen you take all these things into consideration, the size of this\nproblem is apt to make you feel that even an attempt to solve it in the\nfuture by education is futile. Faint heart, however, ne\u2019er won fair\nlady, nor did it ever solve world problems!\n\nPeace plan after peace plan has been presented to me; most of them,\nI find, are impractical, or not very carefully thought out. In nearly\nall of them some one can find a flaw. I have come to look at them now\nwithout the slightest hope of finding one full-fledged plan, but I keep\non looking in the hope of finding here and there some small suggestion\nthat may be acceptable to enough people to insure an honest effort\nbeing made to study it and evaluate its possible benefits.\n\nFor instance, one lady of my acquaintance brought me a plan this past\nspring which sounded extremely plausible. Her premises are: We never\nagain wish to send our men overseas; we wish to have adequate defense;\nwe do not need a navy if we do not intend to go beyond our own shores;\nsubmarines and airplanes can defend our shores, with guns along our\ncoasts as an added protection. Therefore, we do not need an army, for\nour men are going to stay at home. With our coast defenses strong,\nnobody will land here, so why go to the expense of an army? We do not\nneed battleships or, in fact, any navy beyond submarines because we do\nnot intend to own any outlying possessions.\n\nIn this way, said the lady, we will save vast sums of money which can\nbe applied to all the social needs of the day--better housing, better\nschools, old age pensions, workmen\u2019s compensation, care of the blind\nand crippled and other dependents. There is no limit to what we might\ndo with this money which we now spend on preparation for destruction.\n\nIt is a very attractive picture and I wish it were all as simple as\nthat, but it seems to be fairly well proved that guns along our coasts\nare practically useless. No one, as far as I know, has ever devised an\nadequate defense by submarines and airplanes, or calculated whether the\ncost of the development of these two forces would really be any less\nthan what we spend at present on our army and navy.\n\nThe greatest defense value of the navy is that its cruising radius is\ngreat enough to allow it to contact an attacking force long before\nthat force reaches our shores. If we trusted solely to submarines and\nairplanes we would have to have them in sufficient number really to\ncover all our borders, and this type of defense would seem to be almost\nprohibitive in cost for a nation with a great many miles of border to\ndefend.\n\nHas any one sounded out the people of this country as to their\nwillingness to wait until an attacking enemy comes within the cruising\nradius of our planes and submarines? Have we faced the fact that this\nwould mean allowing an attacking enemy to come unmolested fairly near\nto our shores and would make it entirely possible for them to land\nin a nearby country which might be friendly to them, without any\ninterference on our part? Have our citizens been asked if they are\nwilling to take the risk of doing without trained men? We have always\nhad a small trained army forming the first line of defense in case\nsomebody does land on our borders, or attempts to approach us by land\nthrough a neighboring country. Our army has not been thought of as an\nattacking force; do we want to do away with it?\n\nAre all the people in this country willing also to give up the outlying\nislands which have come into our possession? Some of them cost us more\nthan they bring in, but others bring certain of our citizens a fair\nrevenue. Can we count on those citizens to accept the loss of these\nrevenues in the interests of future peace?\n\nPerhaps this is part of what we will have to make up our minds to\npay some day as the price of peace; but has any one as yet put it in\nconcrete form to the American people and asked their opinion about it?\n\nOne of the things that is most frequently harped upon is the vast sums\nof money spent for war preparation in this country. Very frequently the\nstatements are somewhat misleading. It is true that in the past few\nyears we have spent more than we have for a number of preceding years\nbecause we had fallen behind in our treaty strength but, in a world\nwhich is arming all around us, it is necessary to keep a certain parity\nand these expenditures should be analyzed with a little more care than\nis usual.\n\nFor instance, few people realize that in the army appropriation is\nincluded all the work done under the army engineers on rivers and\nharbors, on flood control, etc. One other consideration which is\nfrequently overlooked is that, because of the higher wages paid for\nlabor in this country, whatever we build costs us more than it does\nin the other nations. One significant fact is that we only spend\ntwelve percent of our national income on our army and navy, as against\nanywhere from thirty-five to fifty-five percent of the national income\nspent by nations in the rest of the world. It is well for us to realize\nthese facts and not to feel that our government is doing something that\nwill push us into a position which is incompatible with a desire for\npeace. We are the most peace loving nation in the world and we are not\ndoing anything at present which would change that situation.\n\nOne very intelligent friend of mine developed an idea the other day\nwhich seems to me common sense for the present time, at least. \u201cWhy\ndo we talk,\u201d she asked, \u201cabout peace? Why don\u2019t we recognize the fact\nthat it is normal and natural for differences to exist? Almost every\nfamily, no matter how close its members may be, is quarrelsome at\ntimes.\u201d Quarrelsome may be too strong a word, so we might better say\nthat differences of opinion arise in the family as to conduct or as to\nlikes and dislikes. Why should we expect therefore, that nations will\nnot have these same differences and quarrels? Why do we concentrate on\nurging them not to have any differences? Why don\u2019t we simply accept\nthe fact that differences always come up and concentrate on evolving\nsome kind of machinery by which the differences may be recognized and\nsome plan of compromise be worked out to satisfy, at least in part,\nall those concerned? Compromises, of course, have to be made; they are\nmade in every family. There are usually some members of a family, who,\nby common consent, are the arbitrators of questions that arise, and\nwho hold the family together, or bring them together if relationships\nbecome strained.\n\nThe League of Nations was an effort to find for the nations of\nthe world, a method by which differences between nations would\nautomatically be brought before the court of public opinion. Some\nkind of compromise would be made and those involved would feel that\nsubstantial justice had been done, even though they might not at any\none time achieve all of their desires.\n\nMany of us have become convinced that the League of Nations as it\nstands today cannot serve this purpose. The reason for this is\nunimportant. The important thing now is that we should concentrate on\nfinding some new machinery or revamping what already exists so that\nevery one will function within it and have confidence in its honesty.\n\nThe people of the United States have congratulated themselves on the\nfact that they had made a beginning towards the development of this\nmachinery in their conferences with the representatives of the other\nAmerican governments.\n\nPerhaps we have a right to feel a sense of satisfaction for as a nation\nwe have made a small beginning. We were cordially disliked throughout\nSouth America for years because we were the strongest nation on this\ncontinent. We took the attitude of the big brother for a long time and\nconstituted ourselves the defender of all the other nations. We were\nnot only the defender, however, we also considered it our duty to set\nourselves up as the judge, and the only judge, of what should happen in\nthe internal as well as the external affairs of our various neighbors.\n\nTo them it seemed a bullying, patronizing attitude. As they grew\nstronger, they resented it, but we went right on regardless of their\nfeelings. During the past few years we have put ourselves imaginatively\ninto their situation. The final result is that we have reached an\namicable understanding and actually are in a fair way to get together\nand discuss subjects of mutual interest with little or no sense\nof suspicion and fear being involved in the discussion. This can,\nof course, be spoiled at any time by the selfishness of individual\ncitizens who may decide that, as individuals, they can exploit some\nother nation on the North or South American continents. The restraint\nof these individuals will not be a question of government action,\nbut of the force of public opinion which, it is to be hoped, will be\nable to control and exert a potent influence because of the sense of\nresponsibility acquired by our citizens.\n\nThis is satisfactory, but there is still much to be done before we\ncan feel that even here in the Americas we have a thoroughly sound\nworking basis for solving all misunderstandings. We cannot be entirely\nsatisfied with anything, however, which does not include the world as a\nwhole, for we are all so closely interdependent today that we can only\noperate successfully when we all cooperate.\n\nWe have had the experience and can profit by the mistakes and the\ndifficulties through which the League of Nations has passed. Every\nnation in the world still uses policemen to control its unruly element.\nIt may be that any machinery set up today to deal with international\ndifficulties may require policemen in order to function successfully,\nbut even a police force should not be called upon until every other\nmethod of procedure has been tried and proved unsuccessful.\n\nWe have some economic weapons which can be used first and which may\nprove themselves very efficient as the guardians of peace.\n\n\n\n\nULTIMATE OBJECTIVES\n\n\nWhat are our ultimate objectives and how shall we achieve them? First,\nthe most important thing is that any difficulties arising should\nautomatically go before some body which will publish the facts to\nthe world at large and give public opinion an opportunity to make a\ndecision. Then, a group of world representatives will have to decide\nwith whom the fault lies. If their decision is not accepted by the\nnations involved and either nation attempts to use force in coercing\nthe other nation, or nations--in opposition to what is clearly the\nmajority opinion of the world--then and then only, it seems to me, the\ndecision will be made that the nation using force is an aggressor\nnation. Being an aggressor, the majority of nations in opposition\nwould be obliged to resort to some method designed to make that nation\nrealize that they could not with impunity flout the public opinion of\nthe majority.\n\nWe need to define what an aggressor nation is. We need to have a\ntribunal where the facts in any case may be discussed, and the decision\nmade before the world, as to whether a nation is an aggressor or not.\nThen the steps decided upon could be taken in conjunction with other\nnations.\n\nFirst of all, trade should be withdrawn from that nation and they\nshould be barred as traders in the countries disagreeing with them.\nIt would not seem probable that more than this economic weapon would\nhave to be used but, if necessary in the end, the police force could be\ncalled upon.\n\nIn the case of a clearly defined issue where the majority of nations\nagreed, the police force would simply try to prevent bloodshed and\naggression, and it would be in a very different position from an army\nwhich was attempting to attack a country and subjugate it. Even the use\nof a police force, which so many think of as tantamount to war, would\nreally be very different and there would be no idea of marching into a\ncountry or making the people suffer or taking anything from them. It\nwould simply be a group of armed men preventing either of the parties\nto a quarrel from entering into a real war.\n\nOf course, I can imagine cases in which the police force might find\nitself in an unenviable position, with two countries engaged in a\nheated quarrel trying to do away with the police so they could get at\neach other!\n\nAll we can hope is that this situation will not arise and that the\nnon-aggressor party to the quarrel, at least, may be willing to sit\npeacefully by and see the police force repulse the enemy without\nwishing to turn into aggressors themselves.\n\nWith all our agitation about peace, we lose sight of the fact that with\nthe proper machinery it is easier to keep out of situations which lead\nto war than it is to bring about peace once war is actually going on.\n\nI doubt very much whether peace is coming to us either through plans,\neven my own as I have outlined it, or through any of the theories or\nhopes we now hold. What I have outlined is not real peace, just a\nmethod of trying to deal with our difficulties a little better than\nwe have in the past, in the world as it is today. We may, of course,\nbe wiped off the face of the earth before we do even this. Our real\nultimate objective must be a change in human nature for I have, as\nI said, yet to see a peace plan which is really practical and which\nhas been thought through in every detail. Therefore, I am inclined to\nbelieve that there is no perfect and complete program for bringing\nabout peace in the world at the present moment.\n\nI often wonder as I look around the world whether any of us, even\nwe women, really want peace. Women should realize better than any\none else, that the spirit of peace has to begin in the relationship\nbetween two individuals. They know that a child alone may be unhappy\nbecause he is alone, but there will be no quarreling until another\nchild appears on the scene, and then the fur will fly, if each of them\ndesires the same thing at the same time.\n\nWomen have watched this for generations and must know, if peace is\ngoing to come about in the world, the way to start is by getting a\nbetter understanding between individuals. From this germ a better\nunderstanding between groups of people will grow.\n\nIn spite of this knowledge, I am sure that women themselves are among\nthe worst offenders when it comes to petty quarrels. Mrs. J---- will\nrefuse to speak to Mrs. C---- because Mrs. C----\u2019s dog came through\nthe hedge and mussed up Mrs. J----\u2019s flowerbed. No one will deny that\noccurrences of this kind are irritating in the extreme, but is it worth\na feud between two neighbors, perhaps old friends or even acquaintances\nwho must live next door to each other and see each other almost every\nday?\n\nAt the moment we, as a nation, are looking across the Atlantic and the\nPacific, patting ourselves on the back and saying how fortunate we are\nto be away from all their excitements. We feel a little self-righteous,\nand forget that we ourselves have been engaged in a war on the average\nof every forty years since our nation was founded. We even fought a\ncivil war, complicated by the alignment of other nations with one side\nor the other, though no foreign soldiers actually came to fight on\neither side.\n\nThe people who settled in New England came here for religious freedom,\nbut religious freedom to them meant freedom only for their kind of\nreligion. They were not going to be any more liberal to others who\ndiffered with them in this new country, than others had been with them\nin the countries from which they came. This attitude seems to be our\nattitude in many situations today.\n\nVery few people in any nation today are inclined to be really liberal\nin allowing real freedom to other individuals. Like our forebears we\nwant freedom for ourselves, but not for those who differ from us.\nTo think and act as we please within the limits, of course, caused\nby the necessity for respecting the equal rights which must belong\nto our neighbors, would seem to be almost a platitudinous doctrine,\nyet we would frequently like to overlook these limits and permit no\nfreedom to our neighbors. If this is our personal attitude, it is not\nstrange that our national attitude is similar. We are chiefly concerned\nwith the rights and privileges of our own people and we show little\nconsideration for the rights and privileges of others. In this we are\nnot very different from other nations both in the past and in the\npresent.\n\nI can almost count on the fingers of one hand the people whom I think\nare real pacifists. By that I mean, the people who are really making\nan effort in their personal lives to bring about an atmosphere which\nwill be conducive to a solution of all our difficulties in a peaceful\nmanner.\n\nThe first step towards achieving this end is self-discipline and\nself-control. The second is a certain amount of imagination which\nwill enable us to understand situations in which other people find\nthemselves. We may learn to be less indignant at any slight or seeming\nslight, and we may try to find some way by which to remove the cause of\nthe troubles which arise between individuals, if we become disciplined\nand cultivate our imaginative faculties. Once we achieve a technique\nby which we control our own emotions, we certainly will be better able\nto teach young people how to get on together. They may then find some\nsaner way of settling questions under dispute than by merely punching\neach other\u2019s noses!\n\nWhen we once control ourselves and submit personal differences to\nconstituted authorities for settlement, we can say that we have a will\nto peace between individuals. Before we come to the question of what\nmay be the technique between nations, however, we must go a step\nfarther and set our national house in order. On every hand we see\ntoday miniature wars going on between conflicting interests. As the\nexample most constantly before us, take capital and labor. If their\ndifficulties are settled by arbitration and no blood is shed, we can\nfeel we have made real strides towards approaching our international\nproblems. We are not prepared to do this, however, when two factions\nin a group having the same basic interests cannot come to an agreement\nbetween themselves. Their ability to obtain what they desire is greatly\nweakened until they can reach an understanding and work as a unit.\nThe basis of this understanding should not be hard to reach if the\ndifferent personalities involved could forget themselves as individuals\nand think only of the objectives in view, and of the best way to obtain\nthem.\n\nGranted that they are able to do this, then we can approach our second\nproblem with the knowledge that more deeply conflicting interests are\nat stake but that those with common interests can state their case so\nthe public may form their opinion. Here again, if you could take it\nfor granted that on both sides a real desire existed amongst those\nrepresenting divergent interests to consider unselfishly ultimate goals\nand benefits for the majority, rather than any individual gain or loss,\nit would undoubtedly be possible to reach a peaceful agreement.\n\nHuman beings, however, do not stride from peak to peak, they climb\nlaboriously up the side of the mountain. The public will have to\nunderstand each case as it comes up and force divergent interests to\nfind a solution. The real mountain climber never gives up until he has\nreached the highest peak and the lure of the climb to this peak is\nalways before him to draw him on.\n\nThat should be the way in human progress--a peaceful, quiet progress.\nWe cannot follow this way, however, until human nature becomes less\ninterested in self, acquires some of the vision and persistence of the\nmountain climber, and realizes that physical forces must be harnessed\nand controlled by disciplined mental and spiritual forces.\n\nWhen we have achieved a nation where the majority of the people is of\nthis type, then we can hope for some measure of success in changing our\nprocedure when international difficulties arise.\n\nWhat we have said really means that we believe in one actual way to\npeace--making a fundamental change in human nature. Over and over again\npeople will tell you that that is impossible. I cannot see why it\nshould be impossible when the record of history shows so many changes\nalready gone through.\n\nOnly the other day I heard it stated that there are only two real\ndivisions which can be made between people--the people who have good\nintentions, and the people who have evil intentions. The same man\nwho made this distinction between people, made the suggestion that\neventually there should be in the government, a department where\nbusiness--the business that wishes to be fair and square--could lay\nits plans before a chosen group of men representing business, the\npublic and the government. They could ask for advice as to whether\nthe plans proposed were according to the best business interests of\nthe country and the majority of the people and receive in return a\ndisinterested, honest opinion. Immediately the remonstrance was made\nthat this would be impossible because it would be difficult for an\nadvisory group to know if the plans laid before them were honestly\nstated, and people of evil intentions could use such a group to promote\nplans for selfish interests rather than for the general welfare. This\nis undoubtedly true, and we are up against exactly the same situation\nin trying to obtain peace between groups within nations as we are on\nthe international fronts.\n\nHuman beings either must recognize the fact that what serves the\npeople as a whole serves them best as individuals and, through selfish\nor unselfish interests, they become people of good intentions and\nhonesty. If not we will be unable to move forward except as we have\nmoved in the past with recourse to force, and constant, suspicious\nwatchfulness on the part of individuals and groups towards each other.\nThe preservation of our civilization seems to demand a permanent change\nof attitude and therefore every effort should be bent towards bringing\nabout this change in human nature through education. This is a slow way\nand, in the meantime, we need not sit with folded hands and feel that\nno steps can be taken to ward off the dangers which constantly beset\nus.\n\n\n\n\nIMMEDIATE STEPS\n\n\nWe can begin, and begin at once, to set up some machinery. Our\ninternational difficulties will then automatically be taken up before\nthey reach the danger point. One of our great troubles is that it is\nnobody\u2019s business to try to straighten out difficulties between nations\nin the early stages. If they are allowed to continue too long, they\ngrow more and more bitter and little things, which might at first have\nbeen easily explained or settled, take on the proportions of a bitter\nand important quarrel.\n\nWe do not scrap our whole judicial machinery just because we are not\nsure that the people who appear before the bar are telling the truth.\nWe go ahead and do our best to ascertain the truth in any given case,\nand substantial justice seems to be done in a majority of situations.\nThis same thing would have to satisfy us for a time at least in\nthe results achieved by whatever machinery we set up to solve our\ninternational difficulties.\n\nI am not advocating any particular machinery. The need seems\nfairly obvious. To say that we cannot find a way is tantamount to\nacknowledging that we are going to watch our civilization wipe itself\noff the face of the earth.\n\nFor those of us who remember the World War, there is little need to\npaint a picture of war conditions, but the generation that participated\nin that war is growing older. To the younger group what they have not\nseen and experienced themselves actually means little.\n\nI heard a gentleman who loves adventure say the other day that he could\nrecruit an army of young people at any time to go to war in any part\nof the world. They would believe that the danger was slight, and the\nfun and comradeship and adventure would be attractive. I protested\nviolently that youth today was not so gullible, but down in the bottom\nof my heart I am a little apprehensive. Therefore, it seems to me\nthat one of our first duties is constantly to paint for young people\na realistic picture of war. You cannot gainsay the assertion that\nwar brings out certain fine qualities in human nature. People will\nmake sacrifices which they would not make in the ordinary course of\nexistence. War will give opportunities for heroism which do not arise\nin every-day living, but this is not all that war will do.\n\nIt will place men for weeks under conditions which are physically so\nbad that years later they may still be suffering from the effects of\nthis \u201cperiod of adventure\u201d even though they may not have been injured\nby shot or shell during this time of service. Upon many people it will\nhave mental or psychological effects which will take them years to\novercome. In many countries of the world there are people to attest to\nthe changed human beings who have returned to them after the World\nWar. Men who could no longer settle down to their old work, men who had\nseen such horrors that they could no longer sleep quietly at night,\nmen who do not wish to speak of their experiences. It is a rather\nexceptional person who goes through a war and comes out unscathed\nphysically, mentally or morally.\n\nSecondly, it is one\u2019s duty to youth to point out that there are ways of\nliving heroically during peace times. I do not imagine that Monsieur\nand Madame Curie ever felt the lack of adventure in their lives, for\nthere is nothing more adventurous than experimentation with an unknown\nelement. Their purpose was to find something of benefit to the human\nrace. They jeopardized no lives but their own.\n\nI doubt if Father Damien ever felt that his life lacked adventure; and\nI can think of a hundred places in our own country today where men or\nwomen might lead their lives unknown or unsung beyond the borders of\ntheir own communities and yet never lack for adventure and interest.\nThose who set themselves the task of making their communities into\nplaces in which the average human being may obtain a share, not only\nof greater physical well-being, but of wider mental and spiritual\nexistence, will lead an active and adventurous life to reach their goal.\n\nThis will need energy, patience and understanding beyond the average,\nqualities of leadership to win other men to their point of view,\nunselfishness and heroism, for they may be asked to make great\nsacrifices. To reach their objectives they may have to hand over their\nleadership to other men, their characters may be maligned, their\nmotives impugned, but they must remain completely indifferent if only\nin the end they achieve their objectives. Moral courage of a rare kind\nwill be required of them.\n\nIn the wars of the past, deeds of valor and heroism have won\ndecorations from governments and the applause of comrades in arms,\nbut the men who lead in civic campaigns may hope for none of these\nrecognitions. The best that can happen to them is that they may live\nto see a part of their dreams come true, they may keep a few friends\nwho believe in them and their own consciences may bring them inner\nsatisfactions.\n\nMaking our every-day living an adventure is probably our best safeguard\nagainst war. But there are other steps which we might well take.\n\nLet us examine again, for example, the ever-recurring question of the\nneed for armaments as a means of defense and protection and see if\nsomething cannot be done immediately. Many people feel the building of\ngreat military machines lead us directly into war for when you acquire\nsomething it is always a temptation to use it.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious, however, that no nation can cut down its army\nand navy and armaments in general when the rest of the world is not\ndoing the same thing.\n\nWe ourselves have a long unfortified border on the north which has\nremained undefended for more than a hundred years, a shining example\nof what peace and understanding between two nations can accomplish.\nBut we also have two long coast lines to defend and the Panama Canal,\nwhich in case of war must be kept open, therefore it behooves us to\nhave adequate naval defense. Just what we mean by adequate defense is a\npoint on which a great many people differ.\n\nInnumerable civilians have ideas as to what constitutes adequate\nmilitary preparedness and the people most concerned, our military\nforces, have even more definite ideas. Many people in the United\nStates feel that we are still rendered practically safe by the expanse\nof water on our east and west coasts. Some people even feel, like\nMr. William Jennings Bryan, that if our nation needed to be defended\na million men would spring to arms over night. They forget that a\nmillion untrained, unarmed men would be a poor defense. We must concede\nthat our military establishments have probably made a more careful,\npractical study of the situation than any one else, for they know they\nwould have to be ready for action at once.\n\nWhether we accept the civil or the military point of view on\npreparedness, we can still move forward. We can continue to try to come\nto an understanding with other nations on some of the points which lead\nto bad feeling. We can begin first, perhaps, with the Central and South\nAmerican nations and continue later with other nations, to enter into\nagreements which may lead to the gradual reduction of armaments. If we\nonly agree on one thing at a time, every little step is something to\nthe good. Simply because we have so far not been able to arrive at any\nagreement is no reason for giving up the attempt to agree. No one has\nas yet discovered a way to make any of the methods of transportation\nby which we all travel around the world, absolutely safe, but nobody\nsuggests that we should do away with ships and railroads and airplanes.\nI feel that the people of various nations can greatly influence their\ngovernments and representatives and encourage action along the lines of\nreduction in arms and munitions.\n\nEvery international group that meets must bear in mind that they have\nan opportunity to create better feeling, but to move forward along this\nparticular front also requires the backing of public opinion at home.\nThis opinion may be formed in many little groups all over the world and\nmay be felt in an ever widening circle of nations until it becomes a\nformidable force in the world as a whole.\n\nThen there is the matter of private interests involved in the\nmanufacture of arms and munitions. I know there are many arguments\nadvanced against government ownership of the factories making arms\nand munitions. When you know the story of the part played by certain\nfamilies in Europe whose business it has been to manufacture arms and\nmunitions, however, you wonder if the arguments advanced against this\nstep are not inspired in large part by those whose interests lie in\nthis particular business?\n\nIt is true that a government can lose its perspective for a number of\nreasons. The need for employment may push them to over-production,\nas well as fear of their neighbors, and they may manufacture so much\nthat the temptation to use it may be great. Some governments today\nmanufacture practically all they need for peace-time purposes and\nthis is a safeguard, but for war-time use, all governments would have\nto fall back on private manufacturers who could convert their plants\neasily for the manufacturing of war materials. Some governments today\nencourage private manufacturers to produce arms and munitions needed\nin peace time by buying from them, but the great danger lies in the\nuncontrolled private production which is used for export. The element\nof private profit is a great incentive towards the increase of this\nbusiness just as it is in any other business. Governments are not\ntempted in the same way, for they do not manufacture for export or for\nprofit.\n\nIt seems to me that we must trust some one and I think perhaps it\nis wiser to trust a government than the more vulnerable and easily\ntempted individual. Besides which, a democracy has it within its power\nto control any government business and, therefore, the idea that our\ngovernment should control the manufacture of arms and munitions fills\nme with no great trepidation.\n\nThis control of the manufacture of arms and munitions is a measure\nwhich could be undertaken by one government alone. It does not have to\nwait for all the other governments to concur, and so I believe either\nin complete government ownership or in the strictest kind of government\nsupervision, allowing such manufacture as will supply our own country\nbut which will not create a surplus for exportation, thus removing the\nincentive for constantly seeking and creating new markets.\n\nThe next step will be the mutual curtailment, very gradually I am\nsure, of the amount of armaments the world over. This is a difficult\nstep, because it requires not only an agreement on the part of all\nthe nations, but sufficient confidence in each other to believe that,\nhaving given their word, they will live up to the spirit of the\nagreement as well as to the letter of it, and not try cleverly to hide\nwhatever they have done from possible inspectors.\n\nThey will not, for instance, destroy a battleship and add a half dozen\nairplanes, telling the other members to the agreement that they have\ncarried out the promised reduction, but forgetting to mention the\nadditions to some other arm of their military service.\n\nThis lack of integrity, or perhaps we should call it more politely the\ndesire to be a little more clever than one\u2019s neighbor, is what promotes\na constant attitude of suspicion amongst nations. This will exist until\nwe have accomplished a change in human nature and that is why for the\npresent it seems to me necessary to have inspection and policing as\nwell as an agreement.\n\nThe objection will be made that in the nations which are not\ndemocracies a government might build up a great secret arsenal; but in\nthose countries this could be done today for most of them control the\npress and all out-going information with an iron hand.\n\nOutside of the democracies, government ownership is a much more serious\ndanger on this account. If all nations were obliged to report their\nmilitary strength to some central body, and this body was allowed\nto inspect and vouch for the truth of their statements, then all\ngovernments could feel secure against that hidden danger which is now\npart of the incentive for a constant increase in the defense machinery\nof every nation.\n\nHere again we are confronted with the need of some machinery to work\nfor peace. I have already stated that I doubt if the present League\nof Nations could ever be made to serve the purpose for which it was\noriginally intended. This does not mean that I do not believe that we\ncould get together. We might even begin by setting up regional groups\nin different parts of the world which might eventually amalgamate\ninto a central body. It seems to me almost a necessity that we have\nsome central body as a means of settling our difficulties, with an\ninternational police force to enforce its decisions, as long as we have\nnot yet reached the point everywhere of setting force aside.\n\nJoint economic action on the part of a group of nations will\nundoubtedly be very effective, but it will take time to educate people\nto a point where they are willing to sacrifice, even temporarily,\nmaterial gains in the interests of peace, so I doubt whether we can\ncount at once on complete cooperation in the use of an economic\nboycott. To be a real weapon against any nation wishing to carry on\nwar, it must be well carried out by a great number of nations.\n\nAnother small and perhaps seemingly unimportant thing might be done\nimmediately. It might be understood that in war time every one should\nbecome a part of the military service and no one should be allowed to\nmake any profit either in increased wages or in increased interest\non their capital investment. This might bring about a little more\nuniversal interest in peace, and more active interest in the efforts to\nprevent war whether a man were going to the front or staying at home.\n\nOf course, when we talk of \u201cthe front\u201d in connection with future wars,\nwe are taking it for granted that future wars will be much like those\nof the past, whereas most people believe that future wars will have no\nfronts. What we hear of Spain and China makes this seem very probable.\nGases and airplanes will not be directed only against armed forces, or\nmilitary centers, they may be used for the breaking of morale in the\nopposing nation. That will mean shelling of unfortified cities, towns\nand villages, and the killing of women and children. In fact this means\nthe participation in war of entire populations.\n\nOne other element must be considered, namely, the creating of public\nopinion today. Wars have frequently been declared in the past with\nthe backing of the nations involved because public opinion had been\ninfluenced through the press and through other mediums, either by the\ngovernments themselves or by certain powerful interests which desired\nwar. Could that be done again today in our own country or have we\nbecome suspicious of the written word and the inspired message? I think\nthat as a people we look for motives more carefully than we did in the\npast but whether issues could be clouded for us is one of the questions\nthat no one can answer until the test comes.\n\nI am inclined to think that if a question as serious as going to war\nwere presented to our nation we would demand facts unvarnished by\ninterpretation. Whether we even in our free democracy could obtain them\nis another question. Who controls the dissemination of news? Is the\npress totally, uncompromisingly devoted to the unbiased presentation of\nall news insofar as possible? Is it possible for groups with special\ninterests to put pressure on the press and on our other means of\ndisseminating information, such as the radio and the screen, and to\nwhat extent?\n\nThis is an interesting study in every country where people are really\ninterested in good will and peace. If these sources of information are\nnot really free should not the people insist that this be one of our\nfirst reforms? Without it we can have no sound basis on which to form\nour opinions.\n\nThese are things we can work for immediately, but some of my friends\nconsider that one point transcends all others and epitomizes the way to\n\u201cpeace.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\n\nWe can establish no real trust between nations until we acknowledge\nthe power of love above all other power. We cannot cast out fear and\ntherefore we cannot build up trust. Perfectly obvious and perfectly\ntrue, but we are back again to our fundamental difficulty--the\neducation of the individual human being, and that takes time. We cannot\nsit around a table and discuss our difficulties until we are able to\nstate them frankly. We must feel that those who listen wish to get at\nthe truth and desire to do what is best for all. We must reach a point\nwhere we can recognize the rights and needs of others, as well as our\nown rights and needs.\n\nI have a group of religious friends who claim that the answer to all\nthese difficulties is a great religious revival. They may be right, but\ngreat religious revivals which are not simply short emotional upheavals\nlifting people to the heights and dropping them down again below the\nplace from which they rose, mean a fundamental change in human nature.\nThat change will come to some people through religion, but it will not\ncome to all that way, for I have known many people, very fine people,\nwho had no formal religion. So the change must come to some, perhaps,\nthrough a new code of ethics, or an awakening sense of responsibility\nfor their brothers, or a discovery that whether they believe in a\nfuture life or not, there are now greater enjoyments and rewards in\nthis world than those which they have envisioned in the past.\n\nI would have people begin at home to discover for themselves the\nmeaning of brotherly love. A friend of mine wrote me the other day that\nshe wondered what would happen if occasionally a member of Congress\ngot up and mentioned in the House the existence of brotherly love. You\nlaugh, it seems fantastic, but this subject will, I am sure, have to\nbe discussed throughout the world for many years before it becomes an\naccepted rule. We will have to want peace, want it enough to pay for\nit, pay for it in our own behavior and in material ways. We will have\nto want it enough to overcome our lethargy and go out and find all\nthose in other countries who want it as much as we do.\n\nSome time we must begin, for where there is no beginning there is no\nend, and if we hope to see the preservation of our civilization, if we\nbelieve that there is anything worthy of perpetuation in what we have\nbuilt thus far, then our people must turn to brotherly love, not as a\ndoctrine but as a way of living. If this becomes our accepted way of\nlife, this life may be so well worth living that we will look into the\nfuture with a desire to perpetuate a peaceful world for our children.\nWith this desire will come a realization that only if others feel as we\ndo, can we obtain the objectives of peace on earth, good will to men.\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nThis book contained no real illustrations. There were some simple\ndecorations, and they appear in the HTML version of this eBook.","title":"This Troubled World","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":7798}