New-York tribune., 1918-09-09
AT the End

Al the End
In his Lafayette Day speech, part of
which is reproduced on this page, Colonel
Roosevelt deeply questioned the idea of
League of Nations after the war to effect
the disarmament of the whole world and
keep the peace. The dilemma is self-evi-
dent What shall be done with the enemy
nations?
If you form a League Of Nations with
the Teutonc and allied powers left out
you appear to have turned the earth into
two great hostile camps, and if you ad-
NIT them to the League of Nations its
security will rest upon the word Of Grim
inal members who have no faith to
pledge.
Colonel Roosevelt does not reject the
thought entirely. Rather he accepts it
las an addition to. and never as a sub
stitute for, the policy of preparing our
own strength for our own defence
That is to say, he cannot imagine put
ting unlimited trust in the moral force
of an unarmed League of Nations, Ger
many in or Germany out. And so he
makes his case for armed and vital ma
tionalism in a world as is
But there is another side to the same
dilemma. A League of Nations, to keep
the peace, would have to solve all the
questions that lead to war, meaning
primarily, of course, economic questions.
1t would have to divide up the resources
of the world, it's areas, its contents and
it's opportunities. So, again, what shall
be done with the enemy powers? Shall
the criminal nations that had so nearly
wrecked the whole of civilization in order
to possess the earth be admitted to part
nership with all the others-with Bel
gium, for instance, and with France?
One may talk about it. One may say it
is arguable on academic evidence But
one cannot imagine it. The soul rebels.
But, on the other hand, suppose the
Teutonlc powers are excluded. Then
what will happen? Again you have
drawn line between one kind of people
and all other peoples, and the first aspect
of the dilemma returns to view, for in
that case there are two great armed
camps, and nothing else.
When is peace?
The answer is that there can be neither
peace nor war with Germany
We have had both.
She cannot be trusted to keep the
peace. She has no word to break, no
faith to forfeit Her signature to a
treaty of peace among nations would be
a CHASTITY thing.
Nor can she be trusted to possess the
means to war. We have had war with
her She has disgraced the weapons
Civilization in self-defence has been
forced to do nameless and abominable
things. This shall not happen again. 1t
is largely what the war is about
First Germany must be defeated on
her own soil and disarmed The power
that threatened the world must surren-
der to the world d-unconditionally. The
allied people are then naturally consti-
tuted a League of Nations to say on
what terms Germany shall survive at all,
and if these be less severe than Ger
many's terms to Belgium or Serbia, that
shall be owing to nothing that Germany
may claim as q right, but to the con-
science Of the allied nations. Germany
has proposed that in the peace settle
ment she might be willing to give up
Belgium, provided Belgium's military
impotence were guaranteed Yet there
are those who think you propose a pre-
posterous thing when you say that the
military power of Germany shall be de-
stroyed forever Why not? The allied
nations would guarantee her the status
of permanent neutral, unarmed, and
therefore immune from attack
The rest is not so much question of
what should be done with Germany as
how far the moral sense of the world
could be trusted to infict the final pun
Ishment. You cannot lock up 5000, 900
Germans. But you can lock them out
If the people of the allied countries
spontaneously resolved to exclude Ger
many from all intercourse whatever