The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-12-04
MAY BE
FAILURE, LADY
ASTORFEARFU[
CONTINUED from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page)
arnazement that France proposes to
maintain an army which am told
will be at least four times as large
as Americas and larger than she
had before the outbreak OF the great
war.
Unable 70 Attack.
M. BRAND stated as a reason for
this large estimate that Germany
could put into the field against
France, within three months, a
force of six million men. As an
ordinary person and not as a mill
tary expert. l ark myself whether
II II not q fact that Germany has
had to give up all her guns, tanks
and most OF her rifles since the
armistice. Has she not had to scrap
her aeroplanes and is she not pro-
htbited at this very moment from
building any? Is she not debarred
by the Versailles treaty from REIN.
posing conscription2
My military friends tell me that
Germany is utterly incapable of at
lacking any well-organized military
power, and that II she showed the
slightest sign Of beginning to pre-
pare, France or her Allies could be
in Berlin in two or three weeks.
do not believe that there il any
real German military menace today.
The whole question is: Ia there
likely to be one in the future? II
all her neighbors reasonably reduce
their ornaments, IL they one and
all abandon provocation; above oil.
II France ceases to employ colored
(Southerners like myself can appre-
ciate what Germany must feel about
this); finally, IL all her Allies and
America combine. not only TO reduce
their own ornaments but TO make II
clear that they will use collective
action against Germany II she be-
gins to expand hers. then / don't
believe Germany will again embark
on the militarist road.
But II France maintains a gigan-
tic army and is ever threatening to
use It; IL other European nations
have to follow suit, as they certainly
will; then Germany win be driven
to do the same. and we get back to
the swollen ornaments and militar-
ism Of 1914.
Would Mean New War.
That would affect everybody, for
that would be a new outbreak and
a new world war. So II Is not I'M
natural that we over here are dis-
appointed about M. Brands speech.
II sounds like the knell Of our hopes.
1t looks as IL France had set her
face away from peace and toward
militarism.
But not only does France insist
upon keeping a large army; she de-
mands an increase in her navy,
particularly In submarines. Britain
and France are allies, and / hope
they may never be anything else.
But one has only to look at
map of Europe and to observe the
long coast line OF France. with
possibilities of submarine bases
along the Channel, along the Medi-
terranean coast. along the At
lantic, along north Africa. / do
not say that her demand for more
submarines constitutes an act OF
hostility toward Great Britain. But
one is bound to face possibilities,
England is entirely dependent on
sea borne food and trade, and that
she is within five weeks of star
walton IL cut off from her foreign
supplies.
Whole Proposal Wrong.
A recent French writer has ex-
planned that these extra submarines
will be needed to safeguard the
transport from Africa OF the hordes
of Senegalese and other African
troops who are to form so large
q part Of the future French army.
A hopeful prospect for a peaceful
Europe.
Personally / think the whole pro-
posal to license submarines is
wrong. II we are to have war.
let 1t be fair fighting, not hitting
below the belt. What is the use
OF having open diplomacy, followed
by warfare ON women and children
by land and by sea, by gas and
bombs and submarines? There Is
only one line to take about sub
marines, and that Is to scrap the
lot. II we could stop battleship
building and sink every submarine