New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1921-09-28


broader reasons Why no conference which
concerns itself with disarmament alone,
can hope to succeed. Armaments have
a purpose. Call it, as you please. De
fence or the realization of proper ambi-
tons. One cannot propose disarmament
without providing the alternative process,
by which wrongs are to be righted and
just ambitions satisfied without violence.
Europe cannot, America will not provide
the alternative. If it had been possible
to create strong, impartial and allen
bracing League of Nations, with its
mechanism for mutual defence, arbitra-
ton and Cancellation, disarmament would
have followed as the easy and natural
consequence. The present League is too
feeble, too partial, too plainly a reflection
OF the insincerities of the victors, to pro-
mote it with success. But without some
standing international organization, dis
armament, on land at least, is barely
thinkable. For disarmament implies not
merely a conference to decide, but a
mechanism to enforce. 1t has not been
easy to complete the disarmament of
Germany, beaten though she was to her
knees. It has taken much vigilance,
many meetings of the Supreme Council,
three several ultimate, and the incessant
work Of whole staff Of inspectors to do
it. Are the Allied and Associated Powers
ready to apply the same procedure, for
example, to Poland? To ask that ques-
ton is to answer it. Not until the ''prin-
clpal Allied and Associated Powers" them
selves realize that the peace Of Paris must
be recast not until they realize that their
European system means economic dlsas-
ter and moral ruin, will the time have
come for a new creative effort. For to
sdisarm is no mere negative act. To con-
celve it merely as the disbanding OF
regiments and the reduction Of budgets
IS to fail in Imagination. It can come
only after the travail of new birth.
1t implies the making of that Great So
ciety which Mr.. Wilson like other pioneers
had seen in visions and failed to build.
To the Far Eastern Conference, on the
other hand, the minds of thoughtful
Englishmen turn with high hopes, not
without a dash Of anxiety. It will be a
crossroads, and unless the two English
speaking peoples leave it arm-in- arm to
walk the same road, their paths may
sharply diverge. There come moments in
the history Of two Powers when an easy
and friendly but underlined and Indifferent
relationship is no longer possible. At the
turn of the century, that was our position
towards Germany We could not ignore
her aspirations as a World-poWer: we had
to choose between cooperation or opposi-
ton. Proposals for an actual alliance
were discussed, and allowed to lapse.
From that moment of close approach, the
two Powers drew apart We allied our
selves at first with Japan and then IN
fact, if not in name, with France.
Through naval rivalry and hostile group
ings, we moved towards 1914. A memory
of those months of decision haunts some
of us today as we read the cordial iDvi-
tations Of Ambassador Harvey to an
habitual and worldwide cooperation with
the United States, and ponder over naval
programs. AS the vast problem Of the
I,aclllc opens OuI, IL Is CCIIdl1 GlldG d
merely Indifferent, or casual, or oppor-
tunist relationship will be Increasingly
difficult to maintain. It must be either
cooperation or opposition. To be sure,
with scarcely an eccentric exception, we
in England find war literally unthinkable,
and we do not think it. A liberal re-
view which on this side Of the Atlantic
should publish ten articles against the
idea of war with America would seem to
US to have lost its grip on realities. Our
peace society would as soon think ], Of
starting campaign against war with the
Martians. But into a long and steady
diplomatic opposition, with the accom-
panying rivalry in ship building, we might
conceivably drift, against the general will.
Nor does one like to inquire too closely
what would happen, if Japan were at wa
with America. It is "unthinkahe' that
I'VE should aid her hit T racial the nearly