The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-09-12

ialism," "The Red Danger" etc, and
hence allege that the U. S. S. r. has
an army.
It would be superfluous to prove
that the proletarian power is not car
rying on an imperialist policy and
that it is of its very nature an ire
concilable enemy Of any kind Of i'm
perialist aspirations. The whole struc-
ture of the Soviet regime, the very
form of political training of the army
in itself differs sharply from that of
the armies Of capitalist Countries
this is sufficient to prove that the
demagogical slogan RED Imperial
ism" is absolutely senseless.a 's7tel
AS far as the numerical strength of
"A the Red. army is concerned this
is an absolute minimum. The Red
army is composed Of $4,000 men, il.
e., one Red army man to every 231
members of the population of the
U. S. S. R. and for every verst of
the frontier there are only IL men,
while in Poland, which has an army
of 1000 there is one soldier for
every 107 members of the population,
i. e. the military force of Poland in
so-called peace time is more than
twice than that of the U. S. S. R. For
Roumania, which has an army of
1885, 1929 the figures work out at one
soldier to 103 inhabitants, |. e. the
military strength of Roumania is even
greater thans that aof Poland. For
France whose army amounts to $685.
459, i. e. the proposition is one sol
diers per 81 inhabitants, Frances mill
tary strength as compared with U. S.
S. r. is simply monstrous.
They also like to retort, that in
actual numbers our army is bigger
than that of any other country, First,
this is untrue; France for instance,
has a much larger army than we
have, and second, if we take into con-
sideration the fact that it is not sim
ply some one state which will fight
against the y. S, S. Rs but also the
little ententes and possibly Japan, we
then see that in peace time there are
S43,529 men on the side Of the F'coal-
ition" a figure far in excess of our
army. These are sufficient reasons
for saying that the Red army, with
its negligible quantity of men is far
from occupying the first place, and
it will be truer to say, takes the last
place. What do these figures signi-
fly? They signify that with an army
of such dimensions there could not
be even any thought of "imperialist
attacks" on the part of the Soviet
Union. Former Russia did-have i'm
perialist tendencies and it had an
army nearly three times as big as the
present one. ae
DUT malicious people generally re-
II ply to this by saying: "All right,
let us assume that the Bolsheviks
really have a small army. But to
make up for that, they say, they spend
crazy sums in preparing for war and
in this manner, they say, they redeem
the insuficiency of their numerical
strength and at the same time usually
refer to the fact that we are intro
ducing a territorial system. Let us
examine these two arguments. What
does the existence Of territorial
militia system in the U. S. S. R. sig
Nifty? This system permits us to keep
under arms the smallest number of
men possible leaving the largest pos
sible number free to be employed in
productive labor This alone goes to
show that state adopting such a
system cares more about raising the
standard of its economy than about
warfare. Second, if we remember the
numbers of railways in the U. S. S. r.
and approximately the time necessary
for rallying all the people occupied on
the economic front thruout the whole
extent of Mother Russia, it will be
quite clear to all that the cam
paigns' which give Mr.. Chamberlain
no rest, cannot even be thought Of
by the Red army. The Introduction
of a territorial system is the best
proof of the fact that the state is