The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1932-06-24
i. S. Would Increase
Macy, Army byHooVer's
earns Cut" Proposals
Aim for Naval Parity With Britain and to
Reduce Forces of Japan and France
Pacifist Smoke Screen; Workers Must Take
Up Anti-War Fight

The cynical hypocrisy of til
arms reduction" is glaringly
Washington officials that the n
are designed to give the United
Britain and to reduce the nava
two chief imperialist rivals in
the struggle for world democ-
racy.
A Washington dispatch to
the New York Times quotes
official Washington opinion in ad-
missions that the Hoover proposals
"would provide absolute tonnage
parity in all classes of ships be-
tween the United States and Great
Britain, according to tables COM
piled by experts today"
A Universal Service dispatch from
Washington is even more explicit in
describing the effects on "disarma-
ment" of the Hoover proposals:
1.-THE ~. ST. Navy now has
220,750 tons of cruisers and would
have to build $500 additional tons
to reach the strength of 254 $50
allowed if the cut (sic!) is made.
Great Britain would have to scrap
12O,O21 tons, and Japan 77,707 tons"
The United States will also "be
entitled to build $3.50 tons" of air.
craft carriers, while Great Britain
would have to scrap 14,100 tons and
Japan $3.50. This is imperialist
"arms reductionS!"
Some More Reductions"
In the field of land armaments, the
same process would be applied IN
der the Hoover proposals, the United
States would be entitled to increase
its regular army from its reported
present size of 139957 officers and
men to cover 100000" This also is
admitted by Washington officials. the
New York Times reporting Washing
ton opinion as to American "sacri-
fees" in, the interest Of peace" as
follows:
president Hoover's proposal to
reduce by one-third TIE STRENGTH
of land armies over and above TIE
police component presumably
would not affect the American ar
my, which now numbers 139.e57
officers srAI men. where's On the
basis of one soldier TO $50 citizans
as nermitted to GERMANY, the
American land forces should be
over 10000"
The French. British and japanese,
against whom the Eoover proposals
ere directed, are sharply opposing
those sections of the proposals az
fecting them, while supporting those
sections affecting their rivals.
Struggle for Supremacy.
The French are opposed to reduc-
ton of French lard forces and of
submarines. The British. who like
America. see the submarine as a
threat to their trade routes. are SUD-
porting the Hoover demands for the
reduction of submarines. The Ital-
ians who are unable to compete with
France in the building up Of heavy
ornaments are asking for drastic
cuts in heavy ornaments. The Brit
ish want to limit the size of capital
ships because they cannot compete
with America in the building of
these costly vessels Jspan's atti-
tude is similar to that CT Britain in
this respect. The United States, on
the other hand, is opposed to such
The British, while sup
porting the Hoover demands on lin1i-
tations of submarines and bombing
planes are opposed to the demand
that Great Britain. should scrap some
of her capital ships and cruisers SO
as to permit the United States to
dIbdlIl panty Will VIC LSAiOloil navy
Japan also opposes the demand that
she cut down her naval strength far
below that of the United States.
The French are especially resent
full. In French official circles, the
Hoover proposals are characterized as
a surprise attack" on France and an
American bombshell" The French
press describes the Hoover
as catching device
for home consumption an attempt
ITO barter armament reduction
against a possible revision of war
debts without allowing the Europeans
the full assurance that debt cancel
lation will take place" The sum-
mary of French opinion is that the
are a vote-catching device.
Toward Revolutionary Mass Work"