The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1933-08-17
NATIONAL AFFAIRS
By FRANK P. LITSCHERT

oy L Mann I Ill
The next international meeting to
interest the American people, now
that the London economic conference
is out of the way, is the reconvening
of the Geneva Disarmament Confer
ence next October. At present, ac-
cording to most political experts who
have studied the question, there is not
much more chance this conference will
succeed than there was for the Lon
don Economic Conference. There is
the same old story of conflicting in
terests on the part of European
nations.
1t is announced from Washington
that when the conference reconvenes,
the American delegates will once more
press President Roosevelt's proposal
for the abolishing of all offensive
weapons. Admirable as this proposal
may be in intention, there is no indi-
cation that it will succeed. In the
first place neither the experts or the
delegates whom they are supposed to
advise, have yet, after months of
study, been able to agree on what con-
stitutes weapon of offensive war
fare. When we think of offensive
warfare we think Immediately of girls
ly armored tanks and Big Berthas
which will shoot for several miles.
But how about the humble airplane?
Is it not an offensive weapon too? A
great many military experts believe
that an army well equipped with
bombing planes could blow up any
capital in Europe on reasonably short
notice. Now just how is this offensive
weapon of the sky to be abolished?
Surely no one will propose the elimi-
nation of the science Of aviation.
That would not be desirable even if
it were possible. An agreement might
be reached on bombing planes. But
the question then arises as to how
long it would take to equip a big COM
mercial plane for offensive warfare,
especially if it were designed with the
view that it might sometime have to
be converted suddenly into bomber?
$50
This brings up point of disagree
ment between France and Germany.
Suppose it were possible to eliminate
bombing planes. When such propo-
sition were proposed to France she
would Immediately find an objection.
Germany is highly industrial nation.
If war broke out between France and
Germany and neither nation had often
sive bombing planes, Germany could
construct them much faster than
France because she has more equip
ment with which to do it, and France
would soon be at disadvantage. The
same reasoning applies to tanks, big
guns and other instruments of war.
So there you are.
There are plenty of disagreements
in Europe over the question of dis
armament. The reason is that most,
if not all, of the nations over there,
only want to agree to disarmament
which will give them the advantage
over the other fellow. Further than
that they are not willing to go. There
are constant rumblings of trouble to
come in Europe. Arguments are
changing and nobody knows what
alliances or understanding will come
to the surface within the next few
months.
Certainly under such circumstances
there is little ground to believe that
the coming disarmament conference
will be any more successful than the
recent London Economic Conference.
Certainly it cannot succeed unless
Uncle Sam agrees to make sacrifices
which will be out of all proportion to
the good that can come to us. Under
the circumstances, since we are in the
conference, it would seem the part of
wisdom to present our proposition in
clear-cut way, devoid of diplomatic
twistings and let them take it or leave
The destiny and future of the
"''ed States still lies pretty much in
tc Western Hemisphere.