The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-11-16
Liberal Viewpoint
by DR. HARRY ELMER BARNES

Tn the more sensible discussion Of the Armi-
stice day season, there has been much rub
lefty given TO the staggering costs Of the late
World war-some $500 900 100000. The next
ole will in all proba bility cost even more H
G. Wells has predicted that it will bring the
general bankruptcy of all the nations involved,
wholesale default on debts owed TO neutrals, and
probably the collapse of the whole capitaliStic
system.
Yet we also are told that we can not insure
peace because it would cost too much 70 procure
the conditions on which peace rests. OF one
thing We may be certain, we must make our
choice between which bill We will pay-that for
another war or that for the essential condi-
lions of peace
The former is bound to be the heavier to say
nothing of the appalling loss of life which will
be involved. The whole issue is stated IN lucid
form and with relentless logic by Professor
Henry w. Lawrence in the Christian Century"
War is imminent today. Why? Because the
indispensable alternative to war is regarded by
the nations as too costly. Great Britain, France
and the United States possess what Germany
Italy and Japan need. There Is no precedent
however for the surrender of any important ma
tional possession except under compulsion OF
war
A Ii, the nations recognize this fact, and
"A act accordingly; but the opportunity for
is at the present moment in the hands of the
possessing nations Will they utilize this oppor-
tunity? The betting odds are ten to one against
any such outburst of sanity on the part OF
Great Britain, France and the United States"
Professor Lawrence avoids quibbling and eva
sion in stating just what the costs of peace ac-
ualIv would be and in making clear the unusual
but highly sensible procedure Wnlcn "oulo De
involved:
Great Britain, France and the United
States are the chief benefciarieS of the status
quo. and are therefore in position TO alter 1t
to the advantage OF more needy natonS WIFI
out starting a fight
In this case altering the status quo means
changing the ownership of territories. 1t also
means giving an international slant to tarlns
and immigration laws Such concessions on tne
part OF possessing nations would be without
precedent.
"Thev would seem to be very costly. They
would give deep offense to the acquiSitive and
patriotic warnings of our twentieth century
civilization. Any statesman who champloneo
them would by that act, commit suicide. Ihen
why bother to mention here proposals so I'M
practical
"CTATED badly and briefly, the proposition
| -. is to try an honest experiment in har-
monzing national policies. Not in spirit of
brotherly love. There is not enough of that
Our reliance should be rather on the worlds
growing realization that if we 60 much farther
in the spirit of -eat-dog, there will be no
dogs left to eat anything"
Particularly effective is Professor Lawrence
in exposing the sham of the alleged moral dis
tinction between aggressive and defensive
war This distinction has been a basic asSump-
ton of our recent formula -mongers" and of
the school of international politics which be-
lieves that ito the victor belongs the Spoils."
THE moral right to keep on possessing the
best regions of the earth is directly balanced
by the right to fight and capture them. 1t IS
amazing that so few people will admit TINS
axiom Of international morality. Popular opinion
is widely befogged in the more comfortable
countries by the childish notion that an agrees
sive war is wicked but defensive war is right
sous.
'They are. of course, precisely equal IN moral
quality, so long as war is the only adequate IN
strument by which vested wrongs can be rlgnteo
and national needs supplied The next rational
step toward a tolersble world peace would De
the broadcasting of this truth throughout Great
Britain, France and the United States. IL Is
already familiar to the peoples OF Germany
Italy and Japan"