The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-08-24
SATURDAY. AUG. q. 1885.
BEFORE 1T IS TOO LATE


on the surface that it has impressed many
sincere citizens who want to keep US out Of
war.
To be fair, let some one who believes in
that argument state it as strongly as possible.
For instance, one large newspaper in object
ing to an advance mandatory ban on Ameri-
can munitions traffic with all nations at war;
says:
1T aims to make US a strictly neutral ma
ton if Italy and Ethiopia fight. Yet it for
bids us TO sell munitions to either of those
nations. But Italy has plenty Of munitions
and can make more; Ethiopia has few and can
make none. is forced to buy all its war equip
ment. So the proper title of this bill, as re-
CARDS the italy Ethiopia fight, is a bill to
throw the United States unoficially into the
war on the side of Italy 1t is bill to COM
pei US to favor italy the stronger nation. by
refusing to sell arms to Ethiopia, the weaker
nation"
What is the alternative? Why, says that
newspaper:
THE best way to safeguard our neutrality
would be to leave the JOB 10 the President.
He should be given the power to embargo
arms shipments in any way he might see fit;
not commanded to embargo them all over the
map"
A IL right let's test this theory by the
~ facts of the last war. Did it keep us
out? It did not. Look at the record and see
how it worked not in theory but in actual
practice.
We did nothing until the outbreak of war.
Very soon afterward it was clear to every
ono that the actual effect of selling any
munitions was to aid the Allies, who con-
trolled shipping and the seas. The effect was
to paraphrase the above quoted newspaper
ITO throw the United States unofficially
into the war on the side of the nation stronger
in munitions"
Since that was both unneutral and danger
GUS. q resolution was introduced in the Senate
to stop it by an embargo. But the strong
nation CBritain) protested to the State De-
partment that an embargo at that time, after
the war had begun, would be unneutrai.
That was right. so all the State Department
could do was to disavow and kill the resolu-
ton.
But Germany then officially protested that
the alleged neutrality of the United States
was in fact an unofficial and powerful Ameri-
can participation in the war the Allied
side. To explain why it was too late to put
an embargo on this partisan traffic, President
Wilson replied by citing International law
That any change in our laws of neu-
trality during the progress of a war, which
would affect unequaly the relations Of the
United States with the nations at war, would
DC IN unjusthable departure from the prin-
ciple of strict neutrality the placing of
an embargo on the trade in arms at the
present time would constitute such a change
and be a direct violation of the neutrality of
the United States"
Because of our failure to embargo NUM-
tons before the war, it was thus impossible.
regardless Of what we did, to achieve real
neutrality after the war began. If We con-
tinued the munitions sales we would be help
ing the only side able to land the munitions;
and if We banned the sales then We would
aid Germany. All because it is impossible,
after war starts. TO embargo arms to one or
10 all belhgerents without in effect helping
one side at the expense of the other and
thus destroying neutrality.
THERE is strong argument against an
advance mandatory munitions embargo,
but it is not neutrality argument-it is the
opposite. 1t is the legitimate argument of
those who want us to take sides in a foreign
conflict by frankly using our munitions power
against an aggresSor. But this obviously is
apt to lead us into sending the Army and
Navy eventually.
Some years ago-before Japan, Germany
and others had shattered the possible effec-
tiveneSs of world peace machinery and joint
action against an aggreSsor-there was gam
bler'S chance in such partisan action by the
United States. But with the present world
setup. probably most of us now feel THAT the
result Of such American ENHANCEMENT ito
make the world safe for democracy" would
only repeat the last disaster
So it may be open to argument whether
the President should be left free TO take sides
in a war by banning munitions to only one
side But in view Of the clear record of ex-
perience it can not mean the reverse it can
not be the road to neutrality
Only if an embargo policy is declared in
advance and against al belligerents can it be
neutrality. Anything done after the war be-
gins has a deliberate partisan effect. and is
always benefits the strong belligerent. But
properly resented as such by the side injured.
OF course real neutrality by an outsider
it does not benefit the strong side nearly so
much as the fake neutrality Of 19l4-17 of al
lowing every one to buy our arms when only
one side could take them. Whenever all can
buy our arms, the weak always will suffer
because the strong has more credit and more