Evening star., 1938-03-29

SENATOR WILL
pendent nation, except in name, since
she escaped from the operating table
at Versailles. 1t was there that she
was robbed of her wealth, most of her
natural resources and deprived of
every means by which she could hope
to become and remain an independent
nation. Economically, financially, po-
litically, she had been rendered help
less. 1t was inevitable that some
strong power would extend its do
minion to this rather pivotable piece
of territory. If Hitler had remained
hod carrier in his native village,
Austria and Germany would never
theless have come together sooner or
later, as they undertook to do peace
fully in 1881.
World Court Hit.
This peaceful move1aent was inter-
rupted when the so-called World Court
suffered itself to be made a political
tool Of the chancellors of Europe. The
Versailles treaty has many crimes for
which it must give an account, but
none more futile and brutal than its
crime against Austria. It is nothing
less than flmsy piece of transparent
acting for those nations who Joined in
committing that first crime to seek to
make a great world tragedy of the
fact that the nation thus outraged has
come under new master. Austria
cannot possibly receive harsher
treatment at its hands than it received
in the first instance at the hands of
its friends. 1t would not be necessary
to recall these matters, plain indis-
putable facts Of history, were it not
for the exaggerated use which is being
made of this incident to shame and
denounce the American people for
refusing to have a part in these un-
fortunate events.
I have used the singular term in
speaking of the Versailles treay, but
have in mind, of course, a group of
treaties, including the treaty of Saint
Germain and of Trianon.
Let us consider another line Of
thought upon the part of those who
would lead us as Nation into Euro
pean affairs. Modern wars are mass
wars. and the art of leading a people
into war is the art OF deceiying the
masses. You could hardly expect a
people to be greatly moved over dis
tribution, or redistribution, of terri
tory unless it was their own territory.
Some more searching appeal must be
had. Naturally. therefore, there comes
into the discussion the problem of
democracy, of again saving democracy
We are plainly told that there should
be an alliance, parallel or otherwise,
between democracies that we may offer
solid front against dictators.
1t seems to be assumed there is, or
will be shortly. lineup of the ma
tions-the totalitarian states upon the
one side and the democracies on the
other. And that these antagonistic
forces will sometime or other settle
their differences in some great naval
battle like Actium or Trafalgar. If
we are to judge the future by the past.
or If we are to consider the forces
which move nations, all this aeems
impracticable and unworkable. When
have nations drawn apart or held to-
gether by reason of different, or the
same, views or philosophers as to 1olms
OF government or political theories?
A nation acts, indeed, must act, under
the iron law Of self-interest, thing
seldom determined by forms of gov
eminent.
Instinct of Self-Interest.
. Paraphrasing the words of Lord
Roseberry, the instinct of self-interest
guides the European powers with the
same certainty as the weather moves
the sheep on the hill. A nation does
not, and cannot, choose its friends
because of approval, Or disapproval, of
theories or practices, political or other
wise. Will we not trade, and will we
not always be anxious to trade, with
peoples whose doctrines we reject and
fear? We went into the World
War to make the world safe for de-
mocracy and we made it a breeding
camp for dictators. And, like Mark
Antony over the body of the bleeding
Caesar, We quickly seized the bloody
hands of those who had assassinated
liberty. We need not go back even
so far as the World War for an illus
tration that nations, including de-
mocracies, obey the rule of self-inter-
est.
Seven years ago the most arbitrary
and militaristic of governments in
vaded China and seized vast territory
in violation of the pact of Paris, the
nine-power treaty and the covenant
of the League Of Nations. Here was
q matter In which all who believe In
the sanctity Of treaties would be in
terested. This democracy said to the
British democracy: Come, let us act
together, let us protest this running
amuck among the most solemn of
treaties and the invasion of friendly
nation, let us at least refuse to recog-
nize the fruits of the crime. But the
British democracy felt It's interests lay
In a different direction. It took its
stand with the arbitrary government
in as pronounced a disregard Of .trea-
ties as history records. Before the
Assembly Of the League it defended
the violation Of these treaties better.
said Japan, than Japan could have
done. It assigned as q reason that its
trade interests could be better pro.
tected and would be protected by the
invading nation. Greatly disappointed,
maNifestly Inundated, we learned once
more that kindred languages or po-
litical theories, culture or outward
friendships disappear in the presence
Of national interests.
II Democracies Act Together.
The British democracy is no excep-
ton to this rule. It was following q
rule OF national conduct common to
all nations. Countless instances could
be cited upon the part OF other ma
tions. The theory that democracies,
because they are democracies, can act
- ivs khA ls.k~ ~R