Evening star., 1939-11-05

ready larger than that of Great
Britain and France combined and
whose resources in case of decisive
German military victory in the
present contest will be tremendously
augmented by the economic wealth
and colonial domains which have
been acquired by Great Britain and
France in the course of long his
torical development.
The United States has been ac-
customed to rely on its physical
insularity as providing 1t with q
guarantee of practical security from
European disturbances. But the At
lantic is not more trustworthy under
present conditions in separating. the
United States from Europe than the
North Sea and the English Channel
were In separating England from
France or Spain in the 18th, 18th
and 10Th centuries. Besides, the men,
ace to the United States does not
consist in the risk of direct attack,
but rather In seizures of territory
by Germany in Canada and South
America. Our insularity is not likely
to remain reality If Germany Is
in q position to dictate the terms of
peace to Great Britain and France.
1t seems to me that the part of
common sense is for us to recog-
nize the above facts and to mold
our national policy accordingly, so
as to give substantial aid to Great
Britain and France This can be
done without violating any of the
requirements of legal neutrality.
There is no reason why our country
should be entirely impartial as be-
tween the disputing factions in
Europe. To permit the shipment of
munitions would be in accord with
international law and practice as
it had been followed for centuries
prior to adoption of the Neutrality
Act of 1885. While this reversion
to our earlier commercial policy may
be harmful to Germany, it cannot be
called unneutral. Neutrality is a
legal conception, and has a plural
istic character. Ordinarily, there is
not just one neutral course to fol-
low, but several alternatives are
consisteny with the limited legal
duties Of the neutral power. It is
our duty to avoid line of conduct
that Mill be permanently harmful to
oyv own national interests.
IA second hard materialistic rea-
fson in favor of raising the embargo
upon the export of munitions is
that we need to have a stronger
and more active munitions industry
in our own country for our own
future needs.
During the late war with Ger
many tremendous efforts were made
to develop a munitions industry in
this country, but in spite of the
fact that the allies purchased
great deal of material prior to the
entrance of the United States into
the war in April. 1917, it appeared
that our American munitions in
dustry was entirely inadequate to
support the demands of the war
years, 1917, 1918. The extent of
the demand for munitions seemed
absolutely incredible to the lay
man. We may not be able to create
an industrial situation even in
many months that will afford the
basis for an adequate production of
munitions for our own needs in any
great war in which we may later
become involved. But it is clear
that unless We give our industries
the opportunity to make munitions
for such foreign powers as are able
to buy. we shall certainly be in an
extremely weak situation, both alb
solutely and relatively, to other great
powers with regard to the produce
ton of necessary munitions of war
at any time during the next few
years. We ought at least to give
our munitions industries this much
encouragement, speaking from the
materialistic, nationalistic point Of
view.
Let me remark parenthetically,
while I am trying at the moment
to set forth reasons that should ap-
peal to our practical nationalistic
sentiment, I do not think the policy
thus proposed is at all out of line
with true moral standards. The
moral issue in Europe is so clearly
defined that I cannot understand
how any one can misjudge the
merits Of the present gigantic con-
test from a moral or spiritual point
of view. But for the moment, be-
cause of limitations of space, I de-
sire to confine my discussion to
the materialistic and nationalistic
considerations which most people
profess to regard as controlling. It
is from this standpoint that a
greatly increased national NUM-
tions industry in the United States
is an absolute necessity for our
national welfare.
The third argument in favor of
lifting the embargo that impresses
me is one that has not received
much attention in the published
discussions of the subject. It seems
to me that if we retain an embargo
on the export of munitions the re-
suit will be that the munitions In
dustry of Canada. our northern
neighbor, will reach tremendous
development. Published statements
of high officials in Great Britain
and Canada indicate that the Brit
ish will form plans to fight the war,
with Canada as the great base for
military supplies for the whole em-
.>s.> YY>.> 49, n,S%S.l nv,{a ILL