Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1940-08-15

not the sort to recommend the SyS-
tenn today.
Even in his own terms Mr.. Stewart
is not wholly consistent. At the start
of his essay he says, Transcription
in war time is regrettable but neces-
sary." But why? If a small, we'll
equipped army were sufficient, con-
scription would never be necessary.
On the other hand, if, as Mr.. Stewart
admits, a conscript army is required
in case of war, it should most GER
tainly be created before the actual
fighting begins. That is the real
lesson of 1917. For such an army
must not be improvised. Its con-
struction and equipping are long
job, especially today, when, as Mr..
Stewart points out, the intricate ma
chimes of modern warfare demand
high proportion of technically trained
soldiers.
1t is quite true that the final size
and disposition of the army cannot
be determined exactly until we know
the issue of the struggle over Eng
land. AS long as the British fleet
is intact, we have a two-ocean navy.
If it is lost to Hitler, we have far less
than one-ocean navy. If it is lost,
we must rush our preparations in
order to be able to occupy by land
and air forces any threatened area
near our coasts or within striking
distance of the Panama Canal. A
two-ocean navy takes longer to build
than even modern army: during
the next few years, years in which
Hitler will be making his bid for
world dominion, our newly author
lied navy will still be under construc-
ton. Today we must act on the
assumption that Britain may be de-
feated and that we may be faced with
an early threat to the security of the
hemisphere. 1t will be easier later
on to limit our program, if fate per-
mits, than to try, in the face of threat,
to reach the level of totalitarian pre-
paration in one desperate leap.
Mr.. Stewards second main argu-
ment against compulsory military
service rests on two sets of facts
his experiences in the American army
during the World war, and the reac-
tionary influence of the conscript
armies of Europe. With many of his
points l agree. At time when a
reasonable chance existed of main
tanning our independence and our
democratic way of life without big
army, his insistence on the social
dangers of militarism and on the
deadening effect of army discipline
would have bespoken a radical and
militant attitude. Today that chance
is gone. We have no choice between
civilian virtues and military vices
between good and evil, between an
army and no army. The choice lies
between an army based on universal
service and greatly expanded pro-
fessional army. That is the issue
under debate in Washington this
week. Admittedly conscript army
holds many potential dangers of re-
action; admittedly, even in demo-
cratic nations, the armies are more
reactionary than the general political
level of the countries; at the same
time the dangers of reactionary con-
troll in volunteer professional army
are even greater.
BY and large, in every nation, the
progressive groups in the community
have summed the army. This is due
partly to a sensible objection to mill
tary life and military ideals, partly to
the lack of professional inducements
to take up an army career. The result
is that volunteer army is largely
populated with able-bodied ne'er-do-
wells and misfits, differed by reac-
tionaries and bureaucrats. An army
based on universal service will not
be democratic per Sc, but it offers
all the elements out of which a demo-
| cratic institution can be built. To re-
Ject universal service out of fear of its
potentially reactionary results would
be to deliver the army to the reac-
tionaries without a struggle. The
very dangers to which Mr.. Stewart
points lead me to the opposite con-
cluslon. An army is at best a favor
able breeding-ground for reaction.
We must fight for its characterization:
and success in that fight is only pos
sible if we have an army in which
| all elements of the population are
represented.
American liberals should recognize
before 1t is too late what the British
working class and its leaders realized
only after the war had started-that
the left must take a positive position
on the question of national defense.
1t must make the struggle against
Hitler an honest fight for the faith
it lives by. And it can do this in ONLY
one way-by working not against the
army but for the army. 1t must help
to create it and man it and then to
control it-by democratic methods
and for democratic ends.