Glacier County chief. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1931-1940, 1940-12-27
GENERAL
HUGH s.
JON N SON
.!!...6!!!!!!:4c.'''':.
unisd fsstsrs wsu sr,ts

NSu Ssti
Washington, D. c
MILITARY BURDEN

MILITARY BURDEN
II is astonishing to find in my
mail and to hear in talk-most re-
Gently here among leading industri-
alists at the convention of the Ma
tional Association of Manufacturers
"a sort of haf-formed opinion that
if we can keep out of war, either by
aiding Britain to preserve her en-
plre by some sort of peace accepta-
Bile to her, or by aiding her to do
much more, we can avoid the con-
tinuing necessity and burden of
maintaining an army and navy in
vlncible in every area in which our
national safety is or may be en-
dangered.
That is cruel illusion. We have
slept too long on our rusting arms.
Force and not good faith is the rule
in the world today. 1t is only real
istic for us to recognize that. With
its resources reasonably organized
and modified for war, this is the
strongest nation on earth. Stronger
than any probable combination of
other nations.
Considering its strategic position
behind two oceans, it can become
impregnable in this hemisphere. But
it can do so only if it is and re-
mains so organized and modified.
1t can do SO only if it confines its
defense to the areas in which its
strategic territorial advantage ex-
lists.
At this war-dance stage of world
conflict, as in any war, leaders on
both sides say their only war aims
and the only basis of peace is the
complete destruction and subjuga-
ton of its enemy. In the present
balance of power that is most I'M
likely. Hitler, with the military
equipment of all Europe accumulat-
ed in many countries through years
of rearmament in his hands and his
heel on the necks of all the fighting
peoples, is little likely to be COM
pletely dislodged on land in Europe
without a vast internal upheaval,
which now seems unlikely.
Yet Hitler, with little distant ma
val strength and many strategical
and territorial handicaps, is little
likely completely to destroy either
the British navy or the British en-
pire.
Suppose this is wrong. Suppose
peace of complete conquest, subju-
CATION and revenge were imposed
upon either side as it was at Yer
sallleS or a century earlier at vi
emma. Would either reSult-a con-
quered peace or a negotiated truce
create a condition, in which, after
both these lessons, we could ever
rely on anything less than our own
strength. completely adaptable to
any military or naval problem in
our own defense in this hemisphere?
1t is a vain hope. We should aid
Britain to the full extent that does
not involve us in a war for which
we are not remotely ready, carry
ing financial obligations that could
ruin us and with an equally impor-
tant qualification-to the full extent
that it can be done without post
ponlng our own rearmament for any
eventuality-all-out rearmament on
land, sea and in the air and about
Preservation of our great financial
and industrial solidarity and
strength.
We are not following this rule, or
we are following it too slowly with
too many exceptions and too many
blunders. Every informed observer
IN Washington knows that our de-
tense program of production is
about 80 per cent behind the most
pessimiStic advance schedules.