Askov American., 1943-09-16
How Not To Win A
Lasting Peace


Post War World Council has
issued an article in which the
Council states clearly that there
are many causes and effects to be
given serious consideration and
to be acted upon if we are to
be free from recurring wars.
To continue military conscrip-
ton in various countries after
this war, for psychological and
practical reasons means the ac-
ceptance of the war system, and,
ultimately, of totalitarianism.
Herewith follows the Council
article:
Among the most articulate and
outspoken of our planners for peace,
especially those who were most vocal
in urging us into the war, there is a
growing tendency to advance SIM
pie formula; namely, American par
ticipation in an international organ
ization, pledged to use force against
the aggressor, as a sound and suf-
ficient basis for warless world. 1t
is very dangerous tendency wheth-
er it is eXpounded in most extreme
simplicity by that liberal apologist
for British imperialism, Sir Norman
Angel, in the current American Mer-
curry, or in the Six Points of the
widely advertised Freedom House
Declaration, or-with some reserva-
tions and qualifications in Walter
Lippmann's over-pr ised book,
United States Foregn Policy: Shield
of the Republic"
This whole theory that some or
ganization of international force
should be used against an aggressor
nation (Which by definition is one
which may forcibly attach the status
quo) ignores logic and history.
AS a rule its advocates shy off
from defining their police force, its
composition, control and use. Is it
to be pool of national armies, and
addition to them, or a substitute for
them? Is it to be used against evil
doers within component nations or
only over the nations which threaten
war? Does its existence imply world
government with executive, legisla-
tive and judicial branches, and if so,
how much world government? The
fact that these issues are so often
wholly ignored or CLOSED over is
partial evidence how false is the
analogy of international police to
an internal police force. No village,
much less a nation, is held together
merely or chiefly by police to coerce
evil-doers, but by active arrange
ments for cooperation. The police,
from the town constable to the F. B.
l., function within communities held
together by all sorts of ties which are
wholly lacking in mere interna-
tional agreement to coerce an ag-
gressor.
Usually the supporters of this police
theory assume, or act as if they as
sumo, that the present war has no
history of causes except the wicked
ness of our enemy and our own
blind and good-natured weakness;
that if our enemies are completely
destroyed, held down or re-educated,
according to your taste, the rest of
us (having signed up for police force
alliance) can easily live happily ever
after. This is to ignore the causes
of war, the history of alliances, and
the alarming divisions of interest and
sentiment already obvious in the
United Nations.
This innocence of history and COM
mon sense is easier for the enthusi-
,asts who believe or act as if they
believe that nobody ever disturbed,
or was ever likely to disturb, the
peace except Germans or japanese
Walter Lippman, of course, knows
better than that. He even goes so
far as to acknowledge that after this
war Germany and Japan will be
pretty well through as major powers
and that the real danger of conflict
will arise between the present allies
He would Danish that danger by the
simple device of nuclear alliance
of the United States. u. S. R. R., and
Great Britain with, eventually, "a
stabilized China as the fourth major
partner. He hopes that this alliance
for its own interest will evolve some
kind of new order to secure liberty
for mankind, but he does not con-
descend to discuss the nature of that
order.
It would be ridiculous, if it were
not so appalling, that this vague
theory of peace by police alliance
should flourish so greatly in world
which at intervals is aware of the
fact that it is caught In the midst