THE ANTI-MILITARISTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1289, 27 August 1914, Page 4

THE ANTI-MILITARISTS.

There is no school like that of experience, says the Wellington Post, and it is extraordinarily interesting to see how, from day to day, some theories of the experts require revision in the light of the clear logic of the facts revealed by the progress of the war, while, on the other hand, other principles of warlare are impressed upon the lay mind with the same axiomatic force with which they have always been regarded by the expert. Plow much is left of the antimilitarist theory by the facts of the present position ? The economic idiocy of war certainly stands out in more glaring relief than ever, but as a general proposition this has never been seriously disputed. On the other hand, the supplementary, or converse, fact that it is not their economic interests, or even their supposed economic interests, that as a rule drive men to war, is just as clearly emphasised. That there would never be a great European war because the fear of financial ruin would hold the rulers back, that every new British battleship is an additional provocation to Germany but not an additional guarantee of the national security, that every penny spent on defence is money wasted, and that the organised workers of the world wopld combine to prevent war—these areamopg the extreme tenets of the anti-militarists which they ought to be revising now. As a matter of fact, there has been no strike ip any country to delay for a single piipute the assembling of troops or their despatch to the seat of war. On the contrary, the war has bad the effect of adjusting the causes of difference between employers and employed which had previously existed, since the workers are just as responsive as anybody else to the call of patriotism, and just as anxious to present a united iront to the enemy. The sense of nationality takes prece-

dence at such a time as this of “class consciousness” and economic interests, and all the ether considerations that, according to the extreme apostles of antimilitarism, should be supreme. Blood again proves to be thicker than water —thicker even than class consciousness. And how much is left of the contention that the true lover of this country will resist the call to arms, will oppose any attempt to make military training compulsory and universal, and will sotten the heart of any intending invader by professions of peace and goodwill ? The treatment which little Belgium is receiving at the hands of Germany is evidence of what might be expected from such tactics. Belgium has done Germany no injury, and was contemplating none, yet her territory has been overrun by German troops and her capital captured, and all this would have been done more than a fortnight ago, and with infinitely less hope of ultimate redress, if she had been content to appeal to the finer feelings of her powerful neighbour instead of offering such resistance as her weakness allowed. The fate of Britain would be as the fate of Belgium if she ever allowed anti-military fanaticism to work its will on her Army and Navy. If she had been stronger still both in ships and in men, and the Dominions had all been shouldering a fair share of the burden, the peace of the world would never have been broken, and what the organ of the Red Federation terms “the greatest tragedy in human history” would not have been in course of enactment. We are pleased to see that even the Maoriland Worker does not profess to find in the tragedy a confirmation of the propaganda of the Peace Society. “This,” it says, “is not an argument for the disbandment of armies and navies.” It does indeed lend no more support to that conclusion than a colossal burglary would lend to a proposal for disbanding the police. The strengthening of the police force is the moral that common sense would draw from such a crime, and in spite of the anti-militarists it comes to the same conclusion in the parallel case. With one of our contemporary’s contentions we are in entire agreement. “New Zealand’s position is just this,” says the Worker: “that it is not allowed the slightest voice in the determination of the Empire’s foreign policy, its industries are exposed to ruin by a declaration of war, and it is expected to provide men and money to enforce policies of which it is totally ignorant. No democrat can stand it.” We entirely agree. The demands of democracy and of a sound Imperialism are here at one. What the Empire needs is a truly Imperial Parliament containing representatives of all its self-govern-ing States, and controlling an Army and Navy to which they all contribute, and a foreign policy for which they will all be responsible; and we believe that this conclusion will be forced upon it by the struggle now proceeding in Europe.