World Unity/Volume 14/Issue 6/Text

[Page 320]

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Volume XIV, September, 1934

Religion and World Order ... ... . Horace Holley World Sovereignty and World Culture . Arnold J. Toynbee A Biological Attitude Toward

Human ATTAIYS « « & & 6 ew . Viadimir Karapetoff A Re-Orientation of Soviet

Foreign Policy .. . « « « Harry N. Howard America and International Labor

Regulation ..... ee ee ee Francis G. Wilson National International ....... World Advance ...... 2.26 ee ee Oscar Newfang

Notes on Current Issue Index to Volume XIV

321-322 323-342

343-347 348-364

365-371 372-373 374-381 382

383-384 �[Page 321]RELIGION AND WORLD ORDER by Horace HOLLEY

Il. THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF RELIGION

A T some definite point of experience, the conscious person

comes to realize the oneness of the tniverse and the

wholeness of human personality. His formal religious be-

liefs undergo profound adjustment as he perceives their artificial separateness from the rest of his existence. Able no longer to isolate “Sunday” from the remaining days of the week, his new sense of cause and effect compels him to fit his religious values in- to experience as a whole. This adjustment in some cases enhances the whole of life with new spiritual possibility; in other cases what had been a mere artificial belief or practise is destroyed, and life as a whole becomes secular and without spiritual content.

The philosophic projection of this awareness is pantheism or atheism—both are based upon an effort to realize the universe as homogenous, as one. The only difference between pantheism and atheism is that the former raises everything to the “high” level of God, or Spirit, or Providence while the latter reduces everything to the “low” level of matter and natural law.

The similarity between pantheism and atheism is more vital than the difference. Both philosophies establish one single level; both maintain a view of the universe which interprets experience in terms of cause and effect operating on one plane. There is little real distinction between realizing all substance as “God” and rea- lizing all experience as subject to natural law; for both views de- prive one of the necessity of making any truly vital choice. '

321 �[Page 322]322 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

The realization of oneness, in fact, is but a starting point in the search for religion. Religion is distinctiveness as well as univer- sality.

Historically, religion has a definite pqint of origin. No relig- ion has come into existence without Founder, a Prophet or Messiah. I

Whether one considers Christianity, Judaism, Muhammadan- ism or any other organic religion historically, what appears is the phenomenon of religion as an experience suddenly interposed into the current stream of human life. This interposition compels the most vital choice or decision which life can offer. It creates a new standard of reality rising like a mountain from the plain of daily intercourse. Its influence sets the individual against his own past, and historically has always made a definite cleavage in the course of civilization. The prophet becomes identified with a higher pos- sibility in the present, which necessarily divides the future from the past. Life tends to become dynamic and assert new directions, while the past exists in the present as inertia.

The early days of each historical religion have been a time of conflict between these dynamic and inertia tendencies. Eventu- ally a condition of balance has always been reached, when the new impetus in the minds and hearts of the believers has spent itself in conquering or redeeming from the past an area as large as pos- sible made subject to the influence of the new religion. After this point is reached, the believers may still feel themselves in conscious opposition to non-believers in the realm of belief but the believers are no longer conscious of any spiritually discordant elements, or unredeemed areas, in themselves and in their religious society. Whatever of the “pagan” past has persisted in their own conscious- ness now has undergone complete rationalization so as to appear to be part of the area which has been regenerated or redeemed. The religious society his a “religion,” an “ethics,” a “politics,” an “industry,” and 2 hilosophy,” which seem to be of the same tex ture and substan. The “pagan” elements are hidden and con- cealed from sight, and their influence remains totally unsuspected throughout a certain period of time. �[Page 323]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND WORLD CULTURE THE TREND OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SINCE THE WAR by ARNOLD J. TOYNBEE

HEN we try to survey the course of international affairs W x the twelve years and more that have elapsed

since the Armistice of 1918, we are apt to be bewil-

dered at first sight by the multitude and complexity of the tendencies which we perceive. Yet, on reflection, we may find ourselves able to gather up to manifold tendencies in a single formula. The formula which I would suggest for your consideration is this: In the “post-war” period, the principal tendency in inter- national affairs has been the tendency of all human affairs to be- come international.

Expressed in these bald terms, my formula perhaps strikes you as an exaggeration. Let me put it to the test by very briefly considering the facts. And let us distinguish between one set of facts and another. Let us take our stand first on the economic plane and then on the political and then on the cultural, and examine, in succession, the facts that present themselves to our vision on each of these horizons.

I start from the economic plane because here my formula is a truism. On the economic plane, the tendency for all affairs to become international has not declared itself since the Armistice for the first time. It was well established long before the War. It goes back to the Industrial Revolution, which made the whole world a market for our Western manufacturers. And it goes even further back than that to the voyages of discovery, which turned

323 �[Page 324]324 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

ail the navigable seas on the face of the planet into the highways for our Western carrying-trade. Really, the present economic unifica- tion of the world was implicit in the first circumnavigation of the globe, more than four centuries ago, by Western navigators.

But this process of unification has proceeded at a very different pace on our three different planes of social activity. Consider the situation at the outbreak of war in 1914. At that moment, when the economic unification of the world was well within sight, its political unification had not yet begun. Economically, the world in 1914 was already displaying the lineaments of a single great cooperative society. Politically, the world of 1914 was still in that state of anarchy into which Western Christendom had fallen at the end of the Middle Ages, after the politico-religious unity which had been created and maintained by the mediaeval Western Church had broken down. During the intervening four or five centuries, practically nothing had been done to fill the fearful void which the break-up of mediaeval Western Christendom had left be- hind. And the situation had become much more serious, because the area of the anarchy had spread. The Western Christendom which broke up into a cluster of local sovereign independent states at the close of the Middle Ages occupied only an insignificant portion of the earth’s surface and contained only an insignificant fraction of the living generation of Mankind. If Western Christendom had been wiped off the map—or had wiped itself off the map by inter- necine warfare—in the year 1414 or in the year 1514 of the Christian era, civilization could have survived and human progress could have continued. But this could no longer be said in 1914. Dur- ing the intervening four centuries, the economic system of Western Christendom had spread all over the world; and our Western politi- cal anarchy had spread with it—supplanting all the other political anarchies and political orders which had been produced by other societies. The wars which our Western anarchy had provoked in its earlier stages had been confined, in their effects, to Western Europe. The War of 1914-18 was a world war, which left no people or country, in any continent, entirely unaffected.

On the cultural plane, again, in 1914 the unification which was �[Page 325]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 325

already an accomplished fact on the economic plane was still in embryo. By 1914, the Oriental had become implicated in our Western society through his economic activities. He had become accustomed to sell his raw cotton to the Western manufacturer and to buy the Western manufacturer’s cotton cloth. But this economic intercourse seemed to have had singularly little effect upon the life of the spirit. Out of everv aullion Hindus or Chinese who were then exchanging goods and services with the peoples of the West, you could almost count om your fingers the number who had also begun to exchange emotions and perceptions and ideas, who had established an intercourse with Western civilization in the spiritual domains of religion and art and thought. Economically, the Hindu or the Chinese peasant might have become a cog in the great world- compelling Western economic machine. Culturally, he apparently remained as much of an Oriental and as little of a Westerner as ever. Even the Japanese, who had learnt to spin and weave his own cotton and to build his own battleships, was reported by com- petent Western observers to have retained, almost intact, his Japan- ese soul.

This, then in a general way, was the situation on the eve of the War. The unification of the world had made remarkable progress on the economic plane, whereas on the political and cultural planes it had scarcely begun. The great new development since the War, as I see it, has been this: the tendency towards world unity has not only persisted in the economic life of Mankind, but it has also as- setted itself—rather suddenly and very powerfully—in our polici- cal and cultural life as well. An observer from another planet, making a survey of human affairs on this planet before the War, must have been struck by the contrast between the tendency towards world-wide cooperation which was in the ascendant in our eco- nomic life and the strangely different conditions which then pre- vailed on the other two planes of human activity: the political anarchy in the relations between states and the spiritual isolation from one another of the heirs to the several great historic cultures which divided the spiritual allegiance of the civilized majority of the human race. This contrast pointed to a social disharmony which �[Page 326]326 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

went to the root of our international troubles and which was one of the deper causes of the World War itself. In the perspective of the past twelve years, we can now see that since the restoration of peace, this dangerous discrepancy has begun to be attenuated and toned down.

It is as though people had begun to realize, half consciously, that Mankind could not permanently lead a double life: a new- fangled international life on the economic plane and an antiquated parochial life on the political and cultural planes. Either our modern economic internationalism has to be sacrificed, or else we learn to live our political and our cultural life on the modern world- wide scale, which we have achieved in our economic life already. Sacrifice our modern economic internationalism! Why, that would mean abandoning the industrial system, scrapping machinery and falling back to the economic level of the Middle Ages! As soon as we face that alternative, we realize that the destruction of life, wealth and happiness which it would entail would be stupdendous. If this disaster were to overtake us, it would be by far the greatest calamity on record in human history. No human being in his senses could dream of submitting to it deliberately. Any human being who has once become even dimly aware of the choice before us is bound to make some exertion in order to avert this alternative by bringing the other alternative to pass. The other alternative, of course, is that we should bring our political and our cultural life into harmony with our economic life; that we should preserve our economic internationalism by internationalizing our social life through and through, in all its layers. It seems as though, since the restoration of peace, people are becoming aware that this thor- oughgoing internationalism is the only alternative to the break- down of modern civilization. A determined effort to internation- alize our political and cultural life, as we have already internation- alized our economic life, is surely the keynote of this “post-war” age—a keynote which rings out so clear that it is unmistakable, short though the period of its dominance had been so far.

Let us examine this “post-war” internationalism, first in the fie! of politics and then in the field of culture. �[Page 327]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 327

In the field of politics the strength of our effort, since the Armistice, to substitute internationalism for nationalism, world- wide organization for parochialism, order for anarchy, is surely im- pressive. Without over-estimating our achievement up to date, or under-estimating the amount, or the difficulty, of what still re- mains to be done, I think we can fairly say that, in these last dozen years, we have made more progress towards overcoming the anarchy in the relations between states than the predecessors made during the previous four centuries. The Covenant of the League of Na- tions, the Multilateral Treaty of Paris for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the General Act of Arbitration and Conciliation, the Protocol for Financial Assistance to States Victims of Aggression, and the World Disarmament Conference which is to begin its work some months hence—these are achievements which would have astonished an older generation. Indeed, they would have astonished us ourselves in the state of mind in which we grew up before the War. If such projects had been forecast to us in our “‘pre-war”’ existence, we should have dismissed them, with- out hesitation, as fantastic suggestions which were quite incapable of being realized in practical politics.

So much for our successes; but I dare say you will agree with me in finding even more impressive evidence of our determination in our obstinate refusal to be discouraged by our failures. Since our statesmen have had the greater courage not to despair of these failures, we scholars and publicists can asuredly summon up the lesser courage required in order to recall how serious some of these failures and set-backs have been. ‘The refusai of the Senate at Washington to ratify the Covenant of the League; the equally emphatic rebuff which has been given to the League, since the out- set by the Soviet Government; the abortive Treaty of Mutual As- sistance; the abortive Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes; the failure to bring about the admis- sion of Germany to membership in the League of Nations in March, 1926; the failure of the Three-Power Geneva Naval Conference between the British Empire, Japan and the United States in 1927; �[Page 328]328 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

the failure of France and Italy to come into line with one another and with the three Oceanic Naval Powers during the London Naval Conference of 1930; the dangerous situation which arose during the concluding session of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference last Autumn—here is a list of failures as striking as the list of successes which I recited just now. In ordinary circumstances—or (shall J say?) in “pre-war” circum- stances—any one of these failures might have been enough to make the statesmen and the peoples of the world abandon this great enterprise of establishing a political world-order in weariness or disgust or despair. The point—and it is a very encouraging point —to which I want to draw your attention, is that we, in our gener- ation, have not allowed any of these failures to daunt us. In every one of these cases we have persisted in our endeavors until we have achieved in the end what we failed to achieve at the first or the second attempt; or else we have found some way of circumvent- ing the obstacle which we were unable to surmount.

To take the most recent example, the troubles which arose during the concluding session of the Preparatory Commission have not deterred us from fixing a date for the World Disarmament Conference. I confidently believe that if the first World Disarma- ment Conference does not achieve its purpose we shall call a second, and that if the second does not succeed we shall call a third. | believe that we shall persist until we have solved not only the special problem of national armaments, but the general problem of inter- national anarchy, of which armaments are a symptom. My con- fidence is founded on my observation of the spirit in which we are grappling with our tremendous political task. You remember, perhaps, that one of the most famous generals in history once re- marked that his opponents were invincible because they never knew when they were beaten. It is my hope that this same kind of invincible ignorance—a really neroic form of ignorance—may carry our gen- eration to victory in our spiritual war for the establishment of uni- sersal and enduring peace.

In the spirit of determination which, happily, animates us, we shall have no inclination to under-estimate the strength of the poli- �[Page 329]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 32.9

tical force which we are striving to overcome. What is this force? If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose lim- itations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign indedendent states which, at present, par- tition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. The surest sign, to my mind, that this fetish of local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord, and over and over again, at every step forward which we take, that, whatever changes we may make in the international situation, the sacred principle of local sovereignty will be maintained inviolable. This, I repeat, is a sure sign that, at each of these steps forward, the principle of local sovereignty is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil re- stricted. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise— wrapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defence. Perhaps, too, when we make these protestations, we are partly concerned to deceive ourselves. For let us be honest. Even the most internationally-minded among us are votaries of this false god of local national sovereignty to some extent. It is such an old-established object of worship that it retains some hold even over the most enlightened souls.

And what is the magic which gives local sovereignty its power? It is powerful, I think, because it has inherited the prestige and the prerogatives of the mediaeval Western Church, which were t-ans- ferred, at the close of the Middle Ages, from the whole te the parts, from the great society of Western Christendom to each of that society’s “‘successor states,” represented now by the fifty or sixty sovereign independent states of the “post-war” world. The local national state invested with the attributes of sovereignty—invested, that is with the prestige and the prerogatives of the mediaeval church —is an abomination of desolation standing in the place where it �[Page 330]330 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

ought not. It has stood in that place now, demanding and receiving human sacrifices from its poor deluded votaries, for four or five centuries. Our political task in our generation is to cast the abom- ination out, to cleanse the temple and to restore the worship of the divinity to whom the temple rightfully belongs. In plain terms, we have to retransfer the prestige and the prerogatives of sover- eignty from the fifty or sixty fragments of contemporary society to the whole of contemporary society, from the local national states by which sovereignty has been usurped, with disastrous conse- quences, for half a millennium, to some institution embodying our society as a whole.

In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a universal church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracised and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws, when it is brought to bay.Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair.

To pious nationalists, this prophecy will seem either ridicu- lous or blasphemous. Whether or not it is ridiculous only time can show. As for its being blasphemous from the nationalistic point of view, I should like to make this cbservation: If the fifty or sixty now sovereign states of the world reconcile themselves to the sur- render of their sovereignty in good time, they can look forward to preserving their existence as non-sovereign institutions for an in- definite time to come, perhaps even in perpetuity. And this is a thought in which the votaries of these idols—the pious nationalists �[Page 331]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 431

may find some consolation. For a local state may lose its sovereignty without losing these familiar features which endear it to the local patriot—such features, I mean, as the local vernacular language and fo!klore and costume, and the local monuments of the historic past. So long as the local state is not stripped of these harmless trap- pings, it will remain almost as effective an idol as ever, and its worshippers are likely to find almost as much satisfaction in carrying on their cult with bloodless sacrifices as they find today when their idol demands from them the sacrifice of their children’s lives in the ritual of war. Here, then, is some consolation for local patriots in the event of sovereignty being transferred, by a voluntary and peaceable process, frora local states to some organ representing human society as a whole. And there is also satisfaction here for those of us who, without sharing the local patriot’s passion for lo- cal sovereignty, appreciate, at least as deeply as he does, the value for mankind of an abiding diversity of national cultures.

But supposing that this does not happen? Supposing that the present generation of mankind is defeated in the end, after all, in the strenuous effort which we are making to centralize the force of sovereignty and to reduce our international anarchy to order—in that event, what is the outlook which confronts us? Will the defeat of internationalism (if our cause is to be defeated) enable a rampant nationalism to go on running riot in the world for ever? If our fanatical nationalists believ that, they are tragically mis- taken. Their mistake is written large, for those who have eyes to see, in the histories of other civilizations than ours, civilizations which have already run their course and passed out of existence so that the whole of their story, from beginning to end, lies unfolded for us to read and take to heart.

When we study history we perceive that the political problem with which we are grappling, in our generation of our society, is by no means unprecedented. The curse of political anarchy, which comes from the distribution of sovereignty among a plurality of local states, has afflicted other societies before ours; but, in all these other cases in which the same situation has arisen, it has always been transitory. For anarchy, by its very nature, cures itself, sooner or �[Page 332]332 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

later, by one means or another. The cure may come through a voluntary, pacific rational, constructive effort, such as we are mak- ing in our day—an effort to deprive the local states of their sover- eignty for the benefit of society as a whole, without at the same time depriving them of their existence. Alternatively the cure may come through a bling, violent, irrational and destructive clash of material forces. Refusing to surrender their sovereignty, the local states may continue to collide with one another in war after war, until this political struggle for existence is terminated at length by a “knock-out blow.” On this alternative, all the local sovereign states except one are doomed eventually to forefeit not only their sover- eignty but their very existence; for, on this alternative, the anarchy will be ended not by agreernent, but by force; not by the organiza- tion of a pacific League of Nations, but by the imposition of a universal empire through the victory of one militant nation over all the rest.

I should like ‘> point out that, hitherto, this has been the normal way in which international anarchy has been brought to an end. In the ancient world in the West, the incessant conflicts between the local sovereign states round the Mediterranean were brought to an end at last by the definite victory of Rome, a victory which re- sulted in the elimination of every other state, to make way for the Roman Empire. And if we turn our eyes to the other side of Asia and trace the Chinese Empire back to its origins, we shall find that it likewise arose out of incessant conflicts between a multitude of local sovereign states; arose, that is, by the same process which gen- erated the Roman Empire in our part of the world. Well, there, in these examples drawn from history, we see the fatal alternative which we, in our society and in our day, are striving to avoid. Shall we cure our international anarchy by voluntary organization, or shall we leave it to cure itself by the blind operation of force? Shall we cure it now, while our social vitality is still strong, or shall we leave it to cure itself by a process of exhaustion? That, I be- lieve, is the great issue which confronts us, in our time, on the polli- tical plane of international affairs. 1 do not believe that any other choice is open to us. In particular, I do not believe that, either �[Page 333]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 333

by taking thought or by J/aisser faire, we can secure the continua- tion of the peculiar conditions of the last two or three centuries, during which sovereignty has been dispersed among a number of independent political entities.

And now let us shift our standpoint from the political to the cultural plane and look at what has been happening, during these “Post-war” years, in a field of social activity which is nearer the heart of life, and, therefore, more important and more interesting than either politics or economics. In the field of culture, as in the field of politics, I believe that a deliberate and determined effort towards internationalism is the keynote of our “post-war” age.

Before the War, the non-Western pecples of the world were either refusing to adopt Western culture at all, or else they were adopting it unwillingly and only to the least extent required by considerations of sheer self-preservation. The one element in West- ern culture which Oriental peoples could not afford to reject was the Western art of war; and if we examine the work of the great pioneers of Westernization in Oriental countries before 1914, we shall find that this was invariably their point of departure. Study the work of Peter the Great in Russia, of Mahmud II in Turkey, of Mehmed Ali in Egypt, of the Elder Statesmen in Japan; you will find that the stimulus which stirred them all to action was the dis- covery that their peoples were incapable of holding their own in war against the Western peoples of their day; and you will like- wise find that the objective for which they all set themselves was to create new model armies and navies, armed and trained and organ- ized in the Western way, which would be capable of meeting West- ern armies and navies in battle on equal terms. No doubt, in pursuing this objective, the pre-war Westernizers were led much further along the slippery path of Westernization than they had expected or intended. For civilizations are coherent wholes, and, if once you decide to adopt one element in an alien civilization, you are apt to be drawn, step by step, into adopting many others. ‘To take the case in point, it is hardly possible for a non-Western people to practice the Western art of war efficiently without adopting in some measure the Western economic technique and the Western �[Page 334]334 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

method of administration and the Western system of education. And when once you open the door of education, it is practically impossible to censor the ideas that stream in. Sultan Abd-al-Hamid tried to prevent the entry of Western literature into the Ottoman Empire, but he dared not cripple the efficiency of his military cadets by forbidding them to learn French and English and German. Without a mastery of these languages they could not have kept abreast with the advance of Western military science in peace- time, or have served as intelligence officers in time of war. But a knowledge of Western languages opened the door to an acquisi- tion of Western political ideas, and it was the young officers trained in Abd-al-Hamid’s military academy who deprived the Sultan of his autocratic powers in 1908 in the name of the principles of the French Revolution. This example shows what far-reaching con- sequences the adoption of some single element in an alien culture may eventually entail. Buc it also illustrates my point that on the whole, before 1914, the pioneers of Westernization in Oriental countries were playing their part unwillingly; that they were an- xious to do the minimum; that they were aiming at the single practi- cal and concrete objective of acquiring the Western art of war; and that any ulterior consequences which this limited aim proved to en- tail were not merely unexpected, but were highly unwelcome to the very potentates who had initiated these innovations.

What a contrast in aim and outlook and temper between these “pre-war” Westernizers and their successors in our “post-war” days: the Mustafa Kemals and the Sun Yat-sens! Before the War, Turkey and China were conspicuous for their conservatism even among Oriental countries—by comparison, for example, with Rus- sia or Egypt or Japan or Siam. During several generations in succes- sion, the Turks and the Chinese suffered themselves to be dragged along the path of Westernization step by step—painfully and ig- nominously and disastrously. They never voluntarily took a step which was not forced upon them; they never anticipated a step which it was by any means possible for them to postpone. And now, suddenly, they have had what one can only call a psychological conversion—a change of heart of a kind with which we are more �[Page 335]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 335

familiar in the realm of religious experience. After being dragged into the water knee-deep, they have taken the plunge and have dived in head over ears. They have been seized by a furore of iconoclasm which makes the famous revolutions in our Western history seem tame by comparison. We Westerners have taken our revolutions one by one, like a walker who keeps one foot on the ground while he lifts the other a step forward. These “post-war” Westernizers in the East have taken all their revolutions at once, like a man who leaps from the top of a cliff with both feet together.

Try to imagine, in our Western history, that the Intellectual Renaissance and the Religious Reformation and the Political Revo- lutions which have substituted parliamentary government for autoc- racy, and the voyages of discovery and the Industrial Revolution which have transformed our economic life, had all been crowded into a single generation—our own generation—instead of being strung out over the course of more than four centuries. If you can imagine that (and it is not at all easy for us to imagine), then you will have some idea of the tempo of cultural change in Turkey or in China today. It is a tempo which we comparatively conservative and slow-moving Westerners can hardly conceive; and, if we could conceive it, our heads would swim at the mere thought. Think of what has been happening in Turkey since the restoration of peace: the establishment of the Republic; the abolition of the Cali- phate; the laicization of the state; the substitution of the Latin for the Arabic alphabet; the emancipation of women. And think of what has been happening in China: the abolition of the examina- tions in the Confucian Classics for admission to the civil service; the abandonment of the Confucian ethics as the standard for social conduct. These two acts of iconoclasm in China amount to a radical breach with the past in the two spheres of intellectual and moral culture. Apparently the Turks and the Chinese have come to the conclusion that the world of the future is destined to be unified on a Western basis, not only on the superficial economic plane, but tight down to the deeper levels of social life. And, in a world which is travelling in this direction, they have determined not to remain “peculiar peoples.” They have made up their minds to Westernize �[Page 336]336 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

their lives from top to bottom. Whether they will succeed or fail who, at this stage, will venture to prophesy? This enterprise of cultural internationalism is obviously very much more difficult than the enterprise of political internationalism on which mankind, in our generation, is engaged simultaneously. We can observe, how- ever, that our “post-war” Westernizers, in addressing themselves to their task of breaking down the barriers which have hitherto iso- lated the historic cultures from one another, are displaying the same spirit of energy and determination that is animating our states- men and the publicists in their effort to substitute some kind of political order for our political anarchy.

So much for the deliberate Westernizers—the Sun Yatsens and the Mustafa Kemals. But I wish also to draw your attention to the impetus which has been given involuntarily to this same process of Westernization by the Gandhis and the Lenins—prophets who are up in arms against the West and who have found their mission in denouncing Western civilization and all its works.

What a strange irony there is in Lenin’s career! Here is a prophet, great enough to gather up in his own personality the whole reaction of the Russian soul against Western civilization—a re- action which had been gaining momentum during the two centuries that had passed since the ordeal of Westernization was first forced upon Russia by Peter the Great. And when Lenin casts about for a creed to express this spiritual revolt, does he find a creed of Rus- sian origin? No, he is constrained to arm Russia for her fight against the West with a borrowed Western weapon. His indict- ment of Westcrn civilization is taken at second-hand from a West- ern critic: Karl Marx. It is true that, in the Russian atmosphere, the Marxian social philosophy appears to be undergoing a meta- morphosis. It appears to be turning with amazing rapidity into a substitute for Orthodox Christianity with Marx for Moses and Lenin for tle Messiah, and their collected works for the scriptures of this new Russian Church Militant. In this curious metamorphosis of Marxism it looks, for a moment, as though in Russia the spirit of Western civilization had been overcome and the indigenous spirit of Byzantine civilization had reasserted itself. But it does �[Page 337]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 337

not look like that when we turn our attention from faith to works, and examine what Lenin and his successors are actually doing to the Russian people.

What is the significance of the Five-Year Plan? Whether it be destined to succeed or to fail, there can be no mistake about its intention. It is an attempt to mechanize agriculture as well as in- dustry and transportation, to change a nation of peasants into a nation of mechanics, to transform the old Russia into a new Amer- ica. In other words, it is an attempt at Westernization so ambitious, so radical, so ruthless, that it puts Peter the Great’s work into the shade. If Peter could have had foreknowledge of it he would have gasped. “I only chastised my miserable Russians with whips,” he would have exclaimed, ‘“‘but my successors are chastising them with scorpions! I only scratched the surface of Russian life, but my successors are ploughing up the soil and pulling up the tree of in- digenous Russian culture by the roots!” Thus, willy-nilly, Lenin and his successors are working, with demoniac energy, to ensure the triumph in Russia of the very civilization which they are de- nouncing in the world at large. No doubt they dream of creating a society which will be American in equipment but Communist in soul. Strange dream to be dreamed by statesmen for whom the ma- terialistic, deterministic interpretation of history is an article of faith! Can any good Marxian really maintain that, if a Russian peasant is taught to do the work and live the life of an American mechanic, this Russian peasant will not likewise learn to think as the American mechanic thinks and to feel as he feels and to desire what he desires? In this tug-of-war, in Russia, between the ideals of Lenin and the methods of Ford, I suspect that Americanism is destined to be the victor; and, if I happened to be a Marxian my- self, my suspicion would harden into a dogmatic certainty.

And is there not the same irony in the career of Gandhi? The Hindu prophet sets out to sever the threads of cotton which have en- tangled India in the activities of the Western world. “Spin and weave our Indian cotton,” he preaches, “with your Indian hands. Do not any longer clothe yourself in the products of Western power-looms; and do not, I conjure you, seek to drive those alien �[Page 338]338 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

products out of the Indian market by setting up on Indian soil new Indian power-looms on the Western pattern!” This message, which is Gandhi’s real message, is not accepted by Gandhi’s countrymen. They revere the spirit of the saint, but they only follow his guid- ance in so far as he resigns himself to leading them along the path of Westernization. And thus we see Gandhi today promoting a political movement with a Western program—the transformation of India into a sovereign independent parliamentary state—and with a Western procedure (the whole Western political apparatus of conferences, resolutions, votes, platforms, newspapers and pub- licity). In this political campaign, the prophet’s most effective, though not his most obtrusive, supporters are those very Indian in- dustrialists who have done the most to defeat the prophet’s real mission, the men who have acclimatized the technique of Western industrialism in India itself. Their factory chimneys, which the prophet, in his heart of hearts, must regard with dismay, rise almost within view of his retreat at Sabarmati. Stranger still, Western thoughts color and inform the prophet’s own mind. He seeks in- spiration in Western works of philosophy and devotion at least as much as in the Hindu scriptures.

Surely a Gandhi and a Lenin testify, by their careers, to the strength of the movement towards cultural internationalism in our time, even more eloquently than a Mustafa Kemal or a Sun Yat-sen.

I come back now te my main thesis: that a tendency for all af- fairs to become international is the principal tendency in internation- al affairs in this “post-war” age. While I have taken my thesis for granted in the economic sphere, I hope I have succeeded in sup- porting it, in the political and cultural spheres, by the evidence which I have brought forward (evidence which, of course, can only be illustrative and not demonstrative within the limits of space at my disposal). I suggest, then, that in our generation the social life of mankind is becoming internationalized through and through; and, on every plane of activity, this new internationalism is Western in its structure and in its complexion. Just as the world-wide eco- nomic system which has already virtually established itself is West- ern in its technique, so the world-wide political order and the �[Page 339]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 339

cosmopolitan culture which we, in our generation, are seeking to create are both being fashioned out of materials of Western origin. The new international society, if it comes to maturity, will be an outgrowth of Western civilization, a tree whose branches overshad- ow the whole earth but whose stem springs from European roots.

And here, in passing, I would call your attention to the strange and paradoxical position in which Europe finds herself in our “‘post- war” world. Europe, or perhaps more accurately Western and Central Europe, is the garden in which this new, world-wide, all- embracing, cosmopolitan civilization has been nurtured. Instead of saying that the civilization of the whole world has been coalesc- ing into a single unity, one might say with equal accuracy that European civilization has expanded until now, today, the whole world lies at its feet. After four centuries of this triumphal prog- ress we should naturally expect Europe, the region from which this conquering civilization has been propagated, to find herself mist- ress of the other continents. Far from that, we actually see Europe dwarfed and put out of countenance by the outer World which she has succeeded in bringing within her orbit. To invert a famous phrase, we Europeans have called a new world into being not to redress but to upset the balance of the old.

In the new world-wide society which has grown out of our old European society, the countries of Europe are now encircled by a ring of outlying countries—either colonized by European emi- grants or overrun by European conquerors or opened up by Euro- pean traders, but all alike brought within our orbit in one way or another—which completely dwarf our largest European countries in material scale as measured by the factors of area and population and wealth and efficiency. The United States, which has been the first of these giants to grow to full stature, is already a match, not for this or that European state or group of states, but for Europe as a whole. How will Europe look, and how shall we Europeans feel, when Canada and Argentina and Australia have peopled their empty spaces, and when Russia and India and China and Brazil have learnt the trick of efficiency, and when the Union of South Africa has expanded its territory from the Tropic of Capricorn to �[Page 340]340 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

the Equator? Wnen that day comes, the pygmy countries of West- ern Europe will be confronted not by one giant but by a dozen of them. The political supremacy and the economic control in the new international society wil! then have passed irrevocably from Europe to the outer world. Europe will have lost the kingdom and the power, but what about the glory? What about her cultural leader- ship, which accounts, in the last resort, far more than her transient political kingdom or her out-classed economic power, for the ex- traordinary mark which she has made already upon the history of the world?

If the cultural leadership—the divine gift of creative genius— were destined to pass from Europe at the same time as her political and economic ascendency, then a philosophic observer of interna- tional affairs, even if he happened to be a European himself, might look forward to the decline and fall of Europe with resignation or even with equanimity. He might console himself by reflecting that a creator may die in the flesh yet achieve immortality through his creations. If Europe had really called into being a world-wide civil- ization which could go on living and growing without her, then she could exclaim like Simeon, Nunc dimittis, and, like Horace, Non omnis moriar, and like the writer of Wren’s epitaph, Sz monu- mentum requiris circums pice. Now we can already imagine a sit- uation, and this in a future that is not altogether remote, in which the economic and political contribution of Europe to the life of mankind would have dwindled to a point at which it could be dis- pensed with without irreparable damage to the general well-being of the world. In other words, we can imagine a future state of our world-society in which Europe would have become economically and politically superfluous. The crucial question is whether we can foresee a situation in which Europe’s cultural contribution to the life of mankind will have become superfluous likewise.

Being a European myself, I am conscious that, in attempting to answer this question, I may not be free from prejudice. Yet, after making all the allowance that I can for my own personal pre- possessions, I still find myself answering this crucial question with an emphatic negative. However far I project my mind into the

�[Page 341]WORLD SOVEREIGNTY AND CULTURE 341

future, I cannot foresee a time when the outer world will be able to dispense with European culture—with the thought and the art and the ideals which radiate out from Europe over the rest of the world. If this light that shines in Europe were to be extinguished the rest of the world would surely sink first into twilight and ul- timately into darkness. If this salt that is preserved in Europe were to lose its savour, the rest of the world would surely find itself going intellectually and aesthetically stale. Therefore we must exert ourselves to safeguard the position of Europe in the new in- ternational society—and this not only in the interests of us poor Europeans, but in the interests of mankind at large.

The dwarfing of Europe, then, is certainly a tendency in the international development of the “post-war” world which demands our attention. There is one more ‘post-war’ tendency which I should like to touch upon before I conclude. I suggest to you that public and private affairs are much less sharply marked off from one another now than they were before.

Before the War, it would be broadly true to say that inter- national relations on the political plane were the monopoly of Governments, while international relations on the economic and cul- tural planes were abandoned by Governments to private enterprise. Today, neither of these propositions would be even approximately accurate.

The tendency for Governments to intervene, more and more actively, in economic and cultural affairs is conspicuous. It is not only that Governments have been more assiduous, since the Armistice, in economic and cultural activities in which they were already interested before the War (such economic activities, I mean, as tariff and migration restrictions and gold-hoarding and the “pegging” of exchanges, and such cultural activities as educa- tion). It is more significant that Governments have been entering upon activities which they hardly touched at all before. I am think- ing particularly of state-trading; and the trade monopoly of the Soviet Government is naturally the instance that occurs first to one’s mind. An exceptional case, you say? With all deference, I beg leave to disagree. The Communist Government of Russia is mere- �[Page 342]342 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

ly doing, thoroughly and with conviction, in peace time, what the Capitalist Governments of the Western countries did, piecemeal and half-heartedly, during the War. An exceptional case, you say, once again? What was done under the stress of war has no bearing upon what is likely to be the general practice under normal con- ditions. But suppose that abnormal conditions prevail again and go on prevailing for an indefinite period. Suppose, for example, that the present world-wide economic depression does not cure itself automatically. I suggest to you that, in that event, what was the temporary practice of Russia today may become the regular practice of the world the day after tomorrow.

And here I should like to say a word about the positive func. tions which will be performed by our local national states if we suc- ceed in our present endeavor to transfer political sovereignty to sume institution representing society as a whole. Hitherto, the local national state has been a political institution first and foremost. Is it not conceivable that, in the new order which we are striving to bring into being, the political functions of the local national state may dwindle almost to vanishing point, while in compensa- tion its economic and cultural functions may expand to an extent that is yet undreamed of? If things go well with the world, I can imagine our local national states, which started their careers in a rather sinister way as killing-machines (killing by ‘““War” outside the national frontiers, and by “Justice” inside them), ending up quite innocently as local associations for mutual benefit. I can imag- ine them developing, on the cultural side, into organizations for providing education, and on the economic side into cooperative societies of consumers. When political sovereignty has departed fromthe 1 .l capitals, the nationa] ministries of education and pub- lic health and labor and commerce will overtop the ministries of defense and of external relations.

Professor Toynbee’s article was prepared as a paper to be presented at the Fourth Conference of In- stitutions for the Scientific Study of nternational Relations held at Copenhagen in 1931. It was later published in Pacific Affairs and now appears in World Unity by kind permission of Pacific Affairs as well as Professor Toynbee. Though the text, in a few minor details, is ‘‘dated” with reference to some events, the fundamental thesis is so important that IVorld Unity is happy to give it additional circulation.

�[Page 343]A BIOLOGICAL ATTITUDE TOWARD HUMAN AFFAIRS

by VLADIMIR KARAPETOFF

Cornell University

WW The Jewish Problem

(Continued)

HE two traits which characterize the Jews en masse are their | extreme aggressiveness and supergregariousness. It may be readily seen that any group of persons which finds itself, as a group, among a great homogeneous majority belonging to a different race or nation, and speaking another language, will in time acquire some such characteristics for the sheer biological rea- son of self-preservation. American tourists in Europe and American business men in Latin-American countries are well known for just these two traits to which they object in the Jewish race at home. I may also mention Armenians and Greeks who because of several centuries of Turkish oppression have become scattered over many countries, and who too exhibit aggressiveness in business and gre-

gariousness among themselves.

Granting then the existence of a comparatively small but ex- tremely aggressively and super-gregarious alien group, it may be predicted that this group will exert upon the masses of native popu- lation a much greater pressure than the same number of persons of the dominant race would. By so doing the alien group arouses the most potent and primordial fear in the indigenous population, namely the fear for means of sustenance and for safety of progeny. An experiment to this effect can be readily performed with various species of animals, for example, by placing some red ants in the midst of a colony of black ants.

343 �[Page 344]344 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

We have here an extremely unfavorable (unstable) case of dynamic equilibrium, one in which the forces of action and reaction are quite large. There is a constant tension, so that a slight distur- bance may lead to dire consequences. A drunken brawl in a saloon in a small town in Russia once led to terrible Jewish massacres over the whole of South-West Russia. This incident, to a biologist, clearly demonstrates the strained and unstable nature of the racial equilib- rium, where the Jewish race is concerned.

It is futile to argue that Jews are white peovle, that their blood is mixed with that of all kinds of European races, that many Jews have no aggressiveness, and that many of them even do not look like Jews or belong to a synagogue. A historian can readily point out examples of a purely homogeneous people where a slightly different political or religious belief has led to most gruesome per- secutions of the mincrity, #.e., Huguenots and French Catholics, or Quakers and Puritans in New England. A trifling inhomogeneity or heterodoxy in matters considered vital, especially when the purely biological struggle for existence is concerned, is often sufficient to produce large forces of action and reaction, and hence an unstable equilibrium. In the case of Jews in this country the situation has been been much aggravated by the following facts: a) Jews have settled in a few large cities, whereas other immigrants have largely settled on the land or in small towns, especially in sparsely populated regions, and have thus escaped the first conflict; b) Jews came to this country already inured in aggressiveness and gregariousness from centuries of European experiences. Having come in contact with a somewhat easy-going American population, not used to the necessity of exerting a strong reaction, the Jews have been able to make great commerical strides in a comparatively short time. It does not take a prophet to anticipate quite a strong reaction against the Jews in the not far distant future. Not only does the past ex- perience of many European nations indicate this natural sequel, but the law of dynamic equilibrium permits us to predict a rise of con- certed resentment, of which we already hear the first rumblings.

Thus we are forced to admit antagonistic symbiosis in the case under consideration. We can do so without stating in the same �[Page 345]BIOLOGICAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS HUMAN AFFAIRS 345

breath that the hosts must be preserved by all means and the para- , sites must go. The silkworm is a parasite on the mulberry tree, but who advocates killing off the silkworms to save the trees? After “all, this article has nothing to do with human sympathies or anti- pathies, but only with an objective analysis of the problem. We may further state that the intuitive fears of the dominant popula- tion are not imaginary, but are based on solid historical and bio- logical facts, even though the masses of the people may never have heard about them.

On the Atlantic seaboard in this country the phenomenon of opuntism, caused by the spreading Jewish population, has been quite noticeable, whole communities in the Catskills (not to speak of New York City) having been converted into Jewish settlements within less than a generation. In the business world, the Jewish in- fluence has been particularly felt in the form of co-racination. Tak- ing into consideration the quite pronounced commercial trend of the native Anglo-Saxon population, it is easy to see the reasons for adverse forces of reaction so aroused. Had the Jew pioneered along some new lines not yet touched by the natives, the resentment would not have been so great, or at least not so prompt. In Poland, in the olden times of landed estates and peasantry, the Jew occupied a more unique position as a merchant and money lender. Hence the old saying, every count must have his Mendel. Our financial barons are Mendels themselves!

An investigator from Mars would thus conclude his impartial analysis by saying that the history ot the Jews, since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, reveals a remarkable vitality and persist- ence of the race, while many other peoples have become completely merged into dominant European types. Furthermore, the whole Jew- ish history seems to be an endless repetition of the same three kinds of relationships to their temporary hosts: (a) The Jews are allowed to enter the country and are tolerated without much attention being paid to them. (b) The Jew gradually acquire an influence and wealth far in excess of their number, and crowd some of the natives out of their wonted pursuits. (c) A resentment is aroused against the alien race, restrictive measures are promulgated, persecutions �[Page 346]346 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

take place, and finally a large number of Jews voluntarily emigrate or are expelled, only to begin a similar cycle elsewhere.

From the point of view of natural science, there have been no changes of late in the political or economic life in Europe or Amer- ica to prophecy a different destiny for the Jews. Their fate lies in the above-described characteristics which apparently they have not been able to modify. Even in Soviet Russia, with an official equality of all races and peoples, there is a rising tide of anti-Semitism, main- ly due to the prominent Jewish element in the officialdom. The American Constitution distinctly promises an equality of all creeds and races, but our population has never hesitated before trifles of this sort when its material welfare was concerned! So our Marsian naturalist must sadly conclude that, unless a potent biological factor (not a mushy, sentimental doctrine) enters the situation, the Amer- ican Jews will continue their aggressiveness and super-gregarious- ness, with the resulting reaction and catastrophe, followed by an exodus, perhaps to Mexico.

Thus, from a practical point of view, the only unsolved ques- tion in the Jewish problem is this: What new biological factor can be injected into the situation, so that the law of dynamic equilibrium may be satisfied in some more humane and stable way then hereto- fore? To illustrate what I mean, water ordinarily does not mix with mercury. Yet when water and mercury in the same vessel are sub- jected to socalled super-sonic waves (acoustic waves of frequencies far beyond the range of the human ear) these two liquids become readily emulsified into a homogeneous dark liquid, and remain permanently mixed. Here the super-sonic waves are a new factor, a new source of energy, which makes two non-miscible liquids be- have in a different manner.

• ok ex

The two foregoing examples, v/z. international wars and the Jewish question, have been chosen for analysis only as convenient examples of the law of dynamic equilibrium, without any pretense at settling these questions or even indicating a way toward their solution. Up to a certain stage of human development, fever and other diseases are ascribed to evil spirits, and medicine men try to �[Page 347]BIOLOGICAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS HUMAN AFFAIRS 347

expel or appease these to the best of their ability. Then the day comes when no one in that tribe believes any longer that fever is caused by an evil spirit. From that time to the day of an effective scientific remedy against fever there is a period of long and painful development, but the original wrong doctrine must be definitely dropped before an effective remedy can be found and used. In the problems of war and peace, and in some racial complications, we are still at the medicine-man stage. Yet, no matter how closely a problem affects us and therefore obscures our vision, we must fearlessly adopt the biological point of view, as though we were studying two species of mullusks in the Antarctic. We must cour- ageously discard rosy theories born of noble aspirations without any foundation in cold facts.

(Concluded) �[Page 348]THE RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY

by Harry N. Howarp

Department of History, Miami University

Ne: perhaps, have the mills of the diplomatic gods gtound more swiftly or more surely than during the past eighteen months. Never, possibly, have we been more certainly in the face of a new line up among the world

powers. Among the most interesting of the changes effected has been the shift in the position of the Soviet Union in relation to her neighbors. From a place of comparative isolation, Soviet Russia has been emerging to play one of the great major parts in the game of European and world politics. What has happened in the case of Soviet Russia would seem to be almost a diplomatic revolution. There has been a steady evolution of Soviet foreign policy from the beginning. When the Bolshevik revolutionaries over- threw the Provisional Government in November, 1917 they were determined to achieve a new political, economic and social system within the confines of the old tsarist empire and to carry the revolu- tionary gospel to the far corners of the world. This was a part of the policy of revolutionary evangelism, the answer of communism to a very hostile and actively intervening capitalist world. Only in a communist and Soviet world could a communist and Soviet Russia live. There must be permanent ‘revolution until a world-wide com- munistic new heaven and new earth had been made. Revolution did break out in Hungary and in Germany and it did frighten the peace conference then sitting at Paris, but it did not succeed on the great scale which the Bolsheviks had hoped for. In 1920 peace had been established with Esthonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Finland.

348 �[Page 349]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 349

B, 1921 the period of war communism, civil war and intervention had come to an end, the war with Poland was concluded and treaties were signed with Poland, Austria, Turkey and Persia. Soviet Russia was entering a new phase of her development both in internal and foreign affairs. During this second period, which lasted roughly from 1921 to about 1928, the Moscow government looked toward recognition by the great powers, began the develop- ment of a system of security treaties, and cautiously sought finan- cial and economic collaboration with the rest of the world. Rep- resentatives of Soviet Russia sat in the conferences of Genoa and Lausanne in 1922 and 1923, and suggested at Genoa that world disarmament was a prerequisite to economic recovery. At Rapallo in 1922 close relations were established with republican Germany. By 1924 the U.S. S. R. had secured the recognition of some twenty- one nations, including all the great powers except the United States. Thanks to the stabilization of both the socialistic and the capitalistic worlds, the Soviet government announced in 1927 that the two could live peacefully side by side. By that year, too, the Moscow government had concluded nen-aggression treaties with Turkey, Germany, Afghanistan, Lithuania and Persia. These were con- tinued until by 1932 they included Finland, Latvia, Esthonia, Po- land and France, though the latter two were not ratified. It will be noted that they included especially the countries on the borders of the lands of the Soviets. Though not invited to participate a- mong the original signatories of the Paris Anti-War Pact of 1928, the Soviet government was the first to put the pact into effect with her neighbors, Esthonia, Latvia, Poland and Roumania through the Litvinov protocol of February 9, 1929.

With the adoption of the Péatiletka, or Five Year Plan, in 1928, Russian internal policy was characterized by an attempt to industrialize the country, mechanize agriculture and socialize the entire Russian economy. It is probably true, as Kail Radek has recently insisted, that “foreign policy is a function of domestic policy. It solves problems which result from the development of a given society, a given state, under definite historical conditions.” At any rate, the Five Year Plan had far reaching influences on �[Page 350]3 50 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

foreign policy. The Piatiletka emphasized and deepened the ten- dencies of the policy of peaceful collaboration with the czpitalistic world. Any disturbance in the outside world was bound to have its influence on the fulfillment of the great plan, and the Soviet govern- ment—whatever the aspirations of the Third International—did not appear to want any upheavals abroad. Walter Duranty, the Mos- cow correspondent of the New York Times, wrote on November 22, 1932: “Far. from trying to foment revolution, the U. S. S. R. today is ready and eager to cooperate in any sincere attempt to com- bat the effects of the depression and to restore the economic order.” In foreign policy therefore the Russian government continued to negotiate political and economic non-aggression pacts, urged dis- armament and sought the stabilization of its relations with the capi- talistic world. Leon Trotzky, the apostle of permanent revolution, was sent into exile. Not since 1928 has there been a meeting of the Third International, though one is scheduled for this autumn.

This is the substantial outline of Russian foreign policy from the inception of the revolution to the year 1933. It is marked by an evolution from world revolution to a policy of guarded co- operation with the rest of the world in which apparently the U. S. S. R. sought to live and let live. Now let us turn our analysis to the series of specific changes in Soviet policy which occurred during the past eighteen months. Aside from the fundamental propositions which have been outlined in the above brief statement of the evolution of policy, the changes during the past year and a half have been brought about definitely and in general by the threat to world peace and the machinery of peace occasioned by the Jap- anese aggressions in the Far East and by the rise of Adolph Hitler in Germany in January 1933.

Hitlerite Germany was known to be quite hostile not only to communism in Germany — which was very natural — but hostile to the U. S. S. R. This eninity was not even thinly veiled in nice diplomatic phrases, it was openly avowed. In that Bible of Ger- man Nazism—Mein Kam pf—and it is to be found in the deleted translation for the consumption of English and American readers —Hitler frankly declared: �[Page 351]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 351

“When we talk of new lands in Europe, we are bound to think first of Russia and her border states. Fate itself seems to wish to give us our direction....The immense Empire is ripe for collapse; and the end of the Jewish domination will mean the end of Russia as a state—We stop the eternal German march to the south and west of Europe and turn our eyes towards the land in the East... . If we speak of land in Europe today, we can only think, in the first instance, of Russia and her border land.”

Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, chief of the “foreign office” of the Nazi Party, talked the same language, and nothing was said or done to disavow these statements which greatly alarmed the Soviet authori- ties. However it must be recalled that on May 5, 1933 the German and Russian governments extended the time of the Berlin protocol of 1926 providing for conciliation procedure in case of disputes be- tween the two countries. Apparently it was the change in the German situation which brought about the first sign of an alteration in Soviet policy at the conference for the reduction of armaments at Geneva, as reflected in Litvinov’s statement of February 6, 1933 when he not only acknowledged the essential “soundness” of the French position on the problem of security, but proposed the most complete definition of an aggressor yet on record—the definition which was fundamentally accepted by the Politis commission on security in May of that year.

It will be reiembered that at the London Economic Confer- ence, M. Litvinov, despite his skepticism concerning the meeting, did not seek at all to destroy its usefulness. Instead he expressed once more his desire not only for economic truce between the nations, but for economic peace as indicated in economic pacts of non-aggression. He announced that ‘‘the Soviet government—might agree to place orders abroad in the near future to the sum of about one billion dollars,” if proper trade facilities and long-term credits could be granted. During the course of the London conference Dr. Alfred Hugenburg, of the German delegation, presented an “unofficial” memorandum, in which the hope was expressed that the powers would “open up to this people without room territories for the settlement of its active race and for the construction of �[Page 352]352 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

great works of peace.” The memorandum proved a bombshell and finally precipitated Dr. Hugenburg’s resignation from the Hitler cabinet. The Soviet government protested bitterly and on June 19, Pravda, the official organ of the Communist party, declared:

“The days are past when German militarists can repeat their invasion of the Ukraine, which invasion, even in 1918, when the Soviet government was weak and unorganized came to a shameful end. . . . Let the Fascists remember that the Soviet Union can defend itself and can smash back at those who think or talk about the seizure of Soviet soil. Let them remember that our country can organize such a counter-stroke as would not only insure the pro- tection of our territory and keep it inviolable, but might leave in our hands slices of the territory of those who attempt to grab Soviet soil by bandit aggression. .. . It is the stupidest document in recent times and could only have been produced in the atmosphere of contemporary Germany, where the government policy is often hardly distinguishable from tomfoolery.”

Doubtless it was the implications of the Hugenburg memor- andum and the general direction of Hitler foreign policy which brought on the Litvinov moves on July 3 and 4 to organize secur- ity pacts with the neighbors of the U.S.S.R. On July 3 non-aggression treaties were signed with Afghanistan, Esthonia, Latvia, Persia, Poland, Roumania and Turkey. On the next day similar treaties were signed with Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia and Roumania as mem- bers of the Little Entente, to which Turkey was also a party. A similar separate pact was signed with Lithuania. It is interesting to note that the aggressor was identically defined in these treaties according to Article II (following also the Politis report of May 24, 1933) as follows:

‘In accordance with the above, the aggressor i: an international conflict, with due consideration to the agreements between the parties involved in the conflict, will be considered the state which will be the first to commit any of the following acts:

1. Declaration of war against another state;

2. Invasion by armed forces, even without a declaration of

wat, of the territory of another state;

�[Page 353]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 353

3. An attack by armed land, naval or air forces, even without a declaration of war, upon the territory, naval vessels or air craft of another state;

4. Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another state;

5. Aid to armed bands formed on the territory of a state

and invading the territory of another state, or refusal, des- pite demands on the part of the state subjected to attack, to take all possible measures on its own territory to deprive the said bands of any aid and protection.” Most significant perhaps was the declaration in the next article that ‘“‘no considerations of a political, military, economic or any other nature can serve as an excuse or justification of aggression...” These treaties seem to indicate the desire of the U. S. S. R. for secur- ity against a possible German attack, as well as an orientation of Russian policy against any upset of the territorial status guo in Europe through force of arms. From these manouvres several con- sequences followed. Among these were the recognition of the Soviet Union by the United States and closer rapprochement be- tween the Soviets and France and Poland. Closer cooperation with the League of Nations would also follow. Moreover the way was paved for direct Russian influence in the coming rapprochement among the Balkan countries.

When the Roosevelt administration came to power in the spring of 1933 it was already apparent that recognition of the Soviet Union was a serious possibility. The desire of both countries to increase their trade, and particularly their wish to prevent any possible break-up in the peace edifice of the world accounts for that new extension of diplomatic relations which was made on November 16, 1933. Russia was threatened on the east by an ag- gressive Japan which had run amuck in Manchuria and endangered Siberia, and on the west by Germany along the European borders. The United States saw her interests imperiled in the Far East. Both governments therefore desired closer cooperation which would fa- cilitate their activities in the preservation of world peace.

Both the U. S. S. R. and the U. S. A. appear to have followed up their recognition with definite steps to strengthen the peace �[Page 354]354 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

machinery at Geneva. The sorely tried League of Nations had been dealt severe body blows during the spring and fall of 1933 by the withdrawal of Japan and Germany (from the League and the con- ference, October 14), not to speak of the open criticism of Fascist Italy. President Roosevelt declared on December 28, 1933, the birthday anniversary of Woodrow Wilson, that though the League had been handicapped from the beginning and though the United States had no intention to join it now, “nevertheless, through the League of Nations. .. .the states of the world in the years gone by have gone forward to find something better than the old way of composing their differences. . .. Today the United States is coopera- ting openly in the fuller utilization of the League of Nations than ever before. ... The League of Nations, encouraging as it does the extension of non-aggression pacts, of reduction of armaments agree- ments, is a prop in the world peace structure, and it must remain.” These sentiments were re-echoed in Moscow. Hitherto Soviet Russia’s attitude toward the League had been one of open hostility, as in the years of 1917-1922. During the period of the N. E. P., 1921-1926, there had been sporadic attendance at League technical gatherings. After Locarno there was considerable contact, but not cooperation, but within the last two years, and now more than ever there has been a “definitely constructive relationship.” On December 25 last Stalin told Walter Duranty:

“We do not always and in all conditions take a negative attitude toward the League. Despite the German and Japanese exit from the League—or perhaps, because of it—the League may well be- come a brake to retard or hamper military action. ...I would say that if historical events were such that the League became a brake upon or an obstacle to war, it is not excluded that we should support the League despite its colossal deficiencies.”

Once Soviet Russia’s enemies were inside the League; now they vere outside and were threatening the great peace structure; hence Stalin’s well-timed statement.

Four days later, on December 29, 1933, Litvinov made his great statement on foreign policy before the Central Executive Com- mittee of the U. S. S. R. in which the new orientation of policy is �[Page 355]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 355

all the more apparent. He was fearful that the world was moving directly toward war. Danger confronted the socialist reconstruc- tion of Russia. In his address the foreign commissar announced that though Russia did not approve the peace treaties of 1919 and it was not for Moscow “ to object to the revision of these treaties,”

“,... this is so only if such revision can be accomplished peace- fully, on the basis of voluntary agreements, or if, in abolishing existing injustices they will not create other, perhaps greater in- justices. But in reality we know of such projects for “just” revision of treaties which provide for the satisfaction of the territorial appetites of the vanquished states at the expense of countries such as the Baltic states, for instance, or even the U. S. S. R. which took no part in the Versailles Treaty and caused no injustices to anyone .... Any attempt at the application of such a morality would be up against the entire power of our-170 million people.”

And he added:

“We have never objected, and do not object, to organized in- ternational cooperation which aims at strengthening peace.... We do not refuse to make use of existing or future international com- binations and organizations, providing we have row or in the future reason to believe that they would serve the cause of peace.” As he went on the commissar for foreign affairs stated that he viewed the importance of the establishment of relations with the United States “primarily from the standpoint of its significance in the cause of peace.” Relations with France had made “rapid strides” during the past year on account of the “common desire to work actively in the interests of preserving universal peace.” Prog- ress in relations with Poland had been made, for, as Litvinov stated:

“The political disturbances which have occurred in Europe dur- ing the past year have a community of interests arising from the common danger and common anxieties. ... Common anxieties and ~ommon dangers are the best bonds between states.”

This, likewise, was true of the Baltic states in general.

But relations with Germany had “changed beyond recogni- tion”, for Germany apparently sought not only recovery of terri- tories denied to her by Versailles, but “by fire and sword to carve �[Page 356]356 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

the way for expansion in the East, without stopping at the borders of the Soviet Union, and to enslave the peoples of this Union. ... Only about a half-year ago at the London International Conference, a member of the German cabinet expounded in a memorandum the same idea of conquering the East.” Relations with Japan were quite as bad, and had been ever since 1931. Soviet Russia therefore had to look to its security and defenses, though Litvinov concluded by stating:

“There should be no question of new groupings, of the forma- tion of military alliances along the old lines, but of cooperation for the rightful self-defense of all those who are not interested in violating peace, so that no one would think of daring to infringe it.”

Litvinov was not alone in these declarations of policy, for on January 26, Stalin made an even more direct statement before the Seventeenth Congress of the Communist Party of the U. S. S. R. After reviewing the important developments in international re- lations during the past months, Stalin discussed in particular the German situation, with its insistence on ‘‘superior” and “inferior” (z.e., the Slav) peoples. He stated that there was a time when imperial Rome had treated the Germans and others as barbarians, and then with prophecy, perhaps, combined with history, declared that “it happened that the non-Romans, that is, all the barbarians, united against the common enemy and took Rome by storm.” Stalin indicated that there were two fundamental factors in the change which had occurred in the foreign relations of the U. S. S. R. The first of these factors was ‘‘that change for the better in the relations between the U. S. S. R. and Poland and between the U. S. S. R. and France,” which could not be described ‘as other than relations of rapprochement.” The second factor involved “some changes in the policy of the spirit of ‘revanche’ and imperialism in Germany.”

The Soviet dictator then went on:

“The issue does not lie either (in fascism or) in the alleged changes in our attitude to the Versailles treaty... . We do not agree simply that the world should again be thrown into the throes of a new war on account of this treaty. The same thing must be said about the alleged reorientation of the U. S. S. R. We had no or-

�[Page 357]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 357

ientation on Germany, just as we have no orientation on Poland and France. We have oriented ourselves in the past and we are orienting ourselves in the present on the U. S. S. R. and only on the U.S.S.R. And if the interests of the U. S. S. R. demand rap proche- ment with some country or other, not interested in the violation of peace, we take the step without any hesitation.”

The policy of Germany had changed, not that of Soviet Russia. This was a policy “which reminds one of the policy of the late Ger- man kaiser, who at one time occupied the Ukraine and undertook a march against Leningrad. . . .The well-known action of Hugenberg in London is no accident, just as the equally well-known declara- tions of Rosenberg in London are also no accident. Relations with Japan, the dictator said, also were “in need of serious improve- ment.” Japan had signed no pact of non-aggression with Russia.

Somewhat later, Mr. Rosenberg, the Soviet counsellor at the Paris Embassy, declared that if the Soviet Union felt sure the League would remain a check against aggressive tendencies, “it would not hesitate to cooperate with the League in order to consolidate and strengthen their organization of peace.”

The next phase of the reorientation has to do with Russia’s relations with France, Poland and the Little Entente. Much of this has been hinted in the above statements of both Litvinov and Stalin. Closer relations with France really began with the signin of a non-aggression pact in 1932. This agreement, with a conciliation convention, which went into effect on February 15, 1933, was rati- fied on May 18, 1933 by a vote of 554 tor (Andre Tardieu) in the French chamber. In the late summer of 1933 M. Herriot visited the Soviet Union and was followed somewhat later by M. Pierre Cot, the French aviation minister. There were talks of a possible alli- ance even at that date. French policy looked toward bringing Russia into collaboration with the friends of France, making her a supporter of the territorial status quo, and possibly persuading her to enter the League of Nations. On January 11, 1934 an ex- tensive trade agreement was signed by the two countries.

Poland had been somewhat estranged from its traditional friendship with France on account of the latter’s participation in the �[Page 358]358 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

famous Four Power Pact proposed in the spring of 1933 by Italy, and including Italy, Germany, France and England. It was partly this estrangement which led to the German-Polish agreement of January 26, 1934 guaranteeing the Polish borders for a period of ten years from a German attack. There were also the factors that Poland naturally desired a German guarantee of her security, and Germany needed a truce in order to settle, if possible, the Austrian situation on the southern borders of Germany. There may have been, as the Soviet authorities thought, a German threat to the U. S. S. R. in this pact. Partly as a response to these moves the Soviet government proposed to the Berlin government in March 1934 that it sign a treaty guaranteeing the sovereignty of the Baltic states over their territories. On April 14 the German government refused to do so on the ground that the Russian and Polish initia- tive in this matter “was a political spearhead aimed against Ger- many,” and stated that Germany had no aggressive intentions against the security of the region. It could therefore see ‘‘no reason whatever for concluding with the Soviet Union a special treaty for the protection of these states.” Furthermore, the German note added:

“We are able to see the true cause of the regrettable alienation in German-Soviet relations only in the attitude of the Soviet govern- ment towards the National-Socialist regime in Germany. For this reason we can only emphasize again that the difference in the in- ternal order of the two states should not affect their international relations. ...”

This rejection, of course, did not improve the situation. Litvin- ov, on April 21, declared that “one can deny .... the threat to the security of certain small states only by completely ignoring the reali- ties of the international situation and the public opinion of the whole world.” The Moscow government could not find ‘‘a single con- vincing reason or argument” against the conclusion of such a pact. As to the alienation in the relations of the two governments, M. Litvinov stated that “the real causes of this alienation are sufficiently well-known to the German government....as not to require repeti- tion.” It was no accident that on April 4 the Baltic states (Esthonia, �[Page 359]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 359

Latvia and Lithuania) prolonged their non-aggression pacts with Russia until 1945. This was followed on April 7 with the signing of a similar protocol with Finland continuing her treaty until 1945. Finally the Soviet-Polish pact of 1932, by agreement of May 5, was extended until 1945. The Baltic ring of security agreements was therefore complete, and if the spearhead were aimed against Ger- many, the Hitler government had helped to forge its metal.

The way for the regularization of Soviet relations with the states of the Little Entente was now thoroughly prepared by the growing friendship between France, Poland, the Baltic states and the U.S. S. R., as well as by the growing fear of the Little Entente States lest Germany upset the balance in the Danubian basin. As one Soviet paper put it: “The Danube basin is gradually becoming an area of great strategic importance, for which the great powers are contending. The military danger to this part of capitalistic. Europe is becoming more real and is affecting the policies of the Danubian countries.” In February, 1933, partially in answer to the coming of Hitler in Germany, the Little Entente became a veritable diplomatic federation. Moreover the non-aggression pacts signed on July 3 and 4 during the London Conference of 1933, had prepared the way very definitely for rapprochement with Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia and Roumania. It was believed that not even the Bessarabian question would stand in the way of Roumania’s action. Still again there is no doubt that the non-aggres- sion pacts signed at London had helped to pave the way for the consolidation of Balkan unity as exemplified in the four power pact (Jugoslavia, Roumania, Greece and Turkey) of February 9, 1934, though that action was the product of a fundamental histori- cal movement which had reached fruition in the Balkan Conferences of 1930-1934 under the able leadership of M. Alexander Papan- astassiou, the former premier of Greece. Indeed, on April 5, 1934 before the Roumanian chamber of deputies, M. Titulescu, the foreign minister declared that Roumania had been able to conclude with the U. S. S. R. “two conventions concerning non-aggression, which serve the interests of peace and respect scrupulously the interests of the country.” These were the conventions of July 3, 4, 1933. �[Page 360]360 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

And M. Titulescu added: “I have always realized fully the im- portance, for Roumania, of the friendship of our great neighbor of the East.” This sentiment was reciprocated in Czechoslovakia, though not in Jugoslavia, on account of the large number of Russian emigrés in official positions in Belgraie. The formal te- sumption of relations, however, was to be brought about as a result of the meeting of the arms conference at Geneva.

When the conference for the reduction of armaments resurned its brief sessions at Geneva in May 1934, it assembled in an atmos- phere of gloom which was hardly dissipated by the statements of the delegates, including those of Norman H. Davis and Maxim Litvinov. It was noteworthy that when Litvinov made his address on May 29, he no longer spoke with emphasis on the immediacy of universal disarmament, but made a proposal for sanctions a- gainst an aggressor within the meaning of the Briand-Kellogg pact. He spoke of a ‘‘graduated scale of such sanctions” and declared that “independently of a more or less universal European pact, there might be concluded, in addition, separate regional pacts of mutual assistance as proposed on a former occasion by the French delega- tion.” It was not a question of alliances or encirclement against Ger- many. “We must not create universal pacts which would exclude any state wishing to participate, or such regional pacts as would not admit all those interested in the security of a particular region concerned.” War was a real danger, and in the face of that danger “no single state . . . . has the right to wash its hands of responsibility and to refuse to participate in the common international cause of averting this terribie peril.” Russia was prepared to cooperate in any way in order to preserve peace. On this same date, May 209, Pravda declared that the danger arose not from the League of Nations, but from the opponents of the League—Germany and Japan. Izvestia stated that the Soviet Union would do “everything possible for strengthening peace and security.”

After less than two weeks of ineffectual labor, the conference adjourned. By that time the Russian delegation had made some inter- esting proposals. Litvinov urged that the conference be turned into a permanent peace organization to supplement, not to supplant, �[Page 361]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 361

the League of Nations. The final resolution of the conference provided for the continuance of the meetings next October. Four committees were appointed, one of them being the committee on the problem of security under the chairmanship of Nicolas Politis. The Russian proposal regarding a permanent conference was to be studied. Litvinov was not delighted with the resolution, but stated that he would not oppose it.

While the conference was yet in session it was annouaced at Geneva on June 8 that the Little Entente was moving toward defin- ite recognition of the Soviet government. The way was being pre- pared for an Eastern European Locarno which was to be a part of the new policy of keeping Germany peaceful “by encircling her with a diplomatic wall of alliances of mutual assistance.” At the same time, Poland, Roumania and the Soviet Union were mutually guaranteeing their frontiers. This would make Bessarabia an ‘‘es- tablished entity as part of Roumania.” No longer would that delicate question separate Roumania and Russia. On June 20 at a meeting of the councii of the Little Entente, it was stated that ‘‘the restora- tion of normal relations between Soviet Russia and Roumania and Czechoslovakia was noted with satisfaction.” Though Jugoslavia had not yet decidea to take this action, it is expected that it will be forthcoming by the fall of 1934.

Significant during the recent meetings at Geneva were the increasing signs of Franco-Russian friendship. Apparently Russia was now supporting the French security position openly because Russia herself was now in need of the same security. Moreover France had been negotiating during the past few weeks for an agreement involving mutual military assistance between the two countries. Evidently the agreement was to provide for “the ex- change of military plans and for technical collaboration” between the general staffs. The pact for mutual assistance evidently was to be open to universal adherence, including that of Germany, and the definition of the aggressor was to be modeled on that in the pacts of July 1933. This was the definition embodied, as we have indicated, in the Balkan pact of February last. Under the new Bulgarian government, following the coup d’état of May 109, it

�[Page 362]362 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

appears that the Sofia government is determined on close relations with Jugoslavia and on the resumption of diplomatic relations with the U. S. S. R., though Bulgaria is not prepared to join the Balkan pact or accept its definition (essentially the Litvinov definition) of an aggressor. The Baltic states and Poland have already made their adjustments. The Russian security system, in collaboration with France, seems well-nigh complete.

Meanwhile, what of the position of Germany, which was be- ing surrounded with potential enemies and enclosed within a new ring of iron, like the old one before 1914, partly forged by the ineptness of German foreign policy under the Hitlerites? Though the regional security pacts which were being formed around Ger- many were not technically designed to encircle the Reich, the pros- pects of the new development have apparently alarmed certain elements in Berlin. Once again on June 13 Germany refused to sign any kind of regional security agreement with Russia. The fear of encirclement has produced a series of hectic moves on the diplomatic chessboards with a hurried visit of German diplo- matists to Poland and France, and with Hitler’s flying trip to Ven- ice to consult with Il Duce. That there has been a growing discontent with German policy in the German government itself is now manifest from the Marburg address of Herr von Papen and from the resignation of Herr Nadolny, the German ambassador to Moscow. No less dissatisfied and alarmed is President von Hindenburg. When news of the Franco-Russian rapprochement first came to him, he called in both von Neurath and Hitler, ard it is said told Der Fiihrer of his disapproval of the policy and “de- manded by virtue of his own responsibility for Germany’s fate a drastic change in policy.” In recent months Germany had been in- creasingly isolated both politically and economically.

Any conclusions as to the recent developments in Russian foreign policy, based on such evidence as we have, must be tentative in their nature. But certain features seem to be outstanding. In the first place, of course, it must be evident that the Soviet government no longer is officially promoting “world revolution.” This does not mean that the dream of a communist world has been aban- �[Page 363]RE-ORIENTATION OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY 363

doned, but it does signify that the implications of the Five Year Plan and of objective conditions in the capitalistic world have forced the Soviet Union to face reality. Let us remember that there is no sentiment in international politics. In the second place, the Soviet Union is more closely than ever cooperating in the realm of peaceful collaboration with the rest of the world and more than ever seeking that economic rapprochement which will be of benefit to both its own interests and those of the world at large. Thirdly, the Soviet Union no longer takes a hostile or negative attitude to- ward the League of Nations and all those institutions connected with Geneva. Whether the U. S. S. R. will join the League for- mally in the near future is problematical. I. M. Maisky, the Soviet Ambassador to London stated recently that the decision would be made ‘“‘solely and exclusively according to the measure in which the League in present conditions can play a part or be a real factor in reinforcing peace.” We have recently had the spectacle of the Soviet Ambassador in Washington urging an American audience as to the necessity of sanctions against an aggressor! That the U. S. S. R. will not hesitate to cooperate in the preservation of peace is hardly to be doubted. Again, it seems that the Soviet Union has now become a definite support in the peace structure in the sense that it does not favor any forcible destruction of the European territorial status quo. It is opposed to such an upset not only because of its fear for Soviet territory, but because its entire econo- mic future would be seriously jeopardized. In this Germany and Japan are particularly concerned. The U. S. S. R. is not against re- vision as a principle, but is opposed to revision by war. In the fifth place, as has been pointed out by both Litvinov and Stalin, there has now taken place a fundamental rapprochement between Soviet Russia and the French republic, the states of the Baltic region, the Little Entente and the Balkan Entente—all those countries interested in preserving peace within the territorial status quo. In its way the United States is also invclved, since the American government is interested in preserving peace and is opposed to any aggressive action against the status quo. The same may be said of Great Britain, though the London government will enter no security pact beyond �[Page 364]364 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Locarno or the Belgian frontiers. It is interesting to note that the regional security projects—the Russo-Baltic pacts, the Little En- tente and the Balkan Entente—have received the blessing of the security commission (Politis commission) of the Geneva conference on reduction of armaments. A result of this policy has been the essential encirclement of Germany by all those states which have been threatened by the militant and aggressive utterances and tend- encies displayed by Hitlerite Germany. As a final conclusion, we may state that Soviet Russia has definitely taken her place within the European system, and seems bound to take an increasing part and a larger responsibility in all that develops to determine the fundamental policies of the old continent leading toward war or

peace. �[Page 365]AMERICA AND INTERNATIONAL LABOR REGULATION*

by FRANCIS G. WILSON

University of Washington

HF trend of events during the past few years indicates that

before very long America must re-evaluate its formal atti-

tude toward international cooperation. American policy

toward the League of Nations and the World Court are ob- viously in evolution, and the presence of an American observer on the Council of the League for the first time in October, 1931, argues that our isolation from the work of the Peace Conference of Paris is slowly drawing to a close. But there had been no perceptible change in the attitude of the United States toward Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles which established the International Labor Or- ganization, although there was an abortive move to send an obser- ver to the Fifteenth Session of the International Labor Conference in 1931. The fundamental question which arises in connection with labor’s world constitution, that is, Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, is whether it is consonant with American economic principles.

We specifically excluded Part XIII in our treaty with Ger- many, and the rapprochment with the League of Nations system has not included a more friendly attitude toward the international establishment of “equivalent” conditions of labor. It is true, how- ever, that the International Labor Organization is little known in America, and by and large it was not an issue in the political flagel- lation of the Peace Conference. An ultimately favorable policy of the United States toward this movement must depend on the

‘The author prepared this statement while in Europe on a Social Science Research Council Fellow- ship stadying the International Labor Organization.

365 �[Page 366]366 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

conviction of the government and American labor that the object- ives and the methods of attaining them adopted by the International Labor Organization are in harmony with American economic and social principles. Taking all the facts into consideration, is it not time to consider whether we should take a more friendly point of view toward the Labor Organization?

American friends of the International Labor Organization think there is in the long run no essential or fundamental conflict between the points of view of American labor and the American government as to international cooperation and social policy, on the one hand, and the Labor Organization on the other.

Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles established an Interna- tional Labor Conference composed of two government, one em- ployers’ and one workers’ delegate from each member of the Or- ganization, along with a virtually unrestricted number of advisers on matters on the agenda of the Conference. The Governing Body is composed of twenty-four members, twelve government members, and six employers’ and six workers’ representatives. The Interna- tional Labor Office is presided over by the Director, Mr. Albert Thomas, who has under him an international civil service of about 400 persons from a large number of countries members of the Or- ganization. The Office gathers information on all matters before the Organization, prepares for the meetings of the Governing Body and the Conference and acts as secretariat for both. The procedure of the Conference is to adopt Draft Conventions and Draft Recom- mendations which seek to safeguard the conditions of labor. Mem- ber states are obliged to submit these actions of the Conference to their “competent authorities” but they are not obliged to ratify them or embody them in national legislation.

The Labor Organization functions in an historic atmosphere of reform. It was there in Geneva that Calvinism in the sixteenth cen- tury consolidated its position, and it was there that the romantic humanitarianism of Rousseau was first formulated. In the genera- tion after the World War it was at Geneva that the idealism of a hundred years was organized into what may be called the League of Nations system, of which the Labor Organizations is a part. It �[Page 367]INTERNATIONAL LABOR REGULATION 367

might seem that this humanitarian and reformist point of view would find favor immediately with America, but our humanitarian- ism frequently atrophies when questions become as much economic as humanitarian. The legislative attitude of America is fundamen- tally suspicious and critical when it comes to economic reform. There are distinct limits to the humanitarianism of the conservative.

The International Labor Organization seeks social reform, for it is a social organization rather than economic, while the coopera- tion fostered by the League of Nations is often to conserve merely the status quo. The issue is, of course, how an increase in the gener- al level of the living conditions of the masses can be attained. One alternative is that a higher level of life can be reached by legislative social reform, and the other is that economic reform is necessary. By the terms of its reference found in Part XIII, the Labor Organ- ization is excluded from economic reform, while the League of Nations seems, in some degree, to consider itself as having eco- nomic jurisdiction. The League, however, does not favor economic reform leading into radicalism of various forms such as socialism and communism, for it seeks an international economic cooperation entirely in agreement with capitalism. One idea behind “social service” is the idea behind the International Labor Organization: it is the idea of protective legislation which safeguards the condi- tions of living. As for the Labor Organization, it is the conditions of the wage-earning class which it can investigate and propose legislation for the removal of discovered evils. Thus, no funda- mental alteration of Western capitalism has been proposed or will be; it would be beyond the competence of the jurisdiction of the Organization. Attempts have been made by the Labor Organiza- tion, among other things, to establish the eight hours day for labor, the protection of the working conditions of women and children, the safeguarding of seamen, social insurance, and the protection of agricultural labor in certain respects. A reasonable success has at- tended the work of the Organization, though the quick social re- form contemp!ated by the framers of Part XIII has long since been surrendered as visionary.

Now economic reform in the sense of a fundamental altera- �[Page 368]368 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

tion of the system of production and distribution is rightly ques- tioned in America, but the conservative American point of view, as voiced by the studies of the National Industrial Conference Board, has made the tacit assumption that social reform of a legisla- tive character which safeguards the conditions of living of the work- ing class leads necessarily to such fundamental economic changes or attempted economic changes. The whole history of labor legis- lation in Western countries belies this conclusion. The Labor Or- ganization insists on this, and the generality of the proponents of labor legislation are not-attacking the capitalistic system. The posi- tion is that labor legislation will be of assistance to capitalism in correcting its own defects. In fact, it may be noted that the fron- tal attack represented in communism and syndicalism regards amel- iorative legislation as a palliative designed to draw the attention of the workers away from the evils of Western capitalism. Broadly speaking then, the choice is ultimately between protective labor legislation and the class revolution of the proletariat.

But if American labor is somewhat contemptuous of the inter- national movement for cooperation in the protection of labor, if American employers are sceptical of any value coming out of the Geneva program, and if the government has ignored this very signi- ficant movement as far as Europe, Latin-America and Asia are con- cerned, the position is understandable. A factor not present in the European outlook was present in America, at least until the Autumn of 1929. This factor was American prosperity and our high stan- dard of living, while at the same time we were not over-burdened with legislation of a social character. All economic questions turn finally upon the problem of the standard of living, of which America is, indeed, justly proud. But essential to that standard of living is economic prosperity. Not until the fall of 1929 did we find ourselves in company with many European and Asiatic countries which were suffering from genuine economic depression. American high wages put the working men of our country in a different world from the working men of Europe and Asia, though in fact there is no comparison between the standard of living of the European worker and the Asiatic. �[Page 369]INTERNATIONAL LABOR REGULATION 369

The worship of “production” is certainly one factor in the standard realized by the American working men, just as it was a factor in the advance of labor in Victorian England. Even where the trade unions have been broken this standard in certain trades has not been seriously injured, and in other trades where the unions have been strong the standard of living has been decidedly low. The American mind is firmly convinced that, despite national re- sources almost unequaled in the rest of the world and despite the enormous free-trade area represented by Continental United States, the factor that accounts for prosperity is production. While pro- duction itself is purely material, there is behind it a spiritual value which the European mind has frequently failed to see. That moral value is the inestimable worth of a high standard of living, of a working population with a large purchasing power. Production is not the “god”; our fundamental economic assumption is a high standard of life.

This leads to the American solution of the problem of the con- ditions of labor which leaves out of account international coopera- tion and consequently the International Labor Organization. Our solution is that if the purchasing power of the masses is high enough to absorb the products of factory efficiency, protective labor legis- lation i$ quite unnecessary. Without the so-called excess of Europe- an labor legislation we have yet been able to give our workers more than European workers. Men like the late Samuel Gompers might attribute this to the action of trade unions of a conservative cast, but quite inconsistently he felt that America should go into the In- ternational Labor Organization to help the working men of other countries attain the same high standard as American labor. I say inconsistent because the means envisaged by the Labor Organization is protective legislation primarily, though of course it stands for freedom of association, i. e., trade unionism. In reality, it may be argued with some force that American trade unionism has not been nearly this mighty force for'a higher standard of living, dependent in fact on the American genius for mass production and the pur- chasing power of the masses.

Moreover, the defender of the American solution may point

�[Page 370]370 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

to many countries having protective legislation and yet at the same time a very low standard of living. One of the ironies of the In- ternational Labor Conferences is that countries with an obviously low standard of life, such as some Balkan and Latin American states, can “point with pride” to their record in labor legislation and ratification of Labor Organization conventions, while countries with a much higher level of life for the mass of the workers have less legislation and often few ratifications. The American might be tempted to make a thesis out of the idea that the less protective legislation there is the higher the labor standard of living is likely to be. American labor thus senses a danger in international co- operation to secure labor legislation, and capitalists are openly an- tagonistic to it.

But despite all of these considerations and despite the obvious facts to support the American solution of labor progress, the search- ing question is: what is the intelligent and far-sighted policy for Americans to take in regard to maintaining the standard of living? It is obvious, on the one hand, that the quantity ot protective legis- lation is increasing daily in many sections of the United States, and, on the other, that the American solution, so ardently believed in during post-war prosperity, may not be, on account of contem- porary depression, as good or as final a solution of the question as it was thought to be.

Furthermore, tariff reprisals, international trade competition, and competition in labor costs, suggest that it may be short-sighted to place our sole reliance on our conventional theory. For our theory is a theory of isolation, of restricted immigration and high wages, and it may be that it will be necessary, in order to maintain our standard, to make it our business to see that labor in the rest of the world is likewise being brought to a higher standard of exist- ence. As we increasingly compete with other countries in the sale of manufactured goods as against our traditional exports of raw materials, the factor of labor competition will accordingly become more complicated. We might in the long-run find that international regulation of labor conditions is essential to our own standard of living. The far-sighted policy is, then, to have more than one sup- �[Page 371]INTERNATIONAL LABOR REGULATION 371

port for our standard of living. Our internal economy is one sup- port, and to gauge by depression it is perhaps none too solid; and the other is international cooperation so that international competi- tion based on depreciated labor costs can be avoided. When ma- chines are no longer or less efficient in the use of labor, interna- tional cooperation to maintain protective legislation may be a ne- cessity if the standard of living is to remain high.

Labor can turn to the International Labor Organization be- cause it demands a universal freedom of association, i. e., trade unionism and because it seeks to protect labor internationally through international labor law; capital can turn to it because the International Labor Organization is the great effort of a post-war generation to find an alternative to labor affiliation with Moscow; the humanitarian can turn to it because it seeks social progress before it demands a pernicious national profit; and governments bewil- dered by economic chaos or fretful with the uncertainty of pros- perity can turn to it for information, discussion, and for assistance in maintaining the order of professional solidarity, of the com- munity of interest between employers and workers as Western so- ciety has valued it.

In his speech to the Fifteenth Session of the International Labor Conference held early in the summer of 1931, Mr. Albert Thomas declared: ‘“Today, when the United States and the Old World are trying by all the means at the disposal of the modern capitalist system to create more organization and order, there is a ready-made formula on the other side of Europe in case we should delay or in case we should fail.”** The International Labor Organ- ization is not an attack on capitalism; it is an internationally or- ganized effort to maintain, adapt and conserve it.

• International Labor Conference, Provisional Record, 1931, No. XVI, p. 266.

�[Page 372]NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL ONE-LINE WISDOM

Compiled by Wm. P. TAYLOR

A patriot asks no pardon. Adams. A king should be a king in all things. Adrian. Amnesty, that noble word, thc genuine dictate of wisdom. Aeschines. The Athenians do not think, till their flesh begins to creep. Alcibiades. A usurper always distrusts the whole world. Alfieri. The Norman genius of organization. Anderson. Peace flourishes where reason rules. Barrey. Most of the debts of Europe represent condensed drops of blood. Beecher. Tyranny and anarchy are never far asunder. Bentham. Westward, the course of empire takes its way. Berkeley. Monarch! be the first to obey the laws. Bias. We Germans fear God but nothing else in the world. Bismark. Barbarous nations have peremptory ways. Blackmore. The English church has roots. Bright. The Press is the first power in the land. Bowles. The world’s richest conception of Christ will come out of China. Brot. 3. The Bible is the only cement of nations. Bunsen. Education is the chief defense of nations. Burke. By gnawing through a dyke, even a rat may drown a nation. Burke. What morality requires true statesmanship should accept. Burke. The most enlightened nations have degenerated. Burke. Futurity is the great concern of mankind. Burke. No liberty is worth anything that is not liberty under law. Burton. Despair despises despotism. Byron. The land (Greece) of lost gods and godlike men. Byron. Cervantes smiled Spain’s chivalry away. Byron. O Italia! thou who hast the fatal gift of beauty. Byron. War—the feast of Vultures and the waste of life. Byron.

372 �[Page 373]NATIONAL—INTERNATIONAL 373

The Press—the fourth estate of the realm. Carlyle. Any government is preferable to anarchy. Cato. Patr’otism is not enough. Cayel. ‘Ennui’, a French word for an English malady. Chatfield. A state’s glory may reflect the excellence of but one man. Chinese. Its sovereigns were humbly careful not to lose the favor of God. Chinese. Philosophy is profitable to royalty. Q. Christina. Decision is the mark of an able ruler. Chung-Yew. I would rather be right than be president. Clay. Sublimity is Hebrew, by birth. Coleridge. A great man scorns to trample on a worm or cringe to an Emperor. Collier. Only the home can found a state. Cooke. All true patriots will meet in heaven. Corday, Clemency is the surest proof of a true Monarch. Gornseille. England, without one friend; above all foes—Brittania gives the world repose. Cowper. Royalty is but a feather in a man’s cap. Cromwell. The Greeks discovered the fundamental laws of beauty. Crow. Every land has its own customs. Cunha. I am a citizen of the world. Diogenes. Domestic affections are the best basis of government. Disraeli. Plato held that a nation cannot be strong without religion. Durant. It is the belly that rules mankind. Efzk. Christianity is part of the law of England. Eldon. Government has been a fossil—it should be a plant. Emerson. Ostrasise those that are popular. Ephorus. Every citizen a King, under a citizen—King. Fayart. Justice is the great end of civil society. Field. Liberty, equality, fraternity. French. Every nation has the sort of a Jew it deserves. Froeder. Mankind bestows more applause on her destroyers than on her Benefactors. Germany. I go to church not only because I love God but because I love England. Gladstone. �[Page 374]os

WORLD ADVANCE A Monthly International Review by OscaR NEWFANG Author of “The Koad to World Peace,” “The Umited States of the Wa'd.”’ ete.

THE BRIGHTENING PROSPECTS OF THE LEAGUE OF INATIONS

T is said that it is always darkest just before the dawn. That [= League of Nations has within the past year suffered the

greatest damage to its prestige since its organization will hardly

be disputed. The first of these blows was the complete fail- ure of the League to restrain Japan in her seizure of Manchuria. Although the glaring violation of Japan’s obligations as a signatory of the Covenant has been disguised by the claim that the three Eastern Provinces of China declared their independence and set up the independent government of Manchukuo, the fact that thé puppet government is completely under the domination of Japan is so evident that this pretense fools no one. Manchukuo is going the way of Korea, and the League’s utmost efforts to restrain the aggression of Japan had no other effect than to cause that country to defy the entire League membership and give notice of her inten- tion to withdraw from the organizatio:..

The League’s Recent Reverses

The next serious reverse of the League was its failure to pre- vent the re-armament of Germany. That country claimed that the articles of the Versailles Treaty under which she was disarmed gave her a tacit promise that the victors would likewise disarm; and, after waiting patiently for over ten years for any sign of per- formance of that promise on the part of France and other countries,

374 �[Page 375]WORLD ADVANCE 375

the Germans insisted upon their right of equality of armament as a great world power; and since the other powers would not disarm to her level, she is proceeding to arm to their level. All the efforts of the League of Nations to control or restrict this re-armament have been fruitless, and their only result has been to cause Germany, also, to give notice of her withdrawal from the League.

The third blow to the prestige of the world organization has been the complete failure of the Disarmament Conference, after the preparation of many years. The utmost efforts of Great Britain (who, by the way, was interested only in military disarmament, not in naval disarmament, which is her chief armament) to induce France to reduce her forces met with the logical rejoinder that after having been invaded three times within a century, France could not afford to disarm until she had received ample security against further invasion. Great Britain and Italy tried to give that assurance by the Locarno Treaty, in which both agreed to come to the assistance of France, if there was an unprovoked invasion of her territory by Germany: but they likewise promised to assist Ger- many, if there was an unprovoked invasion of her territory by France. Germany and France agreed to accept the present bounda- ries between their territories as satisfactory and permanent. Still France was not reassured. She had seen enough of vague and gen- eral paper promises whose interpretation and whose fulfillment or non-fulfillment depend upon the caprice of the government of the day. Germany had solemnly guaranteed the neutrality of Bel- gium, and the guaranty was contemptuously torn up as a mere “scrap of paper”. The Disarmament Conference has thus reached a complete deadlock.

Following the failure of disarmament the League has suffered the most serious blow of all to its prestige and even to its continued existence. The great powers, seeing that there was to be no dis- armament, have one and all entered upon a disastrous armament race, chasing the impossible goal of each being “second to none” in armed strength. Japan is rapidly increasing her navy, and she has intimated that she will no longer be bound by the 5-5-3 ratio of the Washington agreement, after it expires in 1936. Great �[Page 376]376 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Britain has impressed upon the United States that, in view of her far-flung dominions, she requires a larger naval force than America. The United States is proceeding to build up to the full treaty strength permitted by the Washington Tresty, so as not to be con- fronted with an established inferiority when the naval conference meets next year. Italy is constructing large, modern ships in order to enforce her claim to naval equality with France.

In the sphere of land forces Great Britain is determined to have an air force equal to that of any nation within striking distance of her shores, which means that she will practically double the number of her military aircraft. Germany is rapidly building up a powerful air force. The United States has decided to increase her air force to over two thousand fighting craft. Meanwhile, as this feverish and fatal arming is proceeding, the League of Nations “recognizes (in Article 8 of the Covenant) that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the low- est point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations”. The recognition is about as effective as a child’s recognition of the destructive char- acter of a fire that is consuming his home.

At the present time the League’s prestige is being further severely weakened as a result of Germany’s defiance of the provis- ion of the Versailles Treaty for the independence of Austria. While instigation by the German Government of the Austrian Nazi revolt has not been proven, the bliant and defiant utterances of the Hitler regime, that all Germans everywhere would be brought under the political sway of the Fatherland and. that Germany intended to expand eastwardly into Polish or Russian territory, are at the bot- tom of the recent Austrian troubles. Italy has mobilized a hundred thousand men on the Austrian border to guarantee the indepen- dence of that country against German absorption, and the peace of Europe hangs by a thread. It is darkest just before the dawn.

Russia’s Probabie Entry into the League of Nations

To change the figure, the pendulum has swung to the limit in the direction of war, and it is now apparently beginning to swing �[Page 377]WORLD ADVANCE 397

toward peace. Hitler has purged the Nazi ranks of Germany of their wildest and most radical elements. National Socialism has placed its emphasis upon nationalism and has to a large extent dropped its socialistic program. Germany is swinging back to sanity. She has entered into a pact with Poland, that there will be no eastward expansion of Germany by force of arms at Poland’s expense.

In Austria Marxist socialism was crushed by its own chosen weapon of violence earlier in the year. The recent Nazi ‘“‘putsch” has been put down with a firm hand, and national socialism in Austria, also, has been replaced by simple nationalism! The con- centration of Italy, the clear warning from France with the evident backing of Great Britain, have apparently been effective in preserv- ing the independence of Austria. Europe will now have an oppor- tunity to devote her attention to her economic troubles, which are legion. The League of Nations still lives, and it will be needed when the economic problems of the world are attacked’in sincerity and in earnest.

The first sign of the returning prestige of the League is the prospective entry of Russia during the present Assembly session. If this materializes, it will be probably the greatest gain which the organization has made since its foundation. After all, the great basic strife which is keeping the whole world in a state of unrest and bedevilment is the war between capitalism and communism. It is this that has been at the bottom of Germany’s troubles. It is this that nearly plunged Italy into the abyss before Mussolini took hold. It is this that has been troubling France, that has produced the Fascist agitation in England, that is at the bottom of the strike epi- demic in America.

With Russia in the League of Nations, a way will be opened by which legitimate agitation and advocacy of changes can be clearly separated from violent and bloody methods to enforce the will of a minority upon the majority in any country. In receiving recognition by America the Soviet solemnly undertook the widest and most comprehensive obligations against engaging in, encout- aging in any way, or permitting upon its soil any propaganda or �[Page 378]378 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

organization which has for its aim any change in American institu- tions through methods of violence. Doubtless the League of Nations, before receiving Russia as a member, will exact similar stringent assurances against the employment or the toleration of violent methods in effecting changes in the economic or political institutions of its member states. Russia under Stalin is prepared to give such assurances since the defeat of the Trotzky faction, which held that communism cannot be maintained in a single coun- try, and that world revolution is therefore a necessary policy of communist Russia. Stalin is willing to show what communism will do for the masses in Russia and to rely upon the power of example to extend the system to other countries through peaceful and legiti- mate methods. Against that position the League would have no complaint; and, if it is achieved by the entry of Russia into the family of nations, it will reduce the war between capitalism and communism to a friendly emulation between the two systems, with history as the judge of the superior merit of the one or the other in promoting the general welfare of mankind.

The Prospective Eastern Locarno

With Russia in the League, Germany would be the only coun- try in Europe outside the organization. She would experience in reality that encirclement which she so greatly fears. She would feel her isolation as an intolerable situation. Russia is not only planning to enter the League, but she is also working with all her might toward the establishment of the proposed Eastern Locarno Pact, by which Germany would accept her eastern boundaries as she has her western, and by which Russia and France would agree to come to the assistance of either Germany or Poland, if the one or the other were invaded by a military force. While Germany has sol- emnly promised Psland that, she will not seek revision by force of the “Corridor” arrangement, she is very reluctant to sign a general treaty on the lines of the Locarno agreement; but her complete isolation and her repudiation of the wildest part of the original Nazi program may make the pact possible; and should it be con- summated, the greatest single dan zer to renewed European war- �[Page 379]WORLD ADVANCE 379

fare will have been abolished. An eastern Locarno would produce a much more friendly feeling between Germany and Poland, and also between Germany and Russia. Both of these countries still fear the original Nazi program of expansion by force toward the East—the Drang nach Osten.

Since Hitler has agreed with Mussolini to respect the inde- pendence of Austria, this, together with Russian entry into the Lea- gue and an Eastern Locarno pact, would remove the greatest present dangers of warfare, would make Germany a “good neighbor”, and would immensely restore the faded prestige of the League of Na- tions. It is also very likely that, if these prospects are realized, Germany herself might return to her honorable seat in the Council of the League. That great nation is swinging back to sanity: she has suppressed the wildest economic radicals within her borders, and she is at present suppressing the war-making element in the Nazi ranks. Conservative Germany feels that she has gained her objectives in threatening to leave the League of Nations,—an end of reparations and the right to equality of armament,—and she might wisely cancel her notice of withdrawal and remain in the family of peace-loving nations.

Inter governmental debts are dead. Why not bury them?

The total cessation of further payments on inter-governmental _ debts incurred in connection with the World War and its after- math opens the prospect of a world economic recovery, which, if it is realized, will greatly enhance the prestige of the League and its usefulness as an instrument to promote international cooperation. One hundred and thirty two billions of gold marks, over thirty billion dollars, was the original reparation charge imposed upon Germany at the close of the War. While a part of this amount was paid in kind during the restoration of the devastated regions of France, it has now become evident that by far the largest part cf the amount, which was payable in money, could not possibly be paid, for the double reason that the attempted payment in gold speedily ruined the financial and economic life of Germany, and for the further reason that France, England and America could �[Page 380]380 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

not receive payment in commodities without totally upsetting their own business and economic life. The amount of the reparations was therefore scaled down from time to time until the Lausanne Conference, when the entire payment due from Germany was re- duced to the final flat payment of about three quarters of a billion dollars, about 22% of the original amount demanded. This practical cancellation of the reparations, however, was contingent on the part of the European Allies upon a similar cancellation or proportionate reduction in the amount due from the European gov- ernments to the United States. Thus far the United States has re- fused to make any such practical cancellation, on the ground that the burden would thus be shifted from the European taxpayer to the American taxpayer, as the amount of the borrowings of the European governments is outstanding in Liberty Bonds. America, however, has since cut the value of her dollar by about 40%, which practically wipes out an amount of the American public debt equal to that owing to this country by European governments. The European debtors have stopped making payments, and the burden has been shifted, not to the American taxpayer, but to the American bondholder. Since America will not receive payment in commodi- ties and cannot receive payment in gold, the inter-governmental debts are practically dead: all that remains to clean the slate and give the world an opportunity for economic recovery is to give them a formal burial.

Germany, with a precariously small gold reserve of only about three per cent, cannot recover economically until the burden of debt hanging over her has been cleared and she has received what in commerical circles would be called a discharge in bankruptcy. And Germany is the heart of industrial Europe. Unless Germany recovers, Europe cannot recover. Europe, furthermore, is the eco- nomic heart of the industrial world; and unless Europe recovers, he world in general—and this includes the United States—cannot recover. Would it not, therefore, be the part of wisdom frankly to cancel the inter-governmental debts arising in connection with the World War,—and to stop the practice of making such credits in future? �[Page 381]WORLD ADVANCE 381

If this were done, economic recovery in Europe and in America would be greatly hastened, currencies could once again be placed upon a solid and stable metallic basis, and world trade could ex- pand in a healthy manner, to the great advantage of all countries, and to the great restoration of prestige of the League of Nations as the foremost machinery for international cooperation.

An optimistic forecast. Will it be realized? �[Page 382]NOTES ON CURRENT ISSUE

As this issue goes to press, the newspapers announce the death of Herbert Adams Gibbons while traveling in Europe to obtain material for another book. His passing is a distinct loss to Ameri- can scholarsi.'p. Dr. Gibbons combined unusual knowledge of his- tory with a deep sympathy for and understanding of the various national and racial types in all parts of the world. In him World Unity from the beginning had a true friend and invaluable collab- orator. His work, “Nationalism and Internationalism,” was pre- pared as a series of lectures for World Unity Institute, appeared serially in World Unity and was published in the World Unity Library sponsored by the magazine.

Prof. Howard, author of “The Re-Orientation of Soviet For- eign Policy,” has written a book on “The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History, 1913-1923,” published by University of Oklahoma Press; with the collaboration of Prof. Robert J. Kerner, of University of California, Prof. Howard is now working on a book devoted to the subject of Balkan unity.

“A Biological Attitude Toward World Affairs” brings to further development the insight which Dr. Karapetoff revealed in his “Nature and the Law of Love” published in the February, 1928 issue of World Unity. It is surely upon this vivid conception of social relations in terms of life that the sociology of the future must be based.

Prof. Toynbee’s “World Sovereignty and World Culture” is a volume in miniature. Its spirit of magnanimity, one may even say nobility, brings an inspiration over and above even its content of substantial thought.

The September number concludes Volume Fourteen. In its seven years of existence, World Unity has created a distinctive literature on world affairs and moreover has exerted a direct in- fluence upon the point of view of a large number of other publica- tions. The principles upon which it was established have not been compelled to undergo revision, despite the tremendous changes in human affairs since 1927. �[Page 383]INDEX Wor_p UNITY MAGAZINE Volume 14, April — September, 1934 Titles

AMERICA AND INTERNATIONAL LABOR eee, by Francis G. Wilson,

Suu Epovarp, by Joseph S. Roucek,

S3rotocicaAL Attirupe Towarp HuMAN aay by Vladimir Karapetoff, 219,

Book Notes, 57, 252, 315

CELESTIAL AND TERRESTRIAL CURRENTS, Tue, by Merton S. Yewdale, 131

Carna As SEEN From THE Insine, by Frank Rawlinson, 85

Curistran Socra, Portcy AND THE NEW Economics, by Gorham Munson, 31

CooPpERATION ABROAD THROUGH ORGANI- ZATION AT Home, by De Witt Clinton Poole, 97

CONFERENCE ON THE CAUSE AND CuRE or War, by Evelyn Newman, 17

EtmicaL VaALues As THE CONFUCIANISTS Saw TuHem, by Frank Rawlinson, 291

FeperRATED Worwp, THe PARLIAMENT OF A, by C. W. Young, 113

HuNGARIAN CuLTuRE, INTERPRETING, by Meda Lynn, 187

InDIAN UNTOUCHABLES, Tue, by Sianley Rice, 232

LrserRAL APPROACH TO History, by Fran- ces Alder, 167

—* Atrrep W., by George E. O'Dell,

NATIONAL-INTERNATION AL, One-Line ee compiled by Wm. P. Taylor,

OrtentaL Stupents Concress, by Ami- yanath Sarkar, 301

Peace Amonc Reticions, by Horace Holley, 129

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE LmaaeS ATTI- TUDE TOWARD Wortp Peace, 65; An- ALYSIS AND SUMMARY, by Sineace soley ey 193 ; QUESTIONNAIRE ConcLu-

Race’ Preyupice, Tue PsycHovocy or, by J. C. Moffitt, 90

Race SEGREGATION, By Leslie Pinckney Hill, 183

RactaL Facror 1n INTERNATIONAL RE- LATIONS, by Sasadhar Sinha, 239

RELIGION AND Wortp Orper, by Horace Hottey, 257, 321

SEGMENT AND Circte, by W. W. Will- ard, 284

Smuts, Jan, by Hamilton Fyfe, 78

SoctaL IpEAL oF Our AGE, THE, by Bernard E. Meland, 225

Soviet Forercn Pottcy, a Re-OriEn- TATION OF, by Henry N Howard, 348

UNIVERSAL PEACE, THE Panscrerys OF, by Horace Holley, 1

War Ineviraste?, Is, by Robert C. Stevenson, 68

Wortp oo A Monraty INTERNA- TIONAL , by Oscar Newfang, 24, 122, A "245, 305, 374

Wortp CENTER, THE PLAN For A, by David Starr Jordan, 217

ee CrrizensHir, by Carl A. Ross,

eee wr Hendrick Chris- tian Andersen, 20

wae Cemanepanie by Ray Bridgman,

Wortp SovEREIGNTY AND Wortp CuL- TURE, by Arnold J. Toynbee, 323

Wortp’s Seven Great Historicat Re- ao Tue, by Jabez T. Sunderland,

Wortp Unity, Aposties or, 78, 136, 199 Wortp WE Live In, 17, 187, 301

383 �[Page 384]INDEX

Authors

Avner, Frances, Liberal Approach to History, 167

ANDRERSON, HENpRIK CHRISTIAN, World Conscience, 207

a Ray, World Renaissance,

Fyre, Hamitton, Jan Smuts, 78

Grant, Frances R., Book Notes, 57

Hitt, Lestre Pinckney, Race Segrega- tion, 183

Houiey, Horace, Peace Among Religions, 129; Questionnaire on the Present Attitude Toward World Peace, 65, 193, 259; Religion and World Order, 257, 321; The Principles of Universa Peace, 1 *

Howarp, Harry N., The Re-Orientation of Soviet Foreign Policy, 348

Jorpan, Davin Starr, The Plan for a World Center, 217

KaARAPFETOFF, VLApIMiIR, A _ Biological Attitude Toward Human Affairs, 219,

Levy, Beryt Harotp, Book Notes, 57

Lynn, Mepa, Interpreting Hvngarian Culture, 187

MELAND, Bernarp E., The Socizl Ideal of Our Age, 225

Morrirt, J. C., The Psychology of Race Prejudice, 90

Munson, GorHaM, Christian Social Policy and the New Economics, 31

NeEwFANG, Oscar, World Advance, A Monthly International Review, 24, 422, 175, 245, 305, 374; Book Notes, 57

NewMan, Evetyn, Conference on the Cause and Cure of War, 17

a, Georce E., Alfred W. Martin,

Poote, De Witt Citnton, Cooperation Abroad Through Organization at Flom,

RAWLINSON, Frank, China As Seen from the Inside, 85; Ethical Values as the Confucianists Saw Them, 291

— STanteEy, The Indian Untouchables,

Ross, Cart A., World Citizenship, 47

Roucex, Joserx Edouard Benes, 136; Book Notes, Sey 252, 315

Sarkar, AMIYANATH, Oriental Students s,

Sina, SASADHAR, Racial Factor in In- ternational Relations, 239

soe Rosert C., Is War Inevitable?

SUNDERLAND, JasBez T., The World’s Seven Great Religions, 147

Taytor, Wo. P., ge International, One -Line Wisdom, 3

ToyNnBEE, ARNOLD J., alk Sovereignty aud World Cuiture, 323

Warp, W. W., Segment and Circle, 284

Wnison, Francts G., America and In- ternational Labor Regulation, 365

Yewpa.e, Merton S., The Celestial and Terrestrial Currents, 131

Younc, C. W., The Parliament of a Federated World, 113

484 �