World Unity/Volume 5/Issue 6/Text

[Page 361]

Contributing Editors

C. F. Anstey

W. W. Atwoop

A, M. BartHoitpr

L. F. ps Baavrort

Geeatt A. Benexer

Pienazk Bover

E. A. Buatr

Haary CrarLeswortn

No Poon Casw

Rupoten I. Corres Bararap Dopos

Groaces Dunamet

Anna B. Ecxstein

Havetoce Extis

Avouste Foret

C. F. Gates

V. S. GAveantrz

H. von Gervaca

H. A, Gissons

Kanuic Gipran

Cuarcottre P, Gitman

Joun W. Granam

Marya GRuNDMANN- KosctgnsKa

Faang H, Hanexins

A. Eustace Haypon

Witt Hayrss

Yamato Icaicnasnt

Moarpecat W. Jonnson

Rurus M. Jones

Davip Starr Jorpan

Samugt Lucas Joss

Eanast Juper

Viapimin Karapetorr

P. W. Kvo

Ricnarn Lee

Haary Levi

Atatin Loces

A Monthly Magazine

for those who seek the world outlook

Joun Herman Ranpatt, Editor Horace Hotter, Managing Editor

CONTENTS

Josef Stalin Frontispiece

Twelve Leading Internationalists, Editorial

The United States of Europe, Richard Lee, Rustum Vambéry, Marja Grundmann-Koscienska, R. H. Markham, Charles Richei and Th. Ruyssen

Phases of World Citizenship,

Carl A. Ross

Nationalism John Herman Randall

Is War a Factor for Social Progress? R. Broda

Nationalist Movements from 1870 to 1914. Herbert Adams Gibbons

A Budget of Books, John Herman Randall, Jr. World Unity Conferences Round Table Index

Wortp Unity Macazins is published by Wortp Unity Pustisninc Corporation, 4 East 12th Street, New York City: Mary Rumsgy Movius,

~. president; Horace Hotter, vice-president; Firor-

ence Morton, freasurer; Jonw Herman Ranpatt, secretary. Published monthly, 35 cents a copy, $3.50 a year in the United States and in all other countries (postage included). Printed in U.S. A. Contents copyrighted 1930 by Wortp Unity Puatisaino Corporation.

WORLD UNITY

Contributing Editors

Eanest Lupwio Georce pe Luxfcs Louis L. Mann

Stn James Marcnant Victor Maraueritts R. H. Marxnam Avrrep W. Martin F. S. Marvin Kirttey F. Mater Lucta Ames Meap Fraep Merririetp Karin Micnaertis Hersert A. Micrer Duan Gopat Muxeryt Ipa MULLER

Yone Nooucari

H. A. Overstreet Dexter Perkins

J. H. Ranpvatt, Jr. M. D. Repticn Forrest Reip

Pau Ricwarp Cuarces Ricnet Nicnoras Rorrica Tr. Ruyssen NaTHaniet Scumipt Wirtram R. Snepnerp Mary Srecrist

Ansa Hitter Sirver Istpor Sincer

Davin G. Sreap Auoustus O. Tuomas Gitsert Thomas Isapetta Van Meter Rustum VAmnéry Water Watsn Hans Wennero

M. P. WittcocKs Franc Lioryp Wricat �[Page 362]

JOSEF STALIN

Portrait drawing by Orré Nobles in Eminent Asians by Josef Washington Hall (Upton Close). The D. Appleton Company.

‘The failure of organized labor in Western Europe and America to understand and respond to the idealism of Bolshevism drove it in its more natural direction: Asiaward. . . It fell to the man dubbed ‘Steel,’ a pure Asiatic of Russia's south country, to carry Russia forward in its tendency. Under him the idealism of the Bolshevik group was to become definitely secondary to pragma- tism, its poetic theorism to Asiatic practicality, and its world program to repairing the national dignity."’ �[Page 363]WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Vou. V Marcn, 1930 No. 6

EDITORIAL CAND

TWELVE LEADING INTERNATIONALISTS

Unity some thonths ago requested one thousand educators,

editors and men of affairs to indicate the ten living men

and women who in their opinion wield most influence for international cooperation and world peace. The purpose of the (Questionnaire was rather to throw some light on the prevailing thought of what constitutes the most effective international in- fluences existing today, in terms of those personalities by which internationalism is impressed upon the public mind.

Before examining the returns, it is necessary to state that of the thousand people receiving the Questionnaire, North America was more largely represented than Europe, and Europe more largely than the East.

Twelve names are given as the result of the Questionnaire instead of ten, for the reason that the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth names received the same number of votes.

According to this informal ballot, then, the twelve leading internationalists are: Ramsay MacDonald, Aristide Briand, Herbert Hoover, Jane Addams, Mahatma Gandhi, Lord Robert Cecil, Frank Kellogg, Elihu Root, Salmon O. Levinson, Romain Rolland, Jan Smuts and Erich Marie Remarque. In addition to the tie vote for the last four names, a tie vote was also cast for Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Robert Cecil.

The representation by countries: United States, 5; England, 2; France, 2; Germany, 1; Union of South Africa, 1; India, 1.

The representation by professions: Politics and Government, 6; Law, 2; Literature, 2; Social Service, 2. Gandhi, listed here with Jane Addams under Social Service, might justifiably be classified under Literature or Politics and Government.

I wAs not with the intention of bestowing honor that World

363 �[Page 364]364 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

A total of 210 names was voted on; the highest twelve re- ceived by no means a majority vote. Racial and religious affijiation affected the decision somewhat, but the element of nationalism was far more perceptible. |

So far as this informal ballot goes, international influence is less a matter of inspired personality than of the authority that goes with high office, a result, however, rather strongly con- ditioned by the selection of Jane Addams, Salmon O. Levinson, Romain Rolland and Erich Marie Remarque. Two years ago those who voted for Remarque would probably have chosen Lindbergh. It is clear that no “‘pacifist,’’ in the sense of one whose entire public influence represents an emotional rejection of war not reinforced by substantial intellectual or social achieve- ments, was selected, a result far different than would have been the case ten years ago.

The most significant aspect of the Questionnaire is only ap- parent when we isolate the twelve persons from their immediate social backgrounds, and consider by what existing organization their influence and power could be concentrated into one single manifestation of the ideal of international cooperation and world peace. No such organization or social mechanism exists today, since the five Americans are excluded from the League of Nations, and it would be difficult to imagine any method by which the League at present could coordinate the full resources of Gandhi and the English names.

On the other hand, the Questionnaire gives evidence of the fact that human personality is no longer fulfilled by and within the confines of any national society but is compelled to make terms with an international society and a world opinion. The greatest of nationalists today is less of a personality than his environment requires. Thus the true instinct of self-expression in every great personality will influence him or her more and more to represent humanity and human rights, and less and less to represent a state and its artificial powers and privileges. �[Page 365]THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE

Representative European Views

ONSIEUR BriANp’s suggestion of a United States of

Europe is by no means a new one. It was suggested

during the war and after the war by more than one

English publicist. Lord Cecil has said that M. Briand's

idea is too vague and shadowy on which to express any definite

judgment. The reasons for a Federation of European States are,

however, as clear as daylight. Economic unity is a pressing need of the European States.

The last ten years have wrought irreparable damage to the economic structure of Europe through internecine strife expressed in tariff barriers.

Some political center could function as a means of removing these hindrances to economic prosperity.

Backward industrial countries would be developed, the home market of Europe would be organized and unemployment could be brought down to a minimum, if Europe as a whole tackled the problem of harmony between supply and demand of men and of commodities. This policy of achieving economic harmony by means of political unity is certainly not aimed at America.

Such a policy is a compliment to the United States. We realize how great an advantage it is for a great country of nations to work without economic barriers between each state. There may be those who look at the problem of European unity from the obtuse angle of ‘‘beating America."’

These are people who do not count. Europe has many un- solved problems left by the Treaty of Versailles.

They can only be solved by close cooperation in European affairs.

The World State of Mr. H. G. Wells is our great far-off dream.

365 �[Page 366]366 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

The United States of Europe arm-in-arm with the United States of America will bring us nearer to that goal.—RicHarp Lee, M.A., London University, England.

Peace never Jacked sympathizers. If solemn declaration could secure us against war the world would have become a peaceful paradise many centuries ago. Unfortunately even the most honest desire to exterminate this dire scourge of humanity cannot be realized unless we succeed in recognising and removing the causes direct and indirect of war. Moral rules of primitive society ‘‘out- lawed’’ crime some thousand years ago, but wrong-doers still ignore the blame laid on them by the law-abiding population. There is but little hope that the Kellogg Pact will have a stronger effect on would-be criminal governments. Valuable as the Pact may prove in producing evidence for the peaceable disposition of public opinion, it is hardly more than a manifestation of American goodwill and optimism.

If we examine the roots of the most atrocious evil of man- kind it would appear that in modern times wars are chiefly due to conflicting economic and nationalist interests. Economic con- flicts alone would hardly provoke bloody contests any more than that rival companies generally settle their disputes with the help of tanks and machine guns. It is the misinterpretation and the misuse of nationalism that enables ruling statesmen to give armed support to economic interests which re-insure their political power. Therefore to ‘‘outlaw’’ war chauvinism has to be out- lawed first. Governments as a rule appeal to ‘‘vital interests’’ of a country or the ‘‘national honor’’ in their attempt to justify wholesale murder. There is no hope of getting rid of the menacing spectre of war so long as education in all countries does not assist in dispelling the superstition of chauvinism, #.e., the belief that One nation is mentally or morally superior to the other and the civilization of either nation the civilization. The teaching of his- tory has to be purified of the warlike hero-worship, children have to be taught that ‘‘national honor’’ cannot be successfully de- fended by killing those who stand for another national honor, �[Page 367]THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE 367

that vital interests of a country cannot effectively be safeguarded by offending the vital interests of human society. There is, how- ever, no reasonable hope for having education based on Interna- tionalism and Pacifism unless the Powers are bound by an agree- ment to tolerate this interference with their sovereignty. It is all very well to say, as Mr. Hugh Dalton says, that sovereignty in its old rigid form must gradually wither away, but those in power are as a rule hardly inclined to accelerate this process. Young and powerful nations that are not haunted by the nightmare of the past or the fear of the future war must take the lead.

Irrespective of the possible entry of the U. S. A. into the League, it is to be hoped that a second Kellogg Pact will initiate the International outlawry of the mental factors of war. It is a hopeless task to struggle against the effect without removing the cause.

I am afraid, therefore, that the United States of Europe, at least for the time being, are as far from becoming a reality as they were when Abbé St. Pierre or Mazzini cherished this beautiful dream. A score of European states possessed by mutual hatred and prejudice are as little fit to realize it as the League of Nations, which continues to perform the solemn ritual round the anti- quated idea of sovereignty, could hardly be expected to change its methods at the suggestion of M. Briand. Half a dozen dictator- ships are jeopardizing the peace of Europe and in each of these countries democracy has to win the day first before a European union can be seriously discussed at all. The street which the Europe of to-day is traversing is surely not the royal road to Peace, but the thorny path that the Saviour once followed when he replied to the Apostle’s ‘Quo vadis Domine?'’—I am going to be crucified again.’’—Rustum Vamséry, Budapest.

It is felt here in Europe that the American people are inclined to see a menace in the coming ‘‘United States of Europe.’ They fear the loss of their markets, but this is an unfounded apprehen- sion. Instead of being rivals for world markets, America and Europe will then be partners, business associates, representatives �[Page 368]368 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

of one firm, each showing a different line of merchandise and sell- ing them in different stores. The markets will be strictly differen- tiated, each division collaborating with the other, so that the States will xot be rivals but merchants each endeavoring to supply first-class merchandise. We must not overlook the fact that today goods are manufactured without regard to market conditions, re- sulting in an over-production of one article and a scarcity, hence too high cost, of another.

It is only to be regretted that it will be still very long, I fear, before we will see the wonderful sight of *‘The United States of Europe,"’ or better still, ‘‘The United States of the World.’’ To create a ‘‘United States of Europe’’ is naturally much more difficult than it was to create the United States of America, for in Europe more difficulties will have to be overcome, difficulties of an economical, historical and cultural nature. But all these difficulties can be overcome, and must be overcome, if we are ever to have world peace.—Marja GRuNDMANN-KosciENsKA, Breslau.

The United States of America is a single indivisible country with a single supreme government, the authority of which reaches to the last hamlet in the furthermost corner. To unite the thirty countries of Europe in such a state is at present inconceivable. The United States of Europe, therefore, as proposed by M. Briand, must be something entirely different. At best it might be a Euro- pean League of Nations, which would be superfluous, but in reality all that M. Briand definitely proposes is a step toward the creation of a European tariff union so as to keep America from dominating the European markets. He has used a beautiful name for an ordinary commercial measure of very limited scope. But it will be difficult to form even the tariff union. The smaller and more backward countries of Europe want to build up their own indus- tries and are not inclined to open their boundaries to the manu- factured articles of the advanced countries with a large number of factories, while all of the larger manufacturing countries are determined to protect their agriculturists and so are not inclined to open their borders to the cheap grain of the more backward �[Page 369]THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE 369

peasant countries. Consequently, it does not look as though tariff walls would be lowered very much. In spite of long, long negotia- tions the three closely a//ied countries of the Little Entente have completely failed to form a tariff union, so how can thirty coun- tries do it, especially when they are divided into antagonistic groups?

The creation of a political United States of Europe is probably not considered a practicable proposition by responsible and in- fluential European statesmen. If it should be formed it would simply mean the permanent domination of France and her allies over the other European States; it would be a device whereby France would legalize and perpetuate her hegemony over Europe. It is inconceivable that the former enemy powers should consent to this.

European history and world history is like a baseball game with very long innings. At one time one group of powers has been ahead, at another time another. Now, at the end of the fifth in- ning, France, Poland, and the Little Entente are ahead and they amiably suggest that in the name of brotherly love they call the game finished and let the present score stand through all eternity. The teams of the other side are pretty badly ‘‘shot to pieces’’ so, of necessity, they are talking pleasantly and not insisting that the next inning be begun at once. But not one of them for an in- stant thinks of agreeing to call the game finished. They are trying to make their teams over and hope eventually to resume play.

This is a brutal way of portraying the situation but it is a true picture. The word ‘‘peace’’ is being terribly abused and is often used with much insincerity. For the dominant group, from which all the peace proposals come, peace means the permanent retention of the gains of victory: of territory, colonies, vast repa- rations and a superiority complex. For the defeated group it means a truce, a breathing spell in which to re-collect their fight- ing forces. This characterization sounds like a calumny. It is merely the bitter truth. When one party has claims against an- other, peace means conciliation through compromise, it means a partial satisfaction of the claims or at least a consideration of �[Page 370]370 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

them. But at present the peace makers are in fact asking the aggrieved powers to hush up, quit making a fuss and love the other side so that all may be tranquil and pleasant. But it is vain to hope for peace on such conditions.

There is no panacea against war. Neither a general peace pact nor the United States of Europe will assure peace. Strife is caused by a lot of small, specific wrongs and injustices or by specific cases of alleged wrongs and injustices. Peace will come when strong and fair groups of nations deal with these cases firmly and justly. There is a danger that while beautiful, general schemes are being discussed specific wrongs will provoke a war. I think that most informed people living in eastern Europe feel that present peace plans emanating from America and the victors in the last war are not based on realities —R. H. Marxuam, Sofia.

The United States of Europe! Everybody knows that this great and prophetic announcement was made for the first time at the French Court of Justice, by Victor Hugo on the 17th of July, 1851. And even he found in the audience of that time some unknown person who in his comic indignation, cried, ‘‘O! The poets!” The poor man doubtless thought, that idealism was a fruitless weed and that the most powerful spirit of the century was capable of being betrayed by visionary conceptions.

Visiouary! One might have thought so at that time for cer- tainly, to see the terrible upheavals and massacres through which Europe has gone since 1851, the conception of a united Europe in peaceful reconciliation may well have looked like an utterly ab- surd vision. But we are now in 1930, fully aware of the beauties and beneficences of wars, even victorious ones, so much so that in 1930 governments, as much as the people, have changed their cry. M. Briand, M. Mussolini, Mr. MacDonald, and other leaders are irrevocably resolved, not only to prevent war, but, what is better, to have peace.

This we'all know. But, alas, this has nothing whatever to do with economic peace. Mr. Snowden for England, Mr. Hoover for America, pretend to build strong tariff barriers merely to protect the commerce and industry of their nations. �[Page 371]THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE 371

Protect! What strange euphemism! What irony in this wrong appelation! Does it ptotect people to force them to pay very dearly, too dearly, for all foreign products which they need?

America, not without reason, imagines that with her coal, her oil, her cotton, her wheat, her machines, her live stock, her cinemas, that she can do without old Europe and that her domes- tic markets will suffice. While, as for England, while her vast empire extends over Canada, Australia and India, she is in about the same economic position. And today the ideas of Cobden, Bright and Gladstone, which once made her wealth, are thrown by Mr. Snowden into the discard.

Agrinst this crushing protectionism of Great Britain and America, there is but one reply, and that is to break the odious tariff barriers which separate Germany, Belgium, Italy, Switzer- land and all European nations.

There was a time, and not so long ago, when all over Ger- many, a traveler or a merchant, to go from Prussia to Saxony, or from Bavaria to Wiirtemburg, or from Hanover to Baden, had to submit to a series of annoying and expensive formalities.

But the Germans have been wise. They have understood that this is a great mistake. So they have instituted a tariff union. They have preceded German political unity by economic unity.

In the same way we must establish a European Zollverein, as the first step toward the political unity of Europe.

Nothing is farther from our thought than the idea of fighting (even in a simple commercial sense) against powerful America and generous Great Britain! But since these two noble nations desire splendid isolation, let us then, fearlessly, oppose them with the splendid isolation of Europe. After all, this old Europe (with its colonies) is not yet, in spite of its antiquity, a negligible quan- tity. She has still her coal, her wheat, her cinemas, her machines; she has, too, her colonies and is able to be self-sufficient. To- morrow the Ruhr will be evacuated and no rational disagreement will be able to separate France and Germany again. The League of Nations, which has become a powerful force, is going to enroll all the States of Europe under obligatory arbitration treaties. �[Page 372]372 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Certainly it is highly desirable that free trade be complete and universal. This will be a great advantage to all laboring and industrial people. It will be a great benefit to all consumers, but at present it is a chimera, a utopia which we must reserve for a less blind time.

But as today the United States of America does not consent to this, and as the English workers, ten times more nationalistic than the conservatives, oppose it, let us commence by constituting the strong economic unity of Europe. So that the Pyrennees, the Alps and the Rhine will no longer know insupportable tariff barriers.

Already, by this beneficent League of Nations, born of the genius of our great Briand, civilization has realized greater prog- ress than miserable humanity has ever known. The time has come at last when the first duty of every individual human being is not to massacre his brother but to cooperate with him and increase the knowledge and power of mankind. Without doubt the beauti- ful dream of my optimism will perhaps only come true for the great-grandchildren of my great-grandchildren, but before build- ing the sumptuous edifice of some future time the foundations must be laid. 3

“Without interest money does not increase.’’ The interest of each European is to unite himself with all other Europeans to resist the formidable economic and financial power of America. Europeans are very poor, and tomorrow they will be still poorer, if they do not wish to make this tariff union.

It is necessary to have a European state of mind, to use Bri- and’s splendid phrase. Let us all understand, at Paris as at Berlin, at Rome as at Brussels, that there is a European solidarity which will affirm itself more and more.

The United States of Europe are necessary. Today, from the commercial point of view, and tomorrow from the political point of view.—Cuar es Ricuet, Paris.

The idea of a unification of Europe launched in the world as long ago as 1840 by Victor Hugo, taken up by many subsequent writers and brilliantly supported more recently by M. Briand, is �[Page 373]THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE 373

assuredly an idea with a future, provided that no attempt is made to push it farther than is practically possible.

The principal argument in support of the idea is that there is today an almost ridiculous disproportion between the relative smallness of the questions over which Europe is divided and the magnitude of the great contemporary problems affecting the whole world, such as the possible conflicts between races, the Bolshevik menace, the overt-population of the globe, migration, the exploitation and distribution of raw materials and so forth. Alongside of enigmas so formidable as these the European quarrels over the Saar, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, the Anschluss and the Balkan unrest appear like the superficial happenings of a small provincial town.

There is another consideration more specifically economic in nature. The division of Europe into States, many of which are too small to be self-sufficing—a division intensified by the treaties which ended the world war—has created an excessive number of distinct economic domains which manage to live only a very artificial life by dint of taking shelter behind economic barriers of inordinate height. The treaties of 1919 added 5,000 kilometres to frontiers which, already in 1914, split up the peoples of Europe. Following thereupon the circulation of wealth was impeded by obstacles of every kind—to the great detriment alike of producers and of consumers.

A simplification of its economic system is therefore absolutely indispensable if Europe is to retain independence in face of the powerful economic unity of North America. Such simplification may be realized in the first instance by means of a tariff holiday, then by the lowering of barriers and finally, in some more distant future, in the form of a European Customs Union.

Is it possible to foresee, beyond such economic simplification, some political federation? May the constitution of a United States of Europe be foreseen for an early date? It must be acknowl- edged that for the time being such an idea seems entirely chimer- ical and that for two reasons.

The first: regrettable or not as the fact may be, is that Europe �[Page 374]374 . WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

is at the present moment in the grip of an acute nationalism and that the desire of the peoples to be isolated, in communities char- acterized by their own special language and culture, has never been more accentuated. That'is a social phenomenon of which the nations of America, developing upon a new soil, without historical traditions and using in all only four languages of culture (English, Spanish, French and Portuguese) can form no con- ception.

The second is that Europe is bound to the other Continents by intimate and increasingly numerous bonds and that in seeking isolation and division into different political units it is running the risk of breaking those bonds and of giving rise to inter- Continental antagonisms which are still more grave than even its inter-European disputes.

To us the true solution seems to be to maintain the autonomy of States within the unit of a universal League of Nations through strengthening and enlarging the one which already has its head- quarters in Geneva.—Tu. Ruyssen, Brussels.

i) �[Page 375]PHASES OF WORLD CITIZENSHIP

by

Cart A. Ross Attorney and Business Man

The Intelligentsia and World Citizenship

NE beneficial result of the World War is a worldwide de- sire for peace, embracing both the common people and the ruling classes; the leaders of thought, statesmen, educators, financiers and industrialists. However, not-

withstanding this universal desire we find a hopelessness of ever attaining it voiced in the press; it is the lamentation of the intelli- gentsia over the failure of their peace plans to curb armaments and war taxes. The politician prefers to face the odium of increased wart budgets rather than advocate reliance on any peace plan. He knows the common people, he remembers the ballot box.

The peace publicists must accept responsibility for this situa- tion. It is easy to see that their peace plans have failed and no people's peace plan has yet had a ballot-box test, no, not any hear- ing. Our peace protagonists may contend that their League is sound in theory, surely if supplemented by their Arbitration Treaties, or the World Court, or by Outlawry, and try to throw the blame for failure on the common people for always turning thumbs down whenever the ballot box affords an opportunity. While we conceive the above to be the current trends, yet we con- tend they are all wrong in the light of our history. In the present situation we see many phases of the age-old conflict between the common people and the ruling classes, frequently referred to as the intelligentsia.

It is not our purpose to stir up class hatred and we do not suggest that there has been any concerted action to exploit the

375 �[Page 376]376 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

common people. We rather look to the future with the hope that the intelligentsia will soon offer a peace plan exhibiting less self- ishness on their part and more of a spirit of kindly brotherhood to the common people. It must be admitted that all our peace plans not only originated with the intelligentsia, but that in the execution of these plans these same leaders are to sit on the golden throne and wield the sceptre, provided always, the common people, at the ballot box, approve. Who, except former Ambassador Houghton, has suggested that the common people sit on the throne and exercise the power themselves? Had the common people one ear, this, we surmise, is how it would have heard the intelligentsia plead at Versailles.

“Behold, ye war-worn common people, we approach! Bow the knee to those who have led you to a peace without victory, yea indeed a barren victory! Please, ye decimated cannon-fodder, please let us continue to play the réle of the hero. Appoint from our number five to sit in the most powerful Council of our League and let the lesser heroes herd in the Assembly till we all find our appropriate places in the seats of the mighty. All we ask is a carte blanche with your signature giving us, your noble leaders who have stood in the limelight, the power to rule the sovereign nations of the world! Can you not see that we need ample powers if we are going to upset economic conditions and international trade by enforcing economic sanctions against sovereign nations? And if this should fail, as it always has failed, we must ask you again to freely offer yourselves as cannon-fodder so that we, the noble intelligentsia, may rule the rulers. Please O. K. our pet League o Notions so that we may sit on this throne we have in- vented for ourselves!"’

_In compulsory arbitration the intelligentsia toll the same bell, hiding the League Council under the name of Arbitration Boards, where they are to sit as arbitrators clothed with power—if the ballot box would approve—yes, even power to enforce their awards against defaulting nations by war. A few years later the legal branch of the intelligentsia sought these lost powers of the Council of the League, asking that a few lawyers of international �[Page 377]THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND WORLD CITIZENSHIP 377

repute be given a chance to sit on a most powerful World Court whose decrees could run against nations only, collective bodies of people, and be executed only by the tramp of armed men. Outlawry has not yet voiced its plea for power, but lack of power to be exercised by some political institution over its nation projectors, makes it a mockery. We look at the recent Reparations Commis- sion asking for a most powerful International Bank as simply another stop-gap suggested by the financial branch of the intelli- gentsia to furnish the power the League Council has not or dares not exercise. Here it begins to appear that the intelligentsia are trying to put this plan over without submitting it to the common people of America. We doubt if they can keep this issue from the ballot box and we expect that the single ear of the common people will soon listen to the same plea for power though it may be pitched in a more defiant tone. ‘‘Money talks, it talks loud these days, and we're money! You common folks better watch your step, because we spell prosperity and you know we must have peace to manipulate our deals. Now just a few of us international financiers will handle this situation and we're tellin’ you to sign on the dotted line, if you want your bread! You must keep your hands off our International Bank and we'll handle reparations and war debts so there'll be a profit in it. We have the brains and the money and you will never regret it. Of course this Reparations Bank will have wide powers and must support the existing na- tions we favor and will have power to pass on the needs of all nations for international credit for industria] and governmental purposes, but we have a few outstanding men among us, we understand how these things are done and we will have the national parliaments of all the world back of us: they surely will be at our mercy, unless we are at their mercy; anyway, we will decide which nations can have the money to build the biggest armaments and no war will be financed without our approval. You common people don't understand how easily we can control war if you will give us this financial power to rule over sov- creigns!"’

This may seem severe criticism and wholly uncalled for, but �[Page 378]378 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

it is mild to the scorn Alexander Hamilton used. Pointing to the like schemes of the intelligentsia of that day he said: ‘A project of this kind is little less romantic that the monster-taming spirit which is attributed to the fabulous heroes and demi-gods of antiquity."’ Nor does this criticism appear to be uncalled for, because this International Bank and the other peace schemes seek power to govern nations in their collective capacities, and this was what Hamilton referred to, as the language just preceding our quotation shows: ‘‘It seems to require no pains to prove that the States ought not to prefer a national Constitution which could only be kept in motion by the instrumentality of a large army continually on foot to execute the ordinary requisitions or decrees of government. And yet this is the plain alternative involved by those who wish to deny it the power of extending its operations to individuals. Such a scheme, if practicable at all, would in- stantly degenerate into a military despotism; but it will be found in every light impracticable. The resources of the Union would not be equal to the maintenance of an army considerable enough to confine the larger States within the limits of their duty; nor would the means ever be furnished of forming such an army in the first instance. Whoever considers the populousness and strength of several of these States singly at the present juncture, and looks forward to what they will become, even at the distance of half a century, will at once dismiss as idle and visionary any scheme which aims at regulating their movements by laws to operate upon them in their collective capacities, and to be exe- cuted by a coercion applicable to them in the same capacities. A project of this kind is little less romantic than the monster-taming spirit which is attributed to the fabulous heroes and demi-gods of antiquity."

We cannot get away from 1789 and the application of its lessons to 1930, as the teachings of the Federalist speak with more authority today than when Hamilton and Madison said: ‘‘Ex- perience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequiv- ocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. The important truth, which it unequivocally pronounces in the present case, is that a �[Page 379]%

THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND WORLD CITIZENSHIP 379

sovereignty Over sovereigns, a government Over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individ- uals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting violence in place of law, or the destructive coercion of the sword in place of the mild and salutary coercion of the magistracy."’

Are these passages from the Federalist not sufficient justifi- cation for the repeated refusal of the common people to approve these appeals for power? Is it not evident that the common people will not grant these powers to rule over sovereigns, to rule gov- ernments, collective bodies of peoples, no matter whether camou- flaged as Compulsory Arbitration, World Court, Outlawry, or, we hope, Reparations Bank? It does not follow, however, that more power in some institution is not needed; rather, we contend, the public is coming to acknowledge that more power must be granted in order to cope with this problem of world peace. The enormity of the problem, in its political and economic ramifica- tions, is better appreciated today than before the League, Locarno, the World Court and War Debts became public questions. Hence, we contend. the refusal of the common people is not a refusal of power, but points to the ill-conceived character of the institution designed to exercise this power.

The reader may say that we are unfair in laying all these charges at the door of the intelligentsia, who in all these situations have been loyally striving for their respective governments. This criticism is technically correct. The national governments are the real parties in interest, the real participants, in all these peace in- stitutions. At the same time, the high ranking government ofh- cials are the ‘‘government’’ at any particular moment, so that when any international emergency arises these high ranking off- cials find themselves sitting on the throne; they decide on the government policy and they execute it by selecting some one from the intelligentsia to carry out their policy. We feel this establishes two points we are contending for: first, that the common people are justified in charging the intelligentsia with asking power for themselves; secondly, that when it comes to the execution of �[Page 380]380 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

these powers the intelligentsia would find one government trying to rule another government, ‘‘a sovereignty over sovereigns.’ The result would be that even granted the decisions of the intelli- gentsia were right, yet they would be powerless to enforce them against any individual, even the weakest citizen, ‘‘the only proper object of government."’

Super-Government and World Citizenship

We are contending for a World Citizenship as we did in the April, 1929, issue of this magazine, though we do not call it a ‘“super-government. We concede that many of the federal prin- ciples of the League of Nations should be preserved, but we do not contend for a super-government on a national basis. In other words we contend for World Empire largely federal, but still national in thos> phases relating to war and peace. Some kind of a Union is coming to be the universal belief throughout the civilized world today, as in 1789 the need of such a Union, or New Roof, became the universal belief of the people of the thirteen States. In this Union we contend that the federal features should be broader and the national features narrower than in our United States Constitution.

The Parliaments of France and Britain today exercise not only the powers of our individual States and the powers of our Federal Government, but also certain other powers, like the amending of our Constitution, largely exercised by the people. If we admit the need of a Union, clearly these Parliaments cannot remain equally supreme; the plans of the intelligentsia, attempting to reconcile contradictions, to create a government over governments, cannot succeed; but the alternative is not necessarily a super-government strictly national, it may be largely federal, that is, a Union of sov- ereign nations under a Constitution similar to our Constitution, though nationally weaker and federally stronger. To become con- scious of what this means, let us quote a few passages from the Federalist by James Madison.

‘**But it was not sufficient,’ say the adversaries of the pro- posed Constitution, ‘for the convention to adhere to the republi- �[Page 381]THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND WORLD CITIZENSHIP 381

can form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign States; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.’

‘It appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State—the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitu- tion, will not be a national, but a federal act.

‘That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors—the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation—is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from a decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transac- tion as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a compari- son of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.’’ �[Page 382]382 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

We are assuming, then, the adoption of a written constitu- tion fashioned after our own, and if we continue our quotation we will find that as to ‘‘the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn,"’ this constitution could easily be either federal or national. '‘The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes al- lotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting as many federal as national features."

It will be noted that our Constitution has been amended in these particulars since Madison's words and very likely Madison would class the modifications as national rather than federal, but who cares and what difference has it made? In our view it would matter little whether the new constitution for any New Union, or New Roof, were, in these particulars, federal or national, so long as the next point discussed by Madison is national.

“The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in �[Page 383]THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND WORLD CITIZENSHIP 383

their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not under the federal char- acter; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only."’

Our main contention is for this principle; not until it is faith- fully followed can any peace plan prevail, because, not nations but ‘people are the only proper objects of government."’ At first thought our opponents «vould say that if this principle is granted everything is granted, our Olympian god of nationalism is dead, absorbed or outwitted, but Madison clearly shows that these fears are ill-founded.

‘If the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individ- ual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the suprem- acy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the gen- eral authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed govern- ment cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction ex- tends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other ob- jects.””

These words of Madison were written before our Constitu- tion was adopted and the men of that day could only judge them by their inherent logic and soundness; but we, one hundred and �[Page 384]384 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

forty years later, can judge them the light of our history and we must believe them. We must a ralize that t).e commercial

and industrial development of 17 »manded these constitu- tional changes. Does not the comn and industrial develop- ment of 1930 likewise demand lik. ‘utional changes? For the intelligentsia who fear such a Nev nother phase of this

balance between the federal and nation. atures of our Constitu- tion as discussed by Madison, would tend to reassure them. Madi- son showed that State sovereignty was safeguarded from further encroachment by the method of amending the Constitution. ‘‘If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like chat of a majority of every national society, to alter or abol- ish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on cither of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by states, not by cétizens, it departs from the national and advances towards the federal character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes of the national character.”’

Since 1789 has Uncle Sam abused the States, have the States needed the powers they lost to the Federal government? It is true that the federal-national question was at the root of our Civil War, but the result of this war is a firmer establishment of the sover- eignty of the United States within its limited sphere and of the individual States within their broad spheres. The net result is ably summed up by Viscount Bryce in his work, ‘‘American Com- monwealth,”’

‘What, then, do the rights of a State now include? Every right or power of a Government except :-— �[Page 385]THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND WORLD CITIZENSHIP 385

‘The right of secession (not abrogated in terms, but admitted since the war to be no longer claimable).

‘*Powers which the Constitution withholds from the States.

‘Powers which the Constitution expressly confers on the Federal Government.

“As respects some powers of the last class, however, the States may act concurrently with, or in default of action by, the Federal Government. It is only from contravention of its action that they must abstain.

“A reference to the preceding list of what each State may create in the way of distinct institutions will show that these rights practically cover nearly all the ordinary relations of citi- zens to one another and to their Government, nearly all the ques- tions which have been most agitated in England and France of recent years. An American may, through a long life, never be re- ininded of the Federal Government, except when he votes at presidential and congressional elections, buys a package of to- bacco bearing the Government stamp, lodges a complaint against the post office, and opens his trunks for a custom-house officer on the pier at New York when he returns from a tour in Europe. His direct taxes are paid to officials acting under State laws. The State, or a local authority constituted by State statutes, registers his birth, appoints his guardian, pays for his schooling, gives him a share in the estate of his fatner deceased, licenses him when he enters a trade (if it be one needing a license), marries him, divorces him, entertains civil actions against him, declares him a bank- rupt, hangs him for murder. The police that guard his house, the local boards which look after the poor, control highways, impose water rates, manage schools—all these derive their legal powers from his State alone. Looking at this immense compass of State functions, Jefferson would seein to have been not far wrong when he said that the Federal Government was nothing more than the American department of foreign affairs."’

After reading these views of authorities like Hamilton, Madison and Bryce, does it not seem that the intelligentsia have been straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel? What need of �[Page 386]386 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

talking of a ‘‘Super-Government,’’ so-called, in whispers, with bated breath, lest ‘‘the bogey-man will catch you, if you don't watch out."’ Are the intelligentsia cowards, that they dare not look facts and truth in the face? During the years following 1789 what had the States to fear, except that they possibly had made the Federal Government too weak to encompass their salvation when wars threatened?

Today there are progressive, self-governing nations, some small, some large; also there are backward nations, some small, others large. The responsibility for the immediate future is on the progressive, self-governing nations. This responsibility is two- fold; first, not to quarrel among themselves, and, second, they owe a duty to the backward peoples, who are more prone to war among themselves or with some progressive nation; the duty of secing that no cause of war is fostered by any of the progressive nations and allowed to spread till it threatens world peace. If the people of the so-called progressive, self-governing nations are not sufficiently progressive, are not sufficiently self-controlled, to be- come World Citizens, we must retroyiade to the backward class and all of us stew in our own fat. �[Page 387]A WORLD COMMUNITY

The Supreme Task of the Twentieth Century

by Joun Herman RANDALL

NATIONALISM

consciousness of humanity today has of necessity focused attention upon the serious problems involved in its achievement.

Recognized scholars of unquestioned authority have pre- sented many careful and detailed analyses of the existing con- ditions and the complex forces at work in the world's life today, that stand as obstacles in the way of the coming of such a genuine world order as the new world relationships would seem to demand. This knowledge, formerly the private possession of the very few, has thus been made available for all who care to know the facts of the real world in which they live. It is such clear analysis and description of the problems involved that must precede any intelligent efforts toward the realization of the ideal. ahe most hopeful sign today is that we are beginning to get a realistic view of our world, and to gain an understanding of the nature and scope of the problems we confront in the presence of the new emerging ideals. Our debt, therefore, to the many scholars in all lands who are thus helping us to understand the problems, is inestimable.

In spite of the fact that the word, ‘‘nationalism,’’ has been so widely used since 1914, greeting us in every newspaper and magazine article we read, it is to be doubted whether many people have more than a vague impression of what the term really means.

387

T: ideal of a possible world community emerging in the �[Page 388]388 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

And yet, beyond question, modern nationalism is the greatest obstacle to the coming of any genuine world order. Every effort made since 1918 to adjust the reparations, to develop further the League of Nations, to consider seriously the question of disarma- ment, or, in the various international conferences that have been held, to consider any of the problems pressing for solution, has gone just so far, and then it has come up against the stone wall of nationalism, blocking the path to further progress.

The best and most comprehensive treatment of modern nationalism is to be found in Essays on Nationalism by Carlton J. H. Hayes, of Columbia University, recognized as one of our leading American historians. He says, ‘‘The most significant emotional factor in public life today is nationalism. Of the current age it is the mark at once intense and universal. The state of popular feeling in France in respect of Germany, or in Germany in respect of France; the zeal of the Italians for the newer, greater Italy, the enthusiasm of the Poles for a Poland restored and uni- fied, the determination of a Turkey for and by the Turks,”’ are all the expression of nationalism. ‘‘Observe,’’ he continues, ‘‘the outcome of the latest and greatest war in human annals; on the one hand, the smashing of the non-national empires of the Tsars, the Hapsburgs, and the Sultans, and on the other, the building of the sovereign independence and national unity of Czechoslovakia, of Esthonia, of Finland, of Greece, of Latvia, of Lithuania, of Roumania, of Yugoslavia. Note the patriotic ardor of Englishmen in behalf of the British Empire and the no less nationalist reaction against it of Irishmen, East Indians and Egyptians. Perceive in the United States the pursuit of a policy of national isolation, the heightening tariff, the increasing restrictions on foreign immigration, the picturesque activities of citizens in masks and nightgowns, the vogue of Americanism and Americanization. Study the sentimental background of diplomatic intrigues, com- petitive armaments, and economic rivalries, not only in general, as abstract causes of hypothetical war, but specifically as concrete predisposing causes of the late World War and as definite motive forces in contemporary international tensions, exemplified most:, �[Page 389]A WORLD COMMUNITY 389

pertinently perhaps in the strains and stresses of Americo-Japanese relations. The background of all these things and of much else is nationalism. Hardly a cloud appears nowadays on the horizon of domestic politics, social action, and international affairs, which is without a lining of nationalism."'

According to Professor Hayes, nationalism is a modern emotional fusion and exaggeration of two very old phenomena— nationality and patriotism. There have always been, so far as historians and anthropologists know, human entities that can properly be called nationalities. There has also been from anciént times the love of country, or native land, which is patriotism. But nationalism is a modern, almost a recent, phenomenon. It is only as we recognize this distinction between nationality and patriotism that we see what constitutes nationalism.

A nationality may be defined as ‘‘a group of people who speak either the same language or closely related dialects, who cherish common historical traditions, and who constitute or think they constitute a distinct cultural society.’’ The basis of nationality is not to be found in inherent mental or spiritual differences among human groups, or for that matter, in racial heredity or physical environment.

Patriotism means literally the love of one’s native land. As such it must have been of slight significance to the member of an early nomadic tribe that knew no permanent abiding place. Patriotism did become a marked feature of ancient fixed and civilized life; but even then it was usually local, rarely national. It was applied, for example, by the Greeks not indiscriminately to all Greek-speaking lands, but to a fragment of land such as Athens, Sparta, Corinth or Ephesus. This sort of patriotism is natural enough. Everybody who is born and reared where his ancestors have lived from time immemorial is almost certain to feel a sentimental attachment to that locality. At an early date, however, patriotism was extended in application from one’s native locality to one’s political country, from an immediate place to the person of a military or political leader, and thence to the idea of a political state. �[Page 390]390 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

‘‘Nowadays,’’ according to Professor Hayes, ‘‘there is

preached and practised a two-fold doctrine, (1) that each nation- ality should constitute a united independent sovereign state, and (2) that every national state should expect and require of its citizens not only unqvestioning obedience and supreme loyalty, not only an exclusive patriotism, but also, unshakable faith in its surpassing excellence over all other nationalities, and lofty pride in its peculiarities and its destiny. This is nationalism to- day. It has been a mark of nurture, if not of nature, for human beings since the dawn of history to possess some consciousness of nationality, some feeling that the linguistic, historical and cultural peculiarities of a group make its members akin among themselves and alien from all other groups. But not until very modern times have whole peoples been systematically indoctri- nated with the tenets that every human being owes his first and last duty to his nationality, that nationality is the ideal unit of political organization as well as the actual embodiment of cul- tural distinction, and that, in the final analysis, all other human loyalties must be subordinated to loyalty to the national state, that is, to national patriotism. These tenets are the very essence of modern nationalism.”’

To summarize, then, nationality has always existed. Patri- otism has long existed, either as applied to a locality, or as ex- tended to a state, or even to an empire. But the fusion of patriotism with nationality, and the predominance of national patriotism over all other human loyalties—which constitutes nationalism— this is a strictly modern phenomenon.

National consciousness, which began to awaken among European peoples during the late middle ages, did not immedi- ately give rise to nationalism. It was, however, greatly quickened at the dawn of modern times. The way which had been prepared for nationalism was now paved wide and deep by certain crucial differentiations taking place during the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and which fall naturally into the following groups: (1) linguistic and literary, (2) political, (3) commercial and economic, (4) ecclesiastical, religious and cultural. By the �[Page 391]A WORLD COMMUNITY 391

end of the seventeenth century in many parts of Europe, religion, economics, politics and literature were nationalized. In western Europe, the states of Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal and Engl4nd had really become national. Each comprised a definite geographical area inhabited by populations that were marked off from their neighbors by a difference of speech; each possessed an independent political organization and pursued an independent economic policy ; and the citizens of each cherished peculiar customs and traditions. Thus the rise . nationalism— the process of transforming local, feudal, and imperial states into national states—had already begun.

There are three prime causes, however, why this growing national consciousness developed so rapidly and took the par- ticular form we know from the last part of the eighteenth century down to 1914; (1) the French Revolution, (2) the Industrial Revolution, and (3) the vogue of Romanticism. The influences proceeding from these three sources are chiefly responsible for the particular type of nationalism developed during the nineteenth century, and also for the fact that it has literally encircled the globe. During the last century it has assumed a three-fold aspect. First, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, it has ceased to be restricted to western Europe; it has gradually affected every nationality in Europe and most nationalities in all the other continents. Today the nationalistic spirit is aflame in India, China, Korea, the Malay Straits Settlements, Turkey, Persia, Arabia, Egypt and the other countries of Northern Africa. As a matter of fact, nationalism is the outstanding factor in the life of all peoples today, including the islands of the sea, unless it be in some portions of Africa. Secondly, it has advanced with tremendous rapidity in countries like England, France and the United States, which had already become national states. Thirdly it has invaded non-national states, such as the Hapsburg, Musco- vite and Ottoman Empires, and broken them up into national fragments.

‘‘For a century and more the principles of political democracy and national self-determination were jointly invoked by ro- �[Page 392]392 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

mantically inclined leaders of peoples throughout Europe and America. Old nationalities which had long been subject to the rule of alien nationalities were induced to struggle both for political liberty and for national independence. Nationalities which had long been broken into political fragments were moved to seek national unity and national democracy. Nationalities which had been burdened by monarchical despotism were pre- vailed upon to revolt and to set up a democratic government which would be more intensely national.”’

Thus during the nineteenth century the tide of nationalism rose steadily in Europe and overflowed into all the other con- tinents. It culminated logically and inevitably in the World War. There are some indications that it reached its flood-tide in that tragic catastrophe, and that even now it is beginning to recede; but even should that prove to be true, the sources of nationalist propaganda are still exerting their influence in all parts of the world.

When we seek to appraise the value of nationalism as we know it today, to pronounce it either a curse or a blessing, as most people are inclined to do, we are forced to admit that nationalism as an historic process has been great and long con- tinued. To regret and condemn the process is utterly futile; we could not undo it even if we would. Certainly we could not refashion all those multitudinous factors, personal and social, economic and political, religious and cultural, which during many centuries now past recall, have gradually transformed city-states and feudal-states and imperil states into our present-day national states. The slow process of nationalism is simply a fact, like any other fact of history, and we must accept it regardless of praise or blame. me

In the light of the cultural and spiritual worth of nationality as well as its instinctive and universal character, it would not only seem utopian and futile but downright mistaken to advocate the wiping out of nationality by cosmopolitanism or imperialism, if that were possible. When we remember the contemporary vigor of the political institution of the national state, and the con- �[Page 393]A WORLD COMMUNITY 393

veniences and benefits of political unity for a people who speak a common language, it would seem as if the possibility of realiz- ing the ideals of universal literacy and of political democracy, are better in the national state than under any other political in- stitution which the world has ever known. Patriotism of some kind has been a mark of human beings from prehistoric times. It has always been one of the deepest and strongest emotional factors in human life. It is an aspect of loyalty; and since normal man has always been, and doubtless always will be, loyal to something or somebody outside of himself, some kind of patri- otism will always exist. Patriotism, like sex, is liable to abuse, but it is needful to the life of the race, and it is capable of in- spiring the finest sentiments and the noblest deeds. Nations like individuals are possessed of unique distinctions, and unless we are willing to see all nations and peoples reduced to a drab same- ness under a standardized uniformity which our industrialism now threatens, then we must prize the national consciousness that keeps alive and still further develops the unique distinctions of different peoples.

Frankly admitting all these benefits and blessings, as well as many others, that flow from a developed national consciousness, it still remains true that modern nationalism in its blending of the sense of nationality—a good in itself—with patriotism—also a good in itself—and its demand that man’s supreme loyalty should be given to the political state, has led to grave abuses that cannot be -llowed to continue if we are to live in an ordered world. Unless we can look forward with equanimity to greater and deadlier wars, we must earnestly desire some mitigation of nationalism as we know it today. As Franz Grillparzer has sug- gested, the history of man’s life has been from individualism on to nationalism, and the next stage, he says, will be bestialism. There is just one alternative. Nationalism wé// lead to bestialism, unless we can build on our present nationalisms a broader and: more inclusive internationalism. But if we are to accomplish this, if we ate to be reasonable and practical, we must accept the teach- ings of history in regard to nationality and construct our inter- �[Page 394]394 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

nationalism of the future from the building-blocks of existing nationalities, and even on existing nationalisms.

Numerous critics have pointed out the evils and dangers existing in present-day nationalism that make it so serious a menace for the future. Let us attempt a brief summary. First, there is the spirit of exclusiveness and narrowness and self- righteous pride. The national state, through education in national schools, national army, and national journalism, through all the social pressure of national patriotism, inculcates in its citizens the fancy that they are a world by themselves, sufficient unto themselves, it teaches them that they are a chosen and peculiar people, that their particular brand of culture is the only culture worthy the name, and that they should prize far more the unique distinctions that are theirs as a nationality than the common and universal qualities and gifts that belong to them as human beings. This tends to develop into a pharisaic smugness that is ridiculous, an ignorance that is dangerous, and an uncritical pride that is despicable. It is responsible for the boasted 100% Americanism which is matched by an equally 100% nationalism in every other country.

Secondly, nationalism places a premium on uniformity. It prescribes national models of art, national standards of thought, and national forms of conduct, and to these it expects all the inhabitants of each national state to conform. Individual differ- ences, class differences, religious differences, are alike deemed unfortunate. If nationality seeks to prevent the reduction of the whole world to a drab sameness by keeping alive the unique dis- tinctions of various peoples, then nationalism does much more to reduce everybody and everything within the national state to a dull and lifeless sameness.

Thirdly, nationalism increases the docility of the masses. “As a result of their national upbringing and their life-long nationalist education they are seldom inclined to question the ‘perfections’ of their nationality, of their state, of their govern- ment, or of the economic conditions under which they live. In the name of national rights, national honor, national interests,

-- �[Page 395]A WORLD COMMUNITY 395

they will forego their own individual rights, sacrifice their own individual interests, and even foreswear their own individual honor. They are ready iu the name of the freedom and liberty of their nationality to abridge the liberty of fellow-citizens and to take away the freedom of other nationalities. They have, in supreme degree, the will to believe, and this will to believe renders them the easy dupes of nationalist propaganda in support of imperialism and war."

Fourthly, nationalism in its prese t form focuses popular attention upon war and preparedness for war. ‘‘War is that historic tradition of a nationality which the national state, under present conditions, does most to keep alive and active in the minds and hearts of its citizens.’’ In spite of our boasted culture, military heroes outrank in the teaching of history and in the popular imagination the heroes of science and art and learning. It is self-evident how quickly a popular interest in some matter of social reform or in an economic problem is crowded into the background and forgotten when confronted by the fierce heat of nationalist passion for military ‘‘defense."’

From this brief survey of the more patent evils of modern nationalism it is clear that whatever good it may possess or bene- fits it may bestow, in its present form, nationalism is a tremendous yet subtle force making, not for closer unity, better understanding and truer cooperation in the life of nations, but rather, the reverse. It divides and separates, it fosters ignorance and deepens prejudice; it creates untold frictions, arouses fear and suspicion, breeds bitterness and hatred, and is one of the major causes leading eventually to war.

Professor Hayes thus summarizes the evils of nationalism: ‘An intolerant attitude and behaviour towards one’s fellows; a belief in the imperial mission of one’s own nationality at the expense of other, particularly at the expense of backward peoples; a habit of carrying a chip on one’s national shoulder and defying another nationality to knock it off; a fond dwelling on the memory of past wars and a feverish preparing for future wars, to the neglect ef present civic problems; a willingness to be led �[Page 396]396 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

and guided by self-styled patriots; a diffidence, almost a panic, about thinking or acting differently from one's fellows; a spirit of exclusiveness and narrowness which feeds on gross ignorance of others and on inordinate pride in one’s self and one’s nation- ality; these are all too prevalent aspects of contemporary nation- alism. If in these respects nationalism is not mitigated it will be an unqualified curse to future generations.”’

As we trace the history of the development of the sense of nationality and its more recent identification with loyalty to the national political state, must we not admit that though up to a certain point it has on the whole yielded many desirable and beneficial results, beyond that point it has become a grave danger and menace to civilization especially in view of the changed relations into which we have come, and also, of the evils and abuses into which it has fallen. In other words, is it not becoming increasingly clear that nationalism as we have known it is not an end in itself, but rather a means to a larger end—a higher and broader internationalism, more in harmony with the new world into which we have been ushered? This coming internationalism will not ignore, much less destroy, anything that is good and true and worth preserving in the old nationalisms. But it will seek to purge our nationalisms of their present narrowness and exclusiveness and foolish conceit, free them from their prevalent intolerance and jingoism and selfish imperialism, cleanse them from all the unethical elements that have degraded their possible greatness and power, thus helping them to see that that nation is truly great, not because of its terriotry or population, its armies of navy, its commerce or its wealth, but only and ever because of ‘ the service it is able to render to the common good of all mankind. - If this seems like offering the nations mere ‘‘counsels of per- fection,’’ let us be reminded that there are forces in the world today that are operating inevitably toward the mitigation of our present nationalisms and toward a broader international co- operation. Science and industrialism have greatly expedited, not only an international traffic in commodities but also a world- wide exchange of ideas—ideas of science, phi!Ssophy, economics, �[Page 397]A WORLD COMMUNITY 397

politics, religion. They have created a new interdependence of nationalities and of individuals. They have at once created the necessity, and furnished the means, for mitigating the evils of a narrow nationalism. Let it not be imagined, however, that the most desirable mitigation of nationalism can be brought about by an interplay of blind forces of nature without conscious effort and direction on our part. Bestialism is as possible as inter- nationalism, unless man plays his full and intelligent part in the bringing in of a real world order.

It can and will be said that the tragic events of 1914-1918 destroyed at one fell swoop all that had been gained previously in developing international relations, and in creating a better feeling between peoples. There is no question that the bitter disillusionment that the War brought to so many minds in all countries created, at first, the impression that there had been no gain in these directions, that modern ‘‘civilized and Christian’’ nations wete no further along than those of earlier and even barbarous times. But this view is hardly just to the facts. The farther we get away from the War and all its strange hysteria, the more clearly we see that far from destroying the new forces that had been making for international cooperation, the War has only accentuated them. It has brought them and their true significance into the light of day for all men to see and ponder. Instead of wiping out the movements making for a closer unity in the world’s life, it has served only to interrupt, for a little time, the process that is even now—only ten years after the war —once again in full swing, due to the steadily growing sense of our absolute interdependence as nations and peoples.

The pessimism, the cynicism, and often the despair that filled so many hearts and minds during the War and in the years immediately following, is gradually giving way to a new con- fidence and hope, more realistic even than idealistic, that a genuine world order can be achieved; that the means are at hand, in the results of science and in the very nature of our industrial civiliza- tion, that must at length purge our narrow and dangerous nationalisms of their present evils and purify them of their �[Page 398]398 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

unethical ard unsocial elements, making possible the building on these various nationalisms a true and worthy internationalism.

The internationalism which is being visualized everywhere today is not, let us repeat, to be confounded with the old eight- eenth century cosmopolitanism, which decried all local and national distinctions and every form of patriotism. Its ideal was to be a citizen of no country, but of the world. Internationalism, on the other hand, pre-supposes a prime loyalty of the individual to his national state, a cherishing by him of his national language and his national traditions, an intelligent patriotism within him. Its ideal is to be a citizen of one’s country, and of the world. The internationalist aims to build his world-state with national blocks; he would not suppress nationality but develop it; he does not desire to make all nations alike but to make them fraternal. He does not dream of one World State, but rather, of a Federation of the Nations, in which all nations and peoples shall come to know themselves as members together of the living body of humanity—a Family of Nations, in which mutual respect and consideration of each for all and all for each shall one day prevail. To move forward, therefore, from our present individual nation- alisms to a broader and more inclusive internationalism is not to follow a strange and unknown path, but merely, as political states, to take a well-marked turn on the very highway on which the modern world in all other aspects of its life is already traveling.

To quote in closing from Professor Hayes, ‘Let us continue to be patriotic citizens of our respective national staves. Let us cherish our national language, our national traditions, and our national ideals. Only, let us clearly recognize and frankly ac- knowledge that there are grave faults in contemporary national- ism and let us sincerely endeavor to remedy such faults by combining our nationalism with internationalism, by tempering our national loyalty with an honest and reasoned respect for all other nationalities.’’

Edith Cavell has phrased the ideal in her striking words: ‘Patriotism is not enough; we must learn to love all humanity.” �[Page 399]IS WAR A FACTOR FOR SOCIAL PROGRESS?

CInductive Evidence from the World War)

by Dr. R. Bropa Associate Professor of Social Science, Antioch College

ne Greek philosopher Heraklitus praised war as ‘‘the father of all things.’’ Many wise and many foolish men since his time have thought likewise; during the last generations, however, the feeling has spread that war destroys not only material riches and human happiness, but also culture; that it is detrimental not only to the defeated but also to the victorious nations. Sociology has even proved that war hampers particularly the progress of victorious countries, because autocracy and the rule of military classes are strengthened by success on the battlefields; while defeats have frequently led to the overthrow of obsolete institutions. There are other ravages which are felt by both groups: the destructive influences of war on human life, on health and happiness, on material riches and on ethical standards, the increase of criminality a3 a consequence of the spectacle of ferocity before the eyes of youth, the selection of the unfit (through the killing off of the bravest) with its con- sequences on deterioration of race energy. All that has been recognized more and more, especially since the World War. Many problems however have not yet been studied with scientific impartiality. Particularly an biased study of the in- fluences of the recent war on the mover its for social and cul- tural reform has not yet been undert ' _— it will be the purpose of the following essay to fill the loophole. Some deductions are in place from the consequences of the World War on the general réle of war in our time, but it must 399 �[Page 400]490 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

not be forgotten that the duration, extent and destructive char- acter of the late war differentiates it not only from all wars of the past, but leaves also the possibility that wars of the future may have other consequences. Ten years have now elapsed since the end of the war and give us again a freer and more general his- torical perspective to see the phenomenon of war behind the par- ticular incidents of a particular war.

The developments during the second phase of the World War and during the time of its gradual liquidation have been a sur- prise to many. While the first part of the World War seemed to confirm all provisions as to the deadly influence of the slaughter on all refined thought, on all human feeling, on every movement for spiritual and social progress, things changed later on and seemed rather to confirm the hypothesis that war—defeat par- ticularly, but also undecided war—may prove to serve as a ‘‘loco- motive of progress.’’ The movements for women suffrage and prohibition, which had been considered as rather Utopian in pre-war times, triumphed in a number of countries. The states with democratic structures and republican constitutions in- creased in number. Some hitherto free national groups were enslaved but a greater number were freed from ancient chains. Socialism emerged triumphant in several countries. Internationa! intellectual cooperation, after being stigmatized as anti-patriotic, mischievous, and ridiculous by all patriots during the first years of the war, became the general fashion. The idea of abandoning unlimited state sovereignty in favor of the unity of mankind, which had been considered as high treason during the first years of the war, triumphed finally.

Superficial observers could thereby be induced to the sincere . belief that war has indeed helped progress; that, for the sake of human advancement future wars should not be entirely pre- vented, notwithstanding the high price of death, poverty, and suffering to be paid.

There is a first counter-argument ready to hand. The stimula- tion of social progress through the war cannot be contested; but the hopes of the friends of war that its emotions would lead to �[Page 401]INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE WORLD WAR 401

a religious renascence and would inspire great artists to create new aft, to write masterpieces of literature, as after past wars, have proved utterly futile. No great works of art have been created. Creative emotions were entirely overshadowed by the misery of the prolonged struggle. The selection of the unfit proved to be a phenomenon of great extent. The harvest of death was noticeably abundant among the men of genius. Some bianches of technology and of applied science were much perfected but pure science, literary and artistic production suffered both in quantity and in quality. The poverty, resulting from the war in the de- feated countries, has reduced the money spent for libraries, laboratories, and institutions of learning to such an extent that the amount and value of research suffered excessively.

This preliminary survey of the field seems already to some- what divide the issues. There was a beneficial effect on social progress, a prejudicial effect on cultural progress. But to connect these statements of fact with reasoning, a deeper analysis will be necessary.

We may begin by considering those consequences of the war which have been of undoubted advantage to humanity. The place of honor belongs to the establishment of the League of Nations. The best result of the war was stimulation of the en- deavors to overcome it forever. No argument for war can be derived thereby except apparent confirmation of the experience that excess of evil has some advantages over evils which are less fele and can be contested.

Has the French *‘jusqu’au bout’’ theory been justified there- by? Its advocates advised to continue the war until its bitter end, claiming that further wars would be prevented by solution of all war problems and by weakening the defeated countries to such an extent that they could not take up arms again. But -past and recent history prove that unwise victors create more dangers of friction than they eliminate; that longing for revenge recreates torces of resistance and stimulates the spirit of war; that victory raises the prestige of military classes and of the ideology of war. Happily for the world, victory was paid for by such a price that �[Page 402]402 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

people could not rejoice over it. As the ‘‘victors’’ suffered nearly as much as the ‘‘vanquished’’ they were not led to an exaltation of the military ideals and preferred to create machinery for the prevention of future wars.

There are other reforms due to the war which are considered as valuable by most observers: women's suffrage and woman's

influence generally in many countries, and Prohibition in the - United States. This victory of women's suffrage through war has been to many a great surprise. War seemed at ir to minimize the réle of women. Men alone could win battles; ¢he concentra- tion of all thought on victory seemed to condemn women to a réle of second place. But there were not enough men available for the manufacture of munitions and for industry generally. Women had to be employed. Their competitive strength was in- creased. Recognition of their importance in economic life led to acceptance of their political demands, led to woman suffrage, led to equality of both sexes even in backward countries like Turkey.

Prohibition was considered to be necessary for maintaining the physical and moral strength of the soldiery. Opponents of alcoholism had always claimed that it was detrimental to the health and welfare of the nations. But there was not sufficient interest for these ideal aims. The influence of the classes inter- ested in the liquor business was stronger than that of ‘‘im practical idealists.’’ But the terrible earnestness of war proved to be stronger than the force of business interests. Prohibition was accepted as a way to national strength in war time. Once admitted it was maintained for the same purpose in peace time, largely because the growing political influence of women sup- ported it.

We see that in both cases great and beneficial truths were better appreciated in war time than in peace time because hard- pressed nations could not afford to ignore them.

The need for obtaining all support necessary for victory, felt particularly by the European nations during the second part of the war, led also to concessions to Labor. Promises made in war time had to be kept more or less in peace time. The eight-hour �[Page 403]INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE WORLD WAR 403

day and other social reforms were for this reason written on the statute books of several nations. Sometimes the promises were made but not fulfilled, or reforms already accomplished were again abolished (eight-hour day in some countries). But most successes of the working classes have been maintained. The great effort of war time, crushing resistances which otherwise could not have been overcome, proved to be a factor for permanent betterment of conditions of labor, as it proved a factor for per- manent victory of women's rights, and probably permanent enactment of prohibition in the United States.

We now have to examine another series of reforms where the lines are drawn in a less clear way. The United States entered the war to make the world ‘‘safe for democracy’’ and to assure the ‘‘self-determination of peoples.’’ Have these goals been achieved? Demagogical exaggeration may answer with an unqualified ‘‘yes’’

o.’ Scientific impartiality has to weigh and-compare quanti- tatively and qualitatively the credit and debit sides of the ledger.

1. Democracy

The unlimited or limited autocracies of Russia, Germany, and Austria have been destroyed by the war and republican gov- ernments set up in their places. There is an historic fact of un- contested importance. But American conscious effort cannot claim any credit for the change in Russia. American demands were a factor for constitutional change in Germany and Austria but only to a limited extent; the humiliation of defeat was the main force for revolution. That phenomenon is not new but is well known to historians of the past. Defeat destroys ruling powers; defeat destroys resistance to change which otherwise could withstand any effort from below. Defeat and disintegration create a vacuum; new institutions conforming to the spirit of the time can grow up freely. War, however, has not advanced the cause of democracy in victorious countries. Great Britain was again ruled by Tories; the United States has been governed by the more conservative of its two historic parties; Italy has even bowed her head before an autocrat. The young Polish republic has ac- �[Page 404]404 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

cepted a dictator. Defeated Turkey had rid herself of the sultan but new victorious Turkey has accepted a new dictator, Mustapha Kemal Pasha. Defeated Hungary became a republic but the ruling classes of Hungary, victorious over Bolshevism, have proclaimed themselves a kingdom without a king. Even in neutral Spain a dictatorship has been erected. Notwithstanding all these facts the balance shows undoubtedly more advancements than set- backs to democracy, but the advance is not big enough in the eyes of many to be worth the great price which had to be paid.

2. Self-Determination of Peoples

The Polish and the Czecho-Slovakian nations have regained their liberty. More than 30,000,000 people have thereby been freed from forced allegiance. But only about half that number had formerly suffered from real oppression; only this half derived a great benefit from the change. For the Poles, previously under Prussian and under Russian rule, there has been relief from real suffering. The Poles under Austrian suzerainty were self-gov- erning for half a century and the Czechs also had a large degree of autonomy. Alsace has been freed from German rule but suffers now from French neglect of regional autonomy. The change for the better was only slight. The Arabian populations have been freed from Turkish misrule and are either self-governing, or are under mandate of enlightened governments. There has been real progress toward self-determination in that part of the world. Greater even was the progress in the former empire of the czars. The Soviet Union, while insisting on centralized direction of economic forces, has given complete cultural and national autonomy to all former subject nationalities. The constitution of the Soviet Union even recognizes their right to secession. The credit items on the ledger are very important indeed.

On the debit side we find 4,000,000 Ukrainian peasants in Eastern Galicia, which were before the war subject to the Polish aristocracy, but had a right of appeal from the authorities of the province of Galicia, ruled by Poles, to the central authorities of Vienna. Today they are subject to the Polish landowners without �[Page 405]INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE WORLD WAR 40§

that right of appeal. After a short time of independence they are worse off than before the war.

Part of the inhabitants of ‘‘White Russia’’ have changed their master. They had to obey the czar; they have now to obey the Polish government.

Bulgarians in Macedonia, which before 1912 were subjects of the Turks, then free for a time, are now subjects of the Greeks and Serbians. Their leaders declare that they are worse off than before, as the Turks allowed them to take care of their own schools and churches, while the Greeks and Serbians try to de- nationalize them.

The Magyar cities in Slovakia, Transylvania and Banat, surrounded by Slav and Rumanian populations, belong now to Czecho-Slovakia, Rumania, and Jugo-Slavia. They are now under the rule of the peasant majority, while formerly the peasant majority was under their rule. If numbers count more than economic and cultural maturity, nothing can be said against this change. But the victors annexed also other Magyar cities, Ko- marom, Arad, Nagyvarad, and Szatmar, which are situated on the borderline of races and might have been spared without injustice to anybody. The right of national self-determination of their inhabitants has been violated.

The same indictment applies to even a greater extent to the annexation of 200,c00 Germans in the valleys of Middle Tyrol. Four hundred thousand Italians in Southern Tyrol had suffered before the war from Austrian misrule. Italy might have learned how futile and cruel it is to denationalize a foreign people. But she did not learn anything. Instead of being satisfied with freeing these oppressed Italians she annexed 200,000 Germans in adjacent valleys and is even more abusive against them than the Austrians had been against the Italian population of Southern Tyrol. Italy also annexed half a million Jugo-Slavs. The plebiscite in Upper Silesia has not been interpreted in an entirely impartial way but the present status comes nevertheless nearer to the realization ot national aspirations than the pre-war state.

The Germans of Czecho-Slovakia have not been left free to �[Page 406]ee ee se

ee a ee ob edidse ve west tee, 9 as 40d Sine

406 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

ally themselves with Austria or Germany. But they are protected by the minority treaty signed by Czecho-Slovakia and by the liberal policy of the Czech majority. They are even at present represented in the Czecho-Slovakian government. These 3,500,000 highly intelligent and industrious people can scarcely be counted among the national groups, the right of self-determination of which has been violated.

The cases of uncontested injustice thereby dwindle down to 4,000,000 Ukrainian peasants, which have not been brought under a foreign rule but simply remained under it; to the 200,000 German peasants in the Tyrol, to four Magyar cities with some neighboring villages; to about 500,000 Jugo-Slavs annexed by Italy; and about the same number of Bulgarian people annexed by Jugo-Slavia and Greece. The debit side of the ledger is much smaller than the credit side, in which we have to figure 15,000,000 Poles formerly mistreated by Prussia and Russia and at least 5,000,000 Arabs formerly under Turkish misrule, not counting the other populations suffering from less injustice. The war has therefore benefited to a certain extent the case of self-determina- tion of peoples. It broke old empires, and created a vacuum, which gave opportunity to vigorous nationalities to free themselves, while formerly they had been helpless against the government.

Socialism also has benefited by the breaking down of barriers erected to prevent its rise in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. It obtained initial successes but the time was not ripe for con- structive work. The transformation of a competitive into a collectivist system of economy is a task presenting the greatest difficulties even in peace time, with full economic facilities and collaboration of all classes. Exhausted populations without a sufficient supply of raw materials could not undertake it and make it an economic success. The leaders of German and Austrian socialism were prudent enough not to try it. The movement to- ward socialism in these countries stands about where it stood in pre-war times, or just a little bit further ahead. In Vienna alone there was real advancement toward cooperative econoiny. A different policy in Hungary has led to disaster. �[Page 407]INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE WORLD WAR 407

The Russian Communists decided to use the opportunity offered by the break-down of the historic state, defeated in the war, for rebuilding society on their own lines. They were not even discouraged by the fact that the peasants, enraged by the dissolu- tion of the national assembly, where they dominated, refused to assume any sacrifices for a hated regime; they went on although intelligentsia and technicians, frightened away by terror, declined to cooperate; although the foreign blockade deprived them of needed machinery; although the war had wasted the resources of the country. For a time it seemed that their failure was certain and that the inevitable break-down would for a long time dis- credit all endeavors in the same direction. But the leaders of Russia, by sheer obstinacy and revolutionary passion seem to have made up for most of these difficulties and to be able to direct the development of economic institutions in Russia toward the goal they dreamed of. If their experiment should finally succeed, a rather strong case could be made out for the advancement of social progress through war. But here again war acted mainly in a negative sense, breaking down barriers and resistance. Neither the intellectual conception of the economic theories applied in Russia nor the moral force manifested in the upbuilding of the new society ate children of the war; they were in existence long before. There was economic failure as long as war conditions lasted and relative success began only when peace had ruled for a long time.

Having ascertained all these detailed facts we may conclude, surveying once mote the general field. The recent war has cleared the way to progress by concentration of efforts, (in the case of woman suffrage and prohibition) by breaking down oppressive machinery (in the case of autocracies, oppression of subject peoples, and re- sistance to socialism); but the war could create only insofar as breaking down of resistance is progress and creation. The war atmosphere was propitious for doing away with certain obstacles to progress but it was not propitious for constructive work, neces- sitating skill and refinement.

This thesis can be verified in the particular cases. No skill �[Page 408]408 ‘WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

in social engineering was needed to realize women's suffrage. Striking out the word ‘‘men"’ as a qualification for suffrage was sufficient. No particular machinery seemed at the outset to be necessary for prohibition. Enforcement by police measures was sufficient, and war time rigors favored application of police force. Later developments only showed difficulties.

Breaking down autocracies and national oppression was again negative and needed no constructive skill.

Building up new republics needed skill. But the war did not furnish that skill to Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, to Germany and Austria. Self-governing institutions had developed it through long years of peace. The building up of socialism again needed skill and for that very reason no success was achieved during war time. It took several years of peace to give a better turn.to de- velopments in Russia.

The recent war has accumulated no evidence for the thesis that war can create and construct. It has shown only that war, which by its essence kills and destroys, kills and destroys not only human beings, human happiness, art, culture, refined feeling, but kills and destroys also vested interests, governmental ma- chinery, obstacles to progress. The price of death and misery mankind had to pay for these demolitions was too heavy indeed. It should not be forgotten that there is less need today to demolish the new freer institutions of the post-war period than there was to demolish those of pre-war times. The new democracies give better elbow space for reform movements; a new World War would find fewer opportunities for useful destructive work to be accom- plished. But the potentialities of a new war for destroying life, wealth, happiness, and culture would be even greater than in the time of the World War, because the technic of war has become more deadly than before.

Having impartially enumerated the social advances due to war, we are unable to conclude that modern war can be con- sidered as a permanent factor for social progress. �[Page 409]NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM

by

Hersert ApAMs GIBBONS Historian

Nationalist Movements, 1870 to 1914 (Continued)

other nationalist movement. It was as if Austrians or

Hungarians had tried something of the kind. Unlike Italy

and Germany, but like Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire was a mixture of peoples, whose problem of living together under a common political organism was complicated by religious and cultural chasms. There wete the same kind of ir- redentist influences working against the Osmanli as against the Hapsburgs—and as are working against Poland and Czecho- slovakia today. The Young Turks launched the nationalist move- ment to save their country. They hastened its dissolution.

From without, the first blow came from Bulgaria. Ferdinand ° proclaimed the independence of his country, and changed his title from prince to king. Cretans once more asserted that their island was ‘‘an integral part of Greece,’’ and sent deputies to the Athens Parliament. Austria-Hungary notified the other powers that Bos- nia and Herzegovina, under her administration for thirty-two years, were formally annexed.

Internally, after it was seen that by Turkish nationalism was understood the dominance of the Turks in the administrative and constitutional life of the country, other elements, Muhammedan as well as Christian, refused their support. At the very beginning the Turks asserted their ethnic right to control the new Turkey. But they were not in the majority. They had never established administrative control over Arabic-speaking portions of the em-

409

Te Young Turk movement was quite different from any �[Page 410]410 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

pire. The autocratic sultans had been wise enough to leave the Albanians largely to themselves, and to allow the Christians to run their own affairs. The result of the Young Turk pretension to monopolize Ottoman nationalism was a series of revolts. There were Armenian massacres in Cilicia and northern Syria, a serious rebellion of Muhammedan Arabs in the Hauran, a Kurdish rebel- lion, and a recurrent rebellion for three years, which could not be put down, in Albania.

Then what the European statesmen feared as much as the Turks happened in the Balkans. The four Balkan states, neighbors of Turkey, formed an alliance. This international manifestation of nationalism on the part of peoples that were bitter rivals came about this way. Italy, as we have seen, made war on Turkey in 1912. to seize the province of Tripoli—Turkey's last African pos- session. This war, and the Arab and Albanian rebellions, encour- aged the Balkan states to join together so that they would be strong enough to negotiate directly with the Turks about the Cretan and Macedonian situations—something that they had never done before. None of them had faith either in a regenerated Turkey or in the possibility of concerted and disinterested aid from the Great Powers. They had come to see that the only path of salvation lay in themselves, and that their disunion had en- abled Turkey and the Powers to keep them in a subservient position.

Although the pressure of public ‘pinion was great, especially in Bulgaria, after the massacres of tue summer of 1912, I doubt whether any of the allies except Montenegro really wanted war. United, they felt that they could give a good account of themselves in war. But they .were afraid of European intervention, and, more than that, of themselves, in their relations one to the other, should they find themselves able to drive the Turks out of Europe.

Early in September, 1912, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro decided that peace could be preserved only by the actual application, under sufficient guarantees, of sweeping re- forms in Macedonia. They wanted also an unequivocal recogni- tion, on the part of the Powers as well as Turkey, of the union of �[Page 411]NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS FROM 1870 TO 1914 411

Crete with Greece. When they appealed to the Powers to sustain them in demanding for Macedonia a provincial assembly, a militia recruited within the limits of the province, and a Christian gov- ernor, the answer was unsatisfactory. Then Turkey ordered au- tumn manoeuvres north of Adrianople, mobilizing for that purpose more than fifty thousand troops—the elite of their army which they had been getting together for several weeks. The four allies answered this challenge by simultaneous mobilization.

Montenegro was the first of the Balkan states to declare war against Turkey. The declaration was handed in at the Sublime Porte one hour after the joint statement of the Powers. The three other allies delivered an ultimatum to Turkey demanding the autonomy of the European provinces under Christian governors and their occupation by the allied armies, also “pe expenses of mobilization. Turkey of course refused. The Turks tried to detach each of the allies by offering it alone sweeping concessions. They were unsuccessful. The war, which was to lead to the World War, was on.

I am nat going to yield to the temptation of telling you about the autumn of 1912. I could not do that without reminiscing— and I have to remember that this is only one part of a whole. Suffice it to say that the Turks were soundly beaten on every battle front in Europe, and wete soon behind a line defending Constantinople, with all of European Turkey lost. An armistice was declared. The attempt to make peace was unsuccessful. The war was renewed. In the spring of 1913, the Turks were com- pelled to send delegates to London to make a treaty in which they gave up Crete and the A:gean Islands, and all of European Turkey except a slight hinterland for Constantinople.

Alas! the story is not ended. The allies could not divide the spoils. The years of bad blood among the Balkan Christians prompted the Bulgarians, who had born the brunt of the fighting, to turn their arms against the Greeks and Serbians. On July 1, 1913, just after peace had been made with Turkey, a second Balkan war broke out. Rumania, in order to secure Dobrudja, attacked Bulgaria in the rear, while she was facing Greece and Serbia. �[Page 412]412 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Then Turkey reentered the war, and won back most of Thrace, including Adrianople.

In August, 1913, a second peace conference was held at Bucharest. Bulgaria was isolated. Her greedy Balkan neighbors took everything, and left her nothing. The Greeks and Serbians divided Macedonia, and the Rumanians stayed in the Dobrudja, which they had occupied while Bulgarians had their hands full in Macedonia.

In the meantime, the Albanians, sustained by all the Great Powers, formed an independent state, much to the distress of Montenegro and Serbia on the north, and to the greater distress of Greece. on the south, who saw Epirus divided. Albania was born as a new state into the family of nations. But her indepen- dence had to be guaranteed by a British fleet and contingents of French, Russian, Italian, and Austrian troops, who were still at Scutari when the World War broke out.

Before we leave the Balkans, we must not fail to mention the blow to Greek nationalism of the Italian seizure of the Dodeca- nese. Greece--had won substantial advantages in the Balkan Wars—a large share of Macedonia, including Saloniki and Ca- valla, the Ai:gean Islands, and Crete. But at the south-eastern corner of the Ai:gean Sea were other islands, ethnically and his- torically Greek. The largest of these was Rhodes, whose ancient colossus was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. These islands had been seized by Italy a year before, during her war with Turkey, and had been ceded to Italy by the Treaty of Ouchy, which ended the Italo-Turk War. Rhodes became, with Cyprus, a terra irredenta of Greek nationalism. Despite the set-back of the Hellenic movement after the World War, of which we shall speak later, the Greeks still hope to get the Italians out of Rhodes and the English out of Cyprus. Where one has well-defined geograph- ical regions—and islands are that—inhabited almost wholly by One race, with an ethnic consciousness, the responsibility in re- gard to world peace of an alien occupying Power is great.

The development of Balkan nationalism between 1908 and 1912 had its repercussion across the frontier in Austria and Hun- �[Page 413]NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS FROM 1870 TO 1914 413

gary. It is not too much to say that had the policé been supine or lacking in vigilance, the Serbian secret society, Narodni Obrana, would have stirred up plots and weakened the hold of the Haps- burg sovereign on his Yugoslav subjects to such an extent that they might eventually have seceded from the Dual Monarchy without a war. Sometimes there is such a thing as a movement getting too powerful to be mastered. But the police were vigilant. I was in Croatia in 1911 during the famous trial, when students were charged with treason. I made a tour of Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Croatia, just after the second Balkan War, studying the spread of Serbian propaganda—which I knew at the time to be encour- aged and directed—perhaps subsidized—by the Russian Legation at Belgrade. Between 1911 and 1913 the two Balkan wars had in- creased greatly the territory and population of Serbia, had given her a trained army with experience in victory, and had raised her prestige immeasurably. Before 1911 Serbia was not to be feared. After 1913, by the miraculous changes of two years, Serbian na- tionalism had become a deadly menace to the existence of the Dual Monarchy.

Whatever one’s sympathies may be in the matter of wishing to see the aspirations of nationalism realized, one can still under- stand how Austro-Hungarian statesmen felt at this time. They were entrusted with safe-guarding the security and furthering the prosperity of the Hapsburg dominions. They saw what the Narodni Obrana nationalist propaganda was leading to. They were fully aware of the intrigues of the Russian minister at Bel- grade. Should they allow Serbian nationalism to pierce the weak place in the Dual Monarchy’s armor, or should they put up a fight? While they were debating this question, the Archduke Ferdinand was shot by a Serbian nationalist at Serajevo. To those who had been living for years in the midst of the nationalistic drama, of which this proved to be the culmination, it was clear that no earthly agency could prevent that shot’s being heard around the world. Now that the Austro-Hungarian Empire has disappeared, it is easy, with hindsight, to criticize the Vienna statesmen. But I venture to say that, given the circumstances of �[Page 414]414 WORLD UNITY MAC .ZINE

the case, had Gray or Poincaré been a minister of the Austrian emperor, neither would have acted in any other way than the man who drew up and sent to Serbia the ultimatum that precipi- tated the World War.

We have space to speak only briefly of the extension of nation- alistic movements from Europe to other parts of the world. This phenomenon occurred almost wholly in the period between the Franco-Prussian War and the World War. When extra-European peoples became educated (I do not mean all the people, but enough to count) and learned how they were being denied by overlords of the white race the privilege of self-government, to which these overlords owed theit own power, they began to get restless. They demanded the right to rule themselves. They denied that right to an «lien authority, which had been imposed upon them by force. Intensely interesting and vitally important manifestations of na- tionalism began to occur all over the world.

The only non-Caucasian, the only Asiatic people, that has won its way to a position of equality with the Great Powers of the white race are the Japanese. There can be no doubt that in the spread of European economic and political imperialism over Asia and Africa it was expected that Japan would be amenable to ex- ploitation in the same way as the other countries of those two continents. There is proof positive of this in the way the Japanese were first approached by Occidental diplomacy in the form of warships with guns trained and the kind of treaties Japan was compelled to sign. These treaties, like those with Turkey, Siam, China, and the North African states, provided a special status for the white foreigner. He was to have extraterritoriality, to pay no taxes, to be immune from arrest and imprisonment and trial by the native authorities, and to decide what import duties he should pay on the merchandise introduced into the country.

The treaties with Japan were an infringement upon her sov- ereignty. The excuse for them was that Japanese customs and law were different from those of our civilization. This might have been true as regards judicial matters. But was there ever any excuse for making foreigners free from taxation and denying coun- �[Page 415]NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS FROM 1870 TO 1914 415

tries tariff autonomy? I lived for some years under the capitula- tory régime in Turkey. As a research student in the early history of the Ottoman Empire, I am of course aware that capitulations were not originally forced upon Oriental countries, but were a trade convenience and inducement. I know about the incompat- ibility of Muhammedan religious law with our civil law. For all that, I think that the capitulations, in their nineteenth century form, were designed to take an unfair advantage of the people of the countries with whom the one-sided non-reciprocal treaties were made.

Japan disappointed us all. She refused to be exploited! Her people in fifty years studied Occidental civilization and methods of international intercourse so well that at the end of the nine- teenth century they began to play the game in our way and as well as we did. Japanese nationalism was carefully nurtured by educa- tion and was tested in wars.

‘When they could not get the European powers either to listen to reason or to give them an equal voice in dealing with China, Japan began to show the army and navy she had built up, and which no one took very much stock in. Intervention against Russia in Korea led to war with China. It was a war not against the people of China but against the corrupt Manchu Government that failed to protect China from European encroachment. When Japan did not succeed in checking by diplomacy the advance of Russia into the peninsulas dangerously near her coasts, the first modern war between a white and a yellow race began. The yellow race was the attacker, and swept the white race's navy off the seas, inflicting irreparable damage upon it in a series of brilliant battles. On land, in a great pitched battle—the first in history with twentieth century weapons—the Japanese demonstrated their de- cisive military superiority over the Russians at Mukden. They stormed the defenses of the most strongly fortified port in the world, and forced the capitulation of the garrison of Port Arthur.

After she became a great power Japan went the way of all flesh, and has been as interested as are the European powers and the United States in repressing to her own profit the nationalism �[Page 416]416 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

of other peoples. She extinguished the independence of Korea, and has been acting in quite approved European fashion toward China for twenty years.

As an example to the world of what a nation of non-Euro- pean origin can accomplish, Japan is unique. But her influence in the evolution of nationalism is not so much what she has done of good and evil, as affecting herself, but the demonstration she has given to Asia and Africa of the vulnerability of the white man. Japan defeated Russia overwhelmingly on sea and land in pitched battles. The little yellow man, using European weapons better than the big white man, swarmed over the defenses of Port Arthur.

Mukden had an instantaneous effect upon the suppressed na- tional movements of a dozen non-European countries. We have already discussed at length the Young Turk movement. Arose the Young Persians, the Young Egyptians, the Young Indians, the Young Siamese, the Young Chinese. All these movements followed the classical Italian example. The aims were: (1) to get rid of the foreigners; (2) to win from a despotic sovereign or an oligarchy a constitutional form of government; and (3) the recognition of equality in international political and economic contacts.

Where his own interests are involved, it is always difficult for a man to admit that he has not acted, and is not acting rightly. We find justification for ourselves. We belittle those whom we are wronging. For these reasons non-European nationalistic move- ments have not received sympathetic attention. They have been most annoying! Although they have followed the classic form of nationalistic movements in Europe, the Powers, whose privileges they have jeopardized, refuse to see the parallel. Getting the Austrians out of Italy was the first important step in creating the Italian nation. Poland has been resurrected by getting the Ger- mans, Austrians, and Russians out.

We might go on to show how essential xenophobia is to the development of nationalism. But if it happens to be a non-Euro- pean people who display it, then it is taken as a sign of their lack of civilization and to prove their unfitness to govern themselves. For instance, the Boxer uprising in China, which was a manifesta- �[Page 417]NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS FROM 1870 TO 1914 417

tion of nationalism, stirred up the whole world, and led to inter- national armed intervention. We got the impression then—an impression that has not left us—that Chinese liked to kill ‘‘foreign devils,’’ and therefore we have to keep an army and gunboats out there to protect our citizens. But we forget that in the United States American mobs have killed more Chinese than Chinese have ever killed Americans. Yes, the sad thing about what I am saying is that it is true. The figures are available. Every time an American is killed in Mexico, we take that as another evidence of the inability of the Mexicans to govern themselves. But we would never admit that the lynching of negroes or gang warfare in Chicago would justify a foreign country coming over here, taking away our liberties, and ruling us for our own good.

Great Britain in India and Egypt, the United States in the Philippines, Great Britain and Russia in Persia, all the Powers in China, have opposed and endeavored to stamp out nationalistic movements. The history of the ten years preceding the World War in Asia and Africa is the story of the refusal of the European powers, the United States, and Japan to countenance in their possessions the development of nationalism. We-have denied to others the right to have the feeling of love of country that we glory in, and to go through the process of development through which we have gone. We sneer at their leaders as self-seeking politicians, impracticable dreamers, or half-baked students. When they ask for constitutional government and control of their own affairs, we put them in jail as common criminals, we track them as bandits, we execute them as traitors or rebels, and, on occasion, we shoot them down en masse. And then we justify our acts in other people's countries by slandering those who believe that they gave their lives for the fulfillment of a duty toward their country.

Under no circumstances will we admit that an Asiatic or an African might love his native soil, or that, having studied our history, he might want to follow our example. We deny national- ism to others simply because we do not want to get out of coun- tries where we have no right to be. We justify ourselves by saying that we can run other people's countries better than they can run �[Page 418]418 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

them themselves. From this thought it is not a long stretch of the imagination to a belief in our noble purpose. Why, we are self- sacrificingly bearing the white man’s burden!

After having done this consistently and ruthlessly since the beginning of the nationalistic movements in non-European coun- tries, the European Powers, Japan, and the United States took up arms to fight to free small nations. On the day war was declared Viviani told the Chamber of Deputies that defense of small na- tions was France's reason for drawing the sword. On Lincoln's birthday, 1915, Sir Edward Gray explained to American corres- pondents in London that the motive inspiring Great Britain's war effort was to assure the triumph of the principle that all nations, great and small, had a right to live their own lives in their own ways.

Funny? No, tragic. The Powers were going to reap in blood what they had sown in blood. And, after sacrificing millions of lives, their statesmen were going to keep right on running inter- national relations and exploiting small nations just as they had done before 1914. �[Page 419]A BUDGET OF BOOKS

by

Joun Herman RanDALt, Jr. Department of Philosophy, Columbia University

America and Europe, by Alfred Zimmern, Oxford University Press. vi, 213 pp. $3.00.

In this collection of essays Professor Zimmern brings his liberal philosophy is social cooperation through mutual under- standing to bear upon a variety of topics, ranging from the relations of England and America to the prospects of democracy. He insists that nationalism and internationalism are comple- mentary: ‘Far from being conflicting forces, they do not impinge upon one another at all.’’ It is only when nationalism of entangled with political concerns that it becomes a fruitful source of ill; ‘‘self-determination,'’ advocated by Mill, and insidiously sug- gested to Wilson by ‘‘the mischief-maker Lenin,”’ has necessarily resulted in disintegration. Professor Zimmern in true liberal fashion emphasizes the intellectual factors in international co- operation. We must work to promote international understand- ing, not international love, which is mere sentimentality. None of the short-cuts to world cooperation—government, trade, -a universal language, travel, or mere information—can take the place of a genuine education which will open the windows of the mind. ‘‘Automatic internationalism is not enough. By itself it is lifeless and useless for our purpose, which is to create good- will through understanding.'’ Higher education has positively hindered such goodwill, not only because professors are the hardest men to convert, and intellectuals the most complacent and self-satisfied, but especially because of the excessive special- ization in Continental Universities, which Americans have un- fortunately copied. Mr. Zimmern is a humanist in education,

419 �[Page 420]420 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

and is not dissatisfied with the British university tradition. The most that he can say for American higher education is that American students learn more rapidly than British.

With regard to America in particular, Mr. Zimmern insists that European distrust is due simply to misunderstanding. On both sides of the Atlantic there has been a refusal to consider the other nation as an equal. Condescension has prevailed: Europeans have looked on Americans as barbarians to be lectured to for dollars, as Shylocks, as hypocrites. Americans have seen the Old World as decadent, as a sink of iniquity to be avoided, as a back- ward and impoverished region to be pitied and assisted, or they have seen it as the sole source of culture, to be wholly admired. ‘Europe is not decadent. Neither is America barbarian. Both continents are alive. Both are marching together toward a better future. But they have not yet learned to walk in step.’’ Mr. Zimmern has not learned the whole secret of America; he per-. mits himself some generalizations at which the American will smile. But he has the honest will to understand, and the courage to insist that the root of the problem of European-American relations is not political, not even economic, byt intellectual. And he endeavors to clean his own house with the suggestion, “If the League of Nations Committee on International Intel- lectual Co-operation were exercising its authority in Plato's Republic instead of in the easy-going world of today, it would issue a decree forbidding the literary gambols by over-smart Europeans and deporting contumacious offenders to another planet.’’ Needless to say, Mr. Zimmern need never fear such deportation.

Nationality, Its Nature and Problems, by Bernard Joseph, Yale University Press. 280 pp. $3.00.

Dr. Joseph is a Zionist who has been led by his faith to examine critically the nature, the values, and the limitations of the principle of nationality in the modern world. He has ex- perienced at first hand a type of nationalism which seems to him wholly laudable, and he heaps his scorn on those cosmo- �[Page 421]A BUDGET OF BOOKS 421

politans who would dream of discarding nationalism because of its perversions. The whole tenor of his volume is a defense of nationalism against passionate critics like Professor Carlton Hayes. With this apologetic motive he writes a careful treatise on the various phases of nationalism, drawing on all the available literature. Yet he has no narrow vision; with Mazzini he sees a symphony of nations living together in mutual help. ‘‘There can be no true internationalism unless there be nations to form its basis. Nationality and internationalism seem to be com- plementary and consistent. Nationality is really the necessary stepping-stone between the individual and that humanity which is so dear to cosmopolitans. The system of nationalities is the basis on which must be built and developed the lofty ideal of the brotherhood of man."’ The book is stimulating and valuable, despite its strong infusion of rationalization.

International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno, by Jackson H. Ralston. Stanford University Press. xvi, 417 pp. $5.00.

Judge Ralston now adds to his Law and Procedure of Inter- national Tribunals, a critical digest of decisions and practices, this scholarly and comprehensive history of arbitration since the days of Greece. It is far more than a mere history, however, for it includes a careful analysis of the general principles of judicial settlement between nations, and a detailed study of The Hague Conferences, The Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the Permanent Court of International Justice. From it can be gained an able presentation of the instruments jurisprudence has so far devised for the settling of justiciable questions between nations, and a concrete picture of their actual working. Here is the record of the success of the legal approach to world peace; its failures do not appear in the picture. The volume suggests much food for reflection on the extent and limits of the lawyer's contribution to international cooperation. American readers, particularly, will question any legal basis for peace unsupported by public senti- ment. The book is appropriately dedicated to David Starr Jordan. �[Page 422]wien alee +

422 WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

International Economic Relations: A Treatise on World Economy and World Politics, by John Donaldson, Longmans Green. xxx,

674 Pp. $3.20.

A trained and conservative economist has written this detailed and elaborate treatise on the structure of international economic life, with especial emphasis on industrial rather than merely trade relations between the nations—on world trusts, business corporations operating in foreign fields, raw materials, foreign investments, and the like. Professor Donaldson is con- servative; he sees Adam Smith's ‘‘unseen hand’’ at work adjust- ing economic relations between nations, and believes that the economic order is largely a product of the evolution of inherent forces. ‘This order is in a sense as natural as others, and though problems and difficulties arise they ate to be solved by con- formity to and utilization of natural forces and motives and not by futile attempts at revolutionary destruction of the order itself."’ He abstains from the slightest suspicion of radical proposal, and cautiously warns us, ‘If considerable emphasis is given to a certain underlying economic unity, this does not necessarily constitute ‘internationalism’ in the extreme sense of that term. The economic interdependence of nations does not necessarily suggest a world economy so complete as to be translated through world polity into a world state or a condition of world peace. Commercial competition, struggles for resources, and other forms of economic rivalry at times produce conflict, abroad as at home.'’ He makes it clear that the same world economic fe- lations that make it possible to point to a world economic order also generate rivalries for markets, raw materials, and colonies.

Yet Mr. Donaldson's very conservatism makes the mass of facts he offers and his insistence on the ‘‘total structural organic international economic and politico-economic order’’ of the world all the more overwhelming. He does not stress the sources of international conflict, but emphasizes rather ‘‘the normal processes which exist in large but quiet and generally unobserved volume.’’ To a less cautious mind the mine of information his �[Page 423]A BUDGET OF BOOKS 423

book contains about the functioning of these processes does suggest a pretty thoroughgoing world economic unity. It is an economic unity at present entangled in nationalistic political forms, and those forms cannot but seem an anachronism. In view of the extent to which its inherent forces have already knit man- kind into one economic unit, it seems hardly blasphemous to hope that human intelligence can help the unseen hand in bring- ing political organization into harmony with economic organiza- tion. Even Mr. Donaldson, in contemplating the interdependence of nations for essential raw materials, remarks that ‘‘international conference discussion offers possibilities of helpfulness’’ in secur- ing their steady flow.

It is a pity that Mr. Donaldson preferred to write in econo- mese rather than in English. �[Page 424]«tate

, oe Oe ie ee Pee 2° ee Je:

SE tt See ak Oy

WORLD UNITY CONFERENCES

Under the Auspices of World Unity Foundation

The World Unity Conferences are a medium by which responsible leaders of opinion can convey their message to the public without restriction of race, class, nationality or creed. Upholding the ideals of brotherhood found in all religious and ethical teachings, the Conferences strive to quicken the spiritual resources of the community by bringing upon one platform gifted speakers ting the universal outlook and capable of interpreting the meanings of the new age. World Unity Con- ferences are held at frequent intervals in cities of the United States and Canada, and this educational activity will be extended as soon as possible to Europe. A distinctive feature of the Conferences consists in the local World Unity Councils, composed of leading liberals, established in the various cities to further the world unity ideal.

Program of Meetings—October, 1929—May, 1930 Cleveland, Ohio—October 20 to 24 Washington, D.C.—February 16 to 19

Chicago, Ill.—November 10 to 24 Baltimore, Md.—Matrch 9 to 13 Buffalo, N. Y.—December 1 to 5 Pittsburgh, Pa.—April 6 to 10 Detroit, Mich.—January 19 to 23 Philadelphia, Pa.—May 4 to 8

Boston, Mass.—May 18 to 22

WORLD UNITY COUNCILS

Buffalo Rev, R. Carl Stoll, Chairman Mr. William Evans Rev. Palfrey Perkins Dr. Allen Knight Chalmers Rabbi Joseph L. Fink Dr. Augustus H. Sherrer Mrs. Joseph Devine Mrs. Chauncy J. Hamlin Rev. Donald Tullis Mrs. Harold M. Esty Miss Olive Williams Chicago Prof. Fred Merrifield, Chairman Mrs. Ed. E. Dixon Miss Mary McDowell Dr. George W. Allison S. John Duncan-Clark Rabbi Louis L. Mann Prof. Edward Scribner Ames Mr. F. C. Eiselen Dr. Rowena Morse Mann Dr. William H. Boddy Dr. G. George Fox Dr. Curtis W. Reese Dr. Preston Bradley Dr. Charles W. S. Gilkey Mrs. P. A. Spaulding Mfrs. Charles S. Clark Professor A. Eustace Haydon _—Lorado Taft “ire. Henry Clay Doffeen Mrs. Edward S. Lowenthall Dr. Ernest F. Tittle Cleveland Dr. Charles F. Thwing, Parker Wright Meade Dr. ee Bailey Hon. Chairman Miss Ethel Parmenter Dr. Dan Bradley Mr. Thomas J. Holmes, Chairmen Mr. Joseph Remenyi Mrs. Frances F. Bushea Rabbi S. Goldman Rabbi Hille! Silver Mr. Dale S. Cole Rev. Joel B. Hayden Mes. Judson Stewart Miss Linda A. Eastman Prof. W. G. Leutner Judge George S. Addams Dr. A. Caswell Ellis Dr. Dilworth Lupton Mrs. Royce D. Fry

424 �[Page 425]WORLD UNITY CONFERENCES

Detroit

Dr. Frank D. Adams, Chairman Mrs. H. W. Dunklee Mrs. Philamine Aleman Dr. Chester B. Emerson

Mrs. Wm. Alrord Rabbi Leo M. Franklin Mrs. Carl B. Chamberlin Mrs. Eric Gates Dr. Frank Cody Mrs. G. T. Hendrie Dean W. L. Coffee Mr. Ralph C. McAfee Mr. John Dancy Mrs. Charles M. Novac Mrs. Robert L. Davis

peo tae

Rabbi Abraham J. Feldman, Chai

Miss Mary Bulkley Pac Rew Ri van $

Rev. Will's H. Bauler Mr. C. C. Heminway

medarte H. maa Miss file BM Muir

_ Springfield Dr. Lawrence L. Doggett, :

Rev. Fred Winslow isiues Mr. William B. Belli

Rev. Owen Whitman Eames on Carlos B. Ellis

Mrs. W. J. Campbell Dr. James Gordon Gilkey Miss Mary Vida Clark Rev. Frank B. Fagerburg ' Toledo Dr. George Lawrence Parker, Mr. John D. Dun udge Jason B. Barber : De] i Lacey ason . John br. Robert Blyth Rabbi Kornfiel Miss Matilda Campbell ° Dr. R. Lincoln Long Miss Olive Colton

Toronto

Mr. Maurice Hutton, Chairman oy Dee A Bay Mrs. John S. Bennett

Dr. Murray G. Brooks vw. W, Hoplin Mr. Maurice Bucovetsky ughes Mr. J. W. Bundy i Ferdinand’ M. Isserman Rev. W. A. Dr D. D. MacDonald Dr. Trevor H. Davies Mrs. J. Pat McGregor Professor de Lury Washington Miss Hettie P. Anderson Dr. Henry Grattan Doyle Dr. George F. Bowerman Dr. M ai Johnson Senator ace Rev. Moses R. Lovell Mr. Wm. Knowles Cooper Mr. Allan B. McDaniel Providence Dr. W. H. P. — Rev. Arthur st Cleaves lon. Chairman Mes. George H. Crooker Mrs. Joho H. ; Well, Civiass Professor L. M. Goodrich or John L. A iger Rabbi Samuel M. Gup Mrs. James E. Cheeseman Rochester Rev. David Rhys Williams, Mrs. Mary Thorn Lewis Gannett Chairman Mr. Frank E. Gugelman

Mrs. Helen Probst Abbott Rabbi Philip Bernstein Mr. Thomas A. Bolling Miss Elizabeth Brooks

Dr. Raymon Kistler Mr. Clement G. Lanni Dr. Dexter Perkins

425

Re. Rev. Herman Page Dr. Morton Pearson eH Augustus P. Reccord Mr. Jarvis Schermerhorn a Adam Strohm Mr. Lee M. Terrill Mr. W. W. Wing

Mrs. R. P. Nason

Dr. Rockwell Harmon Potter Mrs. Milton Simon

Professor Edward L. Troxell Mr. Fred D. Wish

Mrs. Archer F. Leonard Mrs. Asel A. Packard Mer} os ae

rs nchon Mes. Vonere . Stebbins Mrs. Hilley C. Wellman

Mrs. George Lawrence Parker Mr. Grove Patterson

Mr. Harold C. Place

Miss Florence S _

Mrs. Robert J.

Mr. Fred C. Meyer ag M. Norton eS. Pidgeon

ney, C. V. Pulcher

Mrs. H. W. Price

Dr. J. R. P. Sclater’’

Mrs. Robert B. Thoimpson Mrs. F. C. Ward

Judge Mary O'Toole Dr. “Jason Noble Pierce Rabbi Abram Simon Mrs. Wm. Adams Slade

Rev. Richard McLaughlin

Miss M. S. Morriss

Mrs. Frank E. Peckham

a he oe de Wolf Perry P, Thompson

Dr. Justin Wroe Nixon Miss Helen W. Pomeroy Dr. Orlo J. Price

Mr. Harold W. Sanford Mr. LeRoy E. Snyder Mr. William F. Yust �[Page 426]ROUND TABLE

The program of lectures on ‘Paths to World Unity and International Cooperation” held under the joint auspices of World Unity Foundation and Roerich Museum, a preliminary announcement of which was made last month, includes the following topics: *‘Economics,’’ by R. G. Tug- well, Department of Economics, Co- lumbia University, on February 26; “*Science,"” by Cassins J. Keyser, De- partment of Mathematics, Columbia University, on March 5; ‘‘Religion,"’ by Alfred W. Martin, Society for Ethical Culture, New .York, on March 12; ‘‘Philosophy,’’ by John Herman Randall, Jr., Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, on March 19; and ‘‘Education,”’ by Harry A. Overstreet, Department of Philosophy, College of the City of New York, on March 26.

The lectures are held in the Audi- torium of Roerich Museum, at 8.30

P. M.

• * &

The present issue concludes Vol- ume Five of World Unity Magazine, and subscribers desiring to have bound copies may obtain them by returning their used magazines from September, 1929 and paying binding charge, or order a volume bound up with unused magazines.

• “ * *

World Unity for February, 1930, is in demand exceeding our supply of unsold copies. The business depart-

426

ment will gladly pay for used copies in good condition.

• • @

Leading articles scheduled for the next few months include ‘“The World Court’’ by Charles Evans Hughes; ‘Fellowship and Class Struggle’’ by A. J. Mustg, Chairman of Faculty, Brookwood Labor College; ‘‘Youth and World Peace" by Harold F. Bing, Organizing Secretary of The British Federation of Youth; ‘“The Modern Muslim's Problem'’ by Jobn Wright Buckbam, Pacific School of Religion; “The Conference Plan of College Education’ by Hamilton Holt, Presi- dent of Rollins College; ‘Youth and the Church" by Arthur Bennis Jacob, Woodbrooke Settlement, Birming- ham, England; ‘‘Changing Concep- tions in Hinduism’ by Albert J. Saunders, American College, Madras; and ‘‘Materialism and Spirituality” by Stanley Rice.

A series of odes and prayers col- lected from the sacred literature of many races by Wslliam Norman Guth rie of St. Mark's in-the-Bouwerie, New York City, will begin next month under the title of ‘‘Leaves of the Greater Bible.*’

• * *

On account of delay in the mails, the manuscript of Dexter Porkins's article for this month in the series “The Quest of World Peace’’ ar- rived too late for publication until April. �[Page 427]INDEX

Wortp Unity MaGazine Volume 5, September, 1929-—March, 1930

Titles

Amenica AND Russia, editorial, 219

Books, A Bupost or, by John Herman Randall, Jr. 419

Booxs Raczivep, 138

Boox Ravizws, by C. F. Ansley, 56, by Isa- bella Van Meter, 136, by John Herman Ran- dall, Jr., 200, 176, 419

Baanmanism, by J. Tyssul Davis, 174

Buppuism, by J. Tyssul Davis, 251

Cotorep Pzorts, A Memorasie Conrerence or tHe Nationat AssociaTION FOR THE

ApvVANCEMENT oF, by Robert W. Bagnall,

15 ’

Communication, Tae New Maans or, by John Herman Randall, 83

Communist Epucation, by Isabella Van Meter, 136

Creator Man, by Angela Morgan, 117

Disarmament, by Ernest Judet, 333

Economic Orcantsm, Taz New, by John Herman Randall, 158

Evrore, Tas Untrep States or, by Richard Lee, Rustum Vambery, Marja Grundmann- Koscienska, R. H. Markham, Charles Richet and Th. Ruyssen, 365

Forgion Poxicy AssoctaTIoNn, 104

Forsicn Stupents SHock Our CompLacency, by Charles D. Hurrey, 208

Framework, by Angela Morgan, 119

France, How Mititaristic Is, by Armand Charpentie~, 325

Ganput, Manat, illustration, 74

Geneva as Center OF INTERNATIONAL OnGAN- zation, by Bertram Pickard, 311

Humantty, Tug New, ed. by Mary Siegrist, 49

ILLUSTRATIONS, 74, 146, 218, 290, 362

Inpia's ContaisuTiIon To Reticion, by S. G. Pandit, 293

Inpustatat Democracy, Leacus ror, by Nor- man Thomas, 171

INTERNATIONAL Fami ty, My, by Martha Taylor Brown, 41, 126

INTERNATIONALISM, by Richard Lee, 52

INTERNATIONALISTS, Twetve Lgapino, edi- torial, 363

Justice, American, editorial, 291

Kemat, Musrapna, illustration, 290

Know .enoz, Tue New, by John Herman Ran- dall, 231

Lammascn, Heinaicn, by Josef Redlich, 164

Lanauaag AND Wor tp Uniry, by C. F. Gates, 349

Leaoue or Nations, How te L. or N. Works, by Dexter Perkins, 191

Leacus or Nations, Sgat or Tne, illustration, 218

Leacue or Nations, Taz, anp tae Weak, by Dexter Perkins, 259

Leacus or Nations, Tue Work or tne, by Dexter Perkins, 29

Leacug, Tie, AND Bacx:warp Peoptes, by Dexter Perkins, 321

Liperatism, Tne Orpeat or, by John Herman Randall, Jr., 200

Love, Tus Evotution or, by Joseph Pan- taleone, 132

Man's, THs Common Man's Burpen, edi- torial, 3

Nansen, Friptyor, by Frederick Lynch, 20

NaTionatism, by John Herman Randall, 387

NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM, by Her- bert Adams Gibbons, 34, 108, 181, 245, 314, 4°9

NATIONALISM BEFORE 1789, by Herbert Adams Gibbons, 34, 108

NATIONALISM IN Europe 1815-1870, by Her- bert Adams Gibbons, 245

NATIONALIST MovemENTS From 1870 TO 1914, by Herbert Adams Gibbons, 314, 409

NATIONALISM VERSUS INTERNATIONALISM FROM 1789 To 1815, by Herbert Adams Gibbons, 181

Notes aND ANNOUNCEMENTS, 70 427 �[Page 428]ay

pasndaoes aaa

Se tere ee Soe Clie ie

SF Ra new Se at ee

428

Paciric, Unity 1n THE, by Kenneth Scott La- tourette, 77

Pacirism 1N THE Mopern Woatp, by John Herman Randall, Jr., 276

Proucnsnares, Tue, editorial, 147

Re.icion, Ong R&uiGion aND Many Farras, by J. Tyssul Davis, 10, 97, 174, 251

Reuicion, Tne Practicat Procram or, by A. Eustace Haydon, 149

Rounn Taste, 143, 214, 286, 354, 426

Rustica, Dez Re, by C. F, Ansley, 56

Science AND tHE Epucatep Man, by John Herman Randall, Jr., 120

Screntiric ImaGination, Tuk, by James H. Cousins, 274

SuamBnata, by Nicholas Roerich, 221

Sociat Prooress, Is Wan a Factor ror? by R. Broda, 399

SoctatizaTion, editorial, 75

Stauin, Josep, illustration, 362

Sun Yat-Sen, illustration, 146

INDEX

Taxatizs, Tus Prostem oF Onsoiere anv Un. just Tazatizs, by Ernest Ludwig, 339

Wastern Front, Aut Quist On tue, by Erich Maria Remarque, 2

— Wortn Criizensnip, Prases or, by Carl A.

Ross, 375

Wortp Community, A, by John Herman Ran. dall, 5, 83, 158, 231, 299, 387

Wortp Peace, Tae Quast or, by Dexter Per. kins, 29, 191, 259, 322

Woartp Unity, OF, 20, 264

Wortp Unrty Conrgnenceas, 68, 141, 212, 284,

3525 424

Wortp Unity, Instituts or, by Horace Hol- ley, 62

Wortp Unrrr, Taz Emenoino Ipeat or, by John Herman Randall, 299

Wortp Ws Live In, Tur, 15, 104, 171, 311 Youtn anpD Tas Mopsan Wor tp, ed. by Isabella Van Meter, 132, 208

Zoroastatanism, by J. Tyssul Davis, 97

Authors

Ansury, C. F., De Re Rustica, 56

Baonaut, Ronert W., A Memorable Confer- ence of the National Association for the Advancement of the Colored People, 15

Bropa, R., Is War a Factor for Social Progress,

399

Brown, Martita Taytor, My International Family, 41, 126

Cnarpentier, Armanp, How Militaristic is France?, 325

Cousins, James H., The Scientific Imagination,

274

Davis, J. Tyssut, One Religion—Many Faiths, TO, 97, 174, 2§1

Gates, C. F., Language and World Unity, 349

Grssons, Hernert Apams, Nationalism and Internationalism, 34, 108, 181, 245, 314, 409

Grunpmann-Koscienska, Marja, The United States of Europe, 365

Haynon, A. Eustace, The Practical Program of Religion, 149

Houtgy, Horace, Institute of World Unity, 62

Hurrey, Cuanes D., Foreign Students Shock Our Complacency, 208

Jupet, Erxnxst, Disarmament, 333

Latourette, Kennetn Scott, ee in the Pacific, 77

Lee, Ricnarp, Internationalism and the Com- mon People, 52, The United States of Europe,

365

Lupwia, Ernst, The Problem of Obsolete and Unjust Treaties, 339

Lyncn, Freverick, Fridtjof Nansen, 20

Markus, R. H., The United States of Europe,

365

Moroan, Anogta, Creator Man, 117, Frame- work, 119

Panorrt, S. G.., India's Contribution to Re- ligion, 293

PANTALEONB, JosepH, The Evolution of Love,

132

Psaxins, Dexter, The Quest of World Peace, 29, 91, 259, 321

Picxarp, Bertram, Geneva As Center of In- ternational Organizations, 311

Ranvatt, Joun Herman, A World Commun- ity, 5, 83, 158, 231, 299, 387

RanDALt, Jr., Jounw Herman, Science and the Educated Man, 120, The Ordeal of Liberal- ism, 200, Pacifism in the Modern World, 276, A Budget of Books, 419

Repticn, Joser, Heinrich Lammasch, 264

Remarque, Erich Maria, All Quiet on the Western Front, 2

Ricnet, Cuarres, The United States of Europe,

65

igo: Nicnoras, Shambhala, 221

Ross, Cart, Phases of World Citizenship, 37;

Ruyssen Tu., The United States of Europe, 365

Siscrist, Mary, The New Humanity, 49

Tuomas, Norman, League for Industrial De- mocracy, 171

VAmbéry, Rustum, The United States of Ev- gen 365 Van Muter, Isanetta, Communist Education, 136, Youth and the Modern World, 132, 208 �[Page 429]NAMES WHICH MEAN THE WORLD OUTLOOK IN

SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION AND ' INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Authors and Contributing Editors

AMERICA

Devere Allen

C. F. Ansley

W. W. Atwood Robert W. Bagnall Gerrit A. Beneker Ernest M. Best Edwin Arthur Burtt Harry Charlesworth Rudolph I. Coffee John J. Coss

John Dewey

Herbert Adams Gibbons James Gordon Gilkey Charlotte Perkins Gilman W. N. Guthrie Frank H. Hankins

A. Eustace Haydon Carleton J. H. Hayes Hubert C. Herring Horace Holley Arthur E. Hole Hamilton Holt Manley O. Hudson Mary Hull

Mordecai W. Johnson Rufus M. Jones David Starr Jordan Vladimir Karapetoff Kenneth S. Latourette Harry Levi —

Alain Locke

Robert Morss Lovett Louis L. Mann Alfred W. Martin Kirtley F, Mather Lucia Ames Mead Fred Merrifield

Herbert A. Miller Parker T. Moon Harry Allen Overstreet Archie M. Palmer Dexter Perkins

John Herman Randall John Herman Randall, Jr. M. D. Redlich

Carl A. Ross

Moises Saenz Nathaniel Schmidt William R. Shepherd Mary Siegrist

Abba Hillel Silver Isidor Singer

George M. Stratton Norman Thomas Augustus O. Thomas Isabella Van Meter Frank Lloyd Wright

EUROPE

Norman Angell

A. Mendelsohn Bartholdy

L. F. de Beaufort

Pierre Bovet

J. Tyssul Davis

Georges Duhamel

Anna B. Eckstein

Havelock Ellis

Auguste Forel

V. Schultze Givernitz

Hellmuth von Gerlach

John W. Graham

Marja Grundmann- Koscienska

Will Hayes

Ernest Judet

of World Unity Magazine

Richard Lee Ernest Ludwig George de Lukacs Sir James Marchant Victor Margueritte R. H. Markham

F. S. Marvin Karin Michaelis Ida Miller

Forrest Reid

Paul Richard Charles Richet Th. Ruyssen Gilbert Thomas Rustum Viémbéry Walter Walsh Hans Wehberg

M. P. Willcocks

THE ORIENT

Ng Poon Chew James H. Cousins Taraknath Das Bayard Dodge

C. F. Gates Kahlil Gibran Yamato Ichihashi S. L. Joshi

P. W. Kuo Dhan Gopal Mukerji Yone Noguchi S. G. Pandit Frank Rawlinson Stanley Rice Nicholas Roerich A. J. Saunders David G. Stead

J. Vijaya-Gunga �[Page 430]t

A PARTIAL LIST OF TITLES PUBLISHED IN WORLD UNITY

October, 1927—April, 1930

. oe AVR

Science and Religion, by Kirtley F. Mather.

Interaction of Europe and Asia, by William R. Shepherd. Sacred Scriptures of Five Religions, by Alfsed W. Martin. Progress by Telic Guidance, by Mary Hull.

International Politics and World Peace, by Dexter Perkins. The New Humanity, an Anthology, edited by Marty Siegrist. Racial Relationships and International Harmony, by Frank H. Hankins. Science, Philosophy and Religion, by Edwin Arthur Burtt.

A World Community, by John Herman Randall.

One Religion—Many Faiths, by J. Tyssul Davis.

The Quest of World Peace, by Dexter Perkins.

Nationalism and Internationalism, by Herbert Adams Gibbons. My International Family, by Martha Taylor Brown.

Apostles of World Unity, by various authors.

Book Reviews, by John Herman Randall, Jr.

Youth and the Modern World, by various authors.

Leading Articles

The Ideal of World Unity, by John Herman Randall.

A Spiritual Basis for World Unity, by Dhan Gopal Mukerji.

Nature and the Law of Love, by Vladimir Karapetoff.

The Significance of the Scientific Spirit for Eastern Civilizations, by John J. Religious Unity, a Symposium, by various authors.

Building Up the International Mind, by H. A. Overstrcet.

The Need of a Spiritual Element in Education, a Symposium, by various authc The One and the Many, by Abba Hillel Silver.

Why War and Revolution, by Herbert A. Miller.

World Citizenship, by Carl A. Ross.

Science and Religion, by Nathaniel Schmidt.

The Spiritual Crisis of the West, by Paul Richard.

India’s Contribution to Religion, by S. G. Pandit.

Unity in the Pacific, by Kenneth Scott Latourette.

Shambhala, by Nicholas Roerich.

The Practical Program of Religion, by A. E. Haydon. �