AM: ICAN muAr_ox HISTORY.* IN the small hook before us
General Leonard Wood, who would doubtless command the American Army if war were forced upon the United States, carries on his earnest campaign against his country's unpreparedness. At a time when President Wilson translates into eloquent words his visions of a federation of the world for the maintenance of peace General Wood's less eloquent but very wise and grave words have an exceptional value. General Wood is, we feel sure, as much a lover of peace as Mr. Wilson. As he has seen war, it is not unreasonable to guess that he hates it even more than Mr. Wilson does. But he knows that mere words, whether they frame splendid pacific sentiments or convey the solemn promises of organized Governments, will not give men peace unless there is behind the words the physical strength which enables one nation to hold another nation to its • Oar Military History : its Farts and Fallasiet. By Leonard Wood, Major- General, U.S. Army. Chicago: The Ittiily and Britton Cu.
pledges. It is a humiliating fact, of course, that after all these centuries of civilization human beings in organized communities should not be able to take one another's signed promises at their verbal worth. But so it is. How any rational and observant person can deny that the relations of people in a world which contains the Prussian mind and policy are conducted under the humiliating conditions we have mentioned, we are unable to understand. The statesmen of neutral countries, and various men of letters, so many of whom have shown themselves to be the victims rather than the masters of their language, may continue to talk as though fresh promises have only to be made to rescue and reform the world. But those, at all events, who are suffering directly from the willingness of Germany to break all her promises know better. They see that unless the very evil power of Germany is broken, no promises will be of any use in the future conduct of inter- national relations. The Allies are really fighting for the preservation of the moral foundation upon which everything that Mr. Wilson dreams of would be built. We fear that if Mr. Wilson perceives this, he does not think it well to acknowledge the fact. General Wood, on the other hand, does acknowledge it by implication. Not, of course, that he declares his sympathy with the Allies in this book, which is written solely about the military situation in the United States and has nothing to do with the war. But he points out again and again that no treaties and no schemes of arbitration will give security to any nation in the face of dishonest aggression. In some very distant day it may be possible to do without armies, but meanwhile—since burglars and murderers are about—only armies can give us safety.
General Wood has to contend against the most widespread delusion which has ever visited any country—that national safety can be pro- vided by words. We are inclined to believe that the delusion is an intellectual craze which will pass. If so, there will be no great harm done unless the United States should be taken off her guard in the meantime. But there is something in the United States to-day which is even more perilous than the fashionable pacificism, and that is the complacency of men who fully admit the need for military and naval preparation, but say that a great army could be quickly improvised. It is curious how prevalent this opinion is. It is chiefly derived from a false reading of the military history of the United States. It is believed that past wars have proved Americans to have a genius for improvisation, and that what they have triumphantly done before they could do again. It is even said—for instance, by the typical " Fourth of July orator," of whom General Wood has a particular horror—that the success would be greater than ever, since the population and wealth of the United States are greater. It is on this point that General Wood, with a candour of which we have had previous exempla% sets himself to instruct his countrymen. If any American still thinks that in the War of Independence the whole of England's might was crushed— instead of the relatively small army which tried to carry out the mad policy of George M. and Lord North amid the frantic disapproval of a large proportion of Englishmen—he will receive no encouragement from General Wood. The simple truth, according to General Wood, is that the United States has never been engaged against first-class armies, and that popular education has long misled American boys and girls by false analogies as to what could be accomplished against the great armies of to-day :-
" The schools teach the dates of battles and the names of the com- manding generals, but nothing of the organization which determined the efficiency of military operations in our various wars. The natural result has been an unwarranted degree of confidence, a confidence which has grown into a belief that we always have been easily successful in war ; that, in the language of the Fourth of July orator, we can defeat a world in arms. The effect of this lack of sound information is not limited by any means to those in private life, but too often charac- terizes the remarks of those in places of trust and responsibility who should know better. The result of this general failure to teach correctly our military history, and of the resulting misinformation concerning it, is seen in the general lack of interest in our military situation, ignorance of the most elementary facts concerning our military establishment, its organization, strength, equipment and needs. There is a lack of informa- tion also as to the nation's resources in men and material, both mechanical and chemical. Americans are unaware that this country is depending upon sea control for many of these, and are uninformed as to the time required to make arms and ammunition. Intelligent public interest in adequate preparedness has been so long dormant, and ignorance of the need of it is so general, that our people do not appreciate how many links in our industrial and chemical chain are wanting, how many breaks are tied together with string, how helpless the nation would be in certain lines of endeavor without these missing necessities. They are cheerfully confident that an untrained American is as effective in war as a highly trained and equally well educated foreigner of equal physical strength and intelligence. There is a lack of appreciation of the fact that willingness does not moan fitness or ability. This condition of mind is undoubtedly ascribable to the fact that we have been actively engaged in matters in no way relating to our military establishment, an immense work has been accomplished in developing our resources. We are entitled to credit for what we have done, and we can justly take much pride in it. We now need pitiless publicity as to the defects in our mili- tary system, organization and resources, which have characterized them and endangered our safety in all our past wars."
The insistence on the word " chemical " in that passage shows that General Wood is measuring his country's strength by the standard which Germany has introduced.
But it will be said that oven if the War of Independence was fought alder such conditions that the Americans had only to hold on in order
to win, there have been other wars in which the United States was tackled with more persistence. General Wood sees no encouragement anywhere. In the war of 1812 the Americans suffered the insult of having their capital seized and a large part of their country overrun by a few thousand Englishmen whom they were powerless to check. The victory of New Orleans was not really a victory, as it came after peace had been declared. The war against Mexico, it is true, was much better managed, but then there was duo deliberation and preparation. Probably, however, the American reputation for having the genius of improvisation is based on the Civil War. Every one admits that both North and South produced great soldiers trained in the hardest of all schools. But the process took years. A modern attack would have the swiftness of lightning. Imagine what would have happened if a highly trained army of only fifty thousand men had intervened in the war about the time when the North was recoiling in disorder after the comparatively paltry engagement at Bull Run. For some years after the Civil War, of course, there was a large reserve of seasoned officers and men, but that generation has faded away. Eighteen years ago, in the war with Spain, the military weakness of the United States was made as manifest " as her destiny.
General Wood does well to support his appeal with arguments of humanity, among others. Who is more humane, he asks in effect the man who talks of peace when there is no peace, and exposes his country to the bestial tyranny of an unscrupulous invader ; or the man who believes that by preparedness all the horrors of war may be avoided ? There can be only one reasonable answer, even if one looks at the matter . purely from the point of view of an army itself, and leaves out of the account the defenceless civil population. " We have no right," says General Wood, " to employ the services of loyal and willing men under a system which insures the maximum loss of life and the minimum success." For our part, we cannot read those words without thinking of the gallant column of men which under orders has rushed into the labyrinths of Mexico, and of which we do not yet know the fortunes or the fate with any certainty. We do not forget, while considering the moral arguments, that there is a traditional prejudice against a standing Army in America as a natural menace to civil freedom. That prejudice has still a good deal of strength to-day, but much stronger is the delusion that military preparedness means " militarism "—that military strength has only to be created to be used for ignoble purposes. Many an American will thank General Wood for his simple and deeply felt words on this subject :— " It is an insult to us as a people to assume that we cannot be strong and prepared to fight for the right without becoming likely to use our power for wrong. This is the cant of weaklings who have no strong convictions of right for which they are willing to die, if need be. Let us drop cant and hypocrisy and be sure that we can be both strong enough to protect our own rights and interests, and just and self- restrained enough, even though strong to respect those of others. There is no real basis for assuming that if we prepare to resist aggression we are likely to become aggressors. We have no right to jeopardize all we have and hold most dear by failing to organize and prepare our strength because of the fear that if strong, organized and ready, ous nation may become an international highwayman. Rubbish and cant of the faint-hearted ! Lacking the spirit which places principles and honor above fear and wounds ! "
As a matter of fact, the prejudice against military prep teatime is not so traditional as many Americans suppose. Washington (with the co-operation of Knox and Steuben), Adams, and Jefferson all insisted on thorough preparedness. Under the scheme of Knox, Washington's' Secretary for War, which was unfortunat ely abandoned in favour of the Militia system, there would have been a general military training of-the people. Even men between forty-five and sixty years of age were to be compelled to do a kind of Landsturm work. It is interesting to remember this in view of the fact that our War Office, in spite of the tremendous demand for man-power, has so far been unable to offer serious work in this war to men of that age who have already trained themselves voluntarily. If Knox's scheme had been adopted, Washington, we may feel pretty sure, would not have been captured in 1814.
General Wood's cure for the weakness of his country is well known. He demands a strong Navy, a highly trained mobile expeditionary force, and universal compulsory military training on the Swiss or Australian modeL The citizen Army would of course be a strictly Federal force. Lord Roberts implored Englishmen to protect themselves by this identical scheme. They did not listen. We know the result. What may historians yet have reason to say of the United States and her warnings ?
Previous page
