It is an old trick of shrewd crooks who are chased down the street, to yell loudly "Hold the thief!" In most cases they manage to disappear in the crowd. It's something like that with militarism too. The English press is so used to raving about "Prussian militarism," that almost every American knows this phrase by heart. Lately one also talks about "Kaiserism." Because every German had to be educated to the idea of defending his native land if need be, one calls it militarism, but only in those countries which maintain armies of "mercenaries," like England and the United States. The German army (and also the French) is more like a people's army than the British and American. The European war has furnished evidence that the desire to defend one's country, is strongest in Germany, with France being next. And this is not only true in the case of ex-service men, but also among men of various ages who were rejected for army service and even among 2the veterans who are past conscription age. Can we call that militarism? This term would apply with more justification to the armies of mercenaries who are hired for wages to defend the "most sacred possessions" of a nation whose wealthy citizens shirk that duty.

The talk about the "fight against militarism" is sheer nonsense. At this moment, while these people are denouncing German militarism, they are breaking their neck to imitate that militarism. In England, until now only poor devils and those who do not own one square foot of their native land, have volunteered for military service. The bourgeois class is openly accused of slackerism, and the press and the workers' organizations observe that it would befit the sons of the rich if they, too, would join in the defense of their country which they really own. If not during the war, certainly afterwards we will see general military conscription introduced in England. Just because the necessity for this measure was formerly strongly denounced, is no reason why is will not be adopted when the time comes.

In our country, too, it seems to be dawning on people that denouncing German militarism does not preclude the necessity for national defense. One seems to have learned that much from the European conflict, that even the most pacific nation is not safe from aggression by her neighbor. In that event it would be nice to have the means of defence. Or should there be anybody so pacific minded as to let his adversary give him a licking without defending himself? Every nation will try to avoid getting licked, and the scope of her defense measures will be in inverse ratio to the "friendly intentions" of her neighbors. This reasoning has made headway over here and it is straightway being translated into action.

Senator Lodge has proposed a resolution in the United States Senate, asking the Secretary of War to prepare an estimate of expenditures for a standing army of 460,000 men. The resolution was adopted without debate. The House Committee for Navy Affairs added a provision to the Naval Appropiations Bill, designed to build up a naval reserve. Some other amendments were adopted by the Committee in order to strengthen the Navy. For instance, the Board which 4"pensions" officers--"Plucking Board"--is to be abolished. Eight officers who had been retired to private life by the Board are to be reinstated by order of the President. Another amendment to the law is recommended, which would greatly augment the officer corps of the Navy and create the rank [position] of chief of naval operations, analogous to that of the army high command. Another provision makes possible the promotion of ensigns to commissioned officers. An increase of enlisted navy personnel by five thousand men was rejected, probably because it would not serve any purpose at the present time, since the legal quota for enlisted men is still short by eighteen thousand. That is further proof for the well-known fact that there is not any special liking over here for military service, either in the army or in the navy. From that we can conclude that we will never have a strong army and a powerful navy unless we create them by legal measures. But if that should ever become necessary, then militarism, so strongly denounced before, will be defended by its present enemies. "Circumstances alter cases," they'll say. But that was the same reason why the German people's army was created.

The crusade against German militarism is so similar to that "hold the thief" ruse in other respects too, that it falls little short of demagogy, because England really heads the list in regards to armament expenditures, the only difference being that here it can be termed "navalism," while in Germany it is called "militarism." But in the essence it is the same; in reality "navalism" is even worse for peace. Expenditures for army and navy by the following countries in 1911, expressed into German marks, were:

[Translator's note: The above figures represent German marks in millions. Rate of exchange at that time was: one mark was the equivalent of twenty-three cents of M 4,20 would buy one U. S. dollar].

The above figures represent expenditures from a period before the Balkan War [1912], and can therefore be considered normal. They prove how little justification England and America have in becoming morally indignant about German militarism. If we want to become indignant, why not question that notorious Republican administration which was in power for twenty years. Let us ask, just what did we get for those 1,094,000,000 spent for the army and navy between 1911 and 1914. According to the orations by Gardener and Lodge, the United States is less prepared than any third-rate power. Surely, that cannot be the fault of the Democratic administration in power for less than two years! Maybe Lodge and Gardener can help us out and tell us what happened to all that money. Let us guess: The army and the navy were used as a sinecure. The hatred for German militarism is nothing else but a hatred of German military prowess and efficiency.

No citizen of any nation can deny the justification and necessity of keeping that nation in a state of preparedness. Opinions may differ on whether or not huge standing armies should be maintained. That may be necessary in one 7country and in another it may not. In a Republic it should be a matter of course that every able-bodied citizen should be trained in the use of arms, as the murdered French Socialist leader, Jean Jaures, advocated in a pamphlet shortly before his death. Over here it would not be necessary to drill citizens for a number of years as it is done in Switzerland. Just as every citizen, whether laborer or bank president, should pay a tax to the government to maintain the society of which he is a part, every physically fit young man upon reaching his voting age should also be trained in the use of arms for the defense of his country. Then citizenship would assume a meaning, even though a duty was connected with it. But for the time being all this is nothing but wishful thinking, and most of the deplorably bad conditions which exist can be traced to the fact that nobody here really cares to assume his duties.