Under the guise of various slogans, such as "better national defense,""preparedness," "military training of citizens for the emergency of an invasion," militarism--the curse of all ages and nations, a useless burden, a barbarizing institution, a foe of all liberty, and the strongest fortress of all reaction--militarism is trying to invade this country.

Influential American newspapers which serve the interests of big business and the new imperialistic policies that are being acquired in connection with the hunt for foreign markets in which to get rid of overproduction, are trying by all possible means, and for every conceivable reason--from the yellow peril to Mexican raids over Texas borders--to stir up public opinion and prepare it for a huge armament program in the coming Congress.

It is easy to understand why these heralds of aggressive capitalism call for greater arming, which offers so many opportunities for an easy accumulation of 2millions and at the same time provides a strong club for the fight for foreign markets; but what is absolutely incomprehensible is the fact that there are also Bohemian newspapers, newspapers without any interest in the arming and every interest in combating that danger, which blindly echo the alarm of unpreparedness and clamor for a bigger army and a stronger navy. In our opinion we Bohemians, have more reason than anybody else to oppose and fight this threat. Not only has our nation suffered from the "blessing" of preparedness for national defence and suffers from it now more than ever before, but also a good half of all of us here in America have fled [from our homeland] just in order to avoid slaving in the army.

The opinion of people who clamor for better national defense--which is nothing but an alias for militarism--is that much more to be condemned because it ignores the most important lesson the European war should have taught us. It has been claimed--at least by the Allies in London and Paris--that the present war is being waged for the purpose of abolishing the danger of Prussian militarism, and this claim has found general approval and credence. But where is 3the logic if we assert that the war has shown that greater armaments are necessary? From the noise made by the agents of American arms industries, steel works, shipyards, and big banking interests fattening on war loans, one could be made to believe that the United States is as helpless and harmless as a newborn babe. But we know that it is not more than a generation ago that the aggressive, wilfully started war with Spain ended, a war that helped nobody in the world with the exception of the sugar trust, and harmed everybody else. We know that the United States has not had one single defensive war, or any war that could not have been avoided by a bit of cool blood and good will. The so-called War for Independence was not really a war; it was a revolution, which makes a great deal of difference. There is not a single country in the Western Hemisphere which could even think of attacking us, and from militaristic Europe we are divided by an ocean which is a better protection than several millions of well-trained soldiers.

Our relation to Canada is the best proof of the fallacy of the old Roman saying, Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war). It was invented 4and repeated by shrewd statesmen and ambitious generals, and served only their own selfish interests. A border four thousand miles long divides us from our Northern neighbor, and not one fortress, not one soldier, not one warship guards it. For over a hundred years Canada and the United States have lived one next to the other in complete peace, and not even the most deeply entrenched militarist and chauvinist will dare to maintain that that unpreparedness, the absolute lack of possibility of national defense, is a danger to peace.

Our jingoists, with Roosevelt in their van, like to use China as an example where they want to picture the danger the United States is facing because of its unpreparedness. But a comparison between China and the United States is silly, because it ignores the huge difference in the industrial development of these two countries. Our industries would make it possible to equip an army of many millions in a few months' time, and the argument also ignores the difference in the temperament of the populations. But even if we admit the possibility that the United States could find itself in a position comparable to that of China in regard to Japan, would it be really defenseless if not 5protected by a forest of bayonets? The situation is the following:

More than twenty years ago China found herself in a controversy with Japan. Adopting the method now forced upon us by our jingoists, she offered armed opposition. The result was a terrible defeat, the loss of Formosa, and a huge indemnity. Last year, after the expulsion of the Germans from Kiaochow, China again found herself in a controversy with Japan, this time because of a question concerning some privileges in the Shantung Peninsula. But China took advantage of past experiences, a thing which we as a civilized nation seem unable to do. She did not use arms but did use an economic boycott as her weapon. Japan's superbly trained and fully equipped army of several hundred thousand was absolutely worthless against that weapon. And when Nippon started losing her foreign trade and a number of her exporters went into bankruptcy, the aggressivistic policies of Premier Okuma aroused such opposition in Japan that the government was forced to resign. Hence the attempt to represent China as a victim of unpreparedness is not only a fallacy, but also a malicious trick of men who want to inflict militarism upon this Republic.

If there is clamoring heard now in the United States for a larger army and a stronger navy, it is not because of fear of invasion but because of lust for conquest. The continuous efforts of big capital to provoke a war with Mexico, the armed occupation of the Republic of Haiti (which, by the way is called "the black Republic" because it is inhabited and governed by people of the black race, and not because of its "black" record, as a Bohemian newspaper naively explained), the indefensible separation of Panama from the Republic of Colombia, and the imperialistic foreign policy inaugurated by McKinley's administration--all that should open the eyes of those who want to see the true purpose of the clamor for greater armament. Militarism has proved a curse to Europe. To expect, or to preach that it will be a blessing to the United States is either stupid or dishonest.