Evening Star Newspaper, October 25, 1936, Page 31

Editorial Page " Political Round-Up Part 2—12 Pages CAPITALS OF EUROPE WATCH U. S. ELECTION Majority Rooting for Roosevelt, Hoping for International Confab on Armament. BY CONSTANTINE BROWN. € (7T~ HERE are only two alterna- forth. Either its states- men will get together and limitation of armaments and political co-operation, or the continent will be has never before seen. It's either bend or break,” observed Leon Blum, “And, in order to save the world from another blood bath, it is essential operation.” These were M. Blum's parting words to this writer before this reason that in every country in Europe chancelleries are following the the keenest interest. The same thought which is found in Washington was voiced to this writer by the other leading men of possible exception of Berlin, states- men are rooting for Roosevelt, because draw the United States into another international confab which may pos- the present disturbance in world af- fairs. United States Government has lent its support to Great Bnitain and cided to go off the gold standard tends to confirm the view of European ministration would be willing to g0 one step further and collaborate with @ peaceful solution of Europe’s prob- lems. ‘What Blum and other political lead- ers in Western Europe have in mind limitation of armaments, which closed its doors in 1933 and has since been ‘being given consideration in Washing- ton, but because of the electoral cam- the present moment. of foreign diplomats who are testing are met with a polite silence. Still, Government officials are listening to answer until after November 3. The limitation of arms conference, forcefully brought to a head under the Hoover administration, lamenta- adamant refusal to allow Germany a conscript army and what used to be —a few airplanes and a few tanks. The successive French governments istic point of view that Germany must live up to the terms of the Versailles the world sufficient proof of-her good intentions never to go on the war maintain & distinct superiority in armaments. Furthermore, Germany equality of war weapons. Versailles Treaty Dead. dead. Germany has not only a quali- tative equality, but today boasts of in Europe, despite the objections of her former foes. Blum and his cabi- %0 openly, they consider the treaty of Versailles as shot and buried. “It corpse, no matter how much you loved the defunct. A corpse must be buried the principal collaborators of the French premier. This opinion, of British cabinet and the British people. Thus France, which was the main armament meetings, has adopted a practical attitude, which is: “Since scale than we thought she would be able to, let's, all disarm from now on.” ference is to all intents and purposes finished, the machinery still exists. adjourned and could be reconvened at any time one of the participants Would Agree to Cut. The general outline of what the mind is as follows: The delegates of the limitation of arms conference agenda of the conference should be taken up from where it was left when Germany has at the present moment & larger military machine than any —the so-called neutral states, the Soviets and probably Great Britain— former participants would agree to & drastic cut in their land and air if the otherenations show real wil- to disarm. There are only ‘be reluctant to destroy the war ma- chinery they have been building with These nations are Germany and Japan. They will be invited to send they will agree to sign on the dotted Tine or not is a matter of indifference One of the difficulties encountered at the previous disarmament confer- @gressor. In 1933 President Roosevelt en- deavored to give an adequate defini- considered as an aggressor when it sends its armed forces outside its ter- of another nation. This definition was not acceptable at that time to an intervention in Germany should the Reich decide to remilitarize the Polish Corridor or snatch the Saar ‘before the Saarlanders had a chance German or French or independent. Germany was willing to accept the tives for Europe hence- devise an honest-to-goodness plan for plunged in a war such as the world France’s much harassed premier. that we should have America's co- he left Paris last month. It is for forthcoming presidential elec.clon with in responsible administration quarters Europe. In every capital, with the they believe that his re-election will sibly lead to a peaceful settlement of The readiness with which the France when the latter country de- statesmen that another Roosevelt ad= the countries across the Atlantic for Would Revive Conference. is the revival of the conference for considered defunct. This thought is paign nothing much is being said at the ground at the State Department ‘what is being said and reserving their which was begun in 1927 and was bly failed in 1933 because of France’s termed at Geneva “token armanients” between 1927 and 1933 took the legal- treaty, and since she had not given path again, the other nations. must could not be permitted a qualitative The treaty of Versailles now is the strongest and best equipped army net are realists. While the do not say 1s foolish to remain attached to a and forgotten.” Thus spoke one of course, is shared 100 per cent by the stumbling block at the Geneva dis- Germany has rearmed on a greater While the limitation of arms con- Officially that parley has been merely decides to demand a meeting. Western European statesmen have in should be called back to Geneva. The the meetings were adjourned. Since other country, France and her allies the United States and the other armaments. Italy might be won over two nations in the world which will wutmost care during the last few years. delegates to Geneva, too. But whether to the others. ence was the definition of the ag- tion by stating that a nation should be ritorial boundaries into the territory the French, because they had in mind "Rhineland or make a coup in the to decide whether théy wanted to be * Roosevelt definition of the aggressor. ‘The approaches | | _ Now the shoe is on the other foot. France is quite ready to accept the President’s definition, while Germany is reluctant to do so. This definition, the French say, can serve a very useful purpose. If the nations which will eventually gather at Geneva agree to a substantial reduction of armaments, it is immaterial whether Germany and Japan come into line. They may continue to have a tre- mendous military establishment it they choose to do so, but it would become useless. London and Paris would like to see another instrument of peace signed together with the disarmament agreement. And that agreement should provide that in case any nation becomes an aggressor in accordance with the accepted defini- tion, all the other nations would un- dertake to apply, immediately and simultaneously, a complete economic and financial embargo against the aggressor nation. Germany and | Japan, the two potential aggressors, are short of money and materials. They could not, it is said in Paris, wage a war for more than three months jf a complete embargo were applied against them. It has been pointed out to the French that the economic and finan=- cial embargo applied by the League of Nations to Italy was not successful. To this they reply that the Italian campaign in Ethiopia was a colonial war, and many of the nations who signed the sanctions agreement at Geneva had a sneaking feeling of sympathy for the Italians. The gov- ernments of Europe, including the French government, closed their eves when manufacturers and producers smuggled goods into Italy. That, however, will not apply in the event of a German aggression, because more important things than material prof- [rits will be.at stake. Japan is an island which can be fdrced to her knees in no time—provided British, French and American interests are involved. Consequently, the French believe than an economic and finan- cial .embargo could work successfully in a major crisis—provided the United States is a party to such an agree- ment. And, they add, if the United States takes a hand there is no doubt that the states in South America will co-operate. At the present moment Germany draws the bulk of her raw materials from Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Slow-Moving Machine. It is, of course, realized in Europe that the existing neutrality act, which is on the statute books of the United States for several more months, will oppose a complete economic embargo. But it is believed that if the United States Congress should recognize the beneficial effects of such a general agreement it would save billions of the taxpayers’ money throughout the world and lead to more settled con- ditions in Europe, and thus there might be little opposition to -an adaptation of the neutrality act to the new conditions. The fundamental idea of this elev- enth hour effort to pacify Europe appears acceptable to most of the chancelleries. Prime ministers and foreign secretaries believe that some- thing might be worked out to the satisfaction of all. But.under present European conditions—political rivale ries, social unrest, racial and politi- | cal hatred, suspicions and jealousies | —a peace conference is bound to be a slow-working machine. The motives of the participants are bound to be | carefully sctutinized; diplomatic and political jockeying behind the scenes is inevitable. And it is feared that by the time the conference begins to show results the disrupting forces of Europe would offset all the peace plans by some act of violence—before any lawful sanctions could be applied against them. Furthermore, there is a deep-rooted conviction in the major European countries that without whole-hearted co-operation from Washington the | planned parley can lead to no posi- tive results. This is the reason why the first question put to an American who visits a European capital these days is: “Do you think that Roosevelt will be re-elected?” (Copyright, 1936, Glasgow Is Playground For European Royalty GLASGOW, Scotland (#).—Fast becoming a new playground of Euro- pean royalty, Scotland has had an- other crowned guest in the person of Bulgaria’s ruler and No. 1, railroad | fan, King Boris. While Britain'’s own King Edward VIII went on a holiday cruise in the Mediterranean, King Boris passed his “vacation” at the lovely home among the Perthshire heather of Sir Alex- ander Kay Muir, whose wife was for- merly first secretary to the Bulgarian Legation in Washington, D. C. Among others of royal blood who like Scottish holidays are Queen Wil- helmina of Holland and Princess Ena, who have been here twice. Closer American-Greek Contacts Are Desired ATHENS (#).—Better communica- tion should exist between Greece and America, a committee presided over by Prime Minister Metaxas decided in a conference here devoted to ques- tions concerning Greeks abroad. The committee would like to see more Greek schools and consulates in America; communications by modern trans-Atlantic liners instituted; trade stimulated; and facilities improved for allowing American Greeks to visit their homeland. Belgium Encouraging New Merchant Marine BRUSSELS, Belgium (#).—With all but one of the 112 ships which lay idle in 1933 back In service, the Belgian government is to encourage the development of its mercantile marine by clearing the way for more than $5,000,000 in credits for ship- building during the next two years. The came from Marcel-Henri Jaspar, the minister of transport. » EDITORIAL SECTION The Sunday Star WASHINGTON, D. C.,- SUNDAY. MORNING, OCTOBER 25, 1936. Europe Stocks Up for War Worried Nations Filling Their Larders With Food and Raw Materials. Synthetic Supplies Planned. BY C. PATRICK THOMPSON. HE Hitler four-year plan to I make Germany independent for all raw materials which can be produced by German mines, factories or chemists—a plan necessitating the creation of immense new raw material industries, each staffed by a team of research scien- tists—puts a spotlight on war’s tough- est and most complex problem—the organization and stocking of the war larder. L& The plan makes the headlines. It sounds sensational and revolutionary. But, basically, it is as old as war itself. Your supplies may be ‘cut off in a forthcoming war. Right. You must bring within the walls supplies ade- quate, to save the fortress garrison from being starved out, or reduced through exhaustion of missiles or the materials to make them. It looks a straightforward prob- lem—until you translate it into terms of latter-day machine and chemical warfare, the life of a modern big in- dustrial state and a difficult geograph- ical situation. Then you find yourself confronting & picture appalling in all its implications and a problem to stagger the imagination. The chief European powers, how- ever — including Britain — have to nerve themselves up to view this pic- ture and tackle this problem; and they are all doing it. In the process, the eating, manufacturing, commer- cial, political and living habits of whole national communities are be- ing drastically interfered with and changed in the interest of programs FORCEFUL PREMIER GIVES - STABILITY TO BELGIUM Van Zeeland, Who Stopped Country Headed for Ruin, Faces Test Now in Struggle With BY EMIL LENGYEL. MASTER of economics from Princeton University, a for- mer lecturer at Johns Hop- kins, a timid young man, Paul van Zeeland is the head of Eu- rope's most successful ® government. The European press speaks about the “Van Zeeland Revolution,” won against Fascism and Communism against regimentation in general, without bloodshed; idealogical” battles without militant popular fronts and goose-stepping militias. He recently began his second term as head of the government, although he had never been in politics and the party which adopted him is not the largest in the Belgian Parliament. When Van Zeeland first took the helm in March of last year, Belgium seemed to be headed for ruin. The treasury was being emptied rapidly, the budget was unbalanced, gold was in full flight, confidence was lacking, banks were toppling into bankruptcy, prices were nowhere and wages had gone with them. Labor troubles were everywhere, and industry faced & standstill. Today Belgium presents perhaps the most hopeful picture in the Euro- pean scene. The treasury is in excel- lent shape, the budget is more than balanced, foreign gold is seeking shel- ter in the national bank's vaults. Con- fidence has returned, the banks are doing good business, prices and wages have risen and factories are working gayly. This does not mean, however, that all the country’s problems have been solved. As an aftermath of the crisis there has risen a strong semi- Fascist movement, the Rex, headed by a buoyant young man, a dangerous foe of the Van Zeeland regime. Possesses Personality. You cannot meet Paul van Zeeland without realizing that he possesses that elusive something, personality. It is revealed in his eloquent eyes, his unaffected smile, the vibrant tone of his voice and in his words. When he speaks his face is a study in anima- tion. His thick, bushy eyebrows and gleaming white teeth afford a vivid contrast of black and white. Even though the worries of power are beginning to tell on him, he looks considerably less than his 43 years, and appears entirely unspoiled by fame. His,movements are angular, his handshake cordial, his interest in men undiminished. In conversation he wants to inform and also to learn— obviously he is a man who must put every moment to the most profitable use. His was the adventurous life of the Belgian war tion — ::cx pt extinction, plunged inf and then confronted with the of reconstraction. Semi-Fascists. as he was born with the gift of clear vision and immense industry. Two years ago he was known only to a small circle of experts, who thought very highly of him. He sought neither political power nor publicity, and in his case it was literally true that the job was seeking the man. It was Leopold III, King of the Belgians, himself, who prevailed upon the vice governor of the Belgian National Bank to accept the highest office in the country. In our interview he first asked me whether I wanted to speak in English, French or German, all three of which he masters to perfection—French is his native tongue. Then he added with a smile, “or perhaps Russian,” as he had been told that I had been a pris- oner of war in Russia. Assured that he might select any of those languages, he spoke in an almost accentless Eng- lish. Asked about the formula for his success, he told me with a smile that it was disappointingly simple. “Since the depression started states- men have been flooded with economic plans, of which I myself have received a good many. Some of them contain many ingenious ideas, but it is a great mistake to imagine that a clever plan is always a life-saving device. You cannot take an idea, no matter how brilliant, and foist it upon your country. Stimulants and Irritants. “We follow certain economic laws, which are sometimes as stringent as natural laws, and when trying to mix them with alien substances we are apt to do great harm. They may serve not as stimulants but as irritants—verita- ble poisons. It cannot be the function of the state to sponsor irresponsible experiments which lead to a sort of state capitalism. In spite of the Rus- sian five-year plan, such a system has not proved its universal applicability. But it is the business of the state to co-ordinate and aid where community co-operation is essential. “Confidence is as vital to the eco- nomic body as air is to the human body. Our government has been greatly aided by a return of confi- dence. We have not set out to per- form any miracles, but merely tried to disentangle the twisted ecomomic strains of business. A policy of rig- orous deflation had to be eased, and the Belgian franc had to be brought down to its natural level; govern- mental departments were brought within a real national budget system, and business was assured that it need not fear radical changes. Although all of this was only detail work, its elements fall into a pattern based upon common sense and natlonal co- operation. “Burope is very sick just now, and a complete cure in our country cannot (Continued on Page D-12.) of preparedness in which the organi- sation and stocking of a war larder is an item equal in importance to the creation of powerful armies and air and sea fleets, and the provision of up-to-date killing apparatus and ma- chines, Except from the angle of size, scope and thoroughness, the Reichsfuehrer’s plan represents no innovation. In fact, what Hitler proclaims with a yell John Bull has been doing quietly for quite a while now. War prepara- (Continued on Page D-10.) GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY CREDIT GIVEN ROOSEVELT Latin-American Relations Particularly Benefited Despite Charges as to “Dangerous Futility.” BY GASTON NERVAL. T IS well understood, by partici- l pants as well as by outside ob- servers, that on the eve of & pres- idential election in the United States allowance should be made for & great deal of exaggeration and political fiction-writing in the campaign ut- terances of those who “point with pride” or “view with alarm” the achievements or shortcomings of the party in power. Nevertheless, not even political ex- pediency is sufficient excuse for charg- ing the present administration with “failure in the field of foreign affairs,” and, believe it or not, the “dangerous futility” of its Latin American policy. A former Undersecretary of State in the Hoover regime made such charges only a few days ago, reviewing what he called the bankruptcy of New Deal diplomacy. 2 The opponents of the administration would do better to overlook entirely the fleld of foreign affairs, and particu- larly the record of the past three and a half years'in the relations of the United States with the Latin American countries. Silence would do them much more good than denunciation. for the gains and benefits of the “good neighbor” policy have already been acknowledged by Latin Americans themselves as the least disputed ac- complishment of the Roosevelt-Hull diplomacy. Recent Improvement. ‘This column has often criticized the errors and abuses implied in former policies of the State Department in] Latin America, but the same respect for honest judgment and historical ac- curacy which called forth that criti- cism demand now a recognition of the improvement witnessed recently. The truth is, as we pointed out when com- menting upon the President’s Chau- tauqua address, that no matter how much more remains to be done and how skeptical some people may be as to the permanency of the new policies, never before has so much progress been made in so short a time in the furtherance of inter-American rela- tions. It is impossible, within the limited space of'a newspaper article, to deal in detail with the record of the “good neighbor” policy—so called because of the happy phrase in President Roose- velt’s inaugural speech dedicating the United States to “the policy b:‘r uuhomd x:z'l‘:’hha-, the neigh- Wwho reso respects him- self and, because he does so, respects the rights of others; the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in, and with, & world of neighbors.” A brief summary, however, of the outstanding features of the Latin American policy of the Roosevelt-FHull tion should inciude, at least, these 10: A Commitment of the Government of the United States to a policy of non- intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, formally made by the President in his now famous Wilson dinner speech, and confirmed by the signing of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States by Secretary Hull, a conven- tion which specifically condemned the former practices of intervention, greatest source of inter-American dis- cord in the past. - Situation in Cuba. Refusal to land United States Ma- rines in Cuba during the 1933 crisis, when all the factors which had pro- voked previous armed interventions were present and the rights granted by the Platt amendment were still in existence. Abolition of the Platt amendment, which inaugurated a new relationship between the United States and Cuba, minus most of the privileges which had made Cuban sovereignty some- what questionable. Withdrawal of United States Ma- rines from Haiti, thus ending the last of the military interventions in the Caribbean zone, long before the treaty which authorized the occupa- tion had expired. Abandonment of “dollar diplomacy,” formally announced by the President and the State Department in connec- tion with the disavowal of an Ameri- can oil concession in Ethiopia at the start of the Italian invasion, and con- firmed by the entirely different at- titude observed toward defaulted Latin American public debts. Diplomatic aid given in the con- clusion of the Leticia and Chaco armed conflicts in South America and faithful carrying out of the doc- trine of non-recognition of territorial gains by force, which has been made a part of the law of nations in the New World. Signing of a new treaty with Pan- ama, correcting most of the injustices and differences originally created by the construction and operation of the Panama Canal and insuring perma- nent friendship with the country whose co-operation is vital for the defense of the Canal. Mexican Controversy. Refusal to intervene in the religio- educational controversy in Mexico, thereby confirming the impression that this Government really meant to keep out of the domestic quarrels of its neighbors. Signature of reciprocal trade pacts with nearly one-half of all the Amer- ican republics, with mutual commer- cial benefits, and consequent revival of inter-American trade along the lines advocated for years by Secre- tary Hull. A wholly new psychological atmos- 4 mD DEMOCRACY ON DEFENSE AGAINST COLLECTIVISM Observer Also Believes America Faces Grave Danger in Attempts at Monetary Inflation. BY MARK SULLIVAN. O WRITE for the public as & whole about collectivism 1is one thing. To write for the small audience which under- stands fine distinctions in this field is another thing. What would be written for the smaller audience would be too technical to be under- stood by the larger. And what is written for the larger audience runs risk of being challenged by the smaller. There are several types of collectiv- ism. There is communism, there is socialism—several varieties of this; there is fascism, there is the totali- tarian state, there is the “popular front.” All differ from each other. Many of the differences are hair-fine. All are, just now, in ferment. All are changing. To be exact in using the various terms is practically impos- sible. This difficulty is capitalized by the radical propagandists and dialecti- cians, If a conservative speaker or writer says some one is “a Commu- nist” when actually he is a Socialist, the radicals are able to deny and to Jeer. The condition operates to pre- vent the whole issue of collectivism from being ventilated. But this difficulty must not be per- mitted to stand in the way of dealing with the most important issue of this campaign. For convenience I shall dismiss refinements of definition and use, in a broad sense, the general term collectivism. Some such device is necessary in any attempt to be clear to the average reader. System Needs Modifications. l Since I write in the closing days of the campaign, let me at once set down an estoppel. I do not assert that either outcome of this campaign will necessarily end the threat of col- lectivism to America. In the way in which the voters are lining up, it is frequently assumed that election of Gov. Landon would end the threat, end it finally and completely. Those who think this will fail pathetically to understand the forces that are loose in the world. Even if Mr. Lan- don should be elected, even if he should dedicate himself with high intelligence to saving America from collectivism, even if he should be served in this effort by the best con- science and intelligence of the coun- try, the rescue would take years to effect. In one alternative, it is conceivable that election ef Mr. Landon would not be an aid to resisting collectivism at all. If Gov. Landon should be elected, and if he should be a mere standpat conservative trying to take the country back to old conditions, he ‘would not avoid social commotion, he would further it. The American sys- tem imperatively needs certain modi- fications. Mr. Landon understands this. To mention one example, we must bring about a greater degree of farm ownership, must reduce the pro- portion of farm tenancy, which in several of our best farm States runs as high as 50 per cent. Only by making these modifications and making them—to adapt “Al” Smith’s phrase—“within the four walls” of the American system, can the system be saved. Under any con- ditions, no matter how this election goes, America is destined for—I quote an elevated and essentially conserva- tive periodical, The Commonweal, “long, long years of anxiety.” Point of View Shifts. ‘With respect to Mr. Roosevelt the assertion is occasionally made, or the question asked: “Is the President a Communist?” To that the answer is no, Mr. Roosevelt is not a Communist. Some times the question is, “Is the President a collectivist?” If the an- swer must be in one word the answer will again be, I think no. (It should be added at once that some of his closest advisers are thoroughgoing collectivists, determined to take Amer- ica toward that form of society.) But it is no easy task to fix with pre- cision the place of Mr. Roosevelt's personal point of view in the long gamut of varying social theories that are now in ferment in the world. The task is the more difficult because Mr. Roosevelt’s point of view seems not to remain always the same. He says in this campaign, vehemently and re- peatedly, that he is not a collectivist. In his Chicago speech he said: “I be- lieve, I have always believed and I will always believe in private enter- prise.” With respect to the record of Mr. Roosevelt’s administration, I think every competent judge would say that some of the New Deal, especially N. R. A. and to some degree Triple-A, were collectivist innovatiens. If they had been allowed to remain they would have carried America, by the opera- tion of automatic forces within them- selves, to a collectivist form of so- ciety and the changed form of gov- ernment made necessary by the new form of society. Some other portions of the New Deal are not collectivist at all. They are wholly American. Some of the things done by the Roosevelt administration have been precisely those things which must be done in order to enable the American system to survive. I refer, for example, to the control of securi- ties, control of the Stock Exchange; the banking law—though this is grossly inadequate and must be changed, and phere for the promotion of Pan- American understanding, due partly to the liberal and friendly attitude now found at Washington, and partly to the recognition of the Latin Amer- ican insistence on equality of states and respect for the sovereignty of small nations. This is a record which cannot be easily matched, and its significance is enhanced by the realization that many of its accomplishments involved the rectification and reversal of mis- takes made in the past. The fact that some of those mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of previous Democratic administrations does not detract from the credit due the present one for correcting them; if anything, it adds to 1t (Copyright, 1936.) the social security act—though this also is unworkable in its present form and must be perfected. In the net, if the assertion be that the Roosevelt administration has col- lectivist tendencies, then the answer is yes, emphatically yes. The Roosevelt administration has collectivist tenden- cles up to date—and the persons who promoted that tendency are still in the administration. Some are frank, trenchant, avowed collectivists. Others. are accurately described by Miss Dor- othy ‘Thompson as “people, some of them in positions of authority, who believe that the traditional social and economic system is doomed anyhow and that anything done to hasten its demise and prepare for another one is & step in the right direction.” But let us not narrowly assert that the danger to America arises only from certain men. The danger arises also from forces which are at work in the world, regardless of who may compose the administration. I have been saying for some three years, with a repetition which at times may have seemed boring, that democ- racy, the American form of government and the American system of society are threatened; that they are on the defensive. What I have been saying is parelled in a very recent editorial in the New York Times on October 16: “Democracy is under pressure. The representative system as we know it is on the defensive. * * * Democ- racy has to operate in a world that no longer takes its principles for granted, and it begins to dawn on believers in the democratic system that it can- not operate without conscious, active and vigilant citizens.” Change in 1917. Now just what is this danger to democracy? How did it come into the world? Where and when did it arise? The best way to answer these questions simply is to recite, in a few brief para- graphs, the history of the movement which constitutes the danger. In so condensed a statement I cannot pre tend to practice fine definition, and I hope the radical dialecticians will overlook the over-simplification that is inescapable: Up to 1917 there were two forms of government in the world. One was monarchies, with varying limitations; the other democracies of the American type. Then, in 1917, something wholly new came into the world. Through the agency, mainly, of two men, Lenin and Trotsky. A form of society called Com= munism was imposed on Russia, then prostrate. An outstanding feature of Communism was the denial of private property; no individual could own anye thing, everything was owned by the state. Outstanding also was the de- termination to extirpate and suppress n—there must be no authority within thé state except the authority of the state itself. There must be no object of men's devotions except the state. Once established in Russia, Come munism set about to establish itself throughout the world. It made some progress in Italy. Thereupon there arose in Italy, as an antidote to Com= munism, another wholly new concepe tion of society called Fascism. It pre- served the right of the individual to own property. In most other respects Fascism was as abhorent to democ- racy as @ommunism is. A little later communism got a foot= hold in Germany. Thereupon in Germany also arose the antidote, in this case called Nazi-ism, though Nazi-ism is a variation of fascism. Later yet, in France, communism made some headway, though France still re- tain its democratic form of governe ment and most of its old form of so= ciety. Very recently, in Spain, there arose, and now goes on a bloody civil war between the Communist and Fascist conceptions of society. In the Spanish conflict the Fascist nations of Europe sympathize with and give material help to the Fascist faction in Spain. Similarly, the great Com« munist country, Russia, sympathizes with and gives material help to the Communist faction in Spain. Democracy on Defensive. ‘Throughout all this, democracy is on the defensive. It has been on the defensive since 1917. In none of the countries mentioned does hardly any one contend strongly for democracy. Both factions take it for granted that democracy as a conception of gove ernment and sociely, is an incurable decline. The fight is between fascism and communism to determine which shall take the place of a dead democe racy. To democracy, especially to Amer- ican believers in democracy, both come munism and fascism are equally odie ous. There are some distinctions in principle; but in practice, in opera- tion, communism and fascism are much the same. Both get rid of par- liamentary government, both operate through dictators. Both assert that the state is everything, the individual nothing. Both assert that the indi- vidual has no rights which the state must respect. What we have in Europe today is 8 nearly continent-wide conflict be- tween fascism and communism. In spain the conflict is an armed one, This coming to the point of blood in Spain brings imminent probability of war everywhere. But the unique thing about this apparently threatened war in Europe is that it is not like any other war that ever occurred before, unless we go back as far as the old religious wars. This is not a war be- tween nations, as such, it is a war between adherents of fascism and ad- herents of communism. The world tide against democracy is still running high. It rises to a new point from week to week. The problem for America is how to avoid being engulfed. How to avoid a de~ velopment in which the newspaper dispatches that now come out of Ber= lin and Rome might be dated from Washington. The danger is not merely that of & direct attempt to bring about col- lectivism. The danger lies also in monetary inflation. Inflation would cause widespread distress and social chaos, in which it would be easy for collectivism to take root. In both these possibilities lies the peril to America. (Copyright, 1936,) 4