1942: World Peace

Solidarity of the United Nations the First Essential.

In the year 1942, when the possibility of the victory of the United Nations became greater and greater, the public and private discussions of foundations for the coming peace grew in importance. It was generally agreed that the best, and probably even an indispensable, foundation of world peace would be the continued solidarity of the United Nations, which is also the absolute prerequisite of victory. It had been clear for some time that Germany, and to a lesser degree Japan, put hope in their ability, in case of defeat, to utilize the disunity among the victors for another trial at world domination, as they had done after 1918, when the victorious Allies began immediately to quarrel among themselves and to distrust one another, thus diverting their own attention from a lasting settlement with Germany. There is some hope that this fatal mistake will not be repeated. Already the name 'United Nations' binds the nations more closely together than they were held by the term 'Allied and Associated Nations.' Each of the United Nations knows today that she is fighting for her own survival, and that this survival is conditioned by a close cooperation. The lend-lease agreements also tend to create a much more closely-knit unity among the United Nations, in spite of their ideological and geographic differences. More important than anything else is the growing awareness of the public that peace in the twentieth century can never be found in isolation and national egotism, but only in international solidarity and responsibility. Both major parties in the United States are now pledged officially to a program of world peace by cooperation after the war.

Disarmament of Aggressor Nations a Second Essential.

The second important prerequisite of world peace, already accepted by all the United Nations, is the complete disarmament of the aggressor nations, a disarmament this time closely and strictly supervised, so as to make impossible such secret rearmament as Germany started in 1919 and fostered so that twenty years after Germany's defeat, she was the most powerfully armed nation on earth, while the victor nations — the United States, Great Britain and France — were materially and morally disarmed. But this supervision of the disarmament of the aggressor nations demands the closest collaboration of the United Nations after victory, a collaboration which must create its own permanent organs of executive, legislative, and judicial power.

Steps Already Taken Toward World Peace.

Resolutions of the American Republics.

Of official steps taken towards the establishment of world peace three sets of agreements should be mentioned, though all deal as yet only with partial or regional problems. One is the set of resolutions adopted at the conference of the foreign ministers of all American republics in Rio de Janeiro at the end of January 1942, laying down the rules for a closer military, economic, and diplomatic cooperation of all the American republics. All the American republics carried out these resolutions in letter and in spirit, except Chile and (especially) Argentina. But many American republics, among them the two most populous, Mexico and Brazil, entered the war against the Axis and thus expressed full solidarity with the cause of the United Nations. (In January 1943 Chile broke relations with the Axis.)

Agreements Made by Baltic and Balkan Nations.

Another set of agreements concerns Central Europe, the most important belt of many nationalities and states from the Baltic to the Aegean Sea which forms a barrier against German and Russian expansion. The existence of these national states not only accords with the demands of justice for all nations, small and large alike, but it is also one of the necessities of peace; however, only under the condition that these nations collaborate most closely. Otherwise, their disunion makes them an easy prey and a temptation for the aggressive desires of their more powerful neighbors. The disunion and mutual jealousies of the nations of eastern and central Europe and of the Balkans facilitated the designs of the aggressors. In the year 1942 the foundations were laid for a closer collaboration of the nations of that region. On Jan. 15, 1942, the governments of Greece and Yugoslavia concluded an agreement concerning the constitution of a Balkan union. The agreement promises coordination of the foreign policy and of the military preparations of the two nations and the elaboration of a common economic plan with a customs union and the common development of all means of communication. A similar agreement between the governments of Poland and Czechoslovakia, concluded on Jan. 23, 1942, went even further in establishing a confederation to assure a common policy with regard to foreign affairs, defense, economic and financial matters, social questions, transport, posts, and telegraphs. Both these unions expressed their desire to welcome other states of the region as members and to cooperate in establishing a strong basis for peace from the Baltic to the Aegean Sea.

Treaty Between Britain and the Soviet Union.

Yet the most important, and easily the first major step in the right direction, is the treaty between Great Britain and the Soviet Union, May 26, 1942. It established not only a pact of mutual assistance during the war, but, for at least twenty years, the basis of close cooperation in the maintenance of peace in Europe. It removed the danger of conflicting spheres of interest of the two great powers in post-war Europe. The alliance is not regarded as an exclusive Soviet-British concern, but as a nucleus for union with other like-minded states for common action to preserve peace. The agreement expressed the determination of the two countries not to seek any territorial expansion and not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

The United States and Canada.

Though not yet formally concluded, a similar step towards the coming peace was taken in an exchange of notes between the United States and Canada, made public on Dec. 1, which set forth the principles guiding the two governments in approaching post-war problems. They were looking forward to the early beginning of conversations with the other United Nations, with the view to establishing now the foundations upon which there may be created after the war a better system of production, exchange, and consumption of goods for the satisfaction of human needs in all countries willing to join in the effort. Canada and the United States are already bound together by the Agreement of Ogdensburg for the joint defense of the two countries and by the Agreement of Hyde Park for economic collaboration in the production of war materials for Great Britain. The agreements with Canada include the same statement as the lend-lease agreements with Great Britain, namely, that the two governments 'are engaged in a cooperative undertaking, together with every other nation or people of like mind, to the end of laying the basis of a just and enduring world peace, securing order under law to themselves and all nations.' Post-war settlements must promote economic relations advantageous on a world-wide scale. The two governments hope, in cooperation with all other countries of like mind, for the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce, and the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers. In their conversations the two governments 'will seek to furnish to the world concrete evidence of the ways in which two neighboring countries that have a long experience of friendly relations and a high degree of economic interdependence, and that share the conviction that such reciprocally beneficial relations must form part of a general system, may promote by agreed action their mutual interests to the benefit of themselves and other countries.'

Declarations in the Speeches of Statesmen.

In addition to these official treaties and agreements shaping the future of world peace, many important official declarations were made in speeches of responsible statesmen. The most important official declaration on the part of the United States was an address by Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State, on July 23, 1942, in which he pointed out that 'the conflict now raging throughout the earth is not a local or regional war or even a series of such wars. On the side of our enemy it is an attempt to conquer every country. On our side it is a life-and-death struggle for the preservation of our very existence. We are united in our determination to destroy the world-wide forces of ruthless conquest and brutal enslavement.' After the war the nations must create 'some international agency which can — by force, if necessary — keep the peace among nations in the future.' Peace presupposes respect for law and obligations. 'One of the institutions which must be established and be given vitality is an international court of justice. It is equally clear that the United Nations must exercise surveillance over aggressor nations. Until such time as the latter demonstrate their willingness and ability to live at peace during the formative period of the world organization, interruption by these aggressors must be rendered impossible.' Finally, barriers hindering international trade must be removed. These were the foundations of a lasting world peace as foreseen by the American Secretary of State. 'Without impediment to the fullest prosecution of the war the United Nations should from time to time formulate and proclaim their common views regarding fundamental policies which will chart for mankind a wise course based on enduring spiritual values. In support of such policies, an informed public opinion must be developed. Never did so great and so compelling a duty in this respect devolve upon those who are in positions of responsibility, public and private.'

A similar spirit animates the address delivered by Mr. Sumner Welles, Under Secretary of State, at the Arlington National Amphitheater on May 30, 1942. He predicted that the United States and the other United Nations would disarm the aggressors and share in an international police power, to insure freedom from fear to peace-loving peoples, until a permanent system of international security should be firmly established. He saw in the United Nations the nucleus of a world organization of the future. At the same time 'a new frontier of human welfare' would be set up by a better distribution of the products of world economy among the peoples of the world. 'When the victory is won the people of the United States will once more be afforded the opportunity to play their part in the determination of the kind of world in which they will live. With courage, with vision, they can yet secure the future safety of their country and of its free institutions and help the nations of the earth back into the path of peace.' Other important speeches by leading American statesmen were the address delivered by Vice President Henry A. Wallace in New York on May 8, 1942, and the address by Herbert Hoover, former President of the United States, on Dec. 16, 1942.

Punishment of War Criminals an Essential.

One of the essential prerequisites in establishing a lasting world peace is the punishment of war criminals. The governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Free France, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Luxemburg, and Yugoslavia pledged themselves on Jan. 13 to exact swift retribution of everyone guilty of perpetrating atrocities in the occupied countries. China demanded similar action against Japan. The governments in exile, joined this time by the governments of the United States, of Great Britain, and of the Soviet Union, adopted in December a joint declaration condemning the bestial Nazi policy that aims at the extermination of the Jews and warning that these crimes will not escape retribution.

Organizations Working for Lasting Peace.

As Secretary Hull emphasized, informed public opinion is the necessary prerequisite for the establishment of a lasting peace. A number of private organizations are active in that field, among them the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (in New York City), the Commission to Study the Basis of a Just and Durable Peace (Federal Council of Churches in America), and Federal Union, which hopes and works for the establishment of a democratic world federation. It is interesting to note that in the elections of Nov. 3, 1942, the Massachusetts Committee of Federal Union succeeded in submitting to the voters in 42 electoral districts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a referendum as to whether or not they favor initiative by the United States Government for establishment of a democratic world government. The districts chosen represented a cross section of the whole state, districts with Republican as well as with Democratic majorities, rural and urban districts, districts with predominantly old American stock and districts with predominantly more recent immigrant stock. All the districts voted in favor of the resolution, always with a large majority, which averaged about 3 to 1 in favor of world government. The referendum has clearly shown that the American public is veering towards peace by international collaboration and collective security.

1941: World Peace

The year of 1941 which saw the widening of the European and Asiatic wars into the second great World War, a war in which the destiny of mankind was even more at stake than in the first World War, has at the same time increased the determination of many of the leaders and peoples involved to build after the war lasting foundations for peace.

Causes of the War.

It became more and more clear that the root of the war was not to be sought, as superficial observers sometimes believed, in the Treaty of Versailles—for the first World War had started without such a treaty existing and at a time when Germany was victorious and at the height of her economic prosperity and feeling of power—but in the fact that after the first World War the victors refused to build up a system of collective security which would make aggression impossible anywhere. The victorious democracies, above all the American and the British peoples, shirked the responsibility for world order and withdrew into isolationism. It became more and more clear that had they stood together in preventing aggression, first in 1931 in Manchuria, then in 1935 in Ethiopia and in 1938 in Austria, they would not be obliged today to fight for their lives against powerful enemies whom they had supplied for years with arms and raw materials and whom they had allowed to occupy one strategic position after the other until endangering the very lifelines of the United States and of Great Britain. A cooperation between the democracies after the first World War would have made a second World War impossible. Instead of that the democracies offered the picture of disunity, of mutual jealousy and distrust, which encouraged the prospective aggressors to believe that they would be able to defeat the democracies one by one. It is most hopeful that the democracies seem this time determined, not only to achieve victory but to establish a lasting peace made secure by their continuous lasting cooperation in military and economic fields.

Future Principles for the World at Peace.

Such a will was also expressed in the letter to President Roosevelt which the Roman Catholic bishops of the United States sent to him on behalf of all the members of their church on Dec. 24, 1941. Pledging their full-hearted support for the war effort of the United States, they demanded victory, 'not for national aggrandizement but for common security in a world in which individual human lives shall be safeguarded and the will to live on the part of all nations, great or small, shall be respected, a world in which the eternal principles of justice and charity shall prevail.' In that the bishops accepted the principles announced by Pope Pius XII as the foundations of world peace, namely, the assurance to all nations, small and large, of the right to life and independence, and reparations in every case that this equality of rights has been destroyed; progressive disarmament and security for the effective implementing of such an agreement; some juridical institution guaranteeing the loyal fulfillment of agreements and their revision if necessary; due regard for the needs and demands of racial minorities; guidance by the moral law and universal love. These principles were endorsed by the leading religious heads of Great Britain, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council. They added five further points, namely, the abolition of the extreme inequality in wealth and possessions; equal opportunities of education for every child regardless of race and class; safeguard of the family as the social unit; restoration of the sense of divine vocation to man's daily work; use of the resources of the earth for the whole human race.

Atlantic Charter.

Of similar importance and of similar intent, though more modest in its compass, was the by now famous Atlantic Charter which was worked out on August 1941 in a meeting somewhere in the Atlantic between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. It was published on Aug. 14, and accepted on Jan. 2, 1942, as the basis of their war and peace aims by the United Nations which were bound in the common struggle to Germany, Italy and Japan. This Atlantic Charter consisted of eight points which stipulated: (1) no aggrandizement, territorial or otherwise (2) no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned (3) the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live (4) enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and raw materials of the world (5) fullest economic collaboration between all nations (6) assurance of a peace affording safety to all nations (7) freedom for all to traverse the high seas without hindrance (8) pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security the disarmament of aggressor nations as an essential condition for lightening the burden of armaments for peace loving peoples.

This was the most authoritative statement so far of the bases of world peace as envisaged by the leaders of the nations fighting for peace and human decency and equality among nations. But there have been several attempts, undertaken either by private organizations or by governments, to go beyond the Atlantic Charter in charting the course of mankind in future years.

Other Blueprints for the World at Peace.

In the United States a Commission to Study the Organization of Peace with James T. Shotwell as chairman and Dr. William Allan Neilson as chairman of the executive committee was organized and issued on June 6, 1941, a statement in which it was said that the American people are now paying the price of two decades of international irresponsibilities. Therefore the Commission recommends to provide a substitute for war which can adequately settle disputes between nations; freer commercial interchange and more equitable living standards for the nations; adequate guarantees for racial, religious and political minorities; and furtherance of international understanding through free exchange of opinions. 'Democracy, by its very principles, must concede to each nation the form of government which its people desire subject to the assurance by law of standards of individual liberty within each nation, and subject to an international guarantee against aggression by any nation. We hold that an international Bill of Rights, with such guarantees, is an indispensable basis of our own peace and security. It is a prerequisite to the realization of the above aims that the forces of lawlessness now dominant in so much of the world should be checked and overthrown.'

While this proposal envisaged only a close collaboration of sovereign nations in the fields of military defense and economic organization, several other schemes of world peace were advanced which envisaged a federal structure of the world. On Dec. 18, 1941, on the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Bill of Rights, Federal Union submitted a petition to the President of the United States to submit to the Congress a program for forming a powerful Union of free peoples to win the war, the peace and the future, as the first step in the gradual and peaceful extension of the American principles of federal union to all peoples willing and able to adhere to them, so that from this nucleus may grow eventually a universal world government of, by and for the people. The petition pointed out that mankind in a world war is in one of those molten moments when the iron of basic policy can and will be shaped. 'The people of our original thirteen states created the United States itself as a war measure. They then developed this emergency war policy into a permanent way to keep the peace among their states. Since then every American generation has boldly extended these principles of freedom through union to more states. Canada, Australia, The Union of South Africa have already adopted these same principles. Britain showed its faith in them when it begged France, tragically too late, to change alliance into union. In our own American principles of federal union lies the time-tested answer to our problem. Let us take up this task at once and turn this great danger into a great opportunity. Let us begin now a World United States.'

Plans for Post-war Alliances.

Meanwhile the idea of federation was taken up on a much more restricted basis by several European countries. The beginning had been made first by the governments of Czechoslovakia and Poland by concluding a close alliance for the future foundation of a federation between the two countries though, as should be pointed out, they had been on not too friendly terms for the 20 years between the two world wars. At the occasion of the conference of the International Labor Organization in New York at the beginning of November 1941, the delegates of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece laid the foundations for a federation of Central European and Balkan peoples as one of the keystones of future world peace. These governments were among those present at the Conference which gave unanimous approval to a resolution presented by delegates from 22 countries, including the United States, Mexico and other Latin American countries in which it was said that 'it is only the victory of free nations the world over which are fighting for democracy and for the maintenance of the inalienable rights of man, which can save the world from hopeless chaos.'

Ways and means of implementing the social and economic principles laid down in the Atlantic Charter were also discussed. A resolution concerning measures for the immediate post-war period as a prerequisite for world peace, was presented by the American delegation. It declared that 'the close of the war must be followed by immediate action, previously planned and arranged, for the feeding of peoples in need, for the provision and transportation of raw materials and capital equipment necessary for the restoration of economic activity, for the reopening of trade outlets, for the resettlement of workers and their families under circumstances in which they can work in freedom and security and hope, for the changing over of industry to the needs of peace, for the maintenance of employment, and for the raising of standards of employment throughout the world.' For that purpose the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field will be a necessary prerequisite.

The delegations of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece, however, went beyond mere economic and political collaboration. They set as their goal the establishment of a federation of 100,000,000 people from the Baltic Sea to the Aegean Sea, united in a union with common defense forces, common customs and monetary systems, and a common foreign policy, while preserving the full cultural independence and equality of all the nationalities composing this federation. Such a step would ensure a peaceful development for the many nationalities living in Central and Southeastern Europe whose dissensions and jealousies in the last twenty years have facilitated the conquest and military occupation of their countries by powerful aggressive neighbors. Such a Central European federation could be a regional member in a wider and probably looser form of military, political and economic collaboration of all the peoples on the earth.

Russian-Polish Alliance.

In that direction it was a most hopeful and promising sign that on Dec. 4, 1941, Joseph Stalin for the Soviet Union and Gen. Sikorski for the Polish government signed in Moscow a declaration of friendship and mutual aid. It is noteworthy that the head of one of the most Roman Catholic and conservative nations of Europe and the head of the Communist Soviet state agreed in 1941 upon a common platform of action, while their countries had lived from 1919 to 1939 in a permanent state of tension and distrust. This declaration, which may represent a milestone towards the building of a world peace which could include nations of widely divergent views and ways of life, as long as they are peacefully minded and recognize the general laws of civilized conduct between states, said that 'German Hitlerite imperialism is the worst enemy of mankind and no compromise is possible with it. Both governments, as long as the war lasts, will give each other full military assistance. In peace time their mutual relations will be based on friendship, cooperation and the carrying out of obligations undertaken. Once the war has been brought to a victorious conclusion and the Hitler criminals duly punished, the task of the Allied governments will be to establish a just peace. This can only be achieved by a new organization of international relations based on the association of democratic states in union. Such an organization to be a decisive factor must have respect for international law and be supported by the armed forces of all the Allied governments. Only thus can it be guaranteed that the catastrophe caused by the Hitlerites shall never repeat itself.'

Building of a New World.

Thus it may be said that in the midst of the second World War the recognition was growing on all sides in the democratic world, which was opposed to the forces of national socialist Germany and of imperialist Japan, that an organization of world peace must be the war's outcome, so as to make a repetition of the pattern of conquest underlying Fascist aggression everywhere impossible. As President Roosevelt said in his message to Congress on Jan. 7, 1942: 'We of the United Nations are not making all the sacrifices of human effort and human lives to return to the kind of world we had after the last World War. We are fighting today for security, for progress and for peace, not only for ourselves, but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient ills.' See also articles on various nations involved and on World War II.

1940: World Peace

War on Four Continents.

The year 1940 was a year marked by war in four of the five continents, while the fifth continent participated in the war to a slight degree, and was by it deeply affected in its political and economic life. The absence of world peace throughout 1940 made its desirability even more obvious and increased everywhere the discussions of permanent foundations for a just and lasting peace. The year 1940 brought definite proof that peace cannot be established on the old simple devices of neutrality or isolation. A large number of countries which had clung firmly to these concepts and had faithfully adhered to their requirements found themselves involved in the war against their will and saw their whole national life destroyed. Nor was the old system of alliances considered a sufficient guarantee of peace. The spread of the war began to convince more and more people that the only guarantee of a lasting peace would be the creation of an international order in which all nations would cooperate. (See also EUROPEAN WAR.)

Two Concepts of Coming World Peace.

As regards this coming world order, two different and opposed schools of thought have arisen. Germany, Italy and Japan claimed that this new world order could be based only on Fascist totalitarian ideas; that it could not be built by the cooperation of free and equal nations, but only on the basis of a strict hierarchy in which certain nations would take the leadership and assign to all other nations their place and rank according to the conceptions and needs of the leading or master nations. On Dec. 16 the Japanese admiral, Nobumasa Suetsugu, a former Cabinet Minister, opened the first conference of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, the new unitary political organization of the Japanese totalitarian state, with an address in which he said: 'The Great War raging in Asia and in Europe is entirely different from past wars. It aims at the construction of a new world order by the rising states, who oppose the old order based on individualism with the Anglo-Saxon as its nucleus. Japan in Asia and Germany and Italy in Europe are each striving to destroy that old order.'The nucleus of the new world order which, so it was assured, would bring world peace, was the alliance concluded on Sept. 27, 1940, in Berlin, binding Germany, Italy and Japan to close military, economic and cultural collaboration.

A different conception of world peace was envisaged in the allocution of Pope Pius XII on Christmas Day 1939, in which he regarded as the fundamental condition of a just and honorable peace the assurance of the right of independence to all nations, large or small, strong or weak. The most prominent part of his address was a strong rebuke to the Fascist conception of peace, when he said: 'One nation's will to live must never be tantamount to the death sentence of another. When this equality of rights has been destroyed, injured or imperiled, juridical order requires reparation, whose measure and extent is not determined by the sword or selfish arbitrary judgment, but by the standards of justice and reciprocal equity.' The Pope further insisted upon the necessity for the reconstruction of a League of Nations as a guarantee of security and upon the obligations of all nations to meet the needs and just demands of racial minorities. The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano, on Nov. 27, 1940, emphasized the fact that the Pope still adhered to his basis for peace as announced on Christmas Day 1939.

These suggestions by the Pope coincided on the whole with the democratic ideals of the basis of world peace, which may be summed up as the complete equality of all nations, large or small, and the protection of their security by mutual cooperation and collective action. King George VI, in his speech at the opening of Parliament on Nov. 21, made it clear that the continuation of the struggle against the aggressor nations until freedom is made secure offers the only hope that afterwards the nations, released from oppression and violence, can work together again on a basis of ordered liberty and social justice. Growing numbers in the democratic countries realized that victory in the present struggle against Fascist aggression and threats of aggression was not enough, but that it was only the necessary condition for the establishment of a lasting world peace; because otherwise the nations might again be faced by a similar struggle after a short time.

United States and Great Britain as Nucleus for World Peace.

Similarly to the German-Japanese cooperation which was to be the nucleus of a Fascist world order, the United States and Great Britain emerged more and more as the necessary nucleus for the establishment of a democratic world peace. No definite plans for the forms of peace organization have yet been put forward. The League of Nations, which had been the outcome of the first World War, has practically stopped its activities as a result of the present war. On July 26, 1940, Joseph Avenol announced his resignation as Secretary-General of the League, a position which he had assumed on July 1, 1933, after having been for many years Deputy Secretary-General under Sir Eric Drummond. Thus the political activity of the League of Nations came to an end. Its economic and financial departments were transferred from Geneva, Switzerland, to Princeton, New Jersey, where the University offered to provide a haven for them for the duration of the war. The International Labor Office was moved from Geneva to Canada. The domination of the European continent by Fascist influences, after France had capitulated to Germany and established a semi-Fascist government which readily abandoned democracy and the traditions of the French Revolution, necessarily shifted the center of all democratic endeavors to establish world peace from the European continent to the Atlantic nations.

Proposals for Federated Union of Democracies.

In view of this situation the plan of an American journalist, Mr. Clarence Streit, who had been for many years the correspondent for The New York Times at the seat of the League of Nations, gained adherents rapidly. Mr. Streit had published in 1939 a book called Union Now, in which he proposed the formation of a federation of the existing democracies in a way similar to that in which the thirteen states in North America had combined to form the Federal Government of the United States. As in that case, so now on a much enlarged scale, federal cooperation would assure the security of all member states, would case immensely the burden of their military establishments, and would increase considerably the economic well-being of the populations, solving thus the two most urgent problems of the present time, military and economic security, and solving them in a democratic way after the example of the United States. Mr. Streit believed that the close cooperation of the democratic states would not only stem the tide of Fascist aggression and would bring peace to all the democracies without the necessity of war, because the united strength of all the democracies would be sufficient to deter all possible aggression; he also regarded the inter-democratic federation as a possible nucleus for a future federal world government of equal and free nations on a democratic basis. When Mr. Streit made his proposal, the democracies of Europe were still all in existence; in 1940 most of them had disappeared and the others had become strategically immobilized, like Switzerland or Sweden. For the moment, therefore, the federal union had to consist mainly of the United States, Great Britain and the British dominions. The inclusion of Eire would also solve advantageously the thorny problem of Ireland's relation to the defense of Great Britain and of the Atlantic Ocean.

It is noteworthy that shortly before the fall of French democracy the British government headed by Winston Churchill made a similar proposal to France. The British suggested that the French and British Empires be united in a federation that would put the resources of both to common use and advantage, and establish one common citizenship for the citizens of both countries and empires. There is no doubt that such a suggestion, if acted upon earlier, would have saved not only France but also French democracy, and would have changed the course of the war entirely. Unfortunately the suggestion came too late. The Federal Unionists at present emphasize, therefore, the need of establishing such a common tie to avert a possible catastrophe and to save Great Britain, and later the United States, from the necessity of facing alone the superior power of a coalition of Fascist enemy forces.

Further Cooperative Proposals.

As a step in the direction of federal cooperation for the establishment of peace, the Czechoslovak and Polish governments concluded in London on Nov. 11 an agreement according to which, after having regained their independence, the two nations would enter a close association in political, economic and defense matters. They envisaged a common foreign policy, a unified army, a customs union, a common monetary system, a free interchange of goods, and unification of railways and communications. This new association is regarded as a union of free peoples, which can be joined by others on a free and equal basis. A joint Polish-Czechoslovak coordination committee was set up to continue the study of this union and to put into practice those of its phases which are applicable immediately. Thus Poland and Czechoslovakia closed the period of past recriminations and disputes to help build a new order arising from the free will of free peoples.

The Turkish government also tried to build up a close confederation of all the Balkan states as the only means of maintaining their freedom and peace by concerted action, and thus to make impossible Fascist aggression against one of these states after the other. These efforts, however, were of no avail, and as a result of the isolationist policies of the different Balkan states the Balkan nations faced being drawn into the war and losing their independence.

United States Arms Against Totalitarian States.

In the United States a growing number of people became aware of the immediate self-interest of America in the reestablishment of world peace on a secure foundation. This change in public opinion was not only based on the conviction that the United States cannot live at peace in a world of lawlessness and anarchy, and that the nation is therefore obliged through self-interest to cooperate in finding ways and means to organize internationally for concerted action in opposition to aggression; with the certainty of an Anglo-French victory (which most Americans had assumed in 1939) fading, the Administration and the majority of the people recognized the immediate danger to American security and forms of life involved in a Fascist victory. The openly declared cooperation of Germany and Japan, the fusion of the wars in Europe and Asia into one great enterprise with common aims, made it imperative for the security of America to keep the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans under the control of the American navy or of friendly powers from whom an attack against America could not be expected. Alarmed by the prospects of the situation, the United States in 1940 entered upon an armament program of unprecedented dimensions, introduced military conscription, and began to reorganize its industrial production so as to be able to meet the requirements of modern war and to hold aggressors at a respectful distance from the American continent. A transaction with Great Britain, in which the United States gave to the latter country fifty of its old World War destroyers in exchange for nine naval, air and military bases in British possessions in the Western Atlantic increased considerably the security of the continental United States and the Panama Canal against attacks from across the Atlantic Ocean. Successive Gallup Polls showed that a growing majority of the American people wished to go further and further in giving Great Britain and China (and later on Greece) all possible assistance in warding off the attacks by the aggressor nations, and so to protect the United States against direct involvement in war. (See also UNITED STATES.)

Principles of United States on World Peace.

The principles governing the United States with regard to world peace were clearly put forward in a most important speech made by Secretary of State Cordell Hull before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 1941. According to this statement, the efforts of the American government were directed to the following objectives: 'Peace and security for the United States with advocacy of peace and limitation and reduction of armament as universal international objectives; support for law, order, justice, and morality and the principle of non-intervention; restoration and cultivation of sound economic methods and relations, based on equality of treatment; development in the promotion of these objectives, of the fullest practicable measure of international cooperation; promotion of the security, solidarity, and general welfare of the Western Hemisphere.' Secretary Hull pointed out that the United States, and the world at large, were faced by an extraordinary situation, that neither non-aggression agreements nor the law of neutrality, nor any neutrality legislation, served as a protection to peaceful countries when it suited the convenience of the aggressor nations to disregard their own pledges. He maintained that the Fascist countries have proclaimed boldly and openly their purpose of world-wide conquest, and have said that their philosophy is inconsistent with and directly opposed to that of the democracies, which is outmoded and must give way to Fascism. For the United States 'to withhold aid to victims of attack would not result in a restoration of peace. It would merely tend to perpetuate the enslavement of nations already invaded and subjugated and provide an opportunity for the would-be conquerors to gather strength for an attack against us.' Thus it may be said that during 1940, as a result of events abroad, the conviction grew in the United States that the self-interest and the security of the country itself are indissolubly linked with the problem of establishing world peace by defeating the intentions of the aggressor nations, and by then building up a stable system of international cooperation and respect for international law, backed by the collective efforts of all peace-loving nations. See also articles on various nations involved and articles on EUROPEAN WAR; WORLD ECONOMICS; and MILITARY SCIENCE.

1939: World Peace

Early in March 1939 several influential circles in Great Britain expressed definite hopes of an approaching general peace period. The London Sunday Dispatch in its issue of March 12 published an article stating that Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain had spoken of plans for calling a world peace conference to London which would settle definitely all the outstanding world peace problems. He hoped that this conference would be followed later on by another to discuss the question of complete disarmament. Chamberlain hoped that it would be possible to settle the Italian claims upon France after the establishment of normal relations with Spain, to decide upon an air Locarno for the western and central European powers with complete prohibition of bombardment of civilian populations and the suspension of the armament race in the air, and finally to settle the German colonial claims. Prime Minister Chamberlain was fortified in his optimistic outlook by the German-British declaration of friendship at the end of September 1938 and by the similar Franco-German declaration of November 1938. At the same time, a representative delegation of the British Federation of Industries, under the sponsorship of the British Government, was in Germany negotiating with German industrialists for a mutual trade agreement and thus preparing the road to fuller economic cooperation.

German Annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Into this atmosphere of great hope, the sudden occupation by Germany in mid-March of the remaining portions of Czechoslovakia, in contradiction to the Pact of Munich and to Chancellor Hitler's repeated solemn promises, came like a bomb and opened the eyes of British and French public opinion to the true nature of National Socialism and its bid for world hegemony. Prime Minister Chamberlain, who had sincerely tried for appeasement of National Socialist Germany by helping her to right peacefully all the alleged wrongs of the Versailles Treaty, and who had hoped to arrive at a peaceful collaboration of the totalitarian dictatorships and the democracies, now saw himself obliged to recognize that his policy had not brought the expected results and that Europe seemed to have entered a period of unchecked aggression in which nobody could feel safe and which would necessarily plunge all Europe into complete chaos. This attitude of Prime Minister Chamberlain was fully supported by British public opinion and also by the French public and the French Cabinet.

Meanwhile Germany had proceeded to expand her conquests by forcing Rumania and Lithuania to conclude trade agreements most advantageous to German economic control, and by forcing the latter country to cede also the port of Memel to Germany. At the same time the Italians occupied Albania, and fear was expressed that Italy might use her new position for further conquests in the Balkans. The British and French Governments recalled their ambassadors from Berlin. The State Department in Washington issued a statement in which it was said that 'the Government of the United States on frequent occasions stated its conviction that only through international support of a program of order based upon law can world peace be assured. This Government, founded upon and dedicated to the principles of human liberty and of democracy, cannot refrain from making known this country's condemnation of the acts which have resulted in the temporary extinguishment of a free and independent people. . . . It is manifest that acts of wanton lawlessness and arbitrary force are threatening world peace and the very structure of modern civilization.' Lord Halifax, in a speech on March 18, foreshadowed the new turn in British policy when he declared that 'if and when it became plain to states that there is no apparent guarantee against successive attacks directed in turn on all who may seem to stand in the way of ambitious schemes of domination, then there is likely to be found very much greater readiness to consider whether the acceptance of wider mutual obligations in the cause of mutual support is not dictated by the necessities of self-defense.'

Guarantees to Poland and the Balkans.

As it became apparent that Chancellor Hitler's next plans of expansion were directed against Poland and Rumania, the British and French Governments declared their readiness to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland and of any other country which in case of an attack against her vital interests should take up arms in self-defense. Great Britain gave similar one-sided guarantees to Rumania, to Turkey and to Greece, whereas her guarantee to Poland was embodied in a pact of mutual assistance concluded by the two countries. France followed the leadership of Great Britain. These guarantees to Germany's eastern and southeastern neighbors were given without any previous agreement with the Soviet Union. By their guarantees to Poland and Rumania, Great Britain and France had indirectly but fully guaranteed the western border of the Soviet Union. Negotiations were taken up between Great Britain and France on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other to establish a strong peace front in Europe which would make further aggression impossible and thus prepare the way for some more permanent peace structure. These negotiations were long drawn-out and were complicated by the fact that the Soviet Union demanded protection not only against direct aggression from the Baltic countries and Finland, but also against indirect aggression through internal changes in those countries. The western democracies did not see their way to accede to a demand which might involve interference in the internal affairs of independent nations.

European Alliances.

Meanwhile Germany and Italy had concluded in May 1939 an offensive and defensive military alliance which pledged the complete diplomatic and military cooperation of the two countries in case of any conflict. Plans were drawn up to extend this military alliance to Japan, and possibly later to Spain and Hungary, and thus transform the anti-Comintern pact into an outright military alliance directed primarily against the Soviet Union and as a weapon also in a conflict with the democracies.

The new setup in Europe which was forecast by Prime Minister Chamberlain's vigorous speech in the House of Commons on April 3, in which he expressed the united intention of his country to end the state of permanent alarm, and offered to assist any nation menaced by the Reich, aroused violent opposition in Germany. It was maintained there that Great Britain tried to 'encircle' the Reich in the same manner as the latter claimed to have been encircled in the years before the World War. The British and the French Governments had already agreed in March to give military assistance to the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland in case those countries were attacked. On April 5, a preliminary agreement was signed in London for a defensive alliance between Britain and Poland, and on May 12, Prime Minister Chamberlain announced in the House of Commons the conclusion of the Anglo-Turkish agreement which was to precede the formal signing of a mutual assistance pact between the two countries. In this situation, which pointed definitely to the establishment of a firm peace front in Europe, the announcement at the end of August of the conclusion of an agreement between the Soviet Union and Germany came as a great surprise, and brought about changes in alignments among European countries.

Strengthened by her agreement with the Soviet Union, Germany now decided to attack Poland, feeling confident that Great Britain and France would not dare come to the help of Poland without the backing of the Soviet Union. After vain efforts by the British Government to induce Chancellor Hitler to open negotiations with Poland on a footing of equality, Germany attacked Poland on Sept. 1; and on Sept. 3. Great Britain and France declared war upon Germany in fulfillment of their obligations to Poland. Thus the second great war of the twentieth century started. At the same time the war between Japan and China entered its third year and continued throughout 1939, so that by the end of 1939 Europe as well as the Far East was in the midst of major conflicts which threatened to continue for a long time. Germany's alliance with the Soviet Union had changed conditions in such a way that Italy did not enter the war immediately on the side of Germany as had been expected from their military alliance, and that Japan, which until then had counted on a German attack upon the Soviet Union, was completely confused and proceeded to a cautious reorientation of her policy.

Invasion of Finland.

The agreement between the Soviet Union and Germany developed into an ever closer cooperation between the two nations. The Soviet Union supported Germany diplomatically, and accused Great Britain and France of waging a purely imperialist war. The Communist parties in all countries followed this new line and demanded the conclusion of a peace on the basis of the status quo, which would recognize Germany's conquests in Czechoslovakia and in Poland. The Soviet Union herself shared in these conquests by strengthening her western frontier through the annexation of Eastern Poland, and through the establishment of strong strategic bases in the Baltic States. To increase her security the Soviet Union demanded from Finland the establishment of Soviet military bases on Finnish territory. As Finland was unwilling to grant all the concessions demanded by the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union invaded Finland and tried to establish a pro-Communist government there. This extension of the war found Germany definitely on the side of the Soviet Union, whereas the democratic and neutral countries expressed their sympathy for Finland.

The League of Nations, which had been completely inactive since the beginning of 1938, was convoked in extraordinary session at Geneva in December 1939. It was then decided to expel the Soviet Union from the League of Nations and to ask the member states of the League of Nations to render assistance as far as possible to Finland. The war between the Soviet Union and Finland quickly grew into an integral part of the great struggle going on in Europe, the outcome of which was, however, in no way confined to the European continent. The Finnish Prime Minister, Risto Ryti, declared on Dec. 3 in an official broadcast to the United States that 'if Finland should perish, it would only be because there is between the civilized nations not the necessary solidarity which would protect the weak from violence.' He expressed the conviction that neutral nations should not be allowed to become indifferent to the fate of other nations because 'indifference of this kind would be digging the grave of those nations which desired to build up their existence on justice and the respect of laws.' These words, as well as the general sympathy shown in the whole world for the Finns, proved the growth of the conviction that the present war must end in some secure foundation for the peace of all those nations which wish to live in peace and to respect international law. (See also FINLAND.)

Federation of Democracies.

The statesmen of the two great western democracies repeatedly hinted at the necessity of concerted action for peace and of giving up the isolationist policy which Great Britain and France had followed before March 1939, and which had been partly responsible for the growth of international anarchy. In this respect public opinion in the western democracies was advancing even faster than the necessarily more cautious declarations of the statesmen. Leaders in all fields of political, social, and cultural activities agreed upon the necessity of recreating the League of Nations on more secure foundations after the 'second World War,' or of creating a peaceful federation of all the European nations.

In this connection the plan of an American journalist, Mr. Clarence Streit, gained great popularity. Mr. Streit in his book, 'Union Now,' proposed the federation of all democracies on the model of the federation of the original thirteen states in North America. The British ambassador to the United States, Lord Lothian, supported these proposals for federation and cooperation. Still others proposed the formation of a United States of Europe as the desirable outcome of the present war. Although none of these plans got beyond the stage of informal discussion, it became definitely clear that in the case of victory for the western democracies some form of international organization for peace and cooperation would be established. A private organization called the International Peace Campaign, with national committees in all English-speaking countries, tried to mobilize public opinion for the recognition of the necessity of establishing an international organization which should secure collective security, general disarmament, and justice for all peoples, including the defeated nations.

United States Attitude.

The attitude of the United States towards the war may be summed up by saying that the overwhelming majority of the population was opposed to the Nazi and the Communist regimes and to their policy of aggression, and that their sympathies were on the side of the western democracies and Finland. It was generally assumed that the victory of Great Britain and France would be in the interests of American national security, and the safety and development of both American and world democracy. On the other hand the large majority of Americans were unwilling to be involved in the war or to have to participate in military operations. Many Americans however, believe that the United States cannot live in peace in a world of lawlessness and anarchy, and that the nation is therefore obliged through self-interest to cooperate in finding ways and means to organize internationally for concerted action in opposition to aggression. Undoubtedly some causes of war could be removed by lowering the economic barriers between nations and opening up the channels of commerce. In that direction the administration regards the reciprocal trade agreements of Secretary Hull as a contribution to the cause of world peace.

Special Session of United States Congress.

On Sept. 21, the Congress of the United States was called for a special session for the purpose of revising neutrality legislation. After a lengthy discussion in the Senate and a briefer one in the House of Representatives, it was finally decided to amend the then existing neutrality legislation in such a way, by renouncing certain rights of international law, as to make the involvement of the United States in the war less probable or even, as far as human foresight would allow it, impossible. A plan was included to supply Great Britain and France, or any warring nation, with certain needed war materials, provided they were paid for in cash and carried on their own vessels. Thus the Neutrality Act was devised to meet the two demands upon which the majority of American public opinion agreed: not to be involved in the war, and to express their sympathy for the cause of the western democracies. In order to strengthen the position of the United States in world affairs, a closer cooperation with Latin America was sought. The community of interests between the two great continents of the western hemisphere was stressed. The United States began to regard as its task the organization of a defense force sufficient not only to protect its own territory, but the whole western hemisphere.

As regards the war in the Far East, American public opinion in 1939 was generally opposed to Japanese aggression in China. The Government of the United States gave notice to the Japanese Government of its intention to discontinue the trade treaty, and public opinion in general was in favor of imposing some form of embargo upon the shipment of war materials to Japan so as not to assist Japan in her violation of China's independence and territorial integrity. The Soviet aggression against Finland awoke a lively sympathy for the Finns and their fate, and large amounts were collected for relief purposes in Finland.

Papal Peace Plea.

In an effort to aid world peace, President Roosevelt announced on Christmas Eve the appointment of Myron G. Taylor, the retired chairman of the United States Steel Corporation, as his personal peace representative at the Vatican. This appointment was regarded as an important step in a wider plan to make articulate and effective the world-wide desire for peace. Pope Pius XII had, in an address to the College of Cardinals on Christmas Eve, strongly condemned violations of international and divine law. He had put forward a five-point plan for peace. He regarded as a fundamental condition of a just and honorable peace the assurance of the right of independence to all nations, large or small, strong or weak. 'One nation's will to live,' he declared, 'must never be tantamount to the death sentence of another. When this equality of rights has been destroyed, injured or imperiled, juridical order requires reparation, whose measure and extent is not determined by the sword or selfish arbitrary judgment, but by the standards of justice and reciprocal equity.' In these pointed phrases the Pope condemned Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia and Poland, the attack of the Soviet Union on Finland, and Italy's destruction of the independence of the ancient Christian kingdom of Ethiopia. The Pope further insisted upon the necessity of complete disarmament, of the reconstruction of a League of Nations as a guarantee of security, and of machinery for equitable treaty revision. The fourth point of the Pope's program dealt with the necessity of meeting the real needs and just demands of racial minorities. Finally he pleaded for a new spirit to guide the peoples and their rulers — the spirit of justice as expressed in the Bible — and the Christian ideal of universal love which throws a bridge also towards those who have not the benefit of participating in the Christian faith.

1938: World Peace

The year 1938 saw the continuation of two great wars of which one, the war in Spain, had started in 1936; the other, the war in China, in 1937. Although in both wars the balance shifted more and more in favor of the aggressors — that is, of the rebel government in Spain, which was supported by the Italians and the Germans; and of the Japanese in the Far East — no definite end of these wars was yet discernible. In the center of Europe it seemed as if, in the month of September, a war between Germany and Czechoslovakia, which might have involved other nations, had been averted by the efforts of the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain; but, so far as war has been averted, it has been not only at the sacrifice of the democratic powers of Europe, but at the expense of the rule of international law and of the League of Nations. The system of international law represented by the League of Nations had already been undermined by the events of the year 1936. Now it may be said that it has definitely crumbled under the policy of yielding to the threats of the aggressors. This attitude has created in Europe an atmosphere of international tension even more threatening than in 1914.

European Alliances.

Two systems of European alliances were effected during 1938: the Rome-Berlin Axis of the two great Fascist Powers, which is strengthened by an anti-Communist alliance with Japan; and the Entente between the two Western democracies, Great Britain and France, which is supported, though only in a loose and indefinite way, by public opinion in the great American democracy. There have been several efforts to bridge the gulf between the two alliances, such as the Anglo-Italian Pact of April 1938, which went into effect in November of this year; the Anglo-German Declaration of Amity of Sept. 30, 1938; and finally the Franco-German Pact of Dec. 2, 1938. But these efforts did not relax the strained relations which prevailed. On the contrary, toward the end of the year it became clear that the policy of appeasement was very far from producing peace. New demands were being put forward by Italy and by Germany, and, as a consequence, the armament race went on at faster pace. All Europe seemed urged on by the fear of impending aggression, even the small nations, even the traditionally neutral nations — Switzerland, Scandinavia, Holland. In Great Britain, the introduction of conscription was debated.

The solidarity of the Rome-Berlin Axis was publicly demonstrated on the occasion of Chancellor Hitler's triumphal visit to Italy during the month of May. Since then, the close diplomatic and military cooperation of those two Powers has been established beyond doubt. On the other hand, the British King and Queen visited Paris in July, and frequent conversations between responsible British and French statesmen followed, both in London and in Paris. But until now the solidarity between the two western European democracies, who wish to maintain peace at almost any price, has not been sufficient to block the policy of surprise, accomplished facts, and threats, which is that of the dynamic powers of the Axis. This policy led, during 1938, to the disappearance of Austria as an independent state, to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, to vociferous demands by Italy for spoliation of France, and generally to an atmosphere of unrest and fear.

League of Nations.

The League of Nations was powerless to save Austria or to protect Czechoslovakia; in fact, it was not consulted in either of these cases. It proved as ineffective in the case of Spain and of China, although the Loyalist and the Chinese Governments appealed to the League and, through it, to world public opinion; the League did not go beyond an expression of sympathy. Whereas, in 1935, the League still formed the center of international politics, and questions of world peace were largely determined at meetings of the League, at present no important decision is being made at Geneva. The question of non-intervention in Spain was taken entirely out of the hands of the League. It may be safely said that, at least for the time being, the League has ceased to count in efforts for world peace. In a certain sense the League, which was always the object of violent attacks by the Fascist Powers, who deny the desirability or the possibility of world peace, has been sacrificed to the policy of appeasing those Powers. Seeing the League impotent, the small countries of Europe, who had always been its staunch defenders, turned away from the League and looked for safety to a policy of complete isolation or, as it is called, neutrality.

This collapse of the League of Nations was emphasized at the meeting of the Assembly of the League in September 1938. The British delegate, Earl De La Warr, asked, on behalf of Britain, that henceforth sanctions against aggressors, as agreed upon in the Covenant of the League, should be made optional and discretionary. The acceptance of this proposal would increase the chances of aggression, as most Powers could make use of their discretionary right not to come to the help of the victim. Spokesmen for the Spanish and Chinese Governments asked the League for support in terminating the wars raging in their countries. Dr. Wellington Koo, the Chinese delegate, asked the League explicitly to apply Article XVII of the Covenant against Japan, and to embargo the supply of arms and munitions to the aggressor. He asked in addition for measures to halt Japanese air bombings; a similar demand was made by the Spanish Loyalist Government in view of the frequent air raids of the Spanish Insurgents, which involved civilian populations. The Council of the League of Nations invited Japan to envisage measures under Article XVII for the settlement of her 'dispute' with China. The Japanese Government declined the invitation. The Council of the League of Nations subsequently decided that sanctions under Article XVI were now applicable to Japan at the discretion of each individual League member. Up to the end of the year no member of the League had applied sanctions against Japan, and Japanese aggression progressed rapidly and unchecked in China.

The Assembly of the League of Nations also passed a resolution to sever the Covenant of the League from the Treaty of Versailles and from the other Peace Treaties, in all of which the Covenant had formed the first chapter. The Assembly invited also investigations of Chinese charges that the Japanese use poison gases, and asked Great Britain to inform the League of British investigation of civilian bombings in Spain. It is noteworthy that no mention was made at the Assembly of the fact that one of its members (Ethiopia) had since the last meeting ceased to exist. The whole world was then speaking of the impending conflict between Germany and Czechoslovakia, a member who had always played a great and honorable part in the proceedings of the League. The imminent threat of war was in no way dealt with or mentioned at the meeting of the Assembly or of the Council of the League. Soon afterwards the staff of the League of Nations was reduced, partly for reasons of economy, partly to adapt it to the new policy which had not been foreseen at the time when the League of Nations was still a vigorous and living instrument for world peace.

Gran-Chaco Settlement; Pan-American Conference.

Although world peace is not yet achieved, the actual and threatening wars in Europe as well as in the Far East have not affected the Americas. These wars have, however, strengthened there the determination for peace. As a good augur, settlement of the old Chaco Dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay was effected. Extremely difficult and protracted peace negotiations terminated on Oct. 10 in an arbitral award made in Buenos Aires by the Presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the United States, Peru, and Uruguay. This award added about 69,000 square miles to the territory of Paraguay.

On Dec. 9, delegates of all the American states met in Lima, Peru, for the Eighth International Conference of American States to perfect and coordinate inter-American peace instruments, to solve problems of economic and intellectual cooperation, and to foster moral disarmament. The Conference decided to create a permanent commission of jurists to study the unification of civil and commercial law, but it postponed action on the proposed formation of an American League of Nations and on the coordination of the existing inter-American peace treaties and conventions until the next meeting five years hence. All Latin-American Governments were in agreement with the United States, however, as to the conclusion of a pact of continental solidarity and cooperative defense of the Western Hemisphere — the Pact of Lima, signed December 24, 1938.

The United States.

The awareness of the American public to the precarious situation of world peace, and to the threats therein implied to the United States itself, manifested itself frequently during 1938. Even the American Federation of Labor, which has consistently shunned any entanglement in the conflict of Europe, decided in the session of its executive council in August to propose close cooperation with similar labor organizations abroad for the purpose of ending the world armament race, promoting peace, and safeguarding democracy. The American delegation to the Second World Youth Congress, which met during the same month at Vassar College, agreed upon a program 'to reverse the present ominous drift toward international anarchy and armed conflict.' At the Congress itself a 'peace pact' was signed by delegates from all the nations represented, although a small minority of the United States delegation disagreed. This peace pact, signed on the tenth anniversary of the Kellogg Peace Pact, pledged itself to develop a spirit of fraternity and collaboration among the youth of all nations without distinction of race, creed, or opinion. It condemned wars of aggression and demanded concerted action to prevent aggression and to give effective assistance to the victims of treaty violations and aggression. The signatories undertook 'in a peaceful manner to set right injustices against peoples, regardless of race, creed, or opinion; to establish political and social justice within our own country and advocate that international machinery be immediately instituted to solve differences between nations in a peaceful way.'

Undoubtedly the year 1938 accelerated the process of disintegration and deterioration in international relations which had set in during the last years. The question asked by Secretary of State Cordell Hull in his radio address on world peace, on Aug. 16, seemed well founded: 'Is the future of the world to be determined by universal reliance upon armed force and frequent resort to aggression, with resultant autarchy, impoverishment, loss of individual independence, and international anarchy? In a smaller world it will soon no longer be possible for some nations to choose and follow the way of force and for other nations at the same time to choose and follow the way of reason. All will have to go in one direction and by one way.' There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the American people agreed with Secretary Hull in his program based on principles of world law and international order, a program which calls for constant reaffirmation, revitalization, and the stressing of fundamental principles. The policy of mutual trade treaties followed by Secretary of State Hull is an important contribution by the United States toward economic world cooperation. But the world trend of events has been in no way helpful to the establishment of a sound peace basis. The end of the year 1938 saw all the nations animated by increased mutual distrust, driven by fear, and arming to the teeth with greater sacrifices than ever before of their individual well-being. (See also CHINA; CZECHOSLOVAKIA; GERMANY; JAPAN; SPAIN; WORLD ECONOMICS.)