Armed Peace a Misnomer

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 31, 1914

Armed Peace a Misnomer

MANY of the peace advocates of late have sought to harmonize the advocacy of peace measures with the increasing armaments for warfare on the plea that the possession of standing armies and great navies was an effectual safeguard to peace among the nations. Speaking of this, the editor of the Toronto Globe, in a recent number of that paper, makes the following pertinent remarks:—

For one thing, this: “Armed peace” is forever disproved and doomed as an instrument of international safety. There can be no such thing as “armed” peace. It contradicts itself. Peace that must arm is no peace. In spirit and in motive and in all the moral qualities of conduct it is war. All it lacks is opportunity. Give it occasion, and the vulgar brute-force war features are made manifest.

For a generation all these nations have been increasing their armaments, calling it “armed peace,” until the armor plate trusts and war syndicates forced the hands of the despots, and war became inevitable. With brute force as their ultimate appeal, when what they call “justice” and “honor” were involved, there was nothing for it but war. The fallacy of the armed-peace theory, the perfidy of the selfish interests that urge it, and the disastrous consequences to the nations that follow it, are now being made plain to all the world. As well allow all citizens to carry guns in their belts and knives in their boots in the neighborhood of individuals and call it personal safety as allow all nations in the new world-neighborhood to base their peace on the size of their armies, the power of their navies, and the deadliness of their bomb-throwing air craft.

That the possession of these immense armaments for war has proved no safeguard has been amply demonstrated during the last few weeks. The martial atmosphere which the nations of the Old World have breathed for years, the brilliant display of their battleships, and the martial tread of their training armies have fostered a spirit for war. The very fact that the nations possessed these equipments made them anxious to test their efficiency. They have felt that in the burdensome taxation which a preparedness for war imposed, conflict was cheaper than armed peace. It would be quite as sensible to recommend every man in the community to carry with him a loaded revolver, ready to repel instant attack from an enemy, as a means of promoting the peace and good will of the community, as the plan which has been adopted among the nations of securing armed peace. This term is a misnomer. The doctrine is a fallacious evil, out of which has grown much of the horror of the present conflict.