1:HE ROAD TO PEAC
SOCIALIST - LABOR
LI BRARYCOltECTION
ORIIM AllANTfC UNtYfRSITY
"
•
C.A.HATHAWAY
.
,
..
~.
,
t.
PUBLISHED BY WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISPIERS, INC.
P. O. BOX
148,
STATION D, NEW YORK
JANUARY,
1938
~ 209
"-
~"
PRINTED IN U.S .A .
COLLECTIVE SECURITY
The Road to Peace
Radio Spe ech of Claren ce A . Hathaway , Editor,
Daily Worker, Delivered Ov er CBS, Station WABC ,
Wednesday, December 22, I9J7.
are tense days, requiring a mo st realistic facing of
world problems.
Today it should be clear that we can no longer stand aloof,
believing that the wars which are stalking over the world are
far away, that they concern u s but little, that they do not
endanger our country or our people.
The sinking of the U .S.S. Panay and three Standard Oil
boats on the Yangtze, with the loss-of a number of American
lives, has brought home to us mo st clearly that war in any part
of the world directly endangers our oum peace and ow' own
security. It has served to reopen the fundamental di scussion
of isolationism versus collecti ve securi ty as the ba sis for our
foreign policy.
In 1931 when Japan began' th e present series of wars and
invasions, since carried forward by the other fascist powers, the
average American remained indifferent. When Italy followed
four years later withthe crushing of Ethiopia, and when Hitler
and Mussolini began their fascist invasion of Spain a year and
a half ago, using the rebel General Franco as their' stooge,
T
H E SE
3
there was still the belief that we could isolate ourselves from
these events, that we could remain neutral.
It was then that Congress adopted our present un neutral
neutrality policy, which from the outset aided those aggressor
nations which were violating the Kellogg-Briand Pact and
were invading peaceful, democratic countries. Under this law
Congress ignored the difference between the aggressor and the
victim of aggression, between the robber and the one ,being
robbed; Congress closed our markets supposedly to both the
gangster and to the victim of gangsterism; theoretically we
refused to 'sell munitions of war to either side. This law was
applied in the case of the Ethiopian and Spanish wars, and
did harm only to Ethiopia and to the legally-elected democratic government of Spain. It never harmed or hampered the
fascists. They were able to buy raw materials in unlimited
quantities, and with a highly developed industry they were
able to transform these raw materials into instruments of war.
Our scrap iron, our cotton, our oil, have been used continuously since 1931 by Japan, Italy and Germany to make
war against peaceful, democratic nations, to threaten the
peace of the entire world, to threaten our own peace and
security. It was our own products, our scrap iron, our cotton,
our oil, which we have sold in large quantities to Japan that
went into the bombs, the shells and the ships which sank
American boats in the Yangtze and killed American citizens.
Under our so-called neutrality law we have been arming the
-fascist aggressors, aiding in strengthening them, even in their
aggression against us.
From the outset we Communists spoke against such false
neutrality. We urged a realistic foreign policy which would
definitely distinguish between an aggressor and the victim of
aggressio?, between fascist nations and democratic nations,
4
between nations bent on enslaving other nations and nations
striving to maintain their independence. We urged a foreign
policy based on concerted action by the democratic nations
against fascist aggressors with the aim of protecting world
peace and democracy. To that end we urged that the United
States cooperate with the Soviet Union, with France, England
and all other democratic nations in collective efforts to stop
the fascist nations from placing peace and democracy in /
jeopardy everywhere.
Though this correct position was receiving ever increasing
support from our people, as the lessons of fascist aggression in
Ethiopia and Spain unfolded, it was only when Japan began
-its later invasion of China, five months ago, that the millions
of American people began seriously to question the policy of
isolationism and so-called neutrality. Only then did they
fully realize, first, that a handful of fascist nations was responsible for the destruction of world peace; second, that these
fascist bandits were creating conditions that would lead to a
world war; and, third, that unless effective methods could be
devised which would stop these nations, sooner or later the
United States itself would become involved in such a war.
President Roosevelt gave the clearest expression to this
changing sentiment of the American people in his Chicago
speech of last October. He correctly placed the responsibility
on the fascist military powers-by implication on Germany,
Italy and Japan. He called for a quarantine against these
aggressors. He proposed concerted action by the peace-loving
forces of the world to stop their aggression; he definitely
associated the struggle for world peace with efforts to maintain
democracy. Clearly, he had come to realize that the peace
and security of our people were bound up with the overcoming
of the irresponsible gangsterism of the fascist powers.
5
We Communists who were most critical of the administration when it adhered to the unsound isolation, neutrality
viewpoint today whole-heartedly su p p or t President Roosevelt's
Chicago speech. ' We urge that the foreign policy of the government, of the State Department, be based squarely on tlie
policies proposed in that speech. vVe urge that that policy
be applied now, before it is too late. Already there has been
too much delay. This policy is a peace policy, the on1y peace
policy, and not a war policy. It is the only policy which can
restore and preserve world peace. It does not call for. nor
imply, military action against the fascist nations; it calls for
no military action by the United States itself or by the United
States in conjunction with other powers. It requires concerted, political and economic action. Specifically it requires:
1. The branding of Japan, Italy and Germany as violators
of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as aggressors.
2. The breaking off of all diplomatic and political intercourse with these nations until such time as they cease their
aggression.
3. The cutting off of all trade with these nations, both imports and exports, and all credits, thereby depriving them of
those supplies with which they are today making war.
4. The opening of our markets to China and to Loyalist
Spain, to all victims of aggression, thus enabling them to
secure those materials that they need for their own defense.
Such measures, universally applied by all of the democratic
nations, would quickly bring the fascist nations to terms. It
would compel them to respect their international obligations.
It would compel them to withdraw their troops from Spain
and China and return to normal, peaceful procedure in the
settlement of their disputes. Moreover, it would unite the
democratic countries in an unbreakable front for the defense
6
of democracy and for the maintenance of peace. We urge
that the American people support the Roosevelt administra tion in steps to bring about concerted action by all of th e
democratic nations along these lines.
What are the alternatives to such a policy and what are the
arguments of the proponents of the alternative proposals? All
the opponents of collective security advocate one or another
form of isolationism , but with different motives and different
arguments.
There are, first, the outright tories, those who would in sti tute fascism here, and who support it abroad. They argue,
as did the New York Daily News) that Japan is going to win
anyway; that the Japanese would then set up what they chose
to call "orderly" government in China, that American trade
would grow, etc. Theirs is the most brazen imperialistic, pro·
fascist argument for Japan, an argument taken directly from
the mouths of the Japanese militarists. They brush aside the
experiences of Manchukuo, where the Japanese imperialists
gobbled up everything, excluding American interests from
sources of raw materials, markets and possibilities for investment. They ignore the obvious fact that a victorious Japan
would spread its fascist, military rule over the entire Pacific;
that a victorious Japan would quickly move against the Philippines, against Hawaii, against Alaska, and, finally, against the
United States itself. . A victorious Japan would constitute a
menace to the peace of the entire world, and, in the first place,
to the peace and security of the United States.
Then there is Leon Trotsky and his followers, who associate
themselves ever more closely with the tories, with the fascists .
Their main aim is to destroy the Soviet Union, the one nation
whiclJ. strives most consistently.for peace, the one nation where
the working class rules and where socialism is being built.
7
In the Soviet Union these Trotskyite bandits resort to sabotage, wrecking and murder; outside the Soviet Union. they
encourage war, believing that in a war situation their possibility for counter-revolutionary successes would be enhanced.
They oppose collective security, covering up their opposition
by prating empty phrases about an "unwillingness to trust
capitalist · government," only because they want to prevent
the realization of peace, because they hope that the war will
spread to involve the Soviet Union. To further their antiSoviet aims, they are today the allies of fascism.
The Socialists, if one accepts Norman Thomas as their
spokesman, join in the attack on President Roosevelt's advocacy of collective security, falsely branding it as a war policy,
and stand on the same discredited, isolationist position as do
the reactionaries and the pacifists. They stand close to the
Trotskyites in their bitter denunciation of the Soviet Union,
the land of socialism and peace, and oppose all efforts to unite
the broad masses of the people in an effective people's movement for peace and democracy. They ignore the direct responsibility of the fascist powers for the present war situation
and stupidly insist. on grouping all capitalist. nations, fascist
and democratic, in the same camp. They accept. t.he absurd
t.heory of t.he "haves" and t.he "have-riots," urging concessions
t.o the "have-riots," that is, to Japan, Italy and Germany, as a
means of stopping their aggression, when actually such concessions . would only whet the fascist appetites and increase
their aggression. How they can associate such policies with
their pretensions to ' socialism is beyond the comprehension
of those of us who not only advocate, but who consistently
work for socialism.
Finally, there are those honest, but misguided and confused
pacifists who still believe that they contribute to the efforts to
8
restore peace by burying their heads in the sand, like the proverbial ostrich, refusing to see that the storms of world war
are every day gaining in intensity. They likewise place their
faith in isolation, in a neutrality that cannot and does not
exist in a world divided between fascist war-makers and the
defenders of democracy and peace. They profess to believe
that by ordering Americans out of China, by withdrawing
American marines and ships, by refusing to trade with either
China or Japan, that this would contribute toward peace and
keep the United States out of war.
This, as I have emphasized above, would only open the way
for further Japanese aggression, for a still greater slaughter
of Chinese men, women and children. It would play directly
into the hands of the Japanese imperialists, enabling them to
conquer China and to use Japan's strengthened position for
a war against the Soviet Union, and to drive out all other
nations from the Pacific, including the United States.
This is a time for clear, hard thinking. It is a time when
it is fruitless to talk of peace in the abstract. To work
effectively for peace today, one must concentrate all efforts
around one central aim, namely, to stop the uiars that are now .
in progress, to stop the fascist aggressors, Germany, Italy and
Lapan, This can be accomplished only through achieving
concerted action by the peace-loving, democratic nations, and
by a united, world-wide peace movement, based, in the first
place, on a united trade union movement.
.
The Communists are bending their efforts in that direction. We give our support to the American League for Peace
and Democracy, to r the Committee of the National Peace
Conference, which is working for concerted peace efforts.
We cooperate with all sincere peace forces.
We urge support for the peace policy advocated by Presi9
dent Roosevelt in his Chicago speech. We urge the adoption
of the Peace Bill, H.R . 527, introduced in Congress by Representative Jerry J. O'Connell of Montana. We u rge th e
people to put pressure on Congress and the administration
for the immediate application of a collective secu rity policy.
I close m y speech by urging the extension of the bo ycott
against Japanese goods. I urge full material su pport to the
battlers for peace and democracy in Spain and China.
A REAL ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE
ON THE LUDLOW RESOLUTION
R eprinted fro m the Dail y Wo rker, Jan uary 6, .1938
H E Ludlow amendment is a ni ghtmare for mo st realisti c
and progressive legi slators. It confuses man y sincere
people outside of legislative chambers as well.
This is the proposed amendment to the Constitution which
would do away with the right of Congress to declare war,
except in the case of actual invasion, and which would place
this right solely in the hands of the people-a right which
would be exercised under this amendment by a popular referendum on the simple question of whether war should or
should not be declared against this or that nation.
T
10
Now, my readers should know that those members of
Congress who discuss questions with me are real progressives.
They are for peace and democracy. They are for the extension
of the people's rights on every question, including this question of war, of war declarations.
But their instincts tell them that this Ludlow amendment
is phony, even though they hesitate to take a stand against it.
One illustration will picture the situation. 1 went inte
the office of one of the Representatives. He showed me a
petition signed by thirty-one people-all from the strongest
working class ward of his district. 1 knew a number of the
signers-sclass-conscious workers. They urged him to vote for
the Ludlow amendment, expressing their confidence that
this would keep the United States out of war. Then he
showed me a number of individual letters from others in
his Congressional district similar in their appeal.
After 1 had read the letters, he asked: "Well, now, how
would you vote on the Ludlow amendment?"
.
I replied: "Nol"-and 1 undertook to explain why, ill
terms his constituents could understand:
'T h ese, in brief, were my arguments-my explanation to
"his constituents": (1 invite letters from our readers, approving, disapproving or supplementing.) •
Your constituents, I said, are anxious, above everything else,
to keep out of war; they are for one or another measure
only because they believe that that measure furthers peace.
That is why they pr:ess you to suppor~ th~ Ludlow amendment.
Now, does this Ludlow amendment contribute toward the
maintenance of peace, toward keeping the United States
11
out of war? 1£ you voted for it could you go back LO your
constituents with the conviction that you had represented
them in their determination to maintain peace, to avoid war?
Could you even claim that you had extended their democratic rights in deciding this question?
I claimed that he would be , deceiving those whom he
wished most to serve-the workers, farmers and peace forces
of his district. I claimed that by supporting the Ludlow
amendment he would further neither peace nor democracy,
and that now he would be playing into the hands of the
fascists and the warmongers.
Of course, my friend wanted details. And I gave them.
First, I insisted, if he waited until the issue is: shall we or
shall we not declare war?-then it is already too latel
Wars are not made in a day, nor in a referendum; they are
led up to and prepared over months and even years before
the issue arises as to whether war shall be declared or not.
In fact, modern wars are hardly ever declared. Germany and
Italy have not declared war on Spain, but war is in progress.
Japan has not declared war on China, but the war is on. The
United States did not declare war on Mexico in 1916, or on
Nicaragua, or Cuba, but our troops -invaded these nations
and our ships blockaded their ports.
The President, as Commander-in-chief of the army and navy.
can order the armed forces into any area, into any part of th e
world without the formal declaration of war. He can begin
war-and carryon war-even though constitutional amendment were in existence which made a referendum mandatory
before war could be declared. This emphasizes what Lenin
repeatedly emphasized: ." W ar is the continuance of politics
by other (i.e., forceful means," If you want to prevent war,
if. you want to give broader democracy to the people, you
a
12
must support not an amendment on how war is 1.0 be declaredafter it- is already under way or inevitable, but legisla tion which extends the right of the people to block those
steps which lead to war in time to prevent war.
, T h e importance of this approach, I emphasized, should
now be clear after our 1916 experiences. In November, 1916,
there was a virtual referendum against war when Woodrow
Wilson was re-elected on the slogan: "He kept us out of war."
Yet in April, 1917, five months after the "referendum," we
were in the war up to our ears-the reason being that for
months, many months, prior to April the Wilson adminis-.
tration was pursuing policies which made war inevitable.
And while pursuing these policies, a propaganda machine
was at work whipping up war sentiment, spreading atrocity
tales, arousing popular support for a formal declaration of
war.
We had actually entered the war already at the time of
Wilson's re-election, at the time of the "referendum" against
war.
Now when could the will of the people, expressed through
democratic .processes, have been effective in that situation?
The answer is clear: only if the people could have controlled
each step in the foreign policy of the United States in the
period between 1914 and 1917-and even before.
If the people could have curbed American imperialist expansion after 19oo; .if they had prevented the heavy loans to
the Allies (England, France, tsarist Russia, etc.), after the outbreak of the war; if they had prevented the shipment of
munitions and other supplies to these nations; if Woodrow
Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing had been
checked in their increasing support to those powers-then
the United States could have remained at peace. Then the
IS
slogan "He kept us out oJ war" would have had meaning.
Then the 1916 referendum would have been real. As it was,
it was a fake; it deceived the people and prepared the way
for the actual declaration of war in April.
The Ludlow amendment, regardless of the sincerity of many
of its supporters, plays the same role today. It contributes
nothing itself to the prevention of war, and it lulls the people
into a false security. It leads them to believe that they can
keep out of the present wars now sweeping over the world
by a simple referendum at some future date (far in the future
if you consider the time required to amend the Constitution)
long after such foreign policies have been developed which
would in themselves determine the issue of peace and warwith or without a referendum.
The problem today is not how war is to be declared. It is
how war is to be prevented.
The question so far as democracy is concerned is: how can
the people be given a greater say notu in stopping war, in
preventing the United States from being drawn into wars
which the fascist aggressor nations are forcing on the world.
The answer is: give the people the right to decide on our
country's foreign policy today; let them decide now between
the outworn isolationism which leads to war, or the true peace
policy urged by Roosevelt in his Chicago speech, the policy of
concerted action by the peace-desiring nations against the
fascist aggressors.
The desire of the American people for peace can be expressed most effectively today through the widest support for
the amendment which Congressman Jerry O'Connell proposes to the present Neutrality Act. This O'Connell amendment, which is known as the O'Connell Peace Bill, H.R. 5 27,
provides that:
"Whenever the President shall find that an act of aggression has
been committed he shall proclaim such fact and shall name the
aggressor in such proclamation."
Then:
"It shall be unlawful to export or cause to be exported arms,
ammunition or implements of war from any place in the U.S. to
any aggressor named in such proclamation."
The ' proposed Peace Pact provides other means to preven I
aggressors from obtaining credits, using American ships or
supplies for the purpose of its aggression.
I concluded by emphasizing that such proposals did not
mean war, that they meant the fulfilment of the fervent hopes
and desires of those of his constituents who had urged him to
work for peace-and only mistakenly for th~ Ludlow amendment.
I believe my friend was convinced. But my readers will
have to convince their friends in and out of Congress. Letters
to Congressmen and conversations with friends should do the
trick.
The real issue is collective secw'ity-before it is too late.
People's ChampionLeading in the fight for collective securityLeading in the battle for peace and democracyPublishfug the news of all the activities of labor, tli.
farmer, the professional worker to defend their 'int~
ests and improve their conditions-
The' Daily Worker
-------------:-,
Daily and Sunday Worker
50 East 13th Stre et
Ne w York, N. Y.
I
I
Please enter my subscription for six
weeks to th e Dally and Sunday W orker.
J enclose $1.00.
I
I
Name
_
I
_
I
_
I
I
.,
Address
City
:-__.___________________________ State
I
I
Special OfferI
By using th is special co
pon, you can secure a s'
weeks' subscription to
4t
Dally and Sunday Worker f
only $1.00. This offer does
not apply to Manhattan an
the Bronx, where the pap
may be purchased from th
ne w ss tand s.
Communist Party, U.S.A.
35 East 12th Street
New York. N. Y.
I want to join the Communist Party.
Name
Address
City
_
-'
State
_