w 
 
opy 1 
 
 .^3vM^Mnley., , Chai 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BULLETIN 
 
 Issued Weekly 
 
 Vol. XV AUGUST 1, 1918 No. 48 
 
 [Entered as second-class matter December ii, 1912, at the post office at Urbana, Illinois 
 under the Act of August 24, 1912] 
 
 THE GREAT CONDITION 
 
 By 
 
 DAVID KIN LEY 
 
 Professor of Economics 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE WAR COMMITTEE 
 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 URBANA 
 Monograph 
 
This pamphlet contains the sub- 
 stance of an address given before 
 the IlUnois Veterinary Association 
 July 10, 1918. 
 
13 1-'^ 
 
 THE GREAT CONDITION 
 
 "There can be but one issue. The set- 
 tlement must be final. There can be 
 no compromise." — President Wilson 
 
 Peace that is not conclusive is not worth having. The con- 
 clusiveness of peace depends on the attainment of the righteous 
 purpose of the war. Peace terms proposed in the hope that mere 
 cessation of war and bloodshed will satisfy the combatants or 
 restore harmony and goodwill, are futile and foolish. The loss of 
 a life, or of a million lives, is not the worst thing that could happen 
 to the world. There are things more precious than life. 
 
 If these statements are true, and I take it that we all agree 
 that they are, the flabby peace-monger is worse than foolish. He is 
 dangerous. He asks for peace not to establish principle but to 
 avoid danger and trouble and unsightliness. His moral sense is 
 perverted. His scale of moral values is unsound. He would stroke 
 the back of the hissing rattlesnake because of the mottled beauty of 
 its skin. He would pacify the untamed tiger by scratching his ears 
 and offering him a bit of the raw beef he is struggling for. The 
 snake may respond to the patting. The tiger will seek to fill his 
 stomach with more meat, even though it be that of the peace offerer 
 himself. 
 
 The people among us who say they wish peace may be 
 grouped roughly into three classes ; the "peace at any price" people ; 
 the "peace by discussion" people ; and the "peace by principle" 
 people. 
 
 The first group, again, includes several sub-groups. There 
 are, in the first place, some sincere souls who look on war and 
 bloodshed as wrong in themselves and believe that no end which 
 these can attain can be justifiable, because of the sinfulness of the 
 means. They are children horrified by a nightmare and do no harm 
 excepting when, like children, they get in our way. Because they 
 can make the tiger purr with their music when his belly is full, they 
 think they can do it when he is roused by hunger. 
 
 Then there are the cowards — not many among us, thank God ! 
 
 3 
 
 jAli 17 1919 
 
— who would rather risk a master's lash than the loss of a hand or 
 the sight of bloodshed. 
 
 Beside them is the traitor who lauds the beauties of peace 
 because his purse is filled and he is false to the nation that has be- 
 friended him. The undeveloped, the coward, and the traitor are 
 all in this group together. 
 
 The peace by discussion people are also peace by compromise 
 people and are found chiefly among those who think that they 
 enhance their reputations for being judicial, by proclaiming that in 
 a contest like this there surely must be wrong and right on both 
 sides. They are long on pose but short on facts. They emphasize 
 the iniquity of Great Britain towards the American colonies, but 
 forget to mention the establishment of the South African Federa- 
 tion. They have nothing to say about the moral magnanimity of 
 America in freeing Cuba but much about her treatment of the 
 Indians and the iniquities of the Mexican War. Some of them 
 tell us that they lived long in Germany and never saw any exhibition 
 of the evil spirit that the world is now condemning in Germany. 
 
 This group has its organs of expression largely in certain 
 eastern journals. One of these journals recently discussed the 
 problem of peace terms and suggested that if Germany and her 
 allies would withdraw from Belgium and France, give Belgium 
 proper indemnity to restore her ravaged territory, and withdraw 
 her armies from the other territories which she now occupies, it 
 would be fair to restore her colonies and cry quits. The writer 
 argued that we would thus have restored conditions to what they 
 were before the war, and that, therefore, nobody would have lost. 
 These people are deeply impressed with the highly moral talk of the 
 German government as seen, for example, in the German reply to 
 the Pope's peace proposals of some months ago. The German 
 government is said to have agreed with Pope Benedict "that in the 
 future, the material power of arms must be superseded by the moral 
 power of right." But shall we be content to let a highway robber go 
 free because when he is caught by superior force in his robbery he 
 offers to restore what he has taken and go about his business? Is 
 it not our duty to see to it that he changes his business or is put 
 under limitations which will make its future pursuit impossible? It 
 is true, as the Netv York Tribune has remarked, that "the outlaw 
 and outcast is willing to be reinstated in a new society of nations. 
 
but only on his own terms, which include no sackcloth and ashes on 
 his part for the infamies of the past." 
 
 We cannot plumb the depths of the futility of the "peace by 
 discussion" proposals without an understanding of the German 
 peace proposals. In Germany, as elsewhere, there are various 
 groups of "would-be peace makers." There are some in Germany 
 who talk of peace without annexation and would give back to all 
 belligerents the territory which they had at the outbreak of the war, 
 provided Germany be left with a consolidated influence or power 
 over Central Europe and the Near East. There are those who would 
 restore the Pre- War status in territory and let each belligerent and 
 victim bear its own burden of rehabilitation. A large party demands 
 the increase of German sea-power with seaports on the coast of 
 Belgium and France, and the coal mining districts of the latter. 
 Another demands the realization of the dream of "mittel Europa." 
 Another adds to this the dream of "Berlin to Bagdad." Others 
 insist on the restoration of a colonial empire, not in the scattered 
 fragments which made up the colonies which she has lost, but in a 
 solid block of territory and people from the East to the West coast 
 of Africa, so that in the years to come Germany could arm millions 
 of black men and, from that vantage point, once more reach out for 
 the domination of the world. There are others who w^ould be con- 
 tent with annexations of Russian territory. Be it noted that some, 
 if not all, of these programs include freedom of the seas — FOR 
 GERMANY — meaning that Germany must have coaling stations 
 and a fleet such that no other power would dare attack her. Then 
 Germany must have a controlling influence in South America, and 
 that continent must be open to her colonists to live in and keep up 
 their duty to their home country. To the Pan-Germans who look 
 westward, the enemy has been Great Britain. To those who look 
 eastward, the great enemy was Russia. To both, the great enemy 
 has now become America. 
 
 The real import of the "peace by understanding and discus- 
 sion" proposition is shown by the statement of Paul Lensch, a Ger- 
 man Socialist, made only last October. He declares that such a 
 peace "would be for Great Britain the greatest defeat in its history 
 and the beginning of its ruin." Again, he tells us that Germany has 
 a great and immense advantage "in the fact that Germany will have 
 won the war, if she does not lose it, whereas England will have lost 
 the war if she does not win it." That was written, note you, at the 
 
 5 
 
time when our efforts were regarded as negligible, and the same 
 remark will now apply to us. This same writer tells his countrymen 
 that they are too impatient. He warns them that it will be a score 
 or more of years before the economic and political disintegration 
 which the war has started will show themselves. "Then", he tells 
 us, "the true time of harvest will have come." Being pious, as well 
 as patriotic, he also tells his fellowcountrymen that the Biblical 
 phrase applies in their case, — "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, 
 and all these things shall be added unto you". "First bring about 
 the peace by understanding, which guarantees German political in- 
 dependence, territorial integrity and freedom of economic develop- 
 ment, then Germany will have shown herself so strong that all 
 these things shall be added unto her." 
 
 These are the views of various parties in the (ierman Empire. 
 The government, while neither expressly accepting nor rejecting 
 any of the programs has held itself in a position to adopt any or all 
 of them according to the military conditions at the close of the war. 
 In other words, the peace proposals of the German government 
 have varied inversely with their military successes. We have be- 
 come accustomed to see a German peace oft'ensive follow a failure 
 of German military offensive, but in the intervals of German military 
 success the spirit and intention of the government appears to have 
 been on the side of the extremest demands that any one of the 
 parties of the people has made. The military party in Germany, 
 the German autocracy, the German government, will undoubtedly 
 adopt as its program of peace conditions the program of the most 
 extreme party zvhich it feels sure it can get. Hence it is that the 
 German reply to the Pope's note, for example, like all their other 
 peace propositions, was general and vague. On certain matters, 
 however, the government has made its views evident. For example, 
 Germany must have economic privileges in Belgium and must 
 dominate Belgian policy, if Belgium is restored at all. As the 
 Chancellor said to Mr. Gerard, "We must possibly have the forts 
 of Liege and Namur. We must have other forts and garrisons 
 throughout Belgium. We must have possession of the railroad 
 lines. We must have possession of the ports and other means of 
 communication. The Belgians will not be allowed to maintain an 
 army, but we must be allowed to retain a large army in Belgium. 
 We must have commercial control of Belgium." 
 
 But on one point the government and the separate groups of 
 
people in Germany are all agreed. It is that the settlement of the 
 war shall secure enlarged power and increased resources for Ger- 
 many at the expense of somebody. Along with this declaration 
 goes the refusal, sometimes tacit and sometimes expressed, to admit 
 that her aggression on her neighbors for her own aggrandizement is 
 wrong and must not be repeated. The consideration of this point 
 brings us to a discussion of the aims of the third group of peace 
 advocates mentioned at the beginning, the "peace by principle" 
 people. 
 
 This group of our own people, comprising without doubt a 
 vast majority of those who desire to see peace re-established, are 
 those who take the ground that the primary condition of the restor- 
 ation of peace is the establishment of a certain fundamental principle 
 of political morality which Germany has violated. Variously 
 phrased, this principle is that might does not make right in inter- 
 national dealings any more than in individual affairs ; that no nation 
 may now commit with impunity, acts of aggression upon its neigh- 
 bors ; that civilization may not again be trampled on in war by 
 outrages that break down centuries of progress of law and order; 
 that war, even if it must be waged, shall not be carried on under a 
 policy of frightfulness, an attempt to terrorize the world by murder, 
 outrage, and destruction. To establish the principle thus variously 
 expressed, is the (iREAT CONDITION of peace. To end the war 
 without establishing this principle, either by Germany's voluntary 
 acceptance of it or her compulsory submission to it, will be to lose 
 the war. To fail to establish this principle, at any price in blood and 
 wealth, will be simply to give a breathing space to the forces of evil 
 to become stronger for a second effort to bring the world under the 
 domination of the opposite principle. 
 
 On this matter we cannot be too clear, too specific, too em- 
 phatic, too determined. The only terms of peace which America 
 and her Allies can accept or even listen to, for the sake, I will not 
 say of justice only, but of their own national existence, are terms 
 which acknowledge and give expression to this great principle. In 
 other words, the terms of peace must be such as to secure as far as 
 possible in the future that no nation shall attempt, or prepare herself 
 to attempt, to impose her will upon other nations, to destroy their 
 liberty and independence, their economic and social order, their 
 intellectual and moral consciousness, and their sentiment of nation- 
 alitv. 
 
As remarked before, the position which some people take 
 that if Germany will retire from the countries she has conquered 
 and will provide for the economic restoration of devasted territory, 
 we might w^ell make peace, is fundamentally wrong, unless that 
 restoration is made in the spirit of repentance for her evil deeds 
 and as evidence of her full acceptance of the principle here described 
 as the GREAT CONDITION. For, be it repeated, whatever in- 
 demnities may be paid ; whatever restoration of territory may be 
 made; — nay even if she were able to recall the dead to life and 
 restore the population she has murdered ; if she were able to collect 
 the ashes and gases into which by her destruction she has dissipated 
 the accumulated wealth of ages ; even if she were able to restore all 
 the conditions that prevailed before the war both within her own 
 boundaries and elsewhere ;• — we shall have failed to win the war 
 unless in addition Germany freely accepts or is compelled to submit 
 to this Great Condition. Well would it be if by some miracle the 
 people of Germany could have a change of heart that would lead 
 them to accept this principle and give evidence of their repentance, 
 by such restoration as I have just described. But there is no 
 evidence of such a spirit of repentance or even of regret. On the 
 contrary, they tell us that France shall be bled wdiite, that the power 
 of Great Britain shall be broken and the Empire dismembered, so 
 that neither may ever again be able to strike a blow against similar 
 oppression. 
 
 At this point one plea, to which some people urge attention, 
 needs consideration. They say that we must not be bitter in our 
 condemnation, nor seek to impose on Germany terms which will 
 humiliate her, because, after all, this war, like many others, is 
 impersonal. They tell us that it is the clash of two rival economic 
 and cultural systems. They remind us of the American civil war as 
 an example of a conflict between tw^o systems of economic order 
 and civilization. But the parallel is not true. The Civil War was, 
 as some other wars have been, a conflict between two rival, irrecon- 
 cilable systems of life which grew up as a result of the environment 
 in which their people lived, without conscious purpose on the part 
 of either to injure the other. 
 
 The main difference between the present war and other wars, 
 from this point of view% is that no other war in history has been 
 produced by a conflict of systems one of which was consciously, 
 deliberately, adopted as a national policy for the very purpose of 
 
producing a war that would enhance the aggrandizement of the ag- 
 gressor. But it is estabHshed beyond cavil that for two generations, 
 or more, German policy has been shaped to this end. Upon 
 Germany, therefore, rests the moral responsibility for the iniquity. 
 She cannot claim even an equal division of the guilt on the ground 
 that the war is a clash of economic and cultural systems, for she 
 molded her system to produce the war. 
 
 The illustration, however, happily serves to teach a lesson 
 of a different kind. The Civil War zvas such a conflict of differing 
 social organizations. The principles on which these two organiza- 
 tions respectively rested were so different that only one could sur- 
 vive. They could not exist side by side. The conflict could not be 
 settled by compromise or discussion. There could be no negotiated 
 peace. President Lincoln was not deluded on this point. He knew 
 that "Rebellion not crushed would be rebellion triumphant." The 
 same is true in the present crisis. The system of government for 
 which militaristic, autocratic Germany stands cannot exist side by 
 side with democracy. One must be crushed if the other is to survive. 
 Let us not deceive ourselves on this matter. If the Allies permit 
 the survival of an autocracy powerful enough to begin another 
 world war, it will destroy civilization. Never can the world be safe 
 for democracy. Therefore, there can be no peace in this conflict 
 by compromise or negotiation or discussion. One system of political 
 and economic organization or the other must go down to complete 
 defeat. We must so punish this autocracy and crush its spirit that 
 at least for generations to come it will not rear its head again. 
 
 But, say some kindly people, this is unchristian and wrong; 
 we shall drive the German people to hate us, whereas we should 
 try to win them over. While we may readily acknowledge the force 
 and kindliness of this view, we shall make a mistake if we permit 
 it to have any influence with us. Have the past four years not shown 
 abundantly that the only condition under which Germany will not 
 hate the world after this war is that she shall be successful? But 
 her success is the very thing which must be prevented if the principle 
 of autocracy is to be destroyed. We must face the fact that after 
 this war Germany will hate the world and that her people will be 
 an obstacle to every attempt at world progress, just as for years the 
 l)itterness between North and South stood in the way of that con- 
 solidation and harmony necessary to the perfect welding of our 
 national unity. The generations "to come must contend with the 
 
 9 
 
sul euness of a conquered foe", and this war will not be ended, 
 however or whenever it closes, until, fifty or seventy-five years from 
 now, bitterness is forgotten and the spirit of "live and let live" is 
 accepted by all the nations concerned, those who are beaten as well as 
 those who win. 
 
 But how shall we know ? How can we tell whether and when 
 Germany either accepts or submits to the great condition that 
 autocracy must be destroyed and the principle of self-determination 
 and self-government, the principle that right makes might, estab- 
 lished and obeyed? The answer is that, "By their fruits ye shall 
 know them." If Germany were to accept the principle, she would 
 of her own free will do the things which the Allies have outlined as 
 necessary to a settlement. She would renounce annexations and 
 restore devastation. Of her own free will she would atone for 
 murder, outrage and destruction. She would restore to those \vhom 
 she has despoiled. She would do penance for the murders she has 
 committed. But there is no likelihood that she will do these things 
 of her own free will and so show that she accepts in humility the 
 condition that is imperative. There is nothing to do but compel her 
 to submit. Certainly our own President made every attempt to 
 induce the German government to accept the ])rinciple willingly. 
 But even he at last was, as he said, disillusioned and came to the 
 conclusion that the only remedy was force, force without stint, force 
 to the limit, — and so it must be. 
 
 The concrete expression of submission to the Great Condi- 
 tion, the destruction of the principle of autocracy and acceptance 
 of the principle of the right of a people to determine its own life and 
 its own government, can be assured, of course, only through the im- 
 position of specific terms of peace. What are some of the things 
 that will make sure the establishment of the Great Condition? 
 
 1. The first is a victory which will drive the Germans and 
 their allies back within the boundaries of their owm countries. 
 Whether or not there was a time when a proposal for a peace with- 
 out victory could have been reasonably entertained, it has passed. 
 
 2. Germany must restore and indemnify Belgium. 
 
 3. Germany and her allies must evacuate all the other ter- 
 ritory which they have conquered and occupied — Russia. Roumania, 
 Servia, Montenegro, France and Luxemburg. 
 
 4. Alsace-Lorraine must be restored to France and the 
 Trentino and Trieste to Italy. 
 
 10 
 
5- Turkish rule must be limited to Turks only. 
 
 6. The individual violators of humanity and law, those who 
 have been responsible for and those who have actually committed, 
 the acts of murder and personal outrage in Belgium, France, Russia, 
 Poland, Servia and Armenia, must be punished. 
 
 7. The Balkan question must be settled as far as possible 
 "by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance 
 and nationality", and international guarantees of their stability and 
 independence must be given by a council of the nations. 
 
 8. Poland must be restored. 
 
 9. There must be readjustments of frontiers in proper 
 cases so as reasonably to consolidate national groups and afford due 
 national resources. 
 
 10. Germany's colonies may be restored to her only if ade- 
 cjuate guarantees are secured (i) that they will not be made hatch- 
 ing grounds for plots against her neighbors; (2) that the consent 
 of the people and those of neighboring communities shall be secured ; 
 (3) that she shall not organize in them armies of natives; (4) that 
 the colonies will be governed in the interests of the people of the 
 colonies and not for exploitation. She should not be left in a posi- 
 tion in Africa in which, for example, she can again check the *'Cape 
 to Cairo" Railway. 
 
 11. Germany must restore that part of the world's shipping 
 which she has illegally destroyed. 
 
 ,12. All nations must agree to reduce armaments, both 
 military and naval. 
 
 13. An international court of justice must b? es^^ablirhed *^o 
 which all the participants in this war. and as many others as pos- 
 sible, shall agree to submit their disputes for a reasonable time 
 before making preparation to settle them by arms. 
 
 14. By a similar agreement at the close of the war, there 
 should be established a League of Nations to enforce agreements 
 and to prevent treaties in the future from becoming scraps of paper. 
 
 "For such arrangements and covenants, we are willing to 
 fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved." They are 
 characterized by principles of justice and recognize the right of all 
 nations, great and small, to "live on equal terms of liberty and 
 safety." 
 
 It is of the highest importance that the people of the country 
 should understand clearly the necessity of insisting that the war 
 
 11 
 
020 934 737 
 
 shall go on until this principle which I have called the Great Con- 
 dition is securely established; that the power of autocracy shall be 
 finally broken ; that no government, or people, or nation, may, with 
 impunity, aggrandize itself through the destruction of the liberties 
 and rights and property of another government, or people, or nation. 
 It is of the highest importance that we shall develop throughout the 
 country a public spirit that will not yield on this point, but will 
 insist on attaining our purpose; so that, if by any possibilty dark 
 days come and weak-kneed people join in clamor to be relieved from 
 the frightful strain of the war by a settlement which will not estab- 
 lish this principle, the people of America will sternly refuse and 
 will push out of their way all who impede them in the attainment 
 of this mighty purpose, and insist that our Government shall stand 
 for this Great Condition as the essential of lasting peace. 
 
 "There must be no hugger-mugger peace. It must 
 
 be a real peace Germany has waged three 
 
 wars, and each time she has added through those 
 wars to her strength, to her power, and each 
 successive war she has waged has inevitably en- 
 couraged her on to the next. If she had had one 
 check you would not have had this war. If this 
 war succeeds in adding one square yard to her ter- 
 ritory, of adding one cubit to her stature, of 
 adding a single iota to her strength, it will simply 
 raise their idea of militarism for which the world 
 is being sacrificed at the present moment." 
 
 Hon. Lloyde George 
 
 12 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 934 737 4