I s N o t 

The American Way 

A Group D i s c u s s i o n 

by C a t h o l i c Educators 

A N A M E R I C A P R E S S P U B L I C A T I O N 



All Papal Pronouncements 
Published As They Appear 
Digest size but not a digest . . . The Catholic Mind 
does not condense. It reprints outstanding speeches, 
radio addresses, sermons and Pastoral Letters from 
world-wide sources and all new Encyclicals. 

The outstanding Catholic writers and thinkers, 
both clerical and lay, are represented in its pages 
every month. 

The Catholic Mind is a publication of contemporary 
and traditional significance and becomes a ready ref-
erence file of the best Catholic thought both at home 
and abroad. 

Annual Subscription $2.00 

THE CATHOLIC MIND 
70 EAST 45TH STREET NEW YORK 17. N. Y. 





Imprimi Potest: J A M E S M. S W E E N E Y , S J . 

Provincial: New York Province 

Nihil Obstat: A R T H U B J. S C A N L A N , S.T.D. 

Censor Librorum 

Imprimatur: F R A N C I S J. S P E L L M A N D.D. 

Archbishop of New York 

P r i c e : 2 0 c 

Copyright, 1945, by The America Press 

DsgefcjfJfecf 



C O N S C R I P T I O N 
IS N O T 

T H E A M E R I C A N WAY 

Discussion and Conclusions 
By Eleven Members of the Faculty 

of John Carroll University 
Cleveland, Ohio 

if 

T H E A M E R I C A P R E S S 

70 EAST 45th STREET N E W YORK 17, N . Y. 



Opinions expressed in this pamphlet are not to be taken as the official 
views of John Carroll University. They are merely the conclusions 
reached by the undersigned members of the Faculty Discussion Group. 

Mr. Frank D. Burke; B.S. in Ch.E., C h . E C h e m i s t r y 
Dr. Oscar L. Dustheimer; A.N., M.S., Ph.D.; Mathematics 
Dr. Rene Fabien; Ph.D.; Modern Languages 
Mr. Donald P. Gavin; A.M.; History 
Dr. Hugh Graham; A.M., Ph.D.; Education 
Rev. Joseph A. Kiefer, S.J.; A.M.; Classical Languages 
Mr. Arthur J. Noetzel; M.B.A.; Business Administration; Secretary 
Mr. Eugene G. Oberst; B.C.S., A.M.; Political Science 
Mr. John A. Seliskar; M.B.A.; Business Administration 
Dr. d'Alte A. Welch, A.M., Ph.D.; Biology 
Rev. Frederick E. Welfle, S.J.; A.M., Ph.D.; History; Chairman 



CONSCRIPTION I S N O T 

T H E A M E R I C A N W A Y 

The Conclusions 

of a University Faculty Discussion 

F O R E W O R D 

TWICE in one generation the United States has demonstrated that its 
war potential is greater than that of any other country — if given 
time to mobilize. Yet, there are some who contend that "America has 
never been ready to meet the threat of war. She has fought each of her 
wars with unnecessary waste of blood and treasure, and after each 
of them she has refused to prepare herself for the next one" (Briga-
dier General John Palmer in "Notes on Universal Military Training"). 
Others, thinking of the role the United States hopes to play in the 
future world organization, have also drawn attention to what they call 
lack of preparedness. Permanent compulsory peacetime military train-
ing is the solution suggested for this lack. 

Four words here demand concentrated attention: permanent, 
peacetime, compulsory and military. Let us set down these terms and 
place after each one the meaning attached to it in the pending bills 
and in the utterances of their chief supporters. 
1. P e r m a n e n t . Compulsory military training in the minds of the 
legislators is to become an enduring feature of our national life. True, 
by legislative enactment the whole program could at some future time 
be erased from the statute books, but thus far no advocate of the 
measure looks forward to such an eventuality. Conscription is not 
proposed for five years, say, as was the Selective Service Act of 1940. 
Nor is it an emergency measure, since the Selective Service Act can 
take care of present contingencies. It is envisaged as a permanent 
policy in peacetime. 



6 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

2 . Peacetime. This compulsory military training is not intended to 
meet the needs either of the present war or of the turbulent times 
following the cessation of hostilities. It is to be put into effect in the 
peace period after both. The words of General Marshall are clear on 
this point: 

It is assumed that for some time after the defeat of the Axis 
Powers the United States will maintain such temporary mili-
tary forces, in cooperation with its Allies, as may be necessary 
for a peaceful world order. The plans for a permanent peace 
establishment, referred to in this circular, relate to a later 
period when the future world order can be envisaged (Circu-
lar letter from General Marshall on compulsory military serv-
ice, August 25, 1944. Italics supplied). 

3 . Compulsory. The obligation of spending a definite time in military 
training will rest on every male who has attained a specified age. The 
system will not be voluntary. Individual choice in the matter will be 
out of the question. 

4 . Military. The War Department insists that "non-essentials" should 
not be included in the training. "Effective training for combat must 
constitute the basis for the training schedules," On their face value 
these words mean that language and area studies, technical and scien-
tific pursuits, will be excluded. 

These four words taken singly and in their naked significance startle 
unthinking complacency. This country has never had a conscript army 
in peacetime, unless, perchance, the Selective Service Act of 1940 can. 
be said to have constituted such. But even that Act was passed when we 
were already covered by the lengthening shadow of war, and it was 
passed for five years only. With such preparation for a pending war 
there can be no quarrel. The statement still holds true that in adopting 
a program of permanent, compulsory, peacetime military training 
Americans will be breaking with long tradition. This is a very grave 
issue, so grave, in fact, that the Faculty Discussion Group at John 
Carroll University considered it their moral obligation to study the 
question thoroughly for their own enlightenment and for the guidance 
of the young men committed to their care. 

Accordingly, an outline discussion guide was prepared, many an 
article scanned and debated. The Group soon became aware that cur-



THE AMERICAN WAY 7 

rent discussion on compulsory military training had worked itself 
into a confused snarl. This was evident in the following three respects: 

First, the objective of the training. Many commentators 
speak or write about the educational, disciplinary, hygienic, 
moral, social and civic benefits of a year or more of army and 
navy life. The question naturally arises: Is the training to be 
purely military, or purely non-military, or a mixture of both? 

Secondly, the Group found much confusing of end and 
of means to the end. Supposedly, the purpose of the whole 
compulsory military program is adequate defense of our 
country. To such a laudable purpose no citizen worthy of the 
name can object. Our country must at all times have sufficient 
forces for her adequate defense. This is a self-evident postulate 
of elementary patriotism. But sufficient forces for adequate 
defense are one thing; the method of obtaining these forces is 
quite another. Much of the popular argument would run thus: 
Our country must be adequately defended; therefore, we must 
have compulsory peacetime military training — a striking ex-
ample of non sequitur. This kind of argument takes for granted 
that conscription in peacetime is the only method by which 
sufficient forces can be raised. But is it the only method? It is 
even the best method? The method is precisly the point to be 
highlighted in this discussion if conscription is to be a perma-
nent policy and not an emergency measure. 

Thirdly, although much confusion centers about the time 
when this program is to be put into operation, the statements 
of qualified spokesmen leave no doubt in the matter: con-
scription is for the period when national life will have returned 
to the normal tempo. 

To clear away these confusions and to define sharply the real 
issues in compulsory military training, this Study Group finds it 
necessary to emphasize again and again that the bill is not being pro-
posed as an emergency measure but as a peacetime policy. We discuss 
the issue solely on this ground. Arguments for and against the system 
as thus clearly stated were considered, and a body of conclusions 
drawn up. It will be seen, therefore, that quite beyond intention the 



8 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

work fell into two parts: clarification of the issues and the conclusions 
arrived at. The fruits of this study are now offered to the public in the 
two sections in which it naturally evolved. The first, consisting of per-
tinent questions and of the arguments pro and con, can serve as a 
discussion guide. The second will constitute a strong indictment of 
compulsory military training as a permanent peacetime policy. In all 
honesty, the Faculty Discussion Group could come to no other con-
clusion on the question when formulated in terms as defined above. 
There is no close integration between the two parts. They are not in-
terdependent Anyone desiring arguments against permanent peace-
time conscription may go immediately to the second part. 

Therefore, to sum up, the Group's attitude on compulsory military 
training is this: 

First: such new legislation is not necessary for any present 
emergencies. 

Second: as a permanent policy for that "later period 
when future world order can be envisaged," it is futile, unnec-
essary, undemocratic, economically prohibitive and inimical to 
any system of collective security. 



THE AMERICAN WAY 9 

P A R T O N E 

Q U E S T I O N S A N D A R G U M E N T S 

1. What i s meant by Compulsory Military Training? The fol-
lowing can be taken as a working definition: 

Compulsory military training is the result of legislative enactment by 
which citizens of a definite age must spend a specific period of training 
in the armed services of the nation. 

2 . H o w many citizens would b e affected by the p r o g r a m ? 
If the program is universal and compulsory, all men within certain 
age-limits will be affected. If the age of induction is eighteen, then 
approximately 1,100,000 white and 130,000 non-white males will be 
conscripted each year. Of this number experts estimate that from 
twenty to forty per cent will be exempted for various reasons. 
3 . What is the issue? In order to determine the real issues in-
volved in the proposals concerning compulsory military training, the 
following questions must be answered: 

a. Does the program concern the military needs of the 
present war? 

b. Does the program concern the military needs of the 
period immediately following the cessation of hostilities? 

c. Does the program concern the military needs of 
national peace and security after both the present war and 
the pacification period are over? 

4 . Are the f u t u r e peace and security of this country neces-
sarily b o u n d u p with Compulsory Military Service? In answering 
this question, a clear distinction must be made between the objective 
and the method of attaining it. The objective of compulsory military 
training is the adequate defense of our country. The method of ob-
taining sufficient forces f o r this adequate defense would, in this case, 
be compulsory military training. 

Regarding method, two further questions should be answered: 
1) Is compulsory military training the only method? 
2) Is it the best method? 



10 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

5 . Is Compulsory Service to b e purely military in character, 
o r are physical, educational and moral training to be included? 
The leaders of the nation — both military and political — have not 
clearly answered this question. Thus, Secretary Stimson spoke on 
August 17, 1944: 

The present war will not end wars . . . the only alternative to a large 
standing army, which is contrary to democratic conditions, is universal 
military training. 

On August 18, 1944, President Roosevelt spoke to the following ef-
fect: one year of military training should be given to youths between 
the ages of 17 and 22 to "teach them discipline and how to live in 
harmony with others." He did not approve of the programs proposed 
by Stimson and the American Legion. On November 17 the President 
declined to answer questions as to what extent the training should be 
military. 

On September 1, 1944, General Marshall gave voice to the follow-
ing sentiments: he favors a small professional army supplemented by 
trained citizen reserves chosen by a selective system. A large standing 
army has "no place among institutions of a modern state." He pro-
posed universal military training with a period of reserve service, the 
final decision as to the strength of the peacetime army to be deter-
mined after the political issues of the war have been solved. 

6 . Assuming that the program of compulsory training is pure-
ly military, what arguments can be given in its favor? 

a. After this war we must maintain constant preparedness 
because: 1) it will be too late the next time to start training 
men after the act of aggression; 2) this country will be the 
first in the calculations of any future aggressor; 3) the next 
war will be real total war — there will be no non-combatants. 

b. The present war could have been prevented, and fu-
ture wars averted, if the United States had a peacetime con-
script army. Thus Congressman Costello: 

By calling for service every young man upon reaching the age 
of 18, we can maintain a force in training of more than a 
million men at all times. This force, when coupled with the 
men who will make a career of teaching these trainees and 
of providing the regular garrisons which will man our defense 
forces, we can present to the world as our "big stick" to 
preserve law and order . . . If we are to make sure that peace 



THE AMERICAN WAY 11 

will continue, we are going to have the means with which to 
back up the terms. You can do that only if you have an 
army ready to go into the field. We must have universal con-
scription for that purpose (Town Meeting of the Air, August 
15, 1944). 

c. Universal military training is in keeping with our 
democratic ideals. Thus George Washington in 1783: 

It may be laid down as a primary proposition and the basis 
of our system that every citizen who enjoys the protection 
of free government owes not only a portion of his property but 
even of his personal services to the defense of it. 

And Secretary Stimson: 
Certainly all Americans should accept the principle that every 
citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes 
and should freely give his personal services to the defense of it. 
This means the system should be truly universal — all should 
be treated alike (August 15, 1944). 
d. Only a universal compulsory military program will 

secure sufficient manpower. Mr. Hanson Baldwin, summarizing 
the issues in the New York Times on January 20, 1944, wrote 
as follows: 

If the permanent peacetime strength of our army, navy and 
air forces is to be maintained at from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 
men, as present tentative plans indicate, most authorities 
believe that a force of such size could not be raised by vol-
untary recruiting. 

Even if voluntary recruiting could provide a force of such 
size, it would be difficult — if not impossible — without 
selective service to build up and maintain a trained reserve 
force that could be quickly mobilized in time of emergency 
to augment the permanent peacetime forces. 
e. Military training will strengthen the United States' po-

sition in a world peace organization. Mr. Henry L. Stimson had 
this to say on August 15, 1944: 

If the American people should adopt the principle of universal 
military training, it would be the strongest possible assurance 
to the rest of the world that, in the future, America will not 
only be willing but able and ready to take its place with the 
peace-loving nations in resisting lawless aggression and in assur-
ing peaceful world order. 

7 . Assuming that the program of c o m p u l s o r y training is pure-
ly military in character, what arguments can b e advanced 
against i t ? 



12 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

a. Compulsory military training is not the only method of 
assuring national security, nor is it the best. 

A system that ensures one country's safety by threaten-
ing that of its neighbor is a system that breeds war and does 
not promote peace. History seems to prove that compulsory 
military training in peacetime is a major cause of war. In the 
present conflict, the aggression of Germany and Japan was a 
result of their militarism, not one of our unpreparedness. Nor 
would a trained citizen reserve in this country have essentially 
altered their plans. They would have merely taken this factor 
into their considerations. 

Paul Mallon in his syndicated articles has said: 
The proposed legislation to take 17-year-old youths into the 
army for a year would not provide an efficient, sufficient army 
. . . because most fighting lines today are highly skilled tech-
niques which require constant practice by more mature per-
sons . . . A year in the army at 17 can be little more than 
a physical-culture course and is not material to the raising 
or maintaining of a defensive army. 

Hanson Baldwin on January 20, 1944, in the New York 
Times stated: 

Nor can it [military training] be safely viewed as a peacetime 
measure; no nation that has had it has escaped war. 
There are, moreover, alternative methods of obtaining 

men for military service, such as: 1) the extension of the 
R.O.T.C., 2) offering a sound and attractive program of vol-
untary recruitment, and 3) increasing the number of military 
and naval academies in the United States. 

b. Compulsory military training will hinder rather than 
aid a world peace organization. If we now adopt universal mil-
itary training as a permanent policy, do we not demonstrate 
to the world that we have lost confidence in the proposals for a 
general international organization and that we wish to continue 
in a state of isolationism? 

c. Compulsory military training would undermine our 
democratic way of life. Military-training programs that are 
universal, compulsory and permanent tend to foster the growth 
of a military caste. Compulsion brings about regimentation and 
dictatorship. Such a system would delay and impede the indi-



THE AMERICAN WAY 13 

vidual's free choice in the determination of his course of life. 
d. Compulsory military training would injure our educa-

tional system with consequent damage to the professions and 
the technical services. 

That such a program would interrupt the education of 
many youths is admitted by the War Department. It would 
over-emphasize those phases of science which apply to war-
fare and would tend to minimize the significance of non-military 
research. It is possible, moreover, that compulsory military 
training would be the first step toward Federal control of edu-
cation. 

e. Compulsory military training would not be to the best 
interests of labor. Such a program could be used to break strikes 
by conscripting the strikers and forcing them to work in plants 
where labor disputes are in progress. Such action did take place 
in France. 

/. Compulsory military training would strain our fiscal 
system. The cost would be enormous. It would require appro-
priations not only for training, feeding, clothing and equip-
ping the men, but also for war materials, war production and 
war research. 

8 . Should legislation f o r compulsory military training f o r that 
"later period when future world order can b e envisaged" b e 
enacted n o w ? The arguments in favor of enacting legislation now are: 

a. In the let-down after victory, people will not give the 
problem of national security its proper, realistic perspective. 
They will not realize the necessity of preserving order by armed 
force. 

b. The adoption of compulsofy military service now will 
strengthen this country's role in any world organization for 
the preservation of peace. 

c. It will be a cushion of safety to fall back on, if any 
world peace organization fails. 

The arguments against any decision now are: 
a. A bill passed now would deprive those at present in the 

armed services of a voice in the matter. 



14 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

b. The war will leave us with a vast reservoir of trained 
men sufficient for several years after the end of present 
hostilities. 

c. Such a program is not in accord with our peace aims on 
disarmament as stated by former Secretary of State Cordell 
Hull, on March 21, 1944, when he said: 

International cooperative action must include eventual ad-
justment of national armaments in such a manner that the rule 
of law cannot be successfully challenged, that the burden of 
armaments be reduced to a minimum. 

Any decision regarding armaments and military manpower 
should wait until the United States has seen the operation of 
a world organization. 

d. We cannot decide now what our needs will be when the 
period of pacification is over and peace established. 



THE AMERICAN WAY 15 

P A R T T W O 

C O N C L U S I O N S O F T H E F A C U L T Y D I S C U S S I O N 

G R O U P O N P E R M A N E N T , C O M P U L S O R Y , 

P E A C E T I M E M I L I T A R Y T R A I N I N G 

B Y W A Y O F EXPLANATION 

A WORD about the order and the method of treatment in this Part 
is in place. First, attention is again directed, even at the risk of repe-
tition, to what debaters call "the state of the question." The conclu-
sions of the Group are then presented, not as a compact body of 
close, consecutive reasoning but as answers to the more frequent ar-
guments advanced in favor of compulsory military training. This 
method of "argument and answer" divides the conclusions clearly and 
makes for easy reading. The same method is used in dealing with the 
plus-values of a military program. After this, suggestions for obtaining 
a system of adequate defense by methods other than conscription are 
offered. The section closes with a declaration of the stand adopted by 
this Croup. 

T H E S T A T E O F T H E QUESTION 

The future position of the United States will undoubtedly call for 
some recasting of our former methods of national defense. Surely, 
no one can cavil with the purpose of such a change — the adequate 
defense of our country. That this homeland of ours must at all times 
be fully defended against aggressors is a primary postulate of patri-
otism. The point must be emphasized, however: it is the method to be 
used for securing this defense system that needs discussion. Is conscrip-
tion the best method? Is it practical? Is it historically tested and found 
good? Is it fraught with serious implications? Is it a democratic 
method? Is it financially sound? Is it die only method? 

Again, we must insist that this method of securing a defense 
system by compulsory military training is projected as a permanent 
policy in peacetime. Were the issue to be stated as a question for 
debate, it could be phrased as follows: 



16 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

Should the United States adopt for normal peacetime a program 
of compulsory military training for all young men between, 
say, the ages of eighteen and twenty-two, the period of training 
to last one or more years, with reserve refresher training for 
a number of years thereafter? 
The mind of this Group on the question as thus stated will be 

clear from the answers to the following arguments. 

W E W E R E U N P R E P A R E D 

A r g u m e n t : "Failure to establish a sound system of compulsory 
military training after the last war left us in dire straits at the begin-
ning of this war." 
R e p l y : That our preparedness did not match that of the totalitarian 
nations which started this war may be readily granted. To have been 
on a par with them in military preparedness would have meant the 
adoption of their methods of harnessing the entire nation's effort in 
the service of war. This would have meant that our complete con-
version to a war economy would have had to begin at least in 1935. 
Prime Minister Chamberlain recognized this when, in-answer to criti-
cism of security measures adopted by the British Government, he said 
in 1938: "I do not know whether you would like us to imitate Ger-
many in the measures she has employed in regimenting her country 
for the production of armaments. We may have to. But we will not do 
it until we are convinced that nothing else will serve our purpose." 
The same thought was also expressed by William L. Stone, in an ar-
ticle "Economic Consequences of Rearmament," Foreign Policy Re-
ports for October 1, 1938: "For democracies the ultimate cost of un-
limited armament competition may be the loss of their free economies 
and the undermining of democracy itself." 

But, you may say, we would not have had to go to that extreme. 
If we had had a sufficient number of trained men, we would have 
saved time and money, even lives, in our immediate preparation. This, 
too, may be granted, but it is no argument for compulsory service, for 
under the National Defense Act of 1920, had we chosen to follow its 
provisions, we would have had an armed force of approximately 
750,000 instead of 150,000. The difference in these numbers was not 
due to lack of a compulsory training provision in the Act but to the 



THE AMERICAN WAY 17 

refusal of Congress to carry out an established policy. To explain this 
point more fully let us examine briefly our defense program from 1920 
to 1935 to discover: 1) What were the specific provisions for defense 
of this country? 2) Were they adequate? 3) Were they enforced? 
Then let us glance at our policy from 1935 to 1940 to see what changes, 
if any, took place. 

1) What were the specific provisions of the National Defense Act 
of 1920? 

The Act of 1920 provided for a Regular Army of long-service 
professional troops organized into nine infantry and two cavalry divi-
sions. The strength of the Regular Army was to be 280,000. The Nation-
al Guard was to be kept up to approximately 450,000 and there was to 
be a body of organized reserves. Now the question arises, was our failure 
to maintain these quotas caused by lack of compulsory military train-
ing? By no means. These numbers were deliberately kept down by the 
legislation and appropriation acts of Congress. Between 1922 and 
1926 the Regular Army was limited to 125,000, and from 1926 to 1935 
to 118,000 men. The National Guard was maintained at about 190,000. 
As a result of this policy, the nine regular and the eighteen National 
Guard infantry divisions were allowed to fall so far below their in-
tended strength that they could not be assembled for training. Many of 
these units existed only on paper. We cannot blame the lack of a com-
pulsory-training clause in the Act of 1920 for this state of affairs. Even 
had there been one, it would in all liklihood never have been enforced. 
The "pinch penny" tactics of Congress would have still won out. 

2) Were the provisions of the Act adequate for defense? 
That the National Defense Act of 1920 was entirely adequate was 

admitted by General John Palmer in 1941 when he said: "Senator 
Wadsworth and his associates were greatly disappointed when they had 
to throw over universal military training in order to save their bill. 
But as it finally passed the Senate, it retained all the proposed machinery 
for peacetime organization of our traditional citizen army. Though the 
numbers trained under the voluntary system would be smaller than 
under the organized plan, there would be enough to give a respectable 
peace strength to all regiments of the National Guard and Organized 
Reserves." Congressman Wadsworth, himself, in 1940 testified to the 
merits of the Act when he said: "After surveying the successes of our 



18 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

National Guard and Reserve training for the last twenty years, I am 
not now so convinced that universal training is a necessity." 

If these same men now say that compulsory military training is 
"imperative," what has made them change their minds? Could it be 
that Germany and Japan are not going to be demilitarized, after all? 
Or must we plan a system of armament for World War III against one 
of our Allies? Just why is this peacetime compulsory military training 
"imperative"? 

3) What of the enforcement of the provisions of the Act of 1920? 
We have already noted that Congress began paring in 1922. By 

1932 the reduction in the size of the army and the ever smaller ap-
propriations induced General Douglas MacArthur to complain that 
"under the reduced appropriations of recent years the degree of pre-
paredness that we have been able to attain does not approach in any 
particular that prescribed as necessary by Congress in 1920." The Act 
had failed in its purpose because of what MacArthur described as 
"limited and decreasing support of its provisions." Inadequate de-
fense down to 1935, therefore, was caused not by the omission of com-
pulsory training, but by the refusal to carry out the provisions of an 
Act which was deemed adequate by the military men themselves. 

The year 1935 saw the beginning of a new phase of the arma-
ment race which led to the present war. By 1937 some 6,000,000 men 
were under arms in Europe as compared with about 3,000,000 in the 
early 1930's (League of Nations Armament Year Book, 1930-40). In 
spite of neutrality legislation "to keep this country out of war," we did 
not fail to attempt to keep pace with the European nations. Our naval 
expenditures went from $297 million in 1932-33 to $571 million in 
1936-37, while the War Department figures rose from $243 million to 
$398 million in the same periods. In 1938 these amounts totaled $992 
million, the highest figure in the "peacetime" history of the United 
States. But even this much was far below the increases of France and 
England. And we considered them unprepared in the light of what 
happened in 1940! Would anything short of totalitarian preparedness 
have sufficed? What value in all this preparedness, this "peacetime" 
security? The British White Paper of 1935 remarked: "Conditions in 
the international field have deteriorated. Taking 'risks for peace' has not 
removed the dangers of war." 



THE AMERICAN WAY 19 

The fate of France is proof that a huge reserve of trained man-
power is in itself no guarantee of preparedness. How often was it said 
prior to 1940 that France would not fall because she had the best 
trained army in Europe? Our lack of preparedness at the beginning 
of this war cannot be blamed upon our failure to adopt compulsory 
military service in 1920. Real preparation would have meant the 
adoption of totalitarian techniques and a complete mobilization of 
our national economy on a wartime basis. It would have implied more 
than compulsory service and it would have necessitated acknowledging 
the fact that such moves were deliberate preparation for war. (See 
"National Defense and Postwar Training" by Rev. Allan P. Farrell, 
S.J., America, issue of Jan. 20, 1945, from which most of the fore-
going material was drawn.) 

W E A R E PAYING FOR I T N O W 

A r g u m e n t : "If the reservoir of trained manpower created during 
World War I had been kept filled through compulsory military train-
ing, the present war probably could not have occurred." 
R e p l y : This is a perfectly gratuitous assumption lacking in any sup-
porting evidence, historical or otherwise. As we have pointed out in 
the reply to the previous Argument, Congress had no desire to keep up 
even die minimum provisions of the Defense Act of 1920. They could 
just as easily have killed compulsory service by lack of appropriations. 
Moreover, if peacetime conscription is a good peace policy, then 
Europe should be the most peaceful spot on earth since she has had 
this policy longer than anybody else. What history does show is that 
"for more than a century conscription has been the real cause of war 
and of a multitude of evils affecting society." It has created the condi-
tion known as "armed peace," which inevitably results in wars. A 
brief summary of the history of conscription will illustrate this: 

The young men shail fight; the married men shall forge weapons and 
transport supplies; the women will make tents and clothes and serve in 
hospitals; the children will make up the old linen into lint; the old 
men will have themselves carried into the public square to rouse the 
courage of the fighting men . . . 

The public buildings shall be turned into barracks, the public squares 
into munitions factories; the earthen floors of cellars shall be turned 
over to the troops: the interior shall be policed with shot-guns and cold 
steel. 



20 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

All saddle horses shall be seized for the cavalry; all draft horses 
not employed in cultivation will draw the artillery and supply wagons. 

Thus reads the law marking the end of the standing-army system 
of former days. This law, passed by the French National Convention on 
August 23,1793, meant the beginning of the era of the "nation in arms." 
For the first time an entire nation was mobilizing every human being 
and every last resource in a national cause. "Total war" was to be the 
contribution of the French Revolution to modern times. 

The mass army raised by universal conscription was intended by 
the French to be a defense for the Republic against its enemies. Nap-
oleon, however, had other plans. While he protested that his rule of 
France meant peace for Europe, he developed the army to a point where 
Coignet, one of his officers, could say: "The army was now so numerous 
and so beautiful that it would have liked to fight all Europe." That 
was precisely what happened. Drawing upon such masses of men, 
Napoleon became more and more aggressive and, when war broke out 
again, he boasted to Metternich: "You cannot beat me; I spend thirty 
thousand men a month." 

And what was the effect of this new military policy of France 
upon that of other countries? Prussia was the state which understood 
most clearly the implications of the mass army. Gneisenau in 1807 re-
marked that "the [French] Revolution has mobilized the whole nation-
al strength of the French people . . . the rest of the states . . . ought to 
open up and make use of the same resources." "Get us a national 
army," begged Blucher of those working out military reforms in Prus-
sia from 1807 to 1813. "It is not as difficult as one thinks," he con-
tinued, "the foot-rule must be abandoned; no one in the world must be 
exempt, and it must become a shame not to have served except in the 
case of infirmities." Not until 1818, however, was it possible for Prussia 
to make conscription the law of the land. The cadre system, with a 
reserve mobilized in time of war and a long-term professional army, 
was borrowed from Austria and combined with a militia system. By 
this method reserves, when their training was completed, passed into 
a kind of local militia under elected officers. 

Thus while other countries abandoned universal service after the 
Napoleonic Wars, Prussia laid the foundations of her future military 
efficiency upon the cornerstones of universal service and the organiza-
tion of a fixed number of army corps regularly stationed in the terri-



THE AMERICAN WAY 21 

tories from which they drew their reserves. The entire system was 
coordinated by an efficient general staff. This development, begun by 
Scharnhorst and perfected by Moltke, paid dividends in the attack 
upon Austria in 1866. Austria, determined not to be caught again, 
passed a universal-service act in 1868. Defeated by Prussia in 1871, 
France followed Austria's lead in imitating the Prussian system by pass-
ing a universal-service act. Again, the idea was not to be caught a sec-
ond time. Russia acted in like manner in 1874, and Italy in 1875. The 
race was on! Commenting upon these developments, Bismarck in a 
letter to the Russian diplomat Prince Orlov in 1879, said: "The great 
Powers of our time are like travelers in a carriage. They watch each 
other and, when one of them puts his hand into his pocket, his neighbor 
gets ready his own revolver in order to be able to fire the first shot." 

As a result of Prussia's success, the army was no longer to be 
considered as a police force to maintain order within the state; it had 
become the final arbiter in international disputes. The foundations of 
the "armed peace" had been laid. So convinced have the nations of the 
world been that a defense system founded upon the principle of uni-
versal military service would insure them against attack that, in spite 
of the experience of the first World War, thirty-six of forty-five have 
adopted this method of "security." Great Britain and the United States 
alone of the larger Powers have refused thus far to follow suit. What 
everyone has overlooked is that each country's defense had reached a 
point where it was an offense to its neighbors. "Security" was always 
to be determined by the ability to equal or surpass the number of 
effective troops of the potential enemy. 

After 1871 each international crisis resulted in greater absorption 
by the various countries in preparation for war. It was always done, 
however, in the name of peace. Such measures as increasing the term 
of service of the conscripts or changes in army organization in turn 
led to diplomatic crises, thus completing the vicious circle. The "War 
Scare" of 1875 is a good case in point. More and more stress was laid 
upon the training and equipment of troops. Increased attention was 
given to the drafting of campaign plans "just in case." Rapidity of 
mobilization became the prime factor. Military plans of all countries 
came under the influence of the theories of the Prussian General Karl 
von Clausewitz, who had seen service during the Napoleonic Wars. For 
him war was merely the continuation of state policy. The cost of 



February 10, 194,5 85 

W h y Compulsory Military Training N o w ? 

By J. Hugh O'Donnell, C. S. C 

TN order to appreciate the full implications of 
the demand for ] compulsory military training 

one must realize at the outset that it is a peace-
time, and not a wartime, proposal. It cannot be 
classified under the head of what we have come 
to cali "emergency legislation." I t has no con-
nection with the Selective Service Act, nor has 
it any bearing on the policing of defeated Axis 
countries a f t e r the war'. Basically, it proposes a 
complete and permanent reversal of the tradi-
tional American military policy and principle. 
Compulsory military training would bring about 
a fundamental change in the lives of millions of 
young Americans for generations to come. 

Two bills providing for compulsory peacetime 
military training have been introduced in con-
gress and are now before the house committee on 
military affairs. One is the Gurney-Wadsworth 
bill (H. R. 1806) , and the other is the May bill 
(If. R. 3947). Both propose a full year of com-
pulsory military training f o r all able-bodied male 
citizens residing in the United States. Both pro-
vide that a f t e r the year of training the trainees 
shall be enrolled as reservists in the army or 
navy f o r a period of four or eight years, and t h a t 
they shall take such refresher courses as may 
from time to time be prescribed by law. The 
Gurney-Wadsworth bill puts the age of train-
ing at "eighteen years, or within three years 
thereafter," while the May bill puts the age at 
"seventeen years, or immediately upon the suc-
cessful completion of the full course,of an accred-
ited high school or preparatory school, whichever 
first comes." 

The real issues involved here have been ob-
scured f o r a number of reasons. Not the least^ 
important cause of confused thinking is t h a t we 
are being asked to consider, and to take action 
upon, this radical departure at a time when we 
are well into our fourth year of World War II, 
when we have been well indoctrinated with "war-
time psychology," and therefore perhaps too much 
inclined to translate the problems of a very long 
tomorrow into terms of an instant and momentous 
today. 

At first, to the sincere patriot who is <con-
cerned only with national security, and who has 
not taken time to think the matter through, op-
position to compulsory military training in time 
of peace seems a tentative invitation to World 
War* III* if it does not actually smack of treason. 
But as Albert G. Parker, Jr., president of Han-
over College, has well said "Opposition to tak-
ing a year from every boy's life f o r military 
training does not imply one to be a pacifist, an 
isolationist, or opposed to a strong military de-
fense of our country, and a defense of the prin-

ciples of right and justice throughout the world. 
An honest, thoughtful, patriotic man can believe 
in a strong support of right and justice and still 
be opposed to any plan of compulsory military 
training." ^. 

Those who favor compulsory military training 
in time of peace argue t h a t such a system will 
assure the United States sufficient military 
strength whenever needed. Of course, in the light 
of history such an assumption is difficult, if not 
"impossible, to prove. Compulsory military train-
ing failed Germany, its foremost exponent, in 
World War I, just as it later failed France and 
Bélgium in World War II. In the latter countries 
it actually* contributed to their downfall becaùse 
it lulled them into a sense of false security. But 
this is beside the point'. Even if the assumption 
were tenable, the advocates of compulsory mili-
t a r y training .would still be guilty of the fallacy 
of ignoring alternatives. A compulsory system is 
not the only way of assuring the United States 
sufficient military strength in time of need, and 
assuredly it is not the best way. In fact, of all 
ways, it is the least American. I t is the way that 
leads to the totalitarian regimentation which we 
are now fighting against in all quarters of the 
globe. 

]SJO sensible person can deny that henceforth 
^ we must be a military nation. We will main-

tain a larger army and navy than ever before. 
We must not become a militaristic nation, which 
is a vastly different thing. That is, we do not 
want to adopt the European system, which would 
weaken our schools and undermine our family 
life. (Both institutions are already suffering 
from the impact of pérnicious influences inimi-
cal to the Christian, and hence American, t r a -
dition.) We do not want to form a military caste. 
F a r less do we want to become the victims of the 
pragmatic ideology characteristic of such a caste. 
Furthermore, we must be careful to protect the 
parent's, right to determine the education of his 
child. 

Above all, we must protect the rights of ap-
proximately 1,200,000 boys who become eighteen 
years of age each year in the United States, 
and who under the new order, by legislative fiat, 
would be compelled to spend one of the most for-
mative years of their lives in a boot camp. And, 
as Father Edward V. Stanford, former presi-
dent of Villano va College, writes in his able 
analysis, The Case Against Peacetime Conscrip-
tion : " I t only beclouds the issue to link up 
with peacetime conscription such matters as im-
proving physical fitness, developing habits of 
character and discipline, indoctrinating in the 



86 The Ave Maria, 

democratic way of life, removing illiteracy, etc. 
. . . I t does violence to t h e meaning of words, 
whether in w a r or in peace, to call military con-
scription—the favorite tool of dictators f o r more 
t h a n a hundred years—the more democratic 
method of raising armed forces.", 

T E T us make haste slciwly. Why all the commo-
tion now in regard to a m a t t e r t h a t is so 

open to debate when we should "be strongly united 
in the winning of the w a r ? There is no need f o r 
headlong speed in enacting legislation t h a t is so 
far-reaching in its effects, so permanent, and so 
completely a t odds with t h e way we Americans 
have been doing things—and doing them pretty 
successfully^—for the past one hundred and sixty-
nine years. Common seiise dictates t h a t we ex-
plore other courses of action. I t also demands 
t h a t we wait until the w a r is over before we 
make our final decision. Our perspective will be 
better then. And also, a f t e r the^ war we can ask 
the opinion of t h e 10,000,000 men now in t h e 
armed forces. In justice they, of all Americans, 
have a right to be heard on a question t h a t »so 
vitally affects the f u t u r e of their country and 
their children. The problem is difficult, but we 
should be able to work out a solution in the t r u e 
American way t h a t will best Serve our country's 
interests. 

As a means to the end we want, I suggest t h e 
encouragement of voluntary enlistments, a more 
intensive use of universities, colleges, and high 
schools as a training ground f o r the army and 
navy, and also a revival of the national guard, 
strengthened and adapted to the mechanism of 
modern w a r f a r e so t h a t it will literally be a 
guard of t h e nation. 

My proposal presumes a peacetime nation. I t 
presumes what F a t h e r Stanford has referred to 
as. "the forging of a just pfcace and the building 
of an international organization to protect it." 
If we a r e merely to Have another " a r m i s t i c e ' " ^ 
t h a t is, a breathing spell t h a t exhausted bellig-
erents will use to get ready f o r another conflict— 
if thfe United States must prepare f o r another 
war, which God forbid, the complexion of the 
problem is entirely changed. Then, I suppose,: the 
only course to follow is to apply the principles 
of the selective service act, but with this res-
ervation, namely, t h a t some serious thought be 
given to the nation's f u t u r e leadership. The rea-
son is t h a t if we continue the present policy it 
will not be long until we will have lost most of 
our men who are capable of leadership in all 
branches Qf human endeavor. The f a c t is t h a t we 
have already lost one complete college generation, 
and we are on the w^y to lofce another. And the 
real tragedy is t h a t the United State^ is practi-
cally the only nation in the world t h a t has per-
mitted higher education to be sacrificed on the 
a l t a r of global war. 

I t has yet to be proved t h a t an adequate stand-
ing army, even as large ah army as we'shall have 
a f t e r tlie war, cannot be raised, on a voluntary 
basis. In the past, volunteers have been turned 
a,way because the enlisted personnel had reached 
the maximum fixed by law. In the f u t u r e , large 
numbers of young men will eiilist, provided there 

are reasonable incentives to do so, because some 
men a r e attracted to the army life j u s t as others 
aré drawn to a variety of other pursuits. Let the 
army offer a pay scale comparable t o t h a t in 
other occupations, let it teach technical skills t h a t 
will be useful in civil life, and the volunteers will 
not be long in taking advantage of their oppor-
tunities. 

I referred to a "revival" of the national .guard. 
"Revival" is not too strong a word, because this 
historic branch of the service has been permitted 
•to lose something of its character and much of 
its identity. I t should be restored to its proper 
place, and then effectively implemented and sup-
ported by public opinion. A strong national g u a r d 
with an "accelerated program" would be an asset 
of inestimable value. There is some reason to 
believe t h a t basic training, such as the national 
guard could give—-and give in the guardsman's 
home town under experienced officers—could be 
the equal of t h a t given in time of war. The army, 
f o r example, has found t h a t rfieñ can be trained 
f o r replacements in the battle line in f r o m four 
to six months, and the navy is sending recruits 
into the fleet a f t e r only twelve weeks in boot 
camp. 

I réalize t h a t the president of a university 
may be suspected of special pleading when he 
suggests a more intensive use of colleges,, uni-
versities, and high schools as a training ground 
f o r the army and navy. Thè suspicion, how-
ever, is unwarranted. As a m a t t e r of record, the 
army and navy, in World W a r I and in World 
W a r II, turned to thè colleges and universities 
as the institutions whose physical facilities were 
best suited to a training program f o r potential 
officer personnel. At the; same time the Y-12 
program has demonstrated t h e navy's realization 
of the need of higher education as p a r t of offi-
cer training, and t h a t program h a s been ad-
ministered well. Hence, it is reasonable to suppose 
t h a t the programs which thè sclìoòls have been 
able to carry on successfully in time of w a r could 
be satisfactorily adapted to times of peace. 

T^INAIiLY, i t seems to me t h a t in their haste 
to streâs the "how" of military training, a 

g r e a t many pèrsórìs a r e in danger of losing sight 
of the all-importánt "why" of military training. 
American colleges and universities have long 
since proved t h a t they have t h e "know-how." F o r 
generations thëy have been increasing special-
ized scientific knowledge and disseminating it 
where it is môst useful. They have t h e research 
laboratories t h a t the technics of modern w a r f a r e 
find essential. 

What else have they to offer? The colleges and 
univérsities t h a t have remained f a i t h f u l to ' the 
American-—and Christian—tradition of education, 
and perhaps they alone, have the "know^why" as 
wèll, and they do not confuse the means to an 
end with the end itself. They know, f o r example, 
thé danger of defining "-national security" too 
narrowly. They know t h a t phrase to be little moré 
than a semantic cipher if it does not denoté con-
stant vigilance against enemies f r o m within who 
would destroy the substance of American democ-



February 10, 10U5 87 
racy while advocating armed preparedness 
against enemies from without. 

Therefore, let us attack the problem of mili-
tary training intelligently, sympathetically, but 
slowly. Let all Americans reflect on the triplica-
tions involved before permitting congress to rush 
through legislation that means such a radical de-
p a r t u r e from our traditional way of life. Wë may 
*need some form of military training in thé post-
war world, but we do not need compulsory mili-
t a r y training now. 

* — 

Miss Adelaide 
By Charlotte M. Kelly 

Chapter VI 

TTAVING thus decided that I would not go 
back to England at the end of the school year, 

I had to consider what I would do'instead. I had 
no doubt that I could spend another year at St. 
Pierre's. But there were two months' vacation. 
What should I do during that time? 

As I turned into the rue du Nord I remem-
bered the night, ten months ago, that I had first 
trodden its uneven pavé. I had high hopes Of my 
new life, and I was not disappointed. When I got 
to St. Pierre's I went straight to the loge where 
stout Jeanne spent her days sewing in the in-
tervals of keeping a sharp eye on all visitors. 

"I want to seé Mère Françoise at once?" I said 
firmly. 

Jeanne looked a t me over her spectacles. "But, 
mees, I do not know—" 

I slipped my arm through hers and drew her 
to her feet.,"Go and find out when she will see 
me," I coaxed. "I will watch the door for you." 

Jeanne shuffled reluctantly away and I took 
my seat a t t h a t long handle by which the old 
portress could open the big doors without mov-
ing from her seat-. In ten minutes she came back. 
"Mère Françoise will sèe you in her room a t 
f o u r o'clbdk." 

That was tfre hour at which Elise and I usual-
ly went for a walk but I felt t h a t I had to get 
my f u t u r e settled as soon as possible. So four 
o'ciqék found ine knocking at the door of that 
small bare room in the exact center of the house, 
where, except when shfe was at meals or in the 
chapel, the Mistress General was usually to be 
found. 

As I entered the calm eyes were raised to 
mine and the soft voice said: "Sit down, Miss 
Margaret." 

The familiar sènsation of awe that I always 
experienced in her presence made me stutter as 
I explained what I nad done, and asked if I 
might return to St. Pierre's in the autumn. 

She looked at me. closely. "You have been hap-
py here, Miss Margaret?" 

"Very happy," I answerèd with truth. 
"And you have found the demoiselles sympa-

thetic?" Oh, wise Mère Françoise! She spokd 
only of the dëmoiselles and of them I replied : 

"Yes, they have been so kind—and then there 
is Mlle, de Rolens." 

Mère Françoise allowed a little warmth to 

creep Into he? vbice as she said : "Mlle, de Rolens 
is indeed charming." 
i Having gained time to think over my request 
she gave me her answer. "But yes, Miss Mar-
garet, we shall be very pleased to have you with 
us next October—if Reverend Mother agrees, of 
coiirse." But as we both knew, where the school 
was concerned Mère Françoise was responsible 
f o r all decisions. "And thé vacation? Have you 
made any arrangements f o r that*?" 

I shook my head. "Perhaps I could go to some 
other convent?" I said doubtfully. The prospect 
did not attract me. 

"Well, we shall see, we shall see." With a nod 
Mère Françoise dismissed me and went back to 
the work that wras always waiting f o r her. 

When I told Elise t h a t I was coming back in 
the autumn she clasped her hands. "But Marga-
ret, Ì am so glad, so glad!" Her face clouded. "I 
wish that I could take you home With me for 
thé vacation but, you know, it is difficult-—" 

Some days a f t e r my interview with Mère Fran-
çaise, She Sent for me. "Miss Margaret, I have 
arranged for you to take charge of two children 
during the vacation." Seeing the alarm on my 
face she added: "You know Angele and Yvonne 
de Màur?" 

I nòdded. They were in my third English 
class, two subduèd palè-faced little girls. 

"Their mother is taking them to the sea arid 
she wants someone to look a f t e r them and to 
talk English with tfiëm. I told her that you 
would suit her pérfectly. I t is all completed," 
finished Mère Françoise with ari air of calm sat-
isfaction t h a t did not even considei* the possibili-
t y of ray hot agreeing with her plans. 

I walked down the winding stairs not quite 
sure whéther I liked the prospect before me. But 
thé Salle des Maîtresses was solidly in favor of 
it. Angèle and Yvonne were bonne's enfants, and 
I would be enchanted with all the entertainment 
of a French plage. Even Miss Adelaide said airi.i-
fcably : "It will dò you good to go to the seaside! 
Where exactly is it?" 

"Mère Françoise did not sây. But it is all the 
same to me," I answered. 

r p H E last weeks òf term were Unbelievably long 
in spite of the repetitions and examinations 

with whiéh they were filled. Each day was1 hotter 
and more exhausting thàn the preceding one and 
the only cool place in the town was beneath the 
plane trees t h a t lined the canal. Two days be-
fore the end of term I got a little notfe from 
Madame de Maur. We were going to Landévillè 
arid I was to be ready to start directly the prize-
giving was over. 

"I'm going to a place called Landëvillë," I 
exclaimed to Miss Adelaide who was the only Oc-
cupant of the Salle des' Maîtresses at the mo-
ment. "Bo you know it?" 

At first I thought that Shë could riot have 
heard me, f o r she did not answer, and I was 
about to repeat my question when I saw that 
shé was régârdihg me with a heavy frown. 

"You are going to Landeville?" she said slow-
ly. 

"Yes. Is it a nice place?" 



88 The Ave Mama 

Instead of replying she. said- abruptly: "Mar-
garet, will you come to the sea with me? I know 
delightful places in Brittany." 

I looked at her in blank astonishment. What 
possessed her to make such a proposal a t this 
late hour, when she knew t h a t I had agreed to 
go with the de Maurs? "But I couldn't go with 
you. I'm going with Angèle and Yvonne. You 
know that." 

She was about to speak, then evidently she 
changed her mind, and with a shrug, took up 
her book, leaving mé considerably perplexed. But 
then there were many things about Miss Ade-
laide that perplexed me. 

r p H E term ended; in a blaze of glory, with Mon-
- seigneur presenting the prizes in the grand 

salon, which was filled to overflowing with white-' 
clad children and admiring parents. When it was 
over there was time only f o r hasty farewells be-
f o r e - I found myself hurrying to the station. 
There I met Madame de Maur, a plump, good-
humored lady encumbered with a great deal of 
luggage. We had a carriage to ourselves -and I 
discovered t h a t Angèle and Yvonne were very 
different children out of school. They chattered 
like magpies about the delights of Landeville. 
where they went each year. It was not a fash-
ionable plage, Madame informed me. There were 
only two hotels, to which the English visitors 
went, but there were numerous villas most of 
which were rented by the same French families 
year a f t e r year. She herself had been going there' 
since the children were babieg. 

As Madame had said, Landeville was a quiet 
little placé. There was, it is true, a casino but a 
very small one; there were tennis courts at-
tached to the hotels and even a nine-hole golf 
links; but it was predominantly a resort f o r 
family" parties. Every morning the wide beach 
was dotted with red-and-white striped parasols 
beneath which gathered little groups; a black-
bearded papa, a vivacious maman, lively children 
of all ages. No one did anything, or appeared to 
want to do anything but sit about on the golden 
sands, or bathe, returning to the villas at mid-
day f o r dejeuner and a prolonged siesta. 

In the evening when the children were in bed 
in charge of Louise, the servant, Madame and I 
went down to the casino. Unlike many of her 
compatriots who rarely entered its doors Madame 
de Maur loved a flutter at the tables, though her 
native shrewdness saw to it t h a t she never risked 
more than the few f r a n c s t h a t she could afford 
to lose. My ideas about casinos being drawn 
from violently colored pictures of Monte Carlo 
and its dangers,' I accompanied Madame with 
some trepidation. I would not have been surprised, 
I think, had some desperate gambler shot him-
self before my very eyes. But the casino a t Lan-
deville was a very modest affair and the sums 
t h a t passed across the tables correspondingly 
small. There was dancing every night in an in-
ner room to the music of a local orchestra. Little 
tables surrounded the dance floor and from the 
roof hung garlands of paper flowers t h a t to my 
unsophisticated gaze gave an air of great gaiety 
to the place. 

A few weeks a f t e r our arrival a t Landeville 
I was following Madame de Maur into the casi-
no as* usual one evening when I heard a voice: be-
hind me. 

"Why, there's M a r g a r e t ! " 
I turned in surprise to see Ronnie W a r r e n 

beaming a t me. Behind him was his mother. 
"How did you get here?" Ronnie demanded. " I 
thought you had gone back to England." 

"And how did you persuade Adelaide to come 
to Landeville?" Mrs. Warren added. "I've asked 
her again and again, but she has always re-
fused. It would be.such a.change from Pierre's." 

"I'm not with Miss Adelaide," I explained. "I 
am looking a f t e r two children from St. Pierre's. 
Their mother is over there," -I nodded towards 
the ïïoule table where Madame de Maur, who had 
not seen me stop, was already seated. "I had no 
idea I should meet you here." 

Mrs. Warren raised her eyebrows. "But didn't 
Adelaide tell you t h a t we came here every year? 
I don't know why we like it so much." 

I shook my head, while a great light dawned 
upon me. Now I knew the reason of that belated 
invitation to Brittany. Miss Adelaide didn't want 
me to meet the Warrens. But why? She had been 
agreeable if not enthusiastic about our days 
spent together in Paris. 

"Come along! We're wasting time." Ronnie as 
usual was bursting with energy. "Margaret, you 
don't want to gamble, do you? Wait till I get a 
place f o r mother and then we'll dance." 

In a few minutes he was back and we went to 
the dance room, where his broad shoulders and 
sunburnt face made the French boys look ridicu-
lously small and neat. 

"Now, let's dance." 
And we danced indefatigably, while the gar-

lands above our heads swayed and murmured 
in the w a f t s of warm air and the perspiration 
rolled down the foreheads of the musicians. 

"I must sit down," I pleaded a t last and Ron-
nie agreed. 

"Yes, it is hot. We'll go outside." 

Q E A T E D on the veranda overlooking the sea 
I S and sipping the cider that is to be had at 
every turn in t h a t p a r t of France, I asked the 
question t h a t was in my mind all the evening. 

"How are J a n e and Hugh?" 
"Jane's fine. She'si in Switzerland with some 

friends. Of course Randall is still in America." 
"America?" 
"Oh, didn't you know? But of course you did 

not. We all went off in such a rush last Easter. 
And of course when we got home, dear old Uncle 
Charles had taken a t u r n for the better and has 
been like a two-year-old ever since. J u s t like the 
sfelfish old beggar to spoil our holidays! It was a 
good thing t h a t you and Randall had t h a t day 
a t Versailles anyhow. You know, I think he was 
a bit peeved t h a t you didn't tell him t h a t you 
were leaving Paris so soon. For some weird rea-
son your Miss Adelaide told my mother nothing 
about it, so when Hugh had seen us on our way 
he went along to the hotel and was told that you 



« t o J . 

( F U UMJL -JJFIUJ (O ^ 

f j t t í O ^ ^ - h 

s (Á 

I ^ / Y ^ T ^ ^ J D ß ^ M C ^ T I I 

IUAXJL ( C ^ ^ ^ ^ ¿ L ^ J 

/ ff-3 «pr» ¿ f l - — ^ . 

Y I S 

d J L j ^ - o í ^ u ^ \ 

C r f i u ^ t t v R ô-.T C. 

B 

. IbUcU, i í l ^ l - U.¿>« l - . . , ¿fjf^S^ 

i - * . ^ . « ^ J T ^ S ÉL**» w s ^ - t ^ t » e ^ - i c i i - s , 

" b u ^ t ) 
-TT»- > 





22 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

victory did not matter, for he said that "he who uses forces unsparingly, 
without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain superiority if 
his adversary uses less vigor in its application." What can happen when 
two opponents apply equal vigor the modern world can judge. 

Is it any wonder that mutual jealousy and suspicion engendered 
by such thinking should have culminated in the First World War? Nor 
is it surprising that the alliance system designed by Bismarck to main-
tain peace after 1871 degenerated into the state of affairs graphically 
described by Viscount Morely when he said: "Grey has more than 
once congratulated Europe on the existence of two great confederacies, 
Triple Alliance and Triple Entente, as healthily preserving the balance 
of power. Balance! What a beautiful euphemism for the picture of 
two giant groups armed to the teeth, each in mortal terror of the 
other, both of them passing year after year in an incurable fever of 
jealousy and suspicion." 

The prophetic utterance of Taine, the French scholar who wrote 
in 1891 that conscription "has propagated itself like a contagious dis-
ease . . . ; it has mastered all continental Europe and reigns there . . . 
with what promises of massacre and bankruptcy for the twentieth 
century, with what exasperation of international ill will and distrust, 
with what loss of wholesome effort, . . . we know all too well," was 
indeed true. If history has any lessons for us, one of them certainly is 
that the adoption of universal service by the United States would be 
merely the signal for other countries to shape their policies accordingly. 
It would be no deterrent to others; rather, it would be a goal to aim at. 

B U T N E V E R AGAIN 

A r g u m e n t : According to the views of the War Department, "America 
will probably be the initial objective of the aggressors in any next war, 
and the first engagements of that war will quite probably be fought 
in our homeland." As Milt D. Campbell of the American Legion puts 
it: "Weapons are complex machines today. They require experts to 
use them. It takes time to train men to use them. When the firing starts 
it will be too late to start that training." 
Reply: Attention should be called first to the implications of this 
kind of reasoning. Either we are going to allow Germany and Japan 
to rearm, or we cannot trust our Allies. Our future aggressors could 



THE AMERICAN WAY 23 

come from only these two groups. Secondly, the foundation of such 
reasoning is the gloomiest kind of assumption that there is no future 
for the world except a series of wars followed by temporary cessations 
of hostilities. It is, of course, the duty of the military leader to be a 
professional pessimist. He must prepare his defense against any nation 
or group of nations strong enough to challenge his country. If our 
potential aggressors are totalitarian nations, would mere compulsory 
military training be sufficient? Have we not discovered in this war 
that our whole economy must be geared to wartime needs to win 
against a totalitarian state? Do those who speak of the suddenness 
of the next war face this issue? Should we not also ask ourselves what 
effect a continued wartime economy will have on our democratic in-
stitutions? 

If we assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, that the 
next war will come as suddenly as predicted, then some nation or 
nations must have been prepared to the limit in order to start it. 
No nation would start a war it did not expect to win. How was this 
preparation made? With the consent of, and perhaps even the aid of, 
the others? Should not this preparation be nipped in the bud? Does not 
the Security Council of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals envision this? 
Would the force necessary for such police action require compulsory 
military service? When Hitler invaded the Rhineland shortly after his 
rise to power, it was estimated that a force of about 50,000 could have 
stopped him. That he was not stopped was not due to Germany's mil-
itary strength at the time but to the refusal of the other powers to act 
and use the military superiority which they then had. (Even Hitler's 
generals admitted this superiority.) 

The whole argument assumes that the nations would repeat their 
folly of allowing a potential aggressor to arm himself to the teeth 
while they sat idly by. If, on the contrary, such aggressors are to be 
found among our present Allies, then we could hardly consider any 
interim between wars as a period of peace. It would be merely a truce 
to give the belligerents time to catch their breath before they went at 
it again. If this were true, it would be fatal not to recognize the facts 
as such. In that case, we the people should not be asked if we want a 
system of peacetime military training. We should be asked the frank 
question: Do you choose to put the economy of this country on a 
wartime basis for a conflict that is certainly coming? 



24 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

W E W I L L T A K E CARE O F T H A T 

A r g u m e n t : Peacetime military service is "imperative to our national 
safety." "The War Department indorses universal military training 
for the one and only reason that without such a program the continued 
security of our national life and institutions can no longer be assured." 
Reply: This assertion is frankly based upon the most extreme kind 
of fatalism. It implies not only a lack of confidence in the general in-
ternational organization yet to be established, but also complete "dis-
trust of other nations who might doubt whether the United States in 
reality is a peace-loving nation, and who might, in turn, increase their 
own armaments" (Y.M.C.A. Public Affairs Committee, May 24, 1944). 
Three general observations may be made on the "imperative" nature 
of compulsory military service. 

1) "Since the adoption of a permanent universal military training 
program involves a fundamental departure from our traditional policy, 
the burden of proof is upon those who claim it to be necessary. Such 
proof has not been presented, nor has it been shown that the United 
States' security against war lies in its strength alone" (Y.M.C.A. Pub-
lic Affairs Committee, May 24, 1944). 

2) Many who hold to the above belief do so because by "peace-
time" they mean the period immediately after the cessation of hos-
tilities. But this is to change the issue, for this is not the period referred 
to by the principal advocates of compulsory training. As we have al-
ready noted, General Marshall has made it clear that he does not mean 
the immediate postwar era. The preparedness of this period, as he 
himself implies, can be taken care of by maintaining whatever of our 
present strength may be necessary by extension of the Selective Service 
Act of 1940. The question we must discuss, therefore, is whether 
compulsory military training is necessary to "safeguard" the peace 
once it is established. 

3) To say that compulsory military training is necessary is the 
equivalent of saying that we must begin immediate preparation for 
World War III. This implies answers to certain questions about our 
postwar foreign policy: 

a) Against whom are we preparing for war? No one fights 
a non-existent foe. 



THE AMERICAN WAY 25 

b) We propose the complete disarmament of Germany and 
Japan. Are these countries to be allowed eventually to rearm 
and to be our future aggressors? 

c) Is it intended that we arm now for World War III 
against one of our Allies? 

d) If we are not arming against Germany, Japan or a 
present Ally, against whom are we arming? 

If the answer to either or both b and c is "yes," then the issue is not 
one of peacetime conscription. It is preparation for war and should 
be frankly recognized as such. As we have said before, if such be our 
policy, then we should remain on a complete wartime basis. No less 
would be sufficient for a totalitarian foe. 

To sum up, therefore: the argument that peacetime compulsory 
military service is "imperative" 1) confuses the period of "peace" 
with the period of "pacification," 2) requires answers not yet given 
to specific questions on our future foreign policy, and 3) places no 
faith whatsoever in an international organization. 

M A K E N O MISTAKE A B O U T I T 

Argument: Many make the mistake of comparing the type and 
purpose of the European system of conscription with the type and 
purpose of the system we intend to adopt. Ours will not have the admit-
ted evils of the European system because we intend to use it for the pur-
pose of maintaining peace. 
Reply: The basic assumption upon which this argument rests is that 
General Marshall's plan of a small professional army backed by a huge 
citizen reserve differs essentially from the European system which he 
condemns "as having no place among the institutions of a democratic 
state." Marshall's chief criticism of the European system is that although 
"it produces highly efficient armies . . . it is open to serious political 
objections. In a nation maintaining such a system, intelligent opinion 
as to military policy (and the international political policy associated 
therewith) is concentrated in a special class. Under such a system, the 
people themselves are competent to exert only a limited intelligent in-
fluence on the issues of war and peace. Under such a system only the 
brawn of a people is prepared for war, there being no adequate pro-
vision f o r developing the latent military leadership and genius of the 



26 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

people as a whole" (August 25, 1944, "A Military Policy for 
America"). 

Some observations upon this statement are in order: 
1) Marshall admits elsewhere in this letter that the effi-

ciency of any military system "depends primarily upon ex-
pert control." Will one year of military service make the 
average person a military "expert"? Would it not rather create 
a large number of "grand-stand managers"? How much influ-
ence does the ordinary soldier exert upon military policy? 

2) Marshall's admission of the efficiency of the Euro-
pean system would imply that we could not be satisfied with 
a less efficient system. His major objection to the European 
system seems to be that the common man cannot enter the 
controlling professional caste. Broadening the base of this caste 
is not essentially changing the system. 

3) To describe the European army as the large standing 
army is inaccurate. Prior to the war Germany had about 
850,000 in the standing army and a 1,500,000 reserve 5 
Japan, a standing army of about 300,000 and a 2,000,000 
reserve; France in 1938 had about 750,000 under arms and a 
reserve of 5,000,000. Unofficial estimates have stated that 
under the peacetime compulsory training program we might 
have as many as 2,000,000 in the standing army. Where then 
is the difference between Marshall's plan and the European 
system ? 

4) All that is new in Marshall's plan is that our reserve 
would be much greater than ever before and that the profes-
sional caste could get recruits from the ranks. Essentially it 
is the European system whose efficiency he praises but whose 
lack of democracy he condemns. 
Furthermore, can we guarantee that our preparedness, European 

style, will not be a contributing factor to future war? Some say that 
we can avoid this by requiring that, after the completion of the year 
of training, the youth would not be subject to service in time of peace 
unless Congress declared an emergency or state of war. But European 
countries found long ago that this was an inefficient method. Reserves 
must be kept trained in up-to-date methods. We must not forget that 



THE AMERICAN WAY 27 

"once initiated, conscription proved to be a monster whose appetite 
was never satisfied." Introduced into Europe with a term of one year, 
it was later extended to two and then to three years. Countries with 
falling birth rates were forced to extend the time of service in order 
to keep up with their potential enemies. Refresher courses were in-
creased to keep the reserves trained in new methods. Secretary of the 
Navy Forrestal indicates the parallel for the United States when he says 
that "the weapons of the future may require more know-how and more 
training." (See the article, "Conscription: Neither Now nor Ever," by 
the Rev. Allan Farrell, S. J., in the November 11, 1944, issue of 
America. Also see the editorial, "A Citizen Army" in the January 13, 
1945, number of America.) 

W E W I L L CARRY A BIG S T I C K A T T H E P E A C E - T A B L E 

A r g u m e n t : While the delegates of the United Nations are at the 
peace table "it would be a healthy thing if all the world knows that 
such training is going on in America." 
R e p l y : To think that fear of another nation's armed might is a 
guarantee of peace is to misread the history of the failures and 
successes of international cooperation. Where there has been good 
will among parties concerned, difficulties have been ironed out peace-
fully. Where suspicion, fear or hate entered the picture, the military 
force of another nation has never acted as a deterrent to war. A 
weaker nation which could not match another nation's superior might 
sought alliances which would enable it to accomplish in union with 
others what it could not do alone. 

The issue is collective security in a world organization versus bal-
ance of power. It is true that each nation in a world organization 
promises its share of armament. That this would mean a reorientation 
of the defense system is admitted. That it necessarily implies com-
pulsory service is denied. 

Senator Claude Pepper saw this point very clearly when in 
November, 1944, he said: 

I would not like to see us inaugurate compulsory military training 
alter the war as a peace measure. Undoubtedly our goal after 
the war is to set up the kind of an international organization 
wlucti will eliminate the necessity of constantly preparing for war That 
does not mean that we are not going to keep an adequate force to 



28 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

control our interests and do our part to restrain the "gangster" nations. 
But militarism breeds militarism, and I am quite sure that we can 
obtain, through volunteers, a force adequate to our needs . . . It is our 
job to do what has never been done before . . . Stop war •§§ even the 
preparation and training for war as we now think of it . . . Let's hope 
we do our job so well that when we win the war we can make ours a 
peaceful world without constantly preparing for war. 
As has been shown above, it was not the omission of compulsory 

service that weakened our defense, but the failure to adhere to the 
sound policy established in the Defense Act of 1920. What is important 
is a guarantee of prompt and certain action if aggression occurs. 
France failed to act against the German occupation of the Rhineland, 
and yet she had compulsory military service. Nor was any action 
taken against Japan in 1932, or Italy in 1935. Compulsory military 
training is of itself no guarantee "that this nation will play its part in 
the world picture." What is important is the creation of confidence 
among our Allies that we mean what we say when we support plans for 
a world organization and that we will carry out our obligations under 
the provisions. That this implies compulsory military service for the 
United States cannot be proved. 

Therefore, on the basis of our general peace aims and our specific 
pledges to seek disarmament, the proposal to introduce conscription 
into the United States is ill considered, ill timed, and unworthy of the 
moral leadership which this nation should provide at this time. To 
be specific: 

a) to a world wherein conscription stands for the theory of 
war as an instrument of national policy, such a course would 
do grave damage to international collaboration • 

b) by introducing an institution whose ultimate suppres-
sion has been pledged, we lay ourselves open to the charge 
of bad faith; 

c) the existence of a huge reserve force of over ten mil-
lion men is in itself a threat to world peace and a temptation 
to aggression (Post War World Committee, C.A.I.P. Decem-
ber, 1944). 

W H Y N O T ? I T ' S T H E AMERICAN W A Y 

Argument: Compulsory military training is the democratic way of 
raising an army for national defense. 



THE AMERICAN WAY 29 

R e p l y : What is contained in this argument is a false notion of 
equality which says that everybody in a democracy must do the same 
thing. No amount of ink spilled over the argument can efface the fact 
that the testimony of history connects conscription with the war-
mrnded philosophies and power politics of the past century. The com-
pulsory draft in peacetime is the theory of dictatorships, and the 
evils attendant on it were so well recognized by the end of World War I 
that Pope Benedict XV, through Cardinal Gasparri, suggested the 
supression, by common agreement, among civilized nations of com-

pulsory service and the replacement by voluntary service" and "the 
imposition of a general boycott as a sanction against any nation that 
might attempt to re-establish obligatory service." Who can say how 
much good would have been accomplished had this suggestion been 
followed? 

Compulsory service is anything but democratic. It is based on 
and maintained by an exaggerated nationalism. To say that "poor 
boy, rich boy" would sweat and sympathize together and that it 
would bolster the democratic spirit of this country is completely to 
ignore the fact that compulsory military training has done anything 
but this in the countries where it has been established. There is no 
democracy in army life. Barriers between enlisted men and officers 
and within each of these groups encourage rather than discourage 
class distinctions. 

A N D I T W I L L COST LESS 

Argument: "If our fathers had accepted all of Washington's political 
system, instead of but half of it (that is, if they had also adopted a 
plan of compulsory military training in peacetime), our burden of 
taxation would be much lighter than it is today" (Brigadier General 
John M. Palmer, Saturday Evening Post, January 27, 1945.) 
Reply: This brings up the matter of financial outlay for a program 
of compulsory military training and its effect upon our American 
way of life. 

No official estimate as to what such a program would cost has 
yet appeared. Nor have any figures been given on the number to be 
trained each year or on the size of the standing army. However, in a 
report to President Roosevelt on July 30, 1943, General Frederick H. 



30 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

Osborn said: "The estimated cost of maintaining an enlisted man on 
active duty for one year, exclusive of ordnance and overhead, is 
approximately $1,500." The United States Chamber of Commerce 
Committee on Negative Arguments estimated the cost of training 
1,200,000 men each year to be no less than $1,800,000,000. "But," 
continued the Committee report: 

. . . an initial cost of nearly two billion dollars is not the whole story. 
Three months is all that is required for the basic training of a recruit. 
The balance of the year is to be spent in special training with planes, 
ordnance and tanks, and the $1,500 per trainee does not cover the cost of 
ordnance and overhead. Nor does the figure of $1,800,000,000 include 
the cost of calling trainees back to the colors for temporary training each 
year, and it is probable that universal military training will ultimately 
add to the budget of the United States not less than three and possibly 
four billion dollars per year. 
Our expenditure for education at all levels, both public and pri-

vate, comes to about $3,200,000,000. We would certainly be following 
the European pattern in spending more in preparation for war than in 
the pursuits of peace. One of the purposes in fighting this war is to 
maintain the proper relation between the state and the individual. The 
question raised by a British journalist in the New Statesman and 
Nation, April 30, 1928, still has to be answered: "Can democracy arm 
for totalitarian war and survive in anything like its present form?" 
Would not such vast military expenditures create a bureaucracy that 
would find it necessary to resort to all sorts of expedients in order to 
justify its continued existence even if all threat of war had been re-
moved? The point is put very clearly by William L. Stone in his 
article "Economic Consequences of Rearmament," Foreign Policy 
Reports, October 1, 1938, where he says: "The distinctive feature 
of the current rearmament race is the extent to which it has interfered 
with normal economic trends and has already begun to transform the 
structure of those states which have so far avoided the extreme forms 
of state control found under Fascism and Communism." Can we guar-
antee the outcome of such a program in the United States? Might not 
the financial cost be small compared to the effect upon our democratic 
institutions? And the final prospect — if, after years of such peace-
time expenditures, we had to fight a war more extensive and terrible 
than the present holocaust, where would be the saving? 



THE AMERICAN WAY 31 

T H E " P L U S - V A L U E S " O F M I L I T A R Y T R A I N I N G 

ANYONE desiring an interesting experience might try bringing up 
the topic of compulsory military training casually at luncheons, clubs, 
or any informal gatherings. The reasons advanced in favor will certain-
ly be varied and, perhaps, a little startling. Mom and Dad want it 
because they see what a man the Army has made of their boy. Surely, 
military training is the greatest body-builder in the world! GI Joe likes 
it because it teaches the "kids" discipline. Many a public official with 
his eye on vacant jobs thinks "it's a fine thing." Here and there an 
educator sees how the program can be turned to the aid of his school. 
In fact, one wonders if such relatively superficial reasoning does not 
carry more weight with the "common man" than the serious argu-
ments already set out in this report. Because the Committee fears that 
such may be the case, it has chosen to devote some space also to an 
analysis of these "plus-values" of conscription. 

H O M E A N D SCHOOL H A V E BETRAYED YOUTH 

A r g u m e n t : "Both the home and the school have betrayed the boys 
and girls of the last two decades . . . A year of compulsory military 
training after high school will give us men who have stability of 
character" (New York Times Magazine, August 27, 1944). 
Reply: If it is true that the home and the school have betrayed the 
youth of this country, a sound procedure would be to seek the cause 
for this and apply the remedies to the home and the school. It does not 
follow at all that a year of compulsory military training is the answer. 
It is no secret that the Army and Navy are more interested in morale 
than morals. The moral standards of military life are notoriously 
lower than those of the home and the church. " I f , " as the Albany 
Evangelist says, 

American youth must shed the influence of the home, church and school 
just at the age when moral and religious ideals are taking firm root 
to live according to the looser codes of military life and training-camp 
temptations, how long will the moral fiber of our nation retain even its 
present dubious strength? 
Military discipline is a discipline for on-duty periods, but it is 

the self-discipline of the off-duty hours that makes for strong moral 
character. This latter is not the concern of the military forces, which 
are primarily interested in the prevention of disease rather than in 



32 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

the development of self-restraint. Napoleon once said: "The worse 
the man, the better the soldier; if soldiers be not corrupt, they ought 
to be made so." 

T H E S T A T E , A P P A R E N T L Y , M U S T ASSUME T H E 
TASKS O F EDUCATION 

A r g u m e n t : Compulsory military training will provide needed edu-
cation. 
R e p l y : George Soule, in the New Republic for December 4, 1944, in 
an article in which he advocated compulsory military training for 
military security, rated the educational arguments for compulsory 
military service "at zero or below." He said: 

Army life has changed since this writer experienced it, but 99 per cent 
of the GI Joes would probably agree with him that military discipline is 
good only for an army which has to fight, and for nothing else in the 
world. It trains men to accord the appearance of respect to all superiors 
in rank, and to render them instant and unquestioning obedience, re-
gardless of personal feelings or judgment about the intrinsic merits of 
the superior or his commands. It insists on the performance of hun-
dreds of trivial formalities in appearance, behavior and working routine. 
It contributes nothing whatever to the self-discipline which is of value 
in civil life . . . 

There is virtually no such thing as education, in the proper sense of 
the word, in army training. The military word for it — and the entirely 
accurate word — is "indoctrination." This means a combination of 
cramming and learning by rote. You learn terms, definitions, the names 
of infinite numbers of parts of guns and machinery; you are taught 
specific operations as you might be taught on an assembly line. The 
purpose is to drill information into you, not to develop resourcefulness 
or general competence. Such skill as may come to you results either 
from your previous experience or from the opportunity to use in action 
what you have memorized. In peacetime training this opportunity is 
limited indeed. Not many can subsequently make any use of what the 
army has taught. From the educational point of view, military training 
is almost a complete waste of time. 

A N D O F T H E H O M E ? 

A r g u m e n t : A year of military training will immeasureably advance 
the physical fitness of our youth. 
R e p l y : This may be granted, but it is no argument for military train-
ing since such an objective can be achieved equally well, and probably 
better, by methods of physical education apart from any military 



THE AMERICAN WAY 33 

training. Moreover, to begin physical training at the age of eighteen 
would contribute little toward improving the nation's health. Any real 
physical training must begin at an early age in the home and in the 
grade school and be continued through life. Such a program has no 
necessary relation to military training. In fact, there are miltary men 
who, from the point of view of physical fitness, Tegard military train-
ing as not nearly as effective as a well-organized and well-regulated 
schedule of gymnastic and physical-education routines. Therefore, 
the by-products of health and physical fitness are insufficient argu-
ments f o r peacetime compulsory military service. 

Lawrence K. Frank, author of Human Conservation, is the Chair-
man of the Society for Research in Child Development. This society 
has been reviewing the reasons for rejections of selectees for the army 
and for discharges from the army. In a statement in the Parents' 
Magazine for November, 1944, Mr. Frank said: 

The largest single cause for rejections was defective teeth, then poor 
eyesight and a number of other handicaps not easily remedied or even 
preventable by present-day knowledge. Of the other defects, most were 
of long standing and should have been treated years before the men 
were of military age. The most serious group of rejectees were the 
neuro-psychiatric cases; youth suffering from various neurological dis-
orders and personality disturbances, ranging from the so-called psycho-
neuroses and emotional instability to the psychoses or mental diseases. As 
is generally recognized, most of these cases begin in early childhood and 
become progressively worse as the individual grows older . . . The most 
fruitful time for promoting health and sanity is in the years before 
military age. If we are genuinely concerned about the welfare of youth 
and earnestly desire to protect them, the proposed program of com-
pulsory military training offers little possibility for any effective efforts 
m this direction. In fact, as the records show, it is extremely hazardous 
for many immature youths who can't "take it." 
When the armed forces build physically-fit specimens of manhood 

out of our 4F's, the health argument will be more impressive. 

TEACH T H E M T o B E GOOD CITIZENS 

A r g u m e n t : A year of military training will teach the youth of our 
nation "how to live in harmony with others" and will make them more 
conscious of their civic responsibilities. 
Reply: Military and social discipline are poles apart. Military life 
is anything but democratic, and the history of compulsory military 
training shows that it does not produce better citizens but rather more 



34 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

rabid nationalists. General Marshall recognizes this when he says that 
the European system "has no place among the institutions of a modern 
democratic state." We have already noted that we cannot guarantee 
that the U. S. version of conscription would differ essentially from the 
European system which "produces highly efficient armies." 
efficient armies." 

Dr. Holmes of the Community Church in New York City, ex-
pressing his views in the Parents' Magazine, said: 
said: 

I am opposed to compulsory military training, or conscription in peace-
time, as a system hostile to that whole spirit of democracy which is vital 
to America . . . The training of the army is a training for serfdom and 
not for liberty. Its basic principle is the subjection of the individual to 
the state, of the free citizen to a dictatorial government. Military serv-
ice, imposed by authority of law, is the first long step toward tyranny. 
Democracy has more than once accepted conscription for military train-
ing, but no democracy has ever survived it. Compulsory training means 
militarism. Militarism, sooner or later, means totalitarianism. 

A N D PROVIDE JOBS FOR A L L 

A r g u m e n t : Compulsory military training for all youth would pro-
vide a cushion for unemployment in the postwar period. 
R e p l y S This argument is hardly worth recognition as an argument for 
compulsory military service. The dictators tried to solve their unem-
ployment problem by this method and ended by putting their entire 
country on a wartime economy and plunging the entire world into war. 
Half-measures are no solution to anything. No argument could be a 
greater admission of failure to solve our modern economic and social 
problems. 

There are many more arguments of this type that could be given, 
but all of them have this in common, namely, they seek objectives 
which, although they may be by-products of military training, have 
no necessary connection with it and may be achieved more effectively 
by other methods. For the most part these arguments are rationaliza-
tions that are used to put over the idea of compulsory service with 
certain groups, or they are the admissions of failure on the part of 
educators and others who seek to shift their problems to the state. 
Military necessity is the only valid reason for compulsory service and 
this necessity has not been proved. 



THE AMERICAN WAY 
35 

A L T E R N A T I V E M E T H O D S O F P R O V I D I N G F O R 
A D E Q U A T E D E F E N S E 

THE history of the National Defense Act of 1920 shows clearly that 
at the end of the last war we had drawn up what military experts even 
now agree was an adequate measure of defense. The fact that our de-
fense was inadequate at the outbreak of the present war was not due 
to any inherent defect of this bill (such as the omission of compulsory 
military training) but to the "pinch-penny" tactics of Congress in so 
paring down the appropriations in postwar years that the number of 
men provided for under the act could not be maintained. The lesson 
to be learned from our past experience is clear: we must have the 
determination to carry through established policies. 

Moreover, Senator Edwin C. Johnson calls attention to the fact 
that, whatever our policy, it must do more than provide basic train-
ing for a large number of men, when he says: 

Basic training represents the least of our military problems; there is 
always time after a war starts to arrange for it if we have a good 
organization from which to begin . . . A gigantic reserve of foot soldiers, 
halt trained and half spoiled, will not provide national security It will 

u s ? u t n o i , P r o t ? c t us- We must not again neglect the science of 
war in its really scientific aspects. Research laboratories testing and 
constructing new lethal instruments of war and destruction are a "must" 
it we are to develop a national defense capable of coping with any con-
t i n g e n c y . . . good national defense must envision far more than man-
power. Future wars will be won by marching science and marching 
resources directed by skilled technicians and not by a huge armv of 
marching men. 

Therefore, this Study Group feels that the following basic meas-
ures would provide adequate national security: 

1) As to the needs of the period between the end of 
hostilities and the establishment of world order that would 
permit an international organization to work, the present 
Selective Service Act can be extended and amended as neces-
sary. No new legislation is needed. This would recognize 
conscription as an emergency measure, not as a permanent 
policy. 

2) In the period when "world order can be envisaged," 
as an alternative to peacetime compulsory military service we 
should expand our armed forces on the basis of voluntary 



36 CONSCRIPTION IS NOT 

recruitment in such a way as to make the services attractive 
enough from the educational and professional point of view 
to attract sufficient volunteers. This expansion should not be 
limited to gathering men alone for a time interval; rather it 
should proceed along three lines and should be purely pro-
fessional in character: a) research and development of all the 
modern tools of war; b) staff training on the higher levels; c) 
professional military training and education. If these services 
are made attractive enough by pay, allowances and educational 
advantages, there will be no lack of recruits. At the same time 
the number of strictly military and naval colleges could be in-
creased and the R.O.T.C. could be expanded. This is the demo-
cratic method. 
The inadequacy of a volunteer system of reserve recruiting should 

be obvious before the United States consents to bring in the European 
institution of conscription with all its concomitant evils. To oppose 
the volunteer system on the ground that "the notion that anyone of 
military age can decide for himself whether he shall go to the defense 
of his nation and the preservation of the peace of the world or remain 
at his desk or bench or on his farm belongs to a generation that has 
passed" is to adopt the philosophy of the dictator. 

In no sense, however, is our opposition to peacetime compulsory 
service and the advocacy of the volunteer method to be interpreted 
to mean that the United States should not have a strong armed force 
either for self-defense or for participation in a world organization 
for world peace. Our main concern is with the method by which such 
a force will be provided. To resort to a method that has been proved 
a failure would be the height of folly. 

T o T H I S W E STAND COMMITTED 

Finally, the following statement of the Educational Policies Com-
mission of the National Educational Association reflects the true mind 
of this Group: 

In our judgment it is unwise to commit the nation at this time 
to a year of universal military service. No one can foresee 
the international situation which will exist when Germany and 
Japan are defeated. Neither the international political nor the 



THE AMERICAN WAY 37 

international military situation can be calculated while the war 
is still in progress. We, along with the great body of Ameri-
cans, will support a year of compulsory military service when 
we are convinced that the safety of the nation requires it. We 
are unreservedly for adequate preparedness, but we see great 
dangers in any unnecessary break with our tested democratic 
tradition respecting compulsory military service in times of 
peace. 



List of Contents 

1. T h e Historical Background 
2. T h e M e n 
3. T h e T r a i n i n g of t h e Men. 

T h e Spiritual Exercises 
4. H e r o i c A g e 
5. T h e New O r d e r a n d I t s Constitutions 
6. E a r l y P r o g r e s s 
7. T r i u m p h s and T r i a l s 
8. Rolling Back t h e P r o t e s t a n t T i d e 
9. Education a n d L e a r n i n g 

10. T h e Foreign Mission Field 
11. Steady S t r e a m s a n d Cross C u r r e n t s 
12. Gathering S t o r m s 
13. Catastrophe 
14. I n t e r i m a n d Restoration 
15. European Revival 
16. Overseas Expansion 
17. M o d e r n Schools and M o d e r n Scholars 

The Jesuits 
In History 

by 

M A R T I N P . H A R N E Y , S . J . 

An American Jesuit tells the story of his order in the most 
fascinating period of history — from the Renaissance to our 
own times . . . The only up-to-date, complete, one-volume 
History of the Jesuits in English . . . "The fast-moving 
narrative so holds the attention that one is unconscious of its 
vast scholarship." . . . "This history, though written by a 
Jesuit, is objective; its scope is encyclopedic; its array of facts 
is monumental." 

Thrilling Story of Loyola's Sons 

$4.00 

AN AMERICA PRESS PUBLICATION 



The greatest modern explorer 

of Alaska tells his story in 

MUSH, YOU MALEMUTES 

FATHER BERNARD HUBBARD, S. J. 

Here is a story that will bring Alaska to you, 
for it was written by the man who knows it 
thoroughly and knows how to tell of it. 
By snow-shoe and dog team, canoe and air-
plane he criss-crossed the great territory and 
saw its wonders. H e knows its people, its re-
sources, its terrain . . . the valleys and vol-
canoes, the forests and fisheries, the whaling 
stations and rivers. 

The actionful story of Father Hubbard's 
Alaskan adventures in the new edition of this 
already famous book. A striking, stirring 
volume, containing nearly two hundred superb 
photographs. 

by 

The Glacier Priest 

$3.00 



Newman Centenary 
The great convert was received into the Church in 
1845, and the whole Catholic world will soon be 
celebrating the centenary of the event. Here are 
three of the Cardinal's important works arranged 
for college classes and for private study. Edited by 
the outstanding Newman scholar 

DANIEL M. O'CONNELL, S.J. 

APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA 
W i t h foreword by Hilaire Belloc. Outline biography 
of Newman. Select bibliography of his works. The 
preface to 1865 edition. Text: 270 pp., 5 chapters. 
47 pp. of notes by editor. 73 pp. of supplementary 
matter—the Kingsley correspondence, Kingsley reply, 
letters by Ullathorne and others. 

THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY 
W i t h foreword by Brother Leo. Editor's introduction. 
Excerpts from Life of Newman by Wilfrid Ward. 
Outline biography. Preface by Newman. 21 Discourses. 
Bibliography of Newman's works. 

THE PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS 
Author's dedication. Author's preface. Foreword by 
James J. Daly, S.J. Editor's Apologia. Text: 310 pp. 
Editor's notes: 42pp. 

The three books in a set $5.00 
The Idea of a University $2.00 

Apologia and Present Position are for sale only in the set 

AMERICA PRESS PUBLICATIONS 



THE SCOTT PAMPHLETS 
Fundamental doctrines explained and proven. 

Objections and difficulties answered. 

HAVE YOU A GOD? 
(Proofs of His Existence) 

PROVE THERE'S A SOUL 
(The Doctrine of Immortality) 

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN 
(The New Testament is Divinely Inspired) 

THEY SAID HE BLASPHEMED 
(The Divinity of Christ) 

HUNDREDS OF CHURCHES 
(Only One True Church Founded by Christ) 

SCIENCE HELPS THE CHURCH 
(Difficulties: From Galileo to Determinism) 

NO POPE CAN BE WRONG 
(The Church Teaches Infallibly) 

THIS IS MY BODY 
(The Eucharist: Sacrifice and Sacrament) 

GOD FORGIVES SIN 
(Penance: The Sacrament; Confession) 

DIVORCE IS A DISEASE 
(Matrimony: Sacrament, Laws, Graces) 

Single copy by mail: 12c 
Set of Ten: $1.00 

Each title in bulk order: $7.00 per hundred 

THE AMERICA PRESS 
70 East 45th Street New Yorh 17, N. Y. 



Why Intelligent Catholic Readers Need 

AMERICA 
A Catholic Review 

of the Week 

Because each issue 
contains • . . 
Four or five editorial discussions of the week's important 

events 
Ten comments, or shorter editorials, assaying the news at 

home or abroad 
Four longer articles on topics of current interest to Catholics 

and to Americans 
One signed contribution on literature — prose, poetry, 

authors, literary morals 
A dozen interesting reviews' of the newest books 
Three feature columns—on the War, on Washington News, 

on Catholic news 
A homily, or sermonette, on the Gospel for the coming 

Sunday 
A one-column review of the new Broadway plays; another 

on the latest films 
One light-hearted column passing quips — humorous or 

ironic—on the parade of the week's events 

$5.00 the year Canada: $6 Foreign: $6.50 

70 East 45th Stract AMERICA N»w York 17, N. Y.