Chapter 2

The Evolution of Militarism

by Hugh M. Lewis

The survival and continuation of a society depends on its being able to adjust to a changing environment. To do this it must depend on new experiences from experimentation and science. It is intelligence that allows the human to change his environment. It is the ability to abstract from random experiences truth, to take this truth and be able to apply it creatively to new situations. This objectivity of intelligence relies on science to discern the relevant news from the noise. Creativity invents theories about the human environment, which are creatively applied to new situations to produce tools and means of extending the human's ability to predict and control his environment. This is the application of science. Technology feeds back to the original scientific process resulting in a growth or evolution of technological civilization. It is a gradual accelerative growth process arising from a mutual feedback process of cyclic regeneration and the industrial ephemeralization of doing more with less.

With the persistent nature of militarism the evolution of technological civilization results in a corresponding evolution of aggression by the evolution of the means of making war. The development of science and technology result in spin-offs in the form of new weaponry and methods of destruction. With the increase in a societies ability to predict and control its environment, the amount of spatial area is involved is extended and the temporal span of events is decreased by a heightened growth intensity. Paralleling this process of growth is the corresponding increase in the spatial area involved in aggression by militarism and the decrease in the temporal span in utilization of destructive force. The amount of energy released in destruction has increased in area and the time taken for this energy released has inversely shortened.

But it is not science alone which produces weapons and improved means of destruction and death, it is the human. And it is not the weapon itself that alone created the destruction and death, it is the human behind the weapon who pulls the trigger and directs its destructive potential toward the innocent victims. The requirements of science and its resultant technological applications are indeed contrary to those requirements for war. Science requires a completely open, objective and unprejudiced application. These traits require a stress of individuality and enlightenment not the conformity and inevitable tyrannical repression which necessarily accompanies militarism. The application of science requires creativity, flexibility of mind and action. The requirements of militarism are in conflict with those for science. The authoritarian personality and the authoritarian power structure stress conformity instead of individuality, rigidity of mind instead of flexibility, and a closed world view instead of an open one. The fundamental rationality of the scientific mind is in contrast to the underlying irrationality of the authoritarian. The inevitability of change and the individual's proclivity towards change are in conflict with the authoritarian desire to remain unchanged. Change threatens his underlying security. It is the irrationality of the authoritarian that creates the need for the development of weapons and is behind the utilization of these weapons in the evolution of militarism.

The evolution of militarism has thus corresponded with the evolution of the technological civilization of humanity. Militarism has propagated itself through the social morality structure and the traditional socialization processes. Militarism becomes incorporated into individuals value systems, into the very fabric of social cohesion, while at the same time the irrationality of the aggression remains unquestioned and at a subconscious level, both individually and socially.

Militarism is a disease that has long afflicted humanity. As humanity has progressed in the evolution of technological civilization, so has militarism also evolved. Militarism is contagious and hard to eradicate. It is transmitted from generation to generation, form one social group to another in the form of offense and defense and of notions of conquest, retribution and revenge.

In contrast to the humanizing effect of the evolution of technological civilization, the evolution of militarism results in a reversed dehumanization process which in peacetime is endemic and in wartime becomes endemic. As the development of weapons, facilitates destruction, authoritarian power structures, already prone to the use of aggression, are more likely to employ new means of death. The more new means of destruction that are available the more they become an acceptable social pattern, to the point of popular condonement of the use of such weapons. The more variety of targets that become available, the more unrestricted warfare becomes, and the subsequent evolution of such militarism becomes incorporated into societies acceptable behavior patterns.

The United States and the Soviet Union, the two nuclear super powers are engaged in a relationship of cooperative antagonism. Over reliance on their respective political, economic, social and ideological systems have at least in part been based on the maintenance of a cold war barrier. Both have been engaged year after year in a peacetime mobilization process producing generation upon generation of weaponry and support apparatus of all imaginable kinds. A paranoid social psychology, the nature of this process is that it is fear based over dependence on militarism arising from a mutual distrust of the "official" enemies, a fact that automatically precludes the establishment of mutual cooperation and trust which must inevitably preclude and lead to some kind of atmosphere resembling a stable and permanent international peace.

The Soviet specter is as much an illusion conjured up by a self propagating and insulated clan of leadership in military and political spheres of international influence and by the Pentagon propaganda machine which distorts and filters what the American public thinks militarily, as it is a real threat to or own national survival. The Soviet people are not too unlike or leadership. An atmosphere of mutual trust can exist if we let it. Only then can peace be attainable.

The nature of the peacetime mobilization process is that once it has set in motion it gains a growing momentum which , year after year, becomes more and more difficult to control and making it harder and harder to change its direction toward the eventuality of war. Another characteristic of this process is that it snowballs, increasing in a negativistic manner, in a process of mutual escalation of potential destructive force, both vertically upward on the intensification margin, with generation after regeneration of technologically "improved" versions of weapons of ever greater lethality, and horizontally outward on the extensification margin consuming more and more net energy potential available and proliferating to include more and more people who must live under the threat of war. Such a process does not occurs only with nuclear weaponry but with all levels of military activity. It feeds off intermittent small scale wars which the process in general serves both as an influential factor of instigation and as a primary beneficiary of the end results. It consumes healthy economic productivity in the production of end products essentially non-regenerative value and potentially destructive to the growth of civilization.

The proliferation and escalation process of militarism known as the arms race is fixed into a comprehensive parasitically cyclical degenerative pattern in a "vicious" cycle of peacetime military competition. It cannot be reiterated enough that the eventual most singly important outcome of this overall process is the inevitably occurrence of a total world consuming war.

Despite the fact that militarism is so irrational and unhealthy, it persists and flourishes within modern world societies. Despite the fact that the implications and the nature of total war have reached certain crucial limitations, militarism continues to flourish. These limitations are manifold, yet they all revolve around the central issue of age old human nature. The overkill capacity of modern military industrial potential has multiplied exponentially. Modern total war, unlike all the total wars of yesterday, is clearly destructive of its own ends, facilitating beyond any previously known restriction the destruction of human civilization, forever inhibiting the potential future for progress. Militarism has a peculiar momentum which expresses itself in the peacetime mobilization processes as well as in wartime mobilization. There is no longer a clear distinction between peacetime and wartime. We live in a state of progressive but finite warfare continuum.

Mutual escalation is occurring both vertically and horizontally, both on the extensive margins and on the intensive margins of human productive capacity. It assumes the forefront of social economic productivity. It has escalated beyond its own limits for optimal decisive warfare, for power influence, to become ever more predominantly force dependent. By maximizing destructive force productivity while minimizing human qualitative influences, it achieves, instead of the more for less ephemeralization of natural human growth, a constant less for more de-ephemeralization of human potential. It now takes more force and its monetary equivalent to destroy less. Optimum force requirements have been over passed.

Modern total war is a very expensive and wasteful process in which the only aftermath will be unprecedented economic depression and widespread poverty and starvation of all humanity, infecting every nation. No single nation or unilaterally allied group of nations not the whole anarchical world of sovereign nations can economically support a future total war for more than a relatively short period of time. Total war, within bounds of modern economy and technology is unlimited. It will consume to the detriment of mankind's future much of mankind's economic resources. The level of sophistication of modern weaponry and military technology has developed far beyond the control of any single person or any group of people. It is thus seeing on its current course of progress another limit--military technology is becoming over sophisticated, over specialized and too undependable for successful military results.

With the rise of revolution and nationalism in the seventeenth century, conflict evolved from the responsibility of highly skilled professional armies to bloody national conflicts between large and poorly trained conscript armies. With the increase of firepower--especially with the development of weapons with a high rate of fire, repeating rifles and machine guns, and as artillery and indirect modes of firepower increased in volume, taking over as master of the battlefield, the use of indirect fire lead to the use of bombing by airplanes. Uniformed armies were no longer the sole direct victims of aggression but so too were women and children. The backdoor to a nations homeland was opened. The concept of strategic bombing in World War 11 was nothing more than terror bombing on a massive scale, justified by politicians relying on the authoritarian strategy of terrorism and the pure valuation of the power of brute force. The terror bombing techniques of a few anarchists and radicals have become great strategies of world domination by the superpowers. It is no wonder that the current proliferation of terror bombing throughout the world has become the generally accepted manner for aggression. Terrorism has corroded the social fabric of many nations. Terrorism has become the military political standard of the times.

The evolution of militarism has given rise in modern times to an occurrence of total warfare, the byproduct of the concept of rationalism and of conscription. These are wars in which relatively unlimited means of destruction are employed over an extent that for short periods of time consume most of the efforts of mankind and which the amount of destruction occurring from such wars are, relative to any previously period, unparalleled. The first of these wars was the Thirty Years War. This war brought so much destruction and terror to Europe that for almost a hundred years afterward responsible leaders effectively sought to restrain the unlimited tendencies of modern warfare. The second of these total wars was the Napoleonic Wars, arising out of the seedbed of political revolution. The third was World War 1, which was unmatched in the relative volume of human butchery and military incompetence. World War 11 was the forth total war, bringing with it the advent of the nuclear bomb. To date this has been the last total war to have occurred.

Between each of these periods of holocaust numerous minor wars have occurred, perhaps total in perspective for the participants but at the same time limited to the geographical area involved. Each of these intermittent wars have been forecasters of the type and extent of aggression that would be likely to occur in the next major conflict. Each of the total wars have been the models for the extent that aggression had evolved, and have been used to forecast the next total war. But each new total war has been unpredicted as to the actual extent that it would eventually attain. World War 1 was planned to have been a quick offensive conflict, decisive in its results. It turned into a long defensive war of attrition. In it evolved new weapons and new techniques of war. The allied victors of World War 1 ignored the signs of change, the defeated grabbed them out of desperation and vengeance. For the allies, World War 11 was planned to be a defensive conflict much in the continuation of World War 1. It became for the Axis powers a war of quick offensive decision. It will be curious to see, if a next total war occurs, what course it will take, considering the advent of new weapons technology. The fact that nuclear weapons were used in World War 11 does not preclude their use in a future major war. The nuclear bomb is the natural heir to the back door policy of terrorism. With world polarization between two superpowers and with a proliferation of treaties, alliances and a dependency on irreversible mobilization systems, and with escalation of militarism, there exists a resemblance of the conditions which preceded the beginning of World War 1.

There is a need to maintain a balance of forces as a result of the polarization between the two superpowers. This need creates a cycle of mutual escalation of power between the two camps. One side is trying to outdo the other in power potential, out of fear that the opposite side might try to do the same. Nuclear weapons are becoming more sophisticated. Disguising nuclear proliferation under the need to maintain a credible first strike counter force strategy, volume of nuclear fire power potential is being replaced by increased accuracy and range of the delivery systems which accomplishes in the final result increased lethality. Under this umbrella of nuclear escalation, each camp is trying to bring more nations under its influence, out of fear that if it does not, the other camp will. This is resulting in a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to many nations.

The United States is the leader of this armed escalation and increased militarism of the world. The Soviet Union is running a close second. Since World War 11 the United States has been maintaining active potential for power projection unparalleled since the nation's founding. The Korean and Vietnam wars and a host of minor interventions attest to this increased militarization of the United States. Both major conflicts were highly indecisive, unsuccessful and unpopular. The United States is leading the world in nuclear proliferation, maintaining ever more sophisticated weapons systems designed primarily for first strike.

All nations suffering from a predominance of militarism will inevitably resort to using this power in expansion and conquest. Even apparently liberal and democratically inclined societies, may under conservative diplomatic disguises, seek to extend aggressively in manipulative fashion their influence and power in the international realm. For all nations it results in a kind of acquisitiveness, if not outright reliance on aggression for the construction of empires, then on a subtle manipulation of power with a pre-inclination to the utilization of the means of force. The more radical the aggressiveness of a sovereignty the shorter term but more harmful the empire. All empires must eventually suffer defeat in the face of inexorable human development of technological civilization. The Pax Americana is an illusion for imperial acquisitive tendencies of world domination by primarily peaceful means.

The situation being created by this proliferation of militarism in order to maintain an ever finer balance of power between the two camps is an increase in the inherent instability of the balance of power. Just as World War 1 was precipitated by a single assassination, the probability for a minor incident to escalate into a major conflict is increasing. The mobilization into a major conflict is becoming harder and harder to stop or reverse once the precipitation begins. Just as the mobilization occurring in World War 1 was largely irreversible and precipitated by a minor occurrence, so to may any minor conflict in some unnoticed corner of the world irreversibly upset the existing balance of power. The "rational" balance of power for peace could be quite easily upset by an irrational act of aggression. The real problem of assessing the threat for future strategic planning lies not so much in judging the enemies intentions, capabilities and vulnerabilities but is more the problem of distinguishing realistic dangers from unfounded fears, and in realizing who are our true enemies and who may be our potential allies.

A scenario of a possible third world war might conceivably follow an infinitude of radical courses. It is beyond the ability of any person or group to estimate the likelihood or probability of any single course of development. It is inconceivable to imagine a future total war not involving the use of nuclear weaponry. Human experience with this new mode of warfare is all but abundant. The pessimistic and optimistic scenarios of future world wars which issue from authorities and from the computer technicians subsidized by the military predict a Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe and a swift and decisive war.

The concept of the blitzkrieg which had been so successfully implemented throughout World War 11 is still held to be the valid basis for modern mechanized armies. Its decisiveness was again demonstrated by the Arab-Israeli wars. But the prior conditions for the achievement of swift offensive warfare no longer necessarily apply to the contemporary world military situation. Modern conventional warfare developed under a multitude of transient factors which have been foreshadowed and obscured by the laurels of the success of decisive armored warfare. Not one unimportant factor was the relative inferiority of defensive antitank weapons of the new generations of tanks at the beginning of the second world war. Modern antitank and antiaircraft missile defense technology has at least regained relative parity with modern offensive weapons systems.

A future conflict may not necessarily be a decisive one. It may be a wasteful and costly war which is just as likely to bog down into a static positional war resembling the configuration of a World War 1 battlefield rather than those more mobile and fluid ones of World War 11. If it remains initially limited the initial costs will still be heavy but may be borne by the involved nations. It may spawn both militaristic centralism and the improvisation and introduction of completely new hitherto un-witnessed weapons technologies. There is just as likely to be a deadlock as there will be a decision.

From out of an indecisive deadlock, the U. S. and its allies are very likely to employ TNW as a means of upsetting the balance. It will bring rapid reciprocation by the Soviets on a wider and more massive scale. Extension of territory consumed and the intensification of the violence will more than likely escalate to new dimensions of totality; consuming possibly the total geography of the Northern Hemisphere and partially the Southern Hemisphere. A nuclear exchange will quickly reach strategic proportions in a very rapid manner. The peacetime escalation will be misleading as to its wartime proportions.

A scenario might assume the inability of most of civilization to survive the new totality of nuclear warfare and other exotic weaponry. It is supposed to be quick and produce immediate results in decisive for all participants. There can be no doubt as to its massive destructive potential. It will be more geographically extensive beyond any previously attained proportions. It will be both wasteful and costly in terms of human civilization.

It may be very likely end with all participants too exhausted to reap the fruits of their labors. There may not even be an official armistice declaring its end. It will have come and gone without official notice. It will generate completely new and unprecedented power alignments and new world powers may emerge from the resulting cauldron of political turmoil. World wide economic depression will be an inevitable result. Unforeseen epidemics and disasters will further increase the magnitude of the initial causality--producing death process. The survivors will emerge from the war poverty stricken with very little with which to rebuild. The foundations for a future and more total war will have been laid. Peace will remain an illusive dream.

The war may be initiated almost spontaneously by some minor incident not justifying the resultant magnitude of its influence. The United States and its allies are as likely to be the first to jump the gun as the Soviets. They will become increasingly militaristic and centralized while the Soviets will increasingly become democratized and the bloc increasingly decentralized. Once a relative parity has been attained the balance may likely be upset drastically in a minor unforeseen way. Just as permanent peace may appear on the horizon of humanities evolution all hell will break loose. Their general scenario of the possible course of World War 111 is just as possible and unpredictably probable as any other that has so far been "officially" proffered.

Underlying the phenomena of militarism is a gross neglect of a crucial more moral dilemma which must be confronted by every individual and by every social group regardless of size or affiliation. It is rarely understood and is more often cast aside by blind emotion and ignorant rationalization based on limited premises of normative prejudice. This moral dilemma concerns the way every human on earth, understands war and militarism and underlies the fundamental ways in which we go about making wars; strategically, tactically and logistically. The fundamental premise formed upon this issue will determine all subsequent rationalizations and the direction of subsequent military behavior.

This moral dilemma itself is founded on the recognition and acceptance of individual human rights, and deals with the concept of the moral reality of war. Accept or reject it, there exists and has always existed relative to universal human nature which has remained consistently unchanging throughout human history an objective moral reality of the justice of war and of the application of justice in the execution of war. It can be found to automatically preclude the fallacious authoritarian psychological reliance on the value of brute destructive force and the consequential elemental strategy of terrorism. It remains a sad state of affairs that because of the predominance of that authoritarian psychology throughout the world's peoples and within their political systems and with a resultant over nationalistic pre-inclination this moral reality is too often ignored and too frequently violated to the detriment of the progress of the whole of humanity. Indeed it is a most fundamentally humanitarian principle.

If this moral dilemma presented by war is confronted and there is realization of the fact of the moral reality of war there will follow subsequently an understanding of the true nature of war. War may be classified by many different criteria, but fundamentally there remains only two types of war and two general ways in which to execute war. The first type is unjust war before the fact and the other type is just war after the fact of initiation of aggression. Unjust war is known as aggression and involves the gross violation of many peoples rights by first offense. The only just war, which is necessitated only because of this first aggression, involves the subsequent defense of the violated human rights. It might almost be said that a just war is initially a defensive one while an unjust war is initially an offensive one. But the fact of justice depends on the fact of the initiation of violence for its determination rather than on subsequent events occurring during the course of the war, even though these actions also have a crucial determination on its morality. There is no such thing as a "pure" defense or a "pure" offense in war. It is a regrettable state of affairs that the unjust initiation of war requires for the victims a temporary lowering of their moral standards in order to execute a viable defense to preserve their violated rights. There is another way of looking at this issue of unjust and just war which reveals the method of executing a just war. A just war involves a minimization of aggression and its attendant violence, while an unjust war inevitably involves and leads to a maximization without any rational basis of aggression. In essence and ideally just war would be no war at all, but rather it would be a state of absolute peace. While such a state may seem unattainable in reality, a relative approximation of the ideal is attainable and should definitely be striven for in all human endeavors.

Again all these facts all resolve themselves around the concept of a universal human nature and of fundamental human rights. War, aside from everything else it is claimed to be, remain always and forever a human activity which is very generally susceptible to the conditions of a human nature. No school which claims to support any national government will teach its students about this moral reality of war, the entire subject will either be neglected completely or distorted to serve nationalistic half truths. Nationalist politicians and the cohorts of sub-servants want their supporters to be unaware of or to at least ignore these most crucial issues, in a game of fooling the ignorant public, because it involves the leaders of every nation grossly violating certain aspects of fundamental human rights. No politician has the right to make war because it violates the citizen's rights. Citizen's rights as individuals underlie and take precedence to any proclaimed rights or privileges of any group of any nation. This fact is not recognized by any formally enforced legal code because sovereign nations continue to refuse to subordinate their own selfish ends in the acquisition of power to the service of fundamental human rights. This whole moral dilemma will be more thoroughly explored in later chapters of this book because it deeply affects almost every aspect of war and of militarism, strategy, logistics, philosophy and military organization. Righting this wrong involve many radical changes from the conventional thinking and behavior involving the military and the military supporting civilian populations of every nation.

For now suffice it to say that very generally it is each individual's responsibility, not as a citizen to a group or nation, but as a member of the whole human race, to enforce the objective moral reality of war and to see to it that the "official" leadership of the world does the same. It involves a very crucial and most fundamental decision about the direction we want to see war and the evolution of militarism take. It can follow the degenerative course it has been so far historically going, very generally toward the maximization of destructive force potential, and of massive dehumanization and violation of human rights justified by the persistence of authoritarian power structure or else it can take a new and relatively unprecedented direction toward the minimization and reduction of destructive force potential and of violation of human rights.

The first course, having already begun, will follow without any special effort on our parts to its inevitable end. There is only one outcome of this development, the finality of a deadened for humanity and its technological civilization by nuclear holocaust. The other course can only begin by a strong dissent on every human's part but its outcome will most certainly lead to a relatively stable permanent condition of world peace and to the fulfillment by all humanity of fundamental human rights through the continued unhindered evolution of technological civilization. The choice is not a new one, it has been as old as human history. It is only now an imperative one that can't be ignored much longer. The rest of this book is devoted to confronting the aspects of this moral dilemma and on the effects and alternatives which it leaves the institution of militarism and the phenomena of war.

Here it will be stated only that there is one profoundly fundamental conclusion. It is a paradox underlying all spheres of the military problem in general. It simply maps out the choices for the individual. The just way of fighting war, involving the minimization of aggression and the devolution of militarism, is also the soundest and most strategically successful way of winning in war, leading logically to the best tactics to apply in conflict, and from the logistical standpoint the most economic and efficient means in the utilization of destructive force. It all involves the minimization of the value of destructive force and the maximization of the universal human nature of valuation.

Albert Einstein has written the most descriptive analysis of the nature of militarism I have yet come across, revealing a deep understanding of the moral issues and of the irrationality of militarism. I find it suitable for this essay to quote at length from the book "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein, about this subject.

"…the really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the political state, but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling.

This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in fours to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; unprotected spinal marrow was all he needed. This plague spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism--how passionately I hate them! How vile and despicable seems war to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of the human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the peoples not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the press…"

From "The World As I See It", 1931

"To estimate this objection at its proper worth, one must realize that a reciprocal relation exists between external machinery and internal states of mind. Not only does the machinery depend on traditional modes of feeling and owe its origin and its survival to them, but the existing machinery in its turn exercises a powerful influence on national modes of feeling.

The present deplorably high development of nationalism everywhere is, in my opinion, intimately connected with the institution of compulsory military service or, to call it by its sweeter name, national armies. A state which demands military service of its inhabitants is compelled to cultivate in them a nationalistic spirit, thereby laying the psychological foundation for their military usefulness. In its schools it must idolize, alongside with religion, its instrument of brutal force in the eyes of the youth.

The introduction of compulsory military service is therefore, to my mind, the prime cause of the moral decay of the white race, which seriously threatens not merely the survival of our civilization but our very existence. This curse along with great social blessings started with the French revolution and before long dragged all the other nations in its train.

Therefore, those who desire to cultivate an international spirit and to combat chauvinism must take their stand against compulsory military service. Is the severe persecution to which conscientious objectors to military service are subjected to today a whit less disgraceful to the community than those to which the martyrs of religion were exposed in former centuries? Can you, as Kellogg Pact does, condemn war and at the same time leave the individual to the tender mercies of the war machine in each country?"

Form "The Disarmament Conference of 1932", 1934

"the results of technical progress are most baleful where they furnish means for the destruction of human life and the hard won fruits of toil, as we of the older generation experienced to or horror in the World War. More dreadful even then destruction, in my opinion, is the humiliating slavery into which war plunges the individual. Is it not a terrible thing to be forced by society to do things which all of us as individuals regard as abominable crimes? Only a few had the moral greatness to resist, them I regard as the real heroes of the world war.

There is one ray of hope. I believe that today the responsible leaders of the nations do, in the main, honestly desire to abolish war. The resistance to this absolutely necessary step arises from these unfortunate national traditions which are handed on like a hereditary disease from generation to generation through the workings of the educational system, but the principal vehicle of this tradition is military training and its glorification, and equally, that portion of the press which is controlled by heavy industry and the military. Without disarmament there can be no lasting peace. Conversely the continuation of the armament race on the present scale will inevitably lead to new catastrophes."

From "The Disarmament Conference of 1932, 11" 1934

"The importance of securing international peace was recognized by the really great men of former generations. But the technical advances of or times turned this ethical postulate into a matter of life and death for civilized mankind today, and made it a moral duty to take an active part in the solution of the problem of peace, a duty which no conscientious man can shirk.

One has to realize that the powerful industrial groups concerned in the manufacture of arms are doing their best in all countries to prevent the peaceful settlements of international disputes and that rulers can only achieve this great end if they are sure of the vigorous support of the majority of their people. In these days of democratic government the fate of nations hang in the people themselves, each individual must always bear that in mind."

From "Peace", 1934

"We have emerged from a war in which we had to accept the degradingly low ethical standards of the enemy. But instead of feeling liberated from his standards, and set free to restore the sanctity of human life and the safety of noncombatants, we are in effect making the low standards of the enemy in the last war our own for the present. Thus we are starting toward another war degraded by our own choice."

From "Atomic War or Peace, 11" Nov. 1947

"If reasonable people, nevertheless, favor military agencies for the distribution of a major part of the available funds, the reason for this lies in the fact that they subordinate cultural concerns to their general political outlook. We must then focus our attention on these practical political viewpoints, their origins and their implications. In doing so, we shall soon recognize that the problem here under discussion is but one of many, and can only be fully estimated and properly adjudged when placed in a broader framework.

The tendencies we have mentioned are something new for America. They arose when, under the influence of the two world wars and the consequent concentration of all forces on a military goal, a predominantly military mentality developed, which with the almost sudden victory became even more accentuated. The characteristic feature of this mentality is that people place the importance of what Bertrand Russell so tellingly terms "naked power" for above all other factors which effect the relations between peoples. The Germans, misled by Bismarck's success in particular, underwent just such a transformation of their mentality--in consequence of which they were entirely ruined in less than a hundred years.

I must frankly confess that the foreign policy of the United States since the termination of hostilities has reminded me, sometimes irresistibly of the attitude of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm 11 and I know that, independent of me, this analogy has painfully occurred to others as well. It is characteristic of the military mentality that non-human factors (atom bombs, strategic bases, weapons of all sorts, the possession of raw materials, etc.) are held essential, while all the human being, his desires and thoughts--in short, the psychological factors are considered as unimportant and secondary. Herein lies a certain resemblance to Marxism, at least in so far as its theoretical side alone is kept in view. The individual is degraded to a mere instrument, he becomes "human material". The normal ends of human aspiration vanish with such a viewpoint. Instead, the military mentality raises "naked power" as a goal in itself--one of the strangest illusion to which men can succumb.

In our time the military mentality is still more dangerous than formerly because the offensive weapons have become much more powerful than the defensive ones. Therefore it leads, by necessity, to preventive war. The general insecurity that goes hand in hand with this results in the sacrifice of the citizens civil rights to the supposed welfare of the state. Political witch hunting, controls of all sorts (e.g. control of teaching and research, of the press and so forth) appear inevitable and for this reason do not encounter that popular resistance, which were it not for the military mentality, would provide a protection. A reappraisal of all values gradually takes place in so far as everything that does not clearly serve the utopian ends is regarded and treated as inferior…"

From "The Military Mentality", 1947

"In the smaller entities of community life, man has made some progress toward breaking down anti-social sovereignties…this is true, for example, of life within cities, and to a certain degree, even of society within individual states. In such communities tradition and education have had a moderating influence and have brought about tolerable relations among the peoples living within these confines. But in relations among separate states complete anarchy still prevails. I do not believe that we have made any genuine advance in this area during the last few thousand years. All too frequently conflicts among nations are still being decided by brutal power, by war. The unlimited desire for ever greater power seeks to become active and aggressive wherever and whenever the physical possibility offers itself.

Throughout the ages, this state of anarchy in international affairs has inflicted , still other repercussions upon mankind, again and again it has depraved the development of men, their souls and their well being. At times it has almost annihilated whole areas.

However, the desire of nations to be constantly prepared for warfare has in addition, still other repercussions upon the lives of men. The power of every state over its citizens has grown steadily during the last few hundred years, no less in countries where the power of the state has been exercised wisely, than in those where it has been used for brutal tyranny. The function of the state to maintain peaceful and ordered relations among and between its citizens has become increasingly complicated and extensive largely because of the concentration and centralization of the modern industrial apparatus. In order to protect its citizens from attacks from without a modern state requires a formidable, expanding military establishment. In addition, the state considers it necessary to educate its citizens for the possibilities of war, an "education" not only corrupting to the soul and spirit of the young, but also adversely affecting the mentality of adults. No country can avoid this corruption. It pervades the citizenry even in countries which do not harbor out spoken aggressive tendencies. The state has thus become a modern idol whose suggestive power few men are able to escape.

Education for war, however is a delusion. The technological developments if the last few years have created a completely new military situation. Horrible weapons have been invented, capable of destroying in a few seconds huge masses of human beings and tremendous areas of territory. Since science has not yet found protection from these weapons, the modern state is no longer in a position to prepare adequately for the safety of its citizens."

From "A Message to Intellectuals", Aug. 29, 1948

"The idea of achieving security through international armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. On the part of the USA this illusion has been particularly fostered by the fact that this country succeeded first in producing an atomic bomb. The belief seemed to prevail that in the end it would be possible to achieve decisive military superiority. In this way, any potential opponent would be intimidated and security so ardently desired by all of us, brought to us all and all of humanity. The maxim which we have been following during these last five years has been, in short, security through superior military power, whatever the cost.

This mechanistic technical military psychological attitude has had its inevitable consequences. Every single act in foreign policy is governed exclusively by one viewpoint: how do we have to act in order to achieve utmost superiority over the opponent in case of war? Establishing military bases at all possible strategically important points on the globe. Arming and economy strengthening of potential allies. Within the country, concentration of tremendous financial power in the hands of the military, militarization of the youth, close supervision of the loyalty of the citizens, in particular, of the civil servants, by a police force growing more conspicuous everyday. Intimidation of people of independent political thinking…subtle indoctrination of the public by radio, press and schools. Growing restriction of the range of public information under the pressure of military secrecy.

The armament race between the USA and the USSR originally supposed to be a preventive measure, assumes hysterical character. Of both sides, the means to mass destruction are perfected with feverish haste behind the respective walls of secrecy. The hydrogen bomb appears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal. Its accelerated development has been solemnly proclaimed by the President. If it is successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within range of technical possibility. The ghostlike character of this development lies in its apparently compulsory trend. Every step appears as the unavoidable consequence of the preceding one. In the end there beckons more and more clearly general annihilation."

From "National Security", Feb. 13, 1950

"The free unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. In my opinion there can be no doubt that the intervention of political authorities of this country in the free exchange of knowledge between individuals has already had significantly damaging effects. First of all, all damage is to be seen in the field of scientific work proper, and after a while, it will become evident in technology and industrial production.

The intrusion of the political authorities into the scientific life of our country is especially evident in the obstruction of the travels of American scientists and scholars abroad and of foreign scientists seeking to come to this country. Such petty behavior on the part of a powerful country is only peripheral symptoms of an ailment which has deeper roots.

Interference, with the freedom of the oral and written communication of scientific results, the widespread attitude of political distrust which is supported by an immense police organization, the timidity and the anxiety of individuals to avoid everything which might cause suspicion and which could threaten their economic position--all there are only symptoms, even though they reveal more clearly the threatening character of the illness.

The real ailment, however, seems to me to lie in the attitude which was created by the world war and which dominated all of or actions, namely, the belief that we must in peacetime so organize our whole life and work that in the event of war we would be sure of victory. This attitude gives rise to the belief that one's freedom and indeed one's existence are threatened by powerful enemies.

This attitude explains all of the unpleasant facts which we have designated above as symptoms. It must, if it does not rectify itself, lead to war and to very far reaching destruction. It finds its expression in the budget of the United States.

Only if we overcome this obsession can we really turn our attention in a reasonable way to the real political problem which is, "How can we contribute to make the life of man on this diminishing earth more secure and more tolerable?"

It will be impossible to cure ourselves of the symptoms we have mentioned and many others if we do not overcome the deeper ailment which is affecting us."

From "Symptoms of Cultural Decay", Oct. 1952

"in this time of decisions so heavy with fate, what we must say to our fellow citizens seems above all to be this, where belief in the omnipotence of physical force gets the upper hand in political life, this force takes on a life of its own, and proves stronger than the men who think to use force as a tool. The proposed militarization of the nation not only immediately threatens us with war, it will also slowly but surely destroy the democratic spirit and the dignity of the individual in our land. The assertion that events abroad force us to arm is wrong, we must combat it with all our strength. Actually, or own rearmament through the reaction of other nations to it, will bring about the very situation on which its advocates seek to base their proposals."

From "On Receiving the World Award", Apr. 1948

From "Ideas and Opinions: Albert Einstein" edited by Carl Seelig, 1973, Dell Publishing Company.

Military Dimensions