Chapter III Answer of Colonel nated. Up to then it would be impossible for us to maintain, even for two consecutive years, the same number of effectives." 1 Colonel Gilinsky replied briefly to the arguments of General von Schwarzhoff. He considered it possible to meet the objections based upon the present laws of Germany. Regarding the prosperity of States, Colonel Gilinsky said that he did not claim that all countries were being impoverished - there are those which progress notwithstanding military charges, but still the latter were certainly not a help to public prosperity. Successive armaments were not of a nature to increase the wealth of governments, even though they might be profitable to some persons. He conceded that the question of railways exercises a great influence upon the defence of a countryan army would have to be much more numerous if the boundaries could not be quickly defended from the interior, with the assistance of an effective railway system. With regard to the countries beyond sea, he admitted that exceptions would have to be made on the subject of colonial troops, but he thought that while no hard-and-fast rule could be laid down, the way might be found to satisfy, if not all, at least a great number. General von Schwarzhoff, in reply, feared that he 1 The entire subject of disarmament, or a limitation of armaments in its various aspects, is treated in a masterly manner, in Chapter XIV. (p. 450) of Schlief, Der Friede in Europa, where the reader will find some of General von Schwarzhoff's view's amplified, and others controverted. General von had not been completely understood. He would not Chapter III deny that other means, perhaps more humane, might Reply of be found to spend money, than in supplying military Schwarzhoff. armaments. He merely wished to answer language which, according to his ideas, was surely exaggerated. The number of effectives alone gave no proper basis for comparison of the strength of armies, because there was a great number of other considerations. which had to be regarded. Without touching the number of its effectives, any power could vastly increase its belligerent strength. The equilibrium which is now supposed to exist would then be destroyed, and in order to reëstablish it, governments must be left free to choose the means best suited to their requirements. Jonkheer van Jonkheer van Karnebeek of Holland supported the Speech of views advanced by his colleague, General Den Beer Karnebeek. Poortugael, without ignoring the great force of the objections raised by General von Schwarzhoff, and he called particular attention to the fact that the forces of anarchy and unrest in each country would be the only ones to profit directly by the failure of the Conference to agree upon some limitation of the increase of armaments. M. Stancioff of Bulgaria declared that his Government would cordially support any proposition for a limitation of armaments. He declared that armed peace was ruinous, especially for small countries whose wants were enormous and who had everything to gain by using their resources for the development of industry, agriculture, and general progress. He G Chapter III repudiated the idea that the proposition before the Conference impaired the liberty of nations. For this reason Bulgaria had warmly welcomed the circular of Count Mouravieff, and was prepared to support every movement tending toward the practical realization of the ideas of the Emperor of Russia. Appointment of Sub After a further brief discussion, the chairman, M. Committees. Beernaert, suggested the appointment of a committee to which the Russian proposals should be referred. Military. Naval. M. Bourgeois of France suggested that the smaller states, which were necessarily inclined toward the maintenance of peace, should be represented equally with the Great Powers, and the motion of the chairman was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: United States of America, Belgium, Spain, Abstentions: Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, (3). The sub-committee for the examination of the military proposals was constituted as follows: Major-General Gross von Schwarzhoff of Germany, General Mounier of France, Colonel Gilinsky of Russia, General Sir John Ardagh of Great Britain, Lieutenant-Colonel von Khuepach of Austria, General Zuccari of Italy, Captain Brändström of Sweden, Colonel Coanda of Roumania, and M. Raffalovich of Russia, Secretary. The naval portion of the Russian proposals was referred to another sub-committee, consisting of M. de Bille of Denmark, Count Soltyk of Austria, Captain Chapter III Scheine of Russia, and M. Corragioni d' Orelli of Siam. At the next meeting of the First Committee under the Presidency of M. Beernaert on June 30, M. Mijatovitch of Servia took the floor, and in a speech of great force declared the adhesion of his country to the ideas expressed by Count Mouravieff, and formulated in the Russian proposals. Military Sub The military sub-committee appointed at the last Report of session, to which was referred the examination of the Committee. first proposal, reported through M. Beernaert as follows: "The members of the committee, to whom was referred the proposition of Colonel Gilinsky, regarding the first point in the Circular of Count Mouravieff, after two meetings, report, that with the exception of Colonel Gilinsky they are unanimously of the opinion, first, that it would be very difficult to fix, even for a period of five years, the number of effectives, without regulating at the same time other elements of national defence; second, that it would be no less difficult to regulate by international agreement the elements of this defence, organized in every country upon a different principle. In consequence, the committee regrets not being able to approve the proposition made in the name of the Russian GovernA majority of its members believe that a more profound study of the question by the Governments themselves would be desirable." ment. General Zuccari of Italy declared that the number of effectives for peace of the Italian army Chapter III Speech of Sweden and was fixed by organic laws, which his Government had no intention of changing, and that it must therefore reserve to itself complete liberty of action with regard to any international agreement on the subject. Baron de Bildt of Sweden and Norway spoke as follows: "I venture to say that in no country have the Russian proposals been received with a more spontaneous and more sincere sympathy than in Sweden and Norway. Profoundly convinced of the necessity of peace, we have for nearly a century pursued a policy which looks to nothing but the maintenance of good relations with other Powers, and our military establishments have always had only one object, the protection of our independence and the maintenance of neutrality. A message of peace, having in view a limitation of the armaments which now weigh heavily upon the world, could not be otherwise than welcome to us, and it could not come from any better source than from our powerful neighbor. If, notwithstanding all this, we cannot approve the propositions formulated by Colonel Gilinsky, it is not because we have not the same desire as he, regarding that which is to be done, but because we find ourselves confronted with an important question of form. The Russian propositions make no difference between armies organized according to the principles of modern military science and those which are still governed by former conditions, possibly superannuated, or those which are at present in a state of transformation. |