Viewing page 57 of 94

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

BACKGROUND OF THE LONDON CONFERENCE 343
clusion that the imperialists are preparing for war. Great Britain spent four hundred million dollars for defense in 1913, and five hundred seventy-five millions in 1929. The United States increases its direct expenditures for war purposes from four hundred fifty millions before the war, to seven hundred million in the year 1929. An equal increase is also taking place in the war expenditures of the other imperialist powers. Aside from its current war budget, American imperialism calls for additional seven hundred fifty million dollars for war preparations. The rapid rationalization of the American army, the feverish militarization of American industry and labor power are all with one purpose- preparation for the coming war. In the yearly report of the Secretary of War, Patrick J. Hurley, it is stated: "Definite and gratifying progress was made in the preparation of plans for the rapid and efficient transformation of our peace power into war power. During the year with has just closed, the war department has continued its orderly and systematic national survey of raw materials, power, labor and transportation, and the allocation of the required materials to these facilities best fitted to produce munition with the least disturbance of the economic structure of the nation." With more frankness and of greater political significance, however, was the statement of the leader of the American delegation in London, Secretary of State, Stimson. In his insistence on the abolition of submarines by France and Britain as well, the Secretary of State, Stimson, frankly stated that unless the wish of American Imperialism is carried out, America is ready again to go to war for the defense of its own interests. In on of his statements, Stimson said: "We cannot but feel that for this conference, called under such influence to sanction an instrument of war (meaning submarines) the abuses of which were directly responsible for calling the western world into the greatest European war in history would be a contradiction of the purposes for which we have met. I am not speaking of theory, I am speaking of historical facts and which human experience showed is likely to be repeated." The coming war therefore does not represent an abstract probability but an unavoidable development which is liable to break out at any moment.
It is also already well established that the struggle for parity between American and British Imperialism in naval strength in no way diminishes the inevitability of war between these two leading powers. In the first place, this parity presupposes the general increase of armament on the part of the United States, Great Britain and the other powers as well. In the second place, the demand for parity on the part of the United States is a demand for naval