In such communities before there was a regular and fully2 organized police force there came an interval3 during which the preservation4 of the peace depended upon the action of a single official, a sheriff or marshal, who if the law was defied in arrogant5 fashion summoned a posse comitatus composed of as many armed, thoroughly6 efficient, law-abiding citizens as were necessary in order to put a stop to the wrong-doing. Under these conditions105 each man had to keep himself armed and both able and willing to respond to the call of the peace-officer; and furthermore, if he had a shred7 of wisdom he kept himself ready in an emergency to act on his own behalf if the peace-officer did not or could not do his duty.
In such towns I have myself more than once seen well-meaning but foolish citizens endeavor to meet the exigencies8 of the case by simply passing resolutions of disarmament without any power back of them. That is, they passed self-denying ordinances9, saying that nobody was to carry arms; but they failed to provide methods for carrying such ordinances into effect. In every case the result was the same. Good citizens for the moment abandoned their weapons. The bad men continued to carry them. Things grew worse instead of better; and then the good men came to their senses and clothed some representative of the police with power to employ force, potential or existing, against the wrong-doers.
Affairs in the international world are at this time in analogous10 condition. There is no central police power, and not the least likelihood of its being created. Well-meaning enthusiasts11 have tried their hands to an almost unlimited12 extent in the way of devising all-inclusive arbitration13 treaties, neutrality treaties, disarmament proposals, and the like, with no force back of them,106 and the result has been stupendous and discreditable failure. Preparedness for war on the part of individual nations has sometimes but not always averted15 war. Unpreparedness for war, as in the case of China, Korea, and Luxembourg, has invariably invited smashing disaster, and sometimes complete conquest. Surely these conditions should teach a lesson that any man who runs may read unless his eyes have been blinded by folly16 or his heart weakened by cowardice17.
The immediately vital lesson for each individual nation is that as things are now it must in time of crisis rely on its own stout18 hearts and ready hands for self-defense19. Existing treaties are utterly20 worthless so far as concerns protecting any free, well-behaved people from one of the great aggressive military monarchies21 of the world. The all-inclusive arbitration treaties such as those recently negotiated by Messrs. Wilson and Bryan, when taken in connection with our refusal to act under existing treaties, represent about the highest point of slightly mischievous22 fatuity23 which can be attained24 in international matters. Inasmuch as we ourselves are the power that initiated25 their negotiation26, we can do our plain duty to ourselves and our neighbors only by ourselves proceeding27 from the outset on the theory, and by warning our neighbors, that these treaties in any time of crisis will certainly not be respected by any serious adversary,107 and probably will of necessity be violated by ourselves. They do not in even the very smallest degree relieve us of the necessity of preparedness for war. To this point of our duty to be prepared I will return later.
But we ought not to and must not rest content merely with working for our own defense. The utterly appalling29 calamity30 that has befallen the civilized31 world during the last five months, and, above all, the horrible catastrophe32 that has overwhelmed Belgium without Belgium’s having the smallest responsibility in the matter, must make the least thoughtful realize how unsatisfactory is the present basis of international relations among civilized powers. In order to make things better several things are necessary. We must clearly grasp the fact that mere28 selfish avoidance of duty to others, even although covered by such fine words as “peace” and “neutrality,” is a wretched thing and an obstacle to securing the peace of righteousness throughout the world. We must recognize clearly the old common-law doctrine33 that a right without a remedy is void. We must firmly grasp the fact that measures should be taken to put force back of good faith in the observance of treaties. The worth of treaties depends purely34 upon the good faith with which they are executed; and it is mischievous folly to enter into treaties without providing for their execution and108 wicked folly to enter into them if they ought not to be executed.
It is necessary to devise means for putting the collective and efficient strength of all the great powers of civilization back of any well-behaved power which is wronged by another power. In other words, we must devise means for executing treaties in good faith, by the establishment of some great international tribunal, and by securing the enforcement of the decrees of this tribunal through the action of a posse comitatus of powerful and civilized nations, all of them being bound by solemn agreement to coerce35 any power that offends against the decrees of the tribunal. That there will be grave difficulties in successfully working out this plan I would be the first to concede, and I would be the first to insist that to work it out successfully would be impossible unless the nations acted in good faith. But the plan is feasible, and it is the only one which at the moment offers any chance of success. Ever since the days of Henry IV of France there has been a growth, slow and halting to be sure but yet evidently a growth, in recognition by the public conscience of civilized nations that there should be a method of making the rules of international morality obligatory36 and binding37 among the powers. But merely to trust to public opinion without organized force back of it is silly. Force must be109 put back of justice, and nations must not shrink from the duty of proceeding by any means that are necessary against wrong-doers. It is the failure to recognize these vital truths that has rendered the actions of our government during the last few years impotent to preserve world peace and fruitful only in earning for us the half-veiled derision of other nations.
The attitude of the present administration during the last five months shows how worthless the present treaties, unbacked by force, are, and how utterly ineffective mere passive neutrality is to secure even the smallest advance in world morality. I have been very reluctant in any way to criticise38 the action of the present administration in foreign affairs; I have faithfully, and in some cases against my own deep-rooted personal convictions, sought to justify39 what it has done in Mexico and as regards the present war; but the time has come when loyalty40 to the administration’s action in foreign affairs means disloyalty to our national self-interest and to our obligations toward humanity at large. As regards Belgium the administration has clearly taken the ground that our own selfish ease forbids us to fulfil our explicit41 obligations to small neutral states when they are deeply wronged. It will never be possible in any war to commit a clearer breach42 of international morality than that committed by110 Germany in the invasion and subjugation43 of Belgium. Every one of the nations involved in this war, and the United States as well, have committed such outrages44 in the past. But the very purpose of the Hague conventions and of all similar international agreements was to put a stop to such misconduct in the future.
At the outset I ask our people to remember that what I say is based on the assumption that we are bound in good faith to fulfil our treaty obligations; that we will neither favor nor condemn45 any other nation except on the ground of its behavior; that we feel as much good-will to the people of Germany or Austria as to the people of England, of France, or of Russia; that we speak for Belgium only as we could speak for Holland or Switzerland or one of the Scandinavian or Balkan nations; and that if the circumstances as regards Belgium had been reversed we would have protested as emphatically against wrong action by England or France as we now protest against wrong action by Germany.
The United States and the great powers now at war were parties to the international code created in the regulations annexed46 to the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. As President, acting47 on behalf of this government, and in accordance with the unanimous wish of our people, I ordered the signature of the United States to111 these conventions. Most emphatically I would not have permitted such a farce48 to have gone through if it had entered my head that this government would not consider itself bound to do all it could to see that the regulations to which it made itself a party were actually observed when the necessity for their observance arose. I cannot imagine any sensible nation thinking it worth while to sign future Hague conventions if even such a powerful neutral as the United States does not care enough about them to protest against their open breach. Of the present neutral powers the United States of America is the most disinterested49 and the strongest, and should therefore bear the main burden of responsibility in this matter.
It is quite possible to make an argument to the effect that we never should have entered into the Hague conventions, because our sole duty is to ourselves and not to others, and our sole concern should be to keep ourselves at peace, at any cost, and not to help other powers that are oppressed, and not to protest against wrong-doing. I do not myself accept this view; but in practice it is the view taken by the present administration, apparently50 with at the moment the approval of the mass of our people. Such a policy, while certainly not exalted51, and in my judgment52 neither far-sighted nor worthy53 of a high-spirited and lofty-112souled nation, is yet in a sense understandable, and in a sense defensible.
But it is quite indefensible to make agreements and not live up to them. The climax54 of absurdity55 is for any administration to do what the present administration during the last five months has done. Mr. Wilson’s administration has shirked doing the duty plainly imposed on it by the obligations of the conventions already entered into; and at the same time it has sought to obtain cheap credit by entering into a couple of score new treaties infinitely56 more drastic than the old ones, and quite impossible of honest fulfilment. When the Belgian people complained of violations58 of the Hague tribunal, it was a mockery, it was a timid and unworthy abandonment of duty on our part, for President Wilson to refer them back to the Hague court, when he knew that the Hague court was less than a shadow unless the United States by doing its clear duty gave the Hague court some substance. If the Hague conventions represented nothing but the expression of feeble aspirations59 toward decency60, uttered only in time of profound peace, and not to be even expressed above a whisper when with awful bloodshed and suffering the conventions were broken, then it was idle folly to enter into them. If, on the other hand, they meant anything, if the United States had a serious113 purpose, a serious sense of its obligations to world righteousness, when it entered into them, then its plain duty as the trustee of civilization is to investigate the charges solemnly made as to the violation57 of the Hague conventions. If such investigation61 is made, and if the charges prove well founded, then it is the duty of the United States to take whatever action may be necessary to vindicate62 the principles of international law set forth63 in these conventions.
I am not concerned with the charges of individual atrocity64. The prime fact is that Belgium committed no offense65 whatever, and yet that her territory has been invaded and her people subjugated66. This prime fact cannot be left out of consideration in dealing67 with any matter that has occurred in connection with it. Her neutrality has certainly been violated, and this is in clear violation of the fundamental principles of the Hague conventions. It appears clear that undefended towns have been bombarded, and that towns which were defended have been attacked with bombs at a time when no attack was made upon the defenses. This is certainly in contravention of the Hague agreement forbidding the bombardment of undefended towns. Illegal and excessive contributions are expressly condemned68 under Articles 49 and 52 of the conventions. If these articles do not forbid the114 levying69 of such sums as $40,000,000 from Brussels and $90,000,000 from the province of Brabant, then the articles are absolutely meaningless. Articles 43 and 50 explicitly70 forbid the infliction72 of a collective penalty, pecuniary73 or otherwise, on a population on account of acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible. Either this prohibition74 is meaningless or it prohibits just such acts as the punitive75 destruction of Visé, Louvain, Aerschot, and Dinant. Furthermore, a great deal of the appalling devastation76 of central and eastern Belgium has been apparently terrorizing and not punitive in its purpose, and this is explicitly forbidden by the Hague conventions.
Now, it may be that there is an explanation and justification77 for a portion of what has been done. But if the Hague conventions mean anything, and if bad faith in the observation of treaties is not to be treated with cynical78 indifference79, then the United States government should inform itself as to the facts, and should take whatever action is necessary in reference thereto. The extent to which the action should go may properly be a subject for discussion. But that there should be some action is beyond discussion; unless, indeed, we ourselves are content to take the view that treaties, conventions, and international engagements and agreements of all kinds are to be115 treated by us and by everybody else as what they have been authoritatively80 declared to be, “scraps of paper,” the writing on which is intended for no better purpose than temporarily to amuse the feeble-minded.
If the above statements seem in the eyes of my German friends hostile to Germany, let me emphasize the fact that they are predicated upon a course of action which if extended and applied81 as it should be extended and applied would range the United States on the side of Germany if any such assault were made upon Germany as has been made upon Belgium, or if either Belgium or any of the other allies committed similar wrong-doing. Many Germans assert and believe that if Germany had not acted as she did France and England would have invaded Belgium and have committed similar wrongs. In such case it would have been our clear duty to behave toward them exactly as we ought now to behave toward Germany. But the fact that other powers might under other conditions do wrong, affords no justification for failure to act on the wrong that has actually been committed. It must always be kept in mind, however, that we cannot expect the nation against whose actions we protest to accept our position as warranted, unless we make it clear that we have both the will and the power to interfere82 on behalf of that nation if in its turn it is116 oppressed. In other words, we must show that we believe in right and therefore in living up to our promises in good faith; and, furthermore, that we are both able and ready to put might behind right.
As I have before said, I think that the party in Germany which believes in a policy of aggression83 represents but a minority of the nation. It is powerful only because the great majority of the German people are rightfully in fear of aggression at the expense of Germany, and sanction striking only because they fear lest they themselves be struck. The greatest service that could be rendered to peace would be to convince Germany, as well as other powers, that in such event we would do all we could on behalf of the power that was wronged. Extremists in England, France, and Russia talk as if the proper outcome of the present war would be the utter dismemberment of Germany and her reduction to impotence such as that which followed for her upon the Thirty Years’ War. I have actually received letters from Frenchmen and Englishmen upbraiding84 me for what they regard as a pro-German leaning in these articles I have written. To these well-meaning persons I can only say that Americans who remember the extreme bitterness felt by Northerners for Southerners, and Southerners for Northerners, at the end of the Civil War, are117 saddened but in no wise astonished that other peoples should show a like bitterness. I can only repeat that to dismember and hopelessly shatter Germany would be a frightful85 calamity for mankind, precisely86 as the dismemberment and shattering of the British Empire or of the French Republic would be. It is right that the United States should regard primarily its own interests. But I believe that I speak for a considerable number of my countrymen when I say that we ought not solely87 to consider our own interests. Above all, we should not do as the present administration does; for it refuses to take any concrete action in favor of any nation which is wronged; and yet it also refuses to act so that we may ourselves be sufficient for our own protection.
We ought not to trust in words unbacked by deeds. We should be able to defend ourselves. We should also be ready and able to join in preventing the infliction of disaster of the kind of which I speak upon any civilized power, great or small, whether it be at the present time Belgium, or at some future day Germany or England, Holland, Sweden or Hungary, Russia or Japan.
So much for questions of international right, and of our duty to others in international affairs. Now for our duty to ourselves.
A sincere desire to act well toward other nations must not blind us to the fact that as yet the118 standard of international morality is both low and irregular. The behavior of the great military empires of the Old World, in reference to their treaty obligations and their moral obligations toward countries such as Belgium, Finland, and Korea, shows that it would be utter folly for us in any grave crisis to trust to anything save our own preparedness and resolution for our safety. The other day there appeared in the newspapers extracts from a translation of a report made by an officer of the Prussian army staff outlining the plan of operations by Germany in the event of war with America. Great surprise was expressed by innocent Americans that such plans should be in existence, and certain gentlemen who speak for Germany denied that the report (which was printed and openly sold in Germany in pamphlet form) was “official.” Neither the resentment88 expressed nor yet the denials were necessary. One feature of the admirable preparedness in which Germany and Japan stand so far above all other nations, and especially above our own, is their careful consideration of hostilities90 with all possible antagonists91. Bernhardi’s famous books treat of possible war with Austria, and possible attack by Austria upon Germany, although the prime lessons that they teach are those contained in the possibility of war as it has actually occurred, with Germany and Austria119 in alliance. This does not indicate German hostility92 to Austria; it merely indicates German willingness to look squarely in the face all possible facts. Of course, and quite properly, the German General Staff has carefully considered the question of hostilities with America, and, of course, plans were drawn93 up with minute care and prevision at the time when there was friction94 between the two countries over Samoa, at the time when Admiral Dietrich clashed with Dewey in Manila Bay, and on the later occasion when there was friction in connection with Venezuela. This did not represent any special German ill will toward America. It represented the common-sense—albeit somewhat cold-blooded—consideration of possibilities by Germany’s rulers; and the failure to give this consideration would have reflected severely95 upon these rulers—although I do not regard some of the actions proposed as proper from the standpoint of warfare96 as the United States has practised it. To become angry because such plans exist would be childish. To fail to profit by our knowledge that they certainly do exist would, however, be not merely childish but imbecile. I have myself become personally cognizant of the existence of such plans for operations against us, and of the larger features of their details, in two cases, affecting two different nations.
The essential feature of these plans was (and120 doubtless is) the seizure97 of some of our great coast cities and the terrorization of these cities so as to make them give enormous ransoms98; ransoms of such size that our own country would be crippled, whereas our foes101 would be enabled to run the war against us with a handsome profit to themselves. These plans are based, of course, upon the belief that we have not sufficient foresight102 and intelligence to keep our navy in first-class condition, and upon not merely the belief but the knowledge that our regular army is so small and our utter unpreparedness otherwise so great that on land we would be entirely103 helpless against a moderate-sized expeditionary force belonging to any first-class military power. Foreign military and naval104 observers know well that our navy has been used during the last eighteen months in connection with the Mexican situation in such manner as to accomplish the minimum of results as regards Mexico, while at the same time to do the maximum of damage in interrupting the man?uvring and the gun practice of our fleets. They regard Messrs. Wilson and Bryan as representative of the American people in their entire inability to understand the real nature of the forces that underlie105 international relations and the importance of preparedness. They are entirely cold-blooded in their views of us. Foreign rulers may despise us for our supine unpreparedness, and for our readiness121 to make treaties, taken together with our refusal to fulfil these treaties by seeking to avert14 wrong done to others. But their contempt will not prevent their using this nation as arbiter106 in order to bring about peace if to do so suits their purposes; and if, on the contrary, one or the other of the several great military empires becomes the world mistress as the result of this war, that power will infringe107 our rights whenever and to the extent that it deems it advantageous108 to do so, and will make war upon us whenever it believes that such war will be to its own advantage.
In the event of such a war against us it is well to remember that the spiritless and selfish type of neutrality which we have observed in the present war will be remembered by all other nations on whichever side they have been engaged in this contest, and will give each of them more or less satisfaction in the event of disaster befalling us. These nations, if they come to a deadlock109 as the result of this war, will not be withheld110 by any sentiment of indignation against or contempt for us from utilizing111 the services of the President as a medium for bringing about peace, if this seems the most convenient method of getting peace. But, whether they do this or not, they will retain a smouldering ill will toward us, one and all of them; and if we were assailed112 it would be utterly quixotic, utterly foolish of122 any one of them to come to our aid no matter what wrongs were inflicted113 upon us. It would be quite impossible for any power to treat us worse than Belgium has been treated by Germany or to attack us with less warrant than was shown when Belgium was attacked. Bombs have been continually dropped by the Germans in the city of Paris and in other cities, wrecking114 private houses and killing115 men, women, and children at a time when there was no pretense116 that any military attacks were being made upon the cities, or that any other object was served than that of terrorizing the civilian117 population. Cities have been destroyed and others held to huge ransom99. All these practices are forbidden by the Hague conventions. Inasmuch as we have not made a single protest against them when other powers have suffered, it would be both ridiculous and humiliating for us to make even the slightest appeal for assistance or to expect any assistance from any other powers if ever we in our turn suffer in like fashion. It would be purely our affair. We would have no right to expect that other powers would take the kind of action which we ourselves have refused to take. It would be our time to take our medicine, and it would be folly and cowardice to make wry118 faces over it or to expect sympathy, still less aid, from outsiders. As I have already stated, my own123 view is most strongly that, if we are assailed in accordance with the plans of foreign powers above mentioned, it would be our business positively119 to refuse to allow any city to ransom itself, and sternly to accept the destruction of New York, or San Francisco, or any other city as the alternative of such ransom. Our duty would be to accept these disasters as the payment rightfully due from us to fate for our folly in having listened to the clamor of the feeble folk among the ultrapacificists, and in having indorsed the unspeakable silliness of the policy contained in the proposed all-inclusive arbitration treaties of Mr. Taft and in the accomplished120 all-inclusive arbitration treaties of Messrs. Wilson and Bryan.
I very earnestly hope that this nation will ultimately adopt a dignified121 and self-respecting policy in international affairs. I earnestly hope that ultimately we shall live up to every international obligation we have undertaken—exactly as we did live up to them during the seven and a half years while I was President. I earnestly hope that we shall ourselves become one of the joint122 guarantors of world peace under such a plan as that I in this book outline, and that we shall hold ourselves ready and willing to act as a member of the international posse comitatus to enforce the peace of righteousness as against any offender123 big or small. This would mean a great124 practical stride toward relief from the burden of excessive military preparation. It would mean that a long step had been taken toward at least minimizing and restricting the area and extent of possible warfare. It would mean that all liberty-loving and enlightened peoples, great and small, would be freed from the haunting nightmare of terror which now besets124 them when they think of the possible conquest of their land.
Until this can be done we owe it to ourselves as a nation effectively to safeguard ourselves against all likelihood of disaster at the hands of a foreign foe100. We should bring our navy up to the highest point of preparedness, we should handle it purely from military considerations, and should see that the training was never intermitted. We should make our little regular army larger and more effective than at present. We should provide for it an adequate reserve. In addition, I most heartily125 believe that we should return to the ideal held by our people in the days of Washington although never lived up to by them. We should follow the example of such typical democracies as Switzerland and Australia and provide and require military training for all our young men. Switzerland’s efficient army has unquestionably been the chief reason why in this war there has been no violation of her neutrality. Australia’s system of military training has enabled her at once to ship large125 bodies of first-rate fighting men to England’s aid. Our northern neighbors have done even better than Australia; perhaps special mention should be made of St. John, Newfoundland, which has sent to the front one in five of her adult male population, a larger percentage than any other city of the empire; a feat89 probably due to the fact that in practically all her schools there is good military training, while her young men have much practice in shooting tournaments. England at the moment is saved from the fate of Belgium only because of her navy; and the small size of her army, her lack of arms, her lack of previous preparations doubtless afford the chief reason why this war has occurred at all at this time. There would probably have been no war if England had followed the advice so often urged on her by the lamented126 Lord Roberts, for in that case she would have been able immediately to put in the field an army as large and effective as, for instance, that of France.
Training of our young men in field man?uvres and in marksmanship, as is done in Switzerland, and to a slightly less extent in Australia, would be of immense advantage to the physique and morale127 of our whole population. It would not represent any withdrawal128 of our population from civil pursuits, such as occurs among the great military states of the European Continent. In126 Switzerland, for instance, the ground training is given in the schools, and the young man after graduating serves only some four months with the branch of the army to which he is attached, and after that only about eight days a year, not counting his rifle practice. All serve alike, rich and poor, without any exceptions; and all whom I have ever met, the poor even more than the rich, are enthusiastic over the beneficial effects of the service and the increase in self-reliance, self-respect, and efficiency which it has brought. The utter worthlessness of make-believe soldiers who have not been trained, and who are improvised129 on the Wilson-Bryan theory, will be evident to any one who cares to read such works as Professor Johnson’s recent volume on Bull Run. Our people should make a thorough study of the Swiss and Australian systems, and then adapt them to our own use. To do so would not be a stride toward war, as the feeble folk among the ultrapacificists would doubtless maintain. It would be the most effectual possible guarantee that peace would dwell within our borders; and it would also make it possible for us not only to insure peace for ourselves, but to have our words carry weight if we spoke130 against the commission of wrong and injustice131 at the expense of others.
But we must always remember that no institutions will avail unless the private citizen has the127 right spirit. When a leading congressman132, himself with war experience, shows conclusively133 in open speech in the House that we are utterly unprepared to do our duty to ourselves if assailed, President Wilson answers him with a cheap sneer134, with unworthy levity135; and the repeated warnings of General Wood are treated with the same indifference. Nevertheless, I do not believe that this attitude on the part of our public servants really represents the real convictions of the average American. The ideal citizen of a free state must have in him the stuff which in time of need will enable him to show himself a first-class fighting man who scorns either to endure or to inflict71 wrong. American society is sound at core and this means that at bottom we, as a people, accept as the basis of sound morality not slothful ease and soft selfishness and the loud timidity that fears every species of risk and hardship, but the virile136 strength of manliness137 which clings to the ideal of stern, unflinching performance of duty, and which follows whithersoever that ideal may lead.
点击收听单词发音
1 anarchy | |
n.无政府状态;社会秩序混乱,无秩序 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 interval | |
n.间隔,间距;幕间休息,中场休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 preservation | |
n.保护,维护,保存,保留,保持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 arrogant | |
adj.傲慢的,自大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 shred | |
v.撕成碎片,变成碎片;n.碎布条,细片,些少 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 exigencies | |
n.急切需要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 ordinances | |
n.条例,法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 analogous | |
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 enthusiasts | |
n.热心人,热衷者( enthusiast的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 unlimited | |
adj.无限的,不受控制的,无条件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 arbitration | |
n.调停,仲裁 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 avert | |
v.防止,避免;转移(目光、注意力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 averted | |
防止,避免( avert的过去式和过去分词 ); 转移 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 cowardice | |
n.胆小,怯懦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 monarchies | |
n. 君主政体, 君主国, 君主政治 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 mischievous | |
adj.调皮的,恶作剧的,有害的,伤人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 fatuity | |
n.愚蠢,愚昧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 initiated | |
n. 创始人 adj. 新加入的 vt. 开始,创始,启蒙,介绍加入 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 negotiation | |
n.谈判,协商 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 appalling | |
adj.骇人听闻的,令人震惊的,可怕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 calamity | |
n.灾害,祸患,不幸事件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 civilized | |
a.有教养的,文雅的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 catastrophe | |
n.大灾难,大祸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 coerce | |
v.强迫,压制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 obligatory | |
adj.强制性的,义务的,必须的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 criticise | |
v.批评,评论;非难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 loyalty | |
n.忠诚,忠心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 explicit | |
adj.详述的,明确的;坦率的;显然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 breach | |
n.违反,不履行;破裂;vt.冲破,攻破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 subjugation | |
n.镇压,平息,征服 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 condemn | |
vt.谴责,指责;宣判(罪犯),判刑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 annexed | |
[法] 附加的,附属的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 farce | |
n.闹剧,笑剧,滑稽戏;胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 disinterested | |
adj.不关心的,不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 exalted | |
adj.(地位等)高的,崇高的;尊贵的,高尚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 climax | |
n.顶点;高潮;v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 infinitely | |
adv.无限地,无穷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 violations | |
违反( violation的名词复数 ); 冒犯; 违反(行为、事例); 强奸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 aspirations | |
强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 ); 志向; 发送气音; 发 h 音 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 decency | |
n.体面,得体,合宜,正派,庄重 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 vindicate | |
v.为…辩护或辩解,辩明;证明…正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 atrocity | |
n.残暴,暴行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 offense | |
n.犯规,违法行为;冒犯,得罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 subjugated | |
v.征服,降伏( subjugate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 levying | |
征(兵)( levy的现在分词 ); 索取; 发动(战争); 征税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 explicitly | |
ad.明确地,显然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 inflict | |
vt.(on)把…强加给,使遭受,使承担 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 infliction | |
n.(强加于人身的)痛苦,刑罚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 pecuniary | |
adj.金钱的;金钱上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 prohibition | |
n.禁止;禁令,禁律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 punitive | |
adj.惩罚的,刑罚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 devastation | |
n.毁坏;荒废;极度震惊或悲伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 cynical | |
adj.(对人性或动机)怀疑的,不信世道向善的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 indifference | |
n.不感兴趣,不关心,冷淡,不在乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 authoritatively | |
命令式地,有权威地,可信地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 aggression | |
n.进攻,侵略,侵犯,侵害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 upbraiding | |
adj.& n.谴责(的)v.责备,申斥,谴责( upbraid的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 frightful | |
adj.可怕的;讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 solely | |
adv.仅仅,唯一地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 resentment | |
n.怨愤,忿恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 feat | |
n.功绩;武艺,技艺;adj.灵巧的,漂亮的,合适的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 hostilities | |
n.战争;敌意(hostility的复数);敌对状态;战事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 antagonists | |
对立[对抗] 者,对手,敌手( antagonist的名词复数 ); 对抗肌; 对抗药 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 friction | |
n.摩擦,摩擦力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 warfare | |
n.战争(状态);斗争;冲突 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 seizure | |
n.没收;占有;抵押 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 ransoms | |
付赎金救人,赎金( ransom的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 ransom | |
n.赎金,赎身;v.赎回,解救 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 foe | |
n.敌人,仇敌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 foes | |
敌人,仇敌( foe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 foresight | |
n.先见之明,深谋远虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 naval | |
adj.海军的,军舰的,船的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 underlie | |
v.位于...之下,成为...的基础 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 arbiter | |
n.仲裁人,公断人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 infringe | |
v.违反,触犯,侵害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 advantageous | |
adj.有利的;有帮助的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 deadlock | |
n.僵局,僵持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 withheld | |
withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 utilizing | |
v.利用,使用( utilize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 assailed | |
v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 inflicted | |
把…强加给,使承受,遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 wrecking | |
破坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 killing | |
n.巨额利润;突然赚大钱,发大财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 pretense | |
n.矫饰,做作,借口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 civilian | |
adj.平民的,民用的,民众的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 wry | |
adj.讽刺的;扭曲的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 positively | |
adv.明确地,断然,坚决地;实在,确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 joint | |
adj.联合的,共同的;n.关节,接合处;v.连接,贴合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 offender | |
n.冒犯者,违反者,犯罪者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 besets | |
v.困扰( beset的第三人称单数 );不断围攻;镶;嵌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 heartily | |
adv.衷心地,诚恳地,十分,很 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 lamented | |
adj.被哀悼的,令人遗憾的v.(为…)哀悼,痛哭,悲伤( lament的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 morale | |
n.道德准则,士气,斗志 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 withdrawal | |
n.取回,提款;撤退,撤军;收回,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 improvised | |
a.即席而作的,即兴的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 Congressman | |
n.(美)国会议员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 conclusively | |
adv.令人信服地,确凿地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 sneer | |
v.轻蔑;嘲笑;n.嘲笑,讥讽的言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 levity | |
n.轻率,轻浮,不稳定,多变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 virile | |
adj.男性的;有男性生殖力的;有男子气概的;强有力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 manliness | |
刚毅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |