It seems necessary every time I state my position to guard against the counterwords of wilful8 folly9 by reiterating10 that my disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacificists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile11 and impotent in working for peace, and, second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the245 all-important end toward which we should strive. In actual practice they advocate the peace of unrighteousness just as fervently13 as they advocate the peace of righteousness. I have as little sympathy as they have for the men who deify mere1 brutal14 force, who insist that power justifies15 wrong-doing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultrapacificists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn16 equally might which backs right and might which overthrows17 right is to render positive service to wrong-doers. It is as if in private life we condemned18 alike both the policeman and the dynamiter19 or black-hand kidnapper20 or white slaver whom he has arrested. To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense21, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on an exact par22 with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril23 of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and of morals.
In a capital book, by a German, Mr. Edmund von Mach, entitled “What Germany Wants,” there is the following noble passage at the outset:
246
During the preparation of this book the writer received from his uncle, a veteran army officer living in Dresden, a brief note containing the following laconic24 record:
“1793, your great-grandfather at Kostheim.
“1815, your grandfather at Liegnitz.
“1870, myself—all severely25 wounded by French bullets.
“1914, my son, captain in the 6th Regiment26 of Dragoons.
“Four generations obliged to fight the French!”
When the writer turns to his American friends of French descent, he finds there similar records, and often even greater sorrow, for death has come to many of them. In Europe their families and his have looked upon each other as enemies for generations, while a few years in the clarifying atmosphere of America have made friends of former Frenchmen, Germans, Russians, and Englishmen.
Jointly27 they pray that the present war may not be carried to such a pass that an early and honorable peace becomes impossible for any one of these great nations. Is it asking too much that America may be vouchsafed28 in not too distant a future to do for their respective native lands what the American institutions have done for them individually, help them to regard each other at their true worth, unblinded by traditional hatred29 or fiery30 passion?
It is in the spirit of this statement that we Americans should act. We are a people different from, but akin31, to all the nations of Europe. We should feel a real friendship for each of the contesting powers and a real desire to work so as to secure justice for each. This cannot be done by247 preserving a tame and spiritless neutrality which treats good and evil on precisely32 the same basis. Such a neutrality never has enabled and never will enable any nation to do a great work for righteousness. Our true course should be to judge each nation on its conduct, unhesitatingly to antagonize every nation that does ill as regards the point on which it does ill, and equally without hesitation33 to act, as cool-headed and yet generous wisdom may dictate34, so as disinterestedly35 to further the welfare of all.
One of the greatest of international duties ought to be the protection of small, highly civilized36, well-behaved, and self-respecting states from oppression and conquest by their powerful military neighbors. Such nations as Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Uruguay, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden play a great and honorable part in the development of civilization. The subjugation37 of any one of them is a crime against, the destruction of any one of them is a loss to, mankind.
I feel in the strongest way that we should have interfered38, at least to the extent of the most emphatic39 diplomatic protest and at the very outset—and then by whatever further action was necessary—in regard to the violation40 of the neutrality of Belgium; for this act was the earliest and the most important and, in its consequences, the most ruinous of all the violations41 and offenses248 against treaties committed by any combatant during the war. But it was not the only one. The Japanese and English forces not long after violated Chinese neutrality in attacking Kiao-Chau. It has been alleged43 and not denied that the British ship Highflyer sunk the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse in neutral Spanish waters, this being also a violation of the Hague conventions; and on October 10th the German government issued an official protest about alleged violations of the Geneva convention by the French. Furthermore, the methods employed in strewing44 portions of the seas with floating mines have been such as to warrant the most careful investigation45 by any neutral nations which treat neutrality pacts46 and Hague conventions as other than merely dead letters. Not a few offenses42 have been committed against our own people.
If, instead of observing a timid and spiritless neutrality, we had lived up to our obligations by taking action in all of these cases without regard to which power it was that was alleged to have done wrong, we would have followed the only course that would both have told for world righteousness and have served our own self-respect. The course actually followed by Messrs. Wilson, Bryan, and Daniels has been to permit our own power for self-defense steadily47 to diminish while at the same time refusing to do what we were249 solemnly bound to do in order to protest against wrong and to render some kind of aid to weak nations that had been wronged. Inasmuch as, in the first and greatest and the most ruinous case of violation of neutral rights and of international morality, this nation, under the guidance of Messrs. Wilson and Bryan, kept timid silence and dared not protest, it would be—and is—an act of deliberate bad faith to protest only as regards subsequent and less important violations. Of course, if, as a people, we frankly48 take the ground that our actions are based upon nothing whatever but our own selfish and short-sighted interest, it is possible to protest only against violations of neutrality that at the moment unfavorably affect our own interests. Inaction is often itself the most offensive form of action; the administration has persistently49 refused to live up to the solemn national obligations to strive to protect other unoffending nations from wrong; and this conduct adds a peculiar51 touch of hypocrisy52 to the action taken at the same time in signing a couple of score of all-inclusive arbitration53 treaties pretentiously54 heralded55 as serving world righteousness. If we had acted as we ought to have acted regarding Belgium we could then with a clear conscience have made effective protest regarding every other case of violation of the rights of neutrals or of offenses committed by the belligerents56 against one250 another or against us in violation of the Hague conventions. Moreover, the attitude of the administration has not even placated57 the powers it was desired to please. Thanks to its action, the United States during the last five months has gained neither the good-will nor the respect of any of the combatants. On the contrary, it has steadily grown rather more disliked and rather less respected by all of them.
In facing a difficult and critical situation, any administration is entitled to a free hand until it has had time to develop the action which it considers appropriate, for often there is more than one way in which it is possible to take efficient action. But when so much time has passed, either without action or with only mischievous59 action, as gravely to compromise both the honor and the interest of the country, then it becomes a duty for self-respecting citizens to whom their country is dear to speak out. From the very outset I felt that the administration was following a wrong course. But no action of mine could make it take the right course, and there was a possibility that there was some object aside from political advantage in the course followed. I kept silence as long as silence was compatible with regard for the national honor and welfare. I spoke60 only when it became imperative61 to speak under penalty of tame acquiescence62 in tame failure251 to perform national duty. It has become evident that the administration has had no plan whatever save the dexterous63 avoidance of all responsibility and therefore of all duty, and the effort to persuade our people as a whole that this inaction was for their interest—combined with other less openly expressed and less worthy64 efforts of purely65 political type.
There is therefore no longer any reason for failure to point out that if the President and Secretary of State had been thoroughly66 acquainted in advance, as of course they ought to have been acquainted, with the European situation, and if they had possessed67 an intelligent and resolute68 purpose squarely to meet their heavy responsibilities and thereby69 to serve the honor of this country and the interest of mankind, they would have taken action on July 29th, 30th, or 31st, certainly not later than August 1st. On such occasions there is a peculiar applicability in the old proverb: Nine tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time. If those responsible for the management of our foreign affairs had been content to dwell in a world of fact instead of a world of third-rate fiction, they would have understood that at such a time of world crisis it was an unworthy avoidance of duty to fuss with silly little all-inclusive arbitration treaties when the need of the day demanded that they devote all their252 energies to the terrible problems of the day. They would have known that a German invasion of Switzerland was possible but improbable and a German invasion of Belgium overwhelmingly probable. They would have known that vigorous action by the United States government, taken with such entire good faith as to make it evident that it was in the interest of Belgium and not in the interest of France and England, and that if there was occasion it would be taken against France and England as quickly as against Germany, might very possibly have resulted in either putting a stop to the war or in localizing and narrowly circumscribing70 its area. It is, of course, possible that the action would have failed of its immediate71 purpose. But even in that case it cannot be doubted that it would have been efficient as a check upon the subsequent wrongs committed.
Nor was the opportunity for action limited in time. Even if the administration had failed thus to act at the outset of the war, the protests officially made both by the German Emperor and by the Belgian government to the President as to alleged misconduct in the prosecution72 of the war not only gave him warrant for action but required him to act. Meanwhile, from the moment when the war was declared, it became inexcusable of the administration not to take immediate253 steps to put the navy into efficient shape, and at least to make our military forces on land more respectable. It is possible not to justify73 but to explain the action of the administration in using the navy for the sixteen months prior to this war in such a way as greatly to impair74 its efficiency; for of course when the President selected Mr. Daniels as Secretary of the Navy he showed, on the supposition that he was not indifferent to its welfare, an entire ignorance of what that welfare demanded; and therefore the failure to keep the navy efficient may have been due at first to mere inability to exercise foresight75. But with war impending76, such failure to exercise foresight became inexcusable. None of the effective fighting craft are of any real use so far as Mexico is concerned. The navy should at once have been assembled in northern waters, either in the Atlantic or the Pacific, and immediate steps taken to bring it to the highest point of efficiency.
It is because I believe our attitude should be one of sincere good-will toward all nations that I so strongly feel that we should endeavor to work for a league of peace among all nations rather than trust to alliances with any particular group. Moreover, alliances are very shifty and uncertain. Within twenty years England has regarded France as her immediately dangerous opponent; within ten years she has felt that Russia was the254 one power against which she must at all costs guard herself; and during the same period there have been times when Belgium has hated England with a peculiar fervor77. Alliances must be based on self-interest and must continually shift. But in such a world league as that of which we speak and dream, the test would be conduct and not merely selfish interest, and so there would be no shifting of policy.
It is not yet opportune78 to discuss in detail the exact method by which the nations of the world shall put the collective strength of civilization behind the purpose of civilization to do right, using as an instrumentality for peace such a world league. I have in the last chapter given the bare outline of such a plan. Probably at the outset it would be an absolute impossibility to devise a non-national or purely international police force which would be effective in a great crisis. The prime necessity is that all the great nations should agree in good faith to use their combined warlike strength to coerce79 any nation, whichever one it may be, that declines to abide80 the decision of some competent international tribunal.
Our business is to create the beginnings of international order out of the world of nations as these nations actually exist. We do not have to deal with a world of pacificists and therefore we255 must proceed on the assumption that treaties will never acquire sanctity until nations are ready to seal them with their blood. We are not striving for peace in heaven. That is not our affair. What we were bidden to strive for is “peace on earth and good-will toward men.” To fulfil this injunction it is necessary to treat the earth as it is and men as they are, as an indispensable pre-requisite to making the earth a better place in which to live and men better fit to live in it. It is inexcusable moral culpability81 on our part to pretend to carry out this injunction in such fashion as to nullify it; and this we do if we make believe that the earth is what it is not and if our professions of bringing good-will toward men are in actual practice shown to be empty shams82. Peace congresses, peace parades, the appointment and celebration of days of prayer for peace, and the like, which result merely in giving the participants the feeling that they have accomplished83 something and are therefore to be excused from hard, practical work for righteousness, are empty shams. Treaties such as the recent all-inclusive arbitration treaties are worse than empty shams and convict us as a nation of moral culpability when our representatives sign them at the same time that they refuse to risk anything to make good the signatures we have already affixed84 to the Hague conventions.
256 Moderate and sensible treaties which mean something and which can and will be enforced mark a real advance for the human race. As has been well said: “It is our business to make no treaties which we are not ready to maintain with all our resources, for every such ‘scrap of paper’ is like a forged check—an assault on our credit in the world.” Promises that are idly given and idly broken represent profound detriment85 to the morality of nations. Until no promise is idly entered into and until promises that have once been made are kept, at no matter what cost of risk and effort and positive loss, just so long will distrust and suspicion and wrong-doing rack the world. No honest lawyer will hesitate to advise his client against signing a contract either detrimental86 to his interests or impossible of fulfilment; and the individual who signs such a contract at once makes himself either an object of suspicion to sound-headed men or else an object of derision to all men. One of the stock jokes in the comic columns of the newspapers refers to the man who swears off or takes the pledge, or makes an indefinite number of good resolutions on New Year’s Day, and fails to keep his pledge or promise or resolution; this was one of Mark Twain’s favorite subjects for derision. The man who continually makes new promises without living up to those he has already made, and who257 takes pledges which he breaks, is rightly treated as an object for contemptuous fun. The nation which behaves in like manner deserves no higher consideration.
The conduct of President Wilson and Secretary Bryan in signing these all-inclusive treaties at the same time that they have kept silent about the breaking of the Hague conventions has represented the kind of wrong-doing to this nation that would be represented in private life by the conduct of the individuals who sign such contracts as those mentioned. The administration has looked on without a protest while the Hague conventions have been torn up and thrown to the wind. It has watched the paper structure of good-will collapse87 without taking one step to prevent it; and yet foolish pacificists, the very men who in the past have been most vociferous88 about international morality, have praised it for this position. The assertion that our neutrality carries with it the obligation to be silent when our own Hague conventions are destroyed represents an active step against the peace of righteousness. The only way to show that our faith in public law was real was to protest against the assault on international morality implied in the invasion of Belgium.
Unless some one at some time is ready to take some chance for the sake of internationalism, that258 is of international morality, it will remain what it is to-day, an object of derision to aggressive nations. Even if nothing more than an emphatic protest had been made against what was done in Belgium—it is not at this time necessary for me to state exactly what, in my judgment89, ought to have been done—the foundations would have been laid for an effective world opinion against international cynicism. Pacificists claim that we have acted so as to preserve the good-will of Europe and to exercise a guiding influence in the settlement of the war. This is an idea which appeals to the thoughtless, for it gratifies our desire to keep out of trouble and also our vanity by the hope that we shall do great things with small difficulty. It may or may not be that the settlement will finally be made by a peace congress in which the President of the United States will hold titular90 position of headship. But under conditions as they are now the real importance of the President in such a peace congress will be comparable to the real importance of the drum-major when he walks at the head of a regiment. Small boys regard the drum-major as much more important than the regimental commander; and the pacificist grown-ups who applaud peace congresses sometimes show as regards the drum-majors of these congresses the same touching91 lack of insight which small boys show toward real drum-majors. As a259 matter of fact, if the United States enters such a congress with nothing but a record of comfortable neutrality or tame acquiescence in violated Hague conventions, plus an array of vague treaties with no relation to actual facts, it will be allowed to fill the position of international drum-major and of nothing more; and even this position it will be allowed to fill only so long as it suits the convenience of the men who have done the actual fighting. The warring nations will settle the issues in accordance with their own strength and position. Under such conditions we shall be treated as we deserve to be treated, as a nation of people who mean well feebly, whose words are not backed by deeds, who like to prattle2 about both their own strength and their own righteousness, but who are unwilling92 to run the risks without which righteousness cannot be effectively served, and who are also unwilling to undergo the toil93 of intelligent and hard-working preparation without which strength when tested proves weakness.
In this world it is as true of nations as of individuals that the things best worth having are rarely to be obtained in cheap fashion. There is nothing easier than to meet in congresses and conventions and pass resolutions in favor of virtue. There is also nothing more futile unless those passing the resolutions are willing to make260 them good by labor94 and endurance and active courage and self-denial. Readers of John Hay’s poems will remember the scorn therein expressed for those who “resoloot till the cows come home,” but do not put effort back of their words. Those who would teach our people that service can be rendered or greatness attained95 in easy, comfortable fashion, without facing risk, hardship, and difficulty, are teaching what is false and mischievous. Courage, hard work, self-mastery, and intelligent effort are all essential to successful life. As a rule, the slothful ease of life is in inverse96 proportion to its true success. This is true of the private lives of farmers, business men, and mechanics. It is no less true of the life of the nation which is made up of these farmers, business men, and mechanics.
As yet, as events have most painfully shown, there is nothing to be expected by any nation in a great crisis from anything except its own strength. Under these circumstances it is criminal in the United States not to prepare. Critics have stated that in advocating universal military service on the Swiss plan in this country, I am advocating militarism. I am not concerned with mere questions of terminology98. The plan I advocate would be a corrective of every evil which we associate with the name of militarism. It would tend for order and self-respect among our261 people. Not the smallest evil among the many evils that exist in America is due to militarism. Save in the crisis of the Civil War there has been no militarism in the United States and the only militarist President we have ever had was Abraham Lincoln. Universal service of the Swiss type would be educational in the highest and best sense of the word. In Switzerland, as compared with the United States, there are, relatively99 to the population, only one tenth the number of murders and of crimes of violence. Doubtless other causes have contributed to this, but doubtless also the intelligent collective training of the Swiss people in habits of obedience100, of self-reliance, self-restraint and endurance, of applied101 patriotism102 and collective action, has been a very potent12 factor in producing this good result.
As I have already said, I know of my own knowledge that two nations which on certain occasions were obliged, perhaps as much by our fault as by theirs, to take into account the question of possible war with the United States, planned in such event to seize the Panama Canal and to take and ransom103 or destroy certain of our great coast cities. They planned this partly in the belief that our navy would intermittently104 be allowed to become extremely inefficient105, just as during the last twenty months it has become inefficient, and partly in the belief that our people262 are so wholly unmilitary, and so ridden to death on the one hand by foolish pacificists and on the other by brutal materialists whose only God is money, that we would not show ourselves either resolutely106 patriotic107 or efficient even in what belated action our utter lack of preparation permitted us to take. I believe that these nations were and are wrong in their estimate of the underlying108 strength of the American character. I believe that if war did really come both the ultrapacificists, the peace-at-any-price men, and the merely brutal materialists, who count all else as nothing compared to the gratification of their greed for gain or their taste for ease, for pleasure, and for vacuous109 excitement, would be driven before the gale110 of popular feeling as leaves are driven through the fall woods. But such aroused public feeling in the actual event would be wholly inadequate111 to make good our failure to prepare.
We should in all humility112 imitate not a little of the spirit so much in evidence among the Germans and the Japanese, the two nations which in modern times have shown the most practical type of patriotism, the greatest devotion to the common weal, the greatest success in developing their economic resources and abilities from within, and the greatest far-sightedness in safeguarding the country against possible disaster from without.263 In the Journal of the Military Service Institution for the months of November and December of the present year will be found a quotation113 from a Japanese military paper, The Comrades’ Magazine, which displays an amount of practical good sense together with patriotism and devotion to the welfare of the average man which could well be copied by our people and which is worthy of study by every intelligent American. Germany’s success in industrialism has been as extraordinary and noteworthy as her success in securing military efficiency, and fundamentally has been due to the development of the same qualities in the nation.
At present the United States does not begin to get adequate return in the way of efficient preparation for defense from the amount of money appropriated every year. Both the executive and Congress are responsible for this—and of course this means that the permanent and ultimate responsibility rests on the people. It is really less a question of spending more money than of knowing how to get the best results for the money that we do spend. Most emphatically there should be a comprehensive plan both for defense and for expenditure114. The best military and naval115 authorities—not merely the senior officers but the best officers—should be required to produce comprehensive plans for battle-ships, for submarines, for264 air-ships, for proper artillery116, for a more efficient regular army, and for a great popular reserve behind the army. Every useless military post should be forthwith abandoned; and this cannot be done save by getting Congress to accept or reject plans for defense and expenditure in their entirety. If each congressman117 or senator can put in his special plea for the erection or retention118 of a military post for non-military reasons, and for the promotion119 or favoring of some given officer or group of officers also for non-military reasons, we can rest assured that good results can never be obtained. Here, again, what is needed is not plans by outsiders but the insistence120 by outsiders upon the army and navy officers being required to produce the right plans, being backed up when they do produce the right plans, and being held to a strict accountability for any failure, active or passive, in their duty.
Moreover, these plans must be treated as part of the coherent policy of the nation in international affairs. With a gentleman like Mr. Bryan in the State Department it may be accepted as absolutely certain that we never will have the highest grade of efficiency in the Departments of War and of the Navy. With a gentleman like Mr. Daniels at the head of the navy, it may be accepted as certain that the navy will not be brought to the level of its possible powers. This265 means that the people as a whole must demand of their leaders that they treat seriously the navy and army and our foreign policy.
The waste in our navy and army is very great. This is inevitable121 as long as we do not discriminate122 against the inefficient and as long as we fail to put a premium123 upon efficiency. When I was President I found out that a very large proportion of the old officers of the army and even of the navy were physically124 incompetent125 to perform many of their duties. The public was wholly indifferent on the subject. Congress would not act. As a preliminary, and merely as a preliminary, I established a regulation that before promotion officers should be required to walk fifty miles or ride one hundred miles in three days. This was in no way a sufficient test of an officer’s fitness. It merely served to rid the service of men whose unfitness was absolutely ludicrous. Yet in Congress and in the newspapers an extraordinary din50 was raised against this test on the ground that it was unjust to faithful elderly officers! The pacificists promptly126 assailed127 it on the ground that to make the army efficient was a “warlike” act. All kinds of philanthropists, including clergymen and college presidents, wrote me that my action showed not only callousness128 of heart but also a regrettable spirit of militarism. Any officer who because of failure to come up to266 the test or for other reasons was put out of the service was certain to receive ardent129 congressional championship; and every kind of pressure was brought to bear on behalf of the unfit, while hardly the slightest effective championship was given the move from any outside source. This was because public opinion was absolutely uneducated on the subject. In our country the men who in time of peace speak loudest about war are usually the ultrapacificists whose activities have been shown to be absolutely futile for peace, but who do a little mischief by persuading a number of well-meaning persons that preparedness for war is unnecessary.
It is not desirable that civilians130, acting131 independently of and without the help of military and naval advisers132, shall prepare minute or detailed134 plans as to what ought to be done for our national defense. But civilians are competent to advocate plans in outline exactly as I have here advocated them. Moreover, and most important, they are competent to try to make public opinion effective in these matters. A democracy must have proper leaders. But these leaders must be able to appeal to a proper sentiment in the democracy. It is the prime duty of every right-thinking citizen at this time to aid his fellow countrymen to understand the need of working wisely for peace, the folly of acting unwisely for peace, and, above all, the267 need of real and thorough national preparedness against war.
Former Secretary of the Navy Bonaparte, in one of his admirable articles, in which he discusses armaments and treaties, has spoken as follows:
Indeed, it is so obviously impolitic, on the part of the administration and its party friends, to avow135 a purpose to keep the people in the dark as to our preparedness (or rather as to our virtually admitted unpreparedness) to protect the national interests, safety, and honor, that a practical avowal136 of such purpose on their part would seem altogether incredible, but for certain rather notorious facts developed by our experience during the last year and three quarters.
It has gradually become evident, or, at least, probable that the mind (wherever that mind may be located) which determines, or has, as yet, determined137, our foreign policy under President Wilson, really relies upon a timid neutrality and innumerable treaties of general arbitration as sufficient to protect us from foreign aggression138; and advisedly wishes to keep us virtually unarmed and helpless to defend ourselves, so that a sense of our weakness may render us sufficiently139 pusillanimous140 to pocket all insults, to submit to any form of outrage141, to resent no provocation142, and to abdicate143 completely and forever the dignity and the duties of a great nation.
In the absence of actual experience, a strong effort of the imagination would be required, at least on the part of the writer, to conceive of anybody’s not finding such an outlook for his country utterly144 intolerable; but incredulity must yield to decisive proof. Even the votaries145 of268 this novel cult58 of cowardice146, however, are evidently compelled to recognize that, as yet, they constitute a very small minority among Americans, and, for this reason, they would keep their fellow countrymen, as far as may be practicable, in the dark as to our national weakness and our national dangers; they delight in gagging soldiers and sailors and, to the extent of their power, everybody else who may speak with any authority, and, if they could, would shut out every ray of light which might aid public opinion to see things as they are.
* * * * *
There is no room for difference as to the utter absurdity147 of reliance on treaties, no matter how solemn or with whomsoever made, as substitutes for proper armaments to assure the national safety; Belgium’s fate stares in the face any one who should even dream of this. Her neutrality was established and guaranteed, not by one treaty but by several treaties, not by one power but by all the powers; yet she has been completely ruined because she relied upon these treaties, refused to violate them herself and tried, in good faith, to fulfil the obligations they imposed on her.
For any public man, with this really terrible object-lesson before his eyes, to seriously ask us to believe that arbitration treaties or Hague tribunals or anything else within that order of ideas can be trusted to take the place of preparation impeaches148 either his sincerity149 or his sanity150, and impeaches no less obviously the common sense of his readers or hearers.
A nation unable to protect itself may have to pay a frightful151 price nowadays as a penalty for the misfortune of weakness; the Belgians may be, in a measure, consoled for their misfortune by the world’s respect and sympathy; in the like case, we should be further and justly punished269 by the world’s unbounded and merited contempt, for our weakness would be the fruit of our own ignominious152 cowardice and incredible folly.
Secretary Garrison153 in his capital report says that if our outlying possessions are even insufficiently154 manned our mobile home army will consist of less than twenty-five thousand men, only about twice the size of the police force of New York City. Yet, in the face of this, certain newspaper editors, college presidents, pacificist bankers and, I regret to say, certain clergymen and philanthropists enthusiastically champion the attitude of President Wilson and Mr. Bryan in refusing to prepare for war. As one of them put it the other day: “The way to prevent war is not to fight.” Luxembourg did not fight! Does this gentleman regard the position of Luxembourg at this moment as enviable? China has not recently fought. Does the gentleman think that China’s position is in consequence a happy one? If advisers of this type, if these college presidents and clergymen and editors of organs of culture and the philanthropists who give this advice spoke only for themselves, if the humiliation155 and disgrace were to come only on them, no one would have a right to object. They have servile souls; and if they chose serfdom of the body for themselves only, it would be of small consequence to others. But, unfortunately, their words have a270 certain effect upon this country; and that effect is intolerably evil. Doubtless it is the influence of these men which is largely responsible for the attitude of the President. The President attacks preparedness in the name of antimilitarism. The preparedness we advocate is that of Switzerland, the least militaristic of countries. Autocracy156 may use preparedness for the creation of an aggressive and provocative157 militarism that invites and produces war; but in a democracy preparedness means security against aggression and the best guarantee of peace. The President in his message has in effect declared that his theory of neutrality, which is carried to the point of a complete abandonment of the rights of innocent small nations, and his theory of non-preparedness, which is carried to the point of gross national inefficiency158, are both means for securing to the United States a leading position in bringing about peace. The position he would thus secure would be merely that of drum-major at the peace conference; and he would do well to remember that if the peace that is brought about should result in leaving Belgium’s wrongs unredressed and turning Belgium over to Germany, in enthroning militarism as the chief factor in the modern world, and in consecrating159 the violation of treaties, then the United States, by taking part in such a conference, would have rendered an evil service to mankind.
271 At present our navy is in wretched shape. Our army is infinitesimal. This large, rich republic is far less efficient from a military standpoint than Switzerland, Holland, or Denmark. In spite of the fact that the officers and enlisted160 men of our navy and army offer material on the whole better than the officers and men of any other navy or army, these two services have for so many years been neglected by Congress, and during the last two years have been so mishandled by the administration, that at the present time an energetic and powerful adversary161 could probably with ease drive us not only from the Philippines but from Hawaii, and take possession of the Canal and Alaska. If invaded by a serious army belonging to some formidable Old World empire, we would be for many months about as helpless as China; and, as nowadays large armies can cross the ocean, we might be crushed beyond hope of recuperation inside of a decade. Yet those now at the head of public affairs refuse themselves to face facts and seek to mislead the people as to the facts.
President Wilson is, of course, fully97 and completely responsible for Mr. Bryan. Mr. Bryan appreciates this and loyally endeavors to serve the President and to come to his defense at all times. As soon as President Wilson had announced that there was no need of preparations to defend ourselves, because we loved everybody272 and everybody loved us and because our mission was to spread the gospel of peace, Mr. Bryan came to his support with hearty162 enthusiasm and said: “The President knows that if this country needed a million men, and needed them in a day, the call would go out at sunrise and the sun would go down on a million men in arms.” One of the President’s stanchest newspaper adherents163 lost its patience over this utterance164 and remarked: “More foolish words than these of the Secretary of State were never spoken by mortal man in reply to a serious argument.” However, Mr. Bryan had a good precedent165, although he probably did not know it. Pompey, when threatened by C?sar, and told that his side was unprepared, responded that he had only to “stamp his foot” and legions would spring from the ground. In the actual event, the “stamping” proved as effectual against C?sar as Mr. Bryan’s “call” would under like circumstances. I once heard a Bryanite senator put Mr. Bryan’s position a little more strongly than it occurred to Mr. Bryan himself to put it. The senator in question announced that we needed no regular army, because in the event of war “ten million freemen would spring to arms, the equals of any regular soldiers in the world.” I do not question the emotional or oratorical166 sincerity either of Mr. Bryan or of the senator. Mr. Bryan is accustomed273 to performing in vacuo; and both he and President Wilson, as regards foreign affairs, apparently167 believe they are living in a world of two dimensions, and not in the actual workaday world, which has three dimensions. This was equally true of the senator in question. If the senator’s ten million men sprang to arms at this moment, they would have at the outside some four hundred thousand modern rifles to which to spring. Perhaps six hundred thousand more could spring to squirrel pieces and fairly good shotguns. The remaining nine million men would have to “spring” to axes, scythes168, hand-saws, gimlets, and similar arms. As for Mr. Bryan’s million men who would at sunset respond under arms to a call made at sunrise, the suggestion is such a mere rhetorical flourish that it is not worthy even of humorous treatment; a high-school boy making such a statement in a theme would be marked zero by any competent master. But it is an exceedingly serious thing, it is not in the least a humorous thing, that the man making such a statement should be the chief adviser133 of the President in international matters, and should hold the highest office in the President’s gift.
Nor is Mr. Bryan in any way out of sympathy with President Wilson in this matter. The President, unlike Mr. Bryan, uses good English and does not say things that are on their face ridiculous.274 Unfortunately, his cleverness of style and his entire refusal to face facts apparently make him believe that he really has dismissed and done away with ugly realities whenever he has uttered some pretty phrase about them. This year we are in the presence of a crisis in the history of the world. In the terrible whirlwind of war all the great nations of the world, save the United States and Italy, are facing the supreme169 test of their history. All of the pleasant and alluring170 but futile theories of the pacificists, all the theories enunciated171 in the peace congresses of the past twenty years, have vanished at the first sound of the drumming guns. The work of all the Hague conventions, and all the arbitration treaties, neutrality treaties, and peace treaties of the last twenty years has been swept before the gusts172 of war like withered173 leaves before a November storm. In this great crisis the stern and actual facts have shown that the fate of each nation depends not in the least upon any elevated international aspirations174 to which it has given expression in speech or treaty, but on practical preparation, on intensity175 of patriotism, on grim endurance, and on the possession of the fighting edge. Yet, in the face of all this, the President of the United States sends in a message dealing176 with national defense, which is filled with prettily177 phrased platitudes178 of the kind applauded at the less important type of peace275 congress, and with sentences cleverly turned to conceal179 from the average man the fact that the President has no real advice to give, no real policy to propose. There is just one point as to which he does show real purpose for a tangible180 end. He dwells eagerly upon the hope that we may obtain “the opportunity to counsel and obtain peace in the world” among the warring nations and adjures181 us not to jeopardize182 this chance (for the President to take part in the peace negotiations) by at this time making any preparations for self-defense. In effect, we are asked not to put our own shores in defensible condition lest the President may lose the chance to be at the head of the congress which may compose the differences of Europe. In effect, he asks us not to build up the navy, not to provide for an efficient citizen army, not to get ammunition183 for our guns and torpedoes184 for our torpedo-tubes, lest somehow or other this may make the President of the United States an unacceptable mediator185 between Germany and Great Britain! It is an honorable ambition for the President to desire to be of use in bringing about peace in Europe; but only on condition that the peace thus brought is the peace of righteousness, and only on condition that he does not sacrifice this country’s vital interests for a clatter186 of that kind of hollow applause through which runs an undertone of sinister187 jeering188. He must276 not sacrifice to this ambition the supreme interest of the American people. Nor must he believe that the possibility of his being umpire will have any serious effect on the terrible war game that is now being played; the outcome of the game will depend upon the prowess of the players. No gain will come to our nation, or to any other nation, if President Wilson permits himself to be deluded189 concerning the part the United States may take in the promotion of European peace.
Peace in Europe will be made by the warring nations. They and they alone will in fact determine the terms of settlement. The United States may be used as a convenient means of getting together; but that is all. If the nations of Europe desire peace and our assistance in securing it, it will be because they have fought as long as they will or can. It will not be because they regard us as having set a spiritual example to them by sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up their trade, while they have poured out their blood like water in support of the ideals in which, with all their hearts and souls, they believe. For us to assume superior virtue in the face of the war-worn nations of the Old World will not make us more acceptable as mediators among them. Such self-consciousness on our part will not impress the nations who have sacrificed and are sacrificing all that is dearest to them in the world,277 for the things that they believe to be the noblest in the world. The storm that is raging in Europe at this moment is terrible and evil; but it is also grand and noble. Untried men who live at ease will do well to remember that there is a certain sublimity190 even in Milton’s defeated archangel, but none whatever in the spirits who kept neutral, who remained at peace, and dared side neither with hell nor with heaven. They will also do well to remember that when heroes have battled together, and have wrought191 good and evil, and when the time has come out of the contest to get all the good possible and to prevent as far as possible the evil from being made permanent, they will not be influenced much by the theory that soft and short-sighted outsiders have put themselves in better condition to stop war abroad by making themselves defenseless at home.
The End
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
prattle
|
|
| n.闲谈；v.（小孩般）天真无邪地说话；发出连续而无意义的声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
mischief
|
|
| n.损害，伤害，危害；恶作剧，捣蛋，胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
shrill
|
|
| adj.尖声的；刺耳的；v尖叫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
diluted
|
|
| 无力的，冲淡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
wilful
|
|
| adj.任性的，故意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
reiterating
|
|
| 反复地说，重申( reiterate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
potent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
fervently
|
|
| adv.热烈地，热情地，强烈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
overthrows
|
|
| n.推翻，终止，结束( overthrow的名词复数 )v.打倒，推翻( overthrow的第三人称单数 )；使终止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
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： |
|
|
|
|
19
dynamiter
|
|
| n.炸药使用者（尤指革命者） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
kidnapper
|
|
| n.绑架者，拐骗者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
laconic
|
|
| adj.简洁的；精练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
regiment
|
|
| n.团，多数，管理；v.组织，编成团，统制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
jointly
|
|
| ad.联合地，共同地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
fiery
|
|
| adj.燃烧着的，火红的；暴躁的；激烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
akin
|
|
| adj.同族的，类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
dictate
|
|
| v.口授；(使)听写；指令，指示，命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
disinterestedly
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
subjugation
|
|
| n.镇压，平息，征服 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
offenses
|
|
| n.进攻( offense的名词复数 )；（球队的）前锋；进攻方法；攻势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
strewing
|
|
| v.撒在…上( strew的现在分词 )；散落于；点缀；撒满 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
pacts
|
|
| 条约( pact的名词复数 )； 协定； 公约 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
persistently
|
|
| ad.坚持地；固执地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
din
|
|
| n.喧闹声，嘈杂声 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
arbitration
|
|
| n.调停，仲裁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
pretentiously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
heralded
|
|
| v.预示( herald的过去式和过去分词 )；宣布（好或重要） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
belligerents
|
|
| n.交战的一方（指国家、集团或个人）( belligerent的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
placated
|
|
| v.安抚，抚慰，使平静( placate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
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： |
|
|
|
|
61
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
acquiescence
|
|
| n.默许；顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
dexterous
|
|
| adj.灵敏的；灵巧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
circumscribing
|
|
| v.在…周围划线( circumscribe的现在分词 )；划定…范围；限制；限定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
impair
|
|
| v.损害，损伤；削弱，减少 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
impending
|
|
| a.imminent, about to come or happen | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
fervor
|
|
| n.热诚；热心；炽热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
opportune
|
|
| adj.合适的，适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
coerce
|
|
| v.强迫，压制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
culpability
|
|
| n.苛责，有罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
shams
|
|
| 假象( sham的名词复数 )； 假货； 虚假的行为（或感情、言语等）； 假装…的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
affixed
|
|
| adj.[医]附着的，附着的v.附加( affix的过去式和过去分词 )；粘贴；加以；盖（印章） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
detriment
|
|
| n.损害；损害物，造成损害的根源 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
detrimental
|
|
| adj.损害的，造成伤害的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
collapse
|
|
| vi.累倒；昏倒；倒塌；塌陷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
vociferous
|
|
| adj.喧哗的，大叫大嚷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
titular
|
|
| adj.名义上的，有名无实的；n.只有名义（或头衔）的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
toil
|
|
| vi.辛劳工作，艰难地行动；n.苦工，难事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
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： |
|
|
|
|
96
inverse
|
|
| adj.相反的，倒转的，反转的；n.相反之物；v.倒转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
terminology
|
|
| n.术语；专有名词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
ransom
|
|
| n.赎金，赎身；v.赎回，解救 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
intermittently
|
|
| adv.间歇地；断断续续 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
inefficient
|
|
| adj.效率低的，无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
resolutely
|
|
| adj.坚决地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
underlying
|
|
| adj.在下面的，含蓄的，潜在的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
vacuous
|
|
| adj.空的，漫散的，无聊的，愚蠢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
gale
|
|
| n.大风，强风，一阵闹声（尤指笑声等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
artillery
|
|
| n.(军)火炮，大炮；炮兵(部队) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
Congressman
|
|
| n.（美）国会议员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
retention
|
|
| n.保留，保持，保持力，记忆力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
insistence
|
|
| n.坚持；强调；坚决主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
discriminate
|
|
| v.区别，辨别，区分；有区别地对待 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
premium
|
|
| n.加付款；赠品；adj.高级的；售价高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
physically
|
|
| adj.物质上，体格上，身体上，按自然规律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
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： |
|
|
|
|
128
callousness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
civilians
|
|
| 平民，百姓( civilian的名词复数 )； 老百姓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
advisers
|
|
| 顾问，劝告者( adviser的名词复数 )； （指导大学新生学科问题等的）指导教授 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
adviser
|
|
| n.劝告者，顾问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
avow
|
|
| v.承认，公开宣称 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
avowal
|
|
| n.公开宣称，坦白承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
pusillanimous
|
|
| adj.懦弱的，胆怯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
abdicate
|
|
| v.让位，辞职，放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
votaries
|
|
| n.信徒( votary的名词复数 )；追随者；（天主教）修士；修女 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
146
cowardice
|
|
| n.胆小，怯懦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
impeaches
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的第三人称单数 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
sanity
|
|
| n.心智健全，神智正常，判断正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
ignominious
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，不光彩的，耻辱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
garrison
|
|
| n.卫戍部队；驻地，卫戍区；vt.派(兵)驻防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
insufficiently
|
|
| adv.不够地，不能胜任地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
humiliation
|
|
| n.羞辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
autocracy
|
|
| n.独裁政治，独裁政府 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
provocative
|
|
| adj.挑衅的，煽动的，刺激的，挑逗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
consecrating
|
|
| v.把…奉为神圣，给…祝圣( consecrate的现在分词 )；奉献 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
enlisted
|
|
| adj.应募入伍的v.（使）入伍， （使）参军( enlist的过去式和过去分词 )；获得（帮助或支持） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
adversary
|
|
| adj.敌手，对手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
hearty
|
|
| adj.热情友好的；衷心的；尽情的，纵情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
oratorical
|
|
| adj.演说的，雄辩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
scythes
|
|
| n.（长柄）大镰刀( scythe的名词复数 )v.（长柄）大镰刀( scythe的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
alluring
|
|
| adj.吸引人的，迷人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
enunciated
|
|
| v.（清晰地）发音( enunciate的过去式和过去分词 )；确切地说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
gusts
|
|
| 一阵强风( gust的名词复数 )； （怒、笑等的）爆发； （感情的）迸发； 发作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
withered
|
|
| adj. 枯萎的，干瘪的，（人身体的部分器官）因病萎缩的或未发育良好的 动词wither的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
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： |
|
|
|
|
175
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
prettily
|
|
| adv.优美地；可爱地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
platitudes
|
|
| n.平常的话，老生常谈，陈词滥调( platitude的名词复数 )；滥套子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
tangible
|
|
| adj.有形的，可触摸的，确凿的，实际的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
adjures
|
|
| vt.（以起誓或诅咒等形式）命令要求（adjure的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
182
jeopardize
|
|
| vt.危及，损害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
ammunition
|
|
| n.军火，弹药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
torpedoes
|
|
| 鱼雷( torpedo的名词复数 )； 油井爆破筒； 刺客； 掼炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
mediator
|
|
| n.调解人，中介人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
clatter
|
|
| v./n.(使)发出连续而清脆的撞击声 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
sinister
|
|
| adj.不吉利的，凶恶的，左边的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
jeering
|
|
| adj.嘲弄的，揶揄的v.嘲笑( jeer的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
deluded
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
sublimity
|
|
| 崇高，庄严，气质高尚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |