which the nations go to war may peacefully be distributed or utilized
in a manner equitable to all.

[1] For a brief digest of the history of pacifism, see Dr. Edward
Krehbiel, "Nationalism, War and Society," New York, 1916. See also
books cited by him.

[2] "England and Germany," p. 56.

[3] P. 58.

[4] The proposal for disarmament also raises the question of the inner
stability of each nation. In each country there must be some police
force to keep down the anti-social classes and prevent revolution.
Such a force might be small in England or the United States; it would
have to be large and powerful in Russia and Austria, if the subject
nations were to be held down. But a large police force is an army
under a different name. If each disarmed nation were permitted to
decide its own police needs, the whole principle of disarmament would
be whittled away.

[5] British White Paper, No. 138.

{231}

CHAPTER XVII

TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT

These are three ways in which the United States might conceivably
attempt to promote the international adjustments without which peace
cannot be secured. We might seek to "go it alone," righting one wrong
after another, intervening whenever and wherever our national
conscience directed. Or we might enter into an alliance with one or a
few selected democratic and enlightened nations to force international
justice and comity upon other nations. Finally we might refrain from
ubiquitous interventions and peace-propagating alliances and devote
ourselves, in conjunction with all other willing nations, to the
formulation of principles of international policy, and unite with those
nations in the legalisation and enforcement of such principles. In
other words we might become the standard about which the peaceful
parties and groups of all nations might rally.

The first of these courses is quite impossible. It is grotesque to
think of us, or of any country, as a knight-errant, rescuing nations
forlorn from evil forsworn powers. There are two things, besides a
saving sense of humour, which preclude us from essaying this role; we
have not the knowledge and we have not the power.

For the making of peace more than good will is required. Nothing is
more harmful in international intercourse than a certain sentimentalism
and contempt for realities on the part of many of our pacifists.

The difficulty with most plans for intervention by one {232} moral and
in