ought to have the right to resort to the use of force to obtain
justice, no nation ought to have the right to attack, harm, or
destroy another nation. There ought to be tribunals to appease the
differences of peoples as well as those of individuals; every nation
ought to be associated with every other nation to assure the progress
of the entire world.
This theory is not only appealing, it is irrefutable. But it is a law
for this earth that the most profoundly just and true theories, those
which have been most scientifically demonstrated, encounter, when put
into practice, obstacles which have not been surmounted and are often
insurmountable.
President Wilson, who is not only a great jurist and a noble idealist,
but who also has that genius for realization which is a characteristic
of all America, has not failed to appreciate the difficulties which
the League of Nations would encounter were it put into practice. And
if, in his messages, he has insisted with a force that is every day
more eloquent on the necessity of tackling the problem; he has never
given a detailed solution for it.
He has done better than that, for he has swept aside certain factors
which would have made it absolutely impossible. On the second, of
April, 1917, in his immortal declaration of war, he formally declared
that "no autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within a
partnership of nations or observe its covenants. It must be a league
of honor, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals
away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would
and render account to no one, would be a corruption seated at its very
heart. Only a free people can hold their purpose and their honor
steady to a common end, and prefer the interests of mankind to any
narrow interest of their own."
These are admirable words of truth and of philosophic depth, words
which deserve to be graven in stone. No autocracy, then, in the League
of Nations, no German militarism nor Austrian imperialism in it. No
universal league of nations, even, but a limited society, a society of
democracies!
Certain hasty critics have observed neither the same prudence nor
logic as President Wilson. They have been farther from the truth, much
farther from the truth. They have falsified his text, as do all
commentators. They have desired to build complete in all details the
League of Nations, which only existed in outline. They have succeeded
in showing how difficult the construction would be, and they have only
been able to set up a house of cards which the first breath of wind
would knock down.
For example, this is how one of the most eminent French socialists, M.
Albert Thomas, a man who has given abundant proof of his practical
experience and actual talents, formerly the French Minister of
Munitions, depicts the League of Nations:
Let us suppose [he wrote on the twenty-fifth of December,
1917], as the mathematicians say, that the problem is
solved. Let us suppose that the society of nations, made up
of all the nations, had been created by common accord about
the year 1910 or 1912. What would it have accomplished?
After the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the
Hague Tribunal, or perhaps the Washington Tribunal, would
have made inquiry into the conditions of the murder. It
would have taken certain steps. And if Austria, still
dissatisfied, had invaded Serbia for the sake of revenge or
to give scope to her ambitious designs, if Germany had
joined with her in this, then all the other allied nations,
in the performance of their duty, would have entered into a
war against the central powers in order to force them to
respect the liberties and the integrity of little Serbia.
For there can be no rule without sanction therefore. No
international law is possible if there does not exist at the
service of this law the "organized force that is superior to
that of any nation or to that of any alliance of nations" of
which President Wilson speaks.
If the society of nations had existed in 1914 and if Germany
had violated its laws, the entire world would have taken
military action against Germany by means of war, economic
action by means of blockade and of depriving her of the
necessities of life. The entire world would have been at war
with her and her allies. And in order that the league of
nations might continue to exist, in order that the rule of
justice, scarcely outlined, could have continued to exist,
the victory of the entente powers would have been as
necessary as it is today. Mr. Lloyd-George and President
Wilson would have said, as they say today, "No league of
nations without victory."
The difference is that in 1914 a verdict in the case would
have been handed down by the common tribunal of the nations,
and that there would have been no possible discussion of the
violations of right committed by Germany nor on the
responsibility for having caused the war.
The difference would have been that in place of seeing the
neutral nations hesitating, frightened by German force,
disturbed by German lies, rallying only under the protection
of one of the Entente armies, at the moment when they had
seen on which side lay right, they would all, at the very
beginning, have entered into the battle in fulfillment of
their obligations not only on account of their moral
responsibility but on account of their clearly understood
interests.
Finally the difference is that, the rights of the peoples
having been defined clearly, there would have been no
moment's uncertainty nor hesitation concerning the ends of
the war.
And it is impossible to doubt that the present situation of
the war would have been decidedly different from what it is
today.
I have cited the passage at length in order to give the critic's
argument its widest scope. But, alas, who does not see the argument's
fallacy? Who does not perceive that this reënforced skyscraper is a
cardboard column liable to fall with the first push that is given it?
Moreover, from the very beginning, the originator of the idea of the
society of nations admits the hypothesis of a war and presupposes all
the nations in the league are making war against another nation. Even
with the society of nations there will still be wars. Even with the
society of nations there will be no guarantee of absolute peace.
So we are shown the spectacle, in case of war, of all the nations
making war at once, without the least hesitation, without delay,
without any discussion, against the people that disturbs the peace of
the world. Is it a certainty that this unanimity would result? Is it a
certainty that there would be no falling away, no delay? And, granting
that there would be none of this, is it a certainty that irremediable
catastrophes could be avoided? To consider once more M. Thomas'
example of the war of 1914, let us suppose that there had been at that
time a society of nations, that England had had an army, that the
United States had had an army, and that the Anglo-American army had
not lost a day nor an hour. Is it a certainty that they would have
prevented the Germans from being at the gates of Liège on the seventh
of August, in Brussels on the nineteenth of August, and before Paris
on the second of September? And if today France, England, America,
Italy, Japan and four-fifths of the civilized world, in spite of the
treasure of heroism and effort that has been expended, have not been
able to prevent the present result, is it possible that this would
have been obtained with the assistance of Switzerland, the
Scandinavian nations, Holland and Spain?
"The difference," continues M. Thomas, "is that there would not have
been the possibility of any discussion of the violation of rights
committed by Germany, nor upon what nation rests the responsibility
for causing the war." But is that so sure? How was there any
discussion in 1914 of the violation of Belgium by Germany? Did not
Germany herself, in the teeth of all the world, hurl the avowal of
this violation when von Bethmann-Hollweg, in the Reichstag, cynically
declared: "We have just invaded Belgium.... Yes, we know that it is
contrary to international law; but we were compelled by necessity. And
necessity knows no law." What international tribunal's verdict could
have the force of this avowal from the lips of the guilty man?
However, the world has not moved, the world has not trembled, the
world is not now up in arms. And who would guarantee that another time
when the case will be perhaps less flagrant, the crime more obscure,
the aggressor less cynical, the world will tremble and rise in arms?
Moreover, is it always possible to determine the responsibility for
war's origin? Is it always possible, before an international tribunal
of arbitration, to throw the proper light and all the light on the
course events have taken? Will the judges always be unanimous?
Take the case of the last Balkan War in 1912. Is it possible today,
from a six years' perspective, to establish with any degree of
certitude the reasons for its outbreak and determine without
hesitation the responsibility for it? Can you affirm with any degree
of certainty that a court composed of American, European and Asiatic
jurists would be unanimous in condemning Turkey and exonerating
Bulgaria? And tomorrow, if the Ukraine should suddenly hurl itself
against the Republic of the Don, or if Finland invaded Great Russia,
with your international court would you be really in a way to
pronounce a verdict within five days? And if Sweden took Finland's
part and Germany took Great Russia's, could you guarantee that
Argentina, Japan, Australia and even France would consent to mobilize
their fleets and their armies to settle the question of a frontier on
the banks of the Neva? Can you guarantee that every war of every Slav
republic would have for a correlative the mobilization of the entire
world?
And then are you certain that the idea of a society of nations is
exactly a new one? Are you certain that there did not exist a society
of nations before the outbreak of the present war? Have you never
heard that, on the fifteenth of June, 1907, at The Hague, forty-four
nations of the civilized world (and Germany was one of the number)
assembled and met together to form such a league? Have you never heard
of the treaty that was signed then which, according to the wording at
the treaty's head, had for its object "fixing the laws and usages at
war on the land"? Have you never read the terms of this convention,
have you never glanced through the sixty-odd articles which today, in
the presence of the nameless horrors in which we lend a hand, offer a
prodigious interest to actuality?
Glance over these articles--and let us see how they have been applied:
ARTICLE 4 provides that "_prisoners of war must be humanely
treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses,
and military papers, remain their property_." Now all the
prisoners held by Germany have, without exception, been
spoiled of their money, of their portfolios, of their rings,
of their jewels, of their eyeglasses.
ARTICLE 6 says that "_the state may employ as workmen the
prisoners of war_," but it is careful in stipulating "_that
the work must not be excessive and must have nothing
whatever to do with operations of war_." ARTICLE 7 says
that "_prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board,
lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of
the Government who captured them_." Each of these two
articles has been violated since the beginning of the war by
the Germans. After the Battle of the Marne, when the
advancing French troops of Joffre arrived on the Aisne they
found French civilians captured by the Germans and compelled
by them to work in the trenches. Moreover, an official
report emanating from Mr. Gustave Ador, President of the
International Red Cross, now member of the Swiss Federal
Council, called the attention of the belligerents as soon as
October, 1914, to the bad treatment of the French prisoners
in Germany. Each French officer had, as prisoner, a salary
of one hundred marks per month, which was not even half of
the pay of an under-officer.
ARTICLES 23, 25, 27, and 28 are so interesting that they
must be quoted _in extenso_:
ARTICLE 23. In _addition to the prohibitions provided by
special conventions, it is especially forbidden_:
(a) _To employ poison or poisoned weapons._
(c) _To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his
arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered
at discretion._
(d) _To declare that no quarter will be given._
(e) _To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to
cause unnecessary suffering._
(f) _To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the
national flag, or of the military insignia and uniform of
the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva
Convention._
(g) _To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such
destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the
necessities of war._
(h) _A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the
nationals of the hostile party to take part in the
operations of war directed against their own country, even
if they were in the belligerent's service before the
commencement of the war._
ARTICLE 25. _The attack or bombardment, by whatever means,
of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are
undefended is prohibited._
ARTICLE 27. _In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps
must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings
dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes,
historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and
wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at
the time for military purposes._
ARTICLE 28. _The pillage of a town or place, even when taken
by assault, is prohibited._
It seems that the men of The Hague, when they wrote those
articles, had a sort of prescience of the future cruelties
of war and that they wanted to avoid them. Let us see how
far they have succeeded.
It was forbidden to employ poison or poisoned weapons. No
later than last spring when the Germans evacuated certain
parts of the north of France instructions emanating from the
German general headquarters were found in the pocket of many
German prisoners or on the dead, and those instructions
indicated how the water of the wells was to be poisoned:
"Such and such a soldier," ran instructions, "will be in
charge of the wells, will throw in each one a sufficient
quantity of poison or creosote, or, lacking these, all
available filth."
It was forbidden to declare that no quarter would be given.
And here is the order of the day issued on August 25, 1914,
by General Stenger, commanding the Fifty-eighth German
Brigade, to his troops: "After today no more prisoners will
be taken. All prisoners are to be killed. Wounded, with or
without arms, are to be killed. Even prisoners already
grouped in convoys are to be killed. Let not a single living
enemy remain behind us."
It was forbidden to pillage a town or locality, even when
taken by assault. And on the corpse of the German private
Handschumacher (of the Eleventh Battalion of Jägers,
Reserve) in the very earliest days of the war, was found the
following diary: "August 8, 1914. Gouvy (Belgium). There, as
the Belgians had fired on the German soldiers, we at once
pillaged the goods station. Some cases, eggs, shirts, and
all eatables were seized. The safe was gutted and the money
divided among the men. All securities were torn up."
In fact, pillage and robberies went on on such a high scale
during the first months of the war that considerable sums of
money were sent from France and Belgium to Germany. A German
newspaper, the _Berlin Tageblatt_, of November 26, 1914,
implicitly avowed it when, in a technical article on the
military treasury ("_Der Zahlmeister im Felde_"), it wrote:
"It is curious to note that far more money-orders are sent
from the theater of operations to the interior of the
country than _vice versa_."
ARTICLE 50 of this Hague Convention states that "_no general
penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the
population on account of the acts of individuals for which
they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally
responsible_." Side by side with this article, it is
interesting to reproduce an extract from a proclamation of
General von Bülow, posted up at Liège on August 22, 1914:
"The inhabitants of the town of Andenne, after having
protested their peaceful intentions, treacherously surprised
our troops. It is with my full consent that the general in
command had the whole place burned, and about a hundred
people were shot." Moreover, here is an extract from a
proclamation of Major-Commander Dieckmann, posted up at
Grivegnée on September 8, 1914: "Every one who does not obey
at once the word of command, 'Hands up,' is guilty of the
penalty of death." And finally here is an extract from a
proclamation of Marshal Baron von der Goltz, posted up in
Brussels on October 5, 1914: "In future all places near the
spot where such acts have taken place [destruction of
railway lines or telegraph wires]--no matter whether guilty
or not--shall be punished without mercy. With this end in
view, hostages have been brought from all places near
railway lines exposed to such attacks, and at the first
attempt to destroy railway lines, telegraph or telephone
lines, they will be immediately shot."
ARTICLE 56 of the Hague Convention provides that "_the
property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated
to religion, charity, and education, to the arts and
sciences, even when state property, shall be treated as
private property. All seizure of, destruction, or willful
damage done to institutions of this character, historical
monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and
should be made the subject of legal proceedings._"
Four names, which will be eternally remembered, are here
sufficient to answer: there is Rheims and its Cathedral,
Louvain and its library, Arras and its Town Hall, Ypres and
its bell tower.
In the course of this war, Germany has disavowed her signature any
number of times and has broken her pledges just as often as she has
made them. Germany is a proven perjurer not only in the eyes of the
nations at war with her, but also in the regard of the forty-four
countries signatory of the Hague Convention. However, we have never
heard that a single one of these nations lodged a protest against her
actions. The Hague Convention has been torn into shreds, and not one
of its signers has entered the slightest protest.
Is the next society of nations to be modeled on the same principles?
Is the next society of nations going to draw up articles of the same
kind as the Hague society? Is the future society of nations to accept
among its members the same Empire of Germany which in 1914 declared
bankruptcy? Will the future act of the society of nations be a simple
scrap of paper, like the last act of 1907?
But let us cease asking these questions. There is no gain in asking
certain questions to gain certain replies. There is no gain in
examining certain problems to make the difficulties of the solution
more apparent.
There is no doubt that the society of nations will exist some day. For
the honor of humanity we must hope that it will exist. But it is not
one day's work, nor the speaking of a single discourse nor the writing
of one article that will build it. In M. Clemenceau's words, right can
not be firmly established as long as the world is based on might. To
bring about the rule of Right, Might must be destroyed and driven out
as the very first move in the campaign for ultimate liberty.
German Might will not be destroyed by international compacts to which
Germany will be party. Recall the treaty guaranteeing Belgium's
integrity, which was one that Germany signed. Recall the Hague
Conventions, signed by this same Germany. The men are fools who will
not recall these things, who will not profit by them as examples.
German might will only be destroyed by international agreements to
which Germany is not a party, and which shall place German might
beyond the regions in which it can play a dangerous part.
Now we are not building this upon sand, but upon a foundation of solid
rock.
Germany needs two things to continue her national existence. She must
import from other countries certain products necessary to her
existence. For example, there is wool, of which she was obliged to
import 1,888,481 metric quintals in order to manufacture her sixteen
thousand grades of woolen fabrics. There is copper, of which Germany
imported 250,000 tons in 1913 (200,000 tons came from America), in
order to sell the merchandise she finds has a good market in foreign
countries. Considering all Germany's exports for the period from
1903-1913, we find that their total has passed from 6,400 millions to
12,600 millions, an increase of nearly one hundred per cent.
There lies the best, the true, indeed the only means whereby the
Allies can compel Germany to disarm. We do not demand that the
economic war shall continue after the actual warfare is at an end, but
we can demand that the Allies shall not lay aside their economic arms
when the Germans shall have laid aside their fighting arms. In other
words, we can demand that the Allies do not give Germany wool, copper
and money if they know that this wool, money and copper are to feed
the war machine. This war machine cost the German Empire nearly four
hundred millions of dollars according to the budget of 1914. Suppose
the Allies said to Germany, "As long as you have a military and naval
budget of four hundred millions of dollars, we regret that we shall be
unable to sell you wool and copper. We regret that we shall be unable
to buy anything from you. But, if you reduce this budget by half, we
are willing to give you one million metric quintals of wool and
125,000 tons of copper. Likewise, we are disposed to make purchases
in your market totalling one billion dollars. If your military and
naval budgets fall to nothing, we are willing to go much farther and
buy and sell everything with you in unlimited quantities." Suppose the
Allies make these proposals to Germany. Suppose they are put into
effect. Will they not be a better guarantee of universal peace than
all the Conventions and all the courts of arbitration in the world?
Then let no one disturb the peace of the world for his selfish
purposes. Left to themselves, the little Balkan States and Slav States
will not start great, long wars, just as the lone robber posted at the
edge of a woods will not endanger a province's communications for very
long. The formidable thing is the great country that is arranged and
planned along the lines of war, where everything is organized with a
view to war; just as the formidable thing for a city is the small band
of malefactors who are able to terrify half the citizens by the use of
highly perfected arms.
There will be no lasting peace until the most terrible war machine
the world has ever known shall have been destroyed, reduced to an
impotent state of non-existence. Ideals will not destroy this machine,
but practical means and getting down to the facts of the case will do
so. Pasteur did not overcome hydrophobia by writing treatises and
dissertations. He met poison with poison, he injected the healing
serum into the veins of the maddened dog. Now Germany is the mad dog,
and Germany must be inoculated. After that there will be time to pass
hygienic measures for the regiment of the entire world. Today Germany
must be killed or cured. Germany is the cancer that must be cut out,
lest it eat up the world.