1. In the Thirty Years' War both belligerents finally proved to be
nearly equal in strength. In the European war one of the belligerents,
though at first meeting with reverses, in the end completely overcame
the other.
2. The Thirty Years' War ended in the exhaustion of both belligerents;
the European war closed with the exhaustion of only one belligerent.
3. The Thirty Years' War was waged for religious convictions rather than
for gain; the European war was not so ideal in its purposes.
Taking a general view of the similarities and differences between the
two wars, the one great question arises: Is the experience of the
present European war strong enough for victors and vanquished alike to
be willing to yield sufficient of their natural rights and sovereignty
to submit all questions of war to some superior international court from
which there is no appeal?
In the Thirty Years' War nothing further was necessary; the exhaustion
of both belligerents was sufficient to end religious wars.
As the victorious party in war is much less inclined (if inclined at
all) than the conquered foe to yield anything, will the Allies, without
the experience of defeat and exhaustion, be willing to yield enough of
their sovereignty to make the future peace of the world permanent? Will
they be magnanimous and give up some national advantages of the present
for future international benefits to all mankind? In short, are they
unselfish enough to so temper their justice with mercy as to establish a
world peace, the greatest boon to humanity ever known?
Here is a supreme opportunity. Will the victorious Allies arise to the
occasion and make future wars improbable, if not impossible? We say
"impossible," because if a nation is recalcitrant it can be punished by
a general boycott, leading toward its economic ruin. As the instinct of
self-preservation is the most powerful influence in nations as well as
in individuals, it is a moral certainty that no nation could or would
submit very long to such punishment. Just after a war is ended, when the
belligerents feel more keenly its effect than later on, they are much
more disposed to make mutual concessions. Will the victors of the
European War strike at once while the iron is hot, and insist on the one
paramount issue, the absolute prohibition of all wars? Such a decision
would radiate through all further proceedings of the League of Nations
and greatly facilitate its work. By thus making a certainty of the most
important question of all history, no matter how difficult and delicate
matters of greater or less importance may be, the League of Nations will
have assured its success in advance as the greatest and most beneficent
influence that the world has ever experienced, just as the peace of
Westphalia was in its generation.
In the peace treaty of Westphalia were these words: "The hostilities
that have taken place from the beginning of the late disturbances, in
any place of whatsoever kind, by one side or the other, shall be
forgotten and forgiven, so that neither party shall cherish enmity or
hatred against, nor molest nor injure the other for any cause
whatsoever." Will the peace treaty of Paris contain as generous and
noble words and stop all political wars forever, just as the peace of
Westphalia put an end to all religious wars?
Will the twentieth century Christianity, with its supposed greater
liberality and enlightenment, be as far-seeing, unselfish, and effective
as the Christianity of the seventeenth century?
Let the League of Nations answer yes.
Just as the spread of education and knowledge has gradually liberated
the intellect so as to undermine the ideas upon which religious wars
were based, so a similar process of enlightenment may be necessary to
cause political wars to cease.