IV

Ask a soldier, a private, a corporal, a non-commissioned officer, who has

abandoned his old parents, his wife, his children, why he is preparing to

kill men whom he does not know; he will at first be astonished at your

question. He is a soldier, he has taken the oath, and it is his duty to

fulfil the orders of his commanders. If you tell him that war--_i.e._ the

slaughter of men--does not conform to the command, "Thou shalt not kill,"

he will say: "And how if ours are attacked--For the King--For the

Orthodox faith?" (One of them said in answer to my question: "And how if

he attacks that which is sacred?" "What do you mean?" I asked. "Why,"

said he, "the banner.") And if you endeavor to explain to such a soldier

that God's Commandment is more important not only than the banner but

than anything else in the world, he will become silent, or he will get

angry and report you to the authorities.

Ask an officer, a general, why he goes to the war. He will tell you that

he is a military man, and that the military are indispensable for the

defence of the fatherland. As to murder not conforming to the spirit of

the Christian law, this does not trouble him, as either he does not

believe in this law, or, if he does, it is not in the law itself, but in

that explanation which has been given to this law. But, above all, he,

like the soldier, in place of the personal question, what should he do

himself, always put the general question about the State, or the

fatherland. "At the present moment, when the fatherland is in danger, one

should act, and not argue," he will say.

Ask the diplomatists, who, by their deceits, prepare wars, why they do

it. They will tell you that the object of their activity is the

establishment of peace between nations, and that this object is attained,

not by ideal, unrealizable theories, but by diplomatic action and

readiness for war. And, just as the military, instead of the question

concerning one's own action, place the general question, so also

diplomatists will speak about the interests of Russia, about the

unscrupulousness of other Powers, about the balance of power in Europe,

but not about their own position and its activities.

Ask the journalists why, by their writings, they incite men to war; they

will say that wars in general are necessary and useful, especially the

present war, and they will confirm this opinion of theirs by misty

patriotic phrases, and, just like the military and diplomatist, to the

question why he, a journalist, a particular individual, a living man,

acts in a certain way, he will speak about the general interests of the

nation, about the State, civilization, the white race. In the same way,

all those who prepare war will explain their participation in that work.

They will perhaps agree that it would be desirable to abolish war, but at

present this is impossible. At present they as Russians and as men who

occupy certain positions, such as heads of the nobility, representatives

of local self-government, doctors, workers of the Red Cross, are called

upon to act and not to argue. "There is no time to argue and to think of

oneself," they will say, "when there is a great common work to be done."

The same will be said by the Tsar, seemingly responsible for the whole

thing. He, like the soldier, will be astonished at the question, whether

war is now necessary. He does not even admit the idea that the war might

yet be arrested. He will say that he cannot refrain from fulfilling that

which is demanded of him by the whole nation, that, although he does

recognize that war is a great evil, and has used, and is ready to use,

all possible means for its abolition--in the present case he could not

help declaring war, and cannot help continuing it. It is necessary for

the welfare and glory of Russia.

Every one of these men, to the question why he, so and so, Ivan, Peter,

Nicholas, whilst recognizing as binding upon him the Christian law which

not only forbids the killing of one's neighbor but demands that one

should love him, serve him, why he permits himself to participate in war;

_i.e._ in violence, loot, murder, will infallibly answer the same thing,

that he is thus acting in the name of his fatherland, or faith, or oath,

or honor, or civilization, or the future welfare of the whole of

mankind--in general, of something abstract and indefinite. Moreover,

these men are always so urgently occupied either by preparation for war,

or by its organization, or discussions about it, that in their leisure

time they can only rest from their labors, and have not time to occupy

themselves with discussions about their life, regarding such discussions

as idle.

V

Men of our Christian world and of our time are like a man who, having

missed the right turning, the further he goes the more he becomes

convinced that he is going the wrong way. Yet the greater his doubts, the

quicker and the more desperately does he hurry on, consoling himself with

the thought that he will arrive somewhere. But the time comes when it

becomes quite clear that the way along which he is going will lead to

nothing but a precipice, which he is already beginning to discern before

him.

In such a position stands the Christian humanity of our time. It is

perfectly evident that, if we continue to live as we are now living,

guided in our private lives, as well as in the life of separate States,

by the sole desire of welfare for ourselves and for our State, and will,

as we do now, think to ensure this welfare by violence, then, inevitably

increasing the means of violence of one against the other and of State

against State, we shall, first, keep subjecting ourselves more and more,

transferring the major portion of our productiveness to armaments; and,

secondly, by killing in mutual wars the best physically developed men, we

must become more and more degenerate and morally depraved.

That this will be the case if we do not alter our life is as certain as

it is mathematically certain that two non-parallel straight lines must

meet. But not only is this theoretically certain in our time; it is

becoming certain not only to thought, but also to the consciousness. The

precipice which we approach is already becoming apparent to us, and the

most simple, non-philosophizing, and uneducated men cannot but see that,

by arming ourselves more and more against each other and slaughtering

each other in war, we, like spiders in a jar, can come to nothing else

but the destruction of each other.

A sincere, serious, rational man can no longer console himself by the

thought that matters can be mended, as was formerly supposed, by a

universal empire such as that of Rome or of Charles the Great, or

Napoleon, or by the mediaeval spiritual power of the Pope, or by Holy

Alliances, by the political balance of the European Concert, and by

peaceful international tribunals, or, as some have thought, by the

increase of military strength and the newly discovered powerful weapons

of destruction.

It is impossible to organize a universal empire or republic, consisting

of European States, as different nationalities will never desire to unite

into one State. To organize international tribunals for the solution of

international disputes? But who will impose obedience to the decision of

the tribunal upon a contending party who has an organized army of

millions of men? To disarm? No one desires it or will begin it. To invent

yet more dreadful means of destruction--balloons with bombs filled with

suffocating gases, shells, which men will shower upon each other from

above? Whatever may be invented, all States will furnish themselves with

similar weapons of destruction. And cannon's flesh, as after cold weapons

it submitted to bullets, and meekly exposed itself to shells, bombs,

far-reaching guns, mitrailleuses, mines, so it will also submit to bombs

charged with suffocating gases scattered down upon it from balloons.

Nothing shows more evidently than the speeches of M. Muravieff and

Professor Martens about the Japanese war not contradicting The Hague

Peace Conference--nothing shows more obviously than these speeches to

what an extent, amongst the men of our time, the means for the

transmission of thought--speech--is distorted, and how the capacity for

clear, rational thinking is completely lost. Thought and speech are used

for the purpose, not of serving as a guide for human activity, but of

justifying any activity, however criminal it may be. The late Boer war

and the present Japanese war, which can at any moment pass into a

universal slaughter, have proved this beyond all doubt. All anti-military

discussions can as little contribute to the cessation of war as the most

eloquent and persuasive considerations addressed to fighting dogs as to

its being more advantageous to divide the piece of meat over which they

are struggling than to mutilate each other and lose the piece of meat,

which will be carried away by some passing dog not joining in the fight.

We are dashing on toward the precipice, cannot stop, and we are

approaching its edge.

For every rational man who reflects upon the position in which humanity

is now placed and upon that which it is inevitably approaching, it cannot

but be obvious that there is no practical issue out of this position,

that one cannot devise any combination or organization which would save

us from the destruction toward which we are inevitably rushing. Not to

mention the economical problems which become more and more complex, those

mutual relations between the States arming themselves against each other

and at any moment ready to break out into wars clearly point to the

certain destruction toward which all so-called civilized humanity is

being carried. Then what is to be done?