The only hope to be found is in such a coalition of the Powers as will make these excessive armaments unnecessary.  If this can be effected, the reduction of armaments will take place naturally, and without any external pressure.  But then the question arises, how can the permanency of such a coalition be guaranteed?  The vital requisite to give stability to any international coalition is community of interests.  Such a community of interests exists already, in a larger or smaller degree, among many states, though it is unknown to most people.  Besides, it is not strong enough to prevent war in times of excitement.

In many countries definite war parties exist, and most extraordinary opinions can be gathered from their representatives.  I was assured by some military leaders, and even by a diplomat in a responsible position, that war is a blessing!  In disproof of this theory it may be desirable to state some plain facts.  Mankind lives and exists on this earth solely and entirely by the exploitation of our planet, and the general average status of the peoples can be improved and raised to a higher level only by a more complete exploitation of the forces of nature.  This process requires, in the present state of civilization, capital, intelligence, and manual labor—­the handmaid of intelligence.  War is bound to destroy an enormous amount of capital, and a great number of the ablest workers.  It is evident, therefore, that every war must reduce the general well-being of the peoples who inhabit this planet.  Besides, there is the misery inflicted upon millions of people, principally belonging to the poorer classes, who have always to bear the brunt of a war, whether it be started by the personal ambition of one man or by the misguided ambitions of a nation.

Some people argue that, from the days of Alexander the Great to those of Napoleon, combinations of states have always been brought about by armed force, and they believe this to be a natural law.  I do not admit that the case of Napoleon is a proper illustration of such a law.  On the contrary, his career seems to demonstrate clearly that the world is too far advanced to be driven into combination by force.  And as to Alexander the Great, has the world really made no progress since his time?  Force or war is a relic of a savage age, and will be relegated to the background with the advance of civilization.

PERSIA’S LOSS OF LIBERTY A.D. 1911

W. MORGAN SHUSTER[1]

[Footnote 1:  Reprinted in condensed form from the original narrative in Hearst’s Magazine, by permission.]