From this point of view, efforts to secure peace are extraordinarily detrimental to the national health so soon as they influence politics.  The States which from various considerations are always active in this direction are sapping the roots of their own strength.  The United States of America, e.g., in June, 1911, championed the ideas of universal peace in order to be able to devote their undisturbed attention to money-making and the enjoyment of wealth, and to save the three hundred million dollars which they spend on their army and navy; they thus incur a great danger, not so much from the possibility of a war with England or Japan, but precisely because they try to exclude all chance of contest with opponents of their own strength, and thus avoid the stress of great political emotions, without which the moral development of the national character is impossible.  If they advance farther on this road, they will one day pay dearly for such a policy.

Again, from the Christian standpoint we arrive at the same conclusion.  Christian morality is based, indeed, on the law of love.  “Love God above all things, and thy neighbour as thyself.”  This law can claim no significance for the relations of one country to another, since its application to politics would lead to a conflict of duties.  The love which a man showed to another country as such would imply a want of love for his own countrymen.  Such a system of politics must inevitably lead men astray.  Christian morality is personal and social, and in its nature cannot be political.  Its object is to promote morality of the individual, in order to strengthen him to work unselfishly in the interests of the community.  It tells us to love our individual enemies, but does not remove the conception of enmity.  Christ Himself said:  “I am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword.”  His teaching can never be adduced as an argument against the universal law of struggle.  There never was a religion which was more combative than Christianity.  Combat, moral combat, is its very essence.  If we transfer the ideas of Christianity to the sphere of politics, we can claim to raise the power of the State—­power in the widest sense, not merely from the material aspect—­to the highest degree, with the object of the moral advancement of humanity, and under certain conditions the sacrifice may be made which a war demands.  Thus, according to Christianity, we cannot disapprove of war in itself, but must admit that it is justified morally and historically.

Again, we should not be entitled to assume that from the opposite, the purely materialistic, standpoint war is entirely precluded.  The individual who holds such views will certainly regard it with disfavour, since it may cost him life and prosperity.  The State, however, as such can also come from the materialistic standpoint to a decision to wage war, if it believes that by a certain sacrifice of human lives and happiness the conditions of life of the community may be improved.