armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety,"[353] is, to use a Russian simile, written on water with a fork.  Britain, France, and the United States are already agreed that they will combine to repel unprovoked aggression on the part of Germany.  That evidently signifies that they will hold themselves in readiness to fight, and will therefore make due preparation.  This arrangement is a substitute for a supernational army, as though prevention were not better than cure; that it will prove efficacious in the long run very few believe.  One clear-visioned Frenchman writes:  “The inefficacy of the organization aimed at by the Conference constrains France to live in continual and increasing insecurity, owing to the falling off of her population."[354] He adds:  “It follows from this abortive expedient—­if it is to remain definitive—­that each member-state must protect itself, or come to terms with the more powerful ones, as in the past.  Consequently we are in presence of the maintenance of militarism and the regime of armaments."[355] This writer goes farther and accuses Mr. Wilson of having played into the hands of Britain.  “President Wilson,” he affirms, “has more or less sacrificed to the English government the society of nations and the question of armaments, that of the colonies and that of the freedom of the seas...."[356] This, however, is an over-statement.  It was not for the sake of Britain that the American statesman gave up so much; it was for the sake of saving something of the Covenant.  It was in the spirit of Sir Boyle Roche, whose attachment to the British Constitution was such that, to save a part of it, he was willing to sacrifice the whole.

The arbitration of disputes is provided for by one of the articles of the Covenant;[357] but the parties may go to war three months later with a clear conscience and an appeal to right, justice, self-determination, and the usual abstract nouns.

In a word, the directors of the Conference disciplined their political intelligence on lines of self-hypnotization, along which common sense finds it impossible to follow them.  There were also among the delegates men who thought and spoke in terms of reason and logic, but their voices evoked no echo.  One of them summed up his criticism somewhat as follows: 

“During the war our professions of democratic principles were far resonant and emphatic.  We were fighting for the nations of the world, especially for those who could not successfully fight for themselves.  All the peoples, great and small, were exhorted to make the most painful sacrifices to enable their respective governments to conquer the enemy.  Victory unexpectedly smiled on us, and the peoples asked that those promises should be made good.  Naturally, expectations ran high.  What has happened?  The governments now answer in effect:  ’We will promote your interests, but without your co-operation or assent.  We will make the necessary arrangements in secret