The British Empire is determined that this war shall mean for generations a lasting peace by the destruction of the German war machine.  The Germans likewise declare that what they are fighting for is the peace of Europe.  The Germans, high and low, declare that this peace has been disrupted by jealousy of German culture, German efficiency, and German success.  It is difficult to understand the German logic, for wars do not lessen jealousy, envy, or race, or national hate.  They only increase the jealousy and put peace further away than before, unless there is real conquest, division, and absorption.

Bismarck declared in 1867 that he was opposed to any war upon France, and that if the military party convinced him of ability to crush France and occupy Paris, he would be unalterably opposed to the attack.  For, said he, one war with France is only the first of at least six, and were we victorious in all six, it would only mean ruin for Germany, and for her neighbor and best customer.

“Do you think a poor, bankrupt, starving, ragged neighbor as desirable as a healthy, solvent, fat, well-clothed one?” demanded Bismarck.

France attacked Germany in 1870 and found her well-prepared armies impregnable.  Many believe that the Allies will find the German trench-defences now impregnable.  I do not think the Allies will pay the price in human sacrifice to invade Germany from the west.  The break-up of Germany is more likely to come from her exhaustion and the weakness of Austria, against which the pressure will be steadily increased.  But what follows the war is most important.  If the victorious or defeated nations are to go on arming, they will go on warring to the extent that there be left in the world no small nations and no unfortified area.

If Germany is to grow other navies, and England is still to build two for one, North and South America must in time have navies, the support of which will burden the western hemisphere and the progress of humanity.  It ought to be clear that this audacious war can mean nothing unless it means tremendous progress toward universal peace; unless it means that nations are to be guided by the same principles, practices, and morality that should guide individuals.

I know all the arguments for the needfulness of war, and there is not one of them that will hold water.  Wars exist for the same reason that they formerly existed with individuals, or between cities, or states,—­because there was no organization regulating the relations between individuals, cities, and states.  Wars exist between nations to-day because there is no organization regulating international relations.

Out of this war and its alliances must ultimately come such a regulating of international relations, or the world goes back toward bankruptcy and barbarism.