when civilized nations in the shape of Russia and France took possession of them.  The same was true of Burma and the Malay States, as well as Egypt, with regard to England.  Peace has come only as the sequel to the armed interference of a civilized power which, relatively to its opponent, was a just and beneficent power.  If England had disarmed to the point of being unable to conquer the Sudan and protect Egypt, so that the Mahdists had established their supremacy in northeastern Africa, the result would have been a horrible and bloody calamity to mankind.  It was only the growth of the European powers in military efficiency that freed eastern Europe from the dreadful scourge of the Tartar and partially freed it from the dreadful scourge of the Turk.  Unjust war is dreadful; a just war may be the highest duty.  To have the best nations, the free and civilized nations, disarm and leave the despotisms and barbarisms with great military force, would be a calamity compared to which the calamities caused by all the wars of the nineteenth century would be trivial.  Yet it is not easy to see how we can by international agreement state exactly which power ceases to be free and civilized and which comes near the line of barbarism or despotism.  For example, I suppose it would be very difficult to get Russia and Japan to come to a common agreement on this point; and there are at least some citizens of other nations, not to speak of their governments, whom it would also be hard to get together.

This does not in the least mean that it is hopeless to make the effort.  It may be that some scheme will be developed.  America, fortunately, can cordially assist in such an effort, for no one in his senses would suggest our disarmament; and though we should continue to perfect our small navy and our minute army, I do not think it necessary to increase the number of our ships—­at any rate as things look now—­nor the number of our soldiers.  Of course our navy must be kept up to the highest point of efficiency, and the replacing of old and worthless vessels by first-class new ones may involve an increase in the personnel; but not enough to interfere with our action along the lines you have suggested.  But before I would know how to advocate such action, save in some such way as commending it to the attention of The Hague Tribunal, I would have to have a feasible and rational plan of action presented.

It seems to me that a general stop in the increase of the war navies of the world might be a good thing; but I would not like to speak too positively offhand.  Of course it is only in continental Europe that the armies are too large; and before advocating action as regards them I should have to weigh matters carefully—­including by the way such a matter as the Turkish army.  At any rate nothing useful can be done unless with the clear recognition that we object to putting peace second to righteousness.

Sincerely yours, THEODORE ROOSEVELT.