The Kingdom of God Is Within You by Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy (reading diary .txt) 📖

of soldiers

would confer a signal benefit on Europe and mankind, because it

would, by public opinion, oblige other governments to follow

its example, and by the moral force of this accomplished fact

would have increased rather than diminished the conditions of

its national defense.

 

“12. The congress, considering the question of disarmament, as

of peace in general, depends on public opinion, recommends the

peace societies, as well as all friends of peace, to be active

in its propaganda, especially at the time of parliamentary

elections, in order that the electors should give their votes

to candidates who are pledged to support Peace, Disarmament,

and Arbitration.

 

“13. The congress congratulates the friends of peace on the

resolution adopted by the International American Conference,

held at Washington in April last, by which it was recommended

that arbitration should be obligatory in all controversies,

whatever their origin, except only those which may imperil the

independence of one of the nations involved.

 

“14. The congress recommends this resolution to the attention

of European statesmen, and expresses the ardent desire that

similar treaties may speedily be entered into between the other

nations of the world.

 

“15. The congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption by

the Spanish Senate on June 16 last of a project of law

authorizing the government to negotiate general or special

treaties of arbitration for the settlement of all disputes

except those relating to the independence or internal

government of the states affected; also at the adoption of

resolutions to a like effect by the Norwegian Storthing and by

the Italian Chamber.

 

“16. The congress resolves that a committee be appointed to

address communications to the principal political, religious,

commercial, and labor and peace organizations, requesting them

to send petitions to the governmental authorities praying that

measures be taken for the formation of suitable tribunals for

the adjudicature of international questions so as to avoid the

resort to war.

 

“17. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all peace societies

is the establishment of judicial order between nations, and (2)

that neutralization by international treaties constitutes a

step toward this judicial state and lessens the number of

districts in which war can be carried on, the congress

recommends a larger extension of the rule of neutralization,

and expresses the wish, (1) that all treaties which at present

assure to certain states the benefit of neutrality remain in

force, or if necessary be amended in a manner to render the

neutrality more effective, either by extending neutralization

to the whole of the state or by ordering the demolition of

fortresses, which constitute rather a peril than a guarantee

for neutrality; (2) that new treaties in harmony with the

wishes of the populations concerned be concluded for

establishing the neutralization of other states.

 

“18. The sub-committee proposes, (1) that the annual Peace

Congress should be held either immediately before the meeting

of the annual Sub-parliamentary Conference, or immediately

after it in the same town; (2) that the question of an

international peace emblem be postponed SINE DIE; (3) that the

following resolutions be adopted:

 

“a. To express satisfaction at the official overtures of the

Presbyterian Church in the United States addressed to the

highest representatives of each church organization in

Christendom to unite in a general conference to promote the

substitution of international arbitration for war.

 

“b. To express in the name of the congress its profound

reverence for the memory of Aurelio Saffi, the great Italian

jurist, a member of the committee of the International

League of Peace and Liberty.

 

“(4) That the memorial adopted by this congress and

signed by the president to the heads of the civilized states

should, as far as practicable, be presented to each power by

influential deputations.

 

“(5) That the following resolutions be adopted:

 

“a. A resolution of thanks to the presidents of the various

sittings of the congress.

 

“b. A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretaries,

and the members of the bureau of the congress.

 

“c. A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of

the sectional committees.

 

“d. A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev.

Dr. Reuen Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon for their pulpit

addresses before the congress, and also to the authorities

of St. Paul’s Cathedral, the City Temple, and Stamford Hill

Congregational Church for the use of those buildings for

public services.

 

“e. A letter of thanks to her Majesty for permission to

visit Windror Castle.

 

“f. And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and

Lady Mayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends

who have extended their hospitality to the members of the

congress.

 

“19. The congress places on record a heartfelt expression of

gratitude to Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and

concord which have characterized the meetings of the assembly,

in which so many men and women of varied nations, creeds,

tongues, and races have gathered in closest co-operation, and

for the conclusion of the labors of the congress; and expresses

its firm and unshaken belief in the ultimate triumph of the

cause of peace and of the principles advocated at these

meetings.”

 

The fundamental idea of the congress is the necessity (1) of

diffusing among all people by all means the conviction of the

disadvantages of war and the great blessing of peace, and (2) of

rousing governments to the sense of the superiority of

international arbitration over war and of the consequent

advisability and necessity of disarmament. To attain the first

aim the congress has recourse to teachers of history, to women,

and to the clergy, with the advice to the latter to preach on the

evil of war and the blessing of peace every third Sunday in

December. To attain the second object the congress appeals to

governments with the suggestion that they should disband their

armies and replace war by arbitration.

 

To preach to men of the evil of war and the blessing of peace!

But the blessing of peace is so well known to men that, ever since

there have been men at all, their best wish has been expressed in

the greeting, “Peace be with you.” So why preach about it?

 

Not only Christians, but pagans, thousands of years ago, all

recognized the evil of war and the blessing of peace. So that the

recommendation to ministers of the Gospel to preach on the evil of

war and the blessing of peace every third Sunday in December is

quite superfluous.

 

The Christian cannot but preach on that subject every day of his

life. If Christians and preachers of Christianity do not do so,

there must be reasons for it. And until these have been removed

no recommendations will be effective. Still less effective will

be the recommendations to governments to disband their armies and

replace them by international boards of arbitration. Governments,

too, know very well the difficulty and the burdensomeness of

raising and maintaining forces, and if in spite of that knowledge

they do, at the cost of terrible strain and effort, raise and

maintain forces, it is evident that they cannot do otherwise, and

the recommendation of the congress can never change it. But the

learned gentlemen are unwilling to see that, and keep hoping to

find a political combination, through which governments shall be

induced to limit their powers themselves.

 

“Can we get rid of war”? asks a learned writer in the REVUE DES

REVUES.

 

“All are agreed that if it were to break out in Europe, its

consequences would be like those of the great inroads of

barbarians. The existence of whole nationalities would be at

stake, and therefore the war would be desperate, bloody,

atrocious.

 

“This consideration, together with the terrible engines of

destruction invented by modern science, retards the moment of

declaring war, and maintains the present temporary situation,

which might continue for an indefinite period, except for the

fearful cost of maintaining armaments which are exhausting the

European states and threatening to reduce nations to a state of

misery hardly less than that of war itself.

 

“Struck by this reflection, men of various countries have tried

to find means for preventing, or at least for softening, the

results of the terrible slaughter with which we are threatened.

 

“Such are the questions brought forward by the Peace Congress

shortly to be held in Rome, and the publication of a pamphlet,

Sur le D�sarmement.’

 

“It is unhappily beyond doubt that with the present

organization of the majority of European states, isolated from

one another and guided by distinct interests, the absolute

suppression of war is an illusion with which it would be

dangerous to cheat ourselves. Wiser rules and regulations

imposed on these duels between nations might, however, at least

limit its horrors.

 

“It is equally chimerical to reckon on projects of disarmament,

the execution of which is rendered almost impossible by

considerations of a popular character present to the mind of

all our readers. [This probably means that France cannot

disband its army before taking its revenge.] Public opinion is

not prepared to accept them, and moreover, the international

relations between different peoples are not such as to make

their acceptance possible. Disarmament imposed on one nation

by another in circumstances threatening its security would be

equivalent to a declaration of war.

 

“However, one may admit that an exchange of ideas between the

nations interested could aid, to a certain degree, in bringing

about the good understanding indispensable to any negotiations,

and would render possible a considerable reduction of the

military expenditure which is crushing the nations of Europe

and greatly hindering the solution of the social question,

which each individually must solve on pain of having internal

war as the price for escaping it externally.

 

“We might at least demand the reduction of the enormous

expenses of war organized as it is at present with a view to

the power of invasion within twenty-four hours and a decisive

battle within a week of the declaration of war.

 

“We ought to manage so that states could not make the attack

suddenly and invade each other’s territories within twenty-four

hours.”

 

This practical notion has been put forth by Maxime du Camp, and

his article concludes with it.

 

The propositions of M. du Camp are as follows:

 

1. A diplomatic congress to be held every year.

 

2. No war to be declared till two months after the incident

which provoked it. (The difficulty here would be to decide

precisely what incident did provoke the war, since whenever war

is declared there are very many such incidents, and one would

have to decide from which to reckon the two months’ interval.)

 

3. No war to be declared before it has been submitted to a

plebiscitum of the nations preparing to take part in it.

 

4. No hostilities to be commenced till a month after the

official declaration of war.

 

“No war to be declared. No hostilities to be commenced,” etc.

But who is to arrange that no war is to be declared? Who is to

compel people to do this and that? Who is to force states to

delay their operations for a certain fixed time? All the other

states. But all these others are also states which want holding

in check and keeping within limits, and forcing, too. Who is to

force them, and how? Public opinion. But if there is a public

opinion which can force governments to delay their operations for

a fixed period, the same public opinion can force governments not

to declare war at all.

 

But, it will be replied, there may be such a balance of power,

such a POND�RATION DE FORCES, as would lead states to hold back of

their own accord. Well, that has been tried and is being