Finally the difference is that, the rights of the peoples
having been defined clearly, there would have been no
moment's uncertainty nor hesitation concerning the ends of
the war.
And it is impossible to doubt that the present situation of
the war would have been decidedly different from what it is
today.
I have cited the passage at length in order to give the critic's
argument its widest scope. But, alas, who does not see the argument's
fallacy? Who does not perceive that this reenforced skyscraper is a
cardboard column liable to fall with the first push that is given it?
Moreover, from the very beginning, the originator of the idea of the
society of nations admits the hypothesis of a war and presupposes all
the nations in the league are making war against another nation. Even
with the society of nations there will still be wars. Even with the
society of nations there will be no guarantee of absolute peace.
So we are shown the spectacle, in case of war, of all the nations
making war at once, without the least hesitation, without delay,
without any discussion, against the people that disturbs the peace of
the world. Is it a certainty that this unanimity would result? Is it a
certainty that there would be no falling away, no delay? And, granting
that there would be none of this, is it a certainty that irremediable
catastrophes could be avoided? To consider once more M.
Pages:
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149