IF war is right, why should England try to stop warring nations in Africa or India? If war is right for a great nation, it is also right for a small nation, so why try to stop small tribes from fighting by disarming them, while large nations are increasing their armaments? Is it wrong for one to kill and right for the other If so, who grants the license to kill? What are the requirements to obtain this license? The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," did not specify the number that takes killing out of the realm of crime.
Think of the stunted millions born of fathers whose strength has been sapped in wars, and of mothers who marked their sons with grief and fear.
France still suffers from Napoleon's wars, which robbed her of her strongest men and entailed on her the terrible inheritance of a death rate exceeding the birth rate.
They that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.
Assyria and Persia rose by the sword and perished by the sword. Alexander conquered the Eastern World and his Grecian Empire fell under the sword of Rome. What greater examples can be offered of the truth of the Master's saying than the rise and fall by the sword of the Roman, Saracen and Spanish Empires.
But if Universal Peace were established, every nation would be absolutely assured of its existence forever -- a wonderful assurance for people who love their Fatherland.
So each nation would be a unit in a brotherhood of nations, free to unfold its individual idea, and a wonderful advance would take place in all the arts. The harmony of the universe would flow through the fingers and voices of its musicians, the brush would transfer to canvas glimpses of nature now not seen. The soul of man would brush aside material limitations and spiritual visions not now dreamt of would find expression in higher and nobler life. The money now wasted on war would make poverty unknown, if the world would look for its inspiration in principle and not in matter, and if the national honor were guarded by right motives and not by Dreadnoughts.