When speaking of “gradual disarmament,” I did not mean to say that all the armies and navies of the world should be dismissed. This I would advise just as little as I would advise the dismissal of the police force of the city of New York necessary for the maintenance of public order and the enforcement of the law. I meant only that the movement to be set on foot should have as its object to put a limit to the excessive and constantly growing armaments which are becoming so oppressive to the nations of the world. I meant, substantially, that which was aimed at by the public pronouncement of the Russian Czar, resulting in the establishment of the Hague Tribunal, and which far from being a mere fanciful conception of idealists has long occupied, and now occupies the minds of some of the best thinkers of Europe, as well as America, as a most important problem of our age.
Neither do I deny that there have been wars which were useful to humanity in promoting progress, or in establishing justice, while at the same time I believe that there have also been many wars which were not only unnecessary in every sense, and therefore criminal, but which distinctly made for injustice, tyranny and demoralization. This, however, is beside the question we discuss.
Admitting all you say of the Armenian atrocities, have we not to face the fact that the Powers stood by, without lifting a hand, although they were armed to the teeth? And does not this fact go far to show that they raised and maintained their vast and burdensome armaments not against the hosts of unrighteousness, but against one another or at least because of fear, suspicion or jealousy of one another? If they had nothing [else] in view than to prevent or punish transgressions by barbarians or to remove obstructions offered by them to the world's progress, a comparatively very small force would be required, for those barbarians are really very weak, not
