I will not worry you with any further arguments, since you will

understand my resolve yell enough from these few hints. It is not

my business to draw up an indictment, but merely to explain my

position. If I nourished any hope whatever I should act

differently--of that you may be sure.

The Question of Disarmament

The greatest obstacle to the success of the disarmament plan was the

fact that people in general left out of account the chief difficulties of

the problem. Most objects are gained by gradual steps: for example, the

supersession of absolute monarchy by democracy. Here, however, we are

concerned with an objective which cannot be reached step by step.

As long as the possibility of war remains, nations will insist on being

as perfectly prepared militarily as they can, in order to emerge triumphant

from the next war. It will also be impossible to avoid educating the youth

in warlike traditions and cultivating narrow national vanity joined to the

glorification of the warlike spirit, as long as people have to be prepared

for occasions when such a spirit will be needed in the citizens for the

purpose of war. To arm is to give one's voice and make one's preparations

not for peace but for war. Therefore people will not disarm step by step;

they will disarm at one blow or not at all.

The accomplishment of such a far-reaching change in the life of nations

presupposes a mighty moral effort, a deliberate departure from deeply

ingrained tradition. Anyone who is not prepared to make the fate of his

country in case of a dispute depend entirely on the decisions of an

international court of arbitration, and to enter into a treaty to this

effect without reserve, is not really resolved to avoid war. It is a case of

all or nothing.

It is undeniable that previous attempts to ensure peace have failed

through aiming at inadequate compromises.

Disarmament and security are only to be had in combination. The one

guarantee of security is an undertaking by all nations to give effect to the

decisions of the international authority.

We stand, therefore, at the parting of the ways. Whether we find the

way of peace or continue along the old road of brute force, so unworthy of

our civilization, depends on ourselves. On the one side the freedom of the

individual and the security of society beckon to us, on the other slavery

for the individual and the annihilation of our civilization threaten us. Our

fate will be according to our deserts.

The Disarmament Conference of 1932

I

May I begin with an article of political faith? It runs as follows: The

State is made for man, not man for the State. And in this respect science

resembles the State. These are old sayings, coined by men for whom human

personality was the highest human good. I should shrink from repeating them,

were it not that they are for ever threatening to fall into oblivion,

particularly in these days of organization and mechanization. I regard it as

the chief duty of the State to protect the individual and give him the

opportunity to develop into a creative personality.

That is to say, the State should be our servant and not we its slaves.

The State transgresses this commandment when it compels us by force to

engage in military and war service, the more so since the object and the

effect of this slavish service is to kill people belonging to other

countries or interfere with their freedom of development. We are only to

make such sacrifices to the State as will promote the free development of