WAR
the vital interests of the community cannot be defended
by it; on the contrary, they must inevitably suffer more
from the waging of war than they would suffer by non-
resistance to violence. Therefore, in the circumstances of
the present time, complete pacifism is reasonable, right and
even orthodox. Bertrand Russell's pacifism is based upon
exactly the same considerations of expediency as that of
these neo-Thomists. His and their arguments are peculiarly
relevant to the problem of sanctions. For what the
sanctionists demand is that wars which, in the very nature
of things, cannot do anything except destroy the vital
interests of the communities concerned in them, should
be automatically transformed from wars between two or
a few nations into universal combats, bringing destruction
and injustice to all the peoples of the world.
To this contention sanctionists reply by asserting that
the mere display of great military force by League members
will be enough to deter would-be aggressors. The greater
your force, the slighter the probability that you will have
to use it; therefore, they argue, re-arm for the sate of
peace. The facts of history do not bear out this contention.
Threats do not frighten the determined nor do the desperate
shrink before a display of overwhelming force. Moreover,
in the contemporary world, there is no reason to suppose
that the force mustered against an aggressor will be over-
whelming. 'The League' and 'the Aggressor* will be two
well-matched sets of allied powers. Indeed, the com-
position of these two alliances is already pretty well settled.
France, Russia, and probably England are booked to appear
as 'The League*; Italy, Germany and Japan as *the
Aggressor.' The smaller nations will remain neutral, or
back whichever side they think is likely to win. As for
the sanctionist's exhortation to re-arm for the League and
for peace, this is merely a modern version of si vis pacem,
para Idlum. Those who prepare for war start up an
III