THE WORLD 401

hey had little interest? It could be demonstrated in argument
fcat Collective Security reduced the danger of war; that in
lelping the victims of aggression, whoever they might be, the
atizen was in fact protecting the Rule of Law on which his own
life and safety depended; but reason could not prevail against an
inability to think of mankind as a whole. There the matter stands.
Individuals may continue to think exclusively of Sovereign
States, and to reject Collective Security if they please; but the
price is the continuance of war.

The proportions in which responsibility for the failure is
shared among the States, is a much disputed question between
parties in this country, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the member-
ship of the League was reduced, and the difficulties of Collective
Security became greater. In the past there had not been much
substance in the argument that the league could not act because
it did not include all States. It had been shown in 1931 and on
other occasions, that if the League Powers chose to act against
an aggressor they would enjoy at least the benevolent neutrality
of the chief non-Member, the U.S.A. The American people
would not join in a non-American quarrel if they could help it;
equally certainly they would not wish to offend the League
Powers for the sake of trading with an aggressor. In any fevent,
the way to obtain American sympathy was to make the League
work; for American avoidance of European affairs was based
mainly on a belief that Europeans could not organise peace.
Now that Italy, Germany and Japan stand outside the League
the situation is much graver. The Pact which unites them, on
the one hand, and the League on the other, look ominously like
rival alliances.

THE FUTURE.

This reference to recent events shows how pitiably the
attempts to get rid of war have ended. But since die abolition
of war is now indispensable to civilisation, the attempts must
be renewed. If, by wise policy or good-fortune, the immediate