I shall begin with an account of the situation at the end of the two
wars through which we have recently passed.
The statesmen who were responsible for shaping the world of today
through the negotiations which followed each of these two wars found
the cards stacked against them. Their aim was not so much to create
situations which might give rise to widespread and prosperous
development as it was to establish the results of victory on a
permanent basis. Even if their judgment had been unerring, they
could not have used it as a guide. They were obliged to regard
themselves as the executors of the will of the conquering peoples.
They could not aspire to establishing relations between peoples on a
just and proper basis; all their efforts were taken up by the
necessity of preventing the most unreasonable of the demands made by
the victors from becoming reality; they had, moreover, to convince
the conquering nations to compromise with each other whenever their
respective views and interests conflicted.
The true source of what is untenable in our present situation - and
the victors are beginning to suffer from it as well as the
vanquished - lies in the fact that not enough thought was given to
the realities of historical fact and, consequently, to what is just
The historical problem of Europe is conditioned by the fact that in
past centuries, particularly in the so-called era of the great
invasions, the peoples from the East penetrated farther and farther
into the West and Southwest, taking possession of the land1. So it
came about that the later immigrants intermingled with the earlier
already established immigrants.
A partial fusion of these peoples took place during this time, and
new relatively homogeneous political societies were formed within
the new frontiers. In western and central Europe, this evolution led
to a situation which may be said to have crystallized and become
definitive in its main features in the course of the nineteenth
In the East and Southeast, on the other hand, the evolution did not
reach this stage; it stopped with the coexistence of nationalities
which failed to merge. Each could lay some claim to rightful
ownership of the land. One might claim territorial rights by virtue
of longer possession or superiority of numbers, while another might
point to its contribution in developing the land. The only practical
solution would have been for the two groups to agree to live
together in the same territory and in a single political society, in
accordance with a compromise acceptable to both. It would have been
necessary, however, for this state of affairs to have been reached
before the second third of the nineteenth century. For, from then
on, there was increasingly vigorous development of national
consciousness which brought with it serious consequences. This
development no longer allowed peoples to be guided by historical
realities and by reason.
The First World War, then, had its origins in the conditions which
prevailed in eastern and southeastern Europe. The new order created
after both world wars bears in its turn the seeds of a future
Any new postwar structure is bound to contain the seeds of conflict
unless it takes account of historical fact and is designed to
provide a just and objective solution to problems in the light of
that fact. Only such a solution can be really permanent.
Historical reality is trampled underfoot if, when two peoples have
rival historical claims to the same country, the claims of only one
are recognized. The titles which two nations hold to disputed parts
of Europe never have more than a relative value since the peoples of
both are, in effect, immigrants.
Similarly, we are guilty of contempt for history if, in establishing
a new order, we fail to take economic realities into consideration
when frontiers. Such is the case if we draw a boundary so as to
deprive a port of its natural hinterland or raise a barrier between
a region rich in raw materials and another particularly suited to
exploiting them. By such measures do we create states which cannot
The most flagrant violation of historical rights, and indeed of
human rights, consists in depriving certain peoples of their right
to the land on which they live, thus forcing them to move to other
territories. At the end of the Second World War, the victorious
powers decided to impose this fate on hundreds of thousands of
people, and under the most harsh conditions2; from this we can judge
how little aware they were of any mission to work toward a
reorganization which would be reasonably equitable and which would
guarantee a propitious future.
Our situation ever since the Second World War has been characterized
essentially by the fact that no peace treaty has yet been signed3.
It was only through agreements of a truce-like nature that the war
came to an end; and it is indeed because of our inability to effect
a reorganization, however elemental, that we are obliged to be
content with these truces which, dictated by the needs of the
moment, can have no foreseeable future.
This then is the present situation. How do we perceive the problem
of peace now?
In quite a new light - different to the same extent that modern war
is different from war in the past. War now employs weapons of death
and destruction incomparably more effective than those of the past
and is consequently a worse evil than ever before. Heretofore war
could be regarded as an evil to which men must resign themselves
because it served progress and was even necessary to it. One could
argue that thanks to war the peoples with the strongest virtues
survived; thus determining the course of history.
It could be claimed, for example, that the victory of Cyrus over the
Babylonians created an empire in the Near East with a civilization
higher than that which it supplanted, and that Alexander the Great's
victory in its turn opened the way, from the Nile to the Indus, for
Greek civilization. The reverse, however, sometimes occurred when
war led to the replacement of a superior civilization by an inferior
one, as it did, for instance, in the seventh century and at the
beginning of the eighth when the Arabs gained mastery over Persia,
Asia Minor, Palestine, North Africa, and Spain, countries that had
hitherto flourished under a Greco-Roman civilization.
It would seem then that, in the past, war could operate just as well
in favor of progress as against it. It is with much less conviction
that we can claim modern war to be an agent of progress. The evil
that it embodies weighs more heavily on us than ever before.
It is pertinent to recall that the generation preceding 1914
approved the enormous stockpiling of armaments. The argument was
that a military decision would be reached with rapidity and that
very brief wars could be expected. This opinion was accepted without
Because they anticipated the progressive humanization of the methods
of war, people also believed that the evils resulting from future
conflicts would be relatively slight. This supposition grew out of
the obligations accepted by nations under the terms of the Geneva
Convention of 1864, following the efforts of the Red Cross. Mutual
guarantees were exchanged concerning care for the wounded, the
humane treatment of prisoners of war, and the welfare of the
civilian population. This convention did indeed achieve some
significant results for which hundreds of thousands of combatants
and civilians were to be thankful in the wars to come. But, compared
to the miseries of war, which have grown beyond all proportion with
the introduction of modern weapons of death and destruction, they
are trivial indeed. Truly, it cannot be a question of humanizing
The concept of the brief war and that of the humanization of its
methods, propounded as they were on the eve of war in 1914, led
people to take the war less seriously than they should have. They
regarded it as a storm which was to clear the political air and as
an event which was to end the arms race that was ruining nations.
While some lightheartedly supported the war on account of the
profits they expected to gain from it, others did so from a more
noble motive: this war must be the war to end all wars. Many a brave
man set out for battle in the belief that he was fighting for a day
when war would no longer exist.
In this conflict, just as in that of 1939, these two concepts proved
to be completely wrong. Slaughter and destruction continued year
after year and were carried on in the most inhumane way. In contrast
to the war of 18704.the duel was not between two isolated nations,
but between two great groups of nations, so that a large share of
mankind became embroiled, thus compounding the tragedy.
Since we now know what a terrible evil war is, we must spare no
effort to prevent its recurrence. To this reason must also be added
an ethical one: In the course of the last two wars, we have been
guilty of acts of inhumanity which make one shudder, and in any
future war we would certainly be guilty of even worse. This must not
Let us dare to face the situation. Man has become superman. He is a
superman because he not only has at his disposal innate physical
forces, but also commands, thanks to scientific and technological
advances, the latent forces of nature which he can now put to his
own use. To kill at a distance, man used to rely solely on his own
physical strength; he used it to bend the bow and to release the
arrow. The superman has progressed to the stage where, thanks to a
device designed for the purpose, he can use the energy released by
the combustion of a given combination of chemical products. This
enables him to employ a much more effective projectile and to propel
it over far greater distances.
However, the superman suffers from a fatal flaw. He has failed to
rise to the level of superhuman reason which should match that of
his superhuman strength. He requires such reason to put this vast
power to solely reasonable and useful ends and not to destructive
and murderous ones. Because he lacks it, the conquests of science
and technology become a mortal danger to him rather than a blessing.
In this context is it not significant that the first great
scientific discovery, the harnessing of the force resulting from the
combustion of gunpowder, was seen at first only as a means of
killing at a distance?
The conquest of the air, thanks to the internal-combustion engine,
marked a decisive advance for humanity. Yet men grasped at once the
opportunity it offered to kill and destroy from the skies. This
invention underlined a fact which had hitherto been steadfastly
denied: the more the superman gains in strength, the poorer he
becomes. To avoid exposing himself completely to the destruction
unleashed from the skies, he is obliged to seek refuge underground
like a hunted animal. At the same time he must resign himself to
abetting the unprecedented destruction of cultural values.
A new stage was reached with the discovery and subsequent
utilization of the vast forces liberated by the splitting of the
atom. After a time, it was found that the destructive potential of a
bomb armed with such was incalculable, and that even large-scale
tests could unleash catastrophes threatening the very existence of
the human race. Only now has the full horror of our position become
obvious. No longer can we evade the question of the future of
But the essential fact which we should acknowledge in our
conscience, and which we should have acknowledged a long time ago,
is that we are becoming inhuman to the extent that we become
supermen. We have learned to tolerate the facts of war: that men are
killed en masse -some twenty million in the Second World War - that
whole cities and their inhabitants are annihilated by the atomic
bomb, that men are turned into living torches by incendiary bombs.
We learn of these things from the radio or newspapers and we judge
them according to whether they signify success for the group of
peoples to which we belong, or for our enemies. When we do admit to
ourselves that such acts are the results of inhuman conduct, our
admission is accompanied by the thought that the very fact of war
itself leaves us no option but to accept them. In resigning
ourselves to our fate without a struggle, we are guilty of
What really matters is that we should all of us realize that we are
guilty of inhumanity. The horror of this realization should shake us
out of our lethargy so that we can direct our hopes and our
intentions to the coming of an era in which war will have no place.
This hope and this will can have but one aim: to attain, through a
change in spirit, that superior reason which will dissuade us from
misusing the power at our disposal.
The first to have the courage to advance purely ethical arguments
against war and to stress the necessity for reason governed by an
ethical will was the great humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam in his
Querela pacis (The Complaint of Peace) which appeared in 15175. In
this book he depicts Peace on stage seeking an audience.
Erasmus found few adherents to his way of thinking. To expect the
affirmation of an ethical necessity to point the way to peace was
considered a utopian ideal. Kant shared this opinion. In his essay
on "Perpetual Peace", which appeared in 17956, and in other
publications in which he touches upon the problem of peace, he
states his belief that peace will come only with the increasing
authority of an international code of law, in accordance with which
an international court of arbitration would settle disputes between
nations. This authority, he maintains, should be based entirely on
the increasing respect which in time, and for purely practical
motives, men will hold for the law as such. Kant is unremitting in
his insistence that the idea of a league of nations cannot be hoped
for as the outcome of ethical argument, but only as the result of
the perfecting of law. He believes that this process of perfecting
will come of itself. In his opinion, "nature, that great artist"
will lead men, very gradually, it is true, and over a very long
period of time, through the march of history and the misery of wars,
to agree on an international code of law which will guarantee
A plan for a league of nations having powers of arbitration was
first formulated with some precision by Sully, the friend and
minister of Henry IV. It was given detailed treatment by the Abbé
Castel de Saint-Pierre in three works, the most important of which
bears the title Projet de paix perpétuelle entre les souverains
chrétiens [Plan for Perpetual Peace between Christian Sovereigns].
Kant was aware of the views it developed, probably from an extract
which Rousseau published in 17617.
Today we can judge the efficacy of international institutions by the
experience we have had with the League of Nations in Geneva and with
the United Nations. Such institutions can render important services
by offering to mediate conflicts at their very inception, by taking
the initiative in setting up international projects, and by other
actions of a similar nature, depending on the circumstances. One of
the League of Nations' most important achievements was the creation
in 1922 of an internationally valid passport for the benefit of
those who became stateless as a consequence of war8. What a position
those people would have been in if this travel document had not been
devised through Nansen's initiative! What would have been the fate
of displaced persons after 1945 if the United Nations had not
Nevertheless these two institutions have been unable to bring about
peace. Their efforts were doomed to fail since they were obliged to
undertake them in a world in which there was no prevailing spirit
directed toward peace. And being only legal institutions, they were
unable to create such a spirit. The ethical spirit alone has the
power to generate it. Kant deceived himself in thinking that he
could dispense with it in his search for peace. We must follow the
road on which he turned his back.
What is more, we just cannot wait the extremely long time he deemed
necessary for this movement toward peace to mature. War today means
annihilation, a fact that Kant did not foresee. Decisive steps must
be taken to ensure peace, and decisive results obtained without
delay. Only through the spirit can all this be done.
Is the spirit capable of achieving what we in our distress must
expect of it?
Let us not underestimate its power, the evidence of which can be
seen throughout the history of mankind. The spirit created this
humanitarianism which is the origin of all progress toward some form
of higher existence. Inspired by humanitarianism we are true to
ourselves and capable of creating. Inspired by a contrary spirit we
are unfaithful to ourselves and fall prey to all manner of error.
The height to which the spirit can ascend was revealed in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It led those peoples of Europe
who possessed it out of the Middle Ages, putting an end to
superstition, witch hunts, torture, and a multitude of other forms
of cruelty or traditional folly. It replaced the old with the new in
an evolutionary way that never ceases to astonish those who observe
it. All that we have ever possessed of true civilization, and indeed
all that we still possess, can be traced to a manifestation of this
Later, its power waned because the spirit failed to find support for
its ethical character in a world preoccupied with scientific
pursuits. It has been replaced by a spirit less sure of the course
humanity should take and more content with lesser ideals. Today if
we are to avoid our own downfall, we must commit ourselves to this
spirit once again. It must bring forth a new miracle just as it did
in the Middle Ages, an even greater miracle than the first.
The spirit is not dead; it lives in isolation. It has overcome the
difficulty of having to exist in a world out of harmony with its
ethical character. It has come to realize that it can find no home
other than in the basic nature of man. The independence acquired
through its acceptance of this realization is an additional asset.
It is convinced that compassion, in which ethics takes root, does
not assume its true proportions until it embraces not only man but
every living being. To the old ethics, which lacked this depth and
force of conviction, has been added the ethics of reverence for
life, and its validity is steadily gaining in recognition.
Once more we dare to appeal to the whole man, to his capacity to
think and feel, exhorting him to know himself and to be true to
himself. We reaffirm our trust in the profound qualities of his
nature. And our living. experiences are proving us right.
In 1950, there appeared a book entitled Témoignages d'humanité
[Documents of Humanity]9, published by some professors from the
University of Göttingen who had been brought together by the
frightful mass expulsion of the eastern Germans in 1945. The
refugees tell in simple words of the help they received in their
distress from men belonging to the enemy nations, men who might well
have been moved to hate them. Rarely have I been so gripped by a
book as I was by this one. It is a wonderful tonic for anyone who
has lost faith in humanity.
Whether peace comes or not depends on the direction in which the
mentality of individuals develops and then, in turn, on that of
their nations. This truth holds more meaning for us today than it
did for the past. Erasmus, Sully, the Abbé Castel de Saint-Pierre,
and the others who in their time were engrossed in the problem of
peace dealt with princes and not with peoples. Their efforts tended
to be concentrated on the establishment of a supranational authority
vested with the power of arbitrating any difficulties which might
arise between princes. Kant, in his essay on "Perpetual Peace", was
the first to foresee an age when peoples would govern themselves and
when they, no less than the sovereigns, would be concerned with the
problem of peace. He thought of this evolution as progress. In his
opinion, peoples would be more inclined than princes to maintain
peace because it is they who bear the miseries of war.
The time has come, certainly, when governments must look on
themselves as the executors of the will of the people. But Kant's
reliance on the people's innate love for peace has not been
justified. Because the will of the people, being the will of the
crowd, has not avoided the danger of instability and the risk of
emotional distraction from the path of true reason, it has failed to
demonstrate a vital sense of responsibility. Nationalism of the
worst sort was displayed in the last two wars, and it may be
regarded today as the greatest obstacle to mutual understanding
Such nationalism can be repulsed only through the rebirth of a
humanitarian ideal among men which will make their allegiance to
their country a natural one inspired by genuine ideals.
Spurious nationalism is rampant in countries across the seas too,
especially among those peoples who formerly lived under white
domination and who have recently gained their independence. They are
in danger of allowing nationalism to become their one and only
ideal. Indeed, peace, which had prevailed until now in many areas,
is today in jeopardy.
These peoples, too, can overcome their naive nationalism only by
adopting a humanitarian ideal. But how is such a change to be
brought about? Only when the spirit becomes a living force within us
and leads us to a civilization based on the humanitarian ideal, will
it act, through us, upon these peoples. All men, even the
semicivilized and the primitive, are, as beings capable of
compassion, able to develop a humanitarian spirit. It abides within
them like tinder ready to be lit, waiting only for a spark.
The idea that the reign of peace must come one day has been given
expression by a number of peoples who have attained a certain level
of civilization. In Palestine it appeared for the first time in the
words of the prophet Amos in the eighth century B.C.10, and it
continues to live in the Jewish and Christian religions as the
belief in the Kingdom of God. It figures in the doctrine taught by
the great Chinese thinkers: Confucius and Lao-tse in the sixth
century B.C., Mi-tse in the fifth, and Meng-tse in the fourth11. It
reappears in Tolstoy12 and in other contemporary European thinkers.
People have labeled it a utopia. But the situation today is such
that it must become reality in one way or another; otherwise mankind
I am well aware that what I have had to say on the problem of peace
is not essentially new. It is my profound conviction that the
solution lies in our rejecting war for an ethical reason; namely,
that war makes us guilty of the crime of inhumanity. Erasmus of
Rotterdam and several others after him have already proclaimed this
as the truth around which we should rally.
The only originality I claim is that for me this truth goes hand in
hand with the intellectual certainty that the human spirit is
capable of creating in our time a new mentality, an ethical
mentality. Inspired by this certainty, I too proclaim this truth in
the hope that my testimony may help to prevent its rejection as an
admirable sentiment but a practical impossibility. Many a truth has
lain unnoticed for a long time, ignored simply because no one
perceived its potential for becoming reality.
Only when an ideal of peace is born in the minds of the peoples will
the institutions set up to maintain this peace effectively fulfill
the function expected of them.
Even today, we live in an age characterized by the absence of peace;
even today, nations can feel themselves threatened by other nations;
even today, we must concede to each nation the right to stand ready
to defend itself with the terrible weapons now at its disposal.
Such is the predicament in which we seek the first sign of the
spirit in which we must place our trust. This sign can be none other
than an effort on the part of peoples to atone as far as possible
for the wrongs they inflicted upon each other during the last war.
Hundreds of thousands of prisoners and deportees are waiting to
return to their homes; others, unjustly condemned by a foreign
power, await their acquittal; innumerable other injustices still
In the name of all who toil in the cause of peace, I beg the peoples
to take the first step along this new highway. Not one of them will
lose a fraction of the power necessary for their own defense.
If we take this step to liquidate the injustices of the war which we
have just experienced, we will instill a little confidence in all
people. For any enterprise, confidence is the capital without which
no effective work can be carried on. It creates in every sphere of
activity conditions favoring fruitful growth. In such an atmosphere
of confidence thus created we can begin to seek an equitable
settlement of the problems caused by the two wars.
I believe that I have expressed the thoughts and hopes of millions
of men who, in our part of the world, live in fear of war to come.
May my words convey their intended meaning if they penetrate to the
other part of the world - the other side of the trench - to those
who live there in the same fear.
May the men who hold the destiny of peoples in their hands,
studiously avoid anything that might cause the present situation to
deteriorate and become even more dangerous. May they take to heart
the words of the Apostle Paul: "If it be possible, as much as lieth
in you, live peaceably with all men".These words are valid not only
for individuals, but for nations as well. May these nations, in
their efforts to maintain peace, do their utmost to give the spirit
time to grow and to act.