THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
[To THE EDITOR OF ERR SPECTATOR."1 Sie,—As a constant reader of the Spectator, and one who thinks that the principle for whirls Great Britain fought co hard in the war has not yet received sufficient recognition, I was most interested to find it duly stressed in the article on the League of Nations in the issue for February 22nd. The writer says: "In future there will be no Neutrals. If war breaks out again, the world will be divided into those who side with one or other of the belligerents." It has always seemed to me that the status of the Neutral in the leer now happily over has not only been "entirely fictitious." but was in fact entirely shame. ful. As soon as " the scrap of paper " was torn, the whole world was challenged, and the Allies answered the challenge. Germany's crime outraged the conscience of civilization, and so drew America into the world conflict in spite of the Monroe Doctrine. Some of the smaller nations, to their eternal honour, also voluntarily paid tribute to the sacred cause which we championed. But, any it not with justice be asked, why did not all the civilized peoples utter their indictment and fear- lessly declare themselves against the monster of Prussianism The Neutrals had not really less at stake than we—for were we not fighting the common enemy of mankind, our enemy and theirs 7—and, therefore. their fate as well as ours depended upon the issue of the conflict. In our victory now lies the hope of Democracy, but would not our defeat have sounded the death-knell of civilization ? Was not boasted neutrality then rather ignoble, when the supremacy of conscience and the destiny of humanity were at stake ? One has in desire to humiliate, but will not history be terribly ironical ?—I am,
Previous page
