In The Hague the Temple of Peace is empty; all over the world ordnance factories are full. Since the day of that first convention in Geneva educated men have organized and pushed the international movement, which is called world peace. Is it a success or a failure?

At his home in Berlin, early in February, I talked with one of the leading men of this movement concerning these things. I asked Professor Ludwig Stein,—whose activities for world peace are well known in America, he having been chosen for the Nobel Peace prize of 1914 which was never awarded, he being formerly one of the three permanent members of the Bern Bureau for International Peace, he having been selected to present the famous declaration of peace to the late Edward the Seventh, whom the peace people called Edward the Peacemaker, he having worked side by side with Andrew Carnegie for the "ideal"—I asked him, could peace soon be made in this war? A deliberate man is Professor Stein, and he thought so long without replying that his personality impressed itself upon you before he had uttered a word—a strange combination of the dreamer and the man of to-day, a contrast of gentle eyes and grim jaw.

"At this time," he said, tapping his finger on the copper-topped smoking table in his study, "peace is impossible. President Wilson's endeavors are futile. Before a decisive result has been reached, peace cannot be thought of. Once Warsaw is captured, it is likely that Russia will make peace; or if not Warsaw, if a large really decisive battle is fought."

It seemed significant that such an apostle of peace as Professor Stein should have so completely given up all faith in the immediate efficacy of his movement. I asked him therefore if he considered it a failure.

"The peace movement," he said, "is like a fire department. If a few houses burn, or the conflagration spreads even over a number of blocks, the fire fighters are effective, but if a whole city burns, like the big Chicago fire, the fire department can do nothing. And if the whole world burns, what can the workers for peace do? Our movement is not strong enough; it is not big enough. For the Balkan war, the firemen were effective, they could confine the burning within that limited area, but when all Europe sprang up in flames, we failed." I mentioned to the Professor that this was a new conception to the peace movement in America, the first admission from a peace-man that the power of the movement was to-day limited. I asked Professor Stein then if we were to think of the movement as being a limited success or was there any chance of it ever attaining something bigger?

"The task of the nineteenth century," he replied, "was to let national feeling grow subconsciously. In Prussia, Fichte, the first rector of the new Berlin University, made his famous 'Speeches for the German Nation.' Jahn preached 'German Unity.' Achim von Arnim collected German songs and war songs of German warriors. Even Schiller wrote in his later years of Germany as the heart and center of Europe, and began to feel more national than Goethe ever did. The idea grew and produced united Italy and united Germany. But this process of attaining national consciousness is not yet achieved. In America it is not nearly finished. It is a sociological, unconsciously pedagogical process. The time will come when nationalism will be thoroughly saturated in each country. When it does and not until then, states will see that it is impossible to produce and consume everything. That will be the beginning of international consciousness. Then the national spirit will become secondary to conscious internationalism. When that time comes, world peace will be possible."

I was going to ask Professor Stein how far off that day was but thought it best first to take up his point, the thorough establishment of the national idea being the beginning of world peace.

"As the national feeling grows," I asked him, "will not the goal for peace become always more remote? It seems to me that international consciousness is dependent upon the people of one country knowing the people of another. How can, for instance, the Russian peasant ever understand the customs and personality of say, the poor man in England? Because of geographical reasons they can never get into touch with one another; how then are the masses of the states of the world ever going to understand each other, and how without this understanding can there ever be world peace?"

Professor Stein believes that this barrier can be overcome.

"Modern science and fast steamers," he replied, "the wireless, and better international trade understanding are constantly bringing together all states. Through journalists, merchants, diplomats and extensive traveling on the part of the people of all countries, the inhabitants of all different parts of the world begin to know each other. A hundred years ago the Roumanian peasant did not know possibly that there was an Argentine. To-day, though, the Roumanian knows that the price he gets for his wheat depends upon what the Argentine farmers get for theirs. I believe that as science progresses and culture spreads over the world, that the geographical barrier to peace can be broken down. Consider Switzerland, it is the ideal. Three races, French, German and Italian, live within its walls, but they are held together by culture."

I pointed out that Switzerland was so small that the French, Germans and Italians had a chance to know and understand their different customs and personalities, and asked Professor Stein if culture was also holding together Austria-Hungary?

"Austria," he said, "is an exception. Politically it is necessary to have the monarchial symbol there, because only in a military state would it be possible for so many different races to live at peace with themselves. Austria is different from Switzerland because it is a crazy quilt of many different, uncultured, mostly illiterate, to some extent nomadic races."

The Professor, who is a great admirer of Herbert Spencer and whom Spencer said understood him better than any Continental thinker, thereupon mentioned the point that the famous Englishman had made.

"Spencer," he said, "wrote that instead of war, a competition in traffic and industry would take place between nations."

"But, Professor," I asked, "does not traffic and industry breed war; what caused this war? Was not commercial jealousy between England and Germany one of the vital causes of the war?"

He admitted that it was, and went on to say:

"After this war, the Englishman will look at his books, he will take his pencil in his hand and he will begin figuring. He will get up a balance sheet, and he will find that war does not pay. England is rational to excess. For years she has been the political clearing house of the world. She could in this way rule five hundred million people as long as these people were not striving for nationalism. But Germany attains its conscious nationalism, and asks herself, Why should I allow the thirty-eight million people of Great Britain, through their political clearing house, to have such a dominate influence on the affairs of the world? Wherefore in the last analysis, this war was caused by the thorough gaining of national consciousness that English diplomacy has no longer been able to retard. And under the industrial system of to-day, things are not done with papers passing through a clearing house, but with blood.

"I regard this war as an expression of the solidarity of the world on the minus side. It is an underground solidarity, but is having, for the moment, a negative influence because commerce is stopped. The United States is feeling it, it is holding up your country. It is holding up China which cannot get money for necessary improvements. But all this is working towards the conscious solidarity of the future, which will be expressed in a positive war; when fighting will be done not with cannons but with contracts; when not blood but ink will be wasted."

"You believe then, Professor," I asked, "that the day will come when there will be no war, when fighting actually will be done with ink? Suppose that day comes, will it be a good thing? Do you consider international peace a friend or an enemy to robust normal manhood? Do you think that war cleans out degenerate tendencies of peaceful civilization?"

Deciding that this was a metaphysical question, Professor Stein preferred not to answer it. He did though say this: "In the Bible it says that the holy fire must be kept burning on the altar. It is a good thing for the world that there are idealists to keep the fire going. Men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and the puritan and quaker elements, they do their service to the world in this way. The world must have ideals. International peace is an ideal. It is like the point of a compass, the north star that the mariner sees, or the star of the desert. It points the way for those who want to go toward a certain goal. I say, that as an ideal, it is impossible of achievement, because the very way to it shows the people where they really want to go."

"But, Professor," I suggested, "if a nation has only ideals, it is going to get into trouble. I have heard it expressed that the peace movement has done the United States more harm than good. Will you, as one of its hardest workers, give some message to the people of America, on the status of international peace to-day and in the future?"

"Your country," he said, "has not yet attained its nationalism, but it is most wonderful, because it is not formed like Austria, of half civilized, uncultured races held together by the monarchical system, but because it is welding itself together from material, a large part of which was composed of the scum of Europe. I wonder that it has been able to make the strides towards nationalism, that it already has. No state in the world has progressed so far by comparison towards national consciousness as has America in so short a time. Up to now, America has been the student of Europe, but from now on, America will be the teacher. To-day doubly so; with the Panama Canal you are the forepost of the white race against the yellow. The geographical and moral position that your country holds, imposes upon it a great duty. It is to hold back the East. Your country cannot step aside from the yellow races. You must be prepared to cope with them."

"What, Professor! You are suggesting armament for the United States. Why! that is against every teaching of the peace propagandist in our country."

"If the people of the United States," stated Professor Stein deliberately, "believe that the peace movement is bound to save them from war, they have either totally misconstrued it, or they have been grossly misinformed. A nation must be prepared for war. If the rulers of a nation leave their country unprepared, they are guilty of criminal neglect. In China its four hundred millions of people are unprepared, and are therefore at the mercy of a few million Japanese who are prepared. That is because in this generation might is right, and all that we workers for peace can do, without injuring our states, is to face the facts of this generation, be prepared for war, if war there is to be, and keep on working for our ideal. Anything else is a dream."

"But, Professor," I remarked, "that is not the peace idea as it has been spread broadcast in America. Those who believe in the movement, think that the peace societies of our country can keep us out of war. What you have just said disagrees with Andrew Carnegie's peace utterances in the United States. Would you mind telling me the difference between your viewpoint and Mr. Carnegie's?"

"I shall be glad to do so," replied Professor Stein. "Mr. Carnegie looks at the peace movement from a puritanical viewpoint. He has interpreted the biblical text of turning the sword into a plow-share literally as applying to the present day. I believe that swords will be turned into plow shares, but not in our generation. That will come to pass, not because it is in the Bible, but because the imminent logic of history will bring it about. Eventually the imminent logic of history will create international peace. The puritanical workers for peace believe that because it is written in the Bible that all men are born equal, they should try to equalize mankind to-day. It will take about a hundred years to educate and solidify the white race alone. It will take about ten thousand years, let us say, to educate all the races of the world and achieve a world brotherhood. The great mistake that is made is in thinking that the ideals of the Bible are possible to-day. They are utterly impossible."

I then asked Professor Stein to summarize his opinions for me. "I have read your paper," I said, "written before the war, on Cosmopolitism, National, State and International Compromise. There is one point I want to ask you about. You wrote—these are not your exact words, Professor—'What poets and philosophers have dreamed of, and what the Catholic Church has in some respects already realized: One shepherd and one herd! that will be the state of Europe in times coming'—What did you mean, Professor, by that phrase 'One shepherd and one herd'? Did you mean to convey that one state powerfully armed would be a sort of international policeman, strong enough to keep the peace among other nations? Did you have in mind a Germany whose mission would be to shepherd the people of the world?"

"Absolutely not," replied Professor Stein; "by one shepherd I meant the imperialism of the white race. White imperialism will divide the world between the white states. The Western European and American cultural systems will rule. My idea is not the United States of Europe, but the united cultural system of the white race."

"And when will that be possible, Professor?"

"As soon as nationalism has been thoroughly saturated, and conscious internationalism has been achieved, and that will probably be within a hundred years."

"And meanwhile?" I asked.

"Alas! The world of to-day cannot be ruled with oil of roses, but only with blood."