developed industry throughout Europe. The demands of the recent World War brought whole armies of Americans and Australians, who otherwise would never have visited Europe, into contact with European countries. And while the occasion was not opportune to give them the usual benefits of contact with older civilizations more advanced in all forms of culture, this association could not fail to enlarge the vision and foster sympathy and good feeling among all the nations united in a common cause. Sometimes war creates mutual respect and esteem even between combatants; and this is most likely to happen if the opponents were little known to each other beforehand; and especially if the war were so conducted as to bring out the more admirable individual qualities. In early times when all foreigners were barbarians and, being little known, were held in contempt, contact through war sometimes disclosed the essential similarities of peoples and drew them together. Such enlarged association and increased respect would have been long delayed in early times had it not been for war. On the other hand when a war has been bitterly contested and rein has been given to the more brutal and contemptible qualities of human nature, oppositions may become so strong that association declines after peace is declared. Hatred of the adversary may be long enduring. On the whole then, while war may indeed promote sympathetic understanding between distant peoples, the contacts it forces are not nearly so normal or valuable as the peaceful contacts brought about through travel and trade. And when war breaks out between peoples who already have economic relations, evil consequences to association and trade are more likely to be realized than good.

Stimulates inventions and improvements. Another benefit supposed to be derived from war is that it encourages inventions and promotes improvements in methods. The principle that necessity is the mother of invention applies with particular force in times of stress and danger. Under the stimulus of war great strides have been made in means of transportation and in methods of defence and offence. In the last war the art of flying was perfected more rapidly under stress of necessity than would have been possible in a much longer period of peace.

Nor is progress entirely confined to the mechanical arts. Methods of government and administration are improved, corruption and dishonesty of officials are so far as possible eliminated, and obsolete and cumbersome methods are replaced by simpler and more effective ones. Improvements of this kind have however been primarily of military value, though a few war inventions have been of permanent worth to industry as well, and new methods of administration have indirectly benefited society in times of peace. While the stimulus of necessity in war time is usually a source of improvements, the needs in times of peace resulting from a growing population would stimulate more directly those inventions and improvements best adapted to promote civilization.

Makes possible the introduction of social reforms. Closely related to the preceding consideration is the claim that war offers the opportunity for introducing many social improvements. During periods of uninterrupted peace society settles down to customary activities. It tends to become fixed in its methods and offers considerable resistance to the introduction of reforms. War is a disrupting influence, necessitating rapid reorganization of society, and individuals are shaken out of their accustomed modes of living. Sacrifices must be made and valued conventions broken. The changes which have to be accepted reconcile people to the general idea of change; and after a period of social upheaval it is easy to introduce reforms which it would take years of agitation and education to accomplish in ordinary times. A case in point is the progress of the prohibition movement during the late war; and other reforms in connection with the emancipation of women, with the attainment of industrial democracy, and with government control of industry, were advanced with little opposition during the unsettled period of the war.

While the upheavals resulting from war doubtless do offer exceptional opportunities for reform, it should be remembered that in ordinary times the most progressive nations change the most easily and hence stand less in need of disrupting influences than do conservative nations. Furthermore a subtle danger lurks in reforms that are introduced after periods of great dis

organization. They are likely to be rushed through and accepted without sufficient deliberation. Real mistakes are often made and society has to retrace its steps, so that apparent gain is turned into loss. In the clamour for reforms during the French Revolution many institutions and ideas, including God himself, were abolished, which society after more mature deliberation decided to restore.

The alleged stimulus to morale and patriotism. The more extreme militarists also argue that war and military training produce strength and vigor, develop manly qualities, and stimulate to a high degree morale and patriotism in the general population; while peace and safety produce weakness, effeminacy, and corruption. But there seems to be little basis for such claims. That war should produce permanently superior traits would be contrary to the selective process present in it, which destroys superior individuals. War tends to destroy the finer sensibilities and stimulates the spirit of force and brutality in place of the moral virtues. People who have suffered the horrors of war are degraded and a long time is required to restore their morale.

The claim that military training develops superior physical and mental qualities is a superficial conclusion drawn from the fine appearance of troops. It is true that military training, when compared with no training, does improve the physique; but it is not at all certain that it is the best training to produce an alert mind and all-round physical efficiency. The bravery and valor shown by the hastily constructed armies of non-militant countries would seem to indicate that war presented merely the opportunity for the display of admirable physical and mental qualities that had originated under other conditions entirely. Furthermore it must be admitted by everyone that the abnormal life of the soldier in barracks has produced the opposite of fine moral and social qualities.

The question of the development of patriotism is a similar one, and the conclusion again is not in favor of militarism. Warfare does not create patriotism but merely gives an occasion for the expression of the patriotism already existing. In times of war those who were unpatriotic before are hostile still, while those wbo loved their country most are most active still in serving her needs. Warfare is merely a means of bringing to the surface sentiments which previous training and discipline have planted in the heart. True patriotism develops under a government which deals justly and humanely with its citizens, and under a social system which permits the freest all-round development of the individual. The absence of these fostering conditions in a state can never be compensated for by any attempt to stimulate patriotism through conquest and humiliation of neighboring states.

The Abolition of War. An examination of all the gains and losses of war convinces one that as civilization progresses the advantages tend to diminish, while the disadvantages tend to increase; and this, not merely for civilization as a whole, but usually also for each of the participants. One is therefore led to hope that, as the balance shifts more and more against it, war will automatically cease. But such optimism is not wholly warranted. Men make war because of hopes and fears, - not because of certainty of tangible gains. If the results of wars could always be foreseen many would of course never take place; but, even when it is evident that the results are going to be detrimental to civilization as a whole, there are still nations who desire war, hoping that they themselves may reap some gain through the losses of others. Before war can be finally abolished, not only must its disadvantages actually over-balance its advantages, but all must be made to realize that such is the case.

Aside from all social and ethical considerations, the economic conditions previously outlined persist as incentives to war; and many are of the opinion that they cannot be overcome. They believe that the struggle for food will always continue, and that therefore economic wars will always be a part of the great social process. As economic conditions are the chief causes of war, their nature deserves careful consideration. It has already been pointed out that either a decreasing amount of food or an increasing population tends to drive people to war in order to satisfy pressing needs; but these conditions are not inevitably followed by war. If India is visited by a famine, she does not therefore make war upon her neighbors; on the contrary more favored nations give of their abundance to satisfy her need, thus developing charity and international brotherhood. In like manner peoples with rapidly growing populations do not always go to war to satisfy their wants. Pressure of population sometimes does, to be sure, lead to war; but it may also lead to peaceful migrations, or it may stimulate the development of the arts and improve methods of production, or, failing these palliatives, the pressure itself may finally react to lower its rate of increase. Any one of these possible results would relieve the necessity for war; and progress in the arts especially would initiate improvements, greater beyond all comparison, than any benefits to be gained by war. The solution of the problem would therefore seem to lie in directing the excess of energy arising from an increasing population into these productive channels instead of utilizing it in war. And if war could be prevented or even delayed the rate of increase in population would, at least among civilized peoples, finally be checked automatically, and this incentive for war would gradually disappear.

It would seem that, under the present conditions of international relations, genuine progress might be made towards the abolition of all war; first, by means of advance in unity of interests, and, secondly, through strengthening the sentiments of repugnance to war and through a growing realization of its futility. Unity of interests normally keeps pace with economic interdependence of peoples, though intellectual similarity and harmony of ideals also foster it. Territorial division of labor has already proceeded so far that any extended conflict is likely to cause greater losses than gains. That this situation is not sufficient by itself to stop war is because there still remain nations who are not yet convinced that the losses must inevitably outbalance the gains, and other nations who still feel that war is unavoidable and othat therefore the losses must be endured. A condition of interdependence which is likely to produce a balance of loss instead of gain is however a fundamental requisite for arousing a strong sentiment against conflict. Fundamental economic conditions are already favorable in the main for developing an anti-war spirit sufficient to overcome any lingering feeling of possible gain to be derived from conquest.

Now taking for granted that specific gains from warfare are