Mankind had a “grand vision of world peace” then, as Senator Bruce called it when the Pact of Paris was before the Senate for ratification.[[5]] I know how much the personality and the achievements of Woodrow Wilson are a subject of dispute. But the more detachment we achieve, the clearer it becomes that he—by making fortunate use of his own preparatory work and of that of others[[6]]—finally conceived and presented to the humanity of the time an entirely brilliant train of thought which is as right today as it was then, and which can best be condensed as follows:
It is necessary to start afresh. The tragic chain of wars and mere armistices termed peace must be broken. Sometime humanity must have the insight and the will to pass from war to real peace, that is, to peace which is good in its essence, founded on existing legal principles, without regard to victory or defeat; and this peace, which is good in its essence, must be maintained—and maintained in good condition—by an organized union of states.
These aims can only be achieved if the most frequent causes of war are eliminated, namely excessive armaments, secret treaties, and the consecration—detrimental to life—of the status quo as a result of lack of insight on the part of the possessor of the moment.
Humanity did not follow this path. And it is not to be wondered at that among those who fought against the instruments of Versailles, St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, and Sèvres, be it in the camp of the vanquished or in that of the victors, were the very ones who strove after real, lasting peace. When the Governments of the South African Union and Canada, in their replies to Secretary of State Hull’s Principles of Enduring Peace of 16 July 1937, indicated in unusually strong language that a revision of unjust and forcibly imposed treaties was an indispensable precondition for real world peace, they took up one of the basic views of the great American President.[[7]]
Humanity did not follow Wilson.
Even for the members of the League of Nations war remained a means for settling disputes, prohibited in individual cases, but normal on the whole. Jean Ray[[8]], as late as 1930, said:
“The League of Nations did not prove to be a guide to the true order of peace, indeed it did not even prove to be a sufficient brake to prevent a complete backward movement into the former state. For the world did in fact slide back entirely.”
For this is the all-important factor in our problem of law. Before the commencement of the second World War the whole system of collective security, even in such scanty beginnings as it had made, had collapsed;[[9]] and this collapse was acknowledged and declared expressly, or by equivalent action, by three world powers—and, in fact, declared with full justification. Great Britain clearly stated this at the beginning of the war to the League of Nations. I shall show this immediately.
The Soviet Union treated the German-Polish conflict simply according to the rules of classical international law concerning debellatio. I shall explain this shortly.
The United States declared their strict neutrality. I shall also explain the import of this declaration.