“Such questions,” I added, “should not be treated from the technical but from a quite different standpoint. If the military men alone are to be allowed to decide about disarmament—” “Surely,” says Herr Beernaert, finishing my sentence. “It is as if cobblers should deliberate on how men could give up wearing footgear!” July 1. Now I know the report concerning yesterday’s limitation session. Servia first declared its adhesion; then Greece its dissent. Hereupon the report of the commission on studies was read—a very laconic report: 1. That it would be very difficult, even for a space of only five years, to fix the number of the troops without simultaneously regulating other elements of defense. 2. That it would be no less difficult to regulate the elements of this defense by means of an international convention, since the defense is organized in each country from very different points of view. Consequently the committee regrets its inability to accept the proposal made in the name of the Russian government. The committee recommends that the subject of the subsequent decision be intrusted to the respective governments. Such is the text of the military commission’s report; and so the matter was simply set aside. The execution of the proposal offers difficulties, “consequently” it cannot be accepted! This “consequently,” however, is not satisfactory. The motive adduced for setting aside a project of such wide scope is not sufficient. There is more to be said about it than that it is difficult to carry out. It must also be clear whether it is not desirable, beneficent, nay, more, essential. And if this conclusion is reached, then if it is to be rejected, there must be a better reason than its difficulty; its impossibility must be shown. But the matter before us cannot be impossible in principle; certainly not in the form just presented. And it must not be rejected, but rather postponed for future realization. This was the feeling of a large part of the Conference; and two other delegates—the Swede Baron Bildt and the Frenchman Léon Bourgeois—give expression to this feeling in fiery extempore speeches. From Baron Bildt’s speech (“It is not enough”): ... Now, at the conclusion of our labors, we shall realize that we have faced one of the most important problems of the century, and that we have accomplished very little. We have no right to cherish illusions. If the transactions of the Conference come to public knowledge, then, in spite of all that has been done for arbitration, the Red Cross, and the rest, a loud cry will be raised, “It is not enough!”