Here, I think it is fair to make a certain distinction regarding the causes internationally of a given _status quo_ at any particular time and of the existing situation in particular. These causes are two, generally speaking--agreement and war. The instances in modern history of changes in frontiers reached by free agreement are innumerable. I do not see how any one who recognizes the existing state system can object to them or believe that force should be used to change them. Of course there are critics who object to the existing state system and from {31} a theoretical point of view there is something to be said for these objections. The real answer to them at this time is, that whether they are good or bad, the present state system is one that, so far as any human being can see now, is certain to exist for some more centuries at least; and accordingly, outside of dreamland, we must take this system as it is. Given that state system, agreements between states as to their frontiers should be sacred. If a state can make an agreement about its frontier, and then, because it made a bad agreement or a stupid agreement or because circumstances changed after the agreement was made, may go to war to set aside the agreement, the result would only be international anarchy--the state system and everything else would have disappeared together. The other source of changes in the _status quo_ is war or strictly speaking the treaties of peace that result from war. I pass by the legal position, which is theoretically correct, that a treaty of peace made by a vanquished Power with a victor is supposedly a free agreement. This is true enough from the technical point of view but has no bearing here. The fact is that when one side wins a war and the other loses it, the treaty of peace is made under compulsion and constraint. The argument that is made by those who criticize the _status quo_ of the Peace Treaties of 1919 and 1920 runs about as follows; 1. In certain respects the frontiers and arrangements created by the Peace Treaties are unjust. 2. The setting up by the Peace Treaties of an international organization against war is an attempt to sanctify the wickednesses of the _status quo_. 3. Both the Treaties and the international organization which they set up should at least be denounced and probably rejected. This conclusion in various minds is different and uncertain, but I think that I have stated it fairly. Let us take these points up in their order. As a preliminary, let me say that the Treaties of Peace in this connection cannot include the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey. Certainly at the time that that Treaty was negotiated there was {32} no imposed peace on Turkey; as a matter of fact the Turkish negotiators had things pretty much their own way with the Allies. So that we are considering merely the Treaties with Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria.