在日本涉足龙口之前，在胶州湾的德国人就一直在山东省的非军事区采取军事行动。中国早就要求日本和德国限制他们的军事行动。日本如果将自己的行动限制在所谓的军事区之内，那就无异是自取灭亡。又有人指责说如果战后日本仍占有胶州湾，那就是破坏了中国领土的完整。我不能苟同此说。诚然我们不能预见中国和日本就胶州湾最终将达成什么协议。然而有一件事是最要紧的，假若协约国最终获胜，日本将有正当的理由宣称他为了获得胶州湾已经付出了鲜血和金钱的代价，更何况他又冒着极大的风险与德国这样一个可怕的强国结为仇敌。即使日本决定占有胶州湾，这也没有破坏中国领土的完整，因为胶州湾早已不是中国的一部分，胶州湾的主权早已归于德国，至少有九十九年了。
〔附记〕归绮色佳后三日，君复寄示此论，欲余一一斥驳，余复书曰：“此日人不打自招之供状，不须驳也。”
车中又读一文，论《不争主义之道德》，则如羯鼓解秽，令人起舞：
ETHICSOFNON-RESISTANCE
SIR：Inaneditorialentitled“SecurityforNeutrals”inTheNewRepublic，theargumentwasadvancedthattheviolationofBelgiumprovesthenecessityofarmamentintheUnitedStatesifwewouldpreserveournationalinterests．“AworldinwhichaBelgiumcouldbeviolatedwasaworldinwhichnationalinoffensivenessofferednosecurityagainstattackandinwhichapacifistdemocraticidealwouldhavetofightforitslife．”Ifanidealmustfightforitslife，mayIsuggestthatagunisanineffectiveweaponforit？Ifyourgunkillsyouropponent，naturallyhecan’tbeastrongsupporterofyourideal．Ifyourgunwoundshim，naturallyhewon’tbeastrongsupporterofyourideal．Ifyougetshotbyhisgun-bytherulesofwarfarehewillshootyouonlyifyouaretryingtoshoothim-yourideallosestheonlysupporterithas．IfBelgiumandEnglandandFrancehaddeterminedtoupholdanideal，suchasdemocraticantimilitarism，andtopersuadeGermanstoaccepttheirideal，theywereidiotictogoaboutkillingsomeoftheGermanstheywishedtoconvert，andgettingthousandsoftheirownmen-supportersoftheirideal-intoslaughtertrenches．Itisanacknowledgmentoflackoffaithintheefficacyofanidealtourgethatitmusthavegunsinordertolive．Ifanidealisworthanythingatallitwillmakeitsownpersuasiveappealtothemindsofmen，andanygun-protectedidealislikelynottobeanidealatall，butonlygun-protectedselfishness．
ItwascriminalforBelgianstoshootGermanpeasants．ItwascriminalforGermanpeasantstoshootBelgianfactory-hands．Ononesideitwascriminalself-preservation，theGermansfightingfortheirhomeswiththefearthatiftheydidnotmarchthroughBelgium，theFrenchwould，andontheothersideitwascriminalself-preservation，theBelgiansfightingfortheirhomes．WhatmoreamIsayingthanthatwarishideouslywrong？Iamsayingthatwarforself-preservationishideouslywrong，thatself-preservationatthecostofwariscriminal．
WouldIkillastrangerinordertopreventhiskillinganeighbor？Iftherewerenootherwaytopreventhim-yes-orelseIwouldbeguiltyofpermittingmurder.FranceistheculturalneighborofBelgium-GermanycomparedwithFranceisthestranger．WasBelgiumthereforejustifledintryingtopreventGermanyfromcrushingFrance？Bynomeans，becausebyresistingGermany，BelgiummadeitpossibleforEnglandandFrancetocrushGermany．Ifmyneighborwasbentonmurderingthestranger，shouldIkillthestranger？No，forthenIshouldbeabettingmurder．BelgiumwasaidingherneighborFrancetomurderGermansoldiers.TheonlyargumentthatcanbeofferedforBelgiumisthatsheactedinself-defense，butImaintainthatthesettingupofself-defenseaboveallconsiderationofothersiscriminal，foritlogicallyleadsintheendtomurder．
TheeditorialtowhichIhavereferredmaintainedthatifBelgiumhadrefusedtofightshewouldhavebeencowardly．DoestheEditorofTheNewRepublicholdthattheSocialistswhovowedayearagothattheywouldrefusefofight，andwhoquicklyjoinedtherankswhenwarwasdeclared-doesheholdthatthesemenwouldhavebeenmorecowardlythantheywereiftheyhadstoodoutagainstmobilization？SurelyonecannotcalltheSocialistscowardsbecausetheydidnotrefusetofight，andwiththesamelipssaythattheBelgianswouldhavebeencowardsiftheyhadrefusedtofight．Ibelievethatthemanwhokillsanotherinself-preservationisacoward．Heisacowardbecauseheissomuchafraidtolosthispropertyorlifethatheisactuallywillingtocommitmurder．AmIacowardwhenIdeclarebeforeGodandmyconsciencethatIwouldrefusetoenlisteventhoughtherewereconscriptionintheUnitedStatestocreateanarmytoresistforeigninvasion？IfIwereaQuaker，thereareprecedentsfromCivilWartimesunterwhichIcouldlegallyescapeserviceatthefront．ButIamnotaQuaker．Iwouldprobablyhavetosufferimprisonmentorexecutionfortreason．Someofmyfriendswhowillreadthispresentstatementmaydespiseme．Otheryoungmenmaysneeratme.YetIsayIwouldneverwillinglykillamantosavemyownlife.Now，doyouthinkmeacoward？
IfthepeopleoftheUnitedStatescontinuetobelievethatself-preservationistheirhighestduty，letthemputtheirtrustinarmamentastheonly“securityforneutrals”．IftheyevercometobelievewhattheGreatestMantaught-adoctrinehisChurchhasbeendenying-theywillseethatwareveninself-defense，likeallwar，ismurder，iscriminalandcowardly．
FrederickJ．Pohl
NewYorkCity．
不争主义之道德
〔中译〕在《新共和》杂志一篇题为《中立国之安全》的社论中，某君提出了这样的观点：由比利时之遭侵略推出结论证明美国为维护国家利益起见必须要有必要的军备。“在这个世界上连比利时都要受到侵犯，那么任何国家的‘不犯人’主义对于任何外来侵略均无安全可言。一个持和平民主之主义的理想主义者，首先必须为自己的生存而斗争。”如果一种理想先得为自己的生存而抗争，那还用我来说明他用以抗争的枪杆子是毫无效用的武器吗？如果你枪杀了你的仇敌，自然他就不可能是你的理想的积极支持者。如果你用枪伤害了他，自然他也不会是你的理想的积极支持者。按照战争规则，如果你要射击他，他也会射击你。万一你被他击中，那么你的理想也就失去了唯一的支持者。如果比利时、英国、法国决心抱民主的反战主义，为了说服德国人接受他们的主义，他们却去屠杀德国人，而这些德国人本是他们打算要说服的，并又使成千上万的自己理想的支持者成为杀人凶手。他们这样做，岂不是白痴吗？如果一种理想必需为了自己的生存去动武抗争的话，这就必定是对自己的力量缺乏信心的表现。任何稍有价值的理想必定是以说服去打动众人之心的。任何用武力维护的理想也就不是理想了，而只不过是武力保护下的利己主义。
德国农民枪杀比利时工人是犯罪，比利时人枪杀德国农民也是犯罪。德国人担心他们若不假道比利时攻打法国，法国一定会假道比利时攻打他们，因此他们为了保卫自己的家乡而战斗，这种自卫是一种犯罪。同样比利时为保卫自己的家乡而战斗也是一种犯罪，还用我来说明战争是极为错误的么？我要表明的是为自卫而战斗是极为错误的，为了自卫而发动战争就是犯罪。
为了阻止一个陌生人杀我的邻居，我会去杀这个陌生人吗？如果没有其他的法子好阻止他（确实没有）我又不去杀他，那我岂不是容许杀人而有罪吗？法国人是比利时人有教养的邻居，相比较而言德国人就是那个陌生人了，这样比利时就为自己阻止德国去践踏法国的行为找到了一个辩白的理由了吗？不管怎样比利时阻止了德国，就有可能使英国和法国去侵略德国。