The heartbreaking plight in which a bipolarized and atom bomb-blessed world finds itself today is but the extreme manifestation of a dilemma with which human societies have had to grapple since the dawn of history. For it stems from a fundamental social constellation, one where a plurality of otherwise interconnected groups constitute ultimate units of political life, that is, where groups live alongside each other without being organized into a higher unity.

Wherever such anarchic society has existed—and it has existed in most periods of known history on some level—there has arisen what may be called the ‘security dilemma’ of men, or groups, or their leaders. Groups or individuals living in such a constellation must be, and usually are, concerned about their security from being attacked, subjected, dominated, or annihilated by other groups and individuals. Striving to attain security from such attack, they are driven to acquire more and more power in order to escape the impact of the power of others. This, in turn, renders the others more insecure and compels them to prepare for the worst. Since none can ever feel entirely secure in such a world of competing units, power competition ensues, and the vicious circle of security and power accumulation is on.

H. G. Wells exercised an almost unique influence on the o generation which reached maturity during the decade 1910–20. Only Bernard Shaw among men of letters and Wood-row Wilson among men in public life approached Wells in capturing the imagination of that generation and winning it to a particular point of view. There was a flippancy and irresponsibility about Shaw, however, which debased his great abilities; to some, he was a cleverer Oscar Wilde—a court jester for the Fabians and other intellectuals, as Wilde previously had been for salon and café society. Wilson, almost a Messiah during the years 1917–18, was a tragic casualty of the postwar era of disillusion and cynicism. But Wells continued throughout the 'twenties to command its attention and respect.

In the history of wars and diplomacy in the Western state system of the past several centuries, the most important single boundary is surely that of northeastern France. Since the unification of both Germany and Italy in the last century, the one territorial problem within western Europe that has most seriously endangered the peace of Europe and the world is that of Alsace-Lorraine. While the Germans regarded the annexation of 1871 as a restoration of areas once a part of Germany, they did not return to any previously established boundary, but rather created one that was newly drawn for the purpose. What factors influenced them to place the boundary—the international boundary from 1871 to 1919—precisely where they did place it?

Dependent areas under American administration have always been a heavy financial burden on the American taxpayer. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, comprising the whole of Micronesia except Guam, will certainly prove no exception. That Micronesia will prove an economic liability is, however, less important than the possibility that it will also be a heavy political liability.

The humanitarian conscience of the Western world would in any case be quick to enforce its highest standard upon a rich government like that of the United States. A country striving to assert leadership in the development of backward areas all over the world will itself wish to meet these standards in its sole trust territory. However, the material well-being of the Micronesians when under Japanese rule, the great devastation wrought by the war, and the predominantly strategic interests so far dominant in the United States policy in the area—all will make it difficult even for a benevolent American administration to win the approval of the Micronesians. For it to make a record there which will help it in its struggle to win the confidence of colonial peoples elsewhere will be even more difficult.