The idea that eventually emerged from the negotiations seemed almost philosophical. Instead of banning conflict entirely—which was impossible—the Big Four would translate it. Violence would not disappear but it would change medium. This proposal was built on an assumption widely accepted among intellectuals of the early twentieth century: that words, while powerful, were fundamentally less destructive than weapons. Speeches could inspire riots, yes. Propaganda could poison politics. But words did not physically tear flesh apart. They did not vaporize cities. They did not grind young men into the mud of trenches.
The conclusion seemed obvious.
If wars could be fought through language rather than weapons, the future might become survivable. This became the guiding principle behind Clause One.