Very soon after the appearance of the book, I find I am shouting myself hoarse in the Press against this monstrous 'impossibility of war' foolishness. An article in the _Daily Mail_ of September 15th, 1911, begins thus:-- ' ... One learns, with some surprise, that the very simple facts to which I have now for some years been trying to draw the attention they deserve, teach that:-- 1. War is now impossible. 2. War would ruin both the victor and the vanquished. 3. War would leave the victor worse off than the vanquished. 'May I say with every possible emphasis that nothing I have ever written justifies any one of these conclusions. 'I have always, on the contrary, urged that:-- (1) War is, unhappily, quite possible, and, in the prevailing condition of ignorance concerning certain elementary politico-economic facts, even likely. (2) There is nothing to justify the conclusion that war would "ruin" both victor and vanquished. Indeed, I do not quite know what the "ruin" of a nation means. (3) While in the past the vanquished has often profited more by defeat than he could possibly have done by victory, it is no necessary result, and we are safest in assuming that the vanquished will suffer most.' Nearly two years later I find myself still engaged in the same task. Here is a letter to the _Saturday Review_ (March 8th, 1913):-- 'You are good enough to say that I am "one of the very few advocates of peace at any price who is not altogether an ass." And yet you also state that I have been on a mission "to persuade the German people that war in the twentieth century is impossible." If I had ever tried to teach anybody such sorry rubbish I should be altogether an unmitigated ass. I have never, of course, nor so far as I am aware, has any one ever said that war was impossible. Personally, not only do I regard war as possible, but extremely likely. What I have been preaching in Germany is that it is impossible for Germany to benefit by war, especially a war against us; and that, of course, is quite a different matter.'