It is true that if the argument of the book as a whole pointed to the conclusion that war was 'impossible,' it would be beside the point to quote passages repudiating that conclusion. They might merely prove the inconsequence of the author's thought. But the book, and the whole effort of which it was a part, would have had no _raison d'être_ if the author had believed war unlikely or impossible. It was a systematic attack on certain political ideas which the author declared were dominant in international politics. If he had supposed those powerful ideas were making _not_ for war, but for peace, why as a pacifist should he be at such pains to change them? And if he thought those war-provoking ideas which he attacked were not likely to be put into effect, why, in that case either, should he bother at all? Why, for that matter, should a man who thought war impossible engage in not too popular propaganda against war--against something which could not occur? A moment's real reflection on the part of those responsible for this description of _The Great Illusion_, should have convinced them that it could not be a true one. I have taken the trouble to go through some of the more serious criticisms of the book to see whether this extraordinary confusion was created in the mind of those who actually read the book instead of reading about it. So far as I know, not a single serious critic has come to a conclusion that agrees with the 'popular' verdict. Several going to the book after the War, seem to express surprise at the absence of any such conclusion. Professor Lindsay writes:-- 'Let us begin by disposing of one obvious criticism of the doctrines of _The Great Illusion_ which the out-break of war has suggested. Mr Angell never contended that war was impossible, though he did contend that it must always be futile. He insisted that the futility of war would not make war impossible or armament unnecessary until all nations recognised its futility. So long as men held that nations could advance their interests by war, so long war would last. His moral was that we should fight militarism, whether in Germany or in our own country, as one ought to fight an idea with better ideas. He further pointed out that though it is pleasanter to attack the wrong ideals held by foreigners, it is more effective to attack the wrong ideals held in our own country.... The pacifist hope was that the outbreak of a European war, which was recognised as quite possible, might be delayed until, with the progress of pacifist doctrine, war became impossible. That hope has been tragically frustrated, but if the doctrines of pacifism are convincing and irrefutable, it was not in itself a vain hope. Time was the only thing it asked of fortune, and time was denied it.' Another post-war critic--on the other side of the Atlantic--writes:--