[109] It is not necessary to enter exhaustively into the difficult problem of 'natural right.' It suffices for the purpose of this argument that the claim of others to life will certainly be made and that we can only refuse it at a cost which diminishes our own chances of survival. [110] See Mr Churchill's declaration, quoted Part I Chapter V. [111] Mr J. L. Garvin, who was among those who bitterly criticised this thesis on account of its 'sordidness,' now writes: 'Armageddon might become almost as frequent as General Elections if belligerency were not restrained by sheer dread of the consequences in an age of economic interdependence when even victory has ceased to pay.' (Quoted in _Westminster Gazette_, Jan. 24, 1921.) [112] The introductory synopsis reads:-- What are the fundamental motives that explain the present rivalry of armaments in Europe, notably the Anglo-German? Each nation pleads the need for defence; but this implies that some one is likely to attack, and has therefore a presumed interest in so doing. What are the motives which each State thus fears its neighbours may obey? They are based on the universal assumption that a nation, in order to find outlets for expanding population and increasing industry, or simply to ensure the best conditions possible for its people, is necessarily pushed to territorial expansion and the exercise of political force against others (German naval competition is assumed to be the expression of the growing need of an expanding population for a larger place in the world, a need which will find a realisation in the conquest of English Colonies or trade, unless these were defended); it is assumed, therefore, that a nation's relative prosperity is broadly determined by its political power; that nations being competing units, advantage, in the last resort, goes to the possessor of preponderant military force, the weaker going to the wall, as in the other forms of the struggle for life. The author challenges this whole doctrine. [113] See chapters _The Psychological Case for Peace_, _Unchanging Human Nature_, and _Is the Political Reformation Possible?_ 'Not the facts, but men's opinions about the facts, is what matters. Men's conduct is determined, not necessarily by the right conclusion from facts, but the conclusion they believe to be right.' In another pre-war book of the present writer (_The Foundations of International Polity_) the same view is developed, particularly in the passage which has been reproduced in Chapter VI of this book, 'The Alternative Risks of Status and Contract.'