That is why it is that the peace propaganda has so signally failed, and why the public opinion of the countries of Europe, far from restraining the tendency of their Governments to increase armaments, is pushing them into still greater expenditure. It is universally assumed that national power means national wealth, national advantage; that expanding territory means increased opportunity for industry; that the strong nation can guarantee opportunities for its citizens that the weak nation cannot. The Englishman, for instance, believes that his wealth is largely the result of his political power, of his political domination, mainly of his sea power; that Germany with her expanding population must feel cramped; that she must fight for elbow-room; and that if he does not defend himself he will illustrate that universal law which makes of every stomach a graveyard. He has a natural preference for being the diner rather than the dinner. As it is universally admitted that wealth and prosperity and well-being go with strength and power and national greatness, he intends, so long as he is able, to maintain that strength and power and greatness, and not to yield it even in the name of altruism. And he will not yield it, because should he do so it would be simply to replace British power and greatness by the power and greatness of some other nation, which he feels sure would do no more for the well-being of civilization as a whole than he is prepared to do. He is persuaded that he can no more yield in the competition of armaments, than as a business man or as a manufacturer he could yield in commercial competition to his rival; that he must fight out his salvation under conditions as he finds them, since he did not make them, and since he cannot change them. Admitting his premises--and these premises are the universally accepted axioms of international politics the world over--who shall say that he is wrong? CHAPTER II THE AXIOMS OF MODERN STATECRAFT Are the foregoing axioms unchallengeable?--Some typical statements of them--German dreams of conquest--Mr. Frederic Harrison on results of defeat of British arms and invasion of England--Forty millions starving. Are the axioms set out in the last chapter unchallengeable? Is it true that the wealth, prosperity and well-being of a nation depend upon its military power, or have necessarily anything whatever to do therewith? Can one civilized nation gain moral or material advantage by the military conquest of another? Does conquered territory add to the wealth of the conquering nation? Is it possible for a nation to "own" the territory of another in the way that a person or corporation would "own" an estate? Could Germany "take" English trade and Colonies by military force? Could she turn English Colonies into German ones, and win an overseas empire by the sword, as England won hers in the past?