The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National AdvantageAngell, Norman
History
The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage
Angell, Norman
Commercial policy; Disarmament; Imperialism; War; War, Cost of
How would Germany impose upon a vanquished England commercial
arrangements which would impoverish the vanquished and enrich
the victor? By enforcing another Frankfurt treaty, by which
English ports should be kept open to German goods? But that is
precisely what English ports have been for sixty years, and
Germany has not been obliged to wage a costly war to effect it.
Would Germany close her own markets to our goods? But, again,
that is precisely what she has done--again without war, and by
a right which we never dream of challenging. How is war going
to affect the question one way or another? I have been asking
for a detailed answer to that question from European publicists
and statesmen for the last ten years, and I have never yet been
answered, save by much vagueness, much fine phrasing concerning
commercial supremacy, a spirited foreign policy, national
prestige, and much else, which no one seems able to define, but
a real policy, a _modus operandi_, a balance-sheet which one
can analyze, never. And until such is forthcoming I shall
continue to believe that the whole thing is based upon an
illusion.
The true test of fallacies of this kind is progression. Imagine
Germany (as our Jingoes seem to dream of her) absolute master
of Europe, and able to dictate any policy that she pleased. How
would she treat such a European empire? By impoverishing its
component parts? But that would be suicidal. Where would her
big industrial population find their markets?[15] If she set
out to develop and enrich the component parts, these would
become merely efficient competitors, and she need not have
undertaken the costliest war of history to arrive at that
result. This is the paradox, the futility of conquest--the
great illusion which the history of our own Empire so well
illustrates. We British "own" our Empire by allowing its
component parts to develop themselves in their own way, and in
view of their own ends, and all the empires which have pursued
any other policy have only ended by impoverishing their own
populations and falling to pieces.
Your correspondent asks: "Is Mr. Norman Angell prepared to
maintain that Japan has derived no political or commercial
advantages from her victories, and that Russia has suffered no
loss from defeat?"
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account