This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: The Great Illusion, 1910 Sir Norman Angell I think it will be admitted that there is not much chance of misunderstanding the general idea embodied in the passage quoted at the end of the last chapter. Mr. Harri- son is especially definite. At the risk of "damnable iteration " I would again recall the fact that he is merely expressing one of the universally accepted axioms of European politics, namely, that a nation's whole economic security, its financial and industrial stability, its commercial opportunity, its prosperity and well-being, in short depend upon its being able to defend itself against the aggression of other nations, who will, if they are able, be tempted to commit such aggression because in so doing they will in- crease their power, and thus prosperity and well-being, at the cost of the weaker and vanquished. I have quoted largely journalists, politicians, publicists of all kinds, because I de- sired to indicate not merely scholarly opinion, but the common public opinion really operative in politics, though in fact the scholars, the experts on international affairs, are at one with popular opinion in accepting the assumption which underlies these expressions, the assumption that military force if great enough can be used to transfer wealth, trade, property, from the vanquished to the victor, and that this latent power so to do explains the need of each to arm. It is the object of these pages to show that this all but universal idea is a gross and desperately dangerous misconception, partaking at times of the nature of an optical illusion, at times of the nature of a superstition—a misconception not only gross and universal, but so profoundly mischievous as to misdirect an immense part of the en- ergies of mankind, to misdirect them to such degree that, unless we liberate ourselves from it, civilization itself will be threatened. As one of the most extraordinary features of this whole question is that the com- plete demonstration of the fallacy involved, the exposure of the illusion which gives it birth, is neither intricate nor doubtful. The demonstration does not repose upon any elaborately constructed theorem, but upon the simplest statement of the plainest facts in the economic life of Europe as we see it going on around us. Their nature may be indicated in a few simple propositions stated thus: 1. An extent of devastation, even approximating to that which Mr. Harrison fore- shadows, as the result of the conquest of Great Britain, could only be inflicted by an invader as a means of punishment cosdy to himself, or as the result of an unselfish and expensive desire to inflict misery for the mere joy of inflicting it. Since trade de- 25 26 T H E W O R L D W A R t R E A D E R pends upon the existence of natural wealth and a population capable of working it, an invader cannot "utterly destroy it" except by destroying the population, which is not practicable. If he could destroy the population, he would thereby destroy his own market, actual or potential, which would be commercially suicidal. In this self-own market, actual or potential, which would be commercially suicidal....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 12/11/2011 for the course WOH 2040 taught by Professor Klepper during the Fall '11 term at Santa Fe College.
- Fall '11