Rapid Reviews

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 35, 3 November 1911, Page 4

Rapid Reviews

"The Great Illusion."

By J. BLUMENTHAL (Aus.)_

Written from a different standpoint than Herve's "My Country, Right or Wrong," and Kirkpatrick's "War- — What For?" "The Great. Illusion" is nevertheless a .formidable and unanswerable argument against militarism. * * * Norman Angell, the author, is not a Socialist, but he brings incontrovertible facts backed up by illustrations from contemporary history, to prove the imposibility of any armed nation conquering any other nation', and shows moreover that the conqueror and not the conquered is usually the greatest sufferer from war. *. m ■ * What makes this work so bitingly annoying to the militarist is that the argument for war by its defenders is stated, and then the ridiculing, analysing and refutation follow. That set-, ties the case for war. * * ' * We have heard of the moral and sacredness of human life argument —the intolerable tyranny; immorality and danger to liot only the working-class, fvut to the whole community by the infliction of militarism —but Angell brings to light the only argument that will prevent war taking place when our political and economic masters see that they will be the losers and not the gainers by using such methods to enforce their depraved and obsolete ideas of commercial interest and morality. That wonderful influence which will make powerful nations think twice before they start on their expeditions of human butchery is the usual economic one —the shattering of their financial and industrial security. * * » As Angell points out, credit and exchange are international, and are so interdependent that a commercial crisis in New York compels financiers of London and other cities to co-oper-ate for the purpose of ending or easing the crisis before it includes them in its toils. This action is taken as a matter of commercial self-protection. Owing to the complexity of modern finance, the capitalists of commercial countries are dependent on each other for their financial security. For instance, if a German army got as far as London and looted the banks, for every sovereign shared out among the troops, German trade' would have lost £100, and the German general would find that for the few pounds -his soldiers got, his own savings and property in Germany would have vanished into 'thin air. .J * * * --■ While the great nations are building Dreadnoughts for use against hypothetical invaders, the smaller and weaker nations are stealing their trade from under their very noses. And this raises the curious but portentous fact, that the greater the military and naval power of a country, the less its financial security! Thus to quote Angell: — The three per__ cents, of powerless Belgium are quoted at 96, and the three per cents, of powerful Germany at 82 : the three and a-half per cents, of the Russian Empire, with its hundred and twenty million souls and its four million army, are quoted at 81, while the three and a-half per cents, of Norway, which has not an army at all (or "any that need be consider- . ed-in the dfscussion) are quoted at 102. All of which carries with it the paradox that the more a. nation's wealth is protected, the less secure does it become. iC- * * So the less armaments a nation has the greater becomes its financ.al sta bility. That means' to say that the financial and credit security of New Zealand and Australia has become less secure since the*: started their co/nic opera armies and Knit . murder machines, and the more "secure" our •'defence", becomes the less secure. is our financial-credit in the markets of the world! So falls overboard another of our youthful illusions concerning our backyard "statesmen." X _ * It is a virtual impossibility for a nation to conquer any other. Our great "statesmen" who, parrot like, repeat the sayings of fellow "statesmen" o'er the seas, use an obsolete terminology for their defence in imposing -militarism on the workers. No conquering nation of this era parcels out the conquered territory- or dispossesses the native inhabitants of their property. If they were to do this, production would''cease, and the industries of the conqueror would suffer a rebuff, for the conqueror oould not sell his goods to those who had nothing to cj.xc.liange., Hence the intended ruin of a conquered nation would react on the conqueror and involve him in ruin.' That' is why Frenchman, owu Alsace-

Lorraine under German rule as owned it under the regime of Franoai before 1871.

For similar reasons, no conquering nation would think of imposing an in. demnity on the vanquished: the.rcceiv>. ers would suffer worse than the payers," A country that suddenly receives an' immense amount of gold, or its equivalent, in., paper, either.exchanges it foe real wealth with other nations; and if! this is impossible (as is so often the., case) then prices' rise and the purolistising power of money falls and the worker of the victorious nation suffers.- lit* versely, the 1 exploitation of a largg amount of gold by the defeated nation' means a cheapening of prices and consequent rising of the purchasing power* of wages. That is to say, the vanquished gains by paying and the conqueror loses by receiving an indemnity.The progress of France was greater after the war of 1870 than that of Germany. And so another fallacy diies a_ natural death. * * * The general loss, insecurity, depression and relatively inferior position of conquering nations -are becoming proverbial. As a result of the Russo- ■ Japanese war, while Japan was victorious, it crippled her, and she will romain so for a good many years to. come; while, on the other hand, Russia, though defeated, is rejuvenated andl holds a stronger position in Manchuria' than ever she did before. So with tho Boer war. The "defeated" nation controls South Africa, even the South African British oolonies, and Britain haa not, received a penny back for makiwg the Dutch supreme. So the lesson, of recent history is that New Zealand audi Australia would benefit by invasion aiud defeat. > • « There are other powerful facts too numerous to mention here that dietcredit war both from a utilitarian and ethical standpoint. But the above is a brief summary of the principal truths . Norman Angell elucidates in "The Great Illusion." What is interesting is that Angell gives credit to the International Socialist movement for its' opposition to war. He says (p. 267): — During the Moroccan crisis the French and German Socialists were io/ daily communication, and the lima' taken by the Socialist Party in tha French,. Parliament and the SocialDemocrats in the Reichstag was piedetermined by a conference bctwen the two. In the same way there was a conference between the Austrian and Italian Socialists at Trieste whew Austro - Italian relations became, strained. Again, there was the same co-operation between the Swedish'• . and Norwegian Socialists when wax was threatened between those two" countries. But International. Socialism' has gone further: it is notorious that ministerial tactics in Franca were directly . modified as the result of the decision taken by the International Socialist Congress at Am* sterdam, in which the line to be( taken by the French Socialists was there laid down. In other words, tha policy of the French Ministry was being dictated as much by Socialists in Germany and in Belgium as by its own supporters in France. It is pleasant to know that the great, war against organised murder is being thoroughly carried out by revolutionary Socialist parties wherever they exist. * * * "The Great Illusion" is a work that should be read and studied by everyone. It is without* doubt one of the best anti-militarist books ever penned, although Angell's closing remarks are insincere and illogical. The carefull/* built arguments—physical,- moral, spiritual, etc. —are scattered to the wind's by a small display of facts, and tk£ advocates of war stand clothed in theii own bestial and bloody prehistoric bru. . tality.