MILITARISM
I
To defend or recover freedom men must be always ready for the appeal to
arms. Here is a principle that has been vindicated through all history
and needs vindication now. But in our time the question of rightful war
has been crossed by the evil of militarism, and in our assertion of the
principle, that in the last resort freemen must have recourse to the
sword, we find ourselves crossed by the anti-militarist campaign. We
must dispose of this confusing element before we can come to the ethics
of war. Of the evil of militarism there can be no question, but a
careful study of some anti-militaristic literature discloses very
different motives for the campaign. I propose to lay some of the
motives bare and let the reader judge whether there may not be an
insidious plot on foot to make a deal between the big nations to crush
the little ones. For this purpose I will consider two books on the
question, one by Mr. Norman Angell, "The Great Illusion," and one by M.
Jacques Novikow, "War and Its Alleged Benefits." In the work of Mr.
Angell the reader will find the suggestion of the deal, while in the
work of M. Novikow is given a clear and honest statement of the
anti-militarist position, with which we can all heartily agree. Those of
us who would assert our freedom should understand the right
anti-militarist position, because in its exponents we shall find allies
at many points. But with Mr. Angell's book it is otherwise. These points
emerge: the basis of morality is self-interest; the Great Powers have
nothing to gain by destroying one another, they should agree to police
and exploit the territory of the "backward races"; if the statesmen take
a different view from the financiers, the financiers can bring pressure
to bear on the statesmen by their international organisation; the
capitalist has no country. Well, our comment is, the patriot has a
country, and when he wakens to the new danger, he may spoil the
capitalist dream, and this book of Mr. Angell's may in a sense other
than that the author intended be appropriately named "The Great
Illusion."
II
The limits of this essay do not admit of detailed examination of the
book named. What I propose to do is make characteristic extracts
sufficiently full to let the reader form judgment. As we are only
concerned for the present with the danger I mention, I take particular
notice of Mr. Angell's book, and I refer the reader for further study to
the original. But the charge of taking an accidental line from its
context cannot be made here, as the extracts are numerous, the tendency
of all alike, and more of the same nature can be found. I divide the
extracts into three groups, which I name:
1. The Ethics of the Case.
2. The Power of Money.
3. The Deal.
Where italics are used they are mine.
1. THE ETHICS OF THE CASE.--"The real basis of Social Morality is
self-interest." ("The Great Illusion," 3rd Ed., p. 66.) "Have we not
abundant evidence, indeed, that the passion of patriotism, as divorced
from material interest, is being modified by the pressure of material
interest?" (p. 167.) "Piracy was magnificent, doubtless, but it was
not business." (Speaking of the old Vikings, p. 245.) "The pacifist
propaganda has failed largely because it has not put (and proven) the
plea of interest as distinct from the moral plea." (p. 321.)
2. THE POWER OF MONEY.--"The complexity of modern finance makes New
York dependent on London, London upon Paris, Paris upon Berlin, to a
greater degree than has ever yet been the case in history." (p. 47.)
"It would be a miracle if already at this point the whole influence of
British Finance were not thrown against the action of the British
Government." (On the assumed British capture of Hamburg, p. 53).
"The most absolute despots cannot command money." (p. 226.)
"With reference to capital, it may almost be said that it is organised
so naturally internationally that _formal organisation is not
necessary_." (p. 269.)
3. THE DEAL.--"France has benefited by the conquest of Algeria,
England by that of India, because in each case the arms were employed
not, properly speaking, for conquest at all, but _for police
purposes_." (p. 115.)
"While even the wildest Pan-German has never cast his eyes in the
direction of Canada, he has cast them, and does cast them, in the
direction of Asia Minor.... _Germany may need to police Asia Minor_."
(pp. 117, 118.)
"_It is much more to our interest to have an orderly and organised
Asia Minor under German tutelage than to have an unorganised and
disorderly one which should be independent_." (p. 120.)
"Sir Harry Johnston, in the 'Nineteenth Century' for December, 1910,
comes a great deal nearer to touching the real kernel of the
problem.... He adds that the best informed Germans used this language
to him: '_You know that we ought to make common cause in our dealings
with backward races of the world_!'"
The quotations speak for themselves. Note the policing of the "backward
races." The Colonies are not in favour. Mr. Angell writes: "What in the
name of common sense is the advantage of conquering them if the only
policy is to let them do as they like?" (p. 92.) South Africa occasions
bitter reflections: "The present Government of the Transvaal is in the
hands of the Boer Party." (p. 95.) And he warns Germany, that, supposing
she wishes to conquer South Africa, "she would learn that the policy
that Great Britain has adopted was not adopted by philanthropy, but in
the hard school of bitter experience." (p. 104.) We believe him, and we
may have to teach a lesson or two in the same school. It may be noted in
passing Mr. Angell gives Ireland the honour of a reference. In reply to
a critic of the _Morning Post_, who wrote thus: "It is the sublime
quality of human nature that every great nation has produced citizens
ready to sacrifice themselves rather than submit to external force
attempting to dictate to them a conception other than their own of what
is right." (p. 254.) Mr. Angell replied: "One is, of course, surprised
to see the foregoing in the _Morning Post_; the concluding phrase would
justify the present agitation in India, or in Egypt, or in Ireland
against British, rule." (p. 254.) Comment is needless. The reading and
re-reading of this book forces the conclusion as to its sinister
design. Once that design is exposed its danger recedes. There is one at
least of the "backward races" that may not be sufficiently alive to
self-interest, but may for all that upset the capitalist table and
scatter the deal by what Ruskin described in another context as "the
inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul."
III
We must not fail to distinguish the worth of the best type of
anti-militarist and to value the truth of his statement. It is curious
to find Mr. Angell writing an introduction to M. Novikow's book, for M.
Novikow's position is, in our point of view, quite different. He does
not draw the fine distinction of policing the "backward races." Rather,
he defends the Bengalis. Suppose their rights had never been violated,
he says: "They would have held their heads higher; they would have been
proud and dignified, and perhaps might have taken for their motto, _Dieu
et mon droit_." ("War and Its Alleged Benefits," p. 12.) He can be
ironical and he can be warm. Later, he writes; "The French (and all
other people) should vindicate their rights with their last drop of
blood; so what I write does not refer to those who defend their rights,
but to those who violate the rights of others." (Note p. 70.) He does
not put by the moral plea, but says: "Political servitude develops the
greatest defects in the subjugated peoples." (p. 79.) And he pays his
tribute to those who die for a noble cause: "My warmest sympathy goes
out to those noble victims who preferred death to disgrace." (p. 82.)
This is the true attitude and one to admire; and any writer worthy of
esteem who writes for peace never fails to take the same stand. Emerson,
in his essay on "War," makes a fine appeal for peace, but he writes: "If
peace is sought to be defended or preserved for the safety of the
luxurious or the timid, it is a sham and the peace will be base. War is
better, and the peace will be broken." And elsewhere on "Politics," he
writes: "A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest can
easily confound the arithmetic of the statists and achieve extravagant
actions out of all proportions to their means." Yes, and by our
unanimity for freedom we mean to prove it true.