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