4 ms·

Angell's argument was more along the lines that war cannot be strictly justified by economic, financial, or security incentives: "(2) War is not impossible, and

Angell's argument was more along the lines that war cannot be strictly justified by economic, financial, or security incentives: "(2) War is not impossible, and no responsible Pacifist ever said it was; it is not the likelihood of war which is the illusion, but its benefits." [^1] His point was that economic interdependence in the current age(1910-1860) meant that changing the international order by force of arms would not lead to a more favorable outcome for the aggressor. In fact, quite the opposite. The aggressor's economy would be wrecked even in victory no matter the length of the war. Economic isolation from world trade and credit would be devastating. If he was claiming that war was impossible would he bother to write a book arguing that the benefits of war were not commensurate with the cost? The entire reason he wrote the book was to dissuade 'militarists' and stop the buildup of military potential that began with the dreadnought race and germany's more aggressive wilhelm foreign policy. The book was almost directly aimed at a german audience as a result. [^1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38535/38535-h/38535-h.htm#Page_368 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38535/38535-h/38535-h.htm#Pag...

baybal2 6y ago
A new lap of the arms race is almost always increases the likelines of war, not decrease as every side believes in superiority of its weapons. Equally so, believe that nuclear retaliation we will stop a war "will only hold so until it doesn't" In WWI every side knew how terrible, and devastating the artillery has become — to the point of making the infantry warfare obsolete, and plainly suicidal for an enemy with inferior artillery. It's just both sides mutually believed to have a trump card, and that the one suicidal there was their enemy.
XorNot 6y ago
Indeed and his predictions were quite accurate: WW1 devastated the empire's involved. No one came out on top from a war of conquest and it was the end of monarchies in Europe.
buran77 6y ago
As usual, then just as now, the devil is in the details. If you garner enough support and do it in a far enough place from where most of your economic and political interests lie, then you're pretty much safe with waging decades of war or get away with genocide. King Leopold II of Belgium got away with killing 10 million Africans right around the period mentioned (1865-1909) with barely a mention then or now. And the US has been waging war in the Middle East under one pretext or another for several decades now without being pushed into isolation.
nxmnxm99 6y ago
War is less likely but more destructive, leading to the e(v) being about the same.

baybal2 6y ago

A new lap of the arms race is almost always increases the likelines of war, not decrease as every side believes in superiority of its weapons. Equally so, believe that nuclear retaliation we will stop a war "will only hold so until it doesn't" In WWI every side knew how terrible, and devastating the artillery has become — to the point of making the infantry warfare obsolete, and plainly suicidal for an enemy with inferior artillery. It's just both sides mutually believed to have a trump card, and that the one suicidal there was their enemy.

XorNot 6y ago

Indeed and his predictions were quite accurate: WW1 devastated the empire's involved. No one came out on top from a war of conquest and it was the end of monarchies in Europe.

buran77 6y ago

As usual, then just as now, the devil is in the details. If you garner enough support and do it in a far enough place from where most of your economic and political interests lie, then you're pretty much safe with waging decades of war or get away with genocide. King Leopold II of Belgium got away with killing 10 million Africans right around the period mentioned (1865-1909) with barely a mention then or now. And the US has been waging war in the Middle East under one pretext or another for several decades now without being pushed into isolation.

nxmnxm99 6y ago

War is less likely but more destructive, leading to the e(v) being about the same.