The Great Illusion · Chapter
I: The Relation of Defence to Aggression explained
This chapter argues that the necessity for armaments arises from the motive for aggression, and that reducing that motive is a more effective form of defence than military buildup.
What happens
This chapter argues that the necessity for armaments arises from the motive for aggression, and that reducing that motive is a more effective form of defence than military buildup. Angell responds to critics who misunderstand his position, clarifying that he does not advocate abandoning self-defence but rather addressing the economic illusions that drive aggression. He uses the analogy of a bank replacing gold with checks to illustrate how economic changes can eliminate the incentive for attack, and he emphasizes that nations are justified in defending even their follies against attack.
Themes in this chapter
Economic Futility of War
Angell argues that military force is economically futile, as conquest cannot seize modern intangible wealth.
Interdependence of Nations
The chapter highlights how financial interdependence makes aggression counterproductive for the aggressor.
Illusion of Political Power
Angell challenges the universal belief in the social and economic advantages of successful conquest.
Critique of Militarism
The chapter critiques the assumption that armaments are purely defensive, showing they stem from aggressive motives.
Characters to notice
- Norman Angell
Author of the book, defends his thesis against critics, clarifies his position on defence and aggression.
- Admiral Mahan
Cited as a critic who misunderstands the relation of defence to aggression, using the Napoleonic era as a counterexample.
- Theodore Roosevelt
Mentioned as a critic (implied) who fails to grasp the platitude underlying the relation of defence to aggression.
Key passages
“Necessity for defence arises from the existence of a motive for attack”
The need for defence is created by the presence of a reason for someone to attack.
Angell's central platitude that underlies the relation of defence to aggression.
“the mechanical development of the last thirty or forty years, especially in the means of communication, had given rise to certain economic phenomena—of which reacting bourses and the financial interdependence of the great economic centres of the world are perhaps the most characteristic—which render modern wealth and trade intangible in the sense that they cannot be seized or interfered with to the advantage of a military aggressor”
Recent technological advances have made wealth and trade intangible, so they cannot be captured by military force.
Angell's key argument that economic interdependence makes conquest futile.
“the bank was never attacked again. Now, the demonstration that gold had been replaced by books in that bank was as much a work of defence as though the bank had spent tens of thousands of dollars in constructing forts and earthworks”
Eliminating the motive for attack is a more effective and cheaper form of defence than military fortifications.
Analogy illustrating that removing the incentive for aggression is a superior defence strategy.