The Great Illusion · Chapter
The Psychological Case for Peace explained
This chapter examines the shifting arguments of war's defenders, who have moved from economic justifications to moral and psychological ones.
What happens
This chapter examines the shifting arguments of war's defenders, who have moved from economic justifications to moral and psychological ones. Angell argues that war is not a sudden 'hot fit' but a product of long, deliberate preparation, and that the moral case for war collapses when examined closely. He contends that the real struggle of mankind is against nature, not other men, and that cooperation across frontiers is dissolving the spiritual homogeneity of states, making it impossible for armies to embody the moral ideals of a nation.
Themes in this chapter
Illusion of Political Power
The chapter argues that the moral justification for war is an illusion, as the real struggle is against nature, not other nations, and that the defense of ideals is a pretext for attacking the spiritual possessions of others.
Changeability of Human Nature
Angell refutes the claim that war is an unchangeable part of human nature, pointing to the historical trend away from attacking the ideals and beliefs of others, as seen in the religious domain.
Interdependence of Nations
The chapter highlights the growing economic and intellectual cooperation across frontiers, which is breaking down the spiritual homogeneity of states and making war anachronistic.
Critique of Militarism
The chapter critiques the militarist argument that war is a moral discipline, noting that defenders of armaments claim they ensure peace, thus admitting peace is preferable.
Characters to notice
- Robert Blatchford
Cited as a representative of the militarist view that German policy is a cold, calculated opportunism based on Clausewitz's teachings.
- Clausewitz
His teachings on war as a part of policy are presented as the foundation of German militarist thought, focusing on expediency and power rather than morality.
- Admiral Mahan
Quoted for his 1912 criticism of Angell's economic case for peace, and for his earlier 1908 statement that nations act from self-interest, highlighting a contradiction.
- Norman Angell
The author, who analyzes the psychological and moral arguments for war, arguing that they are untenable and that the moral case for war breaks down.
Key passages
“War is the outcome of the “hot fits” of men, “of the devil that is in them.””
War is caused by sudden, irrational bursts of anger and inherent human wickedness.
Angell presents this as a common view, but then argues against it by pointing to the long, deliberate preparations for war.
“The truth is that war in the modern world is the outcome of armed peace, and involves, with all its elaborate machinery of yearly budgets, and slowly built warships and forts, and slowly trained armies, fixity of policy and purpose extending over years, and sometimes generations.”
Modern war is not a spontaneous event but the result of a long-standing state of military readiness, requiring years of planning, budgeting, and building.
This is a key argument against the idea that wars are caused by sudden 'hot fits' of national temper.
“It should be stated thus: “War will go on because men will always attack the spiritual possessions of other men,” because, of course, the necessity for defence arises from the fact that these possessions are in danger of attack.”
The moral case for war should be framed not as defending one's own ideals, but as the inevitable result of men attacking the beliefs of others.
Angell reframes the militarist argument to show that it breaks down because history shows a trend away from attacking others' beliefs.
“It has become impossible for the army of a State to embody the fight for an ideal, for the simple reason that the great moral questions of our time can no longer be postulated in national terms.”
An army can no longer represent a nation's moral struggle because the major moral issues of the day are not confined to national boundaries.
This is a central point about the breakdown of state homogeneity and the rise of cross-border intellectual cooperation.
