****
The Great Illusion
Norman Angell focused his study of the relationship between military power in nations and their economic and social advantage.(See end quote) But, he either ignored a basic principle or else reduced it to a matter not worthy of consideration. That is, when a conquering nation assumes power over that which has been vanquished, what to do with the peoples of the defeated nation. He makes the assumption that war-ravaged nations will rebound primarily because the citizens will strive to rebuild that which has been destroyed. But wait, there is another outcome, far more sinister and yet in history as well as in today's world, examples abound.
Using history as a guide, look at the experience of the American Indian. According to Angell, they should have been permitted to continue their lives uninterrupted by the new immigrants. The spoils of victory (tobacco, corn, timbers, gold and other minerals. &c.) should have been shipped to England, France, Spain and other countries that gained a foothold on the continent. This is what was intended, but a new force emerged. Nevertheless, the Indians were either displaced to the West or simply killed, either by bullets or disease, either way they no longer possessed the land of their forefathers. Now the immigrants established a new government not beholden to England, etc.
The result was a new order that emerged and as described by Tocqueville had rules that differed from the parent. Nevertheless, the Indians were dispatched to their happy hunting ground and Angell's proposals refuted. The resident population did not thrive and benefit to a degree better than the conquering nation(s).
In a more recent example, one can consider the "New State of Israel". As called for in the Banfour Declaration in 1917, the lands of the old Ottoman Empire were to be divided so that a homeland could be established for Jews. This was used as a mechanism to draw support for the British war effort against Germany in the First World War. As the Ottoman's had sided with Germany they were the losers and yet the population of the Ottoman Empire residing on the Mediterranean were affected far different from what Angell envisioned.
At the end of WWI, the League of Nations established Mandated Territories to divide the spoils from the Ottoman Empire. Britain was given the area which encompassed much of the area now known as Israel. Having control of the area, Britain attempted to control emigration, but was largely unsuccessful with Jewish groups succeeding in smuggling of refugees. The political climate of the area remained unsettled until the end of WWII, when the United Nations established provisions for independent Jewish and Arab states. The British withdrew, Israel came into existence and the Arabs left en-mass. Israel become essential a homogeneous population of Jews. As the area had been essentially Arab prior to the British intervention and they were displaced they did not benefit from the spoils of war. Again, not what Angell would have predicted.
The mess in the remains of Yugoslavia has yet to be resolved however, once again Angell is incorrect in his conclusion that the residents of the territory defeated in war will benefit more than the victor. At first, the Serbs displaced the Kosovars that were Albanian by family ties. When the British and other nations intervened under the aegis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Serbs were forced to admit defeat and withdraw. Return of the Albanian population is causing a mass exodus of the Serbian population and will eventually result in an Albanian sub-state. Again, Angell's vision of the defeated benefitting more than the conquers falls short of reality from the view of the Orthodox Church and its parishioners .
This is not to say that Angell was wrong in his basic premise, only that he based his results on the European model where populations remain in place after a war. The new reality is that the conquering nation will displace the resident population and replace it with either their own or one with sympathies to the conqueror. This has serious implications for the future!
Imagine a war between China and the United States. If the United States should win, the European model according to Angell would be in place and the resident Chinese would continue to inhabit their country essentially unaffected by the war's outcome. The United States' good will in repairing the war-torn country of China would most likely improve the lot the population and the burden of repair would be borne by the citizens of the United States. This is as Angell taught.
However, imagine if China were the victor. China has a population some four times that of the United States. Many Chinese are living under conditions far less favorable to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than those enjoyed by citizens of the United States. It seems unlikely that the Chinese would permit this inequality to continue. The question is how to proceed? And the most likely solution would be a massive migration of Chinese to the United States. With the influx of Chinese, where are the citizens of the United States to go? Here is the quandary, because, the Chinese (they won, remember) would care less. Perhaps the residents of New York or Memphis can move en-mass to Canada, Mexico, or other parts of the world. If so, good luck. Because the flood-tide of Chinese would soon replace them in all their capacities. (One can consider the use of the neutron bomb as a forerunner of this type war. Preserving the infrastructure of buildings, roads, services and killing and maiming only the fair citizens who happened to be in the path of the short lived destruction. Leaving the spoils to the victor.)
There are two lessons to be learned from Norman Angell's study. Perhaps the most sinister is that which sheds light on the British as eternal pot-stirrers who because of their place in history have succeeded in causing world-wide suffering by their self-serving actions. The current Prime Minister is a "prime" example of this. He has successfully manipulated the President of the United States into taking a position in an unwinnable war. Who benefits, certainly not the United States. Or, the Serbs or the Kosovars. No, by manipulation of the placement of the pea under their ever-shifting shells, the English continue to survive long after their place at the table should have been relinquished. Damn the British!
Or, consider the more telling alternative to Angell's thesis. Man regards his fellow man as nothing more than an animal that is to be displaced from a favored location, by force if necessary. It is no different from a farmer who chooses to raise pigs rather than chickens. Too bad for the pig population. (And not so good for the chickens either when you consider their ultimate fate.)
***
End Note: "What are the real motives prompting international rivalry in armaments, particularly Anglo-German rivalry? Each nation pleads that its armaments are purely for defense but such plea necessarily implies that other nations have some interest in attack. What is this interest or supposed interest?
The supposed interest has its origin in the universally accepted theory that military and political power give a nation commercial and social advantages, that the wealth and prosperity of the defenseless nation are at the mercy of stronger nations, who may be tempted by such defencelessness to commit aggression, so that each nation is compelled to protect itself against the possible cupidity of neighbors. .. |
For allied reasons the idea that addition of territory adds to a nation's wealth is an optical illusion of like nature, since the wealth of conquered territory remains in the hands of the population of such territory.
For a modern nation to add to its territory no more adds to the wealth of the people of such nation than it would add to the wealth of Londoners if the City of London were to annex the county of Hertford. It is a change of administration which may be good or bad; but as tribute has become under modern economic conditions impossible (which means that taxes collected from a given territory must directly or indirectly be spent on that territory), the fiscal situation of people concerned is unchanged by conquest. ..."
***
The Great Illusion, A Study; of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to their Economic and Social Advantage, Norman Angell, William Heinemann, London, 1911.
Directory, Joe Wortham's Home Page , About Joe Wortham ,
Questions? Comments? [email protected]