The Ensign. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1911. DOES WAR PAY?

Mataura Ensign, 25 January 1911, Page 4

The Ensign. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1911. DOES WAR PAY?

s That naval and military power gives - a nation commercial and social advantages is described as an illusion in a book which is creating great interest in political circles in Great Britain and the Continent entitled "The Great Illusion," by Norman Angell. The author supports this by four fundamental propositions—(l) That the financial interdependence of modern States (e.g., England and Germany) is such as to render an enemy's property intangible. Germany, after victory in war, could not confiscate British property on a large scale without such a disturbance of « credit as would recoil on her own industry and finance. War does not pay. (2) That it is impossible for any one country to enrich itself by subjugating another and annexing provinces. Annexations do not pay- (3) That it is impossible to levy an indemnity upon a defeated nation without the victor, who draws the indemnity, suffering, be- [ cause the indemnity is paid in goods. . Indemnities do not pay. (4) That the minor Powers with feeble armaments enjoy better credit than the great and , well-armed States. Armaments do not - pay. All these propositions, it will be noted, are contrary to accepted belief. ; They require, then, to be very carefully i verified and tested by fact. A critic l writing in the 'Daily Mail' says:' — "Mr Angell advances some of his most - original propositions. The loss of Alsacej Lorraine, he tells us in effect, was no . loss to France. If Alsace-Lorraine had , remained French it would have yielded, aet the present rate of French taxation. . a revenue of eight million pounds a year », to the State. That revenue is lost to k France and placed at the disposal of Germany. Mr Angell declares that the . additional revenue is swallowed up in • such items as cost of administration ■ and defence. But the cost of the ad- • ministration of Alsace-Lorraine is not ) heavy, while the cost of defence on her western frontier to Germany would be yet larger than it is to-day were AlsaceLorraine still French. His second fun--1 damental proposition thus falls to the ground when it is tested by the touchstone of fact. Would-he maintain that Chili lost, instead of gaining, by her conquest of the nitrate provinces from Peru and Bolivia, or that Japan ws:s 1 the ijocror because she conquered and annexed Korea? As for the indemnity which France paid, Mr* Angell insists that it brought no advantage to Ger--1 many. He suggests that it was paid by a great expansion in French exports, so that Gorman traders had to face increased competition from French manufacturers as the result of levying the indemnity. But here again the facts do net support him. There was no abnormal expansion in French trade. The first instalment was handed over to Germany in the summer of IS7I ; the last payment was made on September 5, 1873. France, I repeat—and this is a matter of prime importance—did not meet the indemnity by any cataclysmic increase in her export trade. But, even so, Mr Angell is not discomfited. He replies to all this by asserting that upon a great inflation of trade in Germany during; the payment of the indemnity followed a terrible depression. Ho is perfectly right. But so eleve ran economic student must have known that this depression was world-wide, had probably nothing to do with the indemnity (despite certain quotations which he brings up from German authorities), and was caused by a sudden diminution in gold production, which sent up the price of gold and stmt down the price of all commodities. The shock was felt by England to a greater degree than Germany. Even in the hour of this depression Germany exports rose above French, and have continued above French exports ever since. The loss of ' so much capital and credit to France has meant the permanent stagnancy of her trade. Comparing the exports from ' 1875 to 1905 for the various States, this ' stagnation is clear. These facts are ' fatal to Mr AngelPs third proposition. ' Indemnities can be levied as well to- ' day as in 1871; and they may pay very well. As for the fourth proposition, ' that minor States enjoy good credit, ( it is only true whero those minor States l are protected by international jealousy ! or treaty. The annexation of Holland, ( Belgium, Norway or Denmark by Gor- 1 many would most certainly result in a ' great European war. But if per se the * position of a minor State were advantageous, and this Mr Angell suggests, we would ask how it comes that the s securities of Servia and Montenegro ( : arc quoted at a low figure, as they are ' J

to-day. Sixty years ago Cobdon thought that the interdependence oi nations in trade would prevent war. There followed two of the most terrible struggles in human history, the American Civil War and the Franco-German War. Ton years ago M. Bloch proved on paper that the size of modem armies would produce an impasse. There followed the struggle between Russia and Japan, in which on each side armies of nearly a million men were manoeuvred. Yet a decisive result was reached, and Russia was beaten back from the Pacific and tremendously weakened." These [arguments are certoinly novel and will probably serve to" comfort the vanquished while they will not discomfit i the victors.