The Great Illusion Essay
Norman Angell, in his famous book, The Great Illusion, claims that war is futile. This claim is sustained by two main arguments. The first hinges on the concept of “interdependence”; the second on “adaptation”. This essay seeks to critically analyse Angell’s arguments and show how he has come to the conclusion that war is becoming obsolete as well as identifying the weaknesses of his concepts. The first part of the book, entitled “The Economics of the case”, explains why war isn’t profitable anymore. ‘Commerce and industry of a people no longer depend upon the expansion of its political frontiers … that military power is socially and economically futile, and can have no relation to the property of the people exercising it (Angell, p.x, 1913)’.
…show more content…
As the countries moved away from dependence on primary products towards industrialisation, an effective participation in the international division of labour was developed leading to an integration of the world economy (Angell, p.xi, 1913). In addition, trade between countries expanded and imports as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) dramatically increased making countries more dependent on each other. Angell termed this resultant integration of the world economy “interdependence”. Consequently a war wouldn’t only damage the economy of the victim but also the aggressor. It is because of this that war is increasingly obsolete as according to Angell, ‘war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which peoples strive (Angell, p.x, 1913).’ Furthermore, Angell to support his argument, states that if the Germans were to attack Great Britain during the early twentieth century, not only would they destroy the British economy, but also their own due to the ‘internalisation and delicate interdependence of our credit built finance (Angell, p.31, 1913)’. What further strengths Angell’s argument is that Emmanuel Kant, a central figure of philosophy, asserts in ‘Universal History’, ‘civil freedom can no longer be so easily infringed without disadvantage to all trades and industries, and especially to commerce’. Moreover, he says in ‘Perpetual Peace’, ‘the spirit of commerce sooner or later takes hold of every people, and it cannot exist side by side with war’. This shows that Angell’s thinking wasn’t anomalous and other great thinkers do share his view of war becoming futile as the world becomes more interdependent moving away from primary product dependency to industrialisation. However, thirty years after his book ‘The Great Illusion’ was published, the world had been involved in two world wars. As well as disproving his argument, this also shows that economic interdependence doesn't make any significant development in ensuring world peace. To be fair, in recent times wars have decreased which could be due to the integrated world economy, meaning Angell was ahead of his time. 'The 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace ... The last sustained territorial war between two regular armies, Ethiopia and Eritrea, ended a decade ago. Even civil, though a persistent evil, are less common than in the past; there were about a quarter fewer in 2007 than in 1990 (Goldstein, 2011)'. However, the definition of war has become different since 1910 as a hundred years on, states are engaging in types of war that didn't exist in the 20th century such as cyber warfare and with actors that didn't exist then; like international terrorist groups. The emergence of non state actors such as ISIS, especially in the 21th century, has made it difficult to invoke concepts of economic interdependence as hegemons are no longer engaging in war with other states but large, extremist groups, making Angell's argument, obsolete. Furthermore, even though Russia is highly dependent on EU for sale of its gas, it engaged in conflict over Crimea in Ukraine despite knowing the consequences. Hence, Angell's argument that interdependence renders war obsolete is false, as even though traditional warfare as decreased as the world has become more integrated, other forms have emerged and taken its place. Part II of the book, entitled "The Human nature of the Case", Angell confronts the argument that human nature, as depicted through human history, shows that people are easily insulted and quick to resort to violence and that therefore peace is not possible.
He argues that human beings evolve and adapt to changing circumstances identifying lots of ways in which 'we have seen man progress', for example, such as the reduction of all kinds of forms of violence in society, the progress of religious toleration and the ending of slavery. (Angell, p. 199, 1913). Much of Angell’s work was based on Darwin’s finding’s which further adds strength to his arguments. ’It is not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survive but those who can best manage change.' According to Angell, this struggle that Darwin underlines does not take place within but across species instead, relationships within a species is defined instead by solidarity. This led Angell to conclude that war is obsolete for the human species as war is not in their best interest and doesn't promote survival like it used to before the industrial age. Furthermore, was is still prevalent even after the book was released, for example, World War One and Two because, statesmen such as Hitler and Vladimir Putin fail, to recognise the interdependence of industrial nations and understand Darwin, as a result, they continue to govern as they see
fit.
To conclude, despite Angell being completely wrong about the two World Wars, at the same time he may have been right. World War One saw seventeen million people dead and a further twenty million injured which was of no gain to either side, as a result, this may provide conformation of this theory rather than disconfirmation as it shows that was in earlier 20th century is futile and irrational. In addition, according to Sanchez, the US has recently set out plans to reduce its armies to pre World War Two levels, showing that there is a general recognition between the world powers that going to war is useless, further bolstering Angell's point. Moreover, Angell's arguments still continue to have resonance in contemporary international politics, for example, the rise of China posing a significant threat to US hegemony which may cause them to clash like Germany and Britain did in 1914, however, according to Keck, nuclear weapons make it near impossible for war to occur between the two. To add, Angell was ultimately proven to be highly incorrect in his judgments about war, this view wasn't exactly unpopular. J.B.Priestley's character Mr. Birling exemplifies this in 'an inspector calls' by repeatedly stating the world's too interdependent on economics to go to war in 1912. Even though the play was written in 1912, it gives an insight into the views of some aspects of society around the time of World War One
As the countries moved away from dependence on primary products towards industrialisation, an effective participation in the international division of labour was developed leading to an integration of the world economy (Angell, p.xi, 1913). In addition, trade between countries expanded and imports as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) dramatically increased making countries more dependent on each other. Angell termed this resultant integration of the world economy “interdependence”. Consequently a war wouldn’t only damage the economy of the victim but also the aggressor. It is because of this that war is increasingly obsolete as according to Angell, ‘war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which peoples strive (Angell, p.x, 1913).’ Furthermore, Angell to support his argument, states that if the Germans were to attack Great Britain during the early twentieth century, not only would they destroy the British economy, but also their own due to the ‘internalisation and delicate interdependence of our credit built finance (Angell, p.31, 1913)’. What further strengths Angell’s argument is that Emmanuel Kant, a central figure of philosophy, asserts in ‘Universal History’, ‘civil freedom can no longer be so easily infringed without disadvantage to all trades and industries, and especially to commerce’. Moreover, he says in ‘Perpetual Peace’, ‘the spirit of commerce sooner or later takes hold of every people, and it cannot exist side by side with war’. This shows that Angell’s thinking wasn’t anomalous and other great thinkers do share his view of war becoming futile as the world becomes more interdependent moving away from primary product dependency to industrialisation. However, thirty years after his book ‘The Great Illusion’ was published, the world had been involved in two world wars. As well as disproving his argument, this also shows that economic interdependence doesn't make any significant development in ensuring world peace. To be fair, in recent times wars have decreased which could be due to the integrated world economy, meaning Angell was ahead of his time. 'The 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace ... The last sustained territorial war between two regular armies, Ethiopia and Eritrea, ended a decade ago. Even civil, though a persistent evil, are less common than in the past; there were about a quarter fewer in 2007 than in 1990 (Goldstein, 2011)'. However, the definition of war has become different since 1910 as a hundred years on, states are engaging in types of war that didn't exist in the 20th century such as cyber warfare and with actors that didn't exist then; like international terrorist groups. The emergence of non state actors such as ISIS, especially in the 21th century, has made it difficult to invoke concepts of economic interdependence as hegemons are no longer engaging in war with other states but large, extremist groups, making Angell's argument, obsolete. Furthermore, even though Russia is highly dependent on EU for sale of its gas, it engaged in conflict over Crimea in Ukraine despite knowing the consequences. Hence, Angell's argument that interdependence renders war obsolete is false, as even though traditional warfare as decreased as the world has become more integrated, other forms have emerged and taken its place. Part II of the book, entitled "The Human nature of the Case", Angell confronts the argument that human nature, as depicted through human history, shows that people are easily insulted and quick to resort to violence and that therefore peace is not possible.
He argues that human beings evolve and adapt to changing circumstances identifying lots of ways in which 'we have seen man progress', for example, such as the reduction of all kinds of forms of violence in society, the progress of religious toleration and the ending of slavery. (Angell, p. 199, 1913). Much of Angell’s work was based on Darwin’s finding’s which further adds strength to his arguments. ’It is not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survive but those who can best manage change.' According to Angell, this struggle that Darwin underlines does not take place within but across species instead, relationships within a species is defined instead by solidarity. This led Angell to conclude that war is obsolete for the human species as war is not in their best interest and doesn't promote survival like it used to before the industrial age. Furthermore, was is still prevalent even after the book was released, for example, World War One and Two because, statesmen such as Hitler and Vladimir Putin fail, to recognise the interdependence of industrial nations and understand Darwin, as a result, they continue to govern as they see
fit.
To conclude, despite Angell being completely wrong about the two World Wars, at the same time he may have been right. World War One saw seventeen million people dead and a further twenty million injured which was of no gain to either side, as a result, this may provide conformation of this theory rather than disconfirmation as it shows that was in earlier 20th century is futile and irrational. In addition, according to Sanchez, the US has recently set out plans to reduce its armies to pre World War Two levels, showing that there is a general recognition between the world powers that going to war is useless, further bolstering Angell's point. Moreover, Angell's arguments still continue to have resonance in contemporary international politics, for example, the rise of China posing a significant threat to US hegemony which may cause them to clash like Germany and Britain did in 1914, however, according to Keck, nuclear weapons make it near impossible for war to occur between the two. To add, Angell was ultimately proven to be highly incorrect in his judgments about war, this view wasn't exactly unpopular. J.B.Priestley's character Mr. Birling exemplifies this in 'an inspector calls' by repeatedly stating the world's too interdependent on economics to go to war in 1912. Even though the play was written in 1912, it gives an insight into the views of some aspects of society around the time of World War One