660 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



from that of a savage, carnivorous beast to a peaceful creature content to eat grass. 

 Until *his is accomplished he can by no means conceive a lamb so foolish as to 

 come within reach of the lion. In his view, war is the inevitable outcome of the 

 struggle to exist, a law of Natuie; he believes that competition can never give 

 way to co-operation. He considers that nations fight for their own vital interests, 

 primarily in self-defence, against a growing menace. He doubts whether the 

 abolition of armaments, of plans of war, of secret treaties in a world of democracies 

 will necessarily avert war. He is firmly convinced that no sensible nation will 

 entrust its security to the good will of its neighbours or even to so-called guarantees, 

 especially in view of the late experiences of the Belgians. In a word, he believes 

 in the balance of power or force. 



It will be seen that these two last views are as diametrically opposed as those 

 of the religious views ; yet there must exist ample evidence in history, as well as 

 in the researches of science, to enable us to arrive at a definite conclusion as to 

 which is correct. It is, surely, necessary to investigate the true causes of war, to 

 go to the root of the evil. To tinker at the surface is to treat medically a sick 

 man without previously diagnosing his complaint. When one considers the 

 enormous strides in the cure of diseases due solely to scientific research, one is 

 astounded at the neglect to apply similar methods to the recurring catastrophe of 

 war. Now that the nations of the world are exhausted by the late great struggle 

 and a powerful League of Nations is being formed to exercise control, there is a 

 prospect of peace for some years to come. This relief, however transitory, gives 

 the opportunity for a scientific and exhaustive study of the whole problem by 

 means of which alone, it is probable, can a permanent cure be effected. 



The following conclusions have an important bearing on the subject ; they can 

 be easily verified or disproved and may, perhaps, give some foundation for further 

 exploration. 



Is War due, as commonly asserted, to Militarism ? 

 German militarism is generally credited with the whole responsibility for the 

 late war. 



It is a well-known fact that modern Prussian militarism originated after, and 

 in consequence of, the Battle of Jena (1806), as the only means by which Prussia, 

 conquered and ground down under the heel of Napoleon, could hope to regain her 

 independence. It was, thus, purely defensive in origin. 



French militarism — that is, the system of universal and compulsory military 

 service — was introduced after the war of 1870-71, and was the direct result of the 

 fear of further German aggression, though the desire for revenge also existed. 



After 1 87 1 all continental nations which had land frontiers and reason to fear 

 their neighbours, introduced militarism, which gradually became the prevailing 

 system throughout the world. Japan also introduced the system with, however, 

 the main idea of suppressing revolution and establishing order within her own 

 territories. 



Great Britain did not adopt the system. On the other hand she maintained 

 and increased her great navy as a defensive weapon, a "sure shield." She was 

 content, in the first instance, with a small army for the defence of her colonies. 

 As, however, the German menace arose, so did she organise more thoroughly her 

 land forces to resist possible invasion in case her navy failed her. 



The United States, having no fear of foreign aggression, was content with very 

 small armaments. 



It is evident that militarism and, indeed, all armaments, are due to fear in the 

 first instance — the instinct of self-preservation. 



