One-Sided Reasoning on Armaments 121 



tion in orthodox diplomacy. Every government 

 demonstrates to its own satisfaction, and that 

 of its own people, that it is fighting only in self- 

 defence, but if no one attacked, there would, of 

 course, be no need of defence. 



A characteristic example of one-sided reasoning 

 and the hypnotism of the defensive is given by de 

 Molinari, who says: 



It is war that has produced security.^ 



At first sight it is difficult to understand how 

 anyone could attempt to sustain a proposition so 

 false. The truth is, of course, the exact opposite. 

 War always has established insecurity and de- 

 stroyed security. Only the disappearance of war 

 could really establish security. The error could 

 only be made by one who places himself at the 

 point of view of the defensive, and considers all 

 wars under the hypnotism of this one-sided view. 

 In another place de Molinari also affirms that war 

 has established security by bringing an end to the 

 attacks of barbarians. He evidently forgets that 

 these attacks were the most important part of the 

 war, and that without them security would have 

 always been complete. In this case, as in all 

 other analogous cases, insecurity comes from war, 

 and security has commenced from the moment 

 when wars have ceased. 



The same one-sided reasoning which is so com- 



* Grandeur et decadence de la guerre, Paris, 1898, p. iv. 



