Confusion of Unity with Despotism 129 



no matter how greatly his national honour or vital 

 interests are injured, because he knows perfectly 

 well that he would be defeated. In order that 

 two countries shall go to war, there must be a 

 chance for victory on both sides. But this means 

 that there must also be a chance for defeat on 

 both sides, and that the confusion of war and 

 victory, therefore, is necessarily an illogical one. 

 Another confusion which presents a formidable 

 obstacle in the way of world federation is that 

 which identifies unity with despotism. The 

 spectre of another Roman Empire ruled by a 

 Cassar raised to the height of a demigod, and 

 trampling on the rights of nationalities, still haunts 

 the minds of many thinkers when the idea of unity 

 of the world is suggested. Renan says: 



The nations will not endure forever. They have 

 commenced and they will finish. The confederation 

 of Europe, in all probability, will replace them. But 

 this is not the law of the century in which we live. At 

 the present time the existence of the nations is good, 

 even necessary. Their existence is the guarantee of 

 the liberty which would be lost if the world had only 

 one law and one master. ^ 



The confusion to which this identification of 

 unity with despotism gives rise is clear. The 

 federation of the world means the abolition of 

 war and therefore the end of international anarchy, 

 but when federation and unity are identified with 



' Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? Paris, 1882, p. 28. 

 9 



