TEXT (translation) - Mutual defence

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

Here at last is the original of the piece that andruc posted the other
week.

"Not long before the war the familiar doctrine was stated by a British cabinet
minister at a great meeting in Manchester in some such terms as these: 'There
is just one way in which we may have peace and be secure; and that is to be so
much stronger than any potential enemy that he will not dare attack us. This
I submit is a self-evident proposition.'
 "Whereupon a thousand or so hardheaded businessmen of Manchester cheered to
the echo. The poposition they were cheering was that two nations likely to
quarrel would keep the peace and be secure when each was stronger than
the other. It is possible that most, on second thoughts, would be brought to
see that the principle does indeed defy arightmetic, but the vast majority
would be sincerely astonished if it were suggested that this method of defence
also defies morals, is based upon a flat denial of right, in the sense that
each denies to the other the right he claims for himself.
 "By that policy a nation, in order to be secure in its defence, has to be
stronger than its potential enemy. Then what becomes of the dfefense of that
other? Is he to have none?"


Norman Angell (1933). In "The Words of Peace" - Selections from the Speeches
of the Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, ed. Irwin Abrahams. New York:
Newmarket Press, 1990