S12 THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY
intelligeBce in an effort to justify antagonistic principles and to recon- cile religion to war.
Out of primitive savage warfare modern militarism has developod. Until recently political power was inseparable from military power. In early society all adult males were warriors. The army and the community were one. Men had just two ways of getting a living— out of the soil and out of other men. In primitive society, hunting and warring were joined in one occupation. The war chiefs also became the political leaders, and even to-day the two are only partially sepa- rated. In many cases, the ruler, knowing the favor and prestige of the military position, makes sure that he is either the head of the army or that he indirectly controls the army. This is true in our own country.
Later, the development of intelligence and fear compelled tribes and nations to some kind of union. Failure in the war usually ended in suspicion and hate among the defeated allies, and victory meant a quarrel over the spoils. When the present struggle ends, you will real- ize that this law still holds good. But victory also meant some kind of a standing army to guard the possessions. So we have had the con- stant imion of tribes, peoples and nations against others, with the uni- versal development of a standing army.
Everywhere the development of a standing army for defense has sooner or later passed over into offensive operations. Thirty years ago Herbert Spencer pointed out this law with many concrete cases. He says in his ** Sociology**:
Always a Btmcture assumed for defensive action, available also for offensive action, tends to initiate it. As in Athens the military and naval organization which was developed in coping with a foreign enemy, thereafter began to exer- cise itself aggressively; as in France the triumphant army of the Bepublie, formed to resist invasion forthwith became an invader; so is it habitually — so is it now with ourselves. In China, India, Polynesia, Africa, the East Indian Archipelago, reasons, never wanting to the aggressor are given for widening our empire; without force if it may be, and with force if needful.
The causes for this universal tendency are many. A well-organized fighting force always calls for readjustment in other nations, and this in turn creates fear, suspicion, and a demand for enlarging our forces. There is no letting go. Soon suspicion deepens into alliances, these into readiness to strike before it is too late. In the meantime every power of science is being employed to perfect the system of organiza- tion. In the eyes of those employed, this military organization becomes the nation. Among the many articles in our magazines, from men of military and naval prominence, how many can you find that do not declare war a necessary evil and tell us that we must not expect it to end or even diminish? How insistent are their demands for increase of army and navy ? This is what we know in psychology as the power of apperception. A man who lives constantly in one atmosphere can
�� �
