he tragedy of the situation lies in
the fact that where nations are constantly on the watch against each
other, the imperialistic motive is interwoven with other motives of
self-defence and nearer territorial aggression. If Germany is intent
upon war, and if her road leads over France, then France must arm. To
be effective in defence, she must have {139} universal service,
professional officers, a true military spirit, a certain degree of
autocracy in military arrangements, as well as offensive and defensive
alliances, not based on a true community of interest or similarity of
ideals, but upon the need of beating back the foe. If England fears
German aggression she cannot afford to maintain an isolation however
magnificent, but is obliged to enter into alliances, _ententes_ and
secret engagements. For if you play the game you must play it
according to the rules. Moreover, if you have the armament and
alliances necessary for defence, you are tempted to use them for an
aggressive and imperialistic policy. Indeed, such an imperialistic
policy may actually form the cement of your alliances.

All these considerations lame and thwart the movement against
imperialism. Moreover, the problem of governing the backward countries
remains. For their own sake you cannot leave them alone, and the
abstention of one nation merely makes the imperialistic ventures of
other nations easier. If governments refrain from organising backward
countries, the private capitalistic exploitation of these regions will
be more ruthless than ever. The anti-imperialists are thus faced with
a difficult situation which they cannot meet with _a priori_ argument
and pious formula. With them or without them, some form of
co-operation must be effected between industrial and agricultural
nations as well as some form of control over countries incapable of
self-government. There is need for a definite, concrete democratic
policy for the government of such backward countries.

[1] In the Philippines in 1914, out of a total population of almost
nine millions (8,937,597), less than 20,000 were Europeans and
Americans, including troops. The density of the native population is
greater than that of Indiana and over three times that of the United
States as a whole.

[2] "Imperialism," p. 35. A survey of more recent figures somewhat
modifies these conclusions of Mr. Hobson. The statistics of 1913 prove
that British commerce with British colonies has