ABSTRACT
Ever since he wrote his theory critical of imperialism in 1902, John Hobson was convinced that
some sort of international institution was necessary to break the destructive cycle of capitalism,
excessive elite influence, imperialism, and militarism (Strauss, 1971, p. 10). Hobson believed
that only a confederation of nations could introduce the kind of disarmament that was needed
for global peace because no country would feel comfortable disarming unilaterally (Hobson,
1915). He was later joined in this view by H.G. Wells and others who argued that the League
of Nations was a choice between
Henry Noel Brailsford specifically criticized the practice of reliance on alliances to maintain
the balance of power and individual state security. He argued that alliances spurred fear, suspi-
cion, mistrust, irrational arms races, and ultimately, an uncontrollable spiral of military escala-
tion that led to war (Brailsford, 1914). He argued ‘no friendship is eternal, and nothing is
permanent, save the mutability of national rivalries’ (Brailsford, 1914). For Brailsford and
other critics of the balance of power system like John Hobson, alliances invariably brought
new commitments and dangers. Brailsford argued that the metaphor of balance was out of
date and fallacious, since leaders invariably pursued not a balance of power, but a favorable
balance of power. Building on some of the arguments of Norman Angell, he argued that the
basis of wealth had changed over time. Angell had previously defined ‘the great illusion’ as
the idea that territorial acquisition would provide a basis for prosperity and affluence. According
to Angell, conquest was futile. A conquering power was no wealthier following conquest,
because it acquired the liabilities of supporting of the conquered populace (Angell, 1910).
Since great power balancing was extended throughout the world during this period, Angell’s cri-
tique indirectly challenged one of the justifications and mechanisms for the maintenance of the
prevailing order.
