Lovecraft of course makes several excellent points here which should really be obvious to anyone who looks into the concept of a United Nations-type of alliance for more than a couple of minutes.

I suppose it could be explained like this:

If a group of 10 guys are friends and they hang out regularly, but get to go home afterwards, they'll get along just fine... But if they all decide to rent a house together and are suddenly all wanting to use the kitchen, bathroom and living room at the same time and are sleeping in bunk beds in the same bedrooms, they'll start to step on each others toes, tensions will flare up, minor problems individuals may have had with one another will become exaggerated and serious conflicts will become a regular occurrence. Smaller factions will develop based on who agrees with whom, and before you know it a small war has broken out.

An overly-simple analogy, sure, but it's true.

Expand full comment

Lovecraft was just as much of an articulate philosopher as he was a creative writer of horror. I love his arguments in this essay. I will present what arguments I detected in simple format below for those wanting to following.

P.S., Arktos journal, are you aware of anybody providing correspondence or a response to Lovecraft's article and if that was published?

Syllogism 1

P1: Warfare is a natural expression of inherent human instincts like hate, greed, and combativeness.

P2: Such instincts can never be fully abolished.

∴ Warfare can never be fully abolished.

Syllogism 2

P1: Treaties and alliances are only as trustworthy as the honor of those who make them.

P2: Nations do not always uphold treaties and alliances when it suits their interests.

∴ Placing full faith in treaties and alliances to maintain peace is naïve.

Syllogism 3

P1: The League of Nations aims to increase international contacts and cooperation.

P2: Increased contacts between nations will multiply opportunities for disagreements and animosities to emerge.

∴ The League will likely increase international tensions rather than reduce wars.

Syllogism 4

P1: If tensions rise between nations in the League, they will form clandestine alliances according to their sympathies.

P2: Such clandestine alliances will undermine unity within the League.

∴ The League will not prevent the rise of opposing factions and alliances between its members.

Syllogism 5

P1: When disagreements between nations become very strong, they will resort to force no matter the odds.

P2: The League has no means to enforce its prohibitions on war.

∴ The League cannot reliably stop wars from breaking out when national interests strongly clash.

Syllogism 6

P1: Increasing international contacts through the League will multiply opportunities for disagreements and animosities between nations.

P2: Such increased disagreements and animosities are likely to strengthen existing national interests clashes.

∴ The League will exacerbate rather than reduce geopolitical tensions capable of leading to war.

Syllogism 7

P1: Geopolitical realities like national interests, honor, and the will to use force cannot be abolished by international agreements.

P2: The League is based on an idealistic vision that overlooks these geopolitical realities.

∴ The League's aims are unrealistic and its means cannot achieve maintaining world peace in practice.

Expand full comment

The more we see of each other, the closer we’re to killing each other. True of marriage, family, nations, alliances.

Expand full comment