Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was also the argument for why WW1 could never happen, yet it did.
Could you explain this?
An excerpt from a book by Norman Angell, (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lecturer, journalist and MP) in 1910 as to why wide scale war could not happen between major powers.
[War] belongs to a stage of development out of which
we have passed that the commerce and industry of a
people no longer depend upon the expansion of its
political frontiers; that a nation's political and
economic frontiers do not now necessarily coincide;
that military power is socially and economically
futile, and can have no relation to the prosperity
of the people exercising it; that it is impossible
for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade
of another -- to enrich itself by subjugating, or
imposing its will by force on another; that in short,
war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those
aims for which people strive.
It was a fairly widespread view at that point in time.