of force, this was because Prussia was 'inferior' and France was 'superior.' Suppose we admit for the moment that this was the case. The selection now represents the survival of the fittest, the selection which perfects the human species. But what shall we say of the battle of Leipsic? At Leipsic, in 1813, all the values were reversed; it is now France which is the 'inferior' nation.... Furthermore, a large number of the same generals and soldiers who took part in the battle of Jena also took part in the battle of Leipsic. Napoleon belonged, therefore, to a race which was superior to that of Blücher in 1806, but to an inferior race in 1813, in spite of the fact that they were the same persons and had not changed their nationality. As soon as we bring these assertions to the touchstone of concrete reality we see at once how untenable and even ridiculous are direct biological comparisons."39
Without going into further detail, it is readily seen that, on the world at large, the eugenic effect of a war would be very different according as the sides differ much or little. Yet this difference in quality, however great, will have no significance, unless the superior or inferior side is in general more likely to lose fewer men. Where the difference has been considerable, as between a civilized and savage nation, it has been seldom that the superior has not triumphed with fewer losses. Victory, however, is influenced much less in these later days by the relative military efficiency of two single nations than by their success in making powerful alliances. But such alignments are by no means always associated with better quality, because (a) there is a natural tendency for the weak to unite against a strong nation, (b) to side with