WI: 20th century is peacetime in Europe the whole century

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
If you are talking about the entire 20th century, this means no balkan wars as well, Franz Ferdinand doesn't even go to Sarajevo, since it is still part of the Osman Empire...
 
They might be significant in those colonies though. Remember, a world without the world wars is probably considerably whiter, which means more substantial white settlement in some colonies compared to OTL. That would probably go less than swimmingly for the peoples displaced or relegated to second class citizens in their own homelands as a result.



That is an interesting point.

When considering this scenario, of a peaceful Europe I always think more of avoiding the loss of political and financial and economic capital.

And thus having far more political capital and social cohesion to try to hold unto the Empires.


Thus question also arises, would independence movements be weaker without A. the feel that they have earned independence with contributing to war efforts to defend Imperial Homeland, AND the loss of Image of Power, what with European cities being bombed to rubble and their soldiers dying by the hundreds of thousands.


I think a likely outcome of a peaceful europe is a LOT of "Vietnams", though with a weaker Soviet Union, there may or may not be a large power willing to funnel arms to such movements.


Additional questions raised. Would/how long would, the Austrohungarian empire and the Ottomans survive in this scenario?
 
There wasn't ever really a lot of white settlement to begin with thanks to the climate, assuming you're talking about sub-Saharan Africa (North Africa's a different story with French Algeria). Britain and Portugal snapped up all the best lands in sub-Saharan Africa, which would be the Kenyan highlands, most of Rhodesia, parts of Angola and Mozambique, and of course South Africa.



Italy has Libya, France has Algeria and to a lesser extent Tunisia and New Caledonia. Germans have Namibia. But Italians and Germans could just emigrate to the Americas or Australia anyway as many did.

Without World War I, Portugal probably loses its African colonies, meaning the Angolan highlands may well end up German-ruled and German-inhabited. Kenya (British), Rhodesia (Northern and Southern-both British), and Southwest Africa (German) will probably be Whiter too.
 
Maybe, but I have my doubts, because most people would want to go and live somewhere they'd be welcome, which would mean the white Dominions like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which are majority white anyway.

Even if there is no white settlement, the natives are still gonna be oppressed and exploited.
 
That is an interesting point.

When considering this scenario, of a peaceful Europe I always think more of avoiding the loss of political and financial and economic capital.

And thus having far more political capital and social cohesion to try to hold unto the Empires.


Thus question also arises, would independence movements be weaker without A. the feel that they have earned independence with contributing to war efforts to defend Imperial Homeland, AND the loss of Image of Power, what with European cities being bombed to rubble and their soldiers dying by the hundreds of thousands.


I think a likely outcome of a peaceful europe is a LOT of "Vietnams", though with a weaker Soviet Union, there may or may not be a large power willing to funnel arms to such movements.


Additional questions raised. Would/how long would, the Austrohungarian empire and the Ottomans survive in this scenario?


All very good questions. I'd ask whether there'd be a USSR or a Communist state anywhere with a peaceful twentieth century in Europe.

As for Austria-Hungary, I give it to 1917, but it may need to stay together to satisfy the thread's premise.

But.....

Maybe Austria-Hungary does splinter in a peaceful manner, and that is the spark leading to the creation of the USSR or something like it?

Say that Bohemia and Moravia become an independent kingdom, while Austrian Silesia, and the rest of Cisleithania sans Galicia-Lodomeria, Bukovina, and Dalmatia get attached to Germany. Dalmatia goes to Italy, while Bukovina and Galicia-Lodomeria goes to Russia, with the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen (Hungary, Transylvania, and Croatia) becoming an independent Kingdom of Hungary. Giving Russia the Austrian Polish lands may well ause enough problems for St. Petersburg that it is what sparks the Revolution.....
 
You need to look more closely at the situation then. Just because war is averted, it doesn't mean that nationalism and international rivalries have been quelled. Remember the technical innovation that went on during the Cold War? Right, now double (or more) the rate of advancement as the old European powers - much stronger without two World Wars - get in on the game.

War has three costs in terms of stymied development:
  • Loss of potential genius
  • Railroading of projects
  • Post-war economic collapse
Compared to these, the often minor developments to come out of war aren't actually that impressive.

The most logical (and historical) outcome of "nationalism and international rivalries" is war, unless weapons of mass destruction appear (and are respected as such). Also the horrors of war itself known, if they are unknown then the chance of war goes up greatly. Appeasement wasn't because of weak wills and weak personalities but aversion to the horrors of war. You know as well as me that war changed much more than a few gas masks and new tanks... it was an entire revolution of the political landscape, arguably independence and recognition for the Dominions, arguably woman's and minority rights, and arguably every single modern institution and program short of the New Deal.

So, the situation is, the most likely way to create the conditions to fulfil the OP is the death of nationalism and international rivalries, probably through some Gentleman's Agreement between the monarchies, and the crushing of internal dissent or revolution. Keep the old boy's clubs going for as long as possible, focus on the old. Think Ancien Regime pre-enlightenment and how much that achieved in hundreds of years, only on steroids.

The post-war economic collapse didn't happen until the 1970's. The further you go, the greater the burden of proof, and the greater (and more extraordinary the claim) the greater the proof required. So yeah, you can construct a TL with no war, but if the most likely TL is retardation rather than expansion and innovation well... then the claim is up the creek.

But we are already arguing nits. If it's one in a million to avoid all war through death of nationalism and international rivalries and one in two million to avoid all war yet still have vibrant democracies... then I don't see the point of debate. My only point is whoever makes the claim, that no war makes more innovation, has a hill to climb that isn't necessarily met.
 
So, the situation is, the most likely way to create the conditions to fulfil the OP is the death of nationalism and international rivalries, probably through some Gentleman's Agreement between the monarchies, and the crushing of internal dissent or revolution. Keep the old boy's clubs going for as long as possible, focus on the old. Think Ancien Regime pre-enlightenment and how much that achieved in hundreds of years, only on steroids.
How many wars were there between the big powers between 1873 and 1913? As fas as I can tell it was 1, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. 1 war between big powers in 40 years as IMO pretty good. And remember, it took the assassination of a future head-of-state to set it off, and even that could have been avoided had everything not gone completely wrong in the month between the assassination and the outbreak of war.

The post-war economic collapse didn't happen until the 1970's. The further you go, the greater the burden of proof, and the greater (and more extraordinary the claim) the greater the proof required. So yeah, you can construct a TL with no war, but if the most likely TL is retardation rather than expansion and innovation well... then the claim is up the creek.
The post WW1 economic collapse happened within a couple of years, and an immediate post WW2 collapse was only averted with the Marshall plan.

But we are already arguing nits. If it's one in a million to avoid all war through death of nationalism and international rivalries and one in two million to avoid all war yet still have vibrant democracies... then I don't see the point of debate. My only point is whoever makes the claim, that no war makes more innovation, has a hill to climb that isn't necessarily met.
it was about 1 in 1000 to avoid WW1 as we know it, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Remember, WW1 started in 1914, not in 1912, nor in 1913, yet the Balkans wars were pretty bloody. And this was because the big powers were wary of war, they knew it would be costly, and so they sought to avoid it, and did pretty well for a while. And nationalism and international rivalry don't modulate just as wars, they also modulate as competitions of pride, Such as was seem with the competition for the Blue Riband. Follow that up with a competition for who can build the best airliners, ad yeah, I can easily see things being pushed far and fast.
 
How many wars were there between the big powers between 1873 and 1913? As fas as I can tell it was 1, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. 1 war between big powers in 40 years as IMO pretty good. And remember, it took the assassination of a future head-of-state to set it off, and even that could have been avoided had everything not gone completely wrong in the month between the assassination and the outbreak of war.

That's because battleships and later dreadnaughts were the A-Bombs of the time. So if your argument is to build massive arsenals to prevent war (weapons of mass destruction) then at some point (a point that you or I don't know) this becomes self-defeating and national pride leads to wars. There is a huge difference between "one war" and "no wars". There's a reason why arms control and top-down control of weapons of mass destruction exists, to prevent future wars.

The post WW1 economic collapse happened within a couple of years, and an immediate post WW2 collapse was only averted with the Marshall plan.

If you are arguing that post-war collapse is inevitable without intervention then I can say that such intervention is inevitable as well. Yes, I will give you that modern total wars like the Iraq Invasion tend to be destructive. And low-grade "frozen wars" like Ukraine and Syria and Iraq are also destructive. But the only way to stop dictators or insane lunatics from killing is to get rid of them. They won't listen to words. The trick is to do it at the right time, and in the right way.

it was about 1 in 1000 to avoid WW1 as we know it, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Remember, WW1 started in 1914, not in 1912, nor in 1913, yet the Balkans wars were pretty bloody. And this was because the big powers were wary of war, they knew it would be costly, and so they sought to avoid it, and did pretty well for a while. And nationalism and international rivalry don't modulate just as wars, they also modulate as competitions of pride, Such as was seem with the competition for the Blue Riband. Follow that up with a competition for who can build the best airliners, ad yeah, I can easily see things being pushed far and fast.

Competition leads to actual conflict eventually. If you are arguing it just takes one man then I can argue it just takes one Kaiser, one batcrazy politician to start it and we are right back at the start. But really you have to look at the purpose of wars. You are right, people avoid wars, but not because of the human cost or financial cost but to preserve the old order and way of doing things (which benefits a privileged few). If the purpose is to upend the social order and creates conditions better for democracy and free thought, then such an economy in the long run will far outperform the old economy. Take the WW1 paternalistic nationalistic old order and compare it to modern day globalization and there is no comparison to which is better in the long run. If you have a dictatorship, then maybe a civil war or revolution is the only way to get conditions better for the country. War is sometimes necessary, and without the wars of the 20th Century many freedoms and benefits we hold dear wouldn't exist. Take the GI Bill afterwards for example.
 
That's because battleships and later dreadnaughts were the A-Bombs of the time. So if your argument is to build massive arsenals to prevent war (weapons of mass destruction) then at some point (a point that you or I don't know) this becomes self-defeating and national pride leads to wars. There is a huge difference between "one war" and "no wars". There's a reason why arms control and top-down control of weapons of mass destruction exists, to prevent future wars.
Except that that is wrong, the Battleship was a powerful statement, but hardly an A-bomb equivalent. I mean, what the hell role would they have in an AH vs Russia conflict?

If you are arguing that post-war collapse is inevitable without intervention then I can say that such intervention is inevitable as well.
Except it didn't happen after WW1 so it's clearly not inevitable.

Competition leads to actual conflict eventually. If you are arguing it just takes one man then I can argue it just takes one Kaiser, one batcrazy politician to start it and we are right back at the start.
It's not an inevitability. A likelihood, yes, but now inevitable. And it was more than 1 man responsible. Oh the Kaiser was more heavily to blame, but it still took a month to go from the assassination to the declaration of war, and there were several point in that time in which it could have been stoppedd.

War is sometimes necessary, and without the wars of the 20th Century many freedoms and benefits we hold dear wouldn't exist. Take the GI Bill afterwards for example.
On this I agree. War is IMO necessary to some degree for the proper social functioning of humanity.
 
Except that that is wrong, the Battleship was a powerful statement, but hardly an A-bomb equivalent. I mean, what the hell role would they have in an AH vs Russia conflict?

Battleships and dreadnaughts in late 19th to Early 20th Century offered massive prestige and demonstration you are a "Great Power"... this is not controversial. They don't exist in isolation... if you can build 20 battleships compared to 10 battleships it means a corresponding increase in army, industry, in everything. Life isn't an RTS game where resources can be shunted from one project to another without waste. The actual waging of wars is one thing, but everything before that is a fake, just like MAD is a fakeout... it doesn't matter the actual destructive potential or even landlocked in case of Russia and your example but the image... if Tsushima hadn't happened everyone would rank the "pecking order" by industrial output, number of battleships, etc. for another 50 years until A-bombs... at some point (according to adherents of Manhan) if a country has too many battleships fighting is suicide... again it's all perception because what LEADS to war is bad perception and bad image... again assuming a certain kind of thinking and sanity (if a leader is borderline insane, there's nothing to stop him from waging war for any reason...)

Even today a quick measure of offensive military power is to just compare the aircraft carrier deck space of nations. So again assuming sane leaders nobody would dare challenge the USA (insane leaders, terrorists, etc. responsible for all the current conflicts in the world...)

screengrab

So yes, what I am saying is that the relative peace (no world wars) we currently enjoy is because one nation has the monopoly on aircraft carriers (power projection) but if there was an arms race between two such nations the peace wouldn't last very long...

Except it didn't happen after WW1 so it's clearly not inevitable.

It's not an inevitability. A likelihood, yes, but now inevitable. And it was more than 1 man responsible. Oh the Kaiser was more heavily to blame, but it still took a month to go from the assassination to the declaration of war, and there were several point in that time in which it could have been stoppedd.

Well I don't want to badmouth Kaiser, he talked a big talk but worked hard for peace. Hyper-nationalism and rigid alliances system leading (most likely) to war shouldn't be a controversial point.

As for intervention being not inevitable, it's not inevitable... I think it's fair to say over 100 year period in general you can't just walk in smash everything and walk out without consequences. WW1 as an abberation because the weapons technology at the time led to trench warfare and horrendous casualties so the French+USA+UK were out for blood... once technology caught up (tanks) wars should be back to short and brutal (or total occupation and destruction)

On this I agree. War is IMO necessary to some degree for the proper social functioning of humanity.

Then there's no likely way to fulfil the OP's conditions (no war) except through non-proper social functioning... which I propose is much heavier top-down "conservative" control by the monarchies of the Great Powers, surviving Ottoman Empire, working Russian Empire, British Empire, etc., and weaker "revolutionary" or "democratic" type governments like France. And I don't particularly think that leads to women's sufferage, minority rights, less anti-semitism, social programs, etc., things which lead to higher technology ("Jew" physics, etc.) Whether you buy that or not is up to you.
 
Last edited:
Battleships and dreadnaughts in late 19th to Early 20th Century offered massive prestige and demonstration you are a "Great Power"... this is not controversial. They don't exist in isolation... if you can build 20 battleships compared to 10 battleships it means a corresponding increase in army, industry, in everything.
Except that Battleships are only useful if you have overseas colonies or shared coasts, but in a Russia vs AH match, no, they're of no use, and more money spent on battleships is less money spent on the army.

Life isn't an RTS game where resources can be shunted from one project to another without waste. The actual waging of wars is one thing, but everything before that is a fake, just like MAD is a fakeout... it doesn't matter the actual destructive potential or even landlocked in case of Russia and your example but the image... if Tsushima hadn't happened everyone would rank the "pecking order" by industrial output, number of battleships, etc. for another 50 years until A-bombs... at some point (according to adherents of Manhan) if a country has too many battleships fighting is suicide... again it's all perception because what LEADS to war is bad perception and bad image... again assuming a certain kind of thinking and sanity (if a leader is borderline insane, there's nothing to stop him from waging war for any reason...)
Except that Battleships are not a measure of industrial strength, they're a measure of naval strength.

Even today a quick measure of offensive military power is to just compare the aircraft carrier deck space of nations. So again assuming sane leaders nobody would dare challenge the USA (insane leaders, terrorists, etc. responsible for all the current conflicts in the world...)

So yes, what I am saying is that the relative peace (no world wars) we currently enjoy is because one nation has the monopoly on aircraft carriers (power projection) but if there was an arms race between two such nations the peace wouldn't last very long...
Tell me, how did Vietnam work out? Oh that's right, the Americans pulled out. Further, Russia's gone into Georgia, the Ukraine, Syria, etc, often against American interests, and have suffered no physical damage. No, Carriers aren't a measure of military strength.

Well I don't want to badmouth Kaiser, he talked a big talk but worked hard for peace. Hyper-nationalism and rigid alliances system leading (most likely) to war shouldn't be a controversial point.
Well neither of the Balkans wars kicked anything off, so clearly they weren't one small step from war. And the fact that it took a month after the assassination proves it wasn't inevitable either.

As for intervention being not inevitable, it's not inevitable... I think it's fair to say over 100 year period in general you can't just walk in smash everything and walk out without consequences. WW1 as an abberation because the weapons technology at the time led to trench warfare and horrendous casualties so the French+USA+UK were out for blood... once technology caught up (tanks) wars should be back to short and brutal (or total occupation and destruction)
It doesn't matter how long the war is really, if your military gets big, the post-conflict crash will also be big.

Then there's no likely way to fulfil the OP's conditions (no war) except through non-proper social functioning... which I propose is much heavier top-down "conservative" control by the monarchies of the Great Powers, surviving Ottoman Empire, working Russian Empire, British Empire, etc., and weaker "revolutionary" or "democratic" type governments like France. And I don't particularly think that leads to women's sufferage, minority rights, less anti-semitism, social programs, etc., things which lead to higher technology ("Jew" physics, etc.) Whether you buy that or not is up to you.
Personally, I do see women's suffrage as coming eventually, but somewhat later. Mind you, this might be weighed out by other factors, like Ireland being sorted out more peacefully, more agreeable disillusionment of the AH and Ottoman Empires, etc. Oh, and no state of Israel. I think on the whole it will be better politically, but worse socially.
 
Last edited:
There would certainly have been earlier development of solar power without a WWI which disrupted early experimental projects. A more gradual withdrawal from Europe's tropical colonies (particularly in case of Germany which had an excellent pharmaceutical industry) would have largely improved tropical medicine. Woman's suffrage had already reached Australasia and several U.S. States pre-war and the brighter Conservatives in Britain (like F.E. Smith) had already worked out that enfranchising woman taxpayers would substantially boost the Conservative vote. Also, anti-Semitism got worse in much of Europe after WWI. And how many scientists, statesmen, moral crusaders, churchmen, novelists, painters, sculptors, academics, playwrights and poets perished in Europe's killing fields? Litchenstein, Brooke, Sorley, Owen, Gaudier-Brzeska, Apollinaire, Moseley, Lister, Horner, Vere Harmsworth are just the promising young men that we have heard of. Thousands more would also have featured.
 
There would certainly have been earlier development of solar power without a WWI which disrupted early experimental projects. A more gradual withdrawal from Europe's tropical colonies (particularly in case of Germany which had an excellent pharmaceutical industry) would have largely improved tropical medicine. Woman's suffrage had already reached Australasia and several U.S. States pre-war and the brighter Conservatives in Britain (like F.E. Smith) had already worked out that enfranchising woman taxpayers would substantially boost the Conservative vote. Also, anti-Semitism got worse in much of Europe after WWI. And how many scientists, statesmen, moral crusaders, churchmen, novelists, painters, sculptors, academics, playwrights and poets perished in Europe's killing fields? Litchenstein, Brooke, Sorley, Owen, Gaudier-Brzeska, Apollinaire, Moseley, Lister, Horner, Vere Harmsworth are just the promising young men that we have heard of. Thousands more would also have featured.
What's your take on the American racial issue, solved sooner than OTL? Or later?
 
Except that Battleships are only useful if you have overseas colonies or shared coasts, but in a Russia vs AH match, no, they're of no use, and more money spent on battleships is less money spent on the army.

Except that Battleships are not a measure of industrial strength, they're a measure of naval strength.

They are plenty of use to convince international partners you are a Great Power, to do commerce raiding of flagged ships (yes, you can flag even without a blue water port), to threaten potential allies of the enemy to act as a national redoubt. But that's not the point. The point is they are part of a greater whole.

For money it's called deficit spending. Battleships were limited by slips, raw materials and technical ingenuity. Not by shunting resources around like a computer game, except in the most limited of ways. Economies are not zero-sum. Battleship building (indeed, giant ANYTHING building) is a measure of industrial strength just like building a pyramid or building a Great Wall. This is why America's industrial strength is so often underestimated, because people think like you and not the economy as a whole. Yes, America's light industries and textiles are mothballed and outsourced to the world for cost. But, it is still churning out supercarriers and refreshing its blue water navy. America is richer than the rest of the world, combined, particularly when we talk about intangibles like "technology". Only the UK, France and Germany can match America's wealth and only partially.

You are treating battleships and carriers and warships like a cost center, but in reality they are a symptom of a superpower.

Tell me, how did Vietnam work out? Oh that's right, the Americans pulled out. Further, Russia's gone into Georgia, the Ukraine, Syria, etc, often against American interests, and have suffered no physical damage. No, Carriers aren't a measure of military strength.

Carriers absolutely are a measure of military strength, power projection and indeed technical innovation (the point of the OP). America chooses to talk softly and walk with a big stick, if it wanted to use that stick the victory would be decisive. According to government/military anonymous sources ISIS could be defeated in 72 hours at the height of their power last year if America intervened with its full ability, now even quicker. Not talking nukes but conventional special forces and airpower. The fact that they chose to tap instead of whack because they don't want to lose lives doesn't change that they have the ability.

Well neither of the Balkans wars kicked anything off, so clearly they weren't one small step from war. And the fact that it took a month after the assassination proves it wasn't inevitable either.

You seem to be proposing that hyper-nationalism and arms races don't naturally lead to war. All I have to do is point to history to say that they do.

It doesn't matter how long the war is really, if your military gets big, the post-conflict crash will also be big.

Only POSSIBLY A. for the losing side, B. if the losing side isn't gracious (Marshall Plan, Japan, etc.) and C. if the winning side is vengeful. It wasn't called the roaring twenties for nothing.

Personally, I do see women's suffrage as coming eventually, but somewhat later. Mind you, this might be weighed out by other factors, like Ireland being sorted out more peacefully, more agreeable disillusionment of the AH and Ottoman Empires, etc. Oh, and no state of Israel. I think on the whole it will be better politically, but worse socially.

Arguable, and I am NOT touching Israel. Politically hyper-nationalism and monarchy are far, far less appealing than globalization to me. There will be unintended consequences you do not see.
 
Not my area of expertise, but I suspect it would have been different but not much later. The two WWs took a lot of people out of their local environment and shook up their comfortable acceptance of received wisdom and the Nazi extermination programmes highlighted the immoral nature of racism. Against that, a non-WW world, would probably have butterflied away the long FDR/Truman Democratic hegemony so there would probably have been more incremental reform if people like Dewey had got a chance at the Oval Office or even Cabinet (FDR and even Truman not particularly bigoted by the standards of the time but Dixiecrats a brake on progress). Less of a "Red Scare" to discredit reformers/progressives in the 40s and 50s or to draw in the FBI. However international opinion might not have been as significant either. Most other nations would have had African or Caribbean colonies/quasi-colonies (though, that being said, American lynchings were shocking European public opinion in the 1920s and 1930s when only Germany had been divested of it's colonies) and there wouldn't have been an ideologically diametrically opposed USSR and Red China as long term enemies to convince some otherwise very conservative people (e.g. Curtis LeMay) that a discontented black minority was a potential Achilles heel and reforms were needed. Possibly might have happened in a different way - more attention to economic betterment and education but not such easy access to social welfare, so American blacks got their civil rights more incrementally/piecemeal but are better educated and better off than in OTL (whose black American population would probably see them as still aping the white man/Tomming).
 
They are plenty of use to convince international partners you are a Great Power, to do commerce raiding of flagged ships (yes, you can flag even without a blue water port), to threaten potential allies of the enemy to act as a national redoubt. But that's not the point. The point is they are part of a greater whole.
An expensive part that's not useful in a land-based conflict. Hells, they're not always useful in a naval conflict, as the Dardanelles Campaign proved.

For money it's called deficit spending. Battleships were limited by slips, raw materials and technical ingenuity. Not by shunting resources around like a computer game, except in the most limited of ways. Economies are not zero-sum. Battleship building (indeed, giant ANYTHING building) is a measure of industrial strength just like building a pyramid or building a Great Wall. This is why America's industrial strength is so often underestimated, because people think like you and not the economy as a whole. Yes, America's light industries and textiles are mothballed and outsourced to the world for cost. But, it is still churning out supercarriers and refreshing its blue water navy. America is richer than the rest of the world, combined, particularly when we talk about intangibles like "technology". Only the UK, France and Germany can match America's wealth and only partially.
China owns most of the US national debt.

You are treating battleships and carriers and warships like a cost center, but in reality they are a symptom of a superpower.
They are symptoms of naval power, but for a country like Russia they're iffy at best, because Russia doesn't need them.

Carriers absolutely are a measure of military strength, power projection and indeed technical innovation (the point of the OP). America chooses to talk softly and walk with a big stick, if it wanted to use that stick the victory would be decisive. According to government/military anonymous sources ISIS could be defeated in 72 hours at the height of their power last year if America intervened with its full ability, now even quicker. Not talking nukes but conventional special forces and airpower. The fact that they chose to tap instead of whack because they don't want to lose lives doesn't change that they have the ability.
A carrier is a mobile airfield,

You seem to be proposing that hyper-nationalism and arms races don't naturally lead to war. All I have to do is point to history to say that they do.
The Britain-Germany dreadnought race didn't.

Only POSSIBLY A. for the losing side, B. if the losing side isn't gracious (Marshall Plan, Japan, etc.) and C. if the winning side is vengeful. It wasn't called the roaring twenties for nothing.
Sopwith, Airco, Martinsyde, SPAD, these were all aviation companies of the victor nations that went under after WW1

Arguable, and I am NOT touching Israel. Politically hyper-nationalism and monarchy are far, far less appealing than globalization to me. There will be unintended consequences you do not see.
Yes, like 50-100 million not dead from the 1918 Flu Pandemic. Millions not dead in the Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward, the post-decolonisation issues, etc.
 
No, fairly recently Japan has become the top foreign creditor of the US, but even so between 6-8% is still not most
Okay, but measuring economic power by the number of supercarriers someone has is f***ing stupid. Yes the US's two biggest rivals don't have them, but then, they don't need them either (except for maybe a SCS dispute).
 
Last edited:
Top