3 ms·
Stable...until it went completely bonkers in WW1. The flipside of "stability" is often "unable to change course when something bad happens". The fundamental p
by rossdavidh 8y ago
Stable...until it went completely bonkers in WW1. The flipside of "stability" is often "unable to change course when something bad happens". The fundamental problem in WW1 is nobody on any side willing to admit this wasn't working for them. In France the and U.K., they could have electoral upheavals. In Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire, they monarchies were all eliminated either during WW1 or immediately after, in large part because they couldn't change course. Stability is only a virtue if you're not screwing up.
- flukus 8y ago> Stable...until it went completely bonkers in WW1 Even WW1 was stable compared to some of the all in brawls that plagued Europe, at least you knew who was on which side for the most part. By comparison look at the Thirty Years War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Involvement