5 ms·

That line of thinking didn't stop World War I from happening[1]. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/01/what-world-war-i-can-tell-

That line of thinking didn't stop World War I from happening[1]. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/01/what-world-war-i-can-tell-us-about-international-commerce-and-war-today/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9a1c94e99e61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0... "Political scientists often argue that international economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war. Nations that might otherwise be inclined to fight can be deterred, informed or transformed by economic interdependence. World War I has been called the “Achilles Heel” of such theories. In the decades before the war, Europe experienced unprecedented growth in international economic interdependence, both through trade and capital flows. Yet war not only broke out, but the scale of its destruction was unprecedented. Economic liberalism went into retreat. How could anyone sustain the notion that trade could prevent war when the most destructive war in history had followed an era of expansive international trade? For decades, scholars and policymakers alike pointed to World War I as providing strong evidence against the liberal case."

BurningFrog 7y ago
As I recall it, Barbara Tuchman argues/describes in the Excellent "The Guns of August" that once precautionary mobilization had been ordered in one country, due to the nature of the railway system driven technology behind the logistics of the day, war was pretty much inevitable. Nobody realized "the system" had this side effect before it was started, and once the button was pressed, it was pressed... As your quote says. "economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war". https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093/ https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-...
- iguy 7y ago
  But was this really in the nature of the technology, or was it a choice on the part of the German planners? Choosing to only have an invasion plan, and not bother scheduling out the 80%-option which leaves not quite as many troops but all on your side of the border, and so on down? That sounds like the generals wishing for war, to me, and limiting their masters' options. Not quite parallel, but IIRC it emerged afterwards that the Soviets had no non-nuclear battle plans for Germany. While the US planners kept two sets ready.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Well, the nature of the technology certainly added to it. Once the trains were running, troops were flooding to the borders, and if stopped, they couldn't (somehow...) be restarted easily, because all the plans were interlocked so precisely. Or something. Or that's the picture Tuchman paints. Not just on the German side, BTW, but everywhere. Now, this is just a popular history book I recall from memory several decades ago, and the questions you ask sound very relevant!
crdoconnor 7y ago
From what I remember there was a period of rapid (although not total) deintegration leading up to WW1 and WW2.
Retra 7y ago
By that same argument, murder laws are ineffective because they don't stop serial killers. And traffic laws are ineffective because they didn't stop a big pile up that one time. Earthquake-safe construction is ineffective because it didn't protect against the Big One. You can't point at severity as an argument against a mechanism to control likeliness.
noobhacker 7y ago
The article you linked says the opposite of what you quote. Right after the quote, the article's authors say that these claims [about Europe being economically interdependent before WW1] are exaggerated and this do not disprove the theory that interdependence prevents war.

BurningFrog 7y ago

As I recall it, Barbara Tuchman argues/describes in the Excellent "The Guns of August" that once precautionary mobilization had been ordered in one country, due to the nature of the railway system driven technology behind the logistics of the day, war was pretty much inevitable. Nobody realized "the system" had this side effect before it was started, and once the button was pressed, it was pressed... As your quote says. "economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war". https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093/ https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-...

iguy 7y ago
But was this really in the nature of the technology, or was it a choice on the part of the German planners? Choosing to only have an invasion plan, and not bother scheduling out the 80%-option which leaves not quite as many troops but all on your side of the border, and so on down? That sounds like the generals wishing for war, to me, and limiting their masters' options. Not quite parallel, but IIRC it emerged afterwards that the Soviets had no non-nuclear battle plans for Germany. While the US planners kept two sets ready.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Well, the nature of the technology certainly added to it. Once the trains were running, troops were flooding to the borders, and if stopped, they couldn't (somehow...) be restarted easily, because all the plans were interlocked so precisely. Or something. Or that's the picture Tuchman paints. Not just on the German side, BTW, but everywhere. Now, this is just a popular history book I recall from memory several decades ago, and the questions you ask sound very relevant!

crdoconnor 7y ago

From what I remember there was a period of rapid (although not total) deintegration leading up to WW1 and WW2.

Retra 7y ago

By that same argument, murder laws are ineffective because they don't stop serial killers. And traffic laws are ineffective because they didn't stop a big pile up that one time. Earthquake-safe construction is ineffective because it didn't protect against the Big One. You can't point at severity as an argument against a mechanism to control likeliness.

noobhacker 7y ago

The article you linked says the opposite of what you quote. Right after the quote, the article's authors say that these claims [about Europe being economically interdependent before WW1] are exaggerated and this do not disprove the theory that interdependence prevents war.