3 ms·
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required t
by eloff 6y ago
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
- missedthecue 6y agoOn the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomp 6y agoThe first 50 years of that peace was Europe being split between two nuclear superpowers. So the “peace” (more like a standoff) isn’t entirely our (European) fault.
- triceratops 6y agoFrance and the UK still maintain nuclear arsenals.
- eloff 6y agoNot really relevant to the cold war standoff in Europe though.
- eloff 6y agoI think the last 80 years have been the most peaceful in recorded human history in spite of, or perhaps because of the constant threat of nuclear Armageddon. Globalization is a part of it, but I don't think it's sufficient in itself to keep the peace.
- SomewhatLikely 6y agoBetter Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker examines this and the general decline in violence on many levels.
- avmich 6y agoSigh. If only. Do you know what happened with Crimea in 2014 - and what was going on in Debaltsevo, Donetsk region, Ukraine, in February 2015?
- WalterBright 6y agoThe Germans did suffer terribly from shortages, particularly of petroleum, during the war. In fact, one could argue fairly well that the shortage of petroleum ensured their defeat. Their inability to produce high octane gasoline was also instrumental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, as it meant their aircraft could not perform up to the level of the Allied aircraft. The Japanese in WW2 also failed to secure a supply of oil, with similar results.
- eloff 6y agoYes, there's no doubt it was a major problem for Axis nations. However, it didn't prevent them from going to war. In the case of the Japanese one could argue securing their own source of petroleum and other resources was a major driving factor behind their expansionist policy.
- WalterBright 6y agoOn the other side, the US supplied Britain with all the arms, food and gas they needed. The whole point of the U-Boot campaign was to cut that off, which would have caused the defeat of Britain. The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope we never find out if that is true or not the hard way.
- eloff 6y agoI'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept. If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that. I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank defeated 50 Russian tanks in the battle of Kursk, if I remember correctly. But the cheaper, mass produced tanks of the allies won out because they could be fielded in much greater numbers.