5 ms·

Counter-example (quoted from one of the Tom Clancy novels): "Who was Germany's biggest trading partner prior to the outbreak of World War 2? France"

kjkjadksj 4y ago
Thats a little different because Germany intended to take over France and incorporate it into its economy, which it did for a few years at least.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  It was the same thing with WW1. WW2 wasn't some sort of special case or aberration.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Plus France, and to a lesser extent other countries, inflicted extremely punitive economic costs on Germany following WW1 that were arguably designed to reduce Germany to client/vassal status. Whereas the victors of WW1 had a wholly legitimate argument for the abolition of the German monarchy, elimination of the German general staff and so on, the German public suffered disproportionately to their degree of political agency. When I was younger I considered economic sanctions a far preferable alternative to the brutality of kinetic warfare, in line with the prevailing view of western statecraft. Over time I've come to think it's significantly worse, little more than a form of state terrorism in which populations are politely murdered. While the architects of such policies talk about accountability, containment, etc in reference to unfriendly leaders they'd like to displace, starving children and blaming it on someone else is fundamentally genocidal and in my view constitutes a grave moral crime. I was disgusted by the eulogies heaped upon the late Madeline Albright, because when I think of her I can only remember her assertion that the deaths of 1/2 a million Iraqi children in the 1990s was 'worth it.'
shadowgovt 4y ago
The Great Depression more-or-less disrupted or destroyed vast swathes of international trade. It might be fair to say economic entanglement is a risky strategy for peace because depressions can always come along, but I don't know it's fair to say that economic entanglement doesn't improve the odds of peace if our counter-example is a global breakdown.

kjkjadksj 4y ago

Thats a little different because Germany intended to take over France and incorporate it into its economy, which it did for a few years at least.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LarryMullins 4y ago
It was the same thing with WW1. WW2 wasn't some sort of special case or aberration.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Plus France, and to a lesser extent other countries, inflicted extremely punitive economic costs on Germany following WW1 that were arguably designed to reduce Germany to client/vassal status. Whereas the victors of WW1 had a wholly legitimate argument for the abolition of the German monarchy, elimination of the German general staff and so on, the German public suffered disproportionately to their degree of political agency. When I was younger I considered economic sanctions a far preferable alternative to the brutality of kinetic warfare, in line with the prevailing view of western statecraft. Over time I've come to think it's significantly worse, little more than a form of state terrorism in which populations are politely murdered. While the architects of such policies talk about accountability, containment, etc in reference to unfriendly leaders they'd like to displace, starving children and blaming it on someone else is fundamentally genocidal and in my view constitutes a grave moral crime. I was disgusted by the eulogies heaped upon the late Madeline Albright, because when I think of her I can only remember her assertion that the deaths of 1/2 a million Iraqi children in the 1990s was 'worth it.'

shadowgovt 4y ago

The Great Depression more-or-less disrupted or destroyed vast swathes of international trade. It might be fair to say economic entanglement is a risky strategy for peace because depressions can always come along, but I don't know it's fair to say that economic entanglement doesn't improve the odds of peace if our counter-example is a global breakdown.