5 ms·

Variants of this are always stated, and always made false in relatively short order. Many claimed Europe was too interdependent for continental warfare, then WW

Variants of this are always stated, and always made false in relatively short order. Many claimed Europe was too interdependent for continental warfare, then WWI happened. No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded. Prior to WWII, France was Germany’s largest trading partner. It is wishful thinking to assume that money or financial systems will keep peace — in part because there is massive incentive to invade other countries as means of theft.

andsoitis 4y ago
Would you agree that interdependency, cooperation, etc. materially reduces the chances of such conflicts?
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Seems plausible yet there are many counterexamples. How would you demonstrate such a hypothesis was true?
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  Not really. I don't see much of a correlation between trade linkage and conflict or lack thereof. The only thing that seems to prevent conflict is a hegemon, or an 800-pound gorilla keeping the peace.
- orange_joe 4y ago
  I don’t think I would. The defining conflict of the latter 20th century was the Cold War, a war in which one side (the USSR) was essentially dependent on American food exports. Moreover, the USSR’s economy was totally integrated between each of the SSRs, yet its shattering led to the vast number of late 20th century, early 21st century conflicts within the European world. So too was Yugoslavia’s economy. When it fell apart, it led to a series of bloody conflicts and genocides. The former USSR states and the former Yugoslavian states were more interdependent than any transnational organization, yet their post collapse conflicts define the existence of entire regions.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    The USSR was only dependent on the US for food imports during its final years, by which point there was little real concern about war between the two powers, and indeed the US was trying to actively prop up the USSR because it was worried about the power vacuum that could result from a collapse. The whole issue with the Yugoslavian and Soviet states was that they weren't separate states with trade relations but were instead held together as single nations by force.
- JohnClark1337 4y ago
  [dead]
Izkata 4y ago
> No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded Russian McDonald's have since been rebranded, so it remains kind-of true when viewed as state instead of cause-effect. I imagine the truth to these general statements is more like, McDonald's never opened a franchise in two places that were at war with each other.
gls2ro 4y ago
In all those examples cooperation was the deterrent that made them think multiple times before going to war. And lack of it would have meant easier and multiple wars. deterrent are a vital part of peace. And peace is like a stack of cards built on multiple deterrents. you can see examples of lack of deterrent during history when wars where happening on the desire of a king and you can also see the beginning of deterrent working when kinds and queens married their children between them to keep peace going as long as possible.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > In all those examples cooperation was the deterrent that made them think multiple times before going to war. Trade generally? Sure, but we have centuries of wars happening despite international trade so it's obviously not the sort of panacea people make it out to be. McDonalds specifically making countries think twice about war? Please. Shitty burgers are not that important.
  - gls2ro 4y ago
    Sorry I was not talking about McDonalds or a specific company. There you are right it does not matter one company. More about countries trading important things between them or having dependent economies.
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    Differences in degree matter. International trade under mercantilism is hardly the same as present-day multinational corporations under neoliberalism. They’re both international trade per se in the same way a house cat and a lion are both cats.
floxy 4y ago
>No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded. I'm pretty sure the McDonald's theory of war went out the window with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
- orange_joe 4y ago
  Good point, I thought there was a prior instance, but couldn’t remember the specifics.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Actually it was untrue even before the quote was first stated in 1996, the first war between countries with McDonalds was the US invasion of Panama in 1989.
  - floxy 4y ago
    Nice catch.
janalsncm 4y ago
Even if it isn’t absolutely true, globalization does increase the cost of war and make it less likely. Of course, economics can’t stop tanks once they’re rolling. I fully acknowledge the unfalsifiability of the above as well.

andsoitis 4y ago

Would you agree that interdependency, cooperation, etc. materially reduces the chances of such conflicts?

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Seems plausible yet there are many counterexamples. How would you demonstrate such a hypothesis was true?
Analemma_ 4y ago
Not really. I don't see much of a correlation between trade linkage and conflict or lack thereof. The only thing that seems to prevent conflict is a hegemon, or an 800-pound gorilla keeping the peace.
orange_joe 4y ago
I don’t think I would. The defining conflict of the latter 20th century was the Cold War, a war in which one side (the USSR) was essentially dependent on American food exports. Moreover, the USSR’s economy was totally integrated between each of the SSRs, yet its shattering led to the vast number of late 20th century, early 21st century conflicts within the European world. So too was Yugoslavia’s economy. When it fell apart, it led to a series of bloody conflicts and genocides. The former USSR states and the former Yugoslavian states were more interdependent than any transnational organization, yet their post collapse conflicts define the existence of entire regions.
- jjk166 4y ago
  The USSR was only dependent on the US for food imports during its final years, by which point there was little real concern about war between the two powers, and indeed the US was trying to actively prop up the USSR because it was worried about the power vacuum that could result from a collapse. The whole issue with the Yugoslavian and Soviet states was that they weren't separate states with trade relations but were instead held together as single nations by force.
JohnClark1337 4y ago
[dead]

Izkata 4y ago

> No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded Russian McDonald's have since been rebranded, so it remains kind-of true when viewed as state instead of cause-effect. I imagine the truth to these general statements is more like, McDonald's never opened a franchise in two places that were at war with each other.

gls2ro 4y ago

In all those examples cooperation was the deterrent that made them think multiple times before going to war. And lack of it would have meant easier and multiple wars. deterrent are a vital part of peace. And peace is like a stack of cards built on multiple deterrents. you can see examples of lack of deterrent during history when wars where happening on the desire of a king and you can also see the beginning of deterrent working when kinds and queens married their children between them to keep peace going as long as possible.

LarryMullins 4y ago
> In all those examples cooperation was the deterrent that made them think multiple times before going to war. Trade generally? Sure, but we have centuries of wars happening despite international trade so it's obviously not the sort of panacea people make it out to be. McDonalds specifically making countries think twice about war? Please. Shitty burgers are not that important.
- gls2ro 4y ago
  Sorry I was not talking about McDonalds or a specific company. There you are right it does not matter one company. More about countries trading important things between them or having dependent economies.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  Differences in degree matter. International trade under mercantilism is hardly the same as present-day multinational corporations under neoliberalism. They’re both international trade per se in the same way a house cat and a lion are both cats.

floxy 4y ago

>No two countries with McDonald’s went to war, and then Ukraine was invaded. I'm pretty sure the McDonald's theory of war went out the window with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

orange_joe 4y ago
Good point, I thought there was a prior instance, but couldn’t remember the specifics.
jjk166 4y ago
Actually it was untrue even before the quote was first stated in 1996, the first war between countries with McDonalds was the US invasion of Panama in 1989.
- floxy 4y ago
  Nice catch.

janalsncm 4y ago

Even if it isn’t absolutely true, globalization does increase the cost of war and make it less likely. Of course, economics can’t stop tanks once they’re rolling. I fully acknowledge the unfalsifiability of the above as well.