Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#51

Post by chr15p »

VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

You're seeing the article as being about the US, but if you see the (modern) US as (1914) Britain, then its other countries warmongering that can draw you in (1914 Britain didn't care at all about a war in the Balkans, but once Belgium and France were invaded they (we) pretty much had to be involved (Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality and German domination of the french channel ports would have been very dangerous to British security no matter how "natural" the alliance).

History never happens the same way twice, the article is more a warning that the wrong spark in the wrong place could lead to chain of events resulting in a war between US and China whatever their intentions, just as the assassination of an Austrian by a Serb in Bosnia led to Britain (and eventually the US) into a war with Germany 100 years ago.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#52

Post by Tloewald »

VLM wrote: post #46
Tloewald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a point you did not make and which I did not contradict. Indeed, the same applies to several other European "powers". Also some European nations had quite extensive overseas colonies while not really being military powers (e.g. Belgium and Holland). For that matter. Russia had no colonies that I know of.

Upon re-reading our posts I think, you think, I disagree with you, more than I actually disagree or intend to appear. There are some name game disagreements where Germany wanted to pretend to be in the colonialism game despite a totally laughable achievement level (a hundred years ago it was considered cool, not like now at all) and Russia ran the provinces of its empire much like Britain ran its colonies, other than…

Yes, I completely agree with you on the world trade point, which is the most important point with respect to the question of war. That said, the interdependence of the major prospective combatants is perhaps novel.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#53

Post by zobzu »

chr15p wrote: post #51
VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

You're seeing the article as being about the US, but if you see the (modern) US as (1914) Britain, then its other countries warmongering that can draw you in (1914 Britain didn't care at all about a war in the Balkans, but once Belgium and France were invaded they (we) pretty much had to be involved (Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality and German domination of the french channel ports would have been very dangerous…

"History never happens the same way twice" Actually, history is bound to repeat itself.

Details are details. Similar scenarios unfolded thousand years ago if you're willing to ignore enough details.

A nation will always rise, leads through military power, and slowly fall, until another rises. In between, there are periods of fast growth and terrible loss/stagnation as well. Being resources, science or/and human lives.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#55

Post by jusben1369 »

It's an interesting time to be writing articles like this. Afghanistan, Iraq then the 2008 financial crisis. America lost prestige and the economy shrank considerably. These factors, real and perceived, coincided with the ongoing rise of China who for the most part avoided a real let down. I suspect that when we look back in 5 years from now we will really see 2013 as the last year of this low point. The US economy is finally rebounding - Q4 GDP looks very impressive. With lowered deficits and an improving job market citizen interest in politics will lessen. This will increase the ability of the US to play a more proactive role internationally again. Secondly, there are very troubling signs coming from China in terms of their own banking system. We know there's a shadow banking system and many failed enterprises are propped up. And, they're still a 1 party authoritarian state. I'm not sure how long the Chinese people will be ok with that; especially as their population ages and their middle class expands.

I wonder about the next 10 years or so and whether the US will rebound and China will finally face challenges they can't simply overcome via spending.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#56

Post by 7952 »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #8
sliverstorm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I would have to wonder what about Japan would be worth a war with the U.S. Logistical value perhaps, for example by denying the U.S. the bases they currently have there, but certainly not for resources?

The Chinese in general still feel humiliated by their treatment at the hands of the western powers and then their occupation by Japan in WW2. Furthermore they have an issue of not having enough resouces to feed their growth. Who ever owns the islands (more then one set - China is arguing with Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Philippines) has the rights to exploit the oil/gas fields in the ocean beds around them. Now to the…

The industrial base of the US is geared to manufacturing cold war weapons. Chinese industry is geared towards consumer electronics. Which could produce 1 million drones faster? Remember that a smart phone contains many of the key components for a drone.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#59

Post by Theodores »

lispm wrote: post #47

Another weak article from the british Economist.

Another weak article from the Daily Mail featuring the BBC's John Simpson:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530571/100-years-Wo...

I think that these right-wing organ-of-the-secret-state propagandists are all fairly clueless.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#60

Post by yxhuvud »

jessriedel wrote: post #33
VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

Why would you expect there to be such close analogies for so many countries and elements in WWI? Discounting this editorial because there is no one to "play the role of Italy" is weird. The point of the piece is not to say everything is going to be similar, it's (in part) to say that comforting arguments about the war-preventing aspects of economic integration and modernity are insufficient.

Except that the non-american parts of Nato could easily end up not joining such a war. That could easily be considered something similar.

All it takes is USA joining a war due to defensive alliances with either japan or south korea. Then assume Russia joins the war on the other side, or already has joined it. Exactly what incentive do the European countries have to join such a war? They certainly wouldn't have any obligation (since Nato is also a defensive pact), and it would be a stupid idea to open a land front against Russia, because most of such a war would be fought on home turf due to Russia having more projective ability compared to Europe.

Sure, Europe would probably eventually win such a war on sheer size of population and economies, but it would be a very very costly war.

Post reply on HN