Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:34:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1587 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> >
> > > So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that WWII
> > > happened because Germany was trying to break into Polish, French, or
> > > Austrian market economies. They wanted to take their stuff (foremost of
> > > which (I guess) was productive capacity). It was simple thuggery. How has • the
> > > EC changed that?
> >
> > Prior to WWII Germany was in debt to france for reparations from WWI. It was
> > also in the midst of a huge economic crisis. It was literally cheaper to burn
> > money than it was to buy coal.
> >
> > -Mike Petrucelli
>
> Maybe I am sticking my nose where it does not belong,
I'm quite glad you dropped in. A debate isn't a debate unless different
viewpoints are expressed, right? :-)
> but I find it unlikely
> that countries with insurmountable debt are the only countries that would be
> inclined to invade other countries.
Agreed, for the generality of cases.
> As I understand it, prior to WW2, most
> nations were in some degree of economic depression ("huge economic crisis"
> would fit many of them), however most were able to restrict themselves from
> invading their neighbors.
Perhaps you are neglecting the importance of the markets open for each
country: England and France had vast colonies, the USA had a very important
internal market (and were able to impose their good products wherever there
was a gap in other powers' response), Russia was out of the game, smaller
countries had smaller colonies, Japan had its own agenda. Only Germany
(among major industrial nations) had no markets where it could compete in
equal terms. Foreign trade was at risk, so they decided to increase the
internal market "the hard way".
> But I think the lack of self-assuredness that
> they could pull off an invasion was more of a deterrent than "not needing
> the money" for those that managed not to loot their neighbors.
Possible. Even plausible.
You'll find however that most states in the condition of either invade or be
invaded were involved in the war (it was called WORLD war 2 for some reason,
right?). The few Neutral States were either convenient for both parts in
conflict (Portugal), surrounded by one country who was interested in keeping
their status (Switzerland, Sweden, Vatican), too far away (Afghanistan) or
too crippled to wage a war (Spain after its own Civil War).
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Maybe I am sticking my nose where it does not belong, but I find it unlikely that countries with insurmountable debt are the only countries that would be inclined to invade other countries. As I understand it, prior to WW2, most nations were (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
