The Theory Behind 1913 Intel

The world today is in many ways similar to the pre-1914 world of yesterday. Economic and military/power similarities abound, but it’s really about world instabilities. Increased economic and power instabilities create the conditions for a major war. 

Parallels between today and pre-war 1914

Economic Parallels:

1. Globalization and low inflation are both conditions similar to pre-war 1914.

From a recent article in the U.S. News & World Report called “Heard the Good News?”:

“The present era of globalization and low inflation has an important precedent: 1880-1914, the era of the classical gold standard,” it says.

2. There was mostly free-trade in 1914 with some signs of protectionism. A high degree of free-trade will gradually bring on instabilities because of the increasing resentment it causes. As countries react to perceived unfair trade practices in other countries, this can bring on a cascading set of trade problems.

3. The international monetary system is no more stable today than that before World war I, and probably less so. None of the major currencies is pegged to gold.

4. The U.S. economy was the world’s biggest and still is. But it’s different this time: the U.S. has a huge deficit. Today, the U.S. absorbs about three-quarters of the rest of the world’s surplus savings. This just adds one more instability to the world environment.

5. The transmission of “contagion” is remarkably similar today to what it was in pre-1914 globalization. Contagion is the international transmission of crises. With extensive trade dependancies in unstable regions of the world, a major crisis in one part of the world can easily be transmitted to another part of the world.

Other comparisons of today vs pre-1914

1. The main interests of states (pre-1914) were the accumulation of wealth and preventing any other power from becoming dominant. Isn’t this true today?

2. Imperial overstretch

Just as Britain was overstretched in 1914, isn’t America overstretched today?

The United States–an empire in all but name–is manifestly overstretched. Not only is its current account deficit large and growing larger, but the fiscal deficit that lurks behind it also is set to surge as the baby boomers retire and start to claim Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The U.S. empire also suffers from a personnel deficit: 500,000 troops is the maximum number that Washington can deploy overseas, and this number is simply not sufficient to win all the small wars the United States currently has (or might have) to wage.

3. Great-power rivalry

Due to alliances the world shifted to a “Cold War” model where two sides were confronting one another. Isn’t it true that Russia, China and Iran (the SCO) are against America, Britain, Japan and Israel?

It is true that the Chinese have no obvious incentive to pick a fight with the United States. But China’s ambitions with respect to Taiwan are not about to disappear just because Beijing owns a stack of U.S. Treasury bonds.

One should not forget Asia’s most dangerous rogue regime, North Korea, which is a little like pre-1914 Serbia with nuclear weapons.

As for Europe, one must not underestimate the extent to which the recent diplomatic “widening of the Atlantic” reflects profound changes in Europe, rather than an alteration in U.S. foreign policy.

Then there’s the SCO, a nightmare worse than China:

If you’ve been paying attention then you are probably concerned about the growing military power of China. Well, the nightmare is about to get worse with the emergence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The SCO has the potential to become the most powerful alliance on earth, combining Russia’s energy, military and technology expertise; China and India’s economic and human capital; and Iran’s enormous energy resources and growing military capabilities. This unique combination makes the SCO a formidable adversary for the U.S.

Recent Pentagon reports identifying China as a growing threat are indeed accurate, but don’t go far enough. The reports are deficient in that they base their analysis and predictions on countries such as China acting unilaterally. As a result, compulsory discussions concerning the rise of regional and global alliances that threaten the U.S. are not taking place. This could be a fatal mistake, since the SCO has become the perfect vehicle for coordinated military action in the future.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4837

4. Unstable alliances

Nato’s purpose is no longer clear. Is it just an irrelevant club for the winners of the Cold War, which former Soviet satellites are encouraged to join for primarily symbolic reasons? Have divisions over Iraq rendered it obsolete? To say the least, “coalitions of the willing” are a poor substitute.

5. Rogue regimes

None of these problems would necessarily be fatal were it not for the fifth and sixth parallels between 1914 and today: the existence of rogue regimes sponsoring terror–Iran and Syria top the list–and of revolutionary terrorist organizations.

Serbia was an unstable area in 1914, and it was constantly causing problems. There are three key areas of instability today: The Middle East, China-Taiwan and Pakistan-India. Problems in these areas could lead to nuclear war.

6. Terrorist organizations.

It is a big mistake to think of al Qaeda as “Islamo-fascist” (as the journalist Christopher Hitchens and many others called the group after the September 11, 2001, attacks). Al Qaeda’s members are much more like “Islamo-Bolshevists,” committed to revolution and a reordering of the world along anti-capitalist lines.

Like the Bolsheviks in 1914, these Islamist extremists are part of an underground sect, struggling to land more than the occasional big punch on the enemy. But what if they were to get control of a wealthy state? Look at Iran. Soon it will have nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. What is going to happen in Pakistan is Islamist extremists gains control of their government and the cruise missiles with nuclear warheads?

Some background information about why World war I started:

World war I occurred because of instabilities in the world and the fact that the world was divided into two major opposing forces.

The main interest of states were the accumulation of wealth and preventing any other power from becoming dominant. Due to alliances the world shifted to a Cold war model where two sides were confronting one another. At his point a minor confrontation could quickly escalate into a major war.

After the Napoleonic wars of the Early 1800s, European politics focused on a Balance of Power, in which all states were out for themselves, without permanent alliances, their main interests being the accumulation of wealth, and preventing any other power from becoming dominant in Europe. Then, around 1900, Europe shifted from a Balance of Power model to a Cold war model, with alliances solidifying, increased spending on armaments by all, and a view that there would be a 2-sided confrontation. In a 2-sided confrontation, any dispute was seen as a test of wills between the two sides, as opposed to a minor issue to be resolved as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Austria-Hungary’s Path to War

Austria-Hungary’s reaction to the death of their heir (who was not exactly loved) took about three weeks. Arguing that the Serbian government was implicated in the assassination, the Austro-Hungarians opted to take the opportunity to stamp its authority upon the Serbians, crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary’s influence in the Balkans.

Germany’s Path to War

As for Germany, she was unsettled socially and militarily. The 1912 Reichstag elections had resulted in the election of no fewer than 110 socialist deputies, making Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg’s task in liaising between the Reichstag and the autocratic Wilhelm, not to mention the rigidly right-wing military high command, next to impossible.

Bethmann Hollweg, who became most despondent, came to believe that Germany’s only hope of avoiding civil unrest sooner rather than later lay in war: preferably a short, sharp war, although he did not rule out a European-wide conflict if it resolved Germany’s social and political woes.

Russia’s Path to War

Russia, the protector of the Slavs, was allied with Serbia. To not protect Serbia would have caused Russia to lose face. So Russia had no choice but to mobilize for war once Austria-Hungary declared war.

Based on an article by Niall Ferguson called Sinking Globalization . Niall a is Professor of History at Harvard University, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, University of Oxford. 

No related posts.