I rarely agree with every word of an American Thinker article, but I did with this one

[fpb]

And the situation is the same in the UK.

Comments

[stigandnasty919]

I have to agree with most of this article. But I have to say that I think things are wrong at a deeper level with the US economy

[fpb]

I think something of the kind happened to the pound in 1914. When Britain went to war, it did not even imagine that among the most permanent results of the war would have been to make everyone divest from pounds and invest in dollars. Indeed, the impact of the massive inflow of funds from Europe to Wall Street in Autumn 1914 was such that for a long time there was a danger that the unprepared Americans might collapse under their very success. Well, I guess it took them only 94 years.

[stigandnasty919]

This is a cycle that repeats itself over and over again. I suspect we are approaching another tipping point. I wonder which currency will take over from the Dollar if that happens. The Euro or the Yen

[fpb]

This implies that England wanted war. That is totally belied by the facts. Three parties wanted war: Germany, Russia and especially Austria, that did everything in its power to avoid a peaceful settlement. Even so, Germany could have avoided Britain's involvement (Britain, with big troubles of its own in Ireland, absolutely did not want to be involved in an European war) if they had kept their paws off Belgium. Oil was certainly a factor, but one has to remember that until well after the war, most energy generation and most transportation by land and sea was powered by coal, of which all the belligerant powers except Italy had far more than enough. Neither of the two world wars was "about" oil; they both were about the Austro-Prussian itch to dominate the known universe.

[stigandnasty919]

It was a theory that sounded like too much of a revisionist conspiracy theory to me - but interesting to see how early oil became a factor in international afairs.

I was interested in what you said about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thinking back, my knowledge of WW1 is based arround children's history books and various literary accounts of the Western Front. I know next to nothing about the Austro-Hungarians - could you recommend a good source. There was a BBC series many years ago about the Crowned Heads of Europe just before and during WW1, but it was pre video recorder and conincided with rugby practice so I didn't get to see it.

[fpb]

I think that any general history of WWI would show that Austria used the murder of its Crown Prince (and by the way, the murder of the heir to the throne would be no joke at any time; imagine what would happen if Prince Charles were shot to death and the trail led to a neighbouring country) to try and settle accounts with Serbia, which it regarded as a dangerous neighbour. Serbia was an ally of Russia, and Russia - in spite of the bloody lesson taught by Japan nine years earlier - not only prepared for war but insisted that once mobilization had started, there was no way back - which was nonsense. Germany could have held back Austria - which was not insane enough to go to war against Russia without a strong ally - but, to the contrary, handed it a blank cheque to do what it wanted, and showed in every way that war would please them mightily

[fpb]

I posted on something like this subject: http://fpb.livejournal.com/169933.html

[stigandnasty919]

Thanks Fabio - much appreciated. I've read a lot of History over the years, but somehow seem to have missed out the european history of the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.