The economist Norman Angell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Angell) published a highly influential book, The Great Illusion, making this exact argument. In 1909.
It has, let’s say, not aged gracefully.
It has, let’s say, not aged gracefully.
Europe was mired in endless wars for millenia. It's now in the longest stretch of peace in centuries and, by sheer coincidence, at its highest levels of trade.
In the rest of the world trade has steadily risen and wars and deaths from wars have fallen steadily. Correlation might not be causation, but it would interesting know what third factor explains both "more trade" and "fewer wars" other than "it's hard to fight a war with the people who feed you".
Before World War II, Britain had its trading empire, France had its empire, Japan had its empire, etc. Oceanic trade between nations not in the same empire ran a high risk of the cargo simply being confiscated or destroyed by one of the imperial navies. A key pillar of the US's strategy in the Cold War was to use its naval supremacy to prevent the return to the imperial trading system; in other words, it extended to nations an offer of the ability to trade freely on the world's oceans in exchange for that nation's joining the US in opposing the Soviets.
The United States also suppressed wars. For example, the 2 nations that arguably had the most powerful pre-WWII militaries (Britain and France) allied with Israel to attack Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, but the United States, worried that the Soviets could enter the conflict, threatened Britain and France with economic sanctions unless they withdrew, which they did.
I guess you could argue that things could somehow have turned out even worse than that, but that feels like a reach.
The world has more trade than ever, and fewer wars than ever.
If you're referring to WW1, lowering a risk and completely eliminating it are different things.
It's aged wonderfully. The Europeans proved its premise in spades between 1914 and 1945.