1) It takes time for countries to break old habits when it comes to war.
2) Probably most important for WW1, the personal wealth of monarchs is in the lands they own, not the industries their tax-payers own. And this source of wealth, prestige, and vertical mobility is also of immediate importance for the upper classes in a monarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Nelson%2C_1st_Viscount...
Very few of these monarchies exist now. Many of them fell in the aftermath of WW1, and some of the big remaining ones fell in the aftermath of WW2. A positive of this is that now the remaining monarchies see war not as a means to extending their wealth, but, if on the losing side, as a means to ending them entirely. This didn't use to be the case, as previously losing monarchies might be given the opportunity to fold into the conquering monarchy as a subordinate power or noble.
> If anything, I think cultural values have lagged, resulting in countries launching counter-productive wars out of cultural inertia (because it’s ‘the doing thing’ or valued in the culture) long after such wars became maladaptive. Indeed, I’d argue that’s exactly what Russia is doing right now.
Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil. Basically he wanted colonies without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. Like soviets and Americans had.
Shortly after WW2 it ceased to make sense to invade for farming land.
It's not the only factor (nukes are another), but it is a very significant factor.
Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. There were many many factors involved [0]
That has no relevance.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that we should be very very careful treating the wars like they were unrelated incidents. They absolutely were not.
Perhaps the declining role monarchs across the world was a causal factor there -- countries of citizens trained to live with a highly authoritarian structure, who because of prior experience gravitated towards fascism/communism (also highly authoritarian)
Ehh......
WWI is complicated, but it essentially boils down to a great power war caused by a breakdown in relations that reached the point that diplomats were unwilling or incapable of keeping the war from breaking out. The result of WWI was that all of the traditional great powers (both those who won and lost) were spent [1]. The peace treaty sought to see the victors compensated by the losers, and part of the compensation was breaking them up in the vain hope that this would make war less likely, with some parts being carved up into independent countries, and others (especially colonies) being annexed to the victors.
WWII isn't so much a single war as it is four (sets of) wars of naked territorial aggression (Germany, Italy, Soviet, and Japanese) and two civil wars (China and France) that got merged into a single conflict by the fact that everyone ended up aligning into one side or the other. These wars don't start just before WWI; in many cases, the territorial jealousies that precipitate the war can't start until after WWI (e.g., how can Russia start seeking to invade its neighboring countries when they're still part of Russia?).
In between these two conflicts is a very large series of civil wars and revolutions and failed revolutions that are largely born from the instability of the international political sphere following the exhaustion of all great powers in WWI. These (relatively) smaller conflicts provide a more or less continuous segue between WWI and WWII, to the point that it may be better to just think of the period from 1914 to 1949 as a modern Thirty Years' War that sees the world shift from a balance-of-power regime involving the major European powers to a world that involves just two superpowers and their alliances.
[1] The US was the only major country not economically devastated by the war, but despite its economic size, its unwillingness to participate in European affairs means it's not really a great power as far as people at the time were heavily concerned--it doesn't enter the stage until WWI.
A weak showing by the European aristocrats. Clueless bunch.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe#Territori...
1. Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process ... was invented
2. for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives
3. (same thing basically).
4. Shortly after the war it was widespread,
5. and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country.
6. Hitler started WW2
7. to annex Ukraine
8. because of its fertile soil.
9. Basically he wanted colonies
10. without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea.
11. Like soviets and Americans had.
12. Shortly after WW2
13. it ceased to make sense to invade for farming land.
14. It's not the only factor (nukes are another), but it is a very significant factor.
You could probably decompose it further (so like, 'farming land' could be a fact, because you can farm on land). My feeling is it's quite hard to make a rigorous distinction between factual statements and statements in general - there's just an awful lot of factual content in language as commonly used, and some of it seems to have crept into this comment.The Wikipedia article about both the long peace and hegemonic stability theory. Both mention 3 nain examples. The pax Romanica (Roman times), the pax Britannica (1820-1914) and the Pax Americana (1945-now).
The Pax Britannica happened after the industrial revolution was wide-spread. Only the Pax Romana was before the industrial revolution, and it was far from global.
I would suggest that perhaps the long peace is actually from 1820 till now. With both world wars serving as examples where the calculus against war was ignored, and then later proven correct. Which fits with the theory, which says 'industrial war isn't worth it'. If once in a while a big power decides to test that theory, or decides war is necessary for non-economic reasons, you get horrible wars.
Not to say that hegemonic stability theory is clearly wrong. Just to say that the 'industrial revolution means war isn't worth it theory' fits the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana quite well.
Edit: My mistake, I thought you were talking about Deveraux’s theory, but it looks like you were talking about the Economic Stability Theory OP mentioned.
So for countries that lose the economic competition, might war be a 'better' option?
Vietnam doesn't invalidate the long peace, no. At least I'm not aware of any academic arguments to that effect, they may exist, I haven't studied this stuff since college.
We don't, though. The article treats with this. In fact per capita deaths to state violence are down remarkably over the last century, all over the world. The perception, due to the reach of modern media, is that war is everywhere. But the truth on the ground is very different.
Two hundred years ago, almost everyone knew someone who died in a war, or saw a war come through their home. Now? It's a notable rarity.
On the other hand, there are countries that aren't necessarily within this hegemony, and anything from warlordism to outright nation state warfare is liable to be taking place.
Would the threat of getting humiliatingly curb-stomped by NATO have been enough to dissuade Russia from invading? Maybe, but it would certainly have provided more of a disincentive than the current state of affairs where Russia can use the threat of nukes to keep NATO at bay. I'd bet a hypothetical nuke-less Russia would have stayed in their own borders and been content to get rich off fossil fuels. On balance, the existence of nuclear weapons probably still prevents more wars than it starts, but Russia having nukes seems like an exception to the rule.
WW2 was just before nukes, and also had actors like the Nazis that were completely off the spectrum - where they would eradicate or dominate opponents if they were to win.
We then saw the Cold War, where the Soviets and US never felt compelled to have an open confrontation because the costs were so high and the end goals of both sides weren't to conquer the other (just carve up the rest of the world as much as possible).
Now we're at China vs the US -- they are competing over future influence but the costs of confrontation are too high.
Putin/Russia thought the Ukraine thing would be a quick victory where the West would be too slow/split to act effectively in time and then they would solidify the new "facts on the ground" easily.
you're actually saying that any war is OK as long as the USA starts it.
it's an expression of: "do as the USA tells you to do; do not do what the USA itself does"
the 'grown up view' is that there are trade-offs. the USA is an empire... I define the essence of an empire to be: a group of people from one place telling people from another place what to do. the most often thing they're told is to pay tribute (which by this point is part of a semi-obscure system of taxes, tariffs, technological transfers, and other hidden things)
And no one else really has this ability, take the Iraq War which was exceptionally vile - did the US get sanctioned for it? Nope, because sanctioning the US is basically shooting yourself in the foot. Even today it's still about a quarter of global GDP and a huge buyer of everyone else's stuff.
Bush Jr. has been convicted of war crimes in at least one country because of his actions with respect to the Iraq war: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35397/b...
Very few countries are opposed to the US invasion of Afghanistan, as those plotting the previous attack on the US were doing so from a position of sanctuary in Afghanistan at the time.
Wars of genuine self defense are basically automatically approved by standard international law: https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml
How often has the US been at not-war in that period?
EDIT: although to be clear, the last time I checked, I believe the stats still back up that overall fatalities from military conflict have been at historic lows. I generally prefer what little Hegemonic Stability there may be to the multipolar shitshows of the early 20th and mid-to-late 19th centuries.
Certainly wars between great powers and much smaller countries are more peaceful than near-peer wars.
Nope. Any reasonable person will accept an argument about how things are peaceful in relative terms. Factoring in everything and not cherry-picking.
Demanding perfect peace would be way too idealistic.
The argument can't be about overall fatalities, but about overall conflicts (and the numbers/proportion of people involved in such). Medical and sanitation technology alone has dramatically decreased the human-life cost of war, at least in proportion to total population.
This hegemony is not actually so different from all of the empires that came before it.