Let’s not forget that the discussion on the empire began when we were saying that Japan was weak when spread too thin. Then someone brought in the empire parallel
Exactly. Japan’s problem in WW2 was essentially the same as Germany’s; they expanded too fast and made too many enemies. Their supply lines became thin and all it took was some concerted effort to drive them back. That was my point; the Japanese thought that military power alone could build an Empire, but that has seldom been the case. The game displays that very well.
If Britain and France (essentially out of the war by then) hadn’t been fighting Germany, the Japanese wouldn’t have stood a chance. Britain without its back against the wall at home, and a free France would’ve taken down Japan as quickly as they were taken down in real history.
Ah the end of History argument. A student of Fukuyama I see…
Well… not really. I’m aware of his theory, but I think that the internet (which I believe came later) has closed down nationalism in the old sense. The new ideologies are borderless; religion, politics, ecology, etc.
All wars are fought over gold. (Perhaps a ridiculous generalization but hear me out.)
I hear you. But ‘gold’ changes depending on what each nation needs or wants. ‘Power’ or ‘control’ would be better words (especially since they’re vague!)
I think the biggest reason we wont see too many more changing borders is because originally, when wars were fought, they were fought for wealth, which at the time was tied to natural resources, which was tied to land which is territory. These days there is no need to conquer territory by military means in order to obtain wealth. Wealth is not tied to territory anymore. The wars that are being fought and continue to be fought are economic wars. Wars over markets, over trade or over tariffs and subsidies.
Agreed.
Did you know the United States government imposes over 400% import tariffs on textiles from sub-Saharan African countries? This, along with the dumping of surplus second-hand clothes, completely destroys any possible textile industry (the first step for nearly all nation to industrialization) by eliminating both the domestic and foreign markets. This keeps Africa poor and undeveloped and ensures the squalid living conditions and remarkably high death rate of people there. This situation can easily be looked upon as an act in parallel to an act of war. They, as well as the EU and other developped countries, do the same thing with agricultural subsidies, which is generally looked upon by economists as one of the primary causes of poverty in the third world.
I agree… partly. The massive levels of corruption, coupled with African leaders seeming lack of concern over their peoples welfare, as well as the conflicting tribes that often still dislike each other under one national roof, as well as the international arms trade - all of these things keep Africa (much of it) poor. Zimbabwe is a prime example. Even the removal of Apartheid in South Africa has mostly broken what was a functioning country (if you know what I mean).
Just because there are fewer shooting wars going on certainly does not mean we have come to a time of stability. The battle ground we need to be thinking of in the 21st century is on wall-street, in the Nikkei and Swiss banks.
True, but I still think that even with things as screwed as they are in some parts of the world; a human born today has more chance (proportionately) of living a long and healthy life than ever before.
But I do agree it’s all about big business and international trade now. The world is owned by massive corporations.
Geopolitically yes, there is likely more territorial stability than ever before. However, this is not the only kind of stability out there. Everyone is still looking to crap on whomever they have to in order to get a bigger piece of the pie and just because they don’t use tanks to do it anymore does not mean its not going on. All we have really seen is a shift in methods.
I think that when people have their basic needs met they can become apathetic. Large amounts of the western world are like that, people just doing what they need and little more. If you look at India and China where there is still huge amounts of poverty, you see people with real drive. Unfortunately you also see people who are super-rich not giving a fig about their own people’s plight. Modern Asia resembles (socially) Europe 300 years ago. That’s why talk of old ‘Imperialism’ always makes me laugh - it’s about time Indian billionaires admitted that part of the problem of poverty in India (for example) is their own indifference to the plight of their own people.
But I agree with your point. We’re all human beings, and one way or another their will always be some people willing to scramble over others in order to get to the top of the pile.
On a slight tangent… I’d love to see a WW1 A&A style game which included diplomacy as part of the process.
