Did Islam Destroy Iranian Culture?
- Thread starter Kanfari
- Start date
Well, Germany and Japan were both resource-poor nations, and I think that if either had been resource-rich like Russia or Iran, neither would have bowed down as easily as they did after their loss in WWII and submitted to the American order. One reason why Russia, during the Cold War, after the Soviet collapse, and under Putin, and Iran, after its revolution, have been able to resist full integration into the American-led order is that both are resource-rich and capable of independently exporting vital commodities such as oil and gas.
I don't know if you agree with me or not, but it seems to me that Lebensraum was an easy sell to the Germans as an economic necessity disguised in abhorrent ideology. Germany was a highly industrialized nation that lacked resources and was dependent on others. Hitler preyed on the deep sense of insecurity and humiliation after WWI I suppose. The combination of wounded national pride and economic anxiety can make nations do monstrous actions.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
That happened in Soviet Russia - and even more so in the surrounding Soviet republics and ethnic minority communities - as well, especially during and after WWII, and Stalin's rule.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
Every modern secular ideology is imposed from above if it's imposed on a pre-industrial and agrarian society. It's not just something exclusive to communism.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
There's no economic necessity that could well justify a campaign of aggressive expansionism predicated on ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism. Post-war West Germany, as well as post-war Japan, became textbook cases of prosperous economies that achieved the highest living standards in the entire world in less than 4 decades after their respective defeats. They achieved all of that while still lacking resources and being even more dependent on others compared to the pre-WWII era.
You are making excellent points. There is no justification under any circumstances to "justify a campaign of aggressive expansionism predicated on ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism." I fully agree with that.
You are absolutely correct on Germany and Japan. However, we should not underestimate the Bretton Woods, which created a dollar-based global financial system anchored in the American economy, and the U.S. Navy’s global dominance after WWII which created stability and growth for export-oriented economies like Japan and West Germany and later on South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and eventually China.
Before 1945, the Great Powers (Navies) of the world had competed with each other for control over critical chokepoints for centuries since the era of deep water navigation. But after WWII, free trade became possible because of U.S. naval dominance, which replaced centuries of gunboat diplomacy. This period has been historically unique.
IMHO, it was made possible not only by the collapse of the British Naval dominance but also by the fact that the Soviet Union emerged as a continental, land-based superpower, leaving the oceans to the United States.
AFAIK, liberal ideology was never imposed from above, for a simple reason: no sane government would suddenly decide to limit its power. People always have to fight for liberalization. We have plenty of examples, beginning with the American and French revolutions and liberal reforms in South Korea and Taiwan.
Now we are talking about the post-WW2 world order, and I have to agree with you. Before WW2, countries could obtain resources they lacked by trade, if they didn't use them for war, so it wasn't cheap. Japan was getting a lot of resources its economy needed from the US. But after WW2, the establishment of the Western alliance and US control over the oceans made it difficult even for potential adversaries. Also, it turned out that paying a premium for resources is still cheaper than going to war for them; otherwise, the US would have conquered Saudi Arabia a long time ago. So, yes, the fact that Russia and Iran had the resources that everybody needed made their stand against the US possible.
The major resource Germany lacked was food, and to produce food, it needed land. But it needed some other resources, like oil, rubber, etc. So, should we beg for them or take them by force?
Also, Germans thought that it was they who deserved to rule the world and not those proud Brits or American upstarts. And then there were those Bolshevik Asiatic hordes to worry about.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
Of course it was, there are plenty of examples in modern history. Just look at Japan, both in the Meiji period and after WWII. Portugal and Spain throughout the 19th century, and 20th centuries.
South Korea and Taiwan were not pre-industrial and agrarian societies when they turned themselves liberal.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
That's a partial explanation of why West Germany and post-war Japan became economic successes. Besides, Germany was an economic success in the late 19th century until WWI, as well. Anyway, this topic goes beyond the main topic of this thread, so I won't go into details.
And they owed it to American patronage. But I agree, obtaining resources by trade is cheaper and safer than by war. Let's see if everybody got the memo.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
The thing about Fascist Germany and Japan going into obtaining resources through expansionist wars is that those countries adopted an ideological framework in which they rejected the dependence on international trade and of a rules-based order of international relations. They adopted the dogma of autarky and social Darwinism applied to international relations.
Well, it was superficial, and Japan just copied the West in everything, and it didn't last long.
Yes, the liberal system was imposed by American occupiers, but it was the Japanese people who had chosen to keep it. And the US had nothing against dictatorship in South Korea and Taiwan.
Not familiar with the Portugal case, but Spain wasn't liberal in the 19th century. That caused the Civil War and the Franco dictatorship. Only after the dictators' deaths did Portugal and Spain go on the path to liberalization.
Yes, and it was the middle class that pushed them towards liberalization. I never said that liberalization is possible in pre-industrial and agrarian societies unless they are pressured by their liberal patrons.
And the Bretton Woods made America insanely rich. It's like Midas turned the paper ($$) into gold.
And most importantly, the US knew that trade is more profitable than war. Let's hope it stays that way.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
None of that actually goes with what I'm saying. Spain did adopt a liberal constitution in the early 19th century, and that period is labeled as the "age of liberalism." Besides, after Franco, Spain re-liberalized itself, and again, from above.
Well, the age was unstable: "The Congress of Verona in 1822 approved the intervention of royalist French forces in Spain to support Ferdinand VII. After the Battle of Trocadero liberated Ferdinand from control by the Cortes in August 1823, he turned on the liberals and constitutionalists with fury. After Ferdinand's death in 1833, the Constitution was in force again briefly in 1836 and 1837, while the Constitution of 1837 was being drafted. Since 1812, Spain has had a total of seven constitutions; the current one has been in force since 1978." Spanish Constitution of 1812 - Wikipedia
I am not sure about that. Franco appointed King Juan Carlos I in the hope he would keep his regime intact, but the king didn't have his sway or hope to keep things as they were, so he took the easy exit. 'in his address to the Cortes, Juan Carlos spoke of three factors: historical tradition, national laws, and the will of the people, and in so doing referred to a process dating back to the Civil War of 1936–39. He swore using the following formula: "I swear to God and the Gospels to comply and enforce compliance to the Fundamental Laws of the Realm and to remain loyal to the Principles of the National Movement.'
So pre-industrial, agrarian societies typically lacked the infrastructure, literacy, and institutional structures or framework to develop effective or successful ideologies from the bottom up organically.
Indeed. "sola scriptura". Scripture alone (not the Pope, not tradition) is the ultimate authority in matters of faith.
Except for probably the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, so Rome wasn't exactly an "agrarian society lacking the infrastructure, literacy, and institutional structures".
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-