Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That was because WW1 had left it in a position where it was able to so while the former powers(those that still existed) found themselves vainly continuing resisting their inevitable slide due to the global upheaval that demolished the very trade and diplomacy positions which had made them powers in the first place.
You pointed out for example how the EIC with all the trade from and to the sub-continent was instumental in building the British world power.
Indian trade like all maritime trade suffered greatly in WW1 and never recovered in the interwar period.
WW 2 just finished off the process for the remaining european powers which was already irreversable anyway
|
I see what you are saying, and I agree with it. However, a nation can only exert global influence if it choses to exert it. The policy of the United States from 1919 until 1941, with exception to meddlings in China and, of course, Lend-Lease, was specifically not to exert influence. It was only the thread of the Soviet sphere of influence, and to that extent the famous urging of Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' analogy, that changed that policy. Otherwise, the US would have likely gone back into it's shell, so to speak.
12-21-10, 01:57 PM
Threaded Mode