We can debate this endlessly, probably will, and will thoroughly enjoy it.
I see history as “continental drift.” The underlying forces push nations and peoples in various directions. There is resistance. The pressures build up against the resistance, and then you have an “earthquake,” or in the human context, war. After the war, the pressures have been spent/released, a new order settles in, and then the pressures start to build again until the next earthquake. And, in history, too, there are “fault lines.” It’s a nice analogy, but I will concede that it only goes so far.
As far as underlying pressures are concerned, there can be many of them. Migration, in part caused by climate cycles, has been one of them. Resource development, uneven technological progress, population growth/disease....the list could be endless.
In the context of 1918, the blight of socialism was already there in most societies. Some places virulent communism, some places a more quiescent socialism. But it was already there, exerting its pressures. When the “earthquake” of WW1 destroyed or discredited the existing social/political order, socialism was there to gain from it. It was kept at bay in some places better than others. However, I don’t think it would have been successful without the war and the opportunity to spread its lies (”land bread peace” comes to mind) to an exhausted population.
The two competing strains of socialism fought the next war, with the nationalists losing to the internationalists. And while we thought we were still capitalist, the forces of internationalist socialism were rotting us out from within.
;-)
Yesterday I posted from a park bench, in the shade on a hot day, via "smart phone", which aren't all that "smart".
Today back indoors, with more resources available...
henkster: "I see history as 'continental drift.' "
Let's talk about some continents -- Europe, North America, Asia...
This site lists world GDP going all the way back to the Roman Empire.
It shows which regions dominated economically over the centuries.
If we start with the Roman Empire, Europe accounted for 17% of world GDP, Asia 73%.
By 1820, Asia was still 60% of world GDP, Western Europe 23% and the USA all of 2%.
In 1870 W. Europe first reached 33%, Asia fell to 38% and the USA rose to 9%.
By 1913 W. Europe had peaked at 33%, Asia fell to 25% and the USA rose to 19%.
After two world wars, by 1950 things had changed significantly: USA peaked at 27%. W. Europe fell to 26%, Asia fell to 17%.
Today the numbers are roughly 40% for Asia, and 20% each for Europe and the USA.
What does that all tell us?
Well, if we look at your continents, the US and Europe together today have roughly the same percent of world GDP relative to Asia as we did in 1870 -- 40% each.
Asia's long decline has been totally reversed since 1973.
W. Europe has declined from 33% in 1913 to 20% today, the USA has declined from 27% in 1950 to 20% today.
So, bottom line, it seems to me that we have a lot in common with our European cousins, and shouldn't be spending too much time triumphally gloating over their "declining civilization".
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.