My supposition is that when a country is invaded Marshall law is enacted and at least for some time the economy comes to a grinding halt.
But maybe some of you know more about the subject and can correct me.
when looking at the graph of GDP, we see increases in GDP for the victors and huge declines for the others by the end of the war.
This would appear to illustrate a link between economic output and winning wars.
Note that during the occupation of France gdp declined significantly.
Some of you may also be able top comment on pro German sections of French politicians and of course the pro France contingency as well. Where all the French leaders anti German? this seem unlikely but i do not have specific knowledge.
I believe that our economy and body politic are at war. I believe our enemy is China with their allies including Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We are seeing edicts that may not reflect martial law but certainly do not represent normal due process or legislative debate. We are seeing our economy shut down and economic contraction steeper than ever before.
If we can conclude that restrictions on individual behavior and an acute drop in economic activity are typical results of an armed invasion. Then we must ask what is really going on In America today.
I hope that some of you can elaborate on France, Poland and other examples of economic activity post invasion.
I am equally hopeful that you may be able to explain why it is unreasonable to think that China is a hostile player.
To compare economic output to success in war, you should look at France 1914-1920, when the economic production of France went into defeating the enemy. The economy of Vichy France can’t be compared to other times because of the economic output was specifically diverted to benefit France’s enemies. Plus the slave labor component of war output in the economy of Vichy’s closest trading partner.
I was actually looking at the UK and Us as the victors and France as an occupied territory. Was lost in a week and their infrastructure was not destroyed yet their output fell precipitously.
Germany was increasing gdp throughout the war till they were occupied and then fell 40%.
The implication is that being occupied and put under Marshall law destroys your economy.
Economically speaking war is an absolute disaster when it’s being fought on your own soil, or if it’s such a conflict that you placed your entire economy towards the war effort.
Look at World War I. The U.K. in 1914 was the world’s largest creditor. London was the center of world finance.
By 1918 they were the world’s largest debtor, and the center of the world economy had shifted to New York City. And they won the war and were lightly damaged on their home front by it.
Germany was the world’s fastest growing economy in 1914, with the world’s second highest standard of living (only slightly behind the United States in that regard). By early 1916 (not even the half way point of the conflict) Germany had exhausted nearly all of its gold reserves, was printing more money than they knew what to do with, the average German saw their caloric intake cut in half, and the German civilian economy was completely gone. You couldn’t even buy decent underwear in Germany by that point. Their economy was on the brink of collapse by the half way point; it’s honestly a miracle they were able to fight for two more years.
Once again, this was a country who had not suffered invasion and it can be argued that in 1916 they were winning the war.
France… Jesus Christ lets not even get into France.
No. I wasn’t clear on that. The English fit the second point. They devoted their entire economy to the war effort. They did receive a few Zeppelin air raids but they weren’t heavily impacted by it.
Germany wasn’t invaded in the First World War either. But both countries put their entire economic might towards the whole sale slaughter. Germany completely collapsed, but then again they did fight France, the U.K., the Russian Empire, and later the US basically on their own. Their two allies were basically useless throughout most of the war, although the Turks did make a good showing at Gallipoli, although the British had more to do with why that turned into such a blood bath than the Turks and their German commanders did.
You guys have driven poor Boot’s Thread off a cliff.
WWI wasn’t fought on UK territory or German Territory, most of it was fought between The Great Powers in their colonial holdings, at Sea, or in the Ottoman Empire.
Most of the fighting in Europe was done in France and along the Eastern Front mostly in Russia.
Boots’ whole point is about economic restrictions under occupation, so occupied Europe during WWII is pretty well the correct area to look at.
Yes, there’s a massive drop off in economic activity during an occupation because commerce is heavily controlled buy the occupying force in a way similar to the economic restrictions we have in the US today due to the pandemic and the excessive response to combat it.
I never said it was fought on German or British territory. That was exactly my point. Germany’s economy was driven to collapse without even being fought on German soil. The UK’s economy was permanently scarred by it. Neither country suffered invasion.
It makes sense that France’s economy was in shambles by its end. They suffered a devastating invasion and nearly an eighth of their territory was obliterated during four years of artillery barrages.
But Germany and the U.K. are more interesting because their home fronts were not damaged by the war. Instead the act of simply mass mobilizing their society for one destructive purpose is what caused Germany’s economic collapse and scarred the British economy.
But yes you are correct that I sort of derailed it by looking at one particular point. I got sidetracked. My apologies.
Economically speaking war is an absolute disaster when it’s being fought on your own soil, or if it’s such a conflict that you placed your entire economy towards the war effort.
Look at World War I. The U.K. in 1914 was the world’s largest creditor. London was the center of world finance.
By 1918 they were the world’s largest debtor, and the center of the world economy had shifted to New York City. And they won the war and were lightly damaged on their home front by it.
Germany was the world’s fastest growing economy in 1914, with the world’s second highest standard of living (only slightly behind the United States in that regard). By early 1916 (not even the half way point of the conflict) Germany had exhausted nearly all of its gold reserves, was printing more money than they knew what to do with, the average German saw their caloric intake cut in half, and the German civilian economy was completely gone. You couldn’t even buy decent underwear in Germany by that point. Their economy was on the brink of collapse by the half way point; it’s honestly a miracle they were able to fight for two more years.
It’s ok, few people understand just how different WWI and WWII were geographically.
When politicians shutdown almost every store in the nation that can compete with Walmart, the Chinese main store outlet, I’m not sure who are enemy is anymore? Is it an external or internal threat that is doing more damage to “we the people”…or unitedly both?
