A key consequence of this global disruption is something that has occurred time and time and time again in the face of global crises (see, most recently, the outbreak of COVID19): strengthening of the US dollar (the true marker of US global hegemony).
That financing and spending are so critical to war fighting is why the latest edition of the text "What do We Know About War" (edited by @sbmitche & John Vasquez) includes a chapter on war financing by @rosellacappella & 🙋♂️.
Sixth, the money raised is used to purchase weapons. That leads to yet another, and often underappreciated, economic aspect of war: supply.
To be clear, military professionals do not underappreciate supply. They take it VERY seriously. As the saying goes, "Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics."
What is notable is that the war is a massive COALITIONAL supply effort, with the arms are arriving from other countries and making their way to the battlefield.
Which of these two men is most responsible for World War II?
Short answer: not Churchill
Long answer: [THREAD]
To be clear, in this thread I am dealing with the onset of the war in Europe. The War in Asia was just as important and obviously connected to Europe. But that is for another thread. For now, I do highly recommend Paine's book "The Wars for Asia"
Solving the "Europe Problem" has vexed US foreign policy since the beginning.
[THREAD]
As I wrote last week, a key trait of US "grand strategy" since the founding of the Republic was "Go West" either by expanding US territory west or seeking to maintain trade with China.
Since the founding of the republic, US foreign policy has been about one thing:
Go west (and don't let Europe get in the way).
[THREAD]
I'll write more about "don't let Europe get in the way" in another 🧵. This one will focus on the "Go west" part (which will also touch on the Europe part).
One could go so far as to argue that the Republic itself was founded because of a desire to go west. Specifically, the colonials were forbidden to go west of the 1763 Proclamation line.
When you hear "Liberal International Order", just think "the G-7, for better and for worse"
[THREAD]
While some scholars and policy makers like to speak of the "Liberal International Order" as the collection of post-World War II international institutions.... cambridge.org/core/journals/…
...the phrase itself is much more recent in origins, largely a product of the mid-1990s.
As I wrote in my latest for @WPReview, shifting patterns in population growth will inevitably influence international politics. worldpoliticsreview.com/global-demogra…
This isn't a new idea. It's one found in classic works on change in world politics.