In reply to Paul C [#4674], I agree with his remarks about the difference in degree of social development; one might also note, with reference to 20th century imperialism that not only did the second-wave powers get "tougher nuts to crack", but two of them -- Italy and Japan -- were themselves not as advanced as their predecessors. Paul added: The two world wars were not about spheres of influence but about actually taking over territory. This is not an old fashioned view, it is simply a realistic view of an 'old fashioned' world which does not presently exist. It was the invasions of Ethiopia and China that started off the second world war. Fair enough -- but I think that it would be old-fashioned to insist that that world was the only possible imperialist one. It is possible that the EU and NAFTA might develop into autarchic bodies, which might some time in the future start grabbing land again. I do not rule this out. But that is not yet happening. They are not autarchic blocks. Clearly they aren't autarkic in the way that the Nazi empire was in WW2 -- but the trade of the EU taken as a whole is quite a small % of its GDP, and the same is true of the US (though, not having definite figures to hand, I wouldn't like to speculate on what would be true of NAFTA as a whole, still less of a super-NAFTA with Mercosur and some others added). As I mentioned previously, I don't envisage attempts at outright annexation -- rather, arrangements like the de facto protectorates in the Balkans, for example -- so Paul and I seem to be in agreement here. Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST