So, not agreeing with the premise but: this article is from 2014, written by a legit historian, and is specifically not discussing the short term.
Their premise is effectively that war consolidates power and minimizes violence at scale inside the unified territory afterwards. Further, the things nations do to be ready for conflict, like build roads, administrative statates and all the social structures that accompany a standing army facilitate trade and prosperity.
It’s less that he’s arguing for war, and more just … Describing the historical consequences of war in aggregate.
It was certainly only titled the way it was because he was publishing a book and this is more eye catching.
Yeah it thinks it’s counterpropaganda, but it’s just propaganda.
I agree with it of course: we shouldn’t need war to build roads today. No matter if this is how it went in the last few centuries, we should do better.
So, not agreeing with the premise but: this article is from 2014, written by a legit historian, and is specifically not discussing the short term.
Their premise is effectively that war consolidates power and minimizes violence at scale inside the unified territory afterwards. Further, the things nations do to be ready for conflict, like build roads, administrative statates and all the social structures that accompany a standing army facilitate trade and prosperity.
It’s less that he’s arguing for war, and more just … Describing the historical consequences of war in aggregate.
It was certainly only titled the way it was because he was publishing a book and this is more eye catching.
Ironic that this post is trying critize propaganda while being a bit propagandish itself
Yeah it thinks it’s counterpropaganda, but it’s just propaganda.
I agree with it of course: we shouldn’t need war to build roads today. No matter if this is how it went in the last few centuries, we should do better.
So, the fascist “pax Romana” and its contemporary equivalent “pax Americana”. Nothing new, does the article call it by its name?