Boiled down to its essence, the thesis is that in each of the subject years the world was dominated by a single power (then: Britain; now, the USA) that was starting to lose its grip, challenged by a rising new military and economic force (then: Germany; now, China). Each era was a time of globalisation and technological change, factors which many, indeed most observers thought would make armed conflict between the major players unthinkable.
Emmerson is at pains to stress the differences between the two years as well as the similarities. Even so, and even though he argues that history never exactly repeats itself, he concludes that we should prepare for what the Chinese euphemistically refer to as interesting times. Here are the final sentences of the article:
The world of 1913 -- brilliant, dynamic, interdependent -- offers a warning. The operating system of the world in that year was taken by many for granted. In 2013, at a time of similar global flux, the biggest mistake we could possibly make is to assume that the operating system of our own world will continue indefinitely, that all we need to do is stroll into the future, and that the future will inevitably be what we want it to be. Those comforting times are over. We need to prepare ourselves for a much rougher ride ahead.
As I said at the outset: sobering, especially for those of us who think the last decade or two have been quite rough enough to be going along with. Very obviously, Emmerson does not share the optimism of many commentators that the level of armed conflict in the world is set to decline steadily. His forthcoming book ("1913: in search of the world before the Great War") looks like being one of the year's must reads.
By the way, if you want to stretch historical comparisons even further -- specifically, to the 14th century -- the late Barbara W. Tuchman's wonderful "A distant mirror" is the book for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment