Mid-19th Challenge

[Tom Acre]

Great site, brilliant. How can GD Theory be reconciled with the fact that Great Britain experienced no apparent Crisis War between the Napoleonic Wars and WWII?

[John]

Great site, brilliant. How can GD Theory be reconciled with the fact that Great Britain experienced no apparent Crisis War between the Napoleonic Wars and WWII?

We've discussed this question in the past. The following posting contains a summary:

http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... t=100#p238

John

[thomasglee]

We've discussed this question in the past. The following posting contains a summary:

http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... t=100#p238

John

Am I missing something or did you put up the wrong link? The link provided links to a financial topics discussion.

Thanks

[John]

Am I missing something or did you put up the wrong link? The link provided links to a financial topics discussion.
Thanks

Look at the bottom portion of the posting.

John

[Tom Acre]

Interesting, I think I see what you're driving at; however it still seems like a loose end

[John]

Dear Tom,

> Interesting, I think I see what you're driving at; however it
> still seems like a loose end

There are a handful of cases where a country appears to have either
delayed or skipped a crisis war.

Today, there are several countries that had their last crisis wars in
the 1910s and 1920s that still haven't had new crisis wars -- Mexico,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia. There are other historical examples of
countries that seem to have skipped crisis wars -- Iceland and
Switzerland in WW II, and Britain in the 1860s.

These exceptions appear to be quite rare, probably around 1-3% of the
cases. If there were more cases, we could analyze them and try to get
an answer to the question of what a country might do to avoid a crisis
war. But since the cases are so rare, it's hard to get a fix on
what's going on, so all I can do is make some guesses.

In the case of Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Russia today, the most obvious
common factor is that they're all oil-rich. I'm not joking about
this, because non-generational studies have shown that high levels of
poverty correlate with war. A country that has "unnatural" oil wealth
can do a lot to buy off its discontented poor people, and prevent a
serious war. We can see this all the time in Gaza and Haiti, for
example, where there would surely be major wars by now if it weren't
for massive injections of foreign aid.

Another possible factor that might delay or prevent a crisis war is a
particularly debilitating non-crisis war that preceded the Crisis era.
This is the case with Turkey, and its war with the PKK Kurds, and it
was true of Britain in the 1860s, having recently fought the Crimean
War.

Iceland surely would have gone to war in the WW II, because the
Germans wanted to establish a base there in order to launch an attack
on the US. But the US occupied Iceland, and prevented anything like
that from happening.

Switzerland was fully prepared to go to war with Germany and Hitler,
but Hitler was defeated, and so it wasn't necessary.

Another question is: What does it mean to participate in a crisis war?
For example, we might ask why Kansas hasn't had a crisis war for a
long time. Is there a significant difference between Kansas and
Iceland in WW II? It's an interesting question that needs further
thought and research.

The way I look at it is it that each of these situations is unique in
many ways, and I try to find the commonalities. Sometimes they're
obvious and sometimes they're not, but they're usually out there
somewhere.

John

[Marshall Kane]

Note: I've quoted John's post on this subject from the other thread so we'll have the info here.

John, do you know where the other discussion refered to took place? (I tried a search of the forum, but it said the word "war" was too common .... .... ... ... )

This is a fascinating question, and I'm surprised it hasn't been debated more. To me this appears to be a bigger "problem" then the question of World War I, to which I find the East-West divide a satisfying solution.

I'll have to give the US Civil War solution some thought. I must say, it certainly would sound like a stretch- even if were to add up. I have enough trouble trying to explain the role of World War I to people. John, maybe we need to get some soon-to-be unemployed Climate Change scientists to help out. You know, slip a little crisis war into the books - something like The War of Victoria's Bonnet (1869-1876). Nobody knows anything about that era anyway.

Seriously, though, the first thing that comes to mind when I think of England during the U.S. Civil War is the story of how English textile workers reacted to news of the Emancipation Proclamation. Although reeling from the blockade of Southern cotton members of the English working class gathered for vigils in the streets to send a message to their government that they were willing to endure economic hardship rather then support the immoral side in a war now defined as freedom vs. slavery.

I believe this was one of Lincoln's hopes behind the Emancipation Proclamation - that making this a moral war about slavery would keep Europe out. Still, these workers didn't seem to have a problem working for an industry that depended on US slave labor before the war. Why would poverty stricken people take such a stand? Is this in line with a crisis era? Seems awakening era-ish?

Also, if England was due for a crisis war, then why didn't they find one? Its not like they didn't have options. They could have gotten more involved in our war or the Franco-Prussian war, etc. Maybe its because everyone else was already fighting one another and England was like the odd kid out in musical chairs?

I don't understand how simply preparing for war would bring about a turning. Wouldn't this just delay the turning until the next opportunity for war? Did England's imperial wars take a decidedly genocidal turn at any point here?

Ultimately something has to explain England's appeasement in the 1930s. That hesitant generation had been scarred by something.

Another idea:

- The unprecedented changes of the Industrial Revolution served as something of a reset and took the place of a transformative crisis war to reorganize society.

> 1873 was the near the end of the Fourth Turning here in America
> (I'm sorry, Mr. Howe and ghost-of-Mr.-Strauss, but the Fourth
> Turning did not end at Appomattox. Southerners know this deep in
> their bones. It ended in 1876-7 when Reconstruction died and the
> country was unified by the completion of the transcontinental
> railroad.) but it was near the beginning in Europe. (If anyone has
> good evidence of 4T in Europe before the events of 1870-71, let me
> know.) What was Europe like in 1874-1884? THAT may be where we are
> headed...

America's Fourth Turning did indeed end in 1865. The Reconstruction
Era was a First Turning, a Recovery Era. It may have been hideously
painful for the South, but it was no Crisis Era.

On the continent, the crisis wars were the wars of German
unification, the Franco-Prussian war, and the Paris Commune.

The real puzzle is to identify England's crisis war. There was a
long discussion of this a couple of years ago, concluding that
England's crisis war was the American civil war.

I went to books.google.com , and searched for free books on "history
of england." I ended up reviewing three of them, although the first
had the most comprehensive coverage of the American Civil War, and the
other two basically confirmed the first, although in briefer
form.


* British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782-1901)
By George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1922, pp. 329-338
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... #PPA329,M1
* A Short History of England, Edward Potts Cheyney, 1904, pp. 653-655
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2 ... 4-PA653,M1
* A History of England from the Earliest Times to the Death of Queen
Victoria, Benjamin Stites Terry, 1908, pp. 1033-1035
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... -PA1035,M1


I summarized the situation as follows:


* Just prior to the American Civil War, there was almost a war with
France caused by panic.
* England's upper classes favored the South, who were most similar
to England's upper classes.
* England's lower classes favored the North, who were most similar
to England's lower classes.
* The British government remained officially neutral, though they
favored the South.
* The northern blockade of Southern ports, preventing the export of
cotton, inflicted great hardship on Lancashire's cotton mills, which
depended on the cotton for work
* The British government was tempted to break the blockade, but
decided to stay neutral.

This was the opposite situation from the Napoleonic wars, where
England had blockaded Europe's ports, and America began the War of
1812 to break the blockade.
* Even Britain's neutrality was resented by Northerners, who felt
it indirectly supported the South.
* The South didn't like it much either, since they wanted real help
from the English.
* When Northern Captain Wilkes boarded an British ship and removed
two Confederate envoys, the incident caused Britain to start
preparing for war against the North. It was averted only because the
North backed down, freed the envoys, and apologized.
* The Confederacy purchased a ship, the CSS Alabama, from Britain
through France as an intermediary, to the embarrassment of Britain
when the ship was launched. Later, an international tribunal awarded
America damages from Britain for violating neutrality.


There are a few examples of a country going through a crisis era
preparing for war, but never going to war, such as Switzerland and
Iceland in WW II. This is another example.

[John]

My original posting in the Fourth Turning forum appeared here:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/show ... post187531

John

[thomasglee]

Could it be due to mass movements of people or changes in culture due to migration/immigration? During the period discussed, Great Britain's Empire was still expanding and therefore, there were those from different "generations" entering and leaving GB as they left for or returned from colonial outposts all over the world. That would also apply to the US as after the civil war people really began moving more easily from state to state and that in many ways somewhat interfered with the generational cycles and prevented states like Texas from having their own cycles within the US cycle.

I've asked before, but never saw a reply, on how you feel immigration/migration affects generational cycles, but one would assume there has to be an affect in some form or another.

Love the site! Thanks John!

Another question is: What does it mean to participate in a crisis war?
For example, we might ask why Kansas hasn't had a crisis war for a
long time. Is there a significant difference between Kansas and
Iceland in WW II? It's an interesting question that needs further
thought and research.

The way I look at it is it that each of these situations is unique in
many ways, and I try to find the commonalities. Sometimes they're
obvious and sometimes they're not, but they're usually out there
somewhere.

John

[John]

Dear Thomas,

> Could it be due to mass movements of people or changes in culture
> due to migration/immigration? During the period discussed, Great
> Britain's Empire was still expanding and therefore, there were
> those from different "generations" entering and leaving GB as they
> left for or returned from colonial outposts all over the world.
> That would also apply to the US as after the civil war people
> really began moving more easily from state to state and that in
> many ways somewhat interfered with the generational cycles and
> prevented states like Texas from having their own cycles within
> the US cycle.

> I've asked before, but never saw a reply, on how you feel
> immigration/migration affects generational cycles, but one would
> assume there has to be an affect in some form or another.

A mass migration or relocation of an entire population destroys the
generational relationships that existed prior to the relocation, and
causes a "first turning reset," which means that the population enters
a first turning Recovery Era, irrespective of whatever turning they
were in when the relocation began.

John