|
In around 1200 AD, some countries were stronger than others, but none was strong enough that it can completely dominate and enslave the other. Sometimes, a strong country would loot the weaker, but complete domination, like colonialization that we saw in 1700-1950 could NOT happen. So to a considerable extent, all countries, except some incidents of looting, were feeding on their own economies, rather than each other's economy. But around 1200 AD, political inequalities in UK drastically reduced as it adopted Jury System, and reduced the power of judges. This decrease in political inequality drastically increased UK's courts fairness. With improvement of fairness of courts, it was no longer possible for officers to extort bribes and commit atrocities, and it was no longer possible for criminals, with connections with govt officers, to escape punishments. With these two improvements, the UK's trade and economy started improving by leaps and bound. IOW, by year 1200-1300 AD, UK, a 1 unit strong fish was slowly growing stronger. The process was very slow. But year 1600 AD, UK was challanging all the near by countries like France, Spain, Portugal etc. But these countries too started reducing political inequalities by introducing Jury System and/or other means, started becoming stronger. By year 1700, UK was say 5 unit strong fish, but France, Spain etc were also 2-3 unit strong fish, and UK was NOT in a position to devor them. But consider other nations in 1700 AD like African countries, India, Arabic countries etc. Due to much higher political inequality, and no other reason, compared to UK etc, India's administration/courts etc were highly unfair, and had stiffled the progress of industry. While UK's industries were growing by leaps and bound, industries in India had stagnated. Eventually, UK became too strong, it saw that India was rich but weak, it devored India. Like the pond/Bihar scenario, UK too had several pressures. If UK had NOT devored India, some other nation like France or Spain or Portugal or Italy or Germany would have devored India, and then become stronger, and come after UK. India being a weak fish, was up for grabs; it was impossible for a strong fish to let the oppurtunity pass. But in 1700, by improving courts/administration and thus improving economy/techonology, India's common men could have improved India's military. And by improving military, India could have become a stronger fish, and saved itself. But India's citizens could NOT, or DID NOT, improve court/administration. As a result, India's economy remained weak, and Indian military also remained weak. And so India got devored. |
| In 1700-1940, there was tremendous infighting amongst UK, France, Germany etc. As a result, each country was afraid of taking some exteme measures, and it was worried that the victim nation may approach rival, and with technological/military help of rival, the victim may be able to defeat the aggressor. eg UK did NOT completely take-over princely states, and this process could have made the princely states approach France or Germany or some Japan, and with their military help, they could have give a tough fight against UK. |
Today, there is NO infighting amongst major powers namely USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia. Most major companies in each country is jointly owned eg a significant part of Mobil, a US based crude oil giant, is owned by UK, France and Germany. The cross-ownership ensures that the govts of these countries will never fight, and the cross-ownership also ensures that loot will get "equitably" shared.
|
In 1914 and 1939, the major powers went into a bitter fight
|
Today, there is NO such possibility of such war amongst these major countries. They are basically united.
| |