Could the looming European economic collapse lead to another World War?

What are your thoughts on this? The Eurozone is trying everything to fend off an economic collapse but it seems inevitable to happen anyway, which would in turn surely crash our markets. Is there a clear way out of this economic crisis without threat of war, or would it lead to anarchy instead? I'm not sure there are enough sane politicians globally to avert a crisis or war, or do you think we (USA) and Europe have evolved beyond that point?

I could see alot of land grabbing efforts/attempts i.e. Germany bails out Italy at 7% interest but Italy has to bail out Ireland at 3% interest (which would be a huge loss), not to mention Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. These countries (notably Germany) may see an opportunity to land grab due to a default on their loans which may spark backlash amongst the natives and the formation of rebel armies battling against the land grabbers. All it may take to start another World War could be one civilian death in this case. Lets hope not, lets hope the world has evolved beyond this point.

let the bankrupt countries drop out...

or move closer to becoming a single nation with a strong central government
(dominated by Germany as they will provide the financial muscle to bailout the other countries).

Beef up the central government or dissolve the union.

Yes, some of the Colonies borders made sense, but many did not. For example South Carolina is that part of the South most dependent on Charleston as a port. You can NOT say that about Colonial New York, part of the draw of New York Harbor is Northern New Jersey (The exact crooked deal that lead to the creation of the Colonies of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania is unclear, for it was done by King James II, who subsequently was overthrow in the English "Glorious Revolution of 1688". William Penn thus had good reason to cover up much of the reason he obtain Pennsylvania, including present day Delaware, and New Jersey, Penn's claim was from James II, but he did not "Found" Pennsylvania till 1688.

Anyway, Subsequent to 1688, William Penn divided present day New Jersey between two other Quakers, making the Colonies of North Jersey and South Jersey. New York had been retained by James II, with his overthrow the Colony of New York reverted to the new King and Queen of England (King William and Mary, Mary was James Sister, William was her husband, thus the title went to Mary, but William was viewed as the King in fact). Thus it appears Penn was willing to give back Northern New Jersey to New York as a peace offering to the new King and Queen. Subsequently Penn held onto his Colonies and New Jersey merged to become one Colony, but the rationale behind split was sound, northern New Jersey is drawn to New York Harbor, southern New Jersey is drawn to Delaware Bay. Thus New Jersey is pulled in two different directions. As a Colony of the same mother country not a problem, as a State in the same Union not a problem, but as an independent state a BIG PROBLEM. If the Federal Union NOT been formed, New Jersey would have been divided between New York and Pennsylvania decades ago (Pennsylvania would have also re-took Delaware over decades ago, just to protect the Delaware bay and Philadelphia.

Chesapeake bay is worse. The biggest city is Baltimore located on the biggest river flowing into the bay, the Susquehanna, but the ONLY way out is in Virginia. Worse most of the Susquehanna is in Pennsylvania. The Potomac River is the border between Virginia and Maryland, but by their colonial charters, the border is the SOUTH shore of the Potomac not the middle of the river as in the case of most other rivers used as borders. What is the natural border for those two states? Even if you view it as one state, how far into Pennsylvania would it go, given that the Susquehanna River divides present day Pennsylvania in half? (i.e. any road from Philadelphia westward MUST cross the Susquehanna). The best solution is the one adopted, one national federation, leaving the central Government handling the disputes cause by that geographical division.

North Carolina is a border area between Virginia and South Carolina. North Carolina has large rivers that encouraged its cities to be built on the "Fall line" where rapids prevented ships from going further up the rivet. It was NOT dependent on Chesapeake bay nor Charleston for exports or imports. It is a classic border area, the borders move north or south depending on the power of Charleston via the Chesapeake bay. North Carolina would NOT have stayed independent for long, it would have been divided between its northern and southern neighbors within years of being independent of Britain.

The same can be said of Georgia, in fact Georgia was founded as a border colony to protect Charleston Harbor from any move by the Spanish out of Florida. Atlanta was not founded till after the Cherokees were removed in the 1840s (by the STATE government of Georgia) thus was NOT a factor in the 1700s when the Federal union was formed.

On the other hand the various nations of Europe have been independent of each other since at least the Middle ages (In many ways Europe was more united in the Middle ages then now, but united in the sense it viewed itself as one people, and that people being the Catholic Church. This is why heresy was the great crime of the Middle ages, for it was treason against the only unifying force in Europe). With the Reformation the unity provided by being Catholic disappeared, and you had the raise of today's nation-states. These Nation-states since the 1700s (if not before) use residence within the country as the unifying force within that country not religion. While this was good in the sense that people of different religions could live in the same country, it was bad in that it came at the cost of no longing viewing everyone in Europe as being one people, no matter the language people spoke or the nationality of those people.

I bring up the issue of people viewing themselves as one people, for that is the essence of any sense of unity. In the middle ages that was achieved by being Catholic, today that is achieved by viewing one self as the same people within the same economic system. The problems is in many ways the same problems the Catholic Church faced with the Reformation, how do you keep united when different people want to go different ways AND it is economically beneficial to each group to go their separate ways? The Catholic Church could NOT find a solution and we ended up with the Religious wars of the 1600s as people resorted to force to keep united AND to use force to break any attempt at unity.

The problem with the Euro is that except for Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, the rest of Europe was NOT ready to think as one people AND the economic pulls of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal are all different then Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Thus what happened to the Catholic Church in the 1500s is happening now in the Euro-zone, the Euro-zone is going in at least five different directions (With Ireland going to the US and Britain, two non Euro countries).

Sorry, I do not think you can have a Strong Central Government in the Euro-zone except for the core countries of Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. If Britain had join in, Britain would be in that list. The rest of Europe are at best marginal members of that central economic group. The Euro expanded to far and needs to "grown smaller". If Greece, Spain, and Portugal were to leave the Euro zone, the Euro would survive. The Euro would survive Italy leaving, but Italy is not as marginal in the Euro Zone as the rest of the Euro Zone members (Other then Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg).

Sorry, I see the Euro zone dissolving NOT going to a stronger centralized government. The borders are clear and functional (unlike the borders of the US States of the US IF the state would be independent countries). The pull to leave is to strong, and the advantages of being one, weak. This is the opposite of the US in the late 1700s, the pull to stay was strong, it solve the problem of the bad borders of the Colonies/States and the pull for each state to be independent to weak, given the relative strength of France, Spain and Britain. Thus the Euro Zone will die out, its members are drawn in to many directions for it to stay one if pressure is supplied, and this economic downturn is all the pressure needed to kill the Euro outside its five core countries of Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg (And Britain, if Britain ever joins the other five).

Who would fight who, exactly? The German people have a very good instituional memory. And for a good reason. They have been crushed into oblivion twice in the last hundred years and that hasn't been forgotten.

War, no.

if things collapse it would take a decade or two to set the stage.

Western Europe has moved WELL beyond the chance of Italy trying to annex Andorra and parts of Spain. Plus, none of the major European powers have the military capabilities to conquer large swaths of Europe.

If anything, you MIGHT see civil wars break out in Central and Eastern Europe. And even there, it would take A LOT before you see even two baltic nations suddenly go at each other.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x306263

Good to know.

nt

And few of the European countries have much in terms of military hardware.

because, on its own, your OP doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

Why do you think economic collapse leads to war?

Let's go through what you do suggest:

"Germany bails out Italy at 7% interest"
OK, this might happen, but is extremely unlikely to happen from current conditions. The EU already decided to cut the interest rates that it is bailing out Greece and Ireland at. I can't see why they'd (or Germany on its own) would suddenly think that bailing Italy out at an even higher rate would do anyone any good.

"Italy has to bail out Ireland at 3% interest"

'Has to'? If you mean that Italy already is part of the Irish bailout at 3%, OK; but that's the point - everyone knows it would be pointless to demand too much interest from any new loan. They only just recently made that decision.

"These countries (notably Germany) may see an opportunity to land grab due to a default on their loans "

Now, this is where you need to stop thinking like this is a game of Risk. Invading countries does not earn you money. Have Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing? It costs money to invade - and to occupy. You get rich with peace and competitive industry. And I think the Germans are very aware of that. It also takes overwhelming force to invade. Or, if you are a poor country, and just want to be a bit better off, you might manage it by brutalising some poor neighbour and grabbing what resources you can as fast as possible. But that doesn't get you rich - just not quite as poor as before. No EU country is so poor that it would be an improvement.

"may spark backlash amongst the natives and the formation of rebel armies battling against the land grabbers". You think??????

"All it may take to start another World War could be one civilian death in this case" I'd be damn surprised, since civilian deaths happen all the time. I'm not really sure what fantasy world you've set up for 'one civilian death' to kick off a world war, though. There seems to be several paragraphs of explanation needed to get us to that point.

"lets hope the world has evolved beyond this point." I thought everyone knew it already had.

Germany "grabbing land"?

:shrug: