Musings from Numbers: What if Germany had Won?

For some reason that I don't remember, I started thinking the other night about what the world would look like had Nazi Germany won World War II. Alternate history is fun to engage in, but if you aren't careful it quickly turns from 'alternate' to 'fantasy'. This is often the case with accounts of alternate history that attempt to answer this particular question, some more seriously than others. They tend to range from more reasonable small scale German territorial acquisitions to Japanese Super Battleships patrolling the Pacific while anchoring in Los Angeles.

But would we really all "be speaking German" had the Nazis won? I think that the emphatic answer to this is no (the combined British and American fleets would have stopped any German invasion attempt). But what WOULD a plausible post-World War II Nazi world look like?

For the sake of simplicity (mainly since it affects how the post-war map would be drawn), I'm going to drastically streamline what it would have taken for Germany to win the war. Two pivotal battles, Stalingrad and El Alamein in 1942, would prove to be the turning point of the war in many respects in hindsight. So let's assume that the Germans actually win both of those battles. It could be due to any reason, the fortunes of war, bravery in combat, superior leadership, etc.

Assuming victories in those two battles allows for the possibility of the following to happen: With a victory at Stalingrad, Germany pushes further into the Russian steppe and eventually reaches the oil fields of Caucasus. With oil in hand and morale high, the Germans continue to push into Russian territory. In the Middle East, the German-Italian victory at El Alamein propels Rommel into Alexandria. Playing off of the frustrations of Arabs living under British colonial rule, Rommel continues to push into the middle east with their support, eventually linking up with German forces in Russia in the Caucasus mountains. These two successes result in an uptick of support for Mussolini and Italy remains in the war (they historically exited in 1943). With Italian support, Vichy France is able to defend against Operation Torch, and in turn Italy is never invaded.

German successes in Russia continue and eventually Moscow falls. Eventually the front turns into a stalemate, but the abundance of resources captured and the fact that Italy remains free from invasion results in enough German forces to properly man the "Atlantic Wall", thus preventing any discussion a D-Day type landing and further allowing Germany to focus on the Eastern front.

In the Pacific theater, things proceed historically (The Pacific theater was in many ways its own war, and what happened in Europe had little appreciable effect in the Pacific). Things proceed historically until after Japan is nuked twice and forced to surrender. At this point, the Soviets can be assumed to still be focused on Germany, and would not be able to historically invade Manchuria and North Korea. With this in mind, American forces land en masse in Korea, taking the whole peninsula.

With the Japanese surrender, Chiang Kai-Shek is able to occupy Manchuria and take possession of the heavy industrial machinery that historically the Soviets stole for their own use. Buttressed by the heavy industry in Manchuria and with American support in Korea ready to assist him, Chiang Kai-Shek is able to defeat the Communists and Mao Zedong is relegated to the pages of history.

At the same time, the weakened state of Russia presents both China and the U.S. a unique opportunity. With American assistance (which might seem odd at first glance given the historical WW2 relationship, but in fact it makes perfect sense -- the U.S. never liked the Soviets, and even sent troops after World War 1 to assist the White Russians fighting the Bolsheviks), China attacks Russia and captures Mongolia and Primorsky, historcal territories of the Qing dynasty. Now under attack from the east as well as the west, Russia folds to both Nazi and Sino-American demands.

With both Japan and the Soviets out of the war, the Western appetite for further conflict wanes considerably. A second Sitzkrieg envelops the European front, with Germany lacking the navy to attack and invade Britain and/or the U.S. By this time, assuming its around 1946, and with little willingness to nuke Germany due its relative strength (Germany in this position, unlike Japan, would be in a very strong position with many allies) and Germany's own development of the bomb, the Allies decide to go to the peace table with the Germans and Italians, resulting in this:


The darker variant of the color represents the direct control of a country, while the lighter color represents a puppet state/protectorate/satellite state. It is assumed here that the colonies of Vichy France, cutoff from France proper and with the Axis having no available means of reclaiming them (i.e. lack of naval superiority) would be ceded to or become de facto British possessions (likewise with Belgian Congo). Dutch Indonesia would likely become independent due to its insular and more removed nature.

China (under Republican control) would gain possession of Mongolia, Primsorky and Tibet (invading it while the Western powers sit idly by as they did with Communist China). Japan, all of Korea, and the Philippines would be under American control until independence would be granted. Greenland and Denmark would become U.S. possessions, gaining them from cutoff Denmark (historically they occupied them during the war and then gave them back).

Italy would receive the historically Italian town of Nice as well as the colonies of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, from an isolated Vichy France, while it would demand and receive claim over much of the Middle East and East Africa from the British (due to its entrenched military control with German assistance).

Russia's concessions to the Allies would be the aforementioned cession of Mongolia and Primorsky to China, as well as the granting of independence of its Central Asian Soviet Republics (which would quickly fall under the sway of Chinese influence). To Germany, Russia would cede Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic states, and the entirety of the Caucasus region. To Finland, Russia would cede Karelia and the surrounding territory, fulfilling a historical Finnish claim to these lands.

Germany itself would create satellite and puppet states in the Balkans and Eastern Europe (much like the Soviets did) as well as in Iran (which would not be invaded and put under joint Anglo-Soviet control as it was historically). It would also doubtlessly annex Alsace-Lorraine from France, as well Luxembourg, Ukraine and the Baltic states and surrounding areas, both for resources as well as lebensraum ('living space'). It would leave some areas, like Belorussia, as nominally independent as a matter of administrative efficiency. The dreams of a Greater Germany or Grossdeutschland would be realized.

So what would have happened after the dust had settled? Probably a sort of Cold War between Nazi Germany and the U.S., Britain as well as China, not much different from the historical Cold War. Russia, surrounded by hostile nations and having lost much of its best territory, would be relegated to regional power status along with France. Britain's empire would probably fall apart as it did historically.

For fun, I decided to look at the areas I've added to Germany and come up with modern GDP and population numbers. Using today's census numbers, this theoretical Greater Germany would have a population of 159,582,604 (almost exactly twice that of Germany's current population of 81,802,000) and a GDP of $4,093,670,000,000 (a 24% increase from Germany's current GDP). Greater Germany's population would rank 7th in the world, behind China, India, America, Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan, and its GDP would rank 4th as it does now, though the gap between it and Japan at 3rd would be significantly reduced.

Obviously this is pretty flawed, since the development of these regions would have been vastly different, for better or for worse. Given the traditional strength of the German economy, these regions under German control would have probably been higher both in population and in terms of GDP than they are today.

Either way, it's fun food for thought.

Musings from Numbers: 7 Reasons why America's Challengers aren't Ready to Conquer the World Tomorrow

Somewhat recently, I sent a doom and gloom article about America's future to my brother. The article, written by a UW professor, lays out a pretty dim outlook for the future of U.S. power vis-à-vis other contenders, such as China, India, and the EU.

Personally, I thought the article was a bit of an exercise in hyperbole. U.S. power isn't going to erode overnight, and there are plenty reasons why. From American military power to American brain power (as evidenced by the dominance of American universities in the ARWU world rankings), the U.S. is far from crumbling.

But my brother gave an excellent response which I think bears repeating (or at least archiving in the form of posting it on this blog). It's concise and to the point, and I agree with everything he says. Below are the seven reasons he gives that point to a better future for U.S. power than some are projecting:

1. China is unwilling to accept other cultures into its "Han Empire." What worked for the U.S. in the nineteenth century (Trail of Tears, repeated treaty transgressions with Native Americans) won't work for the Chinese. The Uighurs and Tibetans can get guns, can get their message out to the world (sort of), and there are too many of them to write off. Until China welcomes these different peoples culturally it will fight (physical or cyber) against parts of its own nation, hindering growth.
2. China's policy of taking no stand in international politics helps it deal with sketchy regimes around the world, but it leaves it with little clout in Europe, America, and Japan-[South] Korea. The economic foreign policy pursued by China could be compared to the massive outflow of dollars and intelligence from the Soviet Union in the 1950s-1970s. Those countries will take the aid you give them, but ultimately, will follow where their best interests take them. Also, using economic power without military power, as it did with Japan recently (rare earth materials) doesn't solve the diplomatic issue. It just pisses a lot of people off and forces others to compete with you. For example, rare earth materials will be mined in the U.S. again by 2012 and in Australia as well. China pushed its goals and only succeeded in lessening its dominance of vital materials.
3. China holds trillions of U.S. debt. To wage war on the U.S. without replacing our consumer buying power would ruin their economy. Without a government sponsored retirement network or something else that would trigger greater spending by the Chinese population, they won't be able to replace the American consumer before their population ages prematurely due to their "One Child" policy (see point 7). This catch-22 forces accomodation for both the U.S. and Chinese. If our economy melts down through our stupidity China's takes a big, big step backward.
4. Projecting itself onto the world stage is something that China can do economically but not militarily, much like the U.S. before World War II. Unfortunately for China there doesn't look to be a large crippling war on the horizon for Europe and the U.S. (which, incidently, truly brought about the decline of Europe, that's both world wars together). China will be unable to increase its military spending and maintain its frantic economic pace at the same time without war.
5. Oil won't determine the outcome of the world's power structure in the 21st century. Water will. India doesn't have enough (water, farmland, infrstructure). These minuses will keep Delhi from truly projecting itself onto the world stage. Look at how it handled the Commonwealth Games [in 2010]. India made current Washington politicking look progressive.
6. The European Union is not a single entity. Until it has one budget and one set of elected officials its single currency will continue to hinder it. It is the eunuch of the Great Powers.
7. Falling population growth rates in Japan, Europe, and, indeed, China, where, by the 2040's, an aging European-like population will need to support the greatest number of elderly on earth with a social net (private or government sponsored) that doesn't yet exist.

Musings from Numbers: The Benefits of Being 12-0 Instead of 9-4

Below is an email I just finished composing to a writer who has a Heisman Trophy vote. After writing it, it seemed like good blog fodder. I do have an addendum to make: I think Cam Newton in no way shape or form deserves the accolades he is currently receiving and probably will receive in the future. Here's hoping my letter convinces at least one voter to vote for someone else for the Heisman Trophy:

Andy,

If you have not already filled out your ballot for the Heisman trophy (as you mentioned in this column) I want to make a case for not voting for Cam Newton, despite the recent NCAA decision to declare him eligible for the remainder of season.

The primary reason why I feel Newton should not receive the Heisman is that had he been on a team not in contention for the national championship and/or if he was not the premier candidate for the Heisman trophy, he would have almost certainly been declared ineligible. Last year Dez Bryant was declared ineligible for simply talking to Deion Sanders. It helped that Bryant did not have any realistic shot at winning the Heisman (as you know, 99% of the time the winner is a QB or RB) and he was on an Oklahoma State team that had no chance at the national championship (ending the season at 9-4).

Meanwhile, Newton is allowed to go without penalty despite the NCAA fully admitting that his father did indeed try to solicit him for money. The NCAA claims Cam Newton was not aware of his father's actions. This is beyond flimsy, given the obvious nature of the relationship that exists between parents and children, especially when the child in question is in college. It's especially ridiculous given the widespread media coverage of Cecil Newton's heavy involvement in Cam's life, something symbolized nicely by this photo:

Clearly Cam Newton and his father are far from being in the sort of estranged father-son relationship that would be required for the NCAA's ridiculous claim to be true.

Furthermore, the Heisman Trophy is not simply about performance on the field. From the Heisman Trust's website: "The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity." Cam Newton, a person who left Florida after repeated instances of academic cheating, does not embody this aforementioned integrity. I recognize that many student-athletes are more likely to be athletes first, and students second if at all. But at the same time, I think it is an affront to the integrity of college sports, and indeed college in general, if someone who has repeated, well documented instances of cheating wins such a prestigious award. Not focusing or taking class seriously is something students, athlete or not, do across the country. Cheating is an entirely different and far more serious issue. Newton's transfer to Blinn College to avoid sanction from this repeated cheating is even more despicable. It sends a clear moral message, one that unfortunately might particularly resound with young children who follow sports, "If you get caught cheating or doing wrong, simply run away and avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Once you're in the clear, go somewhere else where as long as you are successful, everyone will forget your past transgressions."

Cam Newton does not have the integrity to win the award, and he should not even be playing in the upcoming SEC championship and whatever postseason game the Tigers end up in. From a current college student and a fan of sports, in particular college sports, I implore you to vote for another more deserving candidate.

Respectfully,
-Jason

Musings from Numbers: Rural Votes Propel Republicans to Victory

This article from the BBC echoes what I was thinking on the night of Ron Johnson's victory in Wisconsin. On election day, Feingold overwhelming won Madison with 70% of the vote and decisively carried Milwaukee with 60% of the vote. Based on those numbers from the state's capital and the state's largest city, you would have to assume that either Feingold won or Johnson won a very close race. Neither would be true. Johnson did not win in a landslide by any means, but he did win fairly comfortably (53% to 46%).

How Johnson won, of course, lies in the fact that he carried the rest of the state outside of the capital and largest city. In other words, mostly the rural vote, with a few smaller cities like my hometown of Oshkosh thrown in.

While this is interesting in and of itself going forward into the future, it occurred to me while analyzing it that this isn't actually anything new. Far from it. Cities traditionally identify in what might be considered a more "liberal" fashion, while the countryside typically votes conservatively. In the same way that many rural people in the 20s and 30s viewed New York as a despicable den of Catholicism, overrun with Irish and other untrustworthy immigrants, conservative rurals today often equate Los Angeles as a crime infested mess, overrun by Spanish speaking immigrants (even worse, of the wrong skin color). I'll never forget how on a flight from Appleton to Chicago, en route to eventually Los Angeles, a man asked me where I was travelling to. I told him my final destination was LA, to which he responded, quite seriously "Well I'm sorry to hear that. That whole place is pretty dangerous with all the Mexican gangs running around." I was a bit shocked, but managed to respond, simply saying that most big cities have serious crime problems.

So this is nothing new, and brings me to another historical comparison that the Democrats can use if they want to recover from the defeat the Republicans have inflicted on them in these midterm elections. If Democrats want to regain lost ground, they need to more effectively position themselves as populists. Populism, a derivitative of late 19th and early 20th century progressivism, has historically been the bridge between liberals and rural people. It's what allowed FDR to win election after election while carrying urban New England as well as the rural South. It's what helped define Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting, nature loving presidency (Teddy Roosevelt would appropriately later run under the Progressive Party's ticket in 1912, losing to Woodrow Wilson).

Democrats need to better position themselves to withstand attacks from Republicans about their "Wall Street bailout". They should point out that it was under Bush that the bailout money was first issued, under TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Progam). They need to point out that instead of somehow costing the middle class and working class more money through higher taxes and government healthcare, that they are actually these classes' best friends, through the form of tax cuts that target the middle class as well as a greater propensity to work towards job saving measures. They need to make it clear that they support capitalism and that they aren't socialists in order blunt the effectiveness of claims like Johnson, who said "creative destruction" is just a part of capitalism, as if Democrats can't accept that or want something altogether different from capitalism. Democrats need to show that this aforementioned creative destruction isn't 'creative' at all, and that while jobs and companies closing will always be the case, and rightfully so, in a market economy, that sometimes the government needs to step in to curb the most drastic of these tidal waves of destructive, lest they overrun the nation or seriously damage the economy. This is analagous to the breaking up of monopolies, something that involves quite a bit of government intervention, to actually help further the spirit of capitalism in the form of increased competition and better economic health. Democrats also need to better defend themselves with respect to the debt, showcasing the fact that the healthcare reform should in the long run actually save the U.S. money through lower insurance rates. They should point out that Obama's law allowing young adults to stay on their parent's health insurance plan until they are 26 is the epitome of the Democrats helping the middle and working class save money.

Of course, if the Democrats really want to swing the pendulum back to their side, it would be helpful if Obama could provide some foreign policy victories. So far he hasn't been very succesful lately after some initial victories (such as the Russian nuclear arms reduction treaty). He failed to secure a trade deal with South Korea at the G20 convention, and so far Israel has been making the U.S. look foolish with their refusal to stop building settlements in Palestinian territory. Obama needs to have a firmer hand in diplomacy. Basically, he needs to deftly remind Israel that U.S. support is crucial to Israel maintaining a strategic advantage over their Arab rivals. Or perhaps he should just go for the blunt, George W. Bush like approach and tell Netanyahu that unless he freezes settlement construction the U.S. will withdraw their support of Israel and laugh as Arab countries line up to wipe Israel off the map, all the while removing one of the major qualms that terrorists hold against the U.S. (their support of Israel). But I digress...

Musings from Numbers: When Historical References go Awry

On Tuesday, the head coach of the Tennessee football team, Derek Dooley, made a clumsy reference to his team's struggles being akin to the German reaction to the Allied invasion of Normandy, "Right now we're like the Germans in World War II. Here comes the boats, they're coming. You have the binoculars, and it's like, 'Oh, my God, the invasion is coming." He made some further comments, mentiong Patton, Rommel and the fact that the Germans were in general disarray at the start of the invasion.

First off, Derek Dooley's statements are clearly, to put it bluntly, stupid. Comparing sports and war is something best left to the realm of overly dramatic poetry and highlight reels, where the comparisons are known to be there only for dramatic effect and where they contain no specific historical references. Bringing a serious historical event into the realm of sports just doesn't make any sense. It only serves to create needless controversy, as there will undoubtedly be people offended by any kind of allusion to an event where people were killed or where core beliefs were at stake.

With that being said, what really bothers me about this whole situation is that it showcases the horrific historical ignorance that is rife in the U.S. This is seen in the reactions to the comments. In particular, two ESPN commentators who are also journalists, Tim Cowlishaw of the Dallas Morning News, and Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe. Tim Cowlishaw remarked that the comments were not only in poor taste but historically inaccurate, and Bob Ryan chipped in by boisteroisly proclaiming that "Rommel was in Africa!" At this time, I had what you might call a "face palm" moment.

In Bob Ryan's sad attempt at displaying his historical knowledge, he managed to make a fool out of himself. Yes, Rommel was the head of the Africa Korps, but by the time of D-Day, in 1944, the Germans and Italians had long since been driven out of North Africa (Axis activities there ceased in 1943). Rommel was recalled to Europe where he was a key commander in Northern France, working to improve coastal defences there. So no, Bob Ryan, he was NOT in Africa. If you are going to make a definitive statement like that you should be sure you are correct.

As for Tim Cowlishaw's general reference to "historical inaccuracies" in what Dooley said, this too is wrong. Examining Dooley's statements (which can be read here) shows no inaccuracies. He correctly mentions that the Germans were in disarray (they expected an invasion in the Calais region, which was closer to England), that Germans were looking for orders (in a general sense, as Rommel and other high ranking staffers were notably absent from the front at the time of the invasion) and also mentions the decoy tanks which Patton presided over in England in an attempt to further convince the Germans that the invasion was to occur at Calais.

What really bothers me about this sequence of events isn't so much Bob Ryan making a fool out of himself or Tim Cowlishaw incorrectly stating that Dooley got his historical facts wrong, It's that this kind of thing symbolic of a something that is commonplace in the U.S. Americans love to talk about how important history is in dramatic language (especially if it involves military history). Americans love to tout their historical knowledge as proof of their position. The problem is most Americans' historical knowledge is barely above that of a 1st grader. Most Americans couldn't tell you what year the civil war started and anything remotely specific, like Wilson's 14 points, would be met with blank stares. Americans lovingly talk of history when in reality they know nothing about it.

Don't get me wrong, I realize my view is slightly (greatly) slanted by the fact that I'm a history major. And I realize that specific historical knowledge can be something that's difficult to retain and is oftentimes pretty useless for day to day life. But if you don't know when the civil war started, and if you don't have even a general knowledge of how events transpired in the past, please do everyone a favor and refrain from acting as if you do have some kind of deep historical knowledge. In other words, keep your mouth shut, especially if you are criticizing others about something history related (here's looking at you Bob Ryan and Tim Cowlishaw).

Musings from Numbers: Who are the Other 42?

So I'm watching TV, and during a commercial break a political ad comes on screen. It's for Ron Johnson, the Republican candidate for senate from my hometown of Oshkosh. He's competing for Russ Feingold's spot, who is one of my favorite politicians due to his voting record in the senate (one of the few senators who voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war) among other things, such as the fact that he went to UW-Madison.

So with that being said, it's safe to say that I don't like Ron Johnson, or what he stands for (a conservative businessman who would serve companies, not people, in the senate). But I have to hand it to Johnson and his team, his latest political ad is simply spectacular.

Here is a link to the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06NXxd_qrtQ

The premise is simple and effectively conveyed through the use of a white board. It also speaks directly to not only conservatives who will vote for him, but independents as well. This ad appeals to independents through their concerns about the economy, and also plays on what at times is a sort of populist distrust directed at academics and lawyers, which tends to not extend to businessmen due to the supreme belief in capitalism and its morality in this country (businessmen who are rich worked hard for what they have and are entitled to it, unlike lawyers and academics).

The commercial mentions 57 lawyers in congress, with 1 accountant. The first thing that sprang to my mind was "who are the other 42 senators?" So I decided to take a look. Here's the breakdown, by degree, via a pie chart:



As you can see, there are indeed 57 lawyers in the senate. Bachelor of Arts, MBA and Bachelor of Science and are the other three most plentiful degrees. Notably absent is the number of science degrees. Of the BS degrees, only one consisted of a natural science (biology).

But aside from a degree, what exactly did the senators with these degrees do before they became senators? Just because someone gets a degree in law doesn't guarentee they will practice law. Below is a chart showing senators by "previous experience", in other words, what was the main occupation or field they engaged in before becoming a senator. I've had to use some judgement here in making this chart, as some senators had very varied backgrounds.



The chart mirrors the situation found in the degrees, with some notable variation. In particular, there are 10 less senators with what one might consider "law experience" (e.g. an attorney at a private law firm, a district attorney, etc.) than there are those with a law degree (47 versus 57 with a JD). Likewise, while only 8 senators hold an MBA, 15 can be considered to have experience in business (e.g. an insurance executive, corporate executive, etc.).

Those with "political" as their experience are those that spent most if not all of their time after college in some sort of political capacity. Examples include being a mayor or serving on a state senate.

And again, there is a notable absence in scientists. In fact, there are no scientists, and only 1 engineer, Ted Kaufman, who when going on for further schooling did not pursue an advanced engineering degree but instead went on to earn an MBA. The 2 medical doctors present and the 1 veternarian are the next closest thing to a scientist in the senate.

And yes, it's Al Franken who is the senator with "comedy" as his previous experience.

So who are the other 42 senators? Well, they are mostly businessmen and holders of degrees in areas of the humanities. Beyond that, the rest of the senators are fairly diverse, both in previous occupation and degree.

One thing is for certain, it's a bit misleading for Ron Johnson, a businessman through and through, to talk about him being an outsider in the senate. There might not be an abundance of accountants or manufacturers (which he describes himself as both), but there are plenty of people whose primary experience is in business, as well as their primary education.

So is change needed? Do we need fewer lawyers in the senate? Maybe. Perhaps having a few more scientists, might, for example, help create more funding for science related areas. The subject of who should make up a government is a weighty one however, and I don't think I can do it justice in the closing of a blog post (perhaps in a future one.. but I still need to write about China and it's parallels to Imperial Germany, so maybe in the far future).

That being said, I know that we don't need more businessmen in congress, at least those like Ron Johnson. We don't need people whose interests are not the electorate but in corporations, or who would rather cut taxes for the super rich than the middle class (which hurts the middle class, the bedrock of any advanced, modern consumer economy).

Musings from Numbers: Is the Pendulum's Swing Getting Faster?

It's a common theme in history: reaction and counter reaction. In fact, it's almost beyond predictable in some cases, especially in revolutions. The French Revolution started out with modest demands on Louis XVI but steadily became more and more radical, culminating with the exectution of the King and Queen and the reign of terror under the committee of public safety. Slowly but surely, the pendulum swung back to a more conservative element, reaching it's apex with the crowning of Napleon as Emperor.

Even the Russian Revolution of 1917 swung back and forth. The initial stages of the overall revolution and the provisional government under Kerensky were moderate though definitely more liberal than the Tsarist government that preceded them. What started as moderate change of government quickly descended into a civil war wherein the radical Bolsheviks sought control of the government, ultimately winning out. The Bolshevik's aquisition of power quickly lead to widespread implementation of communist policies, but even this pendulum swing stopped. Lenin offered a temporary reprieve and a return to slight privatization during the mid 20's. It might be argued that this swing continued and culminated with the aquisition of power by Stalin, akin to the crowning of Napoleon as Emperor. Stalin might have professed his belief in socialism, but his policies were more akin to a right wing totalitarian dictatorship, not a left wing revolutionary socialist state dedicated to a world revolution.

Stalin's political beliefs are debatable, but there's no doubt that any important event or country experiences the effects of the pendulum swing. This is especially evident in Democratic countries. A common trend is the election of a conservative party to power, followed by the eventual changeover to a liberal party. I think that sometimes this changeover reflects the changing in policies and events in the world, rather than a direct deterministic transition regardless of what is happening in the world. In other words, the changeover in Democratic governments that oftentimes results in a switch from liberal to conservative or vice versa is as if the voters are in tune with the "heartbeat" of history, and it's never ending shifts. The best example of this that springs to mind is the appointment of Churchill at the start of World War 2 but his eventual electoral defeat to Clement Attlee and the Labor Party towards the end of the war when it was clear victory in the war was at hand.

So, this brings me to my main point, which seems to be that we are seeing an increasing acceleration in the pendulum swings in history. Consider the fact that the Soviet Union came to exist and then ceased to exist in a period of less than a century. Some might say that the Soviet Union is not a distinct entity in and of itself insofar as it is merely Russia with a different face, when viewed from a broader perspective. I disagree. I think the Soviet Union was an incredibly unique entity, with it's distinctly communist society, economy and government entirely different from Imperial Russia before it and the pseudo-Democratic Capitalist Russia that has followed it. In addition to this, the current Russian Federation is but a mere a shadow of the former USSR, having lost millions of people (it's population is nearly half of what it could be had the union stayed together) and countless resources. This reminds me of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire, which continued to exist but whom no one confused with the glory of the actual Roman Empire.

This increasing pace can be seen in a few areas, and the easiest to look at it is ruling parties changeover and, most important of all, the rise and fall of states. Going back to the Soviet Union, we can see that the USSR lasted only 74 years, from 1917 to 1991. Looking at other modern examples we see equally short timeframes for the rise and fall of states: Nazi Germany lasted only 12 years, Imperial Japan (viewed in the sense of it starting with initial Westernization, transitioning to an Imperial power, and culminating its defeat in WW2) lasted only about 80 years. The Third French Republic only lasted 70 years. In the space of mere decades, entire empires and ideological movements were swept aside, confined to the ash heap of history.

If we look at previous periods in history, states seemingly were much more stable and constant. Certainly there were empires that rose to power and quickly fell, but as a whole, what would be considered the "great powers" had longer lasting durations of power. The Roman Empire lasted nearly 500 years, the Ottoman Empire also last nearly 500 years. The Byzantine Empire lasted about a 1000 years from the fall of Rome, while the Fatimids dominated the Middle East for nearly 200 years, followed by the Ayybuid Dynasty and the Mamelukes which combined for 500 years of rule of Egypt and much of the Middle East. The Ming Dynasty followed by the Qing Dynasty accounted for nearly 500 years of Chinese rule. Meanwhile, the French monarchy (between the Valois and Bourbons) lasted nearly 800 years, the Spanish Monarchy persisted for nearly 400 years, and the Holy Roman Empire existed for about 800 years, where the last half of its existence it was a de facto extension of the Austrian Empire, itself (i.e. the Habsburgs) a long lived empire. Not so coincidentally, nearly all of the aforementioned entities met their demise in the modern era.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are some current states which are long lived by the standards I layed out in my previous paragraph. The USA is still going strong after 200 years, while even if conservatively measuring the UK as only existing from the act of union (and not as England) in 1707, the UK is still a major power after 300 years. But still, it certainly seems like states are rising and falling quicker, and that the current world powers in their present incarnation are young. China is only 60 years old, India only 60 years old, Russia a mere 20 years old, and the 5th French Republic only 50 years old.

If we switch over to the changeover in policitical ruling parties as a measure of how fast the pendulum in history is swinging, a similar effect is seemingly observed, though it's not nearly as pronounced.

In the first 22 presidencies of the U.S. (ending with Grover Cleveland in 1889), there were 9 "party switches" (going from a Federalist to a Democratic-Republican would count as a switch). The more recent 22 presidencies have seen 14 such switches, with the effect especially pronounced recently (where of the last four presidents, 2 have been Republican and 2 have been Democratic, and each time a member of the opposite party followed assumed office, first from George Bush Sr to Clinton, then from Clinton to Bush, and from Bush to Obama).

Is 14 versus 9 a sigificant difference? I think so, though of course it's not nearly as clear cut if the difference was say, 20 switches versus 9.

In closing, I think it's safe to say that the pendulum of history is indeed swinging faster. What does this mean? I think it means a lot. Something big is brewing, something akin to a world war, and it's going to come faster than it might have otherwise in the past. Pax Americana won't last as long as Pax Romana. Inevitably, I think the confrontation will come down to China and the U.S. The only thing that makes me think it won't is the threat of nuclear weapons being used in a conflict between major powers. This might be powerful enough to stave off a world war or what I feel is brewing.. but maybe not. Because, at the end of the day, there's nothing that says anyone has to use nukes in a war. If China invaded Taiwan, would the U.S. nuke China? Would China nuke the U.S. if the U.S. intervened? The more I think about it, the more I think they wouldn't. And the more I think about it, the more I see shades of Imperial Germany in China, with the U.S. playing the role of Great Britain. But that's a post for another day...