[OT] Sea Lanes was: Liberals

Oerjan Ohlson schrieb:
> > > Er, well... only if you count the oceans :-/ And I'm

Actually, their importance may have been exaggerated.

Paul M. Kennedy, the author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic
Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000

Has written:

The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery Humanity Books; ISBN: 1573922781;
Reissue edition (January 1998)

He argues that British supremacy was in decline BEFORE the First World War due
to the limited industrial and population resources of Britain compared to
Germany and France.

More importantly, his main thesis is:

Mahan got it wrong. Naval power is only relevant against an opponent that
cannot find enough resources in its own territories. A naval power
is restricted to pin-prick coastal raids against such a land power.
Napoleon, Hitler and the Soviet Union were restricted, but not brought down by
naval power. Napoleon's and Hitler's empires were toppled by armies, not
navies. The Soviet Union fell through economic problems, not by a naval
blockade.

The US now are a world power primarily because they are a large country with a
strong economy.

Greetings Karl Heinz

> At 10:58 AM +0200 9/16/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

With a strong navy since our rise to "world power" status. Our impact during
WWII would have been far less had we not ramped up our navy in
the WWI-WWII era.