[lbo-talk] Re: New (or Old) Imperialism

Autoplectic autoplectic at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 19:13:27 PST 2005


On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0800 (PST), andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Old imperialism question. Reading Donald Kagan's short
> Pelopponesian War. Yes, he's a bad guy, but he's a
> real scholar of this subject. Anyway, he throws off
> the observatiuon that most 18th, 19th and 20th century
> empires have been net economic losses to the
> metropolis and have been maintained for reasons of
> prestige -- sort of a Hobson-Schumpter theory. Is
> there a good review of whether that is true?

-------------------------------------------

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5714.html Does Conquest Pay? The Exploitation of Occupied Industrial Societies

Peter Liberman

Can foreign invaders successfully exploit industrial economies? Since control over economic resources is a key source of power, the answer affects the likelihood of aggression and how strenuously states should counter it. The resurgence of nationalism has led many policymakers and scholars to doubt that conquest still pays. But, until now, the "cumulativity" of industrial resources has never been subjected to systematic analysis.

Does Conquest Pay? demonstrates that expansion can, in fact, provide rewards to aggressor nations. Peter Liberman argues that invaders can exploit industrial societies for short periods of time and can maintain control and economic performance over the long term. This is because modern societies are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and repression. Hence, by wielding a gun in one hand and offering food with the other, determined conquerors can compel collaboration and suppress resistance. Liberman's argument is supported by several historical case studies: Germany's capture of Belgium and Luxembourg during World War I and of nearly all of Europe during World War II; France's seizure of the Ruhr in 1923-24; the Japanese Empire during 1910-45; and Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe in 1945-89.

Does Conquest Pay? suggests that the international system is more war-prone than many optimists claim. Liberman's findings also contribute to debates about the stability of empires and other authoritarian regimes, the effectiveness of national resistance strategies, and the sources of rebellious collective action.

Reviews:

"An outstanding piece of multilingual historical and economic research in the service of social science."--Foreign Affairs

"This close study of five major occupations (including the Nazi, Japanese, and Soviet empires) concludes that conquest pays handsomely. The costs are low; the benefits potentially large. This is a valuable analysis, of significance for strategic study of the 20th century, and of disturbing implications for architects of the current international system."--The Virginia Quarterly Review of History

Table of Contents:

List of Figures and Tables

Preface and Acknowledgments Ch. 1 Does Conquest Pay? 3 Ch. 2 When Does Conquest Pay? 18 Ch. 3 Nazi-Occupied Western Europe, 1940-1944 36 Ch. 4 Belgium and Luxembourg, 1914-1918 69 Ch. 5 The Ruhr-Rhineland, 1923-1924 87 Ch. 6 The Japanese Empire, 1910-1945 99 Ch. 7 The Soviet Empire, 1945-1989 120 Ch. 8 The Spoils of Conquest 146

Notes 159

Works Cited 209

Index 243



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list