James thinks that autarkic policies correlate with security concerns. There is no evidence for this view. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence that the 'import substitution' model chosen by countries like India was predicated on external security. Only when that security was challenged was 'export led growth' seen as the only path forward. The reason for this is that military technology seldom permits the substitution of 'quantity' for 'quality'.



Neville Chamberlain is not relevant here. Winston Churchill is. As Chancellor, he took a penny off income tax instead of beefing up the Navy to face the Japanese threat. Chamberlain's actions did piss off the Japanese- but it was inevitable to placate Indian Nationalist sentiment who backed the Modi-Lees agreement.



The difference between Britain in 1932 and the US now, is that America is by far the strongest power, economic or military, on the planet. Using its muscle now is a cheap way to contain China. Had Britain been serious about keeping its Empire it should have developed a two front Naval capacity rather than supinely relied on the 'Washington Conference' and the 'ten year rule'. It should have given Japan a good kicking while it still could and bottled it up. Trump's America can certainly throw China's timetable into disarray. Whether its ambitions can be contained depends on the next administration.



Chamberlain's policies did not strengthen Germany. They could have accumulated bigger stockpiles of essential war supplies under Free Trade and thus could have afforded to play a waiting game in Poland and the East. The reason for Munich is quite simple. The Sudetens had been badly hurt by the Depression. They had a reasonable case. But, it was the lack of a French offensive doctrine and Poland's refusal to allow Soviet troops across it borders which made the dismemberment of that country inevitable. Don't forget, Poland took its share of that unholy feast.



Containing Germany has always meant having an offensive doctrine- not sitting around waiting for them to go around your defences. France refused to develop such a doctrine and thus the vast majority of French officers accepted Petain as their leader after capitulating. It was only the partition and occupation of Germany which ended the problem. It was foolish to rely on the French occupation of the Rhineland and some vague pact with the successor states- which had various irredentist demands against each other- because this motley crew were incapable of formulating or implementing an offensive doctrine. Chamberlain was not party to any of this and escapes blame. Churchill's complacency is another matter. I don't know why James mentions the League of Nations. It was a hypocritical joke which featured Ambassadors from supposedly independent countries which were actually occupied by British or other troops.



James fails to mention the steady policy of the German army- which had ordered Corporal Hitler to join the Nazi Party- to secretly rearm with the help of the other 'pariah' nation, the Soviet Union. He does not mention irredentism in the successor states. Instead he asserts that the Depression- which occurred after the German army had laid its plans in place- was somehow caused by Britain and France and that their response to it, which, in the case of Britain, increased the cohesiveness and fighting ability of the Empire, somehow triggered an outcome which German generals- Luddendorf, Schleicher, Blomberg etc- had been planning for during the Twenties.



The lesson of the Great Depression is clear- protect the financial system from contagion risk and thus avoid a monetary shock. The lesson of Germany is also clear- occupy an aggressor, force it to pay reparations, and never let it rearm. Also have a truly terrifying offensive doctrine which involves the utter destruction of the offending country. There is no link between Depressions & World Wars. There is a link with not occupying an aggressor and destroying its military potential.



The Chinese think Trump is one smart cookie. James thinks he is a fool who will trigger a World War in which...what? America gets nuked? Don't be silly. China gets bottled up and turns into a larger version of North Korea.



Europe talked big but has had to face up to its internal problems- it has absorbed a lot of ex-Communist countries which simply don't get along and have added nothing to collective security. Europe can't defend even defend itself. It is so bureaucratic that it won't be able to field an Army with unified command till 2030- i.e. never. Indeed, the EU will be glad of Trump when it comes to pushing back against the client states China is buying for itself within the Union.



James thinks China is a 'more stable partner' for the EU! Wonderful! What happens when they demand extra-territoriality for their people on enterprise zones or entrepots on European soil? When they demand Europe hand over a dissident or expel a Tibetan lama, what price 'stability' then?



America is still a rich country. China is still poor. Can Europeans really compete with Chinese construction or factory workers- even on their own soil? Will Chinese debt fail to strangle Greece as Sri Lanka has been strangled? A poor country has to get a good return on its investments. Uncle Sam could be more generous- more particularly because of its large White population which is of European, not Chinese, descent.



Everything James says about Trump could be said about Churchill in his wilderness years when he warned of the rise of Nazi Germany. The difference is Trump is taking action while China is still weak and can be deterred. That is why the Chinese respect him. James? Not so much.