in light of current events, I did some reading on whether Napoleon had any troubles with the contemporary equivalent of bond vigilantes.
In contrast to many of his predecessors, it seems he hadn't, because the Rothschilds et al disliked financing anything French that came after the Revolution. Hence, he financed his campaigns with innovative and brutal new methods, by extracting as much wealth as possible from each conquest, which in turn paid for the next one.
Even with these methods, one will tend to run out of money before one conquers the world, which is exactly what happened to Bonaparte, and also to his eager student Hitler.
Looking at today's Russo-American Axis, I find this oddly comforting. It takes a kind of mad genius to conduct a war when the bond market is saying "nope". (No, being a stable genius ain't gonna suffice). And financing the takeover of Greenland by conquering Panama... just doesn't add up.
Now we know why England was winning every war in Victorian times and Hitler lost in WW2. But how was it that India won its war for independence against its much richer ruler?
Interesting comment at the end about if Harris would have won things would be different. If anything the Dems are more war hawkish than the Repukes: their policy on Gaza is the same and more militant re: Ukraine. The US centric military empire chooses presidents, not the other way around, thus US military spending and it's imperialistic forever wars continues regardless of who's in the white house.
Please no adverts for other services on this substack or I will have to block you.
STILL READING YOU EVERYDAY FOR YEARS U R GOOD BRO
Please no adverts for other services on this substack or I will have to block you.
I DIDNT, I JUST ASKED IF YOU PUBLISH IT ? COZ I GOT IT AS MAIL FROM YOU YESTERDAY , I HAVE NOTHING TO ADV I DONT KNOW THIS GUY AND PLATFORM
Ok, sorry. I apologise for the misunderstanding
I DELETED IT, SORRY ,
in light of current events, I did some reading on whether Napoleon had any troubles with the contemporary equivalent of bond vigilantes.
In contrast to many of his predecessors, it seems he hadn't, because the Rothschilds et al disliked financing anything French that came after the Revolution. Hence, he financed his campaigns with innovative and brutal new methods, by extracting as much wealth as possible from each conquest, which in turn paid for the next one.
Even with these methods, one will tend to run out of money before one conquers the world, which is exactly what happened to Bonaparte, and also to his eager student Hitler.
Looking at today's Russo-American Axis, I find this oddly comforting. It takes a kind of mad genius to conduct a war when the bond market is saying "nope". (No, being a stable genius ain't gonna suffice). And financing the takeover of Greenland by conquering Panama... just doesn't add up.
Yes. Living off the land works only as long as you are winning...
Now we know why England was winning every war in Victorian times and Hitler lost in WW2. But how was it that India won its war for independence against its much richer ruler?
Or Vietnam and Afghanistan against the Americans. There is more to winning a war than money.
In my opinion, GDP is one of many other advantages, the biggest one of which is ruling the seas.
Interesting comment at the end about if Harris would have won things would be different. If anything the Dems are more war hawkish than the Repukes: their policy on Gaza is the same and more militant re: Ukraine. The US centric military empire chooses presidents, not the other way around, thus US military spending and it's imperialistic forever wars continues regardless of who's in the white house.