Michael Hudson does a tafsir on Rammstein. One obvious question is, if Europe's victorious powers in 1919 did not have to maintain their debts, ultimately held by the US of A, why did they.
I'm not concerned about the US being "Selfish" or even "Greedy", much less "Bullies". All countries look to their own interests. The Soviet Union was plenty selfish and greedy, and violent. It's the job of other countries to call the big boys' bluff. In 1945-8, as Hudson illustrates, they couldn't. But in 1919 . . .
France and England - and, from 1924-29, Stresemann's Germany - had a window to tell the Yanks where to get off, like the Soviet Union had done ("go bill the Tsar: in Hell!"). That, of course, would have kicked off the Wall Street crash (and bank run) earlier, under Coolidge. On the other hand I believe Coolidge might have righted the ship better than Hoover and Roosevelt would.
The midwit answer is the same answer as to why the Allies did not accept the various peace proposals coming out of Berlin 1916-17. On Armistice Day the Allies had a choice between clearing the slate, and allowing red armband Germany to totter along; or, getting on the hook with Uncle Sam, but passing the sharp end of the hook to the Hun. Sheer spite certainly explains how it was all sold to the public. But spite might not be the reason.
I also wonder if the debt was a convenient excuse to shrug off the demands of Labour-with-a-'u'. There we're getting warmer.
If I read Hudson right, he proposes that the rich in Europe parked their assets in American banks, those banks being deemed more stable and less likely to confiscate it all like the armbands were promising. If they'd done this before 1924, to a sufficient extent, then their motive would be more aligned with American interests than with the fisc at home. To whit: "England" owed the US money. The smart Englishmen moved their money into US banks. By this sleight of hand, "England" owed that money to American banks... who owed it to the richest Englishmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment