Culture and Globalization

Sep 14

The authors argue in Chapter V that imperialism and world war are key to understanding the history of globalization. In your own words, summarize why this is the case. Then, in Chapter VI, they characterize the post-WWII era as “globalization split in two.” What do they mean by this, and what does it have to do with the new institutions of the global economy they describe?

Your responses are due by 1pm, Wednesday, September 19.


75 comments so far

  1. sbannach
    2:10 pm - 9-18-2012

    In Chapter V of Globalization: A Short History, the authors argue that imperialism and world war are critical in understanding the history of globalization. In the early 1900s, the world saw the first global system of alliances within Europe borne out of fears of German encroachment on other European territories (94). The alliance system involved reducing international territorial claims in areas such as Latin America in order to ally Europe with the powerful United States and Russia. Despite this system, however, the governments of the states involved refused to concede any amount of sovereignty. This caused intra-European conflict that eventually led to World War I (97). After the First World War, the world economy was in shambles. Attempts at establishing supranational organizations like the League of Nations in order to help alleviate these consequences failed because once again no state wanted to sacrifice sovereignty (99).
    World War I is key to understanding the history of globalization for several reasons. First, it was the first war to truly involve the entire globe. Moreover, once the war ended, it was the first time that the world economy experienced a global depression due to one conflict. World War I was thusly a precursor to world conflicts that would induce a similar global economic reaction in the future. Furthermore, World War I demonstrated the effects of not having supranational organizations such as the United Nations to assist with post-war debts and difficulties. This world war showed the need for countries to work together on a global scale. Thus, understanding the history of international conflicts such as World War I is vital in understanding globalization on the whole because it proved that the world was indeed becoming inherently globalized.
    In Chapter VI, Osterhammel and Petersson contend that between 1945-1970s, the world experienced �globalization split in two� partly due to new global economic institutions. After World War II, one of the �most important political structure[s]� to evolve was the splitting of the world between the West (the US, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia) and the USSR and its allies (114). These two sides had ideological differences that they could not resolve. Thus, the world was partitioned into two blocs that thus created a bilateral concentration of power. Newly founded nation-states found that the West and the USSR were so powerful that they could not live up to expectations set in place for nation states (119). This tensions originating form this divide led to the Cold War. Additionally, the post-World War II era saw the creation of global economic institutions out of the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944�mainly, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The US decided to �shoulder [the] costs of major reconstruction program[s]� and forgive post-war debts (123), giving the US even more power. Additionally, the tensions of the Cold War caused the Western countries to become almost wholly dependent on each other and completely exclude the USSR from most economic exchanges. On the whole, the post-World War II era saw a complete split between the West and the USSR, thusly leading to �globalization split in two.�

    • ksalvucc
      1:33 pm - 9-19-2012

      Great analysis, couldn’t agree more. I found it interesting about what you said about how western countries depended on each other and excluded the USSR. This was very interesting to me.

    • hsingh4
      11:17 pm - 9-20-2012

      I really liked the point you made about World War 1 being the key to understanding the history of globalization. I completely agree, as it was the first “global” war and the fact that it did not involve institutions such as the UN really sent economies around the world into a depression

    • msirico
      5:37 pm - 9-21-2012

      I agree with your analysis about how pre-WWII states did not want to give up any bit of sovereignty and how this refusal helped create both world wars. Your point about WWI being the first global crisis, leading to world political and economic disasters, is also quite interesting. WWI also demonstrated the need, and ability, to work internationally.

  2. msirico
    4:53 pm - 9-18-2012

    Osterhammel and Petersson claim that imperialism and world war are imperative to understanding globalization’s history. In the time leading up to World War I, most of the world was divided up into the Imperial powers and those lands under imperial rule or colonization. The time just before WWI was a time of great globalization. In Part, this was because of easier worldwide communication due to advances in technology. Distance became easier to traverse with the invention of the steamboat, and motorized vehicles such as buses and automobiles, and early flight. This facilitated communication between empires and states. This point was a key turning point in “transnational cooperation.” During this time, there was great development in international economic growth. Trade between continents was loosely interconnected, but trade in the global north was bound together through the gold standard. Certain areas of the world flourished under global trade, such as tin mines in Malaya, or the export-geared economy of Argentina. As the global economy grew, political systems started to make regulations and steer globalization to the benefit of the state.
    World Wars also played a massive part in the development of globalization. The world wars were another side of globalization: many differing states fighting throughout the world as politics and economics intermingled. As fighting powers couldn’t produce their own goods, they imported others from other countries. These were global wars fought with “global resources.” The wars were fought with more than just weapons as economics were also used to fight: trade blockades, attacks on shipping and communication lines, etc. These times brought a change to the international world.
    After WWII, Osterhammel and Petersson claim that Globalization split. I believe this to mean that globalization split as the economical and social parts separated. Politics and economics were institutionalized. Intergovernmental systems formed, regulating governments and economies. Institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF were founded to regulate economies and aid those in need. Now more than ever, economies were intertwined, and a failing one could affect the ones they were tied to greatly. On the other hand, culture spread throughout the world, mainly that of the new superpower, the U.S. After WWII, the U.S. emerged as a new hegemon. U.S culture spread to areas of the world it had not before, passed throughout the world indirectly and adapting to new areas. Of course, culture could not be spread without the international growth of economics. But in this time, national economies were governed by the new institutions, and culture was spread in other means as well, such as through technological advances.

    • jnewman4
      10:18 am - 9-20-2012

      Your analysis is quite thorough. I completely agree with your points on how world wars contribute to globalization. The world was now promoting interaction on a global scale, be it benevolent or malicious. The simple fact that the countries were able to mobilize globally shows how advanced societies have become. You make a valid point about aggression through economics, a very detrimental tactic. As far as globalization “splitting in two”, you could also mention the two distinct super powers: the USA and its allies and the USSR and its allies, and their competing ideologies that forced said split.

    • sbannach
      2:21 pm - 9-20-2012

      You offer a unique perspective on this complex issue. I did not necessarily gather from the reading that globalization was split by economics, but you make a convincing argument for this viewpoint. As mentioned before, I think that the political divide between the US and its allies and the USSR also played a vital role in dividing globalization “in two.”

      • rgomez5
        11:14 am - 9-21-2012

        Hi, this is an interesting point, I think the competition between the U.S and the USSR also brought politics into the globalization process, this was mostly focusing in the idea of showing people what political system was better or most beneficial.

    • tmarchan
      7:06 pm - 9-20-2012

      What you said about wars being fought with more than just weapons as economics, really caught my attention. Wars bring much more than just physical damage to a country it also hurts their economy. That is excatly why insitutions were made to help stabalize the economies of the countries torn by war.

  3. btaborga
    5:16 pm - 9-18-2012

    Imperialism and world war do help us understand the history of globalization and how we became so global. The authors have several examples of how world war and their beginnings help us understand globalization. During these times we had telegraph, railroads, cars, large passenger ships and even air planes. This allowed for people to go everywhere, whenever. Because of this our world in the 20th century became very small; everything was and still is connected because of these industrial developments. Before World War I, many European countries started to fear Germany because they were arming themselves militarily. This made European countries that also feared this, and the USA start an alliance where they would protect themselves. According to the book this was the “first global system of alliances”. Also the authors talk about different wars during history that started to shape our world today. For instance, the Spanish-American War in 1898 marked the entrance of the United States into world politics. The authors also ask themselves: “in a world this small, was the clash of great powers unavoidable?” I would respond YES to that because as nations grow stronger and bigger they also grow greedier which causes fights among other big nations and eventually you have a world war. In this chapter we also learn that in a world that has become so “small” and countries were so connected then, World War I was going to happen. During this war, and at the beginning of the war countries like the USA and Britain were close allies, the USA sent military weapons, supplies, and anything needed to help their allies. Thanks to globalization the European powers fighting Germany in World War I were able to fight off Germany. Because of the strong connection these nations had, and their ability to help each other internationally. “World War I represented a phase of convulsively intensified interaction.” In chapter VI the author talks about globalization being split in two. This basically means that after World War II the two super powers (USA and the USSR) started to spread the influence in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The USSR wanted to spread the ideas of communism, and the USA wanted to spread a capitalist society. We can see this split with the Berlin wall after both super powers entered Berlin and each claimed a side, the capitalist side and the communist side. In chapter VI they also talk about the new institutions of the global economy. This is basically showing us that after WWII Europe’s economy was torn up because all of their money went into weapons and funding the war. What major powers like the United States did in order to have a stable economy was to create international organizations that would help maintain a world economy and to help those countries who are struggling with their economy. Organizations like the IMF and the World Bank were created. They were created as reconstruction banks to help Europe after the war, to get back on its feet. “The idea was to ensure that international cooperation remained compatible with full employment policy. For this purpose, institutions were created that still influence economic globalization today.” These organizations were created because people started to understand how every country was economically connected and if one economy falls, others might to. To keep this from happening, organizations like these were created.

  4. hsingh4
    5:52 pm - 9-18-2012

    Osterhammel and Petersson claim that imperialism and world war are the key to understanding the history of globalization. Since the turn of the century, the world has been experiencing a transformation of the way they lived and thought. For example a major change occurred in 1884 when 25 states agreed to divide the world into time zones and established global time based on the Greenwich Median. The time just before WWI was a time of great globalization. Distances became easier to traverse through the steamboat, and motorized vehicles. This is further reinforced by the authors; as they say that by the year 1911 every part of the world had been explored and charted. Only the highest peaks on earth had so far resisted all advances. Another aspect to pre World War 1 globalization was that the flows of labor, capital, and goods were all interconnected. European capital essentially financed the expansion of global economic infrastructure.

    After World War 2, Osterhammel and Petersson claim that Globalization split in two. In my opinion, this means that the world was divided between both socially and economically. The collapse of Germany and Japan created large power vacuums, and at the same time, the United States and the USSR had gained a major power advantage. Both these powers differed greatly in their respective political ideology. As a result, Europe was divided and China fell under a communist regime. The post WW2 era also brought in a “global economy”. This is highlighted by the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, which established the basic principles for a free global economy. This also led to the creation of institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The world was intertwined now more than ever. Shipping, trade, telecommunications, air travel, and international firm activities tied together global networks.

    • ksalvucc
      1:43 pm - 9-19-2012

      I thought what you wrote was very interesting, especially when you stated your opinion about the authors claim that “globalization split in two” after WWII. I never really thought of it that way.

      • ksalvucc
        1:56 pm - 9-19-2012

        For your opinion I meant to say that I never really thought of it in the sense of a social, I was more leaning towards the political sphere of interaction, not the social sphere.

    • ngibson3
      11:45 am - 9-21-2012

      I like how when you were talking about how the world have become smaller and distances shorter you included that the authors had said that all of the world had been explored and mapped by 1911. That is great evidence.

    • sarahariri
      12:53 pm - 9-21-2012

      I like how you explained how globalization “split in two.” The social as well as economic implications are very important to consider. The economic effect of globalization is obvious, but the cultural/social aspect is discussed less and is an important point to bring up.

    • rafae309
      1:44 pm - 9-21-2012

      Very interesting post. I liked your examples of shipping, telecommunications, air travel and international firms of the global world intertwining very helpful. Great opinion as well.

  5. albuquerque
    7:31 pm - 9-18-2012

    As stated at the end of section V, the end of world war two in 1945 marks a turning point in the way we look at the history of globalization. This is because of the change in attitude that the allied/world superpowers had. The end of world war two marks the beginning of many efforts by the victors of WW2 to create a new world order; one involving intentional global modernization and the advancement of the global economy.
    Basically world war one was a pausing point in the globalization rate at the time. While it did unite the allied countries it also drove many economic ties and such into the ground. WW1 destroyed Europe’s power and economic superiority over the rest of the world. It brought it down and unfortunately did not push anyone up to fill the spot. The League of Nations was an attempt but because of the major world powers unwillingness to comply with the root theory if collective security and all it entails, the League of nations failed and the world was essentially left with no global governance of any kind.
    The world’s unwillingness to work together for a common stability eventually lead to WW2. After WW2 the world superpowers saw that they needed to step in and work unified to make sure that another world war did not occur and bring down the global economy yet again. This also marked the beginning to the decolonization period. So with an influx of new autonomous countries and a intentional international effort from WW2 victors, the world became even more noticeably interconnected with one another and as time goes on past the post WW2 era and the time of decolonization, these efforts to modernize/globalize are still seen today making this time in globalizations history very important to understand modern day globalization.
    After WW2 began a time period of about 30 years that are referred to as the golden age. This is when globalization prospered fairly freely. Though the original Brenton Woods economic plan set forth for the post-WW2 era failed, ultimately economic prosperity on a global scale still continued. Though in the post WW2 era another major issue arose when the global community essentially spilt in two: communism (led by eh USSR) and democracy (led by the US). This division had a huge effect on the trading routes and links that had previously existed and because of America’s drive to secure a free capitalist market as well as contain communism and free West Germany. Tension was again present but the economic/global gain out weighted it. Through the new economic policies and organizations created during this time exchange and international trade expanded very rapidly. People became more connected through many technological advances and thus globalization was again allowed to prosper and the global economy as well.

    • tmarchan
      6:54 pm - 9-20-2012

      I completely agree with the idea that, “efforts to modernize/globalize are still seen today” .I tie it up with the idea of Americanization or Americans spreading their ideas on politics, culture, and economics.

  6. kmilburn1957
    9:08 pm - 9-18-2012

    Globalization consists of many threads between nation states: economic, social and political. Imperialism helped spread these differences by occupying nation states, introducing new social mores, traditions and technologies to the lands they were controlling. Likewise, the native citizenry exposed them to different values, economic or agricultural developments. The flow of information and people thrived in a strong interconnection. These networks developed further and farther thanks to affordable steamship travel, international communication through the telegraph, thus strengthening the economic and cultural ties. Wars also affected and changed the spread of globalization, by shaking up the naturally occurring unions between neighboring countries. Countries interested in similar political views formed alliances to fight common enemies. Thanks to the development of transnational transportation and communications these alliances could be between countries nowhere near each other geographically. As nations political views changed, so did their groupings. This provided a constant change and exposure to a variety of social and political views. Wars changed political as well as economic venues. If a necessary commodity was procured from a country who is now your enemy, tariffs or embargos may be imposed making them too costly, and resources at home may be developed to replace the need to import them. This affected the global market and economy as supply and demands shifted and realigned.
    Eventually, Imperialism led to the transnational political competition that eventually led to world war. Based on the results of these wars, it lead to a bipolar world between the United States and the Soviet Union , which sparked in the West a common defense and economic strategy. This bipolar world also greatly increased the development of certain types of technology, which over time became commercialized.
    The collapse of Germany and Japan left a vacuum in their conquered territories. Only the powerful U.S. and U.S.S.R. could fill this vacuum, which we did by re-shaping and westernizing them a bit. While the Soviet Union used conquering and occupation as a way to control its empire, the U.S. and its allies helped form institutions such as the IMF, UN, and GATT, that allowed capitalism to grow. In 1944 the Bretton Woods Conference set up a new economic order which proposed a free global economy based on a legal and constitutional framework, aiming to maintain the international cooperation that had developed.

    • saehwan72
      7:54 pm - 9-20-2012

      I agree with your assessment of of imperialism and how the spread of imperialism was unintentionally also the spread of globalization. I also ten to agree with how after the second world war, the two remaining superpowers the U.S. and USSR had completely different philosophies when gaining allies.

    • rafae309
      1:51 pm - 9-21-2012

      Thanks for your comment! I liked how your post about globalization and its spread was organized with examples like the flow of information, steamship travel and advancement in technology. I also agree that transportation and communication played a key role in bringing nations closer together. Very thoughtful view! Your post was very helpful in making me understand how and why those international institutions like the IMF and World Bank were created.

  7. saehwan72
    12:01 am - 9-19-2012

    The authors emphasize both imperialism and world war as key parts to understanding the history of globalization for many reasons. Imperialism began a worldwide competition for the remaining territories. The increasing imperialistic views of the world caused all the major powers to compete with one another to colonize the areas of the world that had not yet been colonized. In my opinion imperialism represented the last of the great European powers and influences across the globe. The advances in technology allowed for faster communication between colonies and nations than ever before. Each nation-state and its colonies began to cultivate policies of trade that would benefit economic growth for their nation. The World Wars soon followed the period of imperialism. Osterhammel and Petersson state that, “the boom in globalization” caused by imperialism could very well have caused World War I. It would have been nearly impossible for World War I to take place had it not been for such a wide spread of globalization. The first World War was truly a global effort. The war began with European conflict and spread quickly to require global resources. The opposing sides of this war recruited many different nations for their cause. The war had lasting effects in putting a temporary halt on the progress of globalization, “numerous long-standing networks were destroyed without being replaced by new, stable structures”. “ Globalization split into means that after WWII the decline of both Germany and Japan left a huge void of power which was then spread between the U.S. and the USSR, who both held a significant advantage than the rest of the world. The two superpowers in the world were now the United States and USSR. Both these super powers differed ideologically. This led to the division of Europe and communism rose in China. Global economy was now prevalent once again. The Bretton Woods conference would ultimately serve as a guideline to the new global economy. To summarize, the Breatton Woods conference limited the movement of goods and capital. This led to the development of the new institutions such as the IRBD, IMF, and GATT. The development of these institutions shows how overlapping the global economy had become.

    • shusain
      11:33 am - 9-21-2012

      I think you made some really good points about why it’s important to understand the history of globalization. The most important would be the advances in technology. Like you said, trade led to economic growth in each nation which then led to Germany becoming more powerful and others fearing the country. After the World Wars, Bretton Woods helped in a way to get the nation’s back on their feet.

  8. tmarchan
    12:15 am - 9-19-2012

    Osterhammel and Peterson argue in chapter V that imperialism and world war are key to understanding the history of globalization. Imperialism caused competition on a global scale. The future was argued belonged to world powers that controlled the population, raw materials, and markets. Imperialism created a race for the super powers to spread their spheres of influence. Imperialism also motivated advancement in transportation and communication. World powers were looking for innovative ways to access lands under their rule. World war is also important in understanding the history of globalization because world war causes heightened interaction among nations because of the alliances and rivalries. Soldiers from India, Australia, New Zealand, France’s African colonies, and the United States were sent to Europe to fight in World War I. Resources are supplied at a global scale, for example the colonies supplied Europe with raw materials that were vital to war. The United States eventually entered the war because Germany tried to cut off the flow of supplies they sent to the allies. Diseases also spread around the globe because of war i.e., the worldwide flu epidemic that killed more people than the actual war.
    In chapter VI, they characterize the post-WWII era as “globalization split in two” because the world parted into two ideological blocs competing for power. These two ideological blocs shaped the structures of economic and politics spheres of interaction. The United States was trying to spread capitalism and democracy while the Soviets were trying to spread communism. After World War II the global economy grew and there had to be regulations for the increase in trade. The Bretton Woods conference provided an outline for a free global economy . The institutions created at the conference were: the World Bank , the IMF, and the GATT. These institutions were created to regularize the global economy and have them work together.

    • btaborga
      10:38 pm - 9-19-2012

      I like the fact that you brought up that due to globalization during the world wars (1 and 2) diseases were also taken from place to place. Like you mentioned soldiers from all over the world made their way to Europe to fight this war. With them they brought a variety of bacteria, virus and diseases not native to Europe. This had terrible effects since people in Europe were now facing diseases they were never exposed to before.

  9. jnewman4
    7:52 am - 9-19-2012

    In chapter V the author argues that imperialism and world war are keys to understanding the history of globalization. After pondering the discussion proposed in the reading I would say this assumption is valid. I would say that throughout history the discovery of profitable resources by super powers led to cultural integration through imperialism. Aside from raw materials and natural resources, the control of population, land and markets provided the impetus for imperialism. As more and more countries begin to interact, competition arises creating rivalries among nation-states. Through world-wide imperialism less dynamic societies became absorbed in more dominant ones. (For example, the colonization division of Africa) The world just did not seem big enough to satisfy the superpowers. Globalization describes how nations around the world are becoming connected and how networks are being developed. The world wars were global conflicts for resources and proved that nations could now mobilize on a global scale. The consequences of the wars touched nearly every corner on the map, so the world as a whole needed to decide on strategies to restore order around the globe; cooperation was now becoming institutionalized.
    Globalization “split in two” describes the Iron Curtain established to stop the spread of the communism. The globe was then divided into the communist East and the capitalist West, both competing for power, since neither could cooperate due to their dissimilar ideologies. The institutions listed in the chapter, World Bank, IMF, etc., are reflections of how the globe was divided in “two”. Being that political blocs were established between the two powers, a bipolar economy was forming as well. These establishments were created to aid only Allied powers in order to restore a new economic order.

    • hsingh4
      11:22 pm - 9-20-2012

      I liked the point you made about cooperation becoming institutionalized. Its funny how when you add economical and military power into the equation, cooperation gets thrown out the window, as suggested by the fact that wars were global conflicts for resources.

    • acoreas12
      12:16 pm - 9-21-2012

      I completely agree with you, in that it seemed like the world was up for grabs but no one was satisfied with what they had obtained in the end. I think this goes back to the idea of “space” and that fear the authors mentioned about not having enough of it to live in, especially because the world’s population kept growing at an alarming rate.

  10. grivas3
    8:30 am - 9-19-2012

    Osterhammel and Peterson argue that imperialism and world war are key to understanding the history of globalization for many reasons. As stated in the beginning of chapter V there’s two era of globalization. One of intensive globalization after World War I and of deglobalization that terminated after world war II. This lead to a phase were we could not escape globalization and it became part of our daily lives. The world had previously began to emerge in a world population do to the growth of being able to communicate long distance. It began a transformation were we thought more globally. For example the establishment of time zones in 1884. Later this new system became used almost everywhere by 1913. New advances in communication, travel and technology built competition between nations to a global scale. As communication and technology grew the leading nations wanted to integrate their ideas into those nations with less power. The first World War is a clear example of how globalization played a big role. It began as a European issue that eventually turned global and require many resources from different nations. These resources included raw materials and other resources. In chapter VI we read about the new era of globalization split in two during WWII. With the defeat of other nations it led the two super powers; the United States and USSR to spread their very different ideas. The united states wanted to spread capitalism and democracy while USSR wanted to spread communism. This took place in different parts of the world like Latin America, Asia and other parts of the world. WWII also introduced global economy and as this grew the Bretton Woods conference that took place in 1944 introduced guidelines to the new institutions. New institutions such as IMF and the World Bank allowed the regularization of the global economy and allowed them to work together.

  11. jhanse10
    10:05 am - 9-19-2012

    I feel like everything else, we need to first try and understand/ learn the history of globalization to better apply the concept to modern situations. The text mentions early forms of globalization even before WWI. There was a unified decision to adopt time zones around the globe that linked populations together that were not actually near one another. Modes of transportation such as steam boats and airplanes helped close distances and made the world smaller, not in a physical sense, but one that allowed people to travel and become global citizens. In the time leading up the WWI, imperialism was very evident. Almost the entire world was divided up and controlled under different powers. However, imperial powers often pushed their views and politics onto lands where they felt were indigenous compared to their standards. World War I, which the authors found important, had many contributions to globalization. These can be seen through cultural, political and economic studies. Nations would maintain economic through exports. Manufacturing companies, in order to continue to produce on a global scale, began establishing factories overseas. This created a global manufacturing world where goods are produced, sold, and marketed all in different locations. This is the idea of a world market. Politically, global alliances were formed before and during WWI, which unified distant countries. Culturally, the war spread diseases. These diseases traveled back to soldiers’ homelands and produced a large death rate for the world as a whole. This alone shows that these ideas of globalizations really do exist and people are not just limited to the specific geographic area where they live.
    In Chapter VI the authors discuss about how globalization began to split into two. This could be interpreted in many different ways. First, I understood it as a split of political globalization. After WWII, the world’s two super powers, the US and the USSR, were spreading two different political systems. The U.S holds a capitalist society where as the USSR is communist. The second split is the establishment of a global economy, which begins with the Bretton Woods Convention, where the framework was laid. The creation of the World Bank and the IMF created a banking system throughout the world that allowed the exchange of different currencies and aided countries that were trying to rebuild a failed economy. History shows what we come from and how we came about. Without even looking at the last how would we know roughly when globalization began and how it has contributed to our modern world?

    • ender91
      12:05 am - 9-21-2012

      I also think that looking at the past would help in understanding globalization. Maybe at least it could be looked at and see what went wrong and what could be done right.

    • acoreas12
      12:17 pm - 9-21-2012

      I really like how you mentioned the travel of diseases, because I think many people lose sight on that aspect of global movement and how much of an impact that alone can have on a population. But the soldiers also could have taken diseases from home and spread them elsewhere adding to the large death rate in the world.

  12. ngibson3
    10:15 am - 9-19-2012

    The authors Osterhammel and Peterson argue that two of the key forces that lead to globalization were imperialism and world war. Imperialism spread globalization through occupation. All world powers at that time competed for unoccupied (meaning unoccupied by other world powers) territories, mainly in search of natural resources, in order to continue the growth and modernizations of their own countries. This occupation leads to a reciprocation of politics, social and economic ideals. The authors argue that a world war being vital to the history of globalization was inevitable for several reasons. First, because fear and competition, created alliances between likeminded countries, such the U.S.A and Britain and the U.S.S.R. and its surrounding nations. Second because of the way in which the world is growing smaller because of faster more efficient transportation technology, with a larger carrying capacity. During the world war we see a growing cooperation between allied nations, acting not only in their own interests but in the interest of their allies. Furthermore, at the end of WWII we see nations acting also in the interests of non-allied nations, to create a new world order, so as to prevent further conflict and to facilitate economic growth, modernization and stability. The thirty years after WWII became known as the Golden Age, were globalization happened fairly evenly and freely. An important concept that came out of this time was the changed notion of what the present is, that it could represent multiple things happening simultaneously around the world. The end of WWII was a turning point in the history of globalization because of the emergence of two world competing super powers, globalization split in two, the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R. These two, had competing spheres of influence spreading not only economic but also political ideas, such as capitalism, democracy and communism. These two emerged as the two super powers, taking the titles away from former European imperialist countries, because of the world torn state of their landscapes, politics and economies. The rebuilding process of Europe and the completion between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. lead to new institutions of the global economy being organized. The IMF and the World Bank were created to help reconstruct the struggling economies of Europe and other war torn, or third world countries, to get them back on their feet. The super powers wanted international regulation agencies in order to stabilize the world economy. Back in the 1930s with the Great Depression the world saw for the first time a pit fall of how interconnected the world economy had become, and how one nation having an economic down turn can effect so many other nations, so the new economic institutions were supposed to be a safe guard against that.

    • sarahariri
      12:57 pm - 9-21-2012

      I like how you described globalization as more than an economic “tool” but also a “safeguard.” The way you described globalization following WWII was like a rebirth. I agree with this viewpoint because the rise of globalization did change the kind of world that we live in drastically.

  13. shusain
    10:26 am - 9-19-2012

    Osterhammel and Petersson gave many great examples on why the world war and imperialism are important in understanding the history of globalization. The one that I found intriguing was the prediction of, “struggles for land,” (pg 91). The book states that imperialism caused many competitions between nations over territorial states as well as a race to obtain parts of the world which had not been occupied yet. There were essentially global outbursts, “between armed forces, nation-states, national economies, or even entire civilizations,” (pg 90). Many nations joined together to fight against Germany, which had been building up its resources and becoming gradually more powerful. Global powers joined together with global resources to fight in a world war that became a turning point in national history. I agree with the statement seen on page 97 which stated that, “every war damages existing cultural, economic, and human relations.” I think that there has always been a culture clash in every war that has occurred throughout global history, and these days a fight for culture has turned into a fight for power. The post-WWII era divided up the nations into two groups: one that had collapsed (Germany and Japan) and one that had a high advantage of power (United States and USSR). Because these two countries were so powerful, they were not able to supply any type of assistance to nations that were seeing problems with reconstruction and political renewal after the war. In turn, Europe was separated by an “iron curtain,” and China fell under communism. Many countries were financially drained by the war. For example, Britain granted India and Pakistan their freedom because Britain’s resources were scarce and they weren’t able to secure their military rule in Asia. The Bretton Woods conference occurred, and in turn created an outline that prevented countries from battling economic problems. Institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, were created so that everyone in every nation could essentially be on the same page and not split up.

    • jnewman4
      10:30 am - 9-20-2012

      Your quotes definitely bring good examples to your analysis. I think you discovered a valid origin of globalization. Wars over territory provide a good understanding of how regimes began interaction. Pointing out that wars encourage and almost force cultural clashes is very interesting, for theses encounters give birth to new cultures, a prime characteristic of globalization.

  14. rgomez5
    11:38 am - 9-19-2012

    In the book the authors give important emphasis to Imperialism and war in order to understand the globalization process. In the late 1800’s the world started to experience important changes, the time zones were created, important technological discoveries such as telegraph, railroads, cars, steam boats and air planes allowed people and goods to move farer and faster at the same time. These important innovations made the world smaller but also dramatically increased military capabilities. On the other hand, global capital and labor also became connected. Another view of globalization emerged through colonialism; European powers imposed new political systems and cultural matters over the colonies. Imperialistic ideas made the leading European powers to compete among each other to demonstrate the greatness of their empires and acquire more territory in distant lands and have access to more raw materials to keep up with their expansionist policies.
    After the WWII there was a switch in world power, Germany and Japan after been defeated in the war lost considerable territories and world influence, The U.K also lost several colonies such as India and the large parts of the Middle East, and the U.S became the new global power generating more influence over the world than any other country. Also the URSS successfully expanded their communist ideology over China, Eastern Europe and other parts of the world. The world was split in two, in one side the free market world leaded by the U.S and in the other side the countries behind the iron curtain leaded by the URSS.
    Also during this period, Osterhammel and Petersson explain that new international institutions were created in order to foster development and institutionalize politics and economics, the IMF and the World Bank were created. Economic growth followed the post war era, allowing the American culture to expand further and gain more influence in most parts of the world.

    • ngibson3
      11:47 am - 9-21-2012

      Its great how when you were talking about the switch in power that occurred after WWII you also included Japan in that. Many people forget how strong they were in their region, and that they were expansionists.

  15. sarahariri
    11:49 am - 9-19-2012

    Conflict creates integration because two or more groups are coming into contact with one another. World war is a global conflict which results in global integration, the basis for globalization. The turn of the century also brought the concept of standardized time. This allowed for a global climate to be recorded, which brings our world closer together. This closeness allows us to work together economically as well. Global economy is a concept that introduced globalization to many people. It breaks down the physical distance between people. Since globalization is multilateral and systemic, there will be what Osterhammel and Petersson refer to as “holes in the net.” This refers to developing countries that do not necessarily have a strong presence in global affairs, but do produce valuable resources. These “holes in the net” are often the location for imperialism by developed nations. Some examples of “holes in the net” include many states in Africa which hold many valuable resources but do not have a strong presence in global affairs.

    The post-WWII era can be described as “globalization split in two” because globalization was split between the developing and developed world. Economies worked on a trans-national scale rather than a fully global scale. This can subject globalization to international political/social relations. These new institutions directly following WWII were either associated with “the West” or “the Soviet Empire.” Globalization was split in two due to ideological disparities between the Soviet Empire and the West at this time. Since the anti-communist sentiment was high in the West, and fear of the spread of communism was equally high, globalization was kept in “spheres” rather than the more widespread globalization we see in our society today. These “spheres” were instilled to keep communism among communist states. This sentiment can even be seen today with the example of United States and Cuban relations.

    • sbannach
      2:25 pm - 9-20-2012

      I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of this issue. Your point about standardized time is especially interesting; I must have glossed over that part in the text. Furthermore, I think your argument about the distinction between developed and developing economies is also very compelling and also relates to the movie we viewed in class yesterday. Clearly this divide can still be seen in the world today.

    • ender91
      12:10 am - 9-21-2012

      I didn’t even think about the economy also being split between developed and developing countries. The movie we saw in class really highlights that point now and also shows the ‘holes in the net.’

    • grivas3
      12:29 am - 9-21-2012

      I enjoyed reading your response it was very clear and excellent points were made. I liked how you emphasized when the authors mention “holes in the net” and how developed nations imperialism in this undeveloped nations. I believe this is true and that is why we live is such a globalize world now because ideas are being spread around. Now this does not necessarily mean that is always a positive effect.

    • albuquerque
      4:07 am - 9-21-2012

      “Conflict creates integration because two or more groups are coming into contact with one another. ” Thinking about it now its so obvious but I really never thought about the idea that even things such as war/conflict can bring about globalization. It is interesting because the authors more or less claim that war is inevitable so in a way I suppose it could prove that globalization to a degree is inevitable as well, regardless of the force from American economic ideals or “americanization” on the global economy.

      • hakunanahtata
        12:46 pm - 9-21-2012

        Globalization is enevitable and has been going on since civilizations have been trading with different cultures. It is just faster and more structured these days with the advances in technology and communication. The Americanization is because we were the winners of WWII and the number one power rising from the cold war. Either way globalization would have happened its just whose culture would be the dominant one on TV/movies/etc speading if it wasn’t the US.

  16. emyers
    12:05 pm - 9-19-2012

    During this time period, nations were increasingly dependent on each other for economical and political reasons, and it became easier to communicate and travel long distances. Trading networks merged together and there was a world wide interdependence, nations had to work together to balance each other out dividing the labor, setting up infrastructure and creating an international monetary system and using each other, states were able to grow and advance and eventually the dependence turned into competition and because nations were so dependent on each other it was impossible to fight a war without using the resources from other nations and even after the wars end they needed each others help to recuperate. Nations were dependent on one another for arms and territory, alliances through railroad as the case with Russia and East Asia, dependent on each other for use of territory and ports, raw materials and machines, the list goes on. Apart from this disease was spreading world wide which assumably would lead to a global market for medicine and health care that would apply to all. In the end the world came out as a global marketplace with political, religious, and ideological ideas being shared and integrated into societies everywhere, hence the cause of world war in the first place, we all need each other to survive. Post World War 2 was split into two ideological blocs competing for power, between the United States and the Soviet Union holding most of the power. The US created a multipolar system and the Soviet Union had focus on a militaristic society. The US wanted to end communism, institutionalize a global economy and pacify Western Europe. The Bretton Woods conference aimed to combat economical problems,limit movement of goods and capital and ensure that international cooperation ran smoothly. The world bank, IMF and GATT were all created to help economic globalization and the Marshall Plan forced Europeans to cooperate, but also increased trade. These institutions were created to try and accommodate the values of the split systems and bring them together more.

  17. oliviab
    12:17 pm - 9-19-2012

    In chapter 4, Osterhammel and Petersson present the idea that imperialism and world war is the key to understanding the history of globalization. I agree with idea, but I definitely also think there are arguably several other factors that can be considered key to the history of globalization. On page 72, they write, “During the 19th century the pressure to adapt was felt throughout the world, and it is here that we come closer to discovering the motor that powered the globalization processes…” They go on to start talking about the United Kingdom, and how the nation was rather quickly gaining power in areas of the economy, exporting goods/trade, and how the British navy was rapidly expanding, allowing them to colonize/expand their territory. All of this points to imperialism. If a nation takes power over another region of the world, they are going to influence (sometimes impose) their customs into the new culture. They are also going to take goods from the new lands that they don’t have back home and begin to incorporate them into their daily lives. This is without a doubt a type of circumstance that aids globalization. The “world wars” being a component in understanding the history of globalization makes sense as well. A part of chapter 5 that I found particularly interesting that had to do with this part of the discussion question was on page 97. The authors write, “[the war] grew very quickly into a global conflict relying on global resources.” This particular sentence does lead me to think that the world wars were more so a result of imperialism. Imperialism helped lead to the buildup of tensions between nations which ultimately cause the world war(s); so the two components of this overall idea seem very closely related to me.
    However, when you consider what happened in reference to globalization after WWII, imperialism and the events of the world wars do seem to separate a little more.
    Osterhammel and Petersson explain that after WWII globalization “split.” This seems to mean that nations split into groups that were both economically and socially stable, and ones that were not. I feel like part of this could have also involved Cold War aspects…there was a split between communist nation-states and non-communist nation-states. The authors emphasize that Europe were no longer in the role of being a world power after the wars, but that the U.S. inadvertently stepped into that role, allowing the American culture to greatly influence others.

    • saehwan72
      7:44 pm - 9-20-2012

      “During the 19th century the pressure to adapt was felt throughout the world, and it is here that we come closer to discovering the motor that powered the globalization processes…”

      I think this quote precisely describes exactly how imperialism is a key to understanding globalization. I thought your point on how imperialism led to the world wars was very interesting. I also think how much global resources impacted the wars, shows a clear sign of globalization, both the positive and the negative. It states in the book, that the allied powers ability to gather resources on a global scale played a decisive factor in their victory.

  18. acoreas12
    12:19 pm - 9-19-2012

    The emphasis Osterhammel and Peterson place on imperialism and world war as key components in trying to understand the history of globalization is one we must not overlook. Imperialism was the reason behind so much competition and rivalry among countries over land, resources and power. Everyone wanted to expand their empires and acquire as much territory as possible, before there was none left. This idea of “shortage of space” because of the increasing rate of population was one of many issues that triggered this competition and panic worldwide. During this time we also saw a lot of interaction between the states and this was thanks to the advancement in transportation and communication.
    These new forms of travel and communication worked hand in hand with understanding the emergence of the world wars that came afterwards. Through wars like the Spanish-American War of 1898, countries like the United States were able to acquire land overseas and grow as a world power. However, countries perceived to have too much power, like Germany and its “naval buildup”, were then considered threats and alliances were formed against them. Interaction among countries became essential for protecting one another and their national interests. It’s interesting to see how the means of warfare changed greatly at this time due to the new changes. Seeing how “trade blockades and attacks on communication facilities and shipping” caused as much or even more damage to enemies was something I overlooked until now.
    When the authors refer to the post-WWII era as “globalization split in two,” they are looking at the global transition of power, from multiple countries to just “two power giants” (United States and USSR). Both wanted to create a new social order, the United States wanted to spread capitalism whereas; the USSR was pushing for communism. Once again, this division resulted in alliances being formed to counterbalance the other. In July 1944, the IMF and World Bank were created at an international conference in Bretton Woods in an attempt to address these competing ideals and try reaching an agreement over new rules for the post-WWII global economy.

    • hakunanahtata
      12:41 pm - 9-21-2012

      I am still confused on how the cold war influenced the trans-national institutions. They were both members of them and participated even if it was in a type of deadlock but I don’t clearly see how that changed the global economy. The economy was changed because of the friction between the two powers and nation-states conformed to different sets of economic beliefs but where does the IMF, UN and World bank come in to play?

  19. Savannah
    12:26 pm - 9-19-2012

    In chapter 5 the idea that imperialism and world war are both key to the history of globalization is presented. The definition of imperialism is basically a country spreading its power and influence over other territories through force. Once the world became aware that the population was growing fairly rapidly, imperialism took off. The main powers of the West wanted to take control of the parts of the world that had not yet been colonized. As the territories were divided among the powers, the economic advantages that came with the land were also divided. Wars began between European nation-states and imperialism fell off to an extent.

    I thought the question on page 95 about the inevitability of war between the great powers was interesting. I do think that as human populations, there are bound to be differences and clashes. However, the Red Cross is a great example of how all of the world can come together as one regardless of national boundaries.

    When war spread internally through Europe, the economies and markets of the world were affected. The war also changed the way the monetary gold standard worked. The U.S quickly ascended to being the next great power. With this change, the cultural trends of American jazz music and Hollywood’s movies spread through globalization.

    Post WWII consisted of a bipolar system with the USSR and the U.S. as the main powers. The USSR was communist and the U.S. was capitalist. Once the U.S. decided to gain allies there was a creation of blocs. There was the Western bloc of European states and the U.S. and the other bloc was the USSR and Japan. Institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade were created to help the global economy. The original problem was that these institutions were only upheld by the Western bloc. The economies of the Soviet/communist bloc and the Third World did not prosper. Eventually, in order for the world to have a truly global economy, the blocs are becoming less ridged.

    • albuquerque
      4:01 am - 9-21-2012

      Your comment about the Red Cross and the inevitability of war between nations really made me think. So many people think global institutions be them governmental run or not, are pointless because they do not seem to make big changes quickly but I never thought about the true success that the Red Cross has had internationally. It really is a great counter argument to the idea that war is always impending between nations.

    • jhanse10
      1:08 am - 9-23-2012

      I like how you supported the idea of globalization coming from America through power with jazz music and Hollywood.

  20. scamp3
    12:28 pm - 9-19-2012

    Chapter five in “Globalization: A Short History” Osterhammel and Peterson explain the ways in which imperialism and World Wars were major contributions to the way we view globalization today. Imperialism is defined as in Merriam Websters dictionary as “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas”. Once the meaning of imperialism is clear, it is much easier to see how imperialism relates to globalization. By other countries attempting to assert their dominance over one another, it becomes a power struggle. Having the kind of power struggle World War I and II created, forced certain countries to take sides and cut ties with others. The league of nations is a good example of how a union of state-nations can change not only each others individual economies, but how that joining also effects the world as a whole. By some countries not trading with others, it created a supply and demand. Certain countries were forced to find other solutions to their problems. The aligning of different state-nations, such as the league of nations, brings Osterhammel and Peterson’s idea that “globalization split in two”. The two main powers after the wars were the USSR and the US. They were two conflicting powers attempting to work together the best way possible. This split obviously created problems, but also forced the world into a new/different type of economy. The US wanted to end communism an create a world economy, while the USSR wanted to continue a communist state-nations. Countries that were communism were attempted to be contained, while the rest of the world attempted to build a world economy together. The resulting outcome of these two powers competing is a part of the world economy we have today.

    • hakunanahtata
      12:31 pm - 9-21-2012

      I really enjoyed your analysis, its direct and to the point.

    • njelvani
      4:32 pm - 9-22-2012

      The definition you used for globalization seems subjective but I wont argue with it. I wonder if other dictionaries in other territories have the same approach towards defining the term.

  21. ender91
    12:33 pm - 9-19-2012

    The authors argue that imperialism and world war are important to understanding the history of globalization. It is because at the turn of the 19th century,technology helped communication and transportation across long distances. There was the birth of journalism in several countries where the educated classes were able to read news reports from other countries. News reports were written and translated into english, french, and other languages depending on the country. Standard time was also established when the world was split into timezones agreed upon by twenty-five states and has been used around the world ever since. Transportation with steam ships and railroads also made distance less of an obstacle and people’s lives and mindsets changed into a more global perspective. With that came competition between nations where the mindset that the future belongs to the great world powers which means participating in world politics. There was also the growing competition for colonization because of a growing population that demanded more ‘living space’ but also as a strategic move for power in the international community. The world became even more global when other non-European countries like the United States and Japan became great powers too. When they ran out of land to colonize, countries began to make alliances especially with Germany’s continued rapid rise in power. World War I saw the breakdown of networks with trade blockade, attacks on communication centers, and economic production being used to build weapons instead. However it also saw an increase in interaction like soldiers from different allied countries being shipped to Europe to fight and colonized countries providing supplies for the war. In Chapter VI, the authors talked about the history post-world war II and have titled it as ‘globalization split in two’. I believe this goes hand-in-hand with the emergence of the two opposing world powers: the U.S. and Soviet Union. The competition between the two influenced political, economic, and social changes in the world. New interactions and networks were created as a result with the political blocs established by the two great powers. Colonized countries were freed from the motherlands but they found themselves still economically and militarily dependent to the first world countries. These countries found institutions like the UN to be a place for their voices to be heard. The UN shaped social principles like human rights and self-determination but it was also aimed to build a new free global economy. Other institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. These institutions represent networks that can be used by nations to operate in the world system.

    • shill10
      10:23 am - 9-21-2012

      I found the part in the book and in your post about the newly colonized countries struggling very interesting. Sometimes I wonder what causes some countries to succeed and be so powerful while other countries cannot seem to get started. You know? Like why do third world countries even exist? After watching that movie on Jamaica I started thinking about this even more.

  22. njelvani
    12:40 pm - 9-19-2012

    When Ostermhammel and Peterson speak about globalization splitting in two, the context is historical and the wars and economic conditions that are highlighted focus on the recorded events from 1880-1945 for Chapter V and the recorded events from 1945-the Mid 1970s. In theory the split implies periods of globalization and deglobalization. “The decades preceding the outbreak of World War I as an era of extensive globalization, followed by a phase of deglobalization that ended only after World War II”(81). However, it is difficult to determine what exactly caused the splits of globalization since the authors mention several wars and periods of prosperity that altered through time. “ When looking for historical parallels to present-day globalization, historians have tended to turn more often to the period preceding 1914, instead of that following 1945, and have emphasized that post-World War II structures began to disintegrate and mindsets began to change during the course of the 1970s”(113). On the other hand there are some indisputable factors that put this split in perspective as mentioned; “in 1884 twenty-five states agreed to divide the world into a system of time zones and establish global time based on the Greenwich meridian system and had been adopted almost everywhere”(83). The universality of time as a commodity reinforced and allowed globalization to thrive while participating regions became more consciously interconnected. This also facilitated the introduction of SAPs and like the World Bank and IMF by the Bretton Woods Conference, which further facilitated transfers of loans starting with the gold standard, which broke down because no state could finance the war without printing more and more paper money. The shift to dollar diplomacy made allowances for more transparent ways to apply regulations and governance. Unfortunately, the developing countries that are receiving loans from the SAPs have an increasing population with new generations that are not always able to get what they need but instead suffer from the high interest rates of the loans that encourage high standards of living.

  23. hakunanahtata
    12:51 pm - 9-19-2012

    Imperialism and world war are key to understanding the history of globalization for many reasons. Imperialism was a result of a few beliefs at the time. Modern transportation created the illusion that the rising global population will create a shortage of living space, and countries believed that there choice was either decline of world power. The great powers of the time divided up land areas without the consent of the inhabitants for economic control. The great regional powers sometimes encountered wars which (they won) resulted in the increase of their power. WWI was not started because of the great powers of the time but they were involved immediately because of the reliance on global resources to fund the war. The beginning of global infrastructure came after WWII. Because of the virtually complete destruction of Europe at the time, they relied on loans from the US in order to rebuild which changed trade agreements. Globalization split in two refers to the cold war and the disagreements on how capital should flow. In the West there was capitalism and in the east there was communism. The two sides were competing for economic control and as a result several infrastructures came about. In Europe there was the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community. The founding of the UN after the WWII was in a deadlock because of a Soviet boycott. With the UN came the Bretton Woods conference which provided the principles and framework of free global trade. The IMF and GATT (World Bank) were created to negotiate tariffs and help reconstruct countries. With the end of the Soviet Union the global distribution is no longer Bi-polar and is arguably unipolar with the United States at the top. Historically the rule of imperialist led to the opening of trade in more of the world, war led to the break down and redistribution of power and economic flows and the duration of the Cold War created a competition of the spread of capitalism and the containment of communism. Today the global institutions help facilitate trade/tariff/policy agreements and create infrastructure for peaceful communication/negotiation between nation-states.

  24. msaddat
    12:53 pm - 9-19-2012

    Is globalization the cause, and war the effect? Is the spread of ideas and information, ease of trade, establishment of multinational corporations, all for the greater good—or driven by political incentives? Jürgen Osterhammel and Niels P. Peterson bring the idea of imperialism and world war as key components of globalization. The authors begin to discuss the colonization of remaining territories by imperial nations, trying to establish as much control and gain the necessary resources for strategic purposes—stating that globalization occurred parallel and simultaneously to state-building (pg.88). With the world’s population starting to double, world powers began to become evident, while railroads, ships, and even air travel began to flourish; competition was created on a global scale. On the note of beliefs and ideas spreading, the notion resulted in the world’s first global system of alliances. Nation-states began siding with each other and its repercussion was a first world war. Tensions around the world consequently created restrictions to trade, greatly affecting the global market.
    Fast-forward past the second world war, and we can see how globalization was ‘split in two’. The authors describe the competition between the two major world powers at the time, the US and USSR. We see the division as the US tried to spread their beliefs of capitalistic democracy while the USSR pushed for communism throughout the world, and allied nations supported the two powers based on national interests. With conflicting views, and most of the world trying to revive itself from a war, institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and GATT were established to try and foster both parties and create a new global economy.

    • shill10
      10:29 am - 9-21-2012

      I love your opening. I suppose that through globalization war is created. I also think that the spread of globalization is politically driven. I think that Europe was actually interested in the rest of the world before the rest of the world became interested in globalization. However, I do not think that there would be alliances if globalization wasn’t political.

    • jhanse10
      1:14 am - 9-23-2012

      You opening questions is awesome. It really makes you think of the history as the result of globalization or simply the cause. It is a question that is often posed but never really considered. I feel like most perspectives propose it only as a result but not a cause.

  25. shanaz
    12:58 pm - 9-19-2012

    Globalization is a process in which economics, political regimes, cultures, security systems and peoples of different nations become more interlinked and interdependent. Boundaries become more permeable, therefore people of the world turn into a unified single global society. In Chapter V, Osterhammel and Petersson assert that imperialism and world war are key to understanding the history of globalization. States always make decisions to maximize power, these decision made leads to competition between nations across the world. This includes competition through a nations economy, education, and politically. Alongside education, technology evolved rapidly across the globe allowing more people to have access to information that they could not have before. People had better ways to communicate, to move from one location to another.
    In Chapter VI, they characterize the post-WWII era as “globalization split in two” because the world formed new global economic and political institutions. Through democratization and social movements, networks of organizations and individuals that share distinctive collective indentity and itnervene in political conflicts, there was a spread of democracy. This spread led to a split in globalization between pro-democracy nations and anti-democracy nations.

  26. rafae309
    1:00 pm - 9-19-2012

    The authors Osterhammel and Petersson explain why imperialism and world war were essential in understanding the history of globalization. With the invention of railroads, steam engines, airplanes, and the telegraph, not only people and goods became closer. Nations raced against each other to grab the best colonies and other untouched lands, and the networks between the colonies, their people and the host countries increased as resources traveled faster and more efficiently, and military bases were set up with troops trained and sent to protect already existing trading posts and colonies. Imperialism was used by powerful countries to expand their economic and military might across the globe. The World war also helped in understanding the history of globalization, since allies from distant lands became involved in helping with resources and military aid. Resources like foodstuffs, machines and rubber needed to be transported faster, which led to newer and more efficient means of transportation. Before and after the war, nations had become so dependent on each other for trade and goods that they had to turn to each other for resources even after the war. Conflict had also increased awareness of other cultures and ideologies.
    In Chapter VI when the authors talk about globalization split in two in the post-WWII era, they argue that the two remaining super powers after the war, USA and USSR, who had gained power advantages due to the fall of Germany and Japan, had emerged victorious and powerful and had begun their own missions all over Asia, Europe and Latin America. The game turned from direct destructive war to increasing their spheres of influence in the regions and spreading their ideologies of Capitalism and Communism, which greatly differed from one another. The USSR had goals of spreading the ideas of Communism throughout the world while USA began increasing their influence and ideas of Capitalism while also taking direct actions to contain the spread of Communism. When the spheres of influence clashed, in Berlin, Germany, the city was literally by an “iron curtain”, which each superpower claiming their own side. West Germany became capitalist while the eastern side became communist. USA and USSR had different methods of increasing their spheres of influence. While USSR used hard power of military and occupation, USA used soft power with its allies and potential friends by creating institutions such as the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help the affected European countries with financial aid, reconstruction, and other means of assistance and in turn spread capitalism effectively. Free world trade was also an important objective. Through the creation of such new institutions, advancement in technology and communication, increased networks and connections through industries and trade, the world would continue to become a global village marked with further developments.

    • kmilburn1957
      9:15 pm - 9-20-2012

      Rafae- why didn’t you write our textbook?! Your descriptive answers make their messages so much clearer to me than their text. Thank you! I better understand the division of the two superpowers, US and USSR , and how they tied in to the birth of the World Bank, IMF, GATT and others. I also feel more confident in my overall understanding of globalization after reading your post.

    • njelvani
      4:27 pm - 9-22-2012

      Your comment is nice and has a lot of historical background that the authors did not include in the book. The reason behind that is to focus more on how globalization tried to cure the problems behind these tensions.

  27. navery
    1:01 pm - 9-19-2012

    When a world is at war its widely considered a a bad thing. There’s a lot of proof that aids to that conclusion. The major loss of people, the depletion of resources–there are so many examples that highlight how war and conquest is a terrible, useless thing. However, imperialism and world war have also provided endless examples of globalization. For the reason, understanding globalization can come from studying imperialism and wars. Although war and imperialism is a violent clash of cultures, it is still a mixture of cultures that would have otherwise not have shared ideas. Imperialism and war can not only cause borrowing of cultures, and language blending, but also technological advancement as each nation attempts to thwart the other.

    Social and Economic institutions provide the two parts Osterhammel and Petersson describe. I believe they are emphasized because of their prominence in today’s society. Money has always been a powerful influence between nations. A world’s economy can change everything with its rise and its fall. For that reason, its easy to see that the economy a nation chooses to follow for its nation can provide a path of international dominance or submissiveness. The social institution is also incredibly important as well. The people in a country are the affected components of globalization. When a country chooses a particular social regime or changes things in the way it deals with its social institution, the people can be deeply affected. For example, when a country decides to become isolationist, it will have a very difficult experiencing cultural trading or interaction like other open countries would have.

    • btaborga
      1:30 pm - 9-20-2012

      What you say is very true, since we are so connected now days, whatever goes on in one country affects other countries. Especially with economics and politics, and that is why the IMF and World Bank were created. Last class we watched “Life and Debt” and how Jamaica was being affected by the IMF economically. Jamaica depended on the USA to buy their products like bananas but it was not happening then. This shows a little on how dependent some countries have become. Also we see the case of Venezuela and the USA. The United States needs the oil Venezuela provides them with. Countries have become so dependent on each other due to globalization that it has had negative and positive outcomes.

    • shusain
      11:42 am - 9-21-2012

      I completely agree with how you feel about war. It’s a terrible thing, yet it’s an excuse for cultures to mix together. You’re right about how a nation’s economy can rise and fall. Just like after the World Wars, a number of nations had been hit with financial issues. In a way the Bretton Woods conference helped to bring guidelines and introduced institutions that would help those nations.

    • msirico
      5:42 pm - 9-21-2012

      Though a tragic and disheartening thing, war also shows us the ability for countries to work together. Since WWI, the economy has been global; countries’ separate economies are twisted and intertwined together. When one falls, another is often not far behind. And in the case of World War, many are dragged into the fight because of economic ties or political alliances. The US wasn’t an active part of WWI until US shipping was attacked by the Germans, for example. And today, these ties are even closer. the creation of international economic and political institutions permanently bind countries together, forming an even more interconnected and true global economy.

  28. ksalvucc
    1:02 pm - 9-19-2012

    Imperialism and world wars in the past are important factors in understanding the history of globalization as indicated in Chapter V. Imperialism resulted in colonization of many countries around the world and the doubling of the world population during the years 1870-1913 compared to the earlier period of 1820-1870 gave rise to the notion of the shortage of living space. This perceived shortage resulted in imperialistic moves to carve up the remaining parts of the world that had not yet been colonized. Therefore, during this era many areas of the world came under the power of one of the great powers and new centers of power arose such as the United States entering the arena of world politics. Global rivalries were influenced by multiple aspects such as armed forces, nation states, national economies, religion, as well as entire civilizations. According to the authors, alternatives to these clashes emerged in the form of “increasing cooperation in apolitical areas of technical and organizational standards.” This type of cooperation resulted in international agreements and other movements that crossed national borders such as the women’s suffrage movement and the Red Cross. This growth in globalization was one of the factors that influenced the advent of World War I which quickly grew into a “global conflict relying on global resources.” Although World War I resulted in damages to ”long-standing networks” on the cultural, economic, and human side it also had an ”integrating effect within the warring alliances.” One other impact was the spread of viruses on the battlefield from around the world which resulted in claiming many lives outside of the battlefields.
    In Chapter VI, the authors characterize the post-WWII era as “globalization split in two”. They describe this to mean that there was political structure that evolved that consisted of “two ideological blocs competing for power.” The United States and USSR had emerged with a power advantage over all other countries in the world, but they had two different political and ideological concepts which resulted in a two party geopolitical order being established during 1945-50. The creations of these blocs shaped many things such as international, and transnational, as well as worldwide integration, as well as the structures for economic and political spheres of interaction. The text discusses the institutions of the global economy. The text discusses that the “big boom” was a boom in globalization, in many ways. This is because it resulting in many things including intensifying the intercontinental movement of capital, and goods, as well as people, this was also closely linked to the “big boom”. This also resulted in the emergence of nation-states within a global economy and world politics of the two major blocs. with a desire to overcome their underdevelopment and to get out from under the power of the These nation-states were instrumental in developing supranational agendas and trends which standardized political interests worldwide.

    • kmilburn1957
      9:06 pm - 9-20-2012

      I agree with your explanation that World War became a global conflict relying on global resources. It was no longer necessary for nations to “make do” with what they had in order to fight. Allies pooled their resources to further the cause, developing new networks along the way.

      • rgomez5
        11:18 am - 9-21-2012

        A good example for this fight for resource would be Japan and the British Empire, before te WWII this two countries would control bast territories despite of been small islands, but is was mostly for the need of natural resourses to keep up with their expanding economies.

  29. fabbasi2
    3:02 pm - 9-19-2012

    Osterhammel and Peterson argue in chapter V that imperialism and world war are keys to understanding the history of globalization. World wars were used by powerful countries to expand their economic and military influences across the globe while using imperialism to anchor it. In the 1800’s new advances in transportation and technology helped make it easier. Inventions such as the steamship and railroads made distance less of an obstacle. This made resources easier to access than ever before. These important innovations made the world smaller but more modernized. But with that came competition between nations to a global scale. All world powers at that time competed for unoccupied territories, mainly in search of natural resources. In order to continue the growth and modernizations of their own countries they had to explore areas of interest in other countries. In Chapter VI Osterhammel and Petterson characterized the post –WWII era as “globalization split in two” because of the split between the two super powers at that time; the US and USSR . The US was trying to spread capitalism while USSR was trying to spread communism. Even though the US and USSR didn’t see eye to eye, the world on a global scale was still expanding. Politics and economics were being institutionalized while intergovernmental such as the World Bank and IMF systems formed to regulate governments and economies. “The idea was to ensure that international cooperation remained compatible with full employment policy. For this purpose, institutions were created that still influence economic globalization today.” Countries were connected more than ever. Globalization had reached to its peak during that time.

    • grivas3
      12:04 am - 9-21-2012

      I agree with your explanation how globalization had reached its peak during that time and thats the reason institutions like the IMF or world bank were created. It was important to regulate governments and their economies.

You must be logged in to post a comment.