Harry Veeder wrote:
The essay is dated 1932 (at the top), so Russell is referring world war 1.
Goodness! I sure missed that one.
However, it was true of World War I, albeit to a lesser extent. The
British economy was dependent upon US food and weapons production
from 1916 to 1918, and they did cut back on essential civilian
production such as clothing. As I said, you can stop things like that
for a while, but not for decades.
The British were also heavily dependent upon exploiting their
colonies. It was not slavery, but Englishmen were living off of the
work of Africans and Indian people. I think by the 1930s the colonies
were no longer economically beneficial, but in World War II they went
back to heavy exploitation for the war effort and millions of Indian
people starved to death.
- Jed
