Europe's Golden age? 1890-1914

[MadImmortalMan]

Come on, everybody knows Europes Golden Age was between 1492 and 1945

I kinda agree, actually. Well, maybe not as late as '45. I'd mark the unification of Germany and Italy as the end of it.

[Capetan Mihali]

Besides, I would rather talk of golden ages for individual states than for the entire continent.

That's part of what's difficult about this question, because the whole continent -- and the continent as such -- is implicated.  I'd tend to agree that Europe qua Europe was probable at its peak at the end of the Nineteenth Century.  Europe as the dominant definition of the states comprising it, Europe at the peak of its ideological and material importance to the world system.

I think the fact that it was also the peak of capital-c Colonialism had a lot to do with speeding up the consolidation of European identity across such a wide range of states/cultures/etc.  The lack of US presence in Africa at the time makes it possible to materially distinguish Europe and North America at that moment in a way that you can't anymore.

[Eddie Teach]

I'd probably put it a bit earlier. They were rapidly losing ground to the US and Japan in that period.

To the US, yes. To Japan? How so?

Japan was catching up in a lot of ways, but in particular naval power.

[Razgovory]

But it didn't compare to the whole of Europe.  Nor did the US.  Today the economy of the US is fairly close to the entire economy of the EU.  In 1914 the US economy was fairly close to economy of GB or Germany.

[Neil]

Incidentally I think the US may be in it's Golden Age.  That's not to say we don't have problems.  There's nothing that says a Golden Age must be trouble free.

I think that's over with now.

Of course you'd say that.  You are insanely Jealous of the US.

Not really.  I have what I want in Canada.  Who wants more guns, more non-whites and less government services?

[Razgovory]

You don't have Nixon.

[Neil]

You don't have Nixon.

You guys don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

[DGuller]

Not really.  I have what I want in Canada.  Who wants more guns, more non-whites and less government services?

  That's a damn good question.

[MadImmortalMan]

Heh. The climate where I live is resistant to rust and decay, so you often see really old classic cars on the road. Today, I saw an old Volkswagen station wagon with a bumper sticker so faded it looked solid white. When examined closely, I could just make out Nixon/Agnew.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, if living standards are the benchmark, almost every part of earth is in its golden age (maybe even North Korea). If the golden age of a continent is instead the period it reached its height of cultural and political power relative to the rest of the world, then 1890 - 1914 would seem like a good choice.

I'd probably put it a bit earlier. They were rapidly losing ground to the US and Japan in that period.

The US, yes. Japan? That is debatable (Japan was not occupied until 1945, and to the extent it was gaining power, it was doing so with the advice of Europeans--it also had a limited influence beyond its borders).

The problem is that if you move the date earlier, you lose much of the race for Africa and increasing influence in the far east (esp. China) and India. You also lose economic influence within latin america (though obviously pre ~1810 european influence was much greater there).

[Razgovory]

You guys don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

We have his relics.  They grant miracles.

[alfred russel]

You guys don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

We have his relics.  They grant miracles.

The relics of Watergate gave us Iran-Contra, yellow cake uranium, and Bernie Kerik.

[Sheilbh]

1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.

1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.

I think that's right for Western Continental Europe.

[Richard Hakluyt]

But it didn't compare to the whole of Europe.  Nor did the US.  Today the economy of the US is fairly close to the entire economy of the EU.  In 1914 the US economy was fairly close to economy of GB or Germany.

This is factually incorrect.

In 1914 the national income of the USA was $37bn with a population of 98 million. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary combined had an income of $43bn and a population of 409 million. The US' superiority increased during the 1920s but then fell with the crash, only to reach a maximum in the immediate post-WW2 period. Note also that in 1914 American per capita income was roughly 4 times that of the Europeans.

After WW2 Western Europe modernised. By 1980 the USA had a GNP of $2590bn and a population of 228 million. The EEC 12 had a GNP of $2907bn and a population of 317 million. That is $11,360 per capita for the USA and $9170 for the EEC-12, the Western Europeans had more or less finally caught up with the USA in a 30-year period.

The figures are from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

I find that many people persistently underestimate the wealth and (potential) power of the USA in the period 1880-1914; yet in terms of streaking ahead of the rotw these are crucial years. In 1914 the USA was an entire level ahead of the European economies, by the 1980s the Euros had caught up, the 25% shortfall largely being a matter of shorter working hours, longer retirements and so on. Money is not everything of course, but a lot of Imperialistic strutting on the world stage by European powers in the period 1880-1914 was precisely because their time was already ending.

[Razgovory]

Really, I thought the US was closer to Germany and GB during this period.  What does "National income mean"?