0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
theory
732 readers
13 users here now
A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for [email protected] will be removed.
The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's the problem that almost every academic has, no matter how well researched. A historian of war is going to boil every answer down to war. A historian of race is going to boil every problem down to race. Hudson is a scholar on finance and so he's gonna find finance as the answer to all his questions.
In addition to your complaint, I found the lack of discussion on the USSR during the inter-war period was a major gap. Of course it makes sense, the USSR was not part of the financial apparatus that Western Europe and the US were fumbling so it didn't focus. However, Hudson mentions that Europe provided no alternatives to US creditor power which is where he could have fit in a small section discussing the WW1 nation that was exercising an alternative. Additionally, the USSR being the boogieman to Western Europe as a cause of WW2 can't be understated.
Overall this does not diminish the value of the book or Hudson as a scholar, but instead emphasizes the need to be a critical reader at all times.