Best and Worst of the 20th Century

[Babbler]

The occupation made me think about a thread idea I had for a while now. What was the place with the "best" history in the 20th century, and what place had the "worst". By "best" and "worst" history, I mean in terms of military security, political stability, economic growth, social development, etc.

I've thought about it, I'm guessing the countries with "best" history in the 20th century is Sweden and Switzerland. They didn't fight any world wars fought the last century, and have been able to partake in the incredible growth of economic and social prosperity in that same century.

As for "worst" history, I put most of Africa in a big bucket of sad. The century begins with imperialism, backwardness and malaria, and it ends with native corruption, stagnation, HIV/ADIS ... and more malaria. It's bleak. Hopefully, the century will be better.

 

[REDY]

When I consider women suffrage as very important social development for half of population, I cant place Switzerland on best places (1971).
Sweden had shaky military security during WWII, because it had to sacrify much of it for not be occupied. Still should be considered but I will rather go with USA.

Worst place is well chosen. I would only honorably mention Afghanistan.

 

[sydhe]

A couple of other candidates for worst:

North Korea. Spent the first half of the century being brutally exploited by the Japanese, and the second half being brutally exploited by its own government, with a disastrous war right in the middle of the century. By the end of the century it was ruled by one of the more repulsive dictators, was starving, impoverished, backward, and perhaps the bleakest totalitarian state with the possible exception of Albania. On top of that, forced to support a military out of all proportion to the population, making any economic progress impossible even if their rulers weren't nut cases.

Turkmenistan. First ruled by the Czars, then by the Soviet Union, then by a lunatic dictator who kept up the totalitarian oppression while building a personality cult. Climate's not too great either.

I'm tempted to put Albania here, except things did improve considerably there before the end of the century. Still, it started off as a Turkish province, was dominated by Mussolini's Italy, eventually were conquered by them, lost World War II along with its new masters then had a communist dictatorship about as bad as North Korea's, then after it had finally become relatively free, had its economy damaged by the collapse of a pyramid scheme. Still a poor country, but it seems pretty free now and the economy is recovering slowly. Apparently a few years from becoming an oil-producing nation.

 

[Tee Kay]

China had a horrible 20th century, definitely.

Started the century as a collapsing nation with a bunch of fanatics butchering missionaries resulting in the armies of eight "barbarian" nations occupying Beijing. The Chinese overthrew their Emperor, only to have him replaced by another, and spent the best part of the 1910s and 1920s in a civil war. The Northern Expedition to Beijing led not to unification but more civil war, ending briefly only after a couple of generals kidnapped their own leader and held him to ransom. The Japanese invaded with their bombers and artillery and plague bacteria, first taking Manchuria and then most of the country's eastern provinces and the vast majority of its industrial capacity. World War II caused 20 million Chinese deaths (some caused half-baked scorched earth policies of own armies) and almost total destruction of whatever modern economy China has.

Another round of civil war soon broke out, replacing an inefficient, corrupt fascist regime with communist totalitarianism. The old regime fled to Taiwan (where it has massacred 20,000 people a few years earlier), protected by the Americans and so China was divided to this day. China was isolated from the rest of the world save the Soviets and even they come to hate each other after a while. The year after the Civil War ended China got involved in the Korean War (losing 1 million soldiers). Running out of wars to fight Mao Zedong begin purging his own people and began several half-baked schemes (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc), eventually killing tens of millions of his own people.

Only in the last two decades of the century did China, still authoritarian, enjoy relative peace (with only one major bloody suppression in 1989) and only in the last decade relative prosperity.

"Best" history? I'd say the United States.

As a nation, it fought many wars but its homeland was never really threatened (continental United States was only bombed once IIRC) and generally, it gained rather than lose from wars (unlike Europe, China, Japan). The USA went from wealthy nation to great power to superpower to megahyperpower in less than 100 years, with the sort of global dominance - militarily, politically, technologically, economically, culturally - that is unprecedented in world history.

 

[cardgame]

best - US of A

worst - Russia (since China's already been done )

USSR for most of the 20th century, had a revolution, fought in both World Wars, Stalin killed tens of millions of his citizens, the Germans in WW2 ravaged much of the European side of the country, and basically just the lack of freedom for its populace until it collapsed, where it then got worse instead of better for the rest of the century.

 

[El Justo]

worst: vietnam is one, cambodia another. both had a horrendous stretch there...africa, of course, deserves mentioning. ireland could even garner some sympathy as well due to the Troubles. i wouldn't call it the "worst" though. but it certainly wasn't the "best". germany could get some attention as well - 2 devastating wars, a few regime changes.

the US was essentially untouched by war during the 20th century save for pearl harbor. it's economic growth during the century was astounding. australia and canada grew exponentially as well.

 

[Weik]

America were lynching negroes.
I would say Sweden, Norway and Australia had the best history. Norway probably had the best economic developement.

Worst were Afganistan or Sierra Leone.

 

[citedon]

There have been some good choices discussed for both categories; However, I think that a good way to determine the worst and best history in the 20th century would be to compare where a nation was at the start of the century and where it was at the end of the century. Some of those mentioned for best only changed by degrees. Some mentioned for worst simply started bad and just got worse. For best I pick the USA. It started the century as a relatively small world power compared to France, Germany, and England then made great strides in almost every way imaginable: scientifically (nuclear energy, man on the moon), economically (became the wealthiest nation), politically (women's suffrage, improvements in civil rights), and this is nothing to brag about - our decadent culture became the world standard. There is a reason that many historians call the 20th century the American Century. Of course these may all be American historians. IMO the worst would be England. I hate to say this because I am a devout Anglophile. All those things that I used to describe the USA at the end of the century except for the decadent culture could be used to define England at the start of the century. Additionally, the British Empire controlled about one third of the world. By the end of the century all of that was gone. Few would think of England as having the worst history in the 20th century because it still remains as one of the best places on Earth in which to live. But based upon the criteria that I used it seems to me to have lost the most in that century.

 

[Plotinus]

There have been some good choices discussed for both categories; However, I think that a good way to determine the worst and best history in the 20th century would be to compare where a nation was at the start of the century and where it was at the end of the century. Some of those mentioned for best only changed by degrees. Some mentioned for worst simply started bad and just got worse. For best I pick the USA. It started the century as a relatively small world power compared to France, Germany, and England then made great strides in almost every way imaginable: scientifically (nuclear energy, man on the moon), economically (became the wealthiest nation), politically (women's suffrage, improvements in civil rights), and this is nothing to brag about - our decadent culture became the world standard. There is a reason that many historians call the 20th century the American Century. Of course these may all be American historians. IMO the worst would be England. I hate to say this because I am a devout Anglophile. All those things that I used to describe the USA at the end of the century except for the decadent culture could be used to define England at the start of the century. Additionally, the British Empire controlled about one third of the world. By the end of the century all of that was gone. Few would think of England as having the worst history in the 20th century because it still remains as one of the best places on Earth in which to live. But based upon the criteria that I used it seems to me to have lost the most in that century.

But your criteria all seem to be about global power politics. The twentieth century did indeed see Britain losing its empire and its global influence. But why is that a bad thing, either for the British or for anyone else? Has it caused living standards to deteriorate in Britain, or poverty to increase, or the general happiness of the British to go down? Of course not. Those are the things that really matter, not how much of the world the people in charge of a country control. I don't know if England is currently one of the best places on earth in which to live (if it is, then God help the rest of the planet), but it seems to me that if you think this is the case then that in itself is good reason to think that all that stuff about how many other countries it controls is really not very important.

It seems to me perfectly plain that Britain right now is a far better place than it was a century ago; indeed it's a better place than it was thirty years ago, or even fifteen. That is for the same reason that most western countries are better than they were in the past, in that there is greater social mobility, greater social tolerance, and other things of that nature. Now one may argue about whether it's progressed in these areas more or less than other countries, and whether society has become worse in other areas (behaviour in London cinemas is far worse than it was a few years ago, for example), and these would be reasonable criteria to consider. The question how many foreign countries are occupied by its troops or economically enslaved by its merchants, however, is not.

 

[REDY]

20th century was also year of free nations. Many new countries were created.

If we would make it only about countries rises and declines (how was British example suggested), many countries were nothing than parts of empire in the beginning of century. Even when they have now 1x1km they would be relatively better than US which was strong power in 1900.

Colonial powers are still good places to live, former colonies are still not so good (with few exceptions). Majority of money for resources from former colonies are now wasted mainly in corruption. There should grow skycrapers bigger than European ones but majority of people live in slums.

 

[El Justo]

it's just another way to look at it, i would imagine. i agree w/ both of you although citedon makes some good points...if we look at Great Britain at the beginning of the century and then after, there are some glaring regressions in terms of geo-political power. now, colonial possessions aside, both the world wars diluted british influence on the world stage...throw in the suez crisis and the backlash eden faced from the eisenhower admin...and we can see just how far great britain had regressed in terms of the geo-political efficacy. if a tommy at the turn of the 20th of century had lived to see it, there's no doubt that they'd have seen it all as a type of dilution of british influence. so on that note, i agree w/ citedon.

otoh, all of the social gains and other points put forward are most certainly legitimate imho. however, back to my original point: you say tow-ma-to and i say to-may-to

 

[Plotinus]

it's just another way to look at it, i would imagine. i agree w/ both of you although citedon makes some good points...if we look at Great Britain at the beginning of the century and then after, there are some glaring regressions in terms of geo-political power. now, colonial possessions aside, both the world wars diluted british influence on the world stage...throw in the suez crisis and the backlash eden faced from the eisenhower admin...and we can see just how far great britain had regressed in terms of the geo-political efficacy. if a tommy at the turn of the 20th of century had lived to see it, there's no doubt that they'd have seen it all as a type of dilution of british influence. so on that note, i agree w/ citedon.

otoh, all of the social gains and other points put forward are most certainly legitimate imho. however, back to my original point: you say tow-ma-to and i say to-may-to

The thing is though, social progression of the kind I mentioned can be shown to be a plausible good, if we agree on certain basic evaluations such as: other things being equal, a tolerant society is better than an intolerant one, a rich society is better than a poor one, a fair society is better than an unfair one, a free society is better than an unfree one, and so on. We can give plausible reasons why we make such evaluations. But when it comes to "colonial possessions", "influence on the world stage", and so on, what reasons can be given for having these as criteria? It's just an international game of "mine is bigger than yours". It doesn't make any difference to anyone actually living in the country in question. Perhaps a British person from a century ago would have been horrified to know that Britain would lose its empire and global influence; but I would say that that is just an illustration of such a person's immaturity. In any case, I'm not so sure that everyone at that time was so happy with these things. What is The war of the worlds if not a satire on the British empire?

 

[El Justo]

no, i agree w/ your "progression" points. no doubt. but like our beloved civ game it's an "amalgam". while social gains etc are a must to take into consideration, the other points re geo-political power must imho be taken into account as well. now, it's not necessarily "whose empire is bigger" or "who has more colonies". instead, it's clout on the intl stage and an overall geo-political efficacy of sorts. if you lump in who has more real estate, that's fine. but i'm not focusing on that...and a perfect example of this is the suez crisis. the fallout that occurred from it would have been unfathomable in the age of Pax Britiania

 

[Plotinus]

...the other points re geo-political power must imho be taken into account as well...

But why? What makes these things relevant to whether a country has had a good or bad time of it? You can't just assert that they are. If you do, then one might just as well say that it's important whether the country has a good fencing team, or whether its flag is pretty, or whether it has all five vowels in its name, or whatever. You can bring in any nutty criterion that you want. But if it's to be a criterion of value - which can meaningfully be used in assessing whether a country has had a good period or history or a bad one - then you must be able to say why meeting that criterion actually makes things better. Now my point is that criteria such as economic wellbeing or social justice are criteria where, if challenged, one can mount a reasonable defence - one can say why it's good for a country to meet these criteria, and why there's something wrong with a country which doesn't meet them. What I want to know is - how can one mount such a defence in the case of geopolitical clout? Why does it matter any more than the colour of a country's flag or the length of its inhabitants' sideburns?

 

[citedon]

The loss of empire was just one of the things which I used to describe Britain's decline in the 20th century. And I agree with Plotinus that it was not necessarily a bad thing. Some might find the attached link interesting. From an economic standpoint you can see marked improvements beginning after 1945, which coincides with the end of British control over a large part of its empire, not counting India which came a few years later, and virtually the rest of the empire by 1955. I think this link supports in part my statement that today England is one of the best places on Earth in which to live. Also the United Kingdom has the 6th largest GDP in the world today which would make one wonder why some bozo would say it had the worst history in the 20th century.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdf

My point was simply this. Things in general did not go from great to horrible for England during the 20th century; she just had the largest reversal. The fact that Britain could suffer such negative trends and still be a major world power is simply amazing. For about 100 years England had led the world economically (the industrial revolution, largest GDP, etc.), politically (the growth of representative government and the empire), scientifically (though some Germans and Frenchmen might dispute this), and culturally (soccer is the most popular sport in the world today not to mention the popularity of tennis and golf). English is practically the international language today due in a large part to British dominance in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the 1830's slavery became illegal throughout the British Empire (about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the world). Additionally England began using her powerful navy to wipe out the international slave trade. Now that is using geopolitical clout in a very positive way.
During the second half of the 19th century people, at least in the English speaking world followed Britain's lead in many ways. To name a few: Fashion was dictated by the way the British dressed (again some Frenchmen might disagree), Queen Victoria's values became the mores for many people in the world.
By the end of the 20th century all of this had changed.

 

[Plotinus]

Right. But why call all of that a "negative" trend at all? It's just a trend, no more positive or negative than the changing fashions in facial hair. It may be more interesting or remarkable, but that's not the same thing.

By the way, surely golf is Scottish, isn't it?

 

[El Justo]

so an analysis of the evolution or devolution of geo-political efficacy is just not a part of the pie? i find it mind-boggling that it would not be included...

 

[civilized_man]

Depends on how you look at it.

Greatest stability at a high level of civilization: Switzerland and Sweden indeed stand out, having been mostly unfazed by two World Wars raging around them.

Domination: USA, even up until 1989 I'd give the nod to them, because they're even more of a superpower when you look at the cultural might. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it's no contest.

Greatest leap: China. Starting in a bucket of sh*t (and staying there a long time), by the end of the 20th century it was a superpower in the making and the 21st will likely be remembered as the "Chinese Century".

Greatest loss: UK. Lost an empire.

Lucky S.O.B.s: Germany and Japan. Did a lot of bad and stupid things for the first half of the century, were crushingly defeated by the midpoint, yet were again among the richest, most prosperous nations only 20 years later.

Greatest suffering: Most of Africa, Soviet satellite states (all those ...stan's). The 20th century had not a lot going for them and there is no prospect for much improvement in the 21st.

Bottom line - I'd go with Sweden!
Empires are illusions, nationalist propaganda of the Plutocracy. The average Briton couldn't (shouldn't!) care less about losing the Empire. They probably gained more than they lost. Same as the average American pays more for the unofficial Empire than they get.
I'd take a rich country with high income equality and exceptional social standards over imbalanced Empires any day!

 

[Plotinus]

so an analysis of the evolution or devolution of geo-political efficacy is just not a part of the pie? i find it mind-boggling that it would not be included...

I don't see why it should be. Can you give a reason?

(That's not a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely curious.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Greatest suffering: Most of Africa, Soviet satellite states (all those ...stan's). The 20th century had not a lot going for them and there is no prospect for much improvement in the 21st.

"All those 'stans" were republics of the USSR. They were by no means separate countries, and had not been for a long time. The so-called Soviet "sattelites" were the Eastern and Central European socialist countries post-war.