Why do economic embargo and trade disruptions never work during war?
>Napoleon tries to embargo Great Britain, doesn't work
>Allies form navel blockade around British Channel in WW1, doesn't work
>Hitler tries to embargo Russia and Great Britain, doesn't work
>America tries to embargo Vietnam, doesn't work
>Entire world tries to embargo present day Russia for acting a fool, doesn't work
>>1402083
You know nothing about ww1.
And blockades don't work if a lot of countries ignore them and the aggressor country can't enforce them
Those were all effective minus Vietnam
>>1402083
>Why do economic embargo and trade disruptions never work during war?
>in WW1, doesn't work
?????
the blockade was one of the most potent factors in winning the war for the allies
Worked during the crimean war.
>>1402083
>navel blockade
>>1402083
>Allies form navel blockade around British Channel in WW1, doesn't work
>Implying
>>1402083
>entire democratic world
>doesnt represent a third of the total human population, including corporate personhoods
>>1402083
You usually initiate economic sanctions for one of three reasons.
>Reason 1: Attempt to influence a policy by the target polity
>Reason 2: Attempt to initiate a change in regime by promising the sanctions will go away when the current government does.
>Reason 3: Attempt to destroy or at least damage target nation's economy, either for its own sake or to weaken target for further action.
Reason 1 can only work if the policy is relatively minor, and especially if you're already at war, is probably not that big of a deal, given that the pressure involved in loss of trade is less than the pressure involved of actually being shot at.
Reason 2 almost never works, because of neo-realism principle #1; regimes almost always act in a way that ensures their survival, and don't like giving up power. It can only really theoretically work by provoking a revolt against the gov't, but
A) That rarely happens
B) It's far from sure that said revolt would work.
Reason 3 works all the time, and especially in the contexts of WW1 and Vietnam, worked reasonably well, all things considered.
>>1402083
but I thought the reason Cuba is a shithole was 100% because of the blockade and not becuase of communism at all?
>>1403340
Everyone, get a load of this retard.
>>1403449
>What are U-boats
German submersibles used to attack asked shipping during both World Wars. They also did literally nothing to prevent the collapse of the German economy, and eventually the German government, at the end of world war 1.
>>1403449
>>What are uboats
A weapon that managed to work at the very heights of its efficiency in WW1 for only about two months, meaning it was unable to sink enough tonnage long term to have the desired effect, unlike the naval blockade of Germany.
>>1402083
What do you mean by "doesn't work" ?
It depends what the hell you mean by that.
Napoleon's blockade tanked England's economy and provoked a massive collapse of the country, along with massive unemployement for a long time. It's because the rest of Europe suffered (Not France) and that afterwards they were a lot of holes in the huge continental blocus that it was stopped.
The blocus of WW1 is the main reason behind the fall of Germany.
Hitler couldn't block the UK/Russia because they were fed by the massive american economy and Hitler didn't control Siberia, Africa, or the whole Atlantic.
Same for Vietnam, who shared a border with China and the USSR.
