“We are in the position of a runner who wants to save his sprint at the right time, but does not know where the finish line is. “The danger is that we may derail our economy prematurely.” This statement was made by Sir John Simon, the British Minister of Finance, in March 1938 at the Council of Ministers.
The climate at the time smelled of gunpowder, with all of Neville Chamberlain’s ministers agreeing that in the event of war, borrowing and increased defense spending were inevitable. But they could not know when the war would break out, as Hitler had the initiative. “Our good financial position would not be a consolation if London were leveled because our air force was inadequate,” Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said.
The relationship between the possibility of war and the economy has always been direct. War costs are considered counterproductive, to the extent that some of their applications are not depreciated in the open market. The economies of small states in particular, which are notable for their shallowness, are suffering from high defense spending. But Eden was disarmed.
It is well known that in our country the two major parties of the 1990s have chosen to give priority to taming deficits and controlling debt. The national goal was to join the Eurozone. And, for better or worse, the vast majority of citizens were behind this choice. The Turkish threat, which then began to materialize with the “gray zone” theory, was downgraded for the sake of the national goal.
The loss of Imia was registered in the national memory, because what prevailed then was the modernization and convergence of the national economy with the economies of other Eurozone countries. Meanwhile, the aggressive neighbor was planning, building its war industry and gradually implementing the plan to turn Greece into a state of limited sovereignty.
What bothers Turkey today is that our country is arming itself, building alliances and upgrading geostrategically. Its doctrine is national defense above all.
