>>109
Good question. According to the logic of nearly everyone in the center and on the right, and a good portion of the left right up until the end of the Great War and for a while thereafter agreed that international peace would be attained when the world powers were fewer in power, as there would be fewer conflicting national interests.

Hitler said he was fighting to create a world that could sustain peace, as a powerful mononational Germany with a primarily agricultural and locally fed manufacturing economy extending across Europe and without nautical ambitions would supposedly have no conflicting interests with the other nations; Italy's interests would be in its natural domain around the mediterranean, Britain's across the seas, and Scandinavia and France local. This makes sense, though it is unreasonably cruel to the populations he meant to let die out. Say what you will about him, but Hitler was skilled at reading political winds.

And yet as power consolidated in the hands of the West after the dissolution of the USSR conflicts seem to have <i>increased</i>

>>111
Be careful you don't say that in a position of power. Even today the US government and its little friends all fear revolutionary ideologies, and people who make it clear they do not agree tend to be neutralized if they hold any power, or if that fails have largely unreported accidents.