Why won't Pax Germanica
Another rise of Germany
Looking at the modern rise of the political and economic role of the German state and the unification of Europe around Berlin, you involuntarily begin to wonder what will happen tomorrow and how far this process will go. Indeed, today no one disputes and is not going to dispute the industrial and financial leadership of Germany in Europe.
But to be honest: I can’t believe in the “German model of Europe” in almost any way. I can’t believe it at all. The reasons here are rather subjective: the thinking of German politicians is somehow non-standard. You need to start with what? unlike Spain, France, Britain, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Germany joined very late.
Monstrously late - in fact at the end of the 19th century. Which, incidentally, immediately led to a terrible imbalance of forces in European (world!) Politics. The Austrian empire is something a little different. The rise of the USA and Japan could hardly lead to world wars, but the sudden appearance in the center of Europe of the strongest power, Germany, created an entirely new picture of the world and created a lot of problems. For many who lived at the turn of the XNUMXth — XNUMXth centuries, World War I with its massacres was a complete surprise.
Just try to calmly, carefully study history Wars before the reunification of Germany. There was no such nightmare and was not planned by anyone. In fact, after all these outrages, predictions about the “inevitability” of the First World War began to “force” actively ... Allegedly, already at the end of the 19th century, everything was clear to smart people with the upcoming political cataclysm.
If, gentlemen, we do not consider world history exclusively from the point of view of the providence of God, then we will be forced to accept the simple fact that history has many developmental options. That's right, and nothing else. "History It has subjunctive mood". Otherwise, studying it is simply pointless.
So wars took place both before and after the Second World War, let’s take at least the era of the Napoleonic Wars. But there were not just two wars, but two disasters in a row. Yes, and the First World War, and the Second - it is not so much a war as a global catastrophe. And one cannot fail to note one interesting fact: it was precisely Germany and the German leadership that stood at their origins. Such a "funny coincidence." It is clear that neither Austria-Hungary of the 1914 model, nor Italy of the 1938 model, by themselves, were absolutely capable of starting a world war.
They did not have the resources. Even “militaristic Japan” and “the incident at the Marco Polo Bridge” in the year one thousand thirty-seven could not become the cause and the beginning of a global massacre. Alas and ah. But just Germany has become easy. It was German initiatives and German “dynamism” in the field of foreign policy that caused the flourishing Europe to turn into a battlefield, a hotbed of extremist political movements and caused the mass death of those Europeans themselves. Moreover, those same world wars spilled far beyond the borders of Europe, turning the “semi-continent" itself into ruins ...
It is worth recalling the Kaiser Germany of the sample of 1914, which it is so customary to forget about. It was then, in 1914, that it all began ... So, then-then-Germany (unlike Hitler's Germany) was really a military-industrial superpower. The second strongest fleet, the most powerful army in the world, the most powerful and advanced industry in Europe, the scientific world of the beginning of the 20th century spoke German! Germany-1914 - it was very, very serious.
But German politicians disposed of this very “starting potential” in a very, very peculiar way ... 30 years after this, Germany and Europe lay in ruins for the second time in a row, and the German state suffered a complete and final defeat. Here are all sorts of amateurs from military history who claim that this was an absolutely inevitable outcome. Once again: history has many developmental options, we live in one of them, but this does not mean that it is the only possible one.
That is, the defeat of Germany in two world wars is not only not “inevitable”, but for the author personally is a rather unlikely outcome of the first half of the 20th century. The real world of 1945 is not just a deviation from the “main historical channel”, it is, excuse me, something generally unimaginable and very random. The fact that Russia will finally achieve the “superpower Germany”, which went through two disasters (Civil and 1941-1942) was, well, a very unlikely outcome of events, if you look from a prosperous 1914 ... Some kind of incredible “cyberpunk”.
A moment of history
Just remember how difficult it was to create great empires. The same great British Empire was balancing on the edge of the abyss for a very, very long time. Britain was much weaker than Spain of the 1815th century or France of the 1914th century. She could not enter into the “cabin” or “exchange of blows” with them. Everything was unsteady, vague and unreliable. If someone does not know, then the path to Pax Britanica (XNUMX-XNUMX) was by no means strewn with rose petals ... For some reason, people proceed from an unobvious premise: since this happened, this should have happened.
You know, the church history of the world is one thing, and even the history of the church is something completely different ... Do not confuse such things. So, just the British had to really, really try to get into the lead. And after all, everything could have turned out very differently. In principle, the first world power was built by continental Spaniards. Which way, by the way, was also thorny and winding. Thus, the Spaniards had many generations to conquer Spain from the Moors step by step, but immediately after the Reconquista they rushed to explore the New World.
Many people created world empires ... Even the same French, having gone through the crucible of numerous wars, some of which they won, some lost ... But there was a world French empire, and France was a great power (back in 1939!). Strange, huh? The French, British and Spaniards (three different countries with very different histories) succeeded, but the Germans did not. And if we talk about “potential”, then neither small Portugal nor small Holland possessed such potential for pure power building world empires.
But both little Holland and little Portugal built them quite well. But how? How? How did they do it? And there is nothing surprising here, of course, the power component played a role in the creation of world empires, but brute force alone was not enough. Politics, gentlemen. Geopolitics. Complex diplomatic games ... And any fool can wave his fists.
No, literally everyone who was lazy built empires - the same small and poor Swedes at a certain historical stage turned the Baltic Sea into a “Swedish lake” and controlled a significant part of Northern Germany, being quite a great European power. One cannot but recall the Austrians, who from different parts gathered quite a great power (while the “upper Germans” themselves made up less than a third of the population there!).
However, the Austrians were never a military superpower. The tragic paradox of the Habsburgs was that the French army was uniquely stronger, the Turks more numerous, the Prussians more organized and united, and there were surprisingly few great commanders among the Austrians. With all their wishes, the Austrians could not rely on a purely power component in the construction of the empire, but they built an empire ...
The Turks, who visited the suburbs of Vienna in 1683, are the creators of one of the greatest empires in history (and it all started quite miserably ...). Literally "on takeoff" Timur practically destroyed them ... in one short battle. In general, the Ottoman Empire was not built suddenly and not immediately, but at the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, it did not know peers ...
It is impossible not to mention the simple fact that Muscovy went to the world empire very slowly and uneasy (in the pre-Petrine era). The reason is simple: poverty with people, money and technology. All three opponents, Poland - Lithuania, Sweden and the Crimean Khanate (vassal of the Ottomans), were almost invincible in a head-on collision.
Krymchaks flew from the Crimea, robbed, burned, took prisoners and were completely inaccessible to Russian foot soldiers in their Crimea. “The Times of Ochakov and the Conquest of Crimea” - this is Catherine the Great! Only then ... just shortly before Napoleon ... The Crimean Khanate was defeated and annexed.
Poland ... the Russians fought with it endlessly. And just as useless. Despite the traditional Polish mess, this country was richer and more crowded Muscovy. And more modern, if that. It didn’t work out a “big and beautiful victory” over the Poles ... it didn’t work ... But the heavy and bloody collisions went on endlessly. Without much positive result. Poland stood Russian tsars literally across the throat - the presence of a strong Poland near Smolensk put an end to all imperial attempts and attempts, but it was not possible to smash the Poles “outright”.
Muscovy could not help but build an empire, but Poland could not win. The wars became protracted. The third opponent is Sweden. It's simple: the Swedes had modern disciplined army (one of the best in Europe, if not the best). Defeating their “head-to-head” on the battlefield was, rather, an unattainable dream than reality. The Swedish question will be decided by Peter the Great, having carried out a monstrous mobilization of all the resources of Russia.
That is, the tsar of Moscow was at its peak: from all three sides there were strong enemies, whose defeat was extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the empire took place. But the "German Germans" things went somehow very original. In general, unlike the distant and cold Muscovy, the economic, technical and cultural development of the German lands went quite quickly. Just if you look at the number of technical innovations and books there, written during the Late Middle Ages, on the territory of the lands inhabited by Germans and compare with the Moscow kingdom, there will be no limit to our surprise.
Germany as a whole was a rich, developed, densely populated territory even then and there were few who lagged behind in this regard. And even if you compare her with the future mistress of the seas, the comparison will not be in favor of the latter. When many of us are surprised at the technical miracles that the Germans demonstrated during the sunset of World War II, we somehow forget that the traditions of metalworking and precision mechanics have been there for hundreds of years. Those who believe that the T-34 was more primitively executed than the Pz-IV, also forget that they were engaged in their production very different people. The difference in qualifications of those who collected the “Yaks” and “Messers” during the war was simply fantastic.
The Krupp Empire in the 19th century did not arise from scratch either. Nevertheless, Germany declared itself as a great world power only at the end of that same 19th century. Somehow a little late, don’t you? If very roughly: France and Spain completed the process of unification just in the era of the Late Middle Ages. In France, it’s Louis XI, the end of the 15th century. Spain - Isabella and Ferdinand, also the end of the 15th century. The Kingdom of Great Britain was officially created in 1707, but some kind of frank “feudal fragmentation” after 1066 in the territory of Misty Albion was somehow not observed.
But the Germans in this regard somehow "lingered". Which cannot but cause certain questions. That is, one of the reasons for the monstrous World War I is precisely in this: firstly, the Germans united very late, secondly, united, they created the leading military-industrial force of Europe, and thirdly, they preferred to solve the emerging geopolitical issues by the method brute force: "And what is there to think, you need to shake!"
What did they forget and what did they learn?
That is, the option of long and complex geopolitical games for some reason was not considered by them in principle. They tried to turn the tide through the knee as soon as they got such an opportunity. Here, by the way, the complete lack of experience in large geopolitics affected. For example, the British last time so acted during the Hundred Years War. That is, making an attempt to turn the tide in their favor during a direct force confrontation. According to the results of the Hundred Years War, the British made certain conclusions: in the sense that ramming the gates of continental castles with their heads is far from the best strategy.
The Germans, however, began to gain similar experience already in the "trenches of Verdun." Already in the industrial era. All the arguments that during the two world wars they gained “priceless experience” of the fact that it is not necessary to act by force, but you can, so to speak, act “economically”, can cause nothing but a grin. Somehow they found this very “experience” and this “understanding” very dearly. And somehow it's too late by historical standards.
And the fact that they learned something there causes great doubts: the modern "EU" Europe is clearly divided into "grades and classes", and there are not even two of them. Someone there says that Russia does not want to build “equal relations” with its neighbors. But the Germans just built them, and you can’t argue! It’s just that someone automatically appeared in the role of “Europe of the second speed”.
Doesn’t resemble anything? The more Germans build the "City of the Sun", the more they get something completely different. Something like that ... I don’t know who is to blame, not my project. Regarding the "East Front" - here, as they say, without change. All criticism of “bad, barbarian Russia” fits very well into the German imperial historical tradition. Here, many in the Russian information space are literally shining with happiness after learning about the project of a large pan-European army.
I would advise them to buy together a large map of Europe and neighboring lands, carefully study it and choose options (directions!) For the use of this pan-European armada. Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm will not let lie. In general, with regard to geopolitics: once the Prussians were called "British soldiers on the continent." It seems that little has changed since then.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.