Industrial revolution in the West and two world wars
There can be two perpendicular approaches to any problem: propaganda and analytical. Approaching the matter analytically, we find out what, how and why ... It is difficult and extremely ambiguous, in the sense that the results of our reflections are very conditional, and they require a lot of time. That is, this path - the collection of facts, their correct analysis, conclusions - is very time consuming and effortless. And the result, as a rule, does not please the eye and does not convince the general public. But a purely propagandistic approach is much more effective, no logic, no complicated constructions - one continuous pressure, only emotions.
But what is characteristic - the masses like this approach very, very ... Because - simply, understandably and clearly. And to combine discussions within the framework of these two approaches at the same time is a rather useless exercise. And even meaningless. "Bad money drives out good money." A bright and colorful propaganda approach usually guarantees victory (ordinary people do not like to think).
So the trouble with analyzing the pros and cons of that very Western civilization is precisely that logic and common sense are absolutely and completely absent. Usually. And, as a rule, it all comes down to a clash of two opposing propaganda approaches. Once again: using two approaches (analytical and propaganda) at the same time is "very powerful witchcraft" and not everyone can handle it.
Paradoxically, it was Western civilization that was originally characterized by what is called "critical thinking." That's right: take nothing for granted, investigate everything, question and try to refute. Indeed, this distinguished the West in its best years, and undoubtedly it was its critical advantage over the rest of the planet. Not faith, but knowledge.
Obviously, that is why today attempts to promote a certain "bright city on the hill" cause sincere bewilderment. This approach is much more characteristic of Islam. As, in principle, and for the Chinese bogdikhans or Buddhists in India and Asia in general. There - yes, there the "critical type of thinking" was absent as a class, and there progress was much slower.
The classic question is: "Don't you believe in our mumba-yumba?" And somehow this issue is slowly becoming relevant in the West. Parallels are even quite obvious: Islamists are blowing up the enemies of Islam, "democrats" are bombing the enemies of democracy. At the same time, both sides are acting very tough and categorically. The arguments of both sides are very similar ...
Sometimes you want to resettle both those and others to some distant planet ...
Seriously, for a long time it was Western civilization that was ahead of the rest of the planet, and somehow many are already used to it. And it seems to the majority that it has always been this way. Both advanced qualities and some "freedoms" are considered originally inherent in the same Western civilization.
However, not everything is so simple, and it was not always so.
To begin with, even the composition of the West's participants has changed quite a lot. There was a period when the Spanish Empire had no equal, but then - its rapid fall happened almost to a third world country ...
Legendary Sweden has been famous for a very long time, oddly enough, "Swedish poverty".
In general, if you dig around, then a lot of such interesting and different things come to the surface.
Starting just from the fact what at the cost of Europe's transition to this very "New time" was given. Fencing in Britain with its legendary "workhouses" is not a pound of raisins at all, and after the religious wars, Germany was actually unusable for a very long time ...
So all the arguments that the West is continuous progress and a high standard of living, to put it mildly, are not entirely correct. The picture is a little more complicated.
The second half of the XNUMXth century was the apotheosis of the superiority of the West over the rest of the world, but even then, not so many countries could be included in this beautiful concept of "West". In fact: England, Germany, USA, France. Austria-Hungary - rather, no longer. But Belgium or Holland - of course, yes.
But in any case, there were not so many of these "Western countries". The question, most likely, is in the very "fodder base": each prosperous metropolis should have had a lot of colonies. And our planet is not rubber at all ...
And the clash between Germany and Britain was inevitable for this very simple reason. Small metropolitan countries for their normal functioning needed colonies tens of times larger than them.
It's like a "small" thermal power plant needs a very large reservoir next to it. And the colonies were "turned on" not because it was "cool", not to paint geographical maps in "their" colors, but out of strict necessity. Accelerated industrialization and scientific and technological development meant colonialism, otherwise there was no other way. These very phenomena represent whole, and one is unthinkable without the other.
That is, without these very "outrages" and mass murders, the technical breakthrough in England and France was unattainable purely theoretically. It is impossible to separate one from the other, no matter how hard you try. As the saying goes, "you can't fry an omelet without breaking the eggs." All those who curse Stalin's industrialization somehow sweetly forget about industrialization in the future "workshop of the world" and the price at which it was given to the "free Britons".
Karl Marx, you say? Well, yes, it was he who described the apotheosis of the very outrage that was happening in Britain at that time. One may or may not laugh at "predicting the future, according to Marx", but he did the "sketch" of the apotheosis of the industrial revolution in a given country quite accurately. More precisely, there is nowhere. Everything is very simple: the creation of a high-tech of that time - a heavy industry, required monstrous means: it was necessary to enslave various Indians, Irish and British poor.
Victorian industrialization was no less brutal than Stalin's. Could it be otherwise?
That is, in fact, "complete colonization of the entire planet" and the First World War were an inevitable consequence of that very industrial revolution ... Such things, no one is to blame. it not "Random set of events." This means that there is no need for "war songs" about the fact that there was some "high" Western civilization with powerful technology, science, culture ... And then suddenly that very August 1914 happened ...
And the Second World War was a consequence of the First World War, and it also became very, very not accidental ... That is, before sincerely admiring the West, one must take into account that the very two world ones are a product of the political / economic activity of the most developed countries, oriented precisely towards the Western model. Such as: Germany, Britain, USA, Japan and France.
An attempt to accuse, for example, the Russian Empire of the same degree of responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War, as the German Empire, looks very strange. And the point here is not at all in high morality. Relatively poor and technically backward Russia (in comparison with Germany) could only fight for survival, but not for the repartition of the world in its favor. I understand: it is sad and insulting for the patriots and fans of the Russian Empire, but everything was exactly that way, and nothing else ...
The same applies to 1939 and the Second World War: Stalin tried to save the USSR (it did not work out very well), and by no means to conquer Europe. All myths and fables about this ignore the simple fact of the poverty and backwardness of the 1939 USSR. "But if they had a short-barreled", that is, democracy ... Then the "Barbarossa" plan would be simply superfluous.
Spur on a platter
Once again for hurray-patriots: the real positions of the Russian Empire and the USSR at the beginning of the world wars looked rather doubtful, and the question was raised not about the capture of someone else's, but about the salvation of one's own. How much Nicholas II and Stalin succeeded in this - you can read about this today in books on stories our homeland. The author, on the other hand, looks at things quite pessimistically.
Russia was not so much a participant in the two world wars as a victim of them.
The clash between Germany and England led to the First World War, the clash between the United States and England - to the Second World War ... The Russian Empire / USSR could take absolutely any position - the main "actors" in the international arena were completely different countries. I understand: insulting, insulting, but that's how it was.
The historical truth is that the blame for the two worlds lies with the most developed countries of the planet at a time, such as Germany, the USA and England. Franz Josef's Austria-Hungary, Mussolini's Italy or Hirohito's Japan are less important players. That is, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but it was the Yankees who were to blame for the war? That's right, my dear ones.
America became a superpower and the most developed and influential state on the planet precisely in the course of two world wars, and not in the course of peaceful "socialist competition." Could, in principle, defeat Germany, and Britain could have survived in certain situations (although the chances, frankly, are not very high).
But in any case, the two world meat grinders are an attempt by the leading Western powers to find out who is in charge on the planet, and not a "clash of everyone with everyone", as they sometimes like to portray in history books, publishing endless lists of disorderly events around the planet, as well as countries -participants.
Following the logic of "general confrontation", we and Ethiopia can be registered as "inciters and organizers." The lists of participants in both world wars are impressive, but, as we understand, all sorts of "Antigua and Barbuda" there were of very little importance.
Russia mattered somewhat more, but it didn’t pull the “superpredator”. Both crimes and the ruin of the two worlds are precisely the "zone of responsibility" of the most developed countries of the West. Without their active participation, two massacres could not take place in any way. Do not put Thailand and the United States on the same rung.
You know, you can endlessly dream of some kind of expansion and even some kind of world domination, but it would be nice to assess the material possibilities for such a leap. So, neither the Russian Empire of the 1914 model, nor the USSR of the 1939 model had such opportunities.
Neither Stalin nor Nicholas II had any reason to start a world war for the simple reason that there were very few chances to win (that is, to ensure a world better than the pre-war), and to take advantage of the victory - even less (and so it happened).
That is, roughly speaking, "they", that is, the people of the West, do not act like that out of malice, they simply do not know how to act differently, simply because their model of civilization does not imply any other option for action.
At one time in feudal Britain there was such a multi-valued custom: when supplies in the castle ran out, its mistress served her husband a spur on a platter, as if with a hint that it was time to go to France.
- Oleg Egorov
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.