The book had this thesis it kept advancing about the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the "centrifugal" forces of nationalism that tore it apart. Maybe so and maybe no, but it was the forces of German nationalism that tore Europe apart. It's a peculiar fantasy to talk about the inevitability of the war, but it is clear in retrospect that Germany launched itself on a collision course with the world when it came into being at the beginning of 1871. Initially upsetting the balance of power by the mere fact of its existence, Germany launched into a series of military campaigns that set the foundation for the entangling alliances that eventually pushed Europe to war.
And then the whole navy thing: Was there a need? We saw Wilhelm II's declaration of the nationalistic imperative to empire, but I believe I side with Bismarck when I say that Germany, being squarely in the middle of the continent, should maintain continental, rather than colonial, interests. Also, the forces that shaped early twentieth-century Europe (i.e. the second industrial revolution) were not colonial by any means: the explosion was in the direction of steel, chemicals, and electricity. From the navy it all went downhill, with submarines and the alliance with Austria-Hungary and the whole invasion of Denmark. Even the spark for the whole thing (the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) was nationalistically motivated.
Nationalism--German nationalism in particular--is totally a problem: it was this war that tore Europe apart, changing European ideas of humanity as well as thrusting Europe into the global background. So, Germany, what the hell?
No comments:
Post a Comment