Читать книгу The History of the West. Through the Eyes of Bears and Balalaikas - - Страница 10

We really love to believe that any events are objectively determined, have clearly defined causes and understandable consequences. However, this is not the case. Often, the reason for serious matters can be something completely insignificant: a personal grievance, an unfortunate or, conversely, fortunate incident, accumulated anger or fatigue. Sometimes, a rash decision by one person is enough, and at other times, everything happens by the will of an agitated crowd.

Psychology plays no less, if not a greater role in history than economics, and human passions often prove to be a more significant reason than the arguments of reason. Because the history we study is the history of humanity with all its virtues and flaws.

Everyone wanted World War II, but from the perspective of our time, it looks like complete idiocy57. On one side: the largest power in the world – Great Britain, the biggest and well-armed army – the Soviet, the best economy – the American, and the country with the most progressive social system at that time – France. On the other – Germany, utterly defeated, stripped of the right to have an army or aviation and navy. Italy, torn apart, and Japan, isolated from the world, lost at the edge of the Earth. If the war is won by the economy, which is almost always true, the outcome should have been decided immediately and, as they say, in one gate. However, in three years, the Axis managed to subjugate almost all of Europe, a significant portion of Asia, and even make significant advances in Oceania, casually defeating the once invincible armies and navies of vastly superior powers.

How could this even happen? How could countries that, while not dwarfs, were quite secondary in capabilities, manage to “lead” giants, the recognized world leaders and superpowers of that time, for years?

Usually, this is explained by the fact that England, France, the USSR, and the USA were “not ready for war.” They try not to elaborate on what exactly this unpreparedness entailed so as not to have to explain the abundance of Soviet tanks and British battleships58. And yet, it is true – everyone wanted the war, but practically no one was ready for it. In the sense that “no one wanted to die”.

Boys and historians love to compare tanks, the number of aircraft, infantry and motorized divisions, bomb loads, and turning radii. But war in most cases.

Not about who has thicker front armor and cannon barrels, although in a specific battle like Jutland59 or Tsushima60 this can be crucial. War is about the willingness to stand to the death, like Wellington’s soldiers61 at Waterloo62 or Meade63 at Gettysburg64. When it seems like they’ve already lost and need to surrender or flee, yet they grimly hold the lines, dying but not retreating. And the attack falters, followed by another, then a third, and then Blücher’s cavalry appears.

The Germans of thirty-nine and even forty-five were ready to die for the Führer, for Germany, to wash away the shame of Versailles65 and earn the right to a better life with blood. Weimar Republic66, was probably not the worst place to live, but a completely bleak place in terms of expectations and prospects for the majority of the population. To toil until the seventh sweat in the hope of not remaining impoverished in old age – that was all the then government could offer the Germans. It’s not surprising that Hitler, with his national grandeur and world domination, was perceived almost like a deity.

The Japanese were ready to die for the Mikado for roughly the same reasons. A dreary life on overcrowded islands, the stigma of being wild barbarians, and bleak prospects for everyone who wasn’t fortunate enough to be part of the “elite” – a sufficient set of motivators to go into battle, and not just into battle, but into a suicidal banzai attack67 or a kamikaze raid68.

Their opponents were mostly not ready to die. For Europeans, this unpreparedness stems from the First World War, still perceived by many as the hardest war in history. Not because of the scale of losses, but because of their senselessness. The Second World War was a time when million-strong armies made advances over thousands of kilometers, fronts conducted offensive and defensive operations, and enormous fleets crossed oceans to land on distant islands. Yes, people died like flies, but in most cases, there was some justification, reason, or goal for their deaths. The First World War was the triumph of defense, millions of soldiers in trenches and ditches that did not change their location for years. And artillery pounding these trenches month after month. People died without moving from their place, without launching a decisive offensive, and without fleeing the battlefield. Year after year.

The Second World War had a purpose. For some, it was to become the dominant race, to seize new lands, and to rise from need and oblivion to glory and prosperity. For others, it was to avoid destruction and enslavement, to stop the mad and ferocious enemies. The First World War had no purpose, or rather, it had a purpose for governments, and more precisely, for the sovereigns of the warring states. In other words, it was the last war arranged by kings with the traditionally royal explanation of “because I want it that way.”.

To be fair, none of these monarchs, who were closely related to each other, planned for four years of a bloody massacre. They all were confident in their swift and almost bloodless victory – a little saber-rattling and then disperse. What happened became a colossal, hard-to-comprehend blow to the trust between people, society, and governments or states.

At the very beginning of the 20th century, Kipling praised the “white man’s burden”69 and millions of Britons were ready to travel to the ends of the Earth to defend the interests of the Empire. From the real Churchill70 to the literary Watson71, every self-respecting young Englishman was happy to make a career in overseas colonies; wars and conquests were considered honorable. Public opinion praised the conquerors of Afghanistan, Sudan, and the Transvaal72. Thirty years later, nothing remained of the former enthusiasm. The Statute of Westminster73 grants self-governance to the dominions in exchange for nominal recognition of the British monarch and voluntary assistance from the metropolis, which does not want to be responsible for its numerous lands – it is tired and has no money. The latter is also significant – the First World War cost the treasury such a penny, or rather a pence, that now there is not enough money not only for two fleets but barely for one. No, the English do not want to fight. And if for the “white cliffs of Albion”74 they are still ready to lay down their heads, then for all sorts of peripheral lands – sorry, no thanks. And even more so, Indians and Malays do not want to fight for their masters; they scatter in all directions at the first sign of danger.

The French also have no desire to fight, especially not with the Germans, and certainly not over some Poland75. Poland is far away, and the Germans are nearby, and in the last hundred years, they’ve been hit hard by them a couple of times. And if politics insistently demands that the French elite stick their nose into other people’s affairs, the ordinary monsieur is not at all eager to perish from a German bullet for who knows what. Therefore, as soon as France declares war, it immediately begins to sabotage it: overthrowing Hitler is problematic, but getting something from him is quite possible. And when it turns out that Germany is fighting for real, the French are so confused that they don’t even manage to put up real resistance.

Americans, on the contrary, are ready to fight anyone, anytime, even with their bare hands. Yankees are quite the brawlers. But right now, they are bored out of their minds, there’s no work, and Roosevelt has ordered roads to be paved76. Even getting a proper drink isn’t possible everywhere77. Naturally, rather than digging the ground and hauling gravel, it would be much more interesting to beat someone up. But the Monroe Doctrine gets in the way, although it’s been quite worn down by time, it is still deeply ingrained – everything that happens outside of America doesn’t concern Americans. It took a lot of diplomatic efforts along with Pearl Harbor78 for the USA to lazily reach for the Colt in the third year.

What about the Russians? You will be surprised, but they also have no desire to die. And this is despite the fact that, thanks to propaganda, they have long forgotten the First World War (now called the “German War”), written off six million of their dead, despite the fact that for decades they were prepared for the inevitability of a war for the happiness of the world proletariat, taught to throw grenades and jump from parachute towers79. The pre-war USSR as a state was quite aggressive. But the people, on the contrary, were more than peace-loving.

Because why? Newspapers, radio, the party organizer at work, and the political officer in the unit are convincing every day that with the arrival of the workers’ and peasants’ power, life has improved. Komsomol construction projects are in full swing, the production of pig iron and steel is increasing, records are being set for coal mining and flights over the North Pole. From Moscow to the British seas, the Red Army is the strongest of all… Life has become better and indeed more cheerful, much more cheerful than the pre-revolutionary slums and villages that preserved the feudal-serf system. Why go to death if everything is already becoming more beautiful day by day for the sake of the workers of the whole world. They are far away; for their liberation, there is the Comintern and the Red Army, which is also not for bloody battles but for the triumphant march of the world revolution. And if a meat grinder begins, whether with the Finns, the Germans, or even the Japanese, Soviet people do not show much eagerness to fight and only reforge themselves when there is absolutely no other way.

What broke almost all the nations of Europe, turning them from militant powers accustomed to resolving issues by force of arms into a testing ground for German offensive operations.

Now we live in a world where war is seen as something exceptional, extraordinary, where there are international tribunals and “crimes against humanity.” To be fair, all this works only for the “golden billion”80, but we belong to it, so we perceive past events through the prism of our anti-war morality. Even the fiercest militarists talk about the need to “hit” and “beat up” without any real intention of doing so. But it wasn’t always this way. For most of its history, humanity perceived war as an everyday means of resolving contradictions. Tsar Peter needed a window to Europe – the army marched on the Swedes. Richelieu didn’t like the Protestant separatists – the musketeers went to La Rochelle81. No debates, United Nations and public condemnation. Which is not surprising, since the army at that time – several thousand and often hundreds of men with sticks and makeshift weapons: some would be beaten (the word “kill” itself implies beating and for a long time), some would be stabbed, but overall, given the then value of human life, 50% child mortality, and epidemics wiping out up to a third of the population, the damage from wars was quite moderate.

Another anachronism is “state interests.” We, the fortunate children of the 20th-21st centuries, are used to the idea that this is something directly affecting us. And if a war happens, it occurs either to make things better for us or to spite us. Because the state is us, the citizens.

But this perspective is extremely young. If you tried to explain it to Nicholas II, let alone Louis XIV, he would probably not understand what you mean at all. And if he did understand, he would send you into exile in Shushenskoye82 (Nicholas) or simply laugh merrily (Louis). Because this exotic approach, characteristic of antiquity83, began to gain momentum again only after the Great French Revolution, and even then, not everywhere. In most countries, for millennia, the phrase “state interest” meant “the interest of the suzerain.” There were no citizens, only subjects meant to serve or toil. In some cases, the relationship between the ruler and the subjects could be regulated by certain laws and acts, but when necessary, the suzerains would readily disregard these acts. And if the subjects did not have their own Oliver Cromwell84, they had to continue serving under new conditions.

For many centuries, everyone became accustomed to these relationships. And although the 19th century shook both the social order and the way of conducting warfare, retraining in a new manner proved difficult. Therefore, the First World War began as a classic feud of feudal rulers, deciding to measure ambitions under the guise of national interests of their states. There was not much for them to divide. The Germans and Austrians, who seemingly stirred things up for the sake of colonies, did not really need those colonies. And the opposing English were already beginning to think about how to get rid of their colonies, at least partially. The Russian emperor wanted to seize the Balkans, possibly adding a large piece of the old enemy – the Ottoman Empire. The people couldn’t care less about the Balkans, having been freed from serfdom for only 50 years, he had plenty of other problems. But the Orthodox ruler deemed it necessary to subjugate fellow believers of lesser status and, at the same time, settle scores for the disgrace of the Crimean85 and Russo-Japanese Wars86.

The French had no suzerain, but they had a strong desire to avenge the Franco-Prussian War and reclaim the disputed territories of Alsace and Lorraine, which had been ceded to Germany more than 40 years ago87, and therefore were unlikely to have vital importance for the country.

Rulers and elites who made the decision to start the war thought in strictly feudal terms: personal grievances, personal benefits, vengeance for failures, and the restoration of honor, as well as the expansion of territories to their personal domains. If their problems were addressed by princely retinues or at least armies of a hundred thousand, similar to Napoleon’s Grande Armée, perhaps it would have been manageable. But the technological progress of the 19th century allowed for millions to be conscripted, and new types of weapons to destroy these millions remotely, without the need for heavy blows and sharp objects. And people being destroyed remotely in fantastic numbers for unclear reasons felt more like citizens than subjects – thanks to the French and Americans, Queen Victoria88, and the general democratization and decentralization that became a trend in the pre-war decades.

It’s not surprising that after the end of the war, the German, Austrian, Ottoman, and Russian empires disappeared from the map. And the citizens of the states that formed in their place had no desire to shed blood again for interests that were unclear to them. If not for the grotesque conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, which affected every ordinary German, even the brilliant orator Hitler would have hardly succeeded in instilling in the Germans the desire to repeat the universal slaughter. In reality, the last farewell of the Middle Ages did the victors a disservice: the Germans, miserable and humiliated, were psychologically ready for a new war, while their victorious counterparts were not.