Nations and world wars
The First World War was not, as is frequently portrayed, a war that cannot be understood, its origins indiscernible in an incomprehensibly complex web of political events, a shapeless fog of causes and roots. This can then develop in two directions: (1) an inexplicable disaster (2) a disaster of which nationalisms constitute the necessary and sufficient cause. It is, in fact, a relatively easy war to explain the origins of.
In its immediate cause, from the British viewpoint, it was a defensive response to the German invasion of Belgium.
From a more international viewpoint, the immediate cause was the Germano-Austro-Hungarian invasion of various neighbours in extremely disproportionate retaliation for an assassination.
To these explanations, which are not difficult to grasp, a more fundamental one should be added. Factors that influenced the German and Austrian outlook included fear of an increasingly powerful Russia, but the pointless preservation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was fundamental. The war was caused by a lack of respect (from the Central Powers) for any principle of self-determination of nations.
One of the common explanations for the Second World War, indeed the most common today I expect, is that it was the result of nations.
Nations resulted in people killing for nations. That is, it is said. what went wrong. "Nation," in this modern paradigm, is then taken to be the opposite of massive immigration, any common descent, common culture or common religion. The choice is stark: We need massive immigration, diversity, and the loss of common heritage; or Hitler will be resurrected.
The fighting really started with Stalin's invasion of Finland, which had little in the way of a Russian nationalist meaning, but we choose to overlook that invasion as we did not participate in the defence of Finland. Our chosen start of the war is therefore the invasion of Poland. (The USSR invaded Poland as well, and (so) Russians sometimes choose a later date.)
There have been many invasions through history by men trying to have as much power as possible. They need to choose a meaningful uniting theme, such as nation or religion, and to that meaningful uniting theme up with themselves. Blaming nation or religion for violence is missing the point, since it is the leadership that chooses violence, but leads to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is the meaningful uniting theme. The problem is not that meaningful uniting theme, but the political system in which a malevolent leadership can use the interests of a group as leverage and power.
Was the problem with Hitler that he wanted a good Germany? No. Does a good Germany require mass killing? No. These were not the problems. That Hitler and his supporters were willing to do the things they did was part of the problem. That Hitler killed his domestic opponents, so that he and his malevolent supporters had power, was part of the problem. Could Hitler have done what he did without the violent suppression of his domestic opponents first? No. Could he have maintained support if a free German press had been fuelling a free debate on all his actions? No.
In so far as the problem was nation-based, the concept of nations based on the principle of self-determination would have entirely undermined Hitler. Having taken power and established tyranny, he could instead put forward a national supremacism with a violently extreme disregard for the well-being of other nations. The violently extreme disregard for the well-being of others is a problem in all circumstances, and is not a logical result of the existence of nations.
There were other nations in the Second World War. The British, the French, the Poles... They were fighting for their nations and there is no evidence they were fighting for massive immigration. It was as patriotic nations, aware of their history and heritage, that they defeated Hitler. By the logic of today, that belief in a nation (a nation properly speaking, not a multicultural mass of immigrants with roughly nothing in common declaring themselves to be a nation) makes them fascists/nazis/bigots etc.. By the logic of today, the men who defeated the Nazis were Nazis. In reality, their nationhood gave them the community that provided the capacity for the common action and widespread self-sacrifice that brought the Nazis to an end.
The problem was in the political set-up of a unfree society, of tyranny: Violent suppression of dissent, a lack of free debate, a lack of respect for self-determination, and placing power in the hands of leaders and supporters with a violently extreme disregard for the well-being of others, are not logical or necessary results of the existence of a nation. They are better described, I would say, as the results of tyranny. To my mind it is nation and religion that have bound people together sufficiently, and that have inspired them sufficiently for a higher purpose, to have brought us out of brutality and tyranny and into civilisation.
The nations of Europe created a historically very impressive level of peace and stability. That people still found something to fight over at a certain point in history is not evidence that nations themselves are a bad concept. Indeed, it is due to Christian European nations that there was ever enough peace to compare to the constant violence of warfare, banditry and feuding that defines most of history. Europe's nation-states created an unprecedented level of peace, and it is with that peace that world wars are compared, not the constant violence of most of human existence.
In its immediate cause, from the British viewpoint, it was a defensive response to the German invasion of Belgium.
From a more international viewpoint, the immediate cause was the Germano-Austro-Hungarian invasion of various neighbours in extremely disproportionate retaliation for an assassination.
To these explanations, which are not difficult to grasp, a more fundamental one should be added. Factors that influenced the German and Austrian outlook included fear of an increasingly powerful Russia, but the pointless preservation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was fundamental. The war was caused by a lack of respect (from the Central Powers) for any principle of self-determination of nations.
One of the common explanations for the Second World War, indeed the most common today I expect, is that it was the result of nations.
Nations resulted in people killing for nations. That is, it is said. what went wrong. "Nation," in this modern paradigm, is then taken to be the opposite of massive immigration, any common descent, common culture or common religion. The choice is stark: We need massive immigration, diversity, and the loss of common heritage; or Hitler will be resurrected.
The fighting really started with Stalin's invasion of Finland, which had little in the way of a Russian nationalist meaning, but we choose to overlook that invasion as we did not participate in the defence of Finland. Our chosen start of the war is therefore the invasion of Poland. (The USSR invaded Poland as well, and (so) Russians sometimes choose a later date.)
There have been many invasions through history by men trying to have as much power as possible. They need to choose a meaningful uniting theme, such as nation or religion, and to that meaningful uniting theme up with themselves. Blaming nation or religion for violence is missing the point, since it is the leadership that chooses violence, but leads to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is the meaningful uniting theme. The problem is not that meaningful uniting theme, but the political system in which a malevolent leadership can use the interests of a group as leverage and power.
Was the problem with Hitler that he wanted a good Germany? No. Does a good Germany require mass killing? No. These were not the problems. That Hitler and his supporters were willing to do the things they did was part of the problem. That Hitler killed his domestic opponents, so that he and his malevolent supporters had power, was part of the problem. Could Hitler have done what he did without the violent suppression of his domestic opponents first? No. Could he have maintained support if a free German press had been fuelling a free debate on all his actions? No.
In so far as the problem was nation-based, the concept of nations based on the principle of self-determination would have entirely undermined Hitler. Having taken power and established tyranny, he could instead put forward a national supremacism with a violently extreme disregard for the well-being of other nations. The violently extreme disregard for the well-being of others is a problem in all circumstances, and is not a logical result of the existence of nations.
There were other nations in the Second World War. The British, the French, the Poles... They were fighting for their nations and there is no evidence they were fighting for massive immigration. It was as patriotic nations, aware of their history and heritage, that they defeated Hitler. By the logic of today, that belief in a nation (a nation properly speaking, not a multicultural mass of immigrants with roughly nothing in common declaring themselves to be a nation) makes them fascists/nazis/bigots etc.. By the logic of today, the men who defeated the Nazis were Nazis. In reality, their nationhood gave them the community that provided the capacity for the common action and widespread self-sacrifice that brought the Nazis to an end.
The problem was in the political set-up of a unfree society, of tyranny: Violent suppression of dissent, a lack of free debate, a lack of respect for self-determination, and placing power in the hands of leaders and supporters with a violently extreme disregard for the well-being of others, are not logical or necessary results of the existence of a nation. They are better described, I would say, as the results of tyranny. To my mind it is nation and religion that have bound people together sufficiently, and that have inspired them sufficiently for a higher purpose, to have brought us out of brutality and tyranny and into civilisation.
The nations of Europe created a historically very impressive level of peace and stability. That people still found something to fight over at a certain point in history is not evidence that nations themselves are a bad concept. Indeed, it is due to Christian European nations that there was ever enough peace to compare to the constant violence of warfare, banditry and feuding that defines most of history. Europe's nation-states created an unprecedented level of peace, and it is with that peace that world wars are compared, not the constant violence of most of human existence.
Comments
Post a Comment