Irredentism Revisited
Otto Von Bismarck, along with Palmerston and Metternich, is regarded as one of the most influential politicians of the Nineteenth Century. To many historians, he is acknowledged as the most influential German politician ever and incontestably the creator of modern Germany. So solid were the foundations he laid that not even losing two world wars and the calamitous reign of Adolph Hitler would preclude Germany from leading Europe as its economic and industrial powerhouse well into the Twenty First Century.
Bismarck would impeccably finish a process inaugurated by Frederick the Great of Prussia a century prior. He did that by refining Realpolitik into an art which culminated into transferring the German center of gravity from Vienna to Berlin. This is not the place to elaborate on the steps that led to the consecration of the German Reich in 1871 at the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles, a seminal event understandably cherished by most Germans incapable or unwilling to consider possible future consequences of their triumph.
For not everyone was celebrating at Versailles. Least of all the French hosts who had to swallow their pride, cede the Alsace and Loraine to the victorious Hohenzollern, and turn their attention to the immediate challenge of building a new France. Paris, however, neither forgot nor forgave this humiliation. For two generations French Politicians would patiently try, with the collaboration of a Great Britain now alarmed at Germany’s newfound power, to undermine Bismarck’s system of alliances to their own advantage. To France the Entente Cordiale, signed with England in 1904, was a major step towards a day of reckoning. That day came in 1914 and the French managed after four years of mutual carnage to defeat Germany and recover their lost provinces as they imposed a huge war indemnity on their humbled foes. Versailles was to beget a treaty designed to establish a new balance of power with France recovering its “rightful” place as the dominant continental power in Europe at the expense of Germany, leaving to England the privilege of dominating the seas in partnership with a rising and increasingly ambitious US empire. The Versailles of 1871 was undone by Versailles of 1919.
France emerged on top but it bled white in the process. More than anyone else it realized how close the call really was and she remained keenly aware that her victory, precarious as it was, would have been inconceivable without massive British and US help, not to mention Russia’s enormous sacrifice. The France of 1920-1940 was desperately clinging to the new status quo but meanwhile German Irredentism was, in its turn, giving ammunition to rightist demagogues hell-bent on reversing Versailles, restoring German prestige, and recovering the “occupied” Alsace and Loraine.
Along came WWII. In 1940, the Wehrmacht stormed France, Belgium, and the Netherland and soundly defeated the Western allies with a lightening speed. It was now the turn of France to capitulate and of Germany to dictate. Once more, the Alsace & Lorraine would be swapped between victor and vanquished, only this time Berlin’s success would be undone in less than 5 years despite millions of Germans recklessly immolated on the altar of Mars.
Germany was seemingly humbled beyond recovery. Its once proud cities were transformed into heaps of rubble; its surviving population was a collection of widows, orphans, and disabled; large chunks of its territory were ethnically cleansed and handed over to its erstwhile victims; the country was partitioned and demilitarized; and new war indemnities were imposed. Imperial dreams were dead and buried to be replaced by an indomitable will to survive, rebuild, and consolidate. The prostrate Germany of 1945 would in time extend a hand of friendliness and cooperation to France. The two nations would spark a partnership that would develop into a peaceful and prosperous European Union.
For France did not win WWII. It may have recovered its northeastern provinces but at an unacceptable price in blood and treasure. Even England was severely wounded in the process though many did not so realize at the time. The duel between the Allies and the Axis powers -and prior to that between the Allies and the Central Powers- would transfer the world’s center of gravity across the Atlantic. London, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow were broke. Pax Americana -the Cold War notwithstanding- had replaced Pax Britannica.
In retrospect neither Alsace and Lorraine nor any territory for that matter was worth the blood baths between 1914 and 1945. France would have been great with or without them. Germany would have easily headed Europe’s economy and industry without costly quixotic enterprises seeking a well nigh impossible to keep -if not conquer- Lebensraum in the East. “Good” wars belong rightfully and exclusively to Hollywood as was amply proved by Europe’s experience in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Conflict may benefit weapons manufacturers and war profiteers, most certainly not the common folk.
A lengthy introduction it was but my purpose is to demonstrate what I believe to be the deadly futility of Irredentism. Historians may glorify or demonize this or that ruler or general, the main criteria used being how successful he or she was, rather that who was a hero and who was an a villain. If you win, you get to write pretty much want you want. If you lose, you put up or you shut up, often both.
But if Irredentism could be lethal to major European powers, what about weak Near-Eastern entities that themselves had been created by these very same powers? Would an ambition that nearly destroyed modern Europe work for an impoverished and underdeveloped country in the Levant or North Africa? How costly would this El Dorado be to reach? How many years would it take to achieve such a utopia and how many martyrs would need to be sacrificed on the path of glory?
I am old enough to remember when we used to commemorate the annexation of Alexandretta by Turkey at school. Our history -rather what passed for history- textbooks used to list as “usurped territories” Cilicia, Arabistan, Eritrea, Ceuta, Melila, etc.. If you happen to adopt the SSNP ideology you could claim Cyprus, Sinai, parts of Arabia, etc. If on the other hand you believe is a supreme Islamic empire you might as well claim Andalusia, the Balkans, Sicily… well you got the idea. This would be a flawless prescription to endless war, destruction, and desolation the outcome of which would most likely result in losing still more territory and perpetuating misery, despotism, and/or chaos all in the name of pursuing an illusion that has chased our hapless people from time immemorial.
As the popular saying goes, cry not for the gambler who lost money; rather for he who tries to recover his losses through more gambling. I am not trying to “surrender” territories that have never belonged to me to begin with and yes, some of those territories were indeed unfairly and violently detached by various predators. What I aim to demonstrate is simply that: if Germany can survive the loss of, not only Alsace and Lorraine, but also East Prussia, Sudeten Land, Schleswig, Holstein, etc. to emerge as a major world power then surely a Third World Levantine country could scale down its ambitions to a realizable size; namely to advance the welfare of its citizens by addressing the issues that really count such as health, education, infrastructure, employment, economy, and environment to mention but few.
Rather than chasing costly dreams that have time and again proved elusive to one generation after another, it perhaps makes more sense to build on what is still available and tangible. Failing this our kids and grand kids may one day awake to discover that their ancestors had lived in a golden era and, other than confabulations, left them little diet on which to subsist.
Otto Von Bismarck, along with Palmerston and Metternich, is regarded as one of the most influential politicians of the Nineteenth Century. To many historians, he is acknowledged as the most influential German politician ever and incontestably the creator of modern Germany. So solid were the foundations he laid that not even losing two world wars and the calamitous reign of Adolph Hitler would preclude Germany from leading Europe as its economic and industrial powerhouse well into the Twenty First Century.
Bismarck would impeccably finish a process inaugurated by Frederick the Great of Prussia a century prior. He did that by refining Realpolitik into an art which culminated into transferring the German center of gravity from Vienna to Berlin. This is not the place to elaborate on the steps that led to the consecration of the German Reich in 1871 at the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles, a seminal event understandably cherished by most Germans incapable or unwilling to consider possible future consequences of their triumph.
For not everyone was celebrating at Versailles. Least of all the French hosts who had to swallow their pride, cede the Alsace and Loraine to the victorious Hohenzollern, and turn their attention to the immediate challenge of building a new France. Paris, however, neither forgot nor forgave this humiliation. For two generations French Politicians would patiently try, with the collaboration of a Great Britain now alarmed at Germany’s newfound power, to undermine Bismarck’s system of alliances to their own advantage. To France the Entente Cordiale, signed with England in 1904, was a major step towards a day of reckoning. That day came in 1914 and the French managed after four years of mutual carnage to defeat Germany and recover their lost provinces as they imposed a huge war indemnity on their humbled foes. Versailles was to beget a treaty designed to establish a new balance of power with France recovering its “rightful” place as the dominant continental power in Europe at the expense of Germany, leaving to England the privilege of dominating the seas in partnership with a rising and increasingly ambitious US empire. The Versailles of 1871 was undone by Versailles of 1919.
France emerged on top but it bled white in the process. More than anyone else it realized how close the call really was and she remained keenly aware that her victory, precarious as it was, would have been inconceivable without massive British and US help, not to mention Russia’s enormous sacrifice. The France of 1920-1940 was desperately clinging to the new status quo but meanwhile German Irredentism was, in its turn, giving ammunition to rightist demagogues hell-bent on reversing Versailles, restoring German prestige, and recovering the “occupied” Alsace and Loraine.
Along came WWII. In 1940, the Wehrmacht stormed France, Belgium, and the Netherland and soundly defeated the Western allies with a lightening speed. It was now the turn of France to capitulate and of Germany to dictate. Once more, the Alsace & Lorraine would be swapped between victor and vanquished, only this time Berlin’s success would be undone in less than 5 years despite millions of Germans recklessly immolated on the altar of Mars.
Germany was seemingly humbled beyond recovery. Its once proud cities were transformed into heaps of rubble; its surviving population was a collection of widows, orphans, and disabled; large chunks of its territory were ethnically cleansed and handed over to its erstwhile victims; the country was partitioned and demilitarized; and new war indemnities were imposed. Imperial dreams were dead and buried to be replaced by an indomitable will to survive, rebuild, and consolidate. The prostrate Germany of 1945 would in time extend a hand of friendliness and cooperation to France. The two nations would spark a partnership that would develop into a peaceful and prosperous European Union.
For France did not win WWII. It may have recovered its northeastern provinces but at an unacceptable price in blood and treasure. Even England was severely wounded in the process though many did not so realize at the time. The duel between the Allies and the Axis powers -and prior to that between the Allies and the Central Powers- would transfer the world’s center of gravity across the Atlantic. London, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow were broke. Pax Americana -the Cold War notwithstanding- had replaced Pax Britannica.
In retrospect neither Alsace and Lorraine nor any territory for that matter was worth the blood baths between 1914 and 1945. France would have been great with or without them. Germany would have easily headed Europe’s economy and industry without costly quixotic enterprises seeking a well nigh impossible to keep -if not conquer- Lebensraum in the East. “Good” wars belong rightfully and exclusively to Hollywood as was amply proved by Europe’s experience in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Conflict may benefit weapons manufacturers and war profiteers, most certainly not the common folk.
A lengthy introduction it was but my purpose is to demonstrate what I believe to be the deadly futility of Irredentism. Historians may glorify or demonize this or that ruler or general, the main criteria used being how successful he or she was, rather that who was a hero and who was an a villain. If you win, you get to write pretty much want you want. If you lose, you put up or you shut up, often both.
But if Irredentism could be lethal to major European powers, what about weak Near-Eastern entities that themselves had been created by these very same powers? Would an ambition that nearly destroyed modern Europe work for an impoverished and underdeveloped country in the Levant or North Africa? How costly would this El Dorado be to reach? How many years would it take to achieve such a utopia and how many martyrs would need to be sacrificed on the path of glory?
I am old enough to remember when we used to commemorate the annexation of Alexandretta by Turkey at school. Our history -rather what passed for history- textbooks used to list as “usurped territories” Cilicia, Arabistan, Eritrea, Ceuta, Melila, etc.. If you happen to adopt the SSNP ideology you could claim Cyprus, Sinai, parts of Arabia, etc. If on the other hand you believe is a supreme Islamic empire you might as well claim Andalusia, the Balkans, Sicily… well you got the idea. This would be a flawless prescription to endless war, destruction, and desolation the outcome of which would most likely result in losing still more territory and perpetuating misery, despotism, and/or chaos all in the name of pursuing an illusion that has chased our hapless people from time immemorial.
As the popular saying goes, cry not for the gambler who lost money; rather for he who tries to recover his losses through more gambling. I am not trying to “surrender” territories that have never belonged to me to begin with and yes, some of those territories were indeed unfairly and violently detached by various predators. What I aim to demonstrate is simply that: if Germany can survive the loss of, not only Alsace and Lorraine, but also East Prussia, Sudeten Land, Schleswig, Holstein, etc. to emerge as a major world power then surely a Third World Levantine country could scale down its ambitions to a realizable size; namely to advance the welfare of its citizens by addressing the issues that really count such as health, education, infrastructure, employment, economy, and environment to mention but few.
Rather than chasing costly dreams that have time and again proved elusive to one generation after another, it perhaps makes more sense to build on what is still available and tangible. Failing this our kids and grand kids may one day awake to discover that their ancestors had lived in a golden era and, other than confabulations, left them little diet on which to subsist.
