- 01 Jul 2014 06:06
#14430626
George Friedman's opinion on the subject:
[youtube]QD8xBVRjlVw[/youtube]
Here's my opinion. Sorry it's kind of long.
While I do think that Germany's position is strategically insecure, perhaps more so than any other major country at the time, and that does probably make wars involving Germany more likely - I disagree that this fact in itself it can be considered THE biggest cause for the first world war, I think at best it's only a part of the picture. If the other components of the picture were missing - there probably wouldn't be a war - at least not the same war.
I think the bigger problem boiled down to this: The Germans felt like the existing world order was unfair to them, and they had rather good reasons to feel that way. And war was the only means by which they could hope to alter that order. They knew that, their potential opponents knew that, and that was the real reason behind the mutual fear and suspicion. Everyone in Europe knew that Germany would be looking for an opportunity to reshape the world to its liking, Germany in turn knew that the "established powers" would be looking for an opportunity to crush Germany since it represented a threat to them. Hence, the two sides inched closer and closer to war.
Why did the Germans feel this way? Because Germany rapidly emerged as an economic powerhouse, and it came right in time to see the world firmly divided among the other world powers, with barely any German participation. A handful of nations, mostly of the European origin, had formally or informally divided up the entire world into their colonial empires, not through a conspiracy but through centuries of mutual struggle and often war. Germany was left with little, and for no other reason than because it came late to the game. So by 1913 Germany was Europe's largest economy, and had the second largest population after Russia, yet it was confined within a rather small territory in Central Europe and very few colonies worth anything.
It's not like Germany absolutely had to do something about this in order to survive - no. They could always just "deal with it". But life isn't only about survival, and people don't want to deal with things which they feel they shouldn't have to deal with. Sure, if Germany didn't have enough living space to comfortably sustain its growing population - no big deal, the Germans could always just choose not to reproduce, or to reproduce but emigrate to other countries, where of course they'd be expected to learn other cultures and assimilate to them, and that's after they even get the citizenship, if they can get one. If Germany didn't have nearly enough colonies to match the needs of its growing industrial output - no big deal, it could always just slow down its economic growth, or continue growing but become completely dependent on trade with the established colonial empires - which of course would mean dealing with both their tariffs and their good will in general. If they ever don't like you for any reason whatsoever, they could just put a trade embargo on you and your economy would be ruined immediately. You can't do the same to them, despite having a larger economy, all because, well, you don't have a colonial empire worth shit. If you try to put a trade embargo on them, they'll just laugh at you. This isn't a comfortable position to be in.
So Germany was a revisionist power - it was not quite satisfied with the hand that it was dealt with. It wasn't the only one. Italy and Japan felt roughly similar - Japan particularly, however they ended up on the other side of the war because their interests at the time conflicted more with Germany than anyone else. Other countries had lesser grievances but were also unhappy with the existing state of affairs - for example France wanted back its provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Again, other than through war, it's highly unlikely that France could get them back by any other means. France could also "deal with it", especially since in the grand scheme of things these provinces themselves aren't really that important, but their loss had important symbolic consequences. If France had agreed to the loss of these provinces, it would mean more or less the same as recognizing the German supremacy in general, and the consequent loss of status by France from being one of Europe's leading great powers to Germany's bitch. Also an uncomfortable prospect. Britain and Russia of course also had expansionist interests they'd like to pursue, though mostly they were just interested in crushing Germany.
But overall basically we had not even one but several great powers which felt that the existing world order didn't suit them, and war was their only means of altering it. It was a situation specific to Europe of the early 20th century. Geography itself was I think a secondary factor, it just added one more dimension to the problem that was already there for other reasons. If Germany was positioned in a really secure and inaccessible position, the war would have certainly looked somewhat different, but I don't think that it could have been avoided entirely. Countries in relatively secure locations also go to war against one another for same reasons as the ones described above.
Anyway, from this standpoint also comes a different conclusion and lesson for today's world. Rather than fearing that the collapse of the EU would immediately result in the emergence of the "third anti-German coalition", as many do, I think there are reasons to be much more positive and less fearful of such doomsday scenarios. Today's world is very different from the world of the early 20th century. None of the European powers really have colonies any more, their economies are barely growing, their populations actually declining more than growing. Nationalism is strong, yet the borders of the nation states practically match the current demographic structure of the continent. The European countries simply don't have any major grievances with each other which could only be resolved by war, and I don't see any emerging in quite some time even if both the EU and NATO collapsed. Eventually, maybe, nothing can guard against the distant future, but it's not like Germany's geographic insecurity will in itself generate major conflict. Here's a simple solution to that question in a post-NATO European order - have an international agreement signed by which Poland promises complete military neutrality and non-deployment of foreign troops on its soil, in exchange for a firm guarantee to Poland's sovereignty and independence from all the leading world powers. How is that not a solution? Germany doesn't have to worry about its eastern border, Poland doesn't have to worry about Germany. Everyone is rather happy, even Russia. It's not an irresolvable issue.