This is an article about European war published in the Washington Post. The author posits the possibility of a broader war resulting from Russia's arguments with Ukraine, making comparisons with the run-up to WW2. She uses some very evocative examples of Poles getting married in June, 1939. The article is, however, misleading and I believe ultimately incorrect. Some historical perspective is necessary.
Germany surrendered to the Allies in 1918 even though it had defeated one enemy, Russia, in the filed, gaining a large amount of territory, had not had its borders crossed and had large armies in the field. The Treaty of Versailles imposed a humiliating and costly peace on Germany which produced deep resentment. Glossing over a great deal of socio-political history, Hitler and the Nazis came to power largely over their pan-German appeal following Versailles.
Versailles limited Germany to a 100,000 man army, no air force, no armored forces and also demilitarized the Rhineland, the strip of German territory west of the Rhine. Hitler abrogated these clauses in the treaty one by one between 1933 and 1936. He abandoned all Versailles limits in 1936, then absorbed Austria in the Anschluss, a welcomed and peaceful annexation of Austria, in March 1938. That September he annexed the Sudetenland, a largely German part of Czechoslovakia that two years prior had voted90% in favor of joining Germany. The Allies protested every one of these steps but did nothing. Hitler was prepared to abandon the Rhineland if France attacked, but it did not. There were a series of conferences, including an Anglo-German agreement to allow German naval tonnage to reach 35% of England's, and the notorious meeting of Chamberlain and Hitler after the Sudetenland annexation in which Chamberlain promised 'peace in our time'. One year later WW2 began in Europe with Germany's attack on Poland.
Why did an attack on Poland start the war?
Poland had ceased to exist in 1795, being reconstituted as a country only in 1918. Poland was created by taking significant eastern territories of Germany (Silesia, Posen, Danzig) and portions of Belarus and Russia. The Poles had to fight an intense war with Russia until 1922 to stabilize its border. It is worth noting, in passing, that Poland was and has been a major military power in Europe. Poland contributed more men to the fighting in WW1 and WW2 than any country except the US, Russia and Britain. Poles fought during the Napoleonic wars as well. Poles are intensely nationalist, and have been willing to back up their desires with their blood. But Poland has no natural borders, a problem of the entire plain from Berlin to Moscow addressed in an earlier post about Putin. Britain was by treaty obliged to attack Germany if Germany attacked Poland. France was obliged to provide 'assistance'.
And so a war began over Poland and not the Rhineland, or Austria, or Sudetenland, simply because a treaty required it. This is similar to Britain's entry into WW1, where by treaty England was required to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium against any aggressor. The German attack on Poland was militarized, and an invasion, unlike the union with Austria and the Sudetenland, where the Germans were welcomed with flowers and songs. The military character of the event was not, however, the trigger for Anglo-French action. It was a treaty.
This long historical harangue is an important backdrop to the current situation between Russia and Ukraine. Many writers have made comparisons regarding territorial seizures between Putin and Hitler, and there are significant similarities. I do not believe, however, that there is a chance for a broader European war, for three reasons. First, there is no direct access for an assault. This is similar to the 'phony war' that followed the conquest of Poland. England and France could not attack Germany in time to affect any outcome in Poland. That is even more true for Ukraine. Second, there is no money. No western government has the cash or materials to fight with Russia, and no one wants to take the risk, a point nicely made by Putin's nuclear power remark. Third, Russia supplies a large amount of energy to Europe. Germany and Italy have both declined to join in condemnations of Russia, or have been very muted.
Last is the issue of treaties. The expansion of the EU and NATO are significant precipitating factors in the strife between Ukraine and Russia. As long as Ukraine closely aligns its policies with Russia there is no problem. While nominally independent Ukraine will behave as a Russian state, similar to the relationship between Saxony and Prussia in 1870 and even 1914. Offering Ukraine to be part of the EU, or worse of NATO, is intolerable. So, unlike 1939, there is not only no treaty for the west to honor with Ukraine, it is the offer of treaty status that is a major precipitant on the whole situation. These maps make the point very nicely-
NATO and Warsaw Pact 1973
NATO and Russia 2010
The EU has compelling reasons not to go to war, no treaty to uphold and has provided significant irritation to Russia. This is not like 1939 and Hitler. There will be no deliberate war. The closer analogy is to 1914, and a major war erupting out of minor but symbolic actions.
For now, I still think Putin is simply killing the West and pursuing the same policies Russia has pursued for the last 300 years. And among the responses we can have one of the better ones is to make privately clear that NATO stops at Poland.
Ted
Germany surrendered to the Allies in 1918 even though it had defeated one enemy, Russia, in the filed, gaining a large amount of territory, had not had its borders crossed and had large armies in the field. The Treaty of Versailles imposed a humiliating and costly peace on Germany which produced deep resentment. Glossing over a great deal of socio-political history, Hitler and the Nazis came to power largely over their pan-German appeal following Versailles.
Versailles limited Germany to a 100,000 man army, no air force, no armored forces and also demilitarized the Rhineland, the strip of German territory west of the Rhine. Hitler abrogated these clauses in the treaty one by one between 1933 and 1936. He abandoned all Versailles limits in 1936, then absorbed Austria in the Anschluss, a welcomed and peaceful annexation of Austria, in March 1938. That September he annexed the Sudetenland, a largely German part of Czechoslovakia that two years prior had voted90% in favor of joining Germany. The Allies protested every one of these steps but did nothing. Hitler was prepared to abandon the Rhineland if France attacked, but it did not. There were a series of conferences, including an Anglo-German agreement to allow German naval tonnage to reach 35% of England's, and the notorious meeting of Chamberlain and Hitler after the Sudetenland annexation in which Chamberlain promised 'peace in our time'. One year later WW2 began in Europe with Germany's attack on Poland.
Why did an attack on Poland start the war?
Poland had ceased to exist in 1795, being reconstituted as a country only in 1918. Poland was created by taking significant eastern territories of Germany (Silesia, Posen, Danzig) and portions of Belarus and Russia. The Poles had to fight an intense war with Russia until 1922 to stabilize its border. It is worth noting, in passing, that Poland was and has been a major military power in Europe. Poland contributed more men to the fighting in WW1 and WW2 than any country except the US, Russia and Britain. Poles fought during the Napoleonic wars as well. Poles are intensely nationalist, and have been willing to back up their desires with their blood. But Poland has no natural borders, a problem of the entire plain from Berlin to Moscow addressed in an earlier post about Putin. Britain was by treaty obliged to attack Germany if Germany attacked Poland. France was obliged to provide 'assistance'.
And so a war began over Poland and not the Rhineland, or Austria, or Sudetenland, simply because a treaty required it. This is similar to Britain's entry into WW1, where by treaty England was required to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium against any aggressor. The German attack on Poland was militarized, and an invasion, unlike the union with Austria and the Sudetenland, where the Germans were welcomed with flowers and songs. The military character of the event was not, however, the trigger for Anglo-French action. It was a treaty.
This long historical harangue is an important backdrop to the current situation between Russia and Ukraine. Many writers have made comparisons regarding territorial seizures between Putin and Hitler, and there are significant similarities. I do not believe, however, that there is a chance for a broader European war, for three reasons. First, there is no direct access for an assault. This is similar to the 'phony war' that followed the conquest of Poland. England and France could not attack Germany in time to affect any outcome in Poland. That is even more true for Ukraine. Second, there is no money. No western government has the cash or materials to fight with Russia, and no one wants to take the risk, a point nicely made by Putin's nuclear power remark. Third, Russia supplies a large amount of energy to Europe. Germany and Italy have both declined to join in condemnations of Russia, or have been very muted.
Last is the issue of treaties. The expansion of the EU and NATO are significant precipitating factors in the strife between Ukraine and Russia. As long as Ukraine closely aligns its policies with Russia there is no problem. While nominally independent Ukraine will behave as a Russian state, similar to the relationship between Saxony and Prussia in 1870 and even 1914. Offering Ukraine to be part of the EU, or worse of NATO, is intolerable. So, unlike 1939, there is not only no treaty for the west to honor with Ukraine, it is the offer of treaty status that is a major precipitant on the whole situation. These maps make the point very nicely-
NATO and Warsaw Pact 1973
NATO and Russia 2010
The EU has compelling reasons not to go to war, no treaty to uphold and has provided significant irritation to Russia. This is not like 1939 and Hitler. There will be no deliberate war. The closer analogy is to 1914, and a major war erupting out of minor but symbolic actions.
For now, I still think Putin is simply killing the West and pursuing the same policies Russia has pursued for the last 300 years. And among the responses we can have one of the better ones is to make privately clear that NATO stops at Poland.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment