HISTORIC MODELS OF STATE INTEGRATION

 

Map of the European Regions

The European Union is today a Community of States. Though the present 27 States members are not as homogeneuous as they aparently appear. On the one hand we have a Europe of regions, and on the other in some of these regions a large part of the population would like to become an independent state, as we see in the following map of European separatisms. 

Independentists movements in Europe

 After the disappearance of the Universal model in the European continent, especially after 1648 we face a Europe of States. The consequence was a constant quarreling for hegemony for almost 300 years. Up to 1945. 

Europe after the Westphalia Treaty (1648)

But on the other hand it is true that States did not appear overnight. They are the result of a long integration process, in which kings incorporated by wars or marriages as much territories to their realms as they could. In order to be more powerful. But one thing was to incorporate territories and another to integrate them into a larger political unit. This models of integration are interesting as they were clear precedents of European integration, before opening the chapter of Communitarian Europe. 

 We will examine today in Teaching Guide 8 some of them. 

 The oldest model of integration was the Composite monarchy. This occurs when a king becomes simultaneously the monarch of different kingdoms. This does not mean however full unification as in Composite monarchies every member kingdom keep its constitutional status intact. Their own political institutions (Assembly of States) their own law and courts. And also, usually, a customs barrier protection. We will study two actual states that followed the way of the Composite monarchies: Spain and the UK. 

Spain is not a completely unified state because historically it was formed with different kingdoms or territories that were separate political units once. This is why we have the Spain of autonomies, as you can see in the following map.  

Concerning Spain bear in mind that the Catholic Kings (1474-1504) did not integrate Castile and Aragon. The Crown of Castile was a unified state and the Crown of Aragon a Composite monarchy. Isabel and Fernando did not unify their Spanish domains. 

The Catholic Kings: Isabella and Ferdinand

And neither did their grandson Carlos I (V). Castile was a consolidated State and the Crown of Aragon was not. This is why in the Catholic Composite Monarchy that was the result of the joining of Castile and Aragon, Castile ended being dominant. And the common language was Castilian.

Spain at the end of the Middle Ages

We have to wait until the Spanish Succession War (1704-1715) and the defeat of Aragon, Valencia, Aragon and Mallorca to have these kingdoms integrated and unified in Castile (Decretos de Nueva Planta).  As Navarre and the Basqs provinces had not rebelled against Philip V, they kept their own separate constitutional and legal frame. At least until the Carlists wars in the 19th century. Then Navarre (1841) and Alava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya (1876) got integrated as well in the Spanish State. 

Map of Spanish provinces in 1833

But the tradition of the Composite monarchy did not disappear and Spain is not today a completely unified state as the independentists movements of Catalonia and the Basq country shows. The composite monarchy model is not fully operative in terms of constructing a strong and unified state. 

Another interesting Composite monarchy  is the UK. England integrated Wales in the 16th century and Scotland in the 17th-18th centuries, forming the United Kingdom with the Union Jack. And Ireland from 1800 to 1922.

The Union Jack. The History of a country in a flag 

 But the union is not as solid as it appears. Ireland became in the 20th century an independent State (with the exception of Northern Ireland). And after Brexit Scotland and Northern Ireland are looking for an indepent status as most of its citizens are not happy about Brexit. Again the Composite monarchy system does not guarantee a strong unified State. 

 And yet we still have another formula of state integration in the case of the Swiss Confederation, that started with the Rutli Oath in 1291 and receive full international recognition in the Peace of Westphalia. 

Nevertheless it is not not a powerful way of integration as in the Helvetic Confederation the 26 cantons have more power than the federal government in Bern. Even today. A Confederation is therefore a quite weak form of integration.  

 Integrating politically the European states was an impossible task in the 19th century. But sometimes the political or economic needs forced some states to get together developing ways of partial integration. It was the case of the Metternich System based in the Holy Alliance of 1815, that disappeared completely in 1848.  And the very interesting customs unions of the German States headed by Prussia in the Zolverein, created in 1818 and consolidated by 1834. An important precedent of the present Communitarian Europe.  

 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 191 to 203), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 205-209) the crucial dates are the following: 

Survival of the Universal Model: 

800, 962, 1804, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918 and 1933-1945. 

Crown of Aragon: 

1137, 1164-1196, 1276, 1283, 1349, 1442, 1474-1504 (Catholic kings), 1517-1556 (Carlos I), 1707-1716 (Nueva Planta Decrees), 1841 (Navarra Ley Paccionada), 1876 (Full integration of Basq Provinces), 1878 (Concierto económico), 1931 (Estado integral), 1978 (Estado de las autonomías).

The United Kingdom: 

1535-1542 (Integration of Wales), 1603, 1707, 1800-1922 (Irish integration in the UK), 1997 and 2014, September 18. 

Swiss Confederation: 

1291, 1648 , 1848. 

Holy Alliance:

1815-1848

                                                                        Cartoon of 1822 of the Holy Alliance

Zollverein: 

1818, 1834. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Advantages and disadvantages of unified and decentralized states? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think of the “España de las Autonomías”. Consider the positive aspects of this extreme decentralized system and the inconveniences. For instance looking at how Spain faced the Covid pandemic. Do you find fair that the citizens of the Basks provinces and from Navarre pay less taxes that the rest of Spaniards? Do you think a common education and language should be guaranteed everywhere in the State?

2. Compare with the most centralized state in the world: France. Do you think education, taxing, Social Security, Courts and Law should be the same for every one? Responding to the idea that all citizens should be equal before the law?

3. Consider what is the ethnic background of Ukrainian present State that has led to Putin's invasion. You can inspire yourself in the following map of the languages spoken in Ukraine. 

   

Linguistic map of Ukraine

EUROPE IN THE WORLD ORDER AFTER 1945

               

 Xi Jiping and Putin, drinking Vodka (4 February 2022) 

After its Nation-States committed suicide in the two World Wars of the first half of the 20th century, in 1945 Europe was a continent in ruins, at the mercy of both World Power: the US and the USSR.  European Nation-States that in 1914 were controlling the world had become in three decades ruined countries with no influence on the Planet. Only in this critical situation European States governments understood that the only way of being relevant again was getting together. First they tried the federal way (Teaching guide 9) and after the failure of this attempt they moved forward towards Communitarian Integration (Teaching guides 10, 11 and 12). But before getting there we should know what has been the position of Europe from 1945 to the present in the World Order, including Cold War and the period that started with the disappearance of the USSR. Until Ukraine’s invasion by Putin in the 24 of  February of 2022. This is what we are going to study in this Teaching Guide 7. 

Interbellum: After World War I (1918-1939)

The European Nation-States were destroyed in 1918. Economies in the Entente Allies and in the Central Powers sunk. The growth of national indebtedness, both internal and external, of the Entente Allies and the Central Powers rose from 27.883.000.000 USD in 1914 to 224,174,000,000 in the period 1918-1919. US economic output doubled in 4 years and became the leading economy of the world after the war. Before World War 1 European Nation-States had 55% of the World GDP, and in 1918 the US hold 45%. In 1914 the US imported more than exported to Europe. In 1918 it was the other way round. Since 1918 the US became the leading World Power. It would remain so until 1945, and then will share world supremacy with the USSR. Until 1991. 

US President Woodrow Wilson in Versailles Treaty Discussions (1919)

World War I provoked the crisis of the Laissez faire regimes, the Liberal Democracies, where the State had a minimum intervention. The Liberal model was replaced since the October 1917 Soviet Revolution by totalitarianism. Of course in Russia, but also, as a reaction (as the Establishment of European States were afraid that what it had happened in Russia could happen everywhere) by the raise of Mussolini’s Fascist regime in Italy (1922) and the triumph of Nazi regime in Hitler’s Germany (since 1933). As a result of this Europe saw tensions grow between the Communist and the Fascist-Nazi models of Dictatorship.

Europe in 1939

Tensions exploded for the first time in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) in which Stalin supported one side and Hitler and Mussolini the other one, while European and American democracies followed the non intervention principle. 

Falling soldier. Photography by Frank Cappa. The icon of the Spanish Civil War

The Spanish carnage was only the prologue of a much greater global confrontation: World War 2, the result of Russian imperialism (after the founding of the Kommintern by Lenin in 1919), Mussolini’s colonial expeditions to Libya, Abyssinia and Ethiopia, and finally Hitlerian Lebensraum. 

World War 2 and its Aftermath (1939-1948)

Cartoon on the Hitler-Stalin Alliance (8 September 1939)

World War 2 started because Hitler and Stalin agreed on an alliance with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of September 8, 1939. Three weeks before the Wehrmacht attack on Poland that launched World War 2. Two weeks before Stalin occupied its part of Poland and ordered Katyn’s massacre from March to May 1940.

                                                        

 Hitler would have won the war if he had not ordered the invasion of the USSR in June 1941. Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon. Russian invasion started on 22 June 1941, being stopped at Stalingrad (actual Volvograd) in the fiercest battle of the whole war that lasted 6 months (From August 23, 1942 to February 2, 1943). The worst part of it was that at the beginning, Russian people greeted German soldiers as liberators. Until they started committing atrocities. World history would have changed if they did not. 

 The Russian Army became decisive in the final victory over Nazism two years and three months after Stalingrad’s battle. Along with the US. This is why in the Teheran Conference of 1943, and then in Yalta (February 1945) and Potsdam (July-August 1945) the World was divided between Russians and Americans. European Governments had nothing to say in the New World Order. Churchill was present too, but as “Stone Guest”. 

Yalta (Crimea) Conference 

The most interesting in all this was Stalin’s position. After having started the war as Hitler’s ally, Soviet Russia ended the war as enemy of the Nazis in the side of allies. This paradox explains why Soviet Dictatorship was accepted by intellectuals in the Western world, and the Communist Parties depending on Moscow spread in Western European democracies. At least until the advent of Euro communism, with leaders as Italian Enrico Berlinguer, as a reaction to USSR intervention during the Dubcek’s Prague’s Spring (January-August 1968).

Prague Spring (1968)

If you want to understand the fascination that Stalin exerted over European public opinion you should not miss the film Mr Jones (2019)  directed by Polish Agnieska Holland. The film is based on the true story of Gareth Jones, an ambitious young journalist who had gained some notoriety after interviewing Hitler. Thanks to his connections with the former British Prime Minister Lloyd George (they were both Welsh)  he was granted an official authorization in 1933 to travel to the Soviet Union with the purpose of interviewing Stalin and finding out more about Russian apparently economic success of the five year development plan. Jones in principle could not leave Moscow but he escapes, jumps in a train and travels unofficially to Ukraine to discover evidence of the big Famine (Holomodor), meeting with the enforced collection of grain, empty villages, with starving people that are reduced to cannibalism. But on his efforts to denounce the real Stalin on his return to Britain, he struggles to get his story taken seriously. The film ends by recording that Jones died while reporting in Inner Mongolia with a guide who was secretly connected the Soviet Secret Service the State Political Directorate (GPU).

Replaced in 1934 by the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) that will send Ramon Mercader to assassinate Trotsky  in Mexico in 1939. Since 1954 it was the KGB (Committee for State Security). And since 1991 the FSB (Federal Service of Security).

Trotsky killed by NKVD Agent Ramon Mercader (Mexico, 21 August 1940)

The Cold War (1948-1989)

 Europe was in ruins in 1945. Reconstruction, after the failure of the dollar gap period, started really with the Marshall Plan (1947). But this American initiative backfired  as it would be the detonator of the Cold War (1948-1989). Why? Because Stalin would not accept American aid for developing market economy in Eastern Europe, that in his perspective should remain communist. The result was the iron curtain (another great sentence of Churchill) and the Berlin Wall (1961-1989). 

Berlin, 13 August 1961

Of course this would not only affect Europe. The World would be divided between the countries that followed Capitalist Democracy and Communist Model. There was not an open war but a “Cold War”, as the USSR and the US were struggling in all continents, until the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

 The end of the Cold War in 1989-1991, was not only the consequence of the collapse of the Communist model but also of the fact that Western democracies had adapted to the Social Question through the development of the Welfare State Model, that paradoxically started in the US in the 1930’s with the New Deal policy of FDR. What made nevertheless European Welfare State different was the fact that the Tax payers supported the Welfare state. This was possible because the public sector (state intervention) was much stronger in Europe than in the US, where private sector is overwhelmingly bigger. In Europe is the other way round. From 1945 Social Security and Public Welfare aids were supported all over Western Europe by tax payers. Something that was initially possible thanks to the extraordinary Economic growth of the Thirty Glorious years. After the 1973 Oil crisis, supporting the cost of the Welfare State would be much harder for European Middle class. 

 The end of the cold war had a decisive influence also in the traditionally Communist’s regimes as most of them ended up joining the market Economy. Russia has become since 1991 a system dominated by powerful oligarchs -now sanctioned after Ukraine’s invasion. And China during Den Xiaoping’s Era (1978-1992) developed the model of Market Socialism that has transformed China in a leading World Power in the 21st century. A very powerful Dictatorial state that surprisingly is fully playing the Market rules. An amazing contradiction. 

Den Xiao Ping: the hero of Modern China

The “socialization” of Western capitalism and the “capitalization” of Eastern Communism has in fact led to the globalization of the World. Which from an International Relations perspective opened a sort of global constitutional history, starting with the League of Nations (1920-1946) and following with the United Nations (since 1945). Treaties and International Organizations (WTO, GATT, IMF, World Bank), offer the possibility of ruling the world through negotiation and governance instead of through authority and military intervention. At least until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. 

Now things are in a way back to the situation prior to 1945 with Russia and China heading a military alternative to NATO, the military Alliance created in 1949 when Europeans asked for US protection after the start of Cold War and the threat of a Russian invasion.  NATO lost greatly its purpose, until the Ukraine’s War has brought back its full utility. Something that, for instance, has brought traditionally neutral Finland to ask for membership. 

The Post Cold War World (1991-2022)

 The disappearance of the Iron Curtain and the fall of the Communists regimes did not led to a unique American leadership and today we are facing a multipolar world where China, India and the Russian federation are challenging US supremacy. Especially because the 1973 Oil crisis stopped the expansionist cycle and European states could afford less and less the Welfare State System. Which brought the anti-regulation movement of the 1980’s spearheaded by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and bringing back Laissez faire liberalism.     

                            

The anti regulation policy of “Reaganomics” have had however dreadful consequences in terms of the rising of inequalities. Capitalism after the 1980’s neoliberal wave has produced a substantial rising of economic and social differences and a shrinking of the bulk of Middle Class. The increase in social and economic inequalities, is leading to a new oligarchic model of the State controlled by the Establishment, despite the interesting theories of  the Legal and Political American thinker John Rawls who developed a very peculiar way of making compatible the Laissez faire principle and the protection of equality. Have you heard about the Universal income? He was the guy who brought the idea into our contemporary world. 

John Rawls (1921-2002)

After the collapsing of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the only two real communist countries are Cuba and North Korea. But Russia and China are trying to impose the dictatorial model to the globalized world, as an alternative to the Western Democratic System. The Ukraine’s invasion by Putin troops has made it clear, especially after the sudden alliance between Xi Jiping and Putin (4 February 2022). 

Democracy is in crisis, with the rise of populisms, even in the US with the Trump Administration that brought the shameful episode of the storming of the United States Capitol by the mob of Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.

Washington D.C. 6 of January 2021

Challenges for Europe in the 21st Century

Let’s ask ourselves now where is Europe in this Global model? And the fact is that the European Union, despite its complexity that slows considerably the decision making to face world’s problems, is doing fas better than anyone else as far as the Rule of Law is concerned, one of the pillars of European integration, along with a respect of the Welfare State principle. 

 On top of it after the Ukraine’s invasion United Europe has discovered that they cannot entirely count on the US military protection and that European States have to reinforce their military policy independently from NATO. Simply put: economical union is not enough because if we Europeans want to maintain democracy we will have to fight for it

Versailles's Summit on Ukraine's War (10-11 March 2022)

The problem is that Europe is facing the 21st century as a huge market (first GDP in the world) but with no leadership, as it is lacking of a strong Executive.  Because our old Nation-States are doing very poorly at the global level. We are irrelevant compared to China, Russia, India or even the Petro Monarchies as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or the United Arab Emirates. And most of this countries –may be with the exception of India- are not real democracies. 

Narendra Modi, India's Prime Minister

Of course we are not used to it because the world had been in peace from 1991 to 2022. But things will never be the same, independently of the issue of the Ukraine’s war. 

The most important idea you have to retain of Teaching Guide 7 is how after 1945 Europe was left far behind World leadership, despite our considerable economic expansion And that prosperity has not helped European nation states to join the league of the leading protagonists of the World contemporary history.  But Ukraine’s War may change this situation after almost 8 decades. 

The main problem that Europe is facing to get back as a protagonist in World history is that we have not found an operational way of getting together to defend our interests and our political, legal, social and economical model. Why? This is what we are going to find out in the next Teaching Guides.     

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 163 to 181), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 182-186) the crucial dates are the following: 

1946 (Appearance of the Italian Republic), 

1947 (Marshall Plan)

1948, June (beginning of the Berlin Blockade), 

1949 (Creation of NATO, Appearance of German Federal Republic and Mao’s triumph in China), 

1953 (Death of Stalin), 

1958 (DE Gaulle’s in power), 

1959 (Castro’s victory in Cuba), 

1961 (beginning of the Berlin Wall), 

1963 (JFK’s assassination), 

1964 (beginning of the Vietnam War), 

1966 (beginning of China’s Cultural Revolution), 

1968 January-August (Prague Spring), 

1973 (military coup in Chile against Allende), 

1974 (Nixon’s resignation Watergate scandal), 

1975 (end of Vietnam War and death of Franco), 

1976 (Death of Mao), 

1978 (Den Xiao Ping in Power and beginning of Market Socialism in China), 

1979 (Founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran), 

1985 (Gorbatchev in power in the USSR), 

1989, November 9 (Fall of the Berlin Wall), 

1990 (German reunification), 

1991 (Extinction of the USSR), 

2001, September 11 (Islamic Terrorism hits the US), 

2004, March 11 (Terrorist attack in Madrid), 

2005 (Angela Merkel becomes German chancellor), 

2008 (Obama becomes US President), 

2014 (Juan Carlos I resigns on his son Philip VI as king of Spain, and Scottish referendum of independence), 

2015 (Bataclan terrorist attack in Paris), 

2016 (Brexit referendum and Donald Trump election), 

2017 October 1st (Catalan independence illegal referendum), 

2020, January 31 (The UK leaves the EU).

2020, March (Expansion of COVID 19’s Pandemic all over the world), 

2021 (January 6: assault on US Capitol by Trump supporters; 

January 20: Joe Biden takes office as the 46 US President

8 December: Olaf Scholz German Chancelor. 

 And of course you have to add:  

1999, the 31st December when Putin gets to Power after Boris Yeltsin resignation,

2022, the 24th of January, date of the beginning of the Ukraine’s invasion.   

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Why Europeans states despite being developed economies  do not have a decisive influence in today’s world? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Remember the History of Europe in 1919-1939, and from 1945. Especially during the Cold War period. Try to think of the most influential European leaders during this period. 

2. Think why a country like the Russian Federation where the average population is facing serious economic problems is far more influential than European nation-States today. 

3. Do the US, China, Russia, India have a powerful national narrative? If so explain why and which one. And compare with the European reality. 

4. Is the Welfare State a problem in terms of Economic growth? Read the pages about John Rawls theory (176) before answering. Is social justice (reducing inequalities) a problem for becoming a powerful country worldwide? Think about Boris Johnson following statement: "The reason we have the vaccine success is because of capitalism, because of greed, my friends." (24 March 2021)

5. Is democracy a problem for having a powerful State? Think of how Russia has been trying to destabilize Western democracies, taking advantage of local domestic conflicts (as US Presidential Elections, Catalan Conflict, Brexit).  And also how a dictatorial regime as China is becoming a leading power. Also consider the case of Petro Monarchies. 

6. Does the money really makes the world go round? Is  material comfort all that matters. 

   

WILL EUROPE PERISH?

 

When we are entering Teaching Guide 6 ("The Suicide of Europe") we are facing an unending War in Ukraine. One year has already passed since on Thursday 24 of February 2022 Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion. A year ago everyone thought it was going to be a very short war. A Blitzkrieg. A Walkover. And now we realize that Putin has brought back war to Europe. A complete strange notion for all those born after 1945. 

 77 years later we realize that what initially looked like a conflict between two states, appears now more like a wider conflict between the West and the East. As the problem for Putin is that Ukraine want to go West. To join the EU and even NATO. And Putin considers Ukraine part of Russia. Why? Because Kiev was the first Russian Capital. It was the head of the “Kievan Rus”, the first East Slavic State. 

The Kievan Rus in the 11th century

And Putin wants to get back to the USSR times, under Stalin, when Russia was almighty. But the majority of Ukranians do not feel Russians, they consider themselves Europeans. And this explains the almost unanimous reaction of the European States against Putin’s aggression. 

 In fact the War is about a model of society and civilization. Between liberal democracies and democratic dictatorships called “democraturs”, like the one that exists in Russia, where Vladimir Putin has been in power since 2000 and since then he has developed an illiberal democracy where power has no limits, information is controlled by the state and dissidents are poisoned, like Alexander Litvinenko, or put in jail like Alexei Navalny, the three young women integrating the Pussy Riot punk-rock group, Vladimir Kara-Murza or Maria Ponomarenko. For denouncing the war. Or the Special operation as Putin named it. 

Aleksandr Litvinenko, a dissident writter in his death bed (2006)

                                      The Pussy Riot, a punk-rock  Group imprisoned in 2021

Alexei Navalny, arrested in 2018

Vladimir Kara-Mourza. After being poisoned twice he is in since 2022 in prison for 20 years

The Journalist Mariya Ponomarenko. Six years of imprisonment for protesting against Ukrainian War

 So far Putin had done a great job. After reaching power in 2000 after the disastrous government of Yeltsine, his priority was is to give back the Russians their pride, after one decade of humiliation. Knowing that we Europeans we are mostly concerned about how to keep our comfortable lives, he was sure that he could control us through gas and oil production, and that we could be bought by the new Russian oligarchs, that have already transformed London in Londongrad. This is why he was so confident about Ukraine invasion. He thought we would not give a damn about Ukranians as our priority is to live well.  

 But surprisingly European Governments reacted sending excellent weapons to Ukraine, spending more money in our armies and adopting economic sanctions against Putin’s regime and his bunch of oligarchs, disregard the fact that they affect severely our economies. How so? Because, simply put, Putin has helped us to realize that our whole liberal democratic way of life is in danger. 

And what about Ukranians. In 2014 they had accepted the annexation of Crimea, and were more or less willing to accept that territories were the Russian population is a majority would end up having the same fate. But suddenly they are willing to defend their country to the last soldier. That national narrative that Putin thought was inexistent is jeopardizing a war that he thought was not going to last long because he was convinced that most of Ukrainian population would welcome Russian soldiers as their saviors from a corrupt and “nazi” regime. The problem is that he was misinformed. After 23 years in power Putin only hear what he wants to hear. 

 

Unfortunately for him he has in front the Ukrainian President Volodímir Zelenski a Jew, that studied law, speaks fluent Russian and is a great communicator as he has worked like a comedian from 1997 to 2018, before entering politics and becoming Ukraine’s Prime Minister on the 20 of Mai 2019. Putin did not consider Zelenski as a problem, but the latter, instead of fleeing became the head of the fierce Ukranian resistance, and has become a National hero for more than 90% of Ukrainians. The result of Putin’s invasion is that Ukraine would never be Russian again.

Weren’t we done with war?

 Ukrainian war is shocking especially because for 77 years we honestly thought we were done with war. And looking at the horror of the images of this war, suddenly we remember with panic the tragic holocausts of the two World Wars of the first half of the 20th century that destroyed Europe. The Ukraine situation is bringing us back to some of the darkest moments of our history. It is therefore time to reopen our history books and try to understand how was it possible that in thirty years, from 1914 to 1945, the mighty European Nation-States collapsed and disappeared from the World Front Stage?

How could the insignificant States of the 15th century that in four centuries got to control the world, returned to insignificancy in such a short period? This is what we are going to analyze today from a very concrete perspective: the insufficiencies of the Nation-State model. 

We will start with the apocalyptic conflict that was World War I. May be to this day the worst war in Human history, mainly because it was the first “total war”, meaning that every nation-state involved dedicated all resources, material and human, to exterminate the adversary. In World War I all Europeans were more than happy to go to a war towards a hatred enemy thinking that it was going to be a very short war in the name of nationalism. But War lasted 4 and half long years, with millions of dead and more of crippled. 

Corpses of French soldiers abandoned in a trench

A holocaust that was sustained by a deeply rooted xenophobic narrative nationally promoted that led in France, for instance, to the assassination of the Socialist leader Jean Jaurès (1859-31 July 1914) simply because he was a pacifist.     

 Jaurès was absolutely right, but he could not prevent the disasters that militarism brought to Europe. Because the suicide of the Great War of 1914-1918 led to the abrupt end of Liberalism and the return of authoritarian regimes, starting with Bolshevik Russia, and continuing with Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. Dreadful dictatorships brought by the aftermaths of the massive and absurd massacre that led the world to war again in 1939, leaving Europe in ruins.  

The "Brandenburg Tor" in May 1945                                                   

This s why the great Belgian singer Jacques Brel (1929-1978) asked himself in a beautiful and moving song “Why they killed Jaurès” (Pour quoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?), released in 1977, in what was his last album, simply called “BREL”, before dying from cancer a few months later.  

    

Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

 Ils étaient usés à quinze ans

Ils finissaient en débutant

Les douze mois s'appelaient décembre

Quelle vie ont eu nos grand-parents

Entre l'absinthe et les grand-messes

Ils étaient vieux avant que d'être

Quinze heures par jour le corps en laisse

Laissent au visage un teint de cendres

Oui notre Monsieur, oui notre bon Maître

… Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

… On ne peut pas dire qu'ils furent esclaves

De là à dire qu'ils ont vécu

Lorsque l'on part aussi vaincu

C'est dur de sortir de l'enclave

Et pourtant l'espoir fleurissait

Dans les rêves qui montaient aux yeux

Des quelques ceux qui refusaient

De ramper jusqu'à la vieillesse

… Oui notre bon Maître, oui notre Monsieur

Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

… Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

… Si par malheur ils survivaient

C'était pour partir à la guerre

C'était pour finir à la guerre

Aux ordres de quelques sabreurs

Qui exigeaient du bout des lèvres

Qu'ils aillent ouvrir au champ d'horreur

Leurs vingt ans qui n'avaient pu naître

Et ils mouraient à pleine peur

Tout miséreux oui notre bon Maître

Couverts de prêles oui notre Monsieur

… Demandez-vous belle jeunesse

Le temps de l'ombre d'un souvenir

Le temps du souffle d'un soupir

Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

Pourquoi ont-ils tué Jaurès?

ENGLISH TRANSLATION of “JAURÈS” 

They were worn up at fifteen years old

They were finishing while beginning

The twelve months were named December

What kind of life did our grandparents have?

Between the absinth and the high masses

They were old before being

Fifteen hours a day, the body on a leash

Leaves to the face an ash like complexion

Yes our Sir, yes our kind Master

Why did they kill Jaurès?

Why did they kill Jaurès?

One cannot say they were slaves

But to say that hey have lived

When you start defeated like that

It’s hard to come ou of the enclave

And though hope was flourishing

In the dreams which were going up to the eyes

Of the few who were refusing

To crawl until the old age

Yes our kind Master, yes our Sir 

Why did they kill Jaurès?

Why did they kill Jaurès?

If by misfortune they survived

It was to go to war

It was to end at war

Under the orders of some swordsman

Who was demanding half-heartedly 

That they go open in the field of horror

Their twenties which didn’t have the chance to be born

And they died in full fear

All miserable, yes our kind Master

Covered with field horsetails, yes our Sir

Ask yourself pretty youth

The time of the shadow of a memory

The time of the blow of a sigh

Why did they kill Jaurès?

Why did they kill Jaurès?

For understanding the horror of World War I, besides the Brel’s song, I give you some recommendations. From the victors side: the Movies “A Very Long Engagement” (Un long dimanche de fiançailles)  of Jean Pierre Jeunet, released in 2004 and  “Merry Christmas” (Joyeux Noël) of Christian Carion Released in 2005, and based on true events. Also the spectacular movie 1917, a Sam Mendes film released in 2019. 

 

And finally, as I guess you are developing a taste for reading, I would recommend you to read Pierre Lemaitre’s Novel “The Great Swindle” (Au revoir là haut) that enabled the author to receive in 2013 the most prestigious French Litterary price, the “Prix Goncourt.”

From the German perspective I will recommend you the great pacifist novel of Erich von Remarque (1898-1970) All Quiet in the Western Front (1929). You can read it or see one of its movie versions: 1930, 1979 y 2022.  

The suicide of the Great War led to the abrupt end of Liberalism and the return of authoritarian regimes, starting with Bolshevik Russia, and continuing with Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. Dreadful dictatorships brought by the aftermaths of the massive and absurd massacre that led the world to war again in 1939, leaving Europe in ruins. 

 As, by the way, it is impossible to understand the Russian Revolution, the Dictatorships of Mussolini and Hitler or the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) if you do not grasp the social consequences of the expansion of big capitalism and the rising of “the Social question”,  a large part of the text of Teaching Guide 6 (pages 127-139) is dedicated  to this crucial aspect, including the “democratic solution” to the problem unexpectedly  invented by US President F.D. Roosevelt and the New Deal.

New Deal would lead to the Welfare State Model, consolidated in the UK in 1942 by William Beveridge.  

William Beveridge: the Founder of Social Security 

Something especially important considering the actual resurgence of inequalities worldwide, as a result of the Neoliberal policies started by the Western States in the 1980’s decade. This huge effort to help the poorer classes of our opulent societies has been one of the main causes why we have not had a war in Europe for 77 years. 

In our today’s topic for discussion we will analyze if we are assisting today to a resurgence of the fear of War (with Russia, with China) because of the reappearance of the social question as a result of the overwhelming growing of inequalities all over the Planet.              

Though the most important idea you have to retain from Teaching Guide 6 is how the Nation-State model brought to the destruction of Europe in only three decades. And how in 1945 when half of Europe was at the mercy of Stalin troops that had occupied Eastern Europe we asked the United States to give us military assistance in case of Russian invasion. And NATO was created the 4 of April 1949. 

In a globalized world and a Europe that sticks together because of economic interest many we were wondering if NATO still made any sense. But suddenly since the 24 of February we have realized that it does. In fact Putin has used the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as a pretext to start his war. 

Are we are facing a resurgence of a New Cold war in which Western countries are increasingly facing Russia where Vladimir Putin is considering a rebuilt of the Soviet Union dissolved by the Belavezha Accords on the 8 December 1991, the moment in which Ukraine became an independent State? 

 Are we going towards World War Three? Of course that would depend a lot on the attitude of China. So far Putin has tried to get President Xi Jiping on his side. But as the Putin’s Blitzkrieg did not work, China is extremely cautious, as he is aware that the conflict would create a major economic crisis that would bring huge instability to his dictatorial regime. Remember that so far Chinese society has accepted dictatorship because it has brought great prosperity. An economical crisis would bring social unrest and would jeopardize the political regime. This is why China is trying very badly to find a way to end this war. Wait and see.

 For 77 years pacifism has been the rule in Europe. But now there is growing fear that war is going to be again on our tables. Because everybody is afraid of war with the exception of ex colonel of the KGB Vladimir Putin, that spend 20% of the budget of the Russian economy in weapons. Bear in mind that for one of the largest countries in the World with 146 million inhabitants, Russian economy is smaller than German Economy (4.036 billions v. 4.597 billions) with only 80 million. But after Ukraine’s Invasion Europeans think that everything has to be done to prevent Putin of imposing his iron fist in the Old Continent. Getting back to the old proverb: Si vis pacem para bellum?

 

 INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 124 to 161), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 158-159) all 21 dates included are crucial.  

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Are we in the eve of Third World War? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think about what were the causes of the Two European World Wars of the first half of the 20th century.

2. Is Putin imitating the Lebensraum policy of Hitler? Think of the parallelisms of the Austrian Anschluss, The Sudeten Crisis and the Munich Conference of 1938 with the actual policy of Putin in Belarus, Crimea, Donbass and Lugansk and what has been so far the attitude of Western Democracies.  

3. Is it possible to rebuild a Soviet Union in the 21st century? Give arguments in both directions. 

4. Are economic interests in a globalized world so determinant that would make unthinkable a Major War at the World level?

5. Think about the history of NATO and how it has been expanding since 1991. 

6. Review the Cuban Missiles Crisis of 1962 and see if you could establish a parallelism with the Eastern expansion of NATO since 1991.  

7. Think about China’s role in this crisis.

8. Think about the attitude of the US in this crisis. Do you think the approach to the Venezuelan dictatorship of Maduro by the Biden’s Administration makes sense? Is it bearable for Democrats?