After World War II, America, which had been away from the battlefields of the European continent (like Britain, which had been away from the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars), rose to power. France, which had lost the Napoleonic Wars, became obsessed with Britain. However, Britain, which was the de facto loser in World War II, became obsessed with the United States. The Soviet Union (Russia) acted as a savior, just as it did in the Napoleonic Wars.
It is interesting to compare the Vienna System with the failed Potsdam System , but America had to make more of an effort than Britain. The reason is that under the Potsdam System, Prussia, Austria, and France, which were in the Vienna System, did not exist and had fallen into disuse, while Stalin's Soviet Union had a clearer ideology that could appeal to civilizations outside of Europe than Alexander I. The Cold War was born out of this structure, but let's remember the Vienna System here.
After the Vienna System, Britain and France, who had been fighting for a long time, made a reconciliation (1830), but France gradually drew closer to Russia. Russia and Britain fought here and there over colonies, and France maintained its interests from them. In the same way, Britain after World War II is thought to have protected its interests in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Those interests were probably related to the Middle East and South Asia. The reason why there have been endless problems from the Middle East to Myanmar in modern times is probably because of the complicated circumstances , and it was because of this that Britain was a valuable ally to the United States. For this reason, Britain was able to protect its interests to some extent as an intermediary after World War II.
On the other hand, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the revolutions in the Middle East suggest that a new phenomenon has arisen. Perhaps the power of the UK in this region, where it had been strong, is weakening, and it seems that this phenomenon was an attempt to push the UK into the EU. There may have been a trend to separate the zombie UK from the Middle East and South Asia, return it to the European civilization , and establish an independent economic zone in the Middle East.
We have considered the Vienna System and the Potsdam System. The Vienna System was the basic system of Pax Britannica, while the Potsdam System was supposed to be the basic system of Pax Americana, but the reason this did not happen was because the world had become more complex compared to the time of the Napoleonic Wars. This is also symbolized by the fact that the Versailles System before the Potsdam System did not last long. The Vienna System prepared the hegemony of Britain, but Germany, the United States, and Russia rose from this stability, while the Versailles System was a system to maintain Britain's hegemony, but it was a system that could not have been established without the assistance of the United States, which was already a hegemonic challenger, and the only way to suppress another challenger, Germany, was through this system, but the United States never participated in this system. In contrast, the Potsdam System was a system in which Britain gave up hegemony, supported the hegemony of the United States, and suppressed the Soviet Union and Germany, but this time, East Asian countries including Japan rose from the periphery.
Let's think about the United States. Geographically, the United States was able to distance itself from the world system centered on the United Kingdom more than Germany or Russia, but it was still firmly under British hegemony until the Civil War. After the Civil War, the United States was once again taken by British hegemony, but as industry developed, it was grabbed by the neck by British capital and was incorporated back into British hegemony. As a result of the First World War (a surprising outcome of an accidental event), it became clear that Britain and France could not maintain their hegemony, and hegemony itself was transferred to the United States in the 1920s. Perhaps they intended it to be a refuge, but the outbreak and outcome of the Second World War led to the concentration of production and economy in the United States, so it seems that they stayed there. Looking at the case of the United States, where the hegemony is centered depends not only on the production and economic power of the country, but also on whether it is militarily safe, whether its politics are stable domestically and diplomatically, and whether the people's insight (especially the ruling class) is solid. The decline of a former hegemonic nation seems to be clearly manifested in its inability to protect its excessively expanded interests by force as it expanded. A good example would be the British duplicitous diplomacy during World War I (Hussein-McMahon Agreement, Sykes-Picot Agreement, Balfour Declaration). Therefore , although the modern United States was able to pursue expansionism after World War II, there is a possibility that it may move to reduce its hegemony.
all rights reserved to M Ariake
