European Civilization 6 (After World War II and America)

Now, America after World War II has developed in a completely different way from after World War I. Since independence, America has been characterized by domesticism and Americanism (Monroe Doctrine). Initially, the birth of the country coincided with the realization of ideals on earth, and the country was positioned to develop and advance its vast domestic territory and the American continent without involvement from Europe. However, mainly due to the situation in Europe (not the situation in the United States) and the actions of Germany, Europe was warred twice and devastated, so hegemony was inevitably transferred to America, and this seems to have shaped the pattern of American diplomacy. First of all, America has been fundamentally nationalistic for a long time, so when it intervened in Europe and the world, it had to explain things to its people.

 

This was the case with Wilson's Fourteen Points, but even so, domestic public opinion did not stray from nationalism. However, Wilson's Fourteen Points were highly idealistic and at the same time proposed a comprehensive world organization (not something a politician busy with national affairs could have come up with). It can be imagined that the people who were able to come up with this were those who thought about such an ideal world on a daily basis. Also, this type of ideological politics may have been part of the American culture, but even so, intervention in World War II came after Japan had entered the war, and participation was only possible with the consent of the people.

 

After World War II, America took the lead in international politics, and the Americans explained the reasons for this to their citizens. The American economy and productivity were the only ones that remained intact, and the Communist Soviet Union was making great strides, but what appealed to the Americans was that America had already respected democracy and human rights during World War II (Atlantic Charter), and had also made adjustments to finance and trade with the former hegemonic power, Great Britain (Dumbarton Oaks Conference). In light of the devastation of World War I and World War II, America once again presented its ideas about the way the world should be to the American people, and these were accepted based on history.

 

After World War II, there was a battle between the Soviet communist ideals and the American ideals mentioned above, but this in itself may have led the world in a relatively better direction. Capitalist countries had to take into consideration low-income earners in their countries, so social security was established, income guarantees were provided, and consumption was maintained. Many colonies gained independence, and some of these countries developed. However, there were various problems along the way. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the four Middle East wars, the Afghan conflict, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq-Afghanistan War. America had long been a country of its own, but after World War II it has been fighting wars based on internationalism. Since the world system could not survive with countryism, it came up with a new concept and faced the postwar period, which could be said to have been a remarkable change. This is partly because the military-industrial complex was formed (Eisenhower's statement), and partly because war meant that poor young people could receive scholarships and go to college.

 

The new system was established through negotiations between the United States and the United Kingdom, but it was limited. The Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Western Europe was difficult to gain the support of the American people, so the threat of the Soviet Union was emphasized, and the United Kingdom also supported it because it could rely on the United States. The EC was established from the idea of peacefully and efficiently reconstructing Western Europe, which bore fruit in the EU at the end of the 20th century. The existence of the Soviet Union also strengthened the unity of Western countries, created the Eurodollar (centered in London) that was not subject to national (American) regulations, and fostered globalization.

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 5 ( Vienna System , Potsdam System, the United States)

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

 

European Civilization 4 ( Germany , Russia)

Let us now consider the newly emerging powers Germany and Russia. These two countries rose to prominence as they were used by Britain to suppress France, but they developed industry for their own needs, and as a result, movements to seek democracy, markets, and resources arose. However, as they were latecomers, they had no choice but to respond in a coercive and combative manner. The United States is also a latecomer, but due to its vast land area, abundant resources, and geographical location, it was able to act more freely than Europe, and a frontier culture developed. However, this did not prevent the Civil War. This was probably due to the influence of Britain. Latecomers Russia and Germany also needed to change the state of the world system in order to achieve their own goals , and since these latecomers were reforms from above, with a conservative nature, they also needed to control the domestic situation. After the Napoleonic Wars, Russia briefly assumed a leading position in Europe (during the reign of Alexander I), but this resulted in the Decembrist Rebellion, which was a bourgeois democratic demand, and then Nicholas I's reactionary politics. The Crimean War challenged the world system and the failure of the rebellion led Russia to move towards democratization and industrialization again (during the reign of Alexander II and III). However, this did not last in Russia due to repeated terrorist attacks, and a reactionary government emerged (Nicholas II), leading to the Russo-Japanese War and World War I. Looking at it this way, we can see that in the case of Russia, periods of domestic reform and global expansion alternated. During this period of global expansion, Russia mainly caused friction with Britain, but the main expansion had already ended during the reign of Peter I, and was due to the pursuit of resources (such as furs) and the flight of peasants from within the country, but the expansion into Manchuria, Central Asia, and Ottoman Turkey seems to have been in search of trade or by heading for the sea.

 

The Pax Britannica era was the period following the end of the Long War between England and France (Second Hundred Years' War), during which Russia, due to its domestic situation, began to appear as a disruptor of the world system. England and Russia fought in Eurasia for a while, and Russia stood in the way of England as a power to replace France. However, after defeats in the Crimean War (1851), the Russo-Turkish War (1872), and the Russo-Japanese War (1905), and civil wars in Russia, England gained a cooperative relationship with Russia and entered the First World War. In this light, the conflict between England and Russia may have had an aspect of a proxy war between England and France, a rival country. Pax Britannica was threatened by the industrial development of Germany and America, but Germany and America rose to power in the 1870s, and if Pax Britannica began in 1815, then there are roughly 55 years between the two. During this time, it was Russia that stood in Britain's way militarily in various ways, and France, which had been defeated in the Napoleonic Wars, was maneuvering skillfully behind the scenes. This point will be useful when looking at the relationship between the United States and Britain after World War II. Russia's geographical location may have been the reason it was able to compete with Britain even though it was industrially immature (and to some extent, France, Britain's former rival, may have supported Russia). This may still be the case today. Russia's ability to exert a great influence on international politics even though it is industrially immature is likely to remain unchanged even today, as long as it has the support of forces that seek to rival the hegemonic nations of the world system.

 

Now, Germany is a latecomer after Britain and France, with a small land area, insufficient resources, and oppressed by its geographical location (the opposite of the United States and Russia). Germany is a country that was formed in the process of growing as a barrier against France. However, its prototype seems to be the Holy Roman Empire. The surrounding great powers considered Germany a buffer zone for their own convenience and did not want the Holy Roman Empire to be revived. It may also have been because the citizens of the small German states were democratic. Russia, Prussia, and Austria viewed the German states as a buffer zone against the spread of the French Revolution. Politically, the German states were divided into small states, but economically, the German states were strengthening their ties. Prussia possessed the Rhineland, an industrially important exclave, and in that sense became the leader of northern Germany and formed the Northern German Customs Union. In a sense, the establishment of the German Empire may have been a template for the formation of the modern EU. However, the difference was that Prussia, the leader of the North German Customs Union, had its political base in East Prussia, and Prussia was a military state that had been formed as a bulwark against the French Revolution.

 

In addition to this, Germany's geographical location determined its fate. Located in the center of Europe, Germany had to repeatedly create friction with its surroundings in order to develop. There were many complex forces acting on Germany, including growing economic power, conservative political power, desire to expand, and the reaction of the world system called Pax Britannica. As a result, Germany's economy became a military state, due to the conservative atmosphere and pressure from all around, or in harmony with past success stories (Seven Years' War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War). The strong image of Germany as a scientific and military state may have been the reason why Germany's actions caused an excessive reaction from those around it. In Bismarck's time, Germany managed to cover this up with diplomacy, but compared to the United States and Russia, Germany was perceived as a scientific and military state, which may have been seen as a blatant challenge to Pax Britannica. It is also likely that Germany incurred great resentment from France, which relied on this world system.

 

Even as Germany expanded, it could not break away from its limited framework. For example, it did not have the idea of attacking Egypt like Napoleon. It also did not have the idea of taking advantage of the war in Europe to acquire interests outside of Europe like Britain did. Even though Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey during World War I, it seems that it did not even think about dominating the Middle East.* This may be because the British navy was still strong at that time and the control of the Mediterranean was important. This was also evident in Germany's attempt to reach Baku and Iran by land route during World War II, and the tactics of using U-boats extensively also seemed to be aimed at disrupting the control of the seas of the superior enemy.

 

* During World War I, Germany and Turkey dominated Iraq and Syria and had a great influence in Iran. However, because they operated on both the East and West fronts, it would have been difficult for them to take military action in the Middle East.

 

Germany was strongly militaristic from the history of its rise, but it was basically a land power, so being sandwiched between France and Russia may have been a threat. For Germany, its participation in World War I itself was probably an accident at first. However, the progress of the war itself showed Germany's limitations. Germany was a closed land power, and it was difficult to expand outside of Europe because it did not have a navy, so it sought a way out by either unifying Europe or expanding into eastern Eurasia by land. In World War II, freed from the threat of a pincer attack by Russia and France, it headed toward Africa (including Egypt) and Russia, but it seems that this hasty expansion into many directions was due to such German complexes. Now that it was not blocked, it wanted to conquer as much as possible.

 

Germany produced many talented people under such fateful historical pressure, but for some reason it did not have political power. Although it had a genius named Bismarck for a time, it was a country that did not easily have the power to purify itself, and this lack of power was clearly evident in the process of Hitler's rise and his policies, but the root of this may be that the power of this blocked country was carried by its past military glory and conservatism. After World War II, this blockage was lifted by cooperation with France and the EU, and the country lost its military glory due to two defeats and the crimes of the Nazis, and East Germany was separated for a long time. Modern Germany may be viewed with caution, but even if there was a backlash from history, it seems that it has developed a considerable democratic power to purify itself.

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

 

 

European Civilization 3 ( Britain and France )

Efficiency: The power of the second principle (principle of improving living standards) is the technological power that tries to realize a certain value, in other words, the power to improve living standards through technology. Along with improvements in technology, the reorganization of the power of social structure: the power of the third principle (principle of community development) also appeared along with improvements in efficiency. The French Revolution was the beginning of the civil revolution, and the formation of organizational power that invested the power of the entire nation in the national goal. The beginning of this social structure power originally occurred in England, with the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious Revolution, but it is necessary to note that the innovation of social structure power occurred earlier than the Industrial Revolution. This order was the same in France and the United States, but it was reversed in later developing countries. The social structure was innovated after the introduction of efficiency (Germany, Russia, Japan). Parliament and journalism appeared as systems to draw out cooperation based on the spontaneous will of the people, but it was the later developing countries Germany, Russia, and Japan that appeared in the form of forcing the innovation of social structure from above before waiting for spontaneity.

 

Let's go back to Britain. The power of Britain's social structure: the power of the third principle (the principle of community development) was not something that was consciously sought. Incidentally, the Industrial Revolution was probably the same. Britain's social structure power arose from the gradual restriction of royal power, and the background to this is that Britain had been centralizing relatively early. The conflict between (royalty, Catholicism, privileged merchants) and (aristocracy, the Church of England, Puritans), followed by the Tories and Whigs, had already laid the groundwork for the effectiveness of democracy. In other words, democracy is a "process of the purification of power," and the essence of the effectiveness of democracy lies in the gradual purification of vested interests that are no longer in tune with the times and tend to commit injustice. In that sense, Britain also demonstrated this in the establishment of the industrial society in the 19th century. This purification power is noteworthy, as it has not been seen in other civilizations until now.And in the case of Britain, it is also worth noting that this purification power was carried out by an oligarchy of aristocrats for a long time.*

 

*British democracy was formed by limiting the power of the monarchy. The rising gentry and merchants joined forces against the power of the vested interests of the great nobles and privileged merchants, which led to the formation of political parties such as the Tories and Whigs. In the case of Britain, the monarchy was associated with policies that did not match the national interest in a broad sense (for example, James II's cooperation with Louis XIV), so there were special circumstances in which the monarchy was abandoned by the great nobles. However, Britain must have been troubled about which direction to take at this point, and Louis XIV's enormous influence seems to have worked in the direction of uniting Britain and the Netherlands. This is an interesting point in the formation of Britain's foreign policy, just as it was in the era of Queen Elizabeth when they opposed Spain (this may also apply to the later Anglo-Japanese Alliance). However, the Glorious Revolution cannot be avoided as being remarkable because the oligarchy itself decided on this policy, since the monarchy had been expelled at that time. I think that even when we look at the British Parliament in the 19th century, we are amazed at the judgment of the British oligarchy in the many compromises and negotiations. In Bagehot's British constitutional theory, he touches on the authoritative and effective parts of the constitution, and says that the effective power is held by the middle class, taking into account compromises with tradition. This means that rapid changes in society should be avoided, because tradition is an accumulation of customs, and the authority of tradition should be respected to a certain extent, and necessary matters in society should be decided by the middle class through discussion. Thus, during the Whig era, Britain won the Seven Years' War, the Industrial Revolution progressed, and the Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent Vienna System became the Tory era. After the first electoral reform in 1830, the electoral law was revised three times over a period of time, the Corn Laws were abolished, and the House of Lords Act was enacted, gradually changing the social structure. During this time, the Whigs, who were the liberal forces, ended their role after passing through the Liberal Party, and their base sank due to the rise of the working class and the growing disparity in the middle class.

 

This is where France differs. In France, the monarchy and the nobility were fighting over who should pay for the budget deficit, but they dragged the masses into it, and the French, who had already seen and learned about the British and American revolutions, rushed straight for democracy. They used that momentum to spread democracy and nationalism throughout Europe (the Napoleonic Wars).

 

It was fine for England until the local reforms were transferred to its relative, America, but when it grew into a fanatical religion in France, it became wary of France, which was trying to make greater strides in the economy and military by exerting the power of its people more than England, and tried to suppress it (Conference of Vienna). Talleyrand was originally a person who wanted to stop the revolution within the framework of a British-style aristocratic oligarchy, so he probably aimed to compromise with England along these lines and build a long-term relationship with England. After the July Revolution (1830) and the establishment of the Orléans dynasty, Talleyrand began negotiations with England (the British foreign secretary was Palmerston of the Whig Party). This also ended in an incomplete way, but it could be said that this was the sober end of an era. After that, France experienced various political systems, with royalists, bourgeoisie, and democrats all mixed together, but in diplomacy, France, which had often been the hegemon of the European continent since Louis XIV, ended its conflict with England (although there were skirmishes) and began to cooperate with England in a broad sense until World War II.

 

*There may be some problems with how to interpret the policies of Napoleon III and the Franco-Russian alliance. There was a struggle between republicans and royalists within France, and the military was also strong, leading to the Boulanger and Dreyfus affairs. Napoleon's military glory and expansionism were also present, but France, along with Britain, was on the side of protecting vested interests. During the Vienna System, France was rather suppressed, and this was the era of Russia and Austria. France's advance resumed under the Orléans dynasty in 1830, and took a leap forward with the February Revolution of 1848 (a global revolution), but despite Napoleon III's advance into the world, cooperation with Britain seems to have been basically maintained. This was probably because France shared the same opinions as Britain in a broad sense regarding Russia and Austria (the Ottoman Turkish problem) (which is why the sale of the Suez Canal was also concluded). At this point, in 1871, the German Empire emerged as a disruptive factor. Germany's emergence brought France and Russia closer together, and France then tried to counter Britain as well. However, Russia was weak, and in the end Russia reconciled its interests with Britain, which led to World War I.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 2 ( comparison between European and Indian civilization )

The subsequent development of European civilization followed a different course from Islamic civilization. In Islam, the caliph, the authority of the faith, lost real power (political rights), and the Sultan emerged as a political figure through the Great Amir, but in European civilization, the Pope, the leader of Catholicism, gained authority by lending his support to political unification. The coronation of Charles in the Frankish Kingdom (although before that, there was the Donation of Pepin), and Charles' kingdom could be said to have occurred amid the threat of Islam (Henri Pirenne). Europe eventually entered the feudal era, and churches and monasteries in Europe contributed to the expansion of agricultural production and the livelihood of the people*. It was the Holy Roman Emperor who attempted to centralize power in a decentralized state and utilize the church, but the church ended up gaining power, and this is where the distinctive characteristics of European civilization were born.

 

*Similar situations have occurred many times in European civilization. The Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the development of America, and colonial development. It seems that European expansion was not necessarily driven solely by economic reasons. If European civilization is in decline in modern times, it may be largely due to the loss of religious energy and the inability to find a substitute for it . It may be that they have lost sight of the ethical values of their own civilization.

 

European civilization was a world where spiritual and secular leaders were separated, and for a time, the spiritual was superior to the secular in a material sense. The materialist view of history holds that the secular world, for example the economy, shapes the spiritual, but the Middle Ages in Europe was a time when people were serious about creating an ideal community with a Catholic spirit. This tendency was not only seen in medieval Europe, but also in India during the Gupta Dynasty.*1 However, the difference between India and Europe is that the Catholic Church was an organization more independent from the state (secular organization), and unlike India at that time, people in Europe gradually became interested in economics and trade. The development of secular society caused people to question religion, which led to the Renaissance and the Reformation. However, this is also a matter of degree, and the comparison between European and Indian civilization is endlessly interesting.*2

 

*1In India, there was a renaissance (a revival of the classics) with works such as the Code of Manu, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata, but in the case of the Gupta dynasty (5th century!), this was the beginning of feudalism, whereas the European Renaissance was an event that marked the end of religious feudalism as feudalism drew to an end, cities developed, and freedom began to sprout, so the two are different. After the Renaissance, development-oriented, secular Protestantism was born in Europe, the spiritual world suddenly became lively, and gave birth to the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, whereas India sank into the world of Tantra after the Gupta dynasty.

 

*2When comparing European and Indian civilizations, the similarity is that the spirit tried to dominate the secular world. However, the values of that spirit - the first principle (principle of value) - were contrasting. While Europe is monistic (although Catholicism is not necessarily monistic, as it has created many saints), India was a civilization that tolerated plurality. The revival of classics in the Gupta dynasty was the revival of Brahmins against Buddhism (knights and merchant class), and the content was qualitatively different from the revival of classics, philosophy, and thought in Greece and Rome in Europe. Although the content was different, it was a revival, and they tried to make it a guideline for the way the community should be, but in the case of Europe, this aspect may have been more pronounced not in the Renaissance but in the Reformation. While the Renaissance was to a certain extent for the aristocracy, the Reformation had an impact on the masses. The revival of classics in the Gupta dynasty, the Code of Manu and the Gita, were for the Brahmins and aristocracy, and the rule of the masses by the Brahmins was also the revival of the secular world through the revival of the spirit. At the very least, the Hinduism that emerged during the Gupta period could be said to be an affirmation of Indian humanity. Although the north and south of India are different, they are the same in the sense of Hinduism, and perhaps the spirit of Indian humanity was subsequently buried in the materialistic world of civilization.

 

This is a sketch of two civilizations (European civilization and Indian civilization) next to Islamic civilization, but European civilization also inherited the cosmopolitan elements of Islamic civilization. In modern Europe, Italian city-states were initially dominant, probably due to trade in the Mediterranean. This hegemony was deeply connected to Islamic civilization (Mamluk dynasty), but this hegemony was overturned by the rise of Spain and Portugal, who rounded the Cape of Good Hope and discovered the New World, and was then passed on to the Netherlands. During the British era, the Industrial Revolution occurred, and humanity entered a new stage. Up until now, civilization has progressed mainly through the power of social structure: the third principle (the principle of community development), that is, through organizational reform, but we are now in a stage where the power of efficiency: the second principle (the principle of improving living standards) has begun to become much stronger*.

 

*Before the Industrial Revolution, there was little difference in military power, and great changes occurred due to improvements in organization. The most significant and rapid changes were the founding of Islamic civilization by Mohammed, who integrated and reorganized the Arabs, and the rise of the Mongol Empire by Genghis Khan. However, there were similarities between the two, in that they controlled trade and information, were relatively tolerant of religion and culture, and provided a social structure that worked hard to ensure security in the commercial sphere: the power of the third principle (principle of community development). In terms of continuity, Islam had a universal religion, while the Mongol Empire did not, which may have been one of the reasons why it ended so quickly. In the case of Mongolia, they respected Islamic merchants on land and sea (the international language of the Mongol Empire was Persian), so there is some overlap between Islamic civilization and the Mongol Empire. It was a merchant civilization based on information and mobility. Therefore, the Age of Discovery in Europe may have been a response to the challenge of the Mongol Empire.

 

all rights reseved to M Ariake