Translated material
Europe-1913: the alignment of forces
REFERENCE. In 1870, when the German Empire arose, 39 million people inhabited it, Britain (without colonies) - 31 million. By 1913, this ratio was already 65 and 46 million, respectively. The British gross domestic product in 1870 exceeded German by 40%. In 1913, Germany already overtook the rival in this indicator by 6%. In 1880, the British Empire provided 23% of world industrial production, Germany - only 8%. By 1913, the share of Britain was reduced to 14%, but Germany-increased to 15.
The rivalry of the two powers is told by a British historian and journalist, history specialist Daniel Johnson:
D.J.: By 1913, Britain has not participated in large wars for a long time - in fact, from the middle of the 19th century, from the Crimean War itself. The then peaceful period was for the country, one might say, unprecedentedly long - with the exception of colonial wars, not particularly significant. However, by 1913, the German threat became very real. Emperor Wilhelm II was the cousin of King George V , but by that time the relations between countries had extremely worsened. There were several reasons for this. On the one hand, economic factors played a role: Germany had already caught up with, and sometimes distilled Britain with its former industrial power, the Germans went forward in the steel and coal industries. There was, however, another reason-Kaiser was obsessed with the idea of creating a navy that could compete with the British. In response to this, Britain increased the production of warships. We can say that by the beginning of the war, Britain and Germany participated in the arms race for about a decade. Britain still led, albeit with a slight advantage, and tried to increase the gap. However, the Germans caught up with the British, including according to new technologies. Their growing air fleet also posed a real threat.
British ground forces remained, according to the old tradition, very few, especially compared to the armies of the countries of continental Europe. However, by 1913, the British began to increase the number of the army, realizing that the probability of war in Europe was growing. In other words, the era of “excellent isolation” ( Splendid Island ), when Britain as an island state was able to stand aside from continental conflicts, this era was drawing to a close.
As Daniel Johnson already noted, the Germans decided to encroach on the holy of holies of British power - dominance on the seas. Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz , appointed in 1897 by the Naval Minister of the German Empire, with the approval of Emperor Wilhelm II began an ambitious program for reform and re-equipment of the fleet. In 1907, Germany began the construction of battleships of the Nassau class - frightening combat vehicles designed to resist the British dreadnoughts, the largest warships of that time. The submarine fleet, naval aviation and other the latest attributes of naval power at that time also developed.
In 1913, Germany spent a quarter of the expenditure part of its budget for the needs of the fleet! Here's how the employee of the Institute of History at the Gumboldt University of Berlin comments on those events, Dr. Christof Nyubel:
K.N.: The idea of building a powerful German navy to protect the colonies, which is associated with the personality of Wilhelm II , aimed to force the main marine power - Great Britain - to recognize such a status for Germany. But Berlin failed to achieve this. Great Britain was supported by France, and during two Moroccan crises - 1905 and 1911 - Germany was in isolation. France, Great Britain and Russia gradually created a block called “Triple Consent”-the Entente, and Germany remained only partnership with Austria-Hungary, and until a certain point-with unreliable Italy. Although Kaiser also made attempts to negotiate with Britain and Russia, they had no success.
The arms race was gaining momentum. Winston Churchill , appointed at the end of 1911, the first Lord of the Admiralty, said that Britain would respond to the water of two ships for each warship built by the Germans. In London, they were concerned: since the 18th century, British domination on the seas was held by observing the principle according to which the British fleet was supposed to exceed the number of ships and firepower of the fleets of two leading continental powers combined. Germany threatened to violate this ratio and supplant the rival from the position of the main marine power. So - get an advantage in the struggle for the colony, resources and sales markets.
The word Daniel Johnson:
D.J.: Churchill showed great interest in the development of the Navy. It should be remembered that Britain in the pre -war period possessed the largest and most powerful sea fleet in the world. This, of course, gave the country a huge advantage in the world arena, allowing us to use force anywhere in the planet, if necessary. Britain the rule of almost a fifth part of the world, its territory included India, Canada, Australia, a considerable part of Africa, as well as many other colonies. Interestingly, all these territories were ruled by a small bunch of soldiers and officials. Until some point, they succeeded, since most peoples living in the colonies at that time did not particularly object to British rule. However, in some places imperial rule was already questioned. So, in India, an opposition appeared led by Mahatma Gandhi. In South Africa, ten years before the First World War, a collision with the Boers occurred. The Anglo-Burian war created a precedent: it became clear that the British are not so invincible, but the peoples that the empire tried to subjugate are able to resist its relics. In a word, although the British empire was still strong, it began to show the first signs of weakness.
What is fraught with the aggravation of German-British rivalry, they were well understood in other European countries. Austria Minister of Foreign Affairs Alois von Erenal , speaking on December 6, 1911 at a government meeting, said: “Three, four, four years later, a crisis can be expected ... Antagonism between Germany and England is becoming more deep. It cannot be ruled out that we, as faithful allies, will have to join the battle on the side of Germany. ” Similar warnings then sounded from the mouth of French, Russian, Italian diplomats ... The military were less alarmed, they rather anticipated the coming clash. So, the head of the German General Staff , Helmut von Moltke, said in an interview with his subordinates: “The war will undoubtedly be, and the sooner the better.”
Was the main reason for the tension growing in Europe the aggressiveness of the “young predator” - the German Empire? Historians argued for a long time on this score. Says Christophe Nyubel:
K.N.: Was the First World War inevitable? Did some fatal automatism act here? This question still causes the discussions of historians. At one time, it was believed that the inevitability of wars exists for granted, and that if the politicians of different countries began to talk about the war, then it would certainly begin. Nowadays, many historians pay attention to the periods of success of diplomacy in resolving crises in the first decade of the twentieth century, until 1913. This manifested, in particular, in the Moroccan crisis already mentioned by me and in some others-for example, in the situation around Bosnia in 1908-09. None of these acute crises led to war. Nevertheless, there are several important factors that should be taken into account when they are wondering why in 1914 the war could not be avoided. First of all, this is the policy of political alliance, the thinking of blocs, so to speak: the central powers - on the one hand, the Entente - on the other, all this led to the arms race, forced as a result for everyone. It was Tsugtswang: either attack, or continue to arm. Internal crises, for example in Germany itself, were also pushing the factor to the war, since many political forces hoped to improve their positions as a result of the war.
The book of historian Fritz Fisher, who appeared in 1961, caused passionate disputes in a professional environment. Before Fisher, most historians were convinced that the main world forces were some automatism of the situation in the war. The British Prime Minister Lloyd-Jorde said this in 1920. Of course, he made such a statement, striving to improve relations with Germany. But German historians in 1961 reasoned mainly from national positions. They tried in every possible way to deceive Germany's guilt in the outcome of the war. Therefore, they were satisfied with the thesis: everyone was to blame, everyone was drawn. And Fritz Fisher said in his book that the war was part of the conscious calculations of the Germans, the possibility of war to achieve world domination did not scare them. He argued that the war has been planned by Germany since 1912, and that there was a special meeting at which this plan was discussed and approved. Fisher contrasted himself with this position for most historians. This caused discussion. Fisher stated that there is the main culprit of the war - this is Germany. When Fisher gathered in the United States, intending to present his work there, a group of German historians turned to the FERG Foreign Ministry and prevented the financing of this trip.
What remains of those disputes? Today, few of the professionals claim that Germany was the main developer of the plans of that war. Most are inclined to believe that there were many different reasons for its occurrence, some I already called: the policies of blocks, the arms race, colonial crises that were aggravated by just the policies of the blocks. For historians themselves, all these disputes gave an incentive to new research and led to a thorough study of the July crisis of 1914 and all the factors that pushed Europe to the war. Returning to Fisher, I would say that he in that book and some subsequent exaggerated the meaning of some documents, without attaching the proper importance to some others. The disputes around Fisher and his books were an interesting experience for historians. Everyone could get acquainted with the sources and offer their interpretations. This is good for historiography, when it is impossible to unequivocally say: this is true. We are saying now: these are the most likely scenarios of events that took place, most likely, then this and that happened. But today we do not know significantly the course of many events.
Indeed, in Europe the early twentieth century there were several nodes of geopolitical conflicts, pain points where the interests of various powers came across. In addition to German-British contradictions, there was a long-term German-French enmity-so serious that few people doubted the inevitability of a new war between these countries in Europe. (However, this war would not mean the war of European and even more so world, if both sides of allied relations are not in the framework of two competing coalitions). There were reasons for mutual displeasure also among Germany and Russia, Austria-Hungary and Italy. And Britain and Russia until 1907, when they entered into an agreement on cooperation that completed the formation of the Entente, did not experience special sympathy for each other. Throughout the second half of the 19th century, both empires competed for influence in Central Asia and in the Middle East, weaving against each other complex spy-dissolumed intrigues, called the “big game”. Well, of course, let's not forget about the Balkans nicknamed the "powder cellar of Europe." In 1913, there was already a war there, or rather, two as many as the name of the first and second Balkan . However, we will talk about them separately-in the special issue of Europe-1913, dedicated to the Balkans.
In the meantime, we pay attention to another moment. Most of the powers, standing in 1913 on the verge of a military-political crisis, experienced several important transformations at once. Democracy, nationalism, imperialism - such slogans were drawn on the banners of the era, which began in the “spring of the peoples” - the waves of the European revolutions of 1848 . By 1913, these three elements in the social structure of the most influential countries were mixed extremely closely. The result was an explosive cocktail that made a military clash in Europe very probable, if not inevitable.
At the same time, the principles of democracy, nationalism and great power often contradicted with each other. I will quote a prominent British historian, a native of Central Europe Eric Hobsbaum . In his work “The Century of the Empire”, he describes the problems that arose in the era of mass policy in multinational Austria-Hungary: “The political life of the Austrian part of the Habsburg empire was paralyzed as a result of a division into national interests. After the clashes of the Germans and Chekhov in the 1890s, the parliamentary system suffered a complete collapse, since not a single government could get the majority in parliament. Therefore, the introduction of universal suffrage in 1907 was not only a concession to the relevant requirements, but also a desperate attempt to mobilize the masses of voters who would not vote on a national basis, but, for example, for Catholics or even socialists. ” The other two archaic empires - Russian and Ottoman - were in an even more difficult situation. Their authoritarian rulers with great difficulty went to meet the requirements of democratization, and the ethnic variegation in the era of nationalism led to clashes between the countries that had inhabited these countries. In addition, these states themselves did not have sufficient power in order to simultaneously restrain the pressure of internal opponents and successfully compete with external opponents.
The German Empire, with its rapid economic development and militaristic power, was political in politically halfway between the archaic empires of the East of Europe and the democracies of the West. Says German historian Christophe Nyubel:
K.N.: The German Empire in 1913 was a constitutional monarchy. The power of Kaiser Wilhelm II was limited by the constitution, but, despite this, it remained very significant. After all, then Germany was not a parliamentary democracy. Kaiser had the right to appoint the head of government - the Chancellor, and he could dissolve both chambers of the parliament without coordination with parliament. Well, and besides, the emperor was the supreme commander in chief - a very important function.
The Chancellor interacted closely with Kaiser and was not accountable to parliament. The monarch could appoint and dismiss the chancellor, but if he could do the first without coordination with parliament, then the second (resignation) deputies had to say. However, in general, the role and capabilities of the parliament in real politics were small. In the lower ward, for example, the majority of places had the Social Democrats, but their influence on politics remained insignificant.
The military, who directly collaborated with Kaiser Wilhelm II and were considered the main support of the throne in the then power of Germany, and were considered great power and power . There was even something like a military office parallel to the usual. He, along with Kaiser, resolved the issues of personal policy in the army itself. The military had a considerable backstage influence on political decisions. Often they possessed both foreign policy (thanks to intelligence) and important domestic political information, which ordinary politicians did not have. In addition, the officers and generals who were in daily contact with the emperor could influence him, achieving from him and from the chancellor of political decisions beneficial to the military. An important feature of German society was that the army often performed the functions of the police, for example, participating in the suppression of strikes organized by socialists.
Армия играла и важную символическую роль, так как многие немцы тогда разделяли убеждение, заключавшееся в известном афоризме: «Войны рождают государства, а государства опираются на военных». Можно сказать, что если все граждане Германии были равны в правах, то военные были «более равны», чем другие. Кайзер Вильгельм появлялся на публике почти всегда в военной форме и в окружении генералов и офицеров. Он действительно пытался быть важным игроком на мировой политической сцене, но, тем не менее, не следует слишком уж раздувать его роль. Проблемой многих биографий Вильгельма II , в частности, известных книг о нем Джона Рёля, является сосредоточение авторов только на личности Вильгельма . А ведь было немало людей в его окружении, которые хотели для Германии роли великой державы и влияли на кайзера. Более того, большая часть населения хотела того же самого. Поэтому агрессивную внешнюю политику нельзя приписывать одному Вильгельму II – такая политика была в духе времени. Империалистические устремления были свойственны в то время не только Германии, но и другим крупнейшим и сильнейшим странам Европы: Великобритании, Франции, России и даже державам более слабым – Италии и Австро-Венгрии.
Политическая система Великобритании была, по мнению историка Дэниэла Джонсона, более гармоничной, чем у большинства континентальных держав. Хотя Британия оставалась монархией, подобно Германии, Австро-Венгрии или России, роль короны и парламента в ее политике была совсем другой, нежели в этих странах.
Д.Дж.: В 1913 году между Великобританией и Россией было немало общего. Однако роль монархии в Британии была вовсе не такой, как в России. С давних пор монархия тут играла скорее декоративную роль, чем активную. Король имел право давать советы, когда требовалось, однако активного участия в политике не принимал. Тем не менее за монархией оставалось право использовать свою власть в особых ситуациях, что изредка и происходило. В качестве примера вспомним кризис 1911 года, когда вспыхнул конфликт между Палатой общин – той частью парламента, члены которой избирались напрямую, – и Палатой лордов, где членство передавалось по наследству. Для того чтобы этот конфликт разрешить, премьер-министр Асквит обратился к монарху с просьбой создать новые, дополнительные места в Палате лордов, чтобы избранное правительство могло проводить свою политику. Король согласился – по сути, у него не было выбора. Как только это стало ясно, лорды пошли на попятный, уступили Асквиту, поняв, что у них нет шансов на победу. В результате кризис был предотвращен. Итак, в отличие от России, где роль Думы еще не была столь определенной, а ее власть оставалась весьма ограниченной, партия, располагавшая большинством мест в британском парламенте, обладала практически неоспоримой властью.
В целом политическая система Британии в тот период работала хорошо. У власти была Либеральная партия, однако консерваторы, главная оппозиционная партия, оставались важной силой. Стабильность обеспечивала существовавшая в Великобритании комбинация монархии, демократии и конституционного строя (хотя формально Конституции в Соединенном королевстве нет, но по сути действует неписаный закон, определяющий отношения между политическими силами).
Накануне Первой мировой быстро менялась роль рабочего класса. Следует упомянуть и женщин: в Британии тогда очень сильно было движение суфражисток, ставившее целью добиться избирательного права для женщин. Существовало и росло социалистическое движение; основной социалистической партией были лейбористы. В то время они образовывали альянс с либералами – обе эти партии стремились к реформам, направленным на улучшение положения и рост политического влияния рабочего класса. В отличие от российских большевиков и меньшевиков, лейбористы не возражали против того, чтобы сотрудничать с либералами – по крайней мере в то время, о котором мы говорим. В массе своей тогдашние лейбористы выступали за постепенные реформы – революционерами они не были.
Единственная из великих держав 1913 года, являвшаяся демократической республикой, – Франция, казалось, наиболее гармоничным образом сочетала ценности демократии, национализма и имперского патриотизма. (По площади колониальных владений она уступала только Британии). Французская республика последовательно придерживалась принципов гражданского равенства, светского государства и соблюдения демократических свобод. Но под внешним слоем республиканских добродетелей скрывалась глубокая трещина – раскол между либеральной, светской и демократической Францией, с одной стороны, и Францией консервативной, католической, явно или скрыто монархической – с другой. Этот конфликт выплеснулся наружу во время «дела Дрейфуса» , ставшего на долгие годы предметом ожесточенных политических дебатов. Среди политической и деловой элиты Франции в 1913 году преобладали люди республиканских и леволиберальных взглядов. А вот среди землевладельцев, церковников, крестьян, жителей провинциальных городков, офицерства было немало тех, кто с радостью воспринял бы реставрацию монархии, а саму Францию желал видеть более консервативной и христианской, чем была Третья республика . И только Великая война на какое-то время преодолела этот раскол, вызвав к жизни феномен отчаянного, яростного патриотизма, названный тогдашними публицистами «святым единством».
Ситуация в Британии, по мнению Дэниэла Джонсона, была не столь драматичной.
Д.Дж.: Среди политических фигур того времени следует назвать прежде всего премьер-министра Герберта Генри Асквита. Во многих отношениях Асквит был фигурой достаточно старомодной. Тем не менее, он проводил реформы – время его правления можно назвать ранней стадией социально ориентированного государства. По-настоящему оно начало развиваться благодаря его главному сопернику, Дэвиду Ллойд-Джорджу, в 1913 году – министру финансов. Он был родом из небогатой семьи, его нельзя было назвать представителем правящего класса в традиционном смысле слова. К тому же он был валлийцем, выходцем из провинции. Он первым ввел пенсии по старости, заложил основы медицинского страхования для рабочих. Ему удалось реорганизовать промышленные взаимоотношения, создав условия для деятельности профсоюзов. Ллойд-Джордж принадлежал к левому крылу Либеральной партии; Асквит находился ближе к центру. При этом оба они были империалистами, делали упор на мировую роль Британской империи.
Либералам противостояли консерваторы, влияние которых к тому времени несколько ослабло. Наиболее интересным их представителем в парламенте был Уинстон Черчилль – тогда еще молодой человек, энергичный, герой англо-бурской войны. В 1904 году Черчилль сменил партию – перешел из консерваторов в либералы; в предвоенном правительстве он занимал пост министра внутренних дел. Он тоже был радикалом, проводившим всевозможные реформы – пенитенциарной системы, полиции. Кроме того, Черчилль боролся с терроризмом, который перед Первой мировой в Великобритании представлял серьезную проблему: с одной стороны, действовали ирландские националисты, с другой – анархисты.
К 1913 году пресса, политические партии, профсоюзы, всевозможные общественные и экономические силы приобрели большое значение. Традиционная дипломатия потеряла возможность действовать прежними методами. На смену Англии Чарлза Диккенса успела прийти Британия Герберта Уэллса и Джеймса Джойса. Начиналась эпоха модернизма, революционных, радикальных движений. Да, в британском обществе по-прежнему сохранялась иерархическая система, однако положение быстро менялось. Настоящая власть теперь принадлежала людям вроде Лллойд-Джорджа – радикальным демократическим политикам нового типа. Британия к тому времени далеко ушла от викторианской эпохи и двигалась в сторону современной эры массовой демократической политики.
Итак, сколь велики бы ни были различия между политическими системами и государственными традициями ведущих европейских стран, все они к 1913 году в той или иной мере вступили в эпоху массового общества. Монархам и премьерам, дипломатам и военным уже не под силу было решать вопросы «высокой» политики без учета общественного мнения, без того, что говорится и пишется не только в парламентах и министерских кабинетах, но и на улицах, на страницах газет или даже в пивных. «Восстание масс» , о котором позднее напишет испанский философ Хосе Ортега-и-Гассет, в 1913 году уже началось. Просто в последний год мира многие представители европейской элиты еще не замечали этого за привычным антуражем монархических церемоний, светских раутов и неспешных разговоров в клубах для богачей. Для пробуждения и осознания новой реальности Европе потребовалась Великая война.