New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[Domen]

There is no particular compelling argument that the Dutch republic was the "first" nation-state (France? England? Muscovy?), especially when the concept of a "nation" at the time was, uh, not the same as ours. Hell, the most traditional and widely-spread nationalism narrative is that it didn't exist in a recognizable form until the Enlightenment, and if any state were to be the first "nation-state" in Europe it would be France.

I can agree that the concept of a nation was slightly different at that time, but I can't agree with that traditional view - all the evidence suggests otherwise. I will quote evidence from my own "backyard", these sources are most easily accessible to me, but I'm sure there are similar ones from all of Europe:

... Who would doubt in existence of patriotism in old, Medieval Poland, should read what Gallus Anonymus wrote in 12th century about the accolade of Boleslaw Krzywousty. That ceremony was carried out by Wladyslaw Herman in Plock in year 1099. One of knights present there, spoke these words:

"Sire, Prince Wladyslaw, the kind-hearted God has visited the Kingdom of Poland today and has exalted your old age and feebleness and the entire homeland by this man, today accoladed for a knight! Blessed be the mother who nourished such a boy! Until this time Poland has been trampled by enemies, but by this boy it will be reinstated to its former glory!"

Even if Gallus Anonymus made up this and that - undoubtedly notions which he uses and feelings which he describes are true. National consciousness and patriotism in Medieval Poland were facts, if during the war against the Holy Roman Emperor, Boleslaw Krzywousty spoke to his soldiers:

"Now be prepared together with me to die for the freedom of Poland, or to survive and continue to serve her with your lifes!"

(...)

Former chroniclers didn't pay much attention to peasantry.

But even this little what we know about peasantry is enough to ascertain, that love of motherland existed among those people. If it was not the case, if it was indifferent to simple peasants who was their ruler, then "staunch peasantry" would not harass the Holy Roman Emperor's invasion forces so "fiercely" during the times of Boleslaw Chrobry and Boleslaw Krzywousty - as for example German chronicler Thietmar described ...

 

[Flying Pig]

You can't talk about nationalism before the French Revolution. Any country which existed before then as a homogenous political entity was thus because of pure luck, or assimmilation over many generations. It was the French who first said that they were all part of the French nation, which meant that they shared an identity which seperated them from the other peoples of Europe; and the French nation ought to be united and able to rule itself.

 

[Domen]

You can't talk about nationalism before the French Revolution. Any country which existed before then as a homogenous political entity was thus because of pure luck, or assimmilation over many generations. It was the French who first said that they were all part of the French nation, which meant that they shared an identity which seperated them from the other peoples of Europe; and the French nation ought to be united and able to rule itself.

This is a major oversimplification in my opinion, unfortunately this myth is so widely spread.

Why do you think that nobody shared an identity which separated them from the other peoples of Europe before the French Revolution? Does this mean that everyone considered themselves as simply "Europeans" before 1783? It is a silly idea, don't you think?

Any country which existed before then as a homogenous political entity was thus because of pure luck, or assimmilation over many generations.

How many generations?

As a historian quoted above proves, Poles had a common sense of being part of one nations already in 12th or even 11th century.

And the state of Poland was born in 10th century through conquest of other Western Slavic tribes by Polanie.

This means that it required just few generations for a common Polish identity to be formed out of a mix of tribal societies.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, they considered themselves 'English', but that was because they lived in England: they didn't have the feeling that to be English marked you out from other people and gave you first prize in the lottery of life, and they certainly didn't feel that all English people had the right to live in an independent self-governing entity. There was no 'English character'. This was all a reaction to the Revolution and Napoleon's rather aggressive spreading of its values.

EDIT: This is not to say that there was nothing resembling national loyalty before 1789: indeed, you could be loyal to the 'King of the English', but there was no concept of loyalty to England beyond that. The idea of 'patriotic dissent' or even that the king might be at odds with the good of the nation simply did not exist.

 

[Domen]

they didn't have the feeling that to be English marked you out from other people and gave you first prize in the lottery of life

And of course nationalism is not about thinking that to be "X" gives you first prize in the lottery of life.

Thinking such things is called "chauvinism" (or "being American", for some people).

and they certainly didn't feel that all English people had the right to live in an independent self-governing entity

Really? Do you have any proofs to support this point of view? Did the English people willingly invite Frenchmen to rule over them?

Did Polish peasants invite Holy Roman Empire's forces to their country with flowers, or did they "harass them fiercely"?

This was all a reaction to the Revolution and Napoleon's rather aggressive spreading of its values.

Why British people are so aggressive towards the benefits that the French Revolution gave to modern world?

I think there were many much more important values of the French Revolution than this.

If this even was one of values introduced by the Revolution - because as I prove here, it existed long before the Revolution.

But of course British people are always hostile to everything which is French (that's because British people are NOT chauvinists and are NOT nationalists) - that's why you claim that the French Revolution was all about aggressive nationalism, right?

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, possibly not one for a wide audience - that's from a quote by Cecil Rhodes, that summed up the English national character for a very long time. The idea that the English were naturally world leaders, and that they were very lucky to be so, dominated our way of thinking: to some extent it still does.

 

[Domen]

Ah, possibly not one for a wide audience - that's from a quote by Cecil Rhodes, that summed up the English national character for a very long time. The idea that the English were naturally world leaders, and that they were very lucky to be so, dominated our way of thinking: to some extent it still does.

"The idea that we were / are naturally world leaders" - how would you call this?

This idea resembles extreme nationalism (chauvinism) and racism combined.

The German Ubermensch idea was exactly the same - that Aryan / Germanic race are naturally world leaders.

Similar concept - of "natural world leaders" - was also applied by Arthur de Gobineau - but to entire White Race, not just to its English branch.

The rivalization between Britain and major powers of Continental Europe (mainly Germany) over being "natural world leaders" was the real cause of both World Wars - and in the end you both (the British & the Germans) failed, at the cost of the Americans & the Soviets, who became new world leaders after 1945.

to some extent it still does.

Which is exactly why British people are sometimes so annoying to discuss with.

 

[Flying Pig]

The rivalization between Britain and major powers of Continental Europe (mainly Germany) over being "natural world leaders" was the real cause of both World Wars - and in the end you both (the British & the Germans) failed, at the cost of the Americans & the Soviets, who became new world leaders after 1945.

Standing by for Dachs to tear this one up... and yes, it did resemble extreme nationalism, and yes, it did often spill over into racism, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[Domen]

Standing by for Dachs to tear this one up... and yes, it did resemble extreme nationalism, and yes, it did often spill over into racism, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

And I am standing by for Italian historian Rosaria Quartaro (book "Why the war (1938 - 1939)"), who describes the British drive to World War 2:

The facts of Prague did nothing else than confirm the Anglo-French orientation [...] The complete partition of Czechoslovachia, a fact expected since a long time and that nobody tried to prevent, reinforced in Chamberlain, in the Cabinet and among British people, the belief that Prague did not represent much "the end of an old adventure, but the beginning of a new one... It's this, shorlty, the step towards the attempt to dominate world with force". The liberty of the Kingdom and of the Empire must be put before European peace. [...] In truth, Prague, and then Memel, offered to London the necessary moral support to continue openly the policy of encirclement of Germany and to mobilize the public opinion in the implementation of that policy. Moreover, it is documented that neither Prague neither Memel determined any change, nor reversal in the Anglo-French policy. Rather, the comparative examination of the directives pursued by Great Britain before and after the facts of Prague reveal that there was not the slightest qualitative change. There was only the official communication, but already known, of the need of further allocations of money for rearm. [...] The only true ripercussion that the facts of Prague had in London involved public opinion alone. Prague accelerated and accomplished, within a few hours, that process of national mobilization that had started shortly after Munich.[...]
The unconditional guarantee that London and Paris granted to Poland on 31 March, that up to today has looked like an untimely action, born ex abrupto from the facts of Prague, with which Great Britain and France binded themselves to enter war along with Poland without, nevertheless, being able to do anything to help her, becomes fully understandable only if inserted in the framework of the deep alteration happened in British policy after Munich: from appeasement to political and military encirclement of Germany and also of Italy. Only in this framework that absolutely unconditional, and also senseless, guarantee has a meaning, because, as noted by Taylor, the British were, by this time, unable both to push the Poles to negotiate with the Germans both to collaborate with the Russians.

Of course Germany was driving towards waging a war as well - and German responsibility for the outbreak of World War 2 is bigger than that of Great Britain - which, however, doesn't change the fact that Britain was also determined to solve the conflict in an open, armed confrontation - and that her actions were not aimed at preventing World War 2 at all. And Britain did not declare war on Germany on 3 September 1939 to defend Poland. Poland was never planned to be protected from German aggression - just like Czechoslovakia before wasn't. In Anglo-French plans, Poland was just another cannon fodder to sacrifice on the long march to destroy German power and to delay confrontation on the Western front. They realized the mistakes of Appeasement policy already in 1938 and since then they were doing everything to find a solution of the Nazi problem in an armed conflict. The fact that Britain did not declare war on the second invader of Poland - the Soviet Union - also proves this. Nothing was also done to help Poland in September 1939 - and nothing could be done (about which Great Britain and France knew very well - yet they gave Poland a dud cheque).

Here is what on 30 August 1939 Benito Mussolini told Clara Petacci about Anglo-French so called "guarantees" to Poland:

Do you see, my dear? This is the card of destiny! The Poles have made the general mobilization. (...) The Germans will be furious. This is one of the many wrong moves. Poor Poles, poor Poles, what an end they will go! (...) They don't understand that they will be mangled. How can they delude themselves of any help from the French and the English... These gentlemen don't know the geographic chart, and so the English and French have never seen a geografic chart, for they have signed a blank cheque to the Poles. How, where and in which way can they help them? Through the Siegfried Line? Delusion, foolishness. They would massacre millions of French, just to arrive - if ever they would arrive - to meet fresh German troops beyond the line... it is more than 50 km deep, with such fortifications that thinking of passing through it is foolish. (...) The British believe that it is easy to beat the Germans: delusion. (...) The Poles mobilize step by step, with no way out: they want their own end. (...) The Poles will be the victims of the false English prestige and of the vile French fear.

 

[Flying Pig]

You don't think that the Italians might be a tad biased in this regard?

 

[Domen]

You don't think that the Italians might be a tad biased in this regard?

No - because the Italians were against war (because they knew that their army was not ready for a World War).

The main reason why Hitler called off the invasion of Poland on 26 August 1939 and postponed it until 1 September 1939 was because Mussolini told him that Italy was not ready for a war and that Italian army was not ready for a war. And since the German Army was not yet fully mobilized on 26 August 1939 (including especially German divisions in the West, which were to resist the supposed French offensive), after that message from Mussolini that Italy was not ready to fight on the German side against France, Hitler decided to postpone the outbreak of war:

"(...) Really serious things were taking place at that time in Berlin. A message from the Italians came. Benito Mussolini said that his country was not ready to take part in the war. Duce claimed, that Fascist Italy would be able to join a possible war against Great Britain and France not before 1942. "I decided, that my duty as a loyal friend, is to tell you all the truth" - Mussolini informed Hitler. "If I didn't do this, it could have unpleasant consequences for both of us". In a pinch Germany would have to face the western allies alone.

Fuhrer was shocked. He immediately called Walter von Brauchitsch and commended him to stop the attack on Poland. (...) "I swear, that I will halt the invasion ordered at tomorrow early morning, before it can reach the Polish border" - von Brauchitsch ensured him. "Please give me 8 days, in order to complete mobilization and carry out concentration of all forces as planned, thanks to which I will have over 100 divisions at my disposal. This will also provide time for your diplomatic actions, Mein Fuhrer".

Brauchitsch was a model of composure, but his officers were already driving to the main Headquarters of the General Staff located in Zossen, 32 km from Berlin. Von Brauchitsch stopped his liaison officer, Nikolaus von Vormann, and ordered him to immediately drive to Zossen and prevent the outbreak of military operations. Vormann jumped to the nearest car waiting in front of the Reich Chancery. "To Zossen, as fast as you can" - he ordered the driver. After less than 1 hour von Vormann was standing in front of Franz Halder, Chef of General Staff, who was awed by the new order from Berlin. (...)"

 

[Dachs]

Standing by for Dachs to tear this one up...

It's far too close to my own opinion as to why the First World War started for me to be all that interested in tearing it up.

 

[Domen]

And just to make things clear:

I don't say that the British seeking of a violent solution of the "Nazi problem" - let's call it like this - was something wrong or "bad" per se.

No, I think that war was the only possible solution of dealing with Hitler and his regime.

However, this doesn't change the fact that Britain wanted war with Germany (since post-Munich 1938, when it finally realized that Appeasement and pro-German attitude was a total failure) from completely different motives, than is often claimed.

British motives were not "noble" or "unselfish", as is sometimes claimed - Britain didn't want war with Nazi Germany to "protect other nations" or "protect peoples persecution". Not at all. British motives were totally selfish, as Quartaro writes.

Other countries - such as Poland - were used as merely tools of British selfish policy aimed at preserving their Empire by eliminating the greatest threat to its world dominance - which was considered to be Nazi Germany, at least since shortly after Munich Conference.

The main goal was to preserve the British Empire, as Nazi Germany started to be seen as a threat to British (supposed) world dominance, especially when Britain realized how much stronger Germany was militarily (at least on the ground and in the air) after just few years of remilitarization.

The execution itself of the British plan of isolating and destroying Nazi Germany was also terrible - it was both belated (the last realistic chance of relatively painlessly dealing with Hitler was before he destroyed Czechoslovakia - after that it became much less probable, Hitler grew too powerful and the anti-Hitler Coalition was not strong enough) and terribly carried out, because everywhere Britain left victims of its inefficient policy - including Poland, an ally which was just sacrificed for no purpose (considering the outcome of the following year's French Campaign) to Nazi Germany's and Soviet Union's sake.

That indolence of the policy of Western Allies turned what could be "just" a European Conflict into a 6 years long World War.

And the same indolence of their German policy also allowed the Stalinist Soviet Union - another bloody, totalitarian regime - to emerge as the main victor of WW2 and the new world power for the next 40+ years - which in turn led to the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, and all the related unpleasant things.

We (Europeans) could have delt with Hitler much faster, much easier and much more painlessly - and without US help.

But we failed. The only real victors of WW2 were the Soviet Union and the USA. And China as well, to some extent.

 

[Flying Pig]

British motives were not "noble" or "unselfish", as is sometimes claimed - Britain didn't want war with Nazi Germany to "protect other nations" or "protect Jews from persecution". Not at all. British motives were totally selfish, as Quartaro writes. Other countries - such as Poland - were used as merely tools of British selfish policy.

The main goal was to preserve the British Empire, as Nazi Germany started to be seen as a thread to the British world dominance, especially when Britain realized how much stronger Germany was militarily (at least on the ground and in the air).

Oh God, yes. Altrustic motivations in world politics are never more than a facade.

 

[Domen]

Oh God, yes. Altrustic motivations in world politics are never more than a facade.

Unfortunately - because lack of altruistic motivations of the Anglo-French alliance made that war last for 6 years and have a global extent.

If altruistic motivations were not just a facade in British policy - Nazi Germany could have been defeated earlier and at a much smaller cost.

And this should be put straight and explained everywhere where World War 2 is described.

Instead of making Britain a "lonely hero" or "saviour of Europe", resisting Nazi Germany "alone" until the USSR and the USA joined the war.

You were alone, for God's sake, because before that you had duped most of your allies or potential allies (Czechoslovakia). And appeasing Hitler for 5+ years (1933-1938) was also not exactly a good idea - as well as being so pro-German all the way from 1919 to 1938 to maintain the "balance of power".

And you were lucky to have water separating you from Germany - something Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Norway, France, etc. didn't have.

That's why you survived "Blitzkrieg" and became a "lonely hero" (well not exactly, since 25% of all RAF pilots in the BoB were not British citizens).

 

[innonimatu]

You were alone, for God's sake, because before that you had duped most of your allies or potential allies (Czechoslovakia). And appeasing Hitler for 5+ years (1933-1938) was also not exactly a good idea - as well as being so pro-German all the way from 1919 to 1938 to maintain the "balance of power".

And you were lucky to have water separating you from Germany - something Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Norway, France, etc. didn't have.

Excuse me? Now who's wanting other countries to fight their wars? Poland and Czechoslovakia didn't had to depend on the UK and France. They could have fought their own wars with Germany, also before Germany became "too powerful". The same thing you would demand of the UK. But they were too busy playing buddies with the nazis.

 

[Lord Baal]

Excuse me? Now who's wanting other countries to fight their wars? Poland and Czechoslovakia didn't had to depend on the UK and France. They could have fought their own wars with Germany, also before Germany became "too powerful". The same thing you would demand of the UK. But they were too busy playing buddies with the nazis.

Poland was. I don't recall Czechoslovakia ever "playing buddies" with the Nazis. Unless you're referring to Munich, which was hardly Czechoslovakia's fault.

 

[Dachs]

Poland was. I don't recall Czechoslovakia ever "playing buddies" with the Nazis. Unless you're referring to Munich, which was hardly Czechoslovakia's fault.

Domen isn't Czech. Problem solved?

 

[Lord Baal]

Domen isn't Czech. Problem solved?

I was responding to inno, not Domen. If inno only meant that Poland was "playing buddies" with the Nazis - which it was, consistently, for almost the entirety of Nazi rule in Germany up to the outbreak of WWII - then I have no problem with his statement. His wording implied that both Poland and Czechoslovakia were pro-German in the period.

 

[Dachs]

I was responding to inno, not Domen. If inno only meant that Poland was "playing buddies" with the Nazis - which it was, consistently, for almost the entirety of Nazi rule in Germany up to the outbreak of WWII - then I have no problem with his statement. His wording implied that both Poland and Czechoslovakia were pro-German in the period.

innonimatu was talking to Domen and using "you". I guess he also implied that the Czechs were doing it, but the gist was "freaking Polish dictatorship buddying up with the Nazis caused its own damn problems".