Chapter 4 Chapter 1 The Age of Total War 1

1 "The lights of all Europe are going to go out." In 1914, on the night when Britain and Germany officially went to war, British Foreign Secretary Edward Gray (Edward Grey) looked at the lights of the London government district and lamented: "We will never see this in our lifetime." It's lit up again." Karl Kraus, the master of satirical plays in Austria, was also in Vienna at this time to start a 792-page anti-war current affairs drama to mark the war.The title of the play is The Last Days of Humanity.Both of them regarded this great war as the end of a world, and there were many people who thought this way at the time.As a result, human civilization did not end there.However, the 31 years between Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia on July 28, 1914, and Japan’s unconditional surrender on August 14, 1945, just days after the first atomic bomb was dropped, were turbulent. Sometimes, it is inevitable that people feel that the world is really not far from the end.Those gods who are worshiped by human beings as creators must sometimes be extremely annoyed, regretting that they should have created us in the first place.

After all, human beings escaped this catastrophe.However, the lofty and great civilization building of the 19th century has since been wiped out in the flames of war, with its four pillars crumbling.It is impossible to understand the nature of the brief history of the 20th century without an understanding of war.War is the mark of this era.This whole era is living and thinking in the midst of a world war.gunshots sometimes Although it stopped, although the artillery fire stopped, it still couldn't get rid of the shadow of war.To talk about the history of this century, or to be more precise, to talk about the chaotic era at the beginning of this history, we have to start from the beginning, starting from the 31 years of war that permeated the world.

For the generation that grew up before 1914, the contrast between before and after this watershed was so great that many—among them my parents’ generation, and at least the contemporaries of Central European residents—simply could not make any comparison between the present and the past. connect.In their eyes, the term "Taiping Years" refers to "before 1914". Since then, the world has changed, and it no longer deserves this beautiful name.This feeling is actually not difficult to understand.Looking back at 1914, at that time the world had not fought a major war for 100 years.The so-called large-scale war refers to a war involving all major powers, or at least many major powers.The protagonists on the international stage at that time included the six "powers" of Europe (Britain, France, Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Prussia which expanded into the German Empire in 1871, and the unified Italy), as well as the United States and Japan.At that time, there was only one war in which two or more powers fought each other but ended quickly, and that was the Crimean War (1854-1856) in which Britain and France joined forces against Russia.Moreover, even with the participation of powerful countries, most conflicts are resolved quickly.As for the longest war among them, it was not an international conflict, but a four-year civil war (1861-1865) between North and South in the United States.At that time, the length of general wars was usually measured in months, and sometimes ended within a few weeks (the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 was an example).In short, during the decades from 1871 to 1914, there were always wars in Europe, but there was never a case where the army of a major power invaded the territory of an enemy country.Only in the Far East, from 1904 to 1905, Japan and Russia fought in Northeast China, and Japan defeated Russia, which also accelerated the pace of the Russian Revolution.

Therefore, before the 20th century, it can be said that mankind never had a "world-class" war. In the 18th century, Britain and France fought against each other repeatedly, and the battlefields spanned the seas and oceans, from India, Europe, to North America.However, during the hundred years from 1815 to 1914, almost no wars between major powers occurred in the area in front of our homes.Of course, the expeditionary forces of the empire (or quasi-empire) often go overseas to deal with opponents who are not as powerful as themselves, which is another matter.This type of war that is launched outside the region is often uneven and overwhelming, such as the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the Spanish-American War (1898), and many battles between Britain and France to expand their colonial empires. fall into this category.However, occasionally once or twice, a few people in a small country are bullied too much, and they can't bear to show their prestige.Like in the 1860s, France had to withdraw from Mexico sadly; in 1896, Italy also withdrew from Ethiopia.Those powerful enemies that modern countries faced back then, despite their excellent weapons and superiority, would inevitably retreat in the end. At most, they could only prolong their occupation as much as possible.Moreover, this kind of military action abroad and foreign lands can only be used as material for adventure literature or the newly invented profession of the nineteenth century "war reporter".For the overwhelming majority of the residents of the sending country and the victorious country, it can be said that there is not much direct relationship.

But all this changed in 1914.World War I engulfed every great power, and virtually all of Europe except Spain, Holland, the Nordic countries, and Switzerland.What's more, troops from various countries are sent to foreign countries to perform combat missions one by one; many times, this situation is often the first time in history.Canadian troops went to fight in France; Australians and New Zealanders went to a peninsula in the Aegean Sea to condense their national consciousness—the battle of "Gallipoli" (Gallipoli) became a myth of the founding of Australia and New Zealand—however, Of all these phenomena, the most significant change was the entry of the Americans into the war.They put aside the warnings of Washington, the founding father, not to "travel in the muddy waters of Europe".The accession of the United States has since determined the appearance of the history of the 20th century.American Indians were sent to Europe and the Middle East; Chinese laborers went to the West; Africans became part of the French troops.Except for the Middle East, the scale of military operations outside of Europe was very small, but the scope of naval battles was once again upgraded to a global scale: in 1914, off the coast of the Falkland Islands in South America, both sides of the war opened The prologue of the naval battle.The decisive battles between the Allied Fleet and German submarines also took place on the surface and underwater of the North Central Atlantic Ocean.

As for the world scale of World War II, there is no need to provide evidence.Almost all the independent countries in the world were spared, whether they were voluntary or forced, they were all affected by the flames of war.Only the participation of Latin American countries can be said to be nominal.The people in the colonies under the rule of the colonial empire were even more involuntary and had no choice.In Europe, except for the Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Turkey, and Spain; outside of Europe, except for Afghanistan, all countries in the world will either join the war or be occupied by the enemy, or both.The combat area covers five continents and three oceans.The Melanesian islands in the South Pacific, the deserts of North Africa, Burma, and the colonial areas of the Philippines, these distant and strange place names are now associated with the Arctic, the Caucasian mountains, Normandy, and Stalingrad ), as well as Kursk, became familiar terms to newspaper readers and radio listeners—in fact, this is basically the war of all radio news bulletins.World War II taught us a lesson in world geography.

The wars of all sizes in the 20th century, whether they were regional wars in one region or one region, or world-class wars that spread to the whole world, were unprecedented in overall scale. Among the wars during the 150 years from 1816 to 1965, according to American experts ranked by the number of deaths-Americans like to make rankings-the top four all occurred in the 20th century: the two world wars, and 1937 The Japanese war of aggression against China and the Korean War that began in 1999 killed more than 1 million people each time.And going back to the post-Napoleonic 19th century, the largest international war on record was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, which killed about 150,000 people.In this century, this number can barely match the Chaco War between Bolivia (population about 1 million) and Paraguay (population about 1.4 million) between 1932 and 1935 (Editor's Note: Refers to 1932 -In 1935, Bolivia and Pakistan fought for the sovereignty of the Xiagu area. The armed conflict caused more than 100,000 casualties, and led to the economic depression of the two countries, and the military ruled, which had a great impact).Simply put, in 1914, mankind began the era of massacres (Siner, 1972, pp. 6, 131).

The author of this book has outlined the causes of the First World War in another book, The Age of Empires.Due to space limitations in this book, it will not be discussed further.The Great War was basically a European war, the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia against the so-called "Central Powers" (Central Powers) composed of Germany and Austria-Hungary.Serbia and Belgium were attacked by Austria and Germany respectively, and were immediately involved in the war. (Austria attacked Serbia, which broke out the war; Germany attacked Belgium, out of strategic use.) Soon, Turkey and Bulgaria also joined the Allied front.On the other side, the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia also quickly expanded into a massive multinational alliance.Italy was lured in, and Greece, Romania, and Portugal (with a stronger taste in name) were also dragged into the water.The most practical was Japan, which joined the Entente almost immediately in order to succeed Germany in the Far East and the Western Pacific.Japan has no interest in affairs outside this region.Among them, the most influential member was the United States, which joined the Allied Powers in 1917.In fact, the involvement of the United States plays a decisive role.

The Germans faced the possibility of fighting on two fronts, just as they would later in World War II.First of all, because of the alliance with Austria-Hungary, Germany was involved in the war in the Balkans (but since three of the four countries in the alliance, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria, are in this area, the problem is not so urgent in terms of strategy), but Germany is still There were two other battlefields, and its plan was to crush France in one fell swoop to the west, then immediately move east, and take Russia with lightning speed before the Tsarist Empire had time to mobilize its powerful military forces.Germany did this in both World Wars because it had to. [By World War II, Germany's rapid surprise attack had a name called blitzkrieg. ] And Germany's clever tricks almost worked twice before and after, but in the end they failed.Five or six weeks after the declaration of war, the German army passed through neutral Belgium and other places, and advanced straight into France, but was blocked on the Marne River (Marne), dozens of miles east of Paris (later in 1940, the German plan was successful. up).The Germans then retreated a bit, and both sides improvised fortifications—the French were supported by the rest of Belgium, and a British ground force.The British military force later became extremely large.These two lines of defense stretched parallel to each other very quickly, from Flanders along the English Channel to the Swiss border without even a single gap.Much of eastern France and Belgium thus fell into German hands.In the next three and a half years, the confrontation between the two sides has not undergone any major changes.

This is the so-called "Western Front", and the Western Front has since become a battlefield of killings unprecedented in the history of human warfare.Millions of people built barriers with sandbags and stared at each other.They lived in the trenches day and night, living like mice and fleas. In fact, they lived together like humans and mice.The generals repeatedly wanted to break through the stalemate of the confrontation, so every time the attack order was issued, it would be days and nights, or even weeks of endless artillery bombardment-a German writer later described it as "bursts of steel wind" (Ernst Junger, 1921) - an attempt to "weaken" the enemy and force him to go underground.Then when the time came, our army climbed over the sandbags, and wrapped around their bodies densely with barbed wire circles as protection. Wave after wave rushed into what was now "no man's land": Messy, bomb craters with pools of water, fallen tree trunks, and abandoned corpses covered in mud.They kept going until the enemy's machine guns -- everyone knew that -- knocked them down again.In 1916 (February-July) the Germans attempted to break through the defenses at Verdun.A total of 2 million soldiers fought against each other in that battle, and 1 million people were killed or injured.But Germany failed.To force the Germans to stop their offensive at Verdun, the British launched an attack on the Somme.After the battle, the British army lost 420,000 people—60,000 of whom died in the first day of the attack.This war on the Western Front was dominated by British and French troops. No wonder that in the minds of the people of the two countries, this war is the real "big war", which is far more tragic than World War II.In this war, France lost 20% of its men of military service age.If we count prisoners, wounded soldiers, permanently disabled, and disfigured people—these "unrecognizable" people who became a living portrayal of war after the war—I am afraid that only one out of every three soldiers in France will be able to escape unscathed. Finish the battle without loss.The British side was not much better. Among the more than 5 million soldiers, there were not many who were able to retreat unscathed.Britain lost an entire generation—500,000 men under the age of 30 died in the Great War (Winter, 1986, p. 83)—and the upper classes lost the most.Young and middle-aged men of this class are born to be gentlemen and officers, to set an example for everyone, to take the lead on the battlefield, and naturally they will fall under the enemy's artillery fire first. Half of the Oxford and Cambridge students under the age of 25 who joined the army in 1914 died for the country (Winter, 1986, p. 98).Germany lost far more people than France, but because it had a much higher total population of military age, the proportion of deaths was smaller - 13%.In comparison, the losses of the United States are obviously much less (116,000 American casualties, nearly 800,000 British, 1.6 million French, and 1.8 million Germans), but it can also prove the cruelty of the Western Front War, because this is the only part of the American military. war zone.Comparing the two, although the total number of Americans killed in World War II was 2.5 times that of the previous World War, the U.S. military operations from 1917 to 1918 took less than a year and a half. However, World War II lasted for three and a half years; in terms of location, it was limited to a small area, unlike the huge scale of global operations in World War II.

The horrors of the Western Front had darker consequences.This battle experience has made human wars and politics even more cruel: If everyone can fight such a battle regardless of the consequences, with countless casualties, why not do it again?Soldiers of World War I—mostly conscripts—who managed to survive, naturally hated war.But there is another group of people. Although they have also gone through this cruel war, they do not oppose it because of it.On the contrary, that period of common experience accompanied by the courage of death gave them an indescribably brutal superior taste.Their mentality is even more evident in front of women and those who have no combat experience.In the early years after the war, the extreme right camp was full of such people-the years of fighting on the front line were important life experiences for their personality formation, and Hitler was just one of them.However, the extreme anti-war psychology on the other end also produced negative effects.After the war, at least in democracies, politicians knew that voters would never tolerate a repeat of the killings of 1914-18.Therefore, after the end of the war in 1918, the policies adopted by Britain and France, just like the US policy after the end of the Vietnam War, all assumed this kind of voter anti-war psychology.In the short term, this fear of getting into trouble contributed to Germany's military victory in the Western Theater during World War II in 1940.Because the two main opponents of the German side, one is France, which hides behind the incomplete defense line and cowardly, and once the defense collapses, it immediately abandons its weapons and captures it; , so as not to repeat the history of 1914-1918, which once again caused heavy casualties to its own people.As far as the long-term impact is concerned, the governments of democratic countries do not hesitate to treat the enemy's people as nothing in order to cherish the lives of their own citizens. The two atomic bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 could not be used as an excuse for victory, because the Allies had won the victory at that time.The real purpose of the atomic bomb is actually to reduce the continued casualties of the US military.In addition, the US government probably has another idea, that is, it does not want the Soviet Union, its ally at the time, to take most of the credit for defeating Japan. Looking back at the First World War, the situation on the Western Front fell into a stalemate, while German military operations on the Eastern Front kept progressing.In the first months of the war, at the Battle of Tannenberg, the Germans crushed a botched Russian attack.Next, the Germans, with intermittent support from the Austrians, drove the Russians out of Poland.Although the Russian army occasionally took counterattacks, the military actions of the Allies clearly had the upper hand, and Russia could only take a defensive position, trying to prevent the advance of the German army.As for the Balkans, it is also under the control of the Allies, but the Habsburg dynasty of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is faltering, and the performance of the army is also strong and weak.Incidentally, Serbia and Romania, the local members of the Allied Powers in the Balkans, suffered extremely heavy losses.Proportionally, the militaries of these two countries were the hardest hit.Because although the Allied forces occupied Greece, the Allied forces did not make any progress until the Allied Front collapsed in the summer of 1917.Italy originally planned to open another battlefield in the Alps to deal with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but the plan failed.The main reason for the failure was that Italian soldiers were unwilling to die for foreign governments, not to mention that few Italian soldiers understood the language of these gringos. In 1917, the Italian army suffered heavy losses in Caporetto in the Alps, and the Italian army even had to rely on other coalition troops to support it-this battle later became a well-known literary masterpiece "The A Farewell to Arms.At the same time, France, Britain and Germany are fighting to the death on the western front; the war situation in Russia is getting worse and worse, and the political situation in Tsarist Russia is becoming more and more unstable.The Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire was on the verge of disintegration day by day.The disintegration of the old empire is exactly the trend that the local nationalist movement is willing to see. Although the diplomatic departments of the allied countries are unwilling, they can only let it develop.But everyone knows that the political situation in Europe is bound to be turbulent from now on. Both sides in the war racked their brains to break the deadlock on the Western Front.There is no hope of victory on the Western Front, and no one can win this war, not to mention the naval situation is also in a stalemate.With the exception of a few surprise raids, control of the sea was generally in the hands of the Confederates.However, in the North Sea area, the warships of Britain and Germany encountered each other on a narrow road, holding each other back and being unable to move.The two sides fired only once (in 1916) but were tied.But in the end, the German fleet was trapped in its hometown and could not go out. The two offset each other, and the Allies still took advantage. Both sides have also tried to fight the technology war.The Germans, the best at chemistry, brought poisonous gas to the battlefield.The weapon turned out to be both savage and not very useful.In 1925, the "Geneva Convention" (Geneva Convention) was signed, and the signatory countries vowed not to use chemical weapons.This is the only time when the governments of various countries have sincerely opposed a certain method of warfare for humanitarian reasons.In fact, although everyone continued to carry out chemical armaments, and at the same time tried their best to prevent the enemy from using such tricks, in World War II, neither side really violated the agreement to use chemical weapons.However, humanitarian feelings could not prevent the Italians from using poison gas against the colonial people. (After World War II, the value of civilization deteriorated sharply, and poisonous gas reappeared. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iraq, which was enthusiastically supported by Western countries, used poisonous gas in large quantities without any scruples. Created the tracked armored vehicle, known as the "tank", which is still in use today.But the generals of the First World War could not see what was amazing about the tank, let alone put it to use.As for the newly invented airplanes and the cigar-shaped inflatable airships of Germany, although they are not very reliable, both the Entente and the Alliance have begun to use them to practice aerial bombing, but the effect is not good.But in the Second World War, air combat finally gained its place in the war, especially useful for scaring civilians. From 1914 to 1918, the new technological weapon with the greatest impact was the submarine.Since the warring parties could not defeat each other's armies, they had no choice but to turn to cut off the food for the opposing people.All the British supplies are transported by sea, and the best way to suffocate the British Isles is naturally to use submarines to continuously launch ruthless attacks and intercept ships transporting food. In 1917, Germany's trick was almost effective, and the coalition forces finally figured out a way to restrain it.However, this battle of starving the sea for food was the main reason that prompted the United States to join the war.The United Kingdom is no exception. It tried its best to block Germany's supplies. Not only did it want to starve the Germans to death, but it also wanted to kill Germany's wartime economy.The British blockade policy turned out to be unexpectedly successful. The reason is that the Germans did not use the efficiency and rationality they have always been proud of to manage the German economy during the war. We will see the difference below.During the two wars, the operation of German military institutions was excellent and excellent, unparalleled in the world. If the Allies had not asked the United States for help in 1917, and without the continuous supply of American supplies, the superiority of the German army alone would have been enough to determine the outcome of the war.Just looking at Germany's ability to barely win the Eastern Theater even under the drag of Austria, one can imagine its astonishing strength. In 1917-1918, the Russian Empire was driven out of the battlefield by Germany, leading to internal revolutions and the seizure of power by the Russian Bolsheviks.The new regime made peace with Germany, signed the "Brest-Litowsk Peace" (Brest-Litowsk Peace), and since then withdrew from the war, and lost a large part of the old Russia's territory in Europe.After the armistice between Germany and Russia (March 1918), the German army began to spare no effort to deal with the western battlefield. In the end, it did break through the defense of the western front and marched towards Paris again.At this time, fortunately, there was strong reinforcements from the U.S. military, and the equipment continued to pour in, so the coalition forces were able to breathe a sigh of relief.But there was a time when the battle situation was urgent, and it seemed that the situation was really over.However, this is already the last fight of the German army, and it also knows that it has become the end of its battle.When the Allied forces began their offensive in the summer of 1918, within a few weeks, the war was over.The Allies not only surrendered completely, but collapsed completely. In the autumn of 1918, a wave of revolution swept through central and southeastern Europe, exactly as had happened in Russia the previous year (see next chapter for the Russian Revolution).From the French border to the Sea of ​​Japan, the old governments collapsed.The political situation in the victorious country was also shocked. Although the governments of Britain and France would not be disintegrated even if they were defeated, it was hard to say for Italy.As for the defeated countries, not a single one was immune to the shock of the revolution. If we could get any of the great politicians and diplomats of history—say, Talleyrand in France, or Bismarck in Germany—to see this The old man must be wondering why these seemingly smart politicians can't think of a compromise solution to solve a war disaster, but helplessly destroy the beautiful world in 1914?One more thing is also very strange.In the past, most of the "non-revolutionary" and "non-ideological" wars did not have to be fought to the point of killing each other, rather than putting each other to death.Looking back at 1914, ideology clearly had nothing to do with the camp of the enemy or us.Of course, in a war, both sides have to mobilize public opinion to hype, and it is not the one who attacks the other, such as the Russian barbarians against German culture, the British and French democracies against German autocracy, and so on.But the ideological dispute does not stop there.Looking further, Russia and Austria have repeatedly begged their allies to consider peace talks when the war situation was urgent.Moreover, Russia and Austria were not the only ones who had this suggestion at the time.So why, in the end, the great powers insisted on taking the road of refusal to make peace, and insisted on an absolute victory? The reason is this.The goals of past wars were limited and specific.But the First World War was different. Its ambitions had no end.The Age of Empires begins, when political and economic activities become one.The international political struggle is entirely based on economic growth and economic competition.But because of this, the specific boundaries and ends have disappeared since then.For Standard Oil, Deutsche Bank, and De Beers Diamond Chrporation, which has a monopoly on diamond production in South Africa, the end of the world is their natural boundary.Or viewed in another way, the limit of the expansion capabilities of these large companies and large enterprises is their natural boundary (Hobsbawm, 1987, p. 318).More specifically, for the two main rivals, Britain and Germany, the horizon is their limit.And Germany wants to replace the British international hegemony and the position of the ocean kingdom. If Germany's wish succeeds, the status of the declining British will naturally decline.Therefore, this is a battle for supremacy that is either you die or I live.As for France's bet, although it is not global, it is equally vital: the gap between France's population and economy and Germany's is getting wider and wider; and this trend seems to be inevitable.Whether France can continue to rank among the top players, its qualifications are also seriously challenged.Under such circumstances, a temporary peace negotiation compromise is nothing but a delay.Looking back at Germany, why is it unwilling to wait a little longer, allowing itself to become increasingly powerful, coupled with the leading conditions in all aspects, to naturally establish a position that it thinks it deserves over time?What's more, this period of time will not be too long, and Germany will reach this step sooner or later.In fact, we only need to look at Germany today. Although it has been defeated twice and has no independent military force, its position in Europe today is far more stable than that of Germany, which was a military power before 1945.But the main reason why Germany has such an unshakable position today is because after the First World War, no matter how reluctant Britain and France were, they had no choice but to accept their status as a lower-level country.Similarly, no matter how powerful the Federal Republic of Germany's economy is today, it has to recognize a fact: after 1945, the idea of ​​Germany's sole hegemony is hopeless.But back in the early 20th century, when imperial power and imperialism were still raging, Germany certainly wanted to dominate the world (the slogan of Germany at that time was "Renew the world with the spirit of Germany"), and Britain and France were still centered on Europe China's world leader naturally does not allow Germany to become stronger next to it.War breaks out, and both sides are eager to declare that they are fighting for some noble cause or another.On paper, anyone can make concessions on these unimportant items, but in the final analysis, there is only one real important purpose of this war: that is complete victory, which is the so-called "unconditional surrender" in World War II. It was such a ridiculous idea of ​​harming others and benefiting oneself, which caused both sides in the war to suffer.As a result, the defeated country embarked on the road of revolution, and the victorious country was exhausted and completely bankrupt.Later, in 1940, although the German troops were at a disadvantage, they easily took France. The French quickly bowed their heads to Hitler because France had shed enough blood between 1914 and 1918. After 1918, Britain also completely lost its former momentum.This war, which exceeded its own resources and national strength, has completely destroyed the British economy.Worse still, total victory by means of reparations and enforced peace crushed the slightest chance of restoring a stable, liberal, petty-bourgeois Europe, economist John Maynard Keynes soon pointed this out.If Germany's economic power cannot be integrated into the overall European economic system, that is, if Germany's pivotal position in the European economic system cannot be recognized and accepted by other countries, Europe will never have peace.However, for those who were determined to fight against Germany and wanted to get rid of it quickly, this point was not considered at all. The terms of peace between several victorious powers (the United States, Britain, France, and Italy) are commonly known, though not always correctly, as the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Paris.The content of this peace treaty mainly focuses on five factors.First of all, the collapse of many regimes in Europe, coupled with the rise of the Bolshevik revolutionary regime in Russia, has great appeal to revolutionary activities everywhere (see Chapter 2 for details). This is the first consideration.Secondly, it is to take good care of Germany, which is almost impossible to parry even with the power of the Allied Powers.This has always been France's biggest concern, and the reason is self-evident.The third is to re-divide the territory of Europe. On the one hand, it is to weaken the power of Germany. On the other hand, after the disintegration of the three empires of Tsarist Russia, the Habsburg Dynasty, and the Ottoman Empire (Ottoman), Europe and the Middle East left a large area. Blanks need to be filled.Those who want to inherit these lands are mostly local nationalists, at least in Europe.In this regard, the victorious country is encouraging, as long as these people are anti-communist.In fact, the redistribution of the European territory was mainly based on the principle of "national self-determination" and the establishment of different nation-states according to the language family.At that time, President Wilson of the United States, who was regarded as the spokesperson of the savior country by all countries, supported this belief with great enthusiasm.However, for outsiders who are watching the fire from the other side, it is naturally not inappropriate to divide this land of mixed languages ​​and ethnicities into nation-states.However, national self-determination is easy to say, but the consequences of such a division are terrible, and the disasters it brings have been until the The Europe of the 90s is not over yet. In the 1990s, the conflicts among the countries that split the European continent into pieces were in fact the result of the Treaty of Versailles!As for the Middle East, it is mostly divided according to the original British and French imperialist forces—the only exception is the Palestine area: it turns out that the United Kingdom was bent on winning the support of the international Jews during the war, and had rashly and vaguely promised the Jews to build a "homeland." .This is yet another haunting conundrum of the First World War that will bequeathed to posterity. The fourth consideration is the internal political factors of the victorious countries, as well as the friction between the victorious countries-in fact, mainly Britain, France and the United States.The biggest consequence of the influence of internal politics was that the US Congress refused to ratify the peace treaty brokered by its own president.The United States finally withdrew from the signing of the peace treaty, which had an extremely far-reaching impact. The last concern of the victorious countries is to rack their brains to avoid the recurrence of a similar war, which has caused the world to taste the bitter fruit.But the efforts of various countries have failed miserably.Just 20 years later, the world is once again at war. The two tasks of preventing Bolshevism and redrawing the map of Europe largely overlapped.Because the best way to deal with revolutionary Russia is to line up a "separation belt" composed of anti-communist countries-but this assumes that the nascent Communist Russia can survive; and this is hard to say in 1919.And most, if not all, of the territories of these new countries were dug out from Tsarist Russia's territory, so their hostility to Moscow is absolutely guaranteed.Therefore, from north to south, large and small countries were established one by one: Finland, an autonomous region officially separated from Lenin; the three small Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have never established a country in history; Poland After being ruled by foreigners for 120 years, it finally regained its independence.There is also Romania, which received part of the territory of Austria and Hungary from the Habsburg dynasty, and then merged into Bessarabia (Bessarabia) under the rule of Tsarist Russia, and its territory expanded twice.These lands were originally cut by Germany from Russia, and if the Bolsheviks had not seized power, they should have been returned to Russia.The original plan of the Western Allies was to build a blockade all the way to the Caucasus Mountains.But this wishful thinking did not work out, because although Turkey was not a communist country, it was undergoing an independent revolution at the time. Naturally, it did not have a good impression of the two imperialist countries, Britain and France, and instead made friends with revolutionary Russia.As for the two short-lived independent small countries established after the Brest peace treaty, Armenia and Georgia, and the oil-rich Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan) that the United Kingdom originally planned to support, the independence was also due to the Bolshevik revolution in 1918-1920. Victory in the Civil War and the signing of the Soviet-Turkish Treaty of 1921 fell through.总之，在东边这一带，只要是在他们的军事打击有效圈内，西方大国大致接受德国原先在革命俄国设定的边界。 东拼西凑，还剩下一大片土地没有主儿，主要在前奥匈帝国版图之内。于是奥地利缩减成由残余日耳曼人组成的国家，匈牙利也只剩了马札儿人（Magyar）余部。至于前奥国的斯洛文尼亚（Slovenia）、前匈牙利的克罗地亚（Croatia），还有原本独立的一些小牧民国家，都一古脑并入塞尔维亚变成了南斯拉夫（Yugoslavia）。而门地内哥罗（Montenegro）那一片苍凉山区的居民，失去独立之后，便一块投入了共产党的怀抱，他们觉得自己的英雄气概，至少还受到共产主义的重视。这个地区过去和帝俄很有渊源，黑山上剽悍英勇的战士，几个世纪以来，一直捍卫沙俄的信仰，以对抗土耳其异教的侵入。此外，原为哈布斯堡王朝工业中心的捷克（Czech）区，也和原属匈牙利的斯洛伐克及罗塞尼亚（Ruthenia）两个农村地区合并，成为一个新国家——捷克斯洛伐克。至于罗马尼亚则一下子跃升为一个多元民族的混合国家，波兰和意大利也各有所获。其实像南斯拉夫与捷克斯洛伐克这两国的成立，既没有道理，更缺乏任何历史条件。这种瞎拼乱凑的动机，完全出于对所谓民族立国意识的盲信。一是以为共同民族背景即可和平共处，二是以为小国林立对大局无益。于是民族大编队之下，南部的斯拉夫人（也就是南斯拉夫人），和西边的斯拉夫人（捷克和斯洛伐克地区）都分别集中到这两个斯拉夫人组成的国家去。不出所料，这种强迫式胡乱点出来的政治鸳鸯谱，到头来并不稳固。结果，除了土地被人七折八扣大为缩减的奥地利与匈牙利两国之外——其实它们的损失也并不那么大——不管是挖自沙俄，还是划自哈布斯堡王朝，最后，在所有这些新成立的国家里，内部民族成分之紊乱复杂，实在不亚于它们起而取代的前身帝国。 惩罚性的和约，立论点在于国家应该为战争，以及战争的结果担负唯一的责任（也就是所谓的“战争罪”），主要是用来对付德国，好压得它不能复兴。虽说普法战后法国割让给德国的阿尔萨斯-洛林（Alsace－Lorraine）地区，此时归还了法国；德国东边好大一块地方也给了重新复国的波兰（亦即东普鲁士与德国其余地区中间的“波兰走廊”）。可是压制德国的任务，并不单靠削减德国面积，主要手段还是靠削减德国精锐的海空军力；限制其陆军人数不得超过10万人；向它索取几乎永远偿还不完的战争债（付给战胜国的赔款，以弥补后者因作战付出的代价）；派兵占领德国西部部分地区。还有厉害程度不减前面诸项的最后一招撒手锏：将德国原有的殖民地全部夺去。（这些前德国殖民地，则由英国及其自治领地、法国、日本一起瓜分。其中日本所得比例比较少一些。鉴于帝国主义作风越来越不受欢迎，“殖民地”现在都改称为“托管地”，好像借此即可保证这些“落后地区”人民的幸福——因为如今是由文明人类托付帝国势力代管，因此，后者绝对不会再剥削当地以自肥了。）1930年的《凡尔赛和约》，一条一款，列得清清楚楚，除了有关各国领土分配事项之外，可说详细之极。 至于如何避免世界大战再度爆发，战前欧洲“列强”合力谋取和平的打算显然已经彻底失败了。现在换一个法子，美国总统威尔逊向这些精干顽固的欧洲政客建议，由各独立国家组成一个国际联盟。威尔逊是出身普林斯顿的政治学者，满脑子自由主义的热情理想。他主张借着这个国际组织，在纠纷扩大失控之前，当事国就以和平民主的方式解决，并且最好由公开斡旋处理（过程公开、结果公开）。因为这一仗打下来，众人也开始指责过去国际惯用的交涉方式为“秘密外交”。这种反应，主要是因协约国于战时定下的秘密协定而造成的。当时盟国往往不顾当地居民的意愿与利益，任意约定事后如何划分欧洲及中东地区的版图。布尔什维克党人在沙皇政府的旧档案里，发现了这些敏感文件，立刻将之公诸于世，所以大家需要想法予减少此事造成的伤害。国际联盟的设立，的确属于当时制定和平协议的构想之一，可是却完全失败，唯一的功能只是搜集了不少统计资料而已。不过国联成立开始几年，倒也真解决了一两件尚未危及世界和平的国际纠纷，比方像芬兰与瑞典对阿兰群岛（Aland Islands）的争执即为一例。美国最终拒绝加入国联，使得它完全失去成立的意义。 事实上，《凡尔赛和约》根本不足以作为稳定世界和平的基础，这一点，我们无须一一详列两次大战之间的历史来证明。从一开始，这就注定流年不利，因此再度大战可说无可避免。我们前面说过，美国几乎刚开头就打了退堂鼓，但如今世界已经不再唯欧洲独尊，任何协议若没有美国这个新强国支持，一定难以持久。这一点，不论在世界经济或世界政治上都不例外。我们下面就可以看出来。原本的欧洲两强，事实上可说世界两强——德国和俄国，这会儿不但遭人赶出国际竞争的赛场，而且根本不被当作独立的角色看待。只要他们两国中间有一个重回舞台，光靠英法两国一厢情愿立下的和平协定怎能长久——因为意大利心里也对协定不满意呢。而且迟早，不管德国还是俄国，也许两个一道儿，都会再度站起来称雄的。 因此，就算和平还有那么一丝希望，也被战胜国不肯让战败国重建的私心给毁灭了。盟国原想百分之百镇住德国，并且不让共产党俄国成为合法政权，但不久便明白这根本是不可能的事情。可是尽管心里有数，适应这个事实却很困难。于是各国心不甘情不愿，适应的过程拖得很长。法国尤其老大不愿意，希望德国永远衰弱不振，到后来才好不容易放弃这个念头（英国人倒放得开，不曾对战败和被侵略的滋味耿耿于怀）。至于苏联，这个战胜国的眼中钉，众人恨不得它完全消失。俄国革命期间，盟国不但在精神上支持反革命的军队，甚至还派兵支援。此时苏俄度过大战活下来，盟国自然不觉得有什么好高兴的。（为了重建被大战、革命、内战毁坏得衰败不堪的经济，列宁曾经提出极为优厚的条件鼓励外国投资，而战胜国的生意人竟然不屑一顾。）苏维埃俄国因此被迫走上孤立发展之途。到了20年代初期，这两个被欧洲邻邦放逐的国家——苏联与德国，却曾一度为了政治原因携手。 如果说，第二次世界大战之前的世界经济活动能够蓬勃成长，重新恢复为扩张型的国际经济体系，也许人类就还有希望避免这二度战火，至少也有延后的可能。不幸的是，战后数年到了20年代中期，正当众人可以将过去种种不快逐渐抛诸脑后之际，世界经济一厥不振，陷入了自工业革命以来前所未有的危机（详见第三章）。此时德日两国正由极右派当权。military 国主义出头，便一意孤行，决意以对抗代替协商，以剧变代替渐变，即使诉诸军事武力也在所不惜。从这个时候开始，再次大战不但不可避免，而且只是迟早的问题了。凡在30年代成长的人，那时天天都提心吊胆地等着战争爆发。成群飞机向城市丢炸弹的景象，还有那头戴防毒面具像瞎子般在毒瓦斯中摸索前进的影子，一直在我们那一代人止不住的胡思乱想中出现。后来飞机投弹的噩梦，果然像预言般准确；至于毒瓦斯的想象，还好没有发生。