Historian Christopher Clark, author of The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, spoke to Deutsche Welle about the commonalities of WWII. with the war in Ukraine.
DW: Your book “The Sleepwalkers” (Greek edition 2014) made people rethink whether Germany started World War I or whether many European countries eventually fell asleep to a major conflict. What was the final conclusion of your project?
Christopher Clark: I believe that the book’s conclusion about 1914 was that the causes of the war were complex. There was already an ongoing debate – which has not been completed – about what caused the war. This is because that story was so complicated. So I guess the book calls for recognizing multilevel connections. That was my first main argument.
The second argument was that we need to think not only about how wars are triggered and who is responsible for them. We must also consider how they are triggered so that it does not happen again next time.
Considering the current war in Ukraine, for example, if we simply decide that Mr. Putin is a very bad man and that he caused a war and that was it, then we will not learn anything from that war. We can learn much more if we ponder the whole story of how we got here. This would in no way limit his responsibility for what happened, which is indisputable. But it would at least allow us to learn to manage such situations better in the future.
DW: How could we learn from this? What are the parallels between the road that led to World War I and the current situation?
Κ.Κ .: In a way we can draw lessons. It is interesting because when the war broke out [στην Ουκρανία] or at least just before the outbreak, the situation reminded me of that before 1914, because I thought Putin’s plan was to send 200,000 men to the border and then withdraw them under pressure from the West or Ukraine itself to make concessions. Then it turned out that he was planning a war from the beginning.
So it’s not like 1914, because in 1914 it was not just one factor that decided to invade another territory. Then the war started in an unexpected location, in the Balkans, in Sarajevo, with a murder. Then came the complex question: how will the Austrians react? How will the Serbs react to the reaction of the Austrians? How will the Germans react to the reaction of the Austrians towards the Serbs? Will the Russians support the Serbs or not, even though the Russians themselves are not under attack?
It is extremely complex and every force involved in this war works with a different logic. But now we have a much simpler situation: Russia is quite isolated and Putin made that decision on his own.
It is clear that many of the top executives of his system did not know about this decision until it was made. This is Putin’s war. And right now, as we know from intelligence reports, he is personally playing a role in managing this war by making decisions even at the service level.
Therefore the situation is quite different compared to 1914. It is less complicated.
DW: Has humanity learned anything from the last 100 years or not?
Κ.Κ .: Clearly we have learned to do some things much better. But whether we have become more intelligent as political beings, as a kind of homo politicus, is a different matter. I believe that in this part we learn at a much slower pace and there is always a tendency to return to old behaviors. I believe that the European Union is a kind of historical lesson that we have learned. It is the lesson of two world wars that translated into political order and acquired a kind of permanence that otherwise would not exist.
But if one thinks of Putin, not only his decision to invade Ukraine but his personality as a leader in general, e.g. that he rides topless and the image of the bully he promotes; all this is very atavistic. On the other hand, if you think about how many European leaders women are and to what extent the strategies for managing these aggressive actions are developed by women, it shows that we have changed.
I believe that the West is very different from what it was, as is Russia. Many Russians do not want any involvement in this dangerous and adventurous policy of Putin. Unfortunately, Putin, for reasons that may have their roots in his biography, is someone who pursues atavistic behavior and self-promotion, in a way that shows we have not learned.
DW: Do you think that in this respect we are on the brink of a Third World War?
Κ.Κ .: My first answer is that I hope not, like you and everyone else. Secondly, I think Putin knows that this would be a kind of self-destruction. He would have to have suicidal tendencies to reach such a choice.
Much depends on whether he is irrational and whether his system would follow if he made such a decision. There are many indications that the system itself is strong enough to withstand such a danger. So the answer is that of course we do not know.
But if we allow him to do what he wants then we end up approving and effectively legitimizing his criminal violation of international law. If on the other hand we react and respond too much there is a risk of further escalation of the problem.
DW: So are you optimistic that the people around Putin will hold him back so that he does not push the nuclear button?
Κ.Κ .: There are many indications that Putin is facing difficulties with many in the wider circle of his regime’s support system. Putin is becoming increasingly isolated.
So I hope that in the event of a major decision to escalate the risk through, for example, the development of regular nuclear weapons, there will be some who will say ‘no, we will not do it’. Something similar has happened in the past.
Russia does not speak with one voice. It is a complex nation. It is a highly developed nation. It is part of Europe. A very large number of Russians have left the country and are now elsewhere. These include many members of the intelligentsia and the media. The game is not over yet and Putin is not speaking on behalf of the whole of Russia.
DW
Follow Skai.gr on Google News
and be the first to know all the news
