95 подписчиков

In essence, the 1930s saw the emergence of three poles of sovereignty—this time on purely ideological grounds

8 января8 янв

1 мин

In essence, the 1930s saw the emergence of three poles of sovereignty—this time on purely ideological grounds. Now, what mattered was not formal sovereignty, but the real potential of each ideological bloc. World War II was precisely a test of the viability of all three camps. — One camp united the bourgeois-capitalist countries—primarily England, France, and the USA. This was the liberal camp, which was, however, involuntarily stripped of its internationalist dimension. The liberals were forced to defend their ideology in the face of two powerful opponents: fascism and communism. But on the whole—if one excludes the “weak link,” France, which capitulated quickly after the start of WWII—the bourgeois-capitalist bloc demonstrated a sufficient level of sovereignty: England did not fall under the attacks of Hitler’s Germany, and the USA fought (relatively) effectively against Japan in the Pacific. — The second camp was European fascism, which grew especially strong during Hitler’s conq

В ответ на пост

— One camp united the bourgeois-capitalist countries—primarily England, France, and the USA. This was the liberal camp, which was, however, involuntarily stripped of its internationalist dimension. The liberals were forced to defend their ideology in the face of two powerful opponents: fascism and communism. But on the whole—if one excludes the “weak link,” France, which capitulated quickly after the start of WWII—the bourgeois-capitalist bloc demonstrated a sufficient level of sovereignty: England did not fall under the attacks of Hitler’s Germany, and the USA fought (relatively) effectively against Japan in the Pacific.

— The second camp was European fascism, which grew especially strong during Hitler’s conquest of Western Europe. Almost all European countries united under the banner of National Socialism. In such a situation, there could be no talk of sovereignty—even in the case of regimes friendly to Hitler (such as fascist Italy or Franco’s Spain). At most, some countries (Salazar’s Portugal, Switzerland, etc.) were able to secure a conditional neutrality. Only Germany was sovereign—or more precisely, Hitlerism as an ideology.

— The third camp was represented by the USSR, and although it was only one state, it was based specifically on an ideology: Marxism-Leninism. Again, it was not so much about a nation as it was about an ideological entity.

In the 1930s, international law—the last version of which was the Versailles agreements and the norms of the League of Nations—collapsed. From then on, ideology and force decided everything. Furthermore, each of the ideologies had its own view of the future world order, which meant they operated with their own versions of international law.

— 2

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]