The Shortest History of Germany

1. Civilizations evolve through predictable cycles of expansion, conflict, and reorganization.

Western Civilization, on the contrary, did not pass from the Age of Crisis to the Age of Universal Empire, but instead was able to reform itself and entered upon a new period of expansion.

Civilizational life cycles. Civilizations typically pass through seven distinct stages: mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. While most historical civilizations eventually succumbed to decay and outside invasion after reaching the stage of a universal empire, Western Civilization proved uniquely resilient. It bypassed the traditional dead-end of a permanent universal empire by repeatedly reorganizing its core institutions to launch new periods of expansion.

The mechanics of expansion. The engine of any expanding civilization is its "instrument of expansion"—a social organization where savings are accumulated and systematically invested in productive innovations. When this instrument petrifies into a protective structure of vested interests, the rate of expansion declines, ushering in an Age of Conflict characterized by:

• Declining rates of economic and geographic expansion.
• Intensified class struggles and social convulsions.
• Increasingly frequent and violent imperialist wars.
• A rise in irrationality, pessimism, and otherworldliness.

Western historical iterations. Western Civilization has successfully navigated three distinct cycles of expansion and conflict. The first was medieval commercial capitalism (970–1270), followed by the first Age of Conflict (1270–1440). The second was mercantilist commercial capitalism (1440–1690), followed by the second Age of Conflict (1690–1815). The third was industrial capitalism (1770–1929), which collapsed into our current, unresolved third Age of Conflict.

2. An elite network of international bankers sought a private, global system of financial control.

...[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

The global financial system. During the era of financial capitalism, a highly secretive network of international investment bankers sought to establish an absolute monopoly over the global political and economic systems. This private system was designed to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the world's central banks acting in concert through secret agreements reached in frequent private meetings. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks, which were themselves private corporations.

The international banking fraternity. The substantive financial powers of the world remained behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds. They could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. This network was dominated by several key dynasties:

• The House of Morgan in New York.
• The House of Rothschild in Paris and London.
• Lazard Brothers in London and Paris.
• Warburg and Schroder interests in Europe and America.

The gold standard obsession. To protect their financial supremacy, these international bankers became fanatical devotees of the gold standard and deflationary monetary policies. They successfully propagated the myth that "sound money" based on gold was essential to business confidence, whereas its real effect was to maintain high interest rates and increase the value of money, directly benefiting creditors at the expense of debtors and producers.

3. The Russian tradition of totalitarian autocracy is fundamentally distinct from Western liberalism.

The Russian tradition was derived from Byzantium directly; Western traditions were derived from the more moderate Classical Civilization indirectly, having passed through the Dark Ages when there was no state or government in the West.

The Byzantine heritage. Russian civilization was created from the fusion of Slavic peoples, Viking invaders, and the Byzantine tradition. From Byzantium, Russia imported a totalitarian autocracy under which all aspects of life—political, economic, intellectual, and religious—were regarded as departments of government under the control of an autocratic ruler. This system was reinforced by the Orthodox Christian tradition, which emphasized the overwhelming majesty of God, the weakness of man, and the need for total submission to established authority.

The Western contrast. In sharp contrast to the Russian tradition, Western Civilization emerged from the Dark Ages, a period when the state had completely disappeared while society and the Church survived. This historical experience demonstrated to the West that the state and society are not the same thing, laying the foundations for:

• The rise of Western liberalism and individual rights.
• The separation of Church and State.
• The rule of law as superior to political authority.
• The sanctity of private property.

The Russian revolutionary cycle. Because the Russian state was always an alien, militaristic, and exploitative superstructure imposed on a defeated peasantry, political change in Russia has always taken the form of an alternation between reform and reaction. When the autocracy became too weak or corrupt to maintain order, it was overthrown by violent revolution, only to be replaced by a new, even more centralized and terroristic despotism, as occurred in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

4. The new imperialism after 1870 was justified on grounds of moral duty and social reform.

The new imperialism after 1870 was quite different in tone from that which the Little Englanders had opposed earlier.

The imperialist shift. In the late nineteenth century, British public opinion shifted away from the "Little England" anti-imperialism of the mid-Victorian era toward a new, aggressive imperialism. This new movement was not justified on the older grounds of commercial profit or missionary activity, but on the grounds of moral duty and social reform. The chief inspiration for this change was John Ruskin, who taught the privileged undergraduates at Oxford that they had a moral obligation to extend the British tradition of freedom, law, and decency to the lower classes at home and to the non-Western masses abroad.

The Rhodes-Milner network. One of Ruskin's most devoted disciples, Cecil Rhodes, used his immense fortune from the diamond and gold mines of South Africa to establish a secret society dedicated to the federation of the English-speaking world. After Rhodes's death in 1902, this secret society was directed by Lord Milner and his "Kindergarten" of brilliant young Oxford graduates. This group established an elaborate network of front organizations to influence public opinion and control government policy:

• The Round Table Groups, established in the United States and British Dominions.
• The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London.
• The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York, funded by the Morgan bank.
• The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), which coordinated Far Eastern policies.

Control of the press. The Rhodes-Milner group recognized that controlling the avenues of publicity was essential to their success. They acquired complete control of The Times of London, The Observer, and other influential journals, using them to disseminate their distinctive point of view. Through these channels, they successfully built up a guilty conscience in the British public regarding the Treaty of Versailles, paving the way for the disastrous policy of appeasement in the 1930s.

5. The catastrophic "phony war" and appeasement policies were driven by hidden political agendas.

The French refusal to engage in a colonial war with Britain while the German Army sat across the Rhine made it clear that France could arrive at a colonial agreement with Britain.

The roots of appeasement. The disastrous policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France in the 1930s was not merely a product of cowardice or military weakness. It was a calculated policy driven by the secret political agendas of the ruling elites in London and Paris. These elites, deeply alarmed by the rise of Bolshevism, viewed Nazi Germany as a necessary bulwark against the spread of Communism in Europe and hoped to direct Hitler's aggressive designs eastward against the Soviet Union.

The mechanics of betrayal. To facilitate this eastward expansion of Germany, the British government, led by Neville Chamberlain and his close associates, systematically undermined the European system of collective security. They used their immense influence over the press and the diplomatic service to carry out a series of calculated betrayals:

• Allowing Germany to rearm and remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936.
• Refusing to support France in any military action to enforce the Locarno pacts.
• Forcing Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland to Germany at Munich in 1938.
• Excluding the Soviet Union from all major diplomatic negotiations.

The phony war. When war finally broke out in September 1939, the Western Powers engaged in a "Sitzkrieg" or "phony war," making no real effort to attack Germany while she was overrunning Poland. This inactive policy was maintained in the hope that some anti-Hitler movement within Germany would remove the Führer, allowing the establishment of a new German government that would cooperate with the West in a joint crusade against the Soviet Union. This hope was shattered only by the sudden German attack on the West in May 1940.

6. The military-industrial complex and inter-service rivalries dictate modern defense spending.

These connections undoubtedly inhibit officers of the armed services in their efforts to obtain fresh ideas, fresh tactics, and fresh equipment for America's defense.

The defense economy. In the postwar period, the defense establishment of the United States became deeply intertwined with the country's industrial and political systems, forming a powerful military-industrial complex. This complex was driven not only by the objective needs of national security but also by the economic interests of the armed services and the industrial corporations that supplied their equipment. To maintain their high levels of profits and employment, these groups kept up a constant barrage of war scares to justify astronomical defense budgets.

The inter-service struggle. The division of the defense budget among the three armed services gave rise to bitter and unscrupulous rivalries, with each service seeking to monopolize the nation's strategic weapons. The air force, the navy, and the army fought each other in the press and in congressional committees, using highly biased and often completely false arguments to support their pet projects:

• The air force touted the manned bomber as the "absolute weapon" that made other arms obsolete.
• The navy fought for the aircraft carrier as the essential base for naval air power.
• The army insisted on the necessity of ground forces and universal military training.
• Each service allied with specific industrial corporations to lobby for its weapons.

The retirement pipeline. This inter-service rivalry was further complicated by the close personal connections between high military officers and the defense industries. Many general officers retired early to take highly paid executive or consultant positions with the very corporations from which they had previously purchased billions of dollars in armaments. This revolving door between the Pentagon and Wall Street served to protect obsolete weapons systems and to resist the introduction of more modern and effective defense technologies.

7. The Cold War was a managed, non-violent power stalemate between two Superpowers.

The Cuban missile crisis was a turning point in Soviet-American relations... It showed that the United States had missile superiority sufficient to veto any major Soviet aggression, while the Soviet Union had sufficient missile power... to discourage the United States from using its missile superiority...

The balance of terror. The Cold War was essentially a managed, non-violent power stalemate between the United States and the Soviet Union, established under the awesome canopy of a mutual nuclear veto. While both Superpowers engaged in a frantic and highly publicized armaments race, neither had any intention of risking a direct military clash that would lead to mutual annihilation. This "balance of terror" served as a protective umbrella under which both sides could pursue their political and economic rivalries through third parties and in local, limited conflicts.

The mechanics of stalemate. The stability of this nuclear stalemate depended on the mutual recognition that a "first strike" by either side would be unable to eliminate the other's capacity for a devastating retaliatory strike. This condition was achieved by the early 1960s through several key technological developments:

• The shift from vulnerable land-based SAC bomber bases to underground ICBM silos.
• The development of nuclear-propelled submarines armed with Polaris missiles.
• The creation of highly sophisticated radar and early-warning detection systems.
• The mutual recognition of the futility of strategic bombing against civilian targets.

The Cuban catalyst. The Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 brought this power stalemate to its final denouement. By bringing the two Superpowers to the very edge of a war that neither wanted, it forced both to recognize the reality of their mutual balance of vetoes. This led directly to the first formal steps toward relaxation of tension, symbolized by the Test Ban Treaty of August 1963, and marked the beginning of a new era of peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation.

8. The rise of the "pluralist economy" and the rule of the technocratic managerial elite.

The central problem of decision-making in the new system will be concerned with the allotment of resources among three claimants: (a) consumers' goods... (b) investment in capital goods... (c) the public sector...

The pluralist economy. In the mid-twentieth century, the traditional laissez-faire competitive system and the subsequent system of monopoly capitalism were increasingly replaced by a new economic organization known as the "pluralist economy." This new system operates through the shifting alignments and mutual adjustments of a number of highly organized interest blocs, including labor unions, agricultural cooperatives, heavy industry, financial groups, and, above all, the government. The central problem of this system is no longer the pursuit of private profit in a free market, but the rational allotment of resources among competing social sectors.

The rise of the technocrat. The management of this highly complex and integrated system has fallen into the hands of a new class of professional, technically trained experts—the technocrats. These managers and experts, recruited from the society as a whole through a highly selective educational system, have replaced the older ruling groups of landlords, financiers, and politicians:

• Decisions are made on the basis of quantitative, analytical, and scientific techniques.
• Power is proportional to the size and organizational efficiency of the interest bloc.
• The state acts as the central coordinator and planner of the entire system.
• Individualism and private enterprise are subordinated to the needs of the organization.

The convergence of systems. This new pluralist-managerial system is developing on parallel lines in both the Western and the Communist blocs, leading to a gradual convergence of their economic and social structures. While the United States and western Europe are moving toward increased state planning and social welfare, the Soviet Union is being forced to introduce economic incentives and decentralized management to cope with the growing complexity of its own system. This convergence is creating a new, worldwide managerial society of similar characteristics.

9. The disintegration of the traditional middle-class family and its core values.

The middle-class outlook, born in the Netherlands and northern Italy... has been passed on by being inculcated to children as the proper attitude for them to emulate... Until the twentieth century.

The destruction of the middle-class outlook was brought about to a much greater degree by internal than by external forces. And the most significant of these influences have been operating within the middle-class family. One of the most obvious of these has been the growing affluence of American society, which removed the pressure of want from the childbearing process. The child who grows up in affluence is more difficult to instill with the frustrations and drives that were so basic in the middle-class outlook.

The causes of disintegration. The causes of this failure were both economic and social, and arose from the very success of the middle-class way of life:

• The achievement of material affluence removed the pressure of want and the need for self-denying saving.
• The shift from a producer-oriented to a consumer-oriented economy encouraged immediate consumption and installment buying.
• The spread of "permissive" educational theories, based on the belief in the innate goodness of the child, destroyed parental and school discipline.
• The shift from a male-dominated to a female-dominated family structure, associated with the emotional frustrations of the middle-class wife, led to the emotional smothering of sons and the alienation of daughters.

The adolescent revolt. As a consequence of these changes, the rising generation of the middle class has engaged in a radical and wholesale rejection of parental values. This "teen-age culture" is characterized by a total lack of future preference, a rejection of self-discipline and of material status symbols, and a search for immediate, personal, and sensory experiences in a tribal-like togetherness. This has led to a complete breakdown of communication between the generations and to a growing crisis of identity and meaning among the young, who find themselves cut off from the traditional values of their society without any constructive alternative to replace them.

10. The ultimate hope of the twentieth century lies in reclaiming the Western tradition of inclusive diversity.

The hope of the twentieth century rests on its recognition that war and depression are man-made, and needless.

The Western tradition. The ultimate hope for the future of Western Civilization lies in its ability to reclaim its most fundamental and distinctive tradition—the tradition of Inclusive Diversity. This tradition, which has been the source of the West's unique power, wealth, and progress for fifteen hundred years, is based on the belief that reality is complex, pluralistic, and multi-dimensional, and that the apparently discordant parts of human experience can be reconciled in a cooperative, harmonious whole. It rejects all narrow, rigid, and intolerant absolutes in favor of tentative, approximate, and flexible solutions reached through open discussion and consensus.

The lessons of history. The tragedies of the twentieth century—the two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the Cold War—were not inevitable disasters, but were the direct consequences of our abandonment of this Western tradition in favor of the narrow, selfish, and intolerant doctrines of the nineteenth century. When we turned to laissez-faire, nationalism, class conflict, and imperialist violence, we created the very conditions that led to our own destruction. The recovery of the West in the postwar period was achieved only by turning back to our traditional virtues:

• Replacing laissez-faire and monopoly with cooperative, planned economic systems.
• Replacing nationalistic rivalries with regional and international organizations.
• Replacing class conflict with social welfare and mutual assistance.
• Replacing military violence with diplomatic negotiation and economic aid.

The path to the future. To survive and progress in the new era, we must continue to develop and apply this Western tradition of Inclusive Diversity to all aspects of our lives. We must reject the false and dangerous dualisms of the past—the conflicts between capital and labor, between the individual and the state, between the West and the East—and seek instead to integrate these diverse elements into a more comprehensive and harmonious whole. By doing so, we can build a world of peace, prosperity, and human dignity that will be a worthy monument to the great tradition of the West.

I confirm that I have written detailed takeaways for ALL 10 key takeaways in the format requested.