The period between the begin of the World War I and the end of the World War II can be compared with the Thirty Years War because the reasons behind the conflict were the same foremost for the German states n the center of Europe: to gain domination over the continent. This is purely geopolitical approach. There have been no world wars, but one that lasted from 1914 to 1945. This "second Thirty Years War" was a war provoked by globalism to shoot down political systems incompatible with its global project. The official narrative segments divide the 1914-1945 period into three distinct parts: First World War, interwar period and World War II. This sequencing is quite questionable and may be challenged. Thus, in 1941, Charles de Gaulle was already talking of a "war waged for nearly thirty years" . Winston Churchill took up this view in a letter to Stalin (1944) where he speaks of a "second Thirty Years War" begun in 1914. The proof that the idea is part of his deep convictions, Churchill reused in the expression in his book the “Gathering Storm” (1948) and then at the European Congress at the Hague (1948) where he spoke of "the second Thirty Years war that we have just been through." This sequencing was later used by Raymond Aron or historians like Albert Muller, Arno Mayer, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, François Crouzet. The states that entered the war in 1914 were the parts of two irreconcilable geopolitical models. There are those who subordinate the principles of international relations of the Westphalian system (treaty of Westphalia, 1648) and there are those who are in a logic which we will call "post-Westphalian." The Westphalian system is based on the recognition of the sovereignty of States, the prohibition of interference in the affairs of others, the affirmation of an international law based entirely on treaties between sovereign states. The "Westphalian States" usually go to war to defend their territory or conquer new territory, never to change the political regime of the enemy country. Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey in 1914 are Westphalian-led by national elites States. The post-Westphalian system, inherited from the French Revolution, is based in turn on an ideological and moral approach to international relations. The post-Westphalian states are fighting for the Right, Liberty, the civilizing mission, Democracy, 'values which they declare universal. These states are trying less to conquer new territories to change the political system of the conquered country. France, Britain, the United States then post-Westphalian states subordinated to globalist elites. Who had an interest in triggering the world war? Obviously, none of the Westphalian States could hope to territorial gains sufficient to justify a general war. On the contrary, the globalist elites dominating the post-Westphalian states necessarily had to destroy the political regimes that were preventing their global project (open borders, free trade, "democracy"). The French republic envisioned a perverse game of alliances that could only lead to war. Placing Germany to the risk of a war on two fronts (the German General Staff knew unwinnable), the "Allies" could not ignore that Germany would have a nervous finger on the trigger at the slightest international voltage (to avoid two fronts, the Schlieffen Plan had envisaged to defeat France before the Russians had time to mobilize, leaving about six weeks, each day of lost increasing the risk of defeat). The construction of such a geopolitical configuration was criminal evidence, the globalist elites of post-Westphalian States bear responsibility. This first pass weapon will end with the defeat of the Westphalian states (including Russia which became Soviet). In 1918, the European nations on the sidelines of the republican or imperial globalism have lost their traditional aristocracy and changed the political system. This is true Bolshevik Russia whose nobility is decimated for Germany which becomes a parliamentary democracy for Turkey whose sultanate was abolished, for the Austro-Hungarian Empire is dissolved for Austria becomes the Republic of Poland adopts a constitution on the French model. In other words (Russia then was temporarily aside), the end of the period 1914 to 1918 saw settling, mainly among the defeated regimes of potentially compatible with an "open society", economic liberalism, democracy and human rights: consistent with globalism winners (France, Great Britain, USA). We see clearly that these regime changes were the main war aim of globalist elites.
But there are major trends which can prevent us from such parallels first of all because of different levels of confrontation between the blocs. If Gabsburg and anti-Gabsburg coalitions simply represented different groups of the same actors, the rival parties between 1914 and 1945 were proponents and bearers of different social-economic ways of development. In the instance of World War I it was free trade against imperialism. And in the 1930s and 1940s it was democratic ideas against totalitarism. The unrest and conflicts that trouble Europe between 1918 and 1939, however, show the globalists that their victory was not gained. Here and there, armed conflicts often continued with the same actors: German Civil War, Hungarian-Romanian War, Russo-Polish war, Greco-Turkish War, German resistance in the French occupation zones, occupation of the Ruhr " street war "in Germany (1929-1933), Spanish war and even worse: Italy spoke of" mutilated victory "and adopted a fascist power openly anti-globalization. Germany spoke of "stab in the back" and poured into Nazism. Spain chose a dictator rather than democracy and Russia adopted a national internationalism too, to be honest. In France leagues were agitated and undermine parliamentary democracy base of globalist power. Nazism and fascism appeared as pathological expressions of belonging. These two doctrines were the product of humiliation of the people but also the destruction of traditional elites Westphalian states. The people were left without elites and replenish as they can. Nazism, in particular, is a direct consequence, although accidental, the globalist policy after 1918: it was absurd to oppose it to that one because one follows the other. Anyway, in the early 1930s, the globalists stateless elites found themselves in a very similar configuration for years 1900-1914. The same causes produce the same effects, the open resumption of hostilities was, therefore, inevitable. From that moment, the globalist elites will lead an extremely cynical and intelligent play. They will first reset at a rate of war nations they dominate. In 1939, contrary to the myth maintained since, France and even more so the Allies, has more tanks and better quality than the Germans, combat aircraft in larger quantities and sometimes better performance, a higher number of divisions, often better equipped. On the other hand, the oligarchic elites will not hesitate, via cartels, in particular, to finance the Nazi Party which does not hide its territorial claims and which will, once in power, any excuse necessary for a just war. The events that follow, including the responsibilities in the outbreak of the conflict, are part of what we called "the poisoned history." Suffice it to quote Churchill in his memoirs says that World War II was "the war that was not mandatory. It was impossible to avoid war. "It puts the Second World War on behalf of the German attempt to "separate economic strength of the global economic system and to develop a clean trade system, which global finance would not have enjoyed." Hostilities, therefore, resumed between the Westphalian States (Germany, Italy) which have territorial claims and post-Westphalian states have ideological claims (destroy the "dictatorships" to impose "democracy"). The first are headed an "elite" new forged in the frustrations and humiliations globalists. The latter are subject to the globalist elites who have to their credit the first round (1914-1918) of the Thirty Years War (again the Soviet Union is a special case because its elites adhere to a different form by globalism - but not the purpose - that of Wall Street or the City). In 1945, apart from the Eastern bloc whose fate will be settled in the 90s, the world is dominated by the Anglo-American globalism and stateless elites. This marks the end of the "Second Thirty Years War". The political systems of old Westphalian nations were permanently destroyed and replaced by systems that will now work to eliminate multiple barriers once set up to protect the nation's customs barriers, economic and political boundaries, national preference 's hand work, barriers to immigration, banking and financial regulation, protections cultural, linguistic, monetary Europe, as it existed in 1914, did not disappear in 1918 but in 1945!
Bibliography
Carr, Edward Hallett. International Relations Between The Two World Wars, 1919-1939. London: Macmillan, 1947.
James Foreman-Peck, A History Of The World Economy (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983).
KEATING, MICHAEL. "National And Regional Identities In Europe". Contemporary European History 16, no. 03 (2007): 407.
Parker, Geoffrey and Simon Adams. The Thirty Years' War. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.
