the first book to be read in full in the new year.

the first book to be read in full in the new year.

The most important theme in German history is, after all, "Why Germany, a European cultural nation, was engulfed in the unprecedented cruel madness of Nazism." What naturally follows here is the inferiority Germany feels about the modernity of the Atlantic Ocean that Britain and France have set as standards. Germany, which had been divided without reunification until 1870, agonized over how to accept Britain's superior industrial power, parliamentary politics, and France's sophisticated European standard culture status. Since then, Germany has developed the idea of Zonderbek (a special path), mixed with concerns that the uniqueness of Germany alone would be undermined when accepting the superiority of Britain and France, and pride in Germany's national power that soars that it devours France and Britain after reunification. The search for Zonderbek is explored in connection with a number of themes penetrating German history, including German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and racism.

Meanwhile, there is a new approach that became popular after the 1990s: a research trend that emphasizes global/transnationalism. Germany's problem should be recognized in the transition of wider globalization, not just as a German internal problem or a bilateral problem between Germany and Youngf. It is a very strong and convincing methodology that cannot be ignored no matter what national history is used, not just German history. The Eastern European problem as an imperial space where tensions were rising between cities, rural areas, and various ethnic groups, which Germany shared with Austria/Osman/Russia, is added.

In a way, it can be defined as the global/transnational/imperial origin of German nationalism. Germany declared world politics (belt politics) as it competed for colonies outside, recognized its own fall behind in the competition of imperialism including Britain and France as well as the United States and Russia, and became anxious to witness the growing Slavic population and the influence of Jewish merchants inside. At the same time, as a result of urbanization, Germany also transformed into a mass society, and radical nationalism shared by the public turned into public opinion, putting pressure on elite groups. As a result, on the eve of World War I, the radical origins of German nationalism were already well established, interacting with the Slavic world from Poland to the Balkans, and attempts to find a new path were becoming more active as complaints against the non-nationals of empires suggesting compliance with the British and French 'standard' accumulated. It is a very plausible picture. Add to this the dramatic development of transportation and communication and market integration into the world system, which made this world recognition possible, and the 'theory of the 1890s as the first global era', and a really delicious meal will be prepared.

In fact, I picked up this book expecting this (I thought I could compare it to the situation of the Russian Empire at the same time for my master's thesis). The author, Mark Hewitson, rather criticizes the predictable contents in the title "Germany and the Modern World." Germany certainly participated in world politics, secured colonies, and continued to pay attention to Eastern European space, but the media, intellectual society, and major politicians of the time were overwhelmingly interested in "Germany's position in Europe," and the so-called global or transnational issue was an additional issue deduced from the traditional interest of Germany in Europe. In a way, it can be called "putting Europe back at the center." To prove this claim, it draws a huge amount of discussions of the time by examining globalization, Germany, East-West civilization, German racism and nationalism, Germany's constitutional debate and national economic perception, and finally, geopolitics and diplomats. And to hear the commentary that the author adds to the voices of countless people of the time, even I, who liked Global/Imperial/Transnational and wanted to write a master's thesis in that direction in the first place, could not help but be persuaded by the author. For example, the issue of empire, colonization, and globality is a matter of intellectual society and the majority of public opinion, and it was very touching to see whether it was possible to say that the perception of the people of the time was really global just because products came to Berlin from all over the world and displayed. Indeed, "If you compare it to a restaurant, everyone is focusing on developing trendy fusion food, and they have prepared a lot of sundae gukbap by themselves."

(Another book I read at the end of the year, Oscar Sanchez Siboni's "Building the Soviet Union and Global Markets," tells a similar story, arguing that the expansion of attention to the global, especially the secretariat, is very important in the history of capitalism, but the importance of Atlantic economic relations cannot be neglected until the 20th century.)

In a way, it can be said that it is a theme that leads to the 'Russian Revolution as an imperial revolution' that people are paying attention to because they have to write a thesis now. In recent years, research on the Russian revolution and civil war has gained popularity by viewing it as a process of dissolving and reuniting empires without overcoming tensions within the imperial system, instead of the existing Marxist and class conflicts centered on workers, peasants, and Bolsheviks. Although it was influenced by the trend of global/transnational/imperial history, it is also very related to the current issue of post-Soviet spatial geopolitics. (Right now, after the war in Ukraine, a column to 'decolonize' and split Russia was published openly in Atlantic and other places. Of course, the reality is... lol)

But were Russians really as keenly aware as recent scholars have suggested of what happened in Baku's oilfield, what the emirations of Bukhara mean in the region, and how Russia-China-Japan struggles over Siberia and Mongolia were progressing? If Mark Hewitson's tone was applied to Russia, not to Germany, "still the peasant revolt in Tambov, the civil war between Kuban Kosak, the Jewish pogrom of Ukrainian nationalists led by Simone Petlyura, and, above all, the events unfolding in Petrograd and Moscow were far more important."