Few things demonstrate as vividly the strangeness of our ideas about the world as people’s ideas about war. “The Germans fought the English,” you will be told. And no one around will dispute this thesis. But let us try to imagine how this could be at all. Here are the Germans and English, enjoying an advanced division of labor, and suddenly—lo and behold!—they throw themselves at each other. What is more, they put on uniforms, buy weapons, form columns, hire generals, and start thrashing each other for several years. How can this be? Put simply, it cannot. This is impossible, because it would mean that for all the “Germans” and “English” simultaneously, the fruits of an advanced division of labor suddenly became so insignificant that they rushed headlong to kill each other.
War between peoples is impossible. Peoples cannot on their own attack each other. An entirely different picture emerges if we speak not of peoples but of states. Here is a territory from which a certain group of people extracts tribute. This is called a “state.” Here, war is natural and logical. First, the little people inside are always dissatisfied. Second, outside, the state is surrounded by other states like itself. Grabbing the neighbor’s territory is a fine thing. Third, the neighbors have the same desires regarding your territory and your little people, and it is best not to let things come to that. All these circumstances lead to the state maintaining (at the expense of the little people) certain people trained for such situations. These people go to war.
But where did “peoples”—all these Germans with the English—come from in this matter? The appearance of “peoples” on the scene is simply a stage in the unceasing process of the state’s growth. The connection of war with this process has been well studied and described. War created new taxes and obligations. The French during the Hundred Years’ War paid a special tax to ransom King John the Good from English captivity. The English at the same time paid a wool tax. Need I say that these taxes greatly outlived the wartime period? This was the case everywhere and at all times. The needs of war shaped the structure of the state apparatus, methods of governance, and the functions of state organs. However, for a very long time, war remained the affair of rulers. They even had to personally participate in combat and die on the battlefield. Peaceful civilians, although they bore the heavy burdens of war, did not consider themselves its participants, and rulers also did not count on them. Moreover, there are known cases when good people sued the state for damage caused by war—and won.
However, the state always grows and requires greater and greater powers. This means that sooner or later, war was bound to step beyond the framework of squabbles between kings. To make the little people themselves eagerly run to shed blood so that the state’s powers would grow even more and their freedom would decrease—this could only be dreamed of. However, the dream became reality in the era of the French Revolution, when the French transformed from subjects into citizens. And the main consequence of this transformation was the obligation to serve in the army. Containing Napoleon required the efforts of all Europe. And, in fact, not because he was such a great military commander. No. Simply, Napoleon could mobilize several times more soldiers than all European monarchs, since the French were “free citizens,” not some serfs or, God forbid, mercenaries.
The wonderful “national idea” has a clear military origin. This is one of the results of propaganda designed to make it easier for citizens to fulfill their “sacred duty to the Fatherland.” In World War I, we already see warring “nations.” “Germans” and “English” have already appeared. True, the civilian population is not yet perceived as an enemy on the battlefield. We will come to this in just 20 years, during World War II—with the corresponding human losses.
All this time, the state was constantly growing. World War I turned Russia into a superstate restrained by nothing and capable of anything with respect to its own “citizens.” Powers grew dramatically even in the “democracies.” During World War I, railroads were nationalized in the USA, conscription was introduced. After World War II, the numerous state offices created for military needs in most cases did not simply disappear but were renamed or became “independent” agencies. And, naturally, intervention in the economy was always “legalized.” In the case of the USA, during both wars there were unprecedented decisions by the Supreme Court that, to put it mildly, greatly altered the American constitution. If we speak of the USA, the state there constantly expands through war. “Local conflicts” and “the fight against terrorism” provide endless pretexts for this fascinating process.
I should note that the essence of war has not changed at all. War is still the affair of the state, a means of its expansion. In the case of the “war on terror,” this circumstance is not even concealed—by the absence of an enemy on the battlefield. And although, as before, the “war” of “Germans” against “English” is a physically impossible phenomenon, the majority of us believe that things were exactly so. States have successfully hidden behind “peoples.” One can also note the citizens of one country who happily snap at each other over a “victory” that happened almost 70 years ago. Looking at this, one can only admire the real victory—the victory of the state over the ability of its “citizens” to think and see reality as it actually is.