** 21-Feb-2022 World View: Lessons from Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace - The Ball of Invasion
The Democrats are claiming that it is the brilliance of President
Biden's policy that is uniting Nato and forcing Putin to delay and
possibly abandon his planned invasion of Ukraine. If there is no
invasion, then Biden will take full credit, and credit it with his
brilliant strategy.
It's not just the Democrats. A lot of people, in America and Europe,
are hoping that Biden's diplomatic strategy will prevent a Russian
invasion of Ukraine.
Biden has announced that he would like to meet with Putin, presumably
so that he can announce "Peace in our time."
Based on my analysis of history, I believe that the invasion of
Ukraine cannot be stopped, even if Putin wanted to do so. The
invasion is a huge freight train which is traveling so fast that
nothing can stop it from crashing into the train station. To use Leo
Tolstoy's phrase, it's a huge "ball of invasion" that cannot be
stopped.
**** The French invasion
Many years ago, I read Leo Tolstoy's massive historical novel about
Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812, and I was astonished by how the
Russians defeated the French -- not by one army confronting another,
but by abandoning the city of Moscow, so that the French army lost all
discipline and fell apart, forcing Napoleon to retreat.
When I wrote my first book on Generational Dynamics almost 20 years
ago, I came back to Tolstoy to better understand what had happened,
from a GD point of view. I quoted from Tolstoy at length in my book.
But today I'm not focusing on the invasion of Moscow. I'm focusing on
the Battle of Borodino, on the way to Moscow. That battle was
devastating to Napoleon's army, and should have convinced him to
retreat, but at that point retreat was no longer possible.
Tolstoy is now at his best as he describes how the French invasion was
now almost an elemental force of nature, incapable of stopping itself.
In the following description, keep in mind that the French army
contained conscripts from several European nations which Napoleon had
previous conquered. Now, read Tolstoy's explanation of why the attack
on Moscow was inevitable:
"The forces of a dozen European nations burst into
Russia. The Russian army and people avoided a collision till
Smolensk was reached, and again from Smolensk to Borodino. The
French army pushed on to Moscow, its goal and its impetus ever
increasing as it neared its aim, just as the velocity of a falling
body increases as it approaches the earth. Behind it were seven
hundred miles of hunger-stricken, hostile country; ahead were a
few dozen miles separating it from its goal. Every soldier in
Napoleon's army felt this and the invasion moved on by its own
momentum.
The more the Russian army retreated the more fiercely a spirit of
hatred of the enemy flared up, and while it retreated the army
increased and consolidated. At Borodino, a collision took place.
Neither army was broken up, but the Russian army retreated
immediately after the collision as inevitably as a ball recoils
after colliding with another having a greater momentum, and with
equal inevitability the ball of invasion that had advanced with
such momentum rolled on for some distance, though the collision
had deprived it of all its force.
It was impossible to give battle before information had been
collected, the wounded gathered in, the supplies of ammunition
replenished, the slain reckoned up, new officers appointed to
replace those who had been killed, and before the men had had food
and sleep. And meanwhile, the very next morning after the battle,
the French army advanced of itself upon the Russians, carried
forward by the force of its own momentum now seemingly increased
in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from its
aim. [Russian General] Kutuzov's wish was to attack next day, and
the whole army desired to do so. But to make an attack the wish to
do so is not sufficient, there must also be a possibility of doing
it, and that possibility did not exist. It was impossible not to
retreat a day's march, and then in the same way it was impossible
not to retreat another and a third day's march, and at last, on
the first of September when the army drew near Moscow - despite
the strength of the feeling that had arisen in all ranks - the
force of circumstances compelled it to retire beyond Moscow. And
the troops retired one more, last, day's march, and abandoned
Moscow to the enemy."
**** The unstoppable Battle of Borodino
In this remarkable description, Tolstoy describes how both the French
and Russian armies were traveling along a preordained path that
neither side was any longer able to stop.
It's this description of the French army as a "ball of invasion" with
so much momentum that it can't stop itself that has led me to identify
certain types of battles or mid-cycle wars as "momentum battles" or
"momentum wars."
In Napoleon's case, following Tolstoy's description, the French should
have retreated after their defeat at Borodino, but didn't because of
their momentum as a "ball of invasion."
Tolstoy builds on this idea in explaining what happened at the battle
at Borodino. He ridicules historians who claim that Napoleon might
have won that battle and changed the course of history if he hadn't
had a cold that day. Tolstoy rejects any such concept, believing as I
do that many of these battles and wars go on because of their own
unstoppable momentum. Read Tolstoy's stark description of how the
French army, driven by cries of "Long Live the Emperor [Napoleon],"
move forward to their own destruction, much like the popular
perception of lemmings following one another off a cliff:
"Many historians say that the French did not win the
battle of Borodino because Napoleon had a cold, and that if he had
not had a cold the orders he gave before and during the battle
would have been still more full of genius and Russia would have
been lost and the face of the world have been changed. To
historians who believe that Russia was shaped by the will of one
man - Peter the Great - and that France from a republic became an
empire and French armies went to Russia at the will of one man -
Napoleon - to say that Russia remained a power because Napoleon
had a bad cold on the twenty-fourth of August may seem logical and
convincing.
If it had depended on Napoleon's will to fight or not to fight the
battle of Borodino, and if this or that other arrangement depended
on his will, then evidently a cold affecting the manifestation of
his will might have saved Russia, and consequently the valet who
omitted to bring Napoleon his waterproof boots on the
twenty-fourth would have been the savior of Russia. Along that
line of thought such a deduction is indubitable, as indubitable as
the deduction Voltaire made in jest (without knowing what he was
jesting at) when he saw that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was
due to Charles IX's stomach being deranged. But to men who do not
admit that Russia was formed by the will of one man, Peter I, or
that the French Empire was formed and the war with Russia begun by
the will of one man, Napoleon, that argument seems not merely
untrue and irrational, but contrary to all human reality. To the
question of what causes historic events another answer presents
itself, namely, that the course of human events is predetermined
from on high - depends on the coincidence of the wills of all who
take part in the events, and that a Napoleon's influence on the
course of these events is purely external and fictitious.
Strange as at first glance it may seem to suppose that the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew was not due to Charles IX's will,
though he gave the order for it and thought it was done as a
result of that order; and strange as it may seem to suppose that
the slaughter of eighty thousand men at Borodino was not due to
Napoleon's will, though he ordered the commencement and conduct of
the battle and thought it was done because he ordered it; strange
as these suppositions appear, yet human dignity - which tells me
that each of us is, if not more at least not less a man than the
great Napoleon - demands the acceptance of that solution of the
question, and historic investigation abundantly confirms it.
At the battle of Borodino, Napoleon shot at no one and killed no
one. That was all done by the soldiers. Therefore, it was not he
who killed people.
The French soldiers went to kill and be killed at the battle of
Borodino, not because of Napoleon's orders but by their own
volition. The whole army - French, Italian, German, Polish, and
Dutch - hungry, ragged, and weary of the campaign, felt at the
sight of an army blocking their road to Moscow that the wine was
drawn and must be drunk. Had Napoleon then forbidden them to fight
the Russians, they would have killed him and have proceeded to
fight the Russians because it was inevitable.
When they heard Napoleon's proclamation offering them, as
compensation for mutilation and death, the words of posterity
about their having been in the battle before Moscow, they cried
"Vive l'Empereur!" just as they had cried "Vive
l'Empereur!" at the sight of the portrait of the boy piercing
the terrestrial globe with a toy stick, and just as they would
have cried "Vive l'Empereur!" at any nonsense that might be
told them. There was nothing left for them to do but cry "Vive
l'Empereur!" and go to fight, in order to get food and rest as
conquerors in Moscow. So it was not because of Napoleon's commands
that they killed their fellow men.
And it was not Napoleon who directed the course of the battle, for
none of his orders was executed and during the battle, he did not
know what was going on before him. So the way in which these
people killed one another was not decided by Napoleon's will but
occurred independently of him, in accord with the will of hundreds
of thousands of people who took part in the common action. It only
seemed to Napoleon that it all took place by his will. And so the
question whether he had or had not a cold has no more historic
interest than the cold of the least of the transport soldiers.
Moreover, the assertion made by various writers that his cold was
the cause of his dispositions not being as well planned as on
former occasions, and of his orders during the battle not being as
good as previously, is quite baseless, which again shows that
Napoleon's cold on the twenty-sixth of August was unimportant.
The dispositions cited above are not at all worse, but are even
better, than previous dispositions by which he had won
victories. His pseudo-orders during the battle were also no worse
than formerly, but much the same as usual. These dispositions and
orders only seem worse than previous ones because the battle of
Borodino was the first Napoleon did not win. The profoundest and
most excellent dispositions and orders seem very bad, and every
learned militarist criticizes them with looks of importance, when
they relate to a battle that has been lost, and the very worst
dispositions and orders seem very good, and serious people fill
whole volumes to demonstrate their merits, when they relate to a
battle that has been won.
The dispositions drawn up by Weyrother for the battle of
Austerlitz were a model of perfection for that kind of
composition, but still they were criticized - criticized for their
very perfection, for their excessive minuteness.
Napoleon at the battle of Borodino fulfilled his office as
representative of authority as well as, and even better than, at
other battles. He did nothing harmful to the progress of the
battle; he inclined to the most reasonable opinions, he made no
confusion, did not contradict himself, did not get frightened or
run away from the field of battle, but with his great tact and
military experience carried out his role of appearing to command,
calmly and with dignity."
**** St. Bartholomew's Massacre on August 24, 1572
St. Bartholomew's Massacre, which is still remembered today was
mentioned by Tolstoy in the previous paragraphs. It was a genocidal
massacre by the French Catholics on the French Protestants, and
Tolstoy is comparing that French massacre to the French invasion of
Russia.
France was also a Catholic country when Protestantism started
spreading in the early 1500s. Various clashes broke out frequently
over the decades, and the major civil war between the Catholics and
the Huguenots (the name adopted by French Protestants) began in 1562.
Both sides were extremely violent, especially targeting each other's
churches and clergymen and even lay people. (Attacks on civilians are
a typical sign of a violent crisis war.)
The crisis climaxed on August 24, 1572, when Catholics massacred some
1,000 to 2,000 Huguenot civilians in Paris in a single night, known as
the St. Bartholomew's Night Massacre. During the next two months,
some 10,000 to 100,000 civilian Huguenots were slaughtered throughout
the country, often in their own homes.
In the years that followed, some half million of the country's two
million Huguenots fled to other countries. Many others renounced
their Protestant religion, not being able to understand how God had
deserted them.
The feelings generated by the massacre were greatly inflamed when the
Catholics in Rome, led by the Pope, celebrated the deaths of so many
"heretics" as a miracle, to be remembered as a holy event.
The massacre haunts France to this day, though some tensions were
relieved when Pope John Paul made a plea for forgiveness and
reconciliation in a visit to France in 1997.
There is currently a schism between the Ukrainian Orthdox Church and
the Russian Orthodox Church, which has infuriated Putin. It's quite
possible that Putin will consider the invasion of Ukraine as a holy
event, just as the Pope considered St. Bartholomew's Massacre to be a
holy event, to be celebrated.
**** The Ball of Invasion - Russia and China
With almost 200,000 Russian troops surrounding Ukraine, hundreds of
tanks and warplanes ready to strike, and a huge war flotilla in the
Sea of Azov, the invasion cannot be stopped, even if Putin wanted to
stop it.
The same is true of China and Taiwan. China has been preparing
aggressively for years to attack Taiwan, and they've said repeatedly
that an invasion is coming. It cannot be stopped.
The Chinese have also been preparing for decades for a full-scale
nuclear invasion of their "greatest enemy," the United States of
America. That invasion is also unstoppable.