Intra-European Imperialism: Mitteleuropa and Intermarium
European nations have significantly influenced the development of the world over the past three centuries. The main imperialist powers of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands have all held vast overseas colonies at some time in their histories. Of these countries, the former three are certainly the most significant because their holdings were the largest. Spain held almost all of South and Central America at its peak. France once held vast territories in North America which it ceded to Britain and proceeded to conquer most of West Africa and some of Central Africa afterwards. Britain held the largest empire the world has ever seen, spanning from Egypt to South Africa and covering India, Australia and Canada at its apex. Throughout most of modern history, these countries have exercised outsized influence over world affairs and thus, must be viewed in contrast to their neighbhours in Central and Eastern Europe who have not shared in their glory. Rather, the history of these states is characterized by a relative lack of power and subjection to other states which is reflected in the visions of this region that arose during and after La Belle Epoque. Even the great powers that once dominated this region are not as well known as their western counterparts. Students of history will have studied Britain and France in greater detail than Habsburg Austria, Ottoman Turkey or Czarist Russia. It is undeniable that these and other western powers receive disproportionate attention from history books and historians even when the matter at hand is world history. The word that critics of this practice use to describe it is Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism also ironically downplays most of Europe in favor of covering every aspect of the great imperial powers in the west. This vision of Eastern and Central European nations as subject states rather than independent actors constitutes the Prussian German vision of Mitteleuropa but also appeared to influence the Polish Intermarium plan.
Mitteleuropa was a plan to economically dominate and colonize the areas to the German Empire’s east. Mitteleuropa is a German word which translates into central or middle Europe. It has come to denote the supposed expansionist goals of Imperial Germany within Europe during World War I. (Note:That is an entirely different matter as some historians believe Mitteleuropa proves German guilt while others argue to the contrary). I will not be delving into the Austrian or other connotations of Mitteleuropa and intend to focus entirely on the Prussian one as it came the closest to fruition. As such, let us delve into the Septemberprogramm. The German High Command drafted this as a potential list of war aims but it was never officially adopted. One of the tenets of the program was that a Mitteleuropa economic association was to be created from Russian territory in Eastern Europe. Modern countries that would be reconstituted for entry into Mitteleuropa included Poland and the Baltic states. Later in the war, Germany was able to realize its war aims in the East with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which forced Russia to surrender vast territories which were either annexed into the central powers or established as puppet states. Poland and Lithuania were annexed into Germany while German-friendly governments were installed in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine. Unfortunately for Germany, it had to surrender all these gains after the war-concluding treaty of Versailles. Thus, the dream of a German sphere of influence in the East was temporarily halted(it would be revived in the form of another concept-Lebensraum-under the Nazi government).
However, let us consider for an instant how the world would be if Germany had been able to keep its Eastern acquisitions following a victory in the Great War. The territory taken at Brest-Litovsk comprised some of the most valuable land in pre-war Russia. Ukraine and to a lesser extent, Poland, were the breadbaskets of the czar’s empire and the territory contained more than half of Russia's industrial facilities and eighty percent of its coal mines. Before the war, Germany was the largest economy and exporter in Europe. Easier access to Ukrainian and Polish agriculture and Eastern European markets would reduce the ability of naval powers like Britain to deprive Germany of vital supplies(ex:food,raw materials) and trade. Germany would also be much closer to the goal of economic self-sufficiency due to the industrial capacity it could construct in its new territories and the surplus labour from the East that could fuel its existing enterprises. For subject nations, one can imagine a darker fate. While Germany would fully establish itself as a global power with its eastern spoils, those countries in the German sphere would be exploited. Based of the persecution that the Polish minority in Germany suffered before the war, one can conclude that Poland and Lithuania would be subject to similar policies. After all, one of the driving forces being Mitteleuropa was territorial greed and a perceived superiority of Germans over other races. Germans would colonize the annexed territories and reduce the indigenous populations to second class citizens. Puppet states like Ukraine would face less colonization but suffer from unfair economic agreements that privileged German industry while damaging or hindering the development of their own export sectors. The nations of Eastern Europe would become subjects of German power similar to how almost all of Africa and much of Asia was subject to European imperialism. They would languish under German rule as they had under the oppressive Russian administration.
German expansionists viewed Eastern Europe as theirs to settle because there was a long history of German colonization of the East dating back to the Middle Ages. Mitteleuropa may have been born in the late 19th century but it drew upon centuries of history for justification. It is not very different from how English colonizers perceived Australia, New Zealand and Canada or how American settlers perceived the vast western parts of their country. In both cases, a massive influx of migrants from the mother country would displace the indigenous populations and reduce them to second class status. Indeed, the degree to which it parallels American Manifest Destiny has led many historians to conclude that Mitteleuropa proponents saw Eastern Europe as their own wild west. A popular slogan capturing this sentiment was “Drang Nach Osten”(Drive to the East).
Since Germany lost the war, it was unable to keep these territories and thus, the allied powers at Versailles(upon the urging of eastern European nationalists) made the decision to create independent states for the national groups living here. Poland received independence and was granted some pre-war German territory. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland also became independent states. The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed into Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia was constituted from Serbia and Austria-Hungary’s south Slavic possessions of Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia while Romania annexed large parts of the former country’s eastern territory.
During the 1920s, a reparations-burdened Germany in poor economic condition and chaffing under the military restrictions of the treaty of Versailles was unable to exert influence over Eastern European affairs. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union which was in the process of recovering from the Russian Civil War was in no condition to pursue its goals of world revolution. The Polish-Soviet War demonstrated the USSR’s weakness as the country was forced to cede Western Ukraine and Belarus to newly independent Poland. Later in the 1930s and 1940s, the new Nazi government in Germany pursued an expansionist agenda in Eastern Europe and during and after World War II, the USSR established firm control over these nations. However, the early interwar period marked freedom from foreign domination for the new countries. In this era, Jozef Pilsudski who was Poland’s leader, introduced a new vision for the organization of Eastern and Central Europe. This was the Intermarium.
The Intermarium was intended to be a massive federation of Eastern and Central European countries with Poland as its leader. Poles referred to it as Międzymorze which literally translated to “between seas” or “intersea”. This was a reference to the fact that the federation would attempt to include all territory between the Baltic Sea in the North and the Black Sea in the South. The Intermarium would supplant and overwhelm the old dominant powers of Russia and Germany whom Pilsudski regarded as threats to Polish autonomy. Since other new countries in Eastern and Central Europe perceived a similar threat to their sovereignty, it seemed logical to the Polish chief of state that they should ally with one another. Thus, the Intermarium was framed as an instrument to promote collective security and preserve the independence of the region from German and Russian(then Soviet) imperialism. Pilsudski invited Finland, the three Baltic states, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to join Poland in this federation. He also sought the inclusion of Belarus and Ukraine and encouraged anti-soviet rebellions in these regions to achieve this end.
Unfortunately for Pilsudski, most of the new national groups rejected this plan. It would appear that the very nature of nationalism ensured that the Intermarium would never exist. For centuries these groups struggled against Russian domination and that struggle would have been rendered pointless if the Russian oppressors were removed only to be replaced by Polish hegemony(Poland was the most populous state in the proposed federation). This concern was particularly strong among Ukrainians who were struggling to escape soviet oppression at the time. In theory, it would be a federation of equal partners but the aspirations of nationalists in Poland could have rendered it an instrument of Polish Imperialism in Eastern and Central Europe. Evidence that supports this assessment originates from the views of Pilsudski himself. Being a Polish nationalist who fought to liberate his country from Russo-German hegemony, Pilsudski looked back on Poland’s independent history for inspiration. He remembered the massive territories under its rule during the apex of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth(This state stretched from the the Black to the Baltic Sea as shown below). Like many nationalists, he perceived this time period as Poland’s golden age which he sought to recreate. His faction wanted Poland to reassert itself as the major power in the old commonwealth lands and saw the intermarium as a means to do so. This is evident in the fact that Pilsudski tried to incorporate all of Ukraine into the Polish Republic during the Polish-Soviet war(The commonwealth included most of Ukraine at its territorial apex). Being seen as an instrument of Polish imperialism doomed the Intermarium as the plan was quickly rejected by political leaders in the east.
The belief that the nations of the east should be subject to greater powers is evident in both of these visions. Mitteleuropa would have placed them under German hegemony while the intermarium ostensibly promised collective security and national autonomy but was correctly perceived as an instrument of Polish domination by Eastern and Central European leaders. Pilsudski’s desire to revive the commonwealth would have necessitated the destruction of state sovereignty for other states in the federation. I postulate that these visions emerged from the East’s unique history. These states were subjugated by neighbouring empires and were always more vulnerable to invasion than their western compatriots(for whom they served as a buffer). It was Russia, Ukraine and Belarus that fell to the Mongol empire. The Ottomans besieged the Austrian capital(Vienna) twice and occupied Hungary for over a century. Later, Austria annexed or acquired many foreign peoples(Hungarians,Slovaks,Slovenes,Croats,Romanians,Poles etc.). Meanwhile, France and England threatened each other but never experienced the constant threat of extra continental invasion after the Hundred Years War. They were relatively secure and therefore, free to pursue overseas expansionist enterprises. Their states along with those of Spain and Portugal were long-established ones. They could sit safe while enjoying the buffer afforded by their eastern neighbhours. In the west, stable borders constituted the norm rather than the exception.
In contrast, the east was subject to continuous border changes. For instance, Poland-Lithuania was one of Europe’s largest states in the early 17th century. More than a 150 years later, it had disappeared from the map(having been incorporated by Russia,Prussia and Austria). Hungary which was a massive and influential central European polity throughout the middle ages became a subject of foreigners for three hundred years(Ottomans and Austrian Habsburgs). Let us refer once more to the Septemberprogramm which called for massive expansion and economic domination of the east but sought comparatively little in the west. In the east, Germany wanted to annex all of Poland and Lithuania while in the west, they only demanded Belgium and some portions of Northern France(Russian Poland was quite a bit larger than France’s Normandy coast). France, England,Spain and Portugal have maintained the same shape for centuries while Germany, Poland, Hungary and other such states have drastically grown or shrunk. It is uncommon for borders to undergo change in the west while it has been the norm in the recent history of the east. I conclude that the extended periods of time spent by Eastern and Central Europeans under foreign domination and the constant border shifts and power struggles in the region led to a perception that the region was a cake to be fought over(much like how King Leopold of Belgium once described Africa). In contrast to the multitude of border shifts and imperialistic domination in the east, western borders changed little throughout the years and as such, the geopolitical status quo in the west demands more respect. The east did not receive nearly as much respect as its counterpart which is only proven by Mitteleuropa, the Intermarium and the attitudes of those who created them. Thus, we arrive at the academic phenomenon referred to as Eurocentrism. This must necessarily assume the specific name of West-Centrism when the discussion pertains to European history given the objectification and trivialization of the East.
