The name of the “pre-world” war is called the “Thirty Years’ War”, which lasted from 1618 to 1648. Almost all European countries were involved in it, and this was the whole world according to the Eurocentric concept that was dominant at the time.
The Thirty Years’ War put an end to the medieval world, just as the First World War buried New Time under the rubble and, with its belief in the human mind, led to the 20th century – a century of terrible paradoxes.
Today we watch the world step into an unknown and frightening new age. It seems like a never ending process. Ages are born in pain.
The “Thirty Years’ War”, most of the usual events
Today, phenomena appeared just then. Political propaganda, “enemy image” in the media, use of mercenaries for military purposes. A simple peasant, who until recently was a victim of feudal arbitrariness, took fate “by the gills” and became a “mercenary”, releasing his inner demons in exchange for cash.
The “Thirty Years’ War”, though unknown at the time, is the prototype of a hybrid warfare.
This “World War I” catalyzed the formation of “modern” states or states of the modern type. The end of the conflict marked the emergence of the first system of international relations – the Peace of Westphalia, some of its provisions still in effect. These are the priority of national interests, the principle of balance of power, the principle of state sovereignty, regular diplomatic practice and others.
How can events from 400 years ago be interesting and useful for us? Much of the historical context will be clear only to experts. For example, why do some see the “Thirty Years’ War” as purely religious, others, like historian Gunther Franz, think it was a war to weaken the Germans, and others, for example, Soviet historians Moses Smirin, Boris Porshnev. and others that it was a conflict between feudal Catholic reactionary led by the Habsburgs and a progressive coalition of France, Russia and Protestant states.
But in fact, these are all parts of a single system.
The current conflict in Ukraine is also interpreted differently, but it is not over yet.
For some, this is purely a Russian-Ukrainian conflict, an operation to protect the population of Donbass from the aggression of Kiev, for others it is Russia’s preventive measures to preserve the integrity of its own borders, for others it is a full-fledged operation. Hybrid war between Russia and NATO. All these comments are due to point of view.
But how can we think of Kiev today as separate from the West and NATO?
So this is the preservation of the Donbass population, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and opposition to the NATO bloc.
But let’s go back to the 17th century. The Thirty Years’ War, which began with clashes between Catholics and Protestants, later turned into a struggle between different powers in Europe against the dominant position of the House of Habsburg. turned into a geopolitical conflict.
As the British Empire was poised to take the title of world’s main naval power from Spain (the Spaniards would finally lose their former greatness in the 19th century, but a start would be made), the Netherlands tried to get out – and outside of Spain’s influence, France strengthened their position – Richelieu tried his best He did his best, balancing diplomacy and military on the brink of conflict, and successfully.
Sweden reached the zenith of power – it lost hundreds of thousands of Swedes and Finnish soldiers, socially and politically gathered, and the Baltic Sea was for a long time (until the Northern War) considered the “Swedish Lake”. The Swedes have entered a half-century-old phase of great power, and it seems they are now yearning for something like that by joining NATO.
Not officially participating in the Thirty Years’ War, Russia helped weaken Poland by drawing significant enemy forces to Smolensk and also indirectly helped create the Dutch Republic (see “Dutch Bourgeois Revolution”).
Already at the end of the 17th century, Peter I would cooperate with the Dutch, and in 1813 Alexander I would help the Dutch drive the French from their lands.
In fact, history is an endless tangle of events from the threads of which strange patterns are drawn. But the main thing that interests us is the phenomenon of hybrid warfare. The main form of modern world conflicts. The conflict in the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the expansion of NATO, the “US struggle against global terrorism” that brought chaos to many countries.
Lessons from the Thirty Years’ War help to better understand the phenomenon.
According to researcher Alexander Bartosh, hybrid warfare is a type of guerrilla warfare that combines new forms of mobilization and modern technologies, where wars are fought not only on the battlefield but also in the information space.
The printing press emerged in 1445, and in the midst of the Thirty Years’ War the media was already playing a major role.
Even then, there were countless “war signs”, “right statements” and “right statements” against the enemy, full of exaggeration and insults.
We emphasize that they not only tell what happened, but also create public opinion. Fake news, disinformation – it’s all there. For example, “The Siege of Magdeburg”, one of the most important battles of the “Thirty Years”. I won’t make direct comparisons, but structurally it is very similar to a recent event. In May 1631, the armies of the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic League besieged and took Magdeburg, the Protestant stronghold. For Catholics it was the destruction of the “heretic home”, while Protestants published articles in which they glorified the “heroic defenders of the city” and cursed the invaders.
The Germans of that era were adept at creating the image of the enemy. The Spaniards were compared with snakes and scorpions with “Spanish flies” swarming over their land, the English with dogs. Moreover, biblical motifs were used: “And these are dogs, greedy in spirit, not knowing fullness.” Spanish nobles in leaflets of German propagandists were compared with turkeys – “their size arouses fear, but they are nothing more.” The French are compared to roosters: they provoke, twitch, provoke, but do not go into battle. This was a mockery of Richelieu’s policy, who thought about how it would be more profitable to get involved in a fight so that the feathers did not break. The Germans are presented as humble and virtuous, while the French are presented as self-satisfied and brutal. Rapists, lechers, gluttons.
By the way, Hitler made this approach absolute – he always despised the French, saying that, despite their laziness, they were very lucky, they took their place in the great history.
But most importantly, the methods of creating stereotypes about the enemy were established during the “Thirty Years’ War”.
“Alien”, “aggressor”, “barbarian”, “torturer and executioner” – this is the prototype of the modern word “invader”.
We see how Western propaganda, along with Ukrainian propaganda, stigmatizes the Russian army today. Our soldiers are presented as the same aggressive, greedy, teapot-stealing, inhumane. Nobody wants to separate the wheat from the chaff, to separate the truth from the lie, there is no such duty.
An emotionally unstable, historically uneducated and politically illiterate person easily succumbs to any fraud. And gladly multiplies them.
Only during the “Thirty Years’ War” propagandists handed out flyers, distributed newspapers, and today you can produce more fairy tales on the Internet in one day than all that world’s propaganda has stamped in that “Thirty Years of the World”. war itself”.
Researcher Oleksandr Bartosh also defines hybrid warfare as the main method of warfare conducted in three directions: between the population of the conflict zone, between the population in the rear, and between the world community. According to him, hybrid warfare is a series of informational, diplomatic and military actions prepared in advance and quickly implemented by the state to achieve the goal. This is totally true for both the 17th century and the 21st century.
Another criterion that applies both then and for us is the nature of those involved in the conflict. Alongside the regular army, mercenaries participated in the Thirty Years’ War. Today we see how “wild geese” went and went along the “rat paths” to Ukraine. British, Brazilians, Americans, Georgians, Poles, Macedonians and others.
Another criterion, according to Bartosz, is an unusual weapon type and new tactics. It was then that knightly tactics were a thing of the past, then they began to think about camouflage, then advanced artillery appeared.
A century or so later, Napoleon Bonaparte will be born, who will definitively know the saying “God helps those who have better artillery”.
Finally, at the same time, the actions of the enemy in the rear affected the outcome of events. We see the role played by artillery in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the role played by radio play, by drones.
The last criterion is the asymmetrical nature of warfare. The Thirty Years’ War unfolded in several theaters of operations, where one or another front periodically became the main one, the battle was fought in the rear and on the front lines. Someone has already done work on this. Almost all of Europe participated. Some regions rose in war, others burned for a long time. Magdeburg only restored its former glory in the 18th century. And such.
This is an example of nothing new under the sun. And I guess: today’s events are leading to the creation of a new global system of blocks and balances. The NATO summit in Madrid is all about flowers. Overture.
The author’s view may not coincide with the editors’ position.
Author biography:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military observer for socialbites.ca, a retired colonel.
Graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976),
Air Defense Military Command Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile battalion (1980–1983).
Deputy commander of an anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986-1988).
Senior officer of the Air Defense Forces Main Staff (1988-1992).
Chief of the General Staff Main Operations Directorate (1992-2000).
Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003),
Editor-in-Chief of the Military Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).