“Krone” interview – are we “sleepwalking” into World War III?

Opponents of arms supplies to Ukraine often use Christopher Clark’s book “The Sleepwalkers” to discuss the road to World War I. Now the historian says whether he himself sees parallels with 1914.

In 2012, Australian historian Christopher Clark published the study “The Sleepwalkers”, which sold hundreds of thousands of copies. In it he describes how the great European powers slipped into the First World War in 1914. Since the beginning of the Russian attack on Ukraine, opponents of arms supply in particular have warned that this could now happen again. What does he say about it himself? The German news agency met Clark for an interview.

mr clark, sleepwalking are we just entering World War III like what happened in 1914?
Christopher Clark: I don’t see a strong analogy there, quite the contrary. What I wanted to do with the book at the time was to show that there is often no simple answer to how a war comes about. It is often very complicated.

So in your view there is no parallel with 1914? Do you see more differences than similarities?
Before the outbreak of today’s war, I saw parallels: the cat-and-mouse game of mobilizing troops reminded me a lot of the winter of 1911-12, when it was always going on along the border between Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire’s mobilizations and counter-mobilizations arose again. But other than that I usually only see differences.

What are the differences?
The European continent is not binary divided into two major alliances. At that time, it was an absolutely essential part of the problem of dividing Europe in two. Today, on the other hand, Russia is quite isolated on the European continent. In addition, the structure of the causes of this war is completely different, because this war started with a brutal act of military aggression, with the invasion of another country. It was very different in 1914. It started with a very difficult crisis surrounding an assassination attempt in Sarajevo. It’s something very, very different now. There is an actor who is acting.

Perhaps the analogy isn’t World War I at all, but World War II, when a determined aggressor just kept going?
I understand why people make this comparison, but I’m skeptical. Behind this equation lies the equation Putin is equal to Hitler. That always leads to a dead end. Putin is not Hitler. He doesn’t want to wipe out any group of people. The claim that he would commit genocide in Ukraine is simply false. Its armed forces commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, but not genocide. I would argue that we look at the matter a little more differentiated and with a cool head.

In Europe, many people fear that support for Ukraine will increase and that we ourselves may become involved. How great do you estimate this risk?
I’d say yes, there’s a risk of reaction overdose leading to escalation, but the much greater risk is that you let this criminal act happen by underdosing reactions, by saying, ‘You’ll get away with it’ it’s like you just invade a neighboring country.” If that message got out, we really should be preparing for more crises.

There is a striking contrast between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s robust stance and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s deliberately cautious stance. Who do you like better?
I would really like Scholz to appear. The problem with Boris Johnson is that he has written a book, a biography of Winston Churchill. And in that book, he made a surprising discovery: that he and Winston Churchill are the same person. Against the background of this war, he sees himself slipping into the role of Churchill. This is shameful and ridiculous. Basically British politics isn’t bad, but it’s designed and executed by others, with Boris Johnson just the clown dancing in front of the curtain.

And Olaf Scholz?
As for Olaf Scholz, I think this hesitation is quite justified, and also befits the statesman of a peace-loving nation. I think Olaf Scholz struck the right chord. I also think of his speech in Dusseldorf, when he was drowned out by the cheers of the crowd, when he said: It must appear cynical to a citizen of Ukraine if he is told to defend his country without weapons. That was a great moment.

Do you think it’s right that Scholz and Emmanuel Macron keep trying to keep in touch with Putin?
I find that absolutely essential. There is no other way. And while it’s a platitude, it’s also important for me to say: this isn’t about Russia, it’s about Putin. Of course he has many supporters, but also many Russians are against it and have even had the courage to say so publicly. Russia is still part of Europe. We should not fall back into the old tendencies: “Well, Russians have always been that way.”

Are we experiencing a groundbreaking break with the war in Ukraine and are we now entering another era?
The epoch that does not occur is interesting. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and some Chinese politicians have often discussed the end of the Western era in recent years. But it doesn’t look like we’ll be entering a post-western era anytime soon. But on the contrary. The West is in a stronger position. NATO is still fully functional and the EU is also holding up, despite some tensions, especially from Hungary. The apocalyptic dreams of a transition to another era have thinned like soap bubbles. It’s not over with the west yet. But it’s not over with Russia either. You can’t write off Russia. Whatever the outcome of this case, Russia must be given a role in the future.