What is the meaning of Henry Kissinger's phrase about Germany being "too big for Europe but too small for the world"?

[Julie4]

I discovered this sentence through @nighdrot, and I wonder what it means in concrete terms?

I mean Germany since its unity was created in the 19th century, has almost dominated the world twice, and today in the purely economic field it is the 4th, with a population of 80 million inhabitants while the countries in front of it have a much larger population, which makes the economic performance of Germany even more incredible.

[nightdrot]

Well, since you mentioned my name, I will take a stab at this one. (Hope you are well, by the way.)

In brief, the German problem was, on the one hand, that Germany, at the center of Europe geographically, economically and demographically, was too powerful to contain through any combination of alliances. This why, by the way, French foreign policy since the Middle Ages had been to keep the Germanic states divided.

A united Germany was a threat to the security of any individual state in Europe. This generated a series of alliances designed to contain Germany. Thus, for example, the Triple Entente pre-WWI. There being two problems with this.

First, beyond containing Germany, these alliances were made up of states that themselves had competing interests with one another. This thereby making these alliances inherently unstable. (See also the the UK's implicit support for Japan against Russia in the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War. See also Italy, a great power, albeit generally regarded as the weakest of the great powers, aligning with Germany in the Axis alliance.)

Into this, the mirror side of the issue was that these alliances against Germany's inherent strengths made Germany feel insecure and thus inclined to seek out allies - see the Central Powers in WWI and the Axis alliance in WWII - to insure German security. The German historical memory was of French interference in the Germanic states pre-1871, and of the Russian steamroller - later abetted by communist ideology under the USSR - on the other side.

Germany was trapped in the middle of Europe, yet was stronger than any other power, thus inspiring alliances against it. Hence Kissinger's remark.

The counter to this has been two-fold. The first is NATO, which as Lord Ismay put it, was designed to "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down." Germany is able to feel secure in Europe so long as a stronger power outside Europe is able to insure its security. This is the diplomatic/military solution to the "German problem."

The other solution has been to erase national distinctions within Europe. Hence the European Union - an incipient "United States of Europe." This playing off of Adam Smith's line that, "The merchant has no country." The idea being that if individual national identities can be subsumed and subordinated in a web of international trade and economic interdependence, nationalist sentiment will decline and the states of Europe will see each other as part of a "common market" and not as rival states with rival interests.

To some degree, this latter approach has actually worked - though ironically in part because NATO secures it from the outside. (Particularly as Russia is NOT part of that common market.) However, as a certain questioner here - to her great credit - illustrates from time to time, love of country is not so easily subsumed in an economic web of interdependence. Man is, after all, not just merely - as Marx would have had it -homo economicus.

To be sure, in the rubble heap of two world wars, particularly the younger generation looked to trade and commerce to save it from war. However, as the living memories of the world wars have faded - particularly in the countries that won the war - the appeal of patriotic and nationalistic sentiment is rising. (The partial exceptions being in the states that were defeated in WWII. In Germany and Italy, nationalism is still seen as somewhat embarrassing and shameful. Though even here, as recent elections have illustrated, this is changing somewhat.)

So, that is what Kissinger was saying. (By the way, hope you are enjoying the book.) Germany's strength made it a threat to the individual states of Europe, thus provoking alliances against Germany. Yet Germany was not strong enough to prevail against these alliances and so felt perpetually insecure and thus was constantly destabilizing the balance of power in Europe.

[Julie4]

Hi, I'm fine thank you and I hope you and your family are fine too.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer this question and for giving me a clear explanation, which allows me to understand the meaning of this sentence.

I didn't want to disturb you with my identification on the question, but let's say that for the sake of honesty I had to mention you because it is through one of your answers that I discovered this sentence.

To Germany's credit, I don't know many countries, in fact I don't know any that would have been able to resist these huge coalitions that Germany had to face.

I like Kissinger's book, I'm a bit late in reading it, I have to say that as the book has not been translated it takes me a bit longer than usual. But Mr. Kissinger beyond being a great analyst and fine psychologist. I have not forgotten that I owe you a report on this reading, and I will do so as soon as I have finished the book. Forgive me in advance for this rather long reading time.

The best thing for peace in Europe is Nato, trying to make the United States of Europe will never work, although it is an old project, Victor Hugo wished fervently this United States of Europe, I must say that under the lyricism of Hugo, it had a certain style. But the reality is that we can't erase centuries or even millennia of rivalries, history, culture forged over time, and divergent national interests. The European states will remain as divided as ever, with all the misfortune and tragedy that this entails, but also with all the beauty and grandeur. As long as the USA is there with NATO our old military rivalries are not ready to be revived.

[nightdrot]

First, don't give it a thought. If you have the time I would like to know what you think of the book, but you don't owe me anything. I just thought you might find it interesting.

As to your analysis, I agree that NATO - while perhaps not quite as assured as you seem to think (no institution created by human beings can be) - has certainly thus far withstood the test of time. Further, regarding the EU/United States of Europe, as Americans are now learning with China, free trade is not quite the tamer of international relations that free market theorists assumed.

To be sure, it can help. However, it provides no absolute assurances and trying to leverage the ancient peoples of Europe into a unity for which there is no precedent is just as likely to backfire as not.

Anyhow, glad to hear that all is well. Enjoy the book and, as I say, only pass on your thoughts if you have the time.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Oh by the way, as to your point about the coalitions that Germany had to face. To some degree, Germany, by acting so aggressively on her own insecurities, provoked those coalitions. Recall that, at one point, Germany and Russia were allies - see also "The Three Emperor's League."

There is a more complex dynamic at work here than simply Germany acting defensively. The international arena is complicated. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

[Julie4]

Yes I agree with you. But I just wanted to say that no nation could have won against such coalitions. Even France under Louis XIV and Napoleon ended up losing to impressive coalitions.

But to be honest with you, the German final failure doesn't sadden me as much as the French final failure 🤣

[nightdrot]

Ya know, somehow I intuited that. Vive le France!!!

[Julie4]

Vive l'amitié 🇫🇷 Franco-Américaine 🇺🇲

[Sixgunsound]

Germany has promoted trades, while still supporting higher education to a lesser extent, where the US has promoted higher education at the expense of trades and now has a trade labor shortage. I have to give that one to Germany. Germany still has a large domestic manufacturing base because many of the great families of Germany are in manufacturing, specifically domestic manufacturing, and have been more successful at selling the made in Germany brand than US or UK have.

[Drewtate]

Just what he said. They are a big fish in the small pond of Europe but alone outside the EU a small fish in a big pond.

Germany almost dominated not the world but all of Europe, Africa and Northern& central Asia. But tye reason they failed was a lack of natural resources which is why Germany was too small for the world.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I don't know. I rather prefer and agree with Giulio Andreotti's thought on Germany:

[RyanEC]

I’m guessing he means Europe is a declining power but Germany is relatively power since it is 3rd or 4th economy above or below Japan.


I am not a fan of him by the way but I think this makes sense.

[greenice27]

Germany is not an island country like Britain. It does not have a strong navy and does not dominate the seas. Therefore, its leadership is limited to the European continent.

[msc545]

Germany overwhelmed Europe in WW II, but with the addition of other non-European nations, they were defeated.

[888theGreat]

Means they are a big ant amongst little ants , but suck compared to the world.