In the struggle for supremacy in the political life of ancient Rome, Octavian Augustus used a whole fleet of miniature but very powerful nuclear submarines against his rival Mark Antony.
Alexander the Great defeated the army of the Persian king Darius, using sea-based ballistic missiles at the right time.
In rare moments of leisure, the King of Prussia, Frederick the Great, loved to shoot from a Maxim machine gun.
I can guess what question is spinning in your head: did the author of this column of especially picky elderberry overeat for an hour?
Answer: no, I didn’t overeat.
I just creatively developed a very interesting “historical theory” recently expressed in an interview with the 2DF television channel by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, Annalena Berbock: “We must carefully analyze the various methods of waging this war.
Because now they are fighting not only with tanks, as it was in the 19th century.
It's a hybrid war!"
Precisely "hybrid", Madam Minister?
And then how can you explain such a “hybrid fact”: the author of the term “tank”, the British banker and official Sir Albert Stern, was born, of course, in the 19th century - in 1878.
But he made his significant contribution to military science (as well as to military practice) already in the twentieth century - in December 1915 at an interdepartmental conference of representatives of various British defense ministries.
According to the memoirs of Albert Stern, the discussion at the meeting was about the creation of a fundamentally new type of combat vehicles.
The question arose: how should these machines be called in official correspondence?
The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary of the Admiralty (Deputy Secretary of the Navy, if in a simple way) Thomas McNamara, in order to maintain secrecy, proposed using the term water carrier (“water carrier”).
However, this seemed inelegant to Albert Stern.
And he offered his own version - tank.
In meaning, this word is very close to what was proposed by Thomas McNamara.
The original meanings of the word tank are tank, reservoir, cistern, capacity.
But it does sound quite different.
I repeat especially for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany: the story described above took place in 1915.
In the wars of the 19th century, tanks were not used and could not be used: they simply had not yet been invented.
Someone might say: well, think about it, Annalena Burbock was mistaken.
It happens to everyone?
I agree that we are all human, we are all human.
Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, everyone makes a reservation sometimes, everyone sometimes confuses something.
And ministers are no exception in this regard.
However, the error is different error.
The post of Minister of Foreign Affairs of a country like Germany requires from its holder a fairly deep knowledge of history.
Without this, it is simply impossible to qualitatively fulfill the duties of the head of the German Foreign Ministry.
One who does not know and does not understand the past does not understand both what is happening in the present and what will happen in the future.
I repeat once again: “knowledge and understanding of the past” is not at all equivalent to an encyclopedic possession of facts.
If, speaking of, say, British history, Frau Burbock would have confused Thomas Cromwell (the minister of King Henry VIII, who was eventually beheaded by order of His Majesty) with Oliver Cromwell (the future Lord Protector of England, by whose order the head was already cut off His Majesty, King Charles II), this could well be "understood and forgiven."
But what Annalena Burbock gave out is a mistake of a fundamentally different category.
Call me a snob.
Call me whatever.
But I am absolutely convinced that if an educated (at least in theory) person seriously declares that in the 19th century “wars were fought with tanks alone,” then such education is worthless.
Of course, I do not think that Annalena Burbock acquired her degree in political science from the University of Hamburg, figuratively (and not only figuratively), in the underpass.
I believe, I really believe that in 2000-2004 the future Minister of Foreign Affairs of the FRG attended lectures and seminars at this venerable educational institution.
However, as we have just been able to see once again, “attend lectures and seminars” and “fully study” are somewhat different concepts.
Of course, this episode of Annalena Burbock's biography is not as infamous as the 2021 plagiarism scandal.
Then it turned out that the book “Now.
How we will renew our country" was actually molded using the "copy-paste method" - and without reference to sources.
However, what am I saying?
Although the fact of plagiarism was fully proven, Frau Berbock's party officially stated that these allegations "are not serious."
And, probably, based on modern German political standards, this is how it is: otherwise, how would Annalena Burbock become the supreme leader of all German diplomacy?
It remains only to be glad for this very diplomacy:
to work under such a "deeply educated and principled minister" is certainly an extremely exciting experience.
Therefore, we are waiting for new "historical discoveries" from Frau Berbock.
I'm sure it won't rust.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.