South China Sea?

[LordRahl2]

I think that you mis-understand the context of Napoleonic Europe. I never said that France was ever a global hegemon. But, the First French Empire was a hegemon in Continental Europe. You also overestimate Britain's role in restoring balance to Europe. That balance was finally achieved at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Britain's army was only active in the Iberian peninsula (1807-onwards) and moved into France in 1815, where it fought most famously at Waterloo. Waterloo, however, was merely an inevitable confirmation of what already took place. The principal defeats of the Grand Armee that led to Bonaparte's 1814 abdication occurred in 1813, the largest defeat being the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig, October 16-19). The British armed forces were completely absent from this theatre. I mentioned 1812, because the failed Russian campaign of 1812 provoked von Metternich's decision to turn against France in 1813. The successes of 1813 and 1814 allowed for the opening of the Congress of Vienna, which overturned the entire Napoleonic order in Europe.   

 

The point is that from 1801 (Lunéville) and definitely after 1806 (Bratislava/Preßburg), there was a definite French hegemon on the European continent. This hegemon created a specific order, which at one point attempted to regulate all trade within European ports under its control. This Continental hegemon was defeated by a coalition of Russia, Austria and Prussia. Furthermore, the political outcome after 1815 was largely dictated by Austria and Russia, with England marginalised from the Continent after the 1822 suicide of Viscount Castlereagh. 

I think that you forget that there was another side to the period spanning from 1789-1815. It was not merely Britain vs France. It was also France vs Russia, Austria and Prussia. My example revolved around the political developments of the latter group. 

 

As for Poland and unipolarism, here is my answer. First, never dictate how we Poles should think. We destroyed the fascist plague in 1945, drove out the Soviets in 1990, and hopefully will soon be free of the West. We Poles will never suffer to let others dictate how we think.

Secondly, Poland always is and was vulnerable, regardless of whether unipolarism existed. If the world is unipolar, nothing prevents Poland from being absorbed into the hegemon. In any other, non-unipolar arrangement, Poland becomes a bargaining chip that can, potentially, negotiate better terms for itself or even join a sphere it perceives as better suited to its interests. 

The latter option is a far stronger and more concrete guarantee of Poland's sovereignty than some meaningless paper signed in Washington. The threat of switching spheres will always keep all powers on edge. Just take the example of the SFR Yugoslavia and its role in founding the Non-Aligned Movement.

 

And Britain is a Hegemon in the English Isles.  The fact that you can enforce your will within a given region (note that you have to add continental Europe because Paris was NOT a hegemon in Europe) is significant but it is VASTLY different then being a global hegemon.  There have been 2 or 3(If you count Rome - which is another debate).  Anyway.  The key difference is that France WAS balanced.  It was not a uni-polar setup so your argument does not hold up.  I think you are fascinated by the details.  The British clearly were the driving force in building alliances to combat France, Maintaining the blockade, etc.  The balance in Europe was being contested however at the end of the day it was balanced.  These things are much larger than where an army was operating at any given time or who was in any given alliance.  Britain, mostly the British Navy, was the counterbalance to France and she ended up winning.  Sorry, you cannot convince me that France is a good counter example.  Post Napoleon however, now that we can talk about.  There actually was a global hegemon in play post Napoleon and THAT is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

I am sure you are very proud of your country.  I would not "dictate" how you should think.  I would advise you however to consider where you find your country in relation to the world.  You exist on one of if not the most heavily trafficked land invasion routs throughout history (the Great North European Plain).  Poland has no significant natural defensive boundaries to her East or West.  Poland is left with a few options and none of them are easy or palatable.  Your options rapidly reduce if your neighbors are hostile (which you must assume they will be someday in the future - its a safe assumption by the way).

You can be subservient to the power to your East or West and hope that they do not lose if they confront each other.  Or you can look to an outside power to garuntee security.  A global hegemon is your best option there because they will want to balance Europe internally.  The hegemon will be uniterested in "absorbing you".  Not because Poland is a bad place or something, but the hegemon will want to use you to balance other forces.  This is actually good for Poland because Poland also want to balance against them and outside help, helps.  Poland can lastly seek to gather an alliance around herself of other vulnerable border nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Czech, Slovakia, LLE, etc.)  By leading such an alliance it is even more attractive for the Hegemon to court Warsaw - mutual benifit again.

That being said, If powers to your east or west gain enough then such an alliance without the hegemon is doomed.

I do however understand Warsaw's reluctance.  Last Hegemon they relied on did not arrive to support Poland...that is another story but Britain had already declined too much to be of any use.

 

If the United States actually were to decline (much to the bloviating media and politicians distain the US has not objectivly declined fwiw) then Poland would be foced to try to go it alone, yes.  That has not worked out well, historically, for Poland.  I recomend against routing for this outcome as it is a very insecure one for you.