For years there has been a heated debate among historians about the stages of globalization in the past, and especially about the moment of the take-off of true globalization (that is: the most recent one). Historians have an obnoxious tendency to constantly question existing theories about history, and certainly every time someone exclaims that something really new has happened in our time (“historic!”) to put that into a more correct perspective. To be clear: this may be obnoxious and sometimes even petty, it is certainly not nonsensical. For example, the claim that the current globalization was not the first one and that it did not suddenly start in 1990, with the end of the Cold War, surely is relevant.

This book by Jürgen Osterhammel and Niels Petersson fits in with that. They argue that globalization really got going as early as 1750, together with the Industrial Revolution, the global world trade and the European domination of the world. They admit, of course, that the militarization of Europe (in their opinion, mainly under the influence of the Turkish threat) and the expansion of the Europeans' sphere of activity in the Atlantic area were decisive preliminary steps. But only from 1750, and actually especially in the 19th century, can you speak of a real globalization, with not only political and economic but also socio-cultural aspects. And - not surprisingly - they expressly link this to the much contested process of 'modernity': “”Globalization» is closely related to «modernization». Structure-forming long-distance relationships already existed in pre-modern times. But it was the cultural creativity of European modernity – keywords would be rationality, organization, industry, communication technology – that made possible interdependencies of a new scope and intensity. Conversely, the development of European modernity took place in a global context from the very beginning.”

With that they stir in a very sensitive and turbulent game, because the link globalization-modernity has been questioned by many others - historians and non-historians. Osterhammel and Petersson's booklet is too concise to give a satisfactory answer to this thorny question. Moreover, in the meantime, other historians have arisen who view the periodization of globalisation differently, see for example Peter N. Stearns [b:Globalization in World History|9251305|Globalization in World History (Themes in World History)|Peter N. Stearns|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1285616769l/9251305._SY75_.jpg|14131838] (2017). And then we are not even talking about the question of how exactly the Great Divergence, the (temporary) domination of the world by Western superpowers, can be explained. This booklet certainly is meritorious, but the last word on the growth of globalization has not yet been said. Rating 2.5 stars.