If you have an iconoclastic mind you have noticed that we live in the Age of the Anniversaries". When you roll out of bed you are told that something terribly important has happened that day or that the day is dedicated to something worthy. Frequently there is a call to action embedded in proclaiming the Day of….". Naturally not all this registered by normal mortals because the dedication might only be local and self-congratulatory. Possibly the commemoration only wishes to call attention to something that remains duly unnoticed by the world.
A few weeks ago we had the end of WW2". At least in Europe" I would add being from the West Coast. The war was not over until it ended and the end in Asia might be more significant than the outbreak of peace" in Europe. Every coin has a reverse side. As far as Europe and Asia are concerned in both instances the celebration of peace deserves restraint.
During the conquest by the Reich all of Europe shared the same fate. As Hitler lost ground Europe drifted into separate orbits. The trajectory depended on the political order of the liberator" and the post-war intentions derived of his system. Accordingly liberation" deserves quotation marks because for most of the continent there was no liberation only a change of overlords. As Stalin put it the conqueror gained the right to impose his system on those he rescued by occupying them.
Rhetorically the world war might have been fought for freedom and against servitude. In fact often at issue was only which totalitarian system shall prevail. In practice this meant that in 1945 the continents west entered a period of self-determined national alternatives while the rest wound up under Soviet domination. The result of the latter amounted to a foreign yoke that made its victims colonies of a tyrannical crimson empire. In these cases the wars end only meant the cessation of the conventional war against Germany and not peace. Indeed Sovietized Europe became part of a system that continued a war with a goal and the means suited for the new phase of the conflict. Stalins aim was the control of western Europe to be followed by global supremacy. Marxist internationalism historic Russian expansionism and domestic totalitarianism all supported this pursuit.
Subconsciously the West might suspect that subjugation is a natural condition of the peoples between Vienna and Vladivostok on the Pacific. If so Mongols Muslims Tsars the Prussians have only filled a vacuum in a region unsuited for self-rule. This narrative has virtues. It allows inaction when a danger unfolds that is not imminent. Such a case is the disinterest of the West when the Turks conquered the Balkans then Hungary and nearly Austria the door to western Europe. The warning Katyn sent could be ignored and few lost sleep because of the millions destroyed in the GULAG. Focusing on closed cases -Nazi death camps- was since verbal outrage involved no hardship preferred to action against ongoing evil.
The political foundations of WW2 were laid when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" partitioned Europe between Hitler and Stalin. During the war confirmed by the Yalta summit came another division by agreement. It confirmed those parts of the Hitler-Stalin pact that partitioned Poland and also created a new Communist domain that left only the West as a democratic realm. As the Communists were free to contest power in the western fringe of Eurasia even on this level the war albeit with other means continued after 1945 between the eastern and the western zones.
The division of the booty did not stop in Europe. In Asia the struggle once waged against Imperial Japan continued between the communists and local forces that were moderately supported by Washington. In the east Moscow did not accept the deal to leave all parties in the possession of what they held at wars end. Wars such as the intensified civil war in China the Korean War the attempted conquest of the Philippines and Indo-China come to mind.
It might be noted that in Europe the USA respected the partition. She did so even when it would have been easy to exploit local discontent with Soviet rule. In the case of the 1956 Hungarian revolution and the Prague Spring" (68) Washington assured Moscow that it respects the Yalta deal. Even if naively the US expected that to cause Soviet moderation it was interpreted to be a reassurance and became a detriment to democratic resistance. In the instance of the Berlin crises" somewhat hesitantly America stood up in favor of the status quo that favored it.
There are further indicators that on May 8th 1945 only the formal antagonists of the war have changed. Neither Peace nor liberty came; only in response to nuclear arms were the outward signs of the war waged for total domination adjusted.
Previous hostilities carried out by new participants continued in the pursuit of old goals and often with novel instruments. These were political economic propaganda and relied on subversion and terror by proxies. Already during the war allies began to drift apart and to cast themselves in antagonistic roles.
One issue that converted the formal world war into a new type of conflict can be located in Poland. The USSR as a successor state of Russia made the world war possible by again agreeing with a German state to partition Poland. Not democratic revulsion but Hitlers frustration by Britain led to the dissolution of this alliance by attacking the Soviet Union. Stalin fought the war not to smash aggression but to extend his power after the victory.
With that the immediate goal of Soviet policy became to secure this time with the consent of the western democracies that share of Europe that Hitler had given it in 1939. This reveals that the anti-Nazi alliance did not pursue the same mid- and long-term goals. In 1943 the evidence of Soviet mass murder known as Katyn" which intended to decapitate Poland became public. The incompatible war aims of the Allies" were so difficult to cover up that they had to be passed over in silence. Yet the Kremlins decision to break relations with the Polish government-in-exile that protested the massacre of its people foretold the vicissitudes to follow.
These troubles were a consequence of the fact that Stalin contrary to the pledge of the Allies to replace Nazi rule with democracy had no interest in independent democracies but strived for subjugated satellites. This had consequences that went beyond a spat among the soon-to-be victorious Allies. Yet Stalins actions put him at variance with several forces that shape the modern world.
Besides the war-time allies democratic forces opposed the Soviet order. So did the proponents of sovereignty and the nationalists. This united in enmity the trends that are predestined to prevail in the modern era. Such groups recalled that their backwardness and dependent status were caused by great power domination. Chief among these had been Russia that served as the reserve army of reaction" in the 19th century. Meanwhile Russophobia rose due to the revival of traditional russification. It might have been the historical luck of the West that having to combat the listed trends the Kremlin could subjugate Europes east but failed to assimilate and to fully pacify the region.
Moscows gains provoked the peoples in the zone of its influence to resist their new overlord. In most cases this resistance was passive. Where the geography allowed it even regardless of being a lost cause a partisan war continued for years. The green grass under the snow prevailed in wait for the opportunity to grow again. In 1953 in Berlin in 1956 in Hungary and during the Prague Spring in 68 attempts were made to overthrow the unnatural Soviet order. Finally in 1989 the Kremlins control of its war-booty could be terminated. Given the rearrangement that followed it might be realistic to opine that at least in Europe the war ended not in 45 but in 89.
The capitulation of the Axis powers had superficially ended the military phase of the world war. However with some of the roles recast the struggle for global rule continued with political means subversion and always at the brink of open war. The inherently unstable partial peace brought the good life to the advanced West that enjoyed an economic miracle". For the less fortunate nations subjugation continued terror rained development stagnated and freedom remained a dream. For this misfortunate category of nations 1945 has not been a turning point to celebrate but only a moment of hope that faded like a rain-bow.
If you have an iconoclastic mind you have noticed that we live in the Age of the Anniversaries". When you roll out of bed you are told that something terribly important has happened that day or that the day is dedicated to something worthy. Frequently there is a call to action embedded in proclaiming the Day of….". Naturally not all this registered by normal mortals because the dedication might only be local and self-congratulatory. Possibly the commemoration only wishes to call attention to something that remains duly unnoticed by the world.
A few weeks ago we had the end of WW2". At least in Europe" I would add being from the West Coast. The war was not over until it ended and the end in Asia might be more significant than the outbreak of peace" in Europe. Every coin has a reverse side. As far as Europe and Asia are concerned in both instances the celebration of peace deserves restraint.
During the conquest by the Reich all of Europe shared the same fate. As Hitler lost ground Europe drifted into separate orbits. The trajectory depended on the political order of the liberator" and the post-war intentions derived of his system. Accordingly liberation" deserves quotation marks because for most of the continent there was no liberation only a change of overlords. As Stalin put it the conqueror gained the right to impose his system on those he rescued by occupying them.
Rhetorically the world war might have been fought for freedom and against servitude. In fact often at issue was only which totalitarian system shall prevail. In practice this meant that in 1945 the continents west entered a period of self-determined national alternatives while the rest wound up under Soviet domination. The result of the latter amounted to a foreign yoke that made its victims colonies of a tyrannical crimson empire. In these cases the wars end only meant the cessation of the conventional war against Germany and not peace. Indeed Sovietized Europe became part of a system that continued a war with a goal and the means suited for the new phase of the conflict. Stalins aim was the control of western Europe to be followed by global supremacy. Marxist internationalism historic Russian expansionism and domestic totalitarianism all supported this pursuit.
Subconsciously the West might suspect that subjugation is a natural condition of the peoples between Vienna and Vladivostok on the Pacific. If so Mongols Muslims Tsars the Prussians have only filled a vacuum in a region unsuited for self-rule. This narrative has virtues. It allows inaction when a danger unfolds that is not imminent. Such a case is the disinterest of the West when the Turks conquered the Balkans then Hungary and nearly Austria the door to western Europe. The warning Katyn sent could be ignored and few lost sleep because of the millions destroyed in the GULAG. Focusing on closed cases -Nazi death camps- was since verbal outrage involved no hardship preferred to action against ongoing evil.
The political foundations of WW2 were laid when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" partitioned Europe between Hitler and Stalin. During the war confirmed by the Yalta summit came another division by agreement. It confirmed those parts of the Hitler-Stalin pact that partitioned Poland and also created a new Communist domain that left only the West as a democratic realm. As the Communists were free to contest power in the western fringe of Eurasia even on this level the war albeit with other means continued after 1945 between the eastern and the western zones.
The division of the booty did not stop in Europe. In Asia the struggle once waged against Imperial Japan continued between the communists and local forces that were moderately supported by Washington. In the east Moscow did not accept the deal to leave all parties in the possession of what they held at wars end. Wars such as the intensified civil war in China the Korean War the attempted conquest of the Philippines and Indo-China come to mind.
It might be noted that in Europe the USA respected the partition. She did so even when it would have been easy to exploit local discontent with Soviet rule. In the case of the 1956 Hungarian revolution and the Prague Spring" (68) Washington assured Moscow that it respects the Yalta deal. Even if naively the US expected that to cause Soviet moderation it was interpreted to be a reassurance and became a detriment to democratic resistance. In the instance of the Berlin crises" somewhat hesitantly America stood up in favor of the status quo that favored it.
There are further indicators that on May 8th 1945 only the formal antagonists of the war have changed. Neither Peace nor liberty came; only in response to nuclear arms were the outward signs of the war waged for total domination adjusted.
Previous hostilities carried out by new participants continued in the pursuit of old goals and often with novel instruments. These were political economic propaganda and relied on subversion and terror by proxies. Already during the war allies began to drift apart and to cast themselves in antagonistic roles.
One issue that converted the formal world war into a new type of conflict can be located in Poland. The USSR as a successor state of Russia made the world war possible by again agreeing with a German state to partition Poland. Not democratic revulsion but Hitlers frustration by Britain led to the dissolution of this alliance by attacking the Soviet Union. Stalin fought the war not to smash aggression but to extend his power after the victory.
With that the immediate goal of Soviet policy became to secure this time with the consent of the western democracies that share of Europe that Hitler had given it in 1939. This reveals that the anti-Nazi alliance did not pursue the same mid- and long-term goals. In 1943 the evidence of Soviet mass murder known as Katyn" which intended to decapitate Poland became public. The incompatible war aims of the Allies" were so difficult to cover up that they had to be passed over in silence. Yet the Kremlins decision to break relations with the Polish government-in-exile that protested the massacre of its people foretold the vicissitudes to follow.
These troubles were a consequence of the fact that Stalin contrary to the pledge of the Allies to replace Nazi rule with democracy had no interest in independent democracies but strived for subjugated satellites. This had consequences that went beyond a spat among the soon-to-be victorious Allies. Yet Stalins actions put him at variance with several forces that shape the modern world.
Besides the war-time allies democratic forces opposed the Soviet order. So did the proponents of sovereignty and the nationalists. This united in enmity the trends that are predestined to prevail in the modern era. Such groups recalled that their backwardness and dependent status were caused by great power domination. Chief among these had been Russia that served as the reserve army of reaction" in the 19th century. Meanwhile Russophobia rose due to the revival of traditional russification. It might have been the historical luck of the West that having to combat the listed trends the Kremlin could subjugate Europes east but failed to assimilate and to fully pacify the region.
Moscows gains provoked the peoples in the zone of its influence to resist their new overlord. In most cases this resistance was passive. Where the geography allowed it even regardless of being a lost cause a partisan war continued for years. The green grass under the snow prevailed in wait for the opportunity to grow again. In 1953 in Berlin in 1956 in Hungary and during the Prague Spring in 68 attempts were made to overthrow the unnatural Soviet order. Finally in 1989 the Kremlins control of its war-booty could be terminated. Given the rearrangement that followed it might be realistic to opine that at least in Europe the war ended not in 45 but in 89.
The capitulation of the Axis powers had superficially ended the military phase of the world war. However with some of the roles recast the struggle for global rule continued with political means subversion and always at the brink of open war. The inherently unstable partial peace brought the good life to the advanced West that enjoyed an economic miracle". For the less fortunate nations subjugation continued terror rained development stagnated and freedom remained a dream. For this misfortunate category of nations 1945 has not been a turning point to celebrate but only a moment of hope that faded like a rain-bow.