... the guns fell silent across Europe as World War II came to an end on that continent. Hostilities endured in the Pacific for a few more months, until Japan finally surrendered and a fleeting peace ensued - until nations turned again to war to impose their agendas on others.
I've had a sort-of-intimate association with World War II, despite having been born more than a decade after it ended, because both of my parents played a part in it. My father served in Britain's Royal Air Force, while my mother spent many of the war's evenings and nights serving as an air raid observer and front-line fire-fighter against incendiary bombs. They spent long hours talking with me about their experiences, and encouraged me to read widely about the conflict - the beginning of my lifelong interest in military history and matters martial. Today, I find myself snorting with irritation at finding newly-published books blaring that they've uncovered this, or that, or the other "secret" or "forgotten battle" from the conflict. Most were/are neither secret nor forgotten - it's just that people are no longer taught about the war, and the authors figure they can make money by exploiting that ignorance.
Be that as it may, today we see conflicts erupting in several places around the globe, some between nuclear powers. The threats of religious frenzy, nationalist jingoism and economic rivalry are greater than ever before. In addition, some nations are suffering internal problems that make their leaders want to distract their people - and what better avenue than to whip up national pride by pointing to this, or that, or the other alleged "enemy" and urging the people to unite against them? Too few people today - and certainly too few politicians - have served in the military, and know what war really costs in lives and suffering, and see it purely as an instrument of national policy along with trade sanctions, tariffs and general geopolitical brow-beating. That's a particularly dangerous situation.
So . . . eighty years since the last World War. How long until the next one? My gloomy prognostication is that it's closer than we think. Too many nations are internally radicalized, for political and/or religious and/or other reasons; and too many have nuclear weapons and oversized armed forces. As Abraham Maslow pointed out:
There are too many hammers out there, and too many of those wielding them think they're good with them (when, in fact, they're mediocre, unskilled and inept). That gets people killed.
So, happy anniversary . . . and may we be spared another World War, by the grace of God, lest a better-armed world finally succeed in annihilating ourselves.
Peter
11 comments:
I’ve been studying the second world war since I was a child, and only a couple of days ago an offhand internet comment led me to discover the incident at Castle Itter and Operation Cowboy… war can make strange bedfellows.
Your lips to God's ears... Especially now.
the part that blows my mind is that the morons in DC still think we could fight and win a war like we in WW2. there is no way in hell we could even come close to what this country did back then.
we do NOT have the factories for one thing. or even the semi skilled workforce for another/
even the people are different today compared to 1940. as my Dad told me years ago, no one really "wins" a war. people die and things get destroyed wholesale and for what ?
as for nukes, I still think of that old movie
DR. Strangelove, the whole idea of using nukes is just insane really.
funny fact, back when I was at CGSC. there where Japanese officers there and they all swore that using nukes really "saved " them.
as they where planning to fight to the last CHILD with spears. weird world we live in now isn't it ?
Appreciated this post, but just wondered if this was a typo: "Too many people today - and certainly too few politicians - have served in the military..." Should the "many" have been a "few"?
Bloomberg (news) phrased it as the Soviets/Russians won with the help of allies. Spit on Bloomberg's grave!
Ack! Yes, you're right. Thanks for the heads-up. I've fixed the post.
Re: "Today, I find myself snorting with irritation at finding newly-published books blaring that they've uncovered this, or that, or the other "secret" or "forgotten battle" from the conflict. Most were/are neither secret nor forgotten - it's just that people are no longer taught about the war, and the authors figure they can make money by exploiting that ignorance."
Wow, do we think alike! Have you seen the internet chat-rooms on WW2, the guys who think they're world-renowned experts because they played "Call of Duty" growing up!?
I visited the National WW2 Museum in New Orleans years ago, just after it opened. I had to travel there alone - my wife had a prior commitment - so elected to dine alone in a place on Bourbon St. that happened to be staffed by college kids mostly.
I decided on the spot to conduct a brief experiment by devising a five-question quiz on D-Day. Apologies to our British-CW friends, I just kept it to the American beaches - no Sword, Gold or Juno.
The questions were flat-out softballs. Who was the Prime Minister of Britain at the time? Who was in overall command of the invasion forces? Of our forces in Europe? When and where did the invasion take place? And so on.
Well, imagine my disappointment when not one of those kids knew a single correct answer to my questions. They were all actually quite kind, but it was obvious that I might as well have been talking about something which happened five-hundred years ago instead of the 1940s.
Historical ignorance is very real in the U.S. and it is getting worse all the time, and not just about WW2, but lots of other things, too.
The blame lies with the academy, in that history and civics are no longer required subjects in our schools, and even those schools K-12 which teach it, no longer teach military history as a matter of routine. Neither do very many institutions of higher learning.
A citizenry ignorant of history is ill-equipped to discharge its duties as a free people living in a constitutional republic. It is as simple as that.
I've seen a few videos that suggest that due to the dispute over the Kuril islands (which dates back into the 1800's) Japan and Russia never actually signed anything ending their "at war" status -- not even a ceasefire, much less a peace treaty -- and so WW2 is technically still ongoing as a result.
Of course it's de facto over since they aren't shooting at each other and have other diplomatic arrangements. Still, if that's the case, it's a fun little oddity, IMO.
I doubt the next global conflict will be anything like WWI and WWII in terms of two alliance blocks fighting each other. The world is becoming not only increasingly fragmented, but common ground seems to be something so rare it's like an "endangered species".
The next global conflict is going to be a bunch of local and regional conflicts, steadily escalating until there is no winner and loser, but equally exhausted belligerents, incapable of sustaining not only the conflict, but also any semblance of economic system, leading to a crash of whatever is left of society. All this repeating in all the various conflict areas until there's no remnants of a civilized society. Then the remaining non-belligerents may want to take advantage but will get "infected" by the collapse syndrome and will crash under the weight of their own internal rot.
We are confronted with a systemic crisis - political, economic and social - and systemic crisis this old and entrenched cannot be solved, only replaced after collapse.
Yes, that is essentially correct. After 1941, the Western Allies never faced more than 20% of the German army. Of course, the USA did defeat Japan essentially single-handedly, despite the horrendous losses the Chinese incurred and the Soviets' "Me too!" at the end.
In the words of Albert Einstein, "I do not know what weapons will be used in WW3; but World War Four will be fought with stone spears."
Post a Comment