I've been watching a lot of documentaries on the two World Wars in the 20th century, and in particular World War I. And one of the interesting things we can learn from those documentaries is how the end of World War I contributed to the beginning of World War II.
Of course, the stipulations from the Treaty of Versailles contributed much to the beginning of World War II, especially in Europe. But the deliberations at Versailles also contributed to that war's Pacific theater. For Japan has been one of the allied nations in World War I. We don't think of it that way because it is easy for us to think that war as only having a European theater. But because opponents saw opportunity in attacking each other's colonies, World War I was a global war.
As one of the allies, Japan was attacking an area in East Asia held by Germany. Their participation there meant that they became part of the talks at Versailles. Japan was completely ignored at those deliberations. And so Japan eventually felt the need to establish their own empire in order to gain respect from other nations which was denied to them during the talks at Versailles.
Of course the effects of the Versailles Treaty also led up to World War II in Europe. From the overwhelming hardships caused by the economic punishments to the forced admission that Germany was responsible for the war to loss of land and to the drastic reduction in Germany's military, that treaty laid the groundwork to the acceptance of extremism that took the form of Nazism. And Hitler and Nazism began to gain popular support because they promised to erase the effects of the Versailles Treaty.
As with Japan, Hitler planned to recover Germany's significance in the world by working to establish an empire. Hitler started breaking the Versailles Treaty by rebuilding Germany's military. He also helped the economy with public works projects.
Another facet here is that Hitler's empire started with recovering what many Germans felt entitled to: recovery of the Rhineland, which had been lost because Germany could not keep up with paying reparations.
Then Hitler appealed to a sense of entitlement in the takeover of Austria. And then Hitler argued that because they were Germanic people in the Sudetenland, that Germany was entitled to take control of that land. His invasion of Eastern Europe was also out of a sense of entitlement because of how densely populated Germany was and the belief in how inferior the slavic people were to the Aryan race.
Now I am not saying that Russia is entitled to regain territory lost from since the end of the Russian Empire under the Tsars or were part of the Warsaw Pact. But we must understand why Putin would feel entitled to invade Ukraine.
Another motivation for World War II was relief from the extreme economic hardships that Germany was suffering.
So there are three factors caused by how World War I ended which led to the beginning of World War II: the seeking for significance, the sense of entitlement, and escaping economic hardships with the seeking of prosperity.
It seemed that we applied those lessons at the end of World War II as seen in how we treated both Germany and Japan. We helped those nations to recover and sought to enforce a peace without attempting to humiliate them. However, are we still using those lessons learned in how we respond to today's enemies?
Consider our treatment of Russia. Not only have we broken the understanding that Bush I and Gorbachev had regarding the reunification of Germany by moving NATO eastward, by assuming to be the sole superpower after the dissolution of Soviet Union, we have attacked its sense of significance.
How did we attack its sense of significance? We started by moving off NATO eastward to lands that were formerly part of the Russian Empire under the Tsars and later on part of the Warsaw Pact nations. Some of those nations border Russia itself. Such would be comparable to the Soviet Union getting Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War or if Russia or China had courted Mexico into aligning itself with one of them to the extent of hosting their military bases.
Here, we must understand that Russia sees itself as a superpower that is equal to us. And so we should take note of some precedents that our nation has set because of its superpower status. Our nation's example has shown that superpowers can invade whom they want for whatever reason they give with impunity. If Russia's idea of being significant means being a superpower like the U.S and being able to act with impunity like we do, we have contributed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by some of what we have done in the past.
The same applies to China as it now sees itself as a superpower. That means China could easily prove itself by invading another nation with impunity. That is because that is what superpowers like the U.S. can and actually do.
But seeking significance isn't the only reason why Russia has invaded Ukraine. Putin has said that the Ukrainian people and Russian people are one people. And because of history, it is likely that Putin feels entitled of his view of the relationship between the Russian and Ukrainian people. Please understand that I am not saying that Putin is right. I am simply speculating at the logic that Putin is employing.
After all, when Hitler started to take over other nations, he wrongfully thought that he was entitled to do so. But his decision was based on what he felt entitled to do as the leader of Germany. And he successfully marketed that reason to his people. The same applies to Putin and his current invasion of Ukraine and any thoughts about invading the other nations that were formerly part of Russia either under the Tsars or under the Bolsheviks.
Handling Putin's sense of entitlement regarding his attempt to conquer Ukraine must must include accommodating his flawed sense of fairness without unnecessarily surrendering any nations to him. If indeed, one of Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine is a historical-based sense of entitlement, that means that his invasion of Ukraine is not an assault on NATO and Western Europe. And so we cannot afford to portray his invasion that way. But by accommodating his flawed sense of fairness, we can perhaps get a glimpse of how far Putin will go in trying to conquer and rule over Ukraine. And Europe has already seen some original historical narratives of such past invasions by tyrannical dictators. At the same time, there is significant difference between the past and now in that, if what is being said is an accurate enough analysis of Putin's invasions, Whereas Napoleon and Hitler drew now boundaries for their own imperial dreams, that is not the case with Putin.
And what has been said about Russia, also applies to China.
If we add to the above the sanctions being forced on Russia, we could be providing another incentive for Russia to invade some other nations. Significant enough economic hardships can cause some nations to attack others just as economic suffering provided another reason for Germany to invade its neighbors.
Of course, we must find minimally provocative ways to successfully resist Russians invasion against Ukraine. But those ways must account for what could bring success for Ukraine without escalating the conflict. And it is our ability to accommodate by understanding Putin and his perspective which is crucial here. Also, we cannot afford to intervene in ways that makes Russia's war against Ukraine a war that eventually pits Russia against NATO. For such a war like that could easily lead to nuclear exchanges that could spell the end of civilized human life on earth.
After Russia's war against Ukraine, or perhaps during it, we must find ways to reduce the reasons why a nation, especially a superpower nation, would attack another nation. Without condoning the evil practiced by an aggressive nation, we must find ways to give it significance in ways that would influence it not to attack other nations. And we must ensure that no nation is economically suffering so that it would attack another nation in order to relieve their economic distress. The more we do all three of those things, the more we show that we have learned from past wars on how to prevent future wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment