Eighty years on, ‘never again’ is sounding hollow

In 1945
| Photo Credit: AP

As conflict once again darkens horizons in the subcontinent, West Asia, North Africa and eastern Europe, Europeans are commemorating 80 years since the guns fell silent over Europe and the world’s most destructive war began to wind down. On May 8, 1945, as news of Germany’s surrender spread, crowds surged onto the streets of European cities in spontaneous gestures of thanksgiving and relief. In the decades that followed, that outpouring of relief has been commemorated as Victory in Europe (or VE) Day. Yet, Europe, though free, was shattered and bankrupt. After the war, the task of rebuilding Europe went hand in hand with efforts to prevent another war starting on the continent. ‘Never again’ was the watchword.

From dates to memory

Eighty years on, ‘never again’ is beginning to sound somewhat hollow. The contrast in the way that this major anniversary of Nazi Germany’s surrender is being commemorated in Russia and western Europe is telling. Indeed, the fact that the same event is celebrated on both sides of the former Iron Curtain on two different days suggests that the peace of May 1945 was tenuous. Tensions between the wartime allies of Britain, France and the United States on one side, and the Soviet Union on the other, meant that Stalin refused to accept the ceasefire signed by Germany in Reims on May 7 at the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (led by General Eisenhower). This was to come into force at 11.01 p.m. the following day. Stalin instead insisted on a second, grander, surrender in Berlin (then under Soviet control) the following evening, by which time President Harry Truman, General Charles de Gaulle and Prime Minister Winston Churchill had already formally announced Germany’s surrender. When this document was signed in Berlin, it was already May 9 in Moscow. Hence the discrepancy in dates over essentially the same surrender.

As with the difference with dates, so too with memory. It is an article of faith in Russia that the USSR’s contribution to defeating fascism is discounted by its former allies. Estimates vary, but Soviet casualties are thought to be 26 million, including 11 million military deaths in what Moscow calls the Great Patriotic War. This was 10% of the entire Soviet population. Stalin was also bitter about the delay in opening a second front in the fighting against Germany to draw away some German troops after Hitler’s invasion in 1941. Less often acknowledged in these accounts is that Moscow changed sides halfway through the war, when Hitler double-crossed Stalin. Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact on August 23, 1939, which contained a secret protocol dividing Poland and the rest of eastern Europe between them. A week later, Hitler invaded Poland from the west and the Soviet army moved in on eastern Poland 16 days after that. The German and Soviet occupation of Poland was brutal, with mass transfers of population. It is estimated that Poland lost 20% of its pre-war population. Thereafter, the Red Army moved into the Baltics and Finland. In these circumstances, perhaps it is unsurprising that trust was thin on the ground.

The commemorations

As with the history, so with the commemorations. Moscow’s Victory Day (a national holiday) has grown into a massive military parade that celebrates Russia’s latest weaponry — a great patriotic spectacle rather than an occasion of remembrance. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the parade has acquired additional significance, and this year will include troops from other countries. It will be attended by guests, including China’s President Xi Jinping.

Russia’s erstwhile allies of that war observed VE Day rather more sombrely, with the focus on thanksgiving and honouring the few remaining veterans who served in the war. And of course there is the spectre of conflict against Russia hanging over the continent — a continent that started two world wars and has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace for 80 years.

After the Second World War ended, America underwrote Western Europe’s renewal (eastern Europe being under Soviet influence) through the dual approach of the Marshall Plan for reconstruction and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for external defence. President Truman described the security and prosperity provided by both as ‘two halves of the same walnut’. There was an expressly political element to the American financial support to industrialise in a way that pushed the 17 States of southern and western Europe into ever closer economic and political union. It is testament to the success of this political project that when Germany’s Bundestag voted in March to remove limits on defence spending, the rest of Europe breathed a collective sigh of relief.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s contradictory messaging on Ukraine and his refusal to reiterate full-throated support for NATO, including support for Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, has thrown Europe into a panic.

European leaders are in full agreement that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has moved from being a threat to the world order to being a direct threat to Europe. In French President Emmanuel Macron’s words, Mr. Putin is ‘an imperialist who seeks to rewrite history’.

An air of insecurity

And so Europe is rearming. Key European NATO members including Britain, France and Germany, are preparing for an orderly American exit from NATO. The European Union has proposed a defence fund, relaxed curbs on defence spending and published its first ever defence strategy. Several member states have advised their citizens to stockpile emergency survival rations for 72 hours. Poland and the Baltic States (all bordering Russia) have withdrawn from the landmine treaty. Almost all states are raising defence spending.

This backdrop provides little room for celebration. The insecurity might also excuse to some extent the utter insularity of the commemorations in Western Europe — outsiders watching these might be forgiven for believing that the war was a purely European affair. Of course it was not. This was a war between empires: the fields of Europe and north Africa are soaked with the blood of people from Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Caribbean as well as America and Europe. And so, we all have a stake in how Europe settles its differences.

As the shadows of conflicts darken different parts of the world, there is no room for complacency.

Priyanjali Malik writes on politics and international relations