The German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) famously said, “The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
It is a truism so profound that was later stolen by philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952), originally from Spain but raised and educated in the United States who said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” and by the great British statesman Winston Churchill (1874-1965) who said “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
I prefer Hegel’s powerful original, and, while intensely wise, continues to beg the question… Why?
At one level you need go no further than YouTube and channels like ‘myworldisgettingdumber’ who interview people on camera and this happens…
Q) Who fought in the Vietnam War? A) The United States (pause) and Korea.
Q) Who fought in the Korean War? A) I don’t know.
Q) Who fought in WWI? A) George Washington.
Q) Who fought in WWI? A) England…Q) Against who? A) The United States.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I should add that not all those interviewed were young people.
When I was teaching at some of the Universities here in Taiwan I was always amazed at the low level of world history knowledge among students, particularly about WWII, the biggest conflict in human history, the echoes of which continue to reverberate around the globe 80 years later. It killed an estimated 50 to 85 million people and fundamentally shaped the world we live in today.
I’m going to ignore American inventor and entrepreneur Henry Ford’s (1863-1947) now infamous quote that “history is bunk” because there is controversy around whether those were his actual words, and the fact he spent years trying to ‘clarify’ and ‘spin’ his adage so it made him look less of a fool.
It is clear we can learn from history. You go to a restaurant and the food is rubbish, you don’t go back. You learn from history. Human actions and animal instinct are all built on either learning from history and experience, or inherited learning.
In the current global turmoil over Ukraine it is no surprise that politicians, scholars, journalists and anyone who takes an interest in world affairs are looking back at events like WWII, and drawing parallels with how the world’s nations at peace reacted to and dealt with aggressive and bullying nations like Germany and Japan at the time. There are many other similar situations scattered along the timeline of human history.
This is when you run into the dilemma of what is the correct response? There is a critical balance between stopping a belligerent nation or dictator with force and risking tipping the entire situation over the edge to a much worse and damaging conflict.
Perhaps the most famous example of this, in the west at least, was the hapless British statesman Neville Chamberlain and his foreign policy of appeasement with the Munich Agreement on 30 September 1938 This ceded the German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany led by German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in exchange for an assurance by Hitler that we would go no further. The Germans broke the agreement and invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, beginning the Second World War.
It could be argued that this policy of appeasement and allowing Germany to take an inch, encouraged them to take a mile. Herein lies the dilemma when nations want nothing but peace, are faced with bullying nations who appear only set on their own interests and gains at the expense of others.
At the time of the Munich agreement, appeasement may have seemed like a better policy, rather than risk a repeat of the horrendous slaughter of WWI and the mincing machine of the trench warfare of 1914-1918. Bear in mind the Munich agreement with Hitler was signed barely 20 years after the end of WWI and appeasement must have seemed like a better option than risking another bloody fight with Germany.
After the First World War, when Austria-Hungary was dismembered the Sudeten Germans found themselves living in the new country of Czechoslovakia. The similarity of Hitler wanting the Sudetenland back, is not dissimilar to Putin wanting Ukraine back after it regained its independence in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is no small prize as it is the second-largest country by area in Europe after Russia.
The west’s acute response to Putin’s actions with sanctions going beyond what anyone really expected, reflects a deep-seated mistrust of Russia's intentions and fears he will go further, as did Hitler in 1938. The hope is to throttle the invasion by starving it of funds and materials, rather than outright military action with boots-on-the-ground risking a global escalation.
It should be remembered that this is an ongoing war which began with the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 which was largely ignored by the west. “If the West and the whole world had raised their voices against the invasion of Crimea in 2014, would we have faced today’s picture?,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said earlier this month. While not the most level-headed of leaders, Erdogan has a fair point.
Did ignoring the situation in Crimea embolden Putin to take another step believing the west would just sit back and ignore it because it did not want to upset the apple-cart of energy supply and global geo-politics. If he did think that he was clearly mistaken, but it’s too late now, and did the international lack of reaction to Crimea result in the misery and deaths happening in Ukraine now?
Whose ‘fault’ is it? Putin for being a dictator seeking to expand his empire, or the west for pretty much standing idly by and allowing him to get away with the annexation of part of Ukraine eight years ago.
Looking around the world there are other dangerous situations that have been brewing for years that have only received mild rebukes from the west. The obvious one is, of course, the South China Sea, which has seen China ride roughshod and bully small nations as it militarised islands and atolls in what can only be described as a giant land-grab in the heart of Asia.
Speaking alongside President Barack Obama in 2015 Chinese President Xi Jinping said.
“Relevant construction activities that China is undertaking in the Nansha (Spratly) Islands do not target or impact any country, and China does not intend to pursue militarization”. History shows how empty that assurance was when you look at satellite pictures of the island and atolls now and the mass of military equipment they contain.
Trust is an important issue in global geopolitics. When the bonds of trust are broken, violence is seldom far behind despite the best efforts of more level-headed politicians and diplomats.
While no country can rely on other countries to help it out in times of crisis, Ukraine is proving that the world views dictators and bullies in a historical context, and there reaches a point where they will intervene to protect the innocent, protect fairness and democracy and maintain global peace. In today’s globalised society the bonds of interconnection are strong and outright aggression will not be tolerated for fear of where it will lead.
It is a well founded fear, as the events of 1939 to 1945 and the aggression of the powerful nations of Germany and Japan proved only too well. In today’s world there are different aggressors and the world knows only too well what happens if you let them go too far.
After the events of the past month in Ukraine, I’m frankly amazed there are still some in Taiwan who say it’s all hopeless and no one, in particular the United States, will come to Taiwan’s aid if the worst happens. To do so is to embrace appeasement and throw your hands up in surrender and utterly misses the point that Taiwan is far closer to the United States than Ukraine ever was.
Of course you cannot wholly rely on other countries, but to decry attempts to forge global friendships with potential allies as apparently useless is abject, weak and demonstrates a belief that appeasement is the only way.
It shows not only a lack of understanding of history and the role the United States has played in fighting on the side of freedom and democracy, particularly against the forces of communism and dictatorships, but a personality that is devoid of pride or dignity, or has the smallest scintilla of trust in others to do the right thing.
One would be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that those who send such signals are not fully on the side of Taiwan’s democracy, muchless willing to fight for it.
Tinktery tonk...
