There can’t be many veterans left who actually fought in the 2nd World War, and not many more of us who can remember what we did on VE Day.
I was seven years old on the 8th May, 1945, and on holiday in Scarborough with my parents and little sister, so it must have been Whitsuntide Week. I have two memories.
Outside Scarborough station was (maybe still is) an obelisk or column, and it was lit up with blue strip lighting on each of its four faces. That was the first time I had seen “neon” lighting.
The second is that there was a happy atmosphere and we wandered around with another family group singing a song with the opening line: “Let him go, let him tarry let him sink or let him swim.” Nothing to do with the war but presumably popular at the time.
I am indebted to the Liberal Democrat peer, William Wallace for what, in addition to honouring the sacrifices made to achieve the victory, we might also remember at this time. He suggests President Theodore Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech in which he explained to Congress why the Allies were fighting:
“ We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. …
The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
William also reminds us that five months before, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the ‘Atlantic Charter’ – drafted by the British, revised by the Americans – which set out their shared aims in the war.
‘…their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; … they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;….’
I don’t know if President Trump will be present at today’s ceremonies, but if he is it would be useful to bring these to his attention, especially the first three lines of the Atlantic Charter quoted above.
It is also useful to remind out selves of the price in lives lost that the allied countries experienced in achieving the victory.
The approximate tally in the larger countries is as follows:
Russia: 24 000 000
Poland: 5 600 000
India: 2 100 000
France: 567 000
UK: 450 000
USA: 418 000
Given these figure we can perhaps better understand why Russia may feel “resentful” that the New World Order established for which they had paid so much should become shaped essentially to support the interests of the USA and its closest allies.
More tact and efforts to include them in the post war settlement might have produced a happier and more permanent settlement. Have any Russian representatives been invited to the commemorations? If so that could reduce present tensions.
As this will undoubtedly be the last decadal celebration of VE Day when any of those who actually fought in the war are alive, I hope the UK will now stop trying to revive memories of our past presumed greatness, and look forward to the modest centurions we can still make to building a world more in keeping with Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.
Given these figure we can perhaps better understand why Russia may feel “resentful” that the New World Order established for which they had paid so much should become shaped essentially to support the interests of the USA and its closest allies.
ReplyDeleteThey can feel resentful all they like, but the fact remains that they entered the war on Germany's side, intending to carve up Poland and Eastern Europe between them; and that if Herr Hitler hadn't been such a duplicitous bastard and turned on them, they would happily have remained allied with Germany until the end.
Yes, they suffered greatly; but it was in large part their own fault.
More tact and efforts to include them in the post war settlement might have produced a happier and more permanent settlement.
What?!
Millions of Poles, East Germans, Czechs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Hungarians and others were abandoned by us to Soviet slavery! It's a stain on our ledger that lasts to this day that Truman and Churchill didn't stand up to Stalin! How much more accommodating of that tyrannical evil could we possibly have been?
On the subject whether we fought for ‘values’, this is a good and considered contribution: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ve-day-and-the-taboo-of-victory/
ReplyDeleteRoosevelt’s ‘four points’ should of course be seen for what they really are: a politician cynically doing what politicians always do, which is seize on a crises to say that it shows how they were right all along, and that the only possible way forward is to do more of whatever they have been pushing their whole careers, and faster.
(Note how you never ever see a politician say ‘actually this has made me realise I was wrong, and I have changed my mind about what we need to do’)
Sorry, but he "system" won't allow me to read the full Spectator article. Unlike the Guardian and the New Statesman, they demand payment. However, I gather that Roosevelt was quite sympathetic to the isolationists until about 1937 so he hadn't been right all that long.
ReplyDeleteIf you try to see the situation frm a Russian's point of view you might realise there are two sides to the question. the Side we have chosen has, sadly, not been all that successful, in that after 80 years international relations are still belligerent rather than co-operative.
Sorry, but he "system" won't allow me to read the full Spectator article.
DeleteThey used to allow a free trial. They must have stopped. How annoying.
However, I gather that Roosevelt was quite sympathetic to the isolationists until about 1937 so he hadn't been right all that long.
The fourth point seems pretty isolationist to me: it basically says that he wants a world where he doesn't have to worry about foreign policy because no country has weapons. And the third point is the same domestic policy he had been pursuing all his life. And the first two are just empty platitudes that no American would disagree with.
If you try to see the situation frm a Russian's point of view you might realise there are two sides to the question.
I think it's more important to see the facts clearly, than to pick a 'point of view'. Do you not?
the Side we have chosen has, sadly, not been all that successful,
You'll have to be more specific. Which 'side' do you say we have chosen? Whichever it is, it would seem that in fact it has been very successful if you look at just about any metric over the last eighty years (global poverty down, scientific progress up, etc etc etc).
in that after 80 years international relations are still belligerent rather than co-operative.
International relations will always be belligerent. That's just a fact of life. It follows naturally from the fact that nations have different interests, and so sometimes those interests will be in conflict. We have to accept that fact and deal with it. There's no point complaining about it. That would be like standing in the rain and cursing the sky for the fact you are getting wet. Don't do that. Buy an umbrella.