The Lessons of the Second World War for the Second Cold War
In an article two weeks ago, I discussed how the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the beginning of the Second Cold War, a global conflict between democratic and authoritarian political regimes. As this new conflict continues to take shape, it becomes important to understand the potential paths that lay before the opposing blocs. In this article we look at some lessons that can be drawn from World War II for the current political moment. However, predicting future political actions is extremely difficult, especially when dealing with authoritarian regimes where leaders have arbitrary power, and the internal functioning of the government is opaque. While it might be tempting to make sweeping declarations about the future, it is ultimately foolhardy. There are simply too many variables that any one person cannot know, and such predictions can never be more than a guess. It is reminiscent of the quote from the Austrian-British economist Friedrich Hayek, “I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false.”
I have found it is more effective to look to the past and use historical examples, where actions and outcomes are known, to provide greater understanding of the current moment. As Russian troops pour over the European Eastern Front, comparisons to WWII will be frequent. Just this week Foreign Affairs suggested that the United States aid Ukraine with a lend-lease program modeled after the WWII initiative of the same name. Still, it is important to remember that historical analogies are also not predictors of the future. History does not, as the saying goes, repeat itself. The value of studying a historical case is to see our own situation and options more clearly, benefitting from the experience of others. Historical similarities should not be interpreted as predictors of similar outcomes. In fact, the overlearning of the lessons of history have caused countries to make catastrophic political and military mistakes on the assumption that future events would play out in identical fashion to previous ones. See the case of France and its Maginot Line fortifications. Now, as always, we will make our own history.
Standing Tough
In a plea to world leaders, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told them that they must come to Ukraine’s aid or “war will come knocking on your door.” The developing clash between democracies and authoritarian states has become increasingly clear since the invasion of Ukraine began. Particularly telling was the United Nation’s vote to condemn the invasion. This vote saw the previously discussed Authoritarian Bloc close ranks around Russia with allies like China and Cuba leading 40 countries that voted against condemnation or abstained. A few other countries, like Venezuela, failed to register a vote altogether. Currently the Democracy Bloc, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) specifically, is attempting to decide how best to punish and ideally thwart Vladimir Putin’s invasion without recklessly escalating the conflict. Drawing the red lines of the Second Cold War is a crucial and dangerous task that will have lasting consequences in Europe and globally.
The history of WWII includes the most famous example of failure by political leaders to respond to a growing threat in a series of political events normally referred to as appeasement. Following the First World War and the punitive Treaty of Versailles, Germany was left broken and laboring under brutal penalties. Determined to avoid another global conflict and partially sympathetic to the suffering of the German state, the leaders of the democracies, particularly in France and the United Kingdom stood by as Adolf Hitler slowly reversed the penalties imposed on his country and proceeded to violate one international agreement after another. The Nazi leader rebuilt the country’s armed forces and abandoned reparation payments. In 1936, Hitler occupied the formerly demilitarized Rhineland. In 1938, he annexed Austria and used the threat of war to bully France and the United Kingdom into allowing him to annex part of Czechoslovakia. The following year he simply annexed the rest, despite promises to not do so. At each point leaders from the democracies issued tough statements and condemnations but did little else, terrified of provoking a new world war. Perhaps if France and the United Kingdom had taken a tougher stance earlier, they might have frustrated Hitler’s aims or started a conflict before Nazi forces were truly ready to fight one. Instead, in September 1939, at a time and manner of their own choosing, Nazi forces began the Second World War by invading Poland. Not only had France and the United Kingdom failed to prevent the war but they soon proved ill-prepared to fight it.
The point of this exercise is not to speculate on counterfactual history or condemn the actions of British and French leaders who lacked our hindsight and rightfully feared the horrors of WWII, but instead to glean what can applied to the current geopolitical situation. The lesson to be learned here is that while an admirable consideration, war avoidance cannot be the overriding goal. Unfortunately, there are times when war is unavoidable, due to the intransigence of one of the instigators. In this case, it becomes important to ensure that the coming war begins on your terms. Still such a decision should never be made solely upon the basis of a cold strategic calculation or a romantic vision. Any war between the major powers will result in the very real death of countless women and men called upon to fight it.
Appeasement has not defined the Democracy Bloc’s response so far. Voices from the far right and far left in the United States have blamed the US and NATO for causing the conflict by not simply giving in to Putin’s “reasonable” demands. They have even gone as far to suggest that the United States should withdraw from NATO and Europe. Happily, these remain fringe opinions and a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, recognize the unacceptable nature of Russia’s actions and support a US led response of some kind. As detailed in my first article on this topic, this is a zero sum game. While diplomacy and negotiation are extremely important tools, there is no appeasing the dictators of the world into a peaceful solution. Only the complete reconstruction of the global order with China and the authoritarian states on top will satisfy their grand designs. For the US to abandon its allies and responsibilities at this time would lead to catastrophic results not only for the future of global democracy but of America itself.
Instead, the robust response of NATO has seen crippling economic sanctions applied to Russia at the same time that weaponry provided to Ukraine deals significant damage to the invading force. The question moving forward is how aggressive the democracies should be as to compound Putin’s problems as his invasion continues to fall well short of expectations. Ukrainians, quite naturally, are still clinging to the hope that more might be done to alleviate their suffering.
Several potential courses of action lie before the democratic powers. First, NATO could do as some have suggested and launch a liberation invasion of Ukraine. This would be the most direct response, but it would constitute a massive escalation. While NATO has done a lot to strengthen its members nearest to the conflict, an invasion would require a much more significant commitment and a lot of time to prepare. NATO’s unity has also been key to its response so far. While leaders have done a good job of coordinating action on sanctions, it is unlikely that such unity could be found for a direct conflict with Russia. The human cost would be potentially enormous.
Ukraine has publicly requested that NATO establish a no-fly zone over part of Ukraine. Similarly, NATO could impose a naval blockade of occupied ports in Ukraine or of Russia itself. Turkey, one of the countries caught in the middle of the democracy/authoritarian divide, has already thrown its lot in with its NATO allies and begun blocking access for Russian warships into the Black Sea. A blockade or a no fly zone would be an aggressive response without directly starting a war. However, Russia will not allow such actions to go unchallenged and NATO will inevitably have to enforce them with deadly force against their Russian foes. Doing so could quickly spiral into a war itself.
NATO might also consider requesting that Moldova invite a NATO peacekeeping force into its country. Rumors and intelligence have suggested for some time that Ukraine’s small southern neighbor may be next on the chopping block. Stationing forces there would not intervene in the current conflict but would signal that NATO feels strong enough to bar Putin from expanding the conflict. Putin might interpret such an action as an act of war, but he would still have to decide if he can risk a direct confrontation with NATO at this point.
The final option this article set out to analyze was a block on Russian oil exporting. However, while writing this piece this potential course of action became fact as the US, UK, and EU announced measures to target Russian oil exports. These actions are sure to deal a serious blow to Russia and strike at the very heart of their economic system, but this will have its own serious costs too. The rest of the world is likely to suffer soaring energy prices and an economic shock as a result. In this case, average citizens, not soldiers, will be called upon to bear the brunt of the consequences. Price hikes, shortages, and economic chaos will have to be endured. Given that citizens in democracies can vote their leaders out, this response is only likely to be effective if individuals place the blame on Russia and not their own governments for the resulting fallout.
There are two overriding concerns when evaluating these stances. First, any military action is wholly dependent upon the United States. Second, the threat of a Russian nuclear response. On the first point, while Democratic Bloc allies may prove willing to help, none of them comes anywhere close to matching the firepower of the United States military. Only America can lead in a major war against Russia and potentially China. At home, US appetite for war is low. Following 20 years of war and the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Americans are not eager to get involved in another conflict. To have any hope of success in a potential war the country would require unity of purpose among the vast majority of its population. The nuclear threat can never be discounted, and Putin has already attempted to use nuclear escalation to scare his opponents into non-intervention. However, it should always be remembered that nuclear holocaust and the end of the world will negatively impact Putin too. There is a big difference between nuclear threats and nuclear weapons.
Is Putin Xi Jinping’s Mussolini?
Europe, however, is not the only theater of the Second Cold War; in the long run it is not even the primary one. The undeniable leader of the authoritarian bloc is the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Communist regime has a stake in the invasion of Ukraine too. In February, China and Russia finalized a political-military agreement in which they boasted that their alliance knows “no limits.” The agreement also stated that “Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions.” In other words, they agreed to support each other against the democracies in creating regional empires and spheres of influence. Intelligence and media reports have also produced evidence that China had knowledge of Russia’s invasion beforehand and requested that the latter wait until after the Beijing Olympics had finished to launch their offensive. Furthermore, China has been the leader of the Authoritarian Bloc response that has sought to absolve Russia of wrongdoing and cast blame on the United States and NATO.
Given this robust support and foreknowledge on the part of China, it is almost certain that they had their own hopes for the invasion. Most importantly, China is likely to have wanted Russia to test the waters and set a sustainable international precedent for the invasion of your neighbor. This has not been lost on the Taiwanese people themselves who have been robust in their support for Ukraine as the slogan “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow!” echoes across the island. Russia’s ineptitude and the response their actions provoked is a bad sign for Xi Jinping and Chinese leadership. If Russia had managed to quickly crush Ukraine and leaned on China to weather the first set of sanctions imposed by the democracies, then China may have gotten their wish. Instead, Ukraine’s inspiring resistance has rallied people across the world to their cause, united the democracies and NATO, and prompted increasingly aggressive countermeasures. If Ukrainian surrender had been swift and easy, these positive side effects would have been severely mitigated if they happened at all. Now China’s expansive plans have been compromised, though not thwarted, and the country is left in an increasingly unattractive alliance with Putin’s regime.
Again, the Second World War offers an interesting comparison. In 1939, Benito Mussolini’s fascist Italy and Hitler’s Nazi Germany formalized an alliance they hoped would give them the upper hand in the coming conflict with their enemies in France and the United Kingdom. Mussolini and the Italian military however, proved to be much more of a drain than a boon for their Nazi partners. Mussolini was an egotistical and impatient strong man with delusions of grandeur concerning the reconstruction of a past empire. For anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Vladimir Putin, this should sound familiar.
Utilizing subpar equipment and armor, lacking sufficient supplies, suffering from poor leadership, and failing to develop a successful logistical operation (this analogy runs deep), the Italian military was met with failure after failure. Its campaigns in France, Greece, North Africa, and Yugoslavia all floundered. Its supposedly awesome navy designed to control the Mediterranean was decimated in a handful of encounters by the Royal Navy and its allies. All this served to sap German strength as the Nazi military constantly had to divide its strength to bail out its Italian allies. After Mussolini was deposed and Italy surrendered in 1943, Germany was forced to invade its former ally and attempt its own defense of the Italian peninsula which of course eventually failed.
Xi must now consider if his limitless friendship with Putin is actually a liability. While a setback for authoritarian designs is a welcome development, it is far from the end of Chinese ambitions. The People’s Liberation Army is more advanced and well equipped than its Russian counterpart in Ukraine and their preparation for an invasion of Taiwan is extensive. It is also quite possible that the lesson China chooses to take away from Ukraine is that their own invasion must be more violent and overwhelming as to crush Taiwan quickly. The task of taking a tough stance from the first section is pertinent here as well. The United States and its allies must decide how best to prepare Taiwan for Chinese aggression. Should the build up of weapons and military aid to Taiwan begin now? Will resistance akin to that of Ukraine be feasible for Taiwan? Will the democracies be able to craft sanctions that are equally painful in the chase of China? Policymakers have their work cut out for them.
Conclusion
The hard learned lessons of WWII have become terrifyingly relevant for modern political and military leaders. Both the Democracy Bloc and their opponents have potential lessons to be learned and warnings to heed. For all of us, history can help us understand the world we currently inhabit and form more informed opinions about how to move forward. Now we are left to write the history of the Second Cold War.
Link to the first article in this series, here.
New to Democracy’s Sisyphus? Click here to learn more.
If you liked this article, please consider following me for more!
