Though the Second World War ended nearly 60 years ago, western society remains awash with classic images and patriotic symbolism begotten from that struggle. There are many explanations for the wedding of American idealism and World War II, but none so poignant in the current political climate as the need for the black and white moral clarity that came from an allied coalition against a clearly discernible evil. Once that evil was defeated, America, along with countless other nations, pledged never to forget a war that claimed the lives of so many innocents.
Now, the world faces a new moral dilemma: Iraq. As the United States and the United Kingdom continue to spar off against Germany and France regarding a military invasion of Iraq, the international community has become growingly agitated, eager for not just a resolution, but any suggestion that falls on common ground. While most of the debate focuses on the past actions of Iraq, the U.S. and the European nations have attempted to put a new spin on their respective stances with an old idea: World War II. Allusions to the Second World War have become common currency in diplomatic parlance as both the pro-invasion and anti-war camps allude to the great conflict to support their respective positions.
In Germany, public opinion is swollen with opposition to the United States' Iraq initiative. In many ways the German assertion is brave. Until now, the horrible reality of the Holocaust has eclipsed the struggle and devastation the German civilians confronted as a result of the Allied Strategic Bomber Offensive. Unable to break the Nazi war machine, the bombing raids specifically targeted civilian populations and major cities to crush the will of the German people. Now, there is a movement afoot in Germany to realize its victimhood as result of the bombing offensive and to separate the Nazi action from the plight of German civilians. The call to remember the trauma of allied bombs is being used to support the country's position on Iraq. In a nation where 70 percent of the public is opposed to military action, particularly to bombs that would fall on Baghdad, the striking parallel seems to be working. The Germans claim that they have a moral responsibility to oppose an activity reminiscent of the Dresden fire bombings, the destruction of Cologne or the targeting of the cultural jewel, Rothenberg. However, the suggestion that the Iraqi regime approaches the sophistication of the Nazi army, or the assertion that U.S. military policy would target Iraqi civilians is theoretically bankrupt and a misguided attempt to refocus a losing anti-war argument.
The French position is slightly more subtle. The United States insists that France owes a debt of allegiance, or at the very least, passive support for the coalition against Iraq because of the role U.S. troops played in the liberation of France from the true Axis of Evil. For many, the thousands of rows of white crosses that blanket Normandy are proof enough. Meanwhile, France claims that the United States acted during World War II to ensure freedom in the country, not so France could toe the line of the GOP. The country wants to exercise the freedom secured by the victory 58 years ago to oppose the war.
In opposition, the United States and United Kingdom claim that relying solely on the abilities of inspectors would be tantamount to Neville Chamberlain's claim after Munich that he had achieved, "peace in our time." In addition, those Eastern European nations which ally with the United States and the United Kingdom are especially cognizant of parallels to the 1938 appeasement policies. Leaders from these nations are wary of Saddam as a dictator, not only because he may have the capability to threaten other nation-states, but also because of the proven human rights abuses executed against his own people and the brutality with which he rules. The fears of these nations -- Romania is a good example -- are founded in their experiences during World War II, and in the suffering they endured under the dictatorial stranglehold of Communism during the Cold War.
Whatever the resolution, the constant references to World War II -- fact or fiction -- are telling, poignant, apropos. History may be pregnant with warnings for the future, but when those prescriptions are so difficult to decipher, we may be destined to repeat past mistakes. Currently, however the memory of World War II is merely being used as a bulwark for inaction -- the allusions to the past war enabling the stalling tactics of both sides -- perhaps the greatest injustice of all. At least we haven't forgotten.
