D-Day 80th Anniversary

On June 6th the former Allied powers celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day landing at Normandy, with the leaders of US, Britain and France in attendance. The historical importance of D-Day as the most critical opening phase of the operation Overlord, an overarching operation to take war to German occupied Europe and defeat Nazi Germany, is well established. In light of what we know about Germany’s fast tracked efforts to build critical weapons such as V-2 rockets, Jet fighters, and nuclear weapons, the failure of the operation could have led to a prolonged war with uncertain outcomes. The history of the world could have been different. On that basis alone, June 6 could be reckoned as one of those days on which the fate of the world hinges: one of the axial moments from the standpoint of military history. 

Given this historical significance, one should regard any celebration or commemoration of the event with unqualified deferential emotion. Yet, watching the usual grand ceremonies marking the occasion, I could not help feeling ambivalent.

At one level, it is impossible not to feel overwhelmed by looking back at any world-shaking event that determines the course of history. The greatest battles on which the fates of nations turn contain the elements of the grandest drama that cannot fail to elicit a sense of awe. What is noble, heroic and grand in human nature is shown in bold letters and demands or rather compels homage. In that respect, the battle of 6th June must be regarded as one of the most important battles in world history. The heroism and sacrifice shown on all sides are the stuff of legend, showing the paradoxical nature of war: the tragedy of death and destruction bringing out both the best and worst in human nature. One is reminded of Heraclitus’s words, “War is the father of all”.

At another level, one cannot help wondering about the moral dimension of the conflict. Notwithstanding the individual heroism, the question of just or unjust war cannot be ignored. Was it the war in which one side is all evil and the other good?

The official orthodoxy of the winners of the Second World War makes you believe that they were fighting for freedom and against the pure and unadulterated evil of tyranny threatening to engulf the whole world. Was it that simple?

There are two ways to look at it. One is to compare the internal character of the contending powers, and the other is to look at their external behavior towards other countries and peoples. On the first criterion, a case can be plausibly made that Western democracies such as Great Britain, France, and the United States were better societies in terms of respect for constitutional liberties, and democratic norms compared to the Axis powers. Nazi Germany and Fascist Itlay, though both had popular governments, more so in the case of Germany than Itlay, were totalitarian states, with the cult of personality and single party dictatorship defining their ethos. In the case of Germany, there was also the unique evil of state carrying out wholescale genocide against a minority, driven by an extreme racial ideology. 

But, was the war fought to bring democracy to Germany and against its racist aberrations? If one looks at the conduct of Western powers leading up to the war, the answer to the above question is a resounding No. Hitler’s racist and totalitarian policies were never a decisive factor in determining the policies of Western powers toward Germany, rather he had many admirers in the West for his decisive style of governance. Not only that, the anti-semitism and generally racist outlook of the times was widely shared across the Western countries. No less a leader than Churchill at one time advocated eugenics for maintaining the racial virility and purity of the nation! The United States had 11% of its population, African Americans, treated as second class citizens, and subjected to sundry discriminatory practices. Most tellingly, the Western powers’s support of Fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War clearly demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that they were only guided by the principle of Realpolitik and naked national interest. If there was one overriding ideological concern for the Western powers, it was the visceral hatred and fear of communism, than of any fascist, undemocratic, and racist regime. They did not give a damn about the internal dispensation of Germany as long as their global interests and their notions of balance of power in Europe were not threatened by it. In fact, there is ample evidence that they encouraged the regime in their cynical calculation of it being a counterweight to the Soviet Union. So if someone brings out this absurd notion of the West fighting the Second World War to rid Europe of Fascism, debunk it with a single word: SPAIN. 

Let us now examine the external character of the belligerents. Does the official version of the West’s crusade to make the world freer and more humane hold up to objective scrutiny? 

Here, the case is even weaker than the claim of liberating Germany and Italy from fascism. For instance, it takes blindness or perhaps hypocrisy of gargantuan proportions to claim that Britain was fighting for a democratic world when it held a huge part of it (by some estimates almost one-fourth) under the imperial yoke! The generation of Frenchmen, Britons, and Belgians who were fighting to “liberate” Europe had no qualms when in their living memory and in not too distant past, King Leopold of Belgium was killing millions of Africans in Congo! Their world liberating crusading instinct was sleeping- Winston Churchill included- when RAF was using chemical weapons against Iraqis or against Afghanis during the years between two world wars, in service of the British Empire.

The depredations and crimes of imperialism are far too many to be recounted here. They are a stark reminder of the undeniable fact that there were no actors who could claim a higher moral ground in that global conflict. As if to shatter any idealistic hopes and to underscore the real nature of the conflict, the immediate aftermath of the war was very instructive. France, which just a year ago celebrated the liberation of Paris as "the happiest day in world history", killed tens of thousands in Madagascar to maintain its colonial hold, as it did the same with the US help in Vietnam. Only the extremely naive or ignorant or embedded can harbor any illusions given these facts. The history of post Second World War global affairs is the same story of the dominant powers be it Western or Eastern trying to perpetuate their domination, by hook or crook, while paying lip service to democracy and human rights. 

So what that conflict, the Second World War, was really about? It was a war between imperialists to divide the world. As they say, “Thieves fight when they divide”