What We Learned From Ww2

The tape of history, Hans J. Morgenthau suggests, is not to be read as a handbook of simple and unmistakable instructions for present and future policy; those who take come out of World State of war Ii with no more than a few accented catchwords—"no appeasement" (meaning no negotiations) or "no provocation" (meaning no display of strength or threat of military activeness)—may be courting disaster. At the same fourth dimension there are some lessons which can be learned from both the mistakes and the successes of by wars and diplomatic activities—Professor Morgenthau offers a few such lessons for our consideration.

_____________

Since the prophets of the Sometime Attestation read the warnings of God in the catastrophes of history, men have tried to discover what history can teach them. Equally Oedipus and Perseus once sought guidance from the Oracle, their empirically inclined descendants search through the tape of the past. Notwithstanding the results have hardly been unlike. The more closely men listened to what history seemed to tell them, and the more eager they were to act in accordance with it, the less were they able to extricate themselves from the consequences of their actions, frequently succeeding just in bringing down the very catastrophes they were trying to escape. If it is true that the merely thing history teaches is that it teaches nothing, should we not be done with the "teachings" of history and put our trust in action unencumbered past knowledge of the past? To reason thus, however, would be to misunderstand history in yet another way. Though we cannot expect to history for ready-made rules of action, this notwithstanding does non mean that it has null to tell us at all.

Ii recent books endeavour to explain the mistakes that we and the enemy made in the Second Globe State of war. The style these books were written and then received, and the way in which the United states, in detail, has been trying to avoid and repair the mistakes fabricated in the 2d World State of war, afford illuminating examples of what history can—and cannot—teach.

_____________

Chester Wilmot's The Struggle for Europe (Harper), by far the more important of the two, deals with the roots of our mistakes, also equally with the mistakes themselves. It has created a sensation in England and, to a bottom extent, in the United states.

Mr. Wilmot writes the military machine history of the late war in Europe from the time of the Normandy invasion, and tries to ascertain the causes of the political failures that attended upon Allied military successes. It is in this last endeavour that the permanent value of the book lies.

The conduct of the military entrada in Western Europe was dominated past the conflict between the strategic conceptions of General Montgomery, on the one hand, and Generals Eisenhower and Bradley, on the other. Montgomery wanted a decisive thrust from Kingdom of belgium through the North German obviously, destroying the German armies in ane bold stroke and ending the state of war in 1944; the form really pursued by Eisenhower and Bradley was a methodical advance on a wide front, sacrificing the chances of quick victory to the systematic emptying of all resistance. Mr. Wilmot and large sections of British public opinion take Montgomery's side in retrospect, while about American commentators have indignantly rejected the suggestion that Eisenhower and Bradley might have been wrong.

Some problems of strategy indeed deserve ex post facto analysis. The fall of France in 1940 might teach usa a lesson about the value of Maginot Lines we might be edifice today. The demonstrated inefficiency of saturation bombing, specially in relation to the resources committed and the non-military impairment caused, might teach us a like lesson. That frontal attacks against defenses in depth are bound to be plush, and likely to be indecisive, and can but be justified past a proportionate military advantage, the Western Front during the First Earth War might have taught us; but nosotros had to learn this lesson over again in Italy, and who knows whether we have really learned it fifty-fifty yet'

Just the controversy raised by Mr. Wilmot's discussion of strategy is not concerned with fruitful questions similar this. The question he asks is unanswerable by its very nature. It would exist answerable only—and and then indeed in favor of Montgomery—if Eisenhower and Bradley had known in the fall and wintertime of 1944-45 what everybody knows at present, or if at that time Montgomery had known it and Eisenhower and Bradley had not. As it was—and as is inevitable in the conduct of foreign policy by peaceful or military means—all three generals proceeded on the basis of guesses. One made a guess as to the distribution of power between the Allied and the German armies, and suggested a line of strategy following from information technology. Dissimilar people made different guesses and arrived at different strategic conclusions. Montgomery was prepare to risk on the weakness of the German armies, and captured German documents extensively quoted by Mr. Wilmot, as well as subsequent events, seem to bear witness him right. Eisenhower and Bradley, aware of the lives and issues at pale, preferred a slower and safer form. To arraign them for this is similar blaming a cautious investor for preferring slow yet sure gains to the bold and risky maneuvers of a vivid gambler. There is little doubtfulness that Eisenhower's and Bradley's strategy lacked brilliance and imagination and operated rather like a scientific engineering projection, merely only the most assertive apprentice strategist will feel sure that they were therefore incorrect; others volition remember the brilliance of Napoleon and Ludendorff and how many costly battles they won merely to lose their wars in the terminate.

When Mr. Wilmot comes to the reasons for the political failures in a war so thoroughly won in the armed services field, his indictment of American strategy is, however, unanswerable. We fought the war, he maintains, without giving much thought to the relation between the kind of military victory nosotros were planning to win and the political settlement that would follow it. Mr. Wilmot arrives at this determination subsequently a minute examination of the military and diplomatic decisions of the period. Others, such equally George F. Kennan and myself, accept arrived at the very same conclusion, from an over-all examination of American attitudes toward foreign policy and state of war as revealed in our policies during and afterwards the First and Second Earth Wars.

_____________

The fundamental error behind all the individual blunders committed toward the finish of the 2d World War, and immediately afterwards, was the neglect of Karl von Clausewitz's dictum that state of war is the continuation of policy by other ways. The peaceful and warlike means by which a nation pursues its interests form a continuous process in which, though one means may supersede the other, the ends remain the same. We also failed to recognize that foreign policy itself is a continuum outset with the nativity of a state and ending only with its death; isolationists and interventionists alike tended to believe that the "normal" thing for a state was to have no foreign policy at all. What separated the interventionists from the isolationists was the conventionalities that certain crises might require, at least temporarily, an active strange policy. But even the interventionists felt that after solving the given crisis ane could effort to return to a position of detachment, though developing and supporting in the meantime international institutions designed to meet the adjacent crunch if and when it should arise. Strange policy was thus regarded as something like a policeman's nightstick, to be used but when it was necessary to bring a disturber of the peace to reason; state of war, in turn, was like the policeman's gun, to be used only in extremis to rid the world of a criminal. But hither the illustration ends: the policeman e'er carries his gun with him, but nosotros threw ours away twice afterwards it had done the job.

State of war, we could come across, did accept a necessary connection with what preceded it—that is, with the criminal aggression that provoked it—but information technology had no organic relation with what followed information technology. Its purpose was only to eliminate a disturbance past eliminating the disturber; once that was washed, the world would presumably setde back into normalcy and order. War, and so, was a mere technical operation to be performed co-ordinate to the rules of armed services art—a feat of military machine engineering similar building a dam or flattening a mountain. To permit considerations of political expediency to interfere with war machine operations was unwise from the war machine point of view and might well be considered an immoral subversion of one self-sufficient section of human activity for the sake of another. (It might be added in passing that economical specialists — for instance, administrators of ECA—have shown a very similar reluctance, for similar reasons, to let political considerations "violate" the autonomy of economic operations.)

Mr. Wilmot is fully justified in contrasting the a-political American arroyo to state of war with the continuous and by and large fruidess insistence of Churchill and his subordinates on the political significance of military activeness. The British and the Russians knew from long experience that wars are not fought but to bring nearly the unconditional surrender of the enemy; wars are means to political ends, and war machine victory, if it is to bear political fruits, must be shaped to those ends.

American military leaders were aware of this difference in oudook, both on the batdefield and afterwards. In April 1945, when the British wanted Patton's army to liberate as much of Czechoslovakia as possible, and Prague in item, for the sake of the political advantages to be gained thereby, General Marshall passed the suggestion on to General Eisenhower with this comment: "Personally, and aside from all logistic, tactical, or strategical implications, I would be loath to hazard American lives for purely political reasons." Marshall had naught to worry about in this respect, for Eisenhower replied the next twenty-four hour period: "I shall non attempt any move I deem militarily unwise merely to gain a political advantage unless I receive specific orders from the Combined Chiefs of Staff." The matter rested there despite repeated and urgent appeals from Churchill and the British Chiefs of Staff. Similar decisions were made on other occasions. General Bradley in his memoirs has this to say of the British insistence that the Americans take Berlin before the Russians: "As soldiers we looked naively on this British inclination to complicate the war with political foresight and non-military objectives."

This concentration on armed forces objectives to the fail of political considerations has one virtue: information technology is apt to win wars speedily, cheaply, and thoroughly. Yet such victories may be brusk-lived, and an enormous political and war machine price may have to be paid for them later on.

_____________

There is, however, another approach—farthermost in a dissimilar way—that cannot even merits military advantages; this is to subordinate war machine considerations entirely to political ones. Of this approach, F. H. Hinsley'due south Hitler's Strategy (Cambridge), describes a classic example.

Hider thought primarily in political terms. Nonetheless his thinking had 2 fatal weaknesses. On the one hand, his political thinking was faulty in itself, for the objectives he fix for Federal republic of germany had no relation to either the power available to her or the power of the resistance to be overcome. On the other hand, far from using war every bit a continuation of policy by other means, he destroyed the technical autonomy of war altogether, using it as though there were no differences at all between war and policy. War became in his hands a political plaything, indistinguishable in its technical aspects from foreign policy— a strange policy itself doomed to failure by its gross unrealism.

Hitler had a pathological peckish to involve in his struggle all the not-committed countries of the earth. To see a nifty nation standing aside uncommitted, was a challenge to his lust for power that he could non resist. But another reason why he chose this suicidal class was his fantastic misconceptions almost that office of the earth which lay across his ain personal experience. He knew virtually nothing about the Us; what he knew about the Soviet Union was mostly wrong; and he underestimated Great britain.

It is obvious from Mr. Hinsley's book that the Soviet Union had no aggressive designs on Germany, and indeed went out of her way to be as accommodating every bit possible. The German diplomatic and intelligence reports that Mr. Hinsley cites are virtually unanimous in the conviction that the Soviet Union would fight only if attacked. Nevertheless, Hitler was resolved to attack her. He voiced repeatedly his opinion that the Soviet Union would be a pushover, and that the entrada begun in June of 1941 would exist over the same fall. And he went alee to make plans for fall campaigns elsewhere to follow the defeat of the Soviet Matrimony. As late as September 17, 1941, he was certain that "the end of September will bring the groovy decision in the Russian campaign."

To win a war without regard for the political consequences of the victory may create political problems as serious or worse than those that the victory was intended to setde; but such a victory leaves y'all at least in a position to learn and to endeavor to setde political problems by peaceful ways. To overrate the force of your own country considering it is yours and to underrate that of the enemy because yous hate him, and to wage state of war as if warfare were a mere extension of politics and aught more, can pb only to disaster.

_____________

Have we learned these lessons' On the face of it, it seems we take. Certainly we have been almost obsessed with the need to fashion our postwar policies and so every bit to avert the mistakes nosotros and others made during the Second Globe War. We accept learned that a power vacuum in the vicinity of a great dynamic nation will exert a well-nigh irresistible attraction. We have learned that in order to confine such a state inside the limits necessary to our own security, information technology is non plenty to testify adept will and reasonableness and to embody virtuous intentions in legal instruments. We have learned that the rest of ability, far from being only an arbitrary device of reactionary diplomats and Machiavellian scholars, is the very police of life for independent units dealing with other contained units—domestic or international—that want to preserve their independence. Independent power, in order to exist kept in check, must be met by independent power of approximately equal strength. In the effort to utilize these lessons, we take at present embarked upon a long-range policy of "containment" and rearmament

We have also learned that an imperialist power confronted with a coalition of powers of varying strength volition try to eliminate the weaker members ane subsequently the other, until the most powerful member is left in the end outmaneuvered and alone. We take therefore developed an intricate system of alliances in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Asia, which, whatever the differences of legal language and institutional device, all amount to a declaration that we shall defend the territorial integrity of the members of these alliances as we would our own. Nosotros telephone call this organization of alliances "commonage security," and have put it into operation by defending the Republic of South Korea against assailment by Democratic people's republic of korea.

In these ways, we take obviously learned from history. Why, then, are we every bit uncertain as e'er about the success of our policies, and nevertheless aggress past doubts about the course we have been taking in contempo years? Accept we yet missed ane of the of import lessons of contempo history, or accept nosotros misunderstood what information technology seemed to teach us? The truth is, though we accept learned the lessons of recent history chapter and poesy, though we take memorized them and take never tired of reciting and applying them whenever faced with a problem which seemed to be like to one of those that we failed to solve during the Second World War, however nosotros take failed to run into that behind the specific lessons of history learnt from specific blunders, there stands the lesson of history, of all history, which alone gives pregnant to the lessons to be derived from any particular catamenia.

All political activeness is an attempt to influence human being behavior, hence all political activeness must be aware of the complexities and ambiguities of the human factor, and must itself exist ambiguous and complex—and in the right way. The political actor, conscious of history, must exist aware of the malleability of the human volition, withal he must also be aware of the limits of suasion and of the need for objective barriers to the human will. While he is making use of suasion, he must not exist oblivious to the role of ability, and vice versa, and of each he must have just the right quantity and quality, neither also much nor besides little, neither besides early nor too late, neither besides strong nor as well weak.

He must choose the right admixture not only in terms of man nature, permanent as such just with the relations of its elements ever changing, but also in terms of the changing historical circumstances nether which those elements of human nature face up each other in the form of collectivities called nations. How much suasion and ability, and of what kind, is bachelor on my side at a particular moment in history, and how much of it and what kind is likely to be available tomorrow' How much and what kind of susceptibility to suasion and power is present on the other side at a particular moment of history, and how much and what kind, is likely to be present tomorrow? And how much and what kind of suasion and power is the other side able to bring to deport upon me and others today and tomorrow? Such are the questions posed by the e'er-changing social environment.

When, during the endmost years of the past war, nosotros thought that Stalin was a somewhat gruff old gentleman who could be overjoyed into cooperation, we relied on suasion to a greater extent than the teachings of history justified. We think we take learned our lesson from this failure of a policy of suasion pure and uncomplicated. At present nosotros seem to take forsworn suasion altogether and to rely exclusively upon force as a deterrent to the ambitions of the Politburo. We seem to forget that force as the instrument of a foreign policy aiming at the peaceful settlement of international conflicts must be a means to the end of foreign policy, not an stop in itself. Force supplements suasion, but does non replace it. Secretarial assistant of State Acheson recognized this relation between suasion and strength in the abstruse when he proclaimed repeatedly that the objective of our foreign policy was the creation of situations of strength from which to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Soviet Union. In do, however, our strange policy, preoccupied as information technology is with rearmament, seems to have lost sight of this objective. Consequently, information technology has not faced up squarely to the all-important question of timing: when shall we consider ourselves strong plenty in relation to the Soviet Union to be able to negotiate from forcefulness' A positive answer is being postponed to an ever more indefinite hereafter. Trying to acquire from history, we have set up out on an armament race that must lead to war if it is not subordinated to the professed objective of a negotiated settlement. Here over again we have learned but half the lesson and have replaced ane error with another.

_____________

Almost often political blunders consist in this over-emphasis of ane element in a situation at the expense of others. The 1920'southward and 1930's saw the underestimation by the Western earth of the uses of power toward moral and legal ends. The Second Earth War saw but a seeming interruption of that tendency, for power was used then in an try to restore weather of harmony and "normalcy" under which we could again rely on law and morality and, as information technology were, forget about ability. We seemed at the fourth dimension to take learned a lesson from our pre-war relations with the Axis powers: we had neglected power; at present nosotros would utilise it without limit until those who had compelled us to do so were forced to surrender their own ability unconditionally. With that job accomplished, we would be able to return to the other extreme and build a new earth, without power politics, on the foundations of police and morality.

Consequent with this betoken of view, we treated our wartime allies, including the Soviet Union, with that same disregard of considerations of power which had characterized our behavior toward everybody in the inter-war period. Yet the same experience that had forced usa into power politics confronting Hitler was to be repeated in our dealings with the Soviet Union. And hither, too, we seem to have learned our lesson at present. Having shown skilful will, we at present "become tough." Since i can not deal with Stalin past legal contract and without regard for the realities of power, we will at present bargain with him with the instruments of power alone, without concern for legal stipulations to be agreed upon through common suasion. Just every bit the merely alternative to appeasement of Germany, Japan, or Italy without power had been war, and so the alternative to appeasement of the Soviet Union is another kind of war.

_____________

We besides learned from the experiences of the 30's what a blunder isolationism was, which would let ane fight only in defense force of one'southward own land only not in defence of allies. But in learning that lesson we are by way of falling into the opposite error: having realized the error of fighting for nobody but oneself, nosotros are now willing to fight for anybody threatened by the common enemy. Collective security, after all, is equally abstruse and a-political a principle of action equally isolationism, equally impervious to the complexity of all political issues which must be decided not according to abstruse principles, merely by the calculation of opposing interests and powers.

Nosotros intervened in Korea because the principle of collective security required it, thus seemingly avoiding the mistake Peachy United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland and France had fabricated when they refused to defend Ethiopia in 1935-36 and Czechoslovakia in 1938. Actually, we fabricated exactly the same fault, only in a different manner. Truman in 1952 faces the aforementioned dilemma Prime Minister Baldwin could extricate himself from in 1936 only at an enormous loss to British prestige. Collective security as a defense of the status quo short of war can be effective only against 2d-charge per unit powers. Directed against a major ability, it is a contradiction in terms, for it inevitably means a major war. Of this cocky-defeating contradiction Stanley Baldwin was unaware in the xxx's as Truman is still unaware of it today. Churchill put Baldwin's dilemma in these denoting terms: "First, the Prime Government minister had declared that sanctions meant war; secondly, he was resolved that there must be no war; and thirdly, he decided upon sanctions. It was plainly impossible to comply with these three conditions." Similarly Truman had declared that the effective prosecution of the Korean war meant the possibility of a third world war; he resolved that there must be no third world war; and he decided upon the Korean war. Here, likewise, it is impossible to comply with these three conditions.

In 1950, equally in 1935 and 1938, the issue might improve take been decided in terms of the interests involved and the power available as against the interests and power of other nations. Instead, it was resolved in all 3 instances, either positively or negatively, in the abstract terms of collective security, a principle which could exist practical confronting a major ability only at the chance of world war. Before we went to war to defend Republic of korea in the proper name of collective security, we should have asked ourselves four questions: Beginning, what is our involvement in the preservation of the independence of South korea; second, what is our ability to defend that independence against North Korea; tertiary, what is our power to defend information technology against China and the Soviet Union; and quaternary, what are the chances of preventing China and the Soviet Union from entering the Korean state of war' Nosotros take been asking those questions—simply but of late, subsequently we are already committed and have lost the freedom of action which the right answers to those questions, posed at the right fourth dimension, might take saved for us. By substituting an abstract principle of law for the calculation of the physical conditions of interests and power, nosotros involved ourselves in a war that, in view of these relations of interests and power, we can neither win nor lose. Such are the results of a foreign policy which tries to avoid the mistakes of the past without understanding the principles that should have governed the actions of the past.

We realized what had been incorrect with our policies, but in supplying what had been lacking we threw overboard what was no less essential than what nosotros were trying to supply. Thus the very correction of past blunders created new ones. We had seen that diplomacy without power was not enough, and then nosotros added ability and forgot nigh diplomacy. We had seen that a nation must end aggression earlier it reaches her own shores, and nosotros concluded that we had at present to cease all aggression regardless of how our own interests and ability were affected. We learned the specific lessons of the last 2 decades, but in the process we came to neglect the Lesson of History: that political success depends upon the simultaneous or alternative employ of different means at different times, and the moderate employ of all of them at all times.

_____________

Man is never able to await at history with the aforementioned objectivity as at inanimate nature. The moral limitation upon his understanding of history is pride: pride in his intellect, pride in his goodness, pride in the collectivity with which he identifies himself as against other collectivities.

Pride in intellect shows itself in the persistence with which ideas once adopted are applied fourth dimension and again, regardless of how discredited by experience. A general whose strategy brought victory in ane state of war finds in success an additional reason for using the same methods in the next war. He did information technology in one case, and he is going to do it again. What General MacArthur was able to do to the Japanese in the Second Globe State of war he must exist able to do to the Chinese in the Korean War.

Fifty-fifty if a certain strategy has been unsuccessful, there is a strong tendency to endeavor it out once more, peculiarly if the general lethargy of the man heed encourages it. The Maginot Line was a disastrous failure in the Second World War. But man is almost irresistibly attracted by the epitome of a wall behind which he will be rubber from the enemy. Since the Maginot Line was a failure, as was the Chinese Great Wall before it, why non build a bigger and better Maginot Line' Or perhaps a bigger and better general will do what Full general Gamelin was unable to do with the Maginot Line in 1940. The most subtle perversion of the lessons of history is that which appears to mind the experiences of the by and discard its faulty methods, while continuing nonetheless to think in terms of the by. To build a line of static fortifications parallel to the Rhine was certainly a mistake that we shall not emulate. Instead, nosotros shall create a Western European army that will defend Europe at the Elbe, at the Rhine, or wherever else information technology may be. We seem to have learned a lesson from history; but in view of the novel requirements of global strategy and the numerical superiority of the Russian land armies, have we really'

Pride in intellect is joined by pride in virtue. All individuals and collectivities like to come across their conflicts with others non in terms of interest and power adamant by circumstances, just in terms of moral values determined past abstruse principles. When our policies fail, as they did in relation to the Soviet Wedlock after the 2nd World War, the explanation cannot lie in our having miscalculated our interests and power in relation to the interests and ability of the other side. Our failure must be the consequence of the wickedness of the other side, which took reward of our guileless trust. We trusted one time and were deceived; from now on we shall be on our guard and see the enemy for what he is. Yalta and so becomes a symbol, not of the legal ratification of errors of political and armed services judgment, but of a moral deception that the wicked perpetrated upon the good.

Yet realistic an observer every bit Mr. Wilmot falls casualty to moral pride when he interprets the Yalta Conference. Only more this, he suffers, similar virtually everyone else, from the about pervasive pride of our fourth dimension: pride in collectivity, that is, nationalism. When he tries to formulate the military lessons of the war, he almost automatically takes the side of the British against the Americans;^ane discussing the lessons to be drawn from Churchill'due south Balkan strategy, he takes at confront value Mr. Churchill'due south ain estimation.

_____________

While such onesidedness, which impairs historical judgment and thus our ability to learn from history, seems inevitable in even the greatest of historians, there are specific manifestations of it that, as great statesmen have shown, can exist controlled by moral discipline. One such manifestation is the habit of overestimating one's ain power and understanding the other side's. The history of the relations between the Western world and the Soviet Union since 1917 could be written in terms of the underestimation of Russian power. From the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War through the debates on the implementation of the Franco-Russian alliance of 1935, the Russian offer of support to Czechoslovakia in 1938, the AngloFrench military mission to Moscow in 1939, the German language assail upon the Soviet Union in 1941, the beginning diminutive explosion in Russia in 1949, up to the very present, nosotros have always underestimated the ability of the Soviet Union. We take done so because we are inflexibly opposed on moral grounds to both Communism and Russian imperialism. Thus our moral sentiment stands in the way of a right appraisement of the realities of power. To separate our pride in our own moral superiority from our historical judgment, which might lead usa to recognize the political and military machine superiority of the Soviet Union in certain respects, requires an effort at moral detachment which few, obviously, are willing to make. It is easier and more satisfactory to conclude that political and military superiority necessarily get mitt in hand with moral superiority. Hither again moral pride stands between our judgment and historical experience.

The archetype example of this kind of pride, and of its disastrous political and military consequences, is Hitler'south. Since Bismarck, it had been the basic axiom of High german strategy that Germany could not win a two-front war. Notwithstanding, it was exactly such a state of war that she deliberately embarked upon both in 1914 and 1941. Hitler himself was resolved not to make this corrigendum, but he could non help making it, for he believed firmly that it was Germany's "mission" to triumph over her enemies. Holding such a faith, he was led to presume that Germany had already won the war against the Westward when she had not yet done so, and could therefore safely invade the Soviet Wedlock.

If we detect information technology and then difficult to learn from history, the fault is not with history, but with the pride and the intellectual limitations of men. History, in the words of Thucydides, is philosophy learned from examples. Those who are morally and intellectually inferior to its teachings, history leads to disaster. Those who are philosophers in the moral and intellectual sense, it teaches.

_____________

¹ In that location exists as well a contrary grade of this pride, an anti-nationalism which sees all wickedness in one'due south ain state and all virtue somewhere else; the almost conspicuous victims of this pride are the fellow-travelers of Communism.

commentary magazine logo