History Matters: Politics and Historians
In order to understand the international and global history since WWII, one must first be familiar with the terms that are being used to describe this 60 year history. International history is the study of the affiliations between states and nations and the organizations that form as a result of the relationships (i.e. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or the United Nations). Global history is an account of the transitional history of the world from one system of socio-political influence to the next and the ideologies that form from those systems. Global history chronicles the development of religious groups, human rights, and civil rights, as well, and is essential to understanding how the world reacts to historical events. It is important to acknowledge both the international and global history during these past 60 years because both realms connect political activity with how the world and its communities react to it.
World politics has been changing ever since the end of WWII and its transition from a cold war system, to a post-cold war structure, and to the modern arrangement of today’s world, has fluctuated because people have used the events of the past to try to move forward. The analysis of the past, however, is no easy task. One must come to understand what is important to today’s understanding and what events and meanings from the past are actually of help to the political world of the present. R.G. Collingwood spoke of the historian in his book “The Idea of History” saying:
“The historian is not God, looking at the world from above and outside. He is a man, and a man of his own time and place. He looks at the past from the point of view of the present: he looks at other countries and civilizations from the point of view of his own. This point of view is valid only for him and people situated like him, but for him it is valid. He must stand firm in it, because it is the only one accessible to him, and unless he has a point of view, he can see nothing at all.” – R.G. Collingwood
Thus, understanding history is to have a point of view and a specific perspective for a specific set of people. People’s relationships and the political affiliations of today are based on events from the past. People and governments come together not only because of their political or economic dependence on one another, but also because of their history and the relationships they have developed in the past that have panned out one way or the other. The American view of the world may always be different from that of the Middle Eastern view of the world, because each region’s history will forever be different from each other and the events of the past will dictate each regions decisions of the future. World politics will always be driven by the individual influences that derive from each nation’s political perspective, and as Collingwood would have it, no one nation’s view of the world is understandable to another nation’s standpoint. Examples of that point and how history has affected the world, economics, and its policy makers are ramped throughout the duration of time elapsed since WWII, and many of them illustrate how history has conceived the events that have led up to the world we live in today.
The Cold War was a system and social structure that was marred by decisions being made on war events that had passed but still remained vital in the minds of people across the world. Its aims to avoid revolution, prevent separatist movements, and avoid civil war, were primarily based on a fear that had overtaken the world after the bombing of Hiroshima. But that fear alone was not the only reason for the Cold War system, because the bipolar political structure was also created in order to maintain the political powers of the world and have neither of the two super powers (the and the Soviet Union) ever pose a military threat to the other superpower. The two spheres of influence that were established in the Cold War developed separate point of views that became the impacting factor on policy makers throughout the world. Haunted by war, politicians of the post WWII period aimed to put themselves and their countries in a position that would never leave them susceptible to war and nuclear devastation. The historical fact that technology was key to winning WWII, inspired an arms race that had never been seen before, nor are we likely to ever see again. And one can only be na�¯ve to negate the effects of a natural dislike between to superpowers (after such a devastating war) on the efforts for each superpower to be in a position of greater world influence than the other during the Cold War.
The efforts of policy makers during the Cold War (1945-198?) conveyed a similar perspective of those who were not even involved in politics. The Olympics during the Cold War will forever be blemished by judges deflating scores in order to enhance their country’s dominance. A victory over in Olympic Hockey has always been considered an event that Americans have used to avenge in some apparent manner. But in terms of how WWII affected politics during the Cold War, the effects were much greater. In The European Dimension of the Cold War, David Reynolds says that “âÂ?¦Analyses of the Cold WarâÂ?¦.are increasingly showing how indigenous developments, regional rivalries, and traditional ethnic animosities effected the relationships among the Great Powers.” Policy makers who were alive during the Cold War clearly would have certain biases and hostility toward those nations and peoples who were on the opposing side, and Reynolds believes that those hostilities carried over into actual political decisions. Which is why historical events were so vital to politicians of the time because they could be used to set a nation’s stance, or as R.G. Collingwood would put it, a man’s view of how to deal with certain political decisions.
In Dimensions of the Cold War, Reynolds also discusses how the three Great Powers (the. , Soviet Union, and ) drew upon Europe to direct their Cold War system aims, and how the history of relationships past, and issues still remembered, effected the decisions people made concerning the European front. For example, he discusses how throughout Europe there was a strong swing to the political left which left and in “a real dilemma” because countries were being influenced by Communist giving Stalin great benefits and a chance to rebound. Reynolds goes on to say that immediate post-war expansion of communism posed problems for all 3 of the Great Powers because of historic oppressions of fascist and Nazi rule that were still alive in many minds of both eastern and western Europe.
Yet the Cold War was still a time of nations developing their ideologies from what happened in WWII, and it was also a time for figuring out how to do what was best for their country in terms of not suffering the same devastating consequences they suffered before. And the two superpowers were the key figures in trying to spread their ideologies throughout the world:
“It is possibleâÂ?¦that a spheres of influence arrangement might have worked for eastern and western Europe, if both sides had not bee (often willing) prisoners of their ideologies and had they not been heavily influenced by their reading of recent history.”[1]
The in affiliation with shared similar ideologies, and thus they were able to act together and against the Soviet Union. Reynolds seems to say that and were able to come together during the Cold War system because they were relying on the historic nature of their past endeavors together during the war and financial pursuits. He says that, ” and the were in certain respects economic and power-political rivals, but they also shared common liberal values and common interests in the stability of Europe. When those values and interests were threatened in 1940, cooperation overrode competition. When a similar threat seemed to emerge in 1946-7 another rapprochement occurred.” This alliance can be afforded to a history of having operated together before and having the foresight to see the history behind their relationship.
As it was mentioned before, the Cold War was responsible for one of the greatest arms races of all time. This naturally meant that the superpowers and their alliances, and even third-party nations, had massive stockpiles of military technology that could threaten the existence of the world as we know it. But just as the threat of such violence inspired summit meetings, disarming, and crises management during the Cold War, history repeated itself in the 70’s. The overwhelming stockpiles of nuclear weapons led to a worldwide effort for nuclear non-proliferation. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 led to an effort whose “main objectives are to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, to provide security for non-nuclear weapon states which have given up the nuclear option, to encourage international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to pursue negotiations in good faith towards nuclear disarmament leading to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.”[2] It took much negotiating, but tens of countries signed the treaty the mid 1970’s.
Many of the countries who had developed an immense collection of nuclear weapons were required to unveil how many nuclear warheads they had in their possession. Although many countries with warheads did not partake in the treaty, the treaty would still help to gain control over the materials required for constructing nuclear weapons. Countries were able to come together in order to prevent the devastation and destruction of WWII. Had their been no previous precedent for what nuclear warheads could do, and considering the number of countries possessing hundreds of warheads during the early 70’s, the Cold War could have very possibly become a “hot war” incredibly quickly. However, the discretion to use the historical evidence that nuclear warheads could be used to control other countries through threats, not to mention the actual detonation of the weapons, was a great example of policy experts using history to determine global procedures.
Many nations efforts to help foreign countries is often a matter of great concern to each country’s own political leaders, because they themselves often are not in agreement when it comes to determining whether or not the that nation should get involved in matters of military and political intrigue outside of their own country. However, if one takes the for example and looks at their history of foreign policy, their involvement usually coincides with the having political or economical stakes in the issue. Starting with one of the first events of the post WWII world, the U.S.’s involvement in keeping Germany from complete Soviet control with military force was inspired by a desire to rid of a buffer zone for the Soviet front, defeat the spread of communism, and to maintain their economic benefits from Western Europe. The Berlin airlift of 1948 was a U.S. attempt to provide aid to a city under siege, but had not the U.S. had such resentment for the Soviets, a desire to contain communistic powers, and the potential to gain financially from a Western civilization controlled Berlin, one cannot be so sure that the U.S. would have interfered with the blockade of Berlin. [3]
is another region where the decided to get involved with foreign affairs due to its theory of the containment of communism. The Vietnam War (1957-1975) was a conflict between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Liberation of South Vietnam. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (or ) was allied with and the Soviet Union, and allied with the The did not get involved until 1965 which was due in large part to wanting to oppose communism and the Soviets through a war within a war. , a relatively small nation (politically, economically and geographically), would have been unlikely to have ever dealt with the on a military or political front had it not been for the Communist pursuit of expanding communism into that country. ‘s financial endeavors were of no need to the and its history with the was non-existent at the time of the War, but the countries political future was of concern to Americans because it offered an opportunity to take battle with Soviets and contain communism.
was another struggling country very much in void of interests. experienced a genocide that ended up in the slaughtering of 800,000 Tutsis (a tribe in ) and moderate Hutus. The killings were done by extremists groups of Hutu militia and all of this occurred in just 100 days starting on April 6th. Many western countries, not just the knew of the planned genocide well before it began and yet almost no first-world country provided any assistance nor was inclined to intervene. The Clinton administration refused to provide assistance despite being told about the genocide on the daily basis. The lack of a critical spot on the socioeconomic map of the world left thousands of Rwandans with no one to turn to but themselves. “History is full of long warsâÂ?¦That is how history is made. Now we have the humanitarian system and fast information, so we can stop people from killing each other- and good that we can. But what are we really doing? And where are we really going?”[4] Apparently, the answer was not . With the history of the genocide that occurred in and , it is amazing how no one could look back and see how tragic the world would remember if no one stepped in and helped fight their battle. A full blown world war was established and suffered as a loss for the killing of Jews in , but what probably would have been a much smaller-scale intervention of a first-world country against a tribe from the 3rd world was not worth the losses. Just proving that even when history is not accounted for, such as seeing the Rwandan genocide and looking back to compare it to Jewish genocide, history will matter because it should come at no surprise that Rwanda was not afforded any assistance because it had nothing to offer the first world nations. The genocide finally came to an end by the efforts of Paul Kagame who seized power of the Hutu government. [5]
The effects of historic events can be seen in even more recent events, such as with the War on Terrorism and the attacks of September 11. George W. Bush’s campaign to fight terrorism stems from a long line of past terrorist attacks. Many believe there is a growing sentiment of abhorrence against those from Arabian nations because so many of the terrorist attacks in the have stemmed from that region. The Arabian attacks have spurred an intense effort against the Middle East which has included military occupation and efforts to institute new governments. But governments in the region are highly corrupt, and as Walid Khalidi notes in “Why Some Arabs Support Sadaam”[6] they are often in support of extraneous rulers outside of the central government or central figures who do not have their best interests in their plans. One of the points he covers is that there is an excluded support for Saddam as an indirect response to American influence in the Middle East. This is where the problem lies. Many Arabs look at the U.S. as trying to sustain the socioeconomic status quo (which is relatively poor throughout the Arab nations) so that Americans will continue to have severe financial influence on countries in that region by the purchasing of oil. The ‘s history of trying to negotiate with Arabian nations in order to get oil has hurt their image with the people of this region and it is why corrupt government is able to gain such power because the people have nothing else to turn to. Thus, the ‘s historical financial efforts have hurt is ability to bring down terrorist powers in the Arabian Peninsula.
The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were almost as marred by history as they were by devastation. “The 9/11 attacks were a shock but they should not have come as a surpriseâÂ?¦In February 1993 a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb.” [7] To go along with the truck bomb, Yousef also tried to blow up several American airliners, in flight, in 1995. Yousef, who is believed to be a member of the terrorist group: al Queda, also inspired several attacks on embassies throughout the Middle East and neighboring regions. The long line of events to go along with the taking down of a aircraft, in an event known as Black Hawk Down, represent a trend of al Queda attacks that led up to 9/11. It is interesting to note how the commission staff of policy makers determined that the 9/11 attacks should have been no surprise if one were to account for the attacks that have conspired in the 90’s. That is not to say that by recalling those events, the attacks could have been prevented, but like the Commission staff said, they should be no surprise and should allow for a stronger deterrence, if history is accounted for.
The Cold War, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the 9/11 attacks are only a few of the events that have been affected by history. But not only have they been consequences of history, but they have been factors of history by determining the historical events that followed them and continue to be a result of their outcomes. The fact is that history plays a major role in how people view and govern the world. Long histories of resentment often carry-over into political policy making. A history of economic dependency often effects alliances and governmental aid. This is so because people do not forget their roots, how they grew up, and how the world has affected their lives and the people around them. So as long as people are governing the world, history matters.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
[1] Reynolds, David; The European Dimension of the Cold War
[2]Encyclopedia Britannica 2004;
[3] The twentieth-century world : an international history / William R. Keylor. New York : Oxford University Press, 1984.
[4]Letter from : After the genocide / Philip Gourevitch In : New Yorker, (December 1995), p. 78-95. A quote from Jacques Franquin.
[5] Wikepedia.com; Genocide
[6]Why some Arabs support Saddam/Walid Khalidi In : Gulf war reader, Selection, New York, Times Books, 1991, p. 161-171.
[7] 9/11 commission report/Executive Summary
