When the War Ends: On the anniversary of Japan’s surrender
/ Главная / Russkiy Mir Foundation / Publications / When the War Ends: On the anniversary of Japan’s surrenderWhen the War Ends: On the anniversary of Japan’s surrender
This Tuesday, mankind noted the anniversary of what is perhaps the most important and happiest date in the history of the 20th century – the end of World War II. Russians relate to this date with a bit of bewilderment until we realize that May 9 signified the end of the Great Patriotic War. After a pause, there was still the Battle of Manchuria (the Soviet Union never entered Japan, by the way, although an operation in Hokkaido was planned). The generals of the Kwantung army surrendered to the Soviet troops for three weeks, and only on September 2 did Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Yoshijiro Umezu, chief of the army’s general staff, board the USS Missouri to sign the final surrender. As we know, a peace treaty with the Soviet Union never ensued.
The results of the Second World War have often forced us to focus our attention on the fates of the defeated. It was only after 1945 that Germany became the largest economy in Europe and that Japan became a global economic leader. All this happened precisely due to the support of those who were bombed so successfully at Pearl Harbor. This turn of events, however, did not look so strange in the context of the Cold War – a new geopolitical party that took a number of unexpected twists and turns and ended most unpredictably. It was not really an ending at all, which means that Fukuyama’s end of history turned out not to be as joyous as he thought.
Churchill’s speech on the Iron Curtain at Fulton took place only six months later. On September 2, however, the prospects for a Cold War were already clear enough that Japan’s surrender could not be understood as the end of history. On the contrary, it was precisely at this point that many of the key points of future confrontation became clear – the arms race, division of the world into spheres of influence and the rivalry of two countries with two systems. By the grace of God it did not end in a new world war.
World wars don’t seem to be anywhere in sight today. Even before it began, the 21st century was destined to be the century of local conflicts. This prediction is both fair and logical. In a multipolar world, it is much more difficult to fight from geopolitical wall to wall, as this benefits nobody. While nobody is waiting for the big conflicts, there are more than enough local outbreaks of violence. This has never been as obvious as it is now.
Several days ago Russia won a new war when it defeated Georgia. This victory came with the same ease as the victory against Japan. Of course, any Russian victory can be compared with another Russian victory – or with any victory in general for that matter. Military clashes nearly always end with a winner and a loser. Such comparisons inevitably involve an agenda of some sort, however. In drawing parallels between the two conflicts in this case (perhaps somewhat forced), it is useful to see a caveat. Victory in war always leaves a feeling that something clear, simple and unequivocal has taken place – something that can never be considered in a “normal” geopolitical game. Such games, however, are still preferable to cluster bombs.
Taking an example from the past, it is worth remembering the mighty economic power that Japan became and how its culture – its soft power – embraced the whole world after the chiefs of the Japanese garrison put down their blades on the tracks of Soviet tanks and the country subsequently abolished its army. Yes, the Japanese got the war they deserved. But the main lesson here is not this fact, but rather the idea that mankind can only be divided into good and evil very briefly and that defeating an opponent's armed forces cannot be a long-term priority for any country.
Restoring the infrastructure of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, supporting them in the creation of a functioning economy, restoring real (not phony) interaction with Western countries and restoring relations with Georgia are all measures to reassure an eastern Europe that no longer trusts us, fix our international image, and approach other geographical disputes around the world in light of these recent events. This is a list of what should now be on the mind of Russia – on the mind of its authorities and, hopefully, on the mind of the politically active part of its public. In the days of triumph it is difficult and unpleasant to think about new challenges, especially those that are complex and require significant work. September 2, 1945, however, has come and gone, and it turns out that life continues, preparing, as usual, the most unpredictable twists and turns. It is naive to expect that things in 2008 will be any easier.