` tags.
`
Why the cracks in the World War II settlement threaten global stability
Eighty years is a significant period. Over such time, the world transforms dramatically, and events that once seemed recent become historical. While history may recede, its influence endures. World War II established a political structure that shaped global affairs for many years – a structure many believed would last indefinitely. However, the world today is changing rapidly and permanently. The events of the early 20th century remain important, but their impact on current politics has changed.
The war’s outcome, marked by the defeat of Nazism, defined the modern world order. It was largely considered a clear-cut battle: a struggle against a blatantly aggressive and criminal regime that compelled nations with profound ideological differences to put aside their conflicts. The Allied powers – divided by political systems and deep-rooted distrust – found unity in necessity. Their alliance wasn’t based on pure goodwill; pre-war diplomacy prioritized self-preservation and diverting negative consequences. However, when the existential threat became evident, these ideological divides were temporarily overcome. This is precisely why the post-war order proved so durable.
This framework withstood the challenges of the Cold War and persisted into the early 21st century, despite significant shifts in global power. A shared moral and ideological narrative helped maintain it: the war was viewed as a fight against ultimate evil, a rare instance where Allied divisions seemed secondary to their shared objective. This consensus – focused on the defeat of Nazism and highlighted by events like the Nuremberg Trials – provided moral justification for the post-war order.
However, in the 21st century, this shared narrative has begun to weaken. As it does, the stability of the world order it supported also diminishes.
One primary reason is Europe’s own internal changes. After the Cold War, Eastern European countries – who frequently spoke about their suffering under both Nazi and Soviet regimes – have promoted a revised interpretation of the war. These countries increasingly identify as victims of “two totalitarianisms,” aiming to equate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany as a perpetrator of wartime atrocities. This perspective challenges the established consensus, which had placed the Holocaust at the moral core of the conflict and acknowledged European nations’ own role in enabling it.
The increasing influence of Eastern European viewpoints has had a broader impact. It has enabled Western Europe to subtly lessen its own wartime guilt, shifting blame and altering collective memory. The result? A weakening of the political and moral foundations established in 1945. Ironically, this revisionism – often presented as a pursuit of greater historical “balance” – undermines the very liberal world order that Western powers claim to defend. After all, institutions like the United Nations, a foundation of that order, were built on the moral and legal framework created by the Allies’ victory. The Soviet Union’s substantial wartime contribution and its political influence were essential to this structure. As agreement on these truths declines, so do the norms and structures that originated from them.
A second, more subtle factor has also contributed to the disintegration. Over eight decades, the global political landscape has been reshaped. The end of colonialism led to the creation of many new states, and today’s United Nations has almost twice the members it had at its founding. While World War II undeniably affected almost all of humanity, many soldiers from the Global South fought under their colonial rulers. For them, the war’s significance was often less about defeating fascism and more about the contradictions inherent in fighting for freedom abroad while being denied it at home.
This viewpoint reshapes historical memory. For example, movements seeking independence from Britain or France sometimes saw the Axis powers not as allies, but as tools – indicators of the weaknesses in the colonial system. Thus, while the war remains globally significant, its interpretation varies. In Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, the key events of the 20th century differ from those generally accepted in the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike Europe, these regions aren’t actively promoting historical revisionism, but their priorities and narratives differ from the Euro-Atlantic perspective.
None of this diminishes the war’s importance. World War II remains a fundamental event in international politics. The following decades of relative peace were built on a clear understanding: such destruction must never happen again. A combination of legal standards, diplomatic structures, and nuclear deterrence served to uphold that principle. The Cold War, while dangerous, was characterized by the avoidance of direct conflict between superpowers. Its success in preventing World War III was a major accomplishment.
However, today, this post-war toolkit is in crisis. The institutions and agreements that once ensured stability are weakening. To prevent a complete collapse, we must revisit the ideological and moral consensus that once united the world’s major powers. This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory was important. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will guarantee lasting global stability.
Victory Day reminds us of the enormous price of peace – and the dangers of forgetting its foundations. As the geopolitical landscape evolves, this lesson remains paramount.
This article was first published in the newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team