The never-ending Second World War - is it finally coming to some sort of end, at last?

Welcome to the twenty-first century!

I’ve been trying to make some sense of the Big Historical Panorama that has formed the backdrop to the whole of my lifetime. The trigger so to do was that astonishing piece of Punch and Judy television from the Oval Office in the White House that we probably all have watched or, at the very least, are aware of. What are we to make of it?

Well, what follows are some thoughts that may or may not help illumine the situation. The notes are built up from what I admit is a highly selective set of sources. How could it be anything other? For any aspect of the situation, there are a huge number of possible sources, covering an enormous spectrum of shades of opinion.

From a very personal perspective, I feel there is an added piquancy to it all because I owe my very existence to an encounter, in the final days of the hot war segment of World War 2, when an English girl met an American serviceman.

In history lessons at school I learned that World War 2 ended in 1945. And so it did. The Hot War, that is.

Then came the Cold War. Seventy-nine years ago Winston Churchill delivered a speech that started thus:

A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytizing tendencies.¹

The speech went on to express gratitude for Russian support and sacrifice (Russia suffered around 27 million casualties, military and civilian) during World War 2 and spoke to their concerns:

We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world.²

Then Churchill went on to outline the concerns that were setting up the conditions for the Cold War:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.³

So, in a very short time, the post-World War 2 world became dominated by two opposing philosophies represented by, on the one hand, the United States and, on the other hand, Russia.

Showing early recognition, in 1947 and 1948, of this fact and setting up his position from a British perspective, writer George Orwell wrote:

We are no longer strong enough to stand alone, and if we fail to bring a western European union into being, we shall be obliged, in the long run, to subordinate our policy to that of one Great Power or the other.⁴

In 1947, Orwell had also written this …

In the end, the European peoples may have to accept American domination as a way of avoiding domination by Russia, but they ought to realize, while there is yet time, that there are other possibilities.⁵

Orwell envisioned a kind of triumvirate whereby America would operate in full capitalist mode, Russia in full communist mode, and Europe in social-democratic mode.⁶

A variant of this model is used as the backdrop to the world of Orwell’s 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In it, three superstates, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia exist in a state of never-ending conflict. The novel’s main character, Winston Smith, lives in Oceania, which is actually a representation of the Russia of Joseph Stalin.

Back in the real world, in 1948, along came the Marshall Plan, bringing huge quantities of funds from the U.S. to Europe to help with reconstruction and recovery.

The Hot War had (supposedly) seen off fascism, but now the scene was set for the capitalist (West) versus communist (East) Cold War … with Europe left in the middle trying to figure out its role.

---

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the Cold War burgeoned. So, too, did military capabilities. In particular, nuclear, whose power had been demonstrated to horrific effect at the very end of the hot war - it now had to be factored in to any calculations.

Clearly, the military problem had lost its apparent simplicity and gained in horror. The time of easy answers was past, giving way to an urgent search for alternative solutions. Interest in disarmament and arms control became more widespread and a great deal more serious. In order to reduce reliance on the threat of massive reprisal, there was a new advocacy of building up military forces, with special emphasis on conventional weapons, to meet local aggression. Others took a new look at nuclear sharing and the establishment in Western Europe of independent or semi-independent retaliatory capabilities under national or collective control. One line of inquiry led to early studies of limited, in contrast to massive, strategic retaliation.⁷

We perhaps came closest to a nuclear Armageddon in October 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. American President John F. Kennedy faced off against Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev when the latter intended to install nuclear-capable missiles on the island of Cuba.

“We understand the Russian American need to be secure on her western southern frontiers …” as Churchill might have put it.

Khrushchev backed down. Phew!

The Cold War was also being played out through proxies. The Space Race, for example, which was symbolically ‘won’ by the West when the U.S. were the first to visit the Moon in 1969.

Rather more prosaic, perhaps, but nonetheless effective was the battle for hearts and minds that was waged by capitalism itself.

Proof that a ready supply of goods and an abundance of bright lights (the Aladdin’s Cave effect, if you will) was a lure towards the Western political system was absolutely proven when, in 1961, the communists built a wall around East Berlin. East Berlin and West Berlin abutted one another and the communist authorities built the wall to keep their people in, away from the bright lights!

(See also the Levi 501s television commercial, created in 1985 by London ad agency Bartle Bogle Hegarty. It seems to me to evoke the West’s position in the Cold War.)

Then, on 12 June 1987 U.S. President Ronald Reagan gave an address at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate that included a line directly addressed to the Russian president …

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

A couple of years later, on 09 November 1989, the Berlin Wall did come down and, subsequently, on 26 December 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed.

The West had now won both the Hot War and the Cold War.

---

Let’s pause to note a couple of things.

First, note that as early as 1946 the West was aware of Russia’s extreme sensitivity to activity taking place on its western flank. In that speech at Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill had stated …

We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontier …

Second, note that although the U.S. had taken on the dominant superpower role for the whole of the West, from quite early on there were signs that they, the U.S., were disappointed with the behaviour of the Western European countries because they were not paying their fair shares.

For example, on 22 January 1963, exactly ten months before his assassination, President John F. Kennedy addressed a U.S. National Security Council Meeting. The minutes of the meeting state that …

The President began his discussion of national security problems by calling attention to the worldwide responsibilities of the United States. While we fully recognize our responsibilities, other states are not carrying their fair share of the burden.

The minutes go on to discuss defense issues …

One of our big tasks is to persuade our colleagues in Europe to increase their defense forces. If we are to keep six divisions in Europe, the European states must do more. Why should we have in Europe supplies adequate to fight for ninety days when the European forces around our troops have only enough supplies to fight for two or three days? (My emphasis)

… and general trade issues ,,,

One effort we must make, the President continued, is to seek to prevent European states from taking actions which make our balance of payments problem worse. We have not yet reached the point of wheat against troops but we cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the “fat of the land.” We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves, knowing full well that the Europeans will not do anything for us simply because we have in the past helped them. (My emphasis)

Perhaps it’s not so much of a surprise, then, that, more than sixty years later, an American president got a lot more forceful about the Europeans’ sins of omission?

With these thoughts in mind, back to the main thread.

---

So, on 26 December 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed. Now what would happen?

Well, perhaps understandably, the response from some was one of jubilation. The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously went on to describe it as follows:

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.⁸

Wow!

In truth, this idea had been emerging for at least a couple of decades, and was strongly promoted by those who became labelled ‘elites’. For example, less than a year after the Berlin Wall came down, author V.S. Naipaul titled his 1990 Wriston Lecture at The Manhattan Institute, “Our Universal Civilization”.

But what is meant by the term “universal civilization”? In 1996, another American political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008), addressed this question. His response included …

[T]he term “universal civilization” may refer to the assumptions, values, and doctrines currently held by many people in Western civilization and by some people in other civilizations. This might be called the Davos Culture. … Davos people control virtually all international institutions, many of the world’s governments, and the bulk of the world’s economic and military capabilities.⁹

Davos Culture is, of course, a reference to the world of The World Economic Forum, founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab.

Huntington also stated …

[T]he idea is advanced that the spread of Western consumption patterns and popular culture around the world is creating a universal civilization.

But he then immediately discounted it …

This argument is neither profound or relevant. Cultural fads have been transmitted from civilization to civilization throughout history. Innovations in one civilization are regularly taken up by other civilizations. These are, however, either techniques lacking significant cultural consequences or fads that come and go without altering the underlying culture of the recipient civilization.

Ooh, not sure about that, Professor Huntington!

In any event, a lot of people, especially those of the Davos Culture, clearly did believe that the spread of Western consumption patterns was one of the spoils of victory of the hot and cold wars and, therefore, a God-given right.

We know this because, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the West deindustrialized by outsourcing across the world.

That sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? “The West deindustrialized …”. “Oh, jolly good, we’ve got rid of all that messy stuff .” But, in fact, I suggest, it was one of the biggest acts of self-harm imaginable. And it all happened so quickly and efficiently. Not least, in part, because right from the outset some investment companies were on board with the “Universal Civilization” idea. BlackRock, for example, founded in 1988. Good timing, huh?

The pitch was that not only was outsourcing a means to make big money, but it was also furthering the creation of the Brave New World of global peace, hope and … er … money-making. An irresistible combo, I’m sure you will agree.

Here’s a snippet from March 2001 when then-U.S. President Bill Clinton gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University, supporting the admittance of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO):

By joining the WTO, China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products; it is agreeing to import one of democracy’s most cherished values: economic freedom. The more China liberalizes its economy, the more fully it will liberate the potential of its people – their initiative, their imagination, their remarkable spirit of enterprise. And when individuals have the power, not just to dream but to realize their dreams, they will demand a greater say.

Hmm, not sure the Chinese have any intention of embracing Western-style liberal democracy any time soon.

Nonetheless, the outsourcing proceeded apace, the logic based upon a “function system” approach that had been articulated by German sociologist, Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998). Here, Hans-Georg Moeller explains:

Function systems aim at all-inclusion. Ideally, the economy and politics will include everyone. This is also what the propagandists of a “free market” economy and its counterpart, “free” democracy"say: with free markets and free elections, economic backwardness disappears and political liberation takes place. Function systems do not only not recognize geographical boundaries, they are also blind to color, gender, and sexual orientation. The globalization of the function system - according to many of those who interpret this process in terms of the traditional “emancipatory” enlightenment vocabulary - will eventually establish a global village of free citizens, who pursue happiness and live together in solidarity along the lines of rational and fair rules and regulations.¹⁰

Sounds great, huh? And isn’t it what has been pushed on us by those Davos-Culture-toting elites? Trouble is, it all ignored the concluding line to Moeller’s explication:

Unfortunately, there is no empirical support for this interpretation.¹¹

In any event, Russia and China and some others never bought in to the “Universal Civilization” idea in the first place. Here’s Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin:

Liberalism was increasingly resisted by Putin’s Russia, which has nuclear weapons and a historical tradition of opposition to the West, as well as a number of conservative traditions preserved in society.

China, although actively engaged in globalization and liberal reforms, was in no hurry to apply them to the political system, maintaining the dominance of the Communist Party and refusing political liberalization. Moreover, under Xi Jinping, national trends in Chinese politics began to grow. Beijing has cleverly used the “open world” to pursue its national and even civilizational interests. And this was not part of the globalists’ plan.¹²

I’m not suggesting that spreading some of the manufacturing load was a bad thing. Catalyzing the productive progress of China, India, and other countries was good. But, along side any rational expansion, all common sense seemed to have gone out of the window … not least, around issues of national security.

The presumption that, post-1991, we had entered a period of global peace and harmony in which the Western concept of Universal Civilization would just sail through will surely go down in history as one of the most absurd pieces of magical thinking ever.

Isn’t it now clear that this latter activity is actually Phase 3 of the Long War. Which is to say, World War 2 did not end in 1945. Rather, it has consisted of three phases:

1. 1939-1945: Hot War

2. 1945-1991: Cold War

3. 1991-2025: War for a Universal Civilization

The West won the Hot War and the Cold War, but the ‘Davos Culture’ devotees are now losing the War for a Universal Civilization. Personally, I think that’s a good outcome.

---

The War for a Universal Civilization phase had to be, by definition, an all-or-nothing campaign. Samuel Huntington stated the basis for it:

At the end of the twentieth century the concept of a universal civilization helps justify Western cultural dominance of other societies and the need for those societies to ape Western practices and institutions.¹³

But what happens (or has happened) when the War for a Universal Civilization has met with resistance? Well, bluntly, Western powers have felt sufficiently legitimized and gung-ho to push ahead with their own self-interests without constraint. Which has meant that, in important instances, any questioning or resistance has been ignored.

Take, for example, the fact that, on 1st February 2008, William J. Burns, the United States ambassador to Russia at that time, sent a confidential cable to senior staff at NATO and in the American government. He titled it: “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES.”¹⁴ This made clear the depth of Russia’s fears and objections regarding the West’s moves in that region and, specifically, Ukraine.

This is not to make Russia out as some sort of saint. It clearly is not. Indeed, it has committed some appalling offences. However, neither has the West always behaved in a straightforward or even honest way.

For example, American economics professor, Jeffrey Sachs, states that Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution of 2013/2014, resulting in the removal of President Viktor Yanukovitch, was actually engineered by the United States. And he has a great deal to say about the current debacle. Which makes one wonder whether what is actually going on here is a simple, never-ending continuation of the world as it was in 1945? Has ‘The War for a Universal Civilization’ been simply a convenient repackaging of the old U.S. position for these times?

So, what are we to make of all this? Have we got anywhere at all?

---

The ‘Davos Culture’ devotees have used every means at their disposal to further their goal. Including some very dirty tricks. For example, the fundamental shift of governance in the West to a behind-the-scenes model which results in the immensely frustrating fact that vast swathes of activity are handed off to NGOs and other bureaucratic blobs who are entirely unaccountable to voters. This is also known as The Deep State.

You know the sort of thing: whichever party you vote for, they will maintain the status quo regardless.

Or, at least, that was the case until You Know Who came on the scene. President Trump is on a mission to demolish the Deep State. That, in and of itself, is inevitably going to cause chaos in the short term. But, in my opinion, it’s the right thing to do.

It strikes me as ironic that, in the concluding pages of his excellent book about George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens wrote:

The disputes and debates and combats in which George Orwell took part are receding into history …¹⁵

… and then along comes a televised Punch and Judy show that demonstrates that at least one of those ‘disputes, debates and combats’ is front and center of the news agenda.

Suddenly, it’s all change. More than half a century after President John F. Kennedy complained that, “One of our big tasks is to persuade our colleagues in Europe to increase their defense forces,” in a matter of weeks President Trump and Vice-President Vance have managed to convert European leaders to the reality. Better late then never I suppose. Mind you, they will have to tread with great care: not least because Russia has the largest confirmed stock of nuclear weapons in the world. Bar none.

The televised exchange in the White House between President Zelensky, President Trump and Vice-President Vance was harsh and difficult to watch. A fact that recalled, for me, a comment that Winston Churchill made when, in 1941, President Roosevelt’s advisor paid a visit:

On January 10 a gentleman arrived to see me at Downing Street with the highest credentials. … Thus I met Harry Hopkins, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive role in the whole movement of the war. …. I always enjoyed his company, especially when things went ill. He could also be very disagreeable and say hard and sour things.¹⁶ (My emphasis)

From time to time, hard talk is called for. Not sure it needs to be televised, though. Mind you, in an online world I guess it’s the most honest way to deal with issues.

Of course, many of us are concerned about the resulting outcome for Ukraine. In the recent past, Ukrainians have come together and bravely confronted the threat from Russia. Can Europeans, maybe with a little further help from the U.S., settle the situation down without further additions to the already enormous casualty count?

It’s not as if the U.S.-Russia confrontation has been the only challenge on the game board. The U.S. has to be as or more concerned about the role that China is playing, particularly regarding its claim on Taiwan. This, of course, also brings into question the ongoing dynamic between Russia and China.

And missing from all of the above is any consideration of that other great challenge of our times, the so-called multiculturalism that has been imposed on the West as part of the War for a Universal Civilization.

Can all civilizations live alongside one another in harmony? Not everyone thinks so. In a fascinating and illuminating account titled Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes, Tamim Ansary is sceptical:

And I must say, I don’t see how a single society can be constructed in which some citizens think the whole world should be divided into a women’s realm and a men’s realm, and others think the genders should be blended into a single social realm wherein men and women walk the same streets, shop the same shops, eat at the same restaurants, sit together in the same classrooms, and do the same jobs. It can only be one or the other. It can’t be both. ¹⁷

Well, we shall see how that pans out.

---

To conclude, it now seems to me that not only are we just experiencing the end of the Long War but also the end of the twentieth century.

Which is to say, perhaps the period from 1945 to 2025 has represented the essence of what we think of as the twentieth century. It has been, so to say, the Big Historical Panorama of our time.

Assuming that to be the case, here’s a cautious welcome to the start of the 21st century.

Thanks for reading.

Image at top: Shutterstock

1. Winston Churchill. Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, U.S.A. (05 March 1946)

2. Winston Churchill. Ibid.

3. Winston Churchill. Ibid.

4. George Orwell. In Defence of Comrade Zilliacus (written October 1947 - January 1948?)

5. George Orwell, quoted in Christopher Hitchens. Why Orwell Matters (2002)

6. George Orwell - editors Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus. Orwell, Essays & Letters, Volume 4 - In Front of Your Nose (1968)

7. Klaus Knorr. Limited Strategic War (1962)

8. Francis Fukuyama.

9. Samuel P. Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations: And the Remaking of World Order (1996)

10. Hans-Georg Moeller. Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems (2006)

11. Hans-Georg Moeller. Ibid.

12. Alexander Dugin. The Great Awakening vs The Great Reset (2021)

13. Samuel P. Huntington. Ibid.

14. Google - William Burns Nyet means Nyet cable

15. Christopher Hitchens. Why Orwell Matters (2002)

16. Winston Churchill. The Second World War, Volume III, The Grand Alliance (1950)

17. Tamim Ansary. Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes (2009)