1September 2019 marks the 80th year since the commencement of World War II. This bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of mankind raged for six years. Armies from 61 countries with a total population of 1.7 billion people, that is 80 per cent of the total population of the planet then, took to guns. War operations engulfed 40 countries. World War II was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century and took the lives of over 60 million people.

The worst humanitarian disaster in world history was the result of aggressive aspirations of those who were convinced of their racial superiority and exceptionality and of their right to decide the fate of other countries and peoples. Recently, the heads of Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) adopted a statement in August 2019, on the 80th anniversary of the ou tbreak of the War. They said, “80 years after that mournful day, we urge the world to re-evaluate the lessons of that tragic period in our civilisation’s history. We advocate the revival of genuine interaction and understanding between countries and nations.

We call for making every effort to unite the world on the basis of equality, mutual respect and universal democratic values”. The key questions remains – is the world a safer place than eight decades ago? History does not necessarily move in one direction but yet has a knack of getting back in a loop. History on WW II is shaded from individual nation perspectives, and as always there are two sides to tell, not to mention countless other stories that are never relayed. Thus, it’s time to reflect upon the past and ponder on the future course of the world. The story of World War II is a tale of peoples around the world violently swept up in its frightful cataclysm.

I believe that WW I and WW II were one continuous phase of failed ideologies and mistrust that lasted for three decades. Truly WW I (1914-1918) did not end with peace but an imbalanced pact that was destined to fail. The treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds of inequality breeding discontent and dictatorial regimes and ideologies like Nazism. Expanding new territories and gaining lost territories became the new normal. The League of Nations went into oblivion. The result of this fractured ideology of revisionism was draped in a cloak of racial superiority, aggressive exceptionality aimed at redrawing frontiers and divisions of world.

To add to the woes the great depression in 1929 led to mistrust in effectiveness of democracy and its collapse in Europe, Spain, Portugal and powerful expansionary dictatorships emerged in Italy, Japan and Germany. The Nazis established not only a powerful modern army, but also a bloc of fascist states which became their allies in Europe. However it was the failure of trust, belief and dialogue between the West and USSR, and policy of appeasement to ward off individual threats, that fuelled the quest of Nazism to alter European borders by states. This resulted in the Munich Agreement of September 1938 between Britain, France, Nazi Germany and Italy, and later the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-aggression Pact of August 1939 between Germany and Soviet Union.

Both these treaties fueled Hitler’s appetite for conquest. World War II taught many people different things. Some learnt about the will power of humans and what it means when one’s homeland is invaded. Others discovered humanity’s limitations, such as whether one can push their moral boundaries to serve their country despite the pressure of their own values. Reflecting on the past, several lessons emerge for future peace. History had shown the dangers of intolerance and xenophobia on the basis of race or religion. Victory over fascism could be considered as the main result of World War II. Revisionism at the expense of other states as an ideology even in today’s world is fraught with dangers.

Nations thus run the risk of deploying in situations they don’t understand the complexities of and contribute more to problems than solutions. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria are only a few examples. Longevity of war is also often a miscalculation. When World War II began, most government leaders believed it wouldn’t last long. But when violence breaks out and governments stubbornly cling to their pride, it becomes very difficult to predict an end to a conflict. Even in present times the most difficult phase is the exit policy, more often in the face of frustration of not having reached the desired end state. The most important long-term consequence of World War II lies in the new institutions of international collective security and global legal governance that it impelled humankind to build.

The war brought about a wave of fervent internationalism that resulted in the creation of the UN, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the IMF, and the World Bank – to name just a few. However, most of the fundamental structures like the Security Council created after World War II, remain unchanged until the present day. That had led to “structural deficiencies” in the contemporary architecture for global security, which needs to be urgently addressed. If the response to the question “who won World War II?” is determined by who paid the greatest price for the ultimate victory, the answer is unambiguously the Soviet Union.

Both sides lost countless people on the battlefield and in the communities. This war nearly led to the collapse of civilization. However, loss and destruction did not bypass any nation. More than 26 million people died in USSR, 6 million died in Poland, 2.5 million in Japan and 5.5 million in Germany. The British Empire lost 4.190 million people, the French Empire 2.685 million people and the United States 1.421 million. A huge part of the European Jewish population was wiped out. Many millions of people perished in China, Indonesia and Indochina. The contribution of 2.5 million Indian volunteer soldiers in WW II remains shrouded and buried in the colonial past. They fought on land, sea and air most gallantly and ferociously.

The greatest and fiercest battles of Kohima and Imphal remain forgotten in India as an emblem of the country’s past. They were the unsung heroes who did not get their due under the British colonial era. The Indian army suffered nearly 87,000 fatalities and over 100,000 injuries during that war. Field Marshall Claude Auchinleck, then C in C said, “The British couldn’t come through both wars if they hadn’t had Indian Army”. WW II also catalysed the ongoing struggle for independence and end of colonialism in Asia and Africa. Post WW II, a new political map of the planet emerged. There occurred a social split of Europe, which again divided the world into two camps and became a cause of tension.

The political and social polarization in the world magnified, confrontation of liberal and socialist models which is commonly called the “Cold War” intensified, only to wither away to a new format years later. Cold war was in any case not as cold as believed and ushered in the most devastating and lethal technologies albeit as a deterrence. Unprecedented growth of weapons of mass destruction, degradation of natural environment and arms race were the new normal and a threat to civilisation. The fact that it did not lead to World War III is the logic of some, but certainly it made the world a more dangerous place. So, what is the course we are heading on in this 21st century? Does it continue to raise concerns and challenges of a different kind but equally devastating? A Philadelphia paper on “Foresight into 21st Century Conflict” has stated current conflict levels and battle-related deaths including terrorism are rising not decreasing.

Proxy war, terrorism, limited wars, unilateral intervention across borders, and threats of non-state actors exploiting broader set of diffused lethal technology are on the rise. The character and quality of democracy has also contracted resulting in degradation of democratic norms and instability. Economic warfare is undermining economic integration. Economic sanctions and restrictions are prime tools of geo-economics. Sanctions are taking the place of military strikes, competing trade regimes replacing trade sanctions and currency wars competing with territorial wars. Geo-economics is the driver of geopolitics, a context defined by the grammar of commerce but logic of coercive diplomacy and offensive overtones.

Strategic competition has thus switched to new markets than resources with breakthrough in ICT. The world thus looks for cheaper skill centres than resources. Infrastructure finance as a new tool of foreign policy exemplified by China, has led to debt traps and undesired dependencies compromising national interest of vulnerable states. Indeed the world is still a dangerous place with surprises and miscalculations. Nations need to unite on the basis of equality, mutual respect and universal democratic values. Let us all make the universe a safer place to live in peace with prosperity for all. There is adequate space for all.

(The writer, a retired Lieutenant General, PVSM, AVSM, VSM, was Director General Mechanised Forces of Indian Army. He is presently Consultant MoD (OFB) and a strategic security analyst)