Context

• Eighty years after World War 2 in Europe, marking the end of the most devastating conflict in human history, the continent finds itself once again confronting the spectre of war.
• While Europe commemorates the surrender of Nazi Germany and reflects on the hard-won peace that followed, this anniversary occurs under the long shadow of renewed geopolitical unrest in Eastern Europe, West Asia, North Africa, and beyond.
• The memory of World War II, once a rallying cry for unity and peace, is now a source of division and selective remembrance.
• The evolving narratives around VE Day, coupled with shifting global power dynamics and rising insecurity, underscore a troubling truth: the lessons of the past are at risk of being forgotten or manipulated.

Diverging Memories of the VE Day

• Ceremony in Europe (8 May)
  • Victory in Europe Day (VE Day), celebrated on May 8 in most of Europe and May 9 in Russia, symbolises more than just the defeat of Nazi Germany.
  • It marks a turning point in how nations remember the war, and in how they choose to narrate their roles within it.
  • The discrepancies in commemoration dates between Russia and the West reflect deep-rooted tensions that date back to the war itself.
  • Stalin’s refusal to acknowledge the initial German surrender on May 7, 1945, and his insistence on a second signing in Berlin, illustrate the fragile nature of the wartime alliance and the immediate onset of the Cold War.
• Russia’s Celebration (9 May)
  • More profoundly, memory itself has become contested terrain. In Russia, Victory Day has morphed into a militaristic spectacle, emphasising national pride and military prowess.
  • The USSR’s role in defeating fascism is central to its national identity, with heavy emphasis on the enormous sacrifices made, an estimated 26 million Soviet dead, including 11 million soldiers.
  • However, such narratives often overlook the darker elements of Soviet wartime conduct, such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which facilitated the brutal partition of Poland and set the stage for the war.

Post-War Reconstruction and the American Shield

• In contrast to Russia’s post-war trajectory, Western Europe rebuilt itself under American guidance.
• The Marshall Plan and NATO provided the economic and military framework for stability, enabling unprecedented peace and cooperation.
• U.S. President Truman’s metaphor of the ‘two halves of the same walnut’ aptly described the mutually reinforcing roles of economic reconstruction and collective security.
• Over time, Western Europe not only recovered but also embarked on a project of deeper integration, laying the groundwork for the European Union.
• This success, however, now stands on uncertain ground. American ambivalence, particularly under leaders like Donald Trump, who questioned core NATO commitments, has unnerved European capitals.
• With the U.S. appearing less reliable, European powers are confronting the reality of increased self-reliance.

Resurgent Insecurity and Strategic Realignment

• Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is seen not merely as an act of aggression but as an existential challenge to European security and the post-war order.
• Emmanuel Macron has characterised Putin as an imperialist intent on rewriting history. This has prompted a seismic shift in European defence thinking.
• Countries such as Germany, France, and Britain are rearming, relaxing decades-old spending restrictions, and developing new defence strategies.
• NATO members bordering Russia, including Poland and the Baltic states, are withdrawing from disarmament treaties and advising citizens to prepare for emergencies.
• A European Defence Fund and the EU’s first-ever defence strategy are signals of a continental pivot towards strategic autonomy.

The Narrow Lens of European Commemorations

• Ironically, as Europe reckons with its military past and future, its commemorative practices remain introspective and Eurocentric.
• The ceremonies marking VE Day often overlook the global nature of World War II. The war was not confined to Europe; it involved soldiers and civilians from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, and the Americas.
• These regions suffered deeply and contributed significantly, yet are frequently marginalized in Western narratives of the war.
• This insularity not only distorts historical truth but also risks alienating nations whose peoples shed blood on European soil.
• A fuller, more inclusive remembrance would acknowledge the war as a truly global conflict, one that reshaped empires and nations alike.

Conclusion

• The 80th anniversary of VE Day should serve not merely as a commemoration of past triumphs but as a solemn reminder of the fragility of peace.
• The divisions in memory, the rise in militarisation, and the return of war to Europe’s doorstep expose the unfinished work of reconciliation and security.
• As conflicts rage anew and alliances are tested, the world must recall not just the victories of the past but also the human cost and complexity that came with them.
• Never again must be more than a slogan; it must be a commitment, one that transcends borders, ideologies, and selective histories.