I never liked it. It always struck me as self-serving excuse-making BS.
But who exactly is the “self” being served? And which truths are the excuses intended to hide?
Well certainly one “self” is the new American hegimon — naturally, we eat that stuff up, uncritically, since it feeds our egos and sense of self importance.
But why so little resistance from Europeans themselves?
Well, part of the answer is easy — American help for Europe's allies came at the cost of powerful anti-imperial, anti-colonial ideology.
Sure, we pulled their chestnuts out of the fire, but at the price of severe restrictions on future chestnuts.
So Europeans adopted an attitude of disillusion and angst, while we Americans just kept right on doing what it is we do best — living our lives, building a prosperous economy.
But the real tell-tail is Germany, which certainly had as much right to “disillusionment” as anyone.
And yet within just a few years they were right back up on their feet pursuing their long-term national goals — this time with a near biblical vengeance.
Again, my point is, if great battles resulted in disillusionment or cultural death, then the US would have “died” at Gettysburg or Antietam.
Instead, what really matters is not so much the size of the battle as what exactly we say about it for years afterwards.
Really, we're talking about education and or propaganda.
Must stop for now...
Now, you know I try to be as objective as possible in historical analysis. ;-)
The trends I posted are pretty obvious. You will note that the “deaths” of the nations I pointed out specifically had the Germans dying a generation later at Stalingrad. Why? Because they lost the first war, and were punished heavily for it. Plus, German hegemony of the Continent was an already ongoing historical trend. The Kaiser interrupted it with his neurotic policies, Hitler seriously interrupted it with his psychotic ones. But today, Germany is accomplishing economically what neither of them could militarily. I knew that would happen as soon as they knocked down The Wall. The Cold War, and NATO, which in the words of Helmut Kohl, existed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down” was only an historical pause button.
And as you point out, there was “education and propaganda.” The German education and propaganda during the 1920’s and 30’s was all about “betrayal,” “stab in the back” and the like. Contrast that with the education and propaganda from 1955 to at least 1980. As I know I’ve posted before, I received a degree in Germanic Languages in 1981, and read a lot of German literature and screenplays to get my degree. It really wasn’t until 1955 that the Germans began to come to grips with the legacy of the war. Adenauer had been to Moscow to secure the release of the POW’s in Soviet captivity, and the price was recognition of East Germany. The division and occupation of the country seemed permanent.
As a result, the education and propaganda to the German people from that point on centered around the discussion of two very angst-ridden questions: “How could we have let this happen?” and “Was all our suffering and sacrifice for evil?” In the moral wrestling over those two questions you find much of the present mind-set of Germany. However, those memories fade as the generation that asked them disappears. Who knows what will replace them.
As for the other countries, like Britain, France and Italy, even though they “won,” they had to win twice, and I think the general consensus is they found them Pyhrric Victories that they just would not care to repeat. So their cultures are imbued with a sense of no longer willing to struggle or sacrifice. For anything. I follow Formula 1 racing; the technology is great, the drivers skilled, but off the track when you get a bunch of European lawyers involved, it’s really quite nauseating to see how they run their business with all the under-handed deals followed by a bunch of face-saving and compromise.