On Trump’s gilded stage, history has no worth – even if he understood it
You are free to guess that Donald Trump has made little use of the study of world history, let alone Winston Churchill’s use of the Latin language to justify his invasion of Iran almost 85 years ago.
Yet before a president of the United States of America—even one so arrogant, ascended to the throne amid the inane glare of an increasingly trashy White House—before running off the rails and insulting his historical allies, he would have to endure World War I and II. You might have imagined that he might have had an assistant googling his nation’s behavior in the early years of the World Wars.
Instead, Trump rudely rebuked Britain and blasted Spain and other unnamed European countries for their “uncooperation” against its current, old, unplanned war against Iran.
Britain initially hesitated before allowing US warplanes to use its bases to attack Iran, and Spain flatly refused to cede its territory for America’s military adventure.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez condemned the “unilateral military action” and added: “It is unacceptable that some presidents use the fog of war to cover up their failures and in the process line the pockets of a select few – those who always profit when the world stops building hospitals and starts building missiles.”
Trump was outraged and threatened terrible retaliation against Spain; But you can be sure that Britain and Spain are not the only European countries unimpressed by Trump’s dubious statements about starting a war. Like Australia, they need only remember the US-led fiascos in Iraq, Afghanistan and, distantly, Vietnam.
Although he is seething and a quick victory unsurprisingly eludes him, Trump might be well advised to look at the map of Iran. It is much larger than Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam combined: Iran is 1.65 million square kilometers, Iraq is only 0.43 million square kilometers, Afghanistan is 0.65 million square kilometers, and Vietnam is about 331,000 square kilometers. There are so many areas where so many things can go wrong.
As for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer: “This is not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with here,” Trump spat.
Starmer was polite enough to refrain from pointing out that he had no dealings with Franklin D. Roosevelt either.
So what does this have to do with the two world wars? Or is it Latin?
These were the two bloodiest conflicts in world history, and the second was certainly the most important conflict in modern history, considering Adolf Hitler’s intention to end civilization.
But while Britain and its European allies desperately struggled to survive, the United States adhered to a policy of isolation and neutrality, treating the wars as Europe’s problems.
The United States did not enter World War I until April 1917, almost three years after northern France and Belgium began being turned over to slaughterhouses.
When World War II broke out, the USA was not interested again.
Its army stocks had decreased so much that the strength of its army was measured as 39th in the world, after the Golians like Portugal. The United States, still relying heavily on horses to carry artillery, had only a few hundred tanks that were largely obsolete.
In 1939 (the year the war started in Europe and Germany set out with 2400 tanks), the USA produced exactly 18 modern medium tanks.
The United States was still twiddling its thumbs when Winston Churchill felt he had no choice but to desperately rally his isolated country with his “we’ll fight them on the beaches” speech on June 4, 1940.
The United States did not enter the war until Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; This comes more than two years after death and destruction shook much of Europe.
By then, he had given himself the luxury of time to begin increasing his production of military supplies.
America’s shock at Pearl Harbor and declarations of war between the United States, Japan, Germany, and Italy sparked the largest and fastest military buildup in world history, with President Roosevelt setting staggering goals.
[1945’tekisavaşınsonundaAmerikamüttefikülkelertarafındankullanılantümaskeriteçhizatınüçteikisiniüretmişti:297000uçak193000top86000tankve2milyonordukamyonuBusüreçteBüyükBuhran’ısonaerdirdivegiderekzenginleşti
Nihai ABD askeri müdahalesinin, her iki dünya savaşını da Müttefikler açısından zaferle sonuçlandırmada belirleyici bir rol oynadığı makul olarak iddia edilebilir; ancak ikinci savaşta Doğu Cephesinde savunma ve saldırıda 26,6 milyon can kaybeden eski SSCB bunu savunabilir.
Tartışılamaz olan şey ise, ABD’nin bu son başkanının, İran’a yönelik sebepsiz bir saldırı gerçekleştirmesine yardım etme konusunda “işbirlikçi olmayan” Avrupa uluslarını eleştirerek en cahil ve zavallı rolü oynamaktan başka bir şey yapmadığıdır.
ABD tarihsel olarak kışkırtılmamış saldırıları kınadı.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor saldırısını meşhur bir şekilde “rezil bir gün” olarak lanetledi çünkü Japonlar saldırmadan önce hiçbir uyarı veya savaş ilanı vermemişti. Artık Trump, savaş uçaklarını göndermeden önce yasal olarak savaş ilan etme iddiasına bile girmeden hareket ediyor.
Yine de belki Trump tarihi ve Latinceyi anlasaydı Winston Churchill’le gerçekten ortak bir yanı olduğunu hayal etmesine izin verebilirdi.
Ağustos 1941’de, ABD dünyanın çekişmelerinin dışında kalmaya devam ederken, İngiltere ve müttefiki SSCB, Sovyetler Birliği’ne her türlü hava şartına uygun bir “Pers koridoru” askeri tedarik rotasını garanti altına almak için İran’ı işgal etti.
İran tarafsızlığını ilan etmişti.
Churchill ve Joseph Stalin’in zerre kadar umurunda değildi.
İstila ettiler, zamanın şahını ortadan kaldırdılar ve ülkeyi kendi aralarında böldüler, vatandaşlar arasında kıtlığa neden oldular ve sonunda eski Şah’ın oğlu Muhammed Rıza Pehlevi’nin İngiltere ve daha sonra ABD ile uyumlu yeni bir hükümdar olarak atanmasına yol açtılar.
Churchill, İran’ı işgal etmeyi haklı çıkarmak için klasikler hakkındaki bilgisine ulaştı.
In his World War II memoirs he wrote:Inter arma silent leges” – a mouthful phrase suggested more than 2,000 years ago by the Roman statesman, lawyer and philosopher Cicero – excused the joint British and Soviet military campaign as “overwhelming force against a weak and obsolete state.”
“Inter arma silent leges” It is translated from Latin as:Because the laws are silent among weapons.”popularly translated as ““In times of war, the law is silent.”.
In other words, Churchill declared that an illegal invasion was completely okay in war because law did not matter.
Why didn’t Trump think about this, no matter how cynical, instead of spewing nonsense about feeling threatened because he thought Iran would launch a pre-emptive strike?
A short world history course with some Latin or even an afternoon of Googling would have been helpful.
This assumes, of course, that anything could happen that could help Trump understand, amidst the crude glare of the gold curtains, wall sconces, and gold-trimmed fireplaces he has placed around his gilded throne in the White House, things that are more valuable than the pursuit of personal growth and family wealth.
Tony Wright is associate editor and feature writer for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.Connect via email.
