On Trump’s ‘Victory Day’ Revisions

This is … a bold set of claims.

And not least because I would have assumed VJ Day in August would have made for a more logical ‘Victory Day for World War II’ than VE Day in May (although I suppose it’s the immediately impending occasion with the Russians’ famous annual Victory Parade in Moscow which has caught the American President’s imagination here).

Nobody should doubt that the Americans made very significant contribution to the successful outcome of the Second World War; and they have every right to justifiable pride when it comes to both that and their efforts in the latter part of the First.

But I do not think it wise to attempt to set a sort of ‘quantum of contribution’ with a bid to try and out-compete – or, indeed, view it as a competition – other countries for ‘credit’ in the manner Trump’s statement seems to oblige.

“Strength”, “Bravery”, and “Military Brilliance” are not uniform values across all years and all men, formations, and fronts. There is no mention made for “material” – in the sense of contribution made to others, whether Commonwealth or Soviet Union, through Lend-Lease.

And as applies “did far more” – one rubric might be manpower contribution and lives given, where the Soviet Union would be orders of magnitude larger in its scope than the Americans. In terms of a ‘per capita’ approach, there may be smaller groupings of man whose contribution was nevertheless higher in proportion than that of larger powers, whilst remaining lower in absolute terms. There are many ways to ‘stack’ it, and many elements to include if one seeks to come to some form of overarching ‘credit quotient’ for the war’s ultimate result.

But, again, that is not a sensible way to seek to examine the conflicts in question. They are not ‘scoreboards’ for future generations to squabble upon like video-game match outcomes.

And it is absolutely unnecessary to proffer that America “did more than any other Country [sic], by far” in order to justify – as I say – a deserved pride in that which America did contribute, or to underpin appropriate commemorations oriented thusly towards.

What I would suggest is that the appropriate paradigm for it is a different meaning to Trump’s “We won both Wars”.

Yes. We – as in, the Allies (and this term has somewhat different scopes of inclusion for each War … ) – won both Wars.

It was a team effort.

And, I might add, a team effort by previous generations to either myself or Trump (born a year after the latter conflict’s conclusion); which has tended to mean I’ve felt rather uneasy about utilizing that first person plural pronoun with reference to the victors and sacrificers of those downright apocalyptic conflagrations.

It would feel entirely incorrect of me to seek to claim credit for the actions and the honorifics of those far greater men and women who have now largely (if not yet quite completely) left this earth for us to inherit and to give thanks for.

Although going via his tone in various communications over the years, I’m not entirely sure how much Trump might have assented towards that ethos.

I also do wonder if “Celebrating” is the apt verb for something like a commemoration to the end of World War One.

“Commemoration” has always seemed, to me, to be the more useful (and emotionally apt) approach.