Marin Forum

Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus.

The above quote from Robert Kagen, while overstating the divide between the United States and Europe, is nevertheless accurate on the subject of war. World War II was a turning point as continental Europe rejected war while the United States filled the void that the Europeans had recently vacated. Of course European nations still fought bloody conflicts during decolonization but they did so alone (unless “Communists” were involved) and often without the solid backing of their citizens. By the 1980s European nations were effectively demobilized.

Today this attitude is present in European museums. Most European capitols have museums dedicated to military history and often the doors to these museums were opened around the turn of the century. The collections prior to WWII present a grandeur and tame version of war. Portraits of generals adorn the walls, guns and swords glitter in display cases, and mannequins are dressed in full regalia. The 19th century was a highpoint for European empires and war machines. Then a striking change occurs as the museum turns to the 20th century. The glorification of war is replaced by highlighting the horrors of the battlefield and the hardships of the home-front. Genocide is a common topic from the Holocaust to Yugoslavia to Darfur. The period from the 1920s to 1945 are often wiped from the history of the museum in countries that joined the Axis even though this period saw the rapid development and advancement of military technology. The grand portraits are replaced by photographs and movies that show the realistic angle of war.

This is most striking at Versailles in France. One wing of the palace houses floor to ceiling grand murals that celebrate military victories and heroic kings or generals. Juxtaposed next to the murals are photographs from WWII, the wars of decolonization, Vietnam, and Iraq. A picture of FDR, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta is placed next to a 18th century painting of a war council. A picture from the prisoner abuses at Abu-Ghraib is placed next to a rather tame painting of prisoners of war. Photographs do not as easily hide the realities of war. Europe at the turn of the century glorified war while the Europe of the second half of the 20th century has turned to a realistic view of war that does not shy away from the horrors of combat.

In Brussels the Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and of Military History has a contemporary warfare section. A large section of the exhibit is focused on World War II and contains many Nazi items; however, interspersed are reminders of the Holocaust, concentration camps, and the destruction of the home-front. Another part of the exhibit has an in depth look at horrors faced by Ukrainian Jews under the Nazis. Close by a projector shows pictures and words from the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides. War is not divorced from the destruction and horror that it causes.

In contrast US museums or high school textbooks do not provide the same treatment of war. The Holocaust is covered in depth but to an American audience it feels more distant. Instead the art of war is glorified. Aircraft carriers and battleships have been turned into floating museums; hangers are full of fighter jets and stealth aircraft; and the occasional museum may house an intercontinental ballistic missile. We still glorify war because our war machines highlight our technological prowess and superiority. Perhaps slightly startling, but even the Holocaust in the American museum may be portrayed as a victory for United States. The might of the United States military and economic apparatus overcame Hitler’s totalitarian empire and liberated Europe. If Vietnam is not ignored then care is taken to make the distinction that it was a military “victory” but a political defeat. We are still in the height of our military prowess, and like the 19th century Europeans we glorify our exploits.

If the European and American portrayals of war are so vastly different then it is no wonder that our attitudes (and willingness to fight) toward war are different too. In Where have all the soldiers gone? James Sheehan explores the change that Europe experienced. At the outbreak of World War I European took to the streets to celebrate the nation. In 2003 European took to the streets to oppose the US led invasion of Iraq. In part WWII was a moral defeat for Europe. The entire continent was ravaged by war, and European had no desire to experience it again. Militarism was linked to the rise of the Third Reich; thus, the best way to avoid another war would be to reject the war machine all together. And the European nations were able to demobilize under the security guarantees of the United States. The specter of Soviet invasion of western Europe could have caused those nations to maintain their conventional armies but the United States made the decision that nuclear weapons were the most economic way to counter the Soviet threat.

The post-war leaders of Europe turned away from war and strove to portray the realities. Thus, the European war museums are full of reminders of the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust. By doing so the next generation grew up rejecting war which further demobilized the European military apparatus (Britain and France have standing armies that are barely twice the size of the peak US troop deployment in Iraq). As a result Europe is not only unwilling to use force except in absolutely necessary situations but it is also unable to use force. Kagan observed that European armies lack force projection capabilities. The United States is the only navy to field supercarriers (although the UK and France are currently developing their own supercarriers). The only heavy bombers belong to the United States and Russia. Furthermore, many European nations lack logistical equipment. Recently, the UK complained about the lack of transport helicopters it has in Afghanistan. Then there is its lack of satellite and communication logistical technology (enter the Galileo project). The difference between US and European capabilities was especially pronounced in the 1990s. Europe was helpless as genocide broke out in the Balkans. France and Belgium suffered further moral defeats in Rwanda. In East Timor the intervention force turned to the US to provide logistic support.

European leaders recognized these shortcomings and sought to fix them. France is working on upgrading its military capabilities and has recently agreed to sell military hardware to Russia. EADS, the European aerospace corporation that also is responsible for Airbus, is working on a new military transport plane- the A400M. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU new foreign policy capabilities. However, a more assertive foreign policy by the EU will require it to develop hard power capabilities. There are moments when soft power alone is not effective. But can Europe develop effective hard power capabilities when its citizens are adverse to using hard power?

Thus, we return to Kagan’s quote. The two sides of the Atlantic have very different views on war. But these views are not static. European nations want to play a more prominent role in foreign affairs, and there could come a point where the US is unable or unwilling to provide a security guarantee. Meanwhile, someday the United States may find that its military can no longer provide the necessary solutions. However, Europe only rejected war after millions of its citizens were killed and entire cities were firebombed. The United States has not had to fight a war in its heartland since the Civil War and “total war” has been a foreign concept (and since history is written by the victors the scorched earth policies of General Sherman are forgotten when forming national identity). Could there someday be a merging of viewpoints?

The twentieth and twenty-first century of the United States to a degree mirrors the 17-19th centuries in Europe. War was a essentially a game between monarchs over vast empires. Civilians were spared the hardships of war as battles were fought away from urban centers. Combat may have been horrifying and gruesome for the soldiers but the citizens were kept distant from it so they were able to idealize it. Likewise today the United States is engaged in wars on the other side of the globe. There are no taxes or draft that would place a burden on citizens back home. While today’s media paint a much more realistic view of battles, the average US citizen still does not fully understand the realities of combat. Hence, we glorify war just as the Europeans did up until the 20th century. But could there be a moment when we nostalgically start filling museums with relics of the height of our foreign dominance? Sabers and rifles from the grand European armies of the 19th century fill European museums, so perhaps there will come a time when our superpower moment, filled with Predator drones and M-16s, is relegated to a dusty corner of a museum. In the meantime one has to look no further than the nearest history museum to understand the transatlantic divergence on the use of force.