North Korea is continuously testing dangerous missiles. The United States is continuously issuing warnings against it and threatening it will dire consequences. There is fighting going on still in Syria and Iraq. Russia and Ukraine are still having huge disputes amongst themselves. Are we at the brink of yet another war, the Third World War?
 |
How far are we from World War 3? What does the rise in the right-wing ideology mean for today's world?
|
First it was Brexit on June 23, 2016, when the UK decided to part ways from the European Union on the grounds that that country did not gain any thing by continuing with the Union. The idea of "put UK first" was clearly seen from the votes that were cast during the referendum that led to the Brexit.
Then it was the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States. It was almost certain that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party leader would be elected as President. But then everybody was in for a surprise, an unwelcomed one for most. Trump beat Hillary by a hefty margin of 4% and became the most powerful person on the planet. His rhetoric about "Make America great again" helped him tremendously. During his entire election campaign he kept on repeating the same rhetoric, with a larger intensity as the final General Election day drew nearer. Some people called him insane, some called him half-mad. But, the end result made everybody call him "victorious"!!! He became the "man of the year 2016" and shone on the front page cover of the TIME magazine.
The victory of an american in achieving the presidency through a rightist type ideology, "make my country number one" sounded alarm bells throughout the political circles of the world. Political intellectuals and analysts started being skeptical if the landscape of politics had already changed. Their skepticism was not wrong. It had.
With the beginning of 2017, europeans started wondering if the results of their General elections at home will bring out the same kind of results that occurred in the Brexit referendum and the US General Elections. Their guess-work was not incorrect. The entire political climate throughout the world had changed by early 2017. In France, a more right-wing politician than the earlier President Mr.Hollande, Mr. Emannuale Macron came to power. In Britian, it became rather difficult for the incumbent leader, Prime Minister Mrs. Teresa May to hold on to her power, but she did survive somehow. Then came the turn of Germany.
Political pundits and analysts were anticipating something bad to happen in these elections - the rise of the right-wing party AfD. They were correct. The AfD party (abbreviated form of Alternative For Deutscheland) grabbed 12.6% of the total number of parliamentary seats and jumped on to the 3rd spot amongst the list of number of seats won by national political parties. It was a huge leap of 8.5% from the last General Elections held in 2013. Amongst the AfD leaders like Alexander Gauland, Alice Weidel and others, there was a huge mood of celebration. And why not? They had made a huge climb up the political staircase. But among the general german public and other parties there was not only a mood of dejection but also of fear, a scare. Why? Because of the horrible past that Germany has inherited that came from the rule of Hitler's Nazi party from 1933 to 1945. The very word "rightwing" sends shivers down the spines of many germans, even today also, after 72 years of World War 2. The intensity and the magnitude of the crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are still very fresh on their minds, especially those old people who have personally been a witness to the holocaust and managed to survive through that horrific period. But are these fears really true? Do the germans and the rest of the world really need to be afraid of this revival of the right-wing ideology? Or is it just hypothetical this time? Let us examine all the aspects and dissect them point by point.
The Nazis came to power on the 10th of February, 1933. Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany then. But by 23rd of March, 1933, he became the Supreme commander of German Armed forces apart from being the Chancellor and thus became the Dictator of Germany. His march towards dictatorship was gradual. It started in 1920 on August 13th, when he managed to gather a small rally in the city of Munich and address it during which he shouted against the then regime. His entire struggle between 1920 and 1933 was gradual and showed a great amount of patience and courage. Now compare the same with the present day AfD. Does its leaders have patience? Do they have a single extremely strong leader alike Hitler amongst the Nazis, unto which all others would simply become silent and listen? The answer to both these questions is a clear "No"!!
In a very weird chain of events, Frauke Petry, the co-chairman of the AfD party till 25th September, suddenly announced on the very next day of that huge jump of the AfD to the third place in the parliamentary results, that she will be quitting the AfD party, owing to huge difference of opinions!!! She stated that her ideology was not that of any extreme right-wing but a moderate right-wing. She opposed the influx of a million refugees into the country but she did not oppose allowing some of them! She did not oppose them being muslims either! Apart from that she made it clear that her plan was to form a coalition with Angela Merkel's CDU and become a part of the ruling coalition, which the other leaders viz. Gauland and Weidel did not want to do. At the end of her speech, she said that she would not entertain any questions on her decisions and finally she quit the party's press conference!!! What a show-off!!!
Just imagine, three leaders parting into two different sets of ideologies just within 24 hours of declaration of glorious results for a party!! Was there any sign of them showing maturity and patience? What can the german public expect from such leaders who succumb to public show-off tactics, instead of privately trying to sort out their differences in a cool, confidential manner? That cool and confidential manner would have more befitted Petry, Gauland and Weidel instead of bringing out their differences in the open. Hitler was a monster in terms of his deeds but he was clever enough not to commit such stupidity in public. Apart from this, Hitler was just in his mid 30s when he had brought the Nazis in the same position as what the AfD party seems to be today, i.e. very close to gaining power. Now, Alexander Gauland is an old man perhaps in his 60s and Weidel looks to be in her mid 40s. In short, none of the above three leaders including Frauke Petry, are neither as young as Hitler was then, nor as mentally and physically tough as him. And above all, Hitler was far more intelligent than any of these three seem to be, as he did not commit any such foolish step right in the beginning of his political career, as what these 3 have done. I would call Petry the most foolish amongst all 3 but then what about Gauland and Weidel? Weren't they foolish too? Couldn't they have just put their personal egos aside for a brief moment and asked Petry not to leave the party conference at that time? Yes they could but no, they didn't. Instead they continued on harping their own bugle of being at the Extreme Right end of the political ideology. The result was disastrous - a vertical split in AfD party, right on the next day of the election results. It must have been great fun for its political rivals to watch them conduct this entire drama on stage and then at the end, get fragmented into two pieces, when they were supposed to be totally united and seem like they can never be disintegrated.
In short, the scare of the rise of the right-wing nationalist party AfD in Germany seems hypothetical and unreal at the moment. But it may not be entirely so. One never knows what happens the next moment in politics. It is such a volatile state of affairs always!! And this very idea of "nationalism" can enforce it with a huge amount of extremely dynamic effect any time. History is a witness to the fact that any ruler, any President or any Head of State, whenever he has taken the support of this rhetoric, "Put my country first", it has either completely destroyed him or completely established him in a dictatorial manner. This nationalistic ideology has no in-between results. Just like its extreme nature, the results that it brings about are also of extreme nature - either total dominance wherein even a fly does not move without the dictator's wish or the dictator gets executed or punished heavily.
This very word "nationalism" is highly addictive just like alcohol. Once it goes into your veins you can not live without it. Initially you start with a slow whisper, "Put my country first" and then as time goes by you start shouting at the top of your voice, "PUT MY COUNTRY FIRST... "!! Suddenly you start feeling that chanting such slogans is also another way of expressing yourself being a True Patriot. What if you are not fighting against the enemies on the border, what if you are not fighting against the insurgency going on within the nation .... you are still doing your duty. How? By shouting slogans "PUT MY COUNTRY FIRSTTTTT........."!! Is this the way of being a True Patriot? Have real patriots who have lived and died for their motherland ever behaved in the same manner?
Take the example of any country's soldiers. They fight on the border against the national enemies or fight within the country against those disgusting internal enemies, those traitors of the nation. During this fight they do not utter too many words of nationalism. Then they either emerge victorious capturing or killing the enemy or they become Martyrs...they die to the great cause of trying to keep the country united and safe from threats. They show their love for the motherland by their deeds not just by words. If you love your country so much, there is no need to keep shouting slogans like above. Just go to the army headquarters and ask the officer there what can you do for the country. If you are young enough he will ask you to join the army. If you are not there are other ways too, in which you can help your country. Yes, apart from just shouting aloud all the time, "Put my country first". So, please for God sake, do not make patriotism a tool to show-off your love for the motherland. Instead do some things which are really concrete, which can really help your country. That would be much more appreciated.
Let me now go back to the topic of "nationalism". As I discussed in the earlier paragraphs, it is highly addictive. Apart from being addictive, it is highly contagious and makes a person highly aggressive too all of a sudden. Imagine one person shouting, "Put my country right on Top of the World" in a room wherein about 20 young men are sitting and discussing their political plans. Suddenly, that person will get company of 3 to 4 other men and they too will start shouting the same thing. After a few minutes that number will grow to 12 to 15 or may be all 20!! The faces of these young men will suddenly turn red as they would be definitely feeling a lot excited due to the words that they are uttering then. Their entire expression will become highly aggressive and scary, all of a sudden, as if they are going to wage a war against some external enemy in just a few moments. Where did all this energy come from for the rest of the men who followed that first person? It came from the word "Nationalism" and from the slogan, "Put my country right on Top of every other country". Can you see the contagious and aggressive nature of these words? They bring about so much energy from nowhere!!! They bring about so much aggression from nowhere!!! And that exactly, my friend, is the point which politicians come into the picture, to take advantage of this suddenly fluid, volatile atmosphere.
Adolf Hitler was an expert in doing so. He first successfully generated such a highly volatile situation and then took full advantage of it by strongly injecting a thought-pattern amongst all germans that it was only "he" who can reinstal the lost pride of the germans, during the first World War and nobody else. This fluid situation generated by a sudden doze of nationalism as discussed above has more emotions attached to it and less sense of judgment between the right and the wrong. Hence, innocent public lose their sense of judgment and common sense or wisdom for some time. This is the best time for opportunistic dictators to plunge into action. They create huge castles in the air about the future of their motherland, that they can give to their public, if it agrees to do "everything" that he wants. The public can not deny it and thus gives him all and absolute power over the entire country. Ultimately he becomes a Total Dictator, above whom there is nobody. Then he rules his state for some time and finally ventures on to an impossible mission - the mission of getting control over all its neighbors. If he succeeds in that too, he starts dreaming of capturing the whole world, as what Hitler did. Then suddenly he meets his nemesis, like what Hitler's encounter with Russia was. Finally, he gets defeated and dies. During this whole adventure of his, who is the worst sufferer? The common man. Millions of such common men either die or get financially, mentally and physically destroyed without any big fault of theirs, except that they got lured by the great promises of that foolish dictator about their motherland being "Put first, right at Top of all other nations"! That single wrong act of voting for him and giving him all the power results into a total and life-long devastation for him. Either he dies suffering from some acute illness brought to him by the ugly war or if he continues to live, he lives a life of hell with scarce and inadequate resources for the rest of his life.
What I mean to say here is that the difference between the two rhetorics - "Put my country first" and "Put my country right on Top of all other countries" is phenomenal. It is okay, until a person shouts and believes in the first rhetoric, "Put my country first", which means that he wants his country to be at the first place when it comes to giving priorities in terms of resources and prosperity. But, gradually it is very likely that his rhetoric will change into the second one, "Put my country right on Top of all other countries (at the expense of them)". This clearly means that he, not only wants his country to be put right on Top, but he wants to achieve that goal any how, even if it were at the cost of other countries in terms of their human lives or resources or money. This change in rhetoric is very very likely to happen when from the first one to the second one. Experienced and elderly people know it very well that it is very difficult to keep one self from changing from the first type to the second type. Especially for a dictator, who has all the means like money, military power and his public supporting him. It becomes very difficult to control himself unless he is a righteous person, following his religion in a very stringent manner. 9 out of 10 dictators lose that control and hence plunge the entire nation into a war, which was never needed. So many dictators belong to this list who have succumbed to the mean, lustrous, selfish and inhumane desire of plunging their nation into such a war, viz. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, etc.
It will be quite interesting to know why these dictators, these men of great ultimate power, succumb to such desires, although they do know within themselves that historical evidences go against them. When Hitler rose to power, his entire rhetoric was based on hatred towards the rest of europe, especially for England and France, which had played a pivotal role in defeating Germany during the first World War. It was they who had inflicted a lot of pain for the German society by making them sign the Treaty of Versailles. It set out not one, two or three but 440 articles that were filled with abusing the German race and punishing Germany. The most hurtful amongst them were two - (1) Germany should not be allowed to join the Covenant of the League of Nations and (2) All colonies that belonged to Germany colonies should be taken away and given to France and Britain as 'mandates'. This treaty was so gross for Hitler and his Nazi comrades to digest that when they came into power, they decided that it was their turn to be totally revengeful. Mahatma Gandhi once said,"If you exchange fire with fire, then everyone will go blind." The same thing happened here. There is no doubt the punishment inflicted upon the germans after their defeat in the first World war was totally gross and extremely harsh. The Bible and other holy scriptures of the christian faith asks for forgiveness but these two nations Britian and France, who were following the christian faith ascertained that there was no element of forgiveness or kindness towards the Germans, when it came to what should be done to them after the first World war was over in 1918. This entirely gross and animal-like behavior towards the German nation led Hitler towards rebuilding it and then challenging the same evil forces in a very severe manner. Had France and England behaved in a moderate manner and had it forgiven Germany some of its guilt during the first World War, the occurrence of the Second World war may not have taken place. If you read the entire Treaty of Versailles, which was forcefully signed by England and France from the then German leader, you will feel its utter grossness and total sense of monster-like contempt for the germans. Did the germans deserve so much hatred? Of course No. Nobody deserves that. But Britian and France thought so. And hence they made that evil Treaty and sowed the seeds of a huge war with Germany themselves.
Dear Reader, here you may start feeling that I am advocating what Hitler did. No, I am not. I have stated earlier too that Hitler may have started as a decent ruler of a nation but he ended as a cruel, animal-like monster. Every european, including the Germans hate him for that. So do I. But, I must make a brave statement here. Apart from the horrific, despicable genocides of the jews that he voluntarily and totally unrighteously carried out, all his steps were not equally condemnable. It is like if a student gets a wrong image in a school then the every time he does some thing incorrect he starts getting a very big punishment even though the incorrect deeds that he did later on, may not be as culpable as his first act. The same thing happened with Adolf Hitler. His intentions were very good as far as the German motherland (he called it the fatherland) was concerned. He wanted to make it great and wanted to see it shine like never before. But due to the reasons cited above and above all due to the very intrinsic nature of nationalism, he decided to invade so many countries, one after the other. His desire for more and more power became uncontrollable and he never knew when he had crossed the limit between what was right & brave and what was wrong and illegitimate. His track record from his first public appearance as a Messenger on the battle-front shows that he did not have bad habits like addiction towards women or alcohol or even cigarettes. He was a man who had a high level of discipline in his personal life. Nobody can deny the fact that although he was not a German by birth, his feelings, admiration and love for Germany were unprecedented. Else why would this man put everything that belonged to him at stake, including his own life, for the sake of Germany? Why would he work so hard to rebuild Germany between 1933 and 1939? Nobody forced him to do so and we all know how strong and rugged he was for anybody to command him. This means he was a great patriot of the German nation and the blood in his every vein flowed for the sake of Germany. It was his total misfortune that he decided to bring about the Holocaust for the jews of the world and later his mis-calculation to invade Russia in 1942, that brought about his downfall.
This entire history written by the britishers and the frenchmen, calling Hitler a total monster and with no virtues or qualities at all, is rubbish. If Hitler was a monster it was they who created one from him. And who were they after all? Were they saintly people, the ones who forced the germans into signing the evil Treaty of Versailles? They were monsters, rather more ugly devils themselves, who dealt in nothing else but a single word, "Hatred". If you give severe hatred to a certain nation, what do you expect when it rises again? Severe Hatred or any thing else? To rectify the history, let me state wide and clear that all those people who participated in that ugly gruesome geo-political situation in europe between 1914 to 1945, inclusive of both the wars were monsters, not just Adolf Hitler. This includes all those ex-Prime Ministers of Britain including Winston Churchill and Chamberlain and also the French leaders of that time. This is because had they not been equally bad monsters like what they claim Hitler was, they would not have brought about a second World War by inflicting terrible punishments upon Germany after the first World War by forcing them to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Instead they would have forgiven it for whatever it did, following the principles of the Great Bible. It is totally unworthy and unjust to call a single man a monster and totally responsible for all bad things happened during a particular era, when other men too have acted in the same brutal, unforgiving and devilish manner.
It seems that having spoken quite a few words in favor of Hitler in the above paragraphs might have made some of you quite confident now that the writer of this blog is definitely a Hitler supporter, Nazi kind of man. No, I am not. I once again reiterate that whatever others did to him, Hitler yet, should not have done the things that he did to them, especially the massacre of the jews that he conducted in such an organized manner during those years of his reign. It was just to clarify my position which asks for an equal culpability of other european leaders including Britain and France, of that particular era, that I had to argue in favor of Hitler for some time. I do not praise him nor do I consider him as any sort of ideal for myself. What he did was absolutely drastic and he was in fact one of the most evil humans of this planet. That was a fact, is a fact and will remain a fact.
Finally let me conclude this blog by stating once again that nationalism is such a thing which makes one feel very good when it starts. But then it definitely starts becoming bigger and bigger and after some time it blows out of proportion, when it becomes totally impossible to control it. All the ideals and principles of decency, brotherhood and fraternity get torn apart when that stage comes. Hence, it is better not to get involved into rightist nationalistic ideology of the type of "Put my nation first", as far as possible, because it is that wild-fire which, you never know, will burn the entire beautiful forests of human societies, as and when it becomes uncontrollable. I would also like to put it into a milder manner my saying that nationalist ideology, if at all it starts at any place in the world, can be allowed by that country to get magnified to a certain extent but it should be continuously checked by all the countries of the world, including that country itself, as to its present actions and the potential outcome of those present actions. That is the only way in which the Third World War can be prevented.
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Comments