The Realignment: Liberalism Under Siege, Why Do Wars Start? + Producer Aaron on the WWII Analogy

Support the show's expansion and subscribe to our Supercast

Subscribe to Our Supercast to Support the Show

We’ve officially wrapped our first month on Supercast. Thanks to everyone who has subscribed so far. If you believe in what we’re building on this show, please click the link below to support the show.

We have three price points: $5 a month, $50 a year, or $500 for a lifetime membership (aka ten years of subscription paid upfront).

The general rule with subscriptions is that 3-10% of your overall audience will pay for a membership. Last month, hundreds of thousands of unique listeners tuned in, so one can do the math. If only 3% of that number subscribed, even at the $5 rate, we’d be off to the races.

Welcome Back to The Realignment

Thanks for checking out The Realignment’s Substack newsletter.

If you’re new, hit subscribe to get future issues in your inbox every *Friday*.

Me and Saagar just wrapped our one-on-one discussion episode. Since we’re putting these together ahead of time, here’s a list of topics/background info.

1. Baby Formula Shortage: What’s Behind America’s Shocking Baby-Formula Shortage by Derek Thompson The Atlantic

2. Stock and Crypto Downturn: Map of a Downturn: Untangling the complex causal chain that makes good times go bad by Nathan Baschez Every

3. The Future of the Office Post-COVID

4. $40 Billion to Ukraine

As we continue to experiment with increasing our production schedule and these discussion episodes, definitely write in at realignmentpod@gmail.com or comment/reply to this Substack to share your thoughts.

This Week’s Episodes

242 | Christopher Blattman: Why Studying the Roots of War Shows the Paths to Peace

(PODCAST AUDIO) (YOUTUBE VIDEO)

241 | Francis Fukuyama: How the Left and Right Challenge Classical Liberalism

(PODCAST AUDIO) (YOUTUBE VIDEO)

240 | Saagar & Marshall: Discussion Episode

(PODCAST AUDIO) (YOUTUBE VIDEO)

Producer Aaron’s Perspective

Aaron Visser, The Realignment’s producer/researcher, contributes his perspective on a recent theme covered by the show.

WWII, Ukraine, and the Munich Analogy

If there’s two things we love at The Realignment, it’s talking about WWII and talking about how people talk too much about WII. After doing episodes about how the legacy of Appeasement and WWII conventional warfare damaged Western thinking, WWII repeatedly shows up in conversations about Ukraine, with Putin often compared to Hitler.

I have the same weakness. Right now I’m reading a thousand pager about the Collapse of the Third French Republic, having recently finished biographies of Hitler and Churchill, as well as one about the mass killings of Hitler and Stalin in Eastern Europe. This is the path of so many history buffs, analyzing the event from different perspectives until they take on almost biblical qualities. The figures attain mythic status, from the venomous Adolf Hitler, the modern measuring stick of evil, the pathetic Neville Chamberlain, whose weak actions haunt every statesmen, the cold Joseph Stalin, our ally and future adversary, the indefatigable Winston Churchill, proof great moments find great men, and the sure Franklin Roosevelt, who proved America could use its strength for good. The narrative surrounding these events are quite clean and justly so. No matter what the revisionists might say, Hitler was evil, appeasing him was wrong, and those who fought against the Third Reich were on the side of good. This moral justness of the war, the sheer scope, the conventional nature of its battles and diplomacy which excite the history buff like me, the extent of its horrors (the Germans tried to murder most of my family and largely succeeded), the legendary debacle of diplomacy beforehand, the ideological conflict between Liberalism, Fascism, and Communism and the uncertainty of democracy’s survival, and that from the American perspective it had a happy ending, all contribute to its ubiquitous in historical discussion today. Yet too often all this study produced the wrong lessons. 

Before WWI, a massive gap opened up between military technology and strategy. The French marched into the battle wearing helmetless uniforms from the era of Napoleon, preparing to charge enemy lines with bayonets and cavalry, even though they faced machine guns, grenades, and heavy artillery. After the French barely avoided defeat, reality gave a crash course in modern warfare and they developed new doctrines around trenches. Innovations such as rudimentary tanks, planes, and infiltration tactics eventually entered into the playbook. After WWI, the French generals learned an important lesson: before WWI they didn’t have modern military tactics, but now they did and thus never needed to learn again. Unlike the Germans, who updated doctrine in line with developments in aircraft and tank technology, the French stuck to a defensive WWI mindset. It didn’t work out well. Humans are amazing at finding the lesson opposite from reality, especially when it fits their political purpose. Instead of learning from WWI that ideas must change with new facts, the French decided they had found the truth and never needed to change.

This same scenario occurred after WWII. The establishment took away that appeasement and battleships are bad, clear red lines and aircraft good, instead of the eternal truth that diplomacy and strategy depend on circumstance.  In the twenty  years before WWII, WWI affected all decisions to disastrous results. It’s been 80 years since WWII and yet it still is the reference for any conception of diplomacy and warfare. Should we move on?

During the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict inevitably drew comparisons to Munich, the apotheosis of appeasement where Neville Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia. This analogy has wrecked the US before. It was the impetus behind Korea, Vietnam, and slowed detente with the Soviet Union. Yet it kept coming up for the simple reason that the analogy is perfect. At Munich, Adolf Hitler sought to protect self determination for the oppressed Germans in the Sudetenland, framing the League of Nations as the aggressor for seeking to curtail him in defense of a fake nation. This winter, Vladimir Putin sought self determination for the oppressed Russians in the Donbas and Luhansk region, framing NATO as the aggressor for seeking to prevent  him from influencing Ukraine, which is really part of Russia. Historical comparisons are rarely this exact and so useful. The Munich analogy reveals that dictators can negotiate in bad faith and that diplomacy under their framework is a defeat. Like Hitler, Putin uses real grievances as a shield for aggressive action. They both led nations exploited in defeat, using military action to repair wounded pride.  While many other variables are different, such as nuclear weapons for Russia and the superiority of the defense as opposed to offense in combat,  the invasion of Ukraine proves WWII can still be useful to us. 

The invasion also raises deeper questions about the ability of dictators to represent their country’s interests. Many have argued that Putin has acted irrationally and against Russian interest. But this is hindsight. Consider Munich. Adolf Hitler wasn’t a geopolitical genius, shown later in his invasion of Russia and declaration of war on America; he was an aggressive poker player at a table of scared wimps. But if his bluff had been called, Hitler would have been made an irrational fool detached from the true interests of Germany. This could have happened. In September 1938, the top generals of the German army planned to depose Hitler if he went through with his threat to invade Czechoslovakia and enter the weakened German military into an unwinnable conflict against France, England, and Czechoslovakia. But England had no desire to go to war and folded before Hitler’s weak hand was shown, capitulating at Munich, made Hitler’s actions look genius when they could have looked reckless. 

WWII also challenges our assumptions surrounding different forms of government. Conventional thinking dictates that the interests of dictators are detached from the countries which they govern, that Putin does not represent the Russians because Russia is not a democracy. This is sometimes true in internal affairs when the interests of the people and the regime conflict, and even more true when other states are involved, which is why regime change, particularly of nuclear armed powers, is a terrible idea, but no clear evidence exists that democracies are better than other forms of government in their foreign policies. The fascist powers defeated the democracies at Munich, who listened to the will of the people wanting to avoid war, but not their interests. 

WWII teaches many lessons, but the history afterwards reveals whether the lessons were properly learned. We must read about appeasement, but also Vietnam’s dangerous over-extension of the analogy. We must learn about Blitzkrieg, but also Ukraine where modern weapons favor defense. Historical analysis is the study of how human civilization functions. In determining the future of that civilization, we must learn from the past as best we can. In our policy towards Taiwan, we must consider WWII and Munich, where democracy gave in to a dictatorship, but also WWI and Belgium, where a defense obligation by England turned a short regional war into the Great War. When dealing with Putin or Xi Jinping, the proper question isn’t whether a leader represents their states interest or is acting rationally, but whether they are a Hitler, a dishonest expansionist gambler, or a Kaiser Wilhelm, who would prefer not to go to war. History will vindicate how the NATO powers acted in this crisis, holding strong and calling Putin’s bluff, but we must not over-learn this strategy for the future. Leadership is the ability to fight the next instead of the last war. Do we have what it takes?

The Realignment Bookshop

As a reminder, we’ve created a Realignment Bookshop affiliate store showcasing books by guests, what we’re actively reading this year, and deeper dives into the featured topic of an episode.

If you purchase a book using our link, the show gets a 10% commission, a local, independent bookseller gets support, and you get an awesome book!

We’re reorganizing our book lists over the next few weeks, so for now, check out our primary one:

Books by Realignment Guests

---

Let us know what you think about this or any other week’s episodes. Please share The Realignment with anyone who’d enjoy the podcast.