Three years of war || A historian specializing in World War II says there are similarities (three, to be concrete) between that conflict and the invasion of Ukraine. The first is economical. And it can be the key to everything and the end. “The number of obuses, planes or tanks will determine the victory”
-History can illuminate the present or blind us.
A phrase cut by Olivier Wieviorka. Wieviorka is a historian, French, professor at École Paris -Saclay, and dedicated a study and long work to World War II – his award -winning book “Total History of World War II”, recently published in Portugal. Interviewed by CNN Portugal, the historian argues that readers are more “interested” in the theme of World War II because of the invasion of Ukraine, but according to him “we should not compare” conflicts – and even when comparing, “comparing it is not justifying” – but “similarities”.
From the outset because the Europeans did not anticipate a conflict on the continent, they dismissed too much in defense, and just as “they did not truly understand” Hitler, they did not truly understand Putin – finding Europeans that merely by diplomacy could “appease” this kind of leaders. In 2014 in Crimea, as they had allowed Hitler to act in the Sudes []”, Considers Wieviorka. And continues: “Countries in Europe [em 1939] They did not present a united front against Germany Nazi, just as the European Union is currently divided. Democracies [na Europa] They have not rearmated enough and today they are unprotected. ”
The French historian laments that “many lessons that could be taken, they didn’t go.” Because the leaders, the current ones, “continue to think only in the short term” and, exemplifying with past leaders, “they are not a [chanceler alemão] Willy Brandt to [Presidente francês] François Mitterrand ”. “They no longer have the historical culture of their predecessors.”
The invasion of Ukraine cannot be compared, even though it is European, the civil war occurred in former Jugslavia, as cannot be compared to the invasion of World War II. In the first example, because it was not even a case of invasion, but ethnic conflicts and independentist conflicts. In the second example, the invasion is, despite everything, a regional or, whether, whether, whether, whether, the direct or indirect support of China (or from Iran, or Belarus, or Hungary) to Russia and Nato next to Ukrainian, the presence of North Koreans (residual, one, but presence) to combat or western arms in the hands of Kiev do not make the conflict not to conflict a conflict Third World War. The warranty is from Wieviorka.
Although it tells us, “It is impossible to predict a world war.” “But I believe, and personal – and without my opinion has more value than any other – that we are not on the verge of it,” he says.
Third World War? Only with article 5
We are not “border of it” because “the powers have sought to maintain the limited character of the war.” “Russia, despite its crimes, did not involve Belarus or Moldova. And on the other hand, Westerners have avoided exceeding certain lines. I do not see, therefore, a ‘climbing to the extremes’ – to use the expression of [Carl von] Clausewitz -, especially, despite its war proclaiming, Putin did not use tactical nuclear weapons. ”
And with Trump’s rise to the US presidency, a “great widespread conflict.” “I also believe that neither America nor Russia desire it. Moreover, for example in 1914, in the Great War, war became worldwide due to the automaticity of alliances – which is not the case today. ” But you can even check. “Well, for that it would be necessary for a native country to be attacked, so that Article 5 [que consagra o princípio da defesa mútua] was activated. But I don’t think Putin makes this mistake. ”
Returning to the possible comparison between conflicts, the Ukrainian invasion and the Second War, the historian Olivier Wieviorka when he writes about the 39-45 war does not talk about war merely, the military dimension. Speaks of geopolitics. Of social and moral forces. It speaks of economics. “The economy plays, in both cases, an essential role: we realize that the battlefield is important, but that the ability of belligerents to forge an effective military instrument is as well. The number of obuses, planes or tanks will determine the victory. ”
In addition to the dimension of the economy, “there are two other similarities between World War II and War in Ukraine.” Olivier Wieviorka lists: “First, logistics – the ability to carry weapons, ammunition and combat front supply is a crucial element. Finally, of course, the morals of troops and the population represents a determining factor. A motivated troop fights better than one who doesn’t even believe in the war objectives or so little in victory. ”
Putin is not Stalin – “but legitimates in him”
The speech, in Putin’s case, seems to also refer to World War II. Wieviorka believes that his predecessors, such as Mikhail Gorbatchov or Boris Ieltsin, “would not make” speeches by appealing to “Ukrainian disinalization”, “great patriotic war” – because great is also the “great Russian homeland”.
A speech that refers to Stalin.
Putin identifies with Stalin? Legitimates through the memory of Stalin, Putin? The historian responds short, but right. “If Putin has no affinity for Lenin, for example, he certainly sees Stalin as a great man. Stalin is a means to legitimize itself and a means of restoring a past that this Kremlin leader regrets: that of a powerful Soviet union, who inspired fear and dominated the ‘neighborhood’, to be over. ”
Not comparable on the scale, but similar in the “rubble”, in the view, it is the destruction we observed in 1945 and which we observed in 2025. The famous Marshall plan, launched in 1947, played an important role in the reconstruction of Western Europe. An investment of $ 168 billion – let’s talk here in dollars, because there was, of course, the single currency. However, in Ukraine, the government, the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations have already estimated an investment of more than 486 billion – other forecasts point to values up to above.
“In fact, the plan [Marshall] provided credits to the beneficiaries. And also a method, as they also reached on the American experience to improve their productivity. But this plan is also the target of idealizations: Europeans had to open their markets to the United States, buy products from Uncle Sam. In short, we should not see this Marshall plan as a philanthropic action, ”recalls Olivier Wieviorka. Still, for this historian, “plans of this type would be perfectly viable in Ukraine – because they make sense and money will not miss.”
Olivier Wieviorka works in a new book, which is not about World War II, backs her back and advances beyond it. It is about the great leaders, “the strategies,” who thought the wars. Will you include Putin, or Zelensky, in the work? Wieviorka responds with a sense of humor. “No, we only analyze the thinkers, not the practitioners. So Napoleon is not on our list either, because he did not write about the art of war. But [Carl von] Clausewitz, Mao you [Ferdinand] FOCH occupy a prominent place. ”
NOTE – In 1938, Germany Nazi attached this region of Czechoslovakia, incorporating it in the III Reich •
