World War II ended on 15 August 1945, but the celebrations earlier this year for VE Day were flat. What should have been a celebration for the end of a war on the European mainland which contained unspeakable cruelty and malice just did not feel right.
Yes, there were some flags on the streets and in the parade, but the national enthusiasm was low, attendance was lower and many people just did not understand the importance of it. There are a number of reasons why this could have been.
Celebrating the end of one war, as another starts
There is a war between Russia and Ukraine that is looking likely to escalate and become European-wide. Hawkish leaders like Starmer, Macron, Merz, Von de Leyen are pushing for militarisation, deployment of troops and rearmament programmes. There may be another world war beginning in the Middle East around Iran and Israel. There is an unavoidable hypocrisy in celebrating the end of a terrible conflict in WWII, whilst making conspicuous preparations for potentially more devastating wars.
Then there is the genocidal slaughter in Palestine which the British government are participants in. Arguably a bigger hypocrisy is celebrating the destruction of an ideology in Nazism, which justified the mass slaughter of innocent civilians in a genocide, whilst concurrently facilitating Israel who are doing the same.
A question of morale: reflections on WWII
Another reason, besides hypocrisy, is morale. Morale in the country on many things is low. People are just not impressed by the directionless malaise, corruption and dysfunctional floundering of the political class which is demonstrated in consistent polling with record low trust in politicians.
What is less well-known is that morale was a key factor in the Allies winning the war as explained in brilliant detail in Jonathan Fennel’s Fighting The People’s War. He explains that the Nazis were not the most militarily advanced nation at the start of WWII or the biggest arms manufacturer; that was Britain. Yet, the opening part of the war was disastrous for Britain. Germany and Japan with inferior military technology were able to strike serious blows against stronger militaries, taking vast amounts of territory.
One of the reasons for this is there is little doubt that Axis forces thought there was something in it for them. Armies have always acted like armed thieves and they thought they would gain not only land, but also resources from conquered land to protect or establish their empires. The promise of a golden future made them a far fiercer, more determined and formidable fighting force than the Commonwealth and Allied forces.
Low Allied morale: 1930’s poor economy
The Allies were often easily swept aside as their motivation was lacking, often surrendering or not engaging properly with the enemy. What exactly should they risk life and limb for? In the 1930s’ troubled economic times, many soldiers had a poor deal. A significant number joined the military in Allied nations simply because they offered three square meals a day, something not on offer for many in the pre-war economy.
This lack of fighting spirit was not lost on military top brass who kept detailed records of morale and were desperate to try to work out how they could raise it amongst their troops. They set up The Army Bureau of Current Affairs (ABCA), which was organised to educate and raise morale among servicemen. During the war, the Beveridge Report proposed strategies which could deal with what was seen as the social ills of the inter-war period. This really caught the imagination of military personnel, not just in Britain but across the Commonwealth. What would the golden future be for Allied militaries when the war was finished? This could be the way to improve morale.
Leaving no one behind improves morale
Fennel explains that lectures and speeches talking about the proposals for a better society in the Beveridge Report were as heavily and often more highly attended than entertainment put on for the troops. Servicemen wanted a home fit for heroes and were excited by the prospects that were spoken about. This massively boosted morale, explaining why Churchill was jeered by military personnel towards the end of the war and why Attlee, who wanted to implement the Beveridge Report, was cheered. This is why the Labour Party, only two months after VE Day, won a landslide election victory before the war had even finished.
What did this offer mean? It meant the NHS, the Welfare State, investment in education and training, nationalisation, widespread Keynesian-style state investment in industry, housing and infrastructure. Those in the forces desired all this as it meant no one was left behind, everyone would be taken care of, provided for, supported: this is what they fought for and wanted for Britain after the war.
The letters home from servicemen during the war, detailed in Fennel’s book, clearly show that the men, as consequence of their experiences of ABCA and Beveridge, were overwhelmingly left-leaning Labour supporters. They wanted a government which provided for all with public services and investment.
The importance of cooperation: a lost legacy
These desires of the war generations do not come up in discussions, in nostalgic reflections and commemorations of WWII. Even though they were key to turning the tide in the war, improving the success, through a raised morale of Allied, British and Commonwealth forces summarised in Fennel’s conclusion: “The Second World War deeply affected the political persuasions of those who fought. The war made soldiers more aware of the limits of individualism and conscious of the degree to which they were dependent on their comrades and fellow citizens for prosperity, security and wellbeing.”
Soldiers found all aspects of their lives involved reliance on one another, more so the closer to combat they came. To do otherwise was inefficient and possibly life-threatening. Their opinions and attitudes were changed by this, leading to new ideas about society after the war.
This legacy of the war is rarely discussed and this is the lost lesson.
Dismantling the post-war consensus
That these more socialist ambitions have been betrayed is the disgraceful reality. Ever since the 1970s, the post-war consensus has been dismantled. Privatisation has replaced nationalisation where corruption, monopoly rents and price gouging are commonplace. Education has been attacked and defunded, with attacks on science, academia and experts. The welfare state has been placed under relentless attack, with the NHS defunded and inequality has become worse.
Left-wing politics has been endlessly derided and attacked with decades of right-wing governments and even under New Labour, destruction of post-war reforms and the post-war socialist spirit continued. Keynesian economic policies have been attacked and socialist, left-wing ideologies demonised, increasingly framed as subversive and a threat to the state.
Politicians in Britain, including the next likely government of Reform, wrap themselves in the flag, align themselves with the military and invoke Churchill and WWII. This glosses over the wishes of those who fought and lived through the World Wars. The lesson in Fennel’s book is key and explains why so few younger people want to join the military, are unwilling to fight or oppose wars in our world today. What is the offer or golden future for them?
Individualism fuels the march to war
The offer now is a terrible one. No wonder morale is so low without politics designed to serve and support all. A corrosive and dangerous individualism has replaced collective solutions, a collective identity, building an authentic sustainable future with the obligations we have to others.
Instead the demands for a march to another war have begun from the European political class, who currently seem hellbent on the self-destruction of Europe for a third time. These are sad, crazy times, which are against the spirit of those who actually fought World War II to build a home for heroes and a sustainable healthy lasting peace which caters for all.
Is this why the VE Day celebrations did not feel right?
