The politics of resentment

The 60th anniversary of the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki by US forces reminds us of the horrors of WWII. A major origin of
the war was psychological, both the Japanese and the Germans wallowed in the
politics of resentment. Although one tends to attribute the origins of war
to economic factors and extreme views, in this case the view was practically
universal among Japanese and Germans that they had been denied the greatness
that was due to them. In the era of imperialism and colonialism, they
strongly believed that they had been deliberately prevented from exercising
their true right to have an Empire and colonies like the Western nations,
Great Britain, France and the US.
In the US I knew a charming Japanese-American scientist, who still adhered
to that belief long after the war was over. He argued that the Allies had
prevented Japan from having its rightful place in the world, by taking over
its natural colonies (Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia, etc.) and by
imposing limits on Japanese growth. The Japanese bridled at the Washington
Naval Treaty of 1921 that limited the Japanese navy to a specific number of
battleships, and they considered the exclusion of Japan from oil supplies
needed to fuel their navy and army as a justified causus belli. This led
directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent capture of other
ports, such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
The defeat of the Germans in WWI fueled the politics of resentment among a
significant class of the German people. The Germans were always comparing
their colonies in Africa, a small sliver of Togo and SW Africa, now Namibia,
that was then considered a worthless desert, with those of Britain, France
and little Belgium. Although it is often argued that the Nazi party never
actually won an election in Germany, the fact is that the support given to
Hitler was massive and growing. While he cleverly redirected popular
resentment against the Jews, who were closer to home and more vulnerable,
his actual target was to defeat the British and their allies to reverse the
results of WWI and to carve out an Empire in Europe, that the German people
felt they deserved.
Today Islamic terrorism is fueled by a similar psychology of resentment.
Resentment against the West for "invading" their lands (Palestine, Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan), and this does not stop with what many Westerners
might agree are Islamic lands, but includes such countries as Spain and
Israel that were once Islamic. And these are views not only held by the
marginal fanatics, but shared by a large minority of Muslims. In a recent
poll of British Muslims 35% shared the general views of the terrorists who
blew up the London transport system on 7/7 and 5% agreed with their actions
(although a majority said they opposed the terror, some of that opposition
is probably quite weak). The resentment also extends to the concept that
Islam is owed a greater share of power in the world, and that the only way
to achieve its rightful place is to confront and defeat those that have
power, namely the West.
Certainly similar motives were also previously behind the expansion of
Christendom and Euro-centered imperialism (forsaking the 'turn the other
cheek' aspect of Christianity). But, this has long since transmuted into a
secular anti-colonial Western civilization, where it is now considered a sin
to occupy another people, and the rolls of the UN contain 191 sovereign
countries.
One motivation for Zionism was a similar resentment at being left out of the
"game" when the lands of the earth were "shared out," so to speak. Who can
deny that Jews had a reason for resentment after WWII, and that the Zionism
that preceded it was then poised to play its role in the world. Pres. Sadat
of Egypt in his famous speech before the Knesset in 1977 stated that 75% of
the Arab-Israel conflict was psychological.
So we must be careful to take such perceived international resentments
seriously and to see them nevertheless as real factors in world politics.