A Multidimensional Perspective of History

World War II occupies a special place in American history. Yet the American perspective on World War II differs from those of other countries. Becoming familiar with the Russian narrative, for example, will give us a more complete (and accurate) picture of the war. The Soviets lost 23 million soldiers and civilians, while the United States lost 418,000. The eastern front was the principal theater in the war, not the western front with which we are more familiar: (Normandy, Sicily and the Battle of the Bulge). Seventy-five percent of German forces fought in the east against the Soviets. The largest battle in history occurred at Kursk in 1943, where 1.5 million Germans and Soviets fought for over a month and a half. The eastern front was the main stage. The western front, as Fareed Zakaria suggests, was a "in many ways a sideshow."

One would be a fool to argue that the United States did not help turn the tide in World War II. But our narrative - our take on world history and events - when diluted with national pride, creates a distorted lens through which objective history becomes blurred. Our perspective of the war is biased. So, too, is Russia's. Somewhere in between exists the truth.

Ideally, of course, a historian would isolate an event like World War II and attempt to see it through the narratives of Indians, Germans, Chinese, Australians - all nations in fact, to achieve a more accurate and well-rounded perspective. Impractical? Perhaps. But historians should accept no substitutes for the truth - or at least as close as they can get.

A Tragic Legacy

In 1997, the International Organization to Ban Landmines was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for leading the effort to negotiate a multilateral treaty prohibiting "the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines." Thousands of civilians are injured or killed by landmines each year; many are children. According to Human Rights Watch, 141 countries have ratified the treaty. Among those who have not: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar, China, Russia and Syria. Not exactly the Norways of the world. But what is troubling is that the United States has not ratified the treaty either. In what should have been a no-brainer, the U.S. decided to not to put limits (even ethical limits) on its comparatively gargantuan military arsenal.

Therefore, it should come as little surprise that the U.S. opted out of a similar treaty on Wednesday to ban cluster bombs - small bombs that disperse over a large area when fired, but that frequently do not detonate upon impact. The unintended (and understood) result is similar to that of landmines - innocent civilians are maimed when they pick them up or step on them. (The dangerous effects from Israel's widespread use of cluster bombs in southern Lebanon in 2006 will remain for years.) But given the opportunity to participate in the cluster bomb ban treaty, the United States is again asserting its prerogative to do as it pleases, feeling no obligation to join the 111 countries (including our closest ally, Great Britain) who signed the agreement.

The use of landmines and cluster bombs creates a tragic legacy that lingers long after a conflict has passed. Most countries recognize this and have organized themselves to prohibit their use. They have done so without the leadership or participation of the United States. This would have been an irrelevant fact ten years ago, but as power slowly shifts and developing countries emerge, the U.S. may again find itself in a compromising mood. And that won't be a bad thing.

Obama: Avoiding the 'Yes' Men

Last week in Florida, Barack Obama suggested that if elected president, he would build a team of advisers the same way Abraham Lincoln did: by including his political opponents. Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin points out in "Team of Rivals," was a strong, confident president who united his adversaries and, indeed, the country through his "political genius." Instead of surrounding himself with "yes" men, he welcomed internal debate among his opponents that ultimately refined and strengthened his strategies. In the outgoing administration, we have seen the dangers that result when the president's counsel comes from a like-minded group: ineptitude, failing policies and poor accountability.

If elected, Obama would be wise to follow his hero's model. It is easy to lead when political opposition comes from an unseen, distant constituency; it is more difficult to lead when the challenge comes from your own strategists. However, as in economics, competition leads to product improvement. And in the case of the White House, the product is policy.

Being the Church

For almost 30 years, Robert Mugabe has led Zimbabwe as only a dictator can: his loyal military and police live well while everyone else suffers. The devastating economic free fall under his careless leadership has destroyed the nation: inflation has been so astronomical lately (200,000%) that the newly minted Zimbabwean 500 million dollar bill could be used to buy little more than a loaf of bread. Mugabe's stranglehold on politics is evident by the fact that he lost the election a month ago and still maintains power. His political opponents fear for their lives. Thomas Friedman argues that "there is no more disgusting leader in the world today than Mugabe." As a result of the worsening political and economic conditions, nearly 3 million Zimbabweans have fled to South Africa - many fearing persecution or death for their anti-Mugabe political views. Adding to the tragedy, some South Africans have not exactly opened their arms to these desperate refugees: anti-immigration violence in Johannesburg killed 22 people on Monday alone.

In the midst of this regional inhospitality, some Zimbabweans have found refuge at the Central Methodist Church in Johannesburg. In fact, 700 people stay at the church each night, huddled together in tight quarters. Bishop Paul Verryn, a white South African, has opened his church specifically to those who have fled the extreme poverty and instability of Zimbabwe. The church accommodates everyone from women and their newborns to college students seeking to create future opportunities for themselves (Bishop Verryn even pays the tuition for some).

This is what "being the church" is all about.

Disaster Explained

It has been the most downloaded podcast on iTunes for months, if not years, and now I know why. This American Life with Ira Glass is an exceptional, well-produced hour-long program that is, by its own admission, difficult to describe. Last Sunday, I listened to the program for the first time as it brilliantly explained the current mortgage situation. The humorous and down-to-earth storytelling style draws the listener in. The next thing I knew, I had come to understand the housing crisis. I highly recommend This American Life, usually heard Sundays on public radio.