Spurred by comments made by one of my professors in a political philosophy course, I came to the conclusion that one of the great contributing factors to this modern conflict was the geopolitical situation in Europe immediately following the conclusion of World War II.

We are all taught that at the end of World War II, democracy was victorious and fascism was crushed, its leaders dead or imprisoned, and that millions of oppressed and disenfranchised Europeans eagerly welcomed a new age of progress and prosperity under an American aegis.

The reality is different. The true result of World War II was the conclusion of a decades-long ethnic cleansing that began with the early days of nationalism and followed its course through the European wars of the late 19th century as well as World Wars I and II.

Europe, as it stood at the end of the conflict, likely would have satisfied one aim of many fascist leaders because it largely was divided and drawn out along ethnic lines. This stands as a notable contrast to post-imperial Africa, where borders mostly ignored ethnic divisions. We can draw our own conclusions about what effect those boundaries have had on the long-term stability on the continent.

The ethnic groups that did not fit into the homogenous ethnic composition of the newly defined and freed states often were imprisoned and then deported. Examples of these groups include Germans in the Netherlands, Poland, Sudetenland and other areas and Poles in annexed Soviet territory.

The figureheads of the fascist regimes met their ends; they had to out of political necessity for the Allies to properly claim victory. However, many fascist ministers, business leaders and other such personalities simply acquired or returned to positions in the new, “free” governments set up by the Allied powers.

But wouldn’t the return to power of these fascist demagogues set Europe up for a spiral back into the time of conflict?

As I previously mentioned, a central aim of many fascist agendas had been achieved. In addition, territorial ambitions and the few remaining ethnic tensions on the continent proper were controlled by nuclear-equipped occupiers who sought to establish stable, lasting institutions for their political and economic interests.

Many client states shared the same interests. Thus, a mutually beneficial and self-reinforcing relationship was formed between the rebuilding nations and their sponsored client states.

How does this all connect to right now? Well, the division of Europe into ethnically homogenous nation-states set those nations up for their own problems when minority ethnic groups began to show up again. The economic and political stability of these nations was predicated, in part, on their ethnic composition.

After World War II, most of these nations experienced nearly miraculous economic growth and rose from the ruin of the war to their pre-eminent positions in world affairs (behind the Soviets and Americans, of course).

Western peoples and governments who enjoyed their ethnic and cultural isolation for the better part of a century must now deal with individuals who don’t share their same traditions.

The problems of ethnic and cultural hatred was never solved with the Allied victory in World War II. It was simply swept under the rug for a few years. Control of the superpowers has faltered. Whether Europe and the world will fall back down the same path it did 70 years ago remains to be seen.

Matt Korovesis is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at koroves1@msu.edu.