On Trump’s gilded stage, history has no worth – even if he understood it

Donald Trump, you are free to surmise, takes little sustenance from the study of world history, let alone Winston Churchill’s use of the language of Latin to justify his invasion of Iran almost 85 years ago.

Still, you might have imagined a president of the United States of America – even one as vain as this one, enthroned amid meaningless glitz in an increasingly trashy White House – could have had an aide google his nation’s behaviour during the early years of World Wars I and II before running off at the mouth and insulting historical allies.

Instead, Trump boorishly lambasted Britain and damned Spain and other unnamed European nations for being “uncooperative” towards his current days-old, plans-free war on Iran.

Britain initially hesitated before giving permission to allow US warplanes to use its bases to attack Iran, and Spain flat-out refused to hand over its soil for America’s military adventure.

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez condemned “unilateral military action” and added “it’s unacceptable that some presidents use the fog of war to cover up their failures and in the process, line the pockets of a select few – the same ones as always who profit when the world stops building hospitals and starts building missiles”.

Trump raged, threatening dire retribution to Spain, though you can be sure Britain and Spain are not the only European nations unimpressed with Trump’s dubious explanations for waging war. They, like Australia, need only recall the US-led fiascos in Iraq, Afghanistan and from a distance, Vietnam.

While he’s frothing and a quick victory unsurprisingly eludes him, Trump might be advised to look at a map of Iran. It is considerably larger than Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam combined: Iran is 1.65 million square kilometres, Iraq is just 0.43 million square kilometres, Afghanistan is 0.65 million square kilometres and Vietnam is about 331,000 square kilometres. A lot of area for a lot to go wrong.

As to Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer: “It’s not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with here,” spat Trump.

Starmer was polite enough to refrain from pointing out that he wasn’t dealing with Franklin D. Roosevelt, either.

But what’s that got to do with two world wars? Or Latin?

These were the two bloodiest conflicts in world history, and the second was the most consequential, certainly in modern history, given Adolf Hitler’s intention of ending civilisation as we might hope to recognise it.

But as Britain and European allies struggled desperately to survive, the United States clung to a policy of isolationism and neutrality, considering the wars to be Europe’s problems.

The US did not enter World War I until April 1917 – almost three years after northern France and Belgium had begun devolving into slaughterhouses.

When World War II broke out, the US again wasn’t interested.

It had let its military stocks run down to the extent that its army’s strength was measured 39th in the world, behind such minnows as Portugal. Still relying heavily on horses to drag artillery, the US had only a couple of hundred largely obsolete tanks.

In 1939 – the year war broke out in Europe, when Germany rolled with 2400 tanks – the US manufactured precisely 18 modern medium tanks.

The US was still twiddling its thumbs when Winston Churchill felt there was no choice but to desperately rally his isolated country with his “we shall fight them on the beaches” speech of June 4, 1940.

The United States did not enter the war until it was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, more than two years since death and destruction had engulfed much of Europe.

By then, it had given itself the luxury of time to begin ramping up production of military material.

America’s shock at Pearl Harbour, and the declarations of war between the US, Japan, Germany and Italy, sparked the biggest and fastest military build-up in world history, with President Roosevelt setting astounding goals.

By the end of the war in 1945, America had produced two-thirds of all military equipment used by the allied nations: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and 2 million army trucks. In the process, it ended its Great Depression and grew increasingly enriched.

It can reasonably be argued that the eventual US military intervention played decisive roles in ending both world wars in victory for the Allies, though the old USSR, having lost 26.6 million lives in defence and offence on the Eastern Front in the second war, would argue with that.

What is not arguable is that this latest president of the US is playing nothing but the most ignorant and pathetic hand in criticising European nations now for being “uncooperative” in helping him undertake an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The US, it happens, has historically condemned unprovoked attacks.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously cursed the attack on Pearl Harbour as “a day that will live in infamy” because the Japanese had given no warning or declaration of war before attacking. Now Trump operates without even the pretence of legally declaring war before sending in the warplanes.

Still, perhaps if Trump understood history and Latin he might allow himself to idly imagine he actually has something in common with Winston Churchill.

In August, 1941, while the US continued to remain out of the world’s fray, Britain and its ally the USSR invaded Iran to guarantee a “Persian corridor” all-weather military supply route to the Soviet Union.

Iran had declared neutrality.

Churchill and Joseph Stalin cared not a whit.

They invaded, removed the shah of the time and split the country between them, causing famine among the citizenry and eventually leading to the installation of the old Shah’s son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as a new ruler compliant with Britain and later, the US.

Churchill reached into his knowledge of the classics to justify invading Iran.

In his World War II memoirs, he wrote that “Inter arma silent leges” – a mouthful proposed by Roman statesman, lawyer and philosopher Cicero more than 2000 years ago – excusing the joint British and Soviet military action “of overwhelming force against a weak and ancient state.”

“Inter arma silent leges” translates from the Latin as “For among arms, the laws are silent”, popularly rendered as “In times of war, the law falls silent”.

In other words, Churchill declared an illegal invasion was perfectly fine in war, because the law didn’t matter.

Why didn’t Trump think of that, cynical as it may be, instead of spewing nonsense about feeling threatened because he figured Iran was going to make a preemptive strike?

A short course in world history with a small side of Latin – or even an afternoon of googling – might have helped.

That, of course, is assuming anything could assist Trump’s understanding of things more worthy than pursuing personal aggrandisement and family wealth amid the vulgar glitter of golden drapes, wall appliques and gold-trimmed fireplaces he has installed around his gilded throne in the White House.