Latest news with #GWW
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Is It Too Late To Consider Buying W.W. Grainger, Inc. (NYSE:GWW)?
Today we're going to take a look at the well-established W.W. Grainger, Inc. (NYSE:GWW). The company's stock saw a double-digit share price rise of over 10% in the past couple of months on the NYSE. Shareholders may appreciate the recent price jump, but the company still has a way to go before reaching its yearly highs again. As a large-cap stock with high coverage by analysts, you could assume any recent changes in the company's outlook is already priced into the stock. However, could the stock still be trading at a relatively cheap price? Today we will analyse the most recent data on W.W. Grainger's outlook and valuation to see if the opportunity still exists. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. W.W. Grainger appears to be overvalued by 22% at the moment, based on our discounted cash flow valuation. The stock is currently priced at US$1,088 on the market compared to our intrinsic value of $892.94. This means that the opportunity to buy W.W. Grainger at a good price has disappeared! But, is there another opportunity to buy low in the future? Since W.W. Grainger's share price is quite volatile, this could mean it can sink lower (or rise even further) in the future, giving us another chance to invest. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for how much the stock moves relative to the rest of the market. See our latest analysis for W.W. Grainger Investors looking for growth in their portfolio may want to consider the prospects of a company before buying its shares. Buying a great company with a robust outlook at a cheap price is always a good investment, so let's also take a look at the company's future expectations. With profit expected to grow by a double-digit 13% over the next couple of years, the outlook is positive for W.W. Grainger. It looks like higher cash flow is on the cards for the stock, which should feed into a higher share valuation. Are you a shareholder? It seems like the market has well and truly priced in GWW's positive outlook, with shares trading above its fair value. At this current price, shareholders may be asking a different question – should I sell? If you believe GWW should trade below its current price, selling high and buying it back up again when its price falls towards its real value can be profitable. But before you make this decision, take a look at whether its fundamentals have changed. Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping an eye on GWW for a while, now may not be the best time to enter into the stock. The price has surpassed its true value, which means there's no upside from mispricing. However, the positive outlook is encouraging for GWW, which means it's worth diving deeper into other factors in order to take advantage of the next price drop. In light of this, if you'd like to do more analysis on the company, it's vital to be informed of the risks involved. Case in point: We've spotted 2 warning signs for W.W. Grainger you should be aware of. If you are no longer interested in W.W. Grainger, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Is It Too Late To Consider Buying W.W. Grainger, Inc. (NYSE:GWW)?
Today we're going to take a look at the well-established W.W. Grainger, Inc. (NYSE:GWW). The company's stock saw a double-digit share price rise of over 10% in the past couple of months on the NYSE. Shareholders may appreciate the recent price jump, but the company still has a way to go before reaching its yearly highs again. As a large-cap stock with high coverage by analysts, you could assume any recent changes in the company's outlook is already priced into the stock. However, could the stock still be trading at a relatively cheap price? Today we will analyse the most recent data on W.W. Grainger's outlook and valuation to see if the opportunity still exists. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. W.W. Grainger appears to be overvalued by 22% at the moment, based on our discounted cash flow valuation. The stock is currently priced at US$1,088 on the market compared to our intrinsic value of $892.94. This means that the opportunity to buy W.W. Grainger at a good price has disappeared! But, is there another opportunity to buy low in the future? Since W.W. Grainger's share price is quite volatile, this could mean it can sink lower (or rise even further) in the future, giving us another chance to invest. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for how much the stock moves relative to the rest of the market. See our latest analysis for W.W. Grainger Investors looking for growth in their portfolio may want to consider the prospects of a company before buying its shares. Buying a great company with a robust outlook at a cheap price is always a good investment, so let's also take a look at the company's future expectations. With profit expected to grow by a double-digit 13% over the next couple of years, the outlook is positive for W.W. Grainger. It looks like higher cash flow is on the cards for the stock, which should feed into a higher share valuation. Are you a shareholder? It seems like the market has well and truly priced in GWW's positive outlook, with shares trading above its fair value. At this current price, shareholders may be asking a different question – should I sell? If you believe GWW should trade below its current price, selling high and buying it back up again when its price falls towards its real value can be profitable. But before you make this decision, take a look at whether its fundamentals have changed. Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping an eye on GWW for a while, now may not be the best time to enter into the stock. The price has surpassed its true value, which means there's no upside from mispricing. However, the positive outlook is encouraging for GWW, which means it's worth diving deeper into other factors in order to take advantage of the next price drop. In light of this, if you'd like to do more analysis on the company, it's vital to be informed of the risks involved. Case in point: We've spotted 2 warning signs for W.W. Grainger you should be aware of. If you are no longer interested in W.W. Grainger, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GWW Q1 Earnings Call: Tariffs and Supply Chain Uncertainty Shape Outlook Despite Steady Results
Maintenance and repair supplier W.W. Grainger (NYSE:GWW) met Wall Street's revenue expectations in Q1 CY2025, with sales up 1.7% year on year to $4.31 billion. On the other hand, the company's full-year revenue guidance of $17.85 billion at the midpoint came in 0.7% below analysts' estimates. Its non-GAAP profit of $9.86 per share was 3.6% above analysts' consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy GWW? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $4.31 billion vs analyst estimates of $4.31 billion (1.7% year-on-year growth, in line) Adjusted EPS: $9.86 vs analyst estimates of $9.51 (3.6% beat) Adjusted EBITDA: $733 million vs analyst estimates of $709 million (17% margin, 3.4% beat) The company reconfirmed its revenue guidance for the full year of $17.85 billion at the midpoint Adjusted EPS guidance for the full year is $40.25 at the midpoint, missing analyst estimates by 0.6% Operating Margin: 15.6%, in line with the same quarter last year Free Cash Flow Margin: 12.1%, similar to the same quarter last year Organic Revenue rose 4.4% year on year, in line with the same quarter last year Market Capitalization: $51.39 billion W.W. Grainger's first quarter results reflected steady execution amid an unpredictable market landscape. On the earnings call, management cited stable demand across key customer segments, improved gross margins through product mix, and the company's ongoing investments in digital capabilities as the primary drivers of the quarter. CEO Donald Macpherson noted that, despite muted industrial demand and continued tariff discussions, the business maintained its focus on operational reliability and customer support, emphasizing the critical role of on-site execution in meeting customer needs. Looking ahead, management's full-year guidance reflects caution in the face of ongoing tariff uncertainty and shifting supply chain dynamics. CFO Deidra Merriwether highlighted that while tariff-driven cost increases have so far been modest, future impacts remain difficult to predict. She explained, 'Our goal will be to mitigate impacts to our business and achieve price-cost neutrality over time,' but warned that extended or escalated tariffs could challenge both pricing and sourcing strategies. Management reaffirmed its commitment to transparency with customers and preserving healthy operating margins, while acknowledging the need to remain agile as more clarity emerges throughout the year. Management's commentary highlighted the complexity of navigating external headwinds, particularly tariffs, and the importance of product mix and supply chain flexibility in shaping first quarter outcomes. The team stressed that while demand trends remained muted, strategic actions in pricing, sourcing, and digital engagement provided some insulation against volatility. Tariff Response Measures: Management detailed initial pricing actions on direct imports affected by new tariffs, but emphasized that most products have not seen price increases as the company waits for greater clarity from suppliers. The goal is to maintain price-cost neutrality, but the ultimate impact depends on the duration and extent of tariffs. Segment Divergence: The 'Endless Assortment' segment, which includes Zoro and MonotaRO, posted double-digit growth in local currency, significantly outpacing the core High-Touch Solutions business. Zoro's strong performance was attributed to improved retention and growing mid-sized business adoption, while MonotaRO benefited from enterprise customer momentum and efficiency gains. Private Label Sourcing Risks: Management acknowledged that private label products are more exposed to China-based sourcing compared to national brands. While some efforts have been made to diversify, certain categories lack alternatives, making them especially sensitive to sustained tariff escalation. Gross Margin Stability: Despite SG&A cost pressures, gross margin improvements—driven by favorable product mix and supplier funding—helped offset deleverage in operating expenses during the quarter. The company expects these benefits to normalize as the year progresses. Customer Demand Patterns: While the macroeconomic environment remains muted, pockets of relative strength were observed in contractors, healthcare, and aerospace, offsetting weakness in government and some manufacturing segments. Management reported limited customer anxiety about tariffs so far, but noted that impacts could emerge in later quarters as inventory cycles adjust. Management's outlook for the remainder of the year centers on the company's ability to balance inflationary cost pressures from tariffs with disciplined pricing and continued investment in digital and supply chain capabilities. Tariff and Pricing Dynamics: The evolving tariff landscape will be a key test. Management aims to pass along cost increases without eroding demand, but acknowledges that higher or sustained tariffs could require more aggressive pricing actions or sourcing shifts, with uncertain customer response. Segment Mix and Growth: The faster expansion of the Endless Assortment segment could continue to support top-line growth but may create margin headwinds due to its lower profitability profile compared to High-Touch Solutions. Management is monitoring this mix shift closely. Operational Agility: The company's ability to flex sourcing, manage inventory, and leverage its product information systems is viewed as a competitive advantage in adapting to unpredictable supply chain and demand environments. David Manthey (Baird): Asked if Zoro's improved margins are sustainable or simply tied to this quarter's sales strength. Management stated that margin leverage should continue if revenue growth remains solid and expense growth is contained. Jacob Levenson (Melius Research): Sought clarity on how quickly Grainger can shift sourcing to avoid tariff impacts. Management said alternative sourcing is possible in some categories but noted certain products have no viable substitutes outside China, making tariff exposure unavoidable. Ryan Merkel (William Blair): Inquired about observed macro trends and customer reactions to tariffs. CEO Donald Macpherson reported no material slowdown yet, with most customers focused on operational continuity rather than tariff concerns, though effects may be delayed due to inventory cycles. Christopher Snyder (Morgan Stanley): Questioned the company's ability to maintain gross margins amid rising costs. CFO Deidra Merriwether said initial price increases related to tariffs have been modest and the goal remains price-cost neutrality, but further action may be needed if tariffs persist or escalate. Patrick Baumann (J.P. Morgan): Asked about the relative pricing and gross margin differences between private label and branded products, and how much private label risk exists if tariffs spike. Management replied that while some private label items may become uncompetitive under high tariffs, overall gross margin impact should be manageable given current sourcing diversity. In upcoming quarters, the StockStory team will be watching (1) whether additional tariff rounds prompt more significant pricing actions or sourcing changes, (2) how the mix shift toward Endless Assortment affects overall margins and growth, and (3) the pace at which supplier negotiations and cost pass-throughs are completed. We will also monitor emerging signs of customer demand changes as existing inventory cycles run off and tariff impacts work through the broader supply chain. W.W. Grainger currently trades at a forward P/E ratio of 25.7×. Should you double down or take your chips? The answer lies in our free research report. Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election sent major indices to all-time highs, but stocks have retraced as investors debate the health of the economy and the potential impact of tariffs. While this leaves much uncertainty around 2025, a few companies are poised for long-term gains regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate, like our Top 5 Growth Stocks for this month. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 176% over the last five years. Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-small-cap company Exlservice (+354% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today. Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Insider
02-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
William Blair Sticks to Their Buy Rating for WW Grainger (GWW)
William Blair analyst Ryan Merkel maintained a Buy rating on WW Grainger (GWW – Research Report) today. The company's shares closed today at $1,053.43. Protect Your Portfolio Against Market Uncertainty Discover companies with rock-solid fundamentals in TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter. Receive undervalued stocks, resilient to market uncertainty, delivered straight to your inbox. According to TipRanks, Merkel is a 4-star analyst with an average return of 7.9% and a 57.58% success rate. Merkel covers the Industrials sector, focusing on stocks such as Aaon, Beacon Roofing Supply, and Fastenal Company. Currently, the analyst consensus on WW Grainger is a Hold with an average price target of $1,063.83. The company has a one-year high of $1,227.66 and a one-year low of $874.98. Currently, WW Grainger has an average volume of 287.9K. Based on the recent corporate insider activity of 29 insiders, corporate insider sentiment is negative on the stock. This means that over the past quarter there has been an increase of insiders selling their shares of GWW in relation to earlier this year. Last month, Deidra C Merriwether, the SVP & CFO of GWW sold 2,647.00 shares for a total of $2,625,594.89.
Scoop
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Great World War 1914-1945: Germany, Russia, Ukraine
On Anzac Day we remembered World War One and World War Two, or at least the peripheral little bits of those imperial wars that New Zealand was involved in. There was and is little context given to how New Zealand got involved with such far-away wars which need never have become world wars. There were the usual cliches about 'our' young men, invading the Ottoman Empire, somehow fighting for freedom and democracy; and, through making 'supreme sacrifices', establishing the invaders' national identities. There was very little context about what these anti-German and anti-Japanese wars were really about, and on why we thought anybody could possibly benefit from Aotearoa New Zealand contributing in its own small way to their escalation. The Great World War 1914-1945 If we step back, we can see that there was really only one very big war; best dubbed as The Great World War 1914-1945 (the GWW, which itself morphed into another in 1945, The Cold War 1945-1990). The Great World War is really the 1914 to 1945 Russo-German War, embedded in a wider state of conflict that might be called The Great Imperial War. The subsequent Cold War, essentially the 'great hegemonic war', reframed world war; from 1945 it was between the United States imperium and the Communist powers of Russia and China; it was a 'proxy war' rather than a passive-aggressive 'cold war'. The years 1991 to 2021 may prove to have been an intermission, just as 1919 to 1939 was an intermission in the Great World War; and noting that, in the GWW, Russia and Germany became 'Communist' and 'Nazi' during that intermission. The most important early 'hot' conflict in the Cold War was the Korean War, a deadly proxy conflict – at its core between the 'Anti-Communist' United States and 'Communist' China – ending as a 'score-draw'; an armistice in 1953 which took the hostile parties back to an almost identical position as to where they started in 1950. For the second phase of the Great Hegemonic War, the 'Communist' factor was waned; the prevailing ideology in the west in 2025 is a distorted form of self-congratulatory 'democratic imperialism', not unlike the prevailing ideology in the west in 1914. By looking at 1914 to 1945 in this way, as a single albeit complex conflict, we can more easily see that the essence of the struggle was a conflict between the waxing German and Russian Empires; and that the central prizes of that conflict were the Russian imperial territories of Ukraine and the Caucasus, and the waning Ottoman Empire: food, oil and sea-access in the strategic pivot of central Eurasia. All (except one) of the world's 'great' empires of the early twentieth century became involved: the waxing empires of Germany, Russia, Japan, and the United States of America; and the waning empires of United Kingdom, France, Ottoman Türkiye, Austria-Hungary and Netherlands. And the would-be empire of Italy. (The exception was the empire of Portugal, a neutral party; in 1898 the United States had acquired Spain's remnant empire.) The Result of the Great World War Wikipedia has page entries for every war ever fought in reality or mythology. And the Wikipedia format likes to give a binary result, as if a war was a series of football matches with a grand finale. Winners and losers. It's not like that in reality: most wars formally end in an armistice; albeit an armistice in which one party – one nation or coalition of nations – has an advantage and is largely able to dictate terms. The core war within the Great World War was the Russo-German War, which ended in 1945 with a victory to Russia; then Rusia was the imperium of the 'Communist' Soviet Union. The victor of the wider Great Imperial War was the United States; Imperator Americanus inherited a beaten-up world, much as Emperor Augustus inherited the Roman Empire in 27 BCE after about two decades of strife between warring would-be overlords. The Great World War began in 1914, essentially as the Third Balkan War. The reasons this local war expanded from a part of the world politically and geographically distant from the British Empire – the empire of which New Zealand understood itself to be an integral part – related to a contested set of quasi-scientific socio-economic and supremacist utopias (which will only be addressed here in passing), and to a basic reality that an expansionist western 'civilisation' was confronting diminished returns. Possibly the most important and least understood year of the whole GWW was 1918. The context here is that Russia – Germany's new great foe, the Russian Empire – had been defeated late in 1917, following both a successful democratic revolution (the February Revolution) and a German-facilitated 'Communist' 'Bolshevik' coup d'etat (the October Revolution). The formality of Russian defeat – the Brest-Litovsk Treaty – was signed by Leon Trotsky in March 1918. The problem for Germany was that there was still an unresolved western front, there was a British naval blockade of Germany, and that the United States had been persuaded in 1917 to enter the war as an Entente power. Nevertheless, in March 1918, the Germans were winning on the western front having already settled the more-important eastern front; but Germany had no thought-through exit strategy. They were in no position to occupy Belgium, let alone France. After the trench warfare stalemate that had characterised the western front for more than three years, it was Germany that broke through in the winter of 1917/18; indeed, Germany advanced to just-about big-gun-firing distance from Paris. The western powers were in a state of panic, as Germany redeployed soldiers from the eastern front to the west. The United States had entered the war in France, but their soldiers were green and initially of little help against battle-hardened Germans. But the American soldiers, without realising the significance, had brought with them a secret weapon, influenza. (The deadly strain of influenza in 1918 – popularly known as the Spanish Flu – was almost certainly a hybrid of the Kansas strain and an Asian strain already in France.) The tide of the war only turned against Germany in August 1918, mainly due to economic limitations but also due in some part to soldiers getting very sick. The sickness had a bigger military impact on Germany, given that Germany's soldiers (including one A. Hitler) were more hardened fighters than the Americans. Germany went from winners to losers only in the last three months, from August to November 1918; it was like a basketball game in which defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory (or vice versa, from a western viewpoint!). But they were never losers in the absolute sense that they later were, in 1945. On 11 November 1918, Germany settled for an armistice in which they were on the back foot. It was not an absolute defeat, and should never have been seen as such. Nevertheless, that sensible armistice came to be treated by the Entente Powers (especially France, the United Kingdom and the United States) as an absolute victory; Germany, victor over Russia, was subsequently treated with great and unnecessary humiliation, creating the seeds for a resumption of the Great World War. Part of that humiliation was the stripping of the territories in the incipient Soviet Union that had been won by Germany (especially the loss of Ukraine); another important part was the imposition of a 'Polish Corridor', through Eastern Germany to the Baltic Sea at the then-German city of Danzig, physically dividing Germany. A third humiliation was a set of reparations that were imposed using similar mercantilist logic to that which is upsetting the world economic order today; Germany was supposed to pay France in particular huge amounts of gold, but the only way Germany could acquire that gold was for Germany to run a trade surplus and for the Entente Powers to run trade deficits. But the 'victorious' powers wanted to run trade surpluses, not trade deficits; they wanted Germany to increase its debt to the west while claiming that they wanted Germany to pay off its debt to the west. (Today, the United States wants its Treasury to accumulate treasure in the same way that it and France sought to do in the 1920s, not realising that the countries they want to extract 'modern treasure' from – China and the European Union – can only get that treasure if they run trade surpluses. The great 'modern treasure' mine is actually in Washington, not in Eurasia.) One result of all this mercantilism imposed upon the 1920s' world order by the liberal Entente powers was the Great Depression; that was probably the number-one catalyst towards the resumption of the Great World War in 1939 and the Russo-German War in 1941. This 'liberal mercantilism' was the first of the pseudo-scientific utopias to fail. Other aggravating factors were the intensification of the contradictions of the other two 'scientific utopias': the unachievable 'Communist' experiment in Russia, and the exacerbation of the supremacist eugenics which was widely subscribed to throughout Europe and which reached their apotheosis in Hitler's Germany. A defeated Russia played no part in the formal hostilities of the GWW in 1918. Likewise, when the Great World War resumed in 1939, Russia appeared to be on the sideline; though that's another story. The true nature of the resumed GWW – known as World War Two in the west – became apparent in June 1941. The war continued for nearly four terrible years, with Soviet Russia prevailing over Nazi Germany in 1945, with some help from the western powers. Russia will celebrate Victory Day in a few days on 9 May; the end of the Russo-German War, though the Great World War continued until 15 August of that year. As regards the result of the Russo-German War, the western Entente powers were kingmakers rather than kings. Overall, freedom and democracy were casualties of the GWW, not outcomes. By 1950, there were many more unfree people in the world, and few (India notwithstanding) who were more free than they had been in 1913. Indians' post-GWW freedoms came at a huge cost in damaged and lost lives. And they were freedoms from Britain, not freedoms fought for by Britain. Ukraine Chief among the territories won-and-lost by Germany was Ukraine. Considered in its entirety, Ukraine was the number-one prize and the number-one battleground of the Great World War. The territory of Ukraine had been occupied by Germany for five years: 1918, and 1941 to 1944. In 1918, Germany lost Ukraine because of events on the western front; in 1945 the Soviet Union recovered Ukraine on the battlefield. Soviet Russia was helped by three imperial nations throughout the active phases of the GWW; by the British, the French, and the Americans. Otherwise, Germany – the Prussian Empire – would have almost certainly prevailed in its quest for Ukraine, and the oilfields around the Caspian Sea (and possibly the so-called 'Middle East', though that may have been permanently lost to Germany in 1918). With Ukraine once again being centre-stage in geopolitics – the contested ground between conflicting quasi-academic narratives – the world may be set for a resumption of both the Cold War (especially in its mercantilist Sino-American guise) and the Russo-German war. Together, these have the makings of 'World War Three'; especially if we add in the Levantine conflict, the present supremacist conflict in the 'Middle East'. In the geopolitics of early 2025, the 'elephant in the room' is Friedrich Merz, who will (eventually!) become Chancellor of Germany on 6 May. Merz is a military hawk, who has already shown all the signs that he would like to take the Ukraine War to Russia (ref. Berlin Briefing, DW, 24 April 2015), and elite public opinion in Germany seems to be staunchly 'pro-Ukraine'. In the event of a new global Great Depression – or the Geoeconomic Chaos Crisis that seems to be starting – could Merz become the new Führer, a 'willing' militarist leader of the Fourth Reich? At age 69 he's a young man compared to Donald Trump, and he looks to be fighting fit. Germany has many of the same issues today that it had in 1910 and in 1930; a people seeking to re-flex their nationalist muscles while severely constrained, within their German and EU boundaries, in terms of natural resources. Will Merz try to shore up (and militarize) the flagging European Union, much as Trump has been trying (unsuccessfully to be sure) to unite the whole of the Americas under his triumphalist banner? (Q. How do you get to run a small superpower? A. Get yourself a large superpower, and wait.) The battle for Ukraine may have a while to run yet; possibly as a European 'civil' war, a new Russo-German War. Anzac Day My sense is that if there's one thing that Aotearoa's post-2023 leadership are even more attracted to than fiscal austerity, then that's a good geopolitical scrap. We start to see war as glorious rather than ugly. We bring out all the false clichés and narratives, we extoll the likes of Winston Churchill, we self-suppress the inconvenient truth that war is a nasty, nasty, nasty business; indeed, we self-suppress this truth even when we see war's brutality – or could see it if we choose to watch Freeview Channel 20 – unfolding every day. Now that the 80th anniversary of the Great World War has nearly passed, Anzac Day risks becoming a day of martial geo-nationalism, and not a day of remembrance. Anzac Day has already become a day of highly selective remembrance; probably it always was. I visited Würzburg (the German firebombed city that suffered more than any other on a per capita basis) in 1974, and I visited West and East Berlin (via Checkpoint Charlie) that same year. I visited Arras in 1975, near to where my father's first cousin died in November 1918. I visited Derry and Belfast in 1976, cities in a then-active civil war zone. I visited the magnificently-sited Khartoum in 1978, now the capital-centre of the world's most complicit and under-narrated tragedy. I visited Cassino in 1984, the 40th anniversary of the battles that pointlessly took so many lives, including Kiwi lives such as that of my mother's first cousin. I visited Dandong and Seoul in 2008, gaining a first-hand insight into the Korean War, including a walk on the American-destroyed bridge and an oversight of the North Korean city of Sinuiju. (And I visited Port Arthur – Lüshun – key site and sight of the Russia-Japan War of 1905, with its natural harbour and its extant Russian train station.) And in 2014, on the day after Anzac Day, I visited Nagasaki, site of the first plutonium bomb ever dropped over a city; and, that same month, I visited Ginza and Asakusa in Tokyo, rebuilt sites of the worst example every of a conventional fire holocaust; 100,000 mostly civilian deaths in one March night eighty years ago. (I was also lucky to get to walk through unbombed streets to the northwest of Ueno Park, getting a sense of what the neighbourhoods of Asakusa were once like.) Lest we forget. Mostly, we have forgotten. (Including the worst of The Holocaust. Who commemorates Treblinka today? Or Minsk? Only Poland and Russia and Belarus.) Our amnesia extends to one place New Zealanders fought in. This week Al Jazeera has done a series of news vignettes and a longer documentary, to remember the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. This anniversary has not been prominent in New Zealand's Anzac Day media-scape. (RNZ did run a Reuters -syndicated website-only story on 30 April: Vietnamese celebrate 50 years since end of Vietnam War. And, to its credit, TV3 News ran an overseas-sourced story yesterday, not a story about New Zealand's largely-forgotten participation.) By-and-large, the still-living anti-Vietnam-War generation is now silent, apparently forgetful. When martial narratives are not sufficiently contested, then wars – big wars – happen, almost by accident. That's how the Great World War began in the first place. - Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. © Scoop Media Keith Rankin Political Economist, Scoop Columnist Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s. Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like. Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
